self vs. no-self...what do you think?

[alexplatups]

One of the most important things to grasp is that distinction is NOT a
concept! It is what Conscious/Being uses to create reality. You only
perceive DISTINCTIONS, and if something is NOT a distinction, you can't
perceive it...there are NO exceptions to this!

no distinction is being/consciousness...and it is absolute, it is
EVERYTHING/NOTHING...ITSELF

...this can't be grasped or understood by the intellect/self-mind, it can
only be experienced as no-distinction, and after the experience of being
you can't understand it or believe it...in fact it is UNBELIEVABLE

[inri]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

...you obviously don't know what a "distinction" is. A distinction is what makes
one thing "different" from another. In the world of the self, there is only
"distinctions" and nothing else, and there can be nothing else.

...you are confused by the "distinctions" spinning in your self-mind, or you
don't know the meaning of the words that you write in your posts.

...based on your posts...I would say both, because you are constantly
writing "assumptions" as if they are facts, especially about me trying to
say that this path is the only/or superior path toward the end...even though
I never wrote anywhere anything about this method being the only one,
being superior, or it leading to the "end."

You seem to have a habit Alex, of jumping to the conclusion that others do not understand the concepts you put forth rather than realize that perhaps they just see things differently.

there is a big difference between the two.


Clearly you feel very passionately about this subject. At what point though do you take the 'distinctions' you've made and the 'truths' you've arrived at and put them into practice?

It's one thing to say you understand the difference between 'self and 'no self' but another to demonstrate an ability to actually rise above the petty hold of lower ego.

What good is this knowledge or perception of 'truth' if we merely continue to act out from our ego? Shouldn't this knowledge results in an observable change within our physical expression at some point?

I say this because you've demonstrated here in several instances (your perceptions regarding me attacking you and now in your condescending tone towards Lakshy, just for two) that you very much still get caught up in the machinations of your lower ego.

What is the goal in all this 'seeking' you're doing? What good is 'truth' if it just sits in your noggin?

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by inri

You seem to have a habit Alex, of jumping to the conclusion that others do not understand the concepts you put forth rather than realize that perhaps they just see things differently.

there is a big difference between the two.

Clearly you feel very passionately about this subject. At what point though do you take the 'distinctions' you've made and the 'truths' you've arrived at and put them into practice?

It's one thing to say you understand the difference between 'self and 'no self' but another to demonstrate an ability to actually rise above the petty hold of lower ego.

What good is this knowledge or perception of 'truth' if we merely continue to act out from our ego? Shouldn't this knowledge results in an observable change within our physical expression at some point?

I say this because you've demonstrated here in several instances (your perceptions regarding me attacking you and now in your condescending tone towards Lakshy, just for two) that you very much still get caught up in the machinations of your lower ego.

What is the goal in all this 'seeking' you're doing? What good is 'truth' if it just sits in your noggin?

actually Inri...it is you who is jumping to conclusions, I'm posting based on
what is written in the posts to which I respond. What I wrote in my post
was written about the word "distinction" which means different, and there
"is" a difference between everything we perceive...and this is not a concept,
it is what is. If a person "sees" things differently concerning "distinction"
than this person does not know the "definition" of distinction, or is simply
assuming. Either way, I'm pointing this out, since this thread is about
grasping the "core-truth" of the experience of reality, and obviously if
someone doesn't bother to find out what something means, it is up to
me to point this out, since I am responding to a post that was directed at me.

...there is nothing clear...you are making assumptions based on your
concepts, and your assumptions about a lower ego are quite funny, because
as I wrote many times that in this thread I am writing from a self-identity
that I identify with...so, it is only me that can know what part of my identity
I'm writing from...and whatever you think it is -- is just another assumption.

...this is a joke or something, forget all this ego BS, everything in the world
of self is ego...okay! lower/higher/middle/whatever else ego...is all self-mind,
it is the world we live in as humans...and everything we PERCEIVE is based
ONLY ON DISTINCTIONS...period...there is no exceptions to this!

lower/higher/etc egos are all distinctions your self is making...can you at least
notice this finally?...and stop writing this? or are you also not aware what a
distinction is either?

concerning your attacks...this is how my self perceived them based on the
structure of your posts...in relation to what I write, since you don't want
to spend time analyzing/observing what you write, I got tired of reading
your assumptions over and over and over...you obviously don't know the
difference/distinction between OPINION and ASSUMPTION, because the
majority of your posts in relation to my posts are ASSUMPTIONS, and not
opinions!

...for example, just from this last post you wrote "Clearly you feel very
passionately about this subject." This is an assumption. "condescending tone
towards Lakshy" is another assumption. "At what point though do you take
the 'distinctions' you've made and the 'truths' you've arrived at and put them
into practice?" is another assumption. How do you know I haven't put them
into practice? LOL...and every post you make in relation to my posts are
filled with these kinds of statements. You are obviously blind to this, and this
is why I suggested to ask someone to look from the side and tell you about it,
since you don't believe me...of course

...and as far as Lakshy he/she (I don't know the gender) can speak for
himself/herself...but, as I wrote above...if a person is posting something
to me and doesn't know a definition of a word, or is assuming something
that is not true...I will point this out...and that is not showing superiority
but simply pointing out that a person is ignorant of something.

...which is normal...since we can't know everything

...by the way, there is no goal, no persistence, nowhere to go, so I don't
live with a purpose or a meaning...because when there is no future (or a
past, for that matter)...there is no desires...there is only intent and action

...goals are for people that think there is a future, and I'm not one of those!

[inri]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

a

...there is nothing clear...you are making assumptions based on your
concepts, and your assumptions about a lower ego are quite funny, because
as I wrote many times that in this thread I am writing from a self-identity
that I identify with...so, it is only me that can know what part of my identity
I'm writing from...and whatever you think it is -- is just another assumption.

You are absolutely right Alex, I cannot know for sure what aspect of your self-identity you are writing or communicating from.....all I can do is read your words and use my 'distinctions'....to assess their tone and make an assumption.

I do believe that you made an assumption that I was 'attacking' you, ('because that is what you wrote)....and I do know that one cannot 'feel' attacked and will certainly not experience any negative fallout from it, if they are practicing non-attachment to certain aspects of self.

Others demonstrate that they can operate from 'self' and still somehow avoid activation of the part of self that feels 'bad' when others disagree with them. In my world, there are various levels of 'self' that we can identify or not identity with...that we can activate the observer within or not and thus 'see' from varying perspectives.

You did say that you'd refuse to answer my posts IF I continued to 'attack' you, therefore I can infer that you find such a perceived 'attack' to be unpleasant. (we usually avoid things that do not feel good.)

Freedom from suffering is the reason behind most spiritual seeking.

Again Alex, I'm not attacking YOU ....merely disagreeing with your perceptions..

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by inri

You are absolutely right Alex, I cannot know for sure what aspect of your self-identity you are writing or communicating from.....all I can do is read your words and use my 'distinctions'....to assess their tone and make an assumption.

I do believe that you made an assumption that I was 'attacking' you, ('because that is what you wrote)....and I do know that one cannot 'feel' attacked and will certainly not experience any negative fallout from it, if they are practicing non-attachment to certain aspects of self.

Others demonstrate that they can operate from 'self' and still somehow avoid activation of the part of self that feels 'bad' when others disagree with them. In my world, there are various levels of 'self' that we can identify or not identity with...that we can activate the observer within or not and thus 'see' from varying perspectives.

You did say that you'd refuse to answer my posts IF I continued to 'attack' you, therefore I can infer that you find such a perceived 'attack' to be unpleasant. (we usually avoid things that do not feel good.)

Freedom from suffering is the reason behind most spiritual seeking.

Again Alex, I'm not attacking YOU ....merely disagreeing with your perceptions..

I did not make an assumption about the attacks, because I was writing
what I felt/perceived in your posts in relation to the information in my
posts. This I explained already with the opinions/assumptions difference.

I'm not practicing non-attachnments, and I don't care what others are
doing. I'm living this life in the present moment and currently my self-identity
is slowly transforming, and going from a conceptual-self that was living in
the world of concepts/perceptions believing that my self is a separate
entity...into a more honest-conceptual-self. This means that I am aware
that my perceptions are all based on distinctions...and that my "self" is
designed as a self-survival-mechanism and is not designed to know the
ultimate truth of our experience as human beings.

...the realization of DISTINCTIONS and being aware of how reality is being
created by these distinctions is destroying the attachments that I had
attached to my self-identity...and obviously this transformation is happening
on a moment-by-moment basis...since one of the deep realizations that
are at the core of this transformation is the Present Moment/Now being
also part of Absolute Consciousness...and this also changed my perspective
tremendously.

...the self-identity remains...but as the attachments weaken, it becomes
more and more obvious that this is really all a serious illusion, and many
times during long walks while contemplating this, I completely dissappeared
for 10-15 minutes at a time. Meaning that while my body and self where
walking...as a consciousness/being I was completely detached, and was not
aware of my body/self. It was scary the first few times, not while it happened,
but after I was back in my body, and I realized I just walked 10-15 minutes
and was very far away from the last place where I was conscious of my self.

...non-stop disagreeing with "my" perceptions IS attacking...lol

What else can that be? What would you call an action if someone on a
regular basis disagreed with your perceptions in your off-line life?

...I know you don't want to go back and look, but if you do, you will see this
non-stop "disagreeing" with my perceptions in all your posts in relation to my
posts. Taking into account that the majority of what I write is about my
personal experience in this area...it is obviously can be taken as an "attack"
on my perspective. If you don't understand this, I can't explain it some other
way, you will just have to accept that this is how I see non-stop disagreeing
with my perceptions.

Distinctions/Differences/Meanings create our reality...so they should be the
first things that you grasp...before trying to detach, otherwise you only will
get lost in these things, because you don't know what they truly mean!

[inri]

[QUOTE]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

...the self-identity remains...but as the attachments weaken, it becomes
more and more obvious that this is really all a serious illusion,

When you REALLY grasp that it is an 'illusion' you likely won't perceive 'attack' where it doesn't exist and if it does, you will not suffer from it.

and many
times during long walks while contemplating this, I completely dissappeared
for 10-15 minutes at a time. Meaning that while my body and self where
walking...as a consciousness/being I was completely detached, and was not
aware of my body/self. It was scary the first few times, not while it happened,

Cool. I expect that many here can report having similar experiences.

...non-stop disagreeing with "my" perceptions IS attacking...lol

You often share your 'perceptions' as 'truths.' and do so in a way that 'appears to me" to assume others have not shared experienced the same.

What else can that be? What would you call an action if someone on a
regular basis disagreed with your perceptions in your off-line life?

But this is an online forum Alex. We are here for the purpose of sharing distinctions, opinions and reactions to other points of view. I'd never go up to someone in everyday life and tell them I disagreed with their point of view if they were not in some way demonstrating to me that they wanted to share ideas and experiences.

I'm simply, honestly expressing the fact that I see things differently than you. Why is that seen as an 'attack' to you?...I have no ill will towards you as a person...I just disagree with adn question some of the ideas you put forth and mostly the way in which you do so.

Distinctions/Differences/Meanings create our reality.

In my opinion, this one is kind of a no-brainer. I grasped this long ago as I'm sure did many others reading your words.

because you don't know what they truly mean!

Oh....I'm pretty sure I do. who's making assumptions now?

[alexplatups]

Distinctions/Differences/Meanings create our reality...so they should be the
first things that you grasp...before trying to detach, otherwise you only will
get lost in these things, because you don't know what they truly mean!

when you put quotes, make sure you put the whole quote, because as you
can see, I put that they "should" be, meaning that if you already grasped
them, then you know what they mean.

But this is an online forum Alex. We are here for the purpose of sharing distinctions, opinions and reactions to other points of view. I'd never go up to someone in everyday life and tell them I disagreed with their point of view if they were not in some way demonstrating to me that they wanted to share ideas and experiences.

I'm simply, honestly expressing the fact that I see things differently than you. Why is that seen as an 'attack' to you?...I have no ill will towards you as a person...I just disagree with and question some of the ideas you put forth and mostly the way in which you do so.

This is what you are NOT grasping Inri...that it is obvious that you see
things differently than me, because you are not me. The parts that I see
as "attacking" are something like this, and I wrote this to you in one of
the posts in the Tolle thread:

...you are making posts as if you are an expert on this subject, and you
are disagreeing with someone that knows nothing about this subject that
you are an expert in. Is this because you think you are an expert, or is
there another reason?

...but, obviously, no matter what you think of yourself, you are not an
expert in this topic, no one is, and the subject of my posts is built around my
personal experience, so I don't really see why tell me on a regular basis that
you see things differently than me, especially since this is OBVIOUS...since I
am writing about my perspective and my personal experiences!

Is this understandable now, why it seems like attacking to me?

When you REALLY grasp that it is an 'illusion' you likely won't perceive 'attack' where it doesn't exist and if it does, you will not suffer from it.

if I'm a self-identity, and I perceive an attack...I will perceive an attack,
and this all depends on my personal perceptions, as far as suffering, the
same things applies.

You often share your 'perceptions' as 'truths.' and do so in a way that 'appears to me" to assume others have not shared experienced the same.

in the world where we as humans live...our perceptions are truths, they
are not truths...in relation to being/consciousness...but in the world
of my self-mind obviously they are truths...because they "are" what
I'm perceiving. If we were in the world of being/consciousness with
you there they wouldn't be truths...they would just be

In my opinion, this one is kind of a no-brainer. I grasped this long ago as I'm sure did many others reading your words.

...you obviously can't be sure of what others grasped or didn't grasp...lol

...and as far as this being a no-brainer, then explain how exactly do
distinctions/differences/meanings create our reality? And, if possible
don't use the information that I wrote in the previous posts, simply
write it in your own words! I doubt that this is something you will be
able to do, because from reading what you write in your posts in relation
to my posts, and what you write on your site, in my opinion you don't
know anything about how distinctions/differences/meanings create reality!

...I could be wrong, of course...but I really doubt that I am...this time!

...and last but not least, as far as your review of Jed Mackena, you
forgot to mention that he said it a few times, that the most important
thing to do is "to think for yourself." You somehow left that out, and
it seemed interesting for me to read 99.9% opinions and assumptions
that are based on nothing but opinions and assumptions...lol

[inri]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

when you put quotes, make sure you put the whole quote, because as you
can see, I put that they "should" be, meaning that if you already grasped
them, then you know what they mean.

I apologize for misunderstanding....but Even with the 'should' the wording of that post is questionable. Thanks though for clearing that up.

This is what you are NOT grasping Inri...that it is obvious that you see
things differently than me, because you are not me. The parts that I see
as "attacking" are something like this, and I wrote this to you in one of
the posts in the Tolle thread:

...you are making posts as if you are an expert on this subject, and you
are disagreeing with someone that knows nothing about this subject that
you are an expert in. Is this because you think you are an expert, or is
there another reason?

...but, obviously, no matter what you think of yourself, you are not an
expert in this topic, no one is, and the subject of my posts is built around my
personal experience, so I don't really see why tell me on a regular basis that
you see things differently than me, especially since this is OBVIOUS...since I
am writing about my perspective and my personal experiences!

Is this understandable now, why it seems like attacking to me?

When we come onto a forum to put forth our ideas to share with others,isn't it for the express purpose of getting feedback of some sort? If you're coming here merely to 'share' your views, I think you're rather naive if you assume or expect that all who read your words will be in complete agreement and if they are not, that they will refrain from telling you so in order not to hurt your feelings.

I really do attempt to be polite and fair in my own postings, even if I'm expressing a contrary view.

Someone who sees 'attack' & suffers for it when someone disagrees with them or questions them, is over-attached to the need to have others agree with them, imo.

if I'm a self-identity, and I perceive an attack...I will perceive an attack,
and this all depends on my personal perceptions, as far as suffering, the
same things applies.

Absolutely...but IF you PRACTICE non-attachment, suffering cannot exist.


p

...you obviously can't be sure of what others grasped or didn't grasp...lol

This is true.

...and as far as this being a no-brainer, then explain how exactly do
distinctions/differences/meanings create our reality? And, if possible
don't use the information that I wrote in the previous posts, simply
write it in your own words! I doubt that this is something you will be
able to do, because from reading what you write in your posts in relation
to my posts, and what you write on your site, in my opinion you don't
know anything about how distinctions/differences/meanings create reality!

LOL...you've got to be kidding me!!

Over 30 years ago, on the heels of a drug induced high, I wrote about little else for months....suffice to say....I get it.

I get the sense that you consider the subjects you muse about here to be so very deep and so very complex that the average person has never conceived of them. This Alex in a nutshell demonstrates the general condescending tone I 'perceive' in your writings.

My largest disagreement with you involves your seeming perception that very few others are capable of or interested in these subjects. My experience has been and is currently very different. Are there not others around you, in your midst who are also waking up to these realities? I'm surrounded by many who have had varied experiences in these areas.

I think when we hold a perception that says, "I'm very unique in my experience," and "others just dont' get this stuff," it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy and you'll create a reality where you seem to be alone in your experiences. Everything before us is a mirror of our own distinctions Alex. You may want to ponder that one.

...and last but not least, as far as your review of Jed Mackena, you
forgot to mention that he said it a few times, that the most important
thing to do is "to think for yourself." You somehow left that out, and
it seemed interesting for me to read 99.9% opinions and assumptions
that are based on nothing but opinions and assumptions...lol

I wrote a personal 'review' of his book and reviews generally are based upon the reviewers own personal opinions and perceptions....that was the whole point...to give my 'perspective' of his writing. lol.... I didn't expect that you'd 'gel' with it.

I pointed out my article to you only to illustrate that I hold a genuine interest in this subject and was not merely 'hunting' you down to 'attack' you.

[alexplatups]

Inri...let's forget about the attacking, and leave it at "disagreeing" with my
perspectives of my experiences, and a dislike of my writing style. And there
is no suffering, it's just that it "is" my perspective of my experiences,
and obviously I don't expect someone to agree with them, or even to
understand them. The reason for this is simple: there is nothing to agree with
or disagree with when it comes to my perspective of my experiences, and for
some reason you are not getting this part, so this will be the last post where
I mention this, and if you like doing it, you are free to keep doing it, and I will
just accept that you do not understand that my experience is my experience,
it just "is" and there is nothing to agree or disagree with when it comes to the
is-ness of anything. This is my point. Okay?

...below I will explain this more in relation to what you wrote in your review about
Jed's writings about HIS experiences, and then you can go back and see what you
wrote in that review and maybe you will make the distinction between the experience
ITSELF and what a peson writes about his experience...but, most lilkely you won't and
this is why I will not write about the difference between these two different events, after
this post, since for some reason you don't want to get it, or you don't want to admit that
you get it, and are just writing "as if" you don't get it. Either way, without making this
distinction...your writing will always look like an "attack" on the experience that a
person had...because you are disagreeing and saying that his experience was not
the way it was...lol...and obviously this is NOT something you can ever know!!!

...and about the no-brainer? The fact that you had a drug induced high and
that you wrote something doesn't mean you understand or can explain about
how interpretation/difference/meaning creates reality...it just means that you
had a drug induced high and that you wrote "something."

...obviously you like to write, so then write and explain how, from your perspective
does interpretation/difference/meaning create reality?

...as far as the "review" it was very similar in structure to the disagreements
that you have with my perspectives of my experiences and not grasping the
"core message" of what is being written and being explained.

...my primary "core message" is that Being/Consciousness can be directly experienced
as no-distinction...since this is what it "is." Because as soon as there is even one
distinction...for example "ALL, or EVERYTHING, or whatever, then it is not an ABSOLUTE
anymore...there is a distinction. Being is NOTHING/INFINITY which are the same thing
and are not "graspable" for the intellect/self-mind...but they can be experienced as
themselves because they already "are" and that is what we "are" also.

...the fact that our "self" is perceiving DISTINCTIONS doesn't make nothing/infinity
disappear...or go anywhere...because NOTHING/INFINITY is always here and now,
and this is infinitely nowhere, and is something that can't be believed...it is UNBELIEVABLE

...just in case you want to argue with that, I will save you the time, it is not something
that I want you to believe...because it can't be believed...it can only be directly experienced.

...and we are all experiencing it right now...and it can't be any other way

...because if there was no nothing/infinity...there could not be anything, it
would simply be impossible...and this is something that can be grasped,
because the fact that DISTINCTION creates reality is "graspable."

...Jed's primary "core message" is that every human should "think for themselves"
if they want to "experience" awakening.

...you seem to have a difficulty with grasping the fact that a person's
"experience" is distinct from what he/she writes about his/her experience
and this is why you don't perceive this difference, or as I wrote
above, you do make the distinction, and still write "as if" you don't.

...either way, it "looks" like you don't get the difference in what you write,
since this is all we have to go on...since we can't experience what you
experience...because we are not you/

...your review is not honest, simply because of the fact that you have not
mention the "primary" message that Jed mentions throughout his book, and
in the end says it STRAIGHT OUT...black on white.

...instead of mentioning this...your review is "mostly" saying how you "disagree"
with "his" experience, and that in your opinion you know what awakening
is, or at least know better than him.

...so an "honest" review would mention right at the beginning that he says
that the most important thing is to think for yourself and that all beliefs
are BS. And, as you know yourself...you sort of left this part out.

...which basically says you don't have interest in this subject, but you have
an interest in saying that other people's experiences are not what they are,
and that they "might not" be honest in what they write.

...which basically shows that you are not making the distinction and not
seeing the difference between the "experience" ITSELF and the writings
about the experience, and they are VERY different and DISTINCT!!!

[Vibration]

Possibly one of the most important things I've learned is to never say never. I've likewise learned that it's dangerous to assume one has a correct understanding of something, since that leads one to automatically dismiss anything that sounds to the contrary. Some of the worst deeds have been done by someone who was absolutely sure they were right when they were in fact not, but no one could tell them so. It's unfortunate that in some, learning can promote closed-mindedness to anything different; this is not understanding, it is religion.

So when I hear people use words like "There is no other possibility", "It cannot be any other way", etc, it renews my commitment to avoid this quicksand-like trap. These are words that slam shut the door of further learning.

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by Vibration

Possibly one of the most important things I've learned is to never say never. I've likewise learned that it's dangerous to assume one has a correct understanding of something, since that leads one to automatically dismiss anything that sounds to the contrary. Some of the worst deeds have been done by someone who was absolutely sure they were right when they were in fact not, but no one could tell them so. It's unfortunate that in some, learning can promote closed-mindedness to anything different; this is not understanding, it is religion.

So when I hear people use words like "There is no other possibility", "It cannot be any other way", etc, it renews my commitment to avoid this quicksand-like trap. These are words that slam shut the door of further learning.

...is this in relation to something in this thread...or you are just writing this
as your point of view without a relation to anything in this particular thread?

I'm asking, because I didn't see anyone write anything about "There is no other
possibility", "It cannot be any other way", etc, in this thread. And it is not what
this thread is about. This is why it seems that this statement is out of context,
and it would be helpful if you explained "in relation" to what did you write this to.

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

One of the most important things to grasp is that distinction is NOT a
concept! It is what Conscious/Being uses to create reality. You only
perceive DISTINCTIONS, and if something is NOT a distinction, you can't
perceive it...there are NO exceptions to this!

no distinction is being/consciousness...and it is absolute, it is
EVERYTHING/NOTHING...ITSELF

...this can't be grasped or understood by the intellect/self-mind, it can
only be experienced as no-distinction, and after the experience of being
you can't understand it or believe it...in fact it is UNBELIEVABLE

Distinctions and intangible affecters are not nothing. They are just not something material or physical, in the way we're used to thinking about things.

The reason I disagree (for now, anyway) with distinction being the sole engine behind consciousness is because it makes the fatal error of not stating who or what is making distinctions, as if they simply appear out of thin air. Distinction is not a noun, but a verb - it's something the "Self" does, not something the "Self" is. This leaves the question: what makes "Self" make distinctions and what is the mechanism behind how it does it, unaccounted for.

[Vibration]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

...is this in relation to something in this thread...or you are just writing this
as your point of view without a relation to anything in this particular thread?

I'm asking, because I didn't see anyone write anything about "There is no other
possibility", "It cannot be any other way", etc, in this thread. And it is not what
this thread is about. This is why it seems that this statement is out of context,
and it would be helpful if you explained "in relation" to what did you write this to.

Sorry; I wasn't very clear. It's not in direct response to anything in particular that someone stated.
I'm suggesting it as a best practice in discussion.

[alexplatups]

Originally Posted by Vibration

Distinctions and intangible affecters are not nothing. They are just not something material or physical, in the way we're used to thinking about things.

The reason I disagree (for now, anyway) with distinction being the sole engine behind consciousness is because it makes the fatal error of not stating who or what is making distinctions, as if they simply appear out of thin air. Distinction is not a noun, but a verb - it's something the "Self" does, not something the "Self" is. This leaves the question: what makes "Self" make distinctions and what is the mechanism behind how it does it, unaccounted for.

Vibration, I didn't write that distinction is the sole engine behind consciousness,
I wrote that consciousness/being uses distinction to create/manifest reality.

Distinction is a function of Being/Consciousness and is not separate
from it, it is an element of the one structure Being/Consciousness.

...and DISTINCTION appears "not" out of thin air...but out of NOTHING/INFINITY
which is ABSOLUTELY the same thing...no beginning...no end...and this
obviously is not graspable for the intellect...and never will be by the way,
it can only be directly experienced, and it can be experienced directly
because you are basically this nothing/infinity, or to say it more correctly...your
true nature is nothing/infinity...and this is the only reason why you can exist.

If you look at your own experience of reality, it is very possible that you
will observe, that it is "you" that is making distinctions about everything,
and between everything. And this doesn't mean that you are "separating"
anything...it only means that you are creating a "distinction/difference" between
one thing and another. And by things, I mean everything/anything in your
world/perceptions, including objects, thoughts, feelings, concepts...etc.

...think about it...You Can Experience Something ONLY As A Distinction!

...if it is NOT a distinction...it can't be experienced, there are really no
exceptions to this, it is simply how it "is."

...but distinction is not a concept, its nature is nothing/infinity, just like
it is the nature of Being/Consciousness.

...Distinction is what something "is" and this "is" is created by you, so basically
this means that you are "consciousness" that is creating reality through
distinctions, and one of these distinctions is your "self-identity" which you might
think is separate from everything else, but now you see that your "self" is not
separate...only distinct from everything else.

...which basically means that you are living in nonduality right now, and
separation is simply another "distinction" that you might be making, while
in reality this "distinction" of separation is not separate from anything
but only "distinct" or "different" from everything else.

...so in the end, it is possible to say that the "essence" that you are is
creating your reality through MANIFESTING distinction-thoughts,
distinction-objects, distinction-emotions, etc...and distinctions within
these distinctions. So distinction is reality, and it is what it is. Even all
concepts, opinions, beliefs, convictions, self, EVERYTHING is a distinction.

...and if you observe carefully, you will notice the "shocking truth" that
absolutely everything is a "distinction" except distinction/being/consciousness
as itself...because it is absolute/nothing/infinity -- they are no-distinction,
and this is WHY they are absolute/nothing/infinite!

...and distinction is EXACTLY how absolute/nothing/infinity manifests EVERYTHING!

...hope this is understandable on some level...because I am trying to
describe the undescribable and the unbelievable using words, that obviously
only point to what I have personally experienced, and what I don't
believe in myself with my self-mind...but have become conscious of directly.

...the self-mind was designed to survive and persist, and not to become
aware of the nature of Being/Consciousness, and this is why it is a tool
which is not adequate for this job.

...this is why it seems like I'm "preaching" but I am only trying to describe
an experience that can only be "experienced."

Sorry; I wasn't very clear. It's not in direct response to anything in particular that someone stated.
I'm suggesting it as a best practice in discussion.

True...but many of the parts I'm trying to explain in this thread are not in
the domain of what can be discussed...lol...because they are unbelievable
and can't be believed...but only "experienced" and this is the DISTINCTION
that I have been trying to make from the first post, and very few people
are grasping this, and this is probably why they think I'm preaching, or
arrogant, or whatever.

And my real objective is to describe to the best to my ability the realizations
that I have made after many, many years of searching for the Absolute Truth.

and from direct experience Absolute Truth is Absolute/Nothing/Infinity, and it
can be experienced by humans directly...because this is what they "are."

[alexplatups]

Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.

...Ludwig Wittgenstein

this basically means that there is nothing else that I can say about this
topic of directly experiencing Being/Consciosness.

it is not about words, and anything that I write will always be relative.

this is not a topic that can really be discussed, and this is why I have
decided to stop writing in this thread.

...it was fun while it lasted, but everything that has a beginning must
have an end, unlike nothing/infinity which has neither

absolute truth can only be experienced, and this is why this is something
that interest you, then write me a PM, and when I have the time, and not
in the state of nothing/infinity/consciousness/Being, maybe I'll write back

all the information necessary to experience being/consciousness directly is
in the posts that I have written in this thread, and for anyone that wants
to experience this directly for themselves can!

...this means that I will not post anything else in this thread or answer any
questions in it, whatever happens from here -- is up to other forum members.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by stealth87

LL I'm curious, what end is it that you refer to? Death, liberation, what is it? Don't want to assume anything.

There is no name, maybe moksha, which is sometimes translated as liberation but is more like release.

Sorry that you think 'I' am superior or dogmatic. That's not the case at all. There is no 'me' to claim this is the absolute 'truth' and that everyone needs to abide by it.

There is no indication in the post that you quoted that any finger pointing was going on. But I did assert that there is no "my truth" or "your truth" - just different experiential filters that allow for different expressions of basically the same thing.

I also was curious about that last statement of the fruit. Does it refer to people evolving their consciousness? Please correct me if this is wrong.

Yes. It does happen, inevitably, in all beings, through the cycle of samsara. That is what connects us all. Like any classroom in school, some students are very eager to learn and toe the line. Others are rebellious and unconventional (Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche comes to mind, LMAO).

You are, of course, welcome to disagree, but in my experience integration and unification are the hallmark of a visceral understanding of the self/nonself fallacy. I experienced it myself and have observed it over and over again.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

...you obviously don't know what a "distinction" is. A distinction is what makes
one thing "different" from another. In the world of the self, there is only
"distinctions" and nothing else, and there can be nothing else.

...If "something" is "distinct" from what it is NOT...it is a distinction.

...Absolutely EVERYTHING you perceive in reality is a DISTINCTION, there
are no exceptions...period!

...in the world of being/consciousness there is no distinctions, and why it
is nothing/infinity...because it is absolute.

...you are confused by the "distinctions" spinning in your self-mind, or you
don't know the meaning of the words that you write in your posts.

...based on your posts...I would say both, because you are constantly
writing "assumptions" as if they are facts, especially about me trying to
say that this path is the only/or superior path toward the end...even though
I never wrote anywhere anything about this method being the only one,
being superior, or it leading to the "end."

...there is no "end" and can't be...because with being there is no beggining,
so there can be no end...being...simply...is.

...IS...IS -- this is being/consciousness in the simplest way that it can be explained

Clearly your realization has allowed a very distinct differentiation of self and other - you see me as other, for example. There are a lot of "YOU"s stated in an accusatory fashion in this post.

IME the realization of the fallacy of self/other leads to compassion, growth, understanding, and gentle acceptance.

I love and accept you just as you are Alex. You are a beautiful light in the universe. Please allow that light to shine, and do not lose yourself in the darkness. Blessings to you.

If you would like to know my gender you are welcome to click on my public profile. I have two picture albums there for everyone to enjoy!

[StevenHandel]

Distinction arises....and then ceases to exist...non-distinction arises...and then ceases to exist.

This is mindfulness meditation _/\_

[inri]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

Inri...let's forget about the attacking, and leave it at "disagreeing" with my
perspectives of my experiences, and a dislike of my writing style. And there
is no suffering, it's just that it "is" my perspective of my experiences,
and obviously I don't expect someone to agree with them, or even to
understand them.

lol...alright then....we're on the same page! Truth is Alex, the concepts you put forth are NOT that difficult to understand...your attachment to them perhaps is a bit....and also your seeming need to believe that the concepts 'you' entertain are so deep that many others have not also considered them. In a self created reality, (If you buy into this concept) we see what we believe.

...and about the no-brainer? The fact that you had a drug induced high and
that you wrote something doesn't mean you understand or can explain about
how interpretation/difference/meaning creates reality...it just means that you
had a drug induced high and that you wrote "something."

...obviously you like to write, so then write and explain how, from your perspective
does interpretation/difference/meaning create reality?

LOL...alright Alex....in a nutshell: The moment consciousness looks at itself to acknowledge 'being' a distinction is made.

I'll even take it a step further and say that for something to 'be' the flip side must also exist, 'not to be' and therefore even 'beingness' involves distinction to some extent.

Any one consciousness (as soon as it become aware of self) interprets and makes distinction through it's own lens or filter. The filter dictates the perceptions, the perceptions dictate the reality experience.

I'm more aware than ever re: this process as I've recently discovered I've got numerous lesions in my brain. My mental/physical faculties and senses are being affected in ways that have altered my filter. Thus my perceptions of reality are becoming quite different.

in a state of pure being (for ex. in meditation, no distinctions are being made...therefore, no judgments, no comparisons no interpretations) however, the moment we come out of that state and begin to reflect upon it, we've got distinctions being made and once again, the filter has been activated.

The filter is analagous to a pair of colored glasses....we cannot perceive anything within our reality without it's activation. To perceive = to make distinctions.

This is why it's impossible to come onto a forum like this and discuss such subjects WITHOUT the personal filter (or distinction) playing a part. Even the most supposed enlightened of people will not be capable of rising above their personal filter.....as soon as 'mind' or thought is engaged....distinction exists.

This is why when someone starts spouting off about 'ultimate truths' they've accessed that apply to all, I say 'no way.' None of us can completely rise above our own filter and process these experiences without distinctions being made. Therefore, one man's 'ultimate truth' is merely his distinction regarding a particular compelling experience he's had.

...as far as the "review" it was very similar in structure to the disagreements
that you have with my perspectives of my experiences and not grasping the
"core message" of what is being written and being explained.

The review encompasses far more than 'just' Jed's core message. In fact it's more about the contradictions that prove to me that Jed does not fully 'get' his own core message.

If one accepts that reality is a reflection of our own distinctions, he will accept that it is actually his own creation. With this in mind, what is Jed's inner landscape really like if his outer landscape has him virtually alone in his 'awakened' state, while he's surrounded by others who 'just don't get it.'

He's created that reality for himself. How and Why?

...Jed's primary "core message" is that every human should "think for themselves"
if they want to "experience" awakening.

and he shares his message in a very egotistical and narcissistic manner imo. If he truly believes everyone should figure this out themselves, why has he set himself up as a guru of sorts? There's a certain incongruence between what he says and what he does. He's a hypocrite who contradicts himself...I actually kind of wonder if the author is painting this character in such a way on purpose...it's quite clear he is a fictional character. And yes, that it the main thrust of my review.

...you seem to have a difficulty with grasping the fact that a person's
"experience" is distinct from what he/she writes about his/her experience
and this is why you don't perceive this difference, or as I wrote
above, you do make the distinction, and still write "as if" you don't.

When we're communicating through written word, all I have to go on are the words before me. Sure the experience is distinct, but as I said, as soon as we begin to reflect upon it or write about it.....we get....distinctions!

The mere act of formulating a perception of an awakening experiences, changes it..as we are viewing it thru our filter. Therefore, any book or teacher we could ever listen to on the subject is still operating through distinction and filters of their own.

Filters by the way, do change and evolve according with experience. As long as we're conscious of 'being' though, they do not disappear.

...your review is not honest, simply because of the fact that you have not
mention the "primary" message that Jed mentions throughout his book, and
in the end says it STRAIGHT OUT...black on white.

It is an honest reflection of how "I" felt in response to the book. What you call his 'primary' message, I see as something he throws in once in a while to counter his obvious over-attachment to his ego.

...instead of mentioning this...your review is "mostly" saying how you "disagree"
with "his" experience, and that in your opinion you know what awakening
is, or at least know better than him.

I've found my own unique path both through agreeing with others as well as disagreeing with them. When I see hypocrisy and contradiction it spurs me on to greater heights of congruency within my own self.
No doubt, I DO see the awakening process as different than Jed....and on my own website, in a book review written from a personal perspective, I do feel pretty free and more than entitled to voice my opinion.

...so an "honest" review would mention right at the beginning that he says
that the most important thing is to think for yourself and that all beliefs
are BS. And, as you know yourself...you sort of left this part out.

He negates this statement by the fact that he upholds himself as a guru to teach others about enlightenment. If he really held fast to the idea that others should think for themselves, he's just keep his enlightenment experience to himself and allow others to find their own way.

...which basically shows that you are not making the distinction and not
seeing the difference between the "experience" ITSELF and the writings
about the experience, and they are VERY different and DISTINCT!!!

again, as soon as we start writing about an experience, our filter is engaged. How could I ever experience Jed's experience without experiencing his filter? It's impossible.

[inri]

Originally Posted by StevenHandel

Distinction arises....and then ceases to exist...non-distinction arises...and then ceases to exist.

This is mindfulness meditation _/\_

Beautiful! lol....Wish I had seen this before I rambled on about distinction in my last post...could have saved myself lots of words!

[inri]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Yes. It does happen, inevitably, in all beings, through the cycle of samsara. That is what connects us all. Like any classroom in school, some students are very eager to learn and toe the line. Others are rebellious and unconventional (Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche comes to mind, LMAO).

I absolutely agree. Awakening at some point is inevitable. Movement towards expansion of consciousness is an inevitable by-product of this physical life experience...it's built into the program...this movement towards greater knowing and understanding actually the very fuel behind the physical experience itself.

You are, of course, welcome to disagree, but in my experience integration and unification are the hallmark of a visceral understanding of the self/nonself fallacy. I experienced it myself and have observed it over and over again.

I love the way you put things.

I agree & see the first step (if there must be steps) of this experience as the realization of self and non-self as separate...the next step is the ability to see that there is no separation and third is acceptance of all aspects of self and being and everything that appears within my experience.

I get the sense you are very much at the place of being where you've 'unified' all your experiences and have very much grasped that "It ALL is,"..and are now living with THIS knowledge as your filter.

Where I get the sense that Alex is still at the initial stage of perception, (I apologize Alex if I'm wrong...just using my own filter here!) where he has had the 'aha' of noticing the distinction between self and non-self...and is poised to move to the next step.

This is why I've tried to explain to him that once we get over the OMG factor regarding this initial realization, there are further experiences awaiting.

Of course no stage is better or worse...and due to our personal filters, we can only see as far as our present filter will allow, therefore, the newfound realization can seem like the end of the road and will be very, very compelling in terms of appearing like an 'ultimate truth' that 'should' serve as background for all our other experiences.

Viewing all of physical life through the filter of self vs. non-self definitely does provide a unique veiwpoint...but imo, it's just a stop-over on the way to a broader view.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by inri

I get the sense you are very much at the place of being where you've 'unified' all your experiences and have very much grasped that "It ALL is,"..and are now living with THIS knowledge as your filter.

Thanks! I thought I would be all blissed out on a constant basis, but the panoply of emotions beyond bliss are out of this world. I see the emotions arise and then I am laughing at my self, too. Life is theater of the absurd.

I often wonder if I chose this incarnation because I was ready for "the bloody path" (to use a phrase from Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind). And boy was it bloody. You get beaten over the head enough, and consistently, you have an opportunity to realize that even during physical anguish, there is this weird "beauty", because it's all the same tatata. The suchness of everything. When you have everything taken from you, even the sanctity of your own body, then it's very clear that there was nothing to take in the first place.

[inri]

Originally Posted by Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi

Thanks! I thought I would be all blissed out on a constant basis, but the panoply of emotions beyond bliss are out of this world. I see the emotions arise and then I am laughing at my self, too. Life is theater of the absurd.

I often wonder if I chose this incarnation because I was ready for "the bloody path" (to use a phrase from Nausicaa and the Valley of the Wind). And boy was it bloody. You get beaten over the head enough, and consistently, you have an opportunity to realize that even during physical anguish, there is this weird "beauty", because it's all the same tatata. The suchness of everything. When you have everything taken from you, even the sanctity of your own body, then it's very clear that there was nothing to take in the first place.

Yup. we see this the same ...the fallacy that such realizations will place us in a constant state of bliss are rampant in the belief systems of many....it's a realization that I'm finally just getting myself! It's all about the 'awareness' behind the apparent unfolding drama.

I see the first step as realizing that life is the equivalent of a play....and we're merely an actor....that's usually the OMG!! part.....we then often take that realization and 'step out of' the play, becoming more of a member of the audience....watching it all occur...sometimes this stage involves attempts to distance the 'watcher' from the 'actor' in the play....(this is the annihilation of the ego that many embark upon).....the final stage is to re-immerse ourselves within our role and the play with the full knowledge and acceptance of what's happening...when we're there we can once again become part of the drama, complete with all the emotions....we just no longer have the attachment that causes us to suffer...and there's always the awareness there of what is REALLY going on.

At this point, it becomes apparent that consciousness, even within one being, can be fragmented to some extent, but that it still remains part of the whole...it's a good analogy of the greater apparent splintering of consciousness that occurs in order for us to have this phsycal life experience in the first place.

And...It's an interesting place to arrive at when we can realize that the experience of something generally perceived as negative, does not HAVE to cause suffering. The line between pain and suffering merely lies in our level of attachment to feeling good.

I do wonder if those who have had a particularly rough path did perhaps choose this prior to coming in and did so with the knowing that it would push them past their walls.....AND they knew that they had enough experience behind them to handle it.

I'm quite adept at reading energy & you've definitely got 'old soul' stamped all over ya!...lol..whatever THAT means, right?

[StevenHandel]

The more you think the further away you become. Stop with all these words!

[inri]

Originally Posted by StevenHandel

The more you think the further away you become. Stop with all these words!

lol...true! Although, I believe certain people come to certain realizations through words and then go on to experience the essence of the words first hand.

I've figured out a lot of stuff on paper and then gone on to live it...in fact you could say that this has been the evolution of my personal path.....I often feel as though the words that come through are being channeled from a source within that I'm not yet fully aware of.

The words can point us in the right direction...but yes, ultimately experience is what it's really all about.

[Lakshyayidhi Lakshmihi]

Originally Posted by StevenHandel

The more you think the further away you become. Stop with all these words!

Don't tell me what to do. Ego gets stronger in response to authoritarian dictates because it is a protective mechanism.

If I want to never attain moksha and twiddle the rest of this incarnation talking to empty space, that's ok. I'll still be evolving. Nothing can stop it. Not even words.

How'dya like them apples?

[Psilocybin]

my brain hurts..

[allis1]

Let's all just be. Right here, right now. And allow it to show us that which cannot be explained.

[alexplatups]

is there any new ideas, have we come to an agreement, is there a self
or isn't there a self - that is the question

[inri]

Originally Posted by alexplatups

is there any new ideas, have we come to an agreement, is there a self
or isn't there a self - that is the question

I've come to see that it depends highly on one's personal DEFINITION of 'self' and the specific properties attributed to that which it is deemed to be.

From my vantage point, I concede that there is no concrete 'thing' called self that I can see or put my finger on, (our physicality is but a 'part' of the totality of that which I refer to as 'self.').... but if in fact we define 'self' as the culmination of the sum total of parts (body, mind, thoughts, first person experience, the perspective which is at cause for us to use the pronoun "I", etc.) that combine to result in the 'experience' of self-hood, 'self' then is indeed something that does have a basis in reality.

It seems to me that in term of experience, 'self' is actually all there is, as the perspective of 'self' underpins ALL experience.

I think those who get all excited over the idea of self being non-existent, are defining 'self' in very physical terms. As I personally view and define self as being unlimited,...and to include not just the first person experience, but all that exist behind this, I am referring to something entirely different than they, when I conclude that self does indeed exist.

Self is the only vehicle through which the distinction that creates experience CAN occur.

I'm beginning to see that coming from a vantage point that has us believing in a concrete, limiting, rigid, static 'thing' called 'self,' it could indeed be very freeing to see for the first time that no such thing actually exist....however, this is just the starting point...and many who first begin to open up to deeper realizations, do so with excitement and fervor.

I realize now, I've been addressing this issue from a completely different perspective than those who hold fast to the idea that 'self does not exist'...we've essentially been arguing apples to oranges.

I was reading a dialogue On the Ruthless Truth site, when I came across someone who defined 'self' as I do; The sum total of body, mind, spirit, framework, first person experience, unique brand of thoughts, etc...and as such was saying, "it does exist."

The 'liberator' insisted that this person did NOT actually refer to this combination of parts when he used the word 'self,' but was instead referring to a concrete concept of a self that existed in physically definable terms.... But this is just the thing; None of us can know for sure, exactly WHAT an individual really is referring to when he says "I" exist.



Thus, I come to see that The importance of our personal definition of 'self' in the statement, 'self does not exist' is everything in terms of it being true or not. And our actual definition of 'self' will always be based upon our overall perspective of reality itself.