Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
sounder wrote:You are unenlightened to the extent that you are embedded in your experience. You think that your experience is you. You must dis-embed. Do that by taking each aspect of experience as object (looking at it and recognizing it) in a systematic way. Then, surrender entirely.tazmic wrote:It sounds like a recipe for disassociation. And for some on the KFD forum it may well be. But if you put quotes around the second 'you' in the first line of the quote, it could be a recipe for integration. Subtle stuff.
(I mean you can spend time concerned about an idea of yourself embedded in a personal narrative reflecting immediate experiences you might prefer were different rather than experiencing stuff directly...without an agenda, so to speak. Such 'embedding' limits the range of perspective to the confines of the narrative, and in a way that precludes self awareness, whilst this formula makes such narrativization impossible. I’m suspicious however, that the embedding preemptively turns the formula into a dissociative practice…)
I sort of get it up to the part where you say; ‘whilst this formula makes such narrativization impossible’.
Feel free to expand on this and the last sentence also, if you might be so inclined.
sounder wrote:Name them and be free of them. These mind states are not "you;" we know that because if there is a "you" it is the one who is looking, not what is being looked at.
While turning these states into objects may help one become more conscious of their impacts, I still don’t see them as being free of the subject.
simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
tazmic wrote:simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
This would be the case if it were the 'self' that were getting enlightened. But it will never be an illusion that sees through itself.
Simulist wrote:tazmic wrote:simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
This would be the case if it were the 'self' that were getting enlightened. But it will never be an illusion that sees through itself.
We may actually be more in agreement, than not. As I see it, there is no real "self" to become enlightened. What there is, remains Unnameable.
(And those who do name this, are describing something else.)

Maybe there are different scales and levels within dissociation. Others here have experienced far more trauma and dissociation than my former employer who was so smug in how she's 'gotten over' her family and 'found herself' and acted as 'enlightened' as anyone as she unconsciously acted out her family psychosis on a grand scale.
KudZu LoTek wrote:Simulist wrote:tazmic wrote:simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
This would be the case if it were the 'self' that were getting enlightened. But it will never be an illusion that sees through itself.
We may actually be more in agreement, than not. As I see it, there is no real "self" to become enlightened. What there is, remains Unnameable.
(And those who do name this, are describing something else.)
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!

Simulist wrote:KudZu LoTek wrote:Simulist wrote:tazmic wrote:simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
This would be the case if it were the 'self' that were getting enlightened. But it will never be an illusion that sees through itself.
We may actually be more in agreement, than not. As I see it, there is no real "self" to become enlightened. What there is, remains Unnameable.
(And those who do name this, are describing something else.)
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!
So you've heard about my driving record...

KudZu LoTek wrote:"crrzzrrt Unit 108? Unit 108, this is Dispatch. We have reports of a drive-by satori in your area, possibly resulting in blunt force enlightenment with multiple compound compassions. Suspect was driving a 2004 clear light Hinayana, wearing a loincloth and a silly grin. Do you copy, Unit 108? Over.crrzzrrt"
KudZu LoTek wrote:Simulist wrote:KudZu LoTek wrote:Simulist wrote:tazmic wrote:simulist wrote:If someone were actually "enlightened" s/he might well lack all self-consciousness of being so, since s/he's found the "self" itself to be illusory.
This would be the case if it were the 'self' that were getting enlightened. But it will never be an illusion that sees through itself.
We may actually be more in agreement, than not. As I see it, there is no real "self" to become enlightened. What there is, remains Unnameable.
(And those who do name this, are describing something else.)
If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him!
So you've heard about my driving record...
"crrzzrrt Unit 108? Unit 108, this is Dispatch. We have reports of a drive-by satori in your area, possibly resulting in blunt force enlightenment with multiple compound compassions. Suspect was driving a 2004 clear light Hinayana, wearing a loincloth and a silly grin. Do you copy, Unit 108? Over.crrzzrrt"
sw wrote:...
I wonder sometimes if some of the programs were aimed at straining everything out to "mine" the purity of God and make a part out of it just for spiritual superpowers (which he had, except he didn't see them as superpowers.)
sw
guruilla wrote:

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests