Greetings,

Pulsar brought up an interesting topic over on the 'selfless love' thread:
Is it even appropriate to attempt selflessness?
Actually now I wonder what selflessness even means in the first place?

Now I wonder if the relief of getting rid of some of that heavy, awkward ego has made some of us Westerners feel like we should let go of  *all*  that is our individual self.  I tried it in my marriage, and when that didn't work, I assumed I hadn't let go of enough of myself. ( Other personal examples are available but my ego that's left doesn't want me to embarass myself. :D )

Yet we know that there is a self that continues throughout a person's incarnations, regardless of their changing circumstances in each life.  Because in this life we've all met persons who brought their same familiar essences that set off a very deep level of recognition and with it all its currently unwarranted emotional response. And it's an amazingly wonderful confirmation of this whole belief system to meet them!

Out of the mainstream of daily life, there is a spiritual bliss that requires complete giving up of self; one must be able to 'die' in order to move into that state. I 'm so very grateful for such experience but do not know exactly how that fits in with this discussion. There's certainly a lasting improved faith and being from such states, but is that the same selflessness, or do we just not have the right words again?

So I'm still wonderring ---once enough ego has been set aside to allow us to move into spiritual realities, how much else of self should we attempt to lose?

Your views on this will be greatly appreciated!
Bets  

There are probably inumerable ways to look at this, Bets, and I'm glad you brought it up. I will simply revisit the one which was presented to me last night in my real life, as a friend was talking about his self.

I believe there is a story about this, but it was presented to me as a reality.

I don't really understand it yet.

Perhaps the place of true "selflessness" is the hollow part of each of us, the emptiness inside, around which swirl all of our emotions, hopes, dreams, thoughts, beliefs. The center is like the eye of a hurricane. It is the calm within the storm.

Perhaps "selflessness" is not the loss of "self" or the surrender of self, but simply this space, from which all "things" spring. So, when we rest inside of this space, we are resting at the source of our creativity, at the source of all that exists in the heart.

This self says, "I want to be comforted." Because, even in its emptiness, it knows it wants to be filled, like a bowl may be filled with a cup of life-bringing tea. :)

So it knows what we need, all the time.

We can see more clearly there.

Just my thoughts this morning.

love, blink :)

Hey there,

what made the word "selflessness" suspicious to me, was the fact, that it can end in selfless devotion, and this is walking with one leg, blindfold.

regards,

pulsar

Hi Bets,
Once again… good topic!  I’m probably in the minority here, but I personally think the ego has gotten a bad rap over the years.  I don’t think it is so much that we should try to set aside our ego, thereby denying the desires of self, but that we could rather strive for the integration of our ego with our higher self.  In this we would not be letting go of, or attempting to suppress the ego or our personality.  We would maintain our personal individuality and the freedom to choose what we desire to create in our life.  What we would be transforming or letting go of is the portions of the ego that has separated from the divine.  Or in other words, we are striving to reconcile the separated ego that has been “lost” because of fearful beliefs we’ve acquired.

I really like something Don said on another thread and I think this fits in with this topic so I’ve quoted him below and then I’ll try to give my perspective of how our personal guidance within each of us helps us to reconcile the separated ego by bringing the values from the higher levels of consciousness down into the lower levels of our being.


Quote:

“We are created as imperfect beings because our weaknesses enhance the beauty of our spiritual progress.  Our free will derives its moral value from our powerful inclinations to choose selfishly.  The intensity of these inclinations is a function of our limited understanding and strength.  The beauty of spirituality is enhanced by the fact that many choose love and service to God, despite the fact that it is not immediately apparent what we "get out of" this decision. Our vulnerability to suffering is a vital aspect of the growth of our character.  If there was no want, there would be no generosity.  If there was no danger, there would be no courage.  If there was no unfair suffering, there would be no compassion.  The moral quality of our moral order would be far inferior if we were incapable of courage, compassion, and generosity.”

We each brought into this incarnation all of the “tools” we need to help heal our separated ego.  To me this is the “planning” part of incarnation that may pertain to your other thread where each of us comes with both a personal task and a worldly task to accomplish.  Many choices are made to set up our energetic makeup for accomplishing our purposes and we carry this higher energy (our personal life plan) in the spiritual levels of our energy field.  Each of our spiritual energy bodies of divine will, divine inspiration or love, and divine mind directly relates to the lower vibrations of our physical energy bodies of will, emotion, and mental reasoning.  As we move more and more into a spiritually centered life we automatically begin to have experiences involving the higher levels of consciousness and energy.  Eventually we can encounter whole worlds of spiritual beings that exist.  Retrievals are one example but I’m getting off track, so back to inner guidance.

Inner guidance is always available to each of us and the more we practice the conscious use of it, the more available it is to us.  At its highest vibration within our core it is in direct connection with the alpha and the omega or all that there is within our universe and perhaps other worlds as well.  In its simplest form guidance comes in the form of physical pain or discomfort.  When we pay attention to the discomforts we feel and attend to them we help put ourselves back into balance, which makes it easier for the natural balancing/healing system contained in the consciousness of our physical body to heal itself.

Much of the time it is the separated ego that lies beneath the discomforts we feel.  Following this form of guidance means to eat when hungry, rest when tired, resolve an issue that is bothering us, etc.  The ways in which we live our lives these days certainly doesn’t make it easy for us to meet these personal needs, but if we are to become healthier and more balanced and clear, we must do this.  As we practice “listening in” to our internal messages and become more balanced and clear we also gain experiences where we start to receive messages not only from our five physical senses, but also from our expanded or higher senses.

As others have mentioned in other threads, articulating what receiving higher guidance feels like is difficult.  Each of us has differences or strengths where one sense may be easier to expand than another.  I’d say my main sense perception is in direct knowing, seeing, and occasionally hearing.  For me I’ve noticed that I am in a state of centeredness where I go fully into whatever is at hand.  It’s like thinking deeper from the center of my being.  If I close my eyes my focus is brought up to my forehead where instead of seeing from my physical eyes location I begin to see from my third eye location while my main focus remains centered or at the “thinking deeper” level.  Entering into this receptive state of consciousness to intentionally connect with guidance on higher vibrations takes practice, trust and faith.  At first directives from guidance may seem very simple and unimportant, however, following it no matter how trivial is important because it is a learning process that will help filter out what is true useful guidance and what is not by the verifications received or not received.

It takes a lot of faith to follow guidance, yet following guidance builds faith because it is designed to take us through all of the areas of our personal psyche where we have previously refused to go but must go in order to heal the separated ego.  Be prepared for it to take you into your deepest fears as well as into your deepest faith.  Faith is what connects the separated ego part of us to the greater part of us.  As we openly and humbly surrender to the greater part of our being we let go of our separated ego and trust is developed.  Surrendering to guidance… surrendering the separated ego to the greater divinity within automatically and systematically clears the way for our involuntary life force to be released.

The involuntary life force is what comes out of us when we don’t block our energy flow and this can be either positive or negative.  Following guidance systematically clears the negative, separated ego so that more and more positive life force is released and the goodness within us flows of its own accord and our reason becomes truth, emotions become love and will becomes courage.  As we continue this transcendent process, our truth becomes wisdom, our love becomes unconditional and our courage becomes power and we find God within.  We find that we are surrendering to a deeper inner power and in this surrender we find the power of God and we become an instrument of God with all the power, wisdom and love of God within.

Love, Kathy

This flies against what's popularly thought is implied (but not necessarily taught at the highest level) by just about every spiritual tradition but my view is that you can't decide to 'be selfless' any more than you can decide to 'be loving'.

You can certainly act out a facsimile of both, but you either feel or are motivated to be the real thing or are not. Acting out as an act of will probably only reinforces ego and makes one more conflicted - it ultimately takes one further away from realisation and true selflessness by building yet another conceptual layer which then opposes the underlying selfish urge. (which latter is left intact and enhanced)

This is in more generalised form similar to the pitfall of zealotry and/or intellectualism, and of other obsessive or conceptual (ego/thought) driven approaches to 'being spiritual'. It's probably also the reason why there's probably almost no spiritual practice other than meditation ('non thought') that can help move us towards realisation.

Selflessness is sometimes construed as being a practical proof of loving disposition - as sacrificing self without question to help others. That's probably not necessarily true either, as showing love as we've often said first requires self love and there can be many more motivations than just love for self sacrifice. (e.g. guilt, self hate, playing a longer game and so on)

Selflessness can maybe in the realised state be said to amount to the genuine experience of the emptiness or ultimate unreality of self (and of all form or conventional realities) - the reported falling away of the illusion that causes us initially to mistake body, mind and the like as 'me', or which by defining external reality as 'not me' in fact defines 'me'. Realisation seems to lead to the experiential sensing or knowing that the conventionally conceived me does not in fact exist.

In this state the urge to put self first no longer exists, but on the other hand so called self is in the resulting wide open awareness seen to be equally as deserving of compassion as any other. This in a similar manner to the way UG Krishnamurti whom I'm reading at present says that when faced with a Mother beating a child  that rather than being driven by the socially dictated politically correct conventional motivation to intervene on behalf of the child he instead felt an equal compassion for both - the stressed Mother, and the hurt child.

Not that he couldn't afterwards decide to intervene in one way or another (he could even in absence of the selfish urge decide to sacrifice himself too if needed) - but the point was that in his state any such thought and decision was distinctly a second layer later applied over the initial unconditioned perception.

In summary - this unconditioned perception is made possible by what is maybe true 'selflessness' which in turn is the result of an experiential knowing that there is no 'self' per se - which in turn seems to be the direct result of realisation.

The consequent 'level playing field' then leaves open the possibility that intellect and intuition can be applied to in an unbiased way to decide the wisest and most compassionate course of action.

But as mentioned before making a wise decision is still dependent on intellect, experience and sound judgement - meaning that a realised (selfless) person can still make errors or less than optimum decisions. Meaning as before that a realised or selfless person is not necessarily omniscient or infallible at this worldly level. (their motivation will be right, but they may screw up)

::) Clear as mud??? Wrong??

 Is ego the same thing as Creator given individuality?   If the latter is Creator given from the beginning of individual self awareness, then perhaps it has an important and potentially eternal purpose?

Maybe ego is that which we give to ourselves, in forgetting the Creator's ways?   Maybe it is only partially important and necessary within this dimension, until enough of it has been transcended and enough inner strength cultivated?  For ego helps one to initially deal with the din, the cacophony that is range of of vibratory patterns we call, "physicality".   When the world within is completely transcended, then one doesn't need the barrier for the world without, and then these merge.

That's a hard one, Ah So! It depends I suppose on what you define as ego. Careful reading of accounts by people accepted as having recently become enlightened who write is a highly factual and descriptive style such as Bernadette Roberts ('The Experience of No-Self'), UG Krishnamurti ('The mystique of Enlightenement') and Richard Rose (can't remember the title) shows a high degree of agreement to the effect that the essential (or at least initial change) that results from enlightenment is confined to simply loss of the sense of self. Leading to elimination of the urge to selfishness, and to an ending of selflshly motivated selective perception.

This more or less corresponds with higher Buddhist views (as outlined by Daniel Goleman in 'The Meditative Mind') - the essential point being that our attitudes, values, knowledge and the like built up over time while living as an unrealised person are initially left unchanged. They eventually do change, but only progressively as a result of the enhanced  intuition and widened insight into life experience brought about by loss of the sense of self. i.e. becoming enlightened is only the first step, you now have to learn to live from this new view. Buddhism in fact sets out many stages of enlightenment beyond this, Daniel Goleman sets these out in the above book.

Karmic influences are said to no longer have the power to control once a person has reached this state - since karma it's said acts via fear and the mistaken perceptions which follow from the selfish perspective on things. We are no longer compelled to act from our conditioned viewpoint.

This doesn't prevent us from making errors, as the new state does NOT magically deliver instant infallibility with the equanimity that results from selflessness - we are still limited (in this world at least) by our human intellect, and may inadvertently act from a mistaken viewpoint without realising what we are doing. But given time the realised person builds a whole new set of attitudes, values and behaviours  - a new view which progressively replaces the old.  We're probably much more open to the influence of Grace, or higher mind in this state too.

These people all seem to say that there's a load of codswallop written by the 'spirituality industry' about enlightenment. It actually seems to be more like a reboot of the processor or a leap of intuition to no longer mistakenly seeing ourselves as an isolated and impermanent 'self' constrained by conventional realities, and are as a result no longer driven by selfishness than some highly mystical event. Compassion isn't even necessarily a direct consequence - it's just that it strips away the obscuration that was causing us to act in non loving ways.

UG says that it even has major effects on the physical body. He comments that we don't realise just how much of our 'self' (that isn't  ;)) is influenced all the time by our state of mind.

Is all of this true? My experience is limited to short periods in states while meditating which seemed  very like what they describe, but what it must be like to bring this out into normal life is hard to imagine. UG Krishnamurti is well worth a read...

Interesting, and I find it helpful to hear you talk of elightenment as something some contemporaries are acknowledged to have achieved (with a reasonable degree of reason to accept this, presumably), and that is not just some unattainable goal that is talked of airily as possibly conferring omniscience etc (but that no one ever seem to actually attain).

I do find the idea of being completely selfless odd though. I don;t see how we can - having a body we experience things through, which experiences pain and pleasure, and a sense of seperate self , with a history and certain traits etc (even  those of us who remember many lifetimes!), how can we not be somewhat selfish, in terms of attempting to act to procure positive, peasurable results for our self (though I must say i go about this in an odd way sometimes and some of the ways I have acted have not been in my best interest at all), and taking a keen interest in what happens to this self? Or is it more that we care about self, but care equally about all others too? Is that feasible though - if we really cared as much about everyone else in the world as much as ourselves we would be in a constant state of misery and worry about wars and famine and disease etc etc and would never feel at peace. Even if we limit it to people we come across in daily life, we would, for example, not pass a beggar in the street without giving him half of our worldy wealth or something to help him out. It wouldn;t be very practical..  Or does elightenment also come with a level of detachment and lofty perspective of the big picture that helps you to act less impulsively and emotionally? Also, the average person is quite needy and wants signs that people love them, value them, affirm them etc.. Perhaps the enlightened person is finally above all that being in more or less constant contact with a universal feeling on onenes/affirmation/love . The unenlightened person also judges themselves to some degree and feels they should be achieving certain things in their lives that they perhaps lack at the moment in order to be happy - perhaps the enlightened person feels truly 'in the moment" and does not feel they need to prove anything, but just to "be"?

Selflessness (or the emptiness of self or just emptiness as it's often termed in Buddhism) is not a simple subject Orlando. This kind feeds back into the earlier thread on enlightenment and is a bit heavy - so don't read it if it's not your scene.

The central teaching of Buddhism is arguably that all of our suffering or the unsatisfactory nature of life arises out of our mistaken belief in the existence of a tangible and independent self. Or maybe more precisely from the urge to selfish behaviours (grasping) that follows from this.

This is expressed in its most basic form as the four noble truths: 1. Life means suffering. (not necessarily pain, but certainly patches of this mixed with the fact that there's really nothing material that delivers better than a temporary unsatisfactory sort of lift)  2. The origin of suffering is attachment. (to the idea of their being a self and physical reality or form - this leads to grasping and  all of the selfish behaviours that cause suffering for ourselves and others). 3. The cessation of suffering is attainable. (there is a way out - ultimately the dropping of the delusion of 'self' and that this reality is more than a dream) 4. The path to the cessation of suffering. (the path of personal work and practice that enables this - informed by the body of Buddhist teaching)

You'd need to Google it, or head for a bookstore for a proper explanation, but Buddhism addresses the topic of selflessness at three levels:

1. The Hinayana teachings are basically a body of rules for living which only superficially explains the why, but which if followed enable us to avoid the worst consequences of selfishness. They amount to not doing harm to others by word, act or speech, and include some really practical perspectives on how to live with wisdom and compassion.

2. The Mahayana teachings first show that in conventional physical terms that self (and indeed all 'form' or tangible normal C1 reality) has no independent self existence. We think for example that our body is an independent entity, yet it's wholly dependent on and originated from the great network of cause and consequence that surrounds us. So for example we probably contain atoms from every corner of the universe, that over eons of time have been a part of everything imaginable. This apparent self and the reality it operates in is in a sense only the generic 'stuff' from which it is manifested, true reality is at the level of the absolute  - that of the primordial mind or intention that creates. Physically we can be nothing or do nothing without the involvement of everybody and everything else - meaning that selfish actions that don't take this into account are basically delusional. Thich Nhat Hanh writes in readable way on the topic and it's broader implications here: http://www.wisdom-books.com/ProductDetail.asp?PID=8083

3. Having made the case at the C1 physical level (mixing my drinks a little there!!) the Mahayana teachings then go on to say that when we achieve realisation (drop selfishness or the delusion of self and the resulting egocentricity) what is revealed (left?) is 'Buddha nature' - basically wisdom and compassion or Christ mind.

All this said the point about the state of selflessness as experienced with realisation is that it's NOT a matter of intellectual reasoning or logic. It instead seems to be a fundamental leap of intuition or reboot of our knowing so that without any intellectual gymnastics whatsoever we intuitively KNOW and see that this is the case and are left unable to act from any other viewpoint - that the idea that we are an independent self is untrue.

The books I listed in the post above are the reported experience of some that have been through this. There's actually been lots in our time regarded as enlightened. And those are only the ones regarded as such, most seem not to manifest or achieve public notice.

Here's one person's listing of contemporary realised teachers in order of 'usefulness' as he sees it : http://www.spiritualteachers.org/ratings.htm

Here's another related site with links to pages of interest to those on the path. TAT foundation was the organisation set up by Richard Rose, one of my favourite teachers: http://www.tatfoundation.org/best_spiritual_sites.htm  Their monthly e-zine: http://www.tatfoundation.org/forum.htm  - a great source of insight.

The Heart Sutra summarises this central teaching of Buddhism. It's topic is emptiness and/or selflessness. Here's the text and lots of information on it if you'd like to read some more: http://www.buddhistinformation.com/heartsutra.htm

Buddhism is such a wonderful source of reliable (if complex) teachings which for some can (if care is not taken) sometimes obscure the bits of the message that matter. The correlation between spiritual practice and achievement of realisation seems to be pretty indirect.  It's pretty clear too that many spend a lifetime studying teachings and get nowhere - some because they get bogged down in theory and intellectualisation, others because they still have a way to go.

Judging by what's written  best that can be said is possibly that there somehow is a connection between study and practice and spiritual progress  - most that make it that we hear about have practiced at some point in their lives, although not all.

Wonder how many make it that we don't hear about, with no involvement whatsoever in any spiritual tradition???...

Good point, about how many people perhaps "make it"without us knowing - it would hardly seem the kind of thing you would go around bragging about.

Thanks for the explanations, but I have already looked into BUddhism a fair bit and am pretty familiar with most of what you say.

As you say, I guess at the end of the day it must be about a ind of experience that is not really an intellectual one.

I still find the idea of complete selflessness hard to grasp, as I say, because despite the points you make, we all unavoidably operate from inside a physical body, and have to look after it, and relate to others from it (and are treated by others as an indivudual person with certain characteristics as well).

Oliver says:
As you say, I guess at the end of the day it must be about a ind of experience that is not really an intellectual one.
____

its 3am in the morn and I'm going back to bed! I promise!  :) love this board though.
it's about self expression. ever notice after doing that, you feel something? maybe even a sense of satisfaction? maybe like just to know there are others have some of the same thoughts, aspirations, etc that you have?
not to mention the abstract thoughts that float in when writing an article or a post or a book even.
this morn I've got the Eagles in my head: "don't let the sound of your own wheels drive you crazy..and take it easy...

this reminds me of how music and the artists in the field influence us as a whole; we may wonder of their status of enlightenment as well but we can't know for sure, we can only sit there and vibrate or resonate to the music, absorbing the rhythm with the lyrical message and the rote that comes off it, sometimes playing over in the mind like a broken record.

regarding selflessness Oliver, you're right that it's not a practical objective during any meditation, but derives from the act of living, not a goal exactly, speaking personally I see enlightenment as something not to concern myself with as an objective. I should think living fully, expressing fully, without intentional harm to others, is more of a goal, and that enlightenment, whatever it is, is bestowed by what I call grace, lacking a better explanation. Grace is like the sun, shines on all the same. and is related to what we call unconditional love energy.
It is very selfish to love others for example. think of all those good feelings you might get from seeing people shine their light. how selfish. how selfish to clap when you see them cry from happiness as they reach to touch your hand.
How selfish it is to express a different opinion on a public board arousing conflict within another. How selfish it is to love just because it feels good.
and finally, how selfish it is to not want to have to explain everything you just said or to take your time over a lifetime to explain that none of have to explain, all we have to do is take it easy... :)  it amazes me why a soul would step into a physical life on this planet which is essentially limited consciousness expressing..then to find the meaning all I have to do is watch the sunrise or smell a flower and I'm blown away that is a good enough reason.
the funny thing is about life, what you deny it manifests. what you accept, it manifests too. so maybe its about having an open mind and considering all possibilities are neither right nor wrong, it's a movie called life.
love, alysia

Alysia, I love what you write here.  To be healthy in body, mind and spirit is how I would describe enlightenment because this would incorporate all of the bodies that we exist in from the highest spiritual levels of our being expressed through the physical levels of our being.

In this we enjoy our physical body senses, we love and honor ourselves and all living things, rational thought and intuition is in harmony, we understand that we are a part of a great evolutionary plan that is constantly unfolding, we experience spiritual ecstasy as we have wondrous feelings of divine love in feeling connected to all that there is.  All this can only be experienced within the self.

A question that I’ve been pondering as I read through this thread is…

If each of us were to allow the other complete freedom to live their life as they so chose, would selfishness even exist?

Love, Kathy

What you both say seems right on in that selflessness, enlightenment or whatever seems to entail a letting go to do what comes naturally - which in this case amounts to being motivated by care for others.

Once everybody is there then there's no need to worry about ourselves - somebody else will be looking out for us. This won't be some sort of passive hanging around deal - we'll still have to be very pro-active about looking after ourselves  - but now so that we don't cause unnecessary problems or aren't a burden for others.

The hard bit to figure is how we get there from where we are now  - given that most of us are to varying degrees driven by fear and ego. If we could drop this to allow others complete freedom then I suspect that any remaining small minority would in absence of competition eventually realise that we all need to co-operate and join in - they'd stop trying to use others.

But it's not straightforward. If for example say 5% of population did this they could well end up effectively being used as slaves. Luckily we don't individually have to figure it out, it's I think just a case that if we each do our bit that it will unfold.

But my guess is that it'll be gradual, that most of humanity is going to have to progressively raise its consciousness together...

Interesting thread, Bets-
I wonder if I might suggest a way to experience "selflessness", rather than trying to analyze it to death.

As a simple meditative example, some quiet night, when it's late (Alysia seems good at doing things during the wee hours, for example), sit and listen. Listen to the sound of the city, or to the creaking of the woodwork, or to the wind passing.  Listen so intently that all your senses are outward directed - and in that moment there will be silence within. The "ego-thought" ceases, and is replaced by the natural state of the mind, simple awareness. There is no "ego-self" in the awareness. This is the essence of jnana yoga.

As another example, next time you're at the gym, pick a nice heavy weight and lift it. As you lift, focus on the feeling of lifting. If it's heavy enough, you'll use all your effort and attention, and the inner world will be silent as everything focusses on the lifting. In that state there is no "ego-self", but only action. This is the essence of karma yoga.

Or perhaps it would be nice to relax in the evening and look up at the sky, the stars, the sweep of millions of stars scattered through the Milky Way. As your awareness directs your attention to them, notice that you and they are all one, and that you can sense a continuity by which everything is connected. There is no "ego-self" in that realization, but simply a sense of universal unity. This is the essence of bhakta yoga.

Of course there's more to yoga than a momentary experience. To live in a selfless state means that awareness, actions and identity stay permanently pointed in a non-ego direction. Then, the ultimate end state of this sequence is to share existence at the core of all reality, to be aware without caring who it is that is aware, and to sense everything as an undifferentiated experience of oneness. This is sarvastarka samadhi (more or less). The state of living in this manner is called satchitananda,

Having said all that, the point is that we all have had these expriences. There's nothing new here. That's why all the preceeding remarks are essentially valid. It is only because we have stopped being selfless and instead have become interested in this or that because of how we relate to it, how it makes us feel, what it seems to mean etc, that has brought us back to an egocentric state of attachment. In that sense, to be selfless simply means to not be attached - including not to be attached to one's own internal soap opera. ;-)

Because everyone seems to basically have this understanding, I'm struck by the degree of enlightenment of the folks on the forum - as well as the degree to which a lot of folks seem to be unaware of how spiritually advanced they actually are.  But that's a good selfless state of mind. :-)

d

;) You've gone and confused my ego now Dave - it can't decide whether you are complimenting us or not.  :) Or is it a Zen technique designed to induce doubt? Master???

Actually, it's more likely a case ofnot heeding good advice, like  "Better be silent and thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt. " But in the ego-less state, who could care?

My true intention was to confuse your ego less.

All that stuff can be gleaned from a quck review of the three basic yogas - but a nice reference is Stages of Meditation by the Dalai Lama. "Selflessness is understod by the wisdom that finds that both the perceiving mind and the perceived objects lack any self identity in the ultimate sense." (p 136)

The point I was making is that virtually  everyone seems to understand this. To understand means that we have the experience. To have the experience means that we are intrinsically selfless - except to the degree that we act otherwise.

When Fritz Perls was doing psychoanalysis, he used a Buddhistic paradigm in many respects, although it was called "gestalt". He identified several layers of self and attachment. To talk about the basic therapeutic process was sh*t. To talk about how we feel about the basic therapeutic process was bull sh*t. And to talk about others in the therapy group was elephant sh*t. Evidently, I have adequately fertilized the discussion. I think I better take my elephant and go home.

d

dave_a_mbs wrote on Nov 5^th, 2007 at 5:04pm:

To talk about how we feel about the basic therapeutic process was bull sh*t.

Wouldn't that be "meta-sh*t"?  

Also, what is it of you talk about how others in the group feel about the basic therapeutic process?  ;)

Anyay, I liked your simple examples of moments of selflessness.

:) Thanks Dave!

I admit that my info on this aspect of Fritz Perls was second hand - from a prof who was running the seminar when I was in school a century or so ago.  However, "meta-"  suggests that you're adding a second layer - maybe a howdah for the elephant?

Honestly, I think that the most difficult aspect of selflessness is to maintain an outward directed attitude without inserting judgement as things go by. This, if I interpret him correctly, is the central message of Krishnamurtis various discourses.

Another example, one that I often encounter in my office, is the person who comes in complaining about a terrible sex life because they seem to be totally inorgasmic. Unless it's a medical matter, the problem always is failure to "make love". Instead, they are putting on a spectacle for themselves, and while they are spectatoring about their performance etc, the moment slips away.  The path to transcendental love making is selflessness - in the sense of karma yoga in this case. You're going to "chop wood and cary water" (or it's like riding a bicycle if you prefer that idiom) but it has to be done without thinking about it, or all that's happening is that we chop our idea of wood and carry our idea of water. The therapy I usually suggest is to slow dance and stop worrying about where the feet are going. Pretty soon the idea gets through. From  8-)  to   ;D .

I'm not sure that the Dalai Lama would like that analogy, but it seems to work for me.

d

Thanks ALL !

Sure, involving our selves in speaking of self-lessness can get into a bit of  a predicament  but it's very fascinating to find the state described so wonderfully with such insights !

Now turn that elephant around, Dave, before we attempt to start describing that beast!   :D

Love, Bets

Good stuff.  ;) Go with the flow man....

thanks everyone good thread getting even more interesting; I can almost see all your faces in my mind  :) I so enjoy Dave's yoga talk and Ian's Buddha talk and Oliver's gentle probing mind, Kathy's well placed question, the way Bets celebrates life.
and you can let the elephant stay here Dave if I can just have my soap opera without being attached to the outcome.

just wanted to add something to Dave's post, about the attention when doing the weight lifting, this attention does, for a moment allow us to experience egolessness, or; non attachment to objective, and just let us be in the moment of experiencing.

what I call my guides can be seen as a persistent voice in my programmed brain, but I believe, or prefer to believe, and sometimes this is substantiated or verified within a nonordinary way, that we have helpers of nonphysical stature, and that they are necessarily perhaps, in a state of being of unselfishness, by the deliverance of reminders to the truth, which we may be forgetful, how to do this thing called life.

for instance, I used to be more impatient than I am now. it would cause me not to notice where my big toe was ending up. I would stub it. I felt I was in training many years how to walk. I would hear a voice say, place foot down, notice where foot is being placed..is there an obstruction to movement? if so, be conscious where foot is ending up..now that you have the right foot safely landed, place other foot slightly in front of the other..its called walking consciously. Believe it or not, when you do these exercises, and Dave's weight lifting example is just as good as mine, when u do these, you are training your internal energy body to remove the impatience.

from a religious perspective it could be seen to be walking with god. then if I were to say I do that, I would be asking that I can be graceful, or to have grace enter my body, but it has to find an inlet in my mental body also before it can enter the physical. then new age wise, a lot of us know about the now moment. being in the now moment would be also to place attention on the moment at hand, not on the future or thoughts of what we would like to attain and which is obviously not at hand, such thoughts belong to the ego, whose job it is to be perceiving lack.
the ego, call it selfish if you want, can be taught to perceive correctly. the ego is not a bad thing. how could we live here without a sense of identity which ego tries to provide by comparing yourself to others..(get over that!)
to train the ego to perceive correctly, here's how:

when ego says your cup is half empty say to ego, correction: my cup is half full.
to say it a different way, ego is defined in ACIM to either bring you news of a deficiency in your character or it will as often as not, cause you to define self as superior to these others it sees as separate from itself.  Neither perception of the ego is correct perception, but is limited and narrow, is why TMI coined the phrase that C1 consciousness is limited consciousness.

egolessness then can be seen as one begins to have a universal approach, everyone becomes like a long long friend as the oneness is perceived correctly, or to focus on the oneness, as opposed to maintaining the illusion that we are all separate (ego)

then u enter a training period where u begin to see we are all in truth one, and at first you just see that we are connected, and then the emotions begin to belie this truth, we are one universally and spiritually, so we are all responsible for one another, what we say to each other, we must take responsibility for clarifying that in our oneness, we desire health and to first do no harm, and these are intentions. sooner or later we can observe intentions behind mere words, then we can see we are one, when we share the self same intentions ..one by one. here's something I read, I posted on another thread an announcement of this Aussie's lady's website.
It gives us hope to consider, it may be true...


Interesting blog on myspace

{url}http://www.myspace.com/lightascension{/url}

The minimum number of people required to "jump-start" a change in consciousness is the square root of 1% of a population.
____

so dear lite Ian, I can sometimes hear you sigh over there. you are such a friend to me I decided maybe you would take some cheer from the above statement, and I always thought new thought to be effective would need 51% of the vote, or slightly over 50% to be effecting of the 100th monkey theory, but maybe not?

now for the million dollar question: what is the square root of 1% of a population of 6 billion?  :)

actually, I am not a numbers person, but I appreciate them that are. I am an ACIM student/teacher. In there it does say it only takes one savior to save the world. You.

because all those others are you also.

so if I want to love myself and kiss myself in the mirror, I am allowed to do that.
:D

The square root of  1% is 10%. ( .10 * .10 = .01) Sounds like a pretty fair estimate.

Alysia - that's as good a summary of Vipassana "walking meditation" as I've heard anywhere.

Using the same general idea in sitting meditation, the focal point can be moved from the effort of motion to the process of breathing, as if each breath is an utterance without words. Once the sense of inner silence is gained, and then stabilized, the ego-toolkit can be turned on and off as needed, such as when we need to solve an equation.

I recall a Tibetan author mentioning that all the temples in Lhasa were built "without thinking".

dave

I get a different result for what the square root of the population is.

A square root of a number is another number which multiplied by itself, makes the first number - like the square root of 9 is 3 (3x3=9).

1% of 6 billion is 60 million

the square root of this, is roughly 7,746

That's how it seems to me anyway.

Give yourself a kiss from me as well Alysia!  :-*

Thank you for that nice and bubbly but spot on post Alysia.  :) You're most certainly allowed to smoogie up the mirror. Didn't think I was sighing quite that loudly so that you could hear it from over here!!  ::) That said I'm probably more optimistic than i sometimes sound in my half empty moments.

That root of 1% of the population idea is interesting. My personal (C1 logic and proably fairly worthless) take on consciousness and what's needed to create some sort of lift off for humanity is that it doesn't need to be all that much to create a chink of light in the mind of most (having got an inkling I think they will then rapidly catch on), but it does need to be very widespread so that those manifesting right behaviours don't get abused and taken advantage of. (we're probably all in this boat together!)

But it's kind of amazing how people of high consciousness influence others around them - maybe that's the way it will work. Maybe too that's the one is all, all is one factor at work - celestial broadband.

You've got ego pretty well taped. I guess discursive mind or intellect is fine once it's calmed to the point where as you say it's just a resource to be used when needed and then put away again. It's when  it's doing the mad monkey bit and grasping (can't stay with your body, or jumps to conclusions about the past or the future and so on) that things get out of shape. I found out the hard way just how it can make you ill just by focusing me too much in my intellect - the energy goes where the attention is, and other functions suffer accordingly.

The quite wonderful fact is that meditation truly does work in this regard....

[quote author=dave_a_mbs link=1193927314/15#22 date=1194386373]The square root of  1% is 10%. ( .10 * .10 = .01) Sounds like a pretty fair estimate.

Alysia - that's as good a summary of Vipassana "walking meditation" as I've heard anywhere.
____

Interesting about Vipassana Dave. I compare Vipassana to the devout priests and nuns who walk about "praying without ceasing."
I have this little habit which seems natural now, which developed from several years back regarding my expressions on this board. I hear in my head my own post being repeated back to me sometimes word for word. I think it is our collective mind I am participating in when this happens. sometimes I am lucky enough to perceive who is about to respond to a post, and I'll come here and I have verification that it was the person I saw in my mind, and it was our connection point.
I am grateful when this happens because I sense PUL operating. well, gratitude is PUL if you ask me. it is not clairaudience though. I wouldn't want clairaudience all the time, it shocks a little.
_____
Dave said:
Using the same general idea in sitting meditation, the focal point can be moved from the effort of motion to the process of breathing, as if each breath is an utterance without words. Once the sense of inner silence is gained, and then stabilized, the ego-toolkit can be turned on and off as needed, such as when we need to solve an equation.

I recall a Tibetan author mentioning that all the temples in Lhasa were built "without thinking".
___________
When I did my karaoke thing, the same principle was involved; sing without thinking about how to sing. thats when we had the most fun!
In Bruce's books the breath is used a lot, and in most meditations mention is made of the breath. The breath can be seen as the wind of god. we wouldn't even be alive physically without the breath..and seems like meditation is always about life and death.

there was a few years back a thought which would come out of the blue to me which put me into instant meditation. I suppose we all might have a trigger like this at some time in life. It's almost like the thought came from the outside and was placed in my head intermittently, and when it came in it created a space where I floated for a minute in wonderment before getting grounded back into whatever I had to get done.

It was just this: "I'm alive."
to take it a little further, the voice would say "who is it that is alive and how much of you is enjoying being you, being here now?"

hard to impart the flavor of that mini meditation but I was always pleasantly shocked and it was like spirit was bringing me a map, pointing to the map and saying "you are here."

it often caused me to reflect, if I am alive and here now, where else would I be but here, and what does it mean to be alive and to feel totally alive? then what does it mean to feel deadened to sensory input? I think we all know what that feels like!
thanks Dave. nice chatting witcha!

orlando123 wrote on Nov 6^th, 2007 at 7:17pm:

I get a different result for what the square root of the population is. A square root of a number is another number which multiplied by itself, makes the first number - like the square root of 9 is 3 (3x3=9). 1% of 6 billion is 60 million the square root of this, is roughly 7,746 That's how it seems to me anyway. Give yourself a kiss from me as well Alysia!  :-*

____
u must be good at math Oliver, so question: do we need 7, 746 people to be in agreement before a worldwide change is felt in physical reality?
at first I thought it was 60 million folks.
:-*  this icon is me in the mirror the other day. I'll take your advice!

author=vajra - Thank you for that nice and bubbly but spot on post Alysia.  :) You're most certainly allowed to smoogie up the mirror. Didn't think I was sighing quite that loudly so that you could hear it from over here!!  ::) That said I'm probably more optimistic than i sometimes sound in my half empty moments.
___
I think you are one of our hard workers Ian. not pessimistic. just a hard worker.
_____

That root of 1% of the population idea is interesting. My personal (C1 logic and proably fairly worthless) take on consciousness and what's needed to create some sort of lift off for humanity is that it doesn't need to be all that much to create a chink of light in the mind of most (having got an inkling I think they will then rapidly catch on), but it does need to be very widespread so that those manifesting right behaviours don't get abused and taken advantage of. (we're probably all in this boat together!)
____
I see your chain of thought somewhat Ian and I understand. you need not worry about being abused or taken advantage of if we can master the subconscious field, not of the other person, but your own subconscious, and my own I mean. people pick up things on subconscious levels, even body language betrays what u are really thinking while the mouth may be saying different. what I mean in other words, it is impossible to be abused unless there is a pattern of guilt being held within the subconscious mind which invites abuse..thats because you can instantly change the negative thought into the positive thought, which changes the other person's reactionary pattern.

when out of body this happens also..that u may float in your light body and come across a dark being..as your light permeates into the dark field, the dark field becomes lighter..in order for the dark being to continue being dark they must flee from the light as they are feeling exposed or naked..I think that's why people go to their own bst's (belief system territories) as each bst sustains it's own peoples, in various states of light and color as spirits.
have u ever noticed though that bad things do happen to good people? it all depends on what u think is not good. to the oversoul, what happened that didn't seem right was exactly what that soul needed to push it into another brighter pathway and affirm for itself what reality it would be choosing for itself through its will and forethought.
I know, seems crazy sometimes, the disharmony that happens. it seems we thrive on the contrast here and go thru these conflicting belief systems and have to throw some of our head trips away, keeping what feels right and what serves higher purposes better.
Ian said:
- celestial broadband.
____

I like that term! did u make it up? I'm going to remember that one!
____

Ian said:  I found out the hard way just how it can make you ill just by focusing me too much in my intellect - the energy goes where the attention is, and other functions suffer accordingly.
_____

agreed. intellect is fine, our society thinks intellect is more important than emotions; I think they are both equally important expressions or tools of awareness. what u said about energy going where attention is at...precisely correct statement. what outpictures is what is being focused on in C1..and there is much indeed to choose from to focus on!

u r very open minded Ian, so I want to share some very special tool thoughts that I came across which I experimented with to my benefit. I'm straying away from personal accounts of my experiences a bit here because I think you might also enjoy these thoughts as much as I did. Some of us here towards eastern flavor meditations.
___
4/9/03 the Pathway: (Cozzolini) THE POWER IS HELD IN THE ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHERE WE FOCUS OUR ATTENTION as to what our experience will be.
____
your head must not be larger than your heart (I made this up  :)
____
FROM Elias: (not exact quote, expect my coloring)  expectations limit your method.   your choice follows the direction of your desire. your desire is the movement of your intent.
_____
ELIAS: (this is exact quote) you are creating an actual flesh and blood individual through your perception, therefore you are creating the individuals state of being.
now as you have stated and have allowed an awareness of,
this individual quite efficiently REFLECTS to you what you create inwardly. now allow yourself the genuine view; this individual IS you, for this individual is your creation as a REFLECTION of you.
_____

you shall be free fractionarily; for time is that fraction of eternity. source unknown.
___
the following I believe is mostly Gibran with my thought at the end:
you will laugh, but not all your laughter, you will cry, but not all your tears, you will think, but not all your thoughts, you will feel, but not all your feelings, you will die, but not all your deaths, you will climb all your mtn peaks and plummet all your vallys, yet not all of them in a single life.
take my hand so that we do this together and throw me not away, for too soon it seems, I become someone else’s life. (reincarnation)
____
*RA:  This is the only place of forgetting. It is necessary for the 3rd density entity to forget what it really is so that the mechanisms of confusion or free will may operate upon the newly individuated consciousness complex. (B1, 193)
___
*RA: The entity which reaches intelligent infinity most often will perceive this experience as one of unspeakable profundity. It is not unusual for the entity to immediately desire the cessation of the incarnation. (read about NDE folks regarding returning to Earth)
_____

I didn't find the thing I wanted in my notes for you..but it was basically what you already said..the focus, your attention where you place it is also your desire. the mind follows the attention, where one focus's the most often, so if you are one pointed about an area of your life, that is where you will see the most creativity taking place.
love, alysia