Spooky:

Responses within double quotation marks below.


[quote author=spooky2 link=1198867968/0#8 date=1198975544]Hi Recoverer and all,

I have thought on a closely related topic this way:
 The relationship of the "I" and it's memories: For a person in the usual sense there are special memories needed. But for the more basic "I" / "here" / "me" it doesn't seem so, it is more that this "I" is providing the possibility of memory in the first place, so that it is that the "I" "has" or "owns" memories, but would be still there without them, though not easy to imagine. Imagine someone would give his/her memories to you, directly, so that you really had that memories, like first-hand memories. You, or more precise, your "I" would still be there, only with more memories. Imagine all memories of all people would melt into one. Surprisingly, only one "I" would be sufficient for all these memories, without a loss. How is this possible? It is because the pure "I", without memories, is always the same, as it is something like a state, a function, and all "I"s are the same. So, it is possible to merge with everything and everyone without losing the "I", as the "I" is the same in everyone. (Of course, it doesn't fit with the "many mansions", unless it is meant the personal origin of memories endures, like "these memories once are gathered under the person of Charles Smith" or so)

""Think of the one self as a large room with many computer terminals. Each computer has the capability to make use of thoughts, even if they have none to deal with. Replace digital computers with bio computers in the form of human minds. Each mind has the ability to make use of thoughts, even if they have no thoughts to be aware of.

If it is possible that energy can be used to create physical computers and bio computers, isn't it possible that energy can be used to create spirit computers/souls/individual "Is?" How precisely a source being would do such a thing, I don't know. However, I figure that disks, planning intelligences and even higher levels of intelligence are quite crafty, and can use energy in just about any way they want, even if a guru who doesn't know about their existence claims that they don't exist.

When in human form, "Is" tend to be quite limited. When they progress further, usually sometime after death, they find out that there is much more to an "I' than meets the eye.  They'll find that they are connected to disks/I-theres/Soul groups/whatever name you like to use, and they'll have access to all kinds of memories/information that they'll be able to make use of according to need. They'll find that it is possible to make use of knowledge in a manner that is so wise and loving, that no need to negate the existence of an "I" comes into being.

Through all of this each I will find out that it is is connected to many "Is" including source I, at a divine center of consciousness and creative energy that had an instant where it wasn't modified.  Since time didn't exist at such an instant, it doesn't make sense to say for how long source being existed in such an unmodified state""



 Your guidance-experienced is quite interesting Recoverer. Those persons we are close to, we might think it is easier to be "one" with them; but it can appear as quite opposite, this closeness can make us aware of the differences in the personalities, while with strangers we don't know so well there is not this hindering threshold. In the terms of my thoughts above, when you look at the person, the personal memories and, following, attitudes, the difference between persons might be emphasized, while looking at the unity of the "I" function and the, at least in theory possible direct-sharing of memories, the oneness of all is emphasized.

""I get what you're saying. I also figure it is a matter of seeing that a person I define in a limited way, is actually an unformed being who makes use of its experiences in various ways.

Think of it this way. Quite often we view people as the body based people they appear to be.  The soul that occupies a person's body could've just as well occupied another body, and seem to be a completely different person.  If one wants to see a self/soul as it actually is, one needs to be able to see beyond the appearances of a particular person, and see that there is a divine soul that exists in a manner that is far beyond what body based personas are about.""

 Thanks Dave, your brief comments are so clear. The difficulty, as it appears to me, is simply that it can seem that you have nothing "to lean on" without all these (or at least one) things which we're used to deal with in the physical life. So, we have to get used to "emptiness" without looking for "something" to hold on.

""The question is, is there just one self that has nothing to lean on, or one self and the many souls it created that have nothing to lean on? I've had meditations where I saw that I wasn't a particular persona, yet I knew that I was still somehow distinct from Spooky, Alan, Vajra, Alysia, Dave, Betson and others.  For example, I don't know what you had for breakfast this morning.

On the other hand, what if beings develop to the point where they know how to live according to love and wisdom.  Wouldn't such an ability be something to lean on?""



Recoverer wrote: "How can one self fully experience love and oneness if there is nobody to share it with?"
 Ultimately, if there is only one, one can share love with oneself, and it would be allright. It is like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" in the state of oneness.

""Perhaps one being could spend all of eternity loving itself and no one else. Perhaps this one being figured it would be much more fun if many other beings, perhaps infinite in number, got to join in on the fun. Perhaps this is where the reproductive instinct really comes from. Some might say that the urge to reproduce is simply a survival of the speices thing. Perhaps some of us want to share the gift of life with others, and have others to share love with. If in the end existence can be a wonderfully joyous thing rather than just a bunch of suffering, why not?""  

Albert

Alysia:

Here is where I hooked up with you. You love life, and I love life. You love to love others, and I love to love others. Therefore, there is no need to get rid of each of us for the sake of sophistry.

I don't know about what Leadbetter had to say about Buddha; however, I must not state that even if all gurus are false (??), they aren't all the same.  There are many gurus who have had spiritual experiences. The thing is, having spiritual experiences and being a master of one's self, aren't the same. It could be that some gurus incarnated into the World in order to help out, but somewhere along the line they became more interested in having a life style where they are put on a pedestal and treated as an all knowing master, rather than keeping their attention focussed on their divine purpose.

Consider the main false guru I knew. I could tell that he had some bonified spiritual experiences. Unfortunately, he decided to play the role of guide for others, before he completed the business of taking care of himself. Eventually the parts of self he never took care of, started to get the best of him.

Many false gurus don't fall within these parameters. They are simply people who get off on controlling and manipulating others, being put on a pedestal, and making lots of money in a dishonest way.

Recoverer wrote: "How can one self fully experience love and oneness if there is nobody to share it with?" 
  Ultimately, if there is only one, one can share love with oneself, and it would be allright. It is like "love your neighbour as you love yourself" in the state of oneness. 

""Perhaps one being could spend all of eternity loving itself and no one else. Perhaps this one being figured it would be much more fun if many other beings, perhaps infinite in number, got to join in on the fun. Perhaps this is where the reproductive instinct really comes from. Some might say that the urge to reproduce is simply a survival of the speices thing. Perhaps some of us want to share the gift of life with others, and have others to share love with. If in the end existence can be a wonderfully joyous thing rather than just a bunch of suffering, why not?"
____
  this is where the idea of free will or choice in which direction to look is taken. we can choose to suffer, or we can choose to share with others our love.
I think what I love about this life, is saying out loud I love you. theres something about speaking the word..that way. there are many cannot say I love you. so I can say that, then they might remember they can choose to see love.

great summation R, on a great thread and maybe we aren't finished fattening it up yet!

I continue to have the most joyous communion with all of you whom I see as one with me.

[quote author=dave_a_mbs link=1198867968/0#9 date=1198992630]I recall listening to the Dalai Lama speaking on one of the sutras, and emphasizing that there is nothing permanent in the world. Since "beginningless time" it seems that there has been what Alan Watts called a "peopleing tendency" - the world tending to make people come out of emptiness. In fact, the world itself came out of emptiness. Since al created things are aggregates, and since the nature of aggregates is to fall apart, nothing is permanent.

Dave: The above shows that we aren't saying the same thing. In fact, it clearly points to one of the main points about Eastern "philosophies" I don't agree with.  According to the above, there is no such thing as an eternal self/soul. All of us go through what we go through, until we commit spiritual suicide and think our way out of existence. In the end there will be just one large self that won't have room for the illusion of the rest of us. Therefore, the above approach is "nihilistic."

Where is the basis for saying that it isn't possible for intelligent light beings to learn to work with energy in a way so they can create an eternal experiencer?  Because personalities change? Because things like molecules have half lives and degrade? Personalities may change, but this doesn't mean that the parcels of consciousness that experience personalites stop being the parcels of awareness and creative energy they are. As long as the energy to do so remains, what is to prevent a parcel of consciousness from using its knowledge to prolong its existence to its heart's content?

Dalai Lama: "Excuse me sir (while speaking to a soul), it is time for you to think your way out of existence."

Soul: "But why dear Lama, I love my existence, and I have learned to use the creative power given to me by God, to live a wonderful life of love and light?"

Dalai Lama: "Because the Buddha said life is suffering."

Soul: "Dear Lama, many years ago I used to experience sufffering, but life is so wonderfully glorious now, I couldn't imagine giving it up. I ran into the Buddha the other day, and he has found the same.  It is true that energy can be used to create impermanent things such as personalities.  But this doesn't mean that a soul can't gain the knowledge that will enable it to experience a life of eternal perfection. It goes through the personality experiences it goes through, so it can gain the knowledge that will help it find a way to eternal perfection, that wouldn't be possible if self extinction was the final goal."    

Albert

referring to R's last comment in regards to Dave's more scientific view  this is why I found retrievals of self so helpful to my own growth.

Retrievals both of others and of the self, makes a person integrate their self into a whole person operating with full consciousness of who they were, who they are, and who they will become, as linear time becomes meaningless, as these 3 time inferences become one thing, when you remember an experience, instead of denying it did happen, and now you can deal with it, integrate it, and accept it did happen, so you rise above it that way, ending the suffering of denial, and it's easier to be loving others when you are whole, complete and accounted for, with no complaints.
In every person's life will come a time when suffering is not. even a belief system crash can be experienced as a type of suffering.
go thru enough crashes, it's like falling off a log after awhile, if one does not cling on to the old thoughts, the old ideas.
Buddhism does not advocate suffering any more than Christianity with it's pick up your cross idea.
R is right, when he says we do evolve into better quarters, thats precisely why we are here, that and it's a chance to make something out of yourself, or something out of nothing.
we all know you think Buddhism sucks R. go ahead and have the last word. I'll quit now.
take care of yourself.
love rules...

funny guy R 

while you put forth your interpretation, you tend to place our friend Dave beneath your own utterances.
you are insensitive and disrespectful of other's beliefs. Dave has admitted he has never journeyed to heaven. Still, look at his contributions..he gives what he has, nothing more. I do not interpret his aggregates as less of a contribution to the whole of this board than your contribution story of your night in heaven. both are equally interesting, and both of you have good intentions that I can see through the words.

what I think u r missing, is you offer only your interpretation of Buddhism while someone offers their own interpretation.


Every one here has an opinion worth reading, or a question, or a poem, or a bit of something or other. I come from some mystical journeys, all quite personal, very difficult to put in words. everyone offers just their beliefs or their interpretations of those beliefs under discussion.

I sometimes am privileged to get emails from people whom cannot feel free to post their thoughts in public. Ian has undergone a transformation for the better he tells me in private. he was very ill before his Buddhistic study. he needed a place to write his story and his love of the transformational value of his studies.
whats it to you if Buddhism actually helped him? This forum is supposed to be about TMI, to my way of thinking, instead, we are drawing all sorts of people with all sorts of beliefs, we should let them have their say despite we may object to their philosophy.

Religion, Buddhism, physics discussions, whatever it is, it won't go away just because we object or condemn it. theres room for everyone here or there.

but at the least, I do believe we are all in agreement about the continuing of the soul despite any rumors you may have come across to the opposite, most of us don't pay attention to the idea of annhiliation as a possibility.

I think we should give Dave some credit, as he said he's about as psychic as his left shoe, yet he comes here and never once put me or Juditha down for some of things we profess as experiences...he's willing to learn from us. that, my friend, is what I call PUL in expression. he doesn't have to be psychic. I'll see him in heaven.

and as for our Buddhist who claims not to be a Buddhist fully, he's doing just fine in the PUL dept too. for some reason he trusted me, to tell me his story, and to remind me even, that the pen is a sword, and can cut deep, then I would have to pay the cost, I realized, of a careless word.
He trusted me, he guided me. He is something else, and doesn't even know of his great light, as it effects me. he's too humble.

you, R, will not know of humbleness for you can only speak against something, you do not speak for others. nor see their love, that they would give to you in a new york minute if you only would let them.

In my back yard there are several paths leading back into the bush. I can take ony of them I desire. The fact that there are multiple worldlines connecting me to my yard, hence parallel universes, does not mean that we need to experience all of them at once. We choose the one we want, and the other potentialities are either not experienced at all, or they are only experienced as dreams, fantasies and speculations.

Non-attachment does not mean that we are apathetic. Instead, it means that we are carefree. The key to be successfully carefree is that one must have good taste, the innate knowledge of how to avoid unpleasant or inappropriate things.  I drink a glass of water without becming attached to it. So in place of being ultra serious ands mooning forever over the possibility of suffering, we just don't have to go there. It's more fun just to do that whih is appropriate, without concern, and in full faith that we are doing the best that can be done at that moment.

The reason that this is so difficult is that we tend to be greedy, which means attachment, and that runs off into self-delusion about values and goals, choices that are contingent and thus not free, and then we devlop a competitive posture which interferes with love etc. To not care, but to retain good taste, seems to be all we really need. Then we can do that which appears most useful, have fun doing it, and not get all hung up in stuff. That's the idea of sat-chit-ananda - it's an actual state of being in the world, based on non-attachment.

dave