Thanks for the response Albert. Yes, it could be as you say, although it can be true together with the possibility/theory of the "one-I-function" I have outlined. You wrote:

>>>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.<<<

And exactly these enhanced abilities of having access to knowledge is what makes me wonder about the meaning of "I". Sometimes in meditation, when I communicate with helpers or my higher self, I feel I'm an open book, already read by my communication partner. It seems indeed, there is the ability to have access to all memories of another being. This leaves me questioning about how true the viewpoint is at all, that "I" am "here", the "other" is "there", while we could totally share all our experiences we have ever had. Because it turns out then, there is no difference in experiences anymore, and what is left is the difference of the viewpoint- me "here", the other "there", only this, and this is a strange thing, as it is nothing with a content, nothing substantial, but only a sort of meta-function.
  Another example to illustrate this is the old problem of the continuity of a person. We're used to say that we're the same person now than we were yesterday, when we're saying "Yesterday I did this and that, and today I do this and that". In another meaning, we're not the same, because since yesterday we have gathered new memories, and our bodies changed a bit. From this, what remains the same, the "I", is independent from our experiences, memories, personal history and is a mysterious kind of empty viewpoint. (This fits with the old philosophic statement that everything which is composed and has extension, is subject to change and nonpermanent, and only what is non-composed and not extended is eternally the same)

So, apparently we can think in two ways of an evolution of individual spirits. Greater awareness and enhanced means of access to all sorts of knowledge and experiences can lead to
1. An (only seemingly) merging of "I"s through total sharing of memories, or
2. An ever refining development of individuality.

Or maybe it's both, somehow. I have heard of experiences of altered states, and some of my own experiences went in the same direction, where one is embedded in the whole like a sort of relais-station, sharing all data of the whole network and processing them. Maybe the whole network is like a resonator, depending of all it's parts, and the sum is fed back to all the parts of it, so that finally one can't really speak of "parts" and "the whole" as it is so closely interdependent.

These thoughts are not mere sophistication or theorization for me, it's as real as thinking about what to have for breakfast.

To Dave: To be entirely without attachments is incompatible with being physically alive, isn't it? As one needs to care about many things to stay alive.

Spooky

Alysia:

I know of a lot of well meaning people who went to see false gurus not because they wanted a false guru, but because they were sincere about spiritual growth.  Because of their trusting nature, they would for years diligently apply themselves to teachings that won't completely accomplish what they are looking for. Often these teachings point them in the wrong direction.

False gurus aren't like a bartender who tries to talk a drunk patron out of one last drink. They are like drug pushers who try to get people to have a snort.


LaffingRain wrote on Jan 3^rd, 2008 at 1:58am:

Spooky:

I figure knowledge is one thing, and taking on self definition by limiting thought patterns is another. I figure a higher self/disk consciousness isn't limited by the various personalities its various selves have manifested. By the time a consciousness gets to the point where it can create additional selves for learning purposes, it has reached the point where it knows how to make use of thought energy without being limited by it.

I figure that when a self returns to its disk, it develops the ability to learn with the same freedom that a disk consciousness learns with.  

I've found that there are two ways of understanding. Either we can understand something intellectually, or we can open ourselves to universal mind and understand in a way that is certain. When we do the latter, we don't get bogged down in psychological conditioning.

Like you, I've found that my higher self sees me as an open book. It doesn't miss a thing. There is no way it could understand me so completely,  if wasn't able to see me in a comprehensive way that didn't include the limitations of psychological conditioning, nor a way of thinking that is limited to thought by thought thinking.

Snoopy - Excellent point. How to live without being involved in the living process? I have a possibly limited perspective here, but it seems to work.  For some reason I think of a chicken leaving its egg behind. Or the worm that suffers through the ending of the world, only to wake next day as a butterfly with no thought of its cocoon.

This seems to be a sequence. The animal aspect of our being is conditioned, so it really is not only attached, but it is of the nature of attachments, a wholly contingent assemblage. And we start out believing in the animal nature of our own being, and we set up all manner of contingent interactions by which to enhance and glorify it.

But in time we abandon ideas about being a body and go on to being a mind, and to being a spiritual essence. Bodhicitta, love for our fellows, arises, and we sense that the universality of sentient existence ties us all together, and we  act in a manner that expresses our inner joy and enthusiasm, as if we were at the center of creation. Eventually, we just accept what comes, That doesn't negate our values and preferences, since those take their value from acting as extensions of our situation. That is, we don't suddenly stick our fingers in a flame, or look for some tasty bathroom cleanser to sprinkle on our corn flakes. Nor do we obsess about it. We just go on and do whatever seems appropriate. "Chop wood, carry water," so to say.

My feeling is that attachment to life is better expressed by the long line of Poor Me types lined up at the pharmacy counter for the latest curatives, hoping to extend their lives by another ten minutes. It's not that they're wrong - they aren't. But they seem to be so involved with quantity that the notion of quality is lost, and everything devolves into struggling for one more day of mechanical support for a spark that would have naturally died out years ago.

By contrast - I'm aware that I'm slowly dying of a combination of cardiac insufficiency and bad lungs and I get a bit pissy when I can't breathe, or when I bend an arthritic joint the wrong direction, But I have far too much to do do spend time over it. It isn't worth worrying about. So I go off to have fun - at present I'm having a blast setting up a restaurant, which involves a huge real estate reshuffling to pay for it. Our chef just had a new baby, Angelo, my wife has a new house, I have some fun toys. I might drop off the planet to morrow, but today is fun.

I recall some Tibetan who mentioned that when they get the impression that a new building was needed, they simply went out and built it. And it was done "without thinking".

So the question that I sense here is whether the fire that burns the wood is attached to the wood, or is the wood merely an incidental bit of furniture through which the fire expresses its nature?

Alysia - To paraphrase you inaccurately, I like the analogy of the phoenix a bit more than being a barnacle on something's bottom, but that is pretty close to the way it looks to me as well.  Baenacles start life as freely floating little guys. Then they get attached to what they hope is solid and they cling to it relentlessly, because they see nothing else. (Talk about a BST!) I don't think that a "nice person" like you has abandoned hope to the extent of barnacleization. (Hm, makes me want to scratch my backside.)

IMHO this forum is hardly a rock of solidity. I view it more as a location over which a rather fierce fire is burning. As we abandon old perspectives and adopt new ones, we effectively release the old world and take on the new. This seems to be a natural path. We start in freedom and ignorance, attach to something, including false teachers (there's only One ultimate teacher anyhow), then drop off again and float away in a world of renewed freedom in which attachments are unnecessary.

R- my thought was based on the common observation of people saying things like, "Love is everything." That's a bhakta perspective. It isn't incorrect, but neither is it complete.

Agreed, satchitananda is classically defined as "the perfection of existence, awareness and blissfulness" - known as a realized state of being. These are just the three gunas in revised form, rajas = satyam = karma yoga, tamas = anandam = bhakta yoga, and sattva = chittam = jnana yoga. The inference is that we can get by without paying undue attention to any of these worldly factors, which is the goal of the three generic yogas. It's a three way un-attachment, so to say. What strikes me as most valuable about this is that perfection is not at all required. It seems that all we need is to be adequate, to cut down on the major issues, and things improve immediately, and to the degree that we have limited our demands and attachments.

Evidently, in sarvastarka samadhi we all have essentially the same experience. There are no contradictions, everything is explained, everything is obvious etc. - When everything is known, how can anything be asked? - Actually, I sort of felt stupid that I couldn't think of a suitable question, and of course when the perspective changes, so does access to the answers.

Dave said: Alysia - To paraphrase you inaccurately, I like the analogy of the phoenix a bit more than being a barnacle on something's bottom
_____
hi Dave, I like to use funny sounding phrases but I realize nobody is going to enjoy reading my posts as much as I enjoy reading the funny things (to me) that pops up to mind. sometimes I'll get a word in my head even and I don't know where I got it from; I'll look in the dictionary to see what it means. actually, in the back of my mind I realize I need this place to talk to you guys. I just got a thud sound in my gut when I wrote that so it must be true. so I should clarify, I am here, I choose to be here and I'm not a barnacle really, I'm more than sea life. funny, I just realized I'm not really attached as I thought I was. so I suppose we all grow in our way here, to be writing to each other this way, seems to sprout up new thoughts and is energizing.
and besides, having spent most of my life being pretty much the introvert of the universe, I now feel the need to be gabby with like minded. I'm working on the sense of humor if you will cut me some slack on that.
_____

Dave said
IMHO this forum is hardly a rock of solidity. I view it more as a location over which a rather fierce fire is burning.
____
well I agree it's pretty hot in here sometimes.
____
Dave said;

R- my thought was based on the common observation of people saying things like, "Love is everything." That's a bhakta perspective. It isn't incorrect, but neither is it complete.
_____
well hmmm. maybe it's like a superficial comment to say love is everything and such comments are so easy to toss out as they lose their meaning. take the song title for instance "Love is just a Four Letter Word."
this bothered me, it might be true! haha! well come to find out its true, yet move along into another perspective on what love is, and it becomes false, or incomplete statement.

if we are beings who are perpetually in the act of becoming, which seems to be the case what with a fire burning now...lol...then one could miss the inference altogether that Love is Everything. what a tacky statement. I think I'm the one who said it! lol!

It's because love is my focus point of my mind. one time I had an affirmation. it said "I wish to see only love." then I fell asleep and dreamed. in the dream I heard a voice. It spoke as if it knew what it was talking about. It said "when you wish to see only love, you will see only god."

so then what is god? I wonder if he's in the dictionary? lol!!! oh oh there goes my bad sense of humor again. anyhoo, when the mind seeks to see and find something within it's experience which can anchor the heart and give meaning to our struggles here, the mind will follow the attention. pretty soon, love began popping up everywhere because I wished to see it.

then that brings up a whole new kettle of fish, about what exactly is "attention?"

it might be construed as being in a state of receptive expectation, yet without attachments to the outcome. because I always believed that it was true, in the bible, that whatever you ask for believing, you will receive. I used to call it faith, until someone said, we're not talking about faith anymore; gee whiz, alysia, what century did you come from?

love you guys, and I feel perfectly free to delare Im an emotional gal.

Yes Albert, the relationship of the disk-members to their disk is a keypoint of this whole issue. It is a difficult step, at least for me, to get a first-hand impression of what the disk-perspective feels like. Sometimes I suspect I have tapped into it without realizing it while having the experience, and this could be because the "I" perspective was still there during it, and simply because I connect the I-perspective with my earthly person I become not aware that I'm already experiencing from a way greater "I" than just my projected little earthly "I".
  And when you tell about the two ways of understanding, the intellectual one and the certain one, the latter seems to indicate to me (as I'm a bit spoiled by western philosophy) the vanishing of the subject-object difference; when someone thinks that there are things around, this one can always doubt them, how far these things are distorted by the individual perception/beliefs, while when there are no "things around", but here, within me, where I am, than those doubts cannot arise.

Dave, you make me remember what I was always fascinated of, when I watched eastern martial arts movies or read Lao-Tse: This "let it happen" way; the less force, the more effect. The art then is to really LET it flow. From this perspective, the average person or the pupil is an energy-flow-hinderer, while the master is the energy-flow-allower. I really like the idea of letting unfold amazing powers while being relaxed.

Spooky