Conversation Board - One self and souls

- Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Bruce's 5th book, a Home Study Course, is now available.
Books & Tapes by Bruce Moen
Bruce's Blog now at http://www.afterlife-knowledge.com/blog....

Home

Help

Conversation Board › Forums › Afterlife Knowledge › One self and souls

(Moderator: Vicky)

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3

One self and souls (Read 13557 times)

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

One self and souls
Dec 28^th, 2007 at 2:52pm

This post is sort of a continuation of a conversation some of us had. It is about whether each of us is a self/soul that continues for all of eternity. Below are words of the Buddha:

From the Diamond Sutra (Edward Conze's translation):

2a. The Vow of a Bodhisattva
3. The Lord (Buddha) said: Here, Subhuti, someone who has set out in the vehicle of a Bodhisattva should produce a thought in this manner: "As many beings as there are in the universe of beings, comprehended under the term 'beings'--egg-born, born from a womb, moisture born, or miraculously born; with or without form; with perception, without perception, and with neither perception nor non-perception--as far as any conceivable form of beings is conceived: all these I must lead to Nirvana, into that Realm of Nirvana which leaves nothing behind. And yet, although innumerable beings have thus been led to Nirvana, no being at all has been led to Nirvana. And why? If in a Bodhisattva the notion of a 'being' should take place, he could not be called a 'Bodhi-being.' And why? He is not to be called a Bodhi-being, in whom the notion of a self or of a being should take place, or the notion of a living soul or of a person.""

From "The Heart of Perfect Wisdom" (sometimes known as the Heart sutra):
"There are the five skandhas, and those he sees in their own being as empty. Here, O Sariputra, form is emptiness and the very emptiness is form; emptiness is no other than form, form is no other than emptiness; whatever is form that is emptiness, whatever is emptiness that is form. The same is true of feelings, perceptions, impulses and consciousness. Thus, O Sariputra, all dharmas are empty of own-being, are without marks; they are neither deficient nor complete. Therefore then, O Sariputra, where there is emptiness there is no form, no feeling, no perception, no impulse, no consciousness, no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body or mind; no form, no sound, no smell, no taste, no touchable, no object of mind; no sight-organ element, etc., until we come to : no mind-consciousness element; there is no ignorance, no extinction of ignorance, etc. until we come to: there is no old age and death, no extinction of old age and death; there is no suffering, no origination, no stopping, no path; there is no cognition, no attainment and no non-attainment.

Therefore then, O Sariputra, owing to a Bodhisattva's indifference to any kind of personal attainment he dwells as one who has relied solely on the perfecton of wisdom. In the absence of an objective support to his thought he has not been made to tremble, he overcome what can upset, in the end sustained Nirvana......

Therefore one should know the Prajnaparamita as the great spell, the spell of great knowledge, the utmost spell, the unequalled spell, allayer of all suffering, in truth--for what could go wrong?"

Without getting into what precisely it is that has the above understanding since there is supposedly nothing to have such an understanding, it is important to understand that the Buddha viewed life as suffering. He considered it important to bring our illusion of life to an end, so we would no longer suffer.

I used to love the above sort of teaching. Eventually, things developed to the point where I found that life isn't about thinking ourselves out of existence, it is about embracing the challenge of becoming beings who can live eternally as beings of happiness, peace, spiritual freedom, wisdom and love.

Jesus Christ said something that goes along with my way of thinking.

In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you. (John 14:1-3)"

According to the no individual self viewpoint there is no need for many mansions, because there won't be any souls to occupy these mansions.

My spirit guidance enabled me to have the following experience this morning.

I was walking on a city street (not physically). I felt very happy and excited, because I understood that there is only one self. I hugged complete strangers and they hugged me back, because they also understood that there is only one self. There was no need for our existence nor the city we walked in to dissolve into pure awareness, because our uniqueness and the manifested part of existence didn't prevent us from being one self.

Then something funny happened. I leaned forward to hug my mom, and didn't experience oneness. I didn't experience it because I approached her according to my ideas of relating to mom, rather than seeing her as another part of the one self. Next, a lady and I approached each other with sexual attraction in play. This prevented us from perceiving each other as parts of the one self.

The above experiences goes along with other experiences/messages I have received. We don't need to wish ourselves out of existence in order to be one with each other. We simply need to see each other as unique spirit beings who are a part of a larger self.

IP Logged

dave_a_mbs

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #1 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 4:20pm

Hi R-
In interpretation of the Prajnaparamita Sutra etc it is necessary to be aware of the context. Siddhartha was a Brahmin, a high caste Hindu, and very much embedded in the philosophy of his day. The basic thrust of his teaching is readily paraphrased from the four noble truths - (1) life is imperfect, hence everything involves some degree of disappointment, discomfort, or in general, suffering. Ex: You have food. It's good. You eat it. Now you have no more. That ends the good feeling and replaces it with lack and the need to find more. That's a darn nuisance = suffering.

(2) Suffering comes from attachments - and those are always attachments to mundane things, aggregates, assemblages of mundane parts. All aggregates decay and their parts get recycled. Thus attachments to things that are transitory and impermanent does no good.

(3) Ending attachment ends suffering. To end attachments means to no longer try to live in a world of imposed contingencies. That frees us. When free, we no longer worry about attachments etc as they no longer control our lives or emotions.

(4) The eightfold path ends attachments. So does meditation on the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the ashtanga yoga of Patanjali etc. This works by taking us out of the mundane contingencies and brings our focus back to the global unity. Just as you mentioned with regard to the way you met people.

There is no metaphysics in these statements. Even the denial of the permanence of everyday reality is intended to simply point out the futility of trying to find a transcendental solution by non-transcendental means.

The other statements that are controversial are denial of God and denial of a soul. The denial of a material god is intended to get away from the notion of a fat man with a beard who sits on a cloud in heaven, as well as all the thousands of local deities who appear as statues. The denial of a material soul is intended to remove the notion of a material thing to which we are attached, and to replace it with the dynamic of the moment. That is, we are not "things" nor "bodies", but we exist in the dynamic of changes, and not as lumps of matter. Our nature is of fire, not earth. In fact, there is no earth. Everything reduces to its initial ingredients in the end, which is nothing. We are simply patterns of awareness, mindfulness if you prefer, that can occur when emptiness gets twisted around itself in such a way as to form the appearance of a mundane world. But it is only an appearance.

This is not a traditionally Christian way to see things. However, it winds up with the same ultimate state, oneness with everything and everyone through oneness with a non-material God. The location of the soul is thus not a place, nor is it an object, but it is part of the Divine Dynamic that exists in voidness. That a person is saved is thus an indication that the dynamic has returned to its core nature, but no "thing" has been saved. Because there are no "things" there is no need for there to be a "place" (meaning an aggregate construct) for them. Instead, there are many modalities of the dynamic by which we exist.

I personally don't see any conflict here. The approach is different, but could be expressed in Christian or Judaic terms - and the Sufis and Dervi have already favored Islam with the same kind of insights. However, I think that your remarks about hugging people is very much to the point, and the rest is more historical and academic in nature.

dave

life is too short to drink sour wine

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #2 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 5:40pm

Dave:

Comments below within double quotation marks.

dave_a_mbs wrote on Dec 28^th, 2007 at 4:20pm:

""

(2) Suffering comes from attachments - and those are always attachments to mundane things, aggregates, assemblages of mundane parts. All aggregates decay and their parts get recycled. Thus attachments to things that are transitory and impermanent does no good.

(3) Ending attachment ends suffering. To end attachments means to no longer try to live in a world of imposed contingencies. That frees us. When free, we no longer worry about attachments etc as they no longer control our lives or emotions.

""I agree that we need to let go of the attachments that bind us until we can really live. However, I don't believe we need to let go of the idea of our being a particular individual being who is one of many parts of a much larger being. If such a thing can be attempted, isn't there something that attempts this?

One might say that random collections of thought attempt to do so, and eventually these random collections of thought somehow negate themselves. Going by my experience, a limited pattern of thought can't negate itself. The only way a limited thought pattern can be negated, is if thought energy at a higher level that can see through the falseness of a limited thought pattern, decides to let go of it.

I've said this before, but I'll go ahead and say it again. I figure we are awareness energy beings who can use the energetic part of our being in a creative way. We can also learn. Once we learn how to use the creative aspect of our being in a loving an intelligent way, we can use it to create a life that is not only preferable, but glorious. If one thinks in terms of moments of succession, we might not start out as awareness/energy beings who know how to use our creative aspect of being in a wise and loving way, but as long as we use what we have to start with, and as long as we experience according to what we create, I don't see that the creative aspect of our being needs to be equated as being less real than our uncreated state, even if we could've created in any number of ways. Especially since if you look at things from a non-linear time perspective, our uncreated way of being and created way of being aren't separate from each other.

A lady I work with just walked past my cubicle. She is such a sweet good hearted person. Shall I tell her that her life has no reality because there is suffering in the World, or should I tell her that a process had to be gone through so her wonderful uniqueness can be created? Eventually things will reach the point where all of us can live together in eternal perfection.""

(4) The eightfold path ends attachments. So does meditation on the Golden Rule, the Ten Commandments, the ashtanga yoga of Patanjali etc. This works by taking us out of the mundane contingencies and brings our focus back to the global unity. Just as you mentioned with regard to the way you met people.

There is no metaphysics in these statements. Even the denial of the permanence of everyday reality is intended to simply point out the futility of trying to find a transcendental solution by non-transcendental means.

""I know of many people and teachings that interpret transcendental to mean getting to the point where only pure awareness exists, because as long as creative thought energy is active in some way, there will be imperfection. I now believe that this interpretation is false. Manifestation doesn't cause us to have problems. It is our inability to work with manifestation is a wise and loving way that causes us problems. Should an unqualified doctor kill his patient, when a doctor exists who knows how to treat the patient's ailment?""

The other statements that are controversial are denial of God and denial of a soul. The denial of a material god is intended to get away from the notion of a fat man with a beard who sits on a cloud in heaven, as well as all the thousands of local deities who appear as statues. The denial of a material soul is intended to remove the notion of a material thing to which we are attached, and to replace it with the dynamic of the moment. That is, we are not "things" nor "bodies", but we exist in the dynamic of changes, and not as lumps of matter. Our nature is of fire, not earth. In fact, there is no earth. Everything reduces to its initial ingredients in the end, which is nothing. We are simply patterns of awareness, mindfulness if you prefer, that can occur when emptiness gets twisted around itself in such a way as to form the appearance of a mundane world. But it is only an appearance.

""What I wrote above shows that I don't agree with the above. If the Buddha believed in a God that doesn't fall within the old man in the sky perspective, why didn't he just say something such as, "Yes, there is one divine source for everything, but this source is much more than an old man in the sky?

If one is going to come to the conclusion that there is no such thing as a particular self, one is going to need to make use of thought energy to come to such a conclusion. Doesn't the fact of how an entity/self can use thought energy in such a purposeful way, show that a particular self can be created? Why does a self have to be negated once it learns to live in a wise and loving way? What is the purpose of such a demonstration of spiritual suicide?

How does love fit into the picture? I've had meditations where I experienced bliss to an extent where it sempt as if I didn't need anything else. Yet, when I came out of such meditations, my spirit guidance would immediately share something with me that shows the importance of sharing love with each other, and how love is much sweeter than bliss ever could be. How can one self fully experience love and oneness if there is nobody to share it with? Perhaps the first being that existed, call it God if you like, created the rest of us so it would have somebody to share love with. The Eastern idea that all of us get squashed like a bunch of illusory and meaningless pimples and warts, doesn't go along with idea of a loving creator who created all of us intentionally. I say that we go through the travails we go through for a while, because besides being given the gift of being unique souls, we're given the gift of self determination.

Isn't it possible that the first being that existed, came up with a way to make use of its own being, to create a multiplicity of souls? Should one deny this because of gurus and such who were more interested in putting themselves on a pedestal than God, denied the existence of a being who has such a capability?""

This is not a traditionally Christian way to see things. However, it winds up with the same ultimate state, oneness with everything and everyone through oneness with a non-material God. The location of the soul is thus not a place, nor is it an object, but it is part of the Divine Dynamic that exists in voidness. That a person is saved is thus an indication that the dynamic has returned to its core nature, but no "thing" has been saved. Because there are no "things" there is no need for there to be a "place" (meaning an aggregate construct) for them. Instead, there are many modalities of the dynamic by which we exist.

""There is an implication above of a person who isn't able to understand the Eastern viewpoint. I slept with the Eastern viewpoint for years. After making contact with spirit beings who represent the light, the only master for whom I've come to know by name, is Christ. Therefore, when he says there are many mansions in my father's kingdom, I feel inclined to believe him. I've received numerous messages and experiences which show that there are many mansions in God's kingdom, and these mansions aren't just mere illusions, despite what some gurus have said.""

I personally don't see any conflict here. The approach is different, but could be expressed in Christian or Judaic terms - and the Sufis and Dervi have already favored Islam with the same kind of insights. However, I think that your remarks about hugging people is very much to the point, and the rest is more historical and academic in nature.

""The fact that you're okay with hugging shows that you see the value of love. Perhaps in the end our love is so strong, that we all get to exist with each other very happily for all of eternity. Thought patterns stay alive because we choose to give them life. What if we come to the point where we only have thought patterns that are worth having? Shall we dispense with them because of a theory of no self? If we come to such a conclusion, what precisely is it that stops providing the interest/energy that enables them to stay alive?""

dave

IP Logged

vajra

Ex Member

Re: One self and souls
Reply #3 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 5:57pm

IP Logged

recoverer

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 5027
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #4 - Dec 28^th, 2007 at 7:36pm

Vajra:

Comments below within quotation marks:

Quote:

I should say as well R that while this teaching is often de facto interpreted as negative by the behaviour of some of those attached to Buddhist groups that the moving away from grasping/attachment (opening and creation of space in our lives) that's pointed to in the heart Sutra results in a weakening of selfish urges and the emergence of of all that's good - spontaneous joy in our life and our surroundings, loving behaviours and so on. There's great joy that follows from love of self, and service to and love of others as well.

As seen in all religion there are those misery guts that instead of working towards this sort of becoming via meditation and so on instead seek to produce a facsimilie of it by denying through an act of will all sorts of stuff they would actually like to do. The trouble is ultimately this facsimilie is ego or grasping/attachment driven, and so delivers suffering instead of the above joy.

The essential problem from the Buddhist perspective is that if we seek joy/pleasure by direct means or as an end in itself it's never maintained.

""What if the goal is to reach a state where many beings abide in a state of love and oneness with each other? Is there anything wrong with such a goal?

Such a goal is beyond seeking joy/pleasure by direct means. It is a matter of finding that true fulfillment is obtained, only after we learn to love unconditionally to an extent, where we are able to share state of oneness with each other. Once we allow ourselves to experience such a state of being, where will the need be for finding fulfillment through superficial means? When it comes to experiences other than the experience of love, surely, it is possible to enjoy something without being dependent upon it.

To suggest that one can't learn to make use of the creative aspect of being in a meaningful way, is to suggest that one can't learn. Perhaps some teachers don't speak of how it is possible to become a master of one's creative ability, because they haven't learned to be a master of their creative energy. Instead, they tried to find a way to seperate themselves from the creative aspect of their being. This isn't anymore possible than it is to separate the sun from its radiance. Not even if a person found a way to focus his or her attention so the creative aspect of his being wasn't apparent.

My kundalini first awakened years ago. Then I got involved with non dual teachings and willed my kundalini not to rise, because I figured it got in the way of experiencing pure awareness. After meditating on pure awareness for a number of years, I started to develop various physical problems. Mainly, lower back, upper back, and neck pain. When I allowed my kundalini to come alive again, and worked on clearing the psychological issues that caused this energy to be blocked, my physical problems improved significantly.

Once my kundalini got to the point where it reached my crown chakra, it became hard for me to not acknowledge the energetic/creative aspect of being. For a while a lack of love during my meditations troubled me. Then one night the following sequence of images were shown to me (I've shared them before). First I was shown a lifesize heavy metal dude. I could see kundalini flowing through him. He said he uses his kundalini for evil. Next I was shown a lifesize demonic image of myself. Next I was shown the face of Jesus Christ. The message was clear. If I'm going to go through the kundalini unfoldment process and learn to make use of the creative aspect of my being, I need to make certain that I do so with Christ consciousness/love in mind.

This is where Eastern teachings often fall short. They so much deny the creative aspect of being, that they don't completely deal with it. If one wants to evolve to being a light being, one needs to deal with the challenge of becoming a master of one's creative aspect of being. If one does like I used to do and only acknowledges the awareness aspect of being, how will one reach the point where one deals with the creative aspect of being in a serious manner? There might be some Buddhist practices that help one deal with the challenges that mind includes, but to the degree that false premises exist within Buddhist teachings, one will be limited. The complexity of what divinity has created won't be revealed to one who dismisses the capabilities of this divinity. For example, the ability to make use of the creative aspect of being in a manner that is so perfect, it would be ridiculous to think in terms of negating it as mere illusion.""

I guess as I've said before it's hard with meditative experience that seems to very convincingly separate the parts that appear to make up the self (higher mind/awareness from thinking mind and body) to posit an unbreakable linkage between them.

""I sort of covered this above, I'll add something else. I've had meditations where I experienced myself as an awareness/energy being while watching and hearing all kinds of imagery play out in front me. Numerous things including people involved in various activities. It felt as if I was a being who was independent from what I experienced, yet what I experienced partly came from me. Even though I experienced what I experienced as being separate from me, I was still there as a distinctive spirit being. There are three things that enabled me to be a distinct being. One, I had a parcel (chunk Wink

) of awareness/creative energy that belonged to me; 2) I had the ability to think independently; and 3) I had the knowledge I had acquired up to that time. By knowledge I don't mean concepts that limited me. I mean knowledge that enabled me to exist as a spirit being who isn't limited by the creative thought energy I make use of.

The spirit beings I communicate with seem to be masters of making use of creative energy. There existence is no longer a case of their following the whims of their minds. I don't believe it would be reasonable to tell them that they won't be able to keep it up for all of eternity.

It seems to me that when people hold the viewpoint that the creative aspect of mind can't be used in a manner that represents perfection, they are speaking from the perspective of unperfected mind, rather than perfected mind.""

We each in the end have to make our own call on these things though. Buddhist teaching certainly makes a tight case on the nature of self, but without experience this isn't proof and its possible to suggest alternatives. My personal tendency though is to find it hard to ditch Buddhist teaching - it's always so incredibly comprehensive and practically applicable.

""Just make certain that Buddhist teachings will take you as far as you want to go. I've found that they won't do the trick for me.""

The risk as I see it of having something invested in continuity of a total self is that at the practical level it may make the achievement of the selflessness implicit in loving behaviours a lot more difficult to realise.

""I doubt that a self could ever wish itself out of existence. Suicide cases come closest, and they aren't the model to follow. A being who truly loves itself won't give up on itself, but instead will find a way where it can be truly happy. Eventually it will come to the point where it will find that the only way to do so, is to be a being who lives according to love. If this is its aim, selflessness won't be a problem.""

If the bardo teachings are correct it may ultimately lead to pretty scarifying experience with the dissolution of self too.

""I had my night in heaven experience before I got involved with a spiritual practice. Many near death experiencers have experienced a higher realm without going through an extensive spiritual practice that emphasized the idea of "no self." This shows that people don't end up in lower bardo like realms just like that. They probably end up in such a realm because they lived an unloving life. Isn't it interesting that NDE people don't tend to speak in terms of you have to negate your sense of self in order to evolve? Rather, they emphasize than one needs to grow in love.""

I can't on the other hand see any great downside to remaining easy on the issue, in that it'll presumably sort itself out in due course.....

""Perhaps a part of this sorting out process includes some people trying to see if there are perspectives that go beyond the perspective people such as the Buddha spoke about. What if despite his reputation, his teachings don't represent the ultimate? Should mankind be bound by them for as long as mankind exists?""

« Last Edit: Dec 28^th, 2007 at 9:02pm by recoverer »

IP Logged

dave_a_mbs

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #5 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 12:36am

I feel that we have a philosophical impasse here that arises from widely different terms and usages. For example, Eastern philosophy uses karma as the global teaching engine, and until the 'Gita, where Krishna specificaly states that he returns, views spiritual growth as a natural part of life. Christianity in particular favors the idea of the Christ, the bringer of new ways of life, as an emanation of God, and adds the Holy Spirit as having the essential nature of awareness. God, however, is viewed as essentially alien, while the East views God as essentially self. And without being very accurate nor specific, I could go on and on in the same light.

There is a philosophical perspective called a "multi-aspect theory", which is a statement that recognizes more than one way to look at and interpret things. In specific, one way to look at each of us is as individual, isolated, material beings, operating solely through stimulus-response conditioning. Another way is to view people as manifestations of God's creativity, and if we were Puritans, I'd have to add that this also implies total determinism. Or, in another perspective, we can view people as little bits of God-stuff that are out in the world, but which return to God. All these ideas, and a heck of a lot more, are true in at least one way. I'm not sure of any perspective that is true everywhere and in everyone's eyes, maybe there is none.

And, to asnswer why Siddhartha never simply said, "Hey guys, the image of God being a little old man who rides around on a cloud is invalid." - The rishis to whom the words were addressed ultimately were unlikely to use those terms. Just as Jesus favored Aramaic the language for Siddhartha was Pali. That is not the language of philosophy, and all the words had to be translated into Sanskrit to make them "official" - rather like the Latin Vulgate being the scholar's bible.

As we sweat and strain to get these topis properly digested, I can't help but recall Mark Twain's remark about people struggling and shaking like a dog passing peach pits. In fact, we all are in basic agreement - except that our language hides this, and because we think in words, we feel that language is the nec plus ultra of criteria. To escape that is one reason the guru tells the student, "Don't try to verbalize what you experience - just be aware of it."

I do notice that we tend to take an adversarial posture in defense of our beliefs. This means that if we agree with everything except the placement of a punctuation mark, we're gonna tear into whatever is being said because of the offending comma. A better approach might be to acknowledge that for at least one other person, the other way is quite probably true. This means that as we get into these discussions, there is more space for "both and" thinking than there is for "neither nor" approaches.

Personally, I think that everyone is right. But I'm not quite sure how. Wink

But to try to respond in specific - "My kingdom is not of this world." or "Let the dead bury the dead." - We can't create a spiritual world out of a material universe. However, we can do the reverse and from spirit obtain a material manifestation, and one that fits everyone. "In my Father's house are many mansions." or "I go to prepare a place for you," and so on.

Self negating ideas are simply logical errors. One example is that "by waging war we can create peace". In fact, war creates hatred and lingering rage, both of which are antithetical to peace. It was this realization that led to the League of Nations, and its sucessors.

As energetic "awarenbess beings" we are not "things". The "thingly" aspect is a material superposition and assumed by us in order to localize what we see. In fact, we are a dynamic, a process, and the fact that we can attach to matter is merely a happenstance. Of course it's useful, as it gives us a place with logical limits, and through them we learn.

"Suffering" is a technical term that means "life is imperfect". We have to do unpleasant thngs, like catching cold, or going to work, or wiping up the mess after spilling the milk. Your beautiful lady would doubtless agree that it is a bother (that means suffering) that she has to wear panty-hose and paint her face or be a social outcast.

Not being able to work out the kinks in manifestation is indeed the problem with going on to bigger and better things. There are abundant sources of suggestions from all the moral and religious leaders over all time that attempt to help us with this. Buddhism offers another way. So does Vedanta, Tantra and Theosophy - if properly interpreted. (Sorry - Proper interpretation is not my department.)

The reason to deny an ultimately isolated self is to send the mind backwards to its origins. We all came from God, and ultimately we have nowhere else to which to return. Buddhists of the day, disliked the notion of God in the sense of what Burton's Kasiddha called a "bigger, stronger, crueller man, the phantom of our baby fears ... ere time began" and were equally down on the idea of God as a material being. God, in the sense of a dynamic, the same as our own nature, is not a thing" but a sort of condition of everything-at-once. We can make sense out of God and the rest in terms of many levels of understanding, many of which would be differwent, but in the end, denial of a material God simply focusses us on that which lies beyond - literally transcendent of "thingness". To deny "thingness" gives us hope of realization of ourselves as the dynamic spaks of God-stuff that we are. Or, if you prefer, we are parts of our True Self, Mind, the Ultimate Awareness behind the experience of the Cosmic Consciousness. Attachment to matter makes this an elusive idea.

Love amounts to oneness, all are as myself, and all are as God. Multiplicity is thus illusory. This is more easily understood in the sense that it is the opposite of nanda, or harmfulness, separation etc. If you want the traditional meanings of love, joy and awareness it is necessary to look at sat-chit-ananda in terms of the meanings of the terms themselves and how they arose from the three gunas.

There is no attempt to squash the individual. Nirvana is the "blowing out" or "snuffing" of attachments because one has found something better. You remain you. But you also are everyone else. The individualizing traits of jealousy, hatred, rage and the other terms that make soap operas so endearing to us are antithetical to life by their nature. The history of life, discoveries, experiences etc all remain. There is no need to remove them, as they are part of the collective awareness of reality. These are the childhood experiences of the "First Being". Learning how to grow does not negate the personality of the child. There is no spriitual value to pooping one's pants forever, so kids grow out of it. The same with attachments and negative emotions.

Christain doctrine is not wrong. Jesus was not a liar. The words simply point to other places to look besides Buddhism etc. The false aspect here is to presume that because our favorite avatar has spoken, nothing but those words are true. This is obviouslty foolish. Abraham had a good deal to say that Moses had failed to utter, but that doesn't negate Moses. Jesus' words do not negate Abraham. Mohammed's words do not negate Jesus. Each simply said a little about a vast topic, and none expressed the totality of all that could be said. This is simply self evident.

We live in our thoughts. Even the body to which we are so fondly attached has no property by which it is able to express itself except as an opinion as to the source of sensation, hence of thought. My suggestion is that matter neither needs to occur, nor do we need to believe in it. Instead, we can do equally well to deal exclusively with sets of properties. And because we are dynamic, and not static lumps, these are dynamic properties. The reason that we cling to the idea of physical objects is because it makes sense relative to our other explanations of the world. Matter is a convenient delusion, but not a necessary one.

dave

life is too short to drink sour wine

IP Logged

LaffingRain

Super Member

Offline

Choose this Day

Posts: 5249
Arizona
Gender: female

Re: One self and souls
Reply #6 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 3:30am

hey there deep thinkers. hi.

I like to tell what I call my NDE. the physical death of the body is not necessary to have a mystical journey.
if I tell my story, it's from my inner being, so even though this thread brings up many thoughts to respond to I'll just put this story down. I think it may even answer some questions that maybe someone else would say, that happened to me also.

I awoke as if in another dimension of reality, where there was no gravity and I sensed I could move differently here, I didn't have to walk, I could float or glide, but I preferred the walking motion I was used to, although I moved much faster here. at this time I was not thinking I had died..it was just a strange place to be in, unfamiliar. I was still me. This is for R. I was myself. I knew my basic self to be, as some guidance dream told me, "the seeker, the finder, and the observer of the other two."

I was very close to a physical plane of existence and attempted interaction with what I assume were physical beings. a few were aware of my attempts to communicate, but mostly they were apprehensive of my being there, as these two dimensions do not that often reveal to the physical eye.
feeling despondent, knowing I needed interaction I wandered away and momentarily blinked out. here I note the blinking out action. I developed a theory to test out. I'll jot that down later.
when I blinked back on, with this awareness of who I was, I found myself in the presence of one who loved me and whom I loved. right away I was formulating the power of love to "save."
I asked my darling what was wrong that it seemed I was not seen and heard, what could I do? I needed to find my place. my baby was crying and told me I was dead. that was what was wrong. I was between two worlds.

most people would probably not become jubilant at this point, but I did. I knew she spoke the truth and that was why the others could not welcome me to their table.
at first, I chided myself for not realizing I had died. Then I saw the fallacy of this self blame and stopped it. I only knew I now had to go find my place, but before she told me I was dead, I would have remained with her, not knowing where to go.
and so I began to work with retrievals, and love had retrieved me to the truth.

I was one with my kid, because love makes us one. love saves. love is god. we call it PUL here. I like to call it undistorted love, because it is undistorted by the seeking aspects of human nature, so it is a higher love.
this experience was one of the greatest of my entire life, although there have been a few more, this one helped me deal with retrievals.

so the best part is coming. I left my daughter there after promising her and knowing I could keep my promise, that I would be back.
I didn't consider seeking JC or god as I don't see these entities as possessing a permanent form, but spread out, and everywhere.
for symbols, I gave to my sleeping brain these symbols of what my being reach for.
It was with incredible yearning I reached my arms up to fly up. a swift current took me, liquid and warm I rose faster than light travels. I was pure energy.

but before rising was a thought of the unknown. there is fear attached to the unknown. it is intrinsic to be human, to also have fears, but we can overcome fears by taking a risk.
it felt like I could stay there. at least I had beingness right where I was.
however, I also knew there was nothing here for me, as it were, between two dimensions but more of the same inability to communicate with those here, as I was ghostly.

so I rose up thinking this may be the ultimate dying experience but here goes, as nothing else to do. Just before ascending I thought about faith. that even if I died for real, I had this faith which essentially meant there was something orderly about the universe which knew where to put me. so I shut my eyes and kissed the face of god is the only way I can put it.
dying was ecstasy and when I rushed through the tunnel like thing I could hear a 1,000 welcoming whispers which took away all apprehension in my choice to go up.

I had lost nothing of myself. I was escorted by a knowing to a room similar to this board in all respects. people were reaching across miles to others from the station of this room and they all knew me and said hi as I passed.
we were in the shift in consciousness, at the front of it with many others.

Love is all there is, all the rest doesn't matter much, all roads will end up back home, where the atmosphere is always welcoming..
my teacher said to give up judgment of all the different paths as someday we won't need all the different religions, but now they are like tools.

love, alysia

Who takes away death's sting deprives life of bitterness

IP Logged

betson

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 3445
SE USA
Gender: female

Re: One self and souls
Reply #7 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 5:36pm

Greetings,

Self is a big mystery to me, and the more I read here the bigger the mystery gets! This is about the only topic in the afterlife where I am getting more evidence and yet getting more confused.

We know we have multiple selves because we know of self-retrievals, and of bi-location, such as Bruce's at the workshop in Japan. Now we have Aysia's NDE and "Kara' believing she is dead and requesting a retrieval; did they in fact bilocate and lose so many 'layers' that the remaining person-part was robbed of feeling life? People in comas or with other illnesses seem to have lost vital parts of themselves too. When some split off and change their mode of operating from the mainstream 'person'ality, we get fearful. Something unknown and to some, very threatening is happening.

We don't have a model or concept for this type of layering, do we?
Does each self have a total soul, or do they report in to the major soul, as perhaps Alan's vision suggests? Do we have any evidence that a halographic model is appropriate?

Wonderring,
Bets

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Shakespeare

IP Logged

spooky2

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 2368

Re: One self and souls
Reply #8 - Dec 29^th, 2007 at 8:45pm

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)

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.

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.

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.

Spooky

"I'm going where the pavement turns to sand"&&Neil Young, "Thrasher"

IP Logged

dave_a_mbs

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #9 - Dec 30^th, 2007 at 1:30am

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.

Looking further, everything carries the essence of ts nature as a potential offering to other things - thus, when two of them meet, the natures of each manifest in formation of a new aggregate. The qualities of the new aggregate emerge when this new object interacts, and so on. Thus, the nature of today's interactions s found only in tomorrow's interactions, expressed as properties of whatever today has brought forth. Without that dynamic expression, after the fact, there is no expression by which today's activities can be known. In other words, there is no time or place at which anything comes fully to rest. At absolute zero the world stops existing, and at any other temperature, it is a dynamic interaction of properties, for which we merely project the notion of fixed reality. In this ultimate sense, nobody is alone, because the very activity we manifest ourselves has come from our own creation, our own emergence, from another dynamic system. As close to rest as we can come is the practice of yoga, whether formally, or in informal settings, such as soul retrievals and meditation.

Looking to find a stable place to stand is thus impossible. Material reality is a myth, and when we look closer, the most stable of all that we know remans temporary and variable. This also applies to God, the dynamic from which we arose. It appears that the only reason we believe in a material reality is that we observe both potential states, mostly inside our heads, and we also observe extended reality, always external to us. Extended reality seems to be stuff that was projected from God prior to our own arising, hence is logically prior to us, and as a result, we can't do much with it, but it can affect us readily. The yogi can come into balance with the dynamic of satchitananda, but it still is dynamic

From this perspective, there is no place to rest. Everything is motion. At death we lose attachment to our local anchor, the physical body, but remain part of God. Sensing God is to sense the Light, an overwhelming brilliance of energy. That gives three major divisions to our spiritual experience: birth, liberation, and return to Godhead.

For us who are still alive and kicking, liberation (meaning satchitananda) is an adequate choice. And as far as I can tell, that's as good as it gets.

dave

life is too short to drink sour wine

IP Logged

Alan McDougall

Super Member

Offline

Posts: 2104
South Africa
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #10 - Dec 30^th, 2007 at 6:03am

Hi,

“Dave wrote and he is so wise and correct”

“As energetic "awareness beings" we are not "things". The
"thingly" aspect is a material superposition and assumed by us in order to localize what we see. In fact, we are a dynamic, a process, and the fact that we can attach to matter is merely a happenstance. Of course it's useful, as it gives us a place with logical limits, and through them we learn”.

Yes, Dave is right we are not “THINGS” we are eternal unique self-awareness’s that continue just like God our creator to exist forever. (Not in linear time, the ever-changing moment of now)

Our material bodies have within them what I call the "everlasting essence". It cannot be destroyed or annihilated into some mindless cosmic soup.

I have been on the other side of life during my nde. I know I don’t hypothesize that we continue as persons retain our unique awarenesses and progress up towards the light of the Infinite One. We merge with each other and God over there in mind-to-mind contact and have access to the Divine mind of God. We are not absorbed into some mindless cosmic soup. As this would be extinction of self the ultimate horror of man.

I don’t care about the convoluted twisted philosophizing OF MANY on this side of life have been and have died and seen, unlike them the real reality of the afterlife. I have never been to New York and can read about it until the cows come home, but never ever know it like someone who lives there. Only when I finally make the journey myself. only then will I know the real feel, ambiance, vibrancy and truth about this great city.

Alan

Blessings and Light

Alan McDougall

IP Logged

vajra

Ex Member

Re: One self and souls
Reply #11 - Dec 30^th, 2007 at 7:50pm

Hi Recoverer, pardon the delay in my replying to your long answer come distance above - I've been away quite a lot and can't keep up with all the threads running at the moment.

I'm not sure as Dave suggests that we necessarily disagree that much.

First off I'm as before not formally a Buddhist - precisely because I don't want to be bound by what for me can often be institutional or cultural dogma or patterns of behaviour. When I draw on Buddhist views it's not out of some unconditional acceptance of them - it's more out of a sense that they align with my own instincts and are at this stage of the game more than credible to me.

I can in this regard agree that the culture and behaviour that one often encounters in Buddhist groups can seem a bit conformist and lacking in creative spark and interpretation. It's quite tough to explain, but i think the following are maybe factors.

The principle of accurate transmission of the output of realised teachers often whether intentionally or otherwise suppresses debate - although with good reason: most of us would much rather shoot our mouths off than listen or learn, and the result when control is not applied is inevitably a confusing babble of nonsense. (debate is nevertheless a central aspect of monastic life)

The downside of this compromise is maybe that lots of what's more a reflection of either the idiosyncracies of individual teachers, the personality profile of those Buddhism attracts and elements of the fairly hierarchical traditions it springs from de-facto and inadvertently gets built into the culture than is remotely reflected in the teachings. Especially in local dharma centres where those teaching and setting the tone are not themselves very realised, students are not necessarily very discriminating and where access to realised teachers is both rare and restricted to formal circumstances.

Related to the above is the fact that the public teachings that one encounters in dharma centres tend to be pretty basic. The higher teachings which involve working with non ordinary realities are taught in 1:1 teacher/student relationships, and only after considerable preliminary meditation and other work has been completed. Even if you are ready it can for purely practical reasons (geography, numbers etc) be quite difficult to access teachers at this sort of level.

Another factor is spiritual materialism (I mentioned Chogyam Trungpa's book on the topic before) - people start acting out facsimilies of what they take to be devout behaviours for institutional and ultimately egotistical reasons, and these act to block spontaneity and groundedness.

A final factor is perhaps the very genuine problem that most of the pro-active forceful action to right wrongs that seems quite reasonable to our Western mindset when viewed holistically does more harm than good. We tend easily to conclude that Buddhism delivers excessive passivity, when true wisdom perhaps lies much closer to this end of the continuum than we like to admit.

These issues most certainly do not reflect the teaching of the more realised voices in Tibetan Buddhism for example - which teaches and hugely values the sort of spontaneity and creativity you talk of.

The thread on the reality of love in a sense tackles the issue of just how difficult it is to truly be able to live from love, and perhaps explains why the purity of the message received from any institution must by definition be in some way blurred by the consciousness of the total membership.

I posted at length on this before, but I can only suggest that in approaching Buddhism it's important to as taught by the Buddha from the start to retain discrimination and to avoid blind faith - to fish for the core teachings and what they truly mean, to verify them through experience, and to not indiscriminately take on board everything that one is exposed to.

At the end of all of this I have to again confirm that Buddhism has for me proven incredibly powerful in solving life issues and providing an intelligible overview. I'm only scratching the surface, it shows no signs of running out of steam.

On some of your other points. As before Buddhism teaches that how we live our lives is very important indeed. It's basic goal is through compassion to end the suffering of all sentient beings - by teaching a path to transcend ego. Learning and abiding in love are central.

Action in the world is therefore central too.

On kundalini. I too have benefited enormously from the use of kundalini meditation to ease all sorts of health and wellbeing issues. Especially this year using a book recommended by you guys. I jumped the gun as I could not locally access this sort of teaching. But kundalini meditation is taught in Buddhism too - but at higher (vajrayana) levels as its regarded as potentially dangerous until we have established a basic stability of mind through more basic meditative practice.

Point being. To be a light worker some sort of basic spiritual competence is necessary or we risk doing harm to ourselves or others. The tools for creative work most certainly are taught, but its true that few students progress this far and that it's as above hard to access teachers at the right level.

Finally on the transient nature of self. Alan more or less caught the Buddhist view again, as did Dave. Which may or may not seem to make sense, or to appeal.

But as ever we each have to reach our own conclusions.....

IP Logged

dave_a_mbs

Super Member

Offline

Afterlife Knowledge Member

Posts: 1655
central california
Gender: male

Re: One self and souls
Reply #12 - Dec 30^th, 2007 at 8:17pm

Who says what seems less interesting to me than their basis for saying it, since the degree of "wisdom and correctness" in people's posts appears to have something to do with not talking about that which they haven't experienced in some manner. We have some people on the forum who are qute advanced spiritually.

Here's an example. You reported sensing yourself amidst many of your selves - an experience that I have also had under different circumstances. This seems to be a fairly common experience. Each of those "other selves" must have been equally well qualified to represent the inner personality residing within it, so that you were, in a sense, in a group of parallel selves, each essentially equal to the other, except that "you" were in the one in the middle. Perhaps if you had identified with one of the others you would have moved into that worldline and experienced that parallel reality. That you experienced these alternatives suggests that you have extended your reach in some new direction,

That kinda suggests that there must be an awful lot of otherwise equivalent beings in parallel universes. Since parallel universes split off parent universes at every decision point, many of these "other selves" are essentially clones up to some point, and diverge thereafter.

I personally feel that if you were to look all the way down that line of alternative selves, at the very end it would terminate in God, since that's where the initial individuation occurred. And, by the same token, all the multiple selves can be properly viewed as fragments of God. At the same time, they can be viewed as alternative personal selves.

dave

life is too short to drink sour wine

IP Logged

Alan McDougall Super Member Offline Posts: 2104 South Africa Gender:	Re: One self and souls Reply #13 - Dec 30^th, 2007 at 11:32pm Absolutely correct Dave, Regards Alan
Back to top	Blessings and Light Alan McDougall IP Logged

LaffingRain

Super Member

Offline

Choose this Day

Posts: 5249
Arizona
Gender: female

Re: One self and souls
Reply #14 - Dec 31^st, 2007 at 1:27pm

hi all, a continuing great thread, thanks to R for starting it. it appears due to my meditations I was to develop my mental into balance with my emotional state this life, so since especially Ian's arrival here on the board, I have taken up to study these two, in comparison, these 2 if I may call them religions, Buddhism versus my traditional focus on JC the man who ascended.

I find absolutely no problem between the two so far, I compare, I don't incorporate truth until it hits the 2nd chakra with a thud, a physical reaction to some bit of info I had needed. some will understand this reaction to be a gut feeling.

I'm studying Leadbeater's book "Inner Life" and came across this reference to Buddha and wanted to share so I'll quote it:
"If any reference at all is to be placed upon exoteric tradition, even the Buddha himself, who descended from higher planes with the definite intention of taking birth to help the world knew nothing clearly of his mission after he had entered his new body, and regained full knowledge only after years of searching for it. Undoubtedly, he could have known from the first had he chosen, but he did not choose; he submitted himself to what seems to be the common lot." end quote

This struck me as the martyr or archetype, where god comes to town, with a comparison of JC the ordinary carpenter, who studied with various teachers before coming into his own enlightenment and before he struck out on his own to find fishers of men.

Also, I recall in my studies of A Course in Miracles, the statement that as we evolve, we start to "remember" who and what we are with each additional experience where mental and emotional meet with import.
Also when I found TMI teachings, the same objective as above; Indeed, in Bruce's books he starts off with "I needed to find out who and what I was."

If we proceed towards enlightenment with the objective of remembering, versus learning, but remembering, who and what we are, this objective, this sort of focusing supposes that knowledge is already there and will be dropped into the consciousness that is ready for that, either thru experiencing, relating, paranormal experiences, meditation, self discovery thru risk taking, there must be so many ways to discover who and what you are.

this is why I like this board, as there is no dogma or indoctrination here, although our words are twice removed from reality, it's ok, the purpose we come here together is being fulfilled nonetheless. the accent is always upon your own experiential realm so that others may do their own explorations, and the guidelines only point to that, the work is always on your own head.
so it's fun. I am comparing this to that, to find the collective area where we are as one, to be affecting of each other. I have found another source of the godhead, that we also enact to be creating of each other.
through the mind, we can "see" another person and build an image of that person with astral particles and mental particles, thought is a thing.

so we can be in this sense, putting a person on a pedestal. that is what I meant about "creating" another person. then, if they do that to you too, what happens is two false images are created that need to be introduced to the truth, that they are not whom we thought they were.
we also create a false image of god. there is talk of this in the bible, of making graven images. You will observe romantic relationships are like this, where we create an image of the beloved as well.
The higher type vibrations of our loving essence's do not "make up stories" about another person, but rather, we are one on the other levels, and continually play off of each other to reveal who and what we really are, and not who and what somebody else says we are or are not.
essentially the non duality state of consciousness we are all moving into, or sliding into against our will at times, as it's like a roller coaster ride, but it can be like a pleasant walk through nature also.

I have a happy feeling about 2008. I'm glad you are all here to talk to or I would be one lonely person!

you are love.

Who takes away death's sting deprives life of bitterness

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Home

‹ Board

Top of this page

This is a Peer Moderated Forum. You can report Posting Guideline violations.

Fill Out and Submit Posting Guideline Violation Form