Jiddu Krishnamurti

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

dont understand "no self" either, to me that sounds like it would be identical to deep sleep, zero experience, like the perspective that a rock on the ground is having 

13 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

 

I think the same. "Self" means experience. 

 

9 hours ago, Sugarcoat said:

But not entirely, I do have intuition that there can be state stripped of this "self" experience I am having (that is quite subtle already) 

There are 3 levels imo. First the self full of identification due the human need of belonging. This need is genetically uncoded and very strong. Not always same strength, some individuals are more free of that. I'm not one of them, but maybe you are, some are more inclined to spirituality because their structure, let's say less dense. 

Second is the pure I am in meditation. Absolutely empty of anything, just the I am, the feeling of being, of existing. Not a thought that says "I am" but the very fact of being conscious is the I am. 

3, when the I and the am lose their limits and the structure collapse. There is no more "consciousness ", because it implies being aware of. There is the reality, period. Zero structure, then it's like a ocean of life without any distinction. This is the no self that they talk about 

But look, that no self really is the self without limits, because there is still experience, register, knowledge. What happens is that you made a movement to dissolve the natural structure in order to break the barrier that prevents you to realize the nature of yourself. It doesn't mean that there is no self but that the self become the whole and the whole become the self. Now I remember perfectly that yesterday I did that movement for 10 minutes, then saying that of no self is just a mess without sense imo

Edited 4 hours ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

@Sugarcoat

I would say that Lisa Cairns experiences what many mystics do. They reach a state of limitlessness, then create a logical framework that is a mess.

For example, in one video she says that awakening happens when you realize that everything is you, and in another that there is no you. Both statements are logical constructs. Awakening is not a logical construct but the opening to your limitless nature.

Then, saying that you have realized that the moon doesn't exist and that baby Jesus cries if you touch yourself, or that you must fight in jihad, depends on your mental framework. These teachers confuse unstructured states with structures that they "become aware" of. 

Logic is structure, openess is without structure. Then they merge both because they are totally focused in absence of structure and they say things like: reality is pure consciousness. Everything is imaginary. Nothing exist. Reality is nothing. Then the people read it and change their structural frame for that mess and come to forums to say that are enlightened repeating that nothing is real or anything 

[Someone here]

@Breakingthewall No self just means no separate self . You don’t exist as an entity on your own separate from the rest of the universe . Obviously I don’t need to explain because it’s easy to understand .

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Breakingthewall No self just means no separate self . You don’t exist as an entity on your own separate from the rest of the universe . Obviously I don’t need to explain because it’s easy to understand .

Self means being aware of being, you don't need to be separate to that. 

Anyway, a human is a process that is not ontologically separated of the universe but it creates a separation while it's happening, that's any living being. Then a self appears, you could say that it's not fundamental or permanent, but it exists. 

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Self means being aware of being, you don't need to be separate to that. 

“Being aware of being “implies separation between a subject and object . Any boundary  or separation cannot be real because the dividing line between any two forms must melt and collapse into unity .  Is there an absolute separation between the sun and the moon? 
 

[Breakingthewall]

5 minutes ago, Someone here said:

“Being aware of being “implies separation between a subject and object . Any boundary  or separation cannot be real because the dividing line between any two forms must melt and collapse into unity .  Is there an absolute separation between the sun and the moon? 
 

20 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Breakingthewall 

There is separation between the sun and the moon, they are two different structures with different properties. The reality can be one, but many relative limits appears, then saying that are not real is wrong, saying that are relative would be right. Why anything relative is not real if it exist?

[Someone here]

57 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

There is separation between the sun and the moon, they are two different structures with different properties. The reality can be one, but many relative limits appears, then saying that are not real is wrong, saying that are relative would be right. Why anything relative is not real if it exist?

It’s relative right . The separation between the sun and the moon is not absolute. Meaning it could be interpreted as they are separated by distance and occupying different positions in space or as they are united because the matter that divides them and the gases is like a spectrum . Like  two waves in the ocean. They look like separate things..But if you look deeper they’re both just movements of the same water. The waves have different shapes and locations.. yet they aren’t truly separate from the ocean that creates them or from each other. 

 

Edited 2 hours ago by Someone here

[Breakingthewall]

8 minutes ago, Someone here said:

It’s relative right . The separation between the sun and the moon is not absolute. Meaminh it could be interpreted as they are separated by distance and occupying different positions in space or as they are united because the matter that divides them and the gases is like a spectrum . Like  two waves in the ocean. They look like separate things..But if you look deeper they’re both just movements of the same water. The waves have different shapes and locations.. yet they aren’t truly separate from the ocean that creates them or from each other. 

 

Essentially, the ocean is not separate from the land either, since both are made up of interactions of the same fundamental fields, but locally they are separate and have different properties.

Everything that exists is made up of interactions and boundaries that occur as processes, but a living being has a particularity, it's not like a wave in the ocean that happens inevitably due the properties of water, but it's a process that self preserves, perpetuates and creates it's particular laws creating another level of separation inside/outside. 

[Someone here]

24 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Essentially, the ocean is not separate from the land either, since both are made up of interactions of the same fundamental fields, but locally they are separate and have different properties.

Everything that exists is made up of interactions and boundaries that occur as processes, but a living being has a particularity, it's not like a wave in the ocean that happens inevitably due the properties of water, but it's a process that self preserves, perpetuates and creates it's particular laws creating another level of separation inside/outside. 

Let me ask you this : what gives life to things ? What is life exactly? I guess I’m asking what is consciousness? You think the self of a living being is more real than the self of inanimate objects or just more complex? 

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Let me ask you this : what gives life to things ? What is life exactly? I guess I’m asking what is consciousness? You think the self of a living being is more real than the self of inanimate objects or just more complex? 

51 minutes ago, Someone here said:

 

I think it's just more complex, life is just a process that occurs when conditions allow. There is no intention; rather, the very quality of existence is expansive, emitting potentiality that is realized if possible, because there are not absolute limits.

Simple life has no self; a self arises when a model of reality is created in a brain, at least from we can see. This does not imply that the self is not real. If a self that knows it exists appears in reality , then reality is or has a self that knows it exists. The fact that reality acquires self-awareness is possible and therefore inevitable, then you could say that reality is self aware 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[Mellowmarsh]

This self aware reality is known in its mental conception. It’s never actually seen. It’s only known conceptually as an object of seeing that cannot be seen.

Concepts known, know nothing. Meaning this self aware reality is illusory.

Like Einstein noticed when he claimed that reality is an illusion, albeit a very convincing one.

[Someone here]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

I think it's just more complex, life is just a process that occurs when conditions allow. There is no intention; rather, the very quality of existence is expansive, emitting potentiality that is realized if possible, because there are not absolute limits.

Simple life has no self; a self arises when a model of reality is created in a brain, at least from we can see. This does not imply that the self is not real. If a self that knows it exists appears in reality , then reality is or has a self that knows it exists. The fact that reality acquires self-awareness is possible and therefore inevitable, then you could say that reality is self aware 

Maybe .that's reasonable perspective to have .