Cepzeu

A Possible Analogy For The True Self/enlightened Self

15 posts in this topic

Hi everyone, I'm new to the forum but have been following Actualized.org for about two years.  Here I describe a possible analogy for the enlightened self with a short into in brackets below:

(I believe I experienced non-egoic consciousness/ had an enlightenment experience recently. There was huge shift in perspective for me and suddenly all of Leo's videos on the true self/ enlightenment made a lot of sense. The experience made me want to delve deeper into this area and this post is simply a request for Leo or others who have experienced this to  determine  if this analogy I'm about to share fits in with our understanding of what the true self actually is . The analogy is simply for me and others to understand the true self  better (given that this analogy I share fits in with our understanding).

The analogy:

The true self is the nothingness that existed before the big bang.

Imagine a white orb on a black background. According to our current understanding of the universe, all that existed came from this extremely dense  "thing" that exploded and gave rise to the universe. Given that the true self is nothing, and everything occurs within the true self, and the true self is infinite, could the nothingness that encapsulates everything in the universe (at this point condensed into the orb) be the true self or even an analogy to the true self?

A secondary explanation may help: for those that have experienced a phenomenon in videogames where you glitch and fall through the map into a void, could this empty, infinite void be analogous to the true self?

1.jpg

2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Cepzeu said:

The true self is the nothingness that existed before the big bang.

True, except it's not nothing, it's "no-thing", as some-thing can not come from/be created out of "nothing".

As for the analogy, as long as you understand the no-thing-ness "permeates" everything, including the orb. Also, the orb is an appearance and therefore only "apparently" real.

It is said that this whole universe is but a "speck" of the infinite Being. If this is true, then your analogy is correct, imo.

Edited by Anna1

“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Firstly,  since we cannot point directly to the true self - since it is a no-thing, these are just analogies for a beginner trying to understand no-self.

I am not saying the big bang is the true self, in fact I refer to the true self being the consciousness/awareness/void that, as Anna1 mentioned, permeates everything, including the orb, and including everything the orb is, was or ever will be. True self is not the orb, it's the no-thing inside which the orb exists. It is the no-thing in which the whole universe exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quantum Mike The OP was very clear that he was describing an analogy. They are sometimes very effective in understanding this stuff.


“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quantum Mike Analogies are traps? I disagree.  


“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Quantum Mike said:

no-thing means ungraspable by a verbal mind.  reality is "NO PARTICULAR CONCEPTUALLY UNDERSTANDABLE THING" 

Well, it means different things in different contemplative traditions. In buddhism,  for instance, there are no such thing as a "true Self". The Self is simply a label the conceptual part of our minds puts on the sense of subjectivity that is present in every moment of experience.

In highly concentrated meditative states this sense breaks down, and one is confronted with the fact that there are no Self at the core of the stream of conciousness, in the way one intuit there to be. 


INSTEAD OF COMMUNICATING WITH PEOPLE AS IF THEY POSSESSED INTELLIGENCE, TRY USING ABSTRACT SPIRITUAL TERMS THAT CONVEY NO USABLE INFORMATION. :)

My first published essay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Quantum Mike said:

Fine.

What? You going to argue with me now? 

Is Mike next on the debate Anna list??

Lol! 


“You don’t have problems; you are the problem.”

– Swami Chinmayananda

Namaste ? ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quantum Mike I haven't made a comment on this forum in almost a year. Don't be an ass because someone disagrees with you and you could possibly be wrong. Try to be open to everything. There is no possible way that an analogy can help anyone? It may help you. Just not yet or in this moment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quantum Mike said:

it might be easier to try to not understand it.  you can only be it, because that is who you are when you become aware of how you mentally construct reality for yourself.

no-thing means ungraspable by a verbal mind.  reality is "NO PARTICULAR CONCEPTUALLY UNDERSTANDABLE THING" 

 

 

This is a good point.  By trying to understand it, we may get caught in a trap of thinking that there is something to understand. However this something doesn't exist (hence you can only be it). This combines with @Erlend K's point that there is actually no true self. Could it be that we are over-complicating it by trying to find what the true-self is, when instead we should realise/experience what the "true self" isn't (the true self not being the egoic self, or any thing else for that matter).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A Possible Analogy For The True Self/enlightened Self?? 

 

The one who formulates an analogy “form of measure” is the result of analogy “measure” 

 

When all that is not, the immeasurable is. 

 

Then there is no identification with even such a limited idea of “HIGHRER SELF” 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

True self can only be experienced, the accounts above are not the true self. 

And yes, you can point at something and taste it, but it can be done only by personal experience. 

Edited by Quanty

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quanty said:

True self can only be experienced, the accounts above are not the true self. 

Only when experience/experiencer ends is there nothingness. 

1 hour ago, Quanty said:

but it can be done only by personal experience. 

Personal experience implies the past “knowledge, past experience, through memory” therefore a projection of thought. 

This is a fact. Explore. It’s quite interesting indeed. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question do we see the significance of this. It’s more beautiful than any thing that mind can identify. 

But this has to become actual to see the significance. 

Edited by Faceless

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now