UnbornTao

Thanks for providing the updated document.

I'm not sure either, you could ask him and tell us.

A principle: if you can do it in a short amount of time, say 5 minutes or so depending on the task, do it now. Or do it now, period. Apply it intelligently of course.

Noted, take care.

If we postulate that one's nature is absolute, and self relative, what does that place creation and creativity? As an absolute, Being is not created, so it isn't the result of a process, or anything else for that matter. But at this point our (intellectual) understanding stops (or at least mine does).

Stop this already; no abusive language or insults, which is how name calling is defined.

Yet being as a verb is not intrinsic. It is a doing, not what is. Without this activity, that being-construction wouldn't be perceived nor come to exist. So clearly we see a need to separate our "normal" experience of self, and what could be considered our real essence or nature. Try to open up some space in your experience for that distinction.

What do you mean?

Normies is fine.

You.

Hmm, how can intrinsic being be a verb? Wouldn't that allude to something relative? Would you cease to exist if that activity were to be stopped? We keep bumping into this confusion between true self (being) and false self.

Yes, calling another stupid is generally not allowed. Again, being honest is different from trying to hurt others. Take care

To play devil's advocate, the invention of self might be a representation of Lucifer's metaphor: a fallen angel that would rather rule in hell than serve in heaven.

Yet this refers to interaction and process, and your nature is a different matter. If we were to investigate our experience of ourselves, what would we find? Likely a ton of content: identifications, self-story, attachments, memory, character traits. Now, those aspects above might turn out to be ideas, powerful ones, and fabricated. Even the self-experience itself might well be based on concept and interpretation. We perceive and experience things, and the process of identifying ourselves with this and that comes after the experiencing. This suggests what we are cannot be any of it, no matter how intricate and complex our self-identity becomes.

Occurring, happening. Again, by calling it a sense you are already taking it as something relative. If it's a sense, is it your nature? Do you exist as a process? If so, what is that experience about? You are confusing what is with the conceptual amalgam that is oneself. That sense of being "one behind the scenes" might be assumed and conceptually-based. This sense might be representing a fabrication rather than your real self.

@bambi No name calling.

Got it, thank you. Didn't realize you posted it under Video Requests until now.

It is like McDonalds but with AI.

@Salvijus Then it seems to me you're failing to make that distinction. You think self is what you are.

I think we are using terms differently. I'm proposing that there are two aspects to what you are: Being, which is what you are, prior to and independent of character traits, identity, story, personality and any other activity--your nature Self, which is what you have learned to know as you and have adopted throughout the course of living--an artifice and convenient tool

We can postulate that, as babies, experience was operative for us and no sense of self was needed for that. Our memory of ourselves stops short at some point, yet we could see, touch, smell, plus likely felt the body, were aware, etc. So, self was constructed at some point throughout our upbringing, and therefore it arises not prior to experience, but after it.

Why do you take "self" to be what you are? Aren't we making a distinction here between self and being? This is a distinction that is hard to grasp experientially and that virtually no one makes.

Interesting that you frame self as being had by us, similar to how we say we have a body. This suggests that it is not us, and it might ultimately be constructed. A Koan for you: find your self.