An issue with self-deception

[tsuki]

I'm watching Leo's videos for some time and there is a trend of how he speaks about the mind's workings I have an issue with.
Basically, what videos are saying is that there is this thing called mind, and there is you and the mind tries to make you do things it wants.
The mind's way of manipulating you is through deception, which is what Leo calls lying.

I'm having two problems.

Firstly, there is the distinction between me and my mind, which is in my experience false in two ways.

1. The assessment that something was the mind's doing is never taken towards present moment's actions - you always think so when you refer to the past and make excuses for your own mistakes. The past is just a concept.
2. The notion that it is my mind.
   The direct experience works by contrasting things to what it deems normal.
   What is normal isn't noticed and it is therefore unconscious.
   You also don't get to choose what you contrast out of the normal, therefore, I think that it is a very strange play of words to call the mind mine if I don't get to take any action in its operation.

Secondly, I don't like calling the supposed mind's way of doing things "lying". I get that it is only a word, and my reaction to it depends on my taste.
Even if my taste is "fabricated" by the mind, it is not a lie. It is the truth. There is no other truth to be had, even if I know that my truth is accidental just like everybody else's. Even if I abandon it, some other truth (lie) will take its place. I feel that calling it bullshit, or a lie, is a profanation of this marvelous performance that is happening before us.

I wonder what are Leo's thoughts on this and whether he actually believes these two things (the Me vs the mind and truth=lie).
What I see as a consequence of these two is a worldview that pits the I against itself. Isn't it the very reason we all do self-actualization? We seek, but we cannot accept an answer.

Edited February 12, 2018 by tsuki

[deci belle]

tsuki's position statements I will address on the most polarized of distinctions, and then perhaps may consider expressing a more subtle treatment.

This response is pointed at the issue I perceive tsuki has elucidated, and is not a critique of ego in any way. Ego, per se, is a brilliant functionary in terms of the psychological apparatus of the being that is going to die; yet in the ordinary person, this functionary has usurped its (false) identity from the true self, which taoism calls "the true human with no status", in that ego has no knowledge of the true self or its wholesome, unified perspective and influence.

The true human with no status is the unborn functional capacity of unified selfless aware intent, naturally operating as non-psychological awareness, and endowed as Brilliant Virtue, which is the nature of one's inherent enlightening being.

Just this is your own empty shining mind right now. The work of self-refinement is to recognize and actualize its potential to the full in one's life.

 

Quote

 

"Firstly, there is the distinction between me and my mind…".

 

What is termed "my mind" can only be viewed as the human mentality, which is the false mind. "Me" perpetually uses an effectively fabricated (and valid) premise to distinguish between the knower and thought. This is the principle doppelgänger employed, not just by ego, but is in fact the revolving smoke and mirrors that constitutes ego in the first place. It's a phantom obfuscating the real. The real is an unborn potential that can and does operate in terms of one's innate enlightening being, in everyday ordinary situations, unbeknownst to anyone.

As for "the past just being a concept…", well so is the "me", the "time", and even the immediate present, unless you actually see Reality, by the impersonally objective perspective of non-psychological awareness. If you see reality, there are no concepts, because everything is empty— including self, other, right, wrong, good, bad, before and after; therefore everything is the same, and can be dealt with objectively as one's unified enlightening potential.

Nobody said it is easy, and it's not particularly difficult either, but things always get sticky in terms of personality issues.

Even though it is inconceivability itself, it has its own logic, and it works by virtue of Jesus' dictum paraphrased thusly, "to enter the kingdom of god, you must first lay down your life." It just means to revert to your innate selfless spiritual potential by giving up ego's perspective. Buddhism expresses Jesus' "your life" as "neither knower, thinker or liver of life."

Taoism simply states, "There is no thing."

Just re-gaining the selflessly impersonal perspective in the first place is the profundity lurking throughout every authentic wisdom tradition that manages its viability effectively by keeping the wordless knowledge of transcendent illumination alive.

 

Quote

"Secondly, I don't like calling the supposed mind's way of doing things 'lying'."

Leo's point about mind's "lying" serves the source intent which is non-originated. It's true. For those who see reality, the lying human mentality is simply self-evident. Not liking the fact that the human mentality is lying is indicative of the self-reifying human mentality. Everything the impostor sees must validate its façade. The false self is averse to anything which compromises its perpetually insecure status.

This means anything the human mentality posits is attributable to its own selfish perspective. Selfish means relative to the personality's identity.

The mind's way, is discriminatory, in the best sense of the word. Its method is utterly relativistic— just fine for the purpose for which it is intended— which doesn't include usurping the being's spiritual potential by obscurantism and then conveniently obscuring that so there are no tracks… the only crime being the forgetting.

Therefore, one of the benefits of enlightenment is in discovering the true state which had been forgotten.

As I said above, this is not a critique of ego, per se, it is a description of the pattern of the inception of the karmic situation. When the small comes, the great goes. This is the meaning of the 12th hexagram of the I Ching.

Though it IS possible to arrive at objectivity, that is, transcendent truth in the midst of ordinary situations~ nevertheless, it can never be accomplished via the "the supposed mind's way." To call its way "lying" is a graphic device~ and just as true, in absolute terms.

 

 

ed note: add last line in 7th; add 8th; hot-rod 10th; change "has to" to "must" in 11th paragraph

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by deci belle

[SOUL]

@tsuki I, too, agree that this life is an amazing gift so I prefer not to view it negatively and instead cherish every aspect of it.

With Leo, this forum or anywhere you go and with anyone you cross paths in life people won't view it the same way you do so it will be a matter of acceptance and transcending the labels.

Do the 'translating' to fit your own view, find what is useful and utilize it in your life because finding what works is more valuable than the way it is described.

You don't have to adopt anyone else's viewpoint but there can be a lesson learned with everything we interact with.

 

[tsuki]

I'm having trouble expressing my thoughts, as English is not my native language and because I have recently lost the ability to speak with confidence about what's true and what is not. What I definitely want to say is that I'm grateful that you took my words seriously.

@deci belle

Your post made me realize that the two problems(?) I was mentioning are linked, which I will use to explain my original statement more clearly.

The distinction between "the mind" and "me" is made to contrast two modes of being.
One of the modes of being, called the mind, is one that contrasts things against each other.
It operates in a self-reifying way, by calling things truth, or lie. Good, or bad. True, or false. It contrasts and picks sides.
What gets me is the fact that calling "Me" real and "the mind" false is contrasting and picking sides. There is no "Me" without "the mind", as the first is achieved only by the virtue of emptying the other. It is no more real, better, worse than the other. What the mind does is not a lie any more than the truth.

The fact that you have seen the "Reality" by becoming "Me" does not mean that it is any more true than what you see as "The mind". Saying that it is in any way better more real is contrasting and picking sides, which is what "the mind" does. When you are "The mind", there is no "Me". The world is, what it is, always. And it has always been.

"Me" has no words - it cannot speak, or think. Language itself is what thoughts are made of, and language is slicing reality into chunks and referring them to every other chunk it knows.

@SOUL

5 hours ago, SOUL said:

You don't have to adopt anyone else's viewpoint but there can be a lesson learned with everything we interact with.

Actually, I do.
In the light of what I said to @deci belle, what "the mind" does not accept, is exactly what needs to be accepted in order to arrive at the "Me".
"Me" is the tautology in the logical space. Things I feel strongly about are precisely the ones I need to adopt (learn).

Edited February 13, 2018 by tsuki

[Nahm]

14 hours ago, tsuki said:

I'm watching Leo's videos for some time and there is a trend of how he speaks about the mind's workings I have an issue with.
Basically, what videos are saying is that there is this thing called mind, and there is you and the mind tries to make you do things it wants.
The mind's way of manipulating you is through deception, which is what Leo calls lying.

I'm having two problems.

Firstly, there is the distinction between me and my mind, which is in my experience false in two ways.

1. The assessment that something was the mind's doing is never taken towards present moment's actions - you always think so when you refer to the past and make excuses for your own mistakes. The past is just a concept.
2. The notion that it is my mind.
   The direct experience works by contrasting things to what it deems normal.
   What is normal isn't noticed and it is therefore unconscious.
   You also don't get to choose what you contrast out of the normal, therefore, I think that it is a very strange play of words to call the mind mine if I don't get to take any action in its operation.

Secondly, I don't like calling the supposed mind's way of doing things "lying". I get that it is only a word, and my reaction to it depends on my taste.
Even if my taste is "fabricated" by the mind, it is not a lie. It is the truth. There is no other truth to be had, even if I know that my truth is accidental just like everybody else's. Even if I abandon it, some other truth (lie) will take its place. I feel that calling it bullshit, or a lie, is a profanation of this marvelous performance that is happening before us.

I wonder what are Leo's thoughts on this and whether he actually believes these two things (the Me vs the mind and truth=lie).
What I see as a consequence of these two is a worldview that pits the I against itself. Isn't it the very reason we all do self-actualization? We seek, but we cannot accept an answer.

You’re God/All that is/The One Being - whatever title you like, conducting an illusion that you are Tsuki. We are all the same Self. There are no brains, no universe, no people, no matter, no air - there is only The Being, deceiving it’s Self into believing this is not the case. The point of the deception videos is to deconstruct the ‘person’, to become aware of the the dream actuality of the situation. 

[SOUL]

6 hours ago, tsuki said:

Actually, I do.
In the light of what I said to @deci belle, what "the mind" does not accept, is exactly what needs to be accepted in order to arrive at the "Me".
"Me" is the tautology in the logical space. Things I feel strongly about are precisely the ones I need to adopt (learn).

Well, that's great to hear that you learn from your interactions. Although, to learn and to adopt don't mean the same thing in English, I say this because you mention that it isn't your first language. We can learn without adopting and we can adopt without learning since learning in becoming aware of something and adopting is making something our own.

In light of what you said to the other poster I will agree it can be helpful to become aware of many different perspectives including the counter to what may be our own. There can be a balance that comes from acknowledging it but an equanimity is a balance without opposites, it's being balanced without using an external as a catalyst to be it. It actually is being balanced in spite of the externals even if those externals are things we have internalized.

Although, if you tell me that you need to accept and adopt exactly what someone else says then you need to accept and adopt the idea I offer in that you do not have to adopt the ideas of others. Haha...

I would like to point out that I did indeed learn something from our interaction, it's something that I have been contemplating for a couple years. It has been finally crystallized in the understanding that I have been using the word acceptance when I really do mean tolerance.

Acceptance is really being in agreement with and accepting as valid or true, where as tolerance is a peaceable coexistence with but that doesn't necessarily agree with. So for all the times i have been saying acceptance I really meant tolerance and there is a clear distinction between them that I am aware of.

Haha...

[tsuki]

@SOUL

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

We can learn without adopting and we can adopt without learning since learning in becoming aware of something and adopting is making something our own.

I will not argue definitions, as I see no point in it. I may very well use the word adopt in your sense - to make something my own. In this sense I mean that I not merely accept something as possible, or conceptualize it, but to live it. To change myself in a way that me, and what I see as opposite are seen from a certain perspective as one. Not to discard any.

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

In light of what you said to the other poster I will agree it can be helpful to become aware of many different perspectives including the counter to what may be our own. There can be a balance that comes from acknowledging it but an equanimity is a balance without opposites, it's being balanced without using an external as a catalyst to be it. It actually is being balanced in spite of the externals even if those externals are things we have internalized.

It is not a simple act of being aware that brings me to equanimity. It's the adopting.
Once you break yourself enough times, you don't care to grow back into something rigid.

2 hours ago, SOUL said:

Although, if you tell me that you need to accept and adopt exactly what someone else says then you need to accept and adopt the idea I offer in that you do not have to adopt the ideas of others. Haha...

Only if I take him seriously ;).
But to be serious, I think that this is pretty much the point of intellectual openness - to see, that any knowledge is inherently self-contradictory. This contradiction you're showing me is the truth staring right into my face - I don't need to internalize it. I already know it.

@Nahm

8 hours ago, Nahm said:

The point of the deception videos is to deconstruct the ‘person’, to become aware of the the dream actuality of the situation.

Then, perhaps I'm not the person this video is addressed to (even though I learned something from it). I was simply curious that there is something I'm missing that could use explanation. Perhaps, @Leo Gura did not intend to bring this paradox I'm seeing out.

[SOUL]

6 minutes ago, tsuki said:

It is not a simple act of being aware that brings me to equanimity. It's the adopting.
Once you break yourself enough times, you don't care to grow back into something rigid.

So you are saying awareness isn't enough for you to bring equanimity, it's adopting that does it, which is making it your own. Adopting is another way of identifying, so even though you are expanding the breadth of it to include 'opposites', it's still reinforcing identity. This is a solidifying process though it may not be rigid. meaning it's not flexible since you are open to including new ideas but it still is limiting in that it's identifying with an ideology.

Equanimity isn't embracing opposing ideas to bring a balance in ideology, it's an approach to viewing anything in life. It's an even tempered, unbiased, centered perspective regardless of the ideas and ideology. Without disputing definitions it's apparent that acceptance has an agreement built into the meaning by endorsing the validity through the acceptance of it, it's attached to the ideology by agreement.

Though, tolerance within it's meaning describes not being disturbed by the presence of something without necessarily endorsing the validity of it, it's unattached to ideology. You cannot resolve duality so being one through adding up both sides infinitely, it's still dual in equal parts, the way to do it is through not being attached to the sides, seeing it from a whole perspective without any sides dividing it.

This is how simply being aware transcends the duality of accounting for sides.

[YaNanNallari]

You have to speak in metaphors. It's a metaphor. 

[tsuki]

@SOUL

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

Adopting is another way of identifying

Still, I will not argue definitions. 
There is no adopting contradictory perspectives. The contradiction means, that they cannot fit together. The only way out of the paradox is by showing that the two perspectives are indeed one, and the dividing line is the paradox:

11 hours ago, tsuki said:

The distinction between "the mind" and "me" is made to contrast two modes of being.
One of the modes of being, called the mind, is one that contrasts things against each other.
It operates in a self-reifying way, by calling things truth, or lie. Good, or bad. True, or false. It contrasts and picks sides.
What gets me is the fact that calling "Me" real and "the mind" false is contrasting and picking sides. There is no "Me" without "the mind", as the first is achieved only by the virtue of emptying the other. It is no more real, better, worse than the other. What the mind does is not a lie any more than the truth.

The fact that you have seen the "Reality" by becoming "Me" does not mean that it is any more true than what you see as "The mind". Saying that it is in any way better more real is contrasting and picking sides, which is what "the mind" does. When you are "The mind", there is no "Me". The world is, what it is, always. And it has always been.

At that point, it became clear to me, that there is no point in dissecting it any further to "adopt", "learn", "identify", or whatever other label anyone might give it.

1 hour ago, SOUL said:

Equanimity isn't embracing opposing ideas to bring a balance in ideology, it's an approach to viewing anything in life. It's an even tempered, unbiased, centered perspective regardless of the ideas and ideology.

What I don't "understand" in what you're saying is how a perspective may be unbiased. Any perspective is showing something and concealing something else. When you read my post, you saw it as a post, not a bunch of pixels. You couldn't have comprehended it if you marveled at the complexity of the monitor. The equanimity is the ability to see it as both, when a paradox inevitably arises, and not arguing that it is in fact knowledge, or a bunch of pixels. It is neither and both.

@YaNanNallari

Are you answering the original problem?

Edited February 13, 2018 by tsuki

[Nahm]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

Then, perhaps I'm not the person this video is addressed to (even though I learned something from it). I was simply curious that there is something I'm missing that could use explanation

Sorry I wasn’t much help. If you could phrase what you’re wondering in a sentence or two, I’d like to try.

[SOUL]

2 hours ago, tsuki said:

Still, I will not argue

Yet, this is what you have been doing this whole "issue" thread you have posted.

I have repeatedly made aware our commonalities and attempted to bring clarity to why anything may differ to bring unity in it but you have been arguing about it right from the start even with someone who posted a video about their own experience that you see differently.

Let it go and let it be.

 

Edited February 13, 2018 by SOUL

[tsuki]

@SOUL

8 hours ago, SOUL said:

Yet, this is what you have been doing this whole "issue" thread you have posted.

Sorry, if that's what I come off as. I didn't intend to upset anybody.
The issue I was pointing out was not meant as Leo's, but mine. I was asking for help.

It is very difficult to write something that invites discussion without taking a position and inviting an argument. It seems, that I failed to do so, but hey, I'm still learning this human thing. For me, the original issue is resolved, thanks to everybody for helping me.

Edited February 14, 2018 by tsuki