What is Self?

[Razard86]

58 minutes ago, amanen said:

I think a lot of people into Buddhism or no self have a hard time with this notion of the Self, because they are too focused on the specific forms that arise. The Self isn't an added quality to any forms, the forms themselves are a part of the Self. They fixate on a specific quality and saying it's just that specific quality. Red is just red. But they don't see that red is an experience, that it is consciousness, only in the form of the color red. They don't see that the forms are actually formless, and that the formless is the unchanging quality in the experience. All the specific forms change, but something does not change, and that is the fact that everything that changes is consciousness, that everything is indeed experience. Experience just changes forms. But it is all still experience, still consciousness, but because consciousness is formless we only see the forms instead of the formless (simply because its formless).

^Very well done explanation. It was so well done.... that one will have to read it more than once to understand how you took something so advanced....and explained it so succinctly. You have no idea how much genius it took to do what you just did....or maybe you do? 

[axiom]

2 hours ago, amanen said:

I think a lot of people into Buddhism or no self have a hard time with this notion of the Self, because they are too focused on the specific forms that arise. The Self isn't an added quality to any forms, the forms themselves are a part of the Self. They fixate on a specific quality and saying it's just that specific quality. Red is just red. But they don't see that red is an experience, that it is consciousness, only in the form of the color red. They don't see that the forms are actually formless, and that the formless is the unchanging quality in the experience. All the specific forms change, but something does not change, and that is the fact that everything that changes is consciousness, that everything is indeed experience. Experience just changes forms. But it is all still experience, still consciousness, but because consciousness is formless we only see the forms instead of the formless (simply because its formless).

The idea that forms are consciousness, and that the substrate is infinite mind - tends to be understood before no self is eventually realised. These ideas are not being ignored or passed by. They have often been awoken to, abided in, examined from every angle, sometimes for years - and ultimately discarded.

Recognition of the appearance / God / infinity is not an attachment to forms. It is the radical recontextualisation of experience and awareness as being without an owner - precisely because any "owner" is simply another loosely constructed, cobbled-together fragmentary form. Not actually there at all. Pure impermanence.

No self is complete, irrevocable ego death. A rebirth (of noone) into infinity.

Ego death can be frightening, so this can sometimes motivate a self to recontextualise as Self. It would rather keep playing this game for a few more lifetimes yet - especially when the only other option is being wiped out completely. 

But that which thinks itself to be aware has always just been infinity. It is singular. It is perfection. It was never aware, and it is not a self or a Self.

This cannot be understood.

Edited September 21, 2022 by axiom

[amanen]

2 minutes ago, axiom said:

The idea that forms are consciousness, and that the substrate is infinite mind - tends to be understood before no self is eventually realised. These ideas are not being ignored or passed by. They have often been awoken to, abided in, examined from every angle, sometimes for years - and ultimately discarded.

Recognition of the appearance / God / infinity is not an attachment to forms. It is the radical recontextualisation of experience and awareness as being without an owner. No self is complete, permanent, ego death. A rebirth (of noone) into infinity.

Ego death can be just as frightening as "real" death, so this can sometimes motivate a self to recontextualise as Self, rather than be wiped out completely. 

This is all misunderstood quite a bit. 

That which thinks itself to be aware has always just been infinity. It is singular. It is appearance. It was never aware, and it is not a self or a Self.

You say there is no owner, but who/what is it that is all these experiences? I am saying that the owner is the experiences itself. Again, it is not an added quality, the owner is in fact what you think is ownerless. Reality is self-owned. The experience owns itself, it is totally self-contained, because it completely singular. Since it is singular, you have to generate it yourself, because you can't offload it to anything else. Literally there is no opposite for you to do it. You cant wipe out the experience, that is the Self. It does not have an opposite because it must include everything, so that means it is self-generated. Saying it just arises with no owner, is identical to saying it generates itself. The no self is just the Self. Infinity is just you. There can't be an other to it. Appearance is you. It simply cannot be an other, because its singular as you said. For something to arise, it has to be generated by the Self, and the arising itself is the self-generation. When you say experience has no owner, you still don't recognize that the experience owns itself, it is its own source.

[axiom]

1 minute ago, amanen said:

You say there is no owner, but who/what is it that is all these experiences? I am saying that the owner is the experiences itself. Again, it is not an added quality, the owner is in fact what you think is ownerless. Reality is self-owned. The experience owns itself, it is totally self-contained, because it completely singular. Since it is singular, you have to generate it yourself, because you can't offload it to anything else. Literally there is no opposite for you to do it. You cant wipe out the experience, that is the Self. It does not have an opposite because it must include everything, so that means it is self-generated. Saying it just arises with no owner, is identical to saying it generates itself. The no self is just the Self. Infinity is just you. There can't be an other to it. Appearance is you. It simply cannot be an other, because its singular as you said. For something to arise, it has to be generated by the Self, and the arising itself is the self-generation. When you say experience has no owner, you still don't recognize that the experience owns itself, it is its own source.

They are not experiences. They are appearance. 

"Experience" is what the self / Self likes to think is happening, because it gives it a purpose, a function, an existence. It is the seeking, hoping, grasping energy whether it is self or Self. Experience is always separate and dualistic. Experience is the low resolution, desaturated version of infinity.

[amanen]

18 minutes ago, axiom said:

They are not experiences. They are appearance. 

"Experience" is what the self / Self likes to think is happening, because it gives it a purpose, a function, an existence. It is the seeking, hoping, grasping energy whether it is self or Self. Experience is always separate and dualistic. Experience is the low resolution, desaturated version of infinity.

Well now we are just getting into word games. I never said experience has a purpose. The Self doesn't like to think anything, that isn't what the Self is. It isn't something with an opposite. We mean the same thing, when you say appearance I say experience. I don't see a single bit of difference with the words experience and appearance. You can have experience without an experiencer, and this experience (or appearance) is the Self. The appearance itself is it... Just replace experience with appearance in my post, and it still is the same. 

When you say experience, you seem to mean it in a dualistic way, but when I say experience, I mean it in the nondualistic way. The experience I'm talking about does not have non-experience as an opposite.

Also, I have had many nondual experiences in which my consciousness was completely united, where I was not aware of any opposite, so to say experience is always separate is false. And nothing is ever actually truly separate in the first place, which makes all experience nondual.

Edited September 22, 2022 by amanen

[axiom]

Just now, amanen said:

Well now we are just getting into word games. I never said experience has a purpose. The Self doesn't like to think anything, that isn't what the Self is. It isn't something with an opposite. We mean the same thing, when you say appearance I say experience. I don't see a single bit of difference with the words experience and appearance. You can have experience without an experiencer, and this experience (or appearance) is the Self. The appearance itself is it... Just replace experience with appearance in my post, and it still is the same. 

Also, I have had many nondual experiences in which my consciousness was completely united, where I was not aware of any opposite, so to say experience is always separate is false. And nothing is ever actually truly separate in the first place, which makes all experience nondual.

The words 'self', or 'I', or "you' are almost invariably used in the dualistic subject / object sense. I see no reason to use it when speaking of infinity unless you are subtly or tacitly referring to subject / object, or to experiencing, or to ownership, or to the sense that you exist.

Using 'I' is an exaltation, an elevation of a ghost to the throne. The 'I' deserves no such thing - it isn't there.

[amanen]

12 minutes ago, axiom said:

The words 'self', or 'I', or "you' are almost invariably used in the dualistic subject / object sense. I see no reason to use it when speaking of infinity unless you are subtly or tacitly referring to subject / object, or to experiencing, or to ownership, or to the sense that you exist.

Using 'I' is an exaltation, an elevation of a ghost to the throne. The 'I' deserves no such thing - it isn't there.

I'm not using them in a dualistic sense here. The Self, the I, the You, has no subject object relationship. If you don't see a reason to use that term, then perhaps you have not had an experience of seeing truly what I mean by the word. If you did, you would understand why the word is being used. Because it is there, you just have to become conscious of it.

[axiom]

3 minutes ago, amanen said:

I'm not using them in a dualistic sense here. The Self, the I, the You, has no subject object relationship. If you don't see a reason to use that term, then perhaps you have not had an experience of seeing truly what I mean by the word. If you did, you would understand why the word is being used. Because it is there, you just have to become conscious of it.

Fair enough. Maybe!

[cetus]

Practice cessation of the self and it's a sure bet something amazing will happen. If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone. And once it does there is no denying it. This needs to be shared.

ces·sa·tion

the fact or process of ending or being brought to an end.

Edited September 22, 2022 by cetus

[Razard86]

10 minutes ago, cetus said:

Practice cessation of the self and it's a sure bet something amazing will happen. If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone. This needs to be shared.

ces·sa·tion

the fact or process of ending or being brought to an end.

Only to discover the end is the beginning lol!!!

[cetus]

10 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

Only to discover the end is the beginning lol!!!

Or perhaps the re-discovery of what has been forgotten.

Edited September 22, 2022 by cetus

[Razard86]

6 minutes ago, cetus said:

Or perhaps the re-discovery of what has been forgotten.

^Yes which is absolutely true....and doesn't even make sense...since time doesn't exist...its like WHEN did this happen? LOL.

[BipolarGrowth]

On 9/20/2022 at 4:52 PM, Razard86 said:

Respectfully I don't give a damn about some master....I also don't give a damn about all this humility lol. You are BipolarGrowth the legendary BipolarGrowth. That supposed master could NEVER BE YOU!!! Your unique expression, your unique interpretation, your unique perspective, don't allow others to sully it with their point of view. Drop the dogma, its a guide, drop the labels its all a guide! Find your own unique expression and give us mere underlings a glimpse of your beautiful mind!!!!

 

Well this video I made at the time describes that state as well as deeper ones in what you’ll see is a pretty authentic way 

How I Experienced Back-to-Back Cessations Through Bhakti & Love (instead of meditating)

 

 

[Razard86]

1 hour ago, BipolarGrowth said:

Well this video I made at the time describes that state as well as deeper ones in what you’ll see is a pretty authentic way 

How I Experienced Back-to-Back Cessations Through Bhakti & Love (instead of meditating)

 

 

Thanks I'll check it out!! I all I want to do is wake the whole world up to their individual genius!!

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, cetus said:

Practice cessation of the self and it's a sure bet something amazing will happen. If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone. And once it does there is no denying it. This needs to be shared.

ces·sa·tion

the fact or process of ending or being brought to an end.

That is my experience with 5 meo. the self ceases completely and there is nothing. zero, it is an empty and dead sensation, if there were someone to feel it. it's just total absolute emptiness. if the void is long enough, it reveals itself as unfathomable depth. the unfathomable depth is a sacred source, it is something that surpasses any description. the only expression that appears is: hallelujah. the source is infinite, everything is in it. the source is me, I always was and had forgotten. it's obvious. is better than the best possible possibility. is the total jackpot.

Edited September 22, 2022 by Breakingthewall

[axiom]

7 hours ago, cetus said:

Or perhaps the re-discovery of what has been forgotten.

Exactly this. And the self either partially or completely surrenders to it.

7 hours ago, cetus said:

Practice cessation of the self and it's a sure bet something amazing will happen. If it can happen to me it can happen to anyone. And once it does there is no denying it. 

Yes! Although strictly speaking it is already happening. The 'me' just veils it.

2 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

the source is me, I always was and had forgotten.

The source is the source. It always was and it had been forgotten.

The extent to which any 'I' is there at all - even the recontextualised big 'I' - is a clue that there is a still greater surrender.

Edited September 22, 2022 by axiom

[Wilhelm44]

I created myself from MySelf. Is fractals all the way.

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, axiom said:

The source is the source. It always was and it had been forgotten.

I m not me, there is not i, it's the source, so I'm the source, even "i" is just an illusion, I'm talking from the i. If i were talking from the source i wouldn't say i am, nothing would be sayed, just "am"