Self, Other, No-Self, No-Need or Point to Define

[SourceCodo]

I'm very stuck with some view points shared here and in many spiritual traditions. There's too many questions and curiosities to really pen down here, so I'm just going to leave a few bullet points and my brief snapshot of them. Please correct me or point me toward information that can clear the confusion. 

I hope no one takes offense to how I positioned these. It's a rough run down of the internal argument I have which rejects the notions as presented. I always end up converting it down to grandiose and extravagant views on the very mundane experience of reality most have. I just see all of this as unsubstantiated belief fueled by the complexity of creativity and altered states. Regardless, I know I am endless and "it" by the very functions of the system it has presented me. I have experienced deep realizations that I am God and the nature of how this game works... But when I came back... It was yet again just another metaphor my mind cooked up and tried to aggrandize itself... For what simply is. And I am. 

1. Sovereignty - You're it and there is nothing outside of your creative, self centered awareness. All external objects are a projection of mind (incomprehensible & infinite creative potential). Sure, nothing can be experienced outside of my consciousness and I witness myself doing this every night when I dream up fresh worlds. But the subjective nature of reality seems like a purposeful design. To assume we're all just immaterial brain cells of yours is pretty legit. Extensions of self, projected out here, indepentently. But in honesty, all you've done is describe the unified nature of reality, as it is, and then used your experiential filter to limit it to what you are perceiving. Then confused the fact that only you can experience through you with you being the source of it all. It's entirely subjective. Aaand circular. 

2. Source vs Creator - I created this vs it always is/was vs I was created as an aspect of this and now I'm free to experience it. I can't imagine getting away from being God and also being a unique representation of God - but even though me and Dad are of the same One (don't confuse this as just a number)... I don't go around to the other kiddos telling them I'm responsible for Dad's work. Instead I express gratitude for the mystery and opportunity. But I do tread extremely carefully when accepting ideas and I don't refute the potential for me to have created all you see and experience - me, the one writing these words. I dream up new realities every night... And all of their inhabitants. I know it's nothing to me to create. 

3. Observation vs Engagement - You're not the doer, you're observing the doing. This is a very biologically explainable phenomenon. Are we confusing meta-mechanics and whereby limiting our view to this or that? Why? What convinced you to do so?

4. Self, No Self - Bullshit conjecture on the nature of identity. This is the most pointless, circular aspect I have encountered. I'll have a monk on stage explaining how nothing is real, no one exists, there is no self, there is only experience... Alright, who are you talking to then? If I'm really an aspect of you, don't you think it's a little pretentious to supersede my experience with your intuition? Controlling parent? Pompous idea generator? STUCK. (However, once released from the need to identify as this or that, this one makes alot more sense. It's only when someone articulates it that my gears jam.) I just see self as an intangible, meta-physical idea that is the product of subjectively experienced consciousness. Not "real", but Real.

5. Self, Other - There exists nothing outside of consciousness, there is no other, it's all you (God) - where and why did the term "other" even get coined? And (who are you talking to and trying to teach given this truth? Wouldn't you rather end the futility and go smell the flowers instead of herding your projected variants? ) 

6. It's all an illusion/dream - Everything you see is a product of mind / awareness / stimuli . Even dreams. There's no difference between the "it's real" and "it's not real" arguments aside from semantic ramblings of they and them. If you just articulated it, it's real just as real as the imagination produced "unreal". Tangible through mind. Just like all of reality. (see point 1)

 

That's it for now. We're all somewhere along out path... Have mercy 

And when I use I/me/we/they whatever, it isn't totally the right word to use. I just use that because it's common practice for expressing subjective experience and identity. 

 

Disclaimer: I have held these views at one point or another. Then I always fall back into skepticism. Eventually I got to the "believe nothing" ground"... Now I can't tell if I'm just neurotic or right for doing so. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by SourceCodo

[SourceCodo]

 

 

[amanen]

1. You can't say that the external objects are somehow a projection of your mind, as if they were separate or different from your own mind.

2. Creator and Creation is Dualism, neither idea is correct, God is not a creator or a creation, you are this

3. You also can't have a Dualism with doing and observation of doing, they are the same process

4. Self and No self are the same, the no self is for the ego, which also does not exist

5. If the word Other was not coined, you would coin this word at some point, precisely because there is no Other

6. Nothing can also be a product of your own mind, as this is the notion of Dualism, but everything is your mind

Edited April 2, 2023 by amanen

[SourceCodo]

26 minutes ago, amanen said:

1. You can't say that the external objects are somehow a projection of your mind, as if they were separate or different from your own mind. 

2. Creator and Creation is Dualism, neither idea is correct, God is not a creator or a creation, you are this

3. You also can't have a Dualism with doing and observation of doing, they are the same process

4. Self and No self are the same, the no self is for the ego, which also does not exist

5. If the word Other was not coined, you would coin this word at some point, precisely because there is no Other

6. Nothing can also be a product of your own mind, as this is the notion of Dualism, but everything is your mind

I’m with you on all of that. 
 

But if I’m omniscient, “this”, why did I need you to reply with this response? 
 

Or is soliciting this response, from the infinite of possible outcomes, and having a subjective “‘me/you/that” arise in response an example of such? 
 

It’s terribly hard to articulate. Everything is my Mind. Yet I give respect to the subjective and unique nature of its aspects by default and in Love of your personally grown story. Whether or not you see it, I see you as a story with unique identity.

 

Also, if you see anything that appears to be subjective, personal, dual, ignore that mental response. It’s not what I mean. It’s not how things work. Even within a singular, non-tangible process, the choice is yours to see uniqueness or the whole. 
 

This interaction, what is it an example of? What are you talking to? Is this not inherently a dualistic view? As though there was something/someone else to respond to?

Edited April 2, 2023 by SourceCodo

[Breakingthewall]

6 minutes ago, SourceCodo said:

It’s terribly hard to articulate. Everything is my Mind. Yet I give respect to the subjective and unique nature of its aspects by default and in Love of your personally grown story. Whether or not you see it, I see you as a story with unique identity.

The confusion that we all have is due to the concreteness and full of meaning of the experience that is occurring where there is perceiver and perceived. Today I tried to understand this with a moderate dose of mushrooms, 2 gr, enough for me to go in and out of ego death several times. once the illusion of a me as opposed to a non-me to which things happen is dissolved, reality is seen to be unlimited flow. in that flow this appearance is created. For what? I don't know. in this appearance it is impossible not to think in self/other terms, so when the appearance dissolves and there is no duality, and then it is created again, the interpretation is extremely misleading. For example, now I'm thinking, let's see, if reality is infinite flow, as i just realized , does the guy from the forum I'm talking to have any other experience? this is absolutely misleading, impossible to understand, since we think about it from the mirage of duality. I think that we have to dismantle many times the illusion to start understand. For now the only coherent though is: my experience is the absolute. Nothing else exist.

[SourceCodo]

43 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

The confusion that we all have is due to the concreteness and full of meaning of the experience that is occurring where there is perceiver and perceived. Today I tried to understand this with a moderate dose of mushrooms, 2 gr, enough for me to go in and out of ego death several times. once the illusion of a me as opposed to a non-me to which things happen is dissolved, reality is seen to be unlimited flow. in that flow this appearance is created. For what? I don't know. in this appearance it is impossible not to think in self/other terms, so when the appearance dissolves and there is no duality, and then it is created again, the interpretation is extremely misleading. For example, now I'm thinking, let's see, if reality is infinite flow, as i just realized , does the guy from the forum I'm talking to have any other experience? this is absolutely misleading, impossible to understand, since we think about it from the mirage of duality. I think that we have to dismantle many times the illusion to start understand. For now the only coherent though is: my experience is the absolute. Nothing else exist.

Thanks for the insight. 
 

I guess given your context, to relate it, it’s like being lucid in a dream and arguing with the characters appearing in your visual field. Trying to convince the of something or another… As though it means something to do so. 

 

When in reality, they’re… Not what I thought?

 

And about your last statement about your experience being absolute… How could it be anything else? Unless you were able to plug in and see through these eyes. But is there such a thing? ?

 

Which you can’t. Only yours. But this is again, simplifying it to mundane reality. 

Edited April 2, 2023 by SourceCodo

[amanen]

5 hours ago, SourceCodo said:

I’m with you on all of that. 
 

But if I’m omniscient, “this”, why did I need you to reply with this response? 
 

Or is soliciting this response, from the infinite of possible outcomes, and having a subjective “‘me/you/that” arise in response an example of such? 
 

It’s terribly hard to articulate. Everything is my Mind. Yet I give respect to the subjective and unique nature of its aspects by default and in Love of your personally grown story. Whether or not you see it, I see you as a story with unique identity.

 

Also, if you see anything that appears to be subjective, personal, dual, ignore that mental response. It’s not what I mean. It’s not how things work. Even within a singular, non-tangible process, the choice is yours to see uniqueness or the whole. 
 

This interaction, what is it an example of? What are you talking to? Is this not inherently a dualistic view? As though there was something/someone else to respond to?

You don't need me to reply, but you also can't separate me from you, because there are no two parts to reality

There is no interaction going on here, the Dualism view is exactly the opposite, that this is somehow an interaction

[SourceCodo]

1 hour ago, amanen said:

You don't need me to reply, but you also can't separate me from you, because there are no two parts to reality

There is no interaction going on here, the Dualism view is exactly the opposite, that this is somehow an interaction

Yeah I agree. 
 

But isn’t dualism just an aspect of the all containing non-dualism? It’s inherently all inclusive. 
 

When and why did you begin holding this view? “There is no interaction going on here” 

 

It doesn’t make any sense. It’s probably one of the most abstract and useless things to say about experience. Semantically attempting to invalidate the potentiality of God. Limiting your own life to the words you’ve heard others say about it. Confirmation bias.
 

Regardless of its truth, you’re here. Now. You were born by a mother, just like the rest. That’s part of your narrative in this dream. Your imagination does not supersede experience. This iteration of the dream and all others operate the same way (infinitely variable). And are one.
 

The reality of you is the experience of you. Even if you’re just an intangible illusion. Even if you’re experiencing the entirety of creation or subjective human life contained within. When I say “you” im talking about both the subjective and the entirety - all “self” contained.
 

Which is also included in non-duality. All inclusive - there is no “not”. It’s all both real and unreal.  But for now, there’s nothing to grasp besides the phone or keyboard you’re using to type up responses.
 

Experientially, yea, im with you. But intellectually / conversationally, no. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by SourceCodo

[Grateful Dead]

@SourceCodo It sounds to me like you have to go deeper to see God in everything. This will then erease all your doubts and your mind will unify.

I don't think you will solve this intellectually with your current understanding.

[SourceCodo]

9 hours ago, acidgoofy said:

@SourceCodo It sounds to me like you have to go deeper to see God in everything. This will then erease all your doubts and your mind will unify.

I don't think you will solve this intellectually with your current understanding.

I see God is everything already… There is no separation. I mentioned that several times. Within infinite is also infinite variability, so maybe it just didn’t come across clearly to you.
 

I just don’t agree with the pseudo-explanations so many take as the truth. They’re all inherently limited, hypocritical, filtered and missing the mark. Was very curious if anyone had anything to say that might intellectually fit and pull me from my arrogance. 
 

Where I’m at - explanations always fall short and confuse others. Experience is direct, undisputed… But I still love to talk and read about it. Even though it’s futile.

Really, I should just delete the post before God cuts me down even more. I don’t need your validation - I want your responses to my questions.
 

I just want your data. 

Edited April 3, 2023 by SourceCodo

[Breakingthewall]

9 hours ago, SourceCodo said:

just don’t agree with the pseudo-explanations so many take as the truth. They’re all inherently limited, hypocritical, filtered and missing the mark. Was very curious if anyone had anything to say that might intellectually fit and pull me from my arrogance. 

Imo the matter of others is the central part of the illusion. which makes it impossible to understand in a sober state. any linear explanation is wrong. Leo's video of solipsism is a base but does not describe how apparent multiplicity works. I would say that it is impossible to describe it, it works in another dimension. I sometimes see it and understand it, but I lose it right away. the only valid explanation is: only you are real, applicable to infinite individuals. in our dimension this is not understandable.

 

[Grateful Dead]

@SourceCodo OK, maybe I misunderstood you. I will try to respond to your questions. Could you ask the them more directly? I'm not sure what exactly is unclear.