I was happier as a kid

[UnbornTao]

What is happiness?

Something to contemplate.

[Javfly33]

I think the key is that you can consciously have a sense of self or obliterate it at will. 

Why you need a sense of self? To plan and think about stuff, drive, do stuff, etc. 

But it is important to know how to disengage yourself and put the on Neutral. If not life burns you up 

[Osaid]

3 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

Why you need a sense of self? To plan and think about stuff, drive, do stuff, etc. 

Self doesn't control anything. It's imaginary like Santa Claus. You don't need it to think. It is literally made of thinking. It doesn't exist outside of thinking therefore it could not possibly have any control over thinking.

[Breakingthewall]

31 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Self doesn't control anything. It's imaginary like Santa Claus. You don't need it to think. It is literally made of thinking. It doesn't exist outside of thinking therefore it could not possibly have any control over thinking.

Thought is the manifestation of the self, not its substance. The human self has a genetic basis, and develops in life in society, since humans are hive entities. 

[Salvijus]

51 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Self doesn't control anything

The key thing to understand is that. Sense of self(ego) is the cause of many many many actions. 

And no self state has huge implications in change of behavior and how you feel. 

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Sugarcoat]

@Salvijus have you been without a self to notice this?

[Salvijus]

6 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

@Salvijus have you been without a self to notice this?

It's not necessary to have a full blown ego transcendence to confirm what I'm saying. Even if 1% of ego gets transcended it is already a huge  life changing transformative experience and shift in perception/reality. 

In that context I continuesly move towards higher and deeper transcendce but I have not touched the bottom. I think i mentioned here that only few in millenia ever get to touch the the full blown absorption into the Beyond. I don't even think I'm anywhere near it. 

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Sugarcoat]

@Salvijus yea but still infinite difference between even the thinnest self and no self. I was wondering where you base that on because I know plenty examples of enlightenment people for example just any non dual talker on YouTube they say it’s all normal after so 

[Osaid]

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Thought is the manifestation of the self, not its substance. The human self has a genetic basis, and develops in life in society, since humans are hive entities. 

Biology is not self. Biology is beyond thought. And there is no "self" which could hope to take responsibility for the causal chain of events which lead to the creation of that biology. You don't control your heartbeat. You don't even choose what you think because that itself is just more thinking.

In the same way how a plant growing upwards is not self. That is just its nature and intelligence playing itself out. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow downwards" it will not grow downwards. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow upwards" that thought still does not control its ability to grow upwards, it was in its nature and intelligence to do that anyways. The self does not control anything other aside from what it imagines about itself. If a human has the thought "I want to make coffee" then it reacts accordingly to that thought, but it certainly didn't choose that thought. You react to the thought, you don't choose it. If there is no coffee left, then you don't actually end up making coffee. You then react to the fact that you ran out of coffee, and you have a thought "I need to go to the store." You didn't choose that you want to go to the store, you reacted to the fact that you don't have coffee. And so the chain of intelligent reactions ensue, void of any real self.

This is not to be conflated with a lack of free will, it is just that you can only act as intelligent as your nature or existence allows. Free will is a false premise based on the belief that your imagination can bend and control reality. The concept of free will involves a "chooser" which chooses between two choices. But the chooser and choices themselves are imagined, they are both the same singular imagined object. This does not mean you don't have free will, it means there is no "you" which can gain or lose free will in the first place. Free will does not exist at all, therefore you cannot lose or gain it. You can only unimagine it. You don't lose or gain free will in the same way that you don't lose or gain Santa Claus by unimagining it.

[Osaid]

23 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

The key thing to understand is that. Sense of self(ego) is the cause of many many many actions. 

And no self state has huge implications in change of behavior and how you feel. 

That is correct. Again, there is a psychosomatic connection between self and what is not self. The part that creates action is not self, but it is a reaction to the imagined self. The imagined self which cannot do anything is being used as an object of desire, and that object of desire physically drives you to act out a desire in accordance with that self. Physical movement is not self, but it can be used to serve the self, and this relationship is what is called ego or self-image. It is the belief that you can imagine yourself which causes the physical reactions which serve that self, because now you have a desire to serve and protect that self. In the exact same way how a kid who believes in Santa Claus acts differently while imagining Santa Claus. Santa Claus is not controlling anything, it is the reaction to the belief that Santa Claus does control things which causes the kid to physically act it out. And it is the same reason why that kid will feel genuine physical fear when you tell them that they are on the naughty list.

I wrote out some of the tangible measurable symptoms that come along with the no self state here:
 

 

Edited March 20 by Osaid

[Salvijus]

23 minutes ago, Sugarcoat said:

I was wondering where you base that on.  I know plenty examples of enlightenment people for example just any non dual talker on YouTube they say it’s all normal after so  

Yes I know what you mean. These days there are many spiritual teachers and all of them are saying different things lol. There's like new teachings about enlightenment every day now haha. Everyone is just pushing their opinion left and right. 

With that sayed, I'm not coming with the intention to prove I'm right. I'm coming with the intention to explore. The perspective I'm giving is in alignment with my own experience. Very much so. But more importantly than that. It is fully fully logical. And that's where I thought was potential for interesting discussions to happen. 

And for the record, what I'm saying, references of it can be found in many ancient traditions like bhuddism, ancient yoga, even acim. These are very high quality material. It's only in the new age YouTube culture that you can find such simplistic enlightenment definitions. 

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Salvijus]

13 minutes ago, Osaid said:

That is correct. Again, there is a psychosomatic connection between self and what is not self. The part that creates action is not self, but it is a reaction to the imagined self. The imagined self which cannot do anything is being used as an object of desire, and that object of desire physically drives you to act out a desire in accordance with that self. Physical movement is not self, but it can be used to serve the self, and this relationship is what is called ego or self-image. It is the belief that you can imagine yourself which causes the physical reactions which serve that self, because now you have a desire to serve and protect that self. In the exact same way how a kid who believes in Santa Claus acts differently while imagining Santa Claus. Santa Claus is not controlling anything, it is the reaction to the belief that Santa Claus does control things which causes the kid to physically act it out. And it is the same reason why that kid will feel genuine physical fear when you tell them that they are on the naughty list.

So it seems we agree on this. That perception of self is the cause for many actions. Or in other words desire to serve the ego can only be there if there is a belief in the ego in the first place. 

Good. 

Now if we contemplate what happens when the perception of ego is seen through as imaginery. The only outcome of such a seeing can be to lose interest in the ego. Or in other words. All desire to serve the ego is gone.

If we push a bit further then with it all attention and focus on the body is gone. 

If we push it further and contemplate what that means you get a samadhi state where that particular mind is so absorbed on infinity that sensations on the body mean nothing at all. 

And so...

It all comes together into this: "I was right all along" 

Muahahaaha 

 

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Osaid]

3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:

Now if we contemplate what happens when the perception of ego is seen through as imaginery. The only outcome of such a seeing can be to lose interest in the ego. Or in other words. All desire to serve the ego is gone.

If we push a bit further then with it all attention and focus on the body is gone.

If we push it further and contemplate what that means you get a samadhi state where a that particular mind is so absorbed on infinity that sensations on the body mean nothing at all. 

The logic tracks until this point. You are conflating the perception of your body with ego. Why would being absorbed in infinity exclude the body? Is the body not infinite? At what point in infinity does the body lose its meaning?

Do things only have value and meaning when you imagine a false self alongside it?

Edited March 20 by Osaid

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Biology is not self. Biology is beyond thought. And there is no "self" which could hope to take responsibility for the causal chain of events which lead to the creation of that biology. You don't control your heartbeat. You don't even choose what you think because that itself is just more thinking.

In the same way how a plant growing upwards is not self. That is just its nature and intelligence playing itself out. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow downwards" it will not grow downwards. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow upwards" that thought still does not control its ability to grow upwards, it was in its nature and intelligence to do that anyways. The self does not control anything other aside from what it imagines about itself. If a human has the thought "I want to make coffee" then it reacts accordingly to that thought, but it certainly didn't choose that thought. You react to the thought, you don't choose it. If there is no coffee left, then you don't actually end up making coffee. You then react to the fact that you ran out of coffee, and you have a thought "I need to go to the store." You didn't choose that you want to go to the store, you reacted to the fact that you don't have coffee. And so the chain of intelligent reactions ensue, void of any real self.

This is not to be conflated with a lack of free will, it is just that you can only act as intelligent as your nature or existence allows. Free will is a false premise based on the belief that your imagination can bend and control reality. The concept of free will involves a "chooser" which chooses between two choices. But the chooser and choices themselves are imagined, they are both the same singular imagined object. This does not mean you don't have free will, it means there is no "you" which can gain or lose free will in the first place. Free will does not exist at all, therefore you cannot lose or gain it. You can only unimagine it. You don't lose or gain free will in the same way that you don't lose or gain Santa Claus by unimagining it.

Just as a plant does the things it does, a human thinks. The plant, based on its genetics and given the circumstances, decides to approach the light of a window. A human, based on his genetics and given the circumstances, thinks: I'm going for a walk because the weather is good. Thought is the manifestation of what the human is, and the human is a being adapted to its changing circumstance, the same as the plant, only the human's circumstance changes faster.

The human self is a manifestation of the movement of existence that it means to be human, and just as an ant decides to go right or left due to its genetic programming and the sum of all circumstances and learning, a human does the same when think: I'm going to buy cocaine

[Salvijus]

7 minutes ago, Osaid said:

You are conflating the perception of your body with ego. Why would being absorbed in infinity exclude the body?

Because... 

Imagine there is a glorious beautiful blazing sunset and on your left there is poo on the ground. Then I will ask you. Which one are you going to pay attention to? A sunset or a poo? 

That's how it is with someone who has lost interest in serving the ego. His attention is so absorbed on bliss of creation that a sensation of pain is completely not worth paying attention to. 

Please tell me this makes sense... 

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Breakingthewall]

Just now, Salvijus said:

Because... 

Imagine there is a glorious beautiful blazing sunset and on your left there is poo on the ground. Then I will ask you. Which one are you going to pay attention to? A sunset or a poo? 

That's how it is with someone who has lost interest in serving the ego. His attention is so absorbed on bliss of creation that a sensation of pain is completely not worth paying attention to. 

Please tell me this makes sense... 

That level of no ego would mean that you would not care if you lived or died, and there is always a preference for living, since otherwise you would not live.

[Salvijus]

8 minutes ago, Osaid said:

Why would being absorbed in infinity exclude the body?

It's not about excluding the body, it's about giving it no value. It is only ego that gives value to the body. Pure awareness sees everything just neutral event. Neutral energy. 

[Salvijus]

1 minute ago, Salvijus said:

It's not about excluding the body, it's about giving it no value. It is only ego that gives value to the body. Pure awareness sees everything just neutral event. Neutral energy. 

And so pain is no longer more special sensation than pleasure. Both are just sensations. Everything becomes neutral. Nothing matters anymore. Ego is gone. And with it all the meaning and values it has ascribed to the arising phenomena is gone. 

Goooooshhh this makes so much sense broooooo..

Edited March 20 by Salvijus

[Osaid]

8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Just as a plant does the things it does, a human thinks. The plant, based on its genetics and given the circumstances, decides to approach the light of a window. A human, based on his genetics and given the circumstances, thinks: I'm going for a walk because the weather is good. Thought is the manifestation of what the human is, and the human is a being adapted to its changing circumstance, the same as the plant, only the human's circumstance changes faster.

A human is not self. A human is. A plant is. A self also is, but it is only ever imagination. And it can be unimagined.

Again, there is a difference between being a human and thinking that you are a human. Thinking that you are a human is self. It is imagination. It is thinking.

[Salvijus]

5 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

That level of no ego would mean that you would not care if you lived or died

Yep

6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

and there is always a preference for living

"Always" is a strong word. There are various cases would be a more accurate thing to say maybe

.