"The importance he gives his own ego is not baseless. It derives, if traced to the deepest ground, from the Overself. He has misplaced his true identity, but the false one is not entirely so."
The underlined bit of text has me a bit confused. I'm not entirely sure what he is trying to say with "but the false one is not entirely so.".
Our self-identity with the personality (or ego) is not entirely a baseless self-identification.
Unfortunately I must now leave, but will return. Thank you for these discussions!
PB Quote on Mentalism taken from Wisdoms website
Moderator: figaro
One more
One more, and then I must go: I have a question for you: do you believe in pure Consciousness = a field of Consciousness, and within that field of greater Consciousness our individual thoughts then arise? I probably did not say that very well
I must admit, I'm a bit lost here.
Take the first thought that comes into your head, or the first emotion that comes into your heart.
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
I must admit, I'm a bit lost here.
Take the first thought that comes into your head, or the first emotion that comes into your heart.
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
But isn't such though, without tangible proof of it's validity, entirely a creation of the ego as I stated in my earlier post??
Well: no.
I see. How so??
I will ask you again: do you think you are merely your thoughts and emotions; or do you allow for the possibility of a greater field of true Consciousness which is also the Source of all our individual thoughts - and in which these individual thoughts first arise and then leave ... ?
I believe we are all thoughts and emotions.
Well: no.
I see. How so??
I will ask you again: do you think you are merely your thoughts and emotions; or do you allow for the possibility of a greater field of true Consciousness which is also the Source of all our individual thoughts - and in which these individual thoughts first arise and then leave ... ?
I believe we are all thoughts and emotions.
Take the first thought that comes into your head, or the first emotion that comes into your heart.
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that a persons perspective on the world around them defines their psyche and their emotional responses. Through this kind of analysis of their surroundings, the thoughts and emotions, created by their perception, tend to dominate the persons mind (on some level) and are often the first things to come through. But it is also no for the simple reason that people can think one thing, but then chose to internalize it and instead create a facade to the rest of the world. While they may know that one thought or emotion in particular may define who they are as a person, our ability to lie makes discerning their true identity much more difficult as the choice to lie is often premeditated. Therefore, a false emotion and thought have already been created.
Our self-identity with the personality (or ego) is not entirely a baseless self-identification.
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
There are many alternatives to evolution besides violence, and I am sure that you already know them!
Looking back, perhaps I conveyed the wrong point and misconstrued my words.
In the sense of the natural world, yes, violence is the way of evolution. Life vs. life. However, in the sense of the beings who are evolving, destruction and/or a repression of some sort, is crucial to their development. Whether that destruction comes in the form of other physical beings, or simply through seeking to repress our more basic instincts to rise above the common creature, the base for evolution (of any kind) lies in the destruction or repression of the thing before it from which the new is evolving.
Who created Nature?
Ah, a probing question as always.
I would say nature created itself (if you can call nature a "being".). The sense of creation comes from our own use of the term. Something that is seen to occur in the world and, indeed, the Universe that has a predictable rhythm is understood as natural (motions of planets, the setting of the sun, the ebb and flow of the ocean are all examples of natural things.). Nature created "itself", but we have since come to recognize and understand it.
I have to leave for the time being, but will return at a later time. I certainly look forward to continuing the discussion. It is most intriguing.
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that a persons perspective on the world around them defines their psyche and their emotional responses. Through this kind of analysis of their surroundings, the thoughts and emotions, created by their perception, tend to dominate the persons mind (on some level) and are often the first things to come through. But it is also no for the simple reason that people can think one thing, but then chose to internalize it and instead create a facade to the rest of the world. While they may know that one thought or emotion in particular may define who they are as a person, our ability to lie makes discerning their true identity much more difficult as the choice to lie is often premeditated. Therefore, a false emotion and thought have already been created.
Our self-identity with the personality (or ego) is not entirely a baseless self-identification.
I see. Thank you for the clarification.
There are many alternatives to evolution besides violence, and I am sure that you already know them!
Looking back, perhaps I conveyed the wrong point and misconstrued my words.
In the sense of the natural world, yes, violence is the way of evolution. Life vs. life. However, in the sense of the beings who are evolving, destruction and/or a repression of some sort, is crucial to their development. Whether that destruction comes in the form of other physical beings, or simply through seeking to repress our more basic instincts to rise above the common creature, the base for evolution (of any kind) lies in the destruction or repression of the thing before it from which the new is evolving.
Who created Nature?
Ah, a probing question as always.
I would say nature created itself (if you can call nature a "being".). The sense of creation comes from our own use of the term. Something that is seen to occur in the world and, indeed, the Universe that has a predictable rhythm is understood as natural (motions of planets, the setting of the sun, the ebb and flow of the ocean are all examples of natural things.). Nature created "itself", but we have since come to recognize and understand it.
I have to leave for the time being, but will return at a later time. I certainly look forward to continuing the discussion. It is most intriguing.
The Rhythm of the universe
Who created Nature? Good morning, Anubis!
I would say nature created itself (if you can call nature a "being".). The sense of creation comes from our own use of the term. Something that is seen to occur in the world and, indeed, the Universe that has a predictable rhythm is understood as natural (motions of planets, the setting of the sun, the ebb and flow of the ocean are all examples of natural things.). Nature created "itself", but we have since come to recognize and understand it.
And where did this predictible rhythm and order of the Universe come from? (A beautiful phrase by the way ...) Where did the manifested universe come from, in your opinion? Are you saying that the manifested universe just appeared magically out of Nothing at all? Hmm .... Something does not come out of Nothing!
I would say nature created itself (if you can call nature a "being".). The sense of creation comes from our own use of the term. Something that is seen to occur in the world and, indeed, the Universe that has a predictable rhythm is understood as natural (motions of planets, the setting of the sun, the ebb and flow of the ocean are all examples of natural things.). Nature created "itself", but we have since come to recognize and understand it.
And where did this predictible rhythm and order of the Universe come from? (A beautiful phrase by the way ...) Where did the manifested universe come from, in your opinion? Are you saying that the manifested universe just appeared magically out of Nothing at all? Hmm .... Something does not come out of Nothing!
Destruction and evolution
There are many alternatives to evolution besides violence, and I am sure that you already know them!
Looking back, perhaps I conveyed the wrong point and misconstrued my words.
In the sense of the natural world, yes, violence is the way of evolution. Life vs. life. However, in the sense of the beings who are evolving, destruction and/or a repression of some sort, is crucial to their development. Whether that destruction comes in the form of other physical beings, or simply through seeking to repress our more basic instincts to rise above the common creature, the base for evolution (of any kind) lies in the destruction or repression of the thing before it from which the new is evolving. Oh, I see what you are saying, and I think you said it very well. And I certainly agree that this can be true, this evolution as a result of repression and also destruction of that which must be left behind. But this is not the only way, and in my opinion certainly not the best way. There are other options, such as those I already mentioned. (I am also surprised someone hasn't jumped in and added their thoughts to this discussion ...) In my view, transformation is the best way for us to evolve, whether we are speaking of human beings or any other creature. (I might add that I do not think evolution in the natural world is entirely "life vs life" either.) And by transformation I mean that the higher part of us - call it Higher Consciousness, or the soul receiving Grace from the Divine, or our own soul - shining through our personal minds and hearts. In my mind - this is the only true evolution, either of an individual or a species.
Looking back, perhaps I conveyed the wrong point and misconstrued my words.
In the sense of the natural world, yes, violence is the way of evolution. Life vs. life. However, in the sense of the beings who are evolving, destruction and/or a repression of some sort, is crucial to their development. Whether that destruction comes in the form of other physical beings, or simply through seeking to repress our more basic instincts to rise above the common creature, the base for evolution (of any kind) lies in the destruction or repression of the thing before it from which the new is evolving. Oh, I see what you are saying, and I think you said it very well. And I certainly agree that this can be true, this evolution as a result of repression and also destruction of that which must be left behind. But this is not the only way, and in my opinion certainly not the best way. There are other options, such as those I already mentioned. (I am also surprised someone hasn't jumped in and added their thoughts to this discussion ...) In my view, transformation is the best way for us to evolve, whether we are speaking of human beings or any other creature. (I might add that I do not think evolution in the natural world is entirely "life vs life" either.) And by transformation I mean that the higher part of us - call it Higher Consciousness, or the soul receiving Grace from the Divine, or our own soul - shining through our personal minds and hearts. In my mind - this is the only true evolution, either of an individual or a species.
True Self
Take the first thought that comes into your head, or the first emotion that comes into your heart.
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that a persons perspective on the world around them defines their psyche and their emotional responses. Through this kind of analysis of their surroundings, the thoughts and emotions, created by their perception, tend to dominate the persons mind (on some level) and are often the first things to come through. But it is also no for the simple reason that people can think one thing, but then chose to internalize it and instead create a facade to the rest of the world. While they may know that one thought or emotion in particular may define who they are as a person, our ability to lie makes discerning their true identity much more difficult as the choice to lie is often premeditated. Therefore, a false emotion and thought have already been created. If the first thought that came into your head or the first emotion that arose in your heart was your true self - then how would you explain the next thought and emotion that arose?
Is that you? All of you? Your true Self????
Well, yes and no. Yes in the sense that a persons perspective on the world around them defines their psyche and their emotional responses. Through this kind of analysis of their surroundings, the thoughts and emotions, created by their perception, tend to dominate the persons mind (on some level) and are often the first things to come through. But it is also no for the simple reason that people can think one thing, but then chose to internalize it and instead create a facade to the rest of the world. While they may know that one thought or emotion in particular may define who they are as a person, our ability to lie makes discerning their true identity much more difficult as the choice to lie is often premeditated. Therefore, a false emotion and thought have already been created. If the first thought that came into your head or the first emotion that arose in your heart was your true self - then how would you explain the next thought and emotion that arose?
thoughts vs Thought
I will ask you again: do you think you are merely your thoughts and emotions; or do you allow for the possibility of a greater field of true Consciousness which is also the Source of all our individual thoughts - and in which these individual thoughts first arise and then leave ... ?
I believe we are all thoughts and emotions.
Where do these thoughts and emotions come from?
I believe we are all thoughts and emotions.
Where do these thoughts and emotions come from?
Well, no
But isn't such though, without tangible proof of it's validity, entirely a creation of the ego as I stated in my earlier post??
Well: no.
I see. How so??
Thanks for the chuckle. This entire discussion is concerning whether the soul is the True Self - or whether the ego is our only self. Your position and mine are diametrically opposed! Tangible proof means nothing in this discussion: we are discussing something mystical, something beyond the physical. There can be no tangible proof, save to the true Clairvoyant or Mystic. I fact, the lack of tangible proof is a strength on the mystical or spiritual Path.
Thank you for these discussions Anubis; I am enjoying them.
Well: no.
I see. How so??
Thanks for the chuckle. This entire discussion is concerning whether the soul is the True Self - or whether the ego is our only self. Your position and mine are diametrically opposed! Tangible proof means nothing in this discussion: we are discussing something mystical, something beyond the physical. There can be no tangible proof, save to the true Clairvoyant or Mystic. I fact, the lack of tangible proof is a strength on the mystical or spiritual Path.
Thank you for these discussions Anubis; I am enjoying them.
billions of true selves?
Therefore, a false emotion and thought have already been created. One more thing before I go: what would a true emotion look like; a true thought, one that represented your true self?
Are you saying that you are billions of true selves every few days?
Isn't there an Anubis that is beyond and larger than all these myriad individual thoughts and emotions?
And now I really must go.
Are you saying that you are billions of true selves every few days?
Isn't there an Anubis that is beyond and larger than all these myriad individual thoughts and emotions?
And now I really must go.
And where did this predictible rhythm and order of the Universe come from? (A beautiful phrase by the way ...) Where did the manifested universe come from, in your opinion?
The rhythm as we see it today had to "define" itself, so to speak. Time created the natural rhythm we are accustomed to today. The overall prediction of it comes from our developed understanding of the world around us. As for the formation of our known Universe, I believe strongly in the Big Bang Theory.
In my view, transformation is the best way for us to evolve, whether we are speaking of human beings or any other creature.
But isn't transformation just another way of saying evolve? If something transforms, is it not implied that it has changed? And isn't the implication of evolution that of change??
I might add that I do not think evolution in the natural world is entirely "life vs life" either.
It has to be. If something is killed, it cannot evolve. Evolution in the natural world relies on survival.
Are you saying that you are billions of true selves every few days?
In a sense, yes. While there is one underlying set of thoughts and emotions that define and govern you, these are often not what those around us see or hear. We create a multitude of false identities every day to blend in with the "norm" and act accordingly to society.
The rhythm as we see it today had to "define" itself, so to speak. Time created the natural rhythm we are accustomed to today. The overall prediction of it comes from our developed understanding of the world around us. As for the formation of our known Universe, I believe strongly in the Big Bang Theory.
In my view, transformation is the best way for us to evolve, whether we are speaking of human beings or any other creature.
But isn't transformation just another way of saying evolve? If something transforms, is it not implied that it has changed? And isn't the implication of evolution that of change??
I might add that I do not think evolution in the natural world is entirely "life vs life" either.
It has to be. If something is killed, it cannot evolve. Evolution in the natural world relies on survival.
Are you saying that you are billions of true selves every few days?
In a sense, yes. While there is one underlying set of thoughts and emotions that define and govern you, these are often not what those around us see or hear. We create a multitude of false identities every day to blend in with the "norm" and act accordingly to society.
Last edited by Anubis on Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:04 am, edited 2 times in total.
And by transformation I mean that the higher part of us - call it Higher Consciousness, or the soul receiving Grace from the Divine, or our own soul - shining through our personal minds and hearts. In my mind - this is the only true evolution, either of an individual or a species.
Perhaps the highest echelon of evolution, but not the truest form of evolution. Evolution takes on many forms.
If the first thought that came into your head or the first emotion that arose in your heart was your true self - then how would you explain the next thought and emotion that arose?
That would be a part of who you are, but not the definition of who you are. Every person has within them the potential for good and bad. We can all experience the full range of human emotions, but it is our choice with which emotions we chose to identify that define our thoughts which, in turn, define us.
Where do these thoughts and emotions come from?
Ourselves, of course.
I fact, the lack of tangible proof is a strength on the mystical or spiritual Path.
But proof can mean any number of things to someone. From my point of view, there is no tangible evidence to support the spiritual realm. But from the point of view of a believer, simply believing and experiencing are proof enough for the validity of their views. The issue arises when one side uses it's "evidence" to try and prove the other side wrong because both sides think the other is wrong and believing in false evidence.
Perhaps the highest echelon of evolution, but not the truest form of evolution. Evolution takes on many forms.
If the first thought that came into your head or the first emotion that arose in your heart was your true self - then how would you explain the next thought and emotion that arose?
That would be a part of who you are, but not the definition of who you are. Every person has within them the potential for good and bad. We can all experience the full range of human emotions, but it is our choice with which emotions we chose to identify that define our thoughts which, in turn, define us.
Where do these thoughts and emotions come from?
Ourselves, of course.
I fact, the lack of tangible proof is a strength on the mystical or spiritual Path.
But proof can mean any number of things to someone. From my point of view, there is no tangible evidence to support the spiritual realm. But from the point of view of a believer, simply believing and experiencing are proof enough for the validity of their views. The issue arises when one side uses it's "evidence" to try and prove the other side wrong because both sides think the other is wrong and believing in false evidence.
the Path and proof
In fact, the lack of tangible proof is a strength on the mystical or spiritual Path.
But proof can mean any number of things to someone. From my point of view, there is no tangible evidence to support the spiritual realm. But from the point of view of a believer, simply believing and experiencing are proof enough for the validity of their views. The issue arises when one side uses it's "evidence" to try and prove the other side wrong because both sides think the other is wrong and believing in false evidence.
Good evening, Anubis! First let me say: I am not trying to prove anyone wrong here, and I hope you do not think that is my intention.
I have found that often differences of opinion are more vocabulary than true differences in thought - and, in addition, each of us has our own Path to Truth.
But proof can mean any number of things to someone. From my point of view, there is no tangible evidence to support the spiritual realm. But from the point of view of a believer, simply believing and experiencing are proof enough for the validity of their views. The issue arises when one side uses it's "evidence" to try and prove the other side wrong because both sides think the other is wrong and believing in false evidence.
Good evening, Anubis! First let me say: I am not trying to prove anyone wrong here, and I hope you do not think that is my intention.
I have found that often differences of opinion are more vocabulary than true differences in thought - and, in addition, each of us has our own Path to Truth.
true evolution
I might add that I do not think evolution in the natural world is entirely "life vs life" either.
It has to be. If something is killed, it cannot evolve. Evolution in the natural world relies on survival. I think species other than human have also evolved over the centuries, and in ways other than physical ways. Don't you, Anubis?
It has to be. If something is killed, it cannot evolve. Evolution in the natural world relies on survival. I think species other than human have also evolved over the centuries, and in ways other than physical ways. Don't you, Anubis?