Self absorbed

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

Listen guys ..I'm from India..I know exactly about this unatman (no self ) from Buddhism.  Buddhism is extremely limited religion and they believe in all sorts of mythologies.  One of which is this thing about no self . Hinduism claims that there is the true Self or brahma..Buddhism rejects all self-identity..there isn't true self or false self ..there is just nobody home 

 Every Schmuck with more than zero brain cells knows that this is completely nonsensical. 

Actually so called science is coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as separate selves.  

[Someone here]

2 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

Actually so called science is coming to the conclusion that there is no such thing as separate selves.  

Can you link a scientific paper to back up your claim ?

[Jonas Long]

1 minute ago, Someone here said:

Can you link a scientific paper to back up your claim ?

https://bigthink.com/the-well/eastern-philosophy-neuroscience-no-self/

 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Listen guys ..I'm from India..I know exactly about this unatman (no self ) from Buddhism.  Buddhism is extremely limited religion and they believe in all sorts of mythologies.  One of which is this thing about no self . Hinduism claims that there is the true Self or brahma..Buddhism rejects all self-identity..there isn't true self or false self ..there is just nobody home 

 Every Schmuck with more than zero brain cells knows that this is completely nonsensical. 

The context is being overlooked. 

 

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

@Phil

Lol how ironic .

The moment you make any reference to yourself using pronouns such as I..me..my.. etc.. you consent to the fact you exist.

It’s linguistic. 

 

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

The moment you address or refer to anyone by name.. pronoun..or directly..you consent to their existence And acknowledge that you know they exist.

It’s linguistic. 

 

3 hours ago, Someone here said:

So why do “we” all continually play this neo advaita game on this forum where everyone pretends no one knows or can know ..anyone..(including themselves)exists?

Neo-Advaita means new not two, Neo-Advaita would be a second. Not two means there’s no one (“playing games”). 

Knowing is pretending. 

Not knowing is actual. Being. 

 

50 minutes ago, Someone here said:

He does not

 address my actual point in the slightest.

Not so. There’s no “he”. 

30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Yeah yeah yeah sure ..you can only say it when you want to and it won't be a mistake but when others say it you start blasting other's ears with "there is no you my dude " kinda horseshit. 

How convenient?

He uses I and you and me and my wife ..and when others do the same he says these references are illusion.  Just tell me what the fuck is going on here ?

It’s circular logic. The a priori is ignored as emotion is suppressed. As emotion is un-suppressed (expressed) all a priori is ready ‘seen’. 

 

You’re free to call the response BS, horseshit, etc. But the point was addressed perfectly nonetheless, as these (bs, horseshit, you, others, he) are thoughts like unicorn. 

Context. 

 

Webpages are provided on the terms used, possibly making ‘spooky terms’ less spooky, but there is no one else to see this in direct experience for you (linguistic reference). 

 

 

[Phil]

17 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Can you link a scientific paper to back up your claim ?

The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics was awarded for scientifically proving entangled quantum particles affect ‘each other‘ instantaneously without sending a signal (from one ‘thing’ to the ‘other thing’) faster than the speed of light. Similar to the assumption electricity travels through wires. This means the speed of light, spacetime, mass and relativity are beliefs, misnomers. 

[Someone here]

21 minutes ago, Jonas Long said:

https://bigthink.com/the-well/eastern-philosophy-neuroscience-no-self/

 

Interesting. Thanks . Well I kinda understand at the basic level that there is no separation in existence. Stuff only appear separate..but if you use a super computer's camera and zoom in into any boundary between two seemingly separate objects you will see that there is no fine line that distinguishes object (A) from object (B)..but then again ..that's the underlying truth ..not the deceptive appearance. And we as long as we  are under the illusion (which only something like a psychedelic trip can break it ) then we should act in accordance with the appearance aka separation. 

@Phil you are certainly trolling at this point . Keep laughing with your wifey .

Edited March 5 by Someone here

[Phil]

26 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Interesting. Thanks . Well I kinda understand at the basic level that there is no separation in existence. Stuff only appear separate..but if you use a super computer's camera and zoom in into any boundary between two seemingly separate objects you will see that there is no fine line that distinguishes object (A) from object (B)..but then again ..that's the underlying truth ..not the deceptive appearance.

Appearance is not deceptive. Appearance is…. Appearance. That appearance is deceptive would not be appearance… and would be… deceptive. Appearance is not deceptive. 

26 minutes ago, Someone here said:

And we as long as we  are under the illusion (which only something like a psychedelic trip can break it ) then we should act in accordance with the appearance aka separation. 

@Phil you are certainly trolling at this point . Keep laughing with your wifey .

What you said above includes what you said below. 

[Orb]

33 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Interesting. Thanks . Well I kinda understand at the basic level that there is no separation in existence. Stuff only appear separate..but if you use a super computer's camera and zoom in into any boundary between two seemingly separate objects you will see that there is no fine line that distinguishes object (A) from object (B)..but then again ..that's the underlying truth ..not the deceptive appearance. And we as long as we  are under the illusion (which only something like a psychedelic trip can break it ) then we should act in accordance with the appearance aka separation. 

How exactly do you behave in accordance with separation? You mean to continue living in ignorance?

[Joseph Maynor]

@Phil Maybe you're self-absorbed too.

[Orb]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Listen guys ..I'm from India..I know exactly about this unatman (no self ) from Buddhism.  Buddhism is extremely limited religion and they believe in all sorts of mythologies.  One of which is this thing about no self . Hinduism claims that there is the true Self or brahma..Buddhism rejects all self-identity..there isn't true self or false self ..there is just nobody home 

 Every Schmuck with more than zero brain cells knows that this is completely nonsensical. 

Actually inspect direct experience instead of rehashing/repeating philosophies and logical arguments. 

 

Look into direct experience. 

 

Hmm, what is direct experience? 

 

Well, it's the senses, okay, let's see if there's an actual self or identity in the senses. 

 

Is there a self in taste?

Is there a self in touch?

Is there a self in sound?

Is there a self in sight? 

Is there a self in smell?

 

Hmm, nope I don't see any self in the senses. 

 

Now I can see that arising thoughts imply that there is an I, but is there actually an I? Hmm, nope. 😌

 

This is inquiry into No Self. 

 

If your takeaway from this post is to mention that I've referenced I therefore there is separation/ a self, you have missed the point entirely. 

[Phil]

7 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

@Phil Maybe you're self-absorbed too.

Self-absorbed: adjective. Preoccupied with one's own feelings, interests, or situation.

 

What’s being said is:

Feelings (plural) is a thought, a conceptualization of feeling ‘and’ emotions, or, suppression. 

There is no separate-of-feeling self, such as implied by “one’s own feelings, interest or situation”. 

 

Is there some way, in addition to forum comments and monthly calls… that what’s being said could be said clearer? 

[Phil]

11 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What's worse an overt ego or a covert ego?  Don't wrack your brain too hard on this one.  It's ego regardless, and that's where we can see a higher level perspective.  Everybody has an ego.  I made a video on this issue:
 

 

Misinformation. 

[Kevin]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

Self-absorbed: adjective. Preoccupied with one's own feelings, interests, or situation.

 

What’s being said is:

Feelings (plural) is a thought, a conceptualization of feeling ‘and’ emotions, or, suppression. 

There is no separate-of-feeling self, such as implied by “one’s own feelings, interest or situation”. 

 

Is there some way, in addition to forum comments and monthly calls… that what’s being said could be said clearer? 

Maybe more calls per month? Maybe once a week🤔😂

[Jonas Long]

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Interesting. Thanks . Well I kinda understand at the basic level that there is no separation in existence. Stuff only appear separate..but if you use a super computer's camera and zoom in into any boundary between two seemingly separate objects you will see that there is no fine line that distinguishes object (A) from object (B)..but then again ..that's the underlying truth ..not the deceptive appearance. And we as long as we  are under the illusion (which only something like a psychedelic trip can break it ) then we should act in accordance with the appearance aka separation. 

@Phil you are certainly trolling at this point . Keep laughing with your wifey .

Why act in accordance with how things seem over how things are?  Isn't that what's been causing "problems" for you in the first place?  If a cure were discovered, would you not take it on the basis of having believed there is no cure?  

[Phil]

2 hours ago, Kevin said:

Maybe more calls per month? Maybe once a week🤔😂

😂 Maybe though. Idk. 

 

2 hours ago, Jonas Long said:

If a cure were discovered, would you not take it on the basis of having believed there is no cure?  

That’s one of the best questions I’ve ever heard. 

[WhiteOwl]

8 hours ago, Someone here said:

Lol how ironic .

The moment you make any reference to yourself using pronouns such as I..me..my.. etc.. you consent to the fact you exist. The moment you address or refer to anyone by name.. pronoun..or directly..you consent to their existence And acknowledge that you know they exist.

Look closer .. There are letters on a screen (not even). There is no one there or here. Its an assumption. 

[Ges]

12 hours ago, Someone here said:

He does not address my actual point in the slightest.

 

Because you're speaking from outside the paradigm. It flies over his head, it just doesn't make sense to him, like at all. Anyone at tier 2 can see this clearly without the shadow of a doubt, and anyone not paradigm-locked inside neo-advaita can at least glimpse it.

 

11 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Neo-Advaita is a game.  And I know the silly rules.  Like I said I think it has a place on the path but it leaves a lot out too, namely the problem of ego.  If you don't think you have an ego, that'll come out in very sneaky and surprising ways.  The ego will express itself, especially when it feels threatened.  This no self stuff is a great recipe for shadow disaster when something breaks through and causes that disowned and repressed ego to trigger.  I'm gonna lay off this topic now because there's nothing more for me to say here.  @Phil one day we'll both laugh about this.  Take care of the self.

 

Very good post.

I would say it's the typical case of repressive/religious upbringing and the traumas/shadows that come with it, except this time it's not Blue, but Green.

Much of this no-self stuff is just denial and self-hatred in disguise of love. I shouldn't love myself (the ego), so let's just pretend I (or it) don't exist to begin with. It's fueled by shame, that loving oneself is bad and sinful, it's just ridiculous. And by extension, others don't exist as well, and they don't deserve love either. Oh wait, we can make room for loving others, but only if they stop existing, those selfish idiots.

 

By the way, Phil does not have emotional mastery. Rather, he is neurotic, and probably has a couple of OCDs. You can see the passive aggression everywhere in his communications, and you can see it in his latest outbursts, no masks are ever sustainable. Not to say he's not good, he's great, but could be a lot greater.

Edited March 6 by Ges

[Phil]

@Alexander Great thread.

[Joseph Maynor]

@Ges Always great to get your perspective.  You are brilliant and an original. 

(1) Emotional mastery and (2) relationship mastery are great and people who have these in abundance are admired and have a kind of superpower -- but you have to ask yourself too, at what price?    What do they have to do to manifest these?  Is it necessary to brainwash yourself out of yourself just to get these? I've been exploring this topic on here now for weeks.

 

Emotional Mastery means not losing your shit over stupid shit.  Relationship Mastery means being able to hold together lots of perspectives in a network of relationship despite the bickering of all those perspectives.  Just thought I would take a crack at defining these terms.  So emotional mastery is not letting stupid things trigger you.  Relationship mastery is not letting stupid people cause you to sever a relationship with them.  The person who can relate to the most reality (including people) has the most relationship mastery.  These terms can be somewhat defined and understood.  Stupid is perspectival too, so keep that in mind.  What I think is stupid someone else might see as smart.  I'm not taking my perspective ahead of anyone else's.

Edited March 6 by Joseph Maynor

[Ges]

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

You are brilliant and an original. 

 

Thank you, Joseph. And ditto.

Can I pull a neo-advaita on you here, though? Just for fun and to showcase that we both get it and understand the underlying truth behind it.

I learn from you and other people. I also learn from everything that I interact with, whether animate or inanimate. In one sense, I have no originality whatsoever, because everything I have or demonstrate comes from the other, I don't invent nor create anything from thin air, it all comes to me on its own (even my own mind is not mine and I don't invent my own thoughts). Yet, in another sense, and at the same time, that's what originality actually is. It's the combination, acceptance, and integration of the other into the self. There's no original without the unoriginal. Leo has a blog article or video about this, I think it's called requisite variety, if you're interested or recall. At the same time, here's the caveat, unoriginality only serves to enhance originality. So paradoxically, the more we integrate of each other and the world, the more original we become. It's that poetic and magical. Literally. On the other hand, if we suppress or deny one or the other, it only diminishes our ability to express our own originality, which in turn reflects on others poorly as their originality will necessarily decrease because we're not as original as we can be. It can be horrible.

 

2 hours ago, Joseph Maynor said:

(1) Emotional mastery and (2) relationship mastery are great and people who have these in abundance are admired and have a kind of superpower -- but you have to ask yourself too, at what price?    What do they have to do to manifest these?  Is it necessary to brainwash yourself out of yourself just to get these? I've been exploring this topic on here now for weeks.

 

Emotional Mastery means not losing your shit over stupid shit.  Relationship Mastery means being able to hold together lots of perspectives in a network of relationship despite the bickering of all those perspectives.  Just thought I would take a crack at defining these terms.  So emotional mastery is not letting stupid things trigger you.  Relationship mastery is not letting stupid people cause you to sever a relationship with them.  The person who can relate to the most reality (including people) has the most relationship mastery.  These terms can be somewhat defined and understood.  Stupid is perspectival too, so keep that in mind.  What I think is stupid someone else might see as smart.  I'm not taking my perspective ahead of anyone else's.

 

Thank you for this, too. I like your definitions, they were right on time. I recently had a dispute with a "stupid, and kind of crazy" someone in real life, and I thought I might need to sever our relationship permanently. Reading this now, I'm reconsidering, and more on the side of patching things up, as both emotional and relationship mastery are ideals that I aspire to. I would say that I (have become after much work) am better at emotional mastery than at the relationship one, and by large. There's a lot of room for improvement for me in this area.

Edited March 6 by Ges