Paradox

[Orbran]

@Phil

Have you seemingly latched onto how you see what commitment is, such that you have forgotten what commitment conventionally means? That's okay, however conventionally commitment is considered more than a thought, and involves a conscious decision or pledge to dedicate oneself to a particular course of action, goal, relationship, or belief, often with a strong sense of determination and obligation. Suggesting that I should notice it as not by that definition but to notice it as a thought does indeed require a change on my part.

Edited April 23 by Orbran

[Orbran]

@Phil
As far as someone suggesting that a person or organization should not suggest of 'becoming' something, was this meant to scold a prior instance of a member in this thread doing so (@Robed Mystic) or was this just independent and meant as general advice? I'm assuming the latter, but wanted to clarify.

[Blessed2]

On 4/21/2024 at 10:16 AM, Orbran said:

The pursuit of enlightenment or a deeper understanding of oneself presents a paradox. In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion.

 

The message of enlightenment / nonduality points out the pre-assumption of being a separate self; me, mine, you, yours etc.

 

The great dilemma here though is that because the separate self is a pre-assumption, it overrides / hijacks everything that comes 'after'. Kind of like holding red-tinted glasses on your eyes, everything seems red and it's assumed that the world just is all red.

 

So when the message of enlightenment / nonduality comes about, it's also claimed by the pre-assumption of separate self. So now it's put in the context of separate selvery and the interpretation is that enlightenment or nonduality is something that you will come to realize, get, understand, become aware of, etc.

 

So you are not expected to eventually realize anything. This is not what the message is.

 

"Liberation is not for you, it's from you."

 

 

This is a great video:

 

https://youtu.be/jcMr6KdlvdE?feature=shared

 

Edited April 23 by Blessed2

[Phil]

10 hours ago, Orbran said:

@Phil

Have you seemingly latched onto how you see what commitment is, such that you have forgotten what commitment conventionally means? That's okay, however conventionally commitment is considered more than a thought, and involves a conscious decision or pledge to dedicate oneself to a particular course of action, goal, relationship, or belief, often with a strong sense of determination and obligation. Suggesting that I should notice it as not by that definition but to notice it as a thought does indeed require a change on my part.

 

7 hours ago, Orbran said:

@Phil
As far as someone suggesting that a person or organization should not suggest of 'becoming' something, was this meant to scold a prior instance of a member in this thread doing so (@Robed Mystic) or was this just independent and meant as general advice? I'm assuming the latter, but wanted to clarify.

There’s no suggestion of commitment & becoming here. 

[Orbran]

On 4/21/2024 at 7:05 PM, Robed Mystic said:

Well - it turns out that becoming a mystic transcends subjectivity into objectivity.   But i guess you have to find out for yourself. 

@Phil

[Phil]

@Orbran

Still. Lol. 

Becoming is on behalf of a self of thoughts in time, which isn’t actually present & therein there is no suggestion. 

[Orbran]

@Phil

What I pointed out was where becoming was mentioned. As far as a suggestion, saying that there is no suggestion does not simply open my eyes to how there is no suggestion. So if you have further comment, I welcome it. Otherwise, defer to my responses that explain how a commitment was suggested.

[Phil]

@Orbran

Where is the self thoughts are about? 

[Orbran]

11 minutes ago, Phil said:

@Orbran

Where is the self thoughts are about? 

I am not quite sure what you are asking and whether it is intended to be rhetorical or not. Could you possibly expand or reframe your question?

[Phil]

14 minutes ago, Orbran said:

I am not quite sure what you are asking and whether it is intended to be rhetorical or not. Could you possibly expand or reframe your question?

Thoughts like committed, required & becoming are about a self, yes?

A self which is commits, is required and or becomes. 

Where is the self these thoughts are about?

[Orbran]

@Phil
I appreciate that external factors and subconscious influences play a role in shaping what we think, though I understand this might not be a widely shared view here. I respect your perspective, but adopting it would require significant changes on my part that I am not ready to make. Additionally, our understanding of the 'self' that these 'thoughts' concern seems to differ, and I feel that further exploration in this direction wouldn't align with my current interests or beliefs.

Edited April 23 by Orbran

[Blessed2]

1 hour ago, Orbran said:

I respect your perspective, but adopting it would require significant changes on my part that I am not ready to make.

 

This is the hijacking! It's lightning speed.

 

The question was: "Where is the self thoughts are about?"

 

The answer was: "I am not ready..."! 🫣

 

Where is the self that thought is about?

 

Nothing is asked of you, no perspective is being required to be adopted by you, nothing about you needs to be different, there's nothing you need to do. What's being put into question is the pre-assumption "you" that's prior to any of these.

 

You're not doing the hijacking either btw. That happens prior to "you".

 

[Joseph Maynor]

I would question this assumption:

"In this pursuit, one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion."

[Orbran]

39 minutes ago, Blessed2 said:

 

This is the hijacking! It's lightning speed.

 

The question was: "Where is the self thoughts are about?"

 

The answer was: "I am not ready..."! 🫣

 

Where is the self that thought is about?

 

Nothing is asked of you, no perspective is being required to be adopted by you, nothing about you needs to be different, there's nothing you need to do. What's being put into question is the pre-assumption "you" that's prior to any of these.

 

You're not doing the hijacking either btw. That happens prior to "you".

 

You misunderstand, Phil was not asking a question as if he did not know something, correct? He was asking that question because he wanted me to explore something. The question he asked was not to clear something up for him, or that he thought he would learn something from my answer when he asked it. It was intended as an exploration. I simply stated that I don't wish to explore it. Of course, that is my perspective on the situation and don't need or expect you or Phil to see the same. Thanks for the reply.

[Orbran]

I just sort of realized it might be fruitful to say that I'm not here asserting my conclusions about mysticism to prove a point to anyone. In other words, I didn't go looking for your community on google. Before I got here, I had a discussion with a friend and they suggested I make a post here. I didn't come to find you so I could speak at you, but conversing with a friend led me to you. This may not make a difference to some, but I felt like it might be good to provide that detail in the interest of openness.

Edited April 23 by Orbran

[Phil]

@Orbran

Just as far as committment, becoming, expectations, a change required of someone etc… these are all contingent on there being the self these are about. 

 

I would also question the notion ‘one is expected to eventually realize that there is nothing to be sought and that the seeker themselves is part of the illusion‘. Sounds like one big bummer. 

 

For what it’s worth & so to speak, about 99% of information regarding awakening / enlightenment is misinformation / misunderstanding. 

[Phil]

9 hours ago, Orbran said:

@Phil
I appreciate that external factors and subconscious influences play a role in shaping what we think, though I understand this might not be a widely shared view here. I respect your perspective,

That isn’t my perspective btw. 

 

9 hours ago, Orbran said:

but adopting it would require significant changes on my part that I am not ready to make. Additionally, our understanding of the 'self' that these 'thoughts' concern seems to differ, and I feel that further exploration in this direction wouldn't align with my current interests or beliefs.

I’m not suggesting any understanding. Or anything incompatible with alignment for that matter. 

[Joseph Maynor]

On 4/21/2024 at 4:05 PM, Robed Mystic said:

All validation of Truth is ultimately going to be subjective unless you could somehow prove objectivity.  Well - it turns out that becoming a mystic transcends subjectivity into objectivity.   But i guess you have to find out for yourself. 

 

Your response gets tricky from an advaita vedanta perspective because the ego/mind is that which makes the distinction between subjective and objective.  If there is no ego and no people, then the subjective-objective duality is false.  The Self doesn't become anything; to become implies change and the Self is changeless.

Vivartavada
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vivartavada

Edited April 24 by Joseph Maynor

[Orbran]

1 hour ago, Phil said:

That isn’t my perspective btw. 

 

I’m not suggesting any understanding. Or anything incompatible with alignment for that matter. 

I am aware it isn't your perspective, it's mine. When I said it isn't widely shared here, I was including you. So don't worry, that perspective wasn't summing your view, it was summing mine. In terms of nothing being suggested, I'm now fatigued, which seems like a waste of my energy and I need to get back to eliminating that. That means I can't further assist in seeing my point of view. This isn't about accusation, its about me not wanting to spend precious currency (in the form of truth) in finding out where explorations lead that focus entirely on a non-individual self. And me equating spending that currency as being the same as spending it on organized religion. Due to the fact that I have to admit that I am now entering some logic that is repeating itself again and again, I'm afraid I'm done and have to cut short. Not because I think it is impossible for it to lead somewhere, but because I really don't want to invest just to see where it leads.

[Phil]

@Orbran

‘…But adopting it would require significant changes on my part’.

There’s no suggestion of adopting anything. Not sure how many ways ‘nothing’s required’ can be said. 

 

That “it” referred to, which fatigues, seems like a waste of energy which could be eliminated… isn’t perspective / point of view, it’s interpretation, which is discordant (as you say…tiresome, draining, etc). Interpretation arises or appears in & of perspective / point of view, including the (discordant) interpretation ‘my perspective’ or ‘my point of view’. 

 

I’m not sure how a non individual self could be focused on, let alone how that seems to be suggested, or how that is like ‘spending it’ on an organized religion which largely seem to center around the belief in a God & adherence to beliefs / dogma / conjecture. If a non individual self could be focused on, it’d be focused on by an individual self, and the existence of said individual self by default of existing, would make the non individual self, an individual self. 

 

I’m also at an utter loss for who would be separate of This, which could invest or not, in This. There seems to be a lot of discordant presumptions & circular logic, yet no interest in liberation or what’s actually, true.