To be or not to be...

makara
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:09 am
Location: By the ocean, ready for the big one.

To be or not to be...

Post by makara » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:16 am

Hamlet's existential question resonates with me.
Not in the sense he asked it
but rather in the sense of
"To be (a person) or not to be (a person)."

An example: the work of Byron Katie has been
mentioned herein a couple of times of late.
I like the work and recently have been
prompted to revisit it.

What can occur is a clash between
treating 'myself' like a person and
using the self - inquiry "to whom is this happening?"
Both make sense.

I wonder how you respond to this distinction between
the psychological (the person) and the self-inquiry.

You see when I get into the work method I am
treating myself, & fully behaving/identifying as a person,
a psychological being with belliefs, past, guilt, shadow material etc.

On the other hand when I practice self - inquiry
I identify with the ALL, Brahmin, Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

This question is also disturbing a little for me in
relation to friendship. It's the same theme in different dress:
I met a friend and we shared stories.
Afterwards I realised that what I had told him
was about the past and was not about who/what
I really am. What I shared was a story and was thus
about an imaginary persona.

If the price of identifying with the ALL
is being alone then I am prepared to do that
but so many teachers say "just be yrself".
Yes, but which self?

How do you resolve this?
Alex
Posts: 275
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 7:03 am

Re: To be or not to be...

Post by Alex » Wed Sep 29, 2010 1:04 pm

makara wrote:Hamlet's existential question resonates with me.
Not in the sense he asked it
but rather in the sense of
"To be (a person) or not to be (a person)."

An example: the work of Byron Katie has been
mentioned herein a couple of times of late.
I like the work and recently have been
prompted to revisit it.

What can occur is a clash between
treating 'myself' like a person and
using the self - inquiry "to whom is this happening?"
Both make sense.

I wonder how you respond to this distinction between
the psychological (the person) and the self-inquiry.

You see when I get into the work method I am
treating myself, & fully behaving/identifying as a person,
a psychological being with belliefs, past, guilt, shadow material etc.

On the other hand when I practice self - inquiry
I identify with the ALL, Brahmin, Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

This question is also disturbing a little for me in
relation to friendship. It's the same theme in different dress:
I met a friend and we shared stories.
Afterwards I realised that what I had told him
was about the past and was not about who/what
I really am. What I shared was a story and was thus
about an imaginary persona.

If the price of identifying with the ALL
is being alone then I am prepared to do that
but so many teachers say "just be yrself".
Yes, but which self?

How do you resolve this?
There isn't any way you can resolve this
when you're a character in c's play;
'cuz: "the play's the thing" \:D/


Image

Love


BTW: "c" = consciousness
Being beneath the bottom line
Blossom
Posts: 99
Joined: Fri Apr 16, 2010 9:02 pm
Location: Ojai, California

Post by Blossom » Wed Sep 29, 2010 5:35 pm

Seeing we are both 'not real' (all the worlds a stage) and All That Is Real (That Which Is Being 'the images of light, as stage and the actors') seeing that we are, in fact, living both at once is finding the Balance of This Living Truth.

Now we see how really Beautiful Life/God Is because we are more like three in one.

The Child is found to be "who we really are" and via this discovery we become more Our Self, our Original Self--this is liberating.

Now, I can tell stories about my life, my past, the journey, what was and all of it--- and not feel I have left my view of “non-duality”.

As this Real Self/the Child we are not bound by any dogma or dictations of others, no laws or rules---Now we are The Ungovernable Child not beholden to any ‘isms’ at all---

This Self is free from the world while living it fully and in love with it.

We are‘both positions', subjective and objective and unafraid to Love everything about this whole world—and to love it all mightly and tenderly.

The Child knows the reason and purpose of our time in the world.

Life (God and God's Awareness) does not demand that we be “non-dual” or “dualist” because God is both this objective world of images ‘not real’ serving the Grand Purpose and we are also the Subjective Mind Being It All---

The Truth is that the Real Identity (the Child, the third view) is an all inclusive view where both positions; objective and subjective (dual and non-dual) are seen and LIVED at the same time right here in this time space tangible experience.

The Real Self is this Living Synergy of both 'views'.

I think this may be the Holy Trinity. The Child (our own inner Christ Consciousness/Messiah) stands balanced and transcendent. Between the tangible world and Infinite-All-Being-All-That-Is, living both at the same time.

Living This Child, it appears our world is made new in many ways.

We discover that “non-duality” is not the end of it---We find the Child---This place is one more step beyond both duality and non-duality and from this view we see that both positions are included---

Try it on for size---See if its True--
What is bound on earth is bound in heaven and what is freed on earth is freed in heaven.
ANNA
Posts: 4093
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:11 pm

Post by ANNA » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:38 pm

interesting concept, sweetpea_Blossom...

.....a fresh air.....8) :)


...and Alex, perhaps consciousness is playing

as character and not character ...too,

form and formless,

both and simultaneous...


and so, makara's dilemma is resolved,

perhaps ........ :roll:


:wink: :)
aquarius
Posts: 2408
Joined: Wed May 16, 2007 4:07 pm
Location: The united kingdom of heaven

Post by aquarius » Wed Sep 29, 2010 7:57 pm

Blossom wrote:

The Child is found to be "who we really are" and via this discovery we become more Our Self, our Original Self--this is liberating.


Image
I love talking about nothing ...
it is the only thing i know anything about.
ANNA
Posts: 4093
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:11 pm

Post by ANNA » Wed Sep 29, 2010 8:02 pm

lovely, sweet child.....


thanks, aqua :!:


:)
Xmac
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:56 am
Location: Boston area, Massachusetts

Re: To be or not to be...

Post by Xmac » Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:10 pm

makara wrote:Hamlet's existential question resonates with me.
Not in the sense he asked it
but rather in the sense of
"To be (a person) or not to be (a person)."

An example: the work of Byron Katie has been
mentioned herein a couple of times of late.
I like the work and recently have been
prompted to revisit it.

What can occur is a clash between
treating 'myself' like a person and
using the self - inquiry "to whom is this happening?"
Both make sense.

I wonder how you respond to this distinction between
the psychological (the person) and the self-inquiry.

You see when I get into the work method I am
treating myself, & fully behaving/identifying as a person,
a psychological being with belliefs, past, guilt, shadow material etc.

On the other hand when I practice self - inquiry
I identify with the ALL, Brahmin, Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

Is this "self-inquiry" different from the Work?
If so, what are two contrasting examples?


This question is also disturbing a little for me in
relation to friendship. It's the same theme in different dress:
I met a friend and we shared stories.
Afterwards I realised that what I had told him
was about the past and was not about who/what
I really am. What I shared was a story and was thus
about an imaginary persona.

What you're sharing here is a story also. I'm interested, and I know it's just another feature of perfection because it's what is. Voltaire said, "Illusion is the first of all pleasures". That works for "me" for now. How about you?

If the price of identifying with the ALL
is being alone then I am prepared to do that
but so many teachers say "just be yrself".
Yes, but which self?

Whatever self shows up in the moment. But if you notice you knew that anyway, that's what you always do. Is there a thought of how that should be different?

How do you resolve this?
I just answer the questions.
M,
I know you've mentioned you can't watch videos, but I was wondering if you could listen to audio? There's a fantastic website with at least a hundred hours of Katie facilitating the Work: everypathis.org. If you can listen let me know and I'll name of few that could specifically be of interest to you.
Log on to the inner-net and be kind to your mind (or not).
Matt
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 30, 2006 12:15 pm

Post by Matt » Thu Sep 30, 2010 6:25 am

As Anna pointed out, I think the sense around this paradox is that emptiness and form are mutually dependent - really they are not different, they are the same thing. As entities we have no choice but to be a vehicle of 'person-ing', just as an 'oak-ing' or 'cup of tea-ing'
makara
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:09 am
Location: By the ocean, ready for the big one.

Post by makara » Thu Sep 30, 2010 8:40 am

Thank you for responding - the posts deserve
and indeed, here at least,
demand, some reflection.

______________________
Xmac, your Q sounds just like that of a (school)
teacher :wink: and had the strangest effect -
it took me back to that sensation of being
a student in class when the Teacher suddenly
asked a Q and 'I' was miles out the window....

As I tried to explain it is a difference of identification.
In the process of the work the one asking the Qs is
100% identified as a person; whereas when self-inquiry
occurs there is silence - no identification as a person.

Re: audio - same problem alas ... I have to d/load
(which takes ages) then listen. Can't stream enough
data for direct listening. But working on it ...have found
an ADSL whch local telehone exchange can handle. It's not
super fast but way better than dial up!
I'm checking it out.
Libra
Posts: 518
Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 9:03 pm

Re: To be or not to be...

Post by Libra » Thu Sep 30, 2010 4:59 pm

makara wrote:Hamlet's existential question resonates with me.
Not in the sense he asked it
but rather in the sense of
"To be (a person) or not to be (a person)."

An example: the work of Byron Katie has been
mentioned herein a couple of times of late.
I like the work and recently have been
prompted to revisit it.

What can occur is a clash between
treating 'myself' like a person and
using the self - inquiry "to whom is this happening?"
Both make sense.

I wonder how you respond to this distinction between
the psychological (the person) and the self-inquiry.

You see when I get into the work method I am
treating myself, & fully behaving/identifying as a person,
a psychological being with belliefs, past, guilt, shadow material etc.

On the other hand when I practice self - inquiry
I identify with the ALL, Brahmin, Being-Consciousness-Bliss.

This question is also disturbing a little for me in
relation to friendship. It's the same theme in different dress:
I met a friend and we shared stories.
Afterwards I realised that what I had told him
was about the past and was not about who/what
I really am. What I shared was a story and was thus
about an imaginary persona.

If the price of identifying with the ALL
is being alone then I am prepared to do that
but so many teachers say "just be yrself".
Yes, but which self?

How do you resolve this?
Good thought provoking points Makara,

At this moment, as i think about it,
I'd say that there are times when
I tell a story about myself to someone I meet,
and I feel like it's kinda like talking about the weather,
simpleminded pleasantries that have no real meaning...

But I think that it's common and that it's natural for most people
meeting new people play out this routine of Q & A
about who-what-when-where? etc. are you?

It's something
(HUMAN)
that we do,
a way to connect,
or amuse ourselves,
or define ourselves,
or refine ourselves through mindfulness of our story-making

maybe some of us -at times- are/have
legitimately deceiving ourselves
with these autobiographical fanatasies,

We're here,
we're alive
we're doing stuff,
we're leaving tracks on the beach
every story is poetic and beautiful

and i suppose

also false

:lol:
dilaram

Re: To be or not to be...

Post by dilaram » Thu Sep 30, 2010 10:36 pm

Libra wrote: every story is poetic and beautiful

and i suppose

also false

:lol:

Really false or/and falsely real...

:wink:
Xmac
Posts: 200
Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 2:56 am
Location: Boston area, Massachusetts

Post by Xmac » Thu Sep 30, 2010 11:52 pm

Hey Mak,
I see what you mean about that question sounding like a teacher. #-o

I'm just trying to get an exact fix on what you mean. It sounds like you're making, (Makara-ing?) a distinction that may not be there, or at least that is distracting to doing the Work.

So I'm going to bug you a little more to understand because there seems to be some kind of semantic ambiguity:

Just leaving out anything about identification for the moment, self-inquiry, as I understand it is the asking of questions to one's self. You say, "whereas when self-inquiry occurs there is silence", what is it that is occurring? Silence, meaning no answer?

I know you might ask something to the effect of which self am I asking, and in this case I don't think it matters. I'd just wait for any answer that "rings the bell". Very often when I'm inquiring there are all kinds of things that pop into my awareness and their helpful or not. Really the process is a searching/waiting for the complimentary, or balancing mate to the stressful thought.
Log on to the inner-net and be kind to your mind (or not).
makara
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:09 am
Location: By the ocean, ready for the big one.

Post by makara » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:14 am

Firstly, thanks Matt for the image of tree-ing.
Went walking today and looked at
the trees:- yes they are 'made of' consciousness
yet sit there in the ground, growing leaves
and, as it's Spring, blossoms.

Libra pointed out:
It's something
(HUMAN)
that we do,
a way to connect,
or amuse ourselves,
or define ourselves,
or refine ourselves through mindfulness of our story-making
Indeed. But there is an inherent danger.
Once I lived for many years near a small, rural town.
Nearly everyone knew everyone.
But what I noticed was the 'control' exerted to
keep one within the 'community boundaries' (or parochial morality).
It was subtle for the most part and most folk wouldn't
notice it. Yet when I left that town (for this reason)
I felt I could breathe again (be 'myself') and not have to adjust my
emotions/views/practice/inner work
to the limitations of the community.

The Q & A mentioned are one of the ways of keeping one
human ... 'like us' ... within the boundaries.
i.e. people are sheep & resist a member being 'different'

Now I live where I know no one and visa versa,
so no interference. Recently I went out for the first
time in many years to a small concert. Due to numbers
I was seated with a woman sitting at a table on her own.
During the break the Qs started ... not only did I feel
I was being cross examined but mostly I felt I was being
forced out of the present. I tried to bring it back to now
and talk about the music but that didn't work
so I left and missed the 2nd half.
That was the closest I've come to 'making a friend'
in many years.
__________________________

Xmac wrote:
I see what you mean about that question sounding like a teacher.
It's Ok Xmac ... it was an interesting feeling ... like "Compare
and Contrast..." :D
So I'm going to bug you a little more ... what is it that is occurring?
You're not bugging me!
Ok ... when I follow the work method what happens is a dialogue
(monologue?) ... and there are answers to the questions.
eg Is it true? then comes a response (in mind) "well, yes it's true etc"
And so on. 'I' ask the questions and wait for the answers. So:-
"What do I get from holding this belief?" yields an answer
"I get to feel such and such."
"Who would I be without this belief?" ...eventually arises an answer
" I would be more free ... less judgemental ...etc.."

Now, in contrast when self inquiry occurs
my mind goes silent and 'I' remain in that silence as
long as 'I' can. When thoughts intrude again
the question is asked again (to whom is this happening?)
and silence re-arises.
Usually this method allows 'me' to return to non reactive
observation mode, calm.

If I had to distinguish I'd say
I use the work method when there's someone else involved
(such as a neighour playing loud gangsta rap noise.)
This disturbance generates beliefs "shit he's inconsiderate...
'He's breaking the tems of the lease here"
"how dare he force his crap onto me"...etc
So there is an 'outside' target so to speak.

Whereas when the disturbance is totally internal
(my own fears, desires...) then self inquiry is
what seems appropriate.

__________________________
There is within 'me' a tension
between wanting solitude
(to really yield to truth/consciousness....);
and wanting human companionship
(as I am quite a social being).
ANNA
Posts: 4093
Joined: Sat Oct 16, 2004 6:11 pm

Post by ANNA » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:39 am

coooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee, makara! :)

we all are in the same boat,

having the same experiences,

the same thoughts....smile


just appreciate you honesty!


lately have stumbled across the David Icke's writings

and re-read again his article 'The Real Matrix'....


there was time, when i was very involved in exploring the holographic

nature of reality, so his experiences was interesting to re-read again......

perhaps for you and all....just share the article.......


enjoy......


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/bigge ... icke05.htm

have a peaceful night........


:)
makara
Posts: 1341
Joined: Sat Apr 10, 2010 5:09 am
Location: By the ocean, ready for the big one.

Post by makara » Fri Oct 01, 2010 5:51 am

Coooo eeeeeee Anna.
Thanks for that - and yes,
we all are in the same boat
Just now I am reading the short stories of
Janet Frame - I hope you can get
something of hers. This edition is called
"the daylight and the dust"
Post Reply