Know thyself

[snowymountains]

Just now, Maddie said:

 

Can you elaborate please?

 

It would take a long post and going beyond not providing suttas and references, I decided to also keep my posts shorter 😁

If you want a Buddhist book on that ( I have not read that one ), Thay has written a book on our inner child, which is not a Buddhist concept of course ( even adopting it shows that Buddhist psychology is incomplete), inner child is typically the first part of our IFS to be explored.

If you want the short version it says eg we all have an inner child, an inner critic , ... , they're not always in agreement with each other, they can be viewed as sort of sub-personalities, to put it crudely.

[Maddie]

2 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

It would take a long post and going beyond not providing suttas and references, I decided to also keep my posts shorter 😁

If you want a Buddhist book on that ( I have not read that one ), Thay has written a book on our inner child, which is not a Buddhist concept of course ( even adopting it shows that Buddhist psychology is incomplete), inner child is typically the first part of our IFS to be explored.

If you want the short version it says eg we all have an inner child, an inner critic , ... , they're not always in agreement with each other, they can be viewed as sort of sub-personalities, to put it crudely.

 

I believe the Pali equivalent to that would be Metta. 

[snowymountains]

Btw all that may come in hypnosis as distinct in ego state therapy ( but no therapist would do that without a good therapeutic reason ofc )

[snowymountains]

1 minute ago, Maddie said:

 

I believe the Pali equivalent to that would be Metta. 

 

Metta ( nor the other 3 immeasurables ) has absolutely nothing to do with the IFS 🙂

[Maddie]

1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

Metta ( nor the other 3 immeasurables ) has absolutely nothing to do with the IFS 🙂

 

But does it? Metta is a great thing for inner criticism.  

[snowymountains]

9 minutes ago, Cobie said:

IFS, interesting stuff

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_Family_Systems_Model#:~:text=IFS posits that the mind,interests%2C memories%2C and viewpoint.  @liminal_luke (my apologies if I am wrong) the noble ‘Managers’ reminded me of you. 
 

 

 

Just to add, a lot of divination experiences actually are people talking to parts their IFS ( and instead they believe they talk to spirits because they're not aware of their IFS ).

[Cobie]

12 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

…, inner child is typically the first part of our IFS to be explored …

Hadn’t heard of IFS before but this resonates. I made a conscious decision about 40 years ago to use my ‘internalised parents part’ (very capable but unpleasant) to protect and raise my ‘inner child’ (practically without capabilities at that time).

 

 

Edited February 11 by Cobie

[NaturaNaturans]

Know thyself people, know thyself… maybe im ignorant, but I dont see the red line here

Edited February 11 by NaturaNaturans

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

Just to add, a lot of divination experiences actually are people talking to parts their IFS ( and instead they believe they talk to spirits because they're not aware of their IFS ).

 

You articulated it differently than I had thought of it, but this is exactly what I felt like was going on in cases like this.

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

But does it? Metta is a great thing for inner criticism.  

 Metta step one is about wishing to remove negative emotions for self

Step two wishing to raise positive emotions for self

Step three wishing positive emotions to a somewhat confined circle of people

Step four wishing positive emotions to all sentient beings

 

No relationship to IFS.

Only in insight meditation is it in principle conceivable to get a view of the IFS but somehow nobody ever discovered their IFS through insight meditation 😁, so it's fair to say the IFS is a newer concept, which was discovered after the Buddha 

[Maddie]

4 minutes ago, Cobie said:

Hadn’t heard of IFS before but this resonates. I made a conscious decision about 40 years ago to use my ‘internalised parents part’ (very capable but unpleasant) to protect and raise my ‘inner child’ (practically without capabilities at that time).

 

 

 

Hey Cobie, don't you think its a bit extreme to never speak to me again just because I spoke about the concept of delusion? 

[NaturaNaturans]

Ladies and gentlemen, I am curious about self knowledge, not internett beefs

[snowymountains]

17 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

You articulated it differently than I had thought of it, but this is exactly what I felt like was going on in cases like this.

 

The proper way to speak to the IFS directly is "ego state therapy" but no therapist would do that without a good therapeutic reason.

 

That's why I'm critical sometimes of some traditions, eg shamanic or eg tantric, because they do use techniques which can be damaging ( and no, the guru/shaman/whatevs doesn't know jack about the risks and when they should be used )

Edited February 11 by snowymountains

[snowymountains]

2 minutes ago, Maddie said:

 

Hey Cobie, don't you think its a bit extreme to never speak to me again just because I spoke about the concept of delusion? 

 

IFS is not a delusion, we all have one

 

And going back to the main topic, yes knowing our IFS is part of self knowledge

[Maddie]

3 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

IFS is not a delusion, we all have one

 

And going back to the main topic, yes knowing our IFS is part of self knowledge

 

This was unrelated lol. A few months ago I was talking about delusion within the context of Buddhism and Cobie got so upset at me for speaking about this topic that he said he would never speak to me again. 

 

So no not related to IFS, but I do think its extreme. I'm trying to be the bigger person and Olive Branch here.

Edited February 11 by Maddie

[NaturaNaturans]

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

Thought you might like this:

 

 

The soul (245c–249d)edit

He begins by briefly proving the immortality of the soul. A soul is always in motion and as a self-mover has no beginning. A self-mover is itself the source of everything else that moves. So, by the same token, it cannot be destroyed. Bodily objects moved from the outside have no soul, while those that move from within have a soul. Moving from within, all souls are self-movers, and hence their immortality is necessary.^{[Note 20]}

Then begins the famous chariot allegory. A soul, says Socrates, is like the "natural union of a team of winged horses and their charioteer". While the gods have two good horses, everyone else has a mixture: one is beautiful and good, while the other is neither.^{[Note 21]}

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phaedrus_(dialogue)

 

 

 

 

" The Black and the White are harnessed to his car ."

[ChiDragon]

5 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Understanding relationships with others too 

 

知己知彼

[Nungali]

2 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

Just to add, a lot of divination experiences actually are people talking to parts their IFS ( and instead they believe they talk to spirits because they're not aware of their IFS ).

 

IFS is just another name and another way of saying and  another way of looking at   'talking to spirits' .

 

Why is one way of viewing something considered false, old fashioned and uninformed , when modern people stumble upon the same thing and give it new names and identity within the 'citizenship' of modern day rational science ?

 

That is  IFS   ;  " .... combines systems thinking with the view that the mind is made up of relatively discrete subpersonalities, each with its own unique viewpoint and qualities. "

 

Okay, now read up on   subpersonality ;

 

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

 

and keep going , the more you go down this rabbit hole the more one can see the correlations in 'spirit' concepts .

 

Just using fancy words   and adding more complications  ... we dont have  'abiding spirits '   or 'adjustment  spirits ' in us any more , they been dispproved by science  .. we do however have 'sub personalities ' ... whuch sounds reasonable , until we look at what they are claimed to be ; 

[snowymountains]

13 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

 

知己知彼

 

Does this translate as "Know yourself and the enemy", which Google translate shows ?

It was more on the opposite direction, that of interdependence 😁

[ChiDragon]

Just now, snowymountains said:

 

Does this translate as "Know yourself and the enemy", which Google translate shows ?

It was more on the opposite direction, that of interdependence 😁

It simply means: Know yourself know others. The arts of war used the phrase implying to know the enemy better to win a battle.

[snowymountains]

6 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

IFS is just another name and another way of saying and  another way of looking at   'talking to spirits' .

 

Why is one way of viewing something considered false, old fashioned and uninformed , when modern people stumble upon the same thing and give it new names and identity within the 'citizenship' of modern day rational science ?

 

That is  IFS   ;  " .... combines systems thinking with the view that the mind is made up of relatively discrete subpersonalities, each with its own unique viewpoint and qualities. "

 

Okay, now read up on   subpersonality ;

 

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

 

and keep going , the more you go down this rabbit hole the more one can see the correlations in 'spirit' concepts .

 

Just using fancy words   and adding more complications  ... we dont have  'abiding spirits '   or 'adjustment  spirits ' in us any more , they been dispproved by science  .. we do however have 'sub personalities ' ... whuch sounds reasonable , until we look at what they are claimed to be ; 

 

A part of us that's our childhood personality or our teenage years personality is not a spirit, by any stretch of any conceivable definition of spirit.

[snowymountains]

Just now, ChiDragon said:

It simply means: Know yourself know others. The arts of war used the phrase implying to know the enemy better to win a battle.

 

Google translate needs to learn Chinese for sure 😃

[Nungali]

4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

A part of us that's our childhood personality or our teenage years personality is not a spirit, by any stretch of any conceivable definition of spirit.

 

I am only going by the definitions supplied in the links you gave .  Look at the bits I quoted  . 

 

EG  " with its OWN  unique viewpoint  and qualities'   - 'with its own  ' suggests 'separate from yours' .

 

In the pre psychological view   your ' part of us that's our childhood personality or our teenage years personality '  if it DID have  similar viewpoints and qualities it would be considered  a 'memory ' if it didnt it would be considered something different , a 'spirit' .

 

' A Spirit '  can have lots of meanings,  you know .

[snowymountains]

26 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

 

 

" The Black and the White are harnessed to his car ."

 

 

The various constructs that were build during this life, like our IFS or eg our automatic reactions, which are created during our lifetime and stored in our brain, will be dissolved when our brain stops.

What we call personality will no longer exist anywhere other than in the hearts and minds of those who live.

 

I don't know if there exists something else, different to the above, which remains after death, I just don't know, nor does anyone else.

Personally I don't believe ( as opposed to know ) that much remains. Different religions have different beliefs but they don't know either.