Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Nungali said:

 

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 .

 

It's not only a memory, it may also be eg a set of automatic reactions that still remain in our amygdala.

 

It's a part of us we may be aware of if we've used the right tools to familiarise with it and spent the time needed.

 

So very relevant for self knowledge, entirely unrelated to spirits

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, snowymountains said:

 

It's not only a memory, it may also be eg a set of automatic reactions that still remain in our amygdala.

 

It's a part of us we may be aware of if we've used the right tools to familiarise with it and spent the time needed.

 

So very relevant for self knowledge, entirely unrelated to spirits

 

Not in my book .  Very related to 'spirits'   I would say .

 

I'm not hung up on disproving old ways ,  and surpassing them with wonderful new accurate discoveries ... that is just a fashion or trend  IMO , not any sort of 'new truth ' but a new way of the  dominant paradigm consciousness interpreting it within its own terminology  .

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

I didn't give any links 🤔

 

Oh , sorry , yeah .... you mentioned it and then I looked it up  ,   So I am going off the definitions I looked up , and not the unlinked sort of  'definitions'   you gave  here .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

1 hour ago, Nungali said:

… The Black and the White [horses] …


cf “yin & yang”

 

7 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

… the gods have two good horses, everyone else has a mixture: one is beautiful and good, while the other is neither.

 

萬 物 負 陰 而 抱 陽 wàn wù fù yīn ér bào yáng - All turned their backs on the yin, and embraced the yang; 

中 氣 以 為 和 zhōng qì yǐ wéi hé - the two primordial essences blended, creates harmony. (DDJ Ch 42)

 

 

Edited by Cobie
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Oh , sorry , yeah .... you mentioned it and then I looked it up  ,   So I am going off the definitions I looked up , and not the unlinked sort of  'definitions'   you gave  here .

 

Our IFS has absolutely nothing to do with spirits.

However, if you're happy with the conclusions you drew and convinced your self otherwise, I won't interfere with that 🙂

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

8 hours ago, NaturaNaturans said:

… A soul … is like the "natural union of a team of winged horses and their charioteer" …

 

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

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


I see no harness. 
Why are the sphinx/horses holding their tales in their paws? 

 

220px-RWS_Tarot_07_Chariot.jpg
 


 

 

Edited by Cobie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, snowymountains said:

 

 

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.

 

lots of people know beyond belief by 1st hand experience but can't prove it to someone who doesn't... Btw the historic Buddha (among countless others)  recounted seeing and hearing non-physical beings and did not call them delusions. 

Edited by old3bob
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

 

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.

 

Yes.  However the IFS stuff I looked up was talking about what was in the 'mind' .    Some people think mind is generated wholly by the brain .... I dont . Even if it is  , what has this got to do with my point ?  *

 

Quote

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

 

It may no longer exist during life -  personality can change during one's life .  So I dont see that as any replacement for mind or spirit .

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/au/basics/personality-change

 

It seems you ( and I might be wrong , of course ) equate  brain  wholly with the generation of self  and self as personality or personality as that aspect of self that people believe survives  (or I am claiming that )  , and personality as that aspect that is claimed to live on after death , therefore ;   brain dies , mind dies , personality dies  hence no afterlife .

 

Quote

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.

 

Okay , but that was not my focus .     I was talking about  'spirits'  still  being a valid metaphor  for the modern recognition of  aspects of the self, in the mind and unconscious , just as 'internal family'  is a valid metaphor for it  * .

 

- I can supply a  paper on this if you want , relating to clinical trials  (  from the Chief psychologist , Mendicino State Hospital , California   , working with the mentally ill for 17 years  ) .

 

How does the inability to prove life after death enter into this ?

Edited by Nungali

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cobie said:

 


cf “yin & yang”

 

 

萬 物 負 陰 而 抱 陽 wàn wù fù yīn ér bào yáng - All turned their backs on the yin, and embraced the yang; 

中 氣 以 為 和 zhōng qì yǐ wéi hé - the two primordial essences blended, creates harmony. (DDJ Ch 42)

 

 

 

 

The essence shared  in both traditions is sometimes clear . 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Cobie said:

 

 


I see no harness. 
Why are the sphinx/horses holding their tales in their paws? 

 

220px-RWS_Tarot_07_Chariot.jpg
 


 

 

 

 

They are special  magic harnesses ... so of course you cant see them   :)

 

The end of a Sphinx's tail can get itchy at times .

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, snowymountains said:

 

A self / no-self discussion is never ending 😁

 

The IFS point of view though is a practical.

 

I gather you're referring to something like Bankei's Unborn, from your phrasing but still both the Unborn and the "Born"(TM 😁) are there and neither is going away, they can only be integrated.

 

I dragged my Buddhist bag of stuff into the conversation. Probably should have not done that. In philosophical conversations, I find myself quickly in over my head. 

 

To say there is self or not a self is a big mistake. A little look into dependent origination make this clear. It's pretty much common sense. So then, what is this "self"? That's the beginning of "know thyself". 

 

Again, this is just my Buddhist viewpoint, and probably not relevant to this thread. 

 

I'll bow out here.

 

_/|\_

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

 

I dragged my Buddhist bag of stuff into the conversation. Probably should have not done that. In philosophical conversations, I find myself quickly in over my head. 

 

To say there is self or not a self is a big mistake. A little look into dependent origination make this clear. It's pretty much common sense. So then, what is this "self"? That's the beginning of "know thyself". 

 

Again, this is just my Buddhist viewpoint, and probably not relevant to this thread. 

 

I'll bow out here.

 

_/|\_

 

 

 

In my view the no-self topic is also tied to whether someone believes in karma and rebirth. I don't think dependent origination in isolation is sufficient ( for those of us that don't believe in rebirth & karma ).

 

As an example eg isn't Michael Jordan's or Elton John's talent part of their self?, why don't I have these talents nor does anyone I personally know?

The usual response is along the lines of "this sort of talent is attributed to effort from past lives".

 

If someone doesn't believe in past lives ( I don't ), then they also cannot accept the empty of self line of thinking ( for the totality of the skandhas ) because eg talent is left unexplained.

 

The above of course isn't Buddhist as it starts from a non-acceptance of rebirth and karma. 

But wanted to show that some Buddhist concepts are implicitly tied together.

 

The notion of no-self in that case has a more confined scope, which in turn leaves room for a "self" to exist ( to exist within the skandhas that is).

 

Btw this was not meant to open a discussion on karma and rebirth, as nobody knows and of course everyone may have their own beliefs.

But these beliefs do percolate to the scope/applicability of other Buddhist teachings such as what is part of a self and what is empty (of self).

 

With Metta 🙂

Edited by snowymountains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, snowymountains said:

 

In my view the no-self topic is also tied to whether someone believes in karma and rebirth. I don't think dependent origination in isolation is sufficient ( for those of us that don't believe in rebirth & karma ).

 

As an example eg isn't Michael Jordan's or Elton John's talent part of their self?, why don't I have these talents nor does anyone I personally know?

The usual response is along the lines of "this sort of talent is attributed to effort from past lives".

 

If someone doesn't believe in past lives ( I don't ), then they also cannot accept the empty of self line of thinking ( for the totality of the skandhas ) because eg talent is left unexplained.

 

The above of course isn't Buddhist as it starts from a non-acceptance of rebirth and karma. 

But wanted to show that some Buddhist concepts are implicitly tied together.

 

The notion of no-self in that case has a more confined scope, which in turn leaves room for a "self" to exist ( to exist within the skandhas that is).

 

Btw this was not meant to open a discussion on karma and rebirth, as nobody knows and of course everyone may have their own beliefs.

But these beliefs do percolate to the scope/applicability of other Buddhist teachings such as what is part of a self and what is empty (of self).

 

With Metta 🙂


Yes, let’s please not open that giant can of worms! 🤪

 

Karma and rebirth are quite settled in my mind, and in my practice. 

To “know thyself” can only be understood through direct experience.

 

The most direct path to that experience is to quiet the mind and body, and simply ask: “what is this self”? 
 

🙏
 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Keith108 said:


Yes, let’s please not open that giant can of worms! 🤪

 

Karma and rebirth are quite settled in my mind, and in my practice. 

To “know thyself” can only be understood through direct experience.

 

The most direct path to that experience is to quiet the mind and body, and simply ask: “what is this self”? 
 

🙏
 

 

 

It's a can of worms indeed 😁. One has to open it though if they don't believe in karma and rebirth.

 

Imo the koan approach you mention ( I assume you refer to the "who am I" koan) is one approach and a very valid one, it's a good tool.

 

But like all tools, it comes with limitations, it won't eg detect the IFS at all, it won't detect some automatic reactions at all. 

One may argue it goes to something more fundamental than that but again, what's more fundamental is a relative value.

 

I think an important thing to mention at this point is that I view all these things ( koans, insight meditation practiced w dependent origination, ego state therapy, all Buddhist and not Buddhist tools) as incomplete tools meant to work on a specific domain.

 

I don't consider one to be more fundamental that the other, they all miss things and have different intents and purposes. But they all come with their own distinct scopes and limitations.

Edited by snowymountains

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

reading the posts above I wonder 

 

why should for instance the IFS model being better then the model used by buddhists, or the model used by magickers, or the model used by the old chinese wise people? 

 

It's all just models eh, its not any kind of "truth"

 

it's just the way we see the world and try to make sense of it.

 

neither is one or the other more useful, I have a devout christian friend, she has much use from her religion, there is a good fit between her needs and the  model of the world that is offered by Christianity, i can see that clearly.

 

for myself, i abhor that religion, makes me nauseous, especially the brand she's wedded too.

But for her it's good and would I take it away from her by scoffing at it, telling her a perfectly rational story why it is rubbish, I would hurt her. And by doing that I would stunt her growth, her development.

 

as far as we need models, we need a model that fits the "who we are now" 

 

---

 

And there's no need for models either to introduce the inner child/exile.

Hey, you were mistreated as a kid didn't you, Yes, teary-eyed.

 

do you know that younger version of yourself still lives somewhere inside you, go look for her and coddle her. You're such a good mom, you know exactly what she needs to become the happy little girl she was meant to be.

 

No model needed, no psychological framework, no spirits, just a description. Worked a treat too.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Keith108 said:

To “know thyself” can only be understood through direct experience.

 

yes, but a lot of  people need some preliminaries before they can start on that path

 

🙏

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

reading the posts above I wonder 

 

why should for instance the IFS model being better then the model used by buddhists, or the model used by magickers, or the model used by the old chinese wise people? 

 

It's all just models eh, its not any kind of "truth"

 

Because the IFS has passed a certain degree of scientific testing, while eg the one used by the magickers hasn't. So the IFS is closer to the truth.

 

It's also a matter of the understanding built around a model, for a scientific one there's a much better understanding of its scope and also on which tools related to it should be applied & when.

 

On the Buddhist one I wrote above, the complete absence of self in the skandhas implicitly requires accepting rebirth. This "detail" is typically omitted when the view of absence of self in the skandhas is discussed.

 

If one uses a model that leaves part of self out of the picture, then the self knowledge acquired is also incomplete. Which is ok, as long one knows what's missing because of the model & tool they used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, blue eyed snake said:

 

yes, but a lot of  people need some preliminaries before they can start on that path

 

🙏

Sure. 

 

Sit down, back straight, breath into the belly, place the attention on the question. It's not special. It's human nature to question the nature of this existence.

 

BUT, for.some folks, some grounding is necessary. This type of deep inquiry isn't always pleasant. For them, maybe MBSR or something similar is a better path. 

 

When speaking with fellow students, I am careful in the extreme to suggest that just doing any type of meditation is not a panacea. Direction of the practice is of utmost importance. For some issues, therapy etc., is also needed.

 

🙏

 

 

Edited by Keith108
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

One more thing that's important in the context of self knowledge and relevant to the above is ( not ) disowning.

 

It's important we don't disown parts of us because we treat these as empty of self.

As per above this may also happen without being aware that this notion emptiness relies on beliefs such as rebirth, karma etc.

 

Disowning parts is a bad habit in general, but even spiritually, according to eg Jung's view of enlightenment, by it's very definition, the disowned parts will be the very blocker to achieve it.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, blue eyed snake said:

No model needed, no psychological framework,

 

C.G. Jung: Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.

 

I would add to Jung's quote, one may as well call it karma but the effects will be identical due to lack of integration.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The experience of self is awareness of homeostasis; physical, energetic and emotional-mental homeostasis. To understand and master the principles or laws that precede homeostasis is to master the principles or laws that underlie identity.

 

Life began in a state of primordial quantum energetic chaos, and continues to evolve untoward cosmic homeostasis via the sentient beings it has become. The (chaotic) behaviour of the primordial fields define the behaviour of beings; beings in turn affect the behaviour of fields. Feeling the inherent chaos in our constitution as an inherent discontent and restlessness, beings pursue contentment and peace. For this, beings need to know the laws of nature.

 

To know the laws of nature, one must enter the Tao. The Tao, being the essence of all things, including of Law and beings, connects all things. It connects all things because all things share it as their essence. One who enters the Tao will therefore know the laws of nature'; emulating and actualising them by adapting one's mind, body, and speech in realtime allows one to attain homeostasis and thus a true identity (an identity founded upon truth).

 

The natural function of identity is to form a functional and sentient conglomerate of natural law; this is why you can say: I am compassionate, I practice meditation, I am patient, I follow dietary wisdom.

 

Through this sentient law-integration and -actualisation, nature attains field-homeostasis via the sentient beings she has become.

Edited by Immortality
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

 

image.png.c636890f7cfe551a654c588a1b36ccdb.png

 

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

So how do we coordinate them, or get to know, understand and master them? For socrates, the answer was knowledge

Edited by NaturaNaturans

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Cobie said:

 


cf “yin & yang”

 

 

萬 物 負 陰 而 抱 陽 wàn wù fù yīn ér bào yáng - All turned their backs on the yin, and embraced the yang; 

中 氣 以 為 和 zhōng qì yǐ wéi hé - the two primordial essences blended, creates harmony. (DDJ Ch 42)

 

 

It is allways fascinating when different traditions share the same symbolism

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, NaturaNaturans said:

It is allways fascinating when different traditions share the same symbolism

 

I think complimentary opposites is a pretty common concept around the world. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites