Two false beliefs that cause the majority of our suffering

[southflorida]

double post

 

[Stoner4Life]

if there is no self then there is no suffering

this means we might not have to suffer...that if we can grasp that suffering, and all other pain, for that matter, are only distinctions in our consciousness...this opens a crack in the wall of illusion.

the illusion that is pulled over before our eyes by the false-self-mind mechanism.

nice to see you S4L...hope your health is having a positive dynamic, last time i remember you were having health-related difficulties.

thnx, I'm doing okay and I appreciate your asking, but here's my quandary:

so let's just say your wife ('cuz she couldn't possibly be mine!!!) is getting ready for girls night out and she tells ya, "we'll be out for a few hours hun, don't wait up!" you've got a way not to suffer a bit somehow???

kudos bro, it's good to be the king.......

 

[HempKat]

If we think through, and ask ourselves where have we picked up our knowledge, eventually we will be shocked that 99.9% of it comes from simply believing a massive amount of hearsay that we never had any direct experience with. That a bunch of BS just has been passed down to us from the culture we live in.

Actually the way I see it your theory is only working because of your own personal labels you put on it. What I mean by that is this 99.9% of hearsay isn't what I would call knowledge or anyone should call knowledge. I would say a better term for it is information. Knowledge to me would only happen when you take this hearsay information and apply it in your own real world existence. If when doing so you find your experience matches the information, then and only then does it become knowledge. To illustrate what I mean, if I heard from someone that for example when growing marijuana you can't allow light to interupt the dark period because it causes hermies, but have never experienced it myself I wouldn't pass that on as a fact. I would pass it by saying "I've heard from others that if you allow light to interupt the dark period while growing marijuana it will cause hermies." If however someone told me that, I tested it and sure enough got hermies, then and only then would I say, "I know for a fact that if you allow light to interupt the dark period while growing marijuana it will cause hermies." See the difference?

We also don't notice that before we have any insight, or learn anything, the state of not-knowing is what was first. Not-knowing is what allows for insights and learning to occur. Without the state of not-knowing knowledge would not be possible on any level.

It's sort of like breathing OUT and breathing IN. Without the out there can be no in.

Well first of all as far as the breathing thing seems more like you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes you can not breath out until you breath in because if you haven't breathed in you have nothing to breath out. You don't however have to be devoid of knowledge to have insight or to learn, if that were true then the only time we would ever be able to learn or have insight is when we are first born. Once we know something though then we would have knowledge and if your belief were correct we would be incapable of learning or having insight because there would be that piece of knowledge we have preventing us from being in that state of not knowing you believe is essential for insight and gaining knowledge. In my own experiences I've had moments of insight throughout my life even after I've aquired knowledge thru experiences. Also never in all of my 50+ years have I felt it was impossible to learn something new. Personally I don't think we are ever at a true state of not knowing if that were true when we are first born we would never become upset when we were hungry and cry. We would just think this feeling we later learn is called hunger is a normal state of being because nothing has taught us that the way we feel when we are hungry is something to cry about. Nor would we automatically start suckling when we came into contact with anything resembling a nipple. Now I will grant you at the moment of birth there is such a minimal amount of knowledge that it can seem like to others that a newborn has no knowledge but that's a false assumption. We do have knowledge in the form of instinct. From this we then have a starting point from which to gain further knowledge and it never stops until we die.

If we think back to the first memories of our selves, we will notice that at some time our memory stops completely.

My question is what was there before that? Before all these beliefs and assumptions were programmed into us?

What was going on before that was we were building our understanding of the world around us. We are close to empty vessels when we were first born and so for the first few years (typically 4-5) we are developing an understanding of the world around us. How can you possibly remember something if you don't even really know what that something is? It's only after we've accumulated a sufficient number of experiences before we start to understand the world around us that we begin to remember things.

I want you to notice that whatever you consider your "self" to be is nothing BUT concepts in your mind.

Obviously our "self-identity" has been created. Culture helps us out in the beginning, and later we continue to create, maintain, support, and protect our "self" with everything we've got.

But, we usually live believing and assuming that this "self" is real, while obviously it is not real.

By real, I mean, it is not authentic, original.

This "self" is more or less an INVENTION.

This false-invented-conceptual-self, is NOT the real "being" that we are.

It is simply IDENTIFICATION with a bunch of concepts that have been invented for us, that we gobbled up, and as the icing on top of the cake, we added some of our own concepts.

Now, a good analogy:

Living as a false "self" is like carrying a back-pack around with you that weighs 300 pounds, and calling the back-pack and everything in it your "self."

This is the actual HUMAN CONDITION, and no wonder we are suffering so much. Just look at the amount of booze and prescription pills people consume daily.

To help with what?

Anxiety and Depression right?

What are these two conditions fundamentally?

It is where the self-mind is inventing scenarios about the future (anxiety) or remembering the past (depression).

When you are hypnotized by these thoughts you are NOT in the present moment. If you were you could not have anxiety or depression.

When you identify with these thoughts, you obviously suffer.

So, to stop suffering, one must find a way to eliminate or dis-identify with the false-self. There is no other way to end suffering.

At least, not in the long-term!

I have to say as I read this last part what I see is your opinion of what is going on with others, most likely thru the process of projection based on your own experiences of the world mixed in with alot of misperceptions or at best incomplete perceptions. Like your idea of depression, the kind of depression you're talking about based on memories of the past. This is just one type of depression. What about the kind of depression that is a chemical imbalance in the brain, that requires no memories or thoughts of the past, you just feel bad for no particular reason? Also, at least with the way you phrase it, as depression being memories of the past, presumes all memories of the past make one feel bad and therefore causes depression. What if all your memories were good and pleasent though? Recalling them wouldn't make you feel depressed they would make you elated. You do kind of the same thing with anxiety. Sure one could experience anxiety if all their projections of the future painted negative scenarios but what of the optimist? Being optimistic an optimist',s projections of the future are likely to be rosey and rather then feeling anxious as a result he or she would likely feel hopeful or enthusiastic about the future.

Now as far as inventing one's self I do agree we do that but you seem to assume this is largely what society and culture programs into us. What about people who say, "This isn't enough, this isn't me, I want more out of life" and they choose a path that brings them closer to what they want to be even if others around them ridd.icule them or doubt them. A person like this we might say is a self made man. Anyone can be this but depending on what you want it might not be easy and if it infringes on others right to live life as they see fit then society might even punish you for it.

Then there is your analogy, sure if you're not happy with who you are then the concept of self might indeed seem like a heavy burden you have to struggle with all your life. What about the person that feels fullfilled and see's themself as a happy individual? Do you honestly think he or she will see thier self as analogous to a heavy burden? More likely they would see it more comparable to being blessed or gifted.

What is self and what is knowledge each, by themselves, are too big of a subject to cover in such a cursery and limited fashion as a single relatively short simple post let alone both of them being covered in a single post. These things are so vast and varied that you could spend days talking about each of them and only being to scratch the surface let alone summerize them in a fashion that can be applied as a blanket statement to all mankind. Perhaps for you these things are false and only bring you suffering but you shouldn't presume that because it's true for you it must also be true for everyone else and that some how only you and perhaps a handful of other knows the real deal.

No what I see is someone that seems unhappy and miserable with themself and is seemingly projecting thier own interpretation on everyone else. Note though that I say seems and seemingly. I do this because I don't know this to be true, it fits with the negative tone of your view but I don't really know what's going on in your head. Maybe you're just saying all this to be controversial and spark debate?

 

[southflorida]

thnx, I'm doing okay and I appreciate your asking, but here's my quandary:

View Image


so let's just say your wife ('cuz she couldn't possibly be mine!!!) is getting ready for girls night out and she tells ya, "we'll be out for a few hours hun, don't wait up!" you've got a way not to suffer a bit somehow???

kudos bro, it's good to be the king.......

S4L...if THAT was my wife I'd be suffering A LOT, but not about what happens when she goes out with the girls, but with me NOT being able to satisfy her sexually

...I'm at that age where the agreement from a woman to have sex with me is scarier than a refusal

but, on a more serious note: this suffering you are pointing toward is playing a scenario in your head where a wife like that is blowing someone at the club (maybe even a private men's strip-club)...lol...like you know they are constantly running on youporn.com...where all these young HORNY women (a few actually quite nice looking) doing all kinds of sexual DIRTY stuff with male strippers.

This is just one possibility out of a trillion or gazzillion scenarios that a human could imagine, and would depend on a person's beliefs and circumstances.

But, if you don't imagine this kind of scenario you wouldn't suffer.

The problem with this approach for most folks is this: the self-mind is running the SHOW (our life) 24/7/365 and whatever this self-mind considers the best action for it to take to protect you as a "self" - as a "particular" self - THIS is what it will do its outmost to protect.

SUFFERING is an inherent part of the false-self, and suffering is what the self-mind uses to let you know which direction to keep heading toward every moment of your life.

So, S4L...if there is a "self" - there IS suffering. The level of this suffering will depend on how IMPORTANT that circumstance IS - that you are suffering over.

Because fundamentally, suffering is being FORCED to put up with something painful (uncomfortable, irritating, mentally or physically painful, etc.)...and this includes A LOT of stuff - because for the majority of our time in our daily experiences we don't LIKE what is happening in the PRESENT MOMENT - and we resist it.

This resistance to the present moment, to reality, to what IS, is the suffering itself.

So, if one cal live in the PRESENT MOMENT, one will not be able to suffer also, because what is - IS, why suffer?

You only suffer when you say this "experience" SHOULDN'T BE HAPPENING or WAS NOT SUPPOSED TO HAPPEN...and these are the concepts that send an emotional signal that we call suffering.

But, everything goes back to the "false-conceptual-egoic-self-mind" that runs a tight ship - and turns our experience of life into a magnetic field divided into good and bad, into suffering and pleasure, into desire and repulsion - and this is where we find the human condition currently.

Nothing good or bad about this actually, it is simply the way it is.

But, there is a way to drop this "self."

Self mind IS the root cause of suffering, or should I say a function of the self-mind that it uses to keep us running on the wheel chasing the invisible cheese that we never get. Only when we are dying do we really get this completely...imho.

But, either way, without a "false-self" that keeps you SOCIALLY alive there would be NO suffering.

No self = No suffering!

 

[southflorida]

Damn HempKat...you snuck this post in and i didn't see it...almost like a magician.

Actually the way I see it your theory is only working because of your own personal labels you put on it. What I mean by that is this 99.9% of hearsay isn't what I would call knowledge or anyone should call knowledge. I would say a better term for it is information. Knowledge to me would only happen when you take this hearsay information and apply it in your own real world existence. If when doing so you find your experience matches the information, then and only then does it become knowledge. To illustrate what I mean, if I heard from someone that for example when growing marijuana you can't allow light to interupt the dark period because it causes hermies, but have never experienced it myself I wouldn't pass that on as a fact. I would pass it by saying "I've heard from others that if you allow light to interupt the dark period while growing marijuana it will cause hermies." If however someone told me that, I tested it and sure enough got hermies, then and only then would I say, "I know for a fact that if you allow light to interupt the dark period while growing marijuana it will cause hermies." See the difference?

Yes. But, as I'm sure you know yourself, very few folks actually approach it like you do. You're an exception to the rule.

Is this something you learned, or you have always done it that way?

Well first of all as far as the breathing thing seems more like you're comparing apples and oranges. Yes you can not breath out until you breath in because if you haven't breathed in you have nothing to breath out. You don't however have to be devoid of knowledge to have insight or to learn, if that were true then the only time we would ever be able to learn or have insight is when we are first born. Once we know something though then we would have knowledge and if your belief were correct we would be incapable of learning or having insight because there would be that piece of knowledge we have preventing us from being in that state of not knowing you believe is essential for insight and gaining knowledge.

The state of not-knowing is available to us constantly, we just never use it. It is something that is an inherent part of our Being.

In my own experiences I've had moments of insight throughout my life even after I've aquired knowledge thru experiences. Also never in all of my 50+ years have I felt it was impossible to learn something new. Personally I don't think we are ever at a true state of not knowing if that were true when we are first born we would never become upset when we were hungry and cry. We would just think this feeling we later learn is called hunger is a normal state of being because nothing has taught us that the way we feel when we are hungry is something to cry about. Nor would we automatically start suckling when we came into contact with anything resembling a nipple. Now I will grant you at the moment of birth there is such a minimal amount of knowledge that it can seem like to others that a newborn has no knowledge but that's a false assumption. We do have knowledge in the form of instinct. From this we then have a starting point from which to gain further knowledge and it never stops until we die.

I'm trying to say that not-knowing is a constant. That is why I used the example of breathing in and out. The in is the not-knowing and the out is the knowing, or vice-versa...lol...When you learn something, anything, not-knowing is still there, it doesn't disappear.

What was going on before that was we were building our understanding of the world around us. We are close to empty vessels when we were first born and so for the first few years (typically 4-5) we are developing an understanding of the world around us. How can you possibly remember something if you don't even really know what that something is? It's only after we've accumulated a sufficient number of experiences before we start to understand the world around us that we begin to remember things.

My point was that the "self" is invented. It comes into our awareness after we are 2-3 years old on average. The concepts on which the SELF is based comes from culture/society.

Where else would they come from?

But, my main point is that before it is created, the "self" doesn't exist.

I have to say as I read this last part what I see is your opinion of what is going on with others, most likely thru the process of projection based on your own experiences of the world mixed in with alot of misperceptions or at best incomplete perceptions. Like your idea of depression, the kind of depression you're talking about based on memories of the past. This is just one type of depression. What about the kind of depression that is a chemical imbalance in the brain, that requires no memories or thoughts of the past, you just feel bad for no particular reason?

I'm talking about the depression where one is depressed because of constant thoughts about an experience that occured in the past.

Also, at least with the way you phrase it, as depression being memories of the past, presumes all memories of the past make one feel bad and therefore causes depression. What if all your memories were good and pleasent though? Recalling them wouldn't make you feel depressed they would make you elated. You do kind of the same thing with anxiety. Sure one could experience anxiety if all their projections of the future painted negative scenarios but what of the optimist? Being optimistic an optimist',s projections of the future are likely to be rosey and rather then feeling anxious as a result he or she would likely feel hopeful or enthusiastic about the future.

Negative and painful memories or projections into the future is what I meant. But, the positive memories or positive projections will also lead to negative ones because your realize that at the present moment your reality is not as good. This will lead to suffering.

Now as far as inventing one's self I do agree we do that but you seem to assume this is largely what society and culture programs into us. What about people who say, "This isn't enough, this isn't me, I want more out of life" and they choose a path that brings them closer to what they want to be even if others around them riddicule them or doubt them. A person like this we might say is a self made man. Anyone can be this but depending on what you want it might not be easy and if it infringes on others right to live life as they see fit then society might even punish you for it.

Our programs come from society and culture. Even the self made man is using concepts recorded in his memory to make decisions.

We obviously have a lot to do with inventing ourselves, but, I'm trying to point at one thing: none of these ARE the real us, these are not Being, these are all concepts that the self-mind identifies with and is attached to.

Then there is your analogy, sure if you're not happy with who you are then the concept of self might indeed seem like a heavy burden you have to struggle with all your life. What about the person that feels fullfilled and see's themself as a happy individual? Do you honestly think he or she will see their self as analogous to a heavy burden? More likely they would see it more comparable to being blessed or gifted.

HK...Everything I write is conceptual, because we have nothing but concepts when it comes to communicating. I write it all with one goal.

This goal is to help people become aware of what is occuring in their own experiences.

This is the ONLY thing that counts.

If there are these kinds of people that are happy and fulfilled, then I would like them to stand up and teach all the folks that are OBESE and POPPING PILLS and DRINKING BOOZE like there's no tomorrow...how to be happy and fulfilled.

So far the statistics are NOT showing a positive dynamic in these areas. And there are thousands of other areas where massive amounts of people are suffering, and are killing themselves slowly and sometimes not-so-slowly and very few seem to stop rolling down hill.

What is self and what is knowledge each, by themselves, are too big of a subject to cover in such a cursery and limited fashion as a single relatively short simple post let alone both of them being covered in a single post. These things are so vast and varied that you could spend days talking about each of them and only being to scratch the surface let alone summerize them in a fashion that can be applied as a blanket statement to all mankind. Perhaps for you these things are false and only bring you suffering but you shouldn't presume that because it's true for you it must also be true for everyone else and that some how only you and perhaps a handful of other knows the real deal.

What else we've got to do until we die? If there are folks that are interested in starting this conversation, then why not here on icmag?

Stoners like you and many others are dropping great insights and I'm sure this helps to evolve us as a whole...right?

No what I see is someone that seems unhappy and miserable with themself and is seemingly projecting their own interpretation on everyone else. Note though that I say seems and seemingly. I do this because I don't know this to be true, it fits with the negative tone of your view but I don't really know what's going on in your head. Maybe you're just saying all this to be controversial and spark debate?

I wrote that I am aware of my "self-mind" and how it runs the show.

I'm aware that the self-mind is a survival program, and yes, I'm going through the same shit everyone else is. At least everyone I have personally known in my 42 years, and that I had a chance to talk honestly about this topic - all suffered on many levels.

In many of my posts I have pointed at the fact that I'm not some sage that is sitting on a mountain doing dabs all day long

btw...being controversial and sparking debate is a healthy thing...imho...especially in a forum where we have many folks that are thinking for themselves.

...wouldn't you agree?

 

[southflorida]

As we grow, we assimilate and develop very basic beliefs and conclusions, not only about the world, but also about ourselves. These core beliefs fall into the background as permanent organizing factors for all new information.

As a SURVIVAL MECHANISM it is quite efficient, but one of the major drawbacks is that all future encounters will be biased by these previous conclusions.

This is NO small matter!

Anything we perceive, even whether or not we perceive it, is subject to the FILTER of our beliefs and assumptions.

What we don't realize is that we are so deeply entrenched in these convictions and beliefs that they are UNRECOGNIZABLE.

Our core beliefs simply APPEAR to us as reality.

It's actually not that hard for us to discern when other people's beliefs and assumptions are SELF-serving or mistaken, but recognizing this dynamic in ourselves is a very difficult matter for most folks.

Just as an eye can't see itself, the awareness from which we perceive the world has no ability to perceive itself.

This obviously makes recognizing and questioning our beliefs a uniquely DIFFICULT undertaking.

We can see a reflection of our eye in the mirror, but when it comes to seeing a reflection of our awareness, there is no such opportunity.

As with an eye, we are constantly aware of the view, while giving little or no thought to what is providing it.

We don't notice the set of assumptions from which we comprehend the world, and yet it determines our reality in every moment.

 

[dank.frank]

In one simple question - what is the purpose of this sense of "enlightenment"? What good comes from said particular viewpoint... At the end of the day - your are still going to be exactly the same. This "understanding" of self, or the lack thereof does zero to change your current reality...that reality being, you exist. dank.Frank

 

[thcglory]

You talk crap.
Your perception that's all.
The 100% bit. Totally wrong. 24 7 ,365

https://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=248084&page=9

Add variety to your life and lay off the keyboard with the bial you throwing all around the place. Hence link to the UK! Forum

Less is more understand that.

tE

 

[southflorida]

In one simple question - what is the purpose of this sense of "enlightenment"

What good comes from said particular viewpoint...

At the end of the day - your are still going to be exactly the same. This "understanding" of self, or the lack thereof does zero to change your current reality...that reality being, you exist.

dank.Frank

Well, I can only answer for myself.

There's really NO purpose. It's purposeless...if there is such a word

The good that comes from it can only be directly experienced when you realize who and what YOU (and me, and everyone else) really ARE.

If we will be the same or not, is not-known until experienced.

From my perspective, when you make a DISTINCTION between A and B there is always a difference.

For example when you make a DISTINCTION between plants that are superior and inferior obviously there IS a big difference.

Otherwise we would all just be pollen-chucking and there would be no such creations as BB Sativa and SSH...etc

The major question with WHO actually exists? Self? Being? Both?

Since current reality is a REFLECTION of your beliefs and assumptions, once you move all these beliefs and assumption into the domain of concepts and NOT FACTS...reality changes.

There are different ways to exist...honestly...is one...and being confused with a "false-conceptual-self"...is another...and there are many many more.

Me personally, I want to exist as who and what I really AM...and not as a concept that someone invented and passed on to me.

And I'm also interested in what a YOU (i.e. me) actually IS, authentically and originally.

 

[offthehook]

It's just one way to think, just like all other ways to think.

Yours (SF's)sounds good by me as I can see it the same way. Hempcat's way I can see too but kinda must let go since it's so outdated, lol.

To think like SF does deliver more comphort as does Hempcat's imo

Quote: And I'm also interested in what a YOU (i.e. me) actually IS, authentically and originally.

I think we are all agnostic to that, but if someone likes to make me laugh then please go ahead explaining it


Sometimes I feel I am just one fish in the sea, at other times I feel I am the creator of it all. Sometimes I can be both, sometimes I can be none at all.

Whatever works, duh

 

[dank.frank]

You can deny truths if you want - you can pretend that the choice you made have no actual bearing on you outside of the construct that you accept those choices...

However, if you jump off a building - simply because you've decided gravity is illusion, this will not prevent you from going splat at the bottom...

However, you might enjoy the fall a bit more.



dank.Frank

 

[thcglory]

Hypocrisy tho OTH.
RE.Avatar..

 

[southflorida]

You can deny truths if you want - you can pretend that the choice you made have no actual bearing on you outside of the construct that you accept those choices...

However, if you jump off a building - simply because you've decided gravity is illusion, this will not prevent you from going splat at the bottom...

However, you might enjoy the fall a bit more.



dank.Frank

In relation to what are you posting this?

I'm asking because nowhere in my posts have I written anything of that sort of information.

What I'm trying to say is that the more honest we are in relation to who and what we truly ARE - the more authentic our lives are going to be and the LESS we will suffer UN-NECESSARY PAIN.

Obviously if a person jumps off a building, he will start falling down according to the physical laws in this reality.

What I'm saying is that many folks believe they CAN fly:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENy8HctrsPQ&list=PL098E6BC9D4552CA3&index=8&feature=plpp_video

She is quite young so we'll forgive her...lol

what a f*cking voice though?

But, the TRUTH in this reality is that people can't fly on their own without help from all kinds of inventions.

So, they are jumping off buildings every day and getting the shit knocked out of them because they are in an ILLUSIONARY concept that they are a SELF.

 

[HempKat]

Damn HempKat...you snuck this post in and i didn't see it...almost like a magician.

Sorry, didn't mean for it to seem that way, then again I have no control over how something "seems" to others. All I can do is just try and explain my point as best I know how.

Yes. But, as I'm sure you know yourself, very few folks actually approach it like you do. You're an exception to the rule.

Is this something you learned, or you have always done it that way?

Perhaps the problem is trying to think of it in terms of being a rule? Rules were made to be broken as they say and when you're dealing with something as unique and varied as the human condition you're dealing with something that doesn't lend itself well to rules.

As for how I came to view knowledge and information I guess I learned it by seeing that not always do the things that "authorities" or "experts" say, always hold true. If it's truely knowledge one should be able to apply it in their own experience and have predictable results that matches the information it was derived from.

The state of not-knowing is available to us constantly, we just never use it. It is something that is an inherent part of our Being.



I'm trying to say that not-knowing is a constant. That is why I used the example of breathing in and out. The in is the not-knowing and the out is the knowing, or vice-versa...lol...When you learn something, anything, not-knowing is still there, it doesn't disappear.

I'm thinking the problem here is you're trying to take a fairly complex concept and condense it down to an overly simplified definition. It works for you because it's based on your own unique perception since those perceptions had to be the basis upon which you formulated your concepts.

My point was that the "self" is invented. It comes into our awareness after we are 2-3 years old on average. The concepts on which the SELF is based comes from culture/society.

Where else would they come from?

But, my main point is that before it is created, the "self" doesn't exist.

It seems like you're saying that the self can only be from the point our memories begin and beyond. That if there is a point in time where you can't remember further back then that is the point at which self is created. I'm inclined to disagree, I think self begins from the moment we can percieve the world even if that perception is limited by the state of being a newborn. From that first perception though our self is constantly evolving as more and more perceptions help to define self, the world around self, and self's place in the world. At first our "self" is so rudimentary though that we have to devote most of our consciousness to elevating self to a point that we can begin to focus on how "self" relates to the world around us and it's at that point that our memories begin. I disagree though that self comes from society and culture. Those play a role but if it were possible to have a new born infant live on an island by itself until adulthood that newborn would still develope a self even though there was no society or culture to influence it. In other words society and culture can impact self but it is not the only thing that creates self. If I had to name one thing more responsible for self then anything else I would say it's our day to day experiences.

I'm talking about the depression where one is depressed because of constant thoughts about an experience that occured in the past.

Well that may be what you're talking about but that's not how you worded it. You said "depression (memories of the past)" which implies that all depression is memories of the past. I'm merely pointing out that's inaccurate. Now sure, if one dwelled on a negative memory of the past they could feel depressed but all memories aren't negative so it's a matter of which memories people choose to dwell on. I think most people tend to only dwell on negative memories until they figure out how to avoid whatever made it negative. Once they achieve that most people tend to not dwell on the negative. Me personally, if I'm going to spend alot of time thinking about the past I'm going to focus more on the good things and when I do it usually brings a smile to my face.

Negative and painful memories or projections into the future is what I meant. But, the positive memories or positive projections will also lead to negative ones because your realize that at the present moment your reality is not as good. This will lead to suffering.

You seem to be making too many assumptions to develope this concept. Like here above you assume that if one is thinking about a good moment in the past it must be because the present isn't as good and therefore the good memory is going to be painful. How about though the instance were a good present experience reminds one of a good past experience? You know like when someone says life is good, because it was good in the past, is good now and there is no evident reason to think it won't be good in the future. The kind of suffering you keep trying to hint at is the kind that comes from a person making a conscious choice to suffer because they choose to only dwell on the negative. The only instance this isn't true is if an individual only has bad/negative experiences but I don't think that's truely possible because if you've never known good then you have no comparrison from which to say something is bad.

Our programs come from society and culture. Even the self made man is using concepts recorded in his memory to make decisions.

Again you're trying to make hard fast rules to things that can't be hard fast rules since everyone is different. Some programs come from society and culture but I would argue that the bulk of what self is, comes from direct personal individual experience. If someone sees themself as being kind, patient, strong, artistic, loving, athletic, etc it's because they remember experiences where they demonstrated those qualities to themselves. Society and culture can't teach all of those things. The self made man is the one least influenced by society and culture and therefore most of his memories aren't of societal or cultural concepts but rather memories of experiences that gave a more satisfying feeling of self then society or culture provides.

We obviously have a lot to do with inventing ourselves, but, I'm trying to point at one thing: none of these ARE the real us, these are not Being, these are all concepts that the self-mind identifies with and is attached to.



HK...Everything I write is conceptual, because we have nothing but concepts when it comes to communicating. I write it all with one goal.

This goal is to help people become aware of what is occuring in their own experiences.

You'll never obtain your goal then because you can't teach someone else self, all peoples selves come from within and their perception of the world around them. Everyone's perception is different even if only just slightly. What you're suggesting is like trying to say, "Your idea of what chocolate tastes like is all wrong so I'm going to teach you how to correctly taste chocolate."

If there are these kinds of people that are happy and fulfilled, then I would like them to stand up and teach all the folks that are OBESE and POPPING PILLS and DRINKING BOOZE like there's no tomorrow...how to be happy and fulfilled.

Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You can only show people how you yourself have achieved happiness and fulfillment but since what makes you happy and fulfilled might make someone else feel miserable and empty you can't teach them happiness and fulfillment. This is why we have saying such as, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" The world and everything in it, including self is based on each person's individual perceptions.

So far the statistics are NOT showing a positive dynamic in these areas. And there are thousands of other areas where massive amounts of people are suffering, and are killing themselves slowly and sometimes not-so-slowly and very few seem to stop rolling down hill.

This isn't true because people are wrong about what self is, it's more to do with people focus too much on gratifying self for self's sake rather then gratifying self thru helping others. If more people spent more time on helping others and less time on helping themselves the world would likely be a much happier place and those statistics you're talking about would show a much more positive trend.

What else we've got to do until we die? If there are folks that are interested in starting this conversation, then why not here on icmag?

Stoners like you and many others are dropping great insights and I'm sure this helps to evolve us as a whole...right?

Well there are too many things to list that we've got to do until we die so I won't try to answer that but if you think trying to prove that everyone's idea of self is wrong is all we got to do then I think you're in serious trouble. I also think if you believe that a person can come up with some cookie cutter, one size fits all solution to this percieved mystery of self then you're sadly mistaken.

I wrote that I am aware of my "self-mind" and how it runs the show.

I'm aware that the self-mind is a survival program, and yes, I'm going through the same shit everyone else is. At least everyone I have personally known in my 42 years, and that I had a chance to talk honestly about this topic - all suffered on many levels.

In many of my posts I have pointed at the fact that I'm not some sage that is sitting on a mountain doing dabs all day long

I disagree then because I don't feel self mind is merely a survival program or that it runs the show. The show (life) runs on it's own (self mind) is the person watching the show and deciding how it makes them feel.

btw...being controversial and sparking debate is a healthy thing...imho...especially in a forum where we have many folks that are thinking for themselves.

...wouldn't you agree?

I didn't say otherwise, I merely pointed out it was one possibility for why you're taking some of the positions you're taking. Since you ask though I would say that sometimes being controversial and sparking debate can be a good thing but not always. Anything and everything can be abused to the point of being worse then it should be.

 

[Puffaluffagus]

My two

1. That there is a "god"

2. That the things that happen to us are part of his plan.

 

[Ziggaro]

hopefully these are false.. but we often find out differently

Well I always thought the two false beliefs that cause the most suffering in our lives were:


1) it's a govt conspiracy.
2) my wife's cheating on me.

 

[Liza]

There is no building to jump off from. If you take the trouble to go up that building your are obviously already caught up by the illusion. Or like Bill Hicks said: Why didn't he take off from the ground? You don't see ducks lining up to catch elevators do you?

 

[southflorida]

Sorry, didn't mean for it to seem that way, then again I have no control over how something "seems" to others. All I can do is just try and explain my point as best I know how.

You do that well, I clearly understand what you write. I was saying that you sneaked in your post as joke, since I noticed the next day.

Perhaps the problem is trying to think of it in terms of being a rule? Rules were made to be broken as they say and when you're dealing with something as unique and varied as the human condition you're dealing with something that doesn't lend itself well to rules.

rules have their place, and of course the SELF loves the rules that help it get what it wants

As for how I came to view knowledge and information I guess I learned it by seeing that not always do the things that "authorities" or "experts" say, always hold true. If it's truly knowledge one should be able to apply it in their own experience and have predictable results that matches the information it was derived from.

this approach eliminates a lot of unnecessary confusion and suffering

I'm thinking the problem here is you're trying to take a fairly complex concept and condense it down to an overly simplified definition. It works for you because it's based on your own unique perception since those perceptions had to be the basis upon which you formulated your concepts.

true...the self-principle is not simple at all...and I'm doing the best I can.

It seems like you're saying that the self can only be from the point our memories begin and beyond. That if there is a point in time where you can't remember further back then that is the point at which self is created.

I think the self is attached and identifies itself with many concepts, it's just some of them we are aware of, and most are part of what can be called UNCOGNIZED mind...beliefs and assumptions we are NOT aware of.

I'm inclined to disagree, I think self begins from the moment we can percieve the world even if that perception is limited by the state of being a newborn. From that first perception though our self is constantly evolving as more and more perceptions help to define self, the world around self, and self's place in the world. At first our "self" is so rudimentary though that we have to devote most of our consciousness to elevating self to a point that we can begin to focus on how "self" relates to the world around us and it's at that point that our memories begin.

My main point is that before the FIRST perception is made there is what I'm calling Being, which is what we are originally and authentically are.

Since ALL perceptions are secondary, everything that happens after the first perception is nothing but a snowball rolling downhill - collecting a bunch of concepts and then by attaching and identifying with these concepts a conceptual SELF is formed.

As I said above, some of these we remember and are aware of, but the majority are uncognized beliefs and assumptions that we are un-aware of.

The problem with the uncognized beliefs is that the self-mind uses them to interpret and provide meaning to what we perceive, so we are never seeing what is actually there, but only our hidden beliefs and assumptions.

I disagree though that self comes from society and culture. Those play a role but if it were possible to have a new born infant live on an island by itself until adulthood that newborn would still develop a self even though there was no society or culture to influence it. In other words society and culture can impact self but it is not the only thing that creates self. If I had to name one thing more responsible for self then anything else I would say it's our day to day experiences.

you mean if a human grew up all by himself with no other people?

Yes, he would, but it would be different from the conceptual "self" that we carry around like a 300 pound back-pack.

Day to day experiences are mostly perceptions based on the past.

In the link below I have a thread where I explain in detail why we never perceive anything directly as it IS, that all we ever are doing is SURVIVING (physically and socially).

you do realize that we as humans have no organs of perception that can perceive what IS there as-it-is and NOT in relation to our "self" ???

Taking this into account, as a "self" we are living in our mind, and this is always in the past, since perception is a SECONDARY process.

We can't see what is PRIMARY, what I'm calling Consciousness, all we are doing is observing distinctions made inside of Consciousness.

Well that may be what you're talking about but that's not how you worded it. You said "depression (memories of the past)" which implies that all depression is memories of the past. I'm merely pointing out that's inaccurate.

Memories that are painful can lead to depression, but as I wrote memories that are pleasurable can also eventually lead to pain, especially if they are remembered in relation to a present moment that is currently NOT-SO pleasant.

Now sure, if one dwelled on a negative memory of the past they could feel depressed but all memories aren't negative so it's a matter of which memories people choose to dwell on. I think most people tend to only dwell on negative memories until they figure out how to avoid whatever made it negative. Once they achieve that most people tend to not dwell on the negative. Me personally, if I'm going to spend alot of time thinking about the past I'm going to focus more on the good things and when I do it usually brings a smile to my face.

For "self" survival we need both pain and desire to keep us running on the wheel. There is no escaping this, no matter how hard you try while the "self-mind" is what is running the show. If you let go of the "self" then it is possible...but not until.

You seem to be making too many assumptions to develop this concept. Like here above you assume that if one is thinking about a good moment in the past it must be because the present isn't as good and therefore the good memory is going to be painful. How about though the instance were a good present experience reminds one of a good past experience? You know like when someone says life is good, because it was good in the past, is good now and there is no evident reason to think it won't be good in the future.

Beliefs and assumptions is all we have to go on, there are no facts in this virtual reality that we are living in.

It is all information that is perceived by the self-mind.

All we have is direct experience to give us feedback if some belief is true or not. And it can change with time. What works today might not work tomorrow, and vice-versa.

It is just like this page you are currently perceiving, if you click the right mouse button and press "view page source" you will see a bunch of information (data) and your browser takes this data and interprets it based on the rule-set made up by the programmers.

This is JUST like our reality. Our self-minds are simply perceiving and interpreting and providing meaning to all these interpretations, and this is WHY we see what we see.

But, still, even this information is indirect. It is still all conceptual, and thus not is what IS actually there.

The kind of suffering you keep trying to hint at is the kind that comes from a person making a conscious choice to suffer because they choose to only dwell on the negative. The only instance this isn't true is if an individual only has bad/negative experiences but I don't think that's truely possible because if you've never known good then you have no comparrison from which to say something is bad.

It is not a conscious choice...it is the SURVIVAL drive of the self-mind, it needs to divide everything into good and bad in relation to all the circumstances it perceives so that it knows what to do.

This doing is all about survival and ONLY about survival.

Physical 1% and social 99% are the two domains of survival the self-mind focuses on.

Again you're trying to make hard fast rules to things that can't be hard fast rules since everyone is different. Some programs come from society and culture but I would argue that the bulk of what self is, comes from direct personal individual experience. If someone sees themself as being kind, patient, strong, artistic, loving, athletic, etc it's because they remember experiences where they demonstrated those qualities to themselves. Society and culture can't teach all of those things. The self made man is the one least influenced by society and culture and therefore most of his memories aren't of societal or cultural concepts but rather memories of experiences that gave a more satisfying feeling of self then society or culture provides.

There is actually NOTHING outside of culture. We ARE culture and culture IS us.

Everything the self-made man does is in RELATION to the culture he lives in, and there can be no other way.

You'll never obtain your goal then because you can't teach someone else self, all peoples selves come from within and their perception of the world around them. Everyone's perception is different even if only just slightly. What you're suggesting is like trying to say, "Your idea of what chocolate tastes like is all wrong so I'm going to teach you how to correctly taste chocolate."

I'm actually trying to say that the chocolate might not be chocolate, but something else that we have confused with chocolate.

That the "self" we believe we ARE is simply a snowball of concepts the self-mind uses to keep us running like rats in the wheel.

Like the old saying goes, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. You can only show people how you yourself have achieved happiness and fulfillment but since what makes you happy and fulfilled might make someone else feel miserable and empty you can't teach them happiness and fulfillment. This is why we have saying such as, "One man's trash is another man's treasure" or "beauty is in the eye of the beholder" The world and everything in it, including self is based on each person's individual perceptions.

Yeah...but there are folks that actually like reading this information. Isn't that enough for it to exist?

This isn't true because people are wrong about what self is, it's more to do with people focus too much on gratifying self for self's sake rather then gratifying self thru helping others. If more people spent more time on helping others and less time on helping themselves the world would likely be a much happier place and those statistics you're talking about would show a much more positive trend.

You said it. People are wrong about what the self is. This confusion is what I'm writing about mostly. So, it seems that you are aware that your "self" is not an egoic-false-conceptual-self, but something of a different nature?

Well there are too many things to list that we've got to do until we die so I won't try to answer that but if you think trying to prove that everyone's idea of self is wrong is all we got to do then I think you're in serious trouble. I also think if you believe that a person can come up with some cookie cutter, one size fits all solution to this percieved mystery of self then you're sadly mistaken.

I think we all can directly experience the true nature of our "self" in our moment to moment experiences, and become aware that we are NOT a bunch of concepts spinning inside a sick-self-mind.

I disagree then because I don't feel self mind is merely a survival program or that it runs the show. The show (life) runs on it's own (self mind) is the person watching the show and deciding how it makes them feel.

Since all our perceptions are in relation to our "self" - and are all secondary, meaning we never directly perceive the truth, or what is actually there, this alone is enough to show that self-survival is all we got going on.

The person watching the show and deciding how it makes him feel is the self-mind interpreting everything in relation to itself and providing this interpretation with meaning based on its beliefs and assumptions.

Once the meaning is clear, there is an emotional charge to let us know how to relate to any circumstance in our experience.

The self-mind creates a charged-field divided into positive and negative emotional charges to allow it to navigate and move through and experience that is basically ALWAYS un-known.

The self-mind believes it knows what this reality is, but it does not, It only believes and assumes.

I didn't say otherwise, I merely pointed out it was one possibility for why you're taking some of the positions you're taking. Since you ask though I would say that sometimes being controversial and sparking debate can be a good thing but not always. Anything and everything can be abused to the point of being worse then it should be.

When this point is reached this information will not be interesting to the folks that are currently giving me positive feedback, and I will stop writing it.

There are not that many of them, but enough for me to want to keep writing these crazy concepts.

 

[southflorida]

My two

1. That there is a "god"

2. That the things that happen to us are part of his plan.

this is MAJOR-suffering beliefs for sure

 

[southflorida]

There is no building to jump off from. If you take the trouble to go up that building your are obviously already caught up by the illusion. Or like Bill Hicks said: Why didn't he take off from the ground? You don't see ducks lining up to catch elevators do you?

true...the majority of folks know what happens when they jump

PPC abusers might not...but it seems they actually BELIEVE they can fly.

To end on a GOOD NOTE:

Check out this young talented girl singing like a Goddess!

Bianca Ryan - I Believe I Can Fly

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ENy8HctrsPQ&list=PL098E6BC9D4552CA3&index=8&feature=plpp_video