Paul Please note: Due to the large amount of email Paul receives and the limitations of his physical condition he can no longer respond to all email. But please keep sending — he reads them all.
Your definition of happening precludes action in the world, for when we concentrate upon doing we don't watch ourselves happen.
How can I see myself through the perspective that sees me? That is merely a thought experiment or an imagining, at best. At worst, I don't know what it means for there are innumerable perspectives from which I can be seen literally, and figuratively too. As for not being alone, your statement makes the assumption that I don't want to be alone, for this is related to abandonment. But I might want to be alone, in order to act with concentration!
It's pretty hard to come up with a formula for how to live that no one objects to, isn't it?
VINCENT: The words are a metaphor for an experience; I'm unaware of any formula for how to live.
Acting doesn't preclude perceiving ourselves in action - I'd say it's impossible not to be aware of it at some level - but the kind of awareness by which we percieve ourselves can take vastly different forms. When we're lost in our work, so to speak, as you refer to, I'd say that the aspect of ourselves that's aware is more meaningful than, say, the aspect of ourselves that may have thoughts about what a nice job we're doing.
Paul, your thoughts are very close to that of ancient Indian sages.
Their motto was "From the darkness of solidity to the the enlightenment of fluidity. From the enlightenment of fluidity to the immortality from the total surrender of one's self"
In the enlightened state of pure awareness one remains as a witness with no trace of alienation.
Is this not what is expressed by the two words coined by you.
VISHESH: Definitely; but not, it turns out, in the sense of feeling abandoned.
AVGW: That word “witness” really resonates: the main term I’ve used in writing about this is the sense of an “onlooker.” I find the experience difficult to put into words.
ROBERT, glad it was useful and thanks for stopping by.
I like this definition (from Wikipedia): Awareness does not necessarily imply understanding, just an ability to be conscious of, feel or perceive. Isn't some part of us always aware of our self, of what the self is doing or thinking, even if we don't always pay it heed?
As for being alone - we are both always alone (in the sense that we are other) and always in the presence of something other.
the truth is, religion is something you have to try and experience about before anything else. talking about it will not satisfy any pre conceived notions about religion. it is far greater than any human discussion.
PAULINE: I think so too, on both points. I’d just add that understanding can enhance awareness. And of course, misunderstanding can be an obstacle to it. From what I’ve seen, religion holds the potential for each.
VICKRAMTHEVAR: Absolutely. The most powerful words, religiously, are words that can help lead people to first-hand experience.
LUCY S: Exactly – despite how hard it is to get this across in terms that people can widely agree on.
Because it can be a belief, in which case it often takes forms that contradict the beliefs/disbeliefs of others; but it can also be an experience that anyone can have as a human being. Finding language that to some small degree touches on the experience of God – I saw that as my central task in writing Original Faith. I found it really difficult, but to me, it’s at least as important for us to start focusing on the things about our spiritual lives that we hold in common as it is to notice the differences.
HOMO ESCAPEONS: But isn’t to be to do and to do to be – and you say that “you” is second person? I always get my persons mixed up. Who’s on first? Actually, that one I know – that would be me – or you, depending on who’s talking. It’s the second and third person I get mixed up. Trinity’s can be confusing.
TERESA, thanks and really good to see you. Be sure to let me know if you resume posting.
Paul, Very good. In other words, we must become the observer, that is have the ability to watch ourselves, to be able to step outside ourselves. Very valuable message.
“I think I know I mean a Yes but it's all wrong; that is I think I disagree” (but not really).
MARK, yes – becoming the observer and in a sense stepping outside ourselves. And I think this can happen at different levels/intensities. In Buddhism it’s often referred to as “mindfulness.”
Seems to me that on your blog you often suggest ideas for distancing oneself from one’s own negative emotions, and that this falls within the same general area of experiencing oneself less subjectively, so to speak.
well true .. if we look from the perspective that sees us, we'll see a different thing. But remember, even though God is always with you .. what will matter at the moment of solitude would be if you were with God.
22 Comments:
How can I see myself through the perspective that sees me? That is merely a thought experiment or an imagining, at best. At worst, I don't know what it means for there are innumerable perspectives from which I can be seen literally, and figuratively too. As for not being alone, your statement makes the assumption that I don't want to be alone, for this is related to abandonment. But I might want to be alone, in order to act with concentration!
It's pretty hard to come up with a formula for how to live that no one objects to, isn't it?
Acting doesn't preclude perceiving ourselves in action - I'd say it's impossible not to be aware of it at some level - but the kind of awareness by which we percieve ourselves can take vastly different forms. When we're lost in our work, so to speak, as you refer to, I'd say that the aspect of ourselves that's aware is more meaningful than, say, the aspect of ourselves that may have thoughts about what a nice job we're doing.
Their motto was "From the darkness of solidity to the the enlightenment of fluidity. From the enlightenment of fluidity to the immortality from the total surrender of one's self"
In the enlightened state of pure awareness one remains as a witness with no trace of alienation.
Is this not what is expressed by the two words coined by you.
Yes, I see what you mean. I find that quite helpful.
AVGW: That word “witness” really resonates: the main term I’ve used in writing about this is the sense of an “onlooker.” I find the experience difficult to put into words.
ROBERT, glad it was useful and thanks for stopping by.
hope is all well!
As for being alone - we are both always alone (in the sense that we are other) and always in the presence of something other.
PAULINE: I think so too, on both points. I’d just add that understanding can enhance awareness. And of course, misunderstanding can be an obstacle to it. From what I’ve seen, religion holds the potential for each.
VICKRAMTHEVAR: Absolutely. The most powerful words, religiously, are words that can help lead people to first-hand experience.
Keshi.
So it's OK to talk about yourself in the third person..
whew!
congratulations on the book!!
teresa
LUCY S: Exactly – despite how hard it is to get this across in terms that people can widely agree on.
Because it can be a belief, in which case it often takes forms that contradict the beliefs/disbeliefs of others; but it can also be an experience that anyone can have as a human being. Finding language that to some small degree touches on the experience of God – I saw that as my central task in writing Original Faith. I found it really difficult, but to me, it’s at least as important for us to start focusing on the things about our spiritual lives that we hold in common as it is to notice the differences.
HOMO ESCAPEONS: But isn’t to be to do and to do to be – and you say that “you” is second person? I always get my persons mixed up. Who’s on first? Actually, that one I know – that would be me – or you, depending on who’s talking. It’s the second and third person I get mixed up. Trinity’s can be confusing.
TERESA, thanks and really good to see you. Be sure to let me know if you resume posting.
as you are he
as you are me
and we are all together."
I Am The Walrus!
Very good. In other words, we must become the observer, that is have the ability to watch ourselves, to be able to step outside ourselves. Very valuable message.
Strawberry Fields
(John Lennon/Paul McCartney)
“I think I know I mean a Yes but it's all wrong; that is I think I disagree” (but not really).
MARK, yes – becoming the observer and in a sense stepping outside ourselves. And I think this can happen at different levels/intensities. In Buddhism it’s often referred to as “mindfulness.”
Seems to me that on your blog you often suggest ideas for distancing oneself from one’s own negative emotions, and that this falls within the same general area of experiencing oneself less subjectively, so to speak.
Post a Comment