Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> I would rather call this consciousness.
>>
>> Indeed I agree with Dan that it is quite accurate to say that there
>> is no
>> person in the sense that experience is not personal, it doesn't
>> "belong" to
>> anyone (but it is very intimate with itself nontheless).
>>
>> I think we only fear the elimination of personhood because we
>> confuse being
>> conscious as an ego with being conscious.
>
> I see this as the confusion between the little ego and the "higher
> self". The first one is a person which identifies itself with the body
> and memories, the second one identifies itself with its source. By
> doing so, it dissociate himself with every contingent realities.
In my view this confusion is rooted in thinking that the little ego is
actual more than a relative identity (like in a roleplay). If taken as
reality it becomes the "experiental ego"; the sense of personal
responsibility (not a courageous responsibility, but a sense of
responsibility rooted in guilt and authority and dogma), of seperateness, of
doership ("I" am doing something with my body and with my world).
Actually the first one is also a sort of dissociation. It is the
dissociation from actual experience and Self to an idea of experience and
Self. Also the second one is association with the timeless and undisturbable
peaceful reality of consciousness, and the freshness of present experience.
Really there is just the source, and whatever "else" there is, is an
expression of the source and not an "other" to the source.
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> We somehow think that if we in the
>> state of feeling to be a seperate individual cease to exist, we as
>> conscious
>> beings cease to exist, which is simply not true.
>
> I agree with you. I just call "person" the conscious being.
Ah, OK. We just have to be careful here that we are extending the use of
person to something which is not normally considered to be a person. But why
not, we can extend the use of words, and in this case I can see the meaning
in that.
Still, we should be aware that this person might indeed by nothing else than
consciousness itself, and has nothing to do with something that is bound by
body, mind, space, time, etc... And it might be useful to realize that
actually we can't find the experiencer apart from the experience. They are
one, even though we can make relative distinction (the experiencer is what
is beyond *particular* experiences, but not experience as such, which would
be the same as the experiencer).
Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>> It is just a big change of perspective, and we fear that as we fear
>> the
>> unknown in general.
>
> Yes. It is the same type of fear than the fear of freedom, and of
> knowledge. It is also the root of the fear of other people.
> There is also a fear that an understanding of the mystery would make the
> world
> into a very cold and inhuman place, but this comes from some
> reductionist idea on the mystery itself.
> Some people also fears that if the other cease to fear the Unknown,
> they will become non controllable (which is partially true). Some
> religion insists that we have to fear God, like some parents, and
> teachers, confuse fear and respect.
Really I think that ultimately fear is not even fear of something in
particular. It is (especially in humans) mostly the reaction to the mere
possibility of treat, which comes with the feeling of there being an other
(which might have bad intentions).
We project that fear on everything, so we fear freedom, but also bondage, we
fear knowledge, but also ignorance, we fear mystery, but also ordinariness,
we fear the bad, but we also fear the good, we fear God, but we also fear
the devil, we fear everything, but also nothingness. No wonder we are
suffering if everything becomes a reason to be fearful. The only solution is
to discover directly that there is *nothing* that ever could threaten what
we really are, and so fear becomes just a tool to sense whether there is an
actually imminent danger, not something that is constantly (whether
obviously or subtly) determining the way we live our lifes.
benjayk
--
View this message in context:
http://old.nabble.com/QTI%2C-Cul-de-sacs-and-differentiation-tp32721336p32805417.html
Sent from the Everything List mailing list archive at Nabble.com.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.
