Sir, I think we cannot define love with words. Jiddu has talked about it.
If we are comparing thoughts vs reality, there is obviously a definition missing.
(oups! rereading my last post - I meant to use the term : defragmented)
I have the âmetaâ ability to observe the observer and process of observation. So do you and pretty much everyone else. Itâs part of the human package, a built-in feature. With practice, the meta-observation gets clearer and cleaner, but I doubt it ever becomes 100% âobjective.â
As for how this works, whether there is a separate corner of the mind that does the observing ⌠I donât know. I just know it happens.
A kind of Uber-self? Or meta in the sense of âoccuring afterwardsâ (possibly very fast) and thus being able to reflect upon the idea/memory of itself? Does this meta observer have the same beliefs and dreams as his infra-self? or is he somehow a different personality?
It becomes cleaner and clearer with practise - is that like better? How so?
Maybe. It feels like that sometimes: a âhigherâ self, more intelligent and discerning than the everyday self.
Technically, yes: There is a built-in lag time to observing. Feeling-wise, the reflection and reality seem to be simultaneous.
Meta-me seems quite different from default-me.
Iâd say it depends on the observer. Some people prefer order, some prefer disorder. A mix of both sounds good to me. You?
But you brought in the word, not me. Why did you bring it in?
This is thought talking, isnât it? It invents for itself all sorts of strange abilities. It has a clever answer to a very difficult question.
If there is talking, itâs thought doing it, right? I donât think this is a strange or esoteric ability. Everyone has the ability to meta-look at looking. Some people are virtuosos at it, but thatâs rare. And yes, thought likes to come up with clever answers and then dismiss the questions. But this can be seen and challenged.
So if I may repeat back what you are saying :
There is the normal you, but there is also a different, better (more intelligent) you that just keeps getting more and more like you would prefer to be : a mix of order and disorder.
How is this better you (a feeling we all apparently share) related to the self (the feeling of being a center surrounded by non-self)?
PS - by the way I do think you are right : that the meta-me (the judge of me) is part of the human psyche
Once again, I donât think we should be concentrating on what we like or donât like, but on what liking and not liking is.
PPS - I like Tom Jones (his latest album is da bomb)
I didnât say that. Only that thought is coming up with an intellectual answer to a tricky question. The answer deflects from the question. I am much more interested in the question. No, the question is much more interesting than the answer. Once again we are not allowing the question to breathe.
Is the judge of me just a part of me - or is it some objective, separate, actual knower of what is?
Have we got a little omniscient god (or fairy) working for us in da brain?
Sorry - mea culpa - I may have drowned it - though the human psyche is full of hope (you never know)
Do you know this because youâre living it? I ask because I can only attempt to imagine what choiceless awareness or âgoaless seeingâ is. When others speak of such things casually, as if theyâre living it, moment to moment, I wonder why such adepts waste their precious time here.
Those adepts with such precious time are probably wasting it (from our conditioned point of view) idly spinning their chakras on a mountain top.
However - you may be able to persuade me to demonstrate that Zazen has more of a chance of being a form of liberation than any sort of mentation.
Iâm here to try and give back as much as Iâm receiving. Which I enjoy doing.
PS - sorry that sounds a bit esoteric - let me change that to : I feel that this stuff (the movement of self) can be revealed simply and plainly, and I enjoy trying together with other interested people
PPS - I canât think of anything more important to do (seeing our dangerous delusions) - and this is one way of doing it.
1 Like
nobody feels like the ego-self. nobody+ feels different, âattachedâ somehow to this body and mind, but not much of a conventional self, if a self at all.
Hereâs my full response edited for minimal deflection:
I can see with some degree of clarity (not 100%) some (not all) of the content of my consciousness. I donât know how this works, whether there is a âseparate and objective corner of consciousnessâ from which I see. I just know it happens.
I usually know how I feel, and at times I know what I feel like, but I never feel like nobody because Iâm always somebody.
It happens before I know what it is, but once I know what it is, it happens all the time.
In Zen meditation, I have heard something about HARA, do you know? All I know, it is something related to person having good heart, tell me if you know some about this.
Does love mature in a person?
If part of me were truly objective and separate, all the rest of my tangled subjectivity wouldnât exist. It is this tangled subjectivity that creates the notion of objectivity and perfection.
1 Like
Thatâs not complete, objective clarity. You may be seeing 99% of the problem, and the missing 1% may hold the key. Action from there must still be partial action, which perpetuates confusion and fear.