Me

This is the place to post whatever questions you have related to the teachings of Eckhart Tolle. The rest of us will do whatever we can to help you achieve a better understanding :)

Me

Postby xpansion » Fri Dec 05, 2014 12:35 am

Please correct me if Im mistaken but these teachings often point to the concept of our how our thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions , body etc are not who we are because they are all impermanent ephemera. I dont really understand though why just because something is impermanent that it can't be me. Who says that the true self cannot be impermanent?
Sure we have this awareness of the ephemera and we can kind of separate from it and these teachings say this awareness is who we really are but I dont see how this is helpful apart from the fact that is helps me to be a little less reactive to my thoughts and feelings during my short life here.
xpansion
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:18 am

Re: Me

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:59 am

xpansion wrote:Who says that the true self cannot be impermanent?

Anyone can 'say' anything. We all have to decide for ourselves - or not decide. There is a degree of freewill that allows one to choose for those of us who have awakened from our early conditioning. But what is the basis for decision? I suggest the evidence is available to make an informed choice and become one who says "the true self cannot be impermanent". "The true self is eternal".

The true self either is, or is not, permanent - eternal. 'Who says' is those who have taken the time to explore the information, logic, philosophy, and evidence and came to the conclusion that consciousness, and a sense of self, is an expression/extension of a Single, infinite, eternal, conscious, life energy. There are those that believe otherwise of course. In the end it is an individual decision, and each of us is responsible for doing our own research and investigation.

No one has to do it, but for those who find it important to understand their own true nature, a great deal of information is available. For those that decide it is not relevant, that's okay too. The truth will be revealed eventually - or it won't matter. The thing is, a greater understanding that leads to an eternal perspective, brings a context to life that offers a much more enjoyable life experience than those who believe they face an inescapable end to their existence.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 3:08 am

I don't think it's the fact that thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, body etc. are impermanent that makes them not who we truly are. They just happen to have the quality of impermanence.

To me, it matters not whether even consciousness is permanent or impermanent. It does not change that who/what we are, if we can say "we" are anything, while we are conscious, goes far deeper than mere thoughts, sensations, feelings, emotions, body etc. There is an awareness behind all these things, a space in which all these things arise.

Even if consciousness lasted a mere twenty four hours, how would that change the above? To me, acknowledging impermanence is just to make you realise that attachment and identification with that which is impermanent is futile.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Me

Postby Phil2 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:19 am

xpansion wrote: Who says that the true self cannot be impermanent?


THAT which perceives impermanence cannot be impermanent ... because if there was only impermanence, it would be impossible to perceive it ... just as a balance cannot weigh itself ...

If everything was blue, you would not perceive the blue, you wouldn't even know that the world is blue ... to perceive the 'blue' you need the 'non blue' ... to perceive the impermanence, you need permanence ... which is the essence of WHO you are ... beyond your erroneous identification with impermanent forms ... this is why impermanence is also core to many spiritual teachings like in Buddhism ... impermanence points to our permanent nature and essence ...
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Me

Postby xpansion » Fri Dec 05, 2014 1:57 pm

Phil2 wrote:
xpansion wrote: Who says that the true self cannot be impermanent?


THAT which perceives impermanence cannot be impermanent ... because if there was only impermanence, it would be impossible to perceive it ... just as a balance cannot weigh itself ...

If everything was blue, you would not perceive the blue, you wouldn't even know that the world is blue ... to perceive the 'blue' you need the 'non blue' ... to perceive the impermanence, you need permanence ... which is the essence of WHO you are ... beyond your erroneous identification with impermanent forms ... this is why impermanence is also core to many spiritual teachings like in Buddhism ... impermanence points to our permanent nature and essence ...


I don't see how that which perceives impermanence cannot be impermanent. This is just a theory, a viewpoint. No one can prove this view. You don't know that when you die that the observer/awareness doesn't die with the body. TYou are assuming that awareness is impermanent. ET s point about about blue just doesn't really cut it at all. Perceiving a colour and perceiving impermanence are two different things.
xpansion
 
Posts: 47
Joined: Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:18 am

Re: Me

Postby Phil2 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 5:29 pm

xpansion wrote:
Phil2 wrote:
xpansion wrote: Who says that the true self cannot be impermanent?


THAT which perceives impermanence cannot be impermanent ... because if there was only impermanence, it would be impossible to perceive it ... just as a balance cannot weigh itself ...

If everything was blue, you would not perceive the blue, you wouldn't even know that the world is blue ... to perceive the 'blue' you need the 'non blue' ... to perceive the impermanence, you need permanence ... which is the essence of WHO you are ... beyond your erroneous identification with impermanent forms ... this is why impermanence is also core to many spiritual teachings like in Buddhism ... impermanence points to our permanent nature and essence ...


I don't see how that which perceives impermanence cannot be impermanent. This is just a theory, a viewpoint. No one can prove this view. You don't know that when you die that the observer/awareness doesn't die with the body. You are assuming that awareness is impermanent. ET s point about about blue just doesn't really cut it at all. Perceiving a colour and perceiving impermanence are two different things.


The problem comes from your erroneous identification with forms (ie. body and mind) ... you are not a form ... you are the formless awareness ... therefore when the body dies, YOU (as formless) do not die ...

In fact 'impermanence' is just an 'assumption' based on this erroneous identity ... so death is a concept, an idea ... death can never be a reality ... WHO would experience death ? the dead ?

??
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 6:11 pm

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes form - one of the most concrete laws we have discovered. So by that standard, I can see why people might think "we" are impermanent, since at the quantum level the "lights are on" because of energy and chemical reaction. However, energy changes form, so what form will "we" take when the remaining energy bleeds out of our body and brain?

Probably heat :lol:
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Me

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Dec 05, 2014 6:29 pm

epiphany55 wrote:Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, it simply changes form - one of the most concrete laws we have discovered. So by that standard, I can see why people might think "we" are impermanent, since at the quantum level the "lights are on" because of energy and chemical reaction. However, energy changes form, so what form will "we" take when the remaining energy bleeds out of our body and brain?

Probably heat :lol:

It's unlikely that you will glean much clarity in this so long as you limit the possibilities to physical properties. A clearer, more inclusive, perspective is available beyond a narrow physical focus.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Me

Postby Enlightened2B » Fri Dec 05, 2014 6:40 pm

Phil2 wrote:The problem comes from your erroneous identification with forms (ie. body and mind) ... you are not a form ... you are the formless awareness ... therefore when the body dies, YOU (as formless) do not die ...

In fact 'impermanence' is just an 'assumption' based on this erroneous identity ... so death is a concept, an idea ... death can never be a reality ... WHO would experience death ? the dead ?

??


It's actually not erroneous if the perspective exists. Again, as I mentioned in the other thread to you. You are creating duality here by insinuating that you are something, while not being, something else. There is no Formless separate from Form. You are ALL of it. Therefore, you are Being itself, AND, you are the body. You are a Human Being (well, you might be a robot, but that's a separate issue :wink: ). There is no Absolute identity while experiencing the human experience. It's all merely just Being. There is no erroneous identification. That's called the Ego Perspective. The Ego perspective is no doubt, a limited perspective, and many of us have limited beliefs which could hinder our growth, but there is nothing erroneous about it, if it exists.

All perspectives are of value to the greater whole.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Me

Postby Phil2 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:30 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:There is no Formless separate from Form.


Right, like there is no dream separate from the dreamer ... no creation separate from its creator ... but can it be said that the dreamer IS his dream ? Can it be said that the unmanifested IS its manifestation ?

Some say so like J. krishnamurti who repeatedly said "You are the world", and of course this is not false, but it can also be said that the world is the manifestation of the Unmanifested ... the Formless ... and this is the position of Eckhart Tolle and many others (eg. Advaita positing Atman (or Self) as the unique source of all things)
"What irritates us about others is an opportunity to learn on ourselves"
(Carl Jung)
Phil2
 
Posts: 1379
Joined: Sat Dec 07, 2013 3:24 pm

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:40 pm

Webwanderer wrote:It's unlikely that you will glean much clarity in this so long as you limit the possibilities to physical properties. A clearer, more inclusive, perspective is available beyond a narrow physical focus.

WW


I'm only limited by the evidence available, that can be verified and tested. When that evidence expands, so too do my limits of understanding. But let's discuss this so called physical limitation because some things happen to be explainable through physical, empirical means. Where do you draw the line with the physical realm? When does physical evidence start being an inadequate measure of reality? I assume, for example, that gravity doesn't need a non-physical explanation.

All I said was that the chemical energy that exists in our brain will likely transfer into heat when we die. It's just an observation. If you don't want to limit possibilities then there is surely the possibility that when we die the energy gets transferred to a star in another universe. I can't disprove that. I may even have a subjective experience of this other star awaiting my death. Like I said before - if you have no limits, in terms of growing with evidence, then you may as well start where infinite possibility ends.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Re: Me

Postby Enlightened2B » Fri Dec 05, 2014 7:55 pm

Phil2 wrote:
Enlightened2B wrote:There is no Formless separate from Form.


Right, like there is no dream separate from the dreamer ... no creation separate from its creator ... but can it be said that the dreamer IS his dream ? Can it be said that the unmanifested IS its manifestation ?


This is not an actual Dream. Perhaps a cosmic dream and yes, in that case the Dreamer (Source Being) IS very much the dream itself.

Of course it is. If the unmanifested is not the manifested, then you're implying duality. Where is the separation between what you call, the UNmanifested as compared to the manifested? Being is Being. There is only Being. Being being a human, Being being a bird, Being being a rock. It's the same one Being expressing itself in gazillions of ways. It's all Energy. In your deepest experience, is there anything other than Being? There are many appearances, but only mere Being itself. Humanness merely being one potential avenue of expression. Therefore, there is no separation between Being and the human expression of Being. It's one and the same. It's Being expressing itself. I AM merely I AM. Yet, I AM expressing myself as E2B. The expression and the I AM are ultimately one and the same.

There is no manifested AND an unmanifested in actuality. Only within the Dream (as you claim) itself. There is only the appearance of manifestation. But, ultimately, it is One Being, One Energy, One Awareness. One I AM, experiencing its AMness through Phil, through Mike, through Eckhart Tolle, through a cat, through a tree, through a bird. But, that AMness and the tree are not separate. So, while manifestation does happen, the way you are describing it here seems to imply you believe that there is a separate UNmanifested from the manifested as if to say I am Being itself, but I am not the expression of Being (in this case, the body). I think you've vastly misinterpreted Eckhart Tolle's teachings and this is once again, clear cut evidence of someone who is merely conceptually attempting to grasp this as opposed to someone who has experientially grasped it. I feel this is the culprit of much of your confusion here on this board when you incessently ask this very same question and claim people to have erroneous beliefs. It's really only your own limited beliefs in thinking that you are only a limited part of the Experience and not realizing that you are mere Being itself, which means you ARE the Experience! Meaning, you are IT which also means you are also any one aspect of it, if you zoom in and believe yourself to be that too.

Experience is subjective. Therefore, you are ultimately, whatever you believe yourself to be. There is no such thing as an erroneous view from the greater perspective. You can think yourself merely to be a unicorn. If that is the perspective you believe, it will ultimately be true for you. It might not be true elsewhere or relatively speaking, but it will be true for you. That perspective of course can be seen as intensely limiting and somewhat delusional, but understand that as long as that perspective exists, it is perfectly valid from the greater totality. Yet, your own limited beliefs Phil, seem to have you believe that there IS some sort of an objective reality, objective truth, but there isn't. When you really examine your experience and take into account the aliveness of everything and anything, you can start to notice how there is only subjectivity. Anything merely is, whatever it perceives itself to be in any given moment. You're caught up with the term 'formless/unmanifested' because you have a very limited understanding conceptually based on what a select number of teachers have written.

Some say so like J. krishnamurti who repeatedly said "You are the world", and of course this is not false, but it can also be said that the world is the manifestation of the Unmanifested ... the Formless ... and this is the position of Eckhart Tolle and many others (eg. Advaita positing Atman (or Self) as the unique source of all things)


It doesn't matter what Krishnamurti or Eckhart Tolle said. The question is....what does Phil say? What is Phil's experience? What is Phil's insight? Teachings can be wonderful pointers and I utilize many teachings to help point me in the direction needed. I utilize many non-physical reports as well to help expand my perspective. However, do you see what happens when you rely solely on conceptual understanding of this stuff from teachers alone? You only utilize a limited aspect of experience by believing only what that teacher said and not expanding your perspective by your own experience. This is why you see duality between terms like UN manifested and manifested. You haven't experienced it yourself.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Me

Postby Enlightened2B » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:15 pm

and let me add to this post. The more you allow, allow, allow and embrace and embrace and embrace in your experience, you stop limiting yourself by what you believe. You become more and more unlimited, which is more and more aligned with that higher vibration of Love. Beliefs are created through labels, definitions and concepts. The more we label such as ("Krishnamurti said this, so it has to be and it can't be like that because Krishnamurti never addressed that"), the more limited you become. You might have a conceptual understanding that 'I AM THAT' like Phil does, but until you open your experience to embracing ALL of it, which means perspectives outside of your own, you will never grasp the true nature of non-duality experientially and will continue to find fault in perspectives outside of your own. And understand that all perspectives are equally valuable and none are greater than others including my perspective right here and including Phil's perspective itself, no matter how limited it appears. But, I've come to see through my own experience that the less definitions, the less labels and the less confines I put on experience, the more I merely just BE in Unconditional Love. Understandably, relatively speaking, all we have are concepts. But, concepts become defining and limiting when we rely solely on them for spiritual awakening.

It's the same idea in materialism with science. Science is the study of the direct physical universe. They've done incredibly wonderful things over the past 500-700 years. However, until science stops seeing the duality with experience and embraces perspectives far beyond the physical universe, then science will continue to limit their beliefs into a cubbyhole sized understanding of who and what they are....and this too is perfectly valid.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Me

Postby Webwanderer » Fri Dec 05, 2014 8:33 pm

epiphany55 wrote:I'm only limited by the evidence available, that can be verified and tested.

If that is your belief, then that indeed is your limitation. Our beliefs set our limitations. It's the same for all of us. Create a more inclusive belief system however, and opportunities for greater clarity and insight increase accordingly. Fear is usually the greatest roadblock to evolving beliefs.

All I said was that the chemical energy that exists in our brain will likely transfer into heat when we die. It's just an observation. If you don't want to limit possibilities then there is surely the possibility that when we die the energy gets transferred to a star in another universe.

The physical energy maybe yes, the consciousness that focused that energy is another consideration.

WW
User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6278
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: Me

Postby epiphany55 » Mon Dec 08, 2014 6:12 am

Enlightened2B wrote:It's the same idea in materialism with science. Science is the study of the direct physical universe. They've done incredibly wonderful things over the past 500-700 years. However, until science stops seeing the duality with experience and embraces perspectives far beyond the physical universe, then science will continue to limit their beliefs into a cubbyhole sized understanding of who and what they are....and this too is perfectly valid.


It's not the job of science to embrace any perspective and especially not belief. It merely gives us a framework through which we can theorise, test and verify hypotheses. People embrace perspectives and beliefs. We will always need better scientists, for sure.

Take away that rigorous process of verification, however, and people are left to believe any explanation their minds conjure up. It's the unchecked mind that inevitably ends up skewed in its vision of reality. Millennia of superstition, myth and blind dogma attest to this.

Separate experience from mind, however, and we don't have this problem. Do not limit experience, no, but when it comes to explaining reality, the mind must be tamed and sobered, for it's all we have to filter the reality that connects all things from that vast unlimited experience that is uniquely subjective.
Thought is the object, not the essence, of consciousness.
epiphany55
 
Posts: 212
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2014 10:13 pm

Next

Return to Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests