If all is the Self, who's reborn?

[thymamai]

Conversations like these, not the content nor subject matter but that mutual good-naturedness of well-adjusted people and their fondness for all the things, large and small, that their life has thus far shown them - are what inspire me to stick around here and elsewhere, to write more perhaps, to be more active in my community and to be myself as I am to more people. So thanks.

Yet the philosophy can be an aid towards the remembrance of that which was never lost.

I like that

And this too, among many others of course..

"If you use your mind to study reality, you'll understand neither your mind nor reality. If you study reality without using your mind, you'll understand both."
-Bodhidharma

I am swimming in ambiguity. Hah, and is this bardo training?.. Well I like challenge, I love ambiguity, the abyss of all the ages, foul language as well as flowery, my griefs and my gifts, ugliness, bitterness, and beauty also. And I enjoy a strong cup of tea. Challenge accepted.

Also, enjoyed reading the Phoenix, nottwo's rejection of the doctrine of rebirth :biggrin:

I am a future oriented person, and don't personally enjoy looking back enough to furnish myself with very many books pertaining to that zoology of our cultural makeup, the bible et al. And although I can understand and relate to most everyone here, and however much I would like to see this thread and others continue into the farthest nuances and with both severity of study and casual jibes.. I am always more eagerly asking myself, what else can we create? Where to next? What marvels of language and what wonderful and abominable adaptations of nature lie waiting within our togetherness, to be erected?

You are each and every one monuments of human potential, and the sky is the limit. Forget life and death, live always.

 

[Swarupa]

that sweet mountain, Arunachala.

I spent some time there many moons ago and a blessing it was. Was it the mountain or Ramanashram and it's atmosphere or the spirit of Ramana? Was it my effort and/or my availability that created a space of openness in my being?

I just don't know. I feel a fondness for the mountain and the paradox of my relationship now to the eternal. The mountain flickers in my mind's eye as an image of that eternal Self.

That’s beautiful drfaust, i plan to visit Arunachala myself within the next few years, once I have few commitments so can stay for a while if I feel to. Just in case you haven’t come across it... Arunachala Live. No substitute for being there I’m sure, although the time-lapse video does capture its unmoving essence quite beautifully.

 

[drfaust]

that sweet mountain, Arunachala.

I spent some time there many moons ago and a blessing it was. Was it the mountain or Ramanashram and it's atmosphere or the spirit of Ramana? Was it my effort and/or my availability that created a space of openness in my being?

I just don't know. I feel a fondness for the mountain and the paradox of my relationship now to the eternal. The mountain flickers in my mind's eye as an image of that eternal Self.

That’s beautiful drfaust, i plan to visit Arunachala myself within the next few years, once I have few commitments so can stay for a while if I feel to. Just in case you haven’t come across it... Arunachala Live. No substitute for being there I’m sure, although the time-lapse video does capture its unmoving essence quite beautifully.

Thanks so much! No I had not seen that. It was so long ago that I was there. What I truly took in has become a part of me. The rest is thankfully gone.

I was there in early 1990 for exactly that lingering time that you reference. I came gently and I left when I was ready to move on. It strikes me forcefully when I reckon the time that has elapsed since 1990. Twenty five years goes by and here we are.

I'm enjoying that time-lapse focus on that hill and it strikes me that the "few commitments" and the "staying for a while if you feel to" are signs or emblems or indications or conditions of the very place itself of opening to one's self. Thanks so much, friend.

 

[woody]

Thank you to everyone who has replied to this, I am very grateful, it has given me much to absorb and to think about. Ironically I now have little to add to my own thread until I have thought more about it but just wanted to drop by with some gratitude.

One thing that does crop up a lot though with the Upanishads is that the self can't be reached by the mind thinking about it or intellect. I am not new to some of these concepts but I am new to meditation and I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to learn from a very experienced person about this.

It's good to get all the different perspectives offered here. When reading texts like the Upanishads or the Dhammapada I find that because of the emphasis on direct experience it is easy to get so absorbed in them that I can occasionally forget to be objective! There are few people in my day to day life that I can really discuss these topics with so thanks again everyone.

 

[drfaust]

Thank you to everyone who has replied to this, I am very grateful, it has given me much to absorb and to think about. Ironically I now have little to add to my own thread until I have thought more about it but just wanted to drop by with some gratitude.

One thing that does crop up a lot though with the Upanishads is that the self can't be reached by the mind thinking about it or intellect. I am not new to some of these concepts but I am new to meditation and I am lucky enough to have the opportunity to learn from a very experienced person about this.

It's good to get all the different perspectives offered here. When reading texts like the Upanishads or the Dhammapada I find that because of the emphasis on direct experience it is easy to get so absorbed in them that I can occasionally forget to be objective! There are few people in my day to day life that I can really discuss these topics with so thanks again everyone.

Woody, thank you for asking the question that started this topic. I'm thankful for that question. It keeps cropping up. Who am I?

I'd say that it is, as a question, a very delicate and a very personal matter. From my take, you can definitely start asking the question with your mind. In fact, your mind is what you have to work with.

We can provisionally distinguish between different aspects of mind, and in fact the literature does.
It is delicate, however, when we begin to distinguish and distill out those different aspects of mind. The way as I experience it is not one of pushing away the mind or intellect, but of distilling it and using it.

A danger that seems to keep cropping up in contemporary attempts to meditate on these matters is that it may seem that one has to do away with one's mind or one's ego in order to directly encounter the Self.

Manas or mind is used from the beginning of meditation, and in fact, manana or reflection using the mind is a part of the path.

Note that intellect or buddhi in the tradition is quite vital and that it is said to be drawn to Atma. Buddhi - Wikipedia

The way here is inclusive and discriminative, not exclusive.

 

[JDSalinger]

Hello

I'm currently reading the Upanishads and I was hoping someone might be able to help me try and understand a point I keep returning to.

We are not our body, our minds, our egos our senses. We are the true Self, the experiencer, the knower. I understand this, I am yet to directly experience this feeling of unity but I do understand what is being stated, that separateness is an illusion and all is one.
If one does not reach this state before shedding this body, then one is destined to be born again rather than to return to the source. Who is it that is be born again to this world? Is it the part of my conciousness that my ego thinks I am? If all is the Self then how do I return? it still seems like a individual journey when stated like this.

thanks
Woody

Wow, I really like where you are thinking, I am very new to eastern philosophy but my thoughts correlate to yours somewhat. From that thought there is no reincarnation only more life, we all become one regardless of atman.
Love

 

[Glossolalia]

I'll share a metaphor that I find useful courtesy of Alan Watts. Imagine the ocean with waves moving across it.

Your human incarnation is like one of those waves. But when you become aware of the entire ocean from which you came, you make several revelations:

1. There is no way to define "you" without incorporating the entire ocean. Any dividing line you create between yourself and the rest of the system is purely artificial.

2. When a wave is born, it makes no sense to say "which wave was this, in the past?" — it was all the waves; it was the ocean.

3. Ultimately all of these waves are just the behavior of the ocean; "wave" is also a verb, so there is only one thing happening. The ocean is waving.

4. If you get attached to to the form of wave, you will suffer, because all the waves continually change.

Warning: It's possible to let go of your attachment to your individual wave, but still keep an attachment to the ocean itself. That's OK, but it too is an attachment. Eventually you let go of the model. You stir the pyre with a stick, knowing full well than in the end, you'll toss the stick into the fire as well.

 

[○]

I'll share a metaphor that I find useful courtesy of Alan Watts. Imagine the ocean with waves moving across it.

Your human incarnation is like one of those waves. But when you become aware of the entire ocean from which you came, you make several revelations:

1. There is no way to define "you" without incorporating the entire ocean. Any dividing line you create between yourself and the rest of the system is purely artificial.

2. When a wave is born, it makes no sense to say "which wave was this, in the past?" — it was all the waves; it was the ocean.

3. Ultimately all of these waves are just the behavior of the ocean; "wave" is also a verb, so there is only one thing happening. The ocean is waving.

4. If you get attached to to the form of wave, you will suffer, because all the waves continually change.

Well said.

 

[○]

To add regarding Watts, I always liked how he described life and the various things in it, such as plants, people, rocks, clouds, whatever as verbs. People peopling, rocks rocking, clouds clouding, etc, etc. From my psychedelic experience I would agree with this.

We're not static creatures, as is anything else; everything is a process, at any level. An ever-changing complex of processes - the body, skin, leaves, dirt, rocks, everything is in a state of constant process (death, decay, regeneration, etc).

The Self to me seems to be a sort of continual flowing, some unimpeded essence always changing, an infinitely untranslatable something being condensed, crystalized and intercalated within the strings of the brain/biochemical process (hence why when we can take a psychedelic compound and it alters the parameters of this very Self, this untranslatable something). The Self, like everything else in the known universe, is a level of process.

The paradox though ime, is while the Self retains much of the same 'continual process' type qualities as the other known levels of existence, it transcends reality and known linguistics. Also the Self transcending every-day existence, all the same time is imbued throughout every-day existence. A sort of catch 22.

Really though, the easier way to put it is that the Self IS existence. Contained and transcendent. Inner and outer. Individuated and boundless. Finite and infinite. Could say it a million different ways.

This is ultimately what I FEEL DMT is doing, dropping the linguistics and physical barriers for a brief moment, allowing perception of whats always right there behind the veil of everyday life.

Something mckenna always said that I always liked was that there's a possibility that we're so vastly alienated from the Self, that when it comes forward under these experiences we tend to invoke the idea of ETs, aliens, etc after the fact. My personal feeling is that this is true.

 

[Glossolalia]

If I may take the liberty to extend Watt's ocean metaphor, there is the concept of the immortal soul which the Upanishads say is indestructible, but the Buddha said that the immortal soul was in itself illusory.

So who was right? As I see it, both.

Suppose that this ocean had giant swells of water, so that some of these waves are moving across the giant swells. You may reach a point on your spiritual path where you are able to let go of the clinging to the individual incarnations, but you still take refuge in that gigantic unending water swell.

The water swell is like your immortal soul, and the waves on top of it are your individual incarnations, but ultimately they are all really just the ocean. In this way, you have a soul to attach yourself to, as long as you need that. It's a useful vehicle. Letting go is difficult, in in this way we can let go of what we need to as we are ready.

Of course, once you've reached that higher state, you're then prepared for the ultimate revelation... that there really is no ocean at all, and nothing is really happening.

 

[Rising Spirit]

Wow...

There are some wonderful threads being posted here. I have been away for far, far too long. Kudos to the bright souls participating herein. Many insightful responses abounding, especially within these spiritual forums. You folks rock! And just who is it that comes and goes, being birthed and rebirthed, throughout the unraveling of eternity? I have myself, likewise, been pondering this notion for nearly forty years (beginning during my first experiences with LSD).

As most of the deepest truths transcend language and/or finite concept, we travel a slippery slope, ideologically, when we try to fix an answer to this mysterious interplay, this game of life. Essentially, everything is emanating from the Indivisible Self, AKA, the Unified Field or anthropromorphically speaking, the Supreme Godhead. Said infinite state of Brahman, The Eternal Tao, Ellohim, God or Omniself... IS ALL THAT IS... all that can ever potentially become existent. Unborn, yet, undying. Endlessly changing, yet, within it's truest nature, 'tis wholly unchanged by any field of relativity.

And when we as individuals, partake in the act of incarnation (or perhaps, our reincarnation?), the dream of being a separate part of the whole is born within our seemingly, isolated minds. From my small understanding of existence and in purely Vedantic terms, we are all sparks of the forever blazing, effulgence of the Absolute, ever-present as the Paramatman inherent within everything, everywhere.

As such, we are the same as the infinite flame. Our delusions are organically appearing through the often instinctual nature of individualized universal spirit, born as myriad body-mind complexes or egos, with our material births. We create ourselves, as relative aspects of the totality, budding as countless individual Jivatmans.

Yet, there is no real separation. "Aham Brahmasmi" essentially translates to, "I am God". Individualized self is ultimately, Indivisible self. Atman is Brahman. Personal existence is truly universal. "I am my Father are One". So, the Omniself never actually separates from it's truest epicenter, nor is there any lasting reality to our entering and exiting the time-space-continuum. We create our world with every idea we entertain. Ever present, we exist in this very moment. This is it, here and now. In ten thousand years, it will still be here and now, as it was ten thousand years ago.

And so we awaken to a remembrance of our True Nature. Where all souls meet... in luminous emptiness. The core of each of us is the symmetry within the mirage of asymmetry and is always, the singular patterning of the Sacred Grid. Omniself is Isoself. The One exists within the many, taking form as the many.

So, just who comes and who goes? Self is self-perpetuating field of energy. We are That. Ergo, there is only one of us, EVER, and the paradox is also the gist of the ultimate revelation. So where exactly can we go? We are here as mortals, simultaneously, we are naught but the Divine experiencing a rediscovery of our True Nature.

We are infinity encapsulated in a moment's passing. Immersion within this state is most freeing., As we recall being unbound and without limitations. Immortality exists deep within the heart of all forms of existential being, regardless of variation or apparent degree of conscious-awareness. We are here, now, forevermore. The illusion may well be our dream of becoming and dissolution?

Finding reality within the dreamscape is the quest of the seeker... and upon awakening, who is it that knows this? Godself alone abides. How can the impermanence of the temporal reincarnate if individuality is a kind of mesmerism? When the thoughts quiet and the light floods in, Gnosis blossoms resplendently, of it's own accord.

The I Am principle cycles itself throughout this entire cosmic dance. "I am that I am". But why do we forget who we are? None can say why this is so, but we can shift our attention to the quintessential interconnection and taste the nectar of Sat Chit Ananda. I feel that it is the highest bliss perceivable, to become wholly enveloped within such a fulcrum of deep tranquillity and sheer spiritual attunement.

In summation, our temporary human ego may be an isolated state of self-awareness, it is still on a great journey, albeit, one of impermanence. Regardless, it is an embodiment of the I AM principle and is therefore, in true reality... composed of a vast web, interwoven by shimmering rays of Sacred Light. Just as musical notes played, come and then fall away, the tune plays on. The song may end but the echoing melody lives on, somewhere, forever. I honestly believe, that we are That.

Namaskar, everyone!

 

[BundleflowerPower]

"If all is the self, then who is reborn?"

Simple answer imo. The part of your self that you didn't know existed, and the part that you thought was you, because when these two come in contact, both are transformed.