The True Self--That which alone is Real

Discussions on the nature of being, existence, reality and knowledge. What is? How do we know?

The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby philosophik on August 19th, 2017, 2:53 am 

Everything within consciousness is transitory―to perceive change is in the nature of the mind. Yet there must be some changeless background from which change can be perceived―an immutable, immovable source from which the perceived flows from one moment to the next.


What is this source?


None other than the real you―That which makes the perceivable possible. Words can't describe the real Self, but if I were to try, I'd say I Am pure Being with absolute Awareness manifesting through Love in action. That's as close as I can get with positive affirmations, even though verbalizing what we truly are can never be accurate―for it is a futile endeavor. Describing yourself in negative terms brings you closer to what you are. If I Am not this, and I Am not that, then who am I? Ask yourself.


Ponder this question deeply and you will realize that you are not what you perceive yourself to be. How can you be? It is impossible to be what you perceive; and don't you perceive yourself as a person―a bundle of habits, fears, and desires born from memory in a physical body?


Know that this is not the real you, but a projection from the Real―the true Self―the Supreme Reality. Reconnect to your true nature and change the world by your mere presence, radiating love and light to all that is. Stop contributing to the pain and suffering by pretending you are person, controlled by the mind and all its fears and selfish desires; and who likes to divide and separate that which is fundamentally indivisible. Be that which is always fresh and always new, that which is Love looking to express itself―that which is Now...the true Self.


What more important undertaking could there possibly be other than truly knowing One's Self? There is none, for no other desire can take you beyond the pain of suffering like the desire to Be beyond all desire―knowing how to Be the Self provides this liberation from the mind-body, which is a projection/illusion/dream that most people experience as a cycle of pain and pleasure―always taking to seek pleasure, while fighting to avoid pain.


Humans have been perpetuating the cycle of pain and pleasure by immersing themselves in this dualism instead of going deep within themselves to understand who they truly are―to discover their non-dual nature. Stop living by always taking and start living by Being...Love in action, and let your inner light shine―which is everyone's true nature. Understand that it is the mind that obscures and distorts this Truth. Be free from the mind and see reality as it is―by Being it.


That is why meditation is so important. It helps you connect and ultimately go beyond the sense "I Am," a sense that is indisputably common to all life―and is our true identity. Once understood, and clarity sets in, the person becomes a vehicle for Love to express itself wherever the body may Be.


With no ideas of seperateness, Love pervades, for it is in the nature of the Self to Love the Self―connecting to it's many manefistations through harmony and balance. Awaiting conscious Self realization from those earnest enough to seek Truth and find the Real. (Although, technically, the Self isn't just waiting. It is both awaiting, and not awaiting―yet because it is also beyond both―it is then neither awaiting, nor not-awaiting as well.)

Basically you can't think about and then verbalize what the Self is. The limited can't describe or conceptualize the unlimited. A person can only be free of his imaginings that he takes for reality and stop identifying with them, and Be that which One already is―timeless Being, Self Aware. That which alone is Real.
philosophik
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 03 Jun 2017


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby BadgerJelly on August 19th, 2017, 3:41 am 

I wish to start by dissecting the first paragraph which dictated your flow of thought.

Everything within consciousness is transitory―to perceive change is in the nature of the mind. Yet there must be some changeless background from which change can be perceived―an immutable, immovable source from which the perceived flows from one moment to the next.


There "must be" some changeless background? Why "must"?

We often find people talking and investigating the "grounding" of thoughts or particular methods. Science is grounded in its own particular methodology and one could kind of refer to all "thought" as being "grounded", in some respect (maybe not "absolutely"), to methodology. We are kind of stuck here in a semantic dead-end because it seems quite a stretch to refer to thought being grounded in something that "lacks methodology" and/or "structure" ... so let us tie of my abstraction of the term "method" and leave it as a "gist".

You refer to "source" and to "moment". Again we are stuck within the morpheme of each "instance" (irony intended!) This is the necessary use of discrete terms, terms applied with some wide enough spread to be appreciated within the same semantic "gist" giving. Further still, given that we are very much inclined toward reductionism and have found amazing uses of this "method" through application of mathematics to experience culminating in "measure", we are somewhat in the habit of extending this heuristic to everyday terms such as "self" and "I". So we refer to the "moment", but really the "moment" is not a parceled up piece of time, the moment is the "self", the "self" does not "exist" within the "moment", that is quite nonsensical but an easy misconception given the morphemes of language require a separation and "discrete" meaning within the syntax of language. The façade of meaning can be exhibited by using syntax incorrectly or simply extending a concept beyond its intended use.

Examples:

A) "John is eager to please."
B) "John is easy to please."
C) "It is easy to please John."
D) "It is eager to please John."

Not the morpheme "It" is used in a completely difference sense. In A,B and C "John" is the "actor" and in D "It" is the actor. The mirrored structure of A and B do not mirror as they do for C and D.

It is a mistake like this I see in differentiating "self" from "moment" in the way you've framed your writing. I am not proficient enough to say what the problem here is linguistically/modally. Maybe someone else could tease out the ambiguous problem or you could simply make another attempt to explicate your meaning?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby Sivad on August 19th, 2017, 11:13 am 

philosophik » August 18th, 2017, 11:53 pm wrote:Everything within consciousness is transitory―to perceive change is in the nature of the mind. Yet there must be some changeless background from which change can be perceived―an immutable, immovable source from which the perceived flows from one moment to the next.


What is this source?


None other than the real you―That which makes the perceivable possible. Words can't describe the real Self, but if I were to try, I'd say I Am pure Being with absolute Awareness manifesting through Love in action.


That doesn't sound like a real me, it sounds like a generic blissful awareness that ultimately makes "me" an insignificant illusory construct that renders "Love" meaningless.
User avatar
Sivad
Member
 
Posts: 204
Joined: 11 Jun 2017


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby philosophik on August 23rd, 2017, 2:48 am 

BadgerJelly » August 19th, 2017, 12:41 am wrote:I wish to start by dissecting the first paragraph which dictated your flow of thought.

Everything within consciousness is transitory―to perceive change is in the nature of the mind. Yet there must be some changeless background from which change can be perceived―an immutable, immovable source from which the perceived flows from one moment to the next.


There "must be" some changeless background? Why "must"?


How else can the mind percieve change without a changeless background from which change can take place?

It is a mistake like this I see in differentiating "self" from "moment" in the way you've framed your writing. I am not proficient enough to say what the problem here is linguistically/modally. Maybe someone else could tease out the ambiguous problem or you could simply make another attempt to explicate your meaning?


That is why I said words can't describe the Self. Language doesn't reach that which is beyond concepts and their symblols. Don't confuse language and the ideas it represents for what is Real.
philosophik
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 03 Jun 2017


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby BadgerJelly on August 23rd, 2017, 3:19 am 

You've partially answered your own question then. "Mind" and "change" are synonymous if you twist the perspective on the language you're using. The rules of language are put to use they are not "universal" rules, only a reflection of a system abiding by some structural formation.

Each language cannot be defined within its own walls. To describe mathematics I use day-to-day verbal terminology. The best "description" is to actually practice the set of rules. The understanding comes by way of application.

You sound like you'd enjoy (or at least find some interest in) reading Being and Time. Have you had a look at that text before?
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby philosophik on August 23rd, 2017, 3:43 am 

Sivad » August 19th, 2017, 8:13 am wrote:
That doesn't sound like a real me, it sounds like a generic blissful awareness that ultimately makes "me" an insignificant illusory construct that renders "Love" meaningless.


On the contrary, that 'blissful awareness' is not generic at all, but is the Pure Being of Self. You are worried about the person being an 'illusory construct,' but that is exactly what it is. It is only upon closer investigation that you'll be able to see the person for what it is, a projection of habits, desires, and fears based on memory--a phenomena you perceive but should not identify with. For it is impossible to be what you perceive. The very act of perceiving necessitates a perceiver and the percieved, and the percieved can't be what's percieving. You are the perceiving. That absolute Awareness that is pure bliss.

But since you identify with the transient illusion, you are afraid of Being your true Self because it means your false identity must go--and the restless mind will fight tooth and nail to avoid this if you don't stop identifying with it, because a temporary person owned by the mind fears his mortality, and will do anything to avoid not existing. Including beleiving the lies he tells himself.

Self discovery is the conscious death of the person, yet this does not render Love meaningless. How can it? When the real you is Love itself? How can Being what you are be meaningless?
Last edited by philosophik on August 23rd, 2017, 4:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
philosophik
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 03 Jun 2017


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby philosophik on August 23rd, 2017, 4:13 am 

BadgerJelly » August 23rd, 2017, 12:19 am wrote:You've partially answered your own question then. "Mind" and "change" are synonymous if you twist the perspective on the language you're using. The rules of language are put to use they are not "universal" rules, only a reflection of a system abiding by some structural formation.

Each language cannot be defined within its own walls. To describe mathematics I use day-to-day verbal terminology. The best "description" is to actually practice the set of rules. The understanding comes by way of application.

You sound like you'd enjoy (or at least find some interest in) reading Being and Time. Have you had a look at that text before?


I agree with you that language has it's limitations and can be insufficient as a means to describe reality. Yet it is what we have as the primary method for communication between converging minds.

Instead of getting bogged up on the peculiarities of syntax (which reflect reality poorly, if not at all), try and step out of the world of ideas and their linguistic symbols (which are but a road map of reality, and not the actual territory) and try Being the actual territory, the Self, by going beyond the mind and it's modes of communication, which invariably reflect the ideas that people wrongly identify with.

No I have not read that text. What does it have to say about time?
philosophik
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 6
Joined: 03 Jun 2017


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby BadgerJelly on August 23rd, 2017, 5:06 am 

That is not exactly what I said. "Reality" is a linguistic term used in language. I did not think about "reality" before understanding the term within a lexicon.

You can download "Being and Time", by Heidegger, online for free. Take a look and see if you can tell me what he means by "dasein" because I really struggle with it myself. He basically looking for ways to approach the kind of questions and investigations you seem to be pointing toward.
User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012


Re: The True Self--That which alone is Real

Postby BadgerJelly on August 23rd, 2017, 5:17 am 

Here is a nice example of the importance of context in viewing a problem and how the presentation of a problem can sometimes blind us from the obvious logical conclusions:

User avatar
BadgerJelly
Resident Member
 
Posts: 5606
Joined: 14 Mar 2012



Return to Metaphysics & Epistemology

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests