More on Will, self, and surrendering
mt
Tim, will make some attempt
to clarify my position regarding the self and its nature within the field of
enlightenment in this brief account.
The complexity with “self” and “surrendering, and what happens to the self are long standing and often confused issues in the literature of the esoteric and mystical aspects of enlightenment. The idea that the self surrenders, for example is a logical contradiction as will is involved in the surrender and a contradiction in terms for the "I" surrendering. The discovery of enlightenment suggests that the self can do nothing of itself, including willing, the willing being the illusion of the self-construct – and a very good and effective illusion, not to be so easily discarded (which of course it can’t, particularly when it is so useful and a part of a cultural lore of self development that has its place and that can make mega bucks. I can only relate my experience and then see where that stands in the light of a body of literature related.
Obviously, the person undergoing “enlightenment” is still present in some fashion with a body and a mind, and the kind of enlightenment I am usually writing about here does not obliterate either in terms of consciousness, but in fact tends to heighten the sensitivity of both. But what distinctly shifts internally is the identity-orientation. That is, the point of view which is no longer confined by the self (or “I”) with its usual limitations, though perfectly available. And though perfectly available (which is not the case with drugs or trance states, et al) it acts more like a recorder of events, now in second place, so to speak, no longer the center Identity (and here I am not able to describe just What is doing the Seeing, yet which appears to be more natural and real than the former contrivance (self “I”) in charge.
But since “enlightenment” does not appear to be a stable condition for most entities entering this apparent higher State of Being, there is a return to the self as a more stable condition in the day to day operation of the organism, but here-now, the self is not the same. It’s had a Taste of Something it never can forget, though often does in the day to day operation of its usual, less sane condition, even though slightly or more than slightly altered by the Enlightenment. Yes, Enlightenment can radically change aspects of the self, or not (in any apparent way), it depends. Upon what does it depend? Is it like getting a big shot or a little shot of this or that?
Yes, during “Enlightenment” there is a complete transcendence of the personal self (but not necessarily an obliteration), and the transcendence is that of Seeing in a more complete and natural sense, or of a Being imbued with a different set of qualities, effortlessly Present. Now, this condition at Enlightenment may be just a glimpse, may last for days or weeks, and may even continue in a variety of more muted and subtle forms, but rarely, I suspect, is the Peak-Plateau maintained. For myself it lasted, at the peak and plateau of revelations so to speak, for several weeks, with then more muted and subtle effects continuing. While those who have been to the mountain top Know, most begin to descend from that Plateau to resume Something as something in the clothes of the self (inevitability altered but with a more interesting fit), perhaps with a pervading inner smile far beyond ANY “will,” a somewhat non-dual position of Isness.
“For the truly normal it is so natural as not to be noticeable,” states FM-W in Transformations in Consciousness (p. 294). But here the “truly normal” is quite abnormal for the usual self which has manufactured normality in conjunction with other inmates. So when the usual self accidently or otherwise tastes of the Normal it may seem a pretty wacky experience if too rigidly bound to the normal trance condition or if not prepared in some way to Know the “things of the Kingdom” which may be unbelievable or even be off-limits via some cultural law imposed to make sure you say away from some Normality that might otherwise overwhelm and move the self to display some cultural out-of-control condition. It could even get you into trouble with others if too insistent upon what was seen, and this is why the self usually needs a certain level of development, and to be aware of its context with others…yet even here Jesus was hung on a cross for his attempt to communicate What was Seen. Beware, not much has changed in 2000 years of Homo sapiens’ insanity.
Note: most do not want to be enlightened, and secondly, even if having a Taste, the self has a tendency to recoil and never again wants to be that vulnerable.
mt
berlake
Thank you for such an extensive answer to my post. Apologies for not
replying more quickly...
I think I understand what you're saying, and I believe you have said
it elsewhere with equal clarity. I would imagine that most people who
are familiar with the works of Wolff would raise few objections to
your treatment of the individual self insofar as you describe it.
However, I am grateful for the opportunity to raise my original
question again, because perhaps the meaning of "Self" has somehow been
lost in translation!
Wolff is certainly not referring to the individual personality when he
makes a distinction between "Self-Realisation" (a la Shankara/Advaita
Vedanta) and "Enlightenment." It is my understanding that he reserves
the usage of the term "Enlightenment" for his description of "Space"
or "CWOWS." The usage of the term "Self-Realisation" (and consequently
"Self") is meant to denote the liberation of the True Subject to
Consciousness. This Self is Monistic and Eternal and is the Support
and Progenitor of the Universe. Wolff often refers to its complete
aloofness from the personality and the radical inversion of identity
in consciousness from objects to Subject. It is the "Mystic Death."
I say this because I get the impression that you feel nobody here has
quite grasped the idea that the personal self needs to be transcended
for Self-Realisation to occur; and also because discussions about
"Knowledge Through Identity" and the nature of Transcendent Thought
have been taking place within the framework of the aforementioned
"Self-Realisation." Obviously, without the distinction between "Self"
and "self" being made, the idea of Knowledge Though Identity and
Transcendent Thought certainly seems to involve the relative
faculties, even if they are presumed to operate within a more
comprehensive framework. But this is definitely not what Wolff was
referring to. He was trying to describe a kind of Thought which IS
Knowledge, and which no personal self could possible apprehend by
itself. "Thought", as used to denote cognition in the usual sense, is
always relative, whereas Knowledge in the Transcendent sense (which is
a facet of the Self) is "unmediated." In other words, there is no
separation between "knower" and "known". Knowing and Being are One.
Enlightenement, of course, goes beyond even this.
I must say that you have quite a talent for making Enlightenment sound
not only thoroughly undesirable, but also completely unattainable,
too! Is this your intention?!
Thanks again - and I hope I haven't missed your meaning...
Tim
On Sep 11, 7:18 pm, "mt" <m...@znet.com> wrote:
> Tim, will make some attempt to clarify my position regarding the self and its nature within the field of enlightenment in this brief account.
>
> Obviously, the person undergoing "enlightenment" is still present in some fashion with a body and a mind, and the kind of enlightenment I am usually writing about here does not obliterate either in terms of consciousness, but in fact tends to heighten the sensitivity of both. But what distinctly shifts internally is the identity-orientation. That is, the point of view which is no longer confined by the self (or "I") with its usual limitations, though perfectly available. And though perfectly available (which is not the case with drugs or trance states, et al) it acts more like a recorder of events, now in second place, so to speak, no longer the center Identity (and here I am not able to describe just What is doing the Seeing, yet which appears to be more natural and real than the former contrivance (self "I") in charge.
>
> But since "enlightenment" does not appear to be a stable condition for most entities entering this apparent higher State of Being, there is a return to the self as a more stable condition in the day to day operation of the organism, but here-now, the self is not the same. It's had a Taste of Something it never can forget, though often does in the day to day operation of its usual, less sane condition, even though slightly or more than slightly altered by the Enlightenment. Yes, Enlightenment can radically change aspects of the self, or not (in any apparent way), it depends. Upon what does it depend? Is it like getting a big shot or a little shot of this or that?
>
> Yes, during "Enlightenment" there is a complete transcendence of the personal self (but not necessarily an obliteration), and the transcendence is that of Seeing in a more complete and natural sense, or of a Being imbued with a different set of qualities, effortlessly Present. Now, this condition at Enlightenment may be just a glimpse, may last for days or weeks, and may even continue in a variety of more muted and subtle forms, but rarely, I suspect, is the Peak-Plateau maintained. For myself it lasted, at the peak and plateau of revelations so to speak, for several weeks, with then more muted and subtle effects continuing. While those who have been to the mountain top Know, most begin to descend from that Plateau to resume Something as something in the clothes of the self (inevitability altered but with a more interesting fit), perhaps with a pervading inner smile far beyond ANY "will," a somewhat non-dual position of Isness.
>
mt
From the "self's" point of view, transcendence is largely a fools game, or a
delusional enterprise. Let's get real. If "Self" or "Enlightenment" were
all that attainable we would have a very different world. Only a very small
number of Homo sapiens are interested in any real sense, and mostly for
reasons previously stated. The "self" is made mostly of defense mechanisms,
technically, unconscious to the self. The self is largely delusional and in
some degree of trance on a daily bases. Now, when some of that trance runs
out, the delusion less effective, perhaps a self may seek something deeper
and more real. Enlightenment, however, is quite unattainable by a "self"
even though it might seek such, yet Enlightenment occurs. Enlightenment
happens but a self does not and cannot do this. It can only dissolve its
resistance from Seeing the Reality of the True, Beautiful, and the Good.
I might ask, Tim, what do you mean by "Enlightenment?" That might help the
focus here. To me, the idea of the Self is just an idea, a language referent
pointing to Something. Both Self, Spirit, and God are like that. They are
like Kosmic reference points for a language of Theology or Philosophy or
some Cosmology. They are used to communicate like various letters in
equations (E=MC^2), but note here while we have some knowledge about the
relationship between these things we define as Energy, Mass, or Light, we do
not know what any of that is, particularly Light, and the equations are
largely limited to our range of dimensions which completely disappear at
Quantum levels.
Regarding "Transcendent Thought" and the like I generally agree that most
Homo sapiens as self, cannot grasp. Such was and still is the case with
Jesus, as the Western quintessential example. His Subtle level "Transcendent
Thoughts and actions were not understood and still form only levels of
worship and moralities and delusional belief systems for most Christian
selves that know nothing of Enlightened Realizations from which such
Parables, and Transcendent Thought stems.
What I'm trying to say is that I cannot say much about "Self." In my
"experience," if it can be called experience as even that term is usually
reserved for a "self," the apparent entity (or Consciousness, does it really
need a body, or perhaps this entity is the Soul?) might be called the Self
but even here it is apparently composed of Subtle Thought. It is not really
separate from self or other selves (in a sense) as It has a profound
Compassion for those other selves (even including one's own self). But, on
the other hand, Self's nature of Compassion is quite different in quality
than what a self might understand as compassion, yet not unrelated. There
are many distinctions that can be made between self and Self, and the Self
then becomes imbued with a variety of special qualities discovered within
the Enlightened framework, but these are still of Subtle Thought, or of
Subtle Knowledge.
If one then wants to develop some theology or metapsychology, all well and
good. Then too we can talk about Essence: In a popular sense the self is
full of egoism but a Self is free egoism but still full of Subtle Thought,
while Spirit's Nature is of the last moments of very high Subtle Thought,
and Essence is a level of awareness free of Self and Spirit. Psychological
growth is becoming aware of ego-self resistance with a movement toward Self.
Spiritual growth is becoming aware of Self-Essence range of resistance with
the movement toward Essence.
Note that in each of these ranges is a resistance as one ascends up the
apparent mountain. Again these terns of self, Self, Spirit, Essence, etc.,
are mental constructs from gross to subtle. There is no self; there is no
Self; there is no Essence but there are special effects and these are not
without value on the conceptual map, just as E=mc^2.
Wake up (I say in general) and smell the True, the Beautiful, and the Good,
Now, before time (another illusion) interferes to form a self, Self, or
Essence (Spirit is just a more Subtle Self in Subtle Time, or if you like
the Verb between Self and Essence, like the equals sign between E=mc^2).
And I dare say that physicists have never heard of the term "Heavy Light"
because I made it up from the supposition that the light we know is only in
our dimensional framework, a reduced form of light from a higher dimension,
much as three dimensions are more "full" than two dimensions, and that three
dimensions contain two dimensions (while two dimensions do not contain the
higher order, and always have a distorted view of the three dimensions).
Such is the nature not only of the two-dimensional-like self, but also the
two dimensional-like science, confined to its dimensional understanding yet
existing within, unconsciously, and not aware of a higher dimensional order.
Yet, the peculiar anomalies, and unsolved oddities of science are mostly a
function of a higher order or dimensional containment.thus the understanding
of Plank's constant, the curvature of space and a variety of the special
effects of light at the edge of space-time, but of course this is only
supposition, much like the idea of Self and Spirit.
mt
mt,
Tim
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Franklin Merrell-Wolff - Consciousness Without An Object Discussion Group"
group.
To post to this group, send email to fm...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
fm-w+uns...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/fm-w?hl=en.
berlake
Tim
>
> read more »- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -