What is the inner-self?

[Arizona]

Originally Posted by wil

Great discussion....

And in following it...that tool box, when I use the tools and create something that I didn't intend when I picked them up, when time stood still, when I used them in ways that I was not taught (and building some on what I was), when I gleefully toiled for hours...to me I was with my inner self.

Not the observer, but the observer of the observer.

I used to have issues regarding the no one can get there but through me thought, and then I accepted no one can get there but through my nature, through thinking acting like me. Then that bothered me, until I realized the in my nature meant with dedication, purpose, faith, a mission, a desire...and allowed me to get lost in the world where time does not exist...and come back into this one with revelation and/or peace and/or a creation that was not of my doing. Well it was, but of which I cannot take credit.

Of course the realization becomes that I can't take credit for anything...and then I step to I have to take credit and responsibility for everything.

Yes Will, once we reach out and put one of those tools in our hands what does come into play then is responsibility. And in my experience we will weild it unti the thought is finished. Take with care. And also yes to that all things are nature for nature.


Bandit,

I was not so much saying that receiving Jesus is the right to eternity in that post. I was talking about a place in Father that He created for initmacy. This place will surely know Jesus as He is the personification of Fathers heart and intimacy. I was not talking about salvation either but I do understand how that was misconstrued.

Smiles everyone !

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by _Z_

What is the inner-self?



I just wanted to get ideas on this, as I am perplexed! There is apparently inner-self and an inner most self. I am wondering what the ‘it’ factor is within us:

[I may have used this analogy before a few times lol].



A camcorder attached to a computer can mimic our vision, yet there is no ‘it’ seeing! The same applies to all of our natures.



So is ‘it’ the experiencer, the observer or are these overlaid on top of the meaning of inner-self?



What then is the inner-self overlaid upon? Is the ‘will’ primary perhaps like the prime mover in god - mirroring his nature?



So what is the philosophers’ stone of this – that is to say- whatever we describe ourselves as, we appear to be something other than that something! Same applies to any given thing, like when we try to describe god, spirit etc.


come on lets see what your made of!

Z

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up. Fortunately as we do grow up we are designed in such a way that we can't kick our own butt too hard nor pat our own backs too hard (try it...see?)

Unlike the psychiatrists and psychologists insistence, I don't want to be a child. I want to be a man, with all that entails. I want the accolades and the responsibility, and accountablility. I want to become mature and wise.

I don't mind being called "seasoned", because it notes my stature in life and longevity, as well as experience, and hopefully courage, serenity and wisdom.

Is that what you were looking for?

v/r

Q

[_Z_]

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up

I see what you are saying. I would say that a child is only partially formed on all levels including the spiritual. This does not mean that the inner-self is childish, as I believe that the inner-self is eternally complete, just the ingredients in its belly [nucleus] change.

Yes I want to be complete too [a man], I wonder if there is another kind of complete, where the soul is no longer locked into the cycles – the eternal adult. I presume in the Christian view, this would be an angel? Then if we begin as coarse, eventually we refine our attributes until we are angelic or perfected selves.

Did we then begin as angels i.e. is this the original state – our own ‘inner Adam’?

[wil]

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up

Interesting if our supposition started there as definition...and not to say it isn't appropriate...but I was mistakenly headed down the path of the I AM, the oneness, the allness, the higher self I suppose...but is it possible that we've come full circle?

Did we then begin as angels....or....we refine our attributes until we are angelic or perfected selves.

angel, angelic, already been in this plane...taking time out from this plane, or not having headed here yet...maybe you observe before you get to play?

where the soul is no longer locked into the cycles – the eternal adult.

no more cycles...no more learning...might as well sit around on clouds all day listening to harps....

[earl]

"What we call 'I' is just a swinging door which moves when we inhale and when we exhale. It moves; that is all." (contemporary zen master), Shunryu Suzuki

Take care, Earl

[_Z_]

no more cycles...no more learning...might as well sit around on clouds all day listening to harps....

ha yeah - Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens!



What though if eternity is the next reality i.e. after this universe comes to an end, then we may not be dealing with something so static, - an infinite continuum. I do hope we are allowed to pop in and out of nirvana for a little peace and quiet. but what would we want to do for an eternity? in the end I always end up with nirvana as the obvious destination!

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by _Z_

ha yeah - Heaven is a place where nothing ever happens!



What though if eternity is the next reality i.e. after this universe comes to an end, then we may not be dealing with something so static, - an infinite continuum. I do hope we are allowed to pop in and out of nirvana for a little peace and quiet. but what would we want to do for an eternity? in the end I always end up with nirvana as the obvious destination!

Oh? And you have first hand knowledge on this?

I wouldn't want to be bored out of my mind either Z...

v/r

Q

[Bandit]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Inner self is a spoiled child that needs its ass kicked, and told to grow up. Fortunately as we do grow up we are designed in such a way that we can't kick our own butt too hard nor pat our own backs too hard (try it...see?)

Unlike the psychiatrists and psychologists insistence, I don't want to be a child. I want to be a man, with all that entails. I want the accolades and the responsibility, and accountablility. I want to become mature and wise.

I don't mind being called "seasoned", because it notes my stature in life and longevity, as well as experience, and hopefully courage, serenity and wisdom.

Is that what you were looking for?

v/r

Q

oh! man did that ever hit home here with me

[Vajradhara]

Namaste all,


interesting discussion thus far.

is there perception without a perceiver?

what is the difference between perception and the perceiver?

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

Namaste all,


interesting discussion thus far.

is there perception without a perceiver?

what is the difference between perception and the perceiver?

metta,

~v

Literally nothing, and everything. Without a perceiver there is no perception. With a perciever, perception initially is everything (even if it is not the truth).

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Literally nothing, and everything. Without a perceiver there is no perception. With a perciever, perception initially is everything (even if it is not the truth).

v/r

Q

so... would you say that perception and perceiver arise in mutal dependence upon each other?

metta,

~v

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by Vajradhara

so... would you say that perception and perceiver arise in mutal dependence upon each other?

metta,

~v

I would say that perception is a subjective byproduct of the perceiver. Often we find after initial "judgement", we are not correct, or not completely acccurate. This is where our ability to logically step back and analyise all sides (should we take that step), keeps us from making an error, or helps us to correct one. However it only works if we are able to suffeciently suspend or repress our presonal bias...

In short, one must be willing to look through the eyes of another in order to see the whole picture.

v/r

Q

[earl]

"We dance around a ring and suppose.
But the secret sits in the middle and knows." Robert Frost
Have a good one, Earl

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by earl

"We dance around a ring and suppose.
But the secret sits in the middle and knows." Robert Frost
Have a good one, Earl

As in a hurricane or an amusement ride (roundup/centrificon), the middle is the calm, while the outer ring is the chaos of life (and the life of others). By remaining in the middle, we are centered and calm. Stepping out, the centrifigal forces of life drag us farther and farther off center, until the forces of life are so great that we are pinned against the ring (or thown out of life completely).

That is being out of control of one's life.

The moral of the story is we can control nothing but our selves. Once we think we can control others or life, we lose control of self, and it takes a great deal of energy to gain self control again (to get back to the center). That is what ages us prematurely.

my thoughts

v/r

Q

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

I would say that perception is a subjective byproduct of the perceiver. Often we find after initial "judgement", we are not correct, or not completely acccurate. This is where our ability to logically step back and analyise all sides (should we take that step), keeps us from making an error, or helps us to correct one. However it only works if we are able to suffeciently suspend or repress our presonal bias...

In short, one must be willing to look through the eyes of another in order to see the whole picture.

v/r

Q

so... would you say that the perceiver exists seperately from the perception?

metta,

~v