[true]

I've resisted posting here for a while, but I can't refrain.
I'll try not to be too invasive.

I have done some recapitulating, so I'm not just dismissing it with my mind.
I'm not dismissing it at all. It works.

But I have to say that all these memories belong to a "me" which is a nice story, but fiction nonetheless.

You can recapitulate for a lifetime, or you can drop the "me" as identity in an instant.

Okay... enough said.
I'll creep away now.
Please continue.

[BratscheWarrior]

"You" are a conglomerate of energy fields that have come together to form the being that is called "true".

But then again it's my mind that's saying that so i can't be right, eh???? Ohhh that's deep. i'm sounding like a philosopher now. yECK!!!!!

[true]

You're not wise enough to be a philosopher.

A philosopher would know that the conglomerate of energy fields is not called "true". The ego-self, identity is called "true". And it doesn't exist, or perhaps I should say, as I already have elsewhere, it has no inherent existence.
People call this body "true". They don't call the energy fields "true". They don't even see the energy fields.

The energy fields exist, but the ego-self is an appearance of one specific assemblage point. The ego-self, perhaps what CC called the human form, appears in a very specific and narrow band of emanations. Move the AP and where is it?

Nowhere.

It is, as CC says, mere self-reflection.


When you say or think "I", what happens?
Do you not engage your past memories and accumulated knowledge? Is it not that which we are referring to as "myself"? That and the body that this mind identifies with?

Even Descartes observed "I think, therefore I am". This "philosopher" was more observant than you. You're just quoting books.

The "I" concept co-arises with thought as the thinker. If you don't think, where is this "I"? I'm sure you agree that one can not think, ie stop the internal dialogue. So consequently, you might agree that the "I" collapses as well. And I'm sure you would agree that your energy body is still present when you've stopped the internal dialogue.

When the internal dialogue is stopped, there is just perceiving. Perceiving without the perceiver, without the "I"-thought.

If you'd practiced this yourself we wouldn't be having this discussion.
And all the discussion in the world won't lead you to practicing.
Just do it.

[BratscheWarrior]

Ok, i get your schtick now.

i am actually not stupid enough to be a philosopher which is something i'm not despite what other peoples perception of me is.

So you think Descartes is a worthy of telling me what to do? Ask yourself this my friend, was Descartes a Warrior?
"I think, therefore I am." hmmmm...Thought? "I"? Sounds like the flyer mind to me. Then again, the non-dualists would say differently. Some may contradict themselves like i do, but we should listen to them. Who is I? Capital I? EYE don't know, but here's what i think. "I" is nothing and nothing is "I". And yet "I" is part of infinity and therefore be are free. Sounds linear right? Ah, but no, one of those contradictions. Contra = ag
ainst, diction = talk.
Bye!

[true]

Did you notice the title of this thread?

Everyone else has managed to let me say my brief spiel and then leave.

What is it with you that can't allow this?

Since you want to be a warrior, shouldn't you have nothing to defend?

I'm harmless. There's no battle here.

Or perhaps you have only enough courage to battle harmless people?

I'm lying. I'm not harmless.
I represent the end your world.
That's why your clinging more now than ever.
Hold on, BratscheWarrior.
You wouldn't want to lose your identity, would you?

[BratscheWarrior]

Oh i could easily let this go. Then again, have i really held on to replying to your posts? How can you be sure?

Did it occur to you that our exchange 1) helps me see my self-importance and 2) makes me laugh? :lol: Maybe it does the same for you?

[true]

Dude.

Is self-importance really that evasive? I shouldn't assume what "level" you're at.

I hope that you do actually laugh and not just write that you do.

And I hope, for your sake, that it's not a self-important laugh.



For me? I laugh alot. But I'm very serious about each post too. I mean it's important to me to make a connection, and i don't mind what level that connection is on. I feel like you take things with me to this certain level that consists of proding, provoking and proving, so I'll go there if you want. It doesn't matter to me. As I said, I exclude nothing. And I don't give a fig about "my" self-importance. But if it matters to you then I'll help you see yours.

I must seem like a loose cannon to you. I know the rules, probably better than you do, and yet I don't have to follow any of them. I'm sure, if you remain true to form, that you think I've created some philosophical loophole to excuse myself from actually being a warrior. I'm sure that you think I am a weak soul and an overactive intellect. I'm sure you believe that my knowledge is all book knowledge. And how can I prove otherwise? By acting and writing as you think I should, as you think a warrior should? What exactly does that look like? Is a warrior so predictable? So obviously 'warrior'? This is another question that you will avoid, because if you really look, you'll see your beliefs are just beliefs, you'll see that you have no idea how a warrior acts or writes. And if you look really hard, you'll see that a warrior's connection as spirit (I have to say "as" because "to" would imply seperation) is not a set of rules and requirements to be met - it's actually quite spontaneous, unpredictable, and never been done before.

But you probably won't look for yourself, cause you have Castaneda's books which are a greater authority (in your opinion) than anything I say or you do, and they're full of rules and requirements. But they're full of so much more than that.
You say you like to call it the abstract, but where is the abstract in all your requirements? Where is it in your posts? All you seem to do is fight with people you disagree with. Do you have another side?

Hey, if where you're at is seeing self-importance, then that explains everything. Fine, I get you. No wonder you're such a grouch. Good luck with that. I was there once. I annoyed everyone too. But now, I annoy people in a totally new way! :lol: