Help You do not like or hate certain things, you were conditioned into liking and hating certain things.

[JayJay]

You do not like or hate certain things, you were conditioned by your experience of life into liking and hating certain things. Believing you are the one who likes or hates certain things is an illusion, and thus causes suffering. You were conditioned by many causes and its effects into making what you believe you are—the one called ego—but you are not really who you think you are. You are so attached to this image that "I'm the one who likes X" and "I'm the one who hates Y", that it does not allow you to detach yourself from everything you like and hate and see things for what they truly are, in reality all of your likes and dislikes are nothing more than illusions depending on a lot of conditions. Drop them all.​

 

[Memento Mori]

I don't think it's necessary to drop them all but it's best to be aware of the fact.

 

[JayJay]

I don't think it's necessary to drop them all but it's best to be aware of the fact

I feel fear of dropping them all. It is like "Fuck, what am I then?", because these things define my well-crafted identity of who I think I am. But the mistake here is thinking that it was "I" the one who crafted this identity. Better said, it were all of my life experiences the ones who crafted me into this amalgamation of likes, dislikes, etc. The amalgamation: the illusory identity.

 

[GGWP]

What does 'illusory' mean in this context? I think you do play a part in developing your own ego through recursive introspection. You could say that all events are dictated by preceding events (determinism) yet at a certain point such a distinction becomes meaningless, you are basically saying that actions have consequences.

Yes, I absolutely agree that your lived experiences, effect on the world and recursive ego development constitutes a soul in the metaphysical sense. You are very desperate to exert control, so much so that you attempt to regain 'ultimate control' by disavowing some kind of determinist specter but consider for a moment that you are not the Amhitaba, you are a human.

Your desire to regain ultimate control is based on the very human desire to create a stable environment conducive to the success of your own organism.
There's nothing wrong with having desires, likes and wants, and of course your likes and dislikes are formed by the things around you, but I think this is what grants them meaning, that the environments you survived help refine the wants of your 'soul'. 'You' and 'your soul' do exist, I believe.

 

[JayJay]

What does 'illusory' mean in this context? I think you do play a part in developing your own ego through recursive introspection. You could say that all events are dictated by preceding events (determinism) yet at a certain point such a distinction becomes meaningless, you are basically saying that actions have consequences.

Yes, I absolutely agree that your lived experiences, effect on the world and recursive ego development constitutes a soul in the metaphysical sense. You are very desperate to exert control, so much so that you attempt to regain 'ultimate control' by disavowing some kind of determinist specter but consider for a moment that you are not the Amhitaba, you are a human.

Your desire to regain ultimate control is based on the very human desire to create a stable environment conducive to the success of your own organism.
There's nothing wrong with having desires, likes and wants, and of course your likes and dislikes are formed by the things around you, but I think this is what grants them meaning, that the environments you survived help refine the wants of your 'soul'. 'You' and 'your soul' do exist, I believe.

Yeah, it is very weird to even dare to claim things such as "Drop them all".

Illusory for me in this context represents the fact that we are not the ones who do the liking nor the hating. There is just liking or hating. There is doing, but not doer. That's what I mean.

Regarding the introspection about ego I agree a lot. The more I meditate, the more I notice my conditioning by life experience. I mean, it is hard to tell until what extent I'm "free" given the fact that I'm starting to observe how thoughts come from the mind, but no from me during meditation. Someone on the internet told me that there is thinking, but not a thinker. But I do believe something: the more introspection about ego, the more "free" you become, the more I start noticing my "psychological shadow" regarding defense mechanisms such a as paranoia or egocentrism in the form of thoughts that appear in my mind in stressful situations.

 

[newsincerity]

mirin conversation
ye please continue guys

 

[ZZEBRA813]

mirin conversation
ye please continue guys

we will continue
hi continue

 

[JayJay]

My impressions is that the "I" as a psychological and language construct doesn't really capture real experience by itself, and should be employed with care, as it is a source of suffering.

As I have investigated my life experience, there are actions that are performed automatically. For example, sometimes driving the car or studying my favorite subjects happens without "I" performing the action consciously, the so called "flow state". This I have wondered:

How can I claim that "I" did something when it was in a flow state, if the action happened by itself through causes and conditions that allowed it to happen without some "I" separate from causality?

Sure, it was me, or what you would call the body-mind that everyone conventionally agrees that it is me that performed the action, but "I" as a psychological construct actually did nothing, and this is the main point I want to drive forward:

The thing is that it is really curious to claim that actions that happen at the unconscious level are ours, because even thought it was our own body-mind the one performing the action, it is a delusion to think that "us" as a psychological construct performed it. It happened by itself through causes and conditions. One could take the analysis even forward and start analyzing the middle line between where this distinction drops may fade.

The "I" as a psychological construct, the bringer or taker of suffering, much care to use one has to employ.

mirin conversation
ye please continue guys

 

[JayJay]

@Raul and the Kings Of Lame What is yo problem with my post? Care to argue?

 

[JayJay]

@Raul and the Kings Of Lame I deeply apologize for the tone of my inquiry dear gentleman. Nonetheless, I would be highly interested in hearing your argument so that we can engage in a dialectic conversation where we can refine our ideas toward the common goal of becoming better humans.

 

[OgreLTN]

I sort of agree. But would you consider your natural inclinations part of that? Since that is quite literally you. If you simply denounce the idea of "you", what do you propose instead?

 

[JayJay]

I sort of agree. But would you consider your natural inclinations part of that? Since that is quite literally you. If you simply denounce the idea of "you", what do you propose instead?

I think that it is very arbitrary honestly. What kind of things constitute you? What are you? How are you defining yourself to be?

Preferences and aversions are a consequence of causality. It is not like we were born choosing this or that, some things were already chosen for this "body-mind", and the psychological construct of "I" took hold of that automatically, but in a certain way, I think it doesn't matter. There were all just my ramblings when I was trying to explore the "self" from a spiritual point of view, so don't take them seriously. I think that truth goes deeper than this.

From my experience, it seems that the "I" is a construct that tooks hold of experience. It appropiates everything around an illusory actor that was never there, but on which a story is created to construct continuity and rationalize explanations and narratives regarding identity. I honestly think that at the end it doesn't really matter, because there are attachments that are harder to break, and cause a lot of suffering because the conditioning that gives rise to the experience of suffering is supported by thousands of causes and conditions that make it hard to not suffer. For example, for some men, leaving behind the idea of never getting a girlfriend might be easier or harder, depending on the present conditioning.

The thing is that it doesn't matter to investigate this, because "you" or better said the body-mind, it suffers because the things that it is conditioned to search cannot be obtained in this life.

 

[Suigin Trismegistus]

adopt a TABULA RASA state of mind

 

[newsincerity]

adopt a TABULA RASA state of mind

Let's adopt @Tabula Rasa

 

[OgreLTN]

I think that it is very arbitrary honestly. What kind of things constitute you? What are you? How are you defining yourself to be?

Preferences and aversions are a consequence of causality. It is not like we were born choosing this or that, some things were already chosen for this "body-mind", and the psychological construct of "I" took hold of that automatically, but in a certain way, I think it doesn't matter. There were all just my ramblings when I was trying to explore the "self" from a spiritual point of view, so don't take them seriously. I think that truth goes deeper than this.

From my experience, it seems that the "I" is a construct that tooks hold of experience. It appropiates everything around an illusory actor that was never there, but on which a story is created to construct continuity and rationalize explanations and narratives regarding identity. I honestly think that at the end it doesn't really matter, because there are attachments that are harder to break, and cause a lot of suffering because the conditioning that gives rise to the experience of suffering is supported by thousands of causes and conditions that make it hard to not suffer. For example, for some men, leaving behind the idea of never getting a girlfriend might be easier or harder, depending on the present conditioning.

The thing is that it doesn't matter to investigate this, because "you" or better said the body-mind, it suffers because the things that it is conditioned to search cannot be obtained in this life.

I think this whole thing of you not choosing to be born the way you were, doesn't really make sense.

Before being born, what are you, or who are you to have choosing denied to you?

I just find it hard to believe this whole thing about detaching from yourself, detach and then become what? Your conditions and likes aren't random, they are you. But then again, you are right that it is pointless.

 

[JayJay]

I think this whole thing of you not choosing to be born the way you were, doesn't really make sense.

Before being born, what are you, or who are you to have choosing denied to you?

I just find it hard to believe this whole thing about detaching from yourself, detach and then become what? Your conditions and likes aren't random, they are you. But then again, you are right that it is pointless.

I think that detaching yourself might be something along the lines of you having always been pure consciousness. Escaping all identities and thought constructs, basically being without definition nor non-definition, which goes back to nonduality or something like that.

I had very interesting experience where I actually observed how a thought that seemt to be coming from me, I mean my ego identity the one I believe I AM, hadn't been actually thought by me, if you know what I'm saying...

I mean, I have a observed how thoughts related to my identity or related to what I think I am have arisen by themselves. I didn't brought them, they just arose by themselves and "I" observed mindfully. But here's comes the catch...

Who is this "I" that is observing the thoughts arise? Wasn't it all just not-personal processes where thoughts appropriated them, and in turn, generated self-contracting feelings that felt uncomfortable or painful around needs that arise by themselves through biology, but that are carefully constructed around this psychological construct of language that you and me call "I"?

I think that there have to be causes and conditions that allow the body-mind to decondition itself naturally, and to stop suffering around the actor. It is a gradual process of deconditioning achieved by mindfulness practices until the triggers of daily life have a reduced impact you, and depending on your "Karma" or past conditions, this will be hard as hell or easy as heaven. Because here Karma does not mean pushining or reward, it is just an abbreviation for "causes and conditions along the flow of causality that go around pushing for other things, connecting us all through a web of interdependence".

 

[Waco]

Wait until you learn about the act of raising a child, shi will blow your mind.

 

[Autistic_tendencies2]

My impressions is that the "I" as a psychological and language construct doesn't really capture real experience by itself, and should be employed with care, as it is a source of suffering.

As I have investigated my life experience, there are actions that are performed automatically. For example, sometimes driving the car or studying my favorite subjects happens without "I" performing the action consciously, the so called "flow state". This I have wondered:

How can I claim that "I" did something when it was in a flow state, if the action happened by itself through causes and conditions that allowed it to happen without some "I" separate from causality?

Sure, it was me, or what you would call the body-mind that everyone conventionally agrees that it is me that performed the action, but "I" as a psychological construct actually did nothing, and this is the main point I want to drive forward:

The thing is that it is really curious to claim that actions that happen at the unconscious level are ours, because even thought it was our own body-mind the one performing the action, it is a delusion to think that "us" as a psychological construct performed it. It happened by itself through causes and conditions. One could take the analysis even forward and start analyzing the middle line between where this distinction drops may fade.

The "I" as a psychological construct, the bringer or taker of suffering, much care to use one has to employ.

“I “ is an illusion the conscious self

 

[The Patriarchy]

the average person is inclined to dislike most things.