Am I enlightened?

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
By having a stroke? I’m surprised to find you championing a concept of self that exists as the mind.

Anyway, I don’t think the woman in the video’s lecture makes sense. She claims to be able to step back into that enlightenment, that nirvana, whenever she wants. Yet, she must be choosing not to, as she could not do her lecture whilst in it. But if that is so, then it cannot be true nirvana, as she prefers to do something else than to exist in it. I would also say that her assertion that because she has done something, everyone must be able to, is wrong. I can’t write fantastic musical compositions because Mozart could.

And generally I would say that i’m not willing to give up my happy memories for my bad ones. She apparently feels that way, but hey, i’m not her.
[/QUOTE]

She explained her experience through the filter of her beliefs as everyone does. I am comfortable with her finding and making a connection with the reality of who she is. It is not necessary to think about it as I do. I can also step back into my “enlightenment” as I wish, most experiencers can. The video points out a greater part of us unknown to most that answers the questions of who, what, and why we are. This video is a valuable tool of learning.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
You may have missed the video if you just now enter the thread which explains how enlightenment may happen.

My stroke of insight

I have not seen a post from Friedah35 for several days, I hope he will be back.
[/QUOTE]

I love that video but I ask, does she claim that this experience was her path to enlightenment?

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
By having a stroke? I’m surprised to find you championing a concept of self that exists as the mind.

Anyway, I don’t think the woman in the video’s lecture makes sense. She claims to be able to step back into that enlightenment, that nirvana, whenever she wants. Yet, she must be choosing not to, as she could not do her lecture whilst in it. But if that is so, then it cannot be true nirvana, as she prefers to do something else than to exist in it. I would also say that her assertion that because she has done something, everyone must be able to, is wrong. I can’t write fantastic musical compositions because Mozart could.

And generally I would say that i’m not willing to give up my happy memories for my bad ones. She apparently feels that way, but hey, i’m not her.
[/QUOTE]

Evidently you missed her point.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Don’t know what you mean. Enlightenment is self-discovery, connecting to your inner self. There are many ways of becoming enlightened.
[/QUOTE]

What I mean is that if there are many ways and everyone must find his or her own, what is the point of threads like this, discussing how it is done? - If it can be different for each individual, nothing anyone says on the matter can be considered useful to others, so why say it at all?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
She explained her experience through the filter of her beliefs as everyone does. I am comfortable with her finding and making a connection with the reality of who she is. It is not necessary to think about it as I do. I can also step back into my “enlightenment” as I wish, most experiencers can. The video points out a greater part of us unknown to most that answers the questions of who, what, and why we are. This video is a valuable tool of learning.
[/QUOTE]
But she’s wrong. She cannot both have experience nirvana and be standing in front of an audience having rejected it. The ability to choose to leave nirvana for a time necessitates that nirvana is not all-fantastic.

I consider the reality of who someone is to require memory. Imagine you did not remember your own particular experiences and experience; think back to when you were a child, perhaps. Are you now and you then the same person? Is there no fundamental difference between you with what you have experienced and you when you had not yet?

The video points out a part of us unknown to most - perhaps. But it also suggests in order to reach it, you must lose yourself. That it’s a trade-off, not a gain. I do not see why that which you gain is considered deep, meaningful, an innate part of ourselves; whilst that which we give up is apparently useless baggage. Whether the video answers those questions relies upon us believing in those answers already. I doubt it will teach others anything they do not think to be so in the first place.
[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Evidently you missed her point.
[/QUOTE]
Evidently you value the ability to snark higher than the importance of her point, or you’d have a go at trying to defeat my ignorance instead of just pointing it out.

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

The video points out a part of us unknown to most - perhaps. But it also suggests in order to reach it, you must lose yourself. That it’s a trade-off, not a gain. I do not see why that which you gain is considered deep, meaningful, an innate part of ourselves; whilst that which we give up is apparently useless baggage. Whether the video answers those questions relies upon us believing in those answers already. I doubt it will teach others anything they do not think to be so in the first place.
[/QUOTE]

Jesus said: “In order to gain your life, you must lose it.” That is what He was talking about. He also said to “be in the world, but not of it.” It took me three years to integrate what I learned, and still I must seem “different” to others. The physical is temporary and meaningless. The spirtual is eternal and meaningful. We are here to learn to love, ourselves and all others. To discovery our roots, so to speak. I know it is hard to understand.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
What I mean is that if there are many ways and everyone must find his or her own, what is the point of threads like this, discussing how it is done? - If it can be different for each individual, nothing anyone says on the matter can be considered useful to others, so why say it at all?
[/QUOTE]

That is a completely illogical conclusion.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
That is a completely illogical conclusion.
[/QUOTE]

Please do elaborate.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=lekatt]
Jesus said: “In order to gain your life, you must lose it.” That is what He was talking about. He also said to “be in the world, but not of it.” It took me three years to integrate what I learned, and still I must seem “different” to others. The physical is temporary and meaningless. The spirtual is eternal and meaningful. We are here to learn to love, ourselves and all others. To discovery our roots, so to speak. I know it is hard to understand.
[/QUOTE]
Jesus also said “Blessed are the peacemakers” - if the world was meaningless, then he wouldn’t have thought the need for making peace. He said you should treat others as you yourself would like to be treated, again suggesting he puts worth and meaning into our actions in the world. That it is hard for a rich man to enter heaven - of course that one gets debated a lot, but reasonable interpretations to my eyes would notice that something on Earth has value to him. See, I can play the quotes game, too.

The physical is temporary? Sure. Couldn’t agree more. But meaningless? Without your physical body, you would have had no death to have a near-death experience from. Quite often i’ve heard that the very reason we exist at all in the physical as opposed to purely spiritual beings is that by living on Earth we learn and grow. That it has meaning that is worth the bad that may occur. If you feel the physical has no meaning at all, then I must ask you; why do we experience it? You’ve suggested an answer yourself; learning to love. It seems to me that if you place value on that learning to love, as you appear to, then you should think the physical is very important and meaningful indeed. It cannot both be meaningless and teach us something important. I invite you to pick one.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Evidently you value the ability to snark higher than the importance of her point, or you’d have a go at trying to defeat my ignorance instead of just pointing it out.
[/QUOTE]

I just thought it would be more meaningful if you figured it out for yourself grasshopper.

But since you asked;

But she’s wrong. She cannot both have experience nirvana and be standing in front of an audience having rejected it. The ability to choose to leave nirvana for a time necessitates that nirvana is not all-fantastic.

She’s not wrong because she hasn’t rejected it. She’s trying to share it, the experience, the desire o seek it. I don’t think she’s suggesting we can choose it like turning a light on and off. She’s suggesting that since we are both left and right brain we can choose to try and be more in touch with our right brain characteristics and that would lead to a more peaceful joyous existence.

I consider the reality of who someone is to require memory. Imagine you did not remember your own particular experiences and experience; think back to when you were a child, perhaps. Are you now and you then the same person? Is there no fundamental difference between you with what you have experienced and you when you had not yet?

How are you relating this to her talk? I understand what you’re saying but I also understand that we often miss the beauty of the moment because of past baggage or concerns about the future. She’s saying even though her left brain recognized a problem she was able to experience joy and beauty in the midst of it all.

The video points out a part of us unknown to most - perhaps. But it also suggests in order to reach it, you must lose yourself. That it’s a trade-off, not a gain. I do not see why that which you gain is considered deep, meaningful, an innate part of ourselves; whilst that which we give up is apparently useless baggage. Whether the video answers those questions relies upon us believing in those answers already. I doubt it will teach others anything they do not think to be so in the first place.

I don’t think she’s suggesting we completely give up our individuality. She’s suggesting a better balance of left and right brain will yield a more peaceful existence. We can see that we are both the individual and at one with all around us. By seeking to experience the right brain more we can overcome the baggage and the limitations of the left.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
Please do elaborate.
[/QUOTE]

Your conclusion does not follow the details of your argument. Yes it is an individual journey but since we are similar as human beings we can find something useful in hearing the experiences of others or receiving instruction. Other people can’t provide nutrition for me by eating food, but it can be useful for me to ask them where the grocery store is.

It’s a simple and basic principle.

[Mangetout]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Your conclusion does not follow the details of your argument. Yes it is an individual journey but since we are similar as human beings we can find something useful in hearing the experiences of others or receiving instruction. Other people can’t provide nutrition for me by eating food, but it can be useful for me to ask them where the grocery store is.

It’s a simple and basic principle.
[/QUOTE]

That would be true, were it not for the fact that I described a personal ethic that was pretty much diametrically opposed to the typically serene version of ‘finding enlightenment’ as being discussed here, and was told (in so many words) “Yeah, that is a way to enlightenment too” - with, I believe, the implication that anything works.

If anything works, nothing specific is required.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Mangetout]
That would be true, were it not for the fact that I described a personal ethic that was pretty much diametrically opposed to the typically serene version of ‘finding enlightenment’ as being discussed here, and was told (in so many words) “Yeah, that is a way to enlightenment too” - with, I believe, the implication that anything works.

If anything works, nothing specific is required.
[/QUOTE]

And you received a reasonable response from me that you never addressed. Your statement of personal ethic is compatible with the lives of several people considered enlightened. **lekatt ** never said anything works. When *you * made that statement his response was.

Don’t know what you mean. Enlightenment is self-discovery, connecting to your inner self. There are many ways of becoming enlightened.

to which you made the completely illogical statement I responded to.

A peaceful serene enlightenment or a life of struggle and continued striving are not the equivalent to “anything works”

The lady in the video had a stroke and took eight years to fully recover. Doesn’t that sound like struggle to you?

[Mangetout]

I don’t know. I think I’ll just concede that I don’t have anything to contribute in this thread.

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
I just thought it would be more meaningful if you figured it out for yourself grasshopper.
[/quote]
Do I have to walk on rice paper at any point?

But since you asked;

She’s not wrong because she hasn’t rejected it. She’s trying to share it, the experience, the desire o seek it. I don’t think she’s suggesting we can choose it like turning a light on and off. She’s suggesting that since we are both left and right brain we can choose to try and be more in touch with our right brain characteristics and that would lead to a more peaceful joyous existence.

But she has rejected it, if temporarily. I believe she is saying precisely that she can choose it like turning a light on and off; she says so in as many words.

How are you relating this to her talk? I understand what you’re saying but I also understand that we often miss the beauty of the moment because of past baggage or concerns about the future. She’s saying even though her left brain recognized a problem she was able to experience joy and beauty in the midst of it all.

Because she didn’t both recognise a problem and experience that joy and beauty. She flipped between the two, as she herself said. She experienced a total loss of memory during that experience of joy and beauty, and so would not have known something was “wrong” anyway, as she had nothing to compare it too.

She is quite clear that she lost her memory. I consider my memory an integral part of myself. So if she’s right, and such a state could be reached, I wouldn’t consider it to be me that reached that state.

I don’t think she’s suggesting we completely give up our individuality. She’s suggesting a better balance of left and right brain will yield a more peaceful existence. We can see that we are both the individual and at one with all around us. By seeking to experience the right brain more we can overcome the baggage and the limitations of the left.

But she doesn’t pick and choose the good parts of the left, nor does she seem to consider that possible. In other words, we can ignore that baggage, the limiters put in by the left side of the brain - but it also requires that we lose all those good things that come with that side of ourselves. It’s not overcoming the limitations of the left, it’s overcoming the left as a whole. And I would consider that which she attributes to the left as much a part of me as that which she attributes to the right. I am the sum of all of its parts - to reject some in order to focus more on others because it is the “true” me just isn’t what I believe.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
Do I have to walk on rice paper at any point?
[/QUOTE]

Nah,..just snatch the guitar pick from my hand

But she has rejected it, if temporarily. I believe she is saying precisely that she can choose it like turning a light on and off; she says so in as many words.

Unfortunately I’m on computer B which has no sound. I can’t listen to her again.
I did find this while looking for a text version. Note the guitar. The singin Scientist. Groan! Maybe she’s good. Maybe she rewrote the old Bee Gees song

“I suffered a stroke, that started the whole world thinking”

But I digress. I think I recall the languge enough to understand why you took it that way. I think you’re taking it too literally. From reading a bit here I see

Do you practice yoga or meditate? What different techniques do you use to “Step to the Right” of your left hemisphere brain chatter in order to live a more balanced life?

From the singing scientist page

“I believe the more time we spend running our deep inner peace circuitry, then the more peace we will project into the world, and ultimately the more peace we will have on the planet.”

So it seems she advocates using both sides to live a more balanced life here on this planet.

Because she didn’t both recognise a problem and experience that joy and beauty. She flipped between the two, as she herself said. She experienced a total loss of memory during that experience of joy and beauty, and so would not have known something was “wrong” anyway, as she had nothing to compare it too.
She is quite clear that she lost her memory. I consider my memory an integral part of myself. So if she’s right, and such a state could be reached, I wouldn’t consider it to be me that reached that state.

She flipped between the two, WHICH WERE BOTH HER.
Yes the right side didn’t have any memory, but that also was still her. She’s saying it can be beautiful to be so in the moment, so connected to what’s around us, that we lose the baggage of our concerns.
I’m sure you understand the concept of stop worrying, forget the day or what you have to do tomorrow and just enjoy the sunset. Her stroke made her experience an extreme version of that but I don’t think she’s advocating we live only in the right brain. She’s advocating we make a conscious effort to experience that inner peace and feeling of euphoric connection more often so that we bring more of that peacefulness into the world around us.

But she doesn’t pick and choose the good parts of the left, nor does she seem to consider that possible. In other words, we can ignore that baggage, the limiters put in by the left side of the brain - but it also requires that we lose all those good things that come with that side of ourselves. It’s not overcoming the limitations of the left, it’s overcoming the left as a whole. And I would consider that which she attributes to the left as much a part of me as that which she attributes to the right. I am the sum of all of its parts - to reject some in order to focus more on others because it is the “true” me just isn’t what I believe.

Again , I think you’re taking her too literally. She doesn’t pick and choose because she was having a stroke. She does advocate that we choose. There are some clips of her and Oprah on You tube that I’ll watch when computer A is running with sound again.

Considering the sum of all parts thing you just mentioned.

Let’s say person A tends to worry too much. They think about mistakes of the past and seem to anticipate future problems that may or may not happen. This results in them missing some enjoyment of the moment. They don’t enjoy the sunset or a beautiful song because their mind starts wandering to what they have to do tomorrow and what difficulties it may present.
This is the person they are through their personal experiences. This is who they’ve come to be and is the sum of all their parts. If this person realizes their worrying is cheating them out of some happiness and having a negative effect on their relationships should they make a conscious effort to change themselves? Would that be rejecting a part of themselves and no longer be truly them?

[Revenant_Threshold]

[QUOTE=cosmosdan]
Nah,..just snatch the guitar pick from my hand
[/quote]
I’ve managed to grab a fly out of the air once. Is that acceptable?

Unfortunately I’m on computer B which has no sound. I can’t listen to her again.
I did find this while looking for a text version. Note the guitar. The singin Scientist. Groan! Maybe she’s good. Maybe she rewrote the old Bee Gees song

“I suffered a stroke, that started the whole world thinking”

But I digress. I think I recall the languge enough to understand why you took it that way. I think you’re taking it too literally. From reading a bit here I see

From the singing scientist page

So it seems she advocates using both sides to live a more balanced life here on this planet.

I think the best the first quote can be made to say is that she thinks less left brain usage is required for balance. The second i’m pretty sure I can see just “the less left brain, the better” in it. I would say that she may advocate both, but I still don’t see her advocating both in her video there.

She flipped between the two, WHICH WERE BOTH HER.
Yes the right side didn’t have any memory, but that also was still her.

See, now this is where we disagree. I don’t believe without her memory she was her. They’re two different people. I don’t believe anyone without their memory is still the same person, unless they’ve just been born. My memory is a good chunk of what makes me what I am right now, what dictates how i’ll respond and affects what I believe. It may be a me, but it’s not the me I currently am.

She’s saying it can be beautiful to be so in the moment, so connected to what’s around us, that we lose the baggage of our concerns.
I’m sure you understand the concept of stop worrying, forget the day or what you have to do tomorrow and just enjoy the sunset. Her stroke made her experience an extreme version of that but I don’t think she’s advocating we live only in the right brain. She’s advocating we make a conscious effort to experience that inner peace and feeling of euphoric connection more often so that we bring more of that peacefulness into the world around us.

But you lose yourself in the process. And you can’t pick and choose what worries you forget about - a paranoid person may find peace in forgetting their unnecessary worries, but also forgetting about actual reasonable concerns, too. Look at her description of her stroke; while she was in her left-mode, she didn’t care that she may have been in considerable danger.

Again , I think you’re taking her too literally. She doesn’t pick and choose because she was having a stroke. She does advocate that we choose. There are some clips of her and Oprah on You tube that I’ll watch when computer A is running with sound again.

She wasn’t picking and choosing at the time, because it was forced on her. But she doesn’t say to when you do have a choice.

Considering the sum of all parts thing you just mentioned.

Let’s say person A tends to worry too much. They think about mistakes of the past and seem to anticipate future problems that may or may not happen. This results in them missing some enjoyment of the moment. They don’t enjoy the sunset or a beautiful song because their mind starts wandering to what they have to do tomorrow and what difficulties it may present.
This is the person they are through their personal experiences. This is who they’ve come to be and is the sum of all their parts. If this person realizes their worrying is cheating them out of some happiness and having a negative effect on their relationships should they make a conscious effort to change themselves? Would that be rejecting a part of themselves and no longer be truly them?

I’m having trouble phrasing this, so bear with me.

I would say that that which is you is that which you are. What I am is the current me. I am not the me I was a few years ago; I am not the me I will be in the future, and when that time comes I will be that me and not the current me. If the current you decides to change, then that is you. If you succeed, or fail, then the result is now you. Without my memories, I would be a very different me.

What I object to is the idea that what is me is something that I am currently not. That the “true” me is a goal, a particular, fixed state, a self that is somehow more true, more valid, more accurately me. I object to the idea that that which I currently call me is a mere pale shadow of a true me, hidden somewhere and locatable through meditation or enlightenment or whatever. To bring it back to the subject, a me without my memories would be different from the current me, but still *a * me, and equally so in the grand scheme of things. I don’t believe that one of all the potential people I could ever be is somehow the objectively correct one.

To answer your question; the changed person is no longer the same them as before. They are different people, if only slightly. But neither is the “true” them, because there is no such thing.

[lekatt]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]

I’m having trouble phrasing this, so bear with me.

I would say that that which is you is that which you are. What I am is the current me. I am not the me I was a few years ago; I am not the me I will be in the future, and when that time comes I will be that me and not the current me. If the current you decides to change, then that is you. If you succeed, or fail, then the result is now you. Without my memories, I would be a very different me.

What I object to is the idea that what is me is something that I am currently not. That the “true” me is a goal, a particular, fixed state, a self that is somehow more true, more valid, more accurately me. I object to the idea that that which I currently call me is a mere pale shadow of a true me, hidden somewhere and locatable through meditation or enlightenment or whatever. To bring it back to the subject, a me without my memories would be different from the current me, but still *a * me, and equally so in the grand scheme of things. I don’t believe that one of all the potential people I could ever be is somehow the objectively correct one.

To answer your question; the changed person is no longer the same them as before. They are different people, if only slightly. But neither is the “true” them, because there is no such thing.
[/QUOTE]

Let me try to explain, if I may.

You were created you, and will never be anything or anyone but you. You were created whole, perfect, and with everything you will ever need given to you.

The physical life wrapped you into a body, and your parents, teachers, friends, loved ones, and peers taught you who you believe you are at this moment. Your beliefs, your thoughts, your emotions, are a result of not who you are, but what you have come to believe you are. It is not bad, nor good that you have become a physical person, believing in physical concepts and teachings, it is for the purpose of learning about yourself. In your physical interactions with others you are really interacting with yourself, for you are a part of everyone and everything, and everyone and everything is a part of you. We live in a Oneness of consciousness. How you treat others is exactly how you treat yourself. Physical life is a journey of self-discovery. By discovering the warmth, goodness, and love in others you discovery it within yourself. You will learn to honor, and respect all life for it is a part of you, an eternal part, as you are eternal. The path to enlightenment is the path to self-discovery, self-love, self-confidence, and the realization of the greater good is your good. The greater picture is your picture.

[cosmosdan]

[QUOTE=Revenant Threshold]
I’ve managed to grab a fly out of the air once. Is that acceptable?
[/QUOTE]

Perfect. Now go pick up the metal cauldron of hot coals. Don’t forget your oven mitts. We had some nut years ago who wound up with awful scars. He didn’t follow directions.

See, now this is where we disagree. I don’t believe without her memory she was her. They’re two different people. I don’t believe anyone without their memory is still the same person, unless they’ve just been born. My memory is a good chunk of what makes me what I am right now, what dictates how i’ll respond and affects what I believe. It may be a me, but it’s not the me I currently am.

That’s interesting. I get it but I see the other side too. I have a memory of learning to play guitar and learning particular songs. Those memories are linked to the performance which couldn’t exist without them, but in the moment of performance, especially when there is a real connection made to the audience, the memory is lost to the moment. The memory simply isn’t relevant in the moment even though it relates.
How does your concept relate to amnesia, alzheimer’s. The last couple of years of my Mom’s life she had some severe memory loss. She referred to my Dad as “that man” At times it was very hard to deal with but eventually I realized that I couldn’t let worries about it and the frustration about it ruin what time I had to spend with her. I accepted her as she was and we enjoyed our time together. Sometimes I would tell her the same “news” about my kids or a new car that I had told her last visit and she was just as happy as the last time she heard it. Now that’s from my perspective not hers. It didn’t matter if she knew me as her son or as that guy who visited before. The point was to make the most out of whatever time we shared. She was certainly much different than the Mom I had known all my life.
I guess I see it as a part of the individual journey which often has a lot of changes.

But you lose yourself in the process. And you can’t pick and choose what worries you forget about - a paranoid person may find peace in forgetting their unnecessary worries, but also forgetting about actual reasonable concerns, too. Look at her description of her stroke; while she was in her left-mode, she didn’t care that she may have been in considerable danger.

Going just from the video I see your point. She’s not advocating that we all should have a stroke for personal growth. She’s telling how her experience allowed her to see the two halves of our brains {ourselves} function, and feel it in a profound way. I think she’s advocating that we make an effort to experience our left brain more and create a better balance. We don’t go to the beach instead of to work because our left brain doesn’t care about work. Our left brain would help us not worry about the things at work we couldn’t change so work was less stressful. Our left brain might guide us toward a job we really enjoyed even if it paid less, because personal contentment and joy have value as much as perceived status and wealth.

She wasn’t picking and choosing at the time, because it was forced on her. But she doesn’t say to when you do have a choice.

No I guess she doesn’t say that directly. I got that impression from the part where’s she’s standing in the red circle and talking about stepping from one to the other. Then at the end when she says, “I thought that was an idea worth sharing”
She couldn’t share the idea with us if she didn’t accept the balance of left and right brain.

I’m having trouble phrasing this, so bear with me.

I would say that that which is you is that which you are. What I am is the current me. I am not the me I was a few years ago; I am not the me I will be in the future, and when that time comes I will be that me and not the current me. If the current you decides to change, then that is you. If you succeed, or fail, then the result is now you. Without my memories, I would be a very different me.

What I object to is the idea that what is me is something that I am currently not. That the “true” me is a goal, a particular, fixed state, a self that is somehow more true, more valid, more accurately me. I object to the idea that that which I currently call me is a mere pale shadow of a true me, hidden somewhere and locatable through meditation or enlightenment or whatever. To bring it back to the subject, a me without my memories would be different from the current me, but still *a * me, and equally so in the grand scheme of things. I don’t believe that one of all the potential people I could ever be is somehow the objectively correct one.

To answer your question; the changed person is no longer the same them as before. They are different people, if only slightly. But neither is the “true” them, because there is no such thing.

I think you phrased it brilliantly and I really appreciate it. For me it’s one of those Aha, moments of understanding that I really enjoy on these boards. I think I get it and as it turns out, I don’t think we disagree as much as I thought.
I agree with what you said. As we go along moment to moment we make choices that alter our course and alter to some degree who we are at some level. My experiences and choices, both good and bad, have led me to who and whereI am today.
I understand your aversion to the popular meme about the real us and I admit, I’ve bought into that to some degree. I always disliked the concept that we’re not worthy but God loves us anyway, so I tried to look at it differently. as in We are working toward our potential. A journey of self discovery. I’ll have to start looking at it differently now.
How does our potential and the desire for growth fit into your thoughts on this. We are the person we are right now. Does the desire to improve and grow mean we aren’t happy with who we are? What does recognizing flaws and problems that need to be addressed mean about the real me?

I find it interesting that your approach seems to be a very in the moment one. I’m the me I am now. A thought occurs that I want to change something and I act on it. Acting on it is a slightly different me, and when I’ve changed something about myself that new me is still me, even though I’m not the same as I was.
I don’t find that very different or in conflict with a lot of spiritual teachings. It is different from quite a few that remain superficial IMO. Religion that separates us from each other and worships a disconnected God who is out there somewhere ruling the universe needs to be upgraded IMO.
If you don’t interpret her words too literally I don’t think your concept and hers are incompatible. It was her stroke experience in the moment that let her understand the left brain better. That was the her then. Then she experienced years of recovery and her memory of that experience and the feelings she had about it gradually created a new her with ideas she wanted to share share with others.
Someone can be too much in the right brain and that is the real them in that moment, but they recognize they might be more content by making an effort to be more in touch with the left brain. The effort they make is still the real them. The person they evolve into who is more peaceful and content is still the real them.

another thought based on some spiritual teachings. There’s talk of losing our veils of illusions about ourselves. If a person believes something that simply isn’t true that’s part of them right. The real them? Is it important or valuable for them to learn the truth about that particular thing? Is it important for us to seek to understand things better. How the world works and how we work? Even though this is the real us now, aren’t we in someway compelled to keep striving to understand our world and ourselves better?

[Friedah35]

lekatt

I have not seen a post from Friedah35 for several days, I hope he will be back.

You know, it’s weird… The day after my last post, I moved into a new living situation, with new roommates. Since having moved in with these guys, I have experienced, what I would describe as, a spiritual and intellectual malaise. In my spare time, I try and do as I was doing before, reading extensively, meditation, contemplation, writing, etc. However, no matter my efforts, I have been unable to get my self into the same sort of flow I experienced prior to the move. To the outside observer, my behavior looks exactly the same, but internally, I feel totally different.

That is why I have not responded to anyone’s posts as of late. I feel like I would be faking it right now, whereas before, I really felt that my words were coming from the heart.

I have been delighted, though, to read how the discussion has progressed. I look forward to a moment in the near future when I am inspired to contribute to the current direction of the thread, as well as respond to Reverant Threshold’s detailed analysis of some of my insights.

But this posits a new question, one which I am dealing with right now, and one which I would like your opinion. The people I am currently living with are of a very egoic, superficially motivated lifestyle. They spend, literally, all day smoking pot, watching tv, and playing video games, allthewhile discussing why most of the characters in their life, outside of their own close knit group, are complete losers.

Could this new environment be the cause of my spiritual downtime? And if so, what is the more likely cause? Their skepticism, cynicism, and obsession with the material, which is communicated to me through conventional means (language, body language, actions)? The latter, only communicated to me through my own sensitivity to “vibes”, and having little to do with the physical means of communication? Or me inadvertantly inhaling marauana smoke all day, due to close proximity, and being in a perpetual contact high without realizing it? All three perhaps? Haha…

I’ll stay tuned.