“When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardly feeling your “self”, what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of your experience.”(4)
I thought that this statement is an interesting contrast to what we have been learning about the self in Buddhism. This is a great summary of a more western way of thinking and I never really saw a huge difference before but this statement is a good explanation. In Buddhism everything is the self, unity is the self as Siddhartha learned. It will be interesting to see how this book tries to disprove that as it is called no boundary so it will be trying to disprove this idea. Is this reading where Sam got the how do you know this is a chair lecture?
"Whatever one may think of transpersonal experiences, the evidence that at least some forms of them do exist is overwhelming." (8)
My reaction: "You've got to be kidding me." I think pretty much everything else in this class has made some sort of sense, whether I agreed with it or not. But is there really evidence of somebody with ESP or telepathy? I'm not sure whether to dub that "rediculous" or "awesome".
Anyways, to be more serious to what you were getting at with the assignment, the relevant quote that struck me most was:
"Could it be that these different approaches, far from being conflicting or contradictory, actually reflect the very real differences in the various levels of the spectrum of consciousness?" (11)
One of the things I've always found strange with belief is that there are so many alternatives, that choosing the right one, if there is a right one, is next to impossible. If this is true, why not choose the one that works the best? (which in my opinion is science). However, this is claiming that these various beliefs aren't necesarily at odds with one another, perhaps they are simply discussing multiple things. Which brings up the possibility that more than one of them are truth. Which brings up the possiblity that most of them are truth. Which brings up the possibility that following faith could be just as likely, maybe even more likely, as following science. Which...is unsettling.
"When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardly feeling your "self," what you are actually doing whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of your experience, and everything on the inside of the boundary you are feeling or calling your "self." while everything outside that boundary you feel to be "not-self." (4)
These two lines struck me because everyday of our lives we are constantly labeling things as either "self" or "not-self". As I'm typing this into the post a comment spot I can tell the computer and my massive book fall under the category of "not-self. Everything in my room falls into that category, correction, everything in the world except for me falls into that category. How do I even know I am part of my "self".
"In unity consciousness the person's identity is with the All, with absolutely everything. In transpersonal experiences, the person's identity doesn't quite expand to the Whole, but it does expand or at least extend beyond the skin-boundary of the organism. He's not identified with the All, but neither is his identity confined solely to the organism" (8).
These lines struck me because it explains to me two different standpoints people take on their identity. It shows the spectrum of where some people identify with everything...or a "loving embrace with the universe as a whole" (3), and other people do not identify as with the All, but with some things that are beyond their physical bodies. This struck me because it made sense to me (like I explained above). Also, from what I understand, we create our identity by drawing boundaries and labeling (like Kate said) what the self is and isn't. The question that stood out to me that was brought out in the reading was: Do you feel like you are a body, or that you have a body?
"Biologically there is not the least foundation for this dissociation or radical split between the mind and the body, the psyche and the soma, the ego and the flesh, but psychologically it is epidemic. Indeed the mind-body split and attendant dualism is a fundamental perspective of Western civilization" (6).
I agree that there is no reason for the separation between the body and the mind along with other forms of dualism that we have come to practice in this society. Studying Eastern philosophies that are dependent on non-dualism is easy enough, but applying the concepts while living in the Western world proves to be quite difficult, as the divisions and compartmentalization of each aspect of life is ingrained in our society. So many common factors in our lives reinforce the separation between mind and body, you and me, this and that. The organization of the English language, the fact that a psychologist treats mental conditions and physician treats bodily ailments, the ways we are taught to describe ourselves when we are young (I am tall, he is short), all of these small ways of society reaffirm separation. It sounds very liberating to no longer uphold any lines of demarcation of the self and to do away with dualism completely, so hopefully a plan of action is suggested later in this book.
"It was as if our everyday awareness were but an insignificant island, surrounded by a vast ocean of uncharted consciousness..." (2) "This transpersonal self is not identical with the All (that would be unity consciousness), it nevertheless transcends the boundaries of the individual organism." (12)
These two lines stand out because they remind me of my own philosophy. The first quote provides a great image that I think very accurately illustrates the concept of self and not-self; the island represents isolation and separation of self, (persona, ego or total organism) and the water is a threat to the boundary line. All the water needs is a little vigor in order to come up on land, break the boundary and nurture the self/not-self divide. Each of us in conflict with our not-self on one level or another, and all that it takes to end the struggle is a little nudge to send us over the precipice, to "one harmonious whole". It's a little scary standing here on the edge, but one day it'll be nice knowing Who I Am. The second quote I completely agree with because I believe it's completely possible to be aware outside of yourself while not being in unity with the universe. In this case, I took the environment to mean one's immediate environment and not the world, which I think is an important distinction to make. Many religions preach the concept of 'transpersonal self' in the hope that one day you will one day be in harmony with all beings, and therefore a god.
"That is to say, he identifies with a more or less accurate mentel "self image", along with the intellectual and emotional processes involved with that self image. Since he wont concretly identify with the total organism, the most he will allow is a picture or image of the total organism"(7).
These two lines stood out to me because the summerized the main ideas of this reading. More specifically the ideas of how we define our selves. According to this reading, the ego is what we most strongly associate with our idea of Self, not the physical body. While this is not a particularly revolutionary idea, these lines made me take a step back and look at the boundries I have drawn between myself and others. I also found it interesting that the author described the ego as only a small facuet of the whole organism. I have always thought that the ego is something much larger and more complex than the body however after doing this reading it is clear to me that the body encompasses the ego, not the other way around. Now, I believe that including the sensations of the body in one's definition of Self is, in fact, an expansion of the boundries rather than a restriction, as I had previously thought. It is, in fact, one step closer to reaching the unity of conciousness that is so praised.
"our normal waking consciousness is but one special type of consciousness, while all about it parted from it by the filmiest screens there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different"
"Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line."
I though that both of these lines were very interesting because both of them speak to the extraordinary potential that humans have. The first one essentially says that humans are only using a small part of their consciousness, and this really struck me because it provides so much hope for the future betterment of the human race. Imagine if we used our potential to the fullest - we might have a golden age of human thought and unity consciousness. This is to say that humans may not be stuck in their current cycle of Samsara forever, and that we might find a way out through all coming to the understanding and realization of unity consciousness. The second quote, I think, provides a model for both dualism and non-dualism which I find very interesting, as I have rarely seen a model that encompasses both before. If you are dualist in nature, you chose to draw that boundary line, and likewise, if non-dualist, you don't. The author seems to suggest that non-dualism is the better path, which I find interesting, but based on the way that he described it, I think he might be right. If we all had a unity consciousness, and had the full awareness of unity with everything around us (and that all is one), then we would never hurt each other, because that would be hurting ourselves, and we would have no lack because we would be unified with all, thus desire would be virtually eradicated because we would essentially have all that we could desire anyway. The connection that we felt with every being would also provide feelings of extraordinary love, which I think everyone desires on some level. Thus, when you examine the idea of unity consciousness from this perspective, it seems very appealing, and the way for all of us to reach inner peace and fulfillment.
"So when you say 'my self,' you draw a boundary line between what is you and what is not you... The so-called identity crisis occurs when you can't decide how or where to draw the line." (4)
I thought this was an interesting way of seeing how people define themselves. I agree with it for the most part because it gives definition to character and determine what is and what isn't. At the same time though, I feel that this interpretation doesn't allow for change because I tend to look at things as a progress and if you're always progressing toward something, there's never really a clear-cut "it." It's probably easier for most to define themselves by what they are versus what they aren't but it works both ways because the constant change has an effect on your character. The line struck me because although I do consciously create sort of boundaries between things, I don't see myself as someone who will mentally draw lines to define my self but rather just allow my self to be, because that leaves room for the change in things.
"When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardy feeling your "self," what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of experience... Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line." (Page 4)
This line struck me the most because it really got the entire point across the best. Thinking about how much I, and everyone else in the world, see their own perception of an experience as so seperate from the experience in general is mind-blowing. It is so difficult not to make these boundaries of self, and yet they create such difficult in our lives. I would be interested in meeting a Buddha type figure who has transcended this, and having a conversation with them directly. Not to gain the wisdom, which siddhartha says is not able to be communicated, but to simply to observe how he acts and his general mood.
“The most interesting thing about this boundary line is that it can and frequently does shift. It can be redrawn, in a sense, the person can re-map her soul and find in it territories she never thought possible, attainable, or even desirable.” (4-5) I found this quote interesting because most people in American society believe in an individual soul. Recognizing a soul means that people see themselves as different than everybody else. This causes everybody else to become a stranger, and what is unknown is scary. This quote also talks about the possibility of shifting the boundaries to include everything as part of the self, thus eliminating all boundary lines. By eliminating boundaries, everything is seen as self, and nothing is alien.
“As the individual identifies with only facets of her psyche the rest of her psyche is then actually felt to be ‘not-self,’ foreign territory, alien, scary. She re-maps her soul so as to deny and try to exclude from consciousness the unwanted aspects of herself.” (7) I found this quote interesting because it talks about boundaries that are drawn internally. It is easy to think that boundary lines are limited to what is the soul and what isn’t. People don’t realize that they also put up boundaries within their own souls. These boundaries cause a lot of suffering because they limit what the person can be. Nobody is always a nice person or a funny person. Labeling what you are means that you have to act that way all the time, and when you don’t, you don’t feel like yourself. This severely limits what and who the soul can be.
"It was as if our everyday awareness were but an insignificant island, surrounded by a vast ocean of uncharted consciousness..." (2) The analogy that this quote used was really powerful to me because it alluded to the fact that we are quite unaware of the majority of lifes happenings. I liked this because this is true not only in buddhist beliefs but it is also the truth of the world we live in. We as humans are so unaware about the majority of this universe. I enjoyed seeing the two subjects come together in to one truth. I also wondered that once we have this break through of consciousness is it forever that way or simply a moment of clarity which we then forget. "When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardy feeling your "self," what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of experience... Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line." (4) This is something that seems so basic and clear an idea yet one that i have never considered so it made it all the more interesting to read and realize.
“When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardly feeling your “self”, what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of your experience.”(4)
ReplyDeleteI thought that this statement is an interesting contrast to what we have been learning about the self in Buddhism. This is a great summary of a more western way of thinking and I never really saw a huge difference before but this statement is a good explanation. In Buddhism everything is the self, unity is the self as Siddhartha learned. It will be interesting to see how this book tries to disprove that as it is called no boundary so it will be trying to disprove this idea. Is this reading where Sam got the how do you know this is a chair lecture?
"Whatever one may think of transpersonal experiences, the evidence that at least some forms of them do exist is overwhelming." (8)
ReplyDeleteMy reaction: "You've got to be kidding me." I think pretty much everything else in this class has made some sort of sense, whether I agreed with it or not. But is there really evidence of somebody with ESP or telepathy? I'm not sure whether to dub that "rediculous" or "awesome".
Anyways, to be more serious to what you were getting at with the assignment, the relevant quote that struck me most was:
"Could it be that these different approaches, far from being conflicting or contradictory, actually reflect the very real differences in the various levels of the spectrum of consciousness?" (11)
One of the things I've always found strange with belief is that there are so many alternatives, that choosing the right one, if there is a right one, is next to impossible. If this is true, why not choose the one that works the best? (which in my opinion is science). However, this is claiming that these various beliefs aren't necesarily at odds with one another, perhaps they are simply discussing multiple things. Which brings up the possibility that more than one of them are truth. Which brings up the possiblity that most of them are truth. Which brings up the possibility that following faith could be just as likely, maybe even more likely, as following science. Which...is unsettling.
"When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardly feeling your "self," what you are actually doing whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of your experience, and everything on the inside of the boundary you are feeling or calling your "self." while everything outside that boundary you feel to be "not-self." (4)
ReplyDeleteThese two lines struck me because everyday of our lives we are constantly labeling things as either "self" or "not-self". As I'm typing this into the post a comment spot I can tell the computer and my massive book fall under the category of "not-self. Everything in my room falls into that category, correction, everything in the world except for me falls into that category. How do I even know I am part of my "self".
"In unity consciousness the person's identity is with the All, with absolutely everything. In transpersonal experiences, the person's identity doesn't quite expand to the Whole, but it does expand or at least extend beyond the skin-boundary of the organism. He's not identified with the All, but neither is his identity confined solely to the organism" (8).
ReplyDeleteThese lines struck me because it explains to me two different standpoints people take on their identity. It shows the spectrum of where some people identify with everything...or a "loving embrace with the universe as a whole" (3), and other people do not identify as with the All, but with some things that are beyond their physical bodies. This struck me because it made sense to me (like I explained above). Also, from what I understand, we create our identity by drawing boundaries and labeling (like Kate said) what the self is and isn't. The question that stood out to me that was brought out in the reading was: Do you feel like you are a body, or that you have a body?
"Biologically there is not the least foundation for this dissociation or radical split between the mind and the body, the psyche and the soma, the ego and the flesh, but psychologically it is epidemic. Indeed the mind-body split and attendant dualism is a fundamental perspective of Western civilization" (6).
ReplyDeleteI agree that there is no reason for the separation between the body and the mind along with other forms of dualism that we have come to practice in this society. Studying Eastern philosophies that are dependent on non-dualism is easy enough, but applying the concepts while living in the Western world proves to be quite difficult, as the divisions and compartmentalization of each aspect of life is ingrained in our society. So many common factors in our lives reinforce the separation between mind and body, you and me, this and that. The organization of the English language, the fact that a psychologist treats mental conditions and physician treats bodily ailments, the ways we are taught to describe ourselves when we are young (I am tall, he is short), all of these small ways of society reaffirm separation. It sounds very liberating to no longer uphold any lines of demarcation of the self and to do away with dualism completely, so hopefully a plan of action is suggested later in this book.
"It was as if our everyday awareness were but an insignificant island, surrounded by a vast ocean of uncharted consciousness..." (2)
ReplyDelete"This transpersonal self is not identical with the All (that would be unity consciousness), it nevertheless transcends the boundaries of the individual organism." (12)
These two lines stand out because they remind me of my own philosophy. The first quote provides a great image that I think very accurately illustrates the concept of self and not-self; the island represents isolation and separation of self, (persona, ego or total organism) and the water is a threat to the boundary line. All the water needs is a little vigor in order to come up on land, break the boundary and nurture the self/not-self divide. Each of us in conflict with our not-self on one level or another, and all that it takes to end the struggle is a little nudge to send us over the precipice, to "one harmonious whole". It's a little scary standing here on the edge, but one day it'll be nice knowing Who I Am.
The second quote I completely agree with because I believe it's completely possible to be aware outside of yourself while not being in unity with the universe. In this case, I took the environment to mean one's immediate environment and not the world, which I think is an important distinction to make. Many religions preach the concept of 'transpersonal self' in the hope that one day you will one day be in harmony with all beings, and therefore a god.
"That is to say, he identifies with a more or less accurate mentel "self image", along with the intellectual and emotional processes involved with that self image. Since he wont concretly identify with the total organism, the most he will allow is a picture or image of the total organism"(7).
ReplyDeleteThese two lines stood out to me because the summerized the main ideas of this reading. More specifically the ideas of how we define our selves. According to this reading, the ego is what we most strongly associate with our idea of Self, not the physical body. While this is not a particularly revolutionary idea, these lines made me take a step back and look at the boundries I have drawn between myself and others. I also found it interesting that the author described the ego as only a small facuet of the whole organism. I have always thought that the ego is something much larger and more complex than the body however after doing this reading it is clear to me that the body encompasses the ego, not the other way around. Now, I believe that including the sensations of the body in one's definition of Self is, in fact, an expansion of the boundries rather than a restriction, as I had previously thought. It is, in fact, one step closer to reaching the unity of conciousness that is so praised.
"our normal waking consciousness is but one special type of consciousness, while all about it parted from it by the filmiest screens there lie potential forms of consciousness entirely different"
ReplyDelete"Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line."
I though that both of these lines were very interesting because both of them speak to the extraordinary potential that humans have. The first one essentially says that humans are only using a small part of their consciousness, and this really struck me because it provides so much hope for the future betterment of the human race. Imagine if we used our potential to the fullest - we might have a golden age of human thought and unity consciousness. This is to say that humans may not be stuck in their current cycle of Samsara forever, and that we might find a way out through all coming to the understanding and realization of unity consciousness. The second quote, I think, provides a model for both dualism and non-dualism which I find very interesting, as I have rarely seen a model that encompasses both before. If you are dualist in nature, you chose to draw that boundary line, and likewise, if non-dualist, you don't. The author seems to suggest that non-dualism is the better path, which I find interesting, but based on the way that he described it, I think he might be right. If we all had a unity consciousness, and had the full awareness of unity with everything around us (and that all is one), then we would never hurt each other, because that would be hurting ourselves, and we would have no lack because we would be unified with all, thus desire would be virtually eradicated because we would essentially have all that we could desire anyway. The connection that we felt with every being would also provide feelings of extraordinary love, which I think everyone desires on some level. Thus, when you examine the idea of unity consciousness from this perspective, it seems very appealing, and the way for all of us to reach inner peace and fulfillment.
"So when you say 'my self,' you draw a boundary line between what is you and what is not you... The so-called identity crisis occurs when you can't decide how or where to draw the line." (4)
ReplyDeleteI thought this was an interesting way of seeing how people define themselves. I agree with it for the most part because it gives definition to character and determine what is and what isn't. At the same time though, I feel that this interpretation doesn't allow for change because I tend to look at things as a progress and if you're always progressing toward something, there's never really a clear-cut "it." It's probably easier for most to define themselves by what they are versus what they aren't but it works both ways because the constant change has an effect on your character. The line struck me because although I do consciously create sort of boundaries between things, I don't see myself as someone who will mentally draw lines to define my self but rather just allow my self to be, because that leaves room for the change in things.
"When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardy feeling your "self," what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of experience... Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line." (Page 4)
ReplyDeleteThis line struck me the most because it really got the entire point across the best. Thinking about how much I, and everyone else in the world, see their own perception of an experience as so seperate from the experience in general is mind-blowing. It is so difficult not to make these boundaries of self, and yet they create such difficult in our lives. I would be interested in meeting a Buddha type figure who has transcended this, and having a conversation with them directly. Not to gain the wisdom, which siddhartha says is not able to be communicated, but to simply to observe how he acts and his general mood.
“The most interesting thing about this boundary line is that it can and frequently does shift. It can be redrawn, in a sense, the person can re-map her soul and find in it territories she never thought possible, attainable, or even desirable.” (4-5) I found this quote interesting because most people in American society believe in an individual soul. Recognizing a soul means that people see themselves as different than everybody else. This causes everybody else to become a stranger, and what is unknown is scary. This quote also talks about the possibility of shifting the boundaries to include everything as part of the self, thus eliminating all boundary lines. By eliminating boundaries, everything is seen as self, and nothing is alien.
ReplyDelete“As the individual identifies with only facets of her psyche the rest of her psyche is then actually felt to be ‘not-self,’ foreign territory, alien, scary. She re-maps her soul so as to deny and try to exclude from consciousness the unwanted aspects of herself.” (7) I found this quote interesting because it talks about boundaries that are drawn internally. It is easy to think that boundary lines are limited to what is the soul and what isn’t. People don’t realize that they also put up boundaries within their own souls. These boundaries cause a lot of suffering because they limit what the person can be. Nobody is always a nice person or a funny person. Labeling what you are means that you have to act that way all the time, and when you don’t, you don’t feel like yourself. This severely limits what and who the soul can be.
"It was as if our everyday awareness were but an insignificant island, surrounded by a vast ocean of uncharted consciousness..." (2) The analogy that this quote used was really powerful to me because it alluded to the fact that we are quite unaware of the majority of lifes happenings. I liked this because this is true not only in buddhist beliefs but it is also the truth of the world we live in. We as humans are so unaware about the majority of this universe. I enjoyed seeing the two subjects come together in to one truth. I also wondered that once we have this break through of consciousness is it forever that way or simply a moment of clarity which we then forget.
ReplyDelete"When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardy feeling your "self," what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of experience... Your self identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line." (4) This is something that seems so basic and clear an idea yet one that i have never considered so it made it all the more interesting to read and realize.