I've been practicing self-observation and self-remembering for a number of years and mentioned this to someone recently and he said that it was impossible to remember myself.
I asked him what, in his experience, made him come to that conclusion and he said that only a false I can practice self-remembering and anything done by a false I logically produces false results and therefore self-remembering can never be a real activity.
I was at a loss for a reply when I heard that and am curious as to what you would have told him.
I don't know what I would have said to him.
You're ``here,'' he's not.
I'm going to make some assumptions about the
situation, since it wasn't fully described, because that is the job: first
ask, ``What is going on here?'' and only then ask, ``What can I do?''
I don't know if these assumptions are correct.
They're just based on what usually happens, and may not be what
actually happened.
Two people were in a conversation, passing energy back
and forth for their mutual use for pleasure.
One asserted a statement about something which, from their experience, was of
great value to them; most likely hoping for agreement which would, they
believed, deepen and reaffirm that value.
Instead they received an assertion that the thing
which was of such value to them had no value at all -- in fact it was just a
delusion and could not actually exist.
The next natural reaction is to feel attacked -- one did not receive
agreement.
Those who are attacked naturally defend.
Yet no defense is possible when one is discussing an
experience from the inner world other than persuasive logic, or an attack on
the attacker.
In the outer world, one could at least point out the
thing itself.
In the inner world, there is rarely a way to do that: how can you take the
person there and show it to them without their agreement with the process of
doing that?
For some inner experiences this might take quite some time and effort for
preparation on their part, wouldn't it?
Yet that is equally true in the outer world, isn't it?
What if you had visited the Himalayas and seen something that seemed absurd to
someone else?
Could you ever convince them of what you had seen without taking them there
and showing it to them?
What if you could not get them to agree to the effort necessary for such a
journey?
Many years ago I met someone while they were taking a
walk and considering all that they had done in their ``spiritual'' pursuits.
They were in the process of making it okay to decide that it was all an
illusion, and giving the game up and making it okay to live a ``normal'' life
and forget all about their desire for something more to life than grabbing
at pleasure and avoiding pain.
They were invited back to the apartment I was using at
the time, after they finished walking their dog.
During our conversation at that apartment, they confided that they had decided
that everyone who worked with spiritual ideas was just deluded, because it had
never amounted to anything for them: in their own experience.
Grace was invited into the apartment.
For a while, the presence of Life was palpable and with us, for anyone just a
little sensitive, as a very real being.
The fellow was asked if he was noticing that some One was with us at the
moment.
Fortunately, he experienced it, he did not deny that something was
happening.
It was suggested that there might be something to the
whole thing after all, and he worked very hard from that day and experienced
for himself.
Even that which can be demonstrated does no good if
the observer refuses to observe.
No argument or discussion or explanation will suffice when someone will not
agree.
If a demonstration can be arranged, great.
Even then, the observer can always make up some other explanation that fits
with their preconceptions.
At that point, there is nothing that you can do without force, violence.
So, what's the point?
Do I really need someone else's agreement to validate
my own experience?
This whole question brings to mind the quandary facing
psychology.
Conditioning has been discovered.
It is now understood that one simply cannot perceive without conditioning
altering perception to fit.
Now what?
This interesting situation has been dealt with by many
for a very long time, and is called ``spiritual teachings.''
Psychologists generally either ignore the problem since they can't really deal
with it and just pretend that it is irrelevant and act as though people can be
responsible anyway, or fall to the other extreme and say that consciousness is
just a biochemical and biomechanical illusion.
No generality is always true.
List of Questions
Table of Contents
Copyright © 1995, 1996 by inX.
Compiled July 18, 1996.
Fax me a copy:
Mail me a copy:
Science of Man's Conscious Self-Evolution