Jayson wrote:"why am I me, as i am now, where i am now, when I am now, and not in some other form of existence with the same perception of I?"
My shot at that has always been:
For an object to exist, it must also then therefore not exist.
Meaning, a roll of toilet paper only exists as you see it because it does not exist anywhere else; just precisely there.
Why does something exist precisely there instead of anywhere else?
Water. That's why.
And that last part...I can't explain unfortunately. That's one of those that just has to click if it does or has.
perhaps what you are saying is that one simply is all that it is due to where, when, how...etc...
Jayson wrote:Buddhism is something I was attracted to for a long time.
Buddhism isn't really what grabbed me in there.
He wasn't a Buddhist.
He actually denied Buddha; walked away on the reason that he had to find his way and that one could not find their way through another's way. Buddha's way was good for Buddha, not for Siddhartha; Siddhartha had to find Siddhartha's way.
He found that he had found his way all along once he was an old man.
Maybe it has been a while or maybe i am thinking of another book..but I know I at least read one with "Siddhartha" in the title...been a long time though...
Jayson wrote:Closing the mind to distractions is good too...though paying attention to what distractions are there can be interesting...And one might find that should they fade far enough away from what they consider "distractions" they become jaded...bored...and wish for a return to things that many say are "distractions"...but i see you seeing this anyways...(for example i think we have already agreed that sadness or crying is not always a distraction...loss of it can be quite boring...without less what seeming is more...)
Mmmm, yeah, no...I never say to turn off distractions. Ever.
Instead, I implore people to bury more deeply rather than remove.
Rather than take away, add upon.
The more you have around you, the more you can learn yourself by feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else.
And the more you know yourself, the more you can articulate your movement in life accurately rather than marginally.
it would seem to me that the point in "feeling and seeing what you do in response to everything else" can lend to recognition of reducing specific reactions, that would be of the forms of distractions in one of the ways I was using the word...in other words to learn that anger is a distraction as to be more in control of it, or at least rid of it in so far as it is detrimental.
Jayson wrote:I plopped this up a while back ago for other reasons, but that was a bit ago before you came 'round.
If you want, you can check some of my ideas and thinking out on this site where I store a portion of my work.
Others are still being compiled.
I think i agree entirely with the forward...
The "self" to me is all that a thing is not simply the spirituality...and on "Self is seen as one's nature" I tend to think all things are natural and thus of nature...(I'm not really judging i haven't read enough yet...plus I have tendency to read with respect more to what was generally meant like I might continue reading as self meaning "spiritual self" however it fits into my picture...I guess)but then i recognize that agreement with all is not so important...I'll have to read the rest tomorrow, and probably after work...it is getting late and i need to head to bed...i am glad you felt worth in sharing such with me...