What are "Other People"?

[Ya Mu]

[deci belle]

1) Go to nearest REALLY BIG store.

2) Get into your "qi state". Think of nothing.

3) Walk slowly around the store. Every person you see, ...________ ... say to yourself, "This is me only at a different level of awareness." (doesn't matter if person is vibrating higher or lower than you)

4) Note what you "SEE".

 

hahahaha!!!❤

[manitou]

I SEE myself.

[Marblehead]

I SEE myself.

 

Hehehe. I see all the "others". (The ten thousand things, remember?)

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Ya Mu]

I SEE myself.

++

I do this exercise once a week. When I have told people in my classes to do this, some have been shocked - a real eye-opener.

 

SEEing is a total different thing than a mental conclusion, eh?.

[Marblehead]

 

4. All appearances are self-liberated as the enlightened body of the deity, all sounds are self-liberated as the enlightened speech of the deity, and all thoughts are self-liberated as essential reality itself.*

 

 

I had to read that a second time. It is really scary.

[manitou]

 

SEEing is a total different thing than a mental conclusion, eh?.

 

Eh, lol.

 

I'm talking about the Seeing that is there at the end of the inner journey. Because you have seen fully into self to Source.

 

But this is the fun of the shamanic too. To look at the manitou of the tree (to see a face, or a funny looking animal) is a whole different way of relating to that tree. We too are the tree. But when we see the manitou, we are smiling at the funny face, and at the same time, communicating with the soul of the tree. Or rock. Or cloud. It's all One. People is just the start. I guess that's why don Juan would tell Carlos that shamans are never alone. They truly never are, lol.

[Ya Mu]

Eh, lol.

 

I'm talking about the Seeing that is there at the end of the inner journey. Because you have seen fully into self to Source.

 

But this is the fun of the shamanic too. To look at the manitou of the tree (to see a face, or a funny looking animal) is a whole different way of relating to that tree. We too are the tree. But when we see the manitou, we are smiling at the funny face, and at the same time, communicating with the soul of the tree. Or rock. Or cloud. It's all One. People is just the start. I guess that's why don Juan would tell Carlos that shamans are never alone. They truly never are, lol.

I was talking about instantaneous SEEing, i.e., totality of perception, (and to borrow your words that I like) "Because you have seen fully into self to Source", as opposed to mental conclusions. Yes, the same with trees, rocks, etc. Nope, never alone. Yes, shamanic journey has been fun and for me, especially amusing to my teachers.

 

Ah, but it was just a simple exercise that many have found valuable. I do. If anyone doesn't think it worthwhile they shouldn't try it.

[stan herman]

'What are Other People'

 

The Buddhist Abhidhamma tells us there is no self. What we call self is merely a temporary stream of thought ...

Well, that may be, but here I am, and here I must be--me, until it is decreed otherwise.

 

So, what to do? How to handle this curious condition, for if there is no self how can there be others?

It's a game that's being played and I'm both pawn and player--and maker of other players.

 

Some say I picked this game to play before I was born

[Otis]

'What are Other People'

 

The Buddhist Abhidhamma tells us there is no self. What we call self is merely a temporary stream of thought ...

Well, that may be, but here I am, and here I must be--me, until it is decreed otherwise.

 

So, what to do? How to handle this curious condition, for if there is no self how can there be others?

It's a game that's being played and I'm both pawn and player--and maker of other players.

So, what's your solution? If the others are not selves, how do you deal with them? I'd wager that they see themselves as selves.

 

And since you know that you are not a "self", how does that realization affect your interaction with these fabled "others"?

[Birch]

Going back to the "self" thread. Figuring that part out. Rinsing. Repeating I'm still doing it. Yes it's "you" and it's not "you" all at the same time. It is and it it ain't that simple IMO/IME. Try it with trees or animals and see how you fare Manitou, I think the manitou practice is a nice one to remember. That we see manitous on/in people. But wouldn't that also be "ganying" as well ?

 

I figure if you only ever consider people in the moment they are in relationship with you then I reckon you'll find it tough to consider they might have a life other than you that will effect their relationship with you (and vice-versa). Otis, even the tires you jump over may be moving in your absence :-)

 

They escape you :-) (and you them :-)) But if they (or you) are behaving badly in relationship with each other, what do we say, that "Tao" is fighting herself? Why bother continuing to fight?

 

I think making "the others" all about "you" seems to me to be childish at best. Your "yes-man"-liking boss might be out for a yes in some cases but not at all in others. Assuming you know what his or her motivations are is also IMO/IME a potential error.

 

My anecdote is biased as I've personally met so many "bosses" who actually would prefer less of the brown-nosing and more of a straight up answer - doesn't mean IMO/IME you have to be unkind or disrespectful in telling anyone that their idea isn't so hot. Assuming you have to coddle them because you can't formulate a decent criticism doesn't sound to me to be very skillful.

 

The part I always struggle with is this idea that if you don't like something in someone, you must be reacting to part of yourself (as in "small self"). I don't buy that on the individual level. I keep getting told to buy it at macro-level. Why?

[manitou]

I was talking about instantaneous SEEing, i.e., totality of perception, (and to borrow your words that I like) "Because you have seen fully into self to Source", as opposed to mental conclusions. Yes, the same with trees, rocks, etc. Nope, never alone. Yes, shamanic journey has been fun and for me, especially amusing to my teachers.

 

 

Yes, totality of perception. I get this odd sort of energy field behind me and a little over my right shoulder, where there geometrical triangulations; somehow these triangulations are also situational, when peering into the situation. Parts of the situation sit on various angles of the triangles -

 

By the way, I so love your work....thank you for sharing your self in your books. You truly are a light warrior. It's so very odd that we all sort of meet in this place of 'letting' energy happen rather than making energy happen. It's called one thing on one path, another on another path. But it's all Not-Doing. Finding the magic. Being the sorcerer; making time stand still; seeing where the chips land on the floor and then picking them carefully up. Developing the vision, that's all. And it's done from Source.

 

Washte, friend -

[Otis]

Going back to the "self" thread. Figuring that part out. Rinsing. Repeating I'm still doing it. Yes it's "you" and it's not "you" all at the same time. It is and it it ain't that simple IMO/IME. Try it with trees or animals and see how you fare Manitou, I think the manitou practice is a nice one to remember. That we see manitous on/in people. But wouldn't that also be "ganying" as well ?

 

I figure if you only ever consider people in the moment they are in relationship with you then I reckon you'll find it tough to consider they might have a life other than you that will effect their relationship with you (and vice-versa). Otis, even the tires you jump over may be moving in your absence :-)

 

They escape you :-) (and you them :-)) But if they (or you) are behaving badly in relationship with each other, what do we say, that "Tao" is fighting herself? Why bother continuing to fight?

 

I think making "the others" all about "you" seems to me to be childish at best. Your "yes-man"-liking boss might be out for a yes in some cases but not at all in others. Assuming you know what his or her motivations are is also IMO/IME a potential error.

 

My anecdote is biased as I've personally met so many "bosses" who actually would prefer less of the brown-nosing and more of a straight up answer - doesn't mean IMO/IME you have to be unkind or disrespectful in telling anyone that their idea isn't so hot. Assuming you have to coddle them because you can't formulate a decent criticism doesn't sound to me to be very skillful.

 

The part I always struggle with is this idea that if you don't like something in someone, you must be reacting to part of yourself (as in "small self"). I don't buy that on the individual level. I keep getting told to buy it at macro-level. Why?

Truth is, I don't think I am very skillful when it comes to "other people", and especially the category of "bosses". This is one of the places that I recognize I have a lot of baggage around, but not a lot of awareness.

 

I'm just learning to coddle the boss. And it does seem off; it feels like a clumsy short-cut. But it works better than what I had before, which was a tendency to roll my eyes, around the boss. So, I feel like I'm stumbling around a bit in the dark, and applying rules-of-thumb that don't quite fit reality, but which are working better than my previous brand of stumbling around in the dark.

 

That's part of why I want y'all's opinions on the matter, because I can use the insight.

[manitou]

Truth is, I don't think I am very skillful when it comes to "other people", and especially the category of "bosses". This is one of the places that I recognize I have a lot of baggage around, but not a lot of awareness.

 

I'm just learning to coddle the boss. And it does seem off; it feels like a clumsy short-cut. But it works better than what I had before, which was a tendency to roll my eyes, around the boss. So, I feel like I'm stumbling around a bit in the dark, and applying rules-of-thumb that don't quite fit reality, but which are working better than my previous brand of stumbling around in the dark.

 

That's part of why I want y'all's opinions on the matter, because I can use the insight.

 

Use your insight to understand your boss. Love him anyway, even if he's a jerk. Makes life a lot easier.

Edited May 3, 2011 by manitou

[manitou]

Manitou, I think the manitou practice is a nice one to remember. That we see manitous on/in people. But wouldn't that also be "ganying" as well ?

 

 

 

quite possibly. What's ganying? No doubt there's a counterpart for manitou within many traditions.

Edited May 3, 2011 by manitou

[Otis]

Use your insight to understand your boss. Love him anyway, even if he's a jerk. Makes life a lot easier.

I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me.

[manitou]

I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me.

 

 

LOL.

[Birch]

quite possibly. What's ganying? No doubt there's a counterpart for manitou within many traditions.

 

Well, the way I understand "ganying" so far is that it corresponds (which I guess is probably a good term) with reality.

 

So whereas a "manitou" is the recognition of a pattern in something while at the same time "knowing" it's just one's own pattern recognition - "ganying" is the recognition of a pattern in something "knowing" this is part of of reality. I'm not explaining it very well, but "manitou" would be a "meta-recognition" while "ganying" would be recognition as is.

 

I think that actions arising from either of those positions might be quite different and that contemporary folks might insist that "manitou" is correct while "ganying" is primitive and in error.

[stan herman]

So, what's your solution? If the others are not selves, how do you deal with them? I'd wager that they see themselves as selves.

 

And since you know that you are not a "self", how does that realization affect your interaction with these fabled "others"?

 

 

In response, what's primary for me is to recognize that I'm in a game (life on earth). And so, until I'm transferred I need to play. Basics in this game are self, others, and situations. Whether these elements are 'real' or not, there they are, so I deal with them.

 

I realize there are a great variety of ways the game can be played, I try to notice as many of them as I can. Over time an increasing number of connections seem to appear between 'the game' and the numinous, the field within which the game is played,

[stan herman]

Otis, you said, "I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me."

 

If you can love unconditionally all the 'others' of your world, and you are personally inclined to do so, good. I'm not naturally so inclined. So what I've found useful is to try to understand the way each plays his or her game, with a minimum of judging. Then, you can shape the way you play yours in a way that suits you and the other. There are some practical methods for doing this.

[manitou]

Otis, you said, "I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me."

 

If you can love unconditionally all the 'others' of your world, and you are personally inclined to do so, good. I'm not naturally so inclined. So what I've found useful is to try to understand the way each plays his or her game, with a minimum of judging. Then, you can shape the way you play yours in a way that suits you and the other. There are some practical methods for doing this.

 

It's also helpful to remember that you Are the other person. Makes loving them a lot easier.

[manitou]

I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me.

 

Sometimes other people irritate us because they cross the very same thing in ourselves. I think the trick is to file down the buttons that we wear on our chest for people to push. When there are no buttons left, they can push all they want and it doesn't phase us.

[Otis]

Otis, you said, "I'll try. I'm still learning to love the people that I like, not to mention those who I allow to irritate me."

 

If you can love unconditionally all the 'others' of your world, and you are personally inclined to do so, good. I'm not naturally so inclined. So what I've found useful is to try to understand the way each plays his or her game, with a minimum of judging. Then, you can shape the way you play yours in a way that suits you and the other. There are some practical methods for doing this.

I agree with you. I have a much better time reserving my judgment, then I do really loving.

 

Actually, I think I am learning to love with clarity, generosity and grace, but it's pretty new.

 

My problem with 'other people' is more that: I am sometimes easily irritated by them. I hate being in a bad mood around others, because I do and say all the wrong toxic things, plus the awkwardness feels awful. So I have developed a lot of habits of avoiding situations in which I might get irritated, and become a lone wolf, thereby.

 

I feel like the path that's calling me to it, is to practice being with other people, even if I'm irritated, so I get used to that situation which I fear, and stop letting it make choices for me. Hopefully, I'll also find that the tendency towards irritation gets less bothersome, because I fear it less.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Sometimes other people irritate us because they cross the very same thing in ourselves. I think the trick is to file down the buttons that we wear on our chest for people to push. When there are no buttons left, they can push all they want and it doesn't phase us.

No doubt, I'm seeing that symmetry everywhere in my life. Especially when I wake up to something about myself that shocks and humbles me, I start seeing it everywhere else, in others.