Experiencing... Who, What, and Why?

[SalixIncendium]

“Anything that is not a living experience for you is just a fairy tale, isn't it so?” ~ Sadhguru


What does your religion/belief structure or personal knowledge tell you about your true nature, who you actually are, if anything, beyond the body and mind?

Do the experiences of others have any influence on your true nature, or is your truth based only upon your own living experience? Why?


Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): If you believe your true nature is immortal, what purpose does experiencing have to your immortal being?

 

[Sunstone]

To me, a key fact about experiencing is that you don't need to be conscious of what you're experiencing in order to learn from it. In fact, humans unconsciously learn stuff all the time -- maybe even more often than we consciously do. So that all makes me wonder, when someone has a mystical experience, are there things they learn that they are not conscious of learning? Are there unconscious take aways from that experience?

 

[Quintessence]

I'm a bit confused. How could one's true nature avoid including all aspects of oneself, such as "body" and "mind?" I'm not sure what's being asked here.

 

[Fool]

I'm a bit confused. How could one's true nature avoid including all aspects of oneself, such as "body" and "mind?" I'm not sure what's being asked here.

https://childmind.org/article/ocd-sexual-obsessions/


Homosexual OCD is a Thing, and Thousands of Americans Suffer From It


Sexual Orientation Obsessions in OCD

 

[SalixIncendium]

I'm a bit confused. How could one's true nature avoid including all aspects of oneself, such as "body" and "mind?" I'm not sure what's being asked here.

Everyone's mind and body was born and expires at some point, and there are those that believe/have knowledge that their true nature has been experiencing before temporal birth and/or continues to experience after temporal death.

 

[Quintessence]

Everyone's mind and body was born and expires at some point, and there are those that believe/have knowledge that their true nature has been experiencing before temporal birth and/or continues to experience after temporal death.

I understand that, but I'm having trouble understanding why that would exclude the current mind and body from one's true nature. To me, one's true nature (aka, what I call the spirit of something) would be the sum total of all that something is (was, and will be), including relationships. The idea that something would be excluded from one's nature is... weird and confusing to me I guess?

 

[syo]

“Anything that is not a living experience for you is just a fairy tale, isn't it so?” ~ Sadhguru

what's a fairy tale?

What does your religion/belief structure or personal knowledge tell you about your true nature, who you actually are, if anything, beyond the body and mind?

we are mortal creations (body/mind) with spirit, which spirit is from the holy spirit and it's immortal. our true nature is flesh and spirit.

Do the experiences of others have any influence on your true nature, or is your truth based only upon your own living experience? Why?

we orthodox believe that through jesus our nature can unite with god's.

 

[Sunstone]

I understand that, but I'm having trouble understanding why that would exclude the current mind and body from one's true nature. To me, one's true nature (aka, what I call the spirit of something) would be the sum total of all that something is (was, and will be), including relationships. The idea that something would be excluded from one's nature is... weird and confusing to me I guess?

Honestly, Quint, your view of human nature confuses me even though I can see its logic. It's just that logic needs to be tested against empirical reality because alone, by itself, it can often lead astray.

I agree with you that there is a sense in which everything someone does is their nature. But that ignores the often more useful fact that most people seem inclined or disposed to do certain things much better than other things. That is, most people seem to have talents for certain things, but not talents for everything.

For instance, there are very young kids who seem very much more inclined to mathematics than to athletics, etc, etc, etc. You find that very same pattern with one human after another and in all cultures, times, and places. People are naturally more inclined to certain behaviors than to others. Their nature does not include -- as you seem to suggest -- an equal disposition to all behaviors. Instead, we can speak of "Steven being true to himself by pursuing his musical nature" or "Susan being true to herself by developing her athletic skills". And, conversely, one can speak of someone being false to themselves when they try to repress some talent of theirs.

Moreover, whether or not one follows one's natural inclinations in life -- whether or not one is true them or not -- seems by many accounts to be key to how happy or miserable one is in life. So it's not a trivial issue whether one pursues that which seems more one's nature than many other things.

 

[RoaringSilence]

Honestly, Quint, your view of human nature confuses me even though I can see its logic. It's just that logic needs to be tested against empirical reality because alone, by itself, it can often lead astray.

I agree with you that there is a sense in which everything someone does is their nature. But that ignores the often more useful fact that most people seem inclined or disposed to do certain things much better than other things. That is, most people seem to have talents for certain things, but not talents for everything.

For instance, there are very young kids who seem very much more inclined to mathematics than to athletics, etc, etc, etc. You find that very same pattern with one human after another and in all cultures, times, and places. People are naturally more inclined to certain behaviors than to others. Their nature does not include -- as you seem to suggest -- an equal disposition to all behaviors. Instead, we can speak of "Steven being true to himself by pursuing his musical nature" or "Susan being true to herself by developing her athletic skills". And, conversely, one can speak of someone being false to themselves when they try to repress some talent of theirs.

Moreover, whether or not one follows one's natural inclinations in life -- whether or not one is true them or not -- seems by many accounts to be key to how happy or miserable one is in life. So it's not a trivial issue whether one pursues that which seems more one's nature than many other things.

everyone is born with some tendencies , which is what they inherit from past life actions , if your past karma / entanglements allow you to progress , you progress spiritually , the circumstances play out and push you where you belong , if you are stuck in the circumstances that you reject or have developed a rejection for , then you develop new tendencies , and they take you to where you belong , if this doesn't happen then it carries over for next life. since its a timeless and cyclic existence, fairness is guaranteed , that you ll get there (ultimate purpose / reality) eventually.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

Honestly, Quint, your view of human nature confuses me even though I can see its logic. It's just that logic needs to be tested against empirical reality because alone, by itself, it can often lead astray.

I agree with you that there is a sense in which everything someone does is their nature. But that ignores the often more useful fact that most people seem inclined or disposed to do certain things much better than other things. That is, most people seem to have talents for certain things, but not talents for everything.

For instance, there are very young kids who seem very much more inclined to mathematics than to athletics, etc, etc, etc. You find that very same pattern with one human after another and in all cultures, times, and places. People are naturally more inclined to certain behaviors than to others. Their nature does not include -- as you seem to suggest -- an equal disposition to all behaviors. Instead, we can speak of "Steven being true to himself by pursuing his musical nature" or "Susan being true to herself by developing her athletic skills". And, conversely, one can speak of someone being false to themselves when they try to repress some talent of theirs.

Moreover, whether or not one follows one's natural inclinations in life -- whether or not one is true them or not -- seems by many accounts to be key to how happy or miserable one is in life. So it's not a trivial issue whether one pursues that which seems more one's nature than many other things.

How is the inclination, probably learned from family and/or community, or life situation, to suppress one's inborn inclinations, NOT a part of one's "true nature"?

Unless you are saying that inherited and/or carried over drives to do/be certain things is our true nature, and all else (disinclinations and impediments) are not? But I still don't get that: what we do, even failing to do, is still part of us as a real, experiencing being.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree with you that there is a sense in which everything someone does is their nature. But that ignores the often more useful fact that most people seem inclined or disposed to do certain things much better than other things. That is, most people seem to have talents for certain things, but not talents for everything.

Nah, it doesn't ignore it at all. Inclinations and dispositions are part of something's nature. I thought that was explicit through words like "sum total of all that something is." That can't exclude inclinations any more than it can exclude physical presence or idealogical convictions. And those inclinations (or any other attribute, really) certainly don't need to be the same amongst different persons, human or otherwise.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

https://childmind.org/article/ocd-sexual-obsessions/


Homosexual OCD is a Thing, and Thousands of Americans Suffer From It


Sexual Orientation Obsessions in OCD

What in the hell does this have to do with anything???

 

[Unveiled Artist]

What does your religion/belief structure or personal knowledge tell you about your true nature, who you actually are, if anything, beyond the body and mind?

My belief structure or my values are my body and mind nothing beyond.

I'm a mix of sorts according to RF language. Who I am is based on my art, freedom of expression, security in mind and body, inner peace, and contributing my knowledge as a teacher as we Learn from each other. On that backbone, I believe we all have the potential to fully express ourselves as in knowing the nature and reality of our mind. How our mind defines what we call "heart". How our mind shapes experiences we call the gods. Understanding my mind let's me understand communication. Pretty much gain inner peace and wisdom. Understanding the mind helps me know my mortality. As such, what's above, beyond, greater, inner, etc doesn't make sense as isolated emotions.

Who I am? I identify as many things that makes me, me from my spirituality, sexual orientation, as an artist, a poet, pretty much if I can express it uniquely, I'm all good.

Do the experiences of others have any influence on your true nature, or is your tr

Yes. The more I understand my core values the more my confrontation with others let's me understand myself more. My values are shaped not only by how I communicate with others but also how they communicate with me. Learning curve.

Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): If you believe your true nature is immortal, what purpose does experiencing have to your immortal being?

If it were, to take care of family in spirit. I believe we exist as spirits. Immortal? To me that's denial of fear of death. Mind thing once you know the balance there is no need for statements of fact.

 

[Fool]

What in the hell does this have to do with anything???

people have all kinds of mind body disparities, dissonance


http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1948550610391677

 

[arthra]

“Anything that is not a living experience for you is just a fairy tale, isn't it so?” ~ Sadhguru What does your religion/belief structure or personal knowledge tell you about your true nature, who you actually are, if anything, beyond the body and mind? Do the experiences of others have any influence on your true nature, or is your truth based only upon your own living experience? Why? Bonus question (ala @Sunstone): If you believe your true nature is immortal, what purpose does experiencing have to your immortal being?

Those are pretty involved questions and I'm not sure we have enough space here to respond. but let me suggest a few things from my experience anyway. Our "true" nature I believe is of the soul/spirit:

The essential identity of every human being is a rational and immortal soul, which is “entirely out of the order of the physical creation.” Bahá’u’lláh uses the metaphor of the sun to explain the relationship between the soul and the body: “The soul of man is the sun by which his body is illumined, and from which it draweth its sustenance, and should be so regarded.”

The Human Soul | What Bahá’ís Believe

Our relationship with others and how we behave is one of the measures of our life in this plane and the virtues we develope provide us with "spiritual" attributes that will be important in the future life... beyond this material existence. Just as the foetus in the womb developed appendages (arms and legs) that would be needed after birth so our spiritual qualities and virtures will be needed in the next life.