mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Jan 19, 2011 5:02:11 GMT -5
Zendancer,
What Sri Nisgardatta says that one is never born and shall never die, is this truth realization? Well in meditation there has come a point where I am aware of an oberver within observing emotions, thoughts, feelings yet I sense at the same time there is more to this than it appears. The Spiritual teacher Richard Rose also goes on about the Process Observer and the Umpire is this none other than the observer I am describing to you. And so where does one go on from here?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2011 9:25:08 GMT -5
Zendancer, What Sri Nisgardatta says that one is never born and shall never die, is this truth realization? Well in meditation there has come a point where I am aware of an oberver within observing emotions, thoughts, feelings yet I sense at the same time there is more to this than it appears. The Spiritual teacher Richard Rose also goes on about the Process Observer and the Umpire is this none other than the observer I am describing to you. And so where does one go on from here? Hi Mits: Yes, what Niz says is true. Who you are was never born and will never die. It is possible to have a direct experience of the Infinite, but if that experience happens, "you" won't be there. The see-er and the seen must become one. Only the Infinite can perceive the Infinite. In actuality there is only oneness; twoness is the illusion. As Kabir reportedly said, "Behold, but one in all things. It is the second that leads you astray." It is the reflective/imaginative process of mind that brings forth the appearance of multiplicity. If you stay focused on the actual (what you can see and hear, etc), reflectivity will diminish until "you" disappear into "what is." What is is what you really are. There is nothing separate from THAT, and THAT has no beginning and no end. If I were you, I wouldn't waste much time thinking about the "process observer" or the "umpire." These are just teaching tools that draw one's attention into more ideas. Stay with the actual.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 19, 2011 12:49:19 GMT -5
Zendancer, What Sri Nisgardatta says that one is never born and shall never die, is this truth realization? Well in meditation there has come a point where I am aware of an oberver within observing emotions, thoughts, feelings yet I sense at the same time there is more to this than it appears. The Spiritual teacher Richard Rose also goes on about the Process Observer and the Umpire is this none other than the observer I am describing to you. And so where does one go on from here? Hi Mits: Yes, what Niz says is true. Who you are was never born and will never die. It is possible to have a direct experience of the Infinite, but if that experience happens, "you" won't be there. The see-er and the seen must become one. Only the Infinite can perceive the Infinite. In actuality there is only oneness; twoness is the illusion. As Kabir reportedly said, "Behold, but one in all things. It is the second that leads you astray." It is the reflective/imaginative process of mind that brings forth the appearance of multiplicity. If you stay focused on the actual (what you can see and hear, etc), reflectivity will diminish until "you" disappear into "what is." What is is what you really are. There is nothing separate from THAT, and THAT has no beginning and no end. If I were you, I wouldn't waste much time thinking about the "process observer" or the "umpire." These are just teaching tools that draw one's attention into more ideas. Stay with the actual. Look for what is always here, but rarely noticed... ...the silence and the stillness.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jan 19, 2011 13:06:35 GMT -5
This morning I woke up very early and my body almost felt numb, but it was just doing things by itself. Pulling the phone out of my pocket, checking the time, rolling around.. all normal sleep stuff, but it was 100% not me doing it. There was this weird sense of seeing out of a different pair of eyes or something.....
The simplest way I could describe it is like my body got hijacked until I noticed it happening and it went away. The body felt like part of 'that', and there wasn't really anything going on but noticing that it was part of 'that'.
Is this what you mean by that quote, or are you referring to something else like maybe the noticing being part of 'that' as well? The see-er sort of confuses me because of the different ways I've seen the term 'see-er' used. Is it see-er as in 'the witness' / consciousness / whatever, or see-er as in the ego / me? It seems strange to think of consciousness becoming one with itself since it already is itself, and having the ego become one with what's seen doesn't seem like it's the direction this is all going.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2011 14:21:10 GMT -5
This morning I woke up very early and my body almost felt numb, but it was just doing things by itself. Pulling the phone out of my pocket, checking the time, rolling around.. all normal sleep stuff, but it was 100% not me doing it. There was this weird sense of seeing out of a different pair of eyes or something..... The simplest way I could describe it is like my body got hijacked until I noticed it happening and it went away. The body felt like part of 'that', and there wasn't really anything going on but noticing that it was part of 'that'. Is this what you mean by that quote, or are you referring to something else like maybe the noticing being part of 'that' as well? The see-er sort of confuses me because of the different ways I've seen the term 'see-er' used. Is it see-er as in 'the witness' / consciousness / whatever, or see-er as in the ego / me? It seems strange to think of consciousness becoming one with itself since it already is itself, and having the ego become one with what's seen doesn't seem like it's the direction this is all going. During a unity-consciousness experience there is no dualism, no reflection, so there is pure awareness in which the source of awareness is not known as something separate. During those kinds of experiences there is no perception of separateness at all. There are a wide range of possible unity-consciousness experiences. The ones with which I am familiar include: 1. Positive samadhi. In sports activities this is called "the zone," but it can occur with any activity, even washing dishes. LOL. We become so focused upon "what is" that time, space, selfhood, and all sense of separateness ceases. We are simply one-with "what is." 2. Absolute samadhi. As far as I know, this only occurs during relatively motionless meditation during which there is very little feedback from the body (I think the phrase is "non-proprioceptivity" that applies to this). In this kind of samadhi body and mind are completely fallen off. There is no sense of body or mind. It is as if awareness had sunk to the bottom of a deep sea. Awareness is crystal clear, but there is no content whatsoever. As one enters this state, there is a felt sense of coalescence into oneness. Beyond that point language is useless for describing what happens because duality is absent. 3. Kensho, or cosmic consciousness, experiences. Zen calls these kinds of experiences "seeing into one's true nature." From a perceptual standpoint ordinary reality disintegrates and is replaced by a world that is alive and intimate. The world is seen in a completely different way. These kinds of experiences are often accompanied by highly unusual phenomena that may involve out-of-body experiences, "miracles," mind reading, complete reorganization of prior knowledge, kundalini effects, massive inflow of instant understanding, etc. All of these experiences usually end when reflectiveness and duality reappears. The experience you described is often called "a confirmatory experience," meaning that things are happening below the surface, but non-duality has not yet manifested in a recognizable way. If there is the perception of twoness, such as seeing things happen in a spectator mode, this is not unity-consciousness because the see-er is still separate from what is seen. Does this answer your question?
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jan 19, 2011 15:25:47 GMT -5
Wow, that's a much better answer than I bargained for.
This part here really cleared that up for me. So as long as I'm watching things happen from a 'distance', no matter what it is I'm watching, there is still an imagined separateness going on--this seeing that. That would mean in oneness, there is just what is seen without the 'method of seeing' having an owner (or maybe just an unknown owner). Thanks for explaining all that.
I think the validity of the statement 'it's unimaginable' is sinking in. I didn't even think what happened this morning was even possible, let alone something beyond that!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2011 16:32:45 GMT -5
Mamza: Yes, the truth is utterly unimaginable, and anything that is imagined is a cartoon-like simulation of the truth. Jesus reportedly said, "In my Father's house are many mansions." Some of those mansions are mind-boggling because the mind can't even get through the door. I love these other quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas:
1. Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All.
2. Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you.
3. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death."
4. Seeing some infants, Jesus said, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?" he said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same.....etc. then you will enter the Kingdom."
5. Take heed of the Living One while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see Him and be unable to do so.
6. I am he who exists from the Undivided.
7. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there.
8. Whoever finds himself is superior to the world.
9. The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jan 19, 2011 17:09:12 GMT -5
Mamza: Yes, the truth is utterly unimaginable, and anything that is imagined is a cartoon-like simulation of the truth. Jesus reportedly said, "In my Father's house are many mansions." Some of those mansions are mind-boggling because the mind can't even get through the door. I love these other quotes attributed to Jesus in the Gospel of Thomas: 1. Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds, he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will rule over the All. 2. Recognize what is in your sight, and that which is hidden from you will become plain to you. 3. The disciples said to Jesus, "Tell us how our end will be." Jesus said, "Have you discovered, then, the beginning, that you look for the end? For where the beginning is, there will the end be. Blessed is he who will take his place in the beginning; he will know the end and will not experience death." 4. Seeing some infants, Jesus said, "These infants being suckled are like those who enter the Kingdom." They said to him, "Shall we then, as children, enter the Kingdom?" he said to them, "When you make the two one, and when you make the inside like the outside, and the outside like the inside, and the above like the below, and when you make the male and female one and the same.....etc. then you will enter the Kingdom." 5. Take heed of the Living One while you are alive, lest you die and seek to see Him and be unable to do so. 6. I am he who exists from the Undivided. 7. Split a piece of wood and I am there. Lift up a stone, and you will find me there. 8. Whoever finds himself is superior to the world. 9. The Kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth, and men do not see it. ...and my favorite, 'be still and know, that I am God'
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2011 17:31:02 GMT -5
Hey Jason, I hope your nasty cold is much better today. To follow up on yesterday's questions:
What I meant by the first quote is that thoughts are not necessary as a precursor to thinking thoughts. Thoughts simply occur. I should have omitted that last phrase because it confused the issue.
The second question dealt with spending a few hours in deep silence. In this case I was not referring to what we are; I was referring to the voluntary suspension of verbal thought as an experimental way of verifying that verbal thought is not necessary for a body to function intelligently in everyday life.
You asked, "Are you saying that thought is not necessary to understand what's going on?" Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. There are two kinds of understanding, intellectual understanding (through images, ideas, and symbols) and embodied understanding (directly through the organism). I would guess that 99% of all thought is unnecessary. In total verbal silence there is complete understanding of what's going on. If you are walking beside a street and a car swerves toward you, you do not have to think thoughts in order to respond appropriately. You see, understand, and respond instantly (unless you're a psychologist--LOL). I assume you've heard the joke about the psychologist who was walking to work one morning when someone said, "Good morning?" He continued walking while thinking, "I wonder what he meant by that?"
Am I saying that because thought aids the human form in accomplishing certain taks, that this necessitates some notion of doership by a "separate thinker?" No.
You wrote, "It seems like you are equating who we are with a mind which is not who we are." Not at all. Who we are cannot be imagined, but we can imagine who we are as something that can intelligently manifest both with and without the use of a mind. I consider the mind to be something like a personal computer/graphics generator that Source can use to imaginatively reflect aspects of itself.
Tolle has said (somewhat tongue in cheek) that his greatest achievement in life was "attaining freedom from the compulsion of incessant thought." He has also said that his awakening eliminated 80% of his thinking. Leonard Jacobsen once said, "People would not believe how little I think. I think when it is necessary to think, and when it is not, I don't think."
I think a lot, but I also spend a lot of time not-thinking and not-knowing. In fact, the threads on this forum often propel me into longer periods of silence than any other factor in my life. For this reason, alone, I owe everyone here a monumental debt of gratitude. Muchas gracias. Viele danke. Merci boucoup. And cheers!
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Jan 19, 2011 19:29:17 GMT -5
Hey ZD. Yes I am feeling better today thanks for asking There is really no such thing as a "voluntary" suspension of thought. Thoughts arise and fall spontaneously. When there is a noticing of that falling, there is silence, itself uncaused, unchanging, ever present. There is nothing we can do to be that, because we always already are that. Some will call this noticing awareness. There is nothing separate from that, and we are never anything but that. In terms of the understanding issue: Teaching the mind to understand itself seems like a worthwhile thing to do. I find thought to be an intricate part of this understanding, even though there is actually no "separate entity" doing the understanding. As an example. Self seeking is a dynamic of the mind which results from the tendency for the mind to seek itself through thought created imagery. The mind can even use the "idea of being awareness" to self seek through. This tendency could be perpetuated by what some might call formal meditation. Basically, the mind deludes itself into thinking that its doing something to be what's timelessly here. The absence of thought confirms to the mind that its actually doing something to be what it could never possibly be. In reality, what's timelessly here is simply being what it timelessly is. Until the mind understands how its manipulating its own thinking through "controlling/eliminating thought", the mind will likely still have the sense of being some identity such as an enlightened mind, or even just the idea of awareness. The mind(not you) simply wants some identity to perpetuate, its not all that concerned aboout anything else. I would guess that 100% of thought is entirely necessary because that's what's happening in reality. Put another way, whether thinking is taking place or not has nothing to do with that which is beyond it. I do sometimes say that the witness is beyond, but really, its permeating even these words, both your form and mine. This entire forum is nothing but thoughts. Only a mind would want to get rid of thought, which would result from some misunderstanding about thought. Thinking about that couldn't hurt. Of course once its clearly understood that what we are never was nor could possibly be a thought or thinking mind, "noticing" or "abiding in silence" seems to become more prevalent. We could call this noticing an experience, but it only becomes one if and when the mind thinks about it. And once the mind creates an experience, the experiencer (the mind) comes in through the back door. Resting as pure awareness is most certainly not an experience. Only the mind can turn what we are into an experience, while what we are can only be that which experience depends on. Along these lines, the prevalence of thought has nothing to do with whether one has "realized" what one is, because realization itself is entirely "non mental". Understanding the mechanics of thinking on the other hand, is entirely mental, and does seem to "aid in realization", although there is certainly no one behind the wheel doing this aiding.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 19, 2011 21:58:32 GMT -5
Excellent discussion, guys. Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 19, 2011 22:02:36 GMT -5
Jason: Beautifully said! We are pointing to exactly the same thing in different ways. Take good care of yourself, you sly fellow. ZD
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 19, 2011 22:10:52 GMT -5
Along these lines, the prevalence of thought has nothing to do with whether one has "realized" what one is, because realization itself is entirely "non mental". Understanding the mechanics of thinking on the other hand, is entirely mental, and does seem to "aid in realization", although there is certainly no one behind the wheel doing this aiding. Well said Jason yes what we are can be experience/seen but never expressed and true there is no one at home. Peace Michael
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 20, 2011 0:05:39 GMT -5
Okay, I don't want to split semantic hairs, but I say what we are cannot be experienced/seen.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jan 20, 2011 3:03:10 GMT -5
I think I agree with you, Enigma. I may not have 'awakened' or whatever, but I'm pretty sure to experience or see implies a separate entity to do the seeing or have the experience.
|
|