|
Post by klaus on Apr 4, 2011 20:49:59 GMT -5
zendancer,
It does what it does.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Apr 4, 2011 21:07:09 GMT -5
I have a question about attending the actual. After a link that Sharon provided on one of these threads recently (thanks!), my 'angle' has changed a bit and I'm wondering about something.
The way things were before, I would focus on what I can hear as much as I could. After seeing the link Sharon shared, things have switched more toward noticing what hears rather than what is heard; what is seeing instead of what is seen. I now question what moves, what sees, what feels--what, what, what is doing whatever is being done. Is this 'junk'? Lately I've been feeling like everything is just a big rubix cube working itself out.
Like you mentioned above, ZD, the 'stupid person' isn't responsible at all. Everything is doing what it's doing based on an infinite amount of variables on both conscious and unconscious levels. No matter how far you zoom in or out, there's just one thing going on--one thing that has everything inside it. Good, bad; conscious, unconscious; you, me.... all of these things are in this one thing, and so it's beyond both. The only way two things could be one is if the one was both in the first place! /rant
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2011 21:18:19 GMT -5
Hi Max, in a somewhat cryptic message, I was saying the same thing... Although you get it, that your not the idea of a separate person, thoughts arise from the feelings of being 'wronged' by people. That sets up a dynamic of a victim and the guilty or offending party. They are just thoughts, but they have very deep emotional attachments, that keep reinforcing the idea of separateness. I wasn't suggesting that a person has to convert other peeps into seeing the light, before one can realize freedom. More like the Christian form of forgiveness, but not the selfish forgiveness that also creates separation. But more like the forgetting of all transgressions perpetrated by man against man and the rest of the planet. Making a single person guilty of a transgression, forms the separation idea of a sinner (them) and a me... Only when you can see a person as guiltless and innocent can you remove the polarity that reinforces the illusory me... Does that make any sense, or is it even more convoluted then before? lol oh yeah it makes sense. and the question of which 'direction' needs to come first (recognizing this innocence or that innocence) isn't really a question here -- both/either can happen. i imagine that either way it is simultaneous, as there really is no boundary between this and that. but i guess i don't see the connection to the previous discussion about the hazards of mindfulness practice (ie the activity of thinking one can become more anything, like more aware, is a distraction from the fact that mega-awareness is already happening). that said, it's not really a concern or anything of mine. these conversations wend around and turn and come back and change form and it's all pretty wonderful. and i'm fully aware (!) of the fact that not seeing the connection probably also means i don't actually understand your point. lol. so please enlighten me further if that moves you.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 4, 2011 23:06:09 GMT -5
I have a question about attending the actual. After a link that Sharon provided on one of these threads recently (thanks!), my 'angle' has changed a bit and I'm wondering about something. The way things were before, I would focus on what I can hear as much as I could. After seeing the link Sharon shared, things have switched more toward noticing what hears rather than what is heard; what is seeing instead of what is seen. I now question what moves, what sees, what feels--what, what, what is doing whatever is being done. Is this 'junk'? Lately I've been feeling like everything is just a big rubix cube working itself out. Like you mentioned above, ZD, the 'stupid person' isn't responsible at all. Everything is doing what it's doing based on an infinite amount of variables on both conscious and unconscious levels. No matter how far you zoom in or out, there's just one thing going on--one thing that has everything inside it. Good, bad; conscious, unconscious; you, me.... all of these things are in this one thing, and so it's beyond both. The only way two things could be one is if the one was both in the first place! /rant Yes. The whole point of looking is the activity of looking without reflection, so it doesn't really matter whether the looking is "outward" or "inward." The reason that most meditators don't make "progress" is because there is reflection about the state of one's imagined progress. Ha ha. Real progress is no progress at all. This is why Layman P'ang said that his highest spiritual activity was "chopping wood and carrying water." While abiding in mind it's hard to believe that non-duality is something as simple and as ordinary as THIS. THIS is whatever is happening now, beyond distinction, fantasy, or reflection. A mind is only useful for imagining because imagining is all that a mind can do. When the mind is quiescent--when it ceases to imagine--the truth becomes obvious because there are no images, ideas, or symbols to obscure it. There is walking and talking, but no one who walks or talks. We could say that Oneness plays all of the roles and interacts solely with Itself, but the Oneness is so seamlessly complete that there is really nothing happening and no one to whom anything could happen. THIS is "what is," and "what is" can only be what it is; it cannot be understood or grasped in any way. It simply does what It does-- types on a computer, sips a glass of water, hears the hum of a nearby refrigerator, listens to universal sound, holds its breath for a moment, and types a final word followed by a period, thus.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 0:00:55 GMT -5
Therealfake: "Precisely, I've already explained how it comes about through selfless forgiving of your brother.
If you can do that, your own innocence becomes a mute point..."
But you can't do that. Firstly, a self can't be selfless. Secondly, if one's own innocence can't be seen, that of another can't be seen either. In that case, selfless forgiveness becomes a pretense of being less guilty than the other guilty one by virtue of being selflessly forgiving.
"ZD knows the point you made all too well and yet he cries for a street vendor that set himself on fire, because of corrupt politicians.
It's an emotionally charged issue of sin and guilt, resulting in an unfortunate outcome.
He see's his own innocence, but does he see it in his fellow man, no matter how grotesque the indecencies against humanity..."
I believe I understand what happened to Zen, and it's not about sin and guilt or not seeing innocence. I recall something similar happening to me several years ago. I remember because it was pretty dramatic. I had just read a story about a babysitter who had raped and killed the infant he was 'caring for'. I exploded into a rage and stomped around the house screaming. You will no doubt attribute it to ego issues or whatever, and that's fine, but there was no sense of blame or even that it somehow shouldn't have happened. There was just pure rage. It moved through and it was gone. It felt, and still feels, right that this expression occurred, though I can't say there was a foundation for it. There is great beauty in this world, and great ugliness. Is it wrong to be outraged at man's inhumanity to man? I don't think so. The world never becomes all butterflies and kittens, and compassion moves relentlessly.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 0:03:58 GMT -5
Ivory: "I think what Enigma's asking is which comes first, self-forgiveness or the forgiveness of others? Can you truly recognize the innocence in another if you don't recognize it in yourself?
Enigma, I take it the key is in conditioning, ya?"
Yes and yes. Thanks for your sane presence here. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 0:12:37 GMT -5
Thwrealfake: "Forgiveness of ones self can be self delusion, but forgiveness of someone who has wronged or hurt you definitely cannot be... The result of which blasts you straight into heaven."
Without self forgiveness, forgiveness of other is always a self delusion.
Klaus: "Who among you is without sin?"
ME, ME!! ;;;;Waving one hand excitedly while reaching for a stone with the other;;;;;
Zen:" My sincerest apology! The words made me think something else was intended, but of course I had no choice but to interpret the words incorrectly. Ha ha. I'll blame it on the gravitational forces of distant galaxies. LOL"
I'm pretty sure it was caused by a new sunspot..... Not much can be done about them durn sunspots!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 0:20:22 GMT -5
Max:"but i guess i don't see the connection to the previous discussion about the hazards of mindfulness practice (ie the activity of thinking one can become more anything, like more aware, is a distraction from the fact that mega-awareness is already happening)."
More aware, in this context, means more conscious of what's actually happening. This unconsciousness is a bigger distraction.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Apr 5, 2011 0:26:00 GMT -5
Let's say that someone does something stupid and someone else dies as a result of the stupid act. Is the stupid person responsible? No. Because the person had to be stupid in that particular way at that particular time. That was how reality had to manifest. There was no separate entity in charge of anything that happened. I often wonder if hiding behind no-self is a copout. In other words, "I wronged that other person, but I don't exist, so it's all good." I'm not saying that it's possible or not possible to wrong another person or to be wronged by another person. What I'm saying here is that I don't see that clearly. I realize there is no self, yet I stil get defensive when I am "wronged" by another. Self-judgement also remains in my case. Judgement is an automatic response. I wonder if it is possible to get rid of the mechanism that judges both self and others so that judgement doesn't happen at all. Someone recently said to me, "I don't see how Jane Doe could have done thus and so." I replied, "Well, it was perfectly logical." She said, "What do you mean?" I said, "Given her personality, life situation, conditioning, genetics, thought processes, and the gravitational influences of all galaxies in the universe (I threw this in just for fun), etc. she was doing exactly what she had to be doing. If you could trade places with her for a short period of time, you would understand exactly why she did what she did. She could no more help doing what she did than you could help thinking that she should have done something differently. It is all perfectly logical." This gives me a new angle. Enigma asked, "Is it possible to see others as innocent before you see yourself as innocent?" That's an interesting question to ponder. Enigma then said, "So it begins with your own innocence, and once that is seen clearly the innocence of others is equally obvious." Initially I was in agreement here, but now I'm not so sure. The reason I'm no longer sure is because ego can't see itself directly. It sees itself in the eyes of others. Sometimes I think, "Oh, I shouldn't have done or said that." I've only recently noticed that every time I have that thought, there's always the thought of someone else. I'm imagining what they are thinking or perceiving of me. Obviously, I have no idea what another is thinking, there can be no certainty. If ego can't see itself, and it can't know what another is truly thinking, how can it know itself at all? Consider the question, "Am I good or bad?" (yes, it sounds childish) The only way one would know if he was good or bad is to take into consideration another person's viewpoint. But you can't know another's viewpoint for certain. So the only conclusion then would be, "I don't know" So if ego can't know itself, how can one see the innocence in his or her self. Perhaps "I don't know" leads to the recognition of innocence. If you look at what ZD said here, "Given her personality, life situation, conditioning, genetics, thought processes, and the gravitational influences of all galaxies in the universe..." These are all thing you don't know. In other words, "I don't know" leads to the recognition in the innocence of another. But does it lead to the recognition in the innocence of oneself? I think I read this in a book called, "Take me to Truth: Undoing the Ego." It said, "The quickest way to know yourself is to look for it in others." This also seems to be the whole premise behind Byron Katie's method "The Work" (the Judge Your Neighbor Worksheet and Turnaround). So back to Enigma's statement here, "So it begins with your own innocence, and once that is seen clearly the innocence of others is equally obvious." If one can't know himself, can one's own innocence be recognized at all? Does any of that make any sense?
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Apr 5, 2011 0:33:06 GMT -5
So if ego can't know itself, how can one see the innocence in his or her self. Perhaps "I don't know" leads to the recognition of innocence. ... So back to Enigma's statement here, "So it begins with your own innocence, and once that is seen clearly the innocence of others is equally obvious." If one can't know himself, can one's own innocence be recognized at all? Well nuts, I just saw Enigma's response about how understanding one's conditioning leads to the recognition of one's innocence. So it's not about seeing the ego, the key is in the conditioning. (maybe its obvious then that a non-existant ego can't be seen)
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Apr 5, 2011 1:26:56 GMT -5
You're very welcome Mamza.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 1:41:25 GMT -5
I realize there is no self, yet I stil get defensive when I am "wronged" by another. Self-judgement also remains in my case. Judgement is an automatic response. I wonder if it is possible to get rid of the mechanism that judges both self and others so that judgement doesn't happen at all. Yes, actually realizing there is no self. Hehe. You can't realize there is no self and still say that self should have done something other than what happened. The idea that ego can't see itself sounds odd to me. Ego is a complex of thoughts rather than something that can see stuff, and you CAN see those thoughts. It's true that it's often easier to see the dynamics of ego reflected in others, but surely you've done some things that nobody but you was aware of, and yet you still questioned whether you should have done it. Nobody else is thinking anything about it, so they aren't reflecting anything for you. You can become fully conscious of the machinations of ego because you aren't the ego. It's not "I don't know" that leads to the recognition of innocence. It's the realization that you are not the author of your own actions. "Know thyself" Socrates
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 1:47:00 GMT -5
So if ego can't know itself, how can one see the innocence in his or her self. Perhaps "I don't know" leads to the recognition of innocence. ... So back to Enigma's statement here, "So it begins with your own innocence, and once that is seen clearly the innocence of others is equally obvious." If one can't know himself, can one's own innocence be recognized at all? Well nuts, I just saw Enigma's response about how understanding one's conditioning leads to the recognition of one's innocence. So it's not about seeing the ego, the key is in the conditioning. (maybe its obvious then that a non-existant ego can't be seen) What is obvious is that the independent, volitional person who is believed to be the author of his thoughts and actions is a delusion; a set of unquestioned conclusions and assumptions. Not only can that entire thought structure of ego be seen, it can be seen through.
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Apr 5, 2011 2:08:07 GMT -5
"Does any of that make any sense?"
If you wish to see your own genius then you must first show it ...
|
|
|
Post by jedadya on Apr 5, 2011 7:48:12 GMT -5
I'm jumping into this a little late....the whole forgiveness thing is one topic I feel comfortable with....probably due to ACIM background. Whenever I feel the need to forgive myself or others, I phrase it, "forgive (us, me, them), for buying into this illusion", basically, everything can be traced back to that original "whoops" of believing in separation.
I love you guys, BTW, read everyday, thanks for being here...
|
|