|
Post by therealfake on Apr 5, 2011 9:37:26 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. What I mean by selfless, is seeing through the separating idea of a self, apart from everything else in the world. That is not only possible to do, but it's a natural outcome of 'seeing', by attending to the actual, that the dream of separation afflicts the whole world. The innocence that you think you see in yourself, is a concept, you cannot see it in yourself, you can only 'be' it. The innocence of a child can only be seen from an outside observer, the child is 'being' innocence and cannot observe it's own innocence. Innocence is a separating concept, as it makes the dualistic argument for that which is not innocent. Which perpetuates the dream of separation by the ego. When someone see's that you have forgiven them, they realize and resonate with your all encompassing capacity for love. They in turn loosen the false idea of a separate self and cultivate a sense of oneness from your total acceptance of their illusory identity. Innocence doesn't have anything to do with it... Simply attending to the actual. Thinking that you've seen through the dream of separation can be self delusional, like thinking that your enlightened. It's only when you can make it real through the interaction with another, utilizing forgiveness and healing that it becomes real in life.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 10:21:22 GMT -5
@trf Your thinking is interesting to me because you often put the cart before the horsey. : The idea that if other is seen as guiltless, then separation can be seen through, or if you can be selfless (meaning there is no separate self) then the illusion of a separate self can be seen.
Seeing that there is no separate self is what leads to being selfless, and to forgiveness of supposed others who were seen as separate.
Now you're saying that attending to the actual results in being selfless, which is what I've been saying: Notice there is no volitional, separate self, and there is no self blame. This removes the blame of others. Noticing the actual of being selfless is noticing your own innocence.
Now you say you can't notice your own innocence, but you can notice you're not a separate self who can be guilty. If there's a difference, it escapes me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2011 20:16:50 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. urmmm...derrr... how i understood A's remark was that if nonconceptual awareness is square one, and that square is always there, trying to make more square one is just an activity that keeps one from square one. in other words, using conceptual mind to increase nonceptual awareness is failure out of the blocks. so when you say "More aware, in this context, means more conscious of what's actually happening. This unconsciousness is a bigger distraction." consciousness is something else, eh?; arises within this awareness. so i don't see how more aware = more conscious. but i do see how trying to become more conscious of what is actually happening is also a big distraction from what is actually happening. but i don't see your point of it being a bigger distraction. maybe because it's more immediate? in the sense of being the backdrop for the arising of stuff actually happening?? cripes the terminology
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 5, 2011 20:50:50 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. urmmm...derrr... how i understood A's remark was that if nonconceptual awareness is square one, and that square is always there, trying to make more square one is just an activity that keeps one from square one. in other words, using conceptual mind to increase nonceptual awareness is failure out of the blocks. so when you say "More aware, in this context, means more conscious of what's actually happening. This unconsciousness is a bigger distraction." consciousness is something else, eh?; arises within this awareness. so i don't see how more aware = more conscious. but i do see how trying to become more conscious of what is actually happening is also a big distraction from what is actually happening. but i don't see your point of it being a bigger distraction. maybe because it's more immediate? in the sense of being the backdrop for the arising of stuff actually happening?? cripes the terminology Unconsciousness can't distract you because you can't be aware of it. But it can keep you "identified with form." It can make you believe that you are doing things and going somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2011 22:02:54 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. urmmm...derrr... how i understood A's remark was that if nonconceptual awareness is square one, and that square is always there, trying to make more square one is just an activity that keeps one from square one. in other words, using conceptual mind to increase nonceptual awareness is failure out of the blocks. Yup, absotively agree with that. Yeah, I feel myself being pulled under even as we speak. Hehe. IN THIS CONTEXT, being more aware just means being aware that we're projecting or in denial or that God isn't a big man in the sky. That sort of thingy. I'm not sure what others are saying, I'm not talking about being more of Awareness or more of Consciousness than we already are.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 5, 2011 22:50:04 GMT -5
@trf Your thinking is interesting to me because you often put the cart before the horsey. : The idea that if other is seen as guiltless, then separation can be seen through, or if you can be selfless (meaning there is no separate self) then the illusion of a separate self can be seen. Seeing that there is no separate self is what leads to being selfless, and to forgiveness of supposed others who were seen as separate. Now you're saying that attending to the actual results in being selfless, which is what I've been saying: Notice there is no volitional, separate self, and there is no self blame. This removes the blame of others. Noticing the actual of being selfless is noticing your own innocence. Now you say you can't notice your own innocence, but you can notice you're not a separate self who can be guilty. If there's a difference, it escapes me. Lol, that's the problem with words, thoughts, concepts, imagination, the real and that which changes. When I'm in the now, I don't have a sense of self, so how could I notice innocence, in a self that isn't there? But there 'is' a sense of separateness, or objectification, from the stand point of an observer and an observed. Seeing a tree, the object, doesn't give me, the subject, a sense that I am a tree. Seeing the tree as an object or separate, doesn't mean I don't feel a connection, or it's energy, or a kinship, or a oneness with it, so to speak. In the now, I don't feel separate from the tree, even though I see it as a separate object. What creates the illusion of separation is 'thought'. The 'thought' that I am separate from the tree and for some reason, that takes precedence over the reality of the experience. 'Thought' fabricates the idea of guilt for attempting to choose feeling of reality over 'thought' about reality. But in the now, 'thought' is seen for what it is, an illusion. So the sense of guilt produced by thought is seen for what it is, just another separating illusion.... Although awareness and thought seem to be different, they are in fact one. Just like the tree that seems separate, but is really felt, as a oneness. This doesn't clarify my statement, but it's all I got right now...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 0:23:10 GMT -5
"When I'm in the now, I don't have a sense of self, so how could I notice innocence, in a self that isn't there?"
Well, by noticing it isn't there. Hehe. Lets flip it around. How could you possibly assign guilt for a self that isn't there? If there is no guilt, what is that then?
What is being referred to as 'innocent' is not the person. I'm referring to what you are rather than what you sometimes think yourself to be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 6, 2011 6:00:38 GMT -5
Yeah, I feel myself being pulled under even as we speak. Hehe. IN THIS CONTEXT, being more aware just means being aware that we're projecting or in denial or that God isn't a big man in the sky. ahh... right now the light on the tree trunks is a light orange and a male song sparrow just did the most outrageous flutter dance for a downward looking female...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 10:10:51 GMT -5
Yeah. Being conscious of life. Attending to what is. We fall asleep with our eyes open. It's the strangest thing.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 6, 2011 10:31:45 GMT -5
"When I'm in the now, I don't have a sense of self, so how could I notice innocence, in a self that isn't there?" Well, by noticing it isn't there. Hehe. Lets flip it around. How could you possibly assign guilt for a self that isn't there? If there is no guilt, what is that then? What is being referred to as 'innocent' is not the person. I'm referring to what you are rather than what you sometimes think yourself to be. Very funny Enigma, lol, awareness noticing innocence, by noticing that which is impossible to notice, the absence of innocence... That's turning awareness into something other than awareness and is pure imagination and a huge fallacy... lol Sure, let's turn it around. Lets say the awareness observes a tree. The awareness makes a connection through the observer/observed phenomena with that energy that we call a tree. Thinking about the tree is an illusory layer of interpretation that creates a seeming alternative reality to the innateness that already exists. The direct awareness of the tree, is subtle and intuitive, it's more of a feeling, knowing, kind of thing. While awareness of the thought about the tree, seems to have a more visual intellectual reality, as the intellect can come up with hundreds of more thoughts, about what a tree is. No one assigns guilt to a self that isn't there in the now moment. What happens IMO, is that choosing to believe the awareness of an intellectual thought, over the awareness of a feeling/knowing intuitiveness, creates a paradoxical trust issue. This choice of thought over intuitiveness gives rise to a sense of guilt, by straying away from that which is real and natural, for that which is more compelling, but totally illusory. That's how I see it anyway...
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 6, 2011 11:24:40 GMT -5
"When I'm in the now, I don't have a sense of self, so how could I notice innocence, in a self that isn't there?" Well, by noticing it isn't there. Hehe. Lets flip it around. How could you possibly assign guilt for a self that isn't there? If there is no guilt, what is that then? What is being referred to as 'innocent' is not the person. I'm referring to what you are rather than what you sometimes think yourself to be. Very funny Enigma, lol, awareness noticing innocence, by noticing that which is impossible to notice, the absence of innocence... That's turning awareness into something other than awareness and is pure imagination and a huge fallacy... lol Sure, let's turn it around. Lets say the awareness observes a tree. The awareness makes a connection through the observer/observed phenomena with that energy that we call a tree. Thinking about the tree is an illusory layer of interpretation that creates a seeming alternative reality to the innateness that already exists. The direct awareness of the tree, is subtle and intuitive, it's more of a feeling, knowing, kind of thing. While awareness of the thought about the tree, seems to have a more visual intellectual reality, as the intellect can come up with hundreds of more thoughts, about what a tree is. No one assigns guilt to a self that isn't there in the now moment. What happens IMO, is that choosing to believe the awareness of an intellectual thought, over the awareness of a feeling/knowing intuitiveness, creates a paradoxical trust issue. This choice of thought over intuitiveness gives rise to a sense of guilt, by straying away from that which is real and natural, for that which is more compelling, but totally illusory. That's how I see it anyway... Awareness Noticing happening within Awareness Intuition happening within Awareness (in relation to thinking and feeling....can look at Triune brain models of cognition to conceptualize, if you want) Both noticing and intuiting (and thinking and feeling) happen, arising within Awareness, but Awareness which is being pointed to is still prior to them. Relatively, intuition is "more spontaneous" than "thinking about thoughts", fair enough. Where might a crack form in this structure of "me" that is somehow hijacking the thinking/feeling/intuiting as its own, and furthering the delusion of separateness? I love paradoxes of the mind (I know, redundant). All one has to do is let go. But, can "you" do it? Mind likes the QUEST so it asks the QUESTION and pursues. Create a need and go look for it, ad nauseum. I, impersonally, can watch all of this happening. See? Stillness, Nothingness, and Silence offer nothing for the mind. Yet...THIS IS IT...YOU. I sense that within the mind's construct of "knowing something", there's this sneaky suspicion/sense that one can't truly say that they actually know, but that somehow they should. This keeps the search and the ego alive. Always looking for more and more knowledge in the field of thought that dualistically propped up through the polarization of seeming opposites it has created. The ego looks around and culturally they see everyone else doing it in so many fascinating ways (giving rise to a false sense of validity of self)....and on and on and on it goes.... I'm in awe.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 11:31:24 GMT -5
"Very funny Enigma, lol, awareness noticing innocence, by noticing that which is impossible to notice, the absence of innocence... That's turning awareness into something other than awareness and is pure imagination and a huge fallacy... lol"
I'm not sure I follow how it gets so complicated for you. Awareness notices innocence by noticing it's own innocence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2011 11:46:42 GMT -5
"I sense that within the mind's construct of "knowing something", there's this sneaky suspicion/sense that one can't truly say that they actually know, but that somehow they should. This keeps the search and the ego alive. Always looking for more and more knowledge in the field of thought that dualistically propped up through the polarization of seeming opposites it has created. The ego looks around and culturally they see everyone else doing it in so many fascinating ways (giving rise to a false sense of validity of self)....and on and on and on it goes....
I'm in awe."
It's pretty wacky. It seems that interest only arises when awareness touches mind, which actually means imagination/creation. Because awareness is innocent, it gets pulled in by it's own interest in it's own creation. Then the fun part is imagining it's actually trapped and becoming interested in escaping. Seeking is an escape plan to get out of an imaginary prison.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 6, 2011 12:10:31 GMT -5
"Very funny Enigma, lol, awareness noticing innocence, by noticing that which is impossible to notice, the absence of innocence... That's turning awareness into something other than awareness and is pure imagination and a huge fallacy... lol" I'm not sure I follow how it gets so complicated for you. Awareness notices innocence by noticing it's own innocence. Heh, well maybe I wouldn't be so confused if you weren't trying to attribute qualities to the awareness... You know very well that the awareness is unknowable and that you have no way of demonstrating, how that premise would even be possible... So maybe you can assist me in alleviating my confusing conceptual diarrhea, if in fact you actually believe your premise and tell me how that would be possible? Sitting on my conceptual toilet of confusion, can be a real pain sometimes. I think I need some Imodium... LOL
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Apr 6, 2011 12:40:46 GMT -5
It's pretty wacky. It seems that interest only arises when awareness touches mind, which actually means imagination/creation. Because awareness is innocent, it gets pulled in by it's own interest in it's own creation. Then the fun part is imagining it's actually trapped and becoming interested in escaping. Seeking is an escape plan to get out of an imaginary prison. This is creation, this is what is going on all the time. Ramesh called it Divine hypnosis whatever.IF you really get this there is no more that needs to be done. Michael
|
|