|
Emotion
Feb 28, 2011 18:02:54 GMT -5
Post by sharon on Feb 28, 2011 18:02:54 GMT -5
|
|
jenpa
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Emotion
Feb 28, 2011 19:45:42 GMT -5
Post by jenpa on Feb 28, 2011 19:45:42 GMT -5
Something I've learned to do when my anger is triggered, is to feel the energy of the anger while quickly dropping any story line that supports it; separate the energy from the thought, just feel the energy. The energy in itself is neither bad or good. It's just energy.
Also, when I get angry, I've learned to excuse myself from the situation, if possible. It's certainly best to not do anything other than sit with it until the energy passes.
Now when it happens the energy passes fairly quickly because there are no thoughts to sustain it.
|
|
|
Emotion
Feb 28, 2011 21:12:29 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2011 21:12:29 GMT -5
I'm not sure. The cause of what? Awareness becoming aware of the lack of awareness? The cause of everything, including that, but in the sense that there is only that cause and everything else is an effect; an appearance appearing to that cause. Appearances don't do anything and aren't volitional or independent beings, and they can only appear in the presence of that cause because they're always being caused by it. In this way, whatever appears is not other than the cause, causing, while appearing to the cause, usually being mistaken (by the cause) for an effect. Consciousness is not the cause but rather the appearance. Appearances come and go and change and 'something' is aware of this happening. It's even aware that consciousness itself comes and goes. Clearly, this is the cause that is aware of this, which itself is not caused and does not come and go and change, as you imply below. That all sounds great except for your conclusion. What you are transcends consciousness too. You know about consciousness, so how could you be consciousness?
|
|
|
Emotion
Feb 28, 2011 22:52:50 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Feb 28, 2011 22:52:50 GMT -5
So you're saying that because the appearances are created by the cause, they can't be inherently separate from it (because they require the cause to exist) even though they appear to the cause--and because they're created by the cause they're interpreted as effects.
For example, right now the 'cause' is causing my experience. But my experience, being an appearance created by the cause, is not separate from the cause. So if I were to spill this here soda, it would really be an appearance created by, but not separate from, the 'cause'.
But why couldn't the cause be known? Appearance is from cause, and thus it cannot do anything as you mentioned. But what's to stop the cause from creating the appearance of cause? Couldn't it be known through that way? I think I have an idea of why it couldn't be known, but it's on an unintelligible level right now.
(Idea being knowledge of self is an appearance created by cause, but cause itself is not something that can hold knowledge? It just creates.)
If I am the cause (because I remain unchanged), then all this seeking business is pointless because it's just an appearance created by the cause (which is me). It does whatever it enjoys doing, which right now is trying to figure out what it is. The only way it could figure out what it is is if it could look at itself, which isn't possible in the same way looking at myself isn't possible without an outside tool like a mirror. But because the cause is THE cause, nothing can be separate from it and thus no looking at itself.
This feels like circular logic..
|
|
|
Emotion
Feb 28, 2011 23:49:59 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Feb 28, 2011 23:49:59 GMT -5
So you're saying that because the appearances are created by the cause, they can't be inherently separate from it (because they require the cause to exist) Yeah, sorta. Maybe get rid of the idea that appearances exist at all. Appearances are just appearances with no fundamental substance. Of course, they 'appear' to have substance but are fundamentally empty. As such, if we're looking for something that actually exists, we would be inclined to investigate that to which the appearance appears; that which is aware of the appearance. That would have to actually exist. Well, appearances aren't interpreted as effects because they're created by the cause, because the cause doesn't know it is the cause. They're interpreted as effects because the cause is unknown. Right now, You are causing Your experience. And so you ARE spilled soda. Hehe. Cause CAN create the appearance of cause. It's a mind state called the experience of Self realization, but it is not Self realization, just the appearance of Self in the mind. This has to be 'seen' and cannot be a thought, but it's not difficult. Forget about God/Awareness for a minute. Forget that you know that you can see yourself. (you can't) Could anything in the universe that actually exists see itself as an object of it's own seeing? Wouldn't that object have to be appearing to a subject, which could not be the object? You remain unchanged because you are the cause of all change. What would cause the cause of all change to change? The reason you are the cause is that I can't be talking to an appearance. There has to be something that exists somewhere at the root of this appearance, and that's what I'm talking to because that's the only 'thing' that can actually hear me. Yes. Really?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 1, 2011 0:19:46 GMT -5
Wow! What a great thread!
Mamza, you wrote, "If I am the cause (because I remain unchanged), then all this seeking business is pointless because it's just an appearance created by the cause (which is me). It does whatever it enjoys doing, which right now is trying to figure out what it is. The only way it could figure out what it is is if it could look at itself, which isn't possible in the same way looking at myself isn't possible without an outside tool like a mirror. But because the cause is THE cause, nothing can be separate from it and thus no looking at itself."
Just contemplate what you wrote. Let it sink in deeply. You summed up the whole shebang in those four sentences. Do you see why freedom and contentment can only lie in the willingness to abide in not knowing?
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Mar 1, 2011 2:58:59 GMT -5
I'm not sure about all this. I mean it makes sense... but somewhere I get the feeling that it's still just intellectual. Unless this:
is just the whole 'not being able to see my face' thing. Then I guess I 'see' it. I guess as long as you realize that you can't know you won't really be tempted to search, which'll save you a ton of trouble.
I want to ask what the point is, but that'd just be going back to square one! How is life any different though? Besides spending more time in the actual (which I had backwards...it was 'me' watching appearance) and being present to the moment, it doesn't seem like much of anything is different. Are you sure? Something seems like it's missing...like I'm not getting something.
So the experience of it isn't the thing itself, but is it something I should bother with? I'm going to go to sleep...I feel addled. Too many questions, so I'm going to leave it at this for now and maybe rephrase/continue tomorrow. Thanks for helping dissect all this!
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Mar 1, 2011 5:17:18 GMT -5
~*~ "There has to be something [no-thing ] that exists somewhere at [as ] the root of this appearance, and that's what I'm talking to because that's the only 'thing' that can actually hear me." ~*~
|
|
jenpa
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 10:22:23 GMT -5
Post by jenpa on Mar 1, 2011 10:22:23 GMT -5
I'm a novice, but to abide in not knowing feels like the right attitude to me. All the rest just sounds like the ego's attempt at survival. But I do understand how strong the desire to know can be, every step of the way.
Perhaps its blind faith, but I intuitively sense that reality is actually very simple, it's our mind that is making it all so complicated — our conditioning. And, getting to the roots of that is hard work — cleaning house, you know. There are no tricks. We cannot leap frog over ourselves.
Here, the instruction to abide in not knowing sounds like a trust your teacher moment. When the teacher says let go, you let go despite your fear. Then you fall and fall, and perhaps realize Ah Ha! So there is no ground after-all. HAHAHA!
|
|
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 10:53:38 GMT -5
Post by charliegee on Mar 1, 2011 10:53:38 GMT -5
The idea is that it takes 90 seconds or less for each emotion to be automatically triggered, surge through the body, and dissipated. Once the emotion (chemical component) is gone physiologically, it then becomes a choice to continue the "neurocircuitry" to run or not. In this sense, we become more attuned to the emotion in the current moment versus continuously cruising on autopilot. We become aware to what we are feeling, learning to choose whether to take it, leave it , or carry it on.
|
|
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 11:12:03 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2011 11:12:03 GMT -5
'Not knowing' doesn't mean accepting that we must remain clueless and confused, and it's not a prescription for awakening or something you can choose to do. It's the clear seeing that ultimately the questions have no foundation and are being misconceived. If there's the idea that it's too intellectual to see, notice, realize anything, then maybe this is mind not wanting to give up it's delusions.
|
|
jenpa
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 11:38:55 GMT -5
Post by jenpa on Mar 1, 2011 11:38:55 GMT -5
e. Yes, I hope there is a realization of some sort and I certainly don't want to stay confused or clueless ...LOL but how one gets there is personal. I just question or wonder wether or not it can be penned down intellectually. My hunch is that it can't really, and this hunch is just based purely on my experience with mindful meditation — following the breath and noticing thoughts and their emotions come and go. But, we do choose, or take instruction all along the way, based on our intuition, or sense of what is right for us, and we try things out and if we find they're not fruitful, then we move on to something else — right?
|
|
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 11:51:54 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 1, 2011 11:51:54 GMT -5
"is just the whole 'not being able to see my face' thing. Then I guess I 'see' it. "
The whole 'not able to see my face' thing is a metaphor. It assumes you have something (which wouldn't be you but rather something you have) and that there's something in subjectivity that can be objectified. If you are subjectivity you can never become an object to yourself. By "object" I mean a 'mind object'. (Anything that appears in mind) Whatever this object would be, it would have to appear to a subject.
"I guess as long as you realize that you can't know you won't really be tempted to search, which'll save you a ton of trouble."
It's not that you realize you can't know. It's more that you realize the question is misconceived and there is nothing TO know.
The end of the search is the goal, not because it saves trouble but because the end of the search is the end of the searcher. For this reason, there is inherently some....um.....resistance to reaching the goal. What is being dealt with, always' is this resistance, not the finding of something that is hidden. Nothing is hidden.
|
|
jenpa
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 11:53:51 GMT -5
Post by jenpa on Mar 1, 2011 11:53:51 GMT -5
e. However, I do understand your point that the ultimate "Not Knowing" must be a deep realization, or a knowing of some sort, and not just accepted superficially. It is a paradox isn't it? I suppose my point is that we must have some kind of trust in that the pointers are actually pointing to the point. :-)
|
|
|
Emotion
Mar 1, 2011 12:41:10 GMT -5
Post by mamza on Mar 1, 2011 12:41:10 GMT -5
I had a feeling that this might be what was going on, but it just seemed that because I was thinking of how to respond to previous posts at the time that what I was saying was thought of too (and thus just intellectual). Though when I write things, it's never what I think of writing, and usually happens before thinking of what to write. So maybe not. "is just the whole 'not being able to see my face' thing. Then I guess I 'see' it. " The whole 'not able to see my face' thing is a metaphor. It assumes you have something (which wouldn't be you but rather something you have) and that there's something in subjectivity that can be objectified. If you are subjectivity you can never become an object to yourself. By "object" I mean a 'mind object'. (Anything that appears in mind) Whatever this object would be, it would have to appear to a subject. "I guess as long as you realize that you can't know you won't really be tempted to search, which'll save you a ton of trouble." It's not that you realize you can't know. It's more that you realize the question is misconceived and there is nothing TO know. The end of the search is the goal, not because it saves trouble but because the end of the search is the end of the searcher. For this reason, there is inherently some....um.....resistance to reaching the goal. What is being dealt with, always' is this resistance, not the finding of something that is hidden. Nothing is hidden. Okay, then I'm pretty sure I'm still in seeking mode. And to end the seeker, I have to stop seeking. To stop seeking, I need to... focus on the actual? Just keep focusing until there's no desire to seek anymore. Right? Sorry if I'm taking a step backwards... this is semi-confusing at a glance.
|
|