|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2011 1:56:21 GMT -5
I wouldn't say it's intuition that is deceiving, but rather mind's interpretation of that intuition, and all interpretations are inherently deceptive. You know that you exist (It's an intuitive realization), though you don't know what that is, and you don't perceive what that is. Any perception would be in error since your existence can't be objectified. Knowing that you exist is already IT. Everything else is a conceptual overlay. If you knew nothing more than that you exist, there wouldn't be a problem to solve.What we're doing is trying to solve the problem created by the ideas about what that existence consists of. Are you saying that the intuition is already the perfect knowing of Source and that this knowing is identical with the knowing that Being exists and what the nature of that existence is? There isn't actually something to know about the nature of existence that isn't a negation of an illusory concept. For example, in the absence of the idea of separation, it does not need to be known that your nature is oneness. The concept is no longer useful. In the absence of the notions of time and space, it doesn't need to be known that your nature is infinite and eternal. There is no content in pure intuition. It therefore is not subject to mind's doubtful conceptualization. It is not knowledge. Nothing has to be added or brought into the picture. Mind is playing a game of adding illusion. This seeking stuff is a game of subtraction. When the prison walls fall, you don't need to declare your freedom. You merely forget the 'nature' of your imprisonment.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 24, 2011 13:51:44 GMT -5
Are you saying that the intuition is already the perfect knowing of Source and that this knowing is identical with the knowing that Being exists and what the nature of that existence is? There isn't actually something to know about the nature of existence that isn't a negation of an illusory concept. For example, in the absence of the idea of separation, it does not need to be known that your nature is oneness. The concept is no longer useful. In the absence of the notions of time and space, it doesn't need to be known that your nature is infinite and eternal. There is no content in pure intuition. It therefore is not subject to mind's doubtful conceptualization. It is not knowledge. Nothing has to be added or brought into the picture. Mind is playing a game of adding illusion. This seeking stuff is a game of subtraction. When the prison walls fall, you don't need to declare your freedom. You merely forget the 'nature' of your imprisonment. E. Well put. I think the phrase "not-knowing" is not often appreciated as a pointer because most people spend all of their time knowing. Many folks seem to think it is either some sort of stupid non-functional mindstate or something imaginary. When there is not-knowing, however (which includes intuition), the mind is no longer dominant, so there is no attachment to thinking even if thinking occurs. It can be described as "simple being," and it is empty. It is a marvelous spontaneous suchness functioning as an undivided whole. There is observation but no observer; doing but no do-er; knowing, but no knower. When there is happiness, freedom, peace, contentment, etc, there is no one who knows these states of mind because there is no checking or reflection ABOUT what's going on. There is simply "what is" being "what is."
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 24, 2011 16:24:49 GMT -5
Okay, lemme expand on this conceptualization a bit. Hehe. We can say the cause of unhappiness is the search for happiness. The search for Truth is also a search for happiness. Mind doesn't know what to do with that since whatever it would do would be part of the search for happiness. Wind wonders 'Well, but how does that help me find happiness?' Peace, which is an unburdening that mind will perceive as happiness, comes about when the search for happiness ends. The search keeps us asleep, but with our arms stretched out like zombies reaching for something that isn't here, and completely missing what IS here. Yesterday consisted mostly of 10 straight hours of burning blackberry bushes in a big bonfire, and it was indescribably joyful. The delicious heat that singed the hair on my arms alternated with an equally delicious cool breeze that dried the sweat on my face. The smoke stung my eyes, and when I opened them, I was captivated by these gorgeous 'God rays' as the sun streamed through the smoke. Marie came out and stood and watched the destructive, relentless, all consuming fire and said "It's so peaceful", which gave me a big ole grin and I thought, 'Yup, that's IT.' The crunch of brush under my feet, the wind through the trees, the smell of burning brush, even the beautiful patterns of bright red and dark crimson from the blood on my arms. I was deliriously happy. Maybe it sounds crazy to some, but the point is that I was just moving without trying to get somewhere; not checking to see if my experience lived up to my expectations of a happy experience, and so there is just this movement from pain to pleasure, danger to safety, ugliness to beauty, fearsome destruction to peace, and back again in some kind of Yin-Yang'ish dance of aliveness, and all because I've given up wanting something that isn't already here, and even this fills me with gratitude toward nobody in particular. I can't lose any of it because I never had it. I can't forget what is needed because nothing is needed. The stark simplicity of all that belies any attempt to weave and wend a path to it, and so the path simply ends. Thanks E, that's a perfect example of how we ruin the simple expression that we are, with the power of thought... Believing that were deliriously happy, free, enlightened, one, or any other conceptualization. We see the 'tree blowing in the wind' and we want to tell a story or write a poem about it, or give it attributes, like innocence. It is simply a 'tree blowing in the wind' and we are that... Anything about that expression is not it. Can we let go and simply be the 'tree blowing in the wind'? It's really that simple, if your in charge, rather than the mind...
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 24, 2011 20:48:20 GMT -5
Thanks E, that's a perfect example of how we ruin the simple expression that we are, with the power of thought... Believing that were deliriously happy, free, enlightened, one, or any other conceptualization. We see the 'tree blowing in the wind' and we want to tell a story or write a poem about it, or give it attributes, like innocence. It is simply a 'tree blowing in the wind' and we are that... Anything about that expression is not it. Can we let go and simply be the 'tree blowing in the wind'? It's really that simple, if your in charge, rather than the mind... Yah TRF, putting IT into words is a tricky thing, simply because you can't. Words, like throwing darts after last call, are liable to hit anything. Best to be aware! hehehaha So, if something is felt, someting to do could be to investigate what felt or what it was that was felt...until it dissolves. Perhaps this is what you were alluding to in your idea to Michabide. Anyway, I don't know all the particulars about haiku, but my time in Kyoto, Japan did allow me to sit in the places and take in some of the atmospheres of where the art form originated. I don't really care much for how some folks analyze the thises and thats of all the possibilities, but this body/mind does love the simplicity of the pointing in some of those poems. It is such a beautifully perfectly human thing to want to try to put into words (as well as 'feel the failing to succeed') the Perfection of ________. And having done so, there may be an impetus to return into/AS IT, to come back and do it 'better'. Sometimes, the rarity of Doing So As Just That just happens/ continues as the Happening. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________ In reading them, questions of "Where/Who/What are you?" seem to bubble up, putting the sensitivities into a certain kind of presence where resistances to Just This are felt at a level 'deeper' than the mind. There seems to be only one guard at all the gates leading to those deeper' levels' down to just above the gate to the one where the whole structure collapses. Slipping past that one guard at all gates is all one can hope to do, but knowing the adversary and the traits can be a dizzying affair. But once done, truly DONE, well,,,, There are also poetic nuances in the language of science that can be very fun to play with. Listen to this guy talk about physics stuff (history, debates, structure, etc. www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_tnYDoubLI ). There are all kinds of fascinating parallels to/projections of the ideas discussed here on the ST board. For example, the part where he talks about black holes...if you were trying to follow each thought, action/outcome etc, each of which was 'rooted' in the belief of a separate self, it would be like the stars falling into the black hole...very dizzying. But, quite interestingly, that's the rabbit hole one is going down....hehe. So much fear and uncertainty at so many levels; all of this can simply be dropped...if Understood. I do see how there are multiuple ways (i.e., intellectual, feeling, instinctual) of approaching this series of gates upon gates upon gates. As I've heard in various parts of SE Asia, "Same same, but different". It appears that the show must go on. ____________.
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 24, 2011 21:00:44 GMT -5
There is no content in pure intuition. It therefore is not subject to mind's doubtful conceptualization. It is not knowledge. Nothing has to be added or brought into the picture. Mind is playing a game of adding illusion. This seeking stuff is a game of subtraction. When the prison walls fall, you don't need to declare your freedom. You merely forget the 'nature' of your imprisonment. I don't understand how there is no content (which I don't see as being limited to information) to intuition, unless there is precisely only one kind of intuition. Or unless you equal content with information. In the context of intuition what I mean by "information" is something that can be expressed and analyzed in various forms of language. What I mean by "content" is the direct unmediated experience that is prior to words. In that sense I'd call the direct experience/perception of the "blueness" of the colour blue intuitive. The informational knowing would be a posteriori analysis of that experience where we might come up with theories about how the eye functions and where we can construct colour charts and all that. (But tbh I think I got it wrong there, because intuition is a redundant term in this context and I'm better off calling it "direct experience/knowing".) So given this context I can't see how intuition isn't infinitely variable, and how the variations aren't variations of content. The content informs an informational expression, but this informational expression is necessarily a distortion of the direct perception of the intuition. Stuff about illusion, falling away of prison walls and freedom etc are too advanced for me when we're talking about intuition, because I don't even know what you mean by intuition.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 24, 2011 21:24:03 GMT -5
Here are some 'practical' things to bring into focus and consideration, if one is so inclined. www.livescience.com/7835-modern-insanity-crazy.htmlLifestyle, baby! But, that laaaaaast gate...what's behind that? Could <sliding by the guard> it beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee.......... (origin of question 'known', question falling away, suchness of peace/oneness/freedom appearing---perhaps a slight grin) Perfect.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 24, 2011 22:19:12 GMT -5
"I don't understand how there is no content (which I don't see as being limited to information) to intuition, unless there is precisely only one kind of intuition. Or unless you equal content with information."
Yes, in this case I mean no information, no knowledge, or as Zen says "Not knowing", or as SN says "origin of question 'known', question falling away, suchness of peace/oneness/freedom appearing---perhaps a slight grin". I kinda like that 'definition'. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 25, 2011 0:05:43 GMT -5
Is intuition a subset of suchness? In a similar way as the yellowness of the yellow colour is a subset of suchness? Or is the yellowness an intuition (and thus intuition identical with suchness)?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2011 2:03:38 GMT -5
Is intuition a subset of suchness? In a similar way as the yellowness of the yellow colour is a subset of suchness? Or is the yellowness an intuition (and thus intuition identical with suchness)? I don't see intuition in that way. I would say intuition is the view of the thought from outside the thought rather than inside. From inside the thought, the thought is the foundation of the thinker and therefore self validating. It may be seen as true or false but the validity of the thought itself is unquestioned because the thinker is unquestioned. From outside the thought, the structure is seen as imaginary, and this seeing is self evident by virtue of it's emptiness. That is, this seeing does not contain the information that would require evidence in the form of validating information, which itself cannot be validated. It's this inherent need for validating information to validate the information that keeps mind in perpetual doubt. Beyond that, doubt is just another thought structure that has no inherent meaning. Again, nothing is added and nothing need be added in order for that which is present to be present; in order for existence to exist; in order for that which IS, to be. Intuition is the seeing of the falsity of that which is NOT present. This would not seem particularly powerful without the understanding that this 'suchness' cannot be hidden or missing, but merely not attended to, in the same way you have no idea what that huge billboard says that you pass every day on your way to work, and yet you DO know because it's too obvious not to know. The advertisers know that you know, and yet strangely you don't know that you know, because you have not attended to that knowing. I don't mean to suggest that intuition is the seeing of some ultimate Truth, as there is nothing to see. It is the seeing THROUGH the illusion. The 'billboard' is seen because attention is no longer pulled away from it, and it cannot NOT be seen.
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 25, 2011 23:15:05 GMT -5
1) Your interpretation of intuition seems to have nothing to do with the folklore interpretation of intuition as gut-feeling, premonition, hunch etc?
2) You seem to be saying that intuition is the seeing of the falsity of what is not so. And this seeing happens without replacing the falsity with something true. Intuition is the mechanism of seeing the finiteness/inadequacy/falsity of contexts from without a dichotomy of true/false simply by virtue of the seeing itself not originating from any kind of limited context. So the illusion isn't seen through by juxtaposing the illusory context to a larger or truer context, but simply by virtue of seeing the context from outside the context's story about a true/false dichotomy.
In that sense the intuition isn't saying anything about a larger or truer context. Intuition is simply leading out of a limited context (or any kind of context for that matter) by virtue of the witnessing the spontaneous construction/creation of any imagined context.
3) This brings us back to Vacant's point that Source is somehow unconsciously intuited to exist. And that, according to you, there is an intuitive realization that I exist. Isn't this an unprovoked and unnecessariy addition? Does there need to be an intuition that "Source exists" (Vacant) or that "I exist" (Enigma) in order to notice the falsity of what is not so?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 26, 2011 1:47:14 GMT -5
1) Your interpretation of intuition seems to have nothing to do with the folklore interpretation of intuition as gut-feeling, premonition, hunch etc? Yeah, not really so much....really. Sounds pretty good. No. It just happens to be the only thing that can be seen to be true.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Apr 30, 2011 4:59:21 GMT -5
Are you ready to raaaaammmmmbblllllleeeee?!
I remember a time looking at a leaf in the sunlight; I believe it was a mulberry leaf in the Rumbur Valley of the Kalash people in Pakistan---very nice mulberry wine, btw. A that time, I had been tinkering with the ideas of the analytic and hormonal ‘brains’ and this ‘sense’, perhaps the intuition being discussed here. Seeing the veins that permeated the leaf of the tree (of knowledge~~of good and evil), the ever-so-elegant dance of intuition might be described as moving through layered body/mind of ‘separate self’ as in
mind-thinking, heart-feeling, and gut-instinct,
and 'other' things,
but with this omnipresence of perfection permeating through from/as Source.
As suchness, it is quite simple.
As memory of then- body-mind-sunlight-leaf-trees-babbling creek-stacks of hay-walls of stone-fences of thorn bushes-smell of cedar and pine-a concept….coming through in the sound of waves as the eternal song….appearing through the sight of waves as the eternal show of all shows…only to disappear.
As playing of now- body-mind-rain drops on my window-the chai in my cup-fingers on keyboard-light through the screen-this concept-your reading this…. coming through in the sound of waves as the eternal song….appearing through the sight of eternal waves as the show of all shows…only to eventually disappear.
But mind no likey this simplicity. Needs a little more...some'm to keep the search and its usefulness and importance alive.
What is creating the illusion of time, separateness, otherness through mind/thought and is omnipresent throughout it all?
To immediately try to answer the question is to miss from where the question comes, and fall into the illusion time, separateness, and otherness. It's off on its search for the answer. The mind, based on the lack of depth in its ability to understand 'what is', is questioning 'what is' to seek an answer it does not have the ability to find. That gap just before the mind starts to 'try to make sense of it all' is a glimpse/reflection of the background upon which all this thinking/projection is an 'overlay' (paradoxical play here---'try' not to think about it too much! hehe). The first true realization of this generally creates an experience that the mind just reels from in a positive way...at least that was my experience. Over time (hehe), consciously and truly integrated, Oneness-Peace-Freedom intuitively appear as suchness prior to mind/thinking, which can habitually give rise to separateness-suffering-prisons of self (thanks for that wording E).
Body/minds get glimpses throughout 'their' lives all the time, but the addiction of rutted thinking, misses them/denies them/wraps them in nice packages of some veneer thus creating memories, culture, knowledge, and other forms of consensual reality tied to the core belief of some separate self, thus affecting the feeling and instincts.
IT is always present, always Whole, but the sense of IT is missing when identified as the illusion of separate self and focused only on the reflections of the illusions of other things in the illuson of time (more paradoxical play---pointing to letting go 'the looking for' and being/seeing what's prior to mind/thought).
Oneness-Peace-Freedom are relegated to concepts of the same unconscious making. Then, ironically, these very 'things' are sought with the same limited tool used in the relegation process. It's like a butcher using a knife to put a cow back together. The pointing used in 'non-duality' often points to how the process of division takes place, possibly allowing one to be consciously aware/present prior to the illusion of the process of dividing. Wholeness can not be divided, only thought to be so, which apparently is part of the Perfection. All the tools, techniques, and methods for putting the Wholly Cow back together, though thought to be needed, only Perfectly reflect the illusion of a need to put Wholeness back together.
It was/is interesting for me to be identified as a ‘person’, and is also interesting to watch as ‘people’ twist, turn, contort, and do back flips in every attempt they can to not fall flat on their face laughing at the hilarity of it all. I can only assume it to be the oft misunderstood tragio-comic pointer of being human in the most amazing thing being dreamt up. Long may the little yous run, and the show go on! (I know, there’s that hint of mindful ‘want’,,,’tis reflected in a bodily ‘slight grin’.)
“I like to watch.” -Chancey Gardener (in Being There)
|
|