|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2011 13:04:22 GMT -5
Okay, so, I've been kicked off yet another forum, (BTW, if anybody wants to know how to do that, I'm an expert. Hehe.) and though the reasoning is a bit vague, the gist of it seems to be that I won't share my personal experiences to back up what I say.
Of course, this assumes that personal experiences are actually a solid foundation for authority, which is why there are more 'enlightened' folks on these forums than we can shake a Zen stick at. Relating personal experiences can have great value as inspiration or to make a point or to show another that you really do understand what they experience, and many other reasons, but they can't be used to qualify the truth of the words of the experiencer. I posted here about my experience of lucid dreaming in order to make the point that recognizing the dream as a dream doesn't automagically mean you're not going to resist the experience. I almost posted today about how I overcame a repeating childhood nightmare by turning to fight instead of turning to run, and then the energy of that just faded away.
Experiences don't mean that you accomplished something or that you know something, they're just stories playing out as experiences, and while experience is not to be somehow dismissed, it's also not to be used as a solid platform to stand on. Mind can create infinite states and any experience imaginable because imagination is what it is. The experiencer almost unavoidably creates a story about the story to make it seem even more meaningful than they think it already is. The experience of enlightenment is not enlightenment. The experience of peace, love, freedom is not Peace, Love or Freedom. One does not have an experience of This, one IS This, and the experiencer is nowhere to be found. A drug induced experience of Truth is not Truth. A woo woo experience of energy in the body is not a person getting really, really close to Truth.
Personal experiences as stories, and as such are never ultimately True. Niz talks about his experience of asking 'Who am I' for three years prior to waking up, and he allows the implication that one caused the other because there was a point to be made about simple devotion. Millions have done the same thing he did and nothing happened, except they may have learned something about devotion, or the lack of. For others, devotion was precisely what was needed. Tolle talks about his experience of realizing that there was apparently something that couldn't live with himself, and this opened a doorway to presence for him because he had quite enough of the thinker at that point, but what he teaches is a practice of presence; something that he never practiced. Gangaji met Papaji and was told to stop, and she stopped, so now she tells others to just stop, as though choosing to stop was the cause of stopping. Jeff Foster talks about his experience of lying on his bed and noticing that everything was him, but he's careful to say that the experience is not relevant, and is not IT.
Mind is chasing experiences because it doesn't know what else to chase, but personal experiences are still duality, and they're still a distraction. I talk about looking and seeing, and in this, I'm not relevant at all. I don't have any knowledge that somebody else can use, nor have I had any experiences that would be useful for anyone else to replicate. My goal is usually to be as absent as possible, while pointing as far away from 'me' as possible, cause most folks get so fixated on the finger that they miss the moon entirely.
|
|
|
Post by zenman on May 7, 2011 13:54:15 GMT -5
"but what he teaches is a practice of presence; something that he never practiced."
Lol, I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this about Tolle.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 7, 2011 14:25:57 GMT -5
Okay, so, I've been kicked off yet another forum, (BTW, if anybody wants to know how to do that, I'm an expert. Hehe.) and though the reasoning is a bit vague, the gist of it seems to be that I won't share my personal experiences to back up what I say. Of course, this assumes that personal experiences are actually a solid foundation for authority, which is why there are more 'enlightened' folks on these forums than we can shake a Zen stick at. Relating personal experiences can have great value as inspiration or to make a point or to show another that you really do understand what they experience, and many other reasons, but they can't be used to qualify the truth of the words of the experiencer. I posted here about my experience of lucid dreaming in order to make the point that recognizing the dream as a dream doesn't automagically mean you're not going to resist the experience. I almost posted today about how I overcame a repeating childhood nightmare by turning to fight instead of turning to run, and then the energy of that just faded away. Experiences don't mean that you accomplished something or that you know something, they're just stories playing out as experiences, and while experience is not to be somehow dismissed, it's also not to be used as a solid platform to stand on. Mind can create infinite states and any experience imaginable because imagination is what it is. The experiencer almost unavoidably creates a story about the story to make it seem even more meaningful than they think it already is. The experience of enlightenment is not enlightenment. The experience of peace, love, freedom is not Peace, Love or Freedom. One does not have an experience of This, one IS This, and the experiencer is nowhere to be found. A drug induced experience of Truth is not Truth. A woo woo experience of energy in the body is not a person getting really, really close to Truth. Personal experiences as stories, and as such are never ultimately True. Niz talks about his experience of asking 'Who am I' for three years prior to waking up, and he allows the implication that one caused the other because there was a point to be made about simple devotion. Millions have done the same thing he did and nothing happened, except they may have learned something about devotion, or the lack of. For others, devotion was precisely what was needed. Tolle talks about his experience of realizing that there was apparently something that couldn't live with himself, and this opened a doorway to presence for him because he had quite enough of the thinker at that point, but what he teaches is a practice of presence; something that he never practiced. Gangaji met Papaji and was told to stop, and she stopped, so now she tells others to just stop, as though choosing to stop was the cause of stopping. Jeff Foster talks about his experience of lying on his bed and noticing that everything was him, but he's careful to say that the experience is not relevant, and is not IT. Mind is chasing experiences because it doesn't know what else to chase, but personal experiences are still duality, and they're still a distraction. I talk about looking and seeing, and in this, I'm not relevant at all. I don't have any knowledge that somebody else can use, nor have I had any experiences that would be useful for anyone else to replicate. My goal is usually to be as absent as possible, while pointing as far away from 'me' as possible, cause most folks get so fixated on the finger that they miss the moon entirely. E: I have a slightly different take on this, but I haven't got time to respond at the moment. It's an interesting topic, and I'll get back to it as soon as I have some free time. I also want to continue with the "real world advice" thread in more detail, but it, too, will have to wait a few days. I'm building a big Zen sort of construction/art project, and the sweat equity aspect is literally consuming all of my energy. I've been coming home at the end of the day too tired to do anything but collapse on the couch. As a side note, I can't imagine any forum stupid enough to kick you off. It's their loss IMO.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2011 14:35:32 GMT -5
Thanks. Looking forward to your perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2011 19:08:18 GMT -5
not sure if this is in the ballpark....probably left field if anywhere...
but it seems like a lot of westernized buddhist teachings are focusing on a gradual reduction of suffering and not suffering via awakening. at least that's been my _experience_. and the filters here can be pretty warped. but i wonder if there's a sort of fatalism among the awakened -- no clue why awakening and so, a la the boddhisatva vow, reduction of suffering becomes the focus.
on gradualism, i listened to a UGC podcast with Rodney Stevens and he emphasized that awakening can't be anything but quick. so the concept that one is somewhere in the middle of the process is still a story.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2011 20:11:28 GMT -5
not sure if this is in the ballpark....probably left field if anywhere... but it seems like a lot of westernized buddhist teachings are focusing on a gradual reduction of suffering and not suffering via awakening. at least that's been my _experience_. and the filters here can be pretty warped. but i wonder if there's a sort of fatalism among the awakened -- no clue why awakening and so, a la the boddhisatva vow, reduction of suffering becomes the focus. All I have is an opinion based on what I see going on in some Buddhist seekers. In general, they seem to be drawn to the popular form of the practice because they agree that 'life is suffering', and by the promise of the end of suffering. They don't seem particularly interested in ending the sufferer, which may be what you're suggesting too. I haven't seen any indication that it actually works for anybody. Hehe. Since the seeker, and therefore the seeking, is itself a story, it wouldn't be possible for that story to get closer (or farther away from) some awakening goal, although the story can get close to ending, which usually isn't of much interest to the story itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 7, 2011 20:39:02 GMT -5
dang...you're fast on the draw.
I regret tieing Rodney Stepvens to my interpretation of what was said and scurried back here, once able, to redact his name from the post by maxdprophet. i think what you're saying is in line with what i meant so maybe no harm done anyhoo..
from my personal experience i can say that i was drawn into the buddhist realm because it seemed exotic and cool. probably an underlying motive to pick up babes and seem cool too. there was something about the message that also rang a bell inside but it wasn't clear to me what it was. the whole suffering angle was confusing and took me some time to grok. as i got further involved and started doing retreats the extended sitting became a challenge, which appealed to some inner john wayne image (get back on the hoss, pilgrim). also babes.
btw, none of the babe fantasies ever were realized outside of my own mind.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2011 20:48:50 GMT -5
dang...you're fast on the draw. I regret tieing Rodney Stepvens to my interpretation of what was said and scurried back here, once able, to redact his name from the post by maxdprophet. i think what you're saying is in line with what i meant so maybe no harm done anyhoo.. Shorry. I dunno Rodney so I haven't had a chance to form the appropriate horrific judgments about him, but I'll get around to it. Then Buddism really was a total failure, I guess.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 7, 2011 23:25:08 GMT -5
Haha, if I may be so bold, in my experiences as an “intercultural trainer”, I tend to be involved in very similar circumstances, but somehow I still hold on to my job. Hehe. I’m sure these ‘experiences’ color my babbling ‘about’ this non-dual stuff. In classes, I often try to convey two ways of seeing the same context, but I also have to be careful not to slip into the non-dual stuff, hehe, unless of course the desire to be locked away in a foreign loony bin is my new goal! That intercultural stuff is limited to the dualistic world, but it does have very interesting parallels to the pointer here. You end up saying in so many ways, “Check it out, and see what happens”. In intercultural training, a trainer/teacher is trying to build the awareness necessary for a certain amount of self-reflection that enables one to see how you yourself and ‘others’ might see you youself/’others’ AND how each might view the context in which one is communicating. But, that ain’t the ‘goal’ here on our little lovely cloud of a non-dual forum. What Is is, prior to context, YOU, prior to mind/thought/memory and other objects of awareness, is an intelligence impossible to simply imagine.
The account that E brings up here also points to how most people see the context of the ST message board in relation to what it is they think they are seeking in their own specific ‘personal’ contexts. The ST MB is place to explore THAT which is beyond, subsumes, is prior to all contexts. REALIZING ______________. What gets confused or even gets "understood" is not ______________.
So, maybe what is being pointed to is the fact that the only way folks can fearlessly be on board with what is being pointed to on this forum is to at least have had some experience of some level of utter failure, at some point in the imagined past, of trying to understand the What Is being pointed at (sorry for all the “pointings”,,hehe). And, what also seems to be pointed at is the fact that the describing of such experiences can (should be seen as?) be dead weight (or even counter-productive since it is likely to be misunderstood by a mind still lost in the dream of thought) because they necessitate the mind’s selective memory/rationalizations/strategies of the mind to draw upon things that happened in the past (and keep one contextualized), which are not AND cannot be the actual Peace, Love, Freedom that can only Realized as simply existing as What Is… prior to any thought, memory, feeling, rationalization, experience..all by-products/reflections of the mind….all in the past….in any given context…in the dream. What usually happens is the momentum of thought and gravity of the mind wins out and one is usually fairly easily identifies with the field of thought and the whole charade goes on.
So,to a mind locked in the scawy wittle dark pwison of the dweam of separateness, the idea that there is a teaching or a need to personalize a you’s experiences likely presupposes that there is something to teach, and that something needs to be added or learned to understand the pointing (i.e., that there is something you can do). But, this ST MB pointing is more intent on “communicating” the “unlearning”, “letting go”, “stepping back” that can happen, potentially allowing What Is to subsume all the stuff one holds on to give their idea of separateness, a divided whole, credibility. The idea can then be to go on and supply the means to ‘understanding and repairing’ what cannot be torn apart.
How to invite the grace of simply seeing What Is?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 7, 2011 23:48:53 GMT -5
"How to invite the grace of simply seeing What Is?"
Yeah, it's a good question, how to invite Grace. Maybe it helps to leave the doors open and a big slab of prime rib on the table?? I hear Grace likes it well done.
|
|
|
Post by unveilable on May 8, 2011 5:35:10 GMT -5
But the idea that there is something to be done well is so incredibly seductive.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on May 8, 2011 6:32:54 GMT -5
"How to invite the grace of simply seeing What Is?" Yeah, it's a good question, how to invite Grace. Maybe it helps to leave the doors open and a big slab of prime rib on the table?? I hear Grace likes it well done. >:(Yee better whatch'er words there, mister. Where I comes from, even the mention of a "well done prime rib" is considered fightin' werds. Ya hear?! <<In my best Lonesome Dove voice over>> Yeah, nurturing a good "hunger" has always been the secret ingredient to the best meals I've prepared, and I always tried to do it in a sneaky way by keepng their attention on other stuff! Generally speaking, I have to alter the perception of time to carry it out gracefully.
|
|
|
Post by question on May 8, 2011 13:02:22 GMT -5
Okay, so, I've been kicked off yet another forum, (BTW, if anybody wants to know how to do that, I'm an expert. Hehe.) Can you post the link to the forum/thread? Sounds like very exciting drama. This whole non-experience thingy is a big mystery to me. In theory it sounds ok but in practise I can't see its value, because I can't see the difference from "non-experience" and "nothing at all". How can I meaningfully integrate it if there's nothing at all about it that I can somehow aim towards or do something about?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 8, 2011 14:23:39 GMT -5
To me, the difference between 'personal experiencer' and 'pure experience', is the difference between viewing the world with the eyes of the body or the eyes of the mind...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 8, 2011 14:48:25 GMT -5
Okay, so, I've been kicked off yet another forum, (BTW, if anybody wants to know how to do that, I'm an expert. Hehe.) Can you post the link to the forum/thread? Sounds like very exciting drama. Yeah, it was great ego drama, but unfortunately I can't. The thread, where I tried to explain the potential value of my approach, and in which several members supported me and some questioned the moderator's motives, was mysteriously lost the same day I was asked to leave. It's the oddest thing. Well, the point is just that experience unfolds from what you are and can't say anything about what you are. It can't point back to it's source and define it in some way or say this is how it actually is. Hunting around in the dream for anything that says anything about the dreamer is pointless, and so it's necessary to distinguish between an experience and a realization. Experiences, no matter how 'spiritual', end and pretty much leave you where you started, though they do have an impact on the conditioning since they are now part of that conditioning, and so i don't dismiss experiences. They simply can't be pointed to as some kind of proof that we know something; it can't be used as teaching credentials or whatever. Realization is a fish kettle of a whole different color. What is realized is what is NOT so, and so nothing is known about anything. Free will is not so. Personhood is not so. Separation is not so. That you are something or somewhere is not so. That you can have an experience of a nothing that is nowhere is not so. In this, nothing is known. What is not so is the knowledge. As soon as mind asks 'But how do you know it isn't so', this is already a movement from realization to thinking. Realization is not experience; not an event involving various thoughts, feelings and images that can be stored in memory and recalled later. If one who has realized something wants to talk about what isn't so, he has to look and see that it isn't so again freshly, and then somehow conceptualize this not-knowing, which obviously must fail. So the question might arise, how does seeing what isn't so amount to freedom? Because the prison is constructed of things we think we know, that aren't really so. Imprisonment is not so.
|
|