|
Post by enigma on May 23, 2011 20:08:27 GMT -5
"Lately I'm looking at this mind-landscape silently, with an undertone of disbelief. Do you think there is any benefit in using reason to dismantle the me/controller assumption or it's better to just relax into self-enquiry?"
I meant to respond to this too. Initially, reason is an obstruction to the seeing, as in the example of Marie's reasoning process when I first asked where the thoughts come from. The 'seeing' doesn't happen in mind. Once some clarity comes, mind must be engaged because the seeing needs to inform the mind of the faulty nature of it's conceptualizations. This doesn't necessarily mean a rigid reasoning process is engaged, but reasoning is how mind works whenever it is engaged. The difference is that now there is some clarity to guide that process.
As I see it, this stage of informing mind is lacking in much self inquiry because mind is often seen as the enemy and anything that smacks of thinking is rejected based on the concept that thinking shouldn't happen. I suspect there's a lot of 'seeing' happening in folks that never gets translated into mental clarity, and since the seeing only happens now and nothing can be stored in memory for later processing, the realization is often lost and seems to have never occurred. Maybe sometimes it's translated into a woo woo experience of a mind state that mind can claim, and while this can be motivating, it doesn't alter the conditioning, and it may be years before that happens.
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 24, 2011 16:34:24 GMT -5
The 'seeing' doesn't happen in mind. Once some clarity comes, mind must be engaged because the seeing needs to inform the mind of the faulty nature of it's conceptualizations. Enigma, today I took time to think about what you wrote. I had to take a step back and reflect a little about what happened during these years of seeking. Since my 'career' started with a moment of 'seeing', I get what you mean stating that it doesn't happen in mind. For me it was as if some vast, unknown organ was activated, radically different from the ordinary mind. The realizations that appeared during that seeing were impossibly difficult to translate in the language of mind, a hyatus, a language barrier was evident. Mind seemed just like a shimmering over the trembling surface of that unfathomably deep water. This way, right from the start, I saw it as not too relevant for the spiritual seeking, neither in a bad nor in a good way. Even if I read again and again in the books the implicit and explicit tenet that mind is an enemy, I still don't see it that way. Slaying the mind is just another heroic dream/phantom. Mind is a tool. Certainly it often runs amock and creates many obstacles. But it's because of the mind that we can function in the world. These obstacles, these assumptions that you talked about, more often than not transform man into a robot that acts automatically. I'm sure this saves a lot of energy, but it limits the ability to function freely and adapt to the world. What I find mysterious is that both from my own experience and what you write, it seems that the best the mind can do is to ironically to 'undo' itself. Undo the conditioning relying less and less on models, ideas and assumptions at the same time avoiding new ones. The 'no free will' tenet that you wrote about is indeed a precious teching device that can remove a lot of suffering and I often think about it in the terms you described, but it's so easy to transform it into a new assumption that afterwards serves as an excuse for sloth, to avoid responsibility and commitment. It's difficult not to fall in these traps. To undo without starting to rebuild. I experience that being inwardly silent is a lovely way to move around without reinforcing the old patterns, and the silence seems to my heart more true, intelligent and full of creative potential than the ordinary jibber-jabber. In this silence it becomes evident that the mind's conceptualizations are always changing, so they can't be true. Lately I'm feel so very tired of conceptualizations that I'm relaxing into the 'actual' and trusting the intelligent silence. I take your advice with my heart and keep the intent to expand the clarity in the reasoning mind avoiding to just shut-it-up.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on May 24, 2011 17:20:25 GMT -5
What I find mysterious is that both from my own experience and what you write, it seems that the best the mind can do is to ironically to 'undo' itself. Undo the conditioning relying less and less on models, ideas and assumptions at the same time avoiding new ones. Good point. However, I'm beginning to wonder how possible it is to invalidate certain beliefs without forming new ones. What I find is that the mind is very resistant to not knowing and it is incredibly sneaky. So when a belief is realized to not be true the mind swings and adopts an opposing belief. This may not be true in all cases but I have seen this happen. This very observation makes me suspect to the futility of this whole thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2011 20:20:25 GMT -5
Mind, by itself, can't invalidate beliefs or undo anything. Beliefs are held because they seem true, assuming it's a genuine belief and not a game of pretending. Mind can manipulate it's own data forever, like reorganizing a filing cabinet, but it's not different data, just differently organized.
Some external input is needed. Walking up to a snake and finding out it's a rope is one way, but when it comes to the bigger issues, such sensory proof isn't going to be available. Fortunately, you are not your mind and mind isn't operating as a separate entity. You transcend mind and are not bound by mind's limitations of conceptualization. Again, seeing doesn't happen in the mind, but it informs mind. Mostly, mind is informed of what is NOT so.
The futility is in mind finding what it's looking for, since what's really being searched for isn't in mind, but revealing the falsity of what IS in mind isn't futile.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on May 25, 2011 16:42:41 GMT -5
Mind, by itself, can't invalidate beliefs or undo anything. Beliefs are held because they seem true, assuming it's a genuine belief and not a game of pretending. Mind can manipulate it's own data forever, like reorganizing a filing cabinet, but it's not different data, just differently organized. Some external input is needed. Walking up to a snake and finding out it's a rope is one way, but when it comes to the bigger issues, such sensory proof isn't going to be available. Fortunately, you are not your mind and mind isn't operating as a separate entity. You transcend mind and are not bound by mind's limitations of conceptualization. Again, seeing doesn't happen in the mind, but it informs mind. Mostly, mind is informed of what is NOT so. Enigma, invalidate was not the right word. What I meant was that a belief can be seen to be not true. If I follow you, you are saying that mind can't even do that without some external input. Can you give an example of one of these bigger issues where sensory proof is not available?
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 25, 2011 17:15:47 GMT -5
I had to laugh at those peeps who 'thought' the world was coming to an end on the 21st... Guess the 'world' didn't get the email, or check it's face book page, or twitter...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 25, 2011 23:00:34 GMT -5
Mind, by itself, can't invalidate beliefs or undo anything. Beliefs are held because they seem true, assuming it's a genuine belief and not a game of pretending. Mind can manipulate it's own data forever, like reorganizing a filing cabinet, but it's not different data, just differently organized. Some external input is needed. Walking up to a snake and finding out it's a rope is one way, but when it comes to the bigger issues, such sensory proof isn't going to be available. Fortunately, you are not your mind and mind isn't operating as a separate entity. You transcend mind and are not bound by mind's limitations of conceptualization. Again, seeing doesn't happen in the mind, but it informs mind. Mostly, mind is informed of what is NOT so. Enigma, invalidate was not the right word. What I meant was that a belief can be seen to be not true. If I follow you, you are saying that mind can't even do that without some external input. Can you give an example of one of these bigger issues where sensory proof is not available? There isn't any sensory proof that there is no free will. (Though there are some scary MRI experiments) There's no sensory proof that oneness is the truth of existence. There's no sensory proof that thought arises out of nothingness and has no foundation at all. There's no sensory proof that physicality forms in consciousness and is expressed as sensory perceptions rather than the reverse. And yet all of this can be seen as a negation of conceptual understanding. That is, the belief that it is otherwise can seen through (as you say), but never by examining the product of belief.
|
|
|
Post by ivory on May 25, 2011 23:40:51 GMT -5
There isn't any sensory proof that there is no free will. (Though there are some scary MRI experiments) There's no sensory proof that oneness is the truth of existence. There's no sensory proof that thought arises out of nothingness and has no foundation at all. There's no sensory proof that physicality forms in consciousness and is expressed as sensory perceptions rather than the reverse. And yet all of this can be seen as a negation of conceptual understanding. That is, the belief that it is otherwise can seen through (as you say), but never by examining the product of belief. Enigma, sometimes I think I need a PHD in non-duality to communicate with you. I have no f*cking clue what you just said. But it's all good, because I think the universe is saying... "Goddammit, stop asking questions and figure it out for your damn self" Thank you for confirming my suspicion.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 26, 2011 1:19:40 GMT -5
Hmmm, prolly the last part that I didn't express very well. The clarity that shows up in the form of realizations is not happening in mind and hencely is not conceptual. Mind is going to have trouble with the concept of clarity that isn't conceptual because it only knows concepts. It's the same problem mind has with the difference between spiritual experiences and realization, because mind only knows experiences.
For example, the realization that there is no free will is not the realization of some conceptual knowledge, it's the seeing through of some knowledge; the knowledge that there is free will. It's a bit like waking up from a dream in which you're absolutely convinced of the reality of your experience, and then you wake up and suddenly realize your experience had no reality at all. You didn't actually learn some new knowledge about it, you just realized the falsity of it.
As another example, the realization of oneness is the noticing that the idea of separation is actually false and was only an idea. There isn't some new oneness knowledge acquired because it's not necessary. Oneness is just a concept that points to the absence of the concept of separation. without the belief in that idea, there is no problemo.
There's no knowledge acquired in realizations because you're not using the mind to 'see'.
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 26, 2011 3:54:54 GMT -5
There isn't any sensory proof that there is no free will. (Though there are some scary MRI experiments) There's no sensory proof that oneness is the truth of existence. There's no sensory proof that thought arises out of nothingness and has no foundation at all. There's no sensory proof that physicality forms in consciousness and is expressed as sensory perceptions rather than the reverse. And yet all of this can be seen as a negation of conceptual understanding. That is, the belief that it is otherwise can seen through (as you say), but never by examining the product of belief. Enigma, sometimes I think I need a PHD in non-duality to communicate with you. I have no f*cking clue what you just said. But it's all good, because I think the universe is saying... "Goddammit, stop asking questions and figure it out for your d**n self" Thank you for confirming my suspicion. Hahahaha well said! Ivory, I'm totally with you on this one. I was actually writing that when I read enigma's last posts I heard a big "whoosh!"... the sound of spirituality flying high above my head. E. I just saw your latest clarification, thanks. After all you call yourself "Enigma"... what else can we expect
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 26, 2011 4:06:52 GMT -5
I had to laugh at those peeps who 'thought' the world was coming to an end on the 21st... Guess the 'world' didn't get the email, or check it's face book page, or twitter... TRF, let's make every morning a dramatic public announce that the world will end tomorrow. You know... people forget so easily a missed profecy. But one day, one day sooner or later we'll be right! You can bank on it. Ah, what fame, what glory we'll enjoy... or not?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 26, 2011 7:59:46 GMT -5
E. wrote, "As another example, the realization of oneness is the noticing that the idea of separation is actually false and was only an idea. There isn't some new oneness knowledge acquired because it's not necessary. Oneness is just a concept that points to the absence of the concept of separation. without the belief in that idea, there is no problemo."
I suspect that most people do not REALIZE oneness as much as they EXPERIENCE oneness directly. IOW, I suspect that most people who get interested in non-duality do so because they fall into a state of oneness (through drugs, meditation, despair, etc) and instantly discover that oneness is the underlying truth of existence. Their normal dualistic outlook instantly disappears and is replaced with a unified perspective. Granted, in order for this to happen, selfhood cannot be present, so there is no separate experiencer, but the event is remembered as a concrete experience, with a beginning and an end. In essence, people say, "I was here, then I disappeared, and then I was here again, and what was experienced in my absence was the most important event of my life. I want to get that back!" This is a logical but incorrect conclusion about what happened to them.
The realization that oneness is all there is, and that the one seeking oneness does not exist, and that everyday life is also oneness, usually occurs only after a lot of unsuccesful searching.
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 26, 2011 9:16:08 GMT -5
Yes, but that absence of that concept is actually a reorganization of the data.
Zendancer: You have a point.
If a layman has a first kensho experience, it's like an atom bomb. Why? I think it's because there is a huge, stark contrast between his ingrained beliefs and the new reality that became self-evident, undeniable. Suppose the mind of this man starts to disassociate from false beliefs and doubts. If after a while the same man has a new kensho, this time it will be less of a shock. Ok? When his new knowledge (or lack thereof!) with time becomes perfectly aligned with the underlying reality of oneness, for him a new kensho experience (or its absence) will be nothing at all. No problemo! There is this always a gap between knowledge and experience but in the seeker there is a magnetic force that wants to narrow this gap one way or another.
Instead, I'm not convinced that "I want to get that back!", as you wrote, is what goes on or at least it's not as whimsical as it seems at first sight.
I can only speak from my experiences. Oh yes, I said that! But that phrase is just like the tip of the iceberg, the foaming crest of a big roaring wave. There is a vast and deep energy that pushes forward the whole body-mind during the seeking, way deeper than any whimsical personal desire. "I want that back" is just what the poor mind blurts out when it feels this mysterious energy welling up from inside. The dam is broken and an enormous mass of water washes away everything in its wake, searching for the sea. We can't even call that a searching, the water does not even "know" what or where the sea is, but it's propelled anyway all along by gravity, in the right direction. Will it actually reach the sea? The mind tries to express this the best way it can at the time and part of our movement is to give a better and better expression to this universal energy.
|
|
|
Post by chanchan on May 26, 2011 9:46:27 GMT -5
Enigma, do't get me wrong, I agree with most that you wrote, but not with everything. Let me poke at you just a little But how data is organized... that's exactly the whole difference in the world! Tonight I'll sneak into your office and jumble up all the papers in your "filing cabinet". I'm sure you'll agree that tomorrow you'll have quite a nasty problem with this different organization, because you have to rely on that data. What you see is data. How "you" organize it or leave unorganized makes the whole difference. (I'm not implying a personal "you" that organizes) Moreover, differently organized data IS different data. Gimme your phone number, I'll pick out and arrange all the digits in a different order. It will not be the same data differently organized, but the phone number of a totally different person, maybe Gadafi's phone number... assuming right now that you are not actually Gadafi ;-) It's exaclty when the mind is full of data that conflicts with reality that there are big problems and suffering. Just now they showed on tv a man in Finland that really believed he was impervious to high temperatures and he made it through a hottest-sauna contest on tv. As the heat increased, he stubbornly resisted and resisted while the other saner competitors ran out from the scorching steam. Well, let's just say his belief caused him a horrible, horrible suffering. Are existential problems so different from this trivial example? They cause suffering when the mind data stubbornly doesn't change even against all evidence that it should. Today there is an increase in the number of realizations. What changed? Informations. The old data was an obstacle. Does a comparable number of realizations happen in the inner world of the fundamentalists? mmmmm... But there is an external proof that mind's data and beliefs about separation and selfhood and free-will are wrong. It is psychological suffering. Bottom line, mind and realizations are on two planes, but wrong data seems to be an obstacle to realizations. (I hope someone will whip me with a stick if I'm radically wrong).
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on May 26, 2011 10:01:16 GMT -5
I had to laugh at those peeps who 'thought' the world was coming to an end on the 21st... Guess the 'world' didn't get the email, or check it's face book page, or twitter... TRF, let's make every morning a dramatic public announce that the world will end tomorrow. You know... people forget so easily a missed profecy. But one day, one day sooner or later we'll be right! You can bank on it. Ah, what fame, what glory we'll enjoy... or not? Hahaha... We could always get a timer hooked up to a giant flag pole that unravels with our smiling faces, saying "Told you So"... You know just for whatever critters are left scurrying around or Martians if it was an invasion... Of course if you ' believe' in the idol of ' non-dualism''... "YOU" won't die, because "YOU" are eternal, and "YOU"were never born... Weird thing is the " belief" in that thought actually prevents you from looking at who "YOU" really are and realizing there is "NOTHING" outside of "YOU". And it's the ' obviousness' of that which makes it nearly impossible to see, even though it's right in front of "YOU" ;D
|
|