|
Post by mamza on Jun 23, 2011 12:10:13 GMT -5
How is this true? I keep coming back to this one spot. I can see how I'm nothing I can see, and I can understand how I'm not separate from what I can see because anything I can't see isn't here (and I'm definitely here).
If I'm not separate from it, I have to be part of it somehow. If there is only oneness, and I'm not separate from what is seen/felt/etc., then I am that.
But that's a lot of ifs. If is no good to me. How do you see that this is true? Attending the actual places emphasis on what is rather than thoughts, and in doing so you can watch the thoughts happen without anyone doing them. You can watch what the body does and realize you're not it. You can look at a cup and know you're not it because a cup can't look at itself.
So what exactly is going on here that's keeping the thought that I'm separate alive? There's just this endless stream of crap to 'see through,' but it doesn't really get you anywhere. There's always something else that pops up to be seen through. Clearly that's become goal oriented without me realizing it. Turning into a book, so I'll stop here.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jun 23, 2011 14:12:02 GMT -5
I don't know if this relates at all or if it's junk just yet, but it all comes down to right now. Everything that has ever happened has led up to this specific moment. In this moment, anything can happen--and depending on what I do, be it type on the computer or play the bass, what will happen a moment from now is affected 100%.
While I'm not responsible for it the event, I think I can direct where it goes to. Seems like most of the time I just nuts around on video games or something else really dumb and pointless instead of doing something helpful.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Jun 23, 2011 15:13:10 GMT -5
There's just this endless stream of crap to 'see through,' but it doesn't really get you anywhere. There's always something else that pops up to be seen through. That's great!! You are coming to the end of the search. You are seeing that the mind can not stop the mind, nor does it have any answer. It just keeps creating more and more thoughts, as it was designed to do. The end lies in the recognition of the viewer of this endless stream of crap. Find where it is, and you will have your answer. It won't be the one your mind is expecting. It will be far simpler. The night is the darkest before the dawn......
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2011 16:03:19 GMT -5
Mamza: When the body is ATA, there is no "you." There is seeing, but without imagining that there is a looker, the seeing is empty. The universe, itself, is seeing. The sense of selfhood and separateness is a deep structure of mind. It does not disappear if it is being constantly reinforced by self-centered thoughts. Just stay with looking and eventually a realization will occur. It will be seen that reality/the universe/"what is" is the true looker. "You" will evaporate and only YOU will remain. Who you really are is ALL. Persistence without reflecting about progress is the key.
If there is checking on progress, this will maintain the illusion of a separate entity making progress toward unity. The goal, which is not a goal, is to realize that you are already unified with the action--the process of reality. You are already oneness, but until you realize this, the illusion of separateness will continue. Simply keep looking.
|
|
ifriend
Junior Member
Maitreya The Friend
Posts: 63
|
Post by ifriend on Jun 23, 2011 16:20:10 GMT -5
Maitreya The Friend of all Souls teaches, there is nothing but God. There is only one thing keeping the thought that you are separate from God alive, and that is ignorance of your True Self as One and Identical with God. You can't know that through thought, or from books, or even from just believing what someone else says about it. You can't know that through the intellect, because that would be like trying to put the whole universe in a tea cup. You can only experience your True Nature as One and Identical with That I Am That I Am. The only way I know how to experience it is to find a true teacher, who has been there (and doesn't teach out of books but has actually been in Union with God) and receive his Initiation and follow him, while being desparate for your own knowledge of your Oneness with God, and for the Salvation and Liberation of all Souls. Maybe you can get there on your own. Many of God's mercies to mankind got there that way, but for most folks it is too difficult and they have to spend lifetime after lifetime searching, only coming up empty. But God in his infinite Mercy sends his Awakened Ones to us, so that we may know Him through them. Not so that we come to worship the Mercy - as so many have in their ignorance propounded - but so that, like the guide that shows you the way to the top of the mountain, we can know our own Oneness with God by following them Home. For when A = B and B = C then A = C. Jai Bhagavan ji!
|
|
|
Post by unveilable on Jun 23, 2011 16:24:49 GMT -5
Wow nice one ZD. Its so simple! When the body is ATA, there is no "you." There is seeing, but without imagining that there is a looker, the seeing is empty.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jun 23, 2011 18:14:37 GMT -5
This is probably the issue. Most of the time I don't even think about this stuff, and lately I've hit another dry spell so I got a little fed up with myself (ha). Persistence can be tough sometimes. And at this point I know that this is exactly what needs to be done... it's just really frustrating going back and forth between thought and not thought. It's like 50/50 right now, so there's a TON of switching.
This is a great way of stating that. I wish I had seen that sentence about four or five months ago...
And finally..
O lawd, don't tell me that! Hahaha, that's just going to pump up my ego! Look at me, everybody, I'm getting close to the end!!!! Thanks for the advice, everyone.
P.S. - If anyone gets the chance, swim backwards underwater with goggles on and look at your hands and feet. I noticed that the other day in our pool.... it's neat. It's nearly impossible for the mind to jump in (until 4 seconds later when I come back up from the water).
|
|
|
Post by question on Jun 23, 2011 23:10:17 GMT -5
How is this true? I keep coming back to this one spot. I can see how I'm nothing I can see, and I can understand how I'm not separate from what I can see because anything I can't see isn't here (and I'm definitely here). If I'm not separate from it, I have to be part of it somehow. If there is only oneness, and I'm not separate from what is seen/felt/etc., then I am that. Having graduated from no-self academy, wasn't the realization that there is no looker ("I", self etc) part of the curriculum? It sounds to me like you think that all experience is made up of appearances and in some magical land of nonduality there is some sort of entity, or force, awareness thingy, or whatever, that is the real experiencer or looker. And now you want to see a big magnificent oneness, which is unifying all parts, in its pure form without being contaminated by appearances, thoughts etc. But is there anything in experience that suggest that there has to be an "experiencer".
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jun 24, 2011 1:00:32 GMT -5
Well, if you're referring to RT, I would say that what you gain is the knowledge of no-self, not the realization of it.
What I'm looking for is that realization, whether it's here, there, or wherever. I think it's here right now, personally; but that's what I think, not what I know. I'm not sure what experience is made of, but the only thing here is what's right here.
The main issue, in my opinion, is that I still believe that I'm the do-er on some level that I haven't yet noticed. Some part of me wants to make the whateverness of ATA permanent because it feels great to push what I don't like away with intense focus on something happening right now. If it came down to having to do something like hunt for a job or seek enlightenment, I'd seek enlightenment because I know that deep down a job can only keep me happy for so long.
No, I don't believe that there is anything in experience that suggests there has to be an experiencer, but I'm tired of beliefs. I know that what ZD says is true because every time he says to be persistent it's like a slap in the face. Something clicks and says, 'Okay, let's do it. Show him what persistence is.' So I do it, and things start to happen/not-happen.
After a while I forget, though, so I come back here and post something dumb to get a kick in the rump, haha.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 24, 2011 1:46:21 GMT -5
"The main issue, in my opinion, is that I still believe that I'm the do-er on some level that I haven't yet noticed."
Normally, I wouldn't talk about this, but maybe it's appropriate here. There is a level at which you are the doer (gasp!) and maybe seeing it more clearly can help avoid misconceptualizing that sense as personal doership.
Oneness, of course, dictates that there isn't something that you aren't, so the idea that 'I am not the body, mind, teacup, person', etc, is also not true. The distinction is that what you are is impersonal and never actually becomes personal. Intelligence is not local. That is, it's neither here nor there. It's not located in a particular brain, which also appears to this intelligence. I don't know if you can see that intelligence cannot originate in physical matter that appears to this intelligence. The matter is 'inside' the intelligence rather than the reverse.
It can get a lot more complicated, but I think I'll avoid that right now. Since you are non-local, you are everywhere and nowhere, and therefore everything and nothing. You do not have a center. You will never find yourself, and yet you are all that arises. You'll know this as the inability to find yourself anywhere as a person. The person still appears, but it is not 'personal', if that makes any sense. It doesn't really seem to have any more to do with you than a rock or a tree, in spite of the ongoing individuated perspective from which experience seems to originate. You arise AS everything, including thoughts, feelings, objects, persons and doingness. Maybe this is where the sense of being the doer is coming from.
However, it's all happening spontaneously, without the need of an individual driver. There need be no sense of self or any active involvement, and yet the self goes on doing whatever it has always done. We believe that some degree of involvement is necessary for the individual to function, but this is just a belief based on the belief that 'my' involvement is required now, which is the delusion. I believe Kate noticed on her trip that the less the 'me' got involved in the doing, the more effective the mind/body operated. This is a clue.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jun 24, 2011 2:26:12 GMT -5
"The main issue, in my opinion, is that I still believe that I'm the do-er on some level that I haven't yet noticed." Normally, I wouldn't talk about this, but maybe it's appropriate here. There is a level at which you are the doer (gasp!) and maybe seeing it more clearly can help avoid misconceptualizing that sense as personal doership. Oneness, of course, dictates that there isn't something that you aren't, so the idea that 'I am not the body, mind, teacup, person', etc, is also not true. The distinction is that what you are is impersonal and never actually becomes personal. Intelligence is not local. That is, it's neither here nor there. It's not located in a particular brain, which also appears to this intelligence. I don't know if you can see that intelligence cannot originate in physical matter that appears to this intelligence. The matter is 'inside' the intelligence rather than the reverse. It can get a lot more complicated, but I think I'll avoid that right now. Since you are non-local, you are everywhere and nowhere, and therefore everything and nothing. You do not have a center. You will never find yourself, and yet you are all that arises. You'll know this as the inability to find yourself anywhere as a person. The person still appears, but it is not 'personal', if that makes any sense. It doesn't really seem to have any more to do with you than a rock or a tree, in spite of the ongoing individuated perspective from which experience seems to originate. You arise AS everything, including thoughts, feelings, objects, persons and doingness. Maybe this is where the sense of being the doer is coming from. However, it's all happening spontaneously, without the need of an individual driver. There need be no sense of self or any active involvement, and yet the self goes on doing whatever it has always done. We believe that some degree of involvement is necessary for the individual to function, but this is just a belief based on the belief that 'my' involvement is required now, which is the delusion. I believe Kate noticed on her trip that the less the 'me' got involved in the doing, the more effective the mind/body operated. This is a clue. Yeah, I think I get the whole happening/not happening, doing/not doing thing. The only part I don't really get is how I arise as everything, which is probably due to a lack of exposure to what's going on. I see it all the time, it just doesn't fully....sink in, I guess. I'm going to maybe edit this tomorrow when I'm not so tired and can fully take it in.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2011 8:08:52 GMT -5
Well, if you're referring to RT, I would say that what you gain is the knowledge of no-self, not the realization of it. What I'm looking for is that realization, whether it's here, there, or wherever. I think it's here right now, personally; but that's what I think, not what I know. I'm not sure what experience is made of, but the only thing here is what's right here. The main issue, in my opinion, is that I still believe that I'm the do-er on some level that I haven't yet noticed. Some part of me wants to make the whateverness of ATA permanent because it feels great to push what I don't like away with intense focus on something happening right now. If it came down to having to do something like hunt for a job or seek enlightenment, I'd seek enlightenment because I know that deep down a job can only keep me happy for so long. No, I don't believe that there is anything in experience that suggests there has to be an experiencer, but I'm tired of beliefs. I know that what ZD says is true because every time he says to be persistent it's like a slap in the face. Something clicks and says, 'Okay, let's do it. Show him what persistence is.' So I do it, and things start to happen/not-happen. After a while I forget, though, so I come back here and post something dumb to get a kick in the rump, haha. haha there’s lots of stuff in this thread that is providing impetus for a post to also get kicked in the rump. Mamza, your rump is my rump. Graduation from that particular no-self academy does theoretically require that realization and not just knowledge of nondoership -- it goes hand in hand with the no-you thingy. ‘Verification’ of whether those requirements have been met are ultimately first-hand. but more importantly, the realization of no-self according to those particular standards is more than just knowledge. In the same way that knowledge of the letter Q on this keyboard is different than the realization of it. I can just look and see that there is a Q-key, even without pre-existing knowledge of it. It’s that level of realization that is at issue over there. so mamza, in the parlance of the academic community there, maybe you haven’t really ‘looked’ yet? but probably, my guess is, you have looked and you have seen that ‘there is no you’ and it has been sort of underwhelming and because it’s not a life rocking experience where you all of a sudden can claim to be liberated or freed or enlightened or claim to have a kensho experience or oneness or whatever, you think it is actually probably just knowledge. anyway, that’s how it is for me. no you, but no freedom, no liberation, no way-cool-write-a-book-or-blogpost-about-it experience either. there’s still a lot of muck in the water. still, searching, none of that muck amounts to me, it's just muck. this bit enigma posted reminds me of the ocean-wave metaphor. there is no you is sort of like 'the wave' looking for itself and realizing that it's not a distinct wave -- and it's mostly not. the next step of realizing it's ocean, thereby shrinking the waveness to something approaching infinitely insignificant is not part of the curriculum (so far). notice there's still a wave. incidentally taking that metaphor a bit further the ocean is just a sink in the hydrogeological cycle yet the hydro cycle is just a concept because in fact water molecules leave it and are processed in chemical reactions where H and O are used in various other ways and new water molecules are produced through other reactions... and the energy released or captured during those reactions is also cycled all around you know, nothing dies -- just changes form the metaphor itself is energy and so on
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Jun 24, 2011 9:59:13 GMT -5
That which we are does things with beauty, power, grace, accuracy and with great effect.
But it doesn’t know how to drive a car, or fix a bicycle…heheh
Your true self, has nothing to do with cars or bikes.
The sense of a doer is more related to your consciousness, or personality.
When you’re driving your car or fixing your bike, being in touch with being, makes the task easier, with less effort, and utilizes more precision and awareness.
Being is showing you how to manifest the inward beauty to the outside…
Splitting that integration is giving one the sense of a doer, which of course there isn’t ultimately…
|
|
|
Post by question on Jun 24, 2011 11:21:32 GMT -5
Well, if you're referring to RT, I would say that what you gain is the knowledge of no-self, not the realization of it. I agree with Max. There are a lot of people there who come with sufficient intellectual understanding (knowledge) and are pushed towards dropping that knowledge and towards realizing in some other way than just intellectual. Here's a question that I think is related to the topic. It seems that we think of "doership" and "sense of self" in two different ways. 1) As a conginitive belief structure that eventually results in the actual experience of patterns that manifest as "feel like a self" and "feel like a doer". 2) As a feeling of sense of self and doer (that is a simple biological process of coordinating the organism) which the cognitive belief attaches to, appropriates and piggybacks on to produce the illusion that an actual self exists (and not just processes with a clear biological function). If 1) is true, then the collapse of the cognitive pattern necessitates the collapse of doership and selfhood. If 2) is true then even after the collapse of a cognitive belief, sense of doership and sense of self still may exist (although they don't belng to anyone). I don't know how the relation is between cognitive belief and visceral experience of doership and selfhood actually. But I think that the relation between these two should inform our strategy about how to see through them.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jun 24, 2011 11:37:00 GMT -5
Max, there's a pretty substantial difference between seeing that there is no self and having it actually fall away. I can see it in a split second, but it hasn't fallen away. Focusing on anything can slap you right into that no you mode, but it's just a mode. It's a thing that enters and exits over a course of time, which is then claimed by a self later on. There's some sort of a difference being imagined where no self becomes 'right' or 'real' and self becomes 'wrong' or 'unreal.'
As far as it being underwhelming, I think I disagree. There's a lot more going on, actually...it's just one thing when it does it. Things are far more alive and active--the whole world becomes completely interactive and spontaneous. It's definitely not life-rocking at this point, but the reason I see what I have as knowledge rather than realization is because I constantly come back here to try and reason this stuff out and get advice. If I truly realized that there wasn't a self, I don't think I would feel it necessary to try and do that. A realization doesn't leave even a shadow of a doubt, and I have plenty of that.
|
|