misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Apr 9, 2009 23:10:41 GMT -5
I reckon that the search does prevent, but the search is part of the total process of awakening.
|
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Apr 11, 2009 11:36:38 GMT -5
Yes it is part of the total process of awakening, just as much as a piece of gum stuck on your shoe is a part of the shoe.
Have you ever heard or read spiritual teachers say, " you need to find out who you really are" , "you are just seeing an illusion, what is there was always there", "you need to awaken to what you already are". All these statements refer to something being there already. It does not need to be searched for because it's already there. It needs to be stopped being searched for so that it can naturally reveal itself. The search is clouding our insights and we are too occupied with thought to realize reality.
That's my take on it and I'm not there either, not that there's anywhere to go, but I'm still searching just out of habit, I know that there's nothing to find or get but I guess I don't really really know it because I would stop searching then, wouldn't I.
So I'm pretty confused, I can't figure out how to get to nowhere, or how not to figure anything out, I don't know?
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 11, 2009 15:26:02 GMT -5
Here's the thing: It's true that it cannot be searched for. The very separate person who is trying to find it doesn't really exist, and so will never be there AS the individual, AS the separate person. It's not the individual who's all of existence per se, but it could be said that it's the individual who recognizes that he/she was never really an individual. So it's more like the resistances that are going on when we are in "status quo" are what prevent us from seeing what's already going on. Thus, it really is that we have to find these resistance, and allow them to release, to resolve. And then there is less of us. Something simpler. And this process continues until there is so little in the way of what's going on that there is an automatic sinking into the recognition of what becomes self evident. I am THAT. Now here's the "on the other hand": There can be a recognition that to even be searching in the first place, there must be a feeling that one is searching for. Thus, there must be presence of the feeling on some quiet level in order to even realize that we want it. The recognition that the feeling desired must already be there, but in seed form, allows the water of our attention to bring it to fruition. The constant searching from the assumption "I don't have it" can, and usually does, seriously get in the way if there is not that recognition. That said, having the feeling in seed form isn't the same as it blooming, so it should not be mistaken for the tree. It's not saying that there is nothing more that can be done. It's more like saying that the kernel of desire IS the thing, and having the attention will let it bloom and bear fruit. And that's the stable fulfilling stuff. I hope that makes sense....
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Apr 11, 2009 18:43:49 GMT -5
to me the search is really the stalling of pure being, what else can it be for we are not searching for an object.
|
|
|
Post by souley on Apr 12, 2009 5:26:06 GMT -5
I would say that the intellectual part of the search may be preventing, but searching for the feeling of it can not be preventing.
The search (the "successful" part it anyway) for me was/is totally experiential, you can only feel the truth, by being honest to what feels true, trusting your intuition, or something like that. You can intellectually see whats false in you, but you cannot intellectually find anything because it has nothing to do with thinking, it is pure experience.
A combination of intellectually seeing what is "false self"/misunderstanding/ego/concepts etc, and being honest with this feeling that LM is talking about would be my recommendation. And even then the feeling is definitely primary, it's extremely easy to get confused trying to grasp anything intellectually.
For me it has been like developing a skill of finding this feeling again and again, persisting in all situations. I think that is what really matters, anything else may or may not help, I don't know.
I would really like to be able to point to this feeling more clearly.. but finding it, that is probably the true search.
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 12, 2009 12:47:53 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but I find the process itself fascinating in it's own right.... Pure Being is the result of NOT doing anything additional. It's only old habits/patterns/etc. that get in the way of recognizing and appreciating what's already going on all the time. These are caused by resistances because it means really seeing that what was being resisted, which is ANY thing or feeling perceived as threatening, is actually safe. The result of this inquiry, however, is the dissolution of identifying with the idea of individual. It's the recognition that the individual NEVER existed as a separate entity. And it's not that people are necessarily actively resisting these things, but more that people HAVE been resisting their whole life. Usually many many lifetimes. And so old habits die hard, especially when it appears that the result will be complete annihilation. Thus, the time when the something deeper is first recognized to be something that one can always have up to the time when the recognition has fully been seen and had a chance to sink in is pervaded with feelings of not having it. It's pervading with the idea of a "search", but that's just something to keep the mind occupied while the real work is done. These are very real, intense, physiological changes that culminate in a different way of EXISTING. So the idea that there doesn't have to be a process is purely theoretical. The idea that what one desires isn't there is a misconception however. And the most direct process is that of recognizing that it is already there. This automatically spurs the resistances to unwind. Misc. - If you feel like the process is different (because that was your experience or whatever) then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That said, I have yet to see a process that did not follow this structure to some extent. At most, the process took place over a really long period of time and the whole Enlightenment thing snuck up and surprised them. But those people skipped the whole "seeker" phase, because they weren't even aware of wanting it until it was too late. That can happen when the process comes on slowly enough and one has the right personality for that kind of process. to me the search is really the stalling of pure being, what else can it be for we are not searching for an object.
|
|
|
Post by keepsearching on Apr 21, 2009 16:59:01 GMT -5
Google "Neo-advaita". There is a danger of some of these teachers, that take the intellectual approach of the Advaita Vedanta and say that you are already enlightened, and just stop seeking. This is total bullshit. True, the desire and grasping to be enlightened must eventually fall away. Some say enlightened is by grace and by accident BUT by doing practices one doing the practices becomes more receptive to grace or more accident prone. Thats NOT to say DO NOTHING.
Be honest. If you are still suffering -- then something needs to be done about that. Non-dualism cannot be understood intellectually, it must be lived directly. If you think you know it, then that is not it.
Anything that can be known or perceived is not it...
The *real* Advaita Vedanta provides both the intellectual discussion on non-dualism but it ALSO gives the techniques to become more receptive to grace, and yoga if anything, cultivates the inner silence -- so one day the outer layers may fall away -- and silence remains..
Be very careful!! Look to this real non-dual teachers, like Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj or Ramana MAharshi. They advice direct and simple techniques to cut through the delusions of the mind.
May your search take you beyond the mind to who you are! Non-duality must be entered as a direct experience, by starting with dual methods/techniques. Eventually those techniques (e.g. Atma-Vichara or Mindfulnness) allow the outer layers of the self to fall away, leaving the experience of the self alone -- and this is non-dual.
Please, please do not stop the search!
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Apr 28, 2009 23:51:07 GMT -5
Not that it matters, but I find the process itself fascinating in it's own right.... Pure Being is the result of NOT doing anything additional. It's only old habits/patterns/etc. that get in the way of recognizing and appreciating what's already going on all the time. These are caused by resistances because it means really seeing that what was being resisted, which is ANY thing or feeling perceived as threatening, is actually safe. The result of this inquiry, however, is the dissolution of identifying with the idea of individual. It's the recognition that the individual NEVER existed as a separate entity. And it's not that people are necessarily actively resisting these things, but more that people HAVE been resisting their whole life. Usually many many lifetimes. And so old habits die hard, especially when it appears that the result will be complete annihilation. Thus, the time when the something deeper is first recognized to be something that one can always have up to the time when the recognition has fully been seen and had a chance to sink in is pervaded with feelings of not having it. It's pervading with the idea of a "search", but that's just something to keep the mind occupied while the real work is done. These are very real, intense, physiological changes that culminate in a different way of EXISTING. So the idea that there doesn't have to be a process is purely theoretical. The idea that what one desires isn't there is a misconception however. And the most direct process is that of recognizing that it is already there. This automatically spurs the resistances to unwind. Misc. - If you feel like the process is different (because that was your experience or whatever) then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That said, I have yet to see a process that did not follow this structure to some extent. At most, the process took place over a really long period of time and the whole Enlightenment thing snuck up and surprised them. But those people skipped the whole "seeker" phase, because they weren't even aware of wanting it until it was too late. That can happen when the process comes on slowly enough and one has the right personality for that kind of process. to me the search is really the stalling of pure being, what else can it be for we are not searching for an object. No no, I still maintain that the search is a part of it, I was defining the search.
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 29, 2009 10:33:30 GMT -5
Oh, ok. I see what you're saying now. It seems that the stalling of pure being was already going on. The search is the "unstalling" of it, of our own patterns, if you will. Does that make sense? Not that it matters, but I find the process itself fascinating in it's own right.... Pure Being is the result of NOT doing anything additional. It's only old habits/patterns/etc. that get in the way of recognizing and appreciating what's already going on all the time. These are caused by resistances because it means really seeing that what was being resisted, which is ANY thing or feeling perceived as threatening, is actually safe. The result of this inquiry, however, is the dissolution of identifying with the idea of individual. It's the recognition that the individual NEVER existed as a separate entity. And it's not that people are necessarily actively resisting these things, but more that people HAVE been resisting their whole life. Usually many many lifetimes. And so old habits die hard, especially when it appears that the result will be complete annihilation. Thus, the time when the something deeper is first recognized to be something that one can always have up to the time when the recognition has fully been seen and had a chance to sink in is pervaded with feelings of not having it. It's pervading with the idea of a "search", but that's just something to keep the mind occupied while the real work is done. These are very real, intense, physiological changes that culminate in a different way of EXISTING. So the idea that there doesn't have to be a process is purely theoretical. The idea that what one desires isn't there is a misconception however. And the most direct process is that of recognizing that it is already there. This automatically spurs the resistances to unwind. Misc. - If you feel like the process is different (because that was your experience or whatever) then I'm interested in hearing what you have to say. That said, I have yet to see a process that did not follow this structure to some extent. At most, the process took place over a really long period of time and the whole Enlightenment thing snuck up and surprised them. But those people skipped the whole "seeker" phase, because they weren't even aware of wanting it until it was too late. That can happen when the process comes on slowly enough and one has the right personality for that kind of process. No no, I still maintain that the search is a part of it, I was defining the search.
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 4, 2009 0:43:55 GMT -5
Oh, ok. I see what you're saying now. It seems that the stalling of pure being was already going on. The search is the "unstalling" of it, of our own patterns, if you will. Does that make sense? No no, I still maintain that the search is a part of it, I was defining the search. Yes that makes sense... Whats your say on having no head? Harding says that we literally have no heads, and I can see what he means but im wondering, what to do with that? Is the no head the place we should abide in? but it feels like the no head is only half of my being, and has only to do with eyes? theres still the bottom and insides of me? one more question if you could please answer as most you can clearly, what is the exact definition of looking within? i mean is external objects looking without, and attention to emotions and thought within? or is there another within? thanks, mike.
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 4, 2009 10:26:10 GMT -5
Awesome questions. I love addressing awesome questions.... In terms of having no head, it seems that he's referring to what we really are. The "being" which has a head is actually on a construct of separation that we have been creating for so long we forgot that it was even a possibility not to identify with it. That which perceives the being, perceives the thoughts, perceives the emotions. The watcher, that which is Aware. Is what we are. And that isn't a static limited thing. It includes other things. So what we are isn't something that has a head. It's like the zen saying "what was your face before your were born?". Same way pointing.... Do you relate to that? Based on the kinds of things you've said before in this forum it sounds like you do.... There are a couple different ways to talk about looking within. Ultimately, it's a method of discovering that what we want is always available, because it is the same as what we ARE. There is a place where those two things are identical, and it's the place where what we are is recognized to be unconfine-able. From there, everything is available to us. So, for example, looking within could be basic self inquiry: "who am I?" Am I my body? My emotions? My mind? How do I know? etc. And that can work very well for some people. Another way of looking within can mean recognizing that any desires that we have is actually for a feeling happening now. It's just not strong enough yet to be satisfying. Attention to that feeling creates a situation where the feeling can be strong enough to always be satisfying. This is another way of talking about putting attention on being. It's recognizing that one is not separate from whatever comes into Awareness. If satisfaction is being treated like something that can only come from the outside, then there is no permanent fulfillment, and even very limited fulfillment of desire. By recognizing that what we want MUST already be there on some level to even know to want it, then all desires, all feelings, are given the credit they deserve, and there is completion. A third way of talking about it is looking at that substance which underlies all things. That is within, and can be felt. To have one's attention constantly on that, then all of life starts to be recognized as that same thing. All of life becomes a simply putting of attention on that Being that we are.... Anyway, I hope those examples were enough to show what is the common thing of looking within to all of them. If that wasn't clear, feel free to give more specific questions or to ask for more clarification. I would be happy to do that... But, hopefully, you see what I'm saying... Yes that makes sense... Whats your say on having no head? Harding says that we literally have no heads, and I can see what he means but im wondering, what to do with that? Is the no head the place we should abide in? but it feels like the no head is only half of my being, and has only to do with eyes? theres still the bottom and insides of me? one more question if you could please answer as most you can clearly, what is the exact definition of looking within? i mean is external objects looking without, and attention to emotions and thought within? or is there another within? thanks, mike.
|
|
|
Post by souley on May 4, 2009 10:54:34 GMT -5
Yes that makes sense... Whats your say on having no head? Harding says that we literally have no heads, and I can see what he means but im wondering, what to do with that? Is the no head the place we should abide in? but it feels like the no head is only half of my being, and has only to do with eyes? theres still the bottom and insides of me? I realize this was addressed to LM, but I love Harding so.. One of the things people learn while growing up is to project a face/head, but it really isn't there. It is only visible from an outside perspective, and never really where YOU are. Harding separates the view in and the view out as he calls it. He is really serious that there is no head, but I think he has chosen to emphasize it partly because it is a bit humorous. Harding wrote a book called The Hierarchy of Heaven and Earth where he explores this subject on a deeply scientific and philosophical level, something he studied for many years. I don't think it's very helpful to read though, and it can be hard to understand.. but there are a lot of explanations if you really want them. What to do with it? The space where you thought you had a head, is really capacity for the world. Focusing on that creates a view in, where you recognize that space or capacity. Instead of focusing on the objects of the world, you bring the subject into attention. And paradoxically that makes the rest of the world more available as well. Try as often as possible to remind you of the view in, that this is where you see the world, this bottomless, undefinable area. It can be tough in the beginning to get the feeling of it. It is true that it is limited to vision in a sense, but it just easier to recognize that way, we are very visual. The visual no-head thing was Hardings way of discovery, and it is a very helpful pointer. You might as well listen to silence, and how the sounds come into that, which other teachers talk about.. and there are some experiments about feeling on the headless website I believe. In the end it is really the same thing as the ways that Lightmystic are pointing to it. For me the no-head thing works very well, and I find Harding to be extraordinarily intelligent and down-to-earth, which I like. But I also combine all these ways of recognizing, sometimes some work better then others.
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 4, 2009 14:48:23 GMT -5
Both posts were helpful, I'll still have to read them over a few more times though. I'm wondering, is vision the seen or the perceived as well? Like one thing that has struck me lately as very helpful is "The seer and the seen are the same." Does the watcher watch vision or is vision one aspect of the watcher who also sees thought,emotion, internal and external objects? Its really kind of sad, last night I really went into the seer and the seen being the same and all the answers came to me but now i've forgotten somehow! Also, is the vision aspect sufficent for remaining as the self (headless), or does it have to combine vision with feeling and awareness of thought?
Thanks again, Mike.
|
|
|
Post by souley on May 4, 2009 15:40:24 GMT -5
Both posts were helpful, I'll still have to read them over a few more times though. I'm wondering, is vision the seen or the perceived as well? Like one thing that has struck me lately as very helpful is "The seer and the seen are the same." Does the watcher watch vision or is vision one aspect of the watcher who also sees thought,emotion, internal and external objects? Its really kind of sad, last night I really went into the seer and the seen being the same and all the answers came to me but now i've forgotten somehow! Also, is the vision aspect sufficent for remaining as the self (headless), or does it have to combine vision with feeling and awareness of thought? Thanks again, Mike. These are very advanced questions and I'm not really qualified to answer. But I'll give you my understanding of some of it.. it's just so interesting:) If you look at something, say a card. There really is no card, there is the relation between you and the card, and that looks like a card. If you would try to look closer at the card, it would vanish into particles. Relativity teaches us that for there to be an event there needs to be an observer as well. There are only relations and no things. Which means that the vision is really the relationship of looking. But hell, I'm in really deep waters here.. And if the watcher experiences vision, or is vision, or sees vision, etc... I have absolutely no clue ;D
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 5, 2009 10:16:35 GMT -5
These are the really good questions.... It's kind of like this: There is Awareness. Perception. Perception inherently has the faculties of all possible senses. These faculties are inextricably linked to the perceiver. In the same way, objects of perception all fall within perception. They have to. So they are inextricably linked to perception. Even when they are out of direct perception the memory and the potentiality remain within perception. An "object" of perception is simply sensory input to which we add a concept of separate integrity ("oh, that thing I'm seeing is a chair"). Calling it chair limits it in a sense, but makes it functional. The conceptual naming of things is a function of the intellect, which is also part and parcel of Awareness, of Perception. So what we call basic perception is simply sensory input + a story about the input we're seeing. There must be a story to be life, but the belief that the story is confining is what causes problems. And if a story is actually being identified with, which either is or was the case for everyone, then there is enough limitation that we can call it suffering... Similarly, internal "objects" of perception work the exact same way. Natural impulses and feelings are experienced and then "named". Oh, that emotion is sadness, etc.. One of the most amazing things for me was something Byron Katie said: The feeling of sadness is not really sadness. It's love. It's the heart being filled to capacity, trying to make room for more. The slight twinge of limitation is simply when we believe that the love is not growing, and that the old boundaries that are being pushed against are not moving. But they are. That can be trusted, and sadness can become something so moving and beautiful. That is one example, but I find it to be true for all emotions. Is it really anger? Perhaps that's limiting what the feeling really is, as another example.... Not having a head 8:) includes all things that could be considered objects of perception, including all possible namings of them. Because it includes ALL of them, none of them are the "right" story, and therein lies freedom. Because then there is no more need to go one way or the other. The control is realized never to have been there in the first place. So, there is nothing that it does not include. How does that strike you? Both posts were helpful, I'll still have to read them over a few more times though. I'm wondering, is vision the seen or the perceived as well? Like one thing that has struck me lately as very helpful is "The seer and the seen are the same." Does the watcher watch vision or is vision one aspect of the watcher who also sees thought,emotion, internal and external objects? Its really kind of sad, last night I really went into the seer and the seen being the same and all the answers came to me but now i've forgotten somehow! Also, is the vision aspect sufficent for remaining as the self (headless), or does it have to combine vision with feeling and awareness of thought? Thanks again, Mike.
|
|