misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 7, 2009 0:42:09 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. Not that these are not helpful, but for such specific questions I would like specific answers if possible, instead of having to read through the lines. I hope that does not sound rude, but at this point I do not want to have to interpret things... Not labeling emotions has been a good help... Maybe I should just drop the questions and get all that much serious, but these specific questions are now on my mind! Thanks, Mike or(pure consciousness  ). |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 7, 2009 10:31:34 GMT -5
Okay, I'll answer the questions more simply. You can refer back to the first post the responses are unclear: I'm wondering, is vision the seen or the perceived as well?Yes, vision is inextricably linked to that which perceives and is perceived. Does the watcher watch vision or is vision one aspect of the watcher who also sees thought,emotion, internal and external objects?There is no difference between the watcher and the watched. All that is watched is contained within the watcher. The watcher is only Awareness itself. You can't really separate Awareness itself from whatever arises within that Awareness. 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? Headlessness is that which gives rise to all experience, including vision, feelings, and thoughts. Ultimately, recognizing all of that as going on independently of who and what you really are brings freedom, and allows one to discover that all those things ARE that same substance that you are.... Not that these are not helpful, but for such specific questions I would like specific answers if possible, instead of having to read through the lines. I hope that does not sound rude, but at this point I do not want to have to interpret things... Not labeling emotions has been a good help... Maybe I should just drop the questions and get all that much serious, but these specific questions are now on my mind! Thanks, Mike or(pure consciousness ). |
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 7, 2009 13:26:22 GMT -5
Okay, I'll answer the questions more simply. You can refer back to the first post the responses are unclear: I'm wondering, is vision the seen or the perceived as well?Yes, vision is inextricably linked to that which perceives and is perceived. Does the watcher watch vision or is vision one aspect of the watcher who also sees thought,emotion, internal and external objects?There is no difference between the watcher and the watched. All that is watched is contained within the watcher. The watcher is only Awareness itself. You can't really separate Awareness itself from whatever arises within that Awareness. 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? Headlessness is that which gives rise to all experience, including vision, feelings, and thoughts. Ultimately, recognizing all of that as going on independently of who and what you really are brings freedom, and allows one to discover that all those things ARE that same substance that you are.... Not that these are not helpful, but for such specific questions I would like specific answers if possible, instead of having to read through the lines. I hope that does not sound rude, but at this point I do not want to have to interpret things... Not labeling emotions has been a good help... Maybe I should just drop the questions and get all that much serious, but these specific questions are now on my mind! Thanks, Mike or(pure consciousness ). Ok thank you, that clears everything up! Seeing the world things as independent of yourself, is that duality though? I guess not since you said its all the same substance?... cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by The Uncreated on May 7, 2009 14:02:33 GMT -5
That's one way of looking at it, but a more direct comparison is your own awareness of yourself. It presents the interesting conundrum of splitting 'you' into two halves -- a subjective self which looks and an objective self which is being looked at. Can you see how this presents a problem to the definition of individuality? The mere action of looking at oneself evokes referential paradoxes of Godel-like similarlity. One can say "I am aware of myself", but what in you is aware of that awareness? And so on in increasingly deeper instances of parenthetical complexity not unlike the nature of mathematical set theory, where all known numbers in the universe spring out of the void of the number zero -- the null set. It's basically turtles all the way down, sir! Like two mirrors facing one another, your awareness of yourself creates an infinite regression of sub-witnesses. Following that endless regression will take you deeper and deeper into the Void and away from the "I Am", leaving you with an increasingly lessened perception of yourself where there is witnessing but a faint to nonexistent sense of a witnessing center. Infinity might be impossibly large, but there are bigger infinities. The search will never, ever end for you as conscious evolution is itself endless, each step an exponential leap up the ladder whereby the knowledge gained at every step below it is available to you in a timeless instant. Enlightenment is not the end of a search, nor is it the beginning. It always was and is, expanding and gaining in intelligence. - |
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 7, 2009 16:17:02 GMT -5
I wonder if it is faster or more efficient rather to be or marinate in I AM, OR to see the I AM and all other objects, so that you yourself are only seeing and what you thought to be yourself is an object like the computer you are typing on? Or is the latter impossible until abiding in the I AM.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Uncreated on May 7, 2009 23:48:08 GMT -5
Just watch the "I Am." It can be through any of the five senses (aggregates). If you taste the sweetness of sugar, for example, ask yourself to whom does the taste occur.
Analyze the nature of the tasting and where taste could possibly originate from. Is taste in the object being tasted or in the tongue, or neither? Are the taster, tasting and tasted in fact separate? If not, which of the three prevails when the "I Am" has been seen through?
Repeat the experiment through any of the other senses as you see fit. For some, analyzing certain senses evoke more effective results (for me it's touch).
For more on self-enquiry through the senses, look up something called the Surangama Sutra. It's the story of a collection of 'arhats' who came to realization through different senses. The Buddha takes the reader through completely analyzing each sense so that all angles are covered for all temperaments. It's a document that if read and followed diligently could lead one to awakening.
-
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 8, 2009 11:43:57 GMT -5
Nicely said. I appreciate your unique way of talking about it. That's one way of looking at it, but a more direct comparison is your own awareness of yourself. It presents the interesting conundrum of splitting 'you' into two halves -- a subjective self which looks and an objective self which is being looked at. Can you see how this presents a problem to the definition of individuality? The mere action of looking at oneself evokes referential paradoxes of Godel-like similarlity. One can say "I am aware of myself", but what in you is aware of that awareness? And so on in increasingly deeper instances of parenthetical complexity not unlike the nature of mathematical set theory, where all known numbers in the universe spring out of the void of the number zero -- the null set. It's basically turtles all the way down, sir! Like two mirrors facing one another, your awareness of yourself creates an infinite regression of sub-witnesses. Following that endless regression will take you deeper and deeper into the Void and away from the "I Am", leaving you with an increasingly lessened perception of yourself where there is witnessing but a faint to nonexistent sense of a witnessing center. Infinity might be impossibly large, but there are bigger infinities. The search will never, ever end for you as conscious evolution is itself endless, each step an exponential leap up the ladder whereby the knowledge gained at every step below it is available to you in a timeless instant. Enlightenment is not the end of a search, nor is it the beginning. It always was and is, expanding and gaining in intelligence. - |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 8, 2009 11:46:49 GMT -5
It depends who you are identified with. If there is identification with a limited individual, then there one CAN only perceive the world to be different from themselves. But to identify with the "I AM" (as you put it) allows one to realize the relationship between that and all relativity, including the personality. The primary thing must be that shift in Awareness, in identification. After all, Awareness IS what we are. So close to us that we miss it. The idea of being separate human beings is actually something extra... Ok thank you, that clears everything up! Seeing the world things as independent of yourself, is that duality though? I guess not since you said its all the same substance?... cheers, |
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on May 9, 2009 16:29:38 GMT -5
Just watch the "I Am." It can be through any of the five senses (aggregates). If you taste the sweetness of sugar, for example, ask yourself to whom does the taste occur. Analyze the nature of the tasting and where taste could possibly originate from. Is taste in the object being tasted or in the tongue, or neither? Are the taster, tasting and tasted in fact separate? If not, which of the three prevails when the "I Am" has been seen through? Repeat the experiment through any of the other senses as you see fit. For some, analyzing certain senses evoke more effective results (for me it's touch). For more on self-enquiry through the senses, look up something called the Surangama Sutra. It's the story of a collection of 'arhats' who came to realization through different senses. The Buddha takes the reader through completely analyzing each sense so that all angles are covered for all temperaments. It's a document that if read and followed diligently could lead one to awakening. - Watch the I AM by being I AM is all I can do, making a separation between watcher and I AM probably wont work for me. If I feel touch the feeling occurs to me. I will check out the surangama if it is available online. |
|
|
|
Post by anotherson on Jun 10, 2009 20:52:29 GMT -5
Brother, your words read like my state. Once you Know you are One with All that IS, has Been and Will Be, what's next?
The perfect man has no self;
The spiritual man has no merit;
The holy man has no fame.
I find myself too in the Great Void.
The prophet Benjamin Franklyn said: "Beer is proof God loves us and wants us to be happy."
Cheers,
|
|
|
|
Post by candacechil on Jun 17, 2009 18:16:15 GMT -5
I've heard this line alot about the search preventing the awakening. Maybe the search -on one side and the ceasing from the search- on the other side--are the base of the triangle, and awakening is the apex ( top)- As Richard Rose outlines in his stuff about between-ness. I'm reading it right now in The Direct Mind Experience. So in other words, somewhere "between" an intense search, and an intense despair and giving up of a search is where the light is. or in another paradigm entirely that comes about and not from the rejection of either one of the original ideas.  I think becoming increasingly troubled about life is, first of all, normal. If you aren't troubled about this life, you are asleep. And then, I'd like to ask...do you have to do anything with your life? What if there is nowhere to go, and nothing to do....? Who is the "you" that is required to do something? I mean there are all kinds of places to go and things to do, but none of them will add any meaning (really) to you. This is what Im thinking. Thanks for writing so much. javascript:add("%20:)") |
|
|
|
Post by souley on Jun 21, 2009 8:32:21 GMT -5
So some time later and I can probably add something new to this.. The search is really nothing wrong, as long as it is not a search to reach something. Everything about realization is destroying all the false ideas that you take on board through your conditioning. The search is the seeing of these ideas as false. How do you see that? Be honest about what is going on, watch your reactions and judgements and what they do to you (etc, nothing knew). Is that not a search? It might be helpful to say that "the search is preventing", because the wrong search sure is. But a search for truth, in my opinion, would include seeing through a false search that tries to attain something. I think honesty is an important factor here, admit to not knowing **** about you or your life, for example. But oh my god it is hard.. I still dont understand all the talk about that the search keeps us from awakening/realizing. Why would it? Searching the wrong way wont lead anywhere, one might say. But when it is noticed that it is not leading anywhere, and that search is ended, you are not at the same place as where you started. For me the search has definitely taken me to a place that is miles away from where I started. It is of course also a matter of what we mean when we use words like "search". But to want it, and try for it, is not a bad thing in my experience. But there are many different ways to do it and some ways might have to be given up to find out what works. And what works might be "nothing", but to come to that realization through some failed searching, isn't that actually a successful search? I am not "fully realized" yet or whatever words are appropriate, but this is my experience. |
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Jul 3, 2009 17:20:06 GMT -5
I think you're right, there is nothing wrong with searching just as not being awake is not wrong either.
I think searching is not a very good approach because it sets a huge impossible goal.
I think searching in the form of curiosity, where the search is instantaneous because you are curios and want to know what something is, is how we should view searching. I think in this way it leaves us very very open to whatever arises. It's like following your nose and you're not sure what you'll find versus setting out looking for something you think you will recognize. You will ignore everything that you pass if it's not what you are looking for.
|
|
|
|
Post by souley on Jul 5, 2009 12:06:03 GMT -5
Yes, definitely!
I think a common misunderstanding of the search is that one is trying to find the abstract idea of enlightenment, some kind of magical place where everything is fine. But the real search is finding out what life really is, looking as deeply as you can on everything that you know. That search is a painful look at what's really going on and will result in enlightenment, while the first is just some kind of hopeful story. Enlightenment is life, life is enlightenment, any abstract idea or concept has nothing to do with it, and can keep you stuck.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jul 6, 2009 10:53:52 GMT -5
Yes, that's a good point. The search is only a problem if it has to imply something OTHER than what is going on now in terms of content. Sure the relationship to content can change, and that's incredibly useful, but if one thinks that "searching" for Enlightenment means negating what's in front of them, then the search for Enlightenment really DOES have to be given up in a sense in order to find it. It's not the desire that has to be given up or the willingness to keep looking and moving, but there must be an understanding that what is being searched for is already there, it's just that clarity needs to grow over time in order to see it. And clarity comes from starting allow those things we resist to begin to let go and not be resisted.... Yes, definitely! I think a common misunderstanding of the search is that one is trying to find the abstract idea of enlightenment, some kind of magical place where everything is fine. But the real search is finding out what life really is, looking as deeply as you can on everything that you know. That search is a painful look at what's really going on and will result in enlightenment, while the first is just some kind of hopeful story. Enlightenment is life, life is enlightenment, any abstract idea or concept has nothing to do with it, and can keep you stuck. |
|
).
