Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 15:03:49 GMT -5
You lost me.
It's not about what works, it's about what is seen. The scene is running itself.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 16:06:33 GMT -5
I was essentially saying that changing the word "Behind" to "before" really does not change the meaning of what I was tryin to convey. IN saying, "What needs to be seen through is the idea that we can know, understand, realize, with certainty what's actually going on behind/before this experience," I am saying: The final frontier of freedom is to let go of the need to know anything 'about' the nature of experience. It matters not whether we're attempting to determine what's going on 'before, behind, in front of, of after' experience itself. It's all pretty much the same thing. I was talking about it 'working' for the sake of the sentence still making the point I was originally trying to make. When you changed the word 'behind' to 'before' it did not change my meaning. To say, "It is running itself" or even, 'there is someone or something running it' is to engage in story-telling about "the scene". There is experience. This is. Period. When we're finally content to simply say, 'there is an experience happening' and we give up the 'need' to know about the nature of it, we've reached the final frontier of release...we've let go of our attachment to knowing about what's going on...what is true. It's a tough one to let go of because initially that understanding about what's 'really' going on was what seemed to pull us from the dregs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 16:25:20 GMT -5
I was essentially saying that changing the word "Behind" to "before" really does not change the meaning of what I was tryin to convey. IN saying, "What needs to be seen through is the idea that we can know, understand, realize, with certainty what's actually going on behind/before this experience," I am saying: The final frontier of freedom is to let go of the need to know anything 'about' the nature of experience. It matters not whether we're attempting to determine what's going on 'before, behind, in front of, of after' experience itself. It's all pretty much the same thing. I was talking about it 'working' for the sake of the sentence still making the point I was originally trying to make. When you changed the word 'behind' to 'before' it did not change my meaning. To say, "It is running itself" or even, 'there is someone or something running it' is to engage in story-telling about "the scene". There is experience. This is. Period. When we're finally content to simply say, 'there is an experience happening' and we give up the 'need' to know about the nature of it, we've reached the final frontier of release...we've let go of our attachment to knowing about what's going on...what is true. It's a tough one to let go of because initially that understanding about what's 'really' going on was what seemed to pull us from the dregs. Ok. The best suggestion I can make is for you to ask, what you term the 'behind', if it actually knows, why it's doing what it's doing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 17:55:21 GMT -5
I was essentially saying that changing the word "Behind" to "before" really does not change the meaning of what I was tryin to convey. IN saying, "What needs to be seen through is the idea that we can know, understand, realize, with certainty what's actually going on behind/before this experience," I am saying: The final frontier of freedom is to let go of the need to know anything 'about' the nature of experience. It matters not whether we're attempting to determine what's going on 'before, behind, in front of, of after' experience itself. It's all pretty much the same thing. I was talking about it 'working' for the sake of the sentence still making the point I was originally trying to make. When you changed the word 'behind' to 'before' it did not change my meaning. To say, "It is running itself" or even, 'there is someone or something running it' is to engage in story-telling about "the scene". There is experience. This is. Period. When we're finally content to simply say, 'there is an experience happening' and we give up the 'need' to know about the nature of it, we've reached the final frontier of release...we've let go of our attachment to knowing about what's going on...what is true. It's a tough one to let go of because initially that understanding about what's 'really' going on was what seemed to pull us from the dregs. Ok. The best suggestion I can make is for you to ask, what you term the 'behind', if it actually knows, why it's doing what it's doing. Why would I ask an idea if it actually knows what it's doing? My point was that whole idea of something 'behind, before, in front of, other than' 'this' which I am directly experiencing in this present moment,eventually, also gets seen for the mind-play that it is. Not a bad thing, not a good thing...just an idea, and like all ideas, not something to attach to as 'truth.'
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2013 18:34:00 GMT -5
The belief in the separate, volitional self is at the core of suffering. Extreme emotional pain (which is what I'd call suffering) hinges upon a sense that something very, very important (a need) is currently missing from my experience. Is it really the belief in 'a separate volitional person' that lies behind my emotional pain over the fact that someone stole my new car, or is it the belief that I cannot be at peace/happy (whatever label you choose to give to that state of being that is absent of emotional pain and need) without my new car? If one had made peace with the idea that material goods come and go and although I very much liked my new car, my sense of well being need not be wrapped up in it, there will be no 'suffering' over it. It has nothing to do with whether or not one experiences a separate, volitional self or not. It's about seeing through the idea that something is needed to be anything different than what it is in this moment. I would not define suffering as extreme emotional pain. Most humans live their entire lives with an empty space inside that they try endlessly to fill with all manner of distractions, half awake, half alive, aware of their mortality and desperately trying to control what cannot be controlled. To be in denial of that does not mean suffering does not happen. You will call that a lowly view of humanity. I call it an honest one. Identification with a separate self automatically defines something as lacking. The nature of separation is lack. Something is always going to be missing from your experience because the separate self is the very definition of incomplete. You will never reconcile your personal needs with a world that has no particular interest in fulfilling them.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on May 24, 2013 18:45:47 GMT -5
Ok. The best suggestion I can make is for you to ask, what you term the 'behind', if it actually knows, why it's doing what it's doing. Why would I ask an idea if it actually knows what it's doing? My point was that whole idea of something 'behind, before, in front of, other than' 'this' which I am directly experiencing in this present moment,eventually, also gets seen for the mind-play that it is. Not a bad thing, not a good thing...just an idea, and like all ideas, not something to attach to as 'truth.' Yanno, figs, something that just came to me ... You speak as if attachments are the 'bad' thing. Though, I'm with you, here. It's not that attachments are inherently 'bad' things, anymore than having the nose ripped off your face by a swinging crane hook is an inherently 'bad' thing. But anyone who has experienced the freedom that comes with de-taching from something that they were hitherto at-tached will likely testify that they don't want to be attached any more than they would want to have the nose ripped off their face by a swinging crane hook.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2013 18:48:51 GMT -5
really? I'd say most who are suffering are intensely interested in having the emotional pain cease. And the nature of being human seems to have us seeking answers, seeking 'what is true,' so I'd say an interest in 'absolute truth' is a driving force in all of us. I said most suffering folks have no interest in peace. I didn't say they weren't interested in having emotional pain cease. I said most have never heard of absolute truth. I didn't say they weren't seeking answers. I agree you seem pretty pleased with yourself. Nothing is actually true. How many times do I have to say that? So you see through the idea that there is not a separate, volitional self? IOW, you see through the idea of seeing through an idea, which in your mind invalidates the first seeing but not the second. Mind games. More mind games.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2013 18:52:42 GMT -5
Sure, that works. With the use of the word 'behind' I was trying to capture the sense that some have that there is something going on behind the scenes, so to speak....what is 'really' going on in comparison to what is only appearing/being experienced. Nothing is happening behind the scenes.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on May 24, 2013 18:55:43 GMT -5
Extreme emotional pain (which is what I'd call suffering) hinges upon a sense that something very, very important (a need) is currently missing from my experience. Is it really the belief in 'a separate volitional person' that lies behind my emotional pain over the fact that someone stole my new car, or is it the belief that I cannot be at peace/happy (whatever label you choose to give to that state of being that is absent of emotional pain and need) without my new car? If one had made peace with the idea that material goods come and go and although I very much liked my new car, my sense of well being need not be wrapped up in it, there will be no 'suffering' over it. It has nothing to do with whether or not one experiences a separate, volitional self or not. It's about seeing through the idea that something is needed to be anything different than what it is in this moment. I would not define suffering as extreme emotional pain. Most humans live their entire lives with an empty space inside that they try endlessly to fill with all manner of distractions, half awake, half alive, aware of their mortality and desperately trying to control what cannot be controlled. To be in denial of that does not mean suffering does not happen. You will call that a lowly view of humanity. I call it an honest one. Identification with a separate self automatically defines something as lacking. The nature of separation is lack. Something is always going to be missing from your experience because the separate self is the very definition of incomplete. You will never reconcile your personal needs with a world that has no particular interest in fulfilling them. Yeah, figs, I'm rezzin' with E big time, on this one. The belief in a separate, volitional 'I' is what is behind any emotionality of possessing a new car, whether that emotion is good or bad. No belief in the 'I' means a car is just a car, whether it's new, old, cheap, pricey, stolen or not stolen.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 24, 2013 19:03:26 GMT -5
Hi laughter, Lets see if we can relate this to how we feel about why we are alive. For me there is a desire to continue living because I find many aspects of life joyful and interesting and my mind works on discomfort. From a nondual perspective this is simply Oneness amiting. In your view what role does desire play in driving manifestation, and do you have a view on how, from a nondual perspective, one appears as the illusion of two? I'm not used to thinking about this in the terms you have used so please pose the question differently if necessary to suit you. amit amit I I can't express a view on anything from a nondual perspective, and please know that I'm not being flip in my answer. If you'd like, I can give an answer to this question sourced from "within the dream", so to speak ... one as rooted in duality as the one I gave to the "why" version of this question earlier, but of course different, as the how is certainly different from the why. As far as desire is concerned, in the context of people and our desires, it appears that our desires shape our choices and our actions -- this is based on the assumption of taking individuality as reality. If I don't make that assumption I don't really have much to say about desire because the very ideas of choice and action take on different meaning, which is to say, no meaning of any significance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 20:29:09 GMT -5
I would not define suffering as extreme emotional pain. Most humans live their entire lives with an empty space inside that they try endlessly to fill with all manner of distractions, half awake, half alive, aware of their mortality and desperately trying to control what cannot be controlled. That description sounds like 'extreme emotional pain' to me, but is it really true that MOST humans live this way? I do not experience the 'others' who show up in my reality in this way...I have met a few though who do experience this way, and yes, I would say they do appear to experience a great deal of emotional pain and yes, I would classify that as 'suffering.' My seeing 'others' as whole and mostly happy is not a reflection of denial....I simply do not encounter such things very often in my reality. YOu do, so you say 'most' humans are suffering. A 'world view' is based upon the experience we have with 'others' as we move through this thing called life. There is no actual, tangible device with which to measure the state of being of folks the world over, but rather, we create our view of 'most humans' through our personal experiences of others. Not unless being a separate self is being compared to something believed to be better...or more real....or more true. [/quote] The nature of separation is lack. Something is always going to be missing from your experience because the separate self is the very definition of incomplete.[/quote] WEll, sure, if you define it that way......obviously, not everyone does though. "personal needs" of an emotional nature can be shed regardless of whether oneness has been realized.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 20:43:40 GMT -5
I said most suffering folks have no interest in peace. I didn't say they weren't interested in having emotional pain cease. What is Peace really if not an absence? What is 'absolute truth' other than a truth that is more true than another? Surely in seeking answers, folks are not seeking a truth that is lesser than the truest? You've said many times that Oneness is true and separation is false. If nothing is true, then nothing is true, and we don't go around saying certain things are false, as that naturally brings into play something that is true. It's actually the absence of mind games. When all beliefs are released, the games end. NO more Oneness to cling to when the going gets tough, no more lessening the pain by telling ourselves experience is 'just' an illusion...No more divvying up experience into real vs. illusive.....When the need to tell stories about 'this' ends, there's no longer any need to play the mind games that once were required to remain at peace.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 20:46:45 GMT -5
Sure, that works. With the use of the word 'behind' I was trying to capture the sense that some have that there is something going on behind the scenes, so to speak....what is 'really' going on in comparison to what is only appearing/being experienced. Nothing is happening behind the scenes. OH but something IS according to you....That which is actually/really beyond the illusion of individuated experience.....Oneness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 24, 2013 21:10:43 GMT -5
Yeah, figs, I'm rezzin' with E big time, on this one. The belief in a separate, volitional 'I' is what is behind any emotionality of possessing a new car, whether that emotion is good or bad. No belief in the 'I' means a car is just a car, whether it's new, old, cheap, pricey, stolen or not stolen. It's been my experience that The issue of being a separate I or not, volitional or non-volitional need never arise for one to relinquish an attachment to a car or to anything else.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 24, 2013 21:11:08 GMT -5
I would not define suffering as extreme emotional pain. Most humans live their entire lives with an empty space inside that they try endlessly to fill with all manner of distractions, half awake, half alive, aware of their mortality and desperately trying to control what cannot be controlled. That description sounds like 'extreme emotional pain' to me, but is it really true that MOST humans live this way? I do not experience the 'others' who show up in my reality in this way...I have met a few though who do experience this way, and yes, I would say they do appear to experience a great deal of emotional pain and yes, I would classify that as 'suffering.' My seeing 'others' as whole and mostly happy is not a reflection of denial.... Sure it is. The separate, mind identified person is neither whole nor mostly happy. His apparent separation already makes him unwhole, and the dualistic nature of happiness means it cannot remain unbalanced with unhappiness. Personal experience can be deceiving, as you see what you want to see. When an apple falls from a tree, I know that it will fall downward. I don't have to wait for experience to confirm that. I see the nature of separation and the nature of duality. That's the way it is regardless of how you choose to define it. How? Even Andy hasn't figured out how to release the need to need.
|
|