|
Post by Ishtahota on Jul 16, 2013 12:10:01 GMT -5
Ceremony for us is how we get information from the other side. Ceremony and ritual is also the language of the sub-conscious. I just returned from a Sundance a couple of days ago, where almost everyone there had something extraordinary happen. I do not know what works for you, but I have found what works for me. If you want a spiritual ass kickin, you are going to have to go after it. The spirits and the ancestors are there waiting to help us, but we have to be willing to do our part if we want results. Hey I really like the perspective you offer here. For someone not up on the cosmology you're reporting on, but maybe slightly familiar with nonduality, how would you explain what spirits and ancestors are that you mention above? I'm thinking it might be close to intuition, but maybe that's off the mark. The ancestors and the spirits are for the most part our dead relatives. Some are relatives that chose not to come across with us this life time, but they still come to help us. The work that we do helps us to reunite what has been split in us by our growing up in this world of duality. On my first vision quest I was given the name Greyeyes (Ishtahota), and with that name came the knowledge of duality/non-duality. I also have written a book called Earth Mind, Spirit Mind, that shows the work that we can do to help this process of awakening into non-duality. What we experience at our place and our ceremonies is way beyond intuition. Conscious contact is real for us. They come and we hear them talk and sometimes they appear and tell us things. They are here to help us, but we have to be willing to do our part to open up to this contact. It takes a lot of personal work to reconnect.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 12:14:37 GMT -5
Hey I really like the perspective you offer here. For someone not up on the cosmology you're reporting on, but maybe slightly familiar with nonduality, how would you explain what spirits and ancestors are that you mention above? I'm thinking it might be close to intuition, but maybe that's off the mark. The ancestors and the spirits are for the most part our dead relatives. Some are relatives that chose not to come across with us this life time, but they still come to help us. The work that we do helps us to reunite what has been split in us by our growing up in this world of duality. On my first vision quest I was given the name Greyeyes (Ishtahota), and with that name came the knowledge of duality/non-duality. I also have written a book called Earth Mind, Spirit Mind, that shows the work that we can do to help this process of awakening into non-duality. What we experience at our place and our ceremonies is way beyond intuition. Conscious contact is real for us. They come and we hear them talk and sometimes they appear and tell us things. They are here to help us, but we have to be willing to do our part to open up to this contact. It takes a lot of personal work to reconnect. Cool. So I'm curious, are the spirits / ancestors separate entities like you are a separate entity than me. As I understand it, duality is the place for separate entities and nonduality obviously not.
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jul 16, 2013 12:41:53 GMT -5
Being in non-duality does not mean giving up being an individual. The oneness is a very deep connection to all people, places and things, but you are still an individual. Almost all things to do with non-duality are paridoxal in nature. When we make the shift and change how we think opposites start to compliment each other. Take the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution could be a tool of the creator.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 12:50:46 GMT -5
Being in non-duality does not mean giving up being an individual. The oneness is a very deep connection to all people, places and things, but you are still an individual. Almost all things to do with non-duality are paridoxal in nature. When we make the shift and change how we think opposites start to compliment each other. Take the debate between creationism and evolution. Evolution could be a tool of the creator. What we are doesn't really take up residence in 'Being in non-duality' or as an 'individual'. We are perceivers, we are awareness... We are not objects, or states of being and we have no solidity. We are boundless.... Our reason or our mind forgets this fact and thus we entrap the totality of ourselves in a vicious circle which takes many lifetimes, if ever, to escape from.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 16, 2013 14:53:20 GMT -5
To All,
Thanks.
If you could elaborate a little more about what it may be in your character that attracted you to 1) or 2) above. For instance was it anything like Serpentqueen had to say about having or not having discipline? There may be other aspects of character that you feel are relevant to the choice, not just discipline.
I did not mean to exclude those who regard themselves as no longer seekers. Presumably you were seekers at some point.
amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:02:21 GMT -5
"I" arrived soon after birth max. Its interesting for i to come back to its innosence an find itself as creator. Working backwards here.... having been meditating a while ones i momentarilly dissappears an then reappears as it is the i that seeks knowledge. Going back further... i was a blank black slate of unknowingness that is incredibly sensitive. When we dont know we are intimately sensitive. I dont know you, you dont know me, an now we can get to Know Each other as our self. Hense, selflessness. this is different to anihilating another is it not? As this game goes, there is nothing to anihilate anyhoo, right? It's more like a dissolution, a settling of dust. :-)
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 16, 2013 15:03:48 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit Hi amit, I consider myself a seeker, sort of. I'm curious about stuff and want to see how things work. This investigation into nonduality is largely because I'm curious about it. No realizations or anything that I'm aware of. I'm driven to see more clearly about everything. My understanding of nonduality is that #1 makes no sense, ultimately. It only makes sense within the story of duality. I practiced various forms of buddhism for many years. It was a gradualist vision. Steady effortful meditation and integration of mindfulness throughout the day would lead to greater and greater freedom from always grasping this or pushing away that. Buddhism was appealing because it was immediately comprehensible and had a cool history. Good jokes, etc (Zen). These days, exploring nonduality, I'd say #2 makes more sense. That said, what can be called 'practice' happens. I meditate daily. I ATA throughout the day. From all appearances, I'm not doing much different than I was before when I was firmly believing in the buddhist gradualist path. But things have changed. I don't really believe I have any choice whether I meditate or not. I don't intentionally try and ATA. When I meditate, it's really just sitting and seeing what happens. There is no goal. The thing about how you worded #2 above that puzzles me a little is your use of the word 'requirement.' It implies that there is a goal which has certain requirements. I'm not sure what that is. Hi max, Thanks In 2) there are no requirements and no goals. The reference to requirements (practice to become realized/enlightened) has to do with 1) only. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:28:38 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit Hello Amit, Your questions contain certain assumptions that create a false premise. I am very much in favor of practice, despite have no "doer" ;-) When I started on this path a couple decades ago, it was Martial Arts study that lead me to spirituality practices, inquiry, and meditation. Frankly, it was probably a desire for more POWER and effectiveness in Martial Arts that got me intellectually studying meditation, though, in hindsight I have been undoing into Samadhi since I was a small child, I'm a naturally slow breather, and for as long as I can remember I have been sitting so still that breathing sometimes stops with no awareness of self, and in my teenage years I was a long distance runner and would run for hours in a kind of Relative Samadhi where the body was "floating" effortlessly across the miles at speed with no awareness of self. Later, when Martial Artist that I respected started talking about Han and no mind meditation, it drew me in and a more formal study was pursued. But VERY quickly it stopped being about increased effectiveness, and became more about Enlightenment, which in turn was pursued because I had always had an insatiable curiosity about God and the nature of our existence etc. Meditation practice became about finding methods to see what was beyond the Mind's limited capacity to "see", or rather, increasing my capacity to see my true nature and the true nature of existence. I can't say that my "character" lead me to this pursuit, as that curiosity has been there since the first moment that I recognized that I was having word based thoughts, a moment I remember very clearly, along with the conversation that I had with my Mother about it :-) These days, Practice is recommended, but not in the false parameters that your question put forth. There is no goal to practice, nor a doer present or imagined, it just is. It's like a roller coaster ride in a way, in that I settle into Samadhi, and then later in the day "come up" into mind movement, and then settle back into Samadhi, over and over throughout the day. It just happens, no doer required ;-) It should be noted, that Ramana, Niz, Osho, UG, all them continued "practice" long after letting go of doing, knowing, understanding, or self ;-) While you are in this body, there is a benefit from "practice". Though no "goal" or benefit should be pursued in "practice".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:35:04 GMT -5
The odd thing is that I find myself drawn to Samadhi, though there is no apparent benefit or reason to it, so when I find myself Knowing and Engaging in activity, I accidentally remind myself that I don't know anything, and just sit, or move, and naturally fall into Samadhi, and let Samadhi "take over".
I can see no benefit to this or reason to do so, but when I am not in Samadhi, a desire to be appears.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:52:58 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit Hello Amit, Your "Method" of helping folks here seems to be an invitation to some psychoanalysis of the motivating factors of one's character, I sense that you don't ask folks: "What is it about your character that _________?" Out of your own curiosity, but rather as an invitation for folks to look at their own character. So my question is: What is it about your Character that motivates this kind of invitation to this kind of self inquiry? And what can you say about its usefulness or benefit in the grand scheme of things? Is this type of self inquiry that you try to draw out not a kind of "practice" that you are engendering? What can you say about this?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:55:44 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit Hello Amit, Your questions contain certain assumptions that create a false premise. I am very much in favor of practice, despite have no "doer" ;-) When I started on this path a couple decades ago, it was Martial Arts study that lead me to spirituality practices, inquiry, and meditation. Frankly, it was probably a desire for more POWER and effectiveness in Martial Arts that got me intellectually studying meditation, though, in hindsight I have been undoing into Samadhi since I was a small child, I'm a naturally slow breather, and for as long as I can remember I have been sitting so still that breathing sometimes stops with no awareness of self, and in my teenage years I was a long distance runner and would run for hours in a kind of Relative Samadhi where the body was "floating" effortlessly across the miles at speed with no awareness of self. Later, when Martial Artist that I respected started talking about Han and no mind meditation, it drew me in and a more formal study was pursued. But VERY quickly it stopped being about increased effectiveness, and became more about Enlightenment, which in turn was pursued because I had always had an insatiable curiosity about God and the nature of our existence etc. Meditation practice became about finding methods to see what was beyond the Mind's limited capacity to "see", or rather, increasing my capacity to see my true nature and the true nature of existence. I can't say that my "character" lead me to this pursuit, as that curiosity has been there since the first moment that I recognized that I was having word based thoughts, a moment I remember very clearly, along with the conversation that I had with my Mother about it :-) These days, Practice is recommended, but not in the false parameters that your question put forth. There is no goal to practice, nor a doer present or imagined, it just is. It's like a roller coaster ride in a way, in that I settle into Samadhi, and then later in the day "come up" into mind movement, and then settle back into Samadhi, over and over throughout the day. It just happens, no doer required ;-) It should be noted, that Ramana, Niz, Osho, UG, all them continued "practice" long after letting go of doing, knowing, understanding, or self ;-) While you are in this body, there is a benefit from "practice". Though no "goal" or benefit should be pursued in "practice". I'd get a Samadhi check up if I were you, it's defective and then followed by TMT... We are not 'in' this body or 'in' any body or 'in' the world... We are the 'awareness' in which bodily sensations and the world arise...
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 16, 2013 15:56:19 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit There is a middle point of view espoused by Richard Rose which was that a practice is neither required nor does it guarantee a final realization, but it has the potential of making one "accident prone" by increasing the odds of having one. The appearance of a practice is a natural expression of that inner yearning and is intentional time for allowing that yearning to come to the surface and play itself out. Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction? Hi Top, I had not heard of that. Thanks. Saying that a practice is not required would seem more inclined towards 2). Did he believe in realization and have a view about how it came about that was not just an accident whilst practicing? Yes it is not surprising that a seeker takes up a practice. Compared with prescriptions, 2)is rare, may not even be heard, and even if heard not easily understood bearing in mind the likely conditioning of the character to do something if there is a need. It seems to be less so with the increase in Neo-Adviata speakers but its still a minority description alongside the many paths and practices on offer. "Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction?" In my view resonance requires nothing. I'll repeat something here as don't know how to refer you to it:- "That inexplicable, elemental tug. That surprising sudden feeling you've been waiting for, when you find something and just fall for it. Illogically, irresistibly, and find yourself thinking of nothing else. Attraction and the dream of love to follow that keeps the imagination alive, that makes life pop and sparkle and fizz". I doubt if that can be taught or practiced. It may result in the end of the feeling of disconnection but is not required to bring about connection for according to 2) disconnection is already impossible if All is One. It must already that not resonating or realizing. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 15:58:36 GMT -5
Hello Amit, Your questions contain certain assumptions that create a false premise. I am very much in favor of practice, despite have no "doer" ;-) When I started on this path a couple decades ago, it was Martial Arts study that lead me to spirituality practices, inquiry, and meditation. Frankly, it was probably a desire for more POWER and effectiveness in Martial Arts that got me intellectually studying meditation, though, in hindsight I have been undoing into Samadhi since I was a small child, I'm a naturally slow breather, and for as long as I can remember I have been sitting so still that breathing sometimes stops with no awareness of self, and in my teenage years I was a long distance runner and would run for hours in a kind of Relative Samadhi where the body was "floating" effortlessly across the miles at speed with no awareness of self. Later, when Martial Artist that I respected started talking about Han and no mind meditation, it drew me in and a more formal study was pursued. But VERY quickly it stopped being about increased effectiveness, and became more about Enlightenment, which in turn was pursued because I had always had an insatiable curiosity about God and the nature of our existence etc. Meditation practice became about finding methods to see what was beyond the Mind's limited capacity to "see", or rather, increasing my capacity to see my true nature and the true nature of existence. I can't say that my "character" lead me to this pursuit, as that curiosity has been there since the first moment that I recognized that I was having word based thoughts, a moment I remember very clearly, along with the conversation that I had with my Mother about it :-) These days, Practice is recommended, but not in the false parameters that your question put forth. There is no goal to practice, nor a doer present or imagined, it just is. It's like a roller coaster ride in a way, in that I settle into Samadhi, and then later in the day "come up" into mind movement, and then settle back into Samadhi, over and over throughout the day. It just happens, no doer required ;-) It should be noted, that Ramana, Niz, Osho, UG, all them continued "practice" long after letting go of doing, knowing, understanding, or self ;-) While you are in this body, there is a benefit from "practice". Though no "goal" or benefit should be pursued in "practice". I'd get a Samadhi check up if I were you, it's defective and then followed by TMT... We are not 'in' this body or 'in' any body or 'in' the world... We are the 'awareness' in which bodily sensations and the world arise... Haha, TMT on that last bit, TMI on the first bit, and TMWL on the middle bit ;-) (To Much Imagination) (To Much Word Lawyering)
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 16, 2013 15:58:52 GMT -5
There is a middle point of view espoused by Richard Rose which was that a practice is neither required nor does it guarantee a final realization, but it has the potential of making one "accident prone" by increasing the odds of having one. The appearance of a practice is a natural expression of that inner yearning and is intentional time for allowing that yearning to come to the surface and play itself out. Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction? Hi Top, I had not heard of that. Thanks. Saying that a practice is not required would seem more inclined towards 2). Did he believe in realization and have a view about how it came about that was not just an accident whilst practicing? Yes it is not surprising that a seeker takes up a practice. Compared with prescriptions, 2)is rare, may not even be heard, and even if heard not easily understood bearing in mind the likely conditioning of the character to do something if there is a need. It seems to be less so with the increase in Neo-Adviata speakers but its still a minority description alongside the many paths and practices on offer. "Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction?" In my view resonance requires nothing. I'll repeat something here as don't know how to refer you to it:- "That inexplicable, elemental tug. That surprising sudden feeling you've been waiting for, when you find something and just fall for it. Illogically, irresistibly, and find yourself thinking of nothing else. Attraction and the dream of love to follow that keeps the imagination alive, that makes life pop and sparkle and fizz". I doubt if that can be taught or practiced. It may result in the end of the feeling of disconnection but is not required to bring about connection for according to 2) disconnection is already impossible if All is One. It must already that not resonating or realizing. amit Can falling in love be a practice?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 16:02:04 GMT -5
Hi Top, I had not heard of that. Thanks. Saying that a practice is not required would seem more inclined towards 2). Did he believe in realization and have a view about how it came about that was not just an accident whilst practicing? Yes it is not surprising that a seeker takes up a practice. Compared with prescriptions, 2)is rare, may not even be heard, and even if heard not easily understood bearing in mind the likely conditioning of the character to do something if there is a need. It seems to be less so with the increase in Neo-Adviata speakers but its still a minority description alongside the many paths and practices on offer. "Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction?" In my view resonance requires nothing. I'll repeat something here as don't know how to refer you to it:- "That inexplicable, elemental tug. That surprising sudden feeling you've been waiting for, when you find something and just fall for it. Illogically, irresistibly, and find yourself thinking of nothing else. Attraction and the dream of love to follow that keeps the imagination alive, that makes life pop and sparkle and fizz". I doubt if that can be taught or practiced. It may result in the end of the feeling of disconnection but is not required to bring about connection for according to 2) disconnection is already impossible if All is One. It must already that not resonating or realizing. amit Can falling in love be a practice? It's THE practice of the Sufi's ;-)
|
|