|
Post by silence on Jul 16, 2013 16:56:22 GMT -5
Practice to your hearts content, whatever it is you want to practice. It's simply helpful to be clear about who or what is practicing. Being clear in that regard may make the whole idea of practice itself vanish while the activity continues.
I recall Adya saying something along the lines of "Nobody gets involved in spirituality to watch their breath or pay attention to their foot steps". Which again speaks to me about the inordinate amount of self deception that occurs because spiritual practice is often not done for the sake of the practice but to make something happen. To make this current experience go away and replace it with a better one.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 16, 2013 16:56:26 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 A lot of Rose's advice ( tatfoundation.org/forum2009-09a.htm ) came from his own seeking. ( tatfoundation.org/bio.htm ) He was heavy into the perspective of the Seeker, someone who is searching for Truth at all cost. He did not believe in visualization or pretending like you had an answer to your existential questions when you did not. He felt that man had a strong capacity for self-deception and that it was imperative people put their house in order and challenge their understanding. He developed systems for seeking ( tatfoundation.org/albigen.htm ). The whole system was designed to put pressure on the seeker with the intent of producing a "pop" or ultimate realization about who one was. There was no guarantee of a pop happening, and no one in the TAT community really popped while he was still in the picture. But after he developed Alzheimer's several of his students had their own final realizations and considered their seeking to be done. The value of his paradigm is its cultivation of an orientation towards skepticism and humility within the seeker. My time with that community was invaluable to me. It gave me the bearings to navigate my own mind/psyche and a laser focus on finding Truth through a retreat from untruth. I wouldn't say Rose is for everyone. If anything, different personality types probably trigger into expansion through different means. Some through resonance, some through realization, some through devotion, etc. Whatever gets the mind's sense of separation to dissolve. Rose was right for me. You could say I resonated deeply with him, his teachings, his orientation, and the people he left behind .
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 16, 2013 17:04:30 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 A lot of Rose's advice ( tatfoundation.org/forum2009-09a.htm ) came from his own seeking. ( tatfoundation.org/bio.htm ) He was heavy into the perspective of the Seeker, someone who is searching for Truth at all cost. He did not believe in visualization or pretending like you had an answer to your existential questions when you did not. He felt that man had a strong capacity for self-deception and that it was imperative people put their house in order and challenge their understanding. He developed systems for seeking ( tatfoundation.org/albigen.htm ). The whole system was designed to put pressure on the seeker with the intent of producing a "pop" or ultimate realization about who one was. There was no guarantee of a pop happening, and no one in the TAT community really popped while he was still in the picture. But after he developed Alzheimer's several of his students had their own final realizations and considered their seeking to be done. The value of his paradigm is its cultivation of an orientation towards skepticism and humility within the seeker. My time with that community was invaluable to me. It gave me the bearings to navigate my own mind/psyche and a laser focus on finding Truth through a retreat from untruth. I wouldn't say Rose is for everyone. If anything, different personality types probably trigger into expansion through different means. Some through resonance, some through realization, some through devotion, etc. Whatever gets the mind's sense of separation to dissolve. Rose was right for me. You could say I resonated deeply with him, his teachings, his orientation, and the people he left behind . [/quote/) Hi topology. Thanks. It would be a burden for me but as you say different strokes for different folks. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 17:30:15 GMT -5
Leave out the words "bringing about", and I'll say yes as a short answer ;-) As a longer answer, Enlightenment only exists in Mind, outside of Mind their is no enlightenment, let go of Mind and enlightenment neither exists, or is needed in any way. Or, from another perspective, Samadhi IS enlightenment, though in Samadhi enlightenment doesn't exist. I'll let the word lawyers decide if Samadhi is actually a practice, though I call it a practice in that there are "methods" for undoing "into" Samadhi. How do you define "Enlightenment" Amit? Hi Steven, Understood. Thanks. If we leave out "bringing about" the question looks like this:- "Would you say that practice is in any way helpful in terms (of) realization/enlightenment/liberation/awakening or what ever term you may prefer?" to which the answer is yes. "How do you define "Enlightenment?" For me its the end of the feeling of disconnection. Not the end of any other suffering but that. Not the end of the defensive character (Ego/personality/individual) or mind, both of which continue to perform very useful functions seen in the context of each persons life. The end (letting go) of the Ego or the mind is not required for connection. Nothing can achieve more connection than there already is if All is One. Connection is simply not obtainable because disconnection is impossible. amit Most lineages like Dzogchen would not call your realization of connection and oneness Enlightenment, in Dzogchen it's kind of viewed as a beginning of not an end, though that's not viewed in hierarchical way, rather, a step along the way....it's been said that there is always a "further" lol Oneness is unavoidably obvious to those that look, and yes, it's there whether you see it or not, one's seeing is irrelevant to Oneness. For me, "what Enlightenment is" has changed over the years lol Now it's just a concept of the Mind, whatever that concept may be. Perhaps in my experience, wakefulness versus non-wakefulness is a better expression, though even this is a wholly inadequate "concept". Wakefulness is not about illuminating or eliminating the delusion of separation etc....it's not about anything to do with Mind or its conceptions or its Clarity or its realizations per sé. For me it's become about Samadhi... All I can say, is that no matter how clear one's clarity is, or how much realization that one has had, one is still in a kind of sleep unless one is in Samadhi The problem is that the sleep can seem so alert and realized and imbued with Clarity and Oneness etc... that with no Samadhi to contrast it, one cannot know or perceive their sleepiness. So for me, Enlightenment is not about Clarity, or Realization, or Oneness, or Connectedness, it's about the wakefulness of Samadhi, and wakefulness has nothing whatsoever with the lifting of delusion etc....the lifting of delusion is a thing of Mind, and Mind is a kind of sleepiness....even "body awareness" is a kind of Mind and a dreaming sleepiness, though it does not feel like it as it is comparatively more wakeful that mentation. Dreams can seem very awake. However, one cannot perceive how even body centeredness is a kind of dreaming sleep without the wakefulness of Samadhi in a kind of contrast.. Your view that Mind is okay and useful is fine, but you are in a kind of sleep that you are not aware of until you have awakened into your undoing in Samadhi....you are in a kind of sleepy dream as compared to the wakefulness of Samadhi, and this whole Oneness thing is a part of your dream. Samadhi, or Enlightenment, is a coming out of, undoing of the sleepy dream that is you, it is not a realizing from within the dream that you are dreaming ;-) Though realizing from within the dream that you are a dreaming can be useful in that you MAY develop a desire to wake up, and pursue practices that undo the dreaming....and this where it can get a bit tricky lol Enlightenment is not about the lifting of delusion, the latter is just an occurrence in the dream, enlightenment is about leaving the dream state. There are "methods" that can help with this, those methods may work immediately, or they may take a lifetime ;-) You are in a dream, your are the dream, seeing that you are in a dream does not remove you from the dreaming slumber....un-doing the dream does....this is Samadhi
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 16, 2013 19:24:57 GMT -5
I'd like to revise my answer. No practice "worked," because there was never anything to work on. Just the illusion that all that questioning, inconsistent practice, and going to a retreat is what "worked." Something shifted and the rest is just an elaborate story the "I" is using to explain how it came about. The "I" had nothing to do with it. Before one can start 'practicing' anything, they must first arrive at the belief that A) there's something that needs to practice something and B) that there's a goal to practice for. Both are beliefs, based on the misconception of 'what is'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 19:42:37 GMT -5
I'd like to revise my answer. No practice "worked," because there was never anything to work on. Just the illusion that all that questioning, inconsistent practice, and going to a retreat is what "worked." Something shifted and the rest is just an elaborate story the "I" is using to explain how it came about. The "I" had nothing to do with it. Before one can start 'practicing' anything, they must first arrive at the belief that A) there's something that needs to practice something and B) that there's a goal to practice for. Both are beliefs, based on the misconception of 'what is'. Whether you accept whatever occurs in the dream as "what is", or shift the dream, you are still in a sleeping dream lol Though in accepting whatever occurs in the dream you are engaging in the dream less viscerally, and are in some ways moving closer to wakefulness ;-)
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 16, 2013 19:44:48 GMT -5
Before one can start 'practicing' anything, they must first arrive at the belief that A) there's something that needs to practice something and B) that there's a goal to practice for. Both are beliefs, based on the misconception of 'what is'. Whether you accept whatever occurs in the dream, or shift the dream, you are still in a sleeping dream lol Though in accepting whatever occurs in the dream you are engaging in the dream less viscerally, and are in some ways moving closer to wakefulness ;-) Sure, as long as you're looking inward, and not outward. Also, acceptance isn't allowance, but I think that's what you're referring to, so I won't nitpick.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 22:59:58 GMT -5
thank you dear friends.... what goes up, simply sees itself as another creation of what it thinks. leaping nuns in an asparagus patch...comes to mind.
Going beyond the rebirth-mechanism we remain at the center of gravity united as souls, before gender is taught.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 23:01:41 GMT -5
falling out of love is like arousal of ones spirit...into the realm of mind.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 17, 2013 0:22:33 GMT -5
Hi Steven, Understood. Thanks. If we leave out "bringing about" the question looks like this:- "Would you say that practice is in any way helpful in terms (of) realization/enlightenment/liberation/awakening or what ever term you may prefer?" to which the answer is yes. "How do you define "Enlightenment?" For me its the end of the feeling of disconnection. Not the end of any other suffering but that. Not the end of the defensive character (Ego/personality/individual) or mind, both of which continue to perform very useful functions seen in the context of each persons life. The end (letting go) of the Ego or the mind is not required for connection. Nothing can achieve more connection than there already is if All is One. Connection is simply not obtainable because disconnection is impossible. amit Most lineages like Dzogchen would not call your realization of connection and oneness Enlightenment, in Dzogchen it's kind of viewed as a beginning of not an end, though that's not viewed in hierarchical way, rather, a step along the way....it's been said that there is always a "further" lol Oneness is unavoidably obvious to those that look, and yes, it's there whether you see it or not, one's seeing is irrelevant to Oneness. For me, "what Enlightenment is" has changed over the years lol Now it's just a concept of the Mind, whatever that concept may be. Perhaps in my experience, wakefulness versus non-wakefulness is a better expression, though even this is a wholly inadequate "concept". Wakefulness is not about illuminating or eliminating the delusion of separation etc....it's not about anything to do with Mind or its conceptions or its Clarity or its realizations per sé. For me it's become about Samadhi... All I can say, is that no matter how clear one's clarity is, or how much realization that one has had, one is still in a kind of sleep unless one is in Samadhi The problem is that the sleep can seem so alert and realized and imbued with Clarity and Oneness etc... that with no Samadhi to contrast it, one cannot know or perceive their sleepiness. So for me, Enlightenment is not about Clarity, or Realization, or Oneness, or Connectedness, it's about the wakefulness of Samadhi, and wakefulness has nothing whatsoever with the lifting of delusion etc....the lifting of delusion is a thing of Mind, and Mind is a kind of sleepiness....even "body awareness" is a kind of Mind and a dreaming sleepiness, though it does not feel like it as it is comparatively more wakeful that mentation. Dreams can seem very awake. However, one cannot perceive how even body centeredness is a kind of dreaming sleep without the wakefulness of Samadhi in a kind of contrast.. Your view that Mind is okay and useful is fine, but you are in a kind of sleep that you are not aware of until you have awakened into your undoing in Samadhi....you are in a kind of sleepy dream as compared to the wakefulness of Samadhi, and this whole Oneness thing is a part of your dream. Samadhi, or Enlightenment, is a coming out of, undoing of the sleepy dream that is you, it is not a realizing from within the dream that you are dreaming ;-) Though realizing from within the dream that you are a dreaming can be useful in that you MAY develop a desire to wake up, and pursue practices that undo the dreaming....and this where it can get a bit tricky lol Enlightenment is not about the lifting of delusion, the latter is just an occurrence in the dream, enlightenment is about leaving the dream state. There are "methods" that can help with this, those methods may work immediately, or they may take a lifetime ;-) You are in a dream, your are the dream, seeing that you are in a dream does not remove you from the dreaming slumber....un-doing the dream does....this is Samadhi Hi Steven, I would not use any of the usual terms (Enlightenment/Awakening/Realization/ Liberation) for the end of disconnection . They all seem to have connotations of hierarchy. My considerations are simply reflections on what seems to flow from the concept All is One. The basis of the view that the end of the feeling of disconnection has nothing to do with the end of the defensive character is simply that nothing is required for connection if All is One. That connection is simply unobtainable. Yes of course that view will be unacceptable and some sort of hierarchy may develop if there is a belief in Samadhi as you have described it but from the perspective I am describing that difference is of academic interest only and nothing needs to change for each is already the other. With the concept of Oneness it is never either/or, always both. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 0:30:43 GMT -5
Most lineages like Dzogchen would not call your realization of connection and oneness Enlightenment, in Dzogchen it's kind of viewed as a beginning of not an end, though that's not viewed in hierarchical way, rather, a step along the way....it's been said that there is always a "further" lol Oneness is unavoidably obvious to those that look, and yes, it's there whether you see it or not, one's seeing is irrelevant to Oneness. For me, "what Enlightenment is" has changed over the years lol Now it's just a concept of the Mind, whatever that concept may be. Perhaps in my experience, wakefulness versus non-wakefulness is a better expression, though even this is a wholly inadequate "concept". Wakefulness is not about illuminating or eliminating the delusion of separation etc....it's not about anything to do with Mind or its conceptions or its Clarity or its realizations per sé. For me it's become about Samadhi... All I can say, is that no matter how clear one's clarity is, or how much realization that one has had, one is still in a kind of sleep unless one is in Samadhi The problem is that the sleep can seem so alert and realized and imbued with Clarity and Oneness etc... that with no Samadhi to contrast it, one cannot know or perceive their sleepiness. So for me, Enlightenment is not about Clarity, or Realization, or Oneness, or Connectedness, it's about the wakefulness of Samadhi, and wakefulness has nothing whatsoever with the lifting of delusion etc....the lifting of delusion is a thing of Mind, and Mind is a kind of sleepiness....even "body awareness" is a kind of Mind and a dreaming sleepiness, though it does not feel like it as it is comparatively more wakeful that mentation. Dreams can seem very awake. However, one cannot perceive how even body centeredness is a kind of dreaming sleep without the wakefulness of Samadhi in a kind of contrast.. Your view that Mind is okay and useful is fine, but you are in a kind of sleep that you are not aware of until you have awakened into your undoing in Samadhi....you are in a kind of sleepy dream as compared to the wakefulness of Samadhi, and this whole Oneness thing is a part of your dream. Samadhi, or Enlightenment, is a coming out of, undoing of the sleepy dream that is you, it is not a realizing from within the dream that you are dreaming ;-) Though realizing from within the dream that you are a dreaming can be useful in that you MAY develop a desire to wake up, and pursue practices that undo the dreaming....and this where it can get a bit tricky lol Enlightenment is not about the lifting of delusion, the latter is just an occurrence in the dream, enlightenment is about leaving the dream state. There are "methods" that can help with this, those methods may work immediately, or they may take a lifetime ;-) You are in a dream, your are the dream, seeing that you are in a dream does not remove you from the dreaming slumber....un-doing the dream does....this is Samadhi Hi Steven, I would not use any of the usual terms (Enlightenment/Awakening/Realization/ Liberation) for the end of disconnection . They all seem to have connotations of hierarchy. My considerations are simply reflections on what seems to flow from the concept All is One. The basis of the view that the end of the feeling of disconnection has nothing to do with the end of the defensive character is simply that nothing is required for connection if All is One. That connection is simply unobtainable. Yes of course that view will be unacceptable and some sort of hierarchy may develop if there is a belief in Samadhi as you have described it but from the perspective I am describing that difference is of academic interest only and nothing needs to change for each is already the other. With the concept of Oneness it is never either/or, always both. amit "Neither two nor one was called, single nature's double name" Shakespeare No hierarchy develops from Samadhi, though beliefs often lead to perceived hierarchies. It's a very nice dream that you are and are having, you are a delight. Say hello to Alfio, he may poke at your dream, but you both have wonderfully kind and gentle hearts
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 17, 2013 0:35:19 GMT -5
Hi Steven, I would not use any of the usual terms (Enlightenment/Awakening/Realization/ Liberation) for the end of disconnection . They all seem to have connotations of hierarchy. My considerations are simply reflections on what seems to flow from the concept All is One. The basis of the view that the end of the feeling of disconnection has nothing to do with the end of the defensive character is simply that nothing is required for connection if All is One. That connection is simply unobtainable. Yes of course that view will be unacceptable and some sort of hierarchy may develop if there is a belief in Samadhi as you have described it but from the perspective I am describing that difference is of academic interest only and nothing needs to change for each is already the other. With the concept of Oneness it is never either/or, always both. amit "Neither two nor one was called, single nature's double name" Shakespeare No hierarchy develops from Samadhi, though beliefs often lead to perceived hierarchies. It's a very nice dream that you are and are having, you are a delight. Hi Steven, If there are states of more or less dreaming with the objective being the end of dreaming altogether, then would that not be a ladder on which some were higher up than others? amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 0:44:21 GMT -5
"Neither two nor one was called, single nature's double name" Shakespeare No hierarchy develops from Samadhi, though beliefs often lead to perceived hierarchies. It's a very nice dream that you are and are having, you are a delight. Hi Steven, If there are states of more or less dreaming with the objective being the end of dreaming altogether, then would that not be a ladder on which some were higher up than others? amit No That is a thing of Mind, either there is Mind, or not. Only in Mind/Dreaming are there hierarchies, and in Mind/Dreaming there are no hierarchies, only a tapestry, is one thread higher than another in an endlessly unfolding tapestry? Samadhi contains no hierarchies, Samadhi neither precedes not follows your sleep/Mind/Dream Only in the Dream of You do hierarchies appear to exist
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 17, 2013 1:39:53 GMT -5
Hi Steven, If there are states of more or less dreaming with the objective being the end of dreaming altogether, then would that not be a ladder on which some were higher up than others? amit No That is a thing of Mind, either there is Mind, or not. Only in Mind/Dreaming are there hierarchies, and in Mind/Dreaming there are no hierarchies, only a tapestry, is one thread higher than another in an endlessly unfolding tapestry? Samadhi contains no hierarchies, Samadhi neither precedes not follows your sleep/Mind/Dream Only in the Dream of You do hierarchies appear to exist Hi Steven, Thanks. Accepted as your view. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 17, 2013 1:48:18 GMT -5
No That is a thing of Mind, either there is Mind, or not. Only in Mind/Dreaming are there hierarchies, and in Mind/Dreaming there are no hierarchies, only a tapestry, is one thread higher than another in an endlessly unfolding tapestry? Samadhi contains no hierarchies, Samadhi neither precedes not follows your sleep/Mind/Dream Only in the Dream of You do hierarchies appear to exist Hi Steven, Thanks. Accepted as your view. amit Hi Amit, What can you say about Samadhi? And how does your Character relate to that?
|
|