|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2013 18:20:43 GMT -5
Max: I'm more of an optimist than you are. Ha ha. All contractors/builders have to be optimists, or we'd never remain in the construction business. Call it an occupational hazard. When I speak to people, I know that most of them think I'm talking to separate entities, but that's not my understanding. Who people think they are (Betty, Bill, John, Tom, Hazel, etc) cannot do anything because who they think they are is totally imaginary. A person cannot make a choice about anything because personhood/selfhood imaginary. This is why the volitional issue raises such ire with people. From my POV there is only THIS, so when this body/mind speaks or writes, it is always speaking or writing to what it is--THIS. What I call "THIS" manifests as what appears to be separate body/minds, but there is no real separateness at all. In what we can imagine as "a room full of people" THIS is the only non-thing thing that speaks, and THIS is the only non-thing thing that hears, and how each body/mind reacts to the spoken words used as pointers is a total mystery. Yes, it can be frustrating to make what seems like a volitional effort to accomplish something--in this case Self realization--without any apparent results, but the same thing is happening all the time every day and goes unnoticed. My favorite example is the person who decides to go on a diet. He says to himself, "Tomorrow I'll get up and start my new diet." If he would simply watch what happens, he would see that sometimes "what is" corresponds with what the mind thinks, and sometimes it doesn't. The motivation, intention, and expectation is identical, but sometimes the body/mind diets and sometimes it doesn't. Because conceptual expectation frequently corresponds to reality, the illusion of volition arises, but the truth is beyond either the idea of volition or the idea of non-volition. As I've noted before, Carol and I often get a lot of laughs about this. I'll tell her that I'm going to do thus and so. She'll come to office, see me, and say, "I thought you said that you were going to go do thus and so?" I usually respond, "Yes, that's what I thought I was going to do, but obviously I was wrong!" Ha ha. Of course, there is no wrongness at all. "What is"--THIS--does whatever it does. Sometimes it corresponds to our thinking, and sometimes it doesn't. THIS is aware of Itself, and It unfolds Itself perfectly in accordance with Its' isness. THIS is writing these words as a body/mind we can call "ZD" and it is reading these words as a body/mind we can call "Max." ZD and Max are always doing exactly what they have to be doing, even though they will never know for sure what they have to be doing until they see themselves doing it. The good news, for people who think that they are separate entities, is that the illusion of separateness is collapsing for increasingly greater and greater numbers of people. In 1985 I only knew of one person in the entire country who was supposedly Self-realized. Today, I know dozens of such people, and I've read about hundreds (if not thousands) of others. As their stories become known, more and more people will look within themselves in an effort to discover what's going on. Tolle, alone, has probably prompted tens of thousands of people to pursue a non-dual understanding of reality. Who could have imagined thirty years ago that a book about non-duality would become the top-selling non-fiction book on the NYT bestseller list? It's pretty incredible! My best advice? Persistently shift attention away from thoughts to "what is" until the cognitive illusion of selfhood collapses. This advice is not given to the imaginary "Max;" it is given to what is reading these words via the body/mind we call "Max." Some good stuff there on volition. I seem to be straddling that fence. Non volition makes sense, yet I experience the frustration of volition failed.. I like how you phrased this: "sometimes "what is" corresponds with what the mind thinks, and sometimes it doesn't. The motivation, intention, and expectation is identical, but sometimes the body/mind diets and sometimes it doesn't. Because conceptual expectation frequently corresponds to reality, the illusion of volition arises, but the truth is beyond either the idea of volition or the idea of non-volition." You are an optimist. It's probably hardwired. I'm an optimist too. But my understanding of what you refer to as THIS is still founded on imagination so I really don't have much to go on there. ATA and effortless meditation happens, despite any lack of 'progress.' Same old in and out attention, mind hooks and distraction. Obviously there's an expectation that someday distraction will be a memory only. And obviously there is a reliance on time still. Whatever! From my perspective, and it might differ from ZD's, is that there usually need to be insights/realizations along the way (likely many) so that mind is left mostly at rest because it doesn't know what to do, what to think, what to hold onto, what to pursue. Without that process of being informed, mind will just keep churning up the same stuff indefinitely no matter how many times you return to the actual.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 21, 2013 18:28:24 GMT -5
No, you're not okay with it. You're aggrandizing it with your "oh look everyone, I have normal life, just like Bobby and the great Zen Master Seung Sahn". Fúck off, it's fake. If you really have normal life then you don't log into the interwebs and tell all about it to strangers from all over the world. What happened to the assertion that people aren't idiots and liars? All people except Mamza, ldo.
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 21, 2013 18:33:00 GMT -5
People aren't as stupid as you think. They know what a pointer is. The problem is that when they look where it's pointing they don't find anything. Most people become so familiar with resolving all issues directly with thought or feeling that a pointer just becomes an instruction to think about something in a different way or induce a different feeling. This can indeed create a different mental landscape where it appears as though one actually looked when nothing more than thought examining thought has happened. The other and more pertinent issue is of course that there is not only no incentive to look but even an underlying fear to seeing through the habituated structure of thought that wants to enlighten itself in its many varieties. There's not actually something of substance to hold up and say you found this. Just ideas evaporating. I've read this twice and I don't get it. Of course there is incentive. And I don't think there is fear. And of course we can look at something other than thought, the only problem is that we find nothing when we follow your special spiritual pointers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 18:41:09 GMT -5
YES to zd But he didn't write that for you. what is it in us that chooses to enforce separation like the Churches do? Do you think ST are not all the same, limited only by their current attachments to conditioned thought?
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 21, 2013 18:42:32 GMT -5
To the contrary, I agree with you. I have nothing. Having nothing looks like normal, everyday life. I just happen to be okay with that. No, you're not okay with it. You're aggrandizing it with your "oh look everyone, I have normal life, just like Bobby and the great Zen Master Seung Sahn". Fúck off, it's fake. If you really have normal life then you don't log into the interwebs and tell all about it to strangers from all over the world.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 21, 2013 19:02:26 GMT -5
But he didn't write that for you. what is it in us that chooses to enforce separation like the Churches do? Do you think ST are not all the same, limited only by their current attachments to conditioned thought? Really, I think the tendency toward more religions and different sects just reflects the same sort of differences in perspective we find here. I wouldn't say it's about separation as such. Most religions and individuals would be quite pleased to have everyone agree with them and join their club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2013 19:06:25 GMT -5
what is it in us that chooses to enforce separation like the Churches do? Do you think ST are not all the same, limited only by their current attachments to conditioned thought? Really, I think the tendency toward more religions and different sects just reflects the same sort of differences in perspective we find here. I wouldn't say it's about separation as such. Most religions and individuals would be quite pleased to have everyone agree with them and join their club. "I" thinks itself separate.
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Aug 21, 2013 19:27:16 GMT -5
To the contrary, I agree with you. I have nothing. Having nothing looks like normal, everyday life. I just happen to be okay with that. No, you're not okay with it. You're aggrandizing it with your "oh look everyone, I have normal life, just like Bobby and the great Zen Master Seung Sahn". Fúck off, it's fake. If you really have normal life then you don't log into the interwebs and tell all about it to strangers from all over the world. I must have left my frustration in another room, then. As for the rest, just because a person is interested in something most other people don't seem to be interested in does not mean that they don't live normal lives where they wake up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, pay bills, socialize, or whatever else. Does that mean I wouldn't like a mansion, a motorcycle, or even a new computer? Of course not. Those things just don't fit into my budget, and that's life. What would you consider a normal life to be?
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 21, 2013 19:56:32 GMT -5
What happened to the assertion that people aren't idiots and liars? All people except Mamza, ldo. Oh, I see.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Aug 21, 2013 20:09:31 GMT -5
Most people become so familiar with resolving all issues directly with thought or feeling that a pointer just becomes an instruction to think about something in a different way or induce a different feeling. This can indeed create a different mental landscape where it appears as though one actually looked when nothing more than thought examining thought has happened. The other and more pertinent issue is of course that there is not only no incentive to look but even an underlying fear to seeing through the habituated structure of thought that wants to enlighten itself in its many varieties. There's not actually something of substance to hold up and say you found this. Just ideas evaporating. I've read this twice and I don't get it. Of course there is incentive. And I don't think there is fear. And of course we can look at something other than thought, the only problem is that we find nothing when we follow your special spiritual pointers. I'm saying most people are unfamiliar with approaching ideas with anything other than more critical thinking or thought analyzing thought. One of the distinguishing factors between an intellectual understanding of no-self and actually approaching really seeing through the idea is the response. The intellectual understanding can actually provide a measured degree of insulation from one's day to day problems as the idea is referenced and believed to various degrees in order to counter opposing stresses that center around the person. On the other hand, as one actually approaches seeing through the idea of self, the emotional response can range from tension to a full out sense of imminent death regardless of logic.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 21, 2013 21:17:38 GMT -5
I've read this twice and I don't get it. Of course there is incentive. And I don't think there is fear. And of course we can look at something other than thought, the only problem is that we find nothing when we follow your special spiritual pointers. I'm saying most people are unfamiliar with approaching ideas with anything other than more critical thinking or thought analyzing thought. One of the distinguishing factors between an intellectual understanding of no-self and actually approaching really seeing through the idea is the response. The intellectual understanding can actually provide a measured degree of insulation from one's day to day problems as the idea is referenced and believed to various degrees in order to counter opposing stresses that center around the person. On the other hand, as one actually approaches seeing through the idea of self, the emotional response can range from tension to a full out sense of imminent death regardless of logic. Or (and I'm not digging at MovieQ here, it's based on personal experience), maybe just turn backwards toward a few more hyperminding spin cycles?
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 22, 2013 5:00:56 GMT -5
I've read this twice and I don't get it. Of course there is incentive. And I don't think there is fear. And of course we can look at something other than thought, the only problem is that we find nothing when we follow your special spiritual pointers. I'm saying most people are unfamiliar with approaching ideas with anything other than more critical thinking or thought analyzing thought. One of the distinguishing factors between an intellectual understanding of no-self and actually approaching really seeing through the idea is the response. The intellectual understanding can actually provide a measured degree of insulation from one's day to day problems as the idea is referenced and believed to various degrees in order to counter opposing stresses that center around the person. On the other hand, as one actually approaches seeing through the idea of self, the emotional response can range from tension to a full out sense of imminent death regardless of logic. So the pointer is actually some kind of strategy to manipulate feleings? I don't mind your explanation, but since, as you say, the normal mode is for us to comprehend pointers only through mind or whatever you need to qualify your pointers and show how to interpret them as you intend them to be interpreted. Before you do that you're not entitled to complaining about us not "getting it".
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Aug 22, 2013 5:12:20 GMT -5
No, you're not okay with it. You're aggrandizing it with your "oh look everyone, I have normal life, just like Bobby and the great Zen Master Seung Sahn". Fúck off, it's fake. If you really have normal life then you don't log into the interwebs and tell all about it to strangers from all over the world. I must have left my frustration in another room, then. As for the rest, just because a person is interested in something most other people don't seem to be interested in does not mean that they don't live normal lives where they wake up in the morning, eat breakfast, go to work, pay bills, socialize, or whatever else. Does that mean I wouldn't like a mansion, a motorcycle, or even a new computer? Of course not. Those things just don't fit into my budget, and that's life. What would you consider a normal life to be? No, i'm not talking about mansions and motorcycles. I'm talking about chump normal and zen normal. All you have is the chump normal, but you want it to be zen normal. If you really thought that your life is normal then you wouldn't log into the interwebs and tell all about it to strangers from all over the world. This becomes more accentuated when you boast with your "normal" life being in the same context as the supposedly normal lifes of people like Bobby and The Great Enlightened Zen Master Seung Sahn. In truth your life is of course totally and embarrassingly normal, there is nothing to talk about at all. And yet you do talk about it. Why? Obviously because you're not actually okay with it, you want it to be a special normal, the zen normal, not the stupid chump normal of pitiful creatures who work all day and watch Fox news in the evening and are totally immersed in ignorance. The problem is that you know the truth (that your life is chump normal) and you don't actually believe that your life is the special zen normal and so you log into the interwebs and you tell a story about it, you're looking for other people to believe your story so that you are relieved from the impossible duty of having to believe it yourself. Because you know the truth you can't believe your story yourself and that's why you need other people to believe it for you. That's the only reason why you're telling us about your normal life.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 22, 2013 7:43:04 GMT -5
Some good stuff there on volition. I seem to be straddling that fence. Non volition makes sense, yet I experience the frustration of volition failed.. I like how you phrased this: "sometimes "what is" corresponds with what the mind thinks, and sometimes it doesn't. The motivation, intention, and expectation is identical, but sometimes the body/mind diets and sometimes it doesn't. Because conceptual expectation frequently corresponds to reality, the illusion of volition arises, but the truth is beyond either the idea of volition or the idea of non-volition." You are an optimist. It's probably hardwired. I'm an optimist too. But my understanding of what you refer to as THIS is still founded on imagination so I really don't have much to go on there. ATA and effortless meditation happens, despite any lack of 'progress.' Same old in and out attention, mind hooks and distraction. Obviously there's an expectation that someday distraction will be a memory only. And obviously there is a reliance on time still. Whatever! From my perspective, and it might differ from ZD's, is that there usually need to be insights/realizations along the way (likely many) so that mind is left mostly at rest because it doesn't know what to do, what to think, what to hold onto, what to pursue. Without that process of being informed, mind will just keep churning up the same stuff indefinitely no matter how many times you return to the actual. I agree that insights/realizations ultimately inform mind concerning its proper place in the scheme of things, and eventually put it to rest, but peeps who persistently stay focused on "what is" almost always have those insights/realizations. The problem with most "practices," when they are seen as practices, is that they reinforce the idea that there is a someone who is practicing. This is why I refer to ATA and other forms of meditation as activities rather than practices. It is only when peeps "just do it," without reason or expectation, that mind truly gets left out of the loop. I think sustained silence, alone, would sooner or later lead to freedom from mind and happiness, but without some degree of self inquiry, Self-realization and the informing of mind concerning who the person IS would probably not occur. I think Helen Courtois is the best example of this. She intensely pursued ATA, and had a huge CC experience as a college student, but she never saw through the illusion of personhood. She continued to think that she was a person, named Helen Courtois, who had had a big experience and had acquired a new kind of vision (she associated her new way of seeing with the faculty of sight, but after being unable to find anyone who understood what she was talking about, gave up trying to communicate about it, and just lived her life). Subsequently, she lived what would generally be considered "an enlightened life" for many years, but eventually fell back under the spell of mind after returning to graduate school and becoming intensely reflective again. If she had realized that she was the process of reality--THIS-- rather than a person, then she probably wouldn't have later imagined that she was a person who had received a gift and later lost it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 22, 2013 7:53:59 GMT -5
I'm saying most people are unfamiliar with approaching ideas with anything other than more critical thinking or thought analyzing thought. One of the distinguishing factors between an intellectual understanding of no-self and actually approaching really seeing through the idea is the response. The intellectual understanding can actually provide a measured degree of insulation from one's day to day problems as the idea is referenced and believed to various degrees in order to counter opposing stresses that center around the person. On the other hand, as one actually approaches seeing through the idea of self, the emotional response can range from tension to a full out sense of imminent death regardless of logic. So the pointer is actually some kind of strategy to manipulate feleings? I don't mind your explanation, but since, as you say, the normal mode is for us to comprehend pointers only through mind or whatever you need to qualify your pointers and show how to interpret them as you intend them to be interpreted. Before you do that you're not entitled to complaining about us not "getting it". Mental interpretation is precisely what these pointers are trying to short-circuit. If there is any manipulation of feeling, it is not emotional, but used as a component of seeing. You can "feel" the weight of an idea in the mind and what associated ideas it is attached to. You can also "feel" what the mind is like absent of any idea. This is really part of the perceptive faculty and not a "how do I feel about a subject?". Look at the image, but don't think about it. Feel what impact the image is having. Feel how the perceptive faculty and the mind is wanting to interpret the image, where/what the finger is pointing at. A pointer like we are talking about in the context of ND is not for the concieving thinking mind. It is actually a pre-conscious command to redirect attention or to manipulate the structure of the language/scene processing faculties. We pass optical illusions around to cause various visceral sensations which all assault the assumption that our perceptive faculties are inerrant and the assumption that what we experience is the object itself. I am calling a pointer a pre-conscious command because we are not in control of how the pointer is processed as we experience or read it. It's whole purpose is to poke a hole in the hypnotic sense of reality being mentally/conceptually understood. Just like optical illusions, one person passes on a linguistic pointer to another for the visceral effect and the "odd" experience it may induce. The problem with linguistic pointers is that there is such variability with their effect. The mind is a linguistic entity and it resists on some level having the odd experiences because they are breaks in its sense of understanding the experience. This makes the mind frustrated because it's whole objective is to build on it's mental conceptual understanding.
|
|