|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 18:27:39 GMT -5
It's funny how mind imagines distinctions, and then refers to those imaginings as proof of the actuality of what it imagined. Am I imagining the pen I use to write on a piece of paper to be 'distinct' from that paper? As I see it, there is a direct experience there of two distinct objects...a pen and a paper. One writes on the other. It takes far more imagination to say that the two are not distinct. The whole conundrum of whether or not the distinction between the two is 'acual' or not, is really just TMT....that is, unless there's some kind of problem being perceived in seeing a pen here, and a paper, there. All of the discussions here, and the spiritual search in general, presupposes that somebody is suffering. Essentially, what you're asking is, why the need to see through the illusion that leads to suffering to discover the truth about what's actually going on? How the question is asked depends on what sort of picture you're trying to paint.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 18:37:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. Distinction isn't separateness. And calling separateness distinction doesn't erase the directly experiencable separation.. You are separate from the flames you choose to avoid, even though both are manifestations of energy.. your aversion to separation is a mental construction project, let it go.. Be well.. Flames?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 18:41:22 GMT -5
Axshuly, the idea that witnessing and witnessed are made of the same 'thing' is an attempt to glue together an imaginary distinction. The real split was made in making the distinction in the first place. The notion of witnessing vs witnessed comes from the habit of distinguishing subject and object repeatedly over a lifetime in all it's various forms. If that split is never made, there's no need to consider the parts as being of the same 'substance' or whatever, cuz they never became two to begin with. Oneness is just the absence of this idea of separation. darn, now I gotta throw away my Jesus molecules theory and start from scratch! Is that a version of the God particle?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 18:50:50 GMT -5
Greeting.. It's funny how mind imagines distinctions, and then refers to those imaginings as proof of the actuality of what it imagined. LOL.. no 'mind' needed to distinguish fire from ice, you are 'living large' in your imagined 'no separation'.. Step away from your affair with your imagination for a moment.. will you reveal the separation between you and the flames, or will step into the fire and reveal the oneness.. no imagination needed.. Be well.. Distinctions are mental classifications, and therefore fundamentally imagination. That's not to imply those distinctions don't have validity and utility. What I'm saying is that distinctions don't equal separation. I don't think you would say hot is separate from cold or up is separate from down. You might be inclined to say branch is separate from leaf, and I'm certain you would say that I am separate from you, and yet they are just different kinds of distinctions.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 19:16:49 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, Figs, if you look at what you are calling "a pen" and "a piece of paper" without imagining anything (any thing), in total mental silence, what do you see? One day, thirty years ago, I was driving down an interstate highway contemplating what a baby or an animal sees when it looks at the world. I looked at a road sign and thought, "A baby or a dog wouldn't know that a road sign is a road sign, so what would they see? A dog obviously sees something because it wouldn't walk into a road sign, but what does it see?" I kept looking at things along the roadside with this question in the background. I kept staring and staring, in a deep state of contemplative questioning. As I approached an airport at a nearby city, a huge jet flew over the highway toward a landing strip two miles away. I looked at the plane and thought, "A baby would not conceive the airplane as separate from the sky above it, so what would it see? It would have to see what I'm looking at in some unified manner. What does that mean?" I stared in a state of deep unknowing, and then, suddenly, something totally unexpected happened. The space I was looking at momentarily collapsed, and something very strange happened inside me--something emotional. I felt a surge of pure love, and I was utterly shocked by both the momentary spatial collapse and the emotional upheaval from deep inside. Of course the mind quickly returned, and began second-guessing what had happened. Six months later, however, after more contemplation and questioning, this momentary collapse returned in spades and lasted long enough to inform mind. For a while, the universe I had always known disintegrated, and I, as a separate observer, disappeared. Afterwards, it became crystal clear what a dog or baby sees when it looks at the world. I appreciate the sharing of your story ZD and have similar ones myself. In that vastness, there are no ideas about 'one' either. To say there is 'not two' is after the fact...an attempt to use words to explain something that defies explanation. I see that Many here are attached to that description 'about' the vastness of pure being. In writing a note to a friend on a piece of paper, I just do not see what the problem is in saying; here is a pen and over here is a piece of paper........two distinct objects. I've experienced 'both' the vastness of pure being AND I've experienced a pen and a paper as being distinct. I feel no need to deny either. So long as there's a need in play to deny one aspect of experience, there's an agenda in play, based upon an attachment, however subtle it may be.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 19:32:57 GMT -5
All of the discussions here, and the spiritual search in general, presupposes that somebody is suffering. No, YOU presuppose that somebody is suffering. Don't put that onto everyone else here. Of course, if one is still searching, suffering is likely part of that equation. But, Are you still searching and suffering? If not, why no interest in conversing from where you are? Why do you always adopt the position of one who searches? In my experience, when the searching and seeking ceased, it was seen quite clearly that there is not just one way to see our way out of that seeking....there's a myriad of avenues to freedom that do not require the denial of distinctions or the categorization of experience into actual vs. illusion. That's just a story 'about' this that helps some people to feel better about things.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 20:04:44 GMT -5
Out of curiosity, Figs, if you look at what you are calling "a pen" and "a piece of paper" without imagining anything (any thing), in total mental silence, what do you see? One day, thirty years ago, I was driving down an interstate highway contemplating what a baby or an animal sees when it looks at the world. I looked at a road sign and thought, "A baby or a dog wouldn't know that a road sign is a road sign, so what would they see? A dog obviously sees something because it wouldn't walk into a road sign, but what does it see?" I kept looking at things along the roadside with this question in the background. I kept staring and staring, in a deep state of contemplative questioning. As I approached an airport at a nearby city, a huge jet flew over the highway toward a landing strip two miles away. I looked at the plane and thought, "A baby would not conceive the airplane as separate from the sky above it, so what would it see? It would have to see what I'm looking at in some unified manner. What does that mean?" I stared in a state of deep unknowing, and then, suddenly, something totally unexpected happened. The space I was looking at momentarily collapsed, and something very strange happened inside me--something emotional. I felt a surge of pure love, and I was utterly shocked by both the momentary spatial collapse and the emotional upheaval from deep inside. Of course the mind quickly returned, and began second-guessing what had happened. Six months later, however, after more contemplation and questioning, this momentary collapse returned in spades and lasted long enough to inform mind. For a while, the universe I had always known disintegrated, and I, as a separate observer, disappeared. Afterwards, it became crystal clear what a dog or baby sees when it looks at the world. I appreciate the sharing of your story ZD and have similar ones myself. In that vastness, there are no ideas about 'one' either. To say there is 'not two' is after the fact...an attempt to use words to explain something that defies explanation. I see that Many here are attached to that description 'about' the vastness of pure being. In writing a note to a friend on a piece of paper, I just do not see what the problem is in saying; here is a pen and over here is a piece of paper........two distinct objects. I've experienced 'both' the vastness of pure being AND I've experienced a pen and a paper as being distinct. I feel no need to deny either. So long as there's a need in play to deny one aspect of experience, there's an agenda in play, based upon an attachment, however subtle it may be. Nobody here, as far as I know, has an issue with distinctions. You can keep adding touches to your painting, or you can just Gesso over it and start another.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 20:17:56 GMT -5
All of the discussions here, and the spiritual search in general, presupposes that somebody is suffering. No, YOU presuppose that somebody is suffering. Are you trying to make the argument that nobody is suffering? I didn't put it on everyone else here, did I? Right, so do you imagine that nobody on this spiritual forum is seeking the end of suffering? Not sure where you're going with that, but I'm not interested in a forum where everybody talks about how enlightened they are. Denial of distinction nonsense aside, I'm also not interested in cataloging all the possible paths to freedom. I've never said anything about there being just one way.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Sept 12, 2013 20:34:24 GMT -5
Max: Hopefully, most people on the forum are pointing to the same thing in different ways, but if not, that's okay, too. Source manifests however it manifests. The main thing for people interested in finding the living truth is to shift attention away from thoughts until thoughts can be seen through and are no longer the dominant determinant of what is perceived. There is a huge difference between thought-based ideas of truth (relative truth) and absolute truth (which is beyond mind but includes mind). It is not necessary to totally stop thoughts in order for cognitive illusions to collapse, but FWIW, thoughts can cease to be incessant and compulsive. It is possible to live free from thoughts for long periods of time, but you would need to verify this fact for yourself. Thinking (verbal discursive linear thought) is simply not necessary for most daily activities, and people who shift attention away from thoughts often discover this. Who you REALLY are is vast and incomprehensible; who you THINK you are is imaginary. I understand what you are saying. And it is consistent with what Enigma said as well. I was mostly trying to put in stark contrast the crux of Tzu's complaint, though I fumbled trying to define B. In some ways I admire Tzu's tenacity for sticking with his own experience, defending it against the savage nondual belief-bot hoards. At this point, I'm closer to his description of how things work than to yours or Enigmas, et al. I take what y'all are saying on faith, though. It's a practice of openness, fueled by curiosity. That 'separation' -- as a fundamental cleaving mental activity -- is something to see through; that realization of separateness is an illusion; that what is really real will flood in once the conceptual veils are lifted...these are all imagined happenings in the future. Like something is going to happen down the road a spell. Silly really. I know all these dynamics are happening right now. I know that what's looking out of these eyes was once looking at the rails of slide with 3 year old eyes. Not a lot has changed here. Yet this conversation goes on and on. And on and on it must. I wish I could just run over there and shake your perception receptors up or how ever you want to describe how perception works. I feel frustrated for your frustration hehe... I'm already laughing because of how wacked this sounds but I try any ho... Lets agree for the sake of this conversation that there is nothing separate it's one thing only. When a painting is looked at all the different elements within the painting are seen, but it's still one painting, one field so to speak. When you look out at the world it's the same idea, the mind will of course separate the tree from the sky, the river from the bank, the land where it meets the air, but when the mind is totally silent,no self referential under lying current stuff going on, it is really experienced as one living thing/field and you are all of it undivided.The eyes can only see the reality, it's mind that does what it does. In this instance use the imagination when looking and imagine what is being looked at as a boundless painting and maybe a sense of this reality will be hinted at.....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 12, 2013 21:16:09 GMT -5
Are you trying to make the argument that nobody is suffering? Perhaps there are some here who are, but I am not, and I assume you are not.....so why when we converse is the assumption of suffering underscoring the conversation? You said: "All of the discussions here, and the spiritual search in general, presupposes that somebody is suffering." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3062/awareness?page=4&scrollTo=150488#ixzz2ejbEuzPK"All" of the discussions mean every discussion on this forum...and would include the discussions I engage in. When I discuss here, I do not necessarily presuppose that "somebody is suffering.." Nope. But nor do I imagine that everybody on this spiritual forum is suffering or seeking either. Interesting that you see that as the only option. You've never said that the only way to be free of suffering is to see that Oneness is true and separation is false?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 12, 2013 21:46:43 GMT -5
Greetings.. Greeting.. LOL.. no 'mind' needed to distinguish fire from ice, you are 'living large' in your imagined 'no separation'.. Step away from your affair with your imagination for a moment.. will you reveal the separation between you and the flames, or will step into the fire and reveal the oneness.. no imagination needed.. Be well.. Distinctions are mental classifications, and therefore fundamentally imagination. That's not to imply those distinctions don't have validity and utility. What I'm saying is that distinctions don't equal separation. I don't think you would say hot is separate from cold or up is separate from down. You might be inclined to say branch is separate from leaf, and I'm certain you would say that I am separate from you, and yet they are just different kinds of distinctions. LOL.. it's the story you have to tell to make the interest payments on your invested beliefs.. you 'could' just let that story go and see what is actually happening for yourself, but.. you've built a rigid belief structure around the Phil, Phroggy, and Enigma identities based on oneness and non-duality, so.. you keep creating more illusions, imagining more concepts to add support to the structure, and the structure becomes your prison.. the belief structure keeps you attached, 'separate' from liberation.. Distinctions are observations, you observe moving vehicles and cross the street when it's safe, no need to classify the situation, it's self-evident.. you don't try to enter 'any' house late at night, you discern your own house, your own partner, the consequences are self-evident, no classification needed.. the experiences of living Life as a separate entity, which you are, in an interconnected whole process, which you are, too, integrates direct experience into 'that' which you are.. it's a natural self-evident awareness of the relationship between Part and Whole You and i are separate, that is observable and experiencable.. you say it's a distinction, a mental classification, and therefore fundamentally imagination, but that's just your preferred labels.. you observe and experience the separation directly, no imagination involved, as we've demonstrated countless times, then state that it's 'distinction and imagination', which.. requires engaging the mind's imagination to convert the direct experience to a conceptual belief that it's an imagined concept.. You and i 'are' separate, time and space separate our physical positions, our private mindscapes are separate as evidenced by our different understandings of what we 'are'.. i acknowledge an interconnected oneness, a collective unified Whole, where parts and whole are contrasting principles united by common experiences, but.. i am not attached to either part or whole as superior or 'truth', i pay attention to what is happening and perceive the happening as Part, or Whole, or Both as the process reveals the perspective most beneficial to the holistic evolution of the Whole.. Be still, look with unconditional curiosity, and see what is happening.. any choice to describe what you 'think' is happening, has the effect of influencing and prejudicing the opportunity others have of having their own authentic experience of what 'is'.. it takes actual realization of what 'is' to trust that clarity is the door to peace and harmony.. that realization allows beliefs and stories to fall away, there's no longer a need to tell others that 'oneness is truth', or what belief they 'should' see.. there is only the intention to help others find clarity, from there all else is a fluid dynamic experience of Life, without the influences and prejudices of beliefs and attachments.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Sept 12, 2013 22:03:01 GMT -5
Thanks Reefs,. Could you say a bit more about the difference between the personal and impersonal perspective? As it doesn't feel like its *me* observing *my* stillness as such. Seems prior to all that - but I could be BS'ing myself... Hi Earnest: I don't think you're BS'ing yourself. ATA is like a doorway, and when it is first pursued, it appears that the "me" is pursuing it. Eventually, however, something else is felt which pulls attention to Itself. Attention, which first shifted from thoughts to sensory perception, begins shifting on its own toward silence, and it feels like an inward pull. Of course, who you THINK you are isn't doing anything. The only actor on the stage is who you REALLY are. Who you REALLY are is what walks, talks, drives a car, goes to work, thinks, imagines, types on a computer, and shifts attention. All separateness is imaginary. Thanks ZD (and thanks Reefs for the links). Your point re seeing how unnecessary commentary type thoughts are has been my growing experience as well. I'm building a new house (well,.. a builder is and I do bits and pieces ) I've been painting window and door frames a while and there is such a delicious silent aliveness in that job. The texture of putty, the fresh smell of paint, the whisper of the brush against the wood... what a gift!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 12, 2013 22:30:49 GMT -5
Greetings.. Am I imagining the pen I use to write on a piece of paper to be 'distinct' from that paper? As I see it, there is a direct experience there of two distinct objects...a pen and a paper. One writes on the other. It takes far more imagination to say that the two are not distinct. The whole conundrum of whether or not the distinction between the two is 'acual' or not, is really just TMT....that is, unless there's some kind of problem being perceived in seeing a pen here, and a paper, there. WHY the need to go beyond what is being experienced in the moment to tell stories 'about' what's 'actually' going on? Out of curiosity, Figs, if you look at what you are calling "a pen" and "a piece of paper" without imagining anything (any thing), in total mental silence, what do you see? One day, thirty years ago, I was driving down an interstate highway contemplating what a baby or an animal sees when it looks at the world. I looked at a road sign and thought, "A baby or a dog wouldn't know that a road sign is a road sign, so what would they see? A dog obviously sees something because it wouldn't walk into a road sign, but what does it see?" I kept looking at things along the roadside with this question in the background. I kept staring and staring, in a deep state of contemplative questioning. As I approached an airport at a nearby city, a huge jet flew over the highway toward a landing strip two miles away. I looked at the plane and thought, "A baby would not conceive the airplane as separate from the sky above it, so what would it see? It would have to see what I'm looking at in some unified manner. What does that mean?" I stared in a state of deep unknowing, and then, suddenly, something totally unexpected happened. The space I was looking at momentarily collapsed, and something very strange happened inside me--something emotional. I felt a surge of pure love, and I was utterly shocked by both the momentary spatial collapse and the emotional upheaval from deep inside. Of course the mind quickly returned, and began second-guessing what had happened. Six months later, however, after more contemplation and questioning, this momentary collapse returned in spades and lasted long enough to inform mind. For a while, the universe I had always known disintegrated, and I, as a separate observer, disappeared. Afterwards, it became crystal clear what a dog or baby sees when it looks at the world. E. noted that distinction is not separation. Does this matter? Not to most people. It only matters to people who are so interested in the truth that they are willing to leave the familiarity of the known and enter the vastness of pure being. In that vastness there are not two. Take a look at that "pen" and "paper" again. Can you see what's in front of the eyes without imagining anything? How could you communicate what is seen without words or concepts? Hi ZD: Of babies and dogs, your description is speculation.. regarding the romanticized notions people have of the baby's awareness, that level of awareness is not sustainable, the baby is dependent on others for its survival.. these are stories that embellish the preferred result, clarity simply observes.. clarity observes and understanding applies the information observed to what is actually happening.. the following is an edit to your next to last paragraph, without the embellishments: Clarity matters most to people who are so interested in what is actually happening that they are willing to leave the familiarity of the known and enter the vastness of unlimited potential with unconditional curiosity.. there is no story or belief that can replace what 'is', and the most help we can offer others it the help that allows them to see what 'is', for themselves rather than influencing them to see what we think we saw.. this is the fundamental flaw of the realization experience, the desire that others 'see what we saw', rather than seeing the same reality for themselves.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 12, 2013 23:10:11 GMT -5
Are you trying to make the argument that nobody is suffering? Perhaps there are some here who are, but I am not, and I assume you are not.....so why when we converse is the assumption of suffering underscoring the conversation? You're aware that this isn't a private conversation, right? How does 'all of the discussions' translate to 'all of the participants'? Neither do I, but it looks like you've portrayed me that way in your painting. And what are the other options? How free they are? How at peace they are? How spiritually evolved they are? What spiritual experiences they've had? What would it mean to you to 'converse from where we are', and not within a seeker's paradigm? How can it not be some version of 'Look at how enlightened I am'? That's Rome, and there are many roads leading to it. Yes, I've said that the separate, volitional person cannot be free, which amounts to the same. So, you had a realization that the separate, volitional person can find freedom another way, without losing his separate, volitional status? Do tell.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 12, 2013 23:25:31 GMT -5
Greetings.. You're aware that this isn't a private conversation, right? How does 'all of the discussions' translate to 'all of the participants'? Neither do I, but it looks like you've portrayed me that way in your painting. And what are the other options? How free they are? How at peace they are? How spiritually evolved they are? What spiritual experiences they've had? What would it mean to you to 'converse from where we are', and not within a seeker's paradigm? How can it not be some version of 'Look at how enlightened I am'? That's Rome, and there are many roads leading to it. Yes, I've said that the separate, volitional person cannot be free, which amounts to the same. So, you had a realization that the separate, volitional person can find freedom another way, without losing his separate, volitional status? Do tell. By letting go of beliefs and knowings.. by not attaching to 'true/false' judgments.. by just paying attention to what is actually happening, rather than what you 'think' is happening.. the "separate volitional status" is not lost, neither is it attached to.. if it happens it happens, if not so what.. liberation is not about which ideas/beliefs are true/false, it's about the willingness to not attach to those concepts, to allow what is happening to happen without expectations.. Be well..
|
|