|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2013 13:23:28 GMT -5
Keeping quiet is a practice as well. And just shutting up doesn't necessarily lead to a realization that you are Eternal Existence. There is foundationless space, deafeningly quiet, and in it is noise and everything else. Bare existence is both, in my estimation. It's a pointer. Besides, who do you think he was talking to? The seeker that doesn't actually exist? That's the thing when reading talks with guys like Ramana, Niz or Papaji. Who the heck are they talking to? As I see it IMO from my perspective, he's talking to himself. Maybe he could have used some therapy. Hehe. He's talking to a conditioned aspect of himself that has fallen into delusion of identification with something else, and so he has to communicate within that context of identity.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2013 13:46:23 GMT -5
Keeping quiet can be considered a practice, and so can thinking. Thinking could be considered an unconscious practice whereas ATA and other meditative activities that shift attention away from thinking are conscious practices. It is like using a thorn to remove a thorn. After the first thorn is removed, both thorns can be thrown away. Shutting up (shifting attention away from thoughts) will not lead to the realization that you are Eternal Existence because "Eternal Existence" is an idea/pointer. Shutting up will simply lead to the realization that selfhood is a figment of imagination. It will lead to the realization that you are not a person "in here" looking at a world "out there." It can also lead to the realization that time, space, causation, volition, and many other ideas are ideas, only. There's a real risk of greater mental health problems occurring when peeps are led to believe that they are figments of imagination, not observers of the observed, that time, space, causation, volition and in particular, death, are all illusions... I mean folks who have turned to spirituality in the first place are already struggling to cope mentally with reality. The confusion in turning from one description of reality to another, can lead to anxiety disorders, phobias and neuroses, having eating disorders and drug problems. In addition, spiritualists are more likely than others to be already taking medication for mental health problems. There's nothing wrong with quieting the mind, it's the acceptance of what the spiritual salesman are selling that's the real problem... As I see it IMO from my perspective, there IS a risk, and it should be emphasized that one is not to believe anything but rather to investigate for oneself. It's the clinging to the separate identity while simultaneously believing that identity is untenable that causes the problem. It's an absurd position to take, but that's the nature of imagination and mental confusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 14:02:39 GMT -5
As I see it IMO from my perspective, there IS a risk, and it should be emphasized that one is not to believe anything but rather to investigate for oneself. It's the clinging to the separate identity while simultaneously believing that identity is untenable that causes the problem. It's an absurd position to take, but that's the nature of imagination and mental confusion. think this new prefacing will change things? I'm guessing not. I'm thinking firmly entrenched perceptions are difficult to step back from.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 1, 2013 14:02:50 GMT -5
As I see it IMO from my perspective, in order to say the eternal is unknowable, non-eternal must first be conceived of and taken to be knowable. One knows of this phenomena called impermanent, temporary, mortal (whatever form the idea takes). From within that idea, one then conceives of the idea of eternal, and ultimately calls it unknowable and inconceivable. We could call this objectifying an absence, and then trying to find that absence. IOW, the idea of the temporary is an exercise in creation, forming a temporal continuity of change and objects appearing that arise, change and fall. Beginnings, endings, birth death, etc, etc. So from that perspective of change, is there something called eternal, or are we just talking about the absence of that idea of change? If we turn that absence into a concept called eternal, then we have to understand the concept and frame it in terms of the temporary that we DO understand, and somehow relate it to our experience, which IS change and temporality. We might even formulate a practice to help us understand, find or realize this condition called eternal, and yet that condition is a conceptual formulation of the opposing conceptual formulation of temporality, and not something that can actually be found. The eternal is really just no more temporary, in the same way that oneness is really just no more separation. This is what it means to say the concept is not true, or the menu is not the meal or the truth is unknowable or nothing is known, and a few other confusing pointers that point in the same direction. This is what Papaji means when he says there is nothing to do or undo. He's referring to the same mental process I described when he says "We speak about enlightenment, but first we have created bondage. Bondage does not exist. How can you remove that which does not exist?" We conceive of this concept called freedom based on the false concept of bondage, then formulate a practice to get there. To get where? It's a complicated way of talking about something very simple and obvious, but it's mind that makes it necessary. Whoah....tmt.. Just maybe it's your assuumptdiddly-umption - unnecessarily about others that makes you THINK that. Silver: This is a no-attack thread. You are free to discuss the ideas, but without denigrating another poster.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 1, 2013 14:04:41 GMT -5
As I see it IMO from my perspective, there IS a risk, and it should be emphasized that one is not to believe anything but rather to investigate for oneself. It's the clinging to the separate identity while simultaneously believing that identity is untenable that causes the problem. It's an absurd position to take, but that's the nature of imagination and mental confusion. think this new prefacing will change things? I'm guessing not. I'm thinking firmly entrenched perceptions are difficult to step back from. You're probably correct, but its worth a try. *smile*
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 1, 2013 14:07:43 GMT -5
Whoah....tmt.. Just maybe it's your assuumptdiddly-umption - unnecessarily about others that makes you THINK that. Silver: This is a no-attack thread. You are free to discuss the ideas, but without denigrating another poster. I'm sorry. It's kind of hard to adjust when I experienced that from the get-go.... If I use funny words not unlike Enigma is wont to use - and I don't take it personally to when he does that - I think it's one thing to critique and quite another to 'attack someone personally' - that's my take, fwiw. Unfortunately, Enigma has not discouraged a certain conditioning, shall we say. I'm not making anything of anything, fyi.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 14:23:49 GMT -5
Silver: This is a no-attack thread. You are free to discuss the ideas, but without denigrating another poster. I'm sorry. It's kind of hard to adjust when I experienced that from the get-go....If I use funny words not unlike Enigma is wont to use - and I don't take it personally to when he does that - I think it's one thing to critique and quite another to 'attack someone personally' - that's my take, fwiw. Unfortunately, Enigma has not discouraged a certain conditioning, shall we say. I'm not making anything of anything, fyi. Ya see, going back to the 'absorption in the past' question raised with Steve on Sunday. This sentence, IMO, is an example of such functioning. As in, when remembering affects responding in the present. Rather than taking the time to remember where relating and responding was, compared to where it is now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2013 16:26:40 GMT -5
think this new prefacing will change things? I'm guessing not. I'm thinking firmly entrenched perceptions are difficult to step back from. You're probably correct, but its worth a try. *smile* Yeah, it's pretty hard to stop believing in firmly entrenched perceptions and then try to objectively investigate those same firmly entrenched perceptions... But prefacing could be a good start...
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 1, 2013 16:38:25 GMT -5
I'm sorry. It's kind of hard to adjust when I experienced that from the get-go....If I use funny words not unlike Enigma is wont to use - and I don't take it personally to when he does that - I think it's one thing to critique and quite another to 'attack someone personally' - that's my take, fwiw. Unfortunately, Enigma has not discouraged a certain conditioning, shall we say. I'm not making anything of anything, fyi. Ya see, going back to the 'absorption in the past' question raised with Steve on Sunday. This sentence, IMO, is an example of such functioning. As in, when remembering affects responding in the present. Rather than taking the time to remember where relating and responding was, compared to where it is now. Yes, I'll admit you have a point.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2013 18:31:25 GMT -5
As I see it IMO from my perspective, there IS a risk, and it should be emphasized that one is not to believe anything but rather to investigate for oneself. It's the clinging to the separate identity while simultaneously believing that identity is untenable that causes the problem. It's an absurd position to take, but that's the nature of imagination and mental confusion. think this new prefacing will change things? I'm guessing not. I'm thinking firmly entrenched perceptions are difficult to step back from. No, as I see it, IMO from my perspective, I don't think it will either.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Oct 1, 2013 18:57:38 GMT -5
Keeping quiet can be considered a practice, and so can thinking. Thinking could be considered an unconscious practice whereas ATA and other meditative activities that shift attention away from thinking are conscious practices. It is like using a thorn to remove a thorn. After the first thorn is removed, both thorns can be thrown away. Shutting up ( shifting attention away from thoughts) will not lead to the realization that you are Eternal Existence because "Eternal Existence" is an idea/pointer. Shutting up will simply lead to the realization that selfhood is a figment of imagination. It will lead to the realization that you are not a person "in here" looking at a world "out there." It can also lead to the realization that time, space, causation, volition, and many other ideas are ideas, only. The question is: Who is shifting attention? (Hint: one can see it in the results of the attention shift 'who' that actually was) Its interesting. When Ramana recommended the inquiry: "Who am I" as a way of clearing conditioning and the habituation of self, The inquiry was never recommended as a way of finding the answer, and yet, many seem to take it that way, and conduct a kind of intellectual investigation of "Who am I".....this is not how it's intended. The real intention of the Who am I inquiry is that its designed to be a means to focus the attention in a way that leads to meditation and Samadhi, Niz's exhortation to keep attention firmly on the I am is the same thing. Ramana was offering a means to continually come back from mind and self absorption into meditation and Samadhi. He has said that the way of clearing the vasanas/desires/conditioning; the movements that perpetuate a "self", is to continously inquire: Who is having this desire? Etc...likewise, whenever a movement of the mind, like a thought, or an emotion, or a reaction to an event etc is noticed arising, one should inquire: Who is having this emotion, thoughts, reactions etc.....and the "inquiry" is not undertaken to find an answer, the inquiry is designed to CONTINUOUSLY keep attention focussed on the I AM. Said another way, Niz saying to keep attention firmly centered on the I AM in every moment and situation in life is Niz telling folks WHAT to do, while Ramana saying tocontinuously inquire: "Who am I" and "Who is thinking this thought or having this desire or experience" is telling folks HOW to keep attention firmly on the self in every situation. The inquiry is designed to still the mind and return attention to the self instead of being absorbed in the movement and reactions of self. Ts mot designed to be an intellectual inquiry, nor is it designed to produce and answer to the inquiry, its designed to keep attention so firmly and silently on the self, that mind does not arise, and one is remaining in a meditative state continuously, instead of getting absorbed in thoughts, conditioning, desires, and attachments. This in turn clears the habitual desires that cause the perpetuation of a self. When one does not get absorbed in attachments, desires, and thoughts, one removes the energy from them, because one is not perpetuating the momentum of them. One should not be concerned with the answer to the question "Who am I", or "What am I" or "Who is having these reactions?" The answer is both irrelevant, and a distraction...the question, the inquiry, theCONTINUOUSLY returning of silent attention to the self IS the purpose. Knowing that there is "no self" or not is an irrelevant mind movement, which the inquiry is designed to eliminate. The Inquiry is an easy, effortless means of returning and keeping still silent attention on the I AM. Its what Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism calls a Dhyana, i.e. a gateway to meditation that can be integrated into every part of daily life. Who knows that there is no self? If you have an answer, ANY answer, you are missing the mark so to speak....if you return to still silent attention held on the self then you are on target so to speak. :-)
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 1, 2013 19:11:37 GMT -5
"It is not going to take you time" is very important.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 1, 2013 19:27:47 GMT -5
There's a real risk of greater mental health problems occurring when peeps are led to believe that they are figments of imagination, not observers of the observed, that time, space, causation, volition and in particular, death, are all illusions... I mean folks who have turned to spirituality in the first place are already struggling to cope mentally with reality. The confusion in turning from one description of reality to another, can lead to anxiety disorders, phobias and neuroses, having eating disorders and drug problems. In addition, spiritualists are more likely than others to be already taking medication for mental health problems. There's nothing wrong with quieting the mind, it's the acceptance of what the spiritual salesman are selling that's the real problem... trf -- when you say that bit about "there's a real risk" are you referring to peeps doing self inquiry or some sort of practice or are you referring to joe on the street who mayhaps has never known about any of this junk in the first place? Both honest inquiry as well as simply playing around with silly beliefs poses a serious risk to one's mental stability. It's not at all uncommon for people to end up majorly suicidal, having total mental breakdowns or simply feeling totally out of it and lost. And yet, some type of breakdown is necessary and already known.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2013 19:54:57 GMT -5
The question is: Who is shifting attention? (Hint: one can see it in the results of the attention shift 'who' that actually was) Its interesting. When Ramana recommended the inquiry: "Who am I" as a way of clearing conditioning and the habituation of self, The inquiry was never recommended as a way of finding the answer, and yet, many seem to take it that way, and conduct a kind of intellectual investigation of "Who am I".....this is not how it's intended. The real intention of the Who am I inquiry is that its designed to be a means to focus the attention in a way that leads to meditation and Samadhi, Niz's exhortation to keep attention firmly on the I am is the same thing. Ramana was offering a means to continually come back from mind and self absorption into meditation and Samadhi. He has said that the way of clearing the vasanas/desires/conditioning; the movements that perpetuate a "self", is to continously inquire: Who is having this desire? Etc...likewise, whenever a movement of the mind, like a thought, or an emotion, or a reaction to an event etc is noticed arising, one should inquire: Who is having this emotion, thoughts, reactions etc.....and the "inquiry" is not undertaken to find an answer, the inquiry is designed to CONTINUOUSLY keep attention focussed on the I AM. Said another way, Niz saying to keep attention firmly centered on the I AM in every moment and situation in life is Niz telling folks WHAT to do, while Ramana saying tocontinuously inquire: "Who am I" and "Who is thinking this thought or having this desire or experience" is telling folks HOW to keep attention firmly on the self in every situation. The inquiry is designed to still the mind and return attention to the self instead of being absorbed in the movement and reactions of self. Ts mot designed to be an intellectual inquiry, nor is it designed to produce and answer to the inquiry, its designed to keep attention so firmly and silently on the self, that mind does not arise, and one is remaining in a meditative state continuously, instead of getting absorbed in thoughts, conditioning, desires, and attachments. This in turn clears the habitual desires that cause the perpetuation of a self. When one does not get absorbed in attachments, desires, and thoughts, one removes the energy from them, because one is not perpetuating the momentum of them. One should not be concerned with the answer to the question "Who am I", or "What am I" or "Who is having these reactions?" The answer is both irrelevant, and a distraction...the question, the inquiry, theCONTINUOUSLY returning of silent attention to the self IS the purpose. Knowing that there is "no self" or not is an irrelevant mind movement, which the inquiry is designed to eliminate. The Inquiry is an easy, effortless means of returning and keeping still silent attention on the I AM. Its what Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism calls a Dhyana, i.e. a gateway to meditation that can be integrated into every part of daily life. Who knows that there is no self? If you have an answer, ANY answer, you are missing the mark so to speak....if you return to still silent attention held on the self then you are on target so to speak. :-) Of course, I agree that self inquiry isn't about finding an answer to the question, and it's not about thinking about the question. It's true that it's a focus of attention away from conditioned thought, not unlike ATA. Where I may disagree with others is specifically at the point where this focus of attention away from mind magically results in clearing of the conditioning of mind. I say "may' because I don't really disagree that this can and does happen, but I say various realizations and informing of mind, and even contemplation, are generally required as part of this clearing, unless of course one turns one's attention to that question and suddenly gets Self realized, and I wouldn't hold my breath on that one. I suspect it's rare that one begins fully self identified, and months, years, decades of self inquiry later suddenly becomes Self realized without doing some good work on the vasanas/conditioning, so the issue here is really how this work happens, and whether a focus of attention away from mind where the conditioning is situated is enough to get rid of it.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 1, 2013 19:56:18 GMT -5
Both honest inquiry as well as simply playing around with silly beliefs poses a serious risk to one's mental stability. It's not at all uncommon for people to end up majorly suicidal, having total mental breakdowns or simply feeling totally out of it and lost. And yet, some type of breakdown is necessary and already known. Is the breakdown necessary, or just a side effect of a self that is losing its selfhood so to speak? The only thing being lost are mental crutches that artificially propped up a livable measure of mental stability. Some degree of destabilization is pretty much guaranteed. If one feels as though it's nothing more than smooth sailing, they've probably sailed directly into further self deception.
|
|