Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 11:55:23 GMT -5
I'd say it is not an either or situation. The interest must be lost, period. While the interest remains, the compulsion to be consumed by imagination will continue regardless of how the stories are viewed. Why simply shifting attention away from stories to "what is" does not work for most is precisely because mind is more than happy to juggle multiple conflicting interests. Which is why I see the "shifting attention to what is" piece as actually the end result and not the initial cause that with enough practice breaks the house of cards so to speak. Precisely! If it is done deliberately then it's a mind game. That's why I said Klein's advice is nonsense. When the interest is lost, suddenly everything falls effortlessly into place. Unfortunately, however, losing interest can't be on the to do-list of the seeker since that would be an interest in continuing the story again. Perhaps loosing interest in falsity is a natural occurrence of taking an interest in truth...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2013 11:55:50 GMT -5
I'd say it is not an either or situation. The interest must be lost, period. While the interest remains, the compulsion to be consumed by imagination will continue regardless of how the stories are viewed. Why simply shifting attention away from stories to "what is" does not work for most is precisely because mind is more than happy to juggle multiple conflicting interests. Which is why I see the "shifting attention to what is" piece as actually the end result and not the initial cause that with enough practice breaks the house of cards so to speak. Causality turned inside out and put standing on it's head is still causality. Causality has only a leg to stand on in the realms of minding. The loss of interest is not something happening in mind but something happening to the mind and therefore is not happening in time. Which, unfortunately for the seeker, makes it impossible to determine how far it still is until salvation.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2013 11:57:59 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom has it that meditation leads to realization. Haven't you said the opposite? Mediation as an action is irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2013 12:00:43 GMT -5
Precisely! If it is done deliberately then it's a mind game. That's why I said Klein's advice is nonsense. When the interest is lost, suddenly everything falls effortlessly into place. Unfortunately, however, losing interest can't be on the to do-list of the seeker since that would be an interest in continuing the story again. Perhaps loosing interest in falsity is a natural occurrence of taking an interest in truth... Interest swap?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 12:04:19 GMT -5
Perhaps loosing interest in falsity is a natural occurrence of taking an interest in truth... Interest swap? Is it really a swap if one exists and the other doesn't? IOW what is being swapped with what is Real?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 19, 2013 12:07:22 GMT -5
Is it really a swap if one exists and the other doesn't? IOW what is being swapped with what is Real? That's why I asked. You said "taking an interest in truth". We are still on the interest plane. Maybe you wanna rephrase?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 12:09:57 GMT -5
Is it really a swap if one exists and the other doesn't? IOW what is being swapped with what is Real? That's why I asked. You said "taking an interest in truth". We are still on the interest plane. Maybe you wanna rephrase? Well, don't you have to get on the plane if you want to fly?.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2013 12:45:39 GMT -5
Conventional wisdom has it that meditation leads to realization. Haven't you said the opposite? Mediation as an action is irrelevant. Any practice that isn't effortless isn't worthy of the name.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 19, 2013 12:57:40 GMT -5
Causality turned inside out and put standing on it's head is still causality. Causality has only a leg to stand on in the realms of minding. The loss of interest is not something happening in mind but something happening to the mind and therefore is not happening in time. Which, unfortunately for the seeker, makes it impossible to determine how far it still is until salvation. A Maserati is out of reach for most but the fantasy of one, or whatever the personal equivalent may be, seems for most people to be enough to hold the interest indefinitely. A deep breath and a silent look around on the other hand, is always available, always within reach. Something happening outside of time can happen outside of time in an instant or an eternity, as the interval is, in that case, indeterminate.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 19, 2013 13:02:54 GMT -5
Mediation as an action is irrelevant. Any practice that isn't effortless isn't worthy of the name. :-)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 19, 2013 20:59:16 GMT -5
That's why I asked. You said "taking an interest in truth". We are still on the interest plane. Maybe you wanna rephrase? Well, don't you have to get on the plane if you want to fly?.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Oct 20, 2013 0:25:05 GMT -5
I'd say it is not an either or situation. The interest must be lost, period. While the interest remains, the compulsion to be consumed by imagination will continue regardless of how the stories are viewed. Why simply shifting attention away from stories to "what is" does not work for most is precisely because mind is more than happy to juggle multiple conflicting interests. Which is why I see the "shifting attention to what is" piece as actually the end result and not the initial cause that with enough practice breaks the house of cards so to speak. Precisely! If it is done deliberately then it's a mind game. That's why I said Klein's advice is nonsense. When the interest is lost, suddenly everything falls effortlessly into place. Unfortunately, however, losing interest can't be on the to do-list of the seeker since that would be an interest in continuing the story again. More or less I'd say most relatively functional people are already aware that their thoughts are just stories but to the extent that these stories seem to be necessary, functional and of a high degree of interest, they will be lost in them again and again. It doesn't even matter if you can melt into samadhi on the drop of a hat. The interest will be right there waiting.
|
|
|
Post by berlake on Oct 20, 2013 8:36:55 GMT -5
Perhaps predictably, if any of you have read what I posted about Segal, U.G.K. and Roberts, I wonder if there is a different explanation...
Consider this:
The "self" we are identified with is made up of objects; sensual objects (pertaining to the perceptions of the five senses) and mental objects (concepts, memories, images and so on). We are accustomed to identifying the SENSE of being - of living - with this fictitious identity; an identity constructed out of this stream by the memory, it would appear. I believe I am saying nothing new here...
The reasons, therefore, that people talk about the mind and the self as being "in the way" of the ever present Truth is because the Truth - Awareness, Consciousness etc. - is totally identified with these objects, and even perceives them AS THE PERCEIVER, i.e., we are accustomed to identifying these objects as the Subject, which leads to the illusion that there is a subject/object relationship which is a fundamental constituent of the nature of Reality.
Realisation - according to most accounts (ask me who I am referring to if you would like further clarification of my sources) - is the sudden recognition that the perceiver is not the perceived. In other words, the true perceiver is outside the stream of ordinary consciousness; outside ALL objective perceptions, including mental ones. Consequently, it is outside time and space, and it is not knowable with or by anything which belongs to time and space. The only thing can "know" Truth IS Truth. That is why it does not involve the individual in any way; it does not involve the previously false identity which was assumed to be the "knower."
When this happens, it appears that there is absolutely no question of having to try and "understand" (as Segal so frantically did) what has happened, because what happens is not privy to the understanding: it is a self-evident Truth TO ITSELF. The personality may well be shattered; it may take many years for the mind to readjust to the view which is now irrefutable; but there is absolute certainty that reality is NOT what it appears to be and that, ultimately, all phenomena are perishable and yet they are "made" of the same NOTHING. This nothing is seen by itself to be Eternal, Illimitable, without attribute and the source of ALL THINGS while being unchanged and unaffected by anything...
What is NOT described is an "experience" of losing the sense of BEING. Since being belongs not to objects properly, but to Being itself, there is a sense of having "awoken" as Being to Being - and I mean Being which is totally independent of any object and yet within which all objects appear as comprising the very same stuff (which is beyond all attributes) as Being Itself. Hence the sense of profound peace and "understanding," as what is now seen is that there is no separation because there is no such thing a discreet object which could possibly exist by itself.
HOWEVER... Segal (and, I have made it no secret, in my opinion others - including, perhaps, this poor, poor chap "Midnight") seems to me to be describing a loss of the sense of BEING. It is not only the loss of being A PERSON, but a loss of the sense of Being in any sense. All that remains are perceptions and thoughts, which appear to be happening to no-one. There is total unconsciousness of being conscious. This is not a loss of self-consciousness in the sense of a loss of individuality; it is the sense of no longer being conscious of being conscious, i.e., of being DEAD. U.G. and B.R. seem to be describing the very same thing...
Now, one of the reasons this seems to objectionable is because - if there is only Eternal, uncaused Being - how can Being no longer experience itself?
My suggestion is that unconsciousness is the way that Truth veils itself and that our apparent "progress" (evolution) is a reversal of this process. In other words, Consciousness reveals more and more of Itself to Itself in a continual unfolding which we perceive as progress and growth in time. BUT THIS PROCESS COULD BE REVERSED. Don't ask me how, but perhaps the simple perception of a plant or a rock is just such a state of relative unconsciousness, by which I mean that there is no consciousness of consciousness, but only consciousness of what that particular entity is capable of perceiving. So, for a plant, this is probably only the sensation of sunlight or the threat of other species to its limited perceptions.
So, in the case of someone like Segal, there is somehow a loss of the ability for Consciousness to know Itself. And this is NOT, as far as I can determine, Enlightenment.
Hence my desire to advise caution when following the words of said "teachers..."
I realise this is an unpopular idea, and I realise especially that my final explanation for how this might occur is particularly poorly formed, but I feel strongly enough about my suggestions to want to keep risking the humiliation of being dismissed or not taken seriously.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2013 9:04:11 GMT -5
GENERAL ANNOUNCEMENTWanted to give a heads-up here in that even though the thread title doesn't indicate it, I'm going to moderate the thread as no-attack from here on out. My understanding of no-attack would subject the following to moderation: - any personal disparagement - any disparagement of ideas that either the writer or the reader have closely identified with the writer. The method of moderation will be to move the moderated content into a parallel thread in the unmoderated board. Only overtly offensive material will be deleted. Please direct any comments or questions on this to this thread. Please direct any requests for moderation of content that you might consider subject to no-attack moderation to this thread or PM me and I'll begin a conversation on it there. Thank you for your attention!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 20, 2013 9:13:26 GMT -5
I'd say it is not an either or situation. The interest must be lost, period. While the interest remains, the compulsion to be consumed by imagination will continue regardless of how the stories are viewed. Why simply shifting attention away from stories to "what is" does not work for most is precisely because mind is more than happy to juggle multiple conflicting interests. Which is why I see the "shifting attention to what is" piece as actually the end result and not the initial cause that with enough practice breaks the house of cards so to speak. Precisely! If it is done deliberately then it's a mind game. That's why I said Klein's advice is nonsense. When the interest is lost, suddenly everything falls effortlessly into place. Unfortunately, however, losing interest can't be on the to do-list of the seeker since that would be an interest in continuing the story again. IMO Klein's advice was useful because it pointed Segal in a different direction, and helped her see what the mind had been doing. Selfhood had been absent for more than a decade, but the reflexive habit of looking inside and finding emptiness had generated constant fear and anxiety. Emptiness was unfamiliar and frightening, and mind pathologized the inability to regain the old sense of selfhood. Klein helped her see that emptiness was perfect, and that only a habit of mind was preventing that perfection from becoming obvious. What we are is intelligent, and when people hear someone explain why it might be wise to shift attention away from imagination, some people will see the logic of that shift and do it. Did they lose interest, or did they see the logic and usefulness of shifting interest in another direction?
|
|