Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 12:04:10 GMT -5
Intent reminds me of Adyashanti's 'spiritual aspiration.' Also I was listening to David Scoma recently and he spoke of investigating the 'motivations underlying the motivations.' Until those are clearly understood, there may be floundering. Well I definitely know floundering. I'd say it's the state of normal. I've looked into the intent/aspiration/motivation thing and nothing clear comes to the fore. Unobstructed seeing. Clearly being what is. Knowing WTF is going on, or not. Truth, with the capital "T" is not something I've ever been comfortable with as part of an aspirational slogan. It's always had a small 't' in my experience, so why would I put faith in it being capitalized? To assume that there is Truth when I've never known this to be the case seems dishonest and slightly self-mesmerizing. Courage I can't really separate from honesty. But honesty gets back to the original question about how one becomes conscious of what is fundamentally unconscious. We can only be honest about what is in the field of consciousness. IOW, we can't really know if we're being actually honest. It's similar to Enigma's 'willingness' idea. "Willingness" is always a description after the fact. Either it was there or it wasn't. Willingness can seem like the case but the proof is in the pudding. It could just be more elaborate kabuki theater. The same with honesty. How is 'WTF is going on' different from 'Truth with a capital T'? Seems the same thing to me. Surely you know WTF is going on sometimes.  I can function alright. There's a pretty low bar. Truth seems mystical in its otherworldiness. I have no idea what it references, except for what is found in my imagination, obviously. Yes I agree. Perhaps all we can do is foster appropriate conditions? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 13:12:10 GMT -5
How is 'WTF is going on' different from 'Truth with a capital T'? Seems the same thing to me. Surely you know WTF is going on sometimes. I can function alright. There's a pretty low bar. Truth seems mystical in its otherworldiness. I have no idea what it references, except for what is found in my imagination, obviously. Yes I agree. Perhaps all we can do is foster appropriate conditions? There isn't actually a seeker and there isn't actually something called fostering appropriate conditions, it's a story... There has never been an individual that meditated more, or gathered more concepts, or became more clearer, or even became awakened or enlightened... Those things apparently happen, and there is nothing right or wrong with that, but they don't happen to a somebody... Liberation is the death of the illusory me that seeks the fostering of appropriate conditions for Liberation... There isn't an individual that has choice, free will or volition to foster anything, there IS just what IS... There is just THIS. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 8, 2013 13:16:23 GMT -5
I can function alright. There's a pretty low bar. Truth seems mystical in its otherworldiness. I have no idea what it references, except for what is found in my imagination, obviously. Yes I agree. Perhaps all we can do is foster appropriate conditions? There isn't actually a seeker and there isn't actually something called fostering appropriate conditions, it's a story... There has never been an individual that meditated more, or gathered more concepts, or became more clearer, or even became awakened or enlightened... Those things apparently happen, and there is nothing right or wrong with that, but they don't happen to a somebody... Liberation is the death of the illusory me that seeks the fostering of appropriate conditions for Liberation... There isn't an individual that has choice, free will or volition to foster anything, there IS just what IS... There is just THIS. If THIS is so, what're we all doing here?  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 13:33:48 GMT -5
I can function alright. There's a pretty low bar. Truth seems mystical in its otherworldiness. I have no idea what it references, except for what is found in my imagination, obviously. Yes I agree. Perhaps all we can do is foster appropriate conditions? There isn't actually a seeker and there isn't actually something called fostering appropriate conditions, it's a story... There has never been an individual that meditated more, or gathered more concepts, or became more clearer, or even became awakened or enlightened... Those things apparently happen, and there is nothing right or wrong with that, but they don't happen to a somebody... Liberation is the death of the illusory me that seeks the fostering of appropriate conditions for Liberation... There isn't an individual that has choice, free will or volition to foster anything, there IS just what IS... There is just THIS. I was listening to Mooji prattle on in his cute way this morning. At the end of his talk he felt moved to distinguish between neo-advaita and advaita vedanta. He had appreciation for both but thought that somewhere in between was probably best...apply the freshness of the neos to the focus and depth and power of the traditionalists. In outlining the two positions he pointed to some problems. On the traditional side -- Advaita Vedanta -- there is a staleness with the practice and teachings. Students bear down for a long protracted period of study and practice to find out who they really are. Of course they are already that, so that directness and sharpness is avoided. The neos problem had more to do with speaking to folks from an impersonal position. This is how it is: it is what it is.... much like what you write above. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 14:26:46 GMT -5
There isn't actually a seeker and there isn't actually something called fostering appropriate conditions, it's a story... There has never been an individual that meditated more, or gathered more concepts, or became more clearer, or even became awakened or enlightened... Those things apparently happen, and there is nothing right or wrong with that, but they don't happen to a somebody... Liberation is the death of the illusory me that seeks the fostering of appropriate conditions for Liberation... There isn't an individual that has choice, free will or volition to foster anything, there IS just what IS... There is just THIS. If THIS is so, what're we all doing here? aren't doing anything...hehe We are being lived by Nothing appearing as Everything. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 8, 2013 14:37:03 GMT -5
There isn't actually a seeker and there isn't actually something called fostering appropriate conditions, it's a story... There has never been an individual that meditated more, or gathered more concepts, or became more clearer, or even became awakened or enlightened... Those things apparently happen, and there is nothing right or wrong with that, but they don't happen to a somebody... Liberation is the death of the illusory me that seeks the fostering of appropriate conditions for Liberation... There isn't an individual that has choice, free will or volition to foster anything, there IS just what IS... There is just THIS. I was listening to Mooji prattle on in his cute way this morning. At the end of his talk he felt moved to distinguish between neo-advaita and advaita vedanta. He had appreciation for both but thought that somewhere in between was probably best...apply the freshness of the neos to the focus and depth and power of the traditionalists. In outlining the two positions he pointed to some problems. On the traditional side -- Advaita Vedanta -- there is a staleness with the practice and teachings. Students bear down for a long protracted period of study and practice to find out who they really are. Of course they are already that, so that directness and sharpness is avoided. The neos problem had more to do with speaking to folks from an impersonal position. This is how it is: it is what it is.... much like what you write above. Yes, there isn't anything right or wrong with either tradition. Some so called non-dual teachers make the fundamental mis-conception that there really is a seeker that can gain something or lose something. That in itself is pure dualism. And it only perpetuates and reinforces the validity of a actual individual that can become awakened or enlightened. When the illusion of a me or the seeker falls away what is left is what has always been here. Life...but it isn't happening to anybody...it just IS. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 9, 2013 1:12:01 GMT -5
Maybe it comes down to courage. And intent. Intent reminds me of Adyashanti's 'spiritual aspiration.' Also I was listening to David Scoma recently and he spoke of investigating the 'motivations underlying the motivations.' Until those are clearly understood, there may be floundering. Well I definitely know floundering. I'd say it's the state of normal. I've looked into the intent/aspiration/motivation thing and nothing clear comes to the fore. Unobstructed seeing. Clearly being what is. Knowing WTF is going on, or not. Truth, with the capital "T" is not something I've ever been comfortable with as part of an aspirational slogan. It's always had a small 't' in my experience, so why would I put faith in it being capitalized? To assume that there is Truth when I've never known this to be the case seems dishonest and slightly self-mesmerizing. Courage I can't really separate from honesty. But honesty gets back to the original question about how one becomes conscious of what is fundamentally unconscious. We can only be honest about what is in the field of consciousness. IOW, we can't really know if we're being actually honest. It's similar to Enigma's 'willingness' idea. "Willingness" is always a description after the fact. Either it was there or it wasn't. Willingness can seem like the case but the proof is in the pudding. It could just be more elaborate kabuki theater. The same with honesty. Essentially true, but the interesting thing about self deception is.....it isn't possible.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 9, 2013 7:18:31 GMT -5
I was listening to Mooji prattle on in his cute way this morning. At the end of his talk he felt moved to distinguish between neo-advaita and advaita vedanta. He had appreciation for both but thought that somewhere in between was probably best...apply the freshness of the neos to the focus and depth and power of the traditionalists. In outlining the two positions he pointed to some problems. On the traditional side -- Advaita Vedanta -- there is a staleness with the practice and teachings. Students bear down for a long protracted period of study and practice to find out who they really are. Of course they are already that, so that directness and sharpness is avoided. The neos problem had more to do with speaking to folks from an impersonal position. This is how it is: it is what it is.... much like what you write above. Yes, there isn't anything right or wrong with either tradition. Some so called non-dual teachers make the fundamental mis-conception that there really is a seeker that can gain something or lose something. That in itself is pure dualism. And it only perpetuates and reinforces the validity of a actual individual that can become awakened or enlightened. When the illusion of a me or the seeker falls away what is left is what has always been here.Life...but it isn't happening to anybody...it just IS. What is left is the 'me' that let of seeking, the 'me' that chose to post their thoughts 'about' their existence.. what is left is the 'me' that brings its understanding of its unique existence to be shared with the other 'me's as an interactive and interconnected experience.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 11:51:52 GMT -5
Yes, there isn't anything right or wrong with either tradition. Some so called non-dual teachers make the fundamental mis-conception that there really is a seeker that can gain something or lose something. That in itself is pure dualism. And it only perpetuates and reinforces the validity of a actual individual that can become awakened or enlightened. When the illusion of a me or the seeker falls away what is left is what has always been here.Life...but it isn't happening to anybody...it just IS. What is left is the 'me' that let of seeking, the 'me' that chose to post their thoughts 'about' their existence.. what is left is the 'me' that brings its understanding of its unique existence to be shared with the other 'me's as an interactive and interconnected experience.. Be well.. No, you've never been a me, never chose to post thoughts, never had an understanding, and never had an experience... When that illusion, that dream of Tzu suddenly dies, what is left is Being...or rather Being playing the role of a human, but it's not playing the role for a me, an I or a self or a Tzu... It just IS what it ISBut don't worry, Tzu's dream is safe, there's no one there that can gain something or lose something that would dispel the dream... |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 9, 2013 11:59:57 GMT -5
Intent reminds me of Adyashanti's 'spiritual aspiration.' Also I was listening to David Scoma recently and he spoke of investigating the 'motivations underlying the motivations.' Until those are clearly understood, there may be floundering. Well I definitely know floundering. I'd say it's the state of normal. I've looked into the intent/aspiration/motivation thing and nothing clear comes to the fore. Unobstructed seeing. Clearly being what is. Knowing WTF is going on, or not. Truth, with the capital "T" is not something I've ever been comfortable with as part of an aspirational slogan. It's always had a small 't' in my experience, so why would I put faith in it being capitalized? To assume that there is Truth when I've never known this to be the case seems dishonest and slightly self-mesmerizing. Courage I can't really separate from honesty. But honesty gets back to the original question about how one becomes conscious of what is fundamentally unconscious. We can only be honest about what is in the field of consciousness. IOW, we can't really know if we're being actually honest. It's similar to Enigma's 'willingness' idea. "Willingness" is always a description after the fact. Either it was there or it wasn't. Willingness can seem like the case but the proof is in the pudding. It could just be more elaborate kabuki theater. The same with honesty. How is 'WTF is going on' different from 'Truth with a capital T'? Seems the same thing to me. Surely you know WTF is going on sometimes. I've been thinking about courage. Considering the idea that there is no such thing. There are things we're afraid of and then there's whether or not we dive into them. What I've found is that the only time I'm willing to dive in is when the alternative is unacceptable. I wouldn't exactly call that courage. Or even willingness. It's more of just a circumstance. So willingness, honesty and courage are all descriptions after the fact. So...if all that's true, then the original question about uncovering unconsciousness boils down to being in a circumstance where the alternative of lying to oneself is unacceptable. "I am blocking every escape. Each outlet has to be blocked to put you in a corner. You must be choked to death, as it were. Only a real teacher can find that out and tell you, nobody else. Not those people who interpret the texts; all that is totally unrelated. Only such a man can talk. And such a man never encourages you because he knows that if this kind of thing has to happen to somebody, that person will not need the help of anybody. In spite of everything it will happen." -UG |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2013 13:50:11 GMT -5
What is left is the 'me' that let of seeking, the 'me' that chose to post their thoughts 'about' their existence.. what is left is the 'me' that brings its understanding of its unique existence to be shared with the other 'me's as an interactive and interconnected experience.. Be well.. No, you've never been a me, never chose to post thoughts, never had an understanding, and never had an experience... When that illusion, that dream of Tzu suddenly dies, what is left is Being...or rather Being playing the role of a human, but it's not playing the role for a me, an I or a self or a Tzu... It just IS what it ISBut don't worry, Tzu's dream is safe, there's no one there that can gain something or lose something that would dispel the dream... maybe what Tzu' is referring to as a me isn't what you're referring to there at all. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 9, 2013 14:04:46 GMT -5
No, you've never been a me, never chose to post thoughts, never had an understanding, and never had an experience... When that illusion, that dream of Tzu suddenly dies, what is left is Being...or rather Being playing the role of a human, but it's not playing the role for a me, an I or a self or a Tzu... It just IS what it ISBut don't worry, Tzu's dream is safe, there's no one there that can gain something or lose something that would dispel the dream... maybe what Tzu' is referring to as a me isn't what you're referring to there at all. He was talking about knowing the me that is left when the illusion of me collapses... I'm saying you won’t ever know there is no you. The message points to the possibility of the illusion of you being a someone, the illusion of the me, simply can collapse and there is nothing left that knows that it’s collapsed, there is nothing left but what IS. That is "so called" Liberation. It’s the end of the illusion there is a separate me. But there is nothing that knows that. It’s just over and there is nothing left but what IS. Tzu wants to be there after the death of the illusory me...hehehe But the only thing left will be what IS. It’s a message that can’t be understood. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2013 14:08:50 GMT -5
OR maybe what Tzu' is referring to as a me isn't what you're referring to there at all. He was talking about knowing the me that is left when the illusion of me collapses... I'm saying you won’t ever know there is no you, the message points to the possibility of the illusion of you being a someone, the illusion of the me, simply can collapse and there is nothing left that knows that it’s collapsed, there is nothing left but what IS. That is "so called" Liberation. It’s the end of the illusion there is a separate me. But there is nothing that knows that. It’s just over and there is nothing left but what IS. It’s a message that can’t be understood. ( _______________________________________________________________________________) |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Nov 9, 2013 15:53:45 GMT -5
How is 'WTF is going on' different from 'Truth with a capital T'? Seems the same thing to me. Surely you know WTF is going on sometimes. I've been thinking about courage. Considering the idea that there is no such thing. There are things we're afraid of and then there's whether or not we dive into them. What I've found is that the only time I'm willing to dive in is when the alternative is unacceptable. I wouldn't exactly call that courage. Or even willingness. It's more of just a circumstance. So willingness, honesty and courage are all descriptions after the fact. So...if all that's true, then the original question about uncovering unconsciousness boils down to being in a circumstance where the alternative of lying to oneself is unacceptable. "I am blocking every escape. Each outlet has to be blocked to put you in a corner. You must be choked to death, as it were. Only a real teacher can find that out and tell you, nobody else. Not those people who interpret the texts; all that is totally unrelated. Only such a man can talk. And such a man never encourages you because he knows that if this kind of thing has to happen to somebody, that person will not need the help of anybody. In spite of everything it will happen." -UG Hoo boy. That was good. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2013 13:26:27 GMT -5
Intent reminds me of Adyashanti's 'spiritual aspiration.' Also I was listening to David Scoma recently and he spoke of investigating the 'motivations underlying the motivations.' Until those are clearly understood, there may be floundering. Well I definitely know floundering. I'd say it's the state of normal. I've looked into the intent/aspiration/motivation thing and nothing clear comes to the fore. Unobstructed seeing. Clearly being what is. Knowing WTF is going on, or not. Truth, with the capital "T" is not something I've ever been comfortable with as part of an aspirational slogan. It's always had a small 't' in my experience, so why would I put faith in it being capitalized? To assume that there is Truth when I've never known this to be the case seems dishonest and slightly self-mesmerizing. Courage I can't really separate from honesty. But honesty gets back to the original question about how one becomes conscious of what is fundamentally unconscious. We can only be honest about what is in the field of consciousness. IOW, we can't really know if we're being actually honest. It's similar to Enigma's 'willingness' idea. "Willingness" is always a description after the fact. Either it was there or it wasn't. Willingness can seem like the case but the proof is in the pudding. It could just be more elaborate kabuki theater. The same with honesty. Essentially true, but the interesting thing about self deception is.....it isn't possible. I know, it's a confusing term in this context. At a certain level, self is deception. As I understand it (speaking noncommittally), the fundamental veil is self itself, which is nothing more than an unquestioned idea. A meme run amok. These words untethered. |
|
