|
Post by enigma on Mar 8, 2014 2:57:34 GMT -5
This might sound odd, or it might resonate. When the approach of the witness is taken to be innocence, a different default mode appears that may seem like love, compassion and acceptance by comparison to the approach of mind in it's self interest, but it is inherently empty, and in that emptiness there simply is no fear, no animosity, no preferential self interest, no judgment, and while this is an uncommon state, it is, in fact, the natural consequence of that innocence, that absence. I know that you understand that the absence of self centeredness is not really the presence of compassion unless viewed against that false backdrop. rez rez rez.. Groovy, man. The reason the distinction between emptiness, and the presence of some desirable quality, is important is that what one seeks is not something, but rather the absence of 'something', namely illusion.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 8, 2014 9:58:09 GMT -5
Groovy, man. The reason the distinction between emptiness, and the presence of some desirable quality, is important is that what one seeks is not something, but rather the absence of 'something', namely illusion. <caw! caw! caw!> Your absence is a mirage. </caw! caw! caw!>
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2014 18:17:12 GMT -5
When it is realized, then live it. When the living of it happens, life happens spontaneously.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Mar 11, 2014 6:04:57 GMT -5
Groovy, man. The reason the distinction between emptiness, and the presence of some desirable quality, is important is that what one seeks is not something, but rather the absence of 'something', namely illusion. Maybe not related, but this is stuck in my head when I read what you wrote. Too tired to explore it.. Joshu asked Nansen in desperation: "What is the Way?" Nansen answered: "Common sense is the Way." Still tormented, Joshu asked: "How do you get on to it?" Nansen: "The more you try, the more you push it away." Joshu: "If you do not try, how do you know you are on the Way?" Nansen: "The Way has nothing to do with knowledge, but it is not not-knowing. Knowledge is an illusion; ignorance is blank. It is like vast space. Where there is no room for right and wrong." Upon this Joshu was suddenly enlightened. The Mumonkan (koan 19)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2014 10:42:09 GMT -5
Groovy, man. The reason the distinction between emptiness, and the presence of some desirable quality, is important is that what one seeks is not something, but rather the absence of 'something', namely illusion. Maybe not related, but this is stuck in my head when I read what you wrote. Too tired to explore it.. Joshu asked Nansen in desperation: "What is the Way?" Nansen answered: "Common sense is the Way." Still tormented, Joshu asked: "How do you get on to it?" Nansen: "The more you try, the more you push it away." Joshu: "If you do not try, how do you know you are on the Way?" Nansen: "The Way has nothing to do with knowledge, but it is not not-knowing. Knowledge is an illusion; ignorance is blank. It is like vast space. Where there is no room for right and wrong." Upon this Joshu was suddenly enlightened. The Mumonkan (koan 19) Yup, that's it, though it doesn't need to be made into a koan as there's nothing difficult or paradoxical about this understanding. One frees oneself from banging his head against the wall by ceasing to bang his head against the wall. As he says, common sense.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2014 10:46:14 GMT -5
Groovy, man. The reason the distinction between emptiness, and the presence of some desirable quality, is important is that what one seeks is not something, but rather the absence of 'something', namely illusion. Maybe not related, but this is stuck in my head when I read what you wrote. Too tired to explore it.. Joshu asked Nansen in desperation: "What is the Way?" Nansen answered: "Common sense is the Way." Still tormented, Joshu asked: "How do you get on to it?" Nansen: "The more you try, the more you push it away." Joshu: "If you do not try, how do you know you are on the Way?" Nansen: "The Way has nothing to do with knowledge, but it is not not-knowing. Knowledge is an illusion; ignorance is blank. It is like vast space. Where there is no room for right and wrong." Upon this Joshu was suddenly enlightened. The Mumonkan (koan 19) The version that I first encountered used "Everyday mind" instead of "Common sense" and "If you move toward it directly, you distance yourself from it". Seems to me that "Everyday mind" is inclusive of action as well as state of mind -- more a state of being. The versions using "try" lend some insight into the discussions on the forum about practice, as essentially it's the assertion we often see here that "there is nothing to do", and this version is very clear: "If you try for it, you will become separated from it," === (** pauses for morning meditation **)
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Mar 12, 2014 5:46:24 GMT -5
Maybe not related, but this is stuck in my head when I read what you wrote. Too tired to explore it.. Joshu asked Nansen in desperation: "What is the Way?" Nansen answered: "Common sense is the Way." Still tormented, Joshu asked: "How do you get on to it?" Nansen: "The more you try, the more you push it away." Joshu: "If you do not try, how do you know you are on the Way?" Nansen: "The Way has nothing to do with knowledge, but it is not not-knowing. Knowledge is an illusion; ignorance is blank. It is like vast space. Where there is no room for right and wrong." Upon this Joshu was suddenly enlightened. The Mumonkan (koan 19) Yup, that's it, though it doesn't need to be made into a koan as there's nothing difficult or paradoxical about this understanding. One frees oneself from banging his head against the wall by ceasing to bang his head against the wall. As he says, common sense. Yeah true, no koan required. I can't see how it could be anymore direct
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Mar 12, 2014 5:56:21 GMT -5
Maybe not related, but this is stuck in my head when I read what you wrote. Too tired to explore it.. Joshu asked Nansen in desperation: "What is the Way?" Nansen answered: "Common sense is the Way." Still tormented, Joshu asked: "How do you get on to it?" Nansen: "The more you try, the more you push it away." Joshu: "If you do not try, how do you know you are on the Way?" Nansen: "The Way has nothing to do with knowledge, but it is not not-knowing. Knowledge is an illusion; ignorance is blank. It is like vast space. Where there is no room for right and wrong." Upon this Joshu was suddenly enlightened. The Mumonkan (koan 19) The version that I first encountered used "Everyday mind" instead of "Common sense" and "If you move toward it directly, you distance yourself from it". Seems to me that "Everyday mind" is inclusive of action as well as state of mind -- more a state of being. The versions using "try" lend some insight into the discussions on the forum about practice, as essentially it's the assertion we often see here that "there is nothing to do", and this version is very clear: "If you try for it, you will become separated from it," === (** pauses for morning meditation **) I like the other version too. Thanks for that. Everyday mind, how miraculous that is! There"s also a Sufi paradox I like that fits with my experience. "If you seek Him, you will never find Him. But if you do not seek Him, He will not reveal Himself to you."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2014 17:45:23 GMT -5
So in Chapter 8 Adya actually suggests identifying with what he points to as silence: To say "I am silent" is actually quite ridiculous. When you look at it, it's not that you are silent, it's that you are silence.... and that of course follows a pattern in the book in that he invites the reader toward the same orientation to the ideas he's referred to as openess innocence and freedom. The thinking rational mind of course perceives a contradiction: After experiencing the "nice moment," you then reconstitute your familiar sense of identity. But actually these opportunities are like little peepholes through which the truth is experienced. If you start to watch for them, you will notice them. All of a sudden the mind will stop thinking of its story. You might notice that your separate identity or sense of a me just took a break, and whatever you truly are didn't disappear. chapter 1, para 22... but the thing is that the thinking rational mind hasn't been invited to this party. WIBIGO is what Niz suggests here: Q: ... here and now, as I talk to you, I am in the body -- obviously. The body may not be me, but it is mine. Niz: The entire universe contributes incessantly to your existence. Hence the entire universe is your body. In that sense, I agree. ... Niz: ... now divest yourself of the idea that you are the body with the help of the contrary idea that you are not the body. It is also an idea, no doubt; treat it like something to be abandoned when its work is done. ... (This and the last from Chapter 54 of "I AM THAT", "Body and Mind are Symptoms of Ignorance") Adya points the reader away from the common consensus trance identifications with inner narrative, history, possessions, life situation, body, etc.. This is done by inviting identification with these ideas based in the impersonal that point away from the conceptual. It's no surprise that he'd put one of the most substantial and readily available of these - silence - in the middle of the book. It can be quite powerful to associate the sense of identity with where Adya points here. Stunning poem ... a person didn't write that one!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 22, 2014 21:27:24 GMT -5
As long as you think quiet is in opposition to noise, that's not the true quiet. When you are in true quiet, you realize that when you hear a jackhammer, that's the quietness-- it's just taken some form. True quiet is absolutely inclusive. It goes beyond all dualistic ideas of what quiet is. When we come into stillness, we find that stillness is not separate from motion or movemnt. After you meditate, if you get up and start to go about your day thinking, "Why can't I keep this amazing stillness?" it's because you've experienced the controlled stillness, not the natural and uncontrolled stillness. As you relax back into true stillness, when your body gets up to move, the stillness itself is moving. chap 8 para 10By its very nature, this state has to be something that is effortless. chap 8 para 7Tolle's presentation along these lines is similar but not as bold and deep. As I recall at least, he kept it strictly within the poles of silence/non-silence, and wrote it for the broadest possible audience in pointing out that the loudest and most disconcerting of sounds will eventually fade back into the stillness from which it comes, and that without the silence there can be no sound. It's such a simple and apparently obvious point, but if it's never been contemplated -- even if the complimentary nature of conceptualization has been realized -- then it's worth it. For me it had the effect of leading to a sort of opening up. Seems to me that Ayda's big on that point of opening up, and repeatedly makes the distinction in this chapter between forced mental stillness and the effortless silence of simple being -- the one being a closed-off and forced state, the other ... well, it's not really a state at all but it's what's sometimes called by Niz and others the "natural state".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2014 8:58:45 GMT -5
As long as you think quiet is in opposition to noise, that's not the true quiet. When you are in true quiet, you realize that when you hear a jackhammer, that's the quietness-- it's just taken some form. True quiet is absolutely inclusive. It goes beyond all dualistic ideas of what quiet is. When we come into stillness, we find that stillness is not separate from motion or movemnt. After you meditate, if you get up and start to go about your day thinking, "Why can't I keep this amazing stillness?" it's because you've experienced the controlled stillness, not the natural and uncontrolled stillness. As you relax back into true stillness, when your body gets up to move, the stillness itself is moving. chap 8 para 10By its very nature, this state has to be something that is effortless. chap 8 para 7Tolle's presentation along these lines is similar but not as bold and deep. As I recall at least, he kept it strictly within the poles of silence/non-silence, and wrote it for the broadest possible audience in pointing out that the loudest and most disconcerting of sounds will eventually fade back into the stillness from which it comes, and that without the silence there can be no sound. It's such a simple and apparently obvious point, but if it's never been contemplated -- even if the complimentary nature of conceptualization has been realized -- then it's worth it. For me it had the effect of leading to a sort of opening up. Seems to me that Ayda's big on that point of opening up, and repeatedly makes the distinction in this chapter between forced mental stillness and the effortless silence of simple being -- the one being a closed-off and forced state, the other ... well, it's not really a state at all but it's what's sometimes called by Niz and others the "natural state". Cool chapter Joan Tollifson expresses it this way www.joantollifson.com/home.htmlDe Mello- Silence is not the absence of sound, but the absence of self. Rocca- The answer isn't given in words. It's always here. Opening up.......You can't hang on to the teaching .... when heart & mind open, understanding enters by grace. This is Love answering all its own questions.- Rocca
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 23, 2014 9:34:34 GMT -5
Tolle's presentation along these lines is similar but not as bold and deep. As I recall at least, he kept it strictly within the poles of silence/non-silence, and wrote it for the broadest possible audience in pointing out that the loudest and most disconcerting of sounds will eventually fade back into the stillness from which it comes, and that without the silence there can be no sound. It's such a simple and apparently obvious point, but if it's never been contemplated -- even if the complimentary nature of conceptualization has been realized -- then it's worth it. For me it had the effect of leading to a sort of opening up. Seems to me that Ayda's big on that point of opening up, and repeatedly makes the distinction in this chapter between forced mental stillness and the effortless silence of simple being -- the one being a closed-off and forced state, the other ... well, it's not really a state at all but it's what's sometimes called by Niz and others the "natural state". Cool chapter Joan Tollifson expresses it this way www.joantollifson.com/home.htmlDe Mello- Silence is not the absence of sound, but the absence of self. Rocca- The answer isn't given in words. It's always here. Opening up.......You can't hang on to the teaching .... when heart & mind open, understanding enters by grace. This is Love answering all its own questions.- Rocca That's not bad. When it clicks, if it ever does that what you might be looking for is within the exploration of silence itself, you either do so and leave behind a swirling neurotic mess of mental masturbation or you realize that you're simultaneously not ready to go 'there' and continue on.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 23, 2014 9:35:14 GMT -5
As long as you think quiet is in opposition to noise, that's not the true quiet. When you are in true quiet, you realize that when you hear a jackhammer, that's the quietness-- it's just taken some form. True quiet is absolutely inclusive. It goes beyond all dualistic ideas of what quiet is. When we come into stillness, we find that stillness is not separate from motion or movemnt. After you meditate, if you get up and start to go about your day thinking, "Why can't I keep this amazing stillness?" it's because you've experienced the controlled stillness, not the natural and uncontrolled stillness. As you relax back into true stillness, when your body gets up to move, the stillness itself is moving. chap 8 para 10By its very nature, this state has to be something that is effortless. chap 8 para 7Tolle's presentation along these lines is similar but not as bold and deep. As I recall at least, he kept it strictly within the poles of silence/non-silence, and wrote it for the broadest possible audience in pointing out that the loudest and most disconcerting of sounds will eventually fade back into the stillness from which it comes, and that without the silence there can be no sound. It's such a simple and apparently obvious point, but if it's never been contemplated -- even if the complimentary nature of conceptualization has been realized -- then it's worth it. For me it had the effect of leading to a sort of opening up. Seems to me that Ayda's big on that point of opening up, and repeatedly makes the distinction in this chapter between forced mental stillness and the effortless silence of simple being -- the one being a closed-off and forced state, the other ... well, it's not really a state at all but it's what's sometimes called by Niz and others the "natural state". "You can never understand the tremendous peace that is always there within you, that is your natural state. Your trying to create a peaceful state of mind is in fact creating disturbance within you. You can only talk of peace, create a state of mind and say to yourself that you are very peaceful — but that is not peace; that is violence. So there is no use in practicing peace, there is no reason to practice silence. Real silence is explosive; it is not the dead state of mind that spiritual seekers think. “Oh, I am at peace with myself! There is silence, a tremendous silence! I experience silence!” — that doesn’t mean anything at all. This is volcanic in its nature: it’s bubbling all the time — the energy, the life — that is its quality. You may ask how I know. I don’t know. Life is aware of itself, if we can put it that way — it is conscious of itself." -UG
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 23, 2014 10:55:29 GMT -5
Tolle's presentation along these lines is similar but not as bold and deep. As I recall at least, he kept it strictly within the poles of silence/non-silence, and wrote it for the broadest possible audience in pointing out that the loudest and most disconcerting of sounds will eventually fade back into the stillness from which it comes, and that without the silence there can be no sound. It's such a simple and apparently obvious point, but if it's never been contemplated -- even if the complimentary nature of conceptualization has been realized -- then it's worth it. For me it had the effect of leading to a sort of opening up. Seems to me that Ayda's big on that point of opening up, and repeatedly makes the distinction in this chapter between forced mental stillness and the effortless silence of simple being -- the one being a closed-off and forced state, the other ... well, it's not really a state at all but it's what's sometimes called by Niz and others the "natural state". Cool chapter Joan Tollifson expresses it this way www.joantollifson.com/home.htmlDe Mello- Silence is not the absence of sound, but the absence of self. Rocca- The answer isn't given in words. It's always here. Opening up.......You can't hang on to the teaching .... when heart & mind open, understanding enters by grace. This is Love answering all its own questions.- Rocca I always wondered what happened to Larry "Bud" Melman!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 29, 2014 16:02:46 GMT -5
With any other teaching or teacher, we find we can get up. We can think, "Oh, I heard Adya said dah-dah-day, at it sounds good," and we find ourselves lifting up off the floor of surrender. So near the end of the chapter Ayda weaves together the notions of silence and resistance. There are many stories or spiritual myths that are created and continue to be perpetuated that portray this coming back to our true nature as a battleground, as if there is something about you that doesn't want to return to itself. Whether this is called the ego, or the me or the mind that doesn't really want to be quiet, spiritual people can buy into this myth that there is something about them that doesn't want to wake up and that there has to be some struggle. When you are really quiet, you can see that this is total nonsense.Er ... uhm .. .. maybe he'd have a different opinion if he spent some time reading the threads here at ST?? ... Seriously though, the battle is never not with oneself -- we can't look to anyone other than ourselves for equanimity and harmony. Noone can give us peace. Seems to me that Ayda makes it pretty clear what the one real obstacle that that peace, that silence, really is: you cannot avoid any part of experience. ... As soon as you involve yourself in the seeker's struggle, you've already lost the war. ... You'll see from the silence that every way the mind moves is just a movement of thought that has no reality to it and becomes real only if you believe it. ... As soon as you want something from the silence, you are moved outside of silence again. Silence reveals itself only to itself. Only when we enter as nothing and stay as nothing, will silence open its secret.
|
|