|
Post by figgles on Oct 22, 2014 14:26:49 GMT -5
Ah, yes, the key bit to what he is saying there is this: " If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are." He's speaking there about an identity that is linked to particular feelings, or in other words; attachment to feelings on the higher end of the emotional scale. so long as attachment to, or striving for, 'good feeling' emotions is happening, required conditions are part of the equation, and yes, that means that ying-yanging is indeed, bound to happen. What this describes is a relationship between the presence of identification and an experience of emotional extremes, while the quote was about the absence of a framework for identification and how any description of identity based in sense perception is not that sort of absence. If Adya had been referring to attachment, he would have used the word, or some similar phrasing. He didn't. What he wrote, instead, was about self-reference: Part of not getting caught in illusion is to give up referencing the way we think and feel. A big part of wisdom is to give up referencing the positive thoughts and feelings. Chapter 9, "Consciousness", para's 37, 38In the absence of self-reference, is the absence of identification based on sense perception ... and what is described here: But, when there is no longer striving or seeking for any particular feeling, the arising of bliss, when it ebbs, need not fall below a base-line of well being...because there is no sense of clinging attached to the bliss, there is no sense of something being lost when it ebbs. ... references an experience described in terms of sense perception, by the meaning of the term "sense perception", as Adya was using it. In direct contradiction to a description of a particular feeling-state absent identification, what was written by Adya was: you realize this body-mind experiences what-ever it experiences... Yes, I was speaking mostly to the yin-yanging bit. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3387/emptiness-dancing-book-club-discussion?page=7#ixzz3Gu5bA6OV
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 22, 2014 15:19:00 GMT -5
Wait, so you mean bliss and ecstasy yin-yang too??!! Ah, yes, the key bit to what he is saying there is this: " If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are." He's speaking there about an identity that is linked to particular feelings, or in other words; attachment to feelings on the higher end of the emotional scale. so long as attachment to, or striving for, 'good feeling' emotions is happening, required conditions are part of the equation, and yes, that means that ying-yanging is indeed, bound to happen. But, when there is no longer striving or seeking for any particular feeling, the arising of bliss, when it ebbs, need not fall below a base-line of well being...because there is no sense of clinging attached to the bliss, there is no sense of something being lost when it ebbs. Exactly. 'Buy into' = attachment.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 22, 2014 17:13:27 GMT -5
Ah, yes, the key bit to what he is saying there is this: " If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are." He's speaking there about an identity that is linked to particular feelings, or in other words; attachment to feelings on the higher end of the emotional scale. so long as attachment to, or striving for, 'good feeling' emotions is happening, required conditions are part of the equation, and yes, that means that ying-yanging is indeed, bound to happen. But, when there is no longer striving or seeking for any particular feeling, the arising of bliss, when it ebbs, need not fall below a base-line of well being...because there is no sense of clinging attached to the bliss, there is no sense of something being lost when it ebbs. Exactly. 'Buy into' = attachment. Actually it's pretty clear from the text that what "buy into" refers to is believing that the experience of bliss, joy and the other positive emotions have anything to do with what you are. In the context of the entire dialog -- which is quite long -- attachment is alluded to ... but, that particular phrase refers to belief.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 22, 2014 17:15:50 GMT -5
What this describes is a relationship between the presence of identification and an experience of emotional extremes, while the quote was about the absence of a framework for identification and how any description of identity based in sense perception is not that sort of absence. If Adya had been referring to attachment, he would have used the word, or some similar phrasing. He didn't. What he wrote, instead, was about self-reference: In the absence of self-reference, is the absence of identification based on sense perception ... and what is described here: ... references an experience described in terms of sense perception, by the meaning of the term "sense perception", as Adya was using it. In direct contradiction to a description of a particular feeling-state absent identification, what was written by Adya was: Yes, I was speaking mostly to the yin-yanging bit. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3387/emptiness-dancing-book-club-discussion?page=7#ixzz3Gu5bA6OVAdya is quite clear in the dialog that an individual feeler who identifies with feeling will eventually create the opposite feeling that they've identified with.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 22, 2014 20:58:44 GMT -5
Ah, yes, the key bit to what he is saying there is this: " If you buy into sense perceptions to tell you who you are." He's speaking there about an identity that is linked to particular feelings, or in other words; attachment to feelings on the higher end of the emotional scale. so long as attachment to, or striving for, 'good feeling' emotions is happening, required conditions are part of the equation, and yes, that means that ying-yanging is indeed, bound to happen. But, when there is no longer striving or seeking for any particular feeling, the arising of bliss, when it ebbs, need not fall below a base-line of well being...because there is no sense of clinging attached to the bliss, there is no sense of something being lost when it ebbs. Exactly. 'Buy into' = attachment.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 23, 2014 14:48:53 GMT -5
Exactly. 'Buy into' = attachment. By referencing does he mean judging? Or labelling? If so, I agree.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 23, 2014 19:29:06 GMT -5
By referencing does he mean judging? Or labelling? If so, I agree. I think he means give up using them as part of an escape plan.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 24, 2014 1:24:39 GMT -5
By referencing does he mean judging? Or labelling? If so, I agree. I think he means give up using them as part of an escape plan. lol I took that as a given
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 29, 2014 0:45:53 GMT -5
As the seeker dissolves, then peace is born, and there is stillness. This is not a quality of stillness that has any dependence on an emotional state. At the moment when the seeker starts to dissolve and there is just peace, then the pendulum might swing into a high spiritual state or into a very ordinary state, or even into an unpleasant state, and the peace itself remains completely independent of those states. This is the dawning of the realization that only from the place where the seeker is dissolving can freedom happen because there is no longer any movement toward or away from experience. The nature of experience is that it changes or undulates like the waves on the ocean. It's supposed to be doing that. Identity starts to shift from "me", the seeker, chasing some particular experience, to just this. Just this. The center is always right here. The center always was right here. It's just the seeker that insisted the center could be in the spiritual high experience. But as the seeker dissolves, then right here is where every instant is the center. It's motionless right here. And you can be having a very ordinary, a very unhappy, or a very extraordinary emotional and psychological experience, and still the center is right here. And only from here does it begin to dawn that everything is an expression of the center. Everything. There is no experience that is more the truth than any other experience, because in the center of it all, there is no seeker. Right here, there is nothing. All is One. You will discover there is no little "me" in the center occupying the space. Without this me in the center, there is nobody to judge whether a given experience is the right experience or whether it is spiritual. Do you get it? This is it! When my teacher banged his stick on the ground, he showed that everything was arising out of the center where nothing is. From para's 14 - 16, Chapter 13 "Spiritual Addiction" Thanks. Yes, that stillness can precipitate from not having anywhere to go, and so seeing through the seeking can be very auspicious. Instead of trying to get somewhere, one remains still at the turning point, right here and now, watching, looking, waiting without waiting.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2014 10:07:59 GMT -5
As the seeker dissolves, then peace is born, and there is stillness. This is not a quality of stillness that has any dependence on an emotional state. At the moment when the seeker starts to dissolve and there is just peace, then the pendulum might swing into a high spiritual state or into a very ordinary state, or even into an unpleasant state, and the peace itself remains completely independent of those states. This is the dawning of the realization that only from the place where the seeker is dissolving can freedom happen because there is no longer any movement toward or away from experience. The nature of experience is that it changes or undulates like the waves on the ocean. It's supposed to be doing that. Identity starts to shift from "me", the seeker, chasing some particular experience, to just this. Just this. The center is always right here. The center always was right here. It's just the seeker that insisted the center could be in the spiritual high experience. But as the seeker dissolves, then right here is where every instant is the center. It's motionless right here. And you can be having a very ordinary, a very unhappy, or a very extraordinary emotional and psychological experience, and still the center is right here. And only from here does it begin to dawn that everything is an expression of the center. Everything. There is no experience that is more the truth than any other experience, because in the center of it all, there is no seeker. Right here, there is nothing. All is One. You will discover there is no little "me" in the center occupying the space. Without this me in the center, there is nobody to judge whether a given experience is the right experience or whether it is spiritual. Do you get it? This is it! When my teacher banged his stick on the ground, he showed that everything was arising out of the center where nothing is. From para's 14 - 16, Chapter 13 "Spiritual Addiction" Thanks. Yes, that stillness can precipitate from not having anywhere to go, and so seeing through the seeking can be very auspicious. Instead of trying to get somewhere, one remains still at the turning point, right here and now, watching, looking, waiting without waiting. "The center" is an interesting construct to base a pointing on. ... but he's making the point about how the emotional experience can be quite unhappy, and that (or any other facet of experience) has no bearing and provides no information about what one is or where they are, so he's obviously directing it to a someone who feels centered. The message is a tug on a rug: there's nothing in the center. I'd say that conversely, if someone disclaims a sense of identity but declares that they are having a particular experience or feeling a particular emotion because of the absence of attachment to form, that the disclaimer is a denial of self-evidence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 29, 2014 11:56:46 GMT -5
Thanks. Yes, that stillness can precipitate from not having anywhere to go, and so seeing through the seeking can be very auspicious. Instead of trying to get somewhere, one remains still at the turning point, right here and now, watching, looking, waiting without waiting. "The center" is an interesting construct to base a pointing on. ... but he's making the point about how the emotional experience can be quite unhappy, and that (or any other facet of experience) has no bearing and provides no information about what one is or where they are, so he's obviously directing it to a someone who feels centered. The message is a tug on a rug: there's nothing in the center. I'd say that conversely, if someone disclaims a sense of identity but declares that they are having a particular experience or feeling a particular emotion because of the absence of attachment to form, that the disclaimer is a denial of self-evidence. I agree. There's a process of collapsing all the crutches that we acquire over a lifetime of trying to feel betterer, and it usually hurts, which can seem like the wrong direction to the seeker who is wanting to do just that. This approach of trying to feel better has to change because it's not about the person feeling better. The person is not going to understand that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 29, 2014 12:01:10 GMT -5
"The center" is an interesting construct to base a pointing on. ... but he's making the point about how the emotional experience can be quite unhappy, and that (or any other facet of experience) has no bearing and provides no information about what one is or where they are, so he's obviously directing it to a someone who feels centered. The message is a tug on a rug: there's nothing in the center. I'd say that conversely, if someone disclaims a sense of identity but declares that they are having a particular experience or feeling a particular emotion because of the absence of attachment to form, that the disclaimer is a denial of self-evidence. I agree. There's a process of collapsing all the crutches that we acquire over a lifetime of trying to feel betterer, and it usually hurts, which can seem like the wrong direction to the seeker who is wanting to do just that. This approach of trying to feel better has to change because it's not about the person feeling better. The person is not going to understand that. that's an understatement!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 30, 2014 12:40:17 GMT -5
Read a paragraph in "Emptiness Dancing" last night and I swear you came to mind and it made me think of this particular dialog (that's been had before). Let me know if you're interested. Ya sure, share away -- I like the ol' pre Bell's Palsy steven gray -- edgy. (haha -- just reflecting on what angela said once). The merging experience is very pleasant and very beautiful, and you may or may not ever have it. If you have a particular type of body-mind, you might experience having it every five minutes. If you are another type of body-mind, you might have it every five lifetimes. If means nothing whether or not this happens or how often. I have met many people who can merge at the drop of a hat, and they are about as free as a dog chasing its tail in a cage. Merging has nothing to do with being free or actually having any idea what Oneness really is. Oneness simply means that everything is the One. Everything is That, and everything always was That. When there is a very deep knowing that everything is One, then the movement of the me trying to find a past experience ceases. Movement is cut off. Seeking is cut off. The seeker is cut off. Realization cuts evyerthing off all at once. Every experience that you will ever have is the One, whether that experience is merging or having to go to the bathroom. Even when ti's beating a stick on the floor and saying, "This is it, This is the Buddha. Thi is enlightened mind. It doesn't get more enlightened that this!" It is all God. para 11, chapter 13, "Spiritual Addiction". ... I find it quite apropo to the dialog that sourced this that the context he sets for the paragraph is his reaction to his Zen teacher banging the stick and saying "This is it!" ... want that one as well?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2014 12:45:26 GMT -5
Ya sure, share away -- I like the ol' pre Bell's Palsy steven gray -- edgy. (haha -- just reflecting on what angela said once). The merging experience is very pleasant and very beautiful, and you may or may not ever have it. If you have a particular type of body-mind, you might experience having it every five minutes. If you are another type of body-mind, you might have it every five lifetimes. If means nothing whether or not this happens or how often. I have met many people who can merge at the drop of a hat, and they are about as free as a dog chasing its tail in a cage. Merging has nothing to do with being free or actually having any idea what Oneness really is. Oneness simply means that everything is the One. Everything is That, and everything always was That. When there is a very deep knowing that everything is One, then the movement of the me trying to find a past experience ceases. Movement is cut off. Seeking is cut off. The seeker is cut off. Realization cuts evyerthing off all at once. Every experience that you will ever have is the One, whether that experience is merging or having to go to the bathroom. Even when ti's beating a stick on the floor and saying, "This is it, This is the Buddha. Thi is enlightened mind. It doesn't get more enlightened that this!" It is all God. para 11, chapter 13, "Spiritual Addiction". ... I find it quite apropo to the dialog that sourced this that the context he sets for the paragraph is his reaction to his Zen teacher banging the stick and saying "This is it!" ... want that one as well? Ya sure
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 14, 2014 19:54:26 GMT -5
Everybody transmits his or her own realization, like a radio broadcast signal, twenty-four hours a day. And everybody receives it. When you realize that your true nature is already free, that it is inherently empty of image, and that it is pure spirit and presence, you will see that it is what everybody else is. Without even thinking about it, you will transmit this. If you think everybody is separate, you will send out that signal, no matter what you do. para 14, chap 17, "Compassion"This made me smile, and it reminded me of two things. One is a metaphor that U.G. once expressed of the human being as a transducer, and the other is the gist of Reef's version of LOA ... that would be the nondual version.
|
|