|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2014 11:06:13 GMT -5
The pickle force is strong in this one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 16, 2014 11:13:34 GMT -5
The questions about and the objections to nonduality are timeless and as long as there are human beings they will be what they are. Yes, and if they are asked with sincerity, there's a lot of energy available to discuss, but if it's just about balancing the pickle force, there doesn't seem to be a point in discussion.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2014 11:23:34 GMT -5
The pickle force is strong in this one. sour not is the taste of now
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2014 11:25:47 GMT -5
The questions about and the objections to nonduality are timeless and as long as there are human beings they will be what they are. Yes, and if they are asked with sincerity, there's a lot of energy available to discuss, but if it's just about balancing the pickle force, there doesn't seem to be a point in discussion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 14:15:32 GMT -5
The appearance of duality is the result of one observing one's self...the act of observation creates the illusion of a duality of observer and observed, even though observer and observed are actually one, which, can also be observed in various ways, depending on where and how one is directing attention. We are God, or Existence, observing, creating, and frolicking in the awareness of self in ever expanding and unfolding creation of self. Observation is the act and means of creation as we perceive it. Reality is created in the instant of observation, by the act of observation, and thus, the appearance of duality is born in the observer/observed paradigm that we ourselves initiate by directing attention to all the various aspects of ourself. You are God self creating in an ever unfolding eternal now. When you are observing you are existing, when you are not observing, there is no sense of self. When you observe your hand, and ponder it, you create a sense of duality, a sense of I am me the observer, engaged in the act of observing that thing which is not 'me', but is instead my hand, a kind of duality is created, but really, the hand is you too of course, as are all things that you observe. Very nice. Thank you Teetown. But as useful, and as accurate and eloquent as that description may be, there is a space where even that should be set aside, let go of, into alert not knowing. :-) Even our most profound, most formative, most open, most spacious, and deepest truths should be set aside, lost in the empty space of alert not knowing, because even the biggest, most vast bits of understanding of this existence, are only a small and insignificant signpost along the way.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 14:23:24 GMT -5
As an aside, I like pickles...:-))
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 14:50:24 GMT -5
Capt. Obvious snaps to attention, salutes and reports back a brisk: "No maam!" -- although I would disclaim that I'd offered any explanation/model about anything in what you responded to. hehe...well, it's nice to see that Captain Obvious is on the ball today. Yes, you're correct that I'm reading a little between the lines there... You said: But It's also understood here that you have a particular, personal bias in favor of non-duality........and that you see objections to the idea of Oneness to emanate from a lack of clarity. & Even if I do filter that bit out, all I'm doing then, is 'adding to' your statement. Yes, just a pointer.....but as a pointer, non-duality becomes something to be talked about...it becomes an idea, and as soon as it becomes that, it becomes open to challenge, question even objection.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 16, 2014 15:02:07 GMT -5
I like to look at it as bringing balance to the Force.......... ......... sdp Looks like your in quite the spiritual pickle then......... It was just a throwaway line, I'm not in any pickle....... sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2014 15:05:43 GMT -5
Capt. Obvious snaps to attention, salutes and reports back a brisk: "No maam!" -- although I would disclaim that I'd offered any explanation/model about anything in what you responded to. hehe...well, it's nice to see that Captain Obvious is on the ball today. Sugar high. Cheap jelly beans at the commissary. Yes, you're correct that I'm reading a little between the lines there... You said: But It's also understood here that you have a particular, personal bias in favor of non-duality........and that you see objections to the idea of Oneness to emanate from a lack of clarity. & Even if I do filter that bit out, all I'm doing then, is 'adding to' your statement. That's all stuff you're reading into it. Seriously and stone faced sober. Another way to read it, and what I meant by it is that the objections will always be voiced as long as there are voices -- it's a statement of acceptance. Objectified "Oneness" is something that I always criticize and "lack of clarity" is never a conversation that I start. Yes, just a pointer.....but as a pointer, non-duality becomes something to be talked about...it becomes an idea, and as soon as it becomes that, it becomes open to challenge, question even objection. It's an idea from the get-go. Any beliefs derived from an idea stated with the intent to point away from conceptualization, by definition, are not due to a silent, non-conceptual acceptance (or "following" if you will) of the pointer. Turning nonduality into a "story about this" is not recognizing the pointer, and is a misuse of it. If the pointer doesn't work, the next best thing is to throw it away. To constantly fight strawmen that are constructed from it is a waste of energy. The objections are one thing -- those are seen for what they are and accepted. Tenacious attachment to the objections are another thing -- also seen for what it is and accepted, but also with a notation of the associated loss.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 16, 2014 15:07:07 GMT -5
The questions about and the objections to nonduality are timeless and as long as there are human beings they will be what they are. Yes, and if they are asked with sincerity, there's a lot of energy available to discuss, but if it's just about balancing the pickle force, there doesn't seem to be a point in discussion. I guess I asked a rhetorical question. sdp
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 16, 2014 15:47:46 GMT -5
Sugar high. Cheap jelly beans at the commissary. Braggart. Okay. Which means...you haven't been drinking but you've got red eyes, dry mouth and believe every thought that enters your head is uber profound? Okaaaay......... (I think I get that...) Well, the moment we start talking about "Oneness" to some extent, it's being objectified...but yeah, I get what you're getting at. And yeah, you don't often specifically talk about lack of clarity per se, but you allude to similar in other ways.... (pics of hamster wheels and such). Actually, I very much agree with that....&what some of us do here, is to try to point out when a pointer is being turned into a story. Yes. The same could be said about Tenacious attachment to the objections AND defending of that which is being objected to. "Tenacious attachment" means need is present...it works both ways.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 16, 2014 21:25:55 GMT -5
Sugar high. Cheap jelly beans at the commissary. Braggart. Okay. Which means...you haven't been drinking but you've got red eyes, dry mouth and believe every thought that enters your head is uber profound? Okaaaay......... (I think I get that...) Well, the moment we start talking about "Oneness" to some extent, it's being objectified...but yeah, I get what you're getting at. And yeah, you don't often specifically talk about lack of clarity per se, but you allude to similar in other ways.... (pics of hamster wheels and such). yes, as I said, I never start the conversation about "lack of clarity"! Actually, I very much agree with that....&what some of us do here, is to try to point out when a pointer is being turned into a story. Yes. The same could be said about Tenacious attachment to the objections AND defending of that which is being objected to. "Tenacious attachment" means need is present...it works both ways. Yes another way to put that is that anything that is/needs defending isn't worth defending or -- the ideas of nonduality, pointers and what they point to don't require any defense. What I see happening sometimes is that people will associate the person that expresses an idea with the idea, entangle the two, start the conversation about something along the lines of or similar to "lack of clarity", and then we're off to the clown races.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 17, 2014 9:40:22 GMT -5
I suggest throwing away ACIM (and all other "holy" books) and just looking at the world with a still mind until the looker is seen through. I suggest throwing away the "until______" also ;-) Steve: I've been out of town for several days and am just now getting back to this thread. The reason I included the last phrase in that sentence is because I spent many years intermittently looking at the world with a still mind, but the sense of being someone looking at the world with a still mind remained intact (or kept returning, to be more specific). Only when the body/mind saw through the imagined looker did the whole house of cards collapse. Prior to that collapse it felt like I was a person who was making an effort to look at the world with a still mind. Afterwards, it didn't matter whether the mind was still or busy because the imagined person who had been making an effort to see with a still mind had disappeared. The body/mind then knew that there had only been one looker from the beginning of time, and it hadn't been the one that had been imagined. Anyone can learn to look at the world with a still mind, but until the imagined looker is seen through, I doubt that there will be any lasting peace or freedom. What has been your experience in this regard?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 17, 2014 10:11:56 GMT -5
Yes another way to put that is that anything that is/needs defending isn't worth defending or -- the ideas of nonduality, pointers and what they point to don't require any defense. And yet....on and on it goes. haha...yup, an apt description.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 17, 2014 10:24:22 GMT -5
I suggest throwing away the "until______" also ;-) Steve: I've been out of town for several days and am just now getting back to this thread. The reason I included the last phrase in that sentence is because I spent many years intermittently looking at the world with a still mind, but the sense of being someone looking at the world with a still mind remained intact (or kept returning, to be more specific). Only when the body/mind saw through the imagined looker did the whole house of cards collapse. Prior to that collapse it felt like I was a person who was making an effort to look at the world with a still mind. Afterwards, it didn't matter whether the mind was still or busy because the imagined person who had been making an effort to see with a still mind had disappeared. The body/mind then knew that there had only been one looker from the beginning of time, and it hadn't been the one that had been imagined. Anyone can learn to look at the world with a still mind, but until the imagined looker is seen through, I doubt that there will be any lasting peace or freedom. What has been your experience in this regard? zd, I get your 'position' now. What I don't get is your saying (other posts of other threads) that you also came to realize that the "intermittently looking at the world with a still mind", etc. and the other ways you have put this in the past, wasn't necessary. It seems to me that the "intermittent looking" is a necessary part of the process, what I have called interior spiritual practices (of the ATA kind). Without going back and looking at it, Bernadette Roberts gives the analogy of a donut. 'She' was the donut. She came to realize that all her experiences of God were just experiences of (her)self. God is, but our only experience of God is experienced through self. So, God exists inside the donut and outside the donut. She experienced the falling away of self as the donut getting smaller and smaller, hole bigger and bigger. Eventually, in what she called the experience of no-self the donut totally disappeared....leaving only the hole (I guess you could say leaving only the Whole :-). As you say, only the body was left, there was no reflexive mechanism as self. For me this means all the gears and pulleys and belts and bolts of self were separated, there was nothing left for the exterior circumstances of life to drive, for BR. She says that since then she has never again had an experience of God. This seems to compare with what you have said about your 'experience', or present state. Yes? No? . sdp
|
|