|
Post by zendancer on Dec 7, 2014 12:26:07 GMT -5
Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu: Read my post to Japhy. There is OBVIOUSLY a particular body/mind that we can call "Bob," or "Tzu," but if we think/imagine/cognize that who we are is limited to these forms, we overlook what Jesus called our "True Self." Why would Jesus say "My Father and I are one," or "Before Abraham, I was?" Please follow your own advice and look with a still mind until the unity and vastness of what you ARE becomes obvious. BTW, a still mind is a mind that is NOT thinking or imagining. If you look at the world with a still mind, what do you see? Can you tell me in a way that I will understand that you understand?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 12:45:27 GMT -5
Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu: Read my post to Japhy. There is OBVIOUSLY a particular body/mind that we can call "Bob," or "Tzu," but if we think/imagine/cognize that who we are is limited to these forms, we overlook what Jesus called our "True Self." Why would Jesus say "My Father and I are one," or "Before Abraham, I was?" Please follow your own advice and look with a still mind until the unity and vastness of what you ARE becomes obvious. BTW, a still mind is a mind that is NOT thinking or imagining. If you look at the world with a still mind, what do you see? Can you tell me in a way that I will understand that you understand? I don't know why Jesus says what is attributed to him, and i'm not inclined to speculate.. I see Life happening.. I am not bounded by ideas about 'self', i acknowledge what is directly experienced, a 'self', and a vast unity of selfs, and a vast unity of that which 'is' in all of its manifested isness..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 12:46:57 GMT -5
Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization.. Is that why you are always conflating difference with separation and oneness with interconnectedness? You are still attached to those ideas, liberation is already there when you just let those ideas go..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2014 16:23:27 GMT -5
Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization.. You seem to have never understood/realized to begin with, and merely rejected your misinterpretations.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 7, 2014 16:30:18 GMT -5
Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization.. Is that why you are always conflating difference with separation and oneness with interconnectedness? Right, he doesn't understand the most basic ideas of nonduaity, so I suspect his exposure to it has mostly been limited to arguing on internet forums about it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 17:50:00 GMT -5
Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization.. You seem to have never understood/realized to begin with, and merely rejected your misinterpretations. I seems that way to someone stuck in their beliefs about oneness.. what i rejected is rigid stuckness, allowing the happening to reveal itself to me, through me, as me.. and, realizing that none of this discussion is possible without the relationship between parts and whole.. What 'appears to you' are parts united in their interconnected happening.. your resistance to that actuality cannot make it go away, but.. by letting go of your attachment to that ideology, i releases you from your obligation to defend the investment you've made in those beliefs.. I have no interest in parts/oneness/non-duality/duality, except as a counter-balance to the advaita trap.. how much more productive would ST be if you were not obligated to defend your beliefs?..
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 8, 2014 0:18:45 GMT -5
Is that why you are always conflating difference with separation and oneness with interconnectedness? Right, he doesn't understand the most basic ideas of nonduaity, so I suspect his exposure to it has mostly been limited to arguing on internet forums about it. His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 8, 2014 1:00:27 GMT -5
Right, he doesn't understand the most basic ideas of nonduaity, so I suspect his exposure to it has mostly been limited to arguing on internet forums about it. His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain. I hear there's a vino tinto bar there too. Hmmmm.....
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 1:25:50 GMT -5
Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... To "experience the loss of self" would obviously end immediately, if loss of self is taken literally to mean non-existence.. or in other words non-existence can't be experienced since there would be no consciousness left existent to experience it.. clearly, indeed unquestionably, terms like "loss of self" and "annihilation of self" are highly metaphorical in nature, not literal. silver.......this pretty-much what Buddhism is about.....at least that is what it has come to be about............you will run into that if you haven't yet........... As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on. Ironic how "psychological dying" could also and perhaps better be described as "psychological living".. most people never really live.. if you have to die to live, then for Pete's sake, this can be a tad confusing so it's important to say it the right way!.. when the message is sophisticated, the medium must also be sophisticated.. a one-liner or adage is so brief in written length that a single missed word can screw the whole thing up.. but if you read some of the posts on this forum you'd think we're all a bunch of zombies, as in literally zombified corpses raised from the cemetery.. BTW, a still mind is a mind that is NOT thinking or imagining. Thinking or imagining like about some mythical external higher self? His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain. It's not fair, why does tzu get to garner all the attention around here?!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 8, 2014 1:31:07 GMT -5
Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... To "experience the loss of self" would obviously end immediately, if loss of self is taken literally to mean non-existence.. or in other words non-existence can't be experienced since there would be no consciousness left existent to experience it.. clearly, indeed unquestionably, terms like "loss of self" and "annihilation of self" are highly metaphorical in nature, not literal. It doesn't mean no sense of existence, just no sense of being a separate self.
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on Dec 8, 2014 1:34:40 GMT -5
To "experience the loss of self" would obviously end immediately, if loss of self is taken literally to mean non-existence.. or in other words non-existence can't be experienced since there would be no consciousness left existent to experience it.. clearly, indeed unquestionably, terms like "loss of self" and "annihilation of self" are highly metaphorical in nature, not literal. It doesn't mean no sense of existence, just no sense of being a separate self. So you get your thoughts confused with the thoughts of passersby?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Dec 8, 2014 5:07:41 GMT -5
That's good then, relatively speaking. I guess I'm such a literal type, this talk is often alarming to me 'cuz I don't quite know what's going on -- plus, it's pretty much impossible for me to even imagine dying in a psychological sense. Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Hi ZD,.. just wanting to explore your response to silver a bit if that's ok. I wrote most of the stuff below while I was at work - a slow day - so the tense is a bit mixed up. The exploration itself happened several hours ago. --- At times, I experience a considerable amount of anxiety - now being one of those times, I've got a meeting at work coming up that I'm not looking forward to. In this moment, there is a constellation of strong physical sensations, and if attention goes to the sensations, thinking subsides and vanishes, and remains absent for blocks of up to 10 seconds. Flickers of neutral thoughts come back in, and then fade away leaving just the sensations, what I can see hear etc. The strong sensations of anxiety are still present. So in that cycling, would it be accurate to say that I'm observing the "death" and "birth" of identity with the subsiding and arising of thought? If the thoughts are absent, and the fight/flight response is still activated, what is it that is feeling threatened? It seems like there is still something caught up in imaginings if the stress response is triggered (by an imagined event, because the meeting isn’t happening right now, I’m just sitting alone in my office)
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 8, 2014 8:54:19 GMT -5
His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain. It's not fair, why does tzu get to garner all the attention around here?! Well, you hafta admit that he is working very hard for that little attention he gets. I can't really say that about you.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 8, 2014 8:56:13 GMT -5
His perspective is strictly 1st mountain. I speculate he has been hanging around at the same bookstores with Figandrew near the gate to no-mountain. I hear there's a vino tinto bar there too. Hmmmm..... You think they got drunk and then went to Mt. Woowoo instead of No-Mountain?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 8, 2014 10:13:43 GMT -5
It doesn't mean no sense of existence, just no sense of being a separate self. So you get your thoughts confused with the thoughts of passersby? The ability to make distinctions remains intact.
|
|