|
Post by zendancer on Dec 20, 2014 5:50:20 GMT -5
In order to see the "answers" to the above two questions the definitions are not that important. A general sense of what is meant is sufficient. One could ask, "Does a dog partake of the oneness of God?" and the answer would be the same. The question, "Does a dog have Buddha nature?" is a classic Zen koan. A monk asked Joshu that question, and he responded "Mu!" In Chinese "mu" means no. The Buddha, however, had said that all things and beings in the universe have Buddha nature (are part of God, or the Absolute), so this became a classic test question. A Zen student is often asked: 1. What is mu? 2. Who was correct, the Buddha or Joshu? 3. Does a dog really have Buddha nature? The same sort of thing is true regarding the question concerning self realization. Yes, I would define Self-realization as seeing through the illusion of selfhood, or having the sense of selfhood collapse, or discovering who the real searcher for truth is, but the question refers to a brain-dead or comatose human being, so the answer to that question is direct and quite humorous. One could also ask, "Are electrons self-realized?" or "Is a rock self-realized?" and the answers would all be similar. In Reefs response to you, he either intentionally or otherwise threw in what Zen people call a "mind hook"--the bit about self-realized cells. You don't have to take the bait. As soon as you start to think about the issue, the words and associated thoughts will send you in the wrong direction. Your body already understands the answer to the question. hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. ..I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much. Reefs main point was that mind is not involved in self-realization, and I agree. Here's how I would put it in my own words: There is only one actor here. We can call it "the cosmos," "oneness," "God," "the field of all being," etc. It is the only see-er. It sees "what is," which is Itself, because it is all there is. In the form of a human it thinks, and it sees thoughts. There is no separate entity that sees. Because thoughts occur, what I call "thought structures" or "thought circuits" or something like that get formed. One of those thought structures is selfhood. The see-er, which is the cosmos, sees everything filtered through this imaginary thought structure and mistakenly takes the thought structure to be real. When the thought structure collapses, the see-er realizes that It, alone, is all there is, and that no separate self ever existed. This realization does not involve mind, but mind becomes informed by the realization. The realization can happen in many ways. In my case I had spent many years intermittently looking at the world in mental silence and during the previous week I had been on a silent mountain-hiking retreat in which I had been doing intense, almost non-stop, ATA-MT. One afternoon I vaguely noticed that something was missing. I looked within and was surprised to discover that my prior sense of selfhood had simply vanished without a trace. There was nothing there. I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. There is no longer any need for self improvement or self anything because self, in the conventional sense, is gone. Freedom from thinking about thinking is real freedom, and the body/mind can then go about its business free of all that searching nonsense. It knows what it is--an aspect of Vastness unfolding however it unfolds. The body/mind still has a name, and it moves around just as before, doing one thing after another, but there is no personal sense of self at the center of what is happening. So, if someone asks, "Can a rock become self realized?" how would you answer that question? If you answer yes or no, you miss the point. "Can a brain-dead person become self realized?" Same thing. "Can a brain-dead person climb Mount Everest?" Same thing. "Can YOU climb Mount Everest?" A different answer is required, but not a yes or no answer. If mind gets involved, it will only obscure the issue. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 20, 2014 6:42:47 GMT -5
I agree, and there's more.. 'oneness' became manyness, independently functioning versions oneness, much like birthing a child, oneness birthed a Cosmos of independently functioning versions of itself.. in this is the authenticity of self-discovery, actually experiencing itself on equal terms, without hierarchy.. whole and part each becoming the other, and that 'becoming' is the happening we call creation/Life.. like the ocean/snowflake analogy, the happening is oneness and separateness happening simultaneously, and the experiencer chooses which will be experienced, either or both..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 10:13:55 GMT -5
Methinks Elkrief is also pointing to the actual origin. I think he may be mistaken about how realization happens. It was accidental for him, but now he has a cornucopia of how-to videos. Not uncommon on the scene it seems.Well, think about it, without how-to advice, how many followers would he have? His background is as a corp consultant so I guess it's a framework he knows.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 11:35:29 GMT -5
Why not simply answer my very simple question: What does self realization mean to you..? how do you define self realization? We can throw the 'brain dead' issue/question out window at this point....I'm honestly just curious as to your definition of self realization....there's apparently many different takes on the meaning, as I've learned through some discussions I've had recently with others (off forum) on the subject of such. I see several options for you: 1) take Earnest's advice and look within 2) take ZD's advice and stop thinking for a moment 3) take my first advice and pay attention to what has actually been written (just hafta look into my post dumpster) 4) take my second advice and let the body answer 5) just let it go hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Re: #3: I've looked through some of your past posts and cannot find where you clearly share your definition of self realization. Re: #4: Allowing my body to answer, also, might be interesting, but when it comes to a dialogue with another, there are clearly better ways to cut to the chase. Re: #5...."let it Go"? yes....looks like that's the one I'll hafta take.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 20, 2014 12:05:52 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Re: #3: I've looked through some of your past posts and cannot find where you clearly share your definition of self realization. Re: #4: Allowing my body to answer, also, might be interesting, but when it comes to a dialogue with another, there are clearly better ways to cut to the chase. Re: #5...."let it Go"? yes....looks like that's the one I'll hafta take. No! Don't let it go! You want to know, so you need to find out. Can a brain-dead body become self realized? This has nothing to do with Reefs. This is about YOU. Contemplate the issue in silence until you become one-with the issue. Discover what you already understand at a deeper level than mind. In Zen this is called "homework."
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 12:20:46 GMT -5
hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. ..I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much. Reefs main point was that mind is not involved in self-realization, and I agree. Here's how I would put it in my own words: There is only one actor here. We can call it "the cosmos," "oneness," "God," "the field of all being," etc. It is the only see-er. It sees "what is," which is Itself, because it is all there is. In the form of a human it thinks, and it sees thoughts. There is no separate entity that sees. Because thoughts occur, what I call "thought structures" or "thought circuits" or something like that get formed. One of those thought structures is selfhood. The see-er, which is the cosmos, sees everything filtered through this imaginary thought structure and mistakenly takes the thought structure to be real. When the thought structure collapses, the see-er realizes that It, alone, is all there is, and that no separate self ever existed. This realization does not involve mind, but mind becomes informed by the realization. The realization can happen in many ways. In my case I had spent many years intermittently looking at the world in mental silence and during the previous week I had been on a silent mountain-hiking retreat in which I had been doing intense, almost non-stop, ATA-MT. One afternoon I vaguely noticed that something was missing. I looked within and was surprised to discover that my prior sense of selfhood had simply vanished without a trace. There was nothing there. I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. There is no longer any need for self improvement or self anything because self, in the conventional sense, is gone. Freedom from thinking about thinking is real freedom, and the body/mind can then go about its business free of all that searching nonsense. It knows what it is--an aspect of Vastness unfolding however it unfolds. The body/mind still has a name, and it moves around just as before, doing one thing after another, but there is no personal sense of self at the center of what is happening. So, if someone asks, "Can a rock become self realized?" how would you answer that question? If you answer yes or no, you miss the point. "Can a brain-dead person become self realized?" Same thing. "Can a brain-dead person climb Mount Everest?" Same thing. "Can YOU climb Mount Everest?" A different answer is required, but not a yes or no answer. If mind gets involved, it will only obscure the issue. Cheers. "but mind becomes informed by the realization." I'd say that bit (mind being informed) is a pretty large component of the whole enchilada. And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. My interest is in clarity and simplification. It almost seems like there are some who'd prefer to keep it all shrouded in mystery and seemingly more complicated than it really is. Indeed, realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought, intellect or logic ....but clearly, absent conscious awareness of self, the term "self realization" becomes meaningless. Being Consciously self aware may not require minding in the form of actual thinking about it, but, it's not wholly absent mind's involvement either. And to say so, is to unnecessarily go to far imo. I always enjoy your sharings about how awakening. & I think your specificity in description there is likely really helpful to those who have questions about the whole matter. I think we've discussed before how some folks have a very solid sense of being a very specific 'someone' who lives in the head and controls the mind/body, while others never really experienced that way from the get-go. My own sense of self was never solidified like the way you describe yours was previously to the falling away you describe...thus, I can't really pin-point any one moment where suddenly something that was there previously, fell away. I think this is partly because from a pretty young age my experience was rife with profound synchronicity and psychic phenomena that for the most part, was just accepted as the norm...thus, experience itself mirrored back the seamless unity of existence...therefore, the 'what or who am I' questions, never really arose in the way some who sought avidly, describe. Perhaps it's for this reason that I come at all this from a slightly different angle.....I DO see the value in pointing beyond identification with a separate, singular, limited self, but because of the fact that the experience of 'self' varies significantly, even in those who may be deemed to not be 'self realized,' I think it's important to be as clear as possible regarding the use of common terms, making sure that there is a clear understanding of them when talking about 'self realization'.....'collapse of sense of personhood' etc.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 12:28:44 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Re: #3: I've looked through some of your past posts and cannot find where you clearly share your definition of self realization. Re: #4: Allowing my body to answer, also, might be interesting, but when it comes to a dialogue with another, there are clearly better ways to cut to the chase. Re: #5...."let it Go"? yes....looks like that's the one I'll hafta take. No! Don't let it go! You want to know, so you need to find out. Can a brain-dead body become self realized? This has nothing to do with Reefs. This is about YOU. Contemplate the issue in silence until you become one-with the issue. Discover what you already understand at a deeper level than mind. In Zen this is called "homework." hehe..no "Homework" necessary.......all I'm trying to ascertain ZD, for the sake of conversation, is how Reefs defines self realization. I'm very clear on the whole issue of a brain dead body being self realized, that is why I posed the question to Reefs.....there is no identification happening in the brain dead....no idea about a "person" to get in the way of life lifeing..God/Godding ....therefore, the idea of 'self realization' in a brain dead is a misconception from the get-go. I was using an extreme example to make a point about 'minds involvement' in realization is all. I simply think that to have conversations about such things as self realization, enlightenment, etc. it's important to understand how the other participants in the conversation are defining those terms. Otherwise, one person might be talking bout apples, while the other is squarely focused on oranges.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 13:13:40 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Yes, you're right, it's not problematic, but that's not what's behind "stop thinking" in this case. Even if reefs gave you a definition, it would just be more fuel for thought.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 20, 2014 17:00:13 GMT -5
Reefs main point was that mind is not involved in self-realization, and I agree. Here's how I would put it in my own words: There is only one actor here. We can call it "the cosmos," "oneness," "God," "the field of all being," etc. It is the only see-er. It sees "what is," which is Itself, because it is all there is. In the form of a human it thinks, and it sees thoughts. There is no separate entity that sees. Because thoughts occur, what I call "thought structures" or "thought circuits" or something like that get formed. One of those thought structures is selfhood. The see-er, which is the cosmos, sees everything filtered through this imaginary thought structure and mistakenly takes the thought structure to be real. When the thought structure collapses, the see-er realizes that It, alone, is all there is, and that no separate self ever existed. This realization does not involve mind, but mind becomes informed by the realization. The realization can happen in many ways. In my case I had spent many years intermittently looking at the world in mental silence and during the previous week I had been on a silent mountain-hiking retreat in which I had been doing intense, almost non-stop, ATA-MT. One afternoon I vaguely noticed that something was missing. I looked within and was surprised to discover that my prior sense of selfhood had simply vanished without a trace. There was nothing there. I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. There is no longer any need for self improvement or self anything because self, in the conventional sense, is gone. Freedom from thinking about thinking is real freedom, and the body/mind can then go about its business free of all that searching nonsense. It knows what it is--an aspect of Vastness unfolding however it unfolds. The body/mind still has a name, and it moves around just as before, doing one thing after another, but there is no personal sense of self at the center of what is happening. So, if someone asks, "Can a rock become self realized?" how would you answer that question? If you answer yes or no, you miss the point. "Can a brain-dead person become self realized?" Same thing. "Can a brain-dead person climb Mount Everest?" Same thing. "Can YOU climb Mount Everest?" A different answer is required, but not a yes or no answer. If mind gets involved, it will only obscure the issue. Cheers. "but mind becomes informed by the realization." I'd say that bit (mind being informed) is a pretty large component of the whole enchilada. And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. My interest is in clarity and simplification. It almost seems like there are some who'd prefer to keep it all shrouded in mystery and seemingly more complicated than it really is. Indeed, realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought, intellect or logic ....but clearly, absent conscious awareness of self, the term "self realization" becomes meaningless. Being Consciously self aware may not require minding in the form of actual thinking about it, but, it's not wholly absent mind's involvement either. And to say so, is to unnecessarily go to far imo. I always enjoy your sharings about how awakening. & I think your specificity in description there is likely really helpful to those who have questions about the whole matter. I think we've discussed before how some folks have a very solid sense of being a very specific 'someone' who lives in the head and controls the mind/body, while others never really experienced that way from the get-go. My own sense of self was never solidified like the way you describe yours was previously to the falling away you describe...thus, I can't really pin-point any one moment where suddenly something that was there previously, fell away. I think this is partly because from a pretty young age my experience was rife with profound synchronicity and psychic phenomena that for the most part, was just accepted as the norm...thus, experience itself mirrored back the seamless unity of existence...therefore, the 'what or who am I' questions, never really arose in the way some who sought avidly, describe. Perhaps it's for this reason that I come at all this from a slightly different angle.....I DO see the value in pointing beyond identification with a separate, singular, limited self, but because of the fact that the experience of 'self' varies significantly, even in those who may be deemed to not be 'self realized,' I think it's important to be as clear as possible regarding the use of common terms, making sure that there is a clear understanding of them when talking about 'self realization'.....'collapse of sense of personhood' etc. I suspect that most advaita folks use the word "mind" to refer only to the intellect--the function of mind that cognizes/imagines/thinks/reflects/etc. The intellect conceives and then manipulates ideas, images, and symbols abstracted from isness. It is like a simulation machine, and it builds a mental model of reality. This function of mind seems to have, on the basis of brain studies, at least three main sub-circuits that utilize cognition--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. In this sense, mind operates like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and the output is seen by the same see-er in each human being (because there is only one see-er). Direct perception (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting) is not dependent on the intellect, and is perceived by the same perceiver in each human being (because there is only one perceiver). Plants and one-celled animals are obviously aware (because they sense their environment directly, move toward sunlight, water, or food, etc), but they do not appear to be self aware, and I doubt that anyone would think they have a mind, in the sense of an intellect. As you correctly note, "Realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought," but there is no "conscious awareness of self" involved in realization. What becomes obvious is the ABSENCE of a self center, and this results in the realization that what remains in this absence is a unified field of being that is aware but is unknowable via the mind. This informs mind that the search was based upon an erroneous thought structure, and it is thereby simultaneously put to rest and freed from the idea of a controlling center. From this perspective the intellect is then regarded as a handy sophisticated tool, or a docile servant, that can perform needed tasks whenever called upon rather than a tyrannical taskmaster that conjures up illusions and confusion and creates wild goose chases. I suspect that most advaita folks, and most people in other non-dual traditions, do not have a high regard for the intellect because it is considered much more a sophisticated evolutionary high-tech tool rather than something fundamentally or existentially important. I feel quite certain that plants and one-celled animals have fascinating lives even though they are not self-aware. FWIW, there is an interesting page in Bucke's book, "Cosmic Consciousness," by a woman who discovered, during a kind of woo-woo experience, that plants are conscious. She didn't explain what she meant by the word "conscious," but her account gives a sense of what she experienced and the awe she felt upon making that discovery. I could be wrong about this, but I would assume that Reefs, and most people of this forum, would define Self-realization in much the same way that I did in my previous post. They can respond as appropriate, and I would be interested in hearing about any significant differences in understanding.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 17:24:56 GMT -5
I suspect that most advaita folks use the word "mind" to refer only to the intellect--the function of mind that cognizes/imagines/thinks/reflects/etc. The intellect conceives and then manipulates ideas, images, and symbols abstracted from isness. It is like a simulation machine, and it builds a mental model of reality. This function of mind seems to have, on the basis of brain studies, at least three main sub-circuits that utilize cognition--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. In this sense, mind operates like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and the output is seen by the same see-er in each human being (because there is only one see-er). Direct perception (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting) is not dependent on the intellect, and is perceived by the same perceiver in each human being (because there is only one perceiver). Yes. You've explained that really well. Thanks. Again, I think we use the word 'aware' differently too. I equate being "aware" with being conscious 'of' beingness, therefore, 'self awareness' is part of that. Isn't that awareness of 'self'..(awareness of being, we could also call it) an integral aspect of 'self' realization? Doesn't "self realization" through the falling away of previous identification, and then the informing of mind, affect the way Self is seen/regarded/experienced? I see the informing of mind bit, every bit as relevant to 'self realization' as the falling away bit...can't have one without the other and still say 'self realization' happened, imo. yes, I suspect you are right about that, and that's one thing I do question and challenge. It often comes across as a deep sort of disdain for intellect. .......which I see it as akin to throwing the baby out with the bathwater...indeed, a total reliance upon intellect alone comes with its' issues, but there's a point where intellect can be seen for what it is, and no longer relied upon as the end all and be all, and thus, used,as you say, as the tool (rather awesome one at that) that it is. When it's only taken to be a tool and there's no danger of anything more, the disdain is free to go. yes, I too have little doubt that plants are indeed conscious and intelligent as well, although in ways that are subtly different from the way most understand those terms. I often intuit what plants need through doing energy readings of sorts on them..... they "speak" quite clearly actually about what they want. Yeah..? I'm not so sure...would like to find out though. yes, me too.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 20, 2014 17:31:48 GMT -5
"but mind becomes informed by the realization." I'd say that bit (mind being informed) is a pretty large component of the whole enchilada. And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. My interest is in clarity and simplification. It almost seems like there are some who'd prefer to keep it all shrouded in mystery and seemingly more complicated than it really is. Indeed, realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought, intellect or logic ....but clearly, absent conscious awareness of self, the term "self realization" becomes meaningless. Being Consciously self aware may not require minding in the form of actual thinking about it, but, it's not wholly absent mind's involvement either. And to say so, is to unnecessarily go to far imo. I always enjoy your sharings about how awakening. & I think your specificity in description there is likely really helpful to those who have questions about the whole matter. I think we've discussed before how some folks have a very solid sense of being a very specific 'someone' who lives in the head and controls the mind/body, while others never really experienced that way from the get-go. My own sense of self was never solidified like the way you describe yours was previously to the falling away you describe...thus, I can't really pin-point any one moment where suddenly something that was there previously, fell away. I think this is partly because from a pretty young age my experience was rife with profound synchronicity and psychic phenomena that for the most part, was just accepted as the norm...thus, experience itself mirrored back the seamless unity of existence...therefore, the 'what or who am I' questions, never really arose in the way some who sought avidly, describe. Perhaps it's for this reason that I come at all this from a slightly different angle.....I DO see the value in pointing beyond identification with a separate, singular, limited self, but because of the fact that the experience of 'self' varies significantly, even in those who may be deemed to not be 'self realized,' I think it's important to be as clear as possible regarding the use of common terms, making sure that there is a clear understanding of them when talking about 'self realization'.....'collapse of sense of personhood' etc. I suspect that most advaita folks use the word "mind" to refer only to the intellect--the function of mind that cognizes/imagines/thinks/reflects/etc. The intellect conceives and then manipulates ideas, images, and symbols abstracted from isness. It is like a simulation machine, and it builds a mental model of reality. This function of mind seems to have, on the basis of brain studies, at least three main sub-circuits that utilize cognition--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. In this sense, mind operates like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and the output is seen by the same see-er in each human being (because there is only one see-er). Direct perception (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting) is not dependent on the intellect, and is perceived by the same perceiver in each human being (because there is only one perceiver). Plants and one-celled animals are obviously aware (because they sense their environment directly, move toward sunlight, water, or food, etc), but they do not appear to be self aware, and I doubt that anyone would think they have a mind, in the sense of an intellect. As you correctly note, "Realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought," but there is no "conscious awareness of self" involved in realization. What becomes obvious is the ABSENCE of a self center, and this results in the realization that what remains in this absence is a unified field of being that is aware but is unknowable via the mind. This informs mind that the search was based upon an erroneous thought structure, and it is thereby simultaneously put to rest and freed from the idea of a controlling center. From this perspective the intellect is then regarded as a handy sophisticated tool, or a docile servant, that can perform needed tasks whenever called upon rather than a tyrannical taskmaster that conjures up illusions and confusion and creates wild goose chases. I suspect that most advaita folks, and most people in other non-dual traditions, do not have a high regard for the intellect because it is considered much more a sophisticated evolutionary high-tech tool rather than something fundamentally or existentially important. I feel quite certain that plants and one-celled animals have fascinating lives even though they are not self-aware. FWIW, there is an interesting page in Bucke's book, "Cosmic Consciousness," by a woman who discovered, during a kind of woo-woo experience, that plants are conscious. She didn't explain what she meant by the word "conscious," but her account gives a sense of what she experienced and the awe she felt upon making that discovery. I could be wrong about this, but I would assume that Reefs, and most people of this forum, would define Self-realization in much the same way that I did in my previous post. They can respond as appropriate, and I would be interested in hearing about any significant differences in understanding. Yes, to my eye at least, much the same: the non-conceptual resolution of the apparent relationship between unique and limited perspective and what that perspective is on.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 20, 2014 17:33:37 GMT -5
I suspect that most advaita folks use the word "mind" to refer only to the intellect--the function of mind that cognizes/imagines/thinks/reflects/etc. The intellect conceives and then manipulates ideas, images, and symbols abstracted from isness. It is like a simulation machine, and it builds a mental model of reality. This function of mind seems to have, on the basis of brain studies, at least three main sub-circuits that utilize cognition--self-referentiality, planning, and problem solving. In this sense, mind operates like a graphics generator hooked to a computer, and the output is seen by the same see-er in each human being (because there is only one see-er). Direct perception (seeing, hearing, feeling, smelling, tasting) is not dependent on the intellect, and is perceived by the same perceiver in each human being (because there is only one perceiver). Plants and one-celled animals are obviously aware (because they sense their environment directly, move toward sunlight, water, or food, etc), but they do not appear to be self aware, and I doubt that anyone would think they have a mind, in the sense of an intellect. As you correctly note, "Realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought," but there is no "conscious awareness of self" involved in realization. What becomes obvious is the ABSENCE of a self center, and this results in the realization that what remains in this absence is a unified field of being that is aware but is unknowable via the mind. This informs mind that the search was based upon an erroneous thought structure, and it is thereby simultaneously put to rest and freed from the idea of a controlling center. From this perspective the intellect is then regarded as a handy sophisticated tool, or a docile servant, that can perform needed tasks whenever called upon rather than a tyrannical taskmaster that conjures up illusions and confusion and creates wild goose chases. I suspect that most advaita folks, and most people in other non-dual traditions, do not have a high regard for the intellect because it is considered much more a sophisticated evolutionary high-tech tool rather than something fundamentally or existentially important. I feel quite certain that plants and one-celled animals have fascinating lives even though they are not self-aware. FWIW, there is an interesting page in Bucke's book, "Cosmic Consciousness," by a woman who discovered, during a kind of woo-woo experience, that plants are conscious. She didn't explain what she meant by the word "conscious," but her account gives a sense of what she experienced and the awe she felt upon making that discovery. I could be wrong about this, but I would assume that Reefs, and most people of this forum, would define Self-realization in much the same way that I did in my previous post. They can respond as appropriate, and I would be interested in hearing about any significant differences in understanding. Yes, to my eye at least, much the same: the non-conceptual resolution of the apparent relationship between unique and limited perspective and what that perspective is on.Ahhh...now there's a way of describing and word usage I've not heard before. hehe...I actually like it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 20, 2014 17:51:27 GMT -5
hehe..funny, I just edited my last post to add this: "It's also possible the question may be seen through. For me, the question itself of a brain dead body being self realized, could be deemed more of a misconception..but that's based upon how I define 'self realization.' Foundational to 'self realization' is the capacity for self awareness. I asked the question of Reefs, not because it is active for me, but because of what I deemed to be his assertion of the overriding absence of mind in realization. I wanted to see how deep he sees that absence as being. AS I see it, there is indeed a mind component to self realization....it's all about a new seeing, that collapses a previous seeing....a way of seeing and way of experiencing, which can indeed entail less minding, but so long as experience continues, there must necessarily be some mind involvement." Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=9#ixzz3MMzf9kvESo, again, to be clear, the question was asked of Reefs in hopes of ascertaining his own definition of self realization. ..I really don't have many of those types of questions that have any power to 'hook me' these days....years ago though, lots of that kind of focus. Thanks for sharing your definition...sounds like we're on the same page there pretty much. Reefs main point was that mind is not involved in self-realization, and I agree. Here's how I would put it in my own words: There is only one actor here. We can call it "the cosmos," "oneness," "God," "the field of all being," etc. It is the only see-er. It sees "what is," which is Itself, because it is all there is. In the form of a human it thinks, and it sees thoughts. There is no separate entity that sees. Because thoughts occur, what I call "thought structures" or "thought circuits" or something like that get formed. One of those thought structures is selfhood. The see-er, which is the cosmos, sees everything filtered through this imaginary thought structure and mistakenly takes the thought structure to be real. When the thought structure collapses, the see-er realizes that It, alone, is all there is, and that no separate self ever existed. This realization does not involve mind, but mind becomes informed by the realization. The realization can happen in many ways. In my case I had spent many years intermittently looking at the world in mental silence and during the previous week I had been on a silent mountain-hiking retreat in which I had been doing intense, almost non-stop, ATA-MT. One afternoon I vaguely noticed that something was missing. I looked within and was surprised to discover that my prior sense of selfhood had simply vanished without a trace. There was nothing there. I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. There is no longer any need for self improvement or self anything because self, in the conventional sense, is gone. Freedom from thinking about thinking is real freedom, and the body/mind can then go about its business free of all that searching nonsense. It knows what it is--an aspect of Vastness unfolding however it unfolds. The body/mind still has a name, and it moves around just as before, doing one thing after another, but there is no personal sense of self at the center of what is happening. So, if someone asks, "Can a rock become self realized?" how would you answer that question? If you answer yes or no, you miss the point. "Can a brain-dead person become self realized?" Same thing. "Can a brain-dead person climb Mount Everest?" Same thing. "Can YOU climb Mount Everest?" A different answer is required, but not a yes or no answer. If mind gets involved, it will only obscure the issue. Cheers. They already know that they are millions of years of evolution. Though it makes better sense to recognise that it is the lake, that speaks on their behalf.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 20, 2014 21:27:18 GMT -5
I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=10#ixzz3MTpkk9Q2Similarly, i realized i was not who i THOUGHT i was, i realized i was 'that' which was doing the thinking.. then, i realized that "I AM", and any further description is excess.. further descriptions can point to the AMness/ISness, but generally those descriptions suffer the attachment of self-identification, of desirability or lack thereof.. What is clear to me, is that 'mind' is the medium through which the realization is revealed to the experiencer.. the effect of the realization is integrated into the experiencer's existence through the mind's understanding of that realization.. what was revealed/realized, is that i experience 'me' in every experience, when i look into the eyes of another, i see 'me' looking back, even when that version of 'me' interprets the experience differently, hence the suggestion to 'pay attention' unconditionally.. Here's the fundamental inconsistency, that some people claim oneness is all there is, then they want to exclude the mind through which they just communicated their understanding of experiencing their realization of oneness.. mind is another part of the whole.. The spiritual search ends when the experiencer understands that if they are searching for something, they are excluding what they don't believe is that 'something'.. if the experiencer is searching for 'truth', they will exclude what they think is not 'true'.. the spiritual search ends when the experiencer lets it all go, and pays attention with genuine curiosity.. setting aside what doesn't work, and applying what does.. The still mind has no filter that sees oneness or separation, it simply sees.. in that same stillness, the sum of the experiencer's existence integrates with the happening appropriately for the experience as it happens, in that continuous 'now'.. in that 'zone/flow' there is no hesitation and no doubt, that would fracture the fluid dynamism of creation unfolding, the experiencer would be aware of the all of everything, realizing that the interruption of conceptualization/thinking would put distance (time/space) between the experience and experiencer's awareness of the experience.. it is in that distance (time/space) that the filter of belief and attachment distort and alter the experiencer's clarity.. As much as i favor Zen and Tao as clear understandings, i am eager to let those ideas go, too.. they are still a 'cut too deep', an us/them intervention into the fluid dynamism of the experiencer's clarity.. Be still, just look..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2014 13:54:28 GMT -5
And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. What is clear to me, is that 'mind' is the medium through which the realization is revealed to the experiencer.. the effect of the realization is integrated into the experiencer's existence through the mind's understanding of that realization.. what was revealed/realized, is that i experience 'me' in every experience, when i look into the eyes of another, i see 'me' looking back, even when that version of 'me' interprets the experience differently, hence the suggestion to 'pay attention' unconditionally.. Conceptual exploration of a definition of mind or thought in a discussion about clarity or self-realization can be self defeating, in that the primary way of arriving at clarity isn't the means of conceptual definition. If someone insists on using one set of ideas or another to refer to the terms, this can either be accomadated or not, and in that choice the intent toward the dialog becomes important. Objectively speaking, it can be noticed that central to any notion of mind and thought is the question of the relationship of these artifacts to the individual. The question of the nature of that relationship, is one of self-inquiry. Noone can perform self-inquiry for anyone else.
|
|