Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 10:49:32 GMT -5
That's quite normal though isn't it? Normal in the sense that a lot of people do it, let's call it popular instead. Projection is nearly a fully recognised psychological behaviour from what I've seen, as in, it is not just a buzz word on this forum. Yes. I'd say we're exploring the understanding, and 'teaching' it to others is the form it takes when we consciously believe we understand but unconsciously we're just following our interest and projecting the need to learn it onto others, so it's also an aspect of projection. It really doesn't have anything to do with others directly. Of course, that scenario isn't always the case, but it's very common. This is really about ripening or maturation then yeah? Offering someone an under ripe fruit will just be like giving them a plate of indigestion..?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 10:56:30 GMT -5
No inconsistency in the details? You really think the matters we're discussing can be related in technical precision? In fact, words fail right from the start. Did you ever come across such an idea in your intense study of nonduality? That it comes down to the absence of separation from what one isn't is a very satisfying paradox to the individual who insists on their objective existence, and furthermore insists that this objective existence isn't limited. The both/and scenario is very ego satisfying.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 26, 2015 10:56:53 GMT -5
Yeah, I still haven't written off the fact that it could just be forgetfulness. There is so much that he doesn't answer that it can't be known if it's just his letting go kicking in. (** straight face **)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 26, 2015 11:56:44 GMT -5
SDP: You wrote,
ZD, I chased the walking off a cliff back to page 28. enigma said it's not possible to take a wrong path (1-23 7:20PM). source said I'd like to discuss that possibility. Essentially, so it's impossible to choose a wrong path yet end up falling off a cliff? (1-23 9:21 PM). .......And then you made the statement you did. I think if you state something, you then own it regardless of where it originated. You essentially told source, That's right, it's impossible to choose a wrong path, even if you end up falling off a cliff by doing so. And you have said it again here, "he cannot go wrong because the cosmos does not go wrong".
Yes, but I didn't start that line of thought. I simply responded to it, and in your following statement you seem to agree with it. You wrote,
"I agree, like I said before, that when something actually happens, it happens in the only way it can happen."
Okay, no problem. We're in agreement up to this point. You then wrote,
"But the universe is growing and evolving. So there are two movements, two flows. There are two rivers, and we have the capacity, the possibility, to move from one river to the other. This is the movement from involution to evolution. But this move from one river to the other requires volition. As I've said previously many times, in the beginning this volition concerns only the use of attention and awareness, one cannot do from the standpoint of thinking or acting, but one can attend to what one thinks, feels and does."
Up to the point of Self-realization this is what most people think. They think they are entities making choices. After Self-realization, they realize that there was never a separate entity doing anything. The separate entity thing was an illusion. One could then say that the cosmos made all the "choices," which would be true if we wanted to imagine that the cosmos makes choices, but that isn't how the process is seen or understood. Unity is what one sees manifesting however it manifests. The flavor of it is better captured by the word "unfoldment" because unfoldment is fluid rather than something composed of static interacting parts.
You then wrote, "I presume you consider it the case that nobody has ever gotten further than you have, that it is in fact impossible to go beyond where you have." Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I am not a person who has gotten anywhere, and because there is nowhere to get to. As Silence stated, "This. Is. It!" The cosmos simply used this body/mind to discover its inherent unity and isness. What I am is what you are, and it isn't what you imagine. What we are cannot be imagined; it can only be lived.
How a body/mind teaches ABOUT oneness, or points to oneness, varies. Gangaji tells people that they have a choice in what they do, whereas other teachers say there is no choice, and BOTH POINTERS ARE POINTING TO THE SAME NO THING. I have no idea why the issue of volition is such a big deal for people, but it is one subject that really fires people up. Someone once asked Tolle about this, and his response was very funny. He began by saying that, yes, people have a choice in shifting their attention to the NOW, but he ended by saying, "well...of course there really isn't any choice," and he did his little giggle.
Bottom line? Discover who you are beyond thought, and then decide for yourself how to point to THAT.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 26, 2015 13:07:20 GMT -5
That it comes down to the absence of separation from what one isn't is a very satisfying paradox to the individual who insists on their objective existence, and furthermore insists that this objective existence isn't limited. The both/and scenario is very ego satisfying. It seems that conceiving of and feeling a sense of identity based on the senses is sort of a habit.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 26, 2015 16:45:24 GMT -5
SDP: You wrote, ZD, I chased the walking off a cliff back to page 28. enigma said it's not possible to take a wrong path (1-23 7:20PM). source said I'd like to discuss that possibility. Essentially, so it's impossible to choose a wrong path yet end up falling off a cliff? (1-23 9:21 PM). .......And then you made the statement you did. I think if you state something, you then own it regardless of where it originated. You essentially told source, That's right, it's impossible to choose a wrong path, even if you end up falling off a cliff by doing so. And you have said it again here, "he cannot go wrong because the cosmos does not go wrong". Yes, but I didn't start that line of thought. I simply responded to it, and in your following statement you seem to agree with it. You wrote, "I agree, like I said before, that when something actually happens, it happens in the only way it can happen." Okay, no problem. We're in agreement up to this point. You then wrote, "But the universe is growing and evolving. So there are two movements, two flows. There are two rivers, and we have the capacity, the possibility, to move from one river to the other. This is the movement from involution to evolution. But this move from one river to the other requires volition. As I've said previously many times, in the beginning this volition concerns only the use of attention and awareness, one cannot do from the standpoint of thinking or acting, but one can attend to what one thinks, feels and does." Up to the point of Self-realization this is what most people think. They think they are entities making choices. After Self-realization, they realize that there was never a separate entity doing anything. The separate entity thing was an illusion. One could then say that the cosmos made all the "choices," which would be true if we wanted to imagine that the cosmos makes choices, but that isn't how the process is seen or understood. Unity is what one sees manifesting however it manifests. The flavor of it is better captured by the word "unfoldment" because unfoldment is fluid rather than something composed of static interacting parts. You then wrote, "I presume you consider it the case that nobody has ever gotten further than you have, that it is in fact impossible to go beyond where you have." Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I am not a person who has gotten anywhere, and because there is nowhere to get to. As Silence stated, "This. Is. It!" The cosmos simply used this body/mind to discover its inherent unity and isness. What I am is what you are, and it isn't what you imagine. What we are cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. How a body/mind teaches ABOUT oneness, or points to oneness, varies. Gangaji tells people that they have a choice in what they do, whereas other teachers say there is no choice, and BOTH POINTERS ARE POINTING TO THE SAME NO THING. I have no idea why the issue of volition is such a big deal for people, but it is one subject that really fires people up. Someone once asked Tolle about this, and his response was very funny. He began by saying that, yes, people have a choice in shifting their attention to the NOW, but he ended by saying, "well...of course there really isn't any choice," and he did his little giggle. Bottom line? Discover who you are beyond thought, and then decide for yourself how to point to THAT. Hey ZD, I agree with everything you have written here. In the past I have said many times that I do not deny anyone's experience, understanding or realizations. I will explain why we are both right, shortly. The following is from the same section quoted earlier. "This something, which in the common presence of a drop of water is a factor actualizing in it the property corresponding to one or another of the streams, is in the common presence of each man who attains responsible age that "I", which was referred to in today's lecture. A man who has in his common presence his own "I" enters one of the streams of the river of life; and the man who has not, enters the other. .........For us contemporary people, the chief evil is that we-thanks to the various conditions of our ordinary existences established by us ourselves, chiefly in consequence of the abnormal what is called "education"-attaining responsible age and acquiring presences which correspond which correspond only to that stream of the river of life which ultimately empties itself into the "nether regions", enter it and are carried along where and wither it wills, and without pondering about the consequences, we remain passive, and submitting to the flow, drift on and on". (pages 1229-1231) (From the vary beginning of the book, a cosmic allegory, Gurdjieff describes what he means by "the various conditions of our ordinary conditions". He describes an unforeseen event which effected [for various reasons I will not go into] the nature of man in a manner such that we view life through imagination, not in reality. The consequences of this event have been passed down even unto today. So where a young person should, under normal circumstances, by the time they become an adult, have what Gurdjieff calls here their own "I", almost nobody does. This is why I say that you are correct in your post. Gurdjieff has expressed the same thing in other places by saying that man (or woman) is not born with a soul, but can acquire one. So you and E and all nondual teachers are correct, as far as you go. In the sentence above Gurdjieff even perfectly describes nonvolition as remaining "passive, and submitting to the flow, drift on and on". But Gurdjieff goes on to say how even and adult can acquire his own "I"). "The point is that the said investigations and experiments showed me very clearly and very definitely that in everything under the care of Mother Nature the possibility is foreseen for beings to acquire the kernel of their essence, that is to say, their own "I", even after the beginning of their responsible age. This foresight of Just Mother Nature consists in the given case in this, that the possibility is given to us, in certain inner and outer conditions, to cross over from one stream into the other". (pages 1231,1232) Beelzebub's Tales (And then continues the previous quote). So I'm not trying to argue against your position, I don't care to argue, I'm just sharing a POV. Gurdjieff agrees with you that "I am not a person who has gotten anywhere". I'm just saying Gurdjieff has said and written that there are other possibilities for man. This is why I say that your view is not necessarily the end of the journey, why it is not necessarily true that "there is nowhere to get to".
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 19:22:43 GMT -5
Yeah, obviously the distinction between the potential that it might have been written here before by someone else, and the actuality that it was, is clearly a distinction with a big difference. Yeah, I still haven't written off the fact that it could just be forgetfulness. There is so much that he doesn't answer that it can't be known if it's just his letting go kicking in. "His letting go kicking in". Hehe
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 19:27:37 GMT -5
A good projection of your process of projection. Can a projection ever become more clear than a sentence that embodies what it describes?? And it shows a conceptual understanding of a process he's not conscious of engaging. The mind is an amazing thang.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 19:44:09 GMT -5
SDP: You wrote, ZD, I chased the walking off a cliff back to page 28. enigma said it's not possible to take a wrong path (1-23 7:20PM). source said I'd like to discuss that possibility. Essentially, so it's impossible to choose a wrong path yet end up falling off a cliff? (1-23 9:21 PM). .......And then you made the statement you did. I think if you state something, you then own it regardless of where it originated. You essentially told source, That's right, it's impossible to choose a wrong path, even if you end up falling off a cliff by doing so. And you have said it again here, "he cannot go wrong because the cosmos does not go wrong". Yes, but I didn't start that line of thought. I simply responded to it, and in your following statement you seem to agree with it. You wrote, "I agree, like I said before, that when something actually happens, it happens in the only way it can happen." Okay, no problem. We're in agreement up to this point. You then wrote, "But the universe is growing and evolving. So there are two movements, two flows. There are two rivers, and we have the capacity, the possibility, to move from one river to the other. This is the movement from involution to evolution. But this move from one river to the other requires volition. As I've said previously many times, in the beginning this volition concerns only the use of attention and awareness, one cannot do from the standpoint of thinking or acting, but one can attend to what one thinks, feels and does." Up to the point of Self-realization this is what most people think. They think they are entities making choices. After Self-realization, they realize that there was never a separate entity doing anything. The separate entity thing was an illusion. One could then say that the cosmos made all the "choices," which would be true if we wanted to imagine that the cosmos makes choices, but that isn't how the process is seen or understood. Unity is what one sees manifesting however it manifests. The flavor of it is better captured by the word "unfoldment" because unfoldment is fluid rather than something composed of static interacting parts. You then wrote, "I presume you consider it the case that nobody has ever gotten further than you have, that it is in fact impossible to go beyond where you have." Nothing could be further from the truth. Why? Because I am not a person who has gotten anywhere, and because there is nowhere to get to. As Silence stated, "This. Is. It!" The cosmos simply used this body/mind to discover its inherent unity and isness. What I am is what you are, and it isn't what you imagine. What we are cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. How a body/mind teaches ABOUT oneness, or points to oneness, varies. Gangaji tells people that they have a choice in what they do, whereas other teachers say there is no choice, and BOTH POINTERS ARE POINTING TO THE SAME NO THING. I have no idea why the issue of volition is such a big deal for people, but it is one subject that really fires people up. Someone once asked Tolle about this, and his response was very funny. He began by saying that, yes, people have a choice in shifting their attention to the NOW, but he ended by saying, "well...of course there really isn't any choice," and he did his little giggle. Bottom line? Discover who you are beyond thought, and then decide for yourself how to point to THAT. Well, non-volition means no free will, and no self respecting self identified person wants to be left with no free will.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 26, 2015 20:44:37 GMT -5
Similarly, i feel for you and the pain you exhibit, and your blind attachment to defeating the illusions you are blindly attached to.. it all goes away when you let it go, can you do that?.. it's brilliantly easy, just let go.. Oh what a kind and generous man you are. I do wish you were my dad. So, you have daddy issues, that explains a few things.. Wait.. was that sarcasm??
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 26, 2015 22:01:01 GMT -5
Hi ZD: I took the liberty of highlighting the portion that resonates with my understanding.. and i would like to explain my understanding of volition/choice.. 'now', is the sum of the choices made prior to the choosing happening 'now', which creates the new 'now'.. if the experiencer thinks that who they 'think' they are is not who they are, is there a disturbance in the Force? Tzu: I "think" I follow you--ha ha--but I'm not 100% sure. I'll expand upon what I wrote, and you can see if it corresponds with the way you see these issues. I no longer think much about choices or volition (except when I read and respond to posts on this forum--ha ha) because "I" rarely reflect upon the body/mind as a person making choices. One could look at things I do and conclude that I made various choices, but from my POV everything is just unfolding, including what we call "choices." Sure, I pick one light fixture rather than another light fixture to go in a new home, but the self-referential thinking about that process that used to take place has sort of dissolved into the flow of whatever is happening. When it's time to pick a light fixture, the body/mind knows what it prefers in price, design, color, etc, and it acts accordingly. Much of what I do on a construction site is direct and non-conceptual and occurs without an internal dialogue. I recommend that people use the simple question, "What must the body/mind be doing this moment?" to help break the usual habit of fantasizing and reflecting and help keep them focused on what's actually happening. FWIW I don't think much about past choices at all. For this body/mind the moment-to-moment focus is upon now, and what I'm calling "now" is what I think you call "life happening." If we think of some specific activity, like walking to the kitchen for a drink of water, we can imagine that many steps were necessary to get us to the kitchen faucet, but people rarely think about each step they take, even in retrospect. They just walk to the kitchen without reflection. The body/mind knows how to get there without conscious direction. Individual "choices" are very much like individual "steps" leading to the kitchen. If there is no reflection about the process, then life just unfolds in what Buddhists call "emptiness." Life lived in "emptiness" is what Hui Neng was pointing to when he said, "Let the mind function freely without hindrance." "Without hindrance" means virtually no thinking about thinking, or thinking about selfhood, or fantasizing, or attachment thinking, or comparison thinking, or resistance thinking, etc. There isn't even any thinking about now, as now; there is just doing whatever needs to be done and living life in the moment. Thinking happens in emptiness, but not the kind of self-referential thinking, or "checking," that occupies the minds of most people. If thinking happens, it, too, is just part of the flow. Is this the sort of description that you can resonate with? Much of what you wrote resonates, i highlighted portions i understand differently.. i don't understand why nonduality advocates assume that those not in agreement with nonduality beliefs have the usual habit of fantasizing and reflecting.. i find that when i listen with an open mind, most folks have decent intervals of stillness and clarity in their daily experiences, they just don't understand what it is or how to let go of the conditioning that distorts the potential.. Thinking is part of the flow, yes.. so are you and i, and each self-aware localized part of the whole, like whirlpools in a stream.. so is the stream, the rocks, the fish, all of it, but.. there's this theme among advocates of nonduality, that they get it and others don't, a subtle form of elitist self-imagery, like: " the usual habit of fantasizing and reflecting", or " not the kind of self-referential thinking, or "checking," that occupies the minds of most people".. I resonate deeply with so much of what you write, and i sense a genuine authenticity.. unless someone brings it up, i'm hardly aware of 'me', though it's clear that the sum of the experiences i have are not the same sum of experiences others are having, i.e.: i don't live in the same house you do, or i don't wake-up in the Peruvian Andes each morning.. and, i don't get too cerebral about if/then explanations that might create an illusion that those ideas could be valid, 'if'.. I don't get too concerned with what i think others think, until others try to impose their understandings onto me and others.. i'm genuinely curious about the Great Mystery, though not especially moved to speculate about it.. i've had experiences, which i've described, that reveal more than the traditional physical senses can explain, and when integrating that information into the happening, experiencing transrational results.. i suspect that this happens to most people, but conditioning isolates them into contrasting groups categorized by how they describe those happenings.. I sense there is too little seeking of common ground, too much attachment to the conditioning.. too little willingness to say, 'i don't know'..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 26, 2015 22:03:24 GMT -5
No, there's no sense of ownership, it's something i posted.. i repeat that understanding when others reveal their lack of a similar understanding.. i don't recall ever suggesting that the understanding is 'unique' to my understanding, and i am aware of hundreds of similar statements by others, some of which i agree with, some of which i remind the poster that they offer no evidence that they actually understand what that statement refers to.. So it's not true that "I don't know if what i'm saying is original". Stay focused, similar/unique/original...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 26, 2015 22:07:18 GMT -5
You call it speculation, but it you painting another illusion about the actuality you don't like.. honestly, when you finally let go of your attachments to the beliefs that compel you to paint such illusions, you'll realize the burden of the painting.. you're trying to convince yourself and others that you are right, you do that because you have no evidence that you are.. A good projection of your process of projection. That's much easier than actually addressing the issues, right?.. the middle-school "i'm rubber you're glue" ploy, nicely played!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 22:34:45 GMT -5
So it's not true that "I don't know if what i'm saying is original". Stay focused, similar/unique/original...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 26, 2015 22:39:04 GMT -5
A good projection of your process of projection. That's much easier than actually addressing the issues, right?.. the middle-school "i'm rubber you're glue" ploy, nicely played! You provided the evidence. I pointed it out.
|
|