|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 10:11:46 GMT -5
Sekida writes in "Zen Training" about how many if not most people experience what can be described as positive samadhi -- non-self-reflective presence in the experience of the now. In the doing of anything from washing the car on a sunny day to a morning run or shoveling snow or even balancing a checking account, most people lose themselves in the moment several times a day. The difference between that and being free of self-referential thought -- relatively or totally -- is one of whether one is conscious during those intervals or not. More importantly, is whether one is conscious of what's happening when they're not in positive samadhi. There's nothing special about the here and now, not at all. What is extraordinary, in terms of the Universe overall, is how deep the common sense of deluded identity of most people runs. What is unusual, is the distorted nature of reality as seen from the lens of false identification with form. There are no elitists in the present moment. In order for there to be an elite, there must be a sense of heirarchy that is premised on an illusory sense of separation. **High five, followed by secret, elitist club handshake**
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2015 13:10:33 GMT -5
Yeah. I wanted to see what you would do with some fictional beliefs. LOL.. you've already seen it, that's all you offer.. you should try substantive discussion, without all the emotion.. There was a discussion going on about whether "i am suggesting that the clarity afforded by the 'absence of thought' will reveal the treasure of 'now'" was an original point or whether it was a rewording of a point that gets presented in here regularly. This seems to have come to an end with your fictional belief that similar, original, and unique all mean the same.
A substantive discussion was offered to you here..
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3918/point-field-pineal-gland-experiences
It's now nearly February.
A substantive discussion was offered to you here, by me when a spark was lit in you about honesty.. spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/223465/thread
And you remained silent.
You constantly ask for discussion on a discussion forum, which in itself is ironic, though as I have clearly seen these last few days, there is a distinct inability to hear what someone else is saying, which is the absolute basis for discussion. It's always one-way traffic with you. And that's why the 2 last posts to you were complete fictions.
spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/235260 spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/235264
You'll hear nothing more from me now. Though of course the last word is yours. Oh and don't forget to include the words let and go in there somewhere..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 27, 2015 15:12:25 GMT -5
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'.. Tzu: Several points come to mind regarding what you wrote here. First, I write somewhat differently on this forum that I do when writing for the general public. As a generalization, most people on this forum are familiar with mindtalk and other related issues that spiritual seekers interested in non-duality typically discuss. The general public does not seem to me to be equally familiar with those things. When my wife went to a Life Training workshop many years ago, the first thing that was discussed was how mindtalk conditions people to see and believe various erroneous things about the world and about their lives. Carol was surprised that many people in the room had never thought about thinking or reflected upon how thoughts affect perception. In fact, many of the attendees had never heard the word "mindtalk" or knew what it referred to until it was explained to them. When, as an initial exercise, people were asked to write down all of their resentments, many people made out a list that was more than a page long single-spaced. People who have dozens or hundreds of explicit resentments are usually attached to a wide range of ideas and beliefs. Carol and I were once invited to what we thought was a party, but turned out to be an Amway sales promotion. People were asked to list all of the material things that they wanted (a big house, a Ferrari, diamonds, etc), and everyone began busily filling out a laundry list of things that they desired. Later, at a Gangaji retreat in about 1998, as an exercise, she had people list all of their desires. I saw that most of the people there were again making long lists. In both cases--one strictly materialistic and the other supposedly spiritualistic--such list-making is a good indicator of excessive fantasizing and a lack of satisfaction with "what is." I've never done a survey about this, but I'd guess that my statement about "most people" fantasizing excessively and living in their heads is more the rule than the exception. You may not agree with this assessment, but I think it could be substantiated with a well-crafted psychological survey. Second, in my first book for the general public, and in newspaper columns, I always used the inclusive pronoun "us" rather than "most people" for the very reason you mentioned, but on this forum we're interacting with people who have already done a lot of thinking about thinking and are familiar with most of the major issues related to reflective thought. From about 1990 to 2000 I wrote a newspaper column about non-duality and non-dual spiritual traditions (first titled--"Paying Attention" and later titled "The Practice of Non-Conceptual Awareness"), and I got a lot of interesting feedback as a result of those columns. Some people were highly offended and some people were curious, but most people had no understanding of what I was writing about, and most of the people who responded to me in person were strongly attached to various beliefs. From talking to them in one-on-one conversations it was obvious that they lived in their heads, just as I once did, and they obviously spent a lot of time fantasizing and reflecting. Anytime people use the words "should" or "ought" many times in a conversation, it's a good indicator that they are attached to a lot of ideas about the world. You may disagree with this, but that's been my experience. FWIW, I have no interest in imposing any beliefs upon anyone. If people have beliefs and are satisfied with their beliefs, that's great. From my POV, non-duality has nothing to do with beliefs; it is a word that points to direct experience and realizations, and one of the basic injunctions that I've heard every Zen Master and Advaita master repeat is, "Find the truth for yourself because no one can give it to you." At the same time, many people who come to this forum are seekers, and they often ask for pointers. If I tell someone to "look within" or "shift attention away from thought," or "look with a still mind," or "contemplate what you want to know," or if I explain the difference between experiences and realizations, I am doing so in an effort to be helpful. This body/mind spent twenty years thinking about various existential questions, and never found a single answer. It was only after the body/mind started meditating and shifting attention away from thoughts, that realizations began to occur. This is why I suggest to seekers that they try that kind of approach if they haven't had any luck finding satisfactory answers through pure intellection. As for "common ground," I prefer finding as much of that as possible because I think the usual foodfights that appear here are counter-productive and off-putting to newcomers. The "I'm right and you're wrong" approach usually causes people to get defensive or aggressive and rarely leads to mutual understanding. One of the reasons I have continued to ask you questions is because I'm genuinely curious about how your view of things differs from others. Several weeks ago I wrote about a particular day in 1999 when I looked within and discovered that the "me" had vanished--that who I had always thought I was, as a separate entity, had collapsed/disappeared. That ended my spiritual search for truth because I realized that I was NOT who I had always thought I was. You ridiculed that statement and claimed, in essence, that I was delusional about what had happened. That didn't bother me because I knew what had happened, but I was curious why you would think you knew what someone else had or had not realized. Today I'm still curious about that.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 27, 2015 19:50:01 GMT -5
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'.. Tzu: Several points come to mind regarding what you wrote here. First, I write somewhat differently on this forum that I do when writing for the general public. As a generalization, most people on this forum are familiar with mindtalk and other related issues that spiritual seekers interested in non-duality typically discuss. The general public does not seem to me to be equally familiar with those things. When my wife went to a Life Training workshop many years ago, the first thing that was discussed was how mindtalk conditions people to see and believe various erroneous things about the world and about their lives. Carol was surprised that many people in the room had never thought about thinking or reflected upon how thoughts affect perception. In fact, many of the attendees had never heard the word "mindtalk" or knew what it referred to until it was explained to them. When, as an initial exercise, people were asked to write down all of their resentments, many people made out a list that was more than a page long single-spaced. People who have dozens or hundreds of explicit resentments are usually attached to a wide range of ideas and beliefs. Carol and I were once invited to what we thought was a party, but turned out to be an Amway sales promotion. People were asked to list all of the material things that they wanted (a big house, a Ferrari, diamonds, etc), and everyone began busily filling out a laundry list of things that they desired. Later, at a Gangaji retreat in about 1998, as an exercise, she had people list all of their desires. I saw that most of the people there were again making long lists. In both cases--one strictly materialistic and the other supposedly spiritualistic--such list-making is a good indicator of excessive fantasizing and a lack of satisfaction with "what is." I've never done a survey about this, but I'd guess that my statement about "most people" fantasizing excessively and living in their heads is more the rule than the exception. You may not agree with this assessment, but I think it could be substantiated with a well-crafted psychological survey. Second, in my first book for the general public, and in newspaper columns, I always used the inclusive pronoun "us" rather than "most people" for the very reason you mentioned, but on this forum we're interacting with people who have already done a lot of thinking about thinking and are familiar with most of the major issues related to reflective thought. From about 1990 to 2000 I wrote a newspaper column about non-duality and non-dual spiritual traditions (first titled--"Paying Attention" and later titled "The Practice of Non-Conceptual Awareness"), and I got a lot of interesting feedback as a result of those columns. Some people were highly offended and some people were curious, but most people had no understanding of what I was writing about, and most of the people who responded to me in person were strongly attached to various beliefs. From talking to them in one-on-one conversations it was obvious that they lived in their heads, just as I once did, and they obviously spent a lot of time fantasizing and reflecting. Anytime people use the words "should" or "ought" many times in a conversation, it's a good indicator that they are attached to a lot of ideas about the world. You may disagree with this, but that's been my experience. FWIW, I have no interest in imposing any beliefs upon anyone. If people have beliefs and are satisfied with their beliefs, that's great. From my POV, non-duality has nothing to do with beliefs; it is a word that points to direct experience and realizations, and one of the basic injunctions that I've heard every Zen Master and Advaita master repeat is, "Find the truth for yourself because no one can give it to you." At the same time, many people who come to this forum are seekers, and they often ask for pointers. If I tell someone to "look within" or "shift attention away from thought," or "look with a still mind," or "contemplate what you want to know," or if I explain the difference between experiences and realizations, I am doing so in an effort to be helpful. This body/mind spent twenty years thinking about various existential questions, and never found a single answer. It was only after the body/mind started meditating and shifting attention away from thoughts, that realizations began to occur. This is why I suggest to seekers that they try that kind of approach if they haven't had any luck finding satisfactory answers through pure intellection. As for "common ground," I prefer finding as much of that as possible because I think the usual foodfights that appear here are counter-productive and off-putting to newcomers. The "I'm right and you're wrong" approach usually causes people to get defensive or aggressive and rarely leads to mutual understanding. One of the reasons I have continued to ask you questions is because I'm genuinely curious about how your view of things differs from others. Several weeks ago I wrote about a particular day in 1999 when I looked within and discovered that the "me" had vanished--that who I had always thought I was, as a separate entity, had collapsed/disappeared. That ended my spiritual search for truth because I realized that I was NOT who I had always thought I was. You ridiculed that statement and claimed, in essence, that I was delusional about what had happened. That didn't bother me because I knew what had happened, but I was curious why you would think you knew what someone else had or had not realized. Today I'm still curious about that. Your sanity is always appreciated.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jan 27, 2015 22:38:18 GMT -5
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'.. Tzu: Several points come to mind regarding what you wrote here. First, I write somewhat differently on this forum that I do when writing for the general public. As a generalization, most people on this forum are familiar with mindtalk and other related issues that spiritual seekers interested in non-duality typically discuss. The general public does not seem to me to be equally familiar with those things. I keep in mind the home page banner, and the likely chance that there are novice seekers trying to understand what happens in this forum.. i try not to create a difference between the language in this forum and what a visitor might normally encounter.. as you say later in this post, unfamiliar language models, like food fights, or 'i'm right/you're worng', or setting your model as more desirable, can be "off-putting to newcomers".. When my wife went to a Life Training workshop many years ago, the first thing that was discussed was how mindtalk conditions people to see and believe various erroneous things about the world and about their lives. Carol was surprised that many people in the room had never thought about thinking or reflected upon how thoughts affect perception. In fact, many of the attendees had never heard the word "mindtalk" or knew what it referred to until it was explained to them. When, as an initial exercise, people were asked to write down all of their resentments, many people made out a list that was more than a page long single-spaced. People who have dozens or hundreds of explicit resentments are usually attached to a wide range of ideas and beliefs. Carol and I were once invited to what we thought was a party, but turned out to be an Amway sales promotion. People were asked to list all of the material things that they wanted (a big house, a Ferrari, diamonds, etc), and everyone began busily filling out a laundry list of things that they desired. Later, at a Gangaji retreat in about 1998, as an exercise, she had people list all of their desires. I saw that most of the people there were again making long lists. In both cases--one strictly materialistic and the other supposedly spiritualistic--such list-making is a good indicator of excessive fantasizing and a lack of satisfaction with "what is." I've never done a survey about this, but I'd guess that my statement about "most people" fantasizing excessively and living in their heads is more the rule than the exception. You may not agree with this assessment, but I think it could be substantiated with a well-crafted psychological survey. Second, in my first book for the general public, and in newspaper columns, I always used the inclusive pronoun "us" rather than "most people" for the very reason you mentioned, but on this forum we're interacting with people who have already done a lot of thinking about thinking and are familiar with most of the major issues related to reflective thought. From about 1990 to 2000 I wrote a newspaper column about non-duality and non-dual spiritual traditions (first titled--"Paying Attention" and later titled "The Practice of Non-Conceptual Awareness"), and I got a lot of interesting feedback as a result of those columns. Some people were highly offended and some people were curious, but most people had no understanding of what I was writing about, and most of the people who responded to me in person were strongly attached to various beliefs. From talking to them in one-on-one conversations it was obvious that they lived in their heads, just as I once did, and they obviously spent a lot of time fantasizing and reflecting. Anytime people use the words "should" or "ought" many times in a conversation, it's a good indicator that they are attached to a lot of ideas about the world. You may disagree with this, but that's been my experience. When i am interested in what 'they' are fantasizing and reflecting about, and i ask questions about why the fantasies and reflections have meaing, i find that those fantasies and reflections are related to many of the same understandings as clarity, just in a language not consistent with the nondualist's model.. there's more common ground than a specialized language model reveals.. FWIW, I have no interest in imposing any beliefs upon anyone. If people have beliefs and are satisfied with their beliefs, that's great. From my POV, non-duality has nothing to do with beliefs; it is a word that points to direct experience and realizations, and one of the basic injunctions that I've heard every Zen Master and Advaita master repeat is, "Find the truth for yourself because no one can give it to you." At the same time, though, you also find confrontation to be a useful epedient in changing people's perspectives, do you see the contradiction? At the same time, many people who come to this forum are seekers, and they often ask for pointers. If I tell someone to "look within" or "shift attention away from thought," or "look with a still mind," or "contemplate what you want to know," or if I explain the difference between experiences and realizations, I am doing so in an effort to be helpful. This body/mind spent twenty years thinking about various existential questions, and never found a single answer. It was only after the body/mind started meditating and shifting attention away from thoughts, that realizations began to occur. This is why I suggest to seekers that they try that kind of approach if they haven't had any luck finding satisfactory answers through pure intellection. There's quite a range of instruction there, i.e.: "look with a still mind" vs. explaining "the difference between experiences and realizations".. As for "common ground," I prefer finding as much of that as possible because I think the usual foodfights that appear here are counter-productive and off-putting to newcomers. The "I'm right and you're wrong" approach usually causes people to get defensive or aggressive and rarely leads to mutual understanding. One of the reasons I have continued to ask you questions is because I'm genuinely curious about how your view of things differs from others. We pretty much agree on the substance of that quoted paragraph, and.. thanks for being curious and asking.. Several weeks ago I wrote about a particular day in 1999 when I looked within and discovered that the "me" had vanished--that who I had always thought I was, as a separate entity, had collapsed/disappeared. That ended my spiritual search for truth because I realized that I was NOT who I had always thought I was. You ridiculed that statement and claimed, in essence, that I was delusional about what had happened. That didn't bother me because I knew what had happened, but I was curious why you would think you knew what someone else had or had not realized. Today I'm still curious about that. I'll post the discussion for reference, but before i do.. i apologize if you felt ridiculed, that was not the intention.. So, now that i've gone back to page 10, would you help me find the part where i said you were delusional, or ridiculed that statement.. If the last thing you believed turned out to be an illusion, 'body/mind'me', why do you think the nonduality understanding is any different.. try not to go to buzz-words like 'realization', please, i'm really interested in your leap from presence to absence.. I have no issue with the understanding that the 'me' i thought i was, was found to be in error.. the 'me' i experience with clarity is much less confined by ideas and beliefs, has much greater opportunity to realize its totality.. the me i understand 'includes' clarity, mind, consciousness, awareness, intellect, memory, potential, duality, nonduality, oneness, separation, you/me/we/us/them/Life, ALL of it, any part of and/or all of which is revealed according to where i place my intention/attention.. Intellectually, i get everything you say, i can even assemble a model that adds validity to the belief that there is only oneness, and.. intellectually, i can balance that model with an equally valid model of duality, and.. i can theorize beyond here and now, speculate about matters beyond my direct experiences, and i'm honest with myself about it.. i realize that the rope i thought was a snake, was actually my internet cable (just after i killed the snake).. you even realized the 'me' you thought you were, you weren't, so.. i've come to the understanding that each instant reveals its actuality through our experience of it, and preconceived understandings often interfere with otherwise revolutionary realizations.. hence, the wisdom: Let It Be.. Of the members i've had discussions with, you seem the most likely to understand letting go, the most likely to see with 'empty clarity', you say it occasionally.. it is unusual to find people willing to let it ALL go..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 27, 2015 23:55:45 GMT -5
Tzu: An explanation of what causes the leap from presence to absence is entirely speculative on my part. I have theorized that the sense of selfhood may be a kind of unconscious thought structure which crystallizes as one grows from childhood to adulthood. Apparently this structure, which was foundational to how I related to the world, simply collapsed or that circuit of mind ceased to function on a particular day. Prior to that day I had spent a significant amount of time shifting attention away from thought to direct sensory perception, and during the six days immediately prior to that collapse I had intensely engaged in ATA-MT. This is just a theory, but Gary Weber, who engaged in a similar kind of attention-shifting activity, experienced the same sort of collapse accompanied by a cessation of the internal dialogue. Several other people have reported the same sort of thing.
Some people, such as this body/mind, seem to have what we might call "a hard sense of selfhood," as though oneself was a little person inside one's head pulling levers and making things happen. Other people have a much "softer" or more diffuse sense of selfhood. It may be that people with the "hard" form of selfhood are more likely to experience the collapse of it, but I haven't talked to enough people who have experienced such a sudden absence to feel confident about that idea.
I thought the video of the lady who had had a stroke in the left hemisphere of her brain and sort of oscillated between two different perceptions of reality gave some insight into this, and I strongly suspect that what's happening when people engage in meditation, ATA-MT, or still-mind awareness is that functionality is shifting from a left-brain perspective to a right-brain perspective. FWIW, when the lady described what she perceived due to what she thinks occurred as a result of the left-brain stroke and subsequent shift to a right-brain perspective, her description almost perfectly matches what is perceived in a CC experience--all boundaries fall away and the world comes alive in the most intimate way. The same sort of thing happens occasionally during brain operations when a particular spot is touched with an electric probe--the patient later reports having had an intense experience of oneness.
As I've said in the past, seeing an absence of self existence is not the same as experiencing oneness. It is more subtle than that, but because of the absence it becomes clear that the perceiver must be the entire field of being rather than a person. Only when there is an absence of "me" does it finally become clear that the "me" was imaginary. The body/mind remains, and the outside world remains, but there is no one "inside" looking at an "outside" anymore. Inside and outside are then known to be one and the same because the separate knower has vanished. It then becomes obvious that the do-er behind whatever is happening is the entire field of being rather than a person.
A sense of selfhood can later return, but it is no longer perceived as a controlling center of anything. It's like, "Oh yeah, we can call this body/mind Bob," but the prior strong sense of being a separate entity controlling things is absent. The body/mind types words on a computer keyboard just like flowers bloom in the spring; it all just happens in a free-flowing emptiness.
You asked why I think the "non-duality understanding" is any different than the idea of selfhood. IOW, if selfhood was an illusion, why think that non-duality isn't an illusion as well? Well, I'm not pushing the idea of a non-duality understanding. What I'm pointing to is a way of being that is substantially free of the mind and substantially free of self-referentiality in any separational sense. Although I know that for some people non-duality can become a belief system, that isn't what's being pointed to. "Metanoia" is a word that I think means conversion from one set of beliefs to another set of beliefs, but what the word "non-duality" points to is not a belief; it is a direct seeing that seeing does not occur through anything separate from the field of isness. In short, "It's alive, Igor; it's alive!" The whole blooming thing is alive! ha ha
As far as letting it ALL go, I fully concur. In general, the less ideation, the lighter and happier one feels.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 5:50:16 GMT -5
Sekida writes in "Zen Training" about how many if not most people experience what can be described as positive samadhi -- non-self-reflective presence in the experience of the now. In the doing of anything from washing the car on a sunny day to a morning run or shoveling snow or even balancing a checking account, most people lose themselves in the moment several times a day. The difference between that and being free of self-referential thought -- relatively or totally -- is one of whether one is conscious during those intervals or not. More importantly, is whether one is conscious of what's happening when they're not in positive samadhi. There's nothing special about the here and now, not at all. What is extraordinary, in terms of the Universe overall, is how deep the common sense of deluded identity of most people runs. What is unusual, is the distorted nature of reality as seen from the lens of false identification with form. There are no elitists in the present moment. In order for there to be an elite, there must be a sense of heirarchy that is premised on an illusory sense of separation. L: I agree with all of this post except the second paragraph. It doesn't really matter whether one is daydreaming or not while anything is happening. It also doesn't matter whether one is free of self-referential thought, but IF one is free of it, then one's life is a lot less encumbered because worries, fears, etc. that are usually self-referential in nature are not present. IOW, it's a lot easier to be "in the flow of life" if self-reflectiveness isn't there. The "effort" to be conscious and present (a la Tolle) is a self-referential split-mind activity, so the importance of that activity also drops away when self-reflectiveness drops away. Thanks ZD, that paragraph might have suggested the possibility of a sort of permanent samadhi and what you've written about that in other threads is right on. The intended notion was characterization of the nature of self-reference when it does occur, not a vigilance for it. If it ain't effortless, it ain't meditation. When presented with the prescription to "watch the thinker", the question may or may not arise "what is it that watches?". Thought can be observed in the absence of this question. ATA can happen with no question as to what attends or what the actual is. A return to the sense of being can happen with no question as to the I that turned towards it's "am'ness". What's implicated here is Sekida's concept of "self-mastery", which is of course completely different from the way most people would interpret that term. The nature of the false center can be discerned in a body/mind that hasn't previously done anything similar to the conscious witnessing of zazen, and this experience is different from a body/mind that has. This implicates further, and perhaps the best way to describe it is that noticing will happen. In terms of self-inquiry, while there is always the unknown, there is no question about what E' refers to as the absolute nonconceptual certainty of self-evidence. What is noticed is primarily what can be known to be false.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 5:59:15 GMT -5
Do you mean the process of projection? He's aware he tries to convince others he's right because he has no evidence, or he wouldn't be able to project it. (** straight face **) .. "butt .. butt ... butt...."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 6:07:27 GMT -5
Sekida writes in "Zen Training" about how many if not most people experience what can be described as positive samadhi -- non-self-reflective presence in the experience of the now. In the doing of anything from washing the car on a sunny day to a morning run or shoveling snow or even balancing a checking account, most people lose themselves in the moment several times a day. The difference between that and being free of self-referential thought -- relatively or totally -- is one of whether one is conscious during those intervals or not. More importantly, is whether one is conscious of what's happening when they're not in positive samadhi. There's nothing special about the here and now, not at all. What is extraordinary, in terms of the Universe overall, is how deep the common sense of deluded identity of most people runs. What is unusual, is the distorted nature of reality as seen from the lens of false identification with form. There are no elitists in the present moment. In order for there to be an elite, there must be a sense of heirarchy that is premised on an illusory sense of separation. **High five, followed by secret, elitist club handshake**
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 28, 2015 6:27:08 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 30, 2015 13:27:29 GMT -5
Absolutely all of his view,none of his belief doesn't even stand to the scrutiny. He would say he would perceive nothing in deep sleep and he doesn't know how this awareness keep track of everything but magically it brings the appearance at morning. I didn't say I don't know how awareness keeps track of everything. The question is misconceived. 1( How do you know whether or not awareness is or isn't keeping track of everything), unless you are keeping track of everything already? 2(There is no outer world to be stable. The focus is inner, and as such is inherently stable, in much the same way your nightly dreams are inherently stable. No 'author' is required in your nightly dreams either. No construction crew built the buildings in your dreamscape.) I never said anything can't be known. That would imply there is some information to be found that is beyond mind, and yet mind is the source of all information. 3(There's no problem with multiple perspectives forming within consciousness. It's just your 'infallible logic' that gets violated.)4(How can your current experience say anything about what was going on before your current experience?) Do you mean scientific 'proof'? Hi, I just marked in number to reply to the corresponding paragraph 1)If Awareness doesn't keep track of anything, how are you waking up in the same bedroom? Are you going to say whether I am waking up in earth or Neptune can't be known? 2)I repeat I never say outer world exist,outer world and inner world both are appearances in our awareness,I agree here. And nightly dream no author is required, In nightly dream construction crew is not constructing anything and it's the way our nightly dreams are. But in our outer world FOCUS, it's not like that, If the building exist, it must have built by someone, some contruction crew surely must have been done the Job,Isn't it? In the same way, if a book available in our outer world FOCUS, then that surely has been written by someone,Isn't it? 3)This multiple perspective of single perceiver doesn't make any sense, I am very sure, you yourself know this, but however you need to make this one single perceiver to perceive from multiple expression, that's the reason you are providing this illogical theory and another reason is, you gave the strong word that whether another person is real or figments can't be known ultimately. That being said, while you are not aware whether another person exist or not, how would you make the conclusion that another individual is sharing this single perceiver? If you say multiple perspective exist SIMULTANEOUSLY, then that means there are multiple perceiver is there? Isn't it? If you still insist single perceiver can sees through this multiple perspective, you need to explain me how it is possible? 4)I came from office to home, Are you saying what I think is only in my memory,Amn't I really coming from office? Should I not believe that I came from office?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 30, 2015 20:03:32 GMT -5
I didn't say I don't know how awareness keeps track of everything. The question is misconceived. 1( How do you know whether or not awareness is or isn't keeping track of everything), unless you are keeping track of everything already? 2(There is no outer world to be stable. The focus is inner, and as such is inherently stable, in much the same way your nightly dreams are inherently stable. No 'author' is required in your nightly dreams either. No construction crew built the buildings in your dreamscape.) I never said anything can't be known. That would imply there is some information to be found that is beyond mind, and yet mind is the source of all information. 3(There's no problem with multiple perspectives forming within consciousness. It's just your 'infallible logic' that gets violated.)4(How can your current experience say anything about what was going on before your current experience?) Do you mean scientific 'proof'? Hi, I just marked in number to reply to the corresponding paragraph 1)If Awareness doesn't keep track of anything, how are you waking up in the same bedroom? Are you going to say whether I am waking up in earth or Neptune can't be known? I didn't say awareness does or doesn't keep track. I was pointing out that you must be keeping track if you are able to determine whether or not something seems to be keeping track. I suggest you are the 'awareness' that is keeping track. If you see that the outer world is a 'focus', and an appearance in awareness, why would you insist that there must be construction crews in this focus appearance doing stuff? You mean 'apparent' construction crews? I'll make logical sense when I can, but no, it doesn't need to make logical sense. I'm saying your current experience can only tell you what is currently happening, not what did happen. You need to make use of memories for that, and how certain are you that those memories reflect something that actually happened in the past? All you know is that memories are happening now.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 30, 2015 22:18:22 GMT -5
**High five, followed by secret, elitist club handshake** The wings are nice and all, and might getcha to wherever ya'z goin', but for most it's all about the brand image.
|
|