|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 16:58:58 GMT -5
I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here. zd if you see this I would like you to comment on both Reefs post and that of satch (in light of your saying that no self exists and never existed). Apparently for some people the sense of "me" can totally vanish, and be realized to have never existed. Whether the sense of what constitutes "me" varies in significantly different ways for different people would probably be an interesting study for some psychologist. I can only say that for certain people this is definitely the case. Norio Kushi, after three days of silence, suddenly realized (in his words), "I don't exist," (by which he meant the "me" had been seen to be an illusion), and after 13 years he still laughs about the scale and scope of that cosmic joke. Two years ago I talked with Tess Hughes at length about what happened to her, and it was almost identical to what happened here. There was a looking inside, and the inside was suddenly seen to be empty. The "little gal in her head had disappeared." She said," I finally realized what I was, and have always been, even before birth." Her book, "Solid Ground of Being," is a good read. I think Seng Stan stated it well over a thousand years ago. He wrote: When no discriminating thoughts arise, the old mind ceases to exist. When thought objects vanish the thinking subject vanishes as when the mind vanishes, objects vanish. Things are objects because of the subject (mind); the mind (subject) is such because of things (object). Understand the relativity of of these two and the basic reality: the unity of emptiness. That which thinks and is aware knows that the body has a conventional name and a conventional identity, but there is no identification with it in the same way as in the past--when it was imagined that there was a "me" at the center of whatever is happening. The reason that many people, such as Paul Morgan-Somers, refer to themselves as "the character" or "the organism" or "the body/mind" is because it no longer feels accurate to only use the symbol "I" when speaking about the functioning of either the body or mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 19:27:35 GMT -5
I've never heard a sage say that there is a disappearance of me. Non attachment and non identification with me, yes certainly, but not disappearance because you would be unable to live in the body without it. Ramana for instance said that ego, which goes hand-in-hand with a sense of self, is not destroyed after realization, but that it is diminished and resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope. The great sense of freedom you speak about is felt by the ego because in fact it is the ego which becomes enlightened, not awareness which is already and always has been enlightened. You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say. I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here. Life in motion with a complete subsidence of any self-referential thought or emotion is quite possible, and it's absolutely no surprise that the notion of that draws ridicule and disbelief. From the outside looking in, it might look otherwise, and sometimes looks aren't deceptive, but, on the other hand, if a seagull could talk and wrote about what it was like to fly, would you understand him? In terms of functionality, the pattern can only ever get in the way, and things flow much more smoothly in it's absence.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 19:53:31 GMT -5
For some of us, fear and desire centered on the false sense of identity lead to a constant stream of thought. It's quite possible to go through life mostly unconscious of it. Tolle starts Now with the simple point: "You are not Your Mind". What he meant by "mind" was that pattern of thought and emotion that generates the unnecessary thought. When this distinction is realized, non-conceptually, the volume of thought can suddenly pop like a balloon and then the stream slows, and the felt sense of sudden clarity is completely unmistakable and impossible to ignore. And it's not just thought in any dry, arid, intellectual sense, but instead, the entire substrate of mood, all the proto-emotions and other movements of mind that are constantly stirring underneath the conscious forefront of our awareness. If one gets adept enough at watching thought, you can come to understand how the formation of the initial interest that eventually gives rise to the beginning of a thought or an emotion are linked to this subconscious process of mood. Sekida called it "mood", as well. The dialog seems to be happening on two levels. The question reminds me of ZD's problem of how to stop the constant chatter in the head, this non-stop commentary track. It seems to eat up a lot of energy. The other level is about stopping thought per se and here UG is right, of course, that's not necessary and no method required. But to stop the commentary track, there are methods. ZD's ATA is one such method. The beauty of Tolle's work is that instead of taking on thought as a problem that has to be stopped, he uses the split-mind against itself. He issues a challenge: "have you found the off switch?", but then just advises observing, with the suggestion that (paraphrasing from memory) "most thought is negative, repetitive, ineffectual and even destructive". For some of us, the observation bears out as self-evident in the observing. In this way, the process short-circuits itself similar to how Capt. Kirk used to make computers blow up. For me, directing attention outward always had a gradual effect over time - not in the act of shifting itself, but in terms of the effect on the ongoing state. The sudden internal silence that happened as a result of watching thought was familiar precisely because of all the time spent previously with attention directed outward and on the sensory experience, free of thought, with the only emotional component being one of pleasure, contentment or awe. So in terms of sudden realization, my personal reference is for that with attention directed inward. But despite this, I can rezz and understand the Zen stories of the monk who swept the pebble and the master who directed his student's attention to the stream .. "enter Zen from there". This is because the realization of the nature of inner/outer is what it is. I think there's a similar dichotomy going on between gradual/sudden. Realization can't be conditioned, but I sometimes discern serious non-conceptual insight from sources that explicitly disclaim any sudden realization, and who instead describe an ongoing Soto-like gradual process of transformation. Lots of rooms in the mansion, many hands on the elephant.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 20:13:03 GMT -5
Well just because Niz didn't say it. He didn't say a lot of things. I would say the ego assumes the cosmic value. It is the ego that says I am awake like the Buddha did on the road when he was asked who he was. It's funny you mention UG because he didn't function very well in society. I agree that thoughts appear very much on demand. The wastage and repetition of thinking goes. Yes, UG basically lived like a bum. That's why I never really found his model of enlightenment particularly appealing. "If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment".
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 20:59:59 GMT -5
Yes, UG basically lived like a bum. That's why I never really found his model of enlightenment particularly appealing. "If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment". Amen! That's been the main point. When considering Tolle, Niz, Ramana, Somers-Morgan, et al, the variation is infinite. Some people walk out the door and....WHAM! They're in the ocean. Other people pursue inquiry, or ATA-T, or shikan taza, or koan contemplation, and .....WHAM! They're in the ocean. Some people lose the sense of "me," and some don't. Some people are able to become internally silent and others not so much. Whatever it takes to attain peace of mind is all it takes. There are a thousand roads to the same placeless place.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 21:27:51 GMT -5
That which thinks and is aware knows that the body has a conventional name and a conventional identity, but there is no identification with it in the same way as in the past--when it was imagined that there was a "me" at the center of whatever is happening. That's the bottom line, yes.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 21:44:08 GMT -5
Yes, UG basically lived like a bum. That's why I never really found his model of enlightenment particularly appealing. "If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment". No that's not what I was referring to. After the Buddha awakened so the story goes, he was walking on the road and someone stopped him and asked him who he was and Buddha replied, I am awake.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 21:44:43 GMT -5
For me, directing attention outward always had a gradual effect over time - not in the act of shifting itself, but in terms of the effect on the ongoing state. The sudden internal silence that happened as a result of watching thought was familiar precisely because of all the time spent previously with attention directed outward and on the sensory experience, free of thought, with the only emotional component being one of pleasure, contentment or awe. So in terms of sudden realization, my personal reference is for that with attention directed inward. But despite this, I can rezz and understand the Zen stories of the monk who swept the pebble and the master who directed his student's attention to the stream .. "enter Zen from there". This is because the realization of the nature of inner/outer is what it is. I think there's a similar dichotomy going on between gradual/sudden. Realization can't be conditioned, but I sometimes discern serious non-conceptual insight from sources that explicitly disclaim any sudden realization, and who instead describe an ongoing Soto-like gradual process of transformation. Lots of rooms in the mansion, many hands on the elephant. Often just working with the body does the trick. I remember a story about Milton Erickson (the 'inventor' of the techniques that later became known as NLP). He used to work a lot with hypnosis in therapy but what really has been at the basis of his 'techniques' is just good old common sense. Once he had a patient that had no purpose or direction in life and obviously suffered from overthinking. He allowed him to stay in a shed near his house and gave him a lot of hard labor during the day that had to be done around the house. After two exhausting weeks and nobody in particular focusing on that guy's problems, he suddenly announced that he had finally figured it out. He went back to civilization with a renewed sense of purpose, focus and clarity. I think the gradual/sudden dichotomy comes from conflating enlightenment with alignment. Alignment is gradual, but enlightenment is sudden. Alignment is a moment to moment thing, but enlightenment is a one time event. However, in the natural state, both are the case. And I think that's what's confusing many seekers (and even 'masters', it seems).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 21:53:39 GMT -5
Yes, UG basically lived like a bum. That's why I never really found his model of enlightenment particularly appealing. "If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment". Sure, in the final analysis, all models are just that - concepts, i.e. drawing a snake and adding legs to it - rather unnecessary. However, some models are more informative (i.e. can explain more) than others. And UG's model is rather narrow-minded in that sense, he basically reduces everything to mere biology. That's how you get statements like 'music is not different from the sound of dogs barking'. While I get his point, I also think he's gone too far with it. To me, such extreme positions always raise red flags. The way he rages against civilization and culture does come across as rather unbalanced and not at all enlightened. Just my 2 cents.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 22:06:17 GMT -5
"If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment". Amen! That's been the main point. When considering Tolle, Niz, Ramana, Somers-Morgan, et al, the variation is infinite. Some people walk out the door and....WHAM! They're in the ocean. Other people pursue inquiry, or ATA-T, or shikan taza, or koan contemplation, and .....WHAM! They're in the ocean. Some people lose the sense of "me," and some don't. Some people are able to become internally silent and others not so much. Whatever it takes to attain peace of mind is all it takes. There are a thousand roads to the same placeless place. The issue I have with Tolle is that he is conflating enlightenment with alignment. Which is especially problematic in his case since he claims to have been in that state ever since he had his realization. Now, I don't doubt his realization, but I just can't buy into his alignment story. Because to me, when I see him talking with his usual feeble voice, twitchy eyes, shifting around nervously in his chair... that's a tough one to sell as a textbook case of alignment, even when all the rest of his talk is brilliant (as it usually is). I'm just not buying it. He's sending a mixed message.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 22:46:24 GMT -5
The issue I have with Tolle is that he is conflating enlightenment with alignment. Which is especially problematic in his case since he claims to have been in that state ever since he had his realization. Now, I don't doubt his realization, but I just can't buy into his alignment story. Because to me, when I see him talking with his usual feeble voice, twitchy eyes, shifting around nervously in his chair... that's a tough one to sell as a textbook case of alignment, even when all the rest of his talk is brilliant (as it usually is). I'm just not buying it. He's sending a mixed message. Tolle is going more and more into the alignment direction. If one wanted to be cynical then one could say that alignment stories are a good way of continually creating new content for his channel.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2019 1:21:10 GMT -5
For me, directing attention outward always had a gradual effect over time - not in the act of shifting itself, but in terms of the effect on the ongoing state. The sudden internal silence that happened as a result of watching thought was familiar precisely because of all the time spent previously with attention directed outward and on the sensory experience, free of thought, with the only emotional component being one of pleasure, contentment or awe. So in terms of sudden realization, my personal reference is for that with attention directed inward. But despite this, I can rezz and understand the Zen stories of the monk who swept the pebble and the master who directed his student's attention to the stream .. "enter Zen from there". This is because the realization of the nature of inner/outer is what it is. I think there's a similar dichotomy going on between gradual/sudden. Realization can't be conditioned, but I sometimes discern serious non-conceptual insight from sources that explicitly disclaim any sudden realization, and who instead describe an ongoing Soto-like gradual process of transformation. Lots of rooms in the mansion, many hands on the elephant. Often just working with the body does the trick. I remember a story about Milton Erickson (the 'inventor' of the techniques that later became known as NLP). He used to work a lot with hypnosis in therapy but what really has been at the basis of his 'techniques' is just good old common sense. Once he had a patient that had no purpose or direction in life and obviously suffered from overthinking. He allowed him to stay in a shed near his house and gave him a lot of hard labor during the day that had to be done around the house. After two exhausting weeks and nobody in particular focusing on that guy's problems, he suddenly announced that he had finally figured it out. He went back to civilization with a renewed sense of purpose, focus and clarity. I think the gradual/sudden dichotomy comes from conflating enlightenment with alignment. Alignment is gradual, but enlightenment is sudden. Alignment is a moment to moment thing, but enlightenment is a one time event. However, in the natural state, both are the case. And I think that's what's confusing many seekers (and even 'masters', it seems). Alignment/enlightenment is a another useful distinction, but defining the natural state in terms of both mixes the notions of the relative and the absolute.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 12, 2019 1:24:48 GMT -5
"If you meat the Buddha on the road, kill him" ain't a model, and it's not even really an instruction, but rather, just color commentary as to right-action. Just in case there's a hint of non-levity here, "B.S." definitely applies to any "model" of "enlightenment". Sure, in the final analysis, all models are just that - concepts, i.e. drawing a snake and adding legs to it - rather unnecessary. However, some models are more informative (i.e. can explain more) than others. And UG's model is rather narrow-minded in that sense, he basically reduces everything to mere biology. That's how you get statements like 'music is not different from the sound of dogs barking'. While I get his point, I also think he's gone too far with it. To me, such extreme positions always raise red flags. The way he rages against civilization and culture does come across as rather unbalanced and not at all enlightened. Just my 2 cents. Yes, some models are better than others. Noticing and commenting on human dysfunction is no more an indication to me as to "enlightenment" than someone getting angry at an actual injury, or, even expressing frustration at a hyperminder.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 7:31:29 GMT -5
The issue I have with Tolle is that he is conflating enlightenment with alignment. Which is especially problematic in his case since he claims to have been in that state ever since he had his realization. Now, I don't doubt his realization, but I just can't buy into his alignment story. Because to me, when I see him talking with his usual feeble voice, twitchy eyes, shifting around nervously in his chair... that's a tough one to sell as a textbook case of alignment, even when all the rest of his talk is brilliant (as it usually is). I'm just not buying it. He's sending a mixed message. Tolle is going more and more into the alignment direction. If one wanted to be cynical then one could say that alignment stories are a good way of continually creating new content for his channel. And LOA. That's the stuff that sells, hehe.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 12, 2019 7:35:24 GMT -5
Alignment/enlightenment is a another useful distinction, but defining the natural state in terms of both mixes the notions of the relative and the absolute. No, not mixing, but suspending. That's the whole point. The natural state is called natural for a reason.
|
|