|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 19, 2015 13:21:59 GMT -5
Yes I prefer the way you put that last bit. Huh, spoiling for a fight already eh. LOL. What got my attention was when you said life is like play. It is called Lila in Sanskrit. Spot on. Now I know you know. This is a bit of cut and paste I'm afraid, but does this seem familiar. It will annoy the hell out of Tzu I expect. Lila Within non-dualism, Lila is a way of describing all reality, including the cosmos, as the outcome of creative play by the divine absolute (Brahman). Brahman is full of all perfections. And to say that Brahman has some purpose in creating the world will mean that it wants to attain through the process of creation something which it has not. And that is impossible. Hence, there can be no purpose of Brahman in creating the world. The world is a mere spontaneous creation of Brahman. It is a Lila, or sport, of Brahman. It is created out of Bliss, by Bliss and for Bliss. Lila indicates a spontaneous sportive activity of Brahman as distinguished from a self-conscious volitional effort. The concept of Lila signifies freedom as distinguished from necessity. —Ram Shanker Misra, The Integral Advaitism of Sri Aurobindo That is a wonderfully perfect description! I don't know who Ram Shanker Misra is, but he needs to study up on Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo considered evolution to be a fact, and thus time, space, matter, energy, cause and effect to be real. He also considered the evolution of consciousness to be a natural part of the whole process. From The Life Divine by Aurobindo, the chapter Man and Evolution, page 841-843. "But it may also very well be that part of the law of human type is its impulse toward self-exceeding, that the means for a conscious transition has been provided for among the spiritual powers of man; the possession of such a capacity may be a part of the plan on which the creative Energy has built him. ...../....It must be conceded at once that there is not the least probability or possibility of the whole human race rising in a block to the supramental level; ......but only, when it has reached a certain level or a certain point of stress of the evolutionary impetus, to press toward a higher plane of consciousness and its embodiment in the being. ..../.....the appearance of the human body and the human mind marks a crucial step, a decisive change in the course and process of the evolution. ..../.....subconsciously or subliminally by the automatic operation of Nature. But in man the necessary change has been made, - the being has become awake and aware of himself; there has been made manifest in Mind its will to develop ...../..... Man has seen that there can be a higher status of consciousness than his own; the evolutionary oestrus is there in his parts of mind and life, the aspiration to exceed himself is delivered and articulated within him: he has become conscious of a soul, discovered the Self and Spirit. In him, then, the substitution of a conscious for a subconscious evolution has become conceivable and practicable......../.....it will only be a few especially evolved human beings who will form the new type."....( emphasis sdp) ................ This corresponds to the evolution of consciousness I've been talking about here for over five years, evolution of consciousness having the meaning of 'growing' in consciousness, the meaning of "self-exceeding", what I have called becoming what one not now is. Sri Aurobindo was certainly on to something, and he passed it on to others, Satprem being one. Now, Sri Aurobindo was a non-dualist, but he believed that matter and Spirit were two 'ends' of an undivided wholeness. But the direct Aurobindo quote shows that Misra is wrong, Aurobindo did believe in individual will, volition and conscious effort. The quote shows this process is individual, he specifically says that the whole human race in block, does not rise. So how did Aurobindo know about the stuff he wrote? I think he experienced it in himself. The proof in the pudding. (It would also be nice if sunshine happened along to see this).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 19, 2015 13:57:54 GMT -5
That is a wonderfully perfect description! I don't know who Ram Shanker Misra is, but he needs to study up on Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo considered evolution to be a fact, and thus time, space, matter, energy, cause and effect to be real. He also considered the evolution of consciousness to be a natural part of the whole process. From The Life Divine by Aurobindo, the chapter Man and Evolution, page 841-843. "But it may also very well be that part of the law of human type is its impulse toward self-exceeding, that the means for a conscious transition has been provided for among the spiritual powers of man; the possession of such a capacity may be a part of the plan on which the creative Energy has built him. ...../....It must be conceded at once that there is not the least probability or possibility of the whole human race rising in a block to the supramental level; ......but only, when it has reached a certain level or a certain point of stress of the evolutionary impetus, to press toward a higher plane of consciousness and its embodiment in the being. ..../.....the appearance of the human body and the human mind marks a crucial step, a decisive change in the course and process of the evolution. ..../.....subconsciously or subliminally by the automatic operation of Nature. But in man the necessary change has been made, - the being has become awake and aware of himself; there has been made manifest in Mind its will to develop ...../..... Man has seen that there can be a higher status of consciousness than his own; the evolutionary oestrus is there in his parts of mind and life, the aspiration to exceed himself is delivered and articulated within him: he has become conscious of a soul, discovered the Self and Spirit. In him, then, the substitution of a conscious for a subconscious evolution has become conceivable and practicable......../.....it will only be a few especially evolved human beings who will form the new type."....( emphasis sdp) ................ This corresponds to the evolution of consciousness I've been talking about here for over five years, evolution of consciousness having the meaning of 'growing' in consciousness, the meaning of "self-exceeding", what I have called becoming what one not now is. Sri Aurobindo was certainly on to something, and he passed it on to others, Satprem being one. Now, Sri Aurobindo was a non-dualist, but he believed that matter and Spirit were two 'ends' of an undivided wholeness. But the direct Aurobindo quote shows that Misra is wrong, Aurobindo did believe in individual will, volition and conscious effort. The quote shows this process is individual, he specifically says that the whole human race in block, does not rise. So how did Aurobindo know about the stuff he wrote? I think he experienced it in himself. The proof in the pudding. (It would also be nice if sunshine happened along to see this). Ha ha. "Studying up" would be the very worst thing that anyone could do in regard to what is being discussed here. "Shutting up" would be far more beneficial. ha ha
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 19, 2015 15:33:25 GMT -5
I don't know what I can add to what you have said. Sahaja is permanent. There is no idea of gradualism to get to it, which I believe is the case with some Zen schools. ZD you really are stuck with this zen curse aren't you. LOL. I make no secret of being a practicer. I spent many years meditating. During that time I experienced temporary samadhis. During practice, the mind would settle down and often reach complete one pointedness. This was often accompanied by great feelings of bliss. But when the practice was over, the feeling slowly dissipated until it was time for the next session. These experiences were not consistent. But one day about seven years ago while I was meditating a "switch flicked" and in a split second it all fell away. It was nothing gradual. I just became who I was. Completely natural. It is beyond understanding. That "state" for the want of a better word is always. It is not something I need to get into because it always is, plain and simple. And the funny thing is that if ZD is in that state too and he writes something I disagree with, and I tell him, it makes no difference whatsoever. You are absolutely correct, and I owe you a deep debt of gratitude. The Ramana quote you posted several days ago connected several spiritual-tradition language dots, and made me realize that what I've been calling "flow" for a long time is what Ramana and the Vedantins call "sahaja Samadhi." It is not special. It is our ordinary life without the dominance of mind. It's like being a little kid again while retaining the full range of adult intellectual capability. It's like being at play all the time. I fully understand what happened to you when the switch flipped. It flipped for me in 1999. Freedom ensued; and it has remained like that ever since. I still meditate and ATA, but I never know when that will happen. Sometimes the body/mind is drawn to sit in silence for an hour or two, and at other times it's drawn to go for a hike while ATA'ing. I don't call it "a practice" because there is no one practicing to get anywhere or to attain anything. Life unfolds however it unfolds, and there is no objection to whatever happens. I've been very lucky in this lifetime and I've met some amazing people. The clearest guy I ever met was ZM Seung Sahn. The switch flipped for him at the age of 19 after a 100 day silent retreat. He was the first Zen Master I ever met in person (I would later meet dozens of others), and within 5 minutes I could see that he was free in a way that no one else I had ever met was free. Although I never liked the rigidity of the Zen format, Zen was very helpful because it showed me that it was possible to become free from the dominance of mind. Later, I met Gangaji and Adyashanti, and was shocked to hear them both say that you can't practice your way to being what you already are. I intellectually understood what they were saying, but it would require a realization before it could be fully understood through the body. You wrote that when the switch flipped, "I became who I was." I would state this slightly differently. I would say that you REALIZED what you ALREADY were. AAR, you know what you ARE, and that's what really matters. I know that what I am is writing these words to what I am, and you know it, too. Carry on. Perhaps practice which emphasizes states free from the dominance of mind makes it easier to recognize 'what you already are' when the switch is flipped ('grace')? Reefs reports the switch being flipped on the beach. I don't know if he practiced in any way, but I doubt it. Could be though, that he's just gifted with a mind that is able to be finely focused, concentrated, and flexible, so when the switch flipped the recognition of the natural state just was obvious. On the face of it, the question I ask is absurd because nothing at all would be needed to recognize who one already is. So that's it. So then what of all of this mental activity around self-improvement or seeking? Like surfing the web for hours to figure out how to mow the lawn. Just. Mow. The. Lawn. Pretty silly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 20, 2015 1:50:00 GMT -5
That is a wonderfully perfect description! I don't know who Ram Shanker Misra is, but he needs to study up on Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo considered evolution to be a fact, and thus time, space, matter, energy, cause and effect to be real. He also considered the evolution of consciousness to be a natural part of the whole process. From The Life Divine by Aurobindo, the chapter Man and Evolution, page 841-843. "But it may also very well be that part of the law of human type is its impulse toward self-exceeding, that the means for a conscious transition has been provided for among the spiritual powers of man; the possession of such a capacity may be a part of the plan on which the creative Energy has built him. ...../....It must be conceded at once that there is not the least probability or possibility of the whole human race rising in a block to the supramental level; ......but only, when it has reached a certain level or a certain point of stress of the evolutionary impetus, to press toward a higher plane of consciousness and its embodiment in the being. ..../.....the appearance of the human body and the human mind marks a crucial step, a decisive change in the course and process of the evolution. ..../.....subconsciously or subliminally by the automatic operation of Nature. But in man the necessary change has been made, - the being has become awake and aware of himself; there has been made manifest in Mind its will to develop ...../..... Man has seen that there can be a higher status of consciousness than his own; the evolutionary oestrus is there in his parts of mind and life, the aspiration to exceed himself is delivered and articulated within him: he has become conscious of a soul, discovered the Self and Spirit. In him, then, the substitution of a conscious for a subconscious evolution has become conceivable and practicable......../.....it will only be a few especially evolved human beings who will form the new type."....( emphasis sdp) ................ This corresponds to the evolution of consciousness I've been talking about here for over five years, evolution of consciousness having the meaning of 'growing' in consciousness, the meaning of "self-exceeding", what I have called becoming what one not now is. Sri Aurobindo was certainly on to something, and he passed it on to others, Satprem being one. Now, Sri Aurobindo was a non-dualist, but he believed that matter and Spirit were two 'ends' of an undivided wholeness. But the direct Aurobindo quote shows that Misra is wrong, Aurobindo did believe in individual will, volition and conscious effort. The quote shows this process is individual, he specifically says that the whole human race in block, does not rise. So how did Aurobindo know about the stuff he wrote? I think he experienced it in himself. The proof in the pudding. (It would also be nice if sunshine happened along to see this). I'm assuming Misra did study up on Aurobindo because he wrote that book about him. I'm not sure why you are bringing this up. Does it somehow invalidate what I quoted from him. You seem surprised that he considers time, space and matter to be real. There are 5 schools of philosophy in the Indian tradition. Advaita and Vedanta are two of them. Time, space and matter are neither real or unreal.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 20, 2015 9:13:06 GMT -5
I don't know who Ram Shanker Misra is, but he needs to study up on Sri Aurobindo. Aurobindo considered evolution to be a fact, and thus time, space, matter, energy, cause and effect to be real. He also considered the evolution of consciousness to be a natural part of the whole process. From The Life Divine by Aurobindo, the chapter Man and Evolution, page 841-843. "But it may also very well be that part of the law of human type is its impulse toward self-exceeding, that the means for a conscious transition has been provided for among the spiritual powers of man; the possession of such a capacity may be a part of the plan on which the creative Energy has built him. ...../....It must be conceded at once that there is not the least probability or possibility of the whole human race rising in a block to the supramental level; ......but only, when it has reached a certain level or a certain point of stress of the evolutionary impetus, to press toward a higher plane of consciousness and its embodiment in the being. ..../.....the appearance of the human body and the human mind marks a crucial step, a decisive change in the course and process of the evolution. ..../.....subconsciously or subliminally by the automatic operation of Nature. But in man the necessary change has been made, - the being has become awake and aware of himself; there has been made manifest in Mind its will to develop ...../..... Man has seen that there can be a higher status of consciousness than his own; the evolutionary oestrus is there in his parts of mind and life, the aspiration to exceed himself is delivered and articulated within him: he has become conscious of a soul, discovered the Self and Spirit. In him, then, the substitution of a conscious for a subconscious evolution has become conceivable and practicable......../.....it will only be a few especially evolved human beings who will form the new type."....( emphasis sdp) ................ This corresponds to the evolution of consciousness I've been talking about here for over five years, evolution of consciousness having the meaning of 'growing' in consciousness, the meaning of "self-exceeding", what I have called becoming what one not now is. Sri Aurobindo was certainly on to something, and he passed it on to others, Satprem being one. Now, Sri Aurobindo was a non-dualist, but he believed that matter and Spirit were two 'ends' of an undivided wholeness. But the direct Aurobindo quote shows that Misra is wrong, Aurobindo did believe in individual will, volition and conscious effort. The quote shows this process is individual, he specifically says that the whole human race in block, does not rise. So how did Aurobindo know about the stuff he wrote? I think he experienced it in himself. The proof in the pudding. (It would also be nice if sunshine happened along to see this). Ha ha. "Studying up" would be the very worst thing that anyone could do in regard to what is being discussed here. "Shutting up" would be far more beneficial. ha ha ZD, simple question, are time, space, energy, etc., non-existent?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2015 9:21:13 GMT -5
Ha ha. "Studying up" would be the very worst thing that anyone could do in regard to what is being discussed here. "Shutting up" would be far more beneficial. ha ha ZD, simple question, are time, space, energy, etc., non-existent? I think it would be more accurate to say that they are imaginary. One CC experience would make this abundantly clear. I assume you know that there is only Now, a point that Tolle repeatedly emphasizes. The "past," "present," and "future" are ideas that always occur Now. The same sort of thing is true regarding ideas like "space," "energy," "thingness," "causality," "entropy," "the second law of thermodynamics," ad infinitum.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2015 12:21:40 GMT -5
Ha ha. "Studying up" would be the very worst thing that anyone could do in regard to what is being discussed here. "Shutting up" would be far more beneficial. ha ha ZD, simple question, are time, space, energy, etc., non-existent? Very simply, they're not what you think they are. There's no denying the experience of them, and there's no denying that the models of them are very effective at explaining and predicting these experiences. None of that captures what's really goin' on. Intellectually, you know from GR that time and space are the same thing related by the speed of light and that direction in the 4 dimensions is arbitrary. From practice you know the difference between physical clock time and what Tolle refers to as "psychological time". What this means is worthy of a non-intellectual contemplation, for a certainty.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 20, 2015 15:29:40 GMT -5
ZD, simple question, are time, space, energy, etc., non-existent? Very simply, they're not what you think they are. There's no denying the experience of them, and there's no denying that the models of them are very effective at explaining and predicting these experiences. None of that captures what's really goin' on. Intellectually, you know from GR that time and space are the same thing related by the speed of light and that direction in the 4 dimensions is arbitrary. From practice you know the difference between physical clock time and what Tolle refers to as "psychological time". What this means is worthy of a non-intellectual contemplation, for a certainty. Good points.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 20, 2015 17:53:37 GMT -5
Very simply, they're not what you think they are. There's no denying the experience of them, and there's no denying that the models of them are very effective at explaining and predicting these experiences. None of that captures what's really goin' on. Intellectually, you know from GR that time and space are the same thing related by the speed of light and that direction in the 4 dimensions is arbitrary. From practice you know the difference between physical clock time and what Tolle refers to as "psychological time". What this means is worthy of a non-intellectual contemplation, for a certainty. Good points. I'd been trying to figure out a better way to ask the question of "relative" reality. I ran across this way to put it this morning. For me ZD and L are saying different things. To say that time and space are imaginary, isn't that affirming their non-existence, and therefore isn't this denying our experience of them? About a month ago E finally said, relatively reality exists (he made some stipulations, concerning, I believe, it having nothing to do with any "middle layer"). I need some help from gopal , if only now exists, how'd all that money get in your checking account? (or savings or retirement account). ............................ "When Shankara says that the world of thought and matter is not real, he does not mean it is non-existent. The world-appearance is and is-not. In the state of ignorance (our everyday consciousness) it is experienced, and it exists as it appears. In the state of illumination it is not experienced, and it ceases to exist. Shankara does not regard any experience as non-existent as long as it is experienced, but he very naturally draws a distinction between the private illusions of the individual and the universal or world-illusion. The former he calls pratibhasika (illusory) and the latter vyavaharika (phenomenal). For example, a man's dreams are his private illusions; when he wakes, they cease. But the universal illusion - the illusion of world - phenomenon - continues throughout a man's whole waking life; unless he becomes aware of the Truth through the knowledge of Brahman. ......../..........Here, then, we are confronted by a paradox - the world is and is not. It is neither real nor non-existent. ....../......The concept of Maya applies only to the phenomenal world......./...... It is not non-existent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon which it depends for its existence". pages 9,10 Shankara's Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Vikevachudamani, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, 1947 (I'm sure you know that Shankara is the big guns). But he also confirms ZD's experience in this quote.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2015 18:53:39 GMT -5
I'd been trying to figure out a better way to ask the question of "relative" reality. I ran across this way to put it this morning. For me ZD and L are saying different things. To say that time and space are imaginary, isn't that affirming their non-existence, and therefore isn't this denying our experience of them? About a month ago E finally said, relatively reality exists (he made some stipulations, concerning, I believe, it having nothing to do with any "middle layer"). I need some help from gopal , if only now exists, how'd all that money get in your checking account? (or savings or retirement account). ............................ "When Shankara says that the world of thought and matter is not real, he does not mean it is non-existent. The world-appearance is and is-not. In the state of ignorance (our everyday consciousness) it is experienced, and it exists as it appears. In the state of illumination it is not experienced, and it ceases to exist. Shankara does not regard any experience as non-existent as long as it is experienced, but he very naturally draws a distinction between the private illusions of the individual and the universal or world-illusion. The former he calls pratibhasika (illusory) and the latter vyavaharika (phenomenal). For example, a man's dreams are his private illusions; when he wakes, they cease. But the universal illusion - the illusion of world - phenomenon - continues throughout a man's whole waking life; unless he becomes aware of the Truth through the knowledge of Brahman. ......../..........Here, then, we are confronted by a paradox - the world is and is not. It is neither real nor non-existent. ....../......The concept of Maya applies only to the phenomenal world......./...... It is not non-existent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon which it depends for its existence". pages 9,10 Shankara's Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Vikevachudamani, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, 1947 (I'm sure you know that Shankara is the big guns). But he also confirms ZD's experience in this quote. Yes, you're right ZD and I aren't saying exactly the same thing because I'm appealing to the intellect for the point that experience of phenomenon are deceptive. What I've written is part mind-stuff, part not mind stuff. In terms of time and matter this point about the deceptive nature of experience is not hard at all to understand. There really isn't a corresponding model of space that demonstrates the same point on a purely intellectual basis. This is what Shanky says as well "Maya applies only to the phenomenal world", The "Reality of Brahman" is a pointer, similar to the ideas of actuality or the happening or the now or Self or Oneness. The paradox is a creation of thinking, and your question about checking accounts mixes contexts between this "Reality" and time bound "Maya".
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 21, 2015 11:08:55 GMT -5
I'd been trying to figure out a better way to ask the question of "relative" reality. I ran across this way to put it this morning. For me ZD and L are saying different things. To say that time and space are imaginary, isn't that affirming their non-existence, and therefore isn't this denying our experience of them? About a month ago E finally said, relatively reality exists (he made some stipulations, concerning, I believe, it having nothing to do with any "middle layer"). I need some help from gopal , if only now exists, how'd all that money get in your checking account? (or savings or retirement account). ............................ "When Shankara says that the world of thought and matter is not real, he does not mean it is non-existent. The world-appearance is and is-not. In the state of ignorance (our everyday consciousness) it is experienced, and it exists as it appears. In the state of illumination it is not experienced, and it ceases to exist. Shankara does not regard any experience as non-existent as long as it is experienced, but he very naturally draws a distinction between the private illusions of the individual and the universal or world-illusion. The former he calls pratibhasika (illusory) and the latter vyavaharika (phenomenal). For example, a man's dreams are his private illusions; when he wakes, they cease. But the universal illusion - the illusion of world - phenomenon - continues throughout a man's whole waking life; unless he becomes aware of the Truth through the knowledge of Brahman. ......../..........Here, then, we are confronted by a paradox - the world is and is not. It is neither real nor non-existent. ....../......The concept of Maya applies only to the phenomenal world......./...... It is not non-existent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon which it depends for its existence". pages 9,10 Shankara's Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Vikevachudamani, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, 1947 (I'm sure you know that Shankara is the big guns). But he also confirms ZD's experience in this quote. Just before I got to the last line I thought, "Hey, that's a great way to translate Shankara's meaning." Ha ha. Yes, Shankara had a brilliant intellect which was brilliantly informed by his realizations. He is one of the brighter lights in the history of spiritual traditions.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 21, 2015 13:05:41 GMT -5
I'd been trying to figure out a better way to ask the question of "relative" reality. I ran across this way to put it this morning. For me ZD and L are saying different things. To say that time and space are imaginary, isn't that affirming their non-existence, and therefore isn't this denying our experience of them? About a month ago E finally said, relatively reality exists (he made some stipulations, concerning, I believe, it having nothing to do with any "middle layer"). I need some help from gopal , if only now exists, how'd all that money get in your checking account? (or savings or retirement account). ............................ "When Shankara says that the world of thought and matter is not real, he does not mean it is non-existent. The world-appearance is and is-not. In the state of ignorance (our everyday consciousness) it is experienced, and it exists as it appears. In the state of illumination it is not experienced, and it ceases to exist. Shankara does not regard any experience as non-existent as long as it is experienced, but he very naturally draws a distinction between the private illusions of the individual and the universal or world-illusion. The former he calls pratibhasika (illusory) and the latter vyavaharika (phenomenal). For example, a man's dreams are his private illusions; when he wakes, they cease. But the universal illusion - the illusion of world - phenomenon - continues throughout a man's whole waking life; unless he becomes aware of the Truth through the knowledge of Brahman. ......../..........Here, then, we are confronted by a paradox - the world is and is not. It is neither real nor non-existent. ....../......The concept of Maya applies only to the phenomenal world......./...... It is not non-existent, yet it differs from the Reality, the Brahman, upon which it depends for its existence". pages 9,10 Shankara's Crest Jewel of Discrimination, Vikevachudamani, translated by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher Isherwood, 1947 (I'm sure you know that Shankara is the big guns). But he also confirms ZD's experience in this quote. Just before I got to the last line I thought, "Hey, that's a great way to translate Shankara's meaning." Ha ha. Yes, Shankara had a brilliant intellect which was brilliantly informed by his realizations. He is one of the brighter lights in the history of spiritual traditions. Twenty-four years ago I got a little interested in Hebrew. In Genesis where it says man was made in God's image, the Hebrew word for image here means shadow. A lot can be unfolded from that.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 21, 2015 16:48:30 GMT -5
You are absolutely correct, and I owe you a deep debt of gratitude. The Ramana quote you posted several days ago connected several spiritual-tradition language dots, and made me realize that what I've been calling "flow" for a long time is what Ramana and the Vedantins call "sahaja Samadhi." It is not special. It is our ordinary life without the dominance of mind. It's like being a little kid again while retaining the full range of adult intellectual capability. It's like being at play all the time. I fully understand what happened to you when the switch flipped. It flipped for me in 1999. Freedom ensued; and it has remained like that ever since. I still meditate and ATA, but I never know when that will happen. Sometimes the body/mind is drawn to sit in silence for an hour or two, and at other times it's drawn to go for a hike while ATA'ing. I don't call it "a practice" because there is no one practicing to get anywhere or to attain anything. Life unfolds however it unfolds, and there is no objection to whatever happens. I've been very lucky in this lifetime and I've met some amazing people. The clearest guy I ever met was ZM Seung Sahn. The switch flipped for him at the age of 19 after a 100 day silent retreat. He was the first Zen Master I ever met in person (I would later meet dozens of others), and within 5 minutes I could see that he was free in a way that no one else I had ever met was free. Although I never liked the rigidity of the Zen format, Zen was very helpful because it showed me that it was possible to become free from the dominance of mind. Later, I met Gangaji and Adyashanti, and was shocked to hear them both say that you can't practice your way to being what you already are. I intellectually understood what they were saying, but it would require a realization before it could be fully understood through the body. You wrote that when the switch flipped, "I became who I was." I would state this slightly differently. I would say that you REALIZED what you ALREADY were. AAR, you know what you ARE, and that's what really matters. I know that what I am is writing these words to what I am, and you know it, too. Carry on. Perhaps practice which emphasizes states free from the dominance of mind makes it easier to recognize 'what you already are' when the switch is flipped ('grace')? Reefs reports the switch being flipped on the beach. I don't know if he practiced in any way, but I doubt it. Could be though, that he's just gifted with a mind that is able to be finely focused, concentrated, and flexible, so when the switch flipped the recognition of the natural state just was obvious. On the face of it, the question I ask is absurd because nothing at all would be needed to recognize who one already is. So that's it. So then what of all of this mental activity around self-improvement or seeking? Like surfing the web for hours to figure out how to mow the lawn. Just. Mow. The. Lawn. Pretty silly. No matter how much the mind of man is talked about here, nobody really understands what all is entailed within (?) our minds or how much it encompasses. Some of you are doing the self-same thing to it, that you tell others not to do.....y'know...that separation thingy? You're dissecting something that you can only play infinite guessing games about...this mind thing. You're talking but not really knowing which I think you'd readily agree but then you'd have to admit you know almost nothing yet claiming to know that much about mind which would seem inaccurate as heck to me.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 21, 2015 17:11:32 GMT -5
Perhaps practice which emphasizes states free from the dominance of mind makes it easier to recognize 'what you already are' when the switch is flipped ('grace')? Reefs reports the switch being flipped on the beach. I don't know if he practiced in any way, but I doubt it. Could be though, that he's just gifted with a mind that is able to be finely focused, concentrated, and flexible, so when the switch flipped the recognition of the natural state just was obvious. On the face of it, the question I ask is absurd because nothing at all would be needed to recognize who one already is. So that's it. So then what of all of this mental activity around self-improvement or seeking? Like surfing the web for hours to figure out how to mow the lawn. Just. Mow. The. Lawn. Pretty silly. No matter how much the mind of man is talked about here, nobody really understands what all is entailed within (?) our minds or how much it encompasses. Some of you are doing the self-same thing to it, that you tell others not to do.....y'know...that separation thingy? You're dissecting something that you can only play infinite guessing games about...this mind thing. You're talking but not really knowing which I think you'd readily agree but then you'd have to admit you know almost nothing yet claiming to know that much about mind which would seem inaccurate as heck to me. "The perfection of a man is to employ the mind as a mirror. The mirror grasps at nothing, it refuses nothing and it receives but does not keep." Jon-Jo
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 21, 2015 18:30:06 GMT -5
No matter how much the mind of man is talked about here, nobody really understands what all is entailed within (?) our minds or how much it encompasses. Some of you are doing the self-same thing to it, that you tell others not to do.....y'know...that separation thingy? You're dissecting something that you can only play infinite guessing games about...this mind thing. You're talking but not really knowing which I think you'd readily agree but then you'd have to admit you know almost nothing yet claiming to know that much about mind which would seem inaccurate as heck to me. "The perfection of a man is to employ the mind as a mirror. The mirror grasps at nothing, it refuses nothing and it receives but does not keep." Jon-Jo Jon-Jo? Who is that? i like the quote, though.
|
|