|
Post by zendancer on Apr 24, 2015 9:18:36 GMT -5
I was going to address the issue of beliefs on the practice thread, but decided that it deserved a thread of its own.
A recurring issue on the forum is people claiming that people who speak or write about non-duality have beliefs about non-duality or that non-duality is a belief system. Nothing could be further from the truth! There may be some people who have intellectually understood that non-duality is the underlying reality, and have beliefs about that or faith that direct experience is possible, but people who have had CC experiences or seen through fundamental illusions (such as selfhood) created by dualistic thinking DO NOT HAVE BELIEFS. I know that it's hard for people who have lots of ideas and beliefs to believe that some people don't have beliefs, but that is simply the case.
If we walk outside on a sunny cloudless day, we don't have to BELIEVE that its a sunny day and the sky is blue; we KNOW it. The experience of "what is" is direct and unmediated by thought. We see "what is." We describe what we see by saying, "It's a sunny cloudless day, and the sky is blue." In the same way, if we drink a Coca-Cola, we don't BELIEVE how it tastes; we KNOW how it tastes. In fact, it would be impossible to adequately describe with words what the taste of a coke IS.
IOW, we are so habituated to thinking ABOUT the world, that we forget the difference between direct experience (gnosis) and ideas ABOUT direct experience (episteme).
Many people on the forum have concluded that having beliefs and ideas ABOUT what's happening is less important than directly experiencing what's happening, and they are absolutely correct! Many people make this point incessantly, and I totally agree with them about this. However, they seem to lack various realizations that would free them from the idea that not having ideas is an ideal state of mind. Ironically, they seem to have lots of ideas about not having ideas. Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas, even the idea that not having ideas is the goal.
Body/minds through which SR occurs, directly discover/realize that personal selfhood is imaginary. They KNOW this in the same way that they KNOW how a coke tastes. They don't have a belief about it because what they discover is self evident in the same way that the taste of a coke is self evident.
All beliefs are intellectual; they are strongly-held ideas. For posters who have attained SR, non-duality is NOT an idea or a belief or a belief system, and it is NOT intellectual. The mind (intellect) cannot apprehend non-duality because it operates by making and manipulating abstract distinctions ABOUT reality. Something far deeper than mind is what sees the truth directly. Only after the truth is seen, does mind become informed ABOUT what was seen
Go outside and look at the sky. Who/What is seeing? THAT which is seeing is NOT the intellect, and THAT is what we are. What we are also includes the intellect, but the intellect does not have to be engaged. If we look with a still mind (a silent inactive quiescent intellect), THAT which sees sees "what is" prior to any act of distinction. The intellect can then be engaged, and "what is" can then be imagined as "a blue sky," but if the intellect is NOT engaged, no words or ideas are possible because the idea/image/symbol machine (the intellect) is temporarily inactive.
To sum up: If the intellect remains quiescent (Tzu's "still mind"), WHAT WE ARE sees, hears, feels, tastes, and smells "what is." Source sees and interacts with Itself directly. It KNOWS Itself directly. It does not need ideas, images, symbols, concepts, beliefs, or belief systems to see or know Itself. For sages Source is all there is
Those people who have recognized the trap of getting attached to concepts, ideas, and beliefs are definitely on the right track, but one more step is necessary. Sages take that step and become free from the mind, so they are able to freely utilize the mind without becoming attached to products of mind. This is why they do not need beliefs, and why they do not harbor beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Apr 24, 2015 16:42:34 GMT -5
I will write only about personal selfhood. Imo it is almost impossible to 'believe' that there is no personal self because this is *so* against common 'sense'... And if one lives from something deeper than mind (that is, no personal self) there isn't a need to have a belief about this. ...I have been feeling self as some kind of cloud for some time and I was wondering, is there anything under this cloud? While writing this I remembered the part of your book (I read some hours ago) about your noticing that some clouds appeared every afternoon at a mountain top, but not realizing what was happening beneath them... Maybe not much related but it looks like there seeing and living is the same thing.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 0:39:26 GMT -5
Post by jay17 on Apr 25, 2015 0:39:26 GMT -5
Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas, even the idea that not having ideas is the goal. 1. Yet what you have just expressed is an idea. So while you think\perceive you are free from ideas, you actually aren't. Using an idea, being attached to it, to state you are free from ideas, is a contradiction, though i am quite sure you will not agree because you are convinced you are free from ideas. Hence my theory\speculation\opinion\judgement, that Self Realization\Non-Duality is a belief system, just like every other religion\philosophy\concept\theory\idea about existence. And for me, it seems the key factor of why people perceive\state their version of existence is not a belief is due to them being utterly convinced it's absolute truth. As you said, people do not have to believe it's a sunny day, when they can see\know it's sunny. But how do they know...they know because they receive information from the environment and using their mind, they interpret the incoming signals from their sensors...eyes, and process the info into the mental image of a sunny sky and create a matching verbal equivalent of, "It's a sunny day." 2. If you have a low opinion of ideas and thinking, then this would explain your predilection for the precepts set forth in Self Realization philosophy. And as i always state, it is of no concern to me what a person chooses to retain in their mindtank if it does not adversely affect me. I do not have a low opinion of my ability to think and have ideas, so any religion\philosophy\teaching\concept\theory\ideas that condemns such natural abilities is of no interest to me. All beliefs are intellectual; they are strongly-held ideas. Not all ideas are strongly held. The level of holding strength is variable and is related to the value a person puts on the idea and how open they remain to incorporate new ideas. To claim 'all beliefs are strongly held' suggests a predisposition against beliefs and the thoughts and thinking that creates them. For posters who have attained SR, non-duality is NOT an idea or a belief or a belief system, and it is NOT intellectual. I agree, and a sincere, may that perception of existence serve them well, just don't bother trying to convince me it's the absolute truth about existence because i refuse to overlook the numerous discrepancies i see. The mind (intellect) cannot apprehend non-duality because it operates by making and manipulating abstract distinctions ABOUT reality. Perhaps this explains all the discrepancies i see when devotees use their minds to express what they have experienced. Though i have not noticed any consistent problems when expressing the things that have helped me heal and achieve a life of freedom, joy and peace. Numerous people seem to comprehend my explanations quite easily. Something far deeper than mind is what sees the truth directly. Only after the truth is seen, does mind become informed ABOUT what was seen What's the point when you just said mind cannot apprehend it. If we look with a still mind (a silent inactive quiescent intellect), THAT which sees sees "what is" prior to any act of distinction. But you're still observing existing with\though mind, it's just still. To sum up: If the intellect remains quiescent (Tzu's "still mind"), WHAT WE ARE sees, hears, feels, tastes, and smells "what is." Yep, the intellect\mind...then it's activated to process all the incoming data from sight, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling. What the hell is up with people who have such an aversion to their minds. Source sees and interacts with Itself directly. Ahh, you have me at a loss here, because i have no factual information about Source. Sure, i could accept what others say about it, i could construct my own ideas, but i have learnt that even if i am absloutely convinced i know the truth about Source, i may actually be wrong, so i choose not to create a specific beliefs about it, other than i am convinced there is some kind of intelligence that has created existence Sages take that step and become free from the mind, so they are able to freely utilize the mind without becoming attached to products of mind. All i see is contradiction, free from mind but continues to use it. As soon as a Sage states, they are free from mind, at that exact moment they are attached to the idea(created by mind) they just expressed. I also have not specified how much they are attached, but there is attachment. Again, what is this obsession with detaching oneself from their mind, what is their problem with it, especially when they can't stop using it to express they have a problem with it.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 2:19:50 GMT -5
Post by veter on Apr 25, 2015 2:19:50 GMT -5
I was going to address the issue of beliefs on the practice thread, but decided that it deserved a thread of its own. A recurring issue on the forum is people claiming that people who speak or write about non-duality have beliefs about non-duality or that non-duality is a belief system. Nothing could be further from the truth! There may be some people who have intellectually understood that non-duality is the underlying reality, and have beliefs about that or faith that direct experience is possible, but people who have had CC experiences or seen through fundamental illusions (such as selfhood) created by dualistic thinking DO NOT HAVE BELIEFS. I know that it's hard for people who have lots of ideas and beliefs to believe that some people don't have beliefs, but that is simply the case. If we walk outside on a sunny cloudless day, we don't have to BELIEVE that its a sunny day and the sky is blue; we KNOW it. The experience of "what is" is direct and unmediated by thought. We see "what is." We describe what we see by saying, "It's a sunny cloudless day, and the sky is blue." In the same way, if we drink a Coca-Cola, we don't BELIEVE how it tastes; we KNOW how it tastes. In fact, it would be impossible to adequately describe with words what the taste of a coke IS. IOW, we are so habituated to thinking ABOUT the world, that we forget the difference between direct experience (gnosis) and ideas ABOUT direct experience (episteme). Many people on the forum have concluded that having beliefs and ideas ABOUT what's happening is less important than directly experiencing what's happening, and they are absolutely correct! Many people make this point incessantly, and I totally agree with them about this. However, they seem to lack various realizations that would free them from the idea that not having ideas is an ideal state of mind. Ironically, they seem to have lots of ideas about not having ideas. Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas, even the idea that not having ideas is the goal. Body/minds through which SR occurs, directly discover/realize that personal selfhood is imaginary. They KNOW this in the same way that they KNOW how a coke tastes. They don't have a belief about it because what they discover is self evident in the same way that the taste of a coke is self evident. All beliefs are intellectual; they are strongly-held ideas. For posters who have attained SR, non-duality is NOT an idea or a belief or a belief system, and it is NOT intellectual. The mind (intellect) cannot apprehend non-duality because it operates by making and manipulating abstract distinctions ABOUT reality. Something far deeper than mind is what sees the truth directly. Only after the truth is seen, does mind become informed ABOUT what was seen Go outside and look at the sky. Who/What is seeing? THAT which is seeing is NOT the intellect, and THAT is what we are. What we are also includes the intellect, but the intellect does not have to be engaged. If we look with a still mind (a silent inactive quiescent intellect), THAT which sees sees "what is" prior to any act of distinction. The intellect can then be engaged, and "what is" can then be imagined as "a blue sky," but if the intellect is NOT engaged, no words or ideas are possible because the idea/image/symbol machine (the intellect) is temporarily inactive. To sum up: If the intellect remains quiescent (Tzu's "still mind"), WHAT WE ARE sees, hears, feels, tastes, and smells "what is." Source sees and interacts with Itself directly. It KNOWS Itself directly. It does not need ideas, images, symbols, concepts, beliefs, or belief systems to see or know Itself. For sages Source is all there is Those people who have recognized the trap of getting attached to concepts, ideas, and beliefs are definitely on the right track, but one more step is necessary. Sages take that step and become free from the mind, so they are able to freely utilize the mind without becoming attached to products of mind. This is why they do not need beliefs, and why they do not harbor beliefs. I like what you've said. But the idea about the source which sees should be recognized as idea too. "Not-two" - there is no two, where one can see another one
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 2:57:08 GMT -5
Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas Yep, the intellect\mind...then it's activated to process all the incoming data from sight, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling. What the hell is up with people who have such an aversion to their minds. Because it's activation and translation of the data are not necessary. The body can see, hear, feel, taste, smell and move with acute precision without such interference or hindrance.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 25, 2015 4:10:39 GMT -5
Non-duality must necessarily be a belief.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 4:21:56 GMT -5
Post by zin on Apr 25, 2015 4:21:56 GMT -5
Non-duality must necessarily be a belief. Maybe, in the beginning, it is presented as a belief that can be explored? I don't know its history or how people come to it. I was reading Rumi etc and much later I heard things like he is about nonduality.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 5:24:11 GMT -5
Post by lolly on Apr 25, 2015 5:24:11 GMT -5
Non-duality must necessarily be a belief. Maybe, in the beginning, it is presented as a belief that can be explored? I don't know its history or how people come to it. I was reading Rumi etc and much later I heard things like he is about nonduality. I think there's a kind of status thing Ok, cuz you come to a place like this, and they kinda test out who is SR or not SR, then we get the SR few as opposed to not SR, all with a context of no-self, so actually, with contradictions abound, SR doesn't actually answer anything such as 'it's not two'... Then, because there's nothing anyone can finger, it becomes a 'pointing'... and even though that's vaguely interesting, it's not life as it is... it's just another story about life. What I say is, we're alive now, need I state the obvious.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 5:28:07 GMT -5
Post by tzujanli on Apr 25, 2015 5:28:07 GMT -5
I was going to address the issue of beliefs on the practice thread, but decided that it deserved a thread of its own. A recurring issue on the forum is people claiming that people who speak or write about non-duality have beliefs about non-duality or that non-duality is a belief system. Nothing could be further from the truth! There may be some people who have intellectually understood that non-duality is the underlying reality, and have beliefs about that or faith that direct experience is possible, but people who have had CC experiences or seen through fundamental illusions (such as selfhood) created by dualistic thinking DO NOT HAVE BELIEFS. I know that it's hard for people who have lots of ideas and beliefs to believe that some people don't have beliefs, but that is simply the case. If we walk outside on a sunny cloudless day, we don't have to BELIEVE that its a sunny day and the sky is blue; we KNOW it. The experience of "what is" is direct and unmediated by thought. We see "what is." We describe what we see by saying, "It's a sunny cloudless day, and the sky is blue." In the same way, if we drink a Coca-Cola, we don't BELIEVE how it tastes; we KNOW how it tastes. In fact, it would be impossible to adequately describe with words what the taste of a coke IS. IOW, we are so habituated to thinking ABOUT the world, that we forget the difference between direct experience (gnosis) and ideas ABOUT direct experience (episteme). Many people on the forum have concluded that having beliefs and ideas ABOUT what's happening is less important than directly experiencing what's happening, and they are absolutely correct! Many people make this point incessantly, and I totally agree with them about this. However, they seem to lack various realizations that would free them from the idea that not having ideas is an ideal state of mind. Ironically, they seem to have lots of ideas about not having ideas. Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas, even the idea that not having ideas is the goal. Body/minds through which SR occurs, directly discover/realize that personal selfhood is imaginary. They KNOW this in the same way that they KNOW how a coke tastes. They don't have a belief about it because what they discover is self evident in the same way that the taste of a coke is self evident. All beliefs are intellectual; they are strongly-held ideas. For posters who have attained SR, non-duality is NOT an idea or a belief or a belief system, and it is NOT intellectual. The mind (intellect) cannot apprehend non-duality because it operates by making and manipulating abstract distinctions ABOUT reality. Something far deeper than mind is what sees the truth directly. Only after the truth is seen, does mind become informed ABOUT what was seen Go outside and look at the sky. Who/What is seeing? THAT which is seeing is NOT the intellect, and THAT is what we are. What we are also includes the intellect, but the intellect does not have to be engaged. If we look with a still mind (a silent inactive quiescent intellect), THAT which sees sees "what is" prior to any act of distinction. The intellect can then be engaged, and "what is" can then be imagined as "a blue sky," but if the intellect is NOT engaged, no words or ideas are possible because the idea/image/symbol machine (the intellect) is temporarily inactive. To sum up: If the intellect remains quiescent (Tzu's "still mind"), WHAT WE ARE sees, hears, feels, tastes, and smells "what is." Source sees and interacts with Itself directly. It KNOWS Itself directly. It does not need ideas, images, symbols, concepts, beliefs, or belief systems to see or know Itself. For sages Source is all there isThose people who have recognized the trap of getting attached to concepts, ideas, and beliefs are definitely on the right track, but one more step is necessary. Sages take that step and become free from the mind, so they are able to freely utilize the mind without becoming attached to products of mind. This is why they do not need beliefs, and why they do not harbor beliefs. Thou dost protest too much.. i know you don't like it, but.. nonduality is a belief about the experiences you label nonduality.. if you have the experience, like walking out into the sunlight, THAT is what happened, 'you' choose how you're going to describe it and whether or not you're going to attach to and defend that choice .. as soon as you or anyone says it HAS to be this way or that way, the beliefs are already attached to and openness is closed.. Sometimes, when you're not expressing your attachment, you describe your experiences with a fluid and dynamic clarity that is sage-worthy, but.. at times like this, when you choose to defend your beliefs, the emotion and attachment distort the clarity by insisting that it 'must' be 'your' way..
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 5:50:27 GMT -5
Post by zin on Apr 25, 2015 5:50:27 GMT -5
Maybe, in the beginning, it is presented as a belief that can be explored? I don't know its history or how people come to it. I was reading Rumi etc and much later I heard things like he is about nonduality. I think there's a kind of status thing Ok, cuz you come to a place like this, and they kinda test out who is SR or not SR, then we get the SR few as opposed to not SR, all with a context of no-self, so actually, with contradictions abound, SR doesn't actually answer anything such as 'it's not two'... For quite a time I didn't understand that the main subject was SR on this forum (and was it always so, I don't know).. I am not SR and don't have much to say about it, so I write different stuff when I write.. Maybe it looks like a limiting thing that things are mostly evaluated according to SR standard.. but as I said (about myself), you can still talk what you want? or do I talk irrelevantly now?.. At the same time I'm saying that to direct attention to SR as a subject is good (imo) because I don't come across this attitude in too many places. For me nonduality does not negate "we're alive now", or does not negate body-mind experience. But I must say that *I don't think about everything I hear*, like I don't think about words like "illusion" "appearance" "nonvolition"... For me nonduality simply points to a deeper place in us which all of us share and can 'live from'.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 8:29:06 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2015 8:29:06 GMT -5
I think there's a kind of status thing Ok, cuz you come to a place like this, and they kinda test out who is SR or not SR, then we get the SR few as opposed to not SR, all with a context of no-self, so actually, with contradictions abound, SR doesn't actually answer anything such as 'it's not two'... For quite a time I didn't understand that the main subject was SR on this forum (and was it always so, I don't know).. I am not SR and don't have much to say about it, so I write different stuff when I write.. Maybe it looks like a limiting thing that things are mostly evaluated according to SR standard.. but as I said (about myself), you can still talk what you want? or do I talk irrelevantly now?.. At the same time I'm saying that to direct attention to SR as a subject is good (imo) because I don't come across this attitude in too many places. For me nonduality does not negate "we're alive now", or does not negate body-mind experience. But I must say that *I don't think about everything I hear*, like I don't think about words like "illusion" "appearance" "nonvolition"... For me nonduality simply points to a deeper place in us which all of us share and can 'live from'. Exactly.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 8:30:10 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Apr 25, 2015 8:30:10 GMT -5
I think there's a kind of status thing Ok, cuz you come to a place like this, and they kinda test out who is SR or not SR, then we get the SR few as opposed to not SR, all with a context of no-self, so actually, with contradictions abound, SR doesn't actually answer anything such as 'it's not two'... For quite a time I didn't understand that the main subject was SR on this forum (and was it always so, I don't know).. I am not SR and don't have much to say about it, so I write different stuff when I write.. Maybe it looks like a limiting thing that things are mostly evaluated according to SR standard.. but as I said (about myself), you can still talk what you want? or do I talk irrelevantly now?.. At the same time I'm saying that to direct attention to SR as a subject is good (imo) because I don't come across this attitude in too many places. For me nonduality does not negate "we're alive now", or does not negate body-mind experience. But I must say that *I don't think about everything I hear*, like I don't think about words like "illusion" "appearance" "nonvolition"... For me nonduality simply points to a deeper place in us which all of us share and can 'live from'. Yes, it points to the indivisible nature of what presents to our senses and what it is that we are. As veter pointed out, in seeing/saying "One", there are two, which is why not two can only point indirectly at what is ineffable and isn't subject to apprehension by conceptual structure. At face value, our senses report a world of clear distinction, division and limitation, and as not two doesn't point "to" or define a "what" or a "where", and as what it refers to indirectly is indescribable, it's not intellectually defensible. This isn't to say that people can't form beliefs based on intellectually indefensible ideas -- there are quite obviously many examples of that. But the pointer of not two is at the root of an extensive complex of culture involving practices, history, art and even direct teachings. What these all have in common is completely anathema to belief, and that's the admonition not to take any idea on faith, but to investigate any and all ideas and sensations for oneself to ascertain how one is oriented to them.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 10:51:50 GMT -5
Post by zin on Apr 25, 2015 10:51:50 GMT -5
For quite a time I didn't understand that the main subject was SR on this forum (and was it always so, I don't know).. I am not SR and don't have much to say about it, so I write different stuff when I write.. Maybe it looks like a limiting thing that things are mostly evaluated according to SR standard.. but as I said (about myself), you can still talk what you want? or do I talk irrelevantly now?.. At the same time I'm saying that to direct attention to SR as a subject is good (imo) because I don't come across this attitude in too many places. For me nonduality does not negate "we're alive now", or does not negate body-mind experience. But I must say that *I don't think about everything I hear*, like I don't think about words like "illusion" "appearance" "nonvolition"... For me nonduality simply points to a deeper place in us which all of us share and can 'live from'. Yes, it points to the indivisible nature of what presents to our senses and what it is that we are. As veter pointed out, in seeing/saying "One", there are two, which is why not two can only point indirectly at what is ineffable and isn't subject to apprehension by conceptual structure. At face value, our senses report a world of clear distinction, division and limitation, and as not two doesn't point "to" or define a "what" or a "where", and as what it refers to indirectly is indescribable, it's not intellectually defensible. This isn't to say that people can't form beliefs based on intellectually indefensible ideas -- there are quite obviously many examples of that. But the pointer of not two is at the root of an extensive complex of culture involving practices, history, art and even direct teachings. What these all have in common is completely anathema to belief, and that's the admonition not to take any idea on faith, but to investigate any and all ideas and sensations for oneself to ascertain how one is oriented to them. I have a somewhat related thing in my mind. When I first joined my Sufi web group I had some depression and anxiety problems. At that time I had absolutely no idea about why they were discussing "personal self". I was only listening to their talks like "you are *already* supported by the universe, otherwise you wouldn't be living" and feeling some relief. Much later I began to wonder about 'self', began to look at self instead of problems & attractions of life.. What I am saying (again) is that a belief about self is quite unlikely to be held.. It seems to me, you either turn towards and look at the issue, or not.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 11:28:00 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2015 11:28:00 GMT -5
Real freedom lies beyond ALL ideas, even the idea that not having ideas is the goal. 1. Yet what you have just expressed is an idea. So while you think\perceive you are free from ideas, you actually aren't. Using an idea, being attached to it, to state you are free from ideas, is a contradiction, though i am quite sure you will not agree because you are convinced you are free from ideas. Hence my theory\speculation\opinion\judgement, that Self Realization\Non-Duality is a belief system, just like every other religion\philosophy\concept\theory\idea about existence. And for me, it seems the key factor of why people perceive\state their version of existence is not a belief is due to them being utterly convinced it's absolute truth. As you said, people do not have to believe it's a sunny day, when they can see\know it's sunny. But how do they know...they know because they receive information from the environment and using their mind, they interpret the incoming signals from their sensors...eyes, and process the info into the mental image of a sunny sky and create a matching verbal equivalent of, "It's a sunny day." 2. If you have a low opinion of ideas and thinking, then this would explain your predilection for the precepts set forth in Self Realization philosophy. And as i always state, it is of no concern to me what a person chooses to retain in their mindtank if it does not adversely affect me. I do not have a low opinion of my ability to think and have ideas, so any religion\philosophy\teaching\concept\theory\ideas that condemns such natural abilities is of no interest to me. All beliefs are intellectual; they are strongly-held ideas. Not all ideas are strongly held. The level of holding strength is variable and is related to the value a person puts on the idea and how open they remain to incorporate new ideas. To claim 'all beliefs are strongly held' suggests a predisposition against beliefs and the thoughts and thinking that creates them. For posters who have attained SR, non-duality is NOT an idea or a belief or a belief system, and it is NOT intellectual. I agree, and a sincere, may that perception of existence serve them well, just don't bother trying to convince me it's the absolute truth about existence because i refuse to overlook the numerous discrepancies i see. The mind (intellect) cannot apprehend non-duality because it operates by making and manipulating abstract distinctions ABOUT reality. Perhaps this explains all the discrepancies i see when devotees use their minds to express what they have experienced. Though i have not noticed any consistent problems when expressing the things that have helped me heal and achieve a life of freedom, joy and peace. Numerous people seem to comprehend my explanations quite easily. Something far deeper than mind is what sees the truth directly. Only after the truth is seen, does mind become informed ABOUT what was seen What's the point when you just said mind cannot apprehend it. If we look with a still mind (a silent inactive quiescent intellect), THAT which sees sees "what is" prior to any act of distinction. But you're still observing existing with\though mind, it's just still. To sum up: If the intellect remains quiescent (Tzu's "still mind"), WHAT WE ARE sees, hears, feels, tastes, and smells "what is." Yep, the intellect\mind...then it's activated to process all the incoming data from sight, hearing, feeling, tasting, smelling. What the hell is up with people who have such an aversion to their minds. Source sees and interacts with Itself directly. Ahh, you have me at a loss here, because i have no factual information about Source. Sure, i could accept what others say about it, i could construct my own ideas, but i have learnt that even if i am absloutely convinced i know the truth about Source, i may actually be wrong, so i choose not to create a specific beliefs about it, other than i am convinced there is some kind of intelligence that has created existence Sages take that step and become free from the mind, so they are able to freely utilize the mind without becoming attached to products of mind. All i see is contradiction, free from mind but continues to use it. As soon as a Sage states, they are free from mind, at that exact moment they are attached to the idea(created by mind) they just expressed. I also have not specified how much they are attached, but there is attachment. Again, what is this obsession with detaching oneself from their mind, what is their problem with it, especially when they can't stop using it to express they have a problem with it. Sometimes words are used to point beyond themselves. The words of a menu point to food that is available at a restaurant. The words of a cake recipe point to a particular result if one follows the directions. The words of the OP point to a way of life that cannot be imagined. They were written solely for people who are interested in what can be discovered when attention is regularly shifted away from the intellect. Some people will be interested in that, and some won't. Cheers.
|
|
|
Beliefs
Apr 25, 2015 11:30:37 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2015 11:30:37 GMT -5
For quite a time I didn't understand that the main subject was SR on this forum (and was it always so, I don't know).. I am not SR and don't have much to say about it, so I write different stuff when I write.. Maybe it looks like a limiting thing that things are mostly evaluated according to SR standard.. but as I said (about myself), you can still talk what you want? or do I talk irrelevantly now?.. At the same time I'm saying that to direct attention to SR as a subject is good (imo) because I don't come across this attitude in too many places. For me nonduality does not negate "we're alive now", or does not negate body-mind experience. But I must say that *I don't think about everything I hear*, like I don't think about words like "illusion" "appearance" "nonvolition"... For me nonduality simply points to a deeper place in us which all of us share and can 'live from'. Yes, it points to the indivisible nature of what presents to our senses and what it is that we are. As veter pointed out, in seeing/saying "One", there are two, which is why not two can only point indirectly at what is ineffable and isn't subject to apprehension by conceptual structure. At face value, our senses report a world of clear distinction, division and limitation, and as not two doesn't point "to" or define a "what" or a "where", and as what it refers to indirectly is indescribable, it's not intellectually defensible. This isn't to say that people can't form beliefs based on intellectually indefensible ideas -- there are quite obviously many examples of that. But the pointer of not two is at the root of an extensive complex of culture involving practices, history, art and even direct teachings. What these all have in common is completely anathema to belief, and that's the admonition not to take any idea on faith, but to investigate any and all ideas and sensations for oneself to ascertain how one is oriented to them. Yes.
|
|