|
Post by zendancer on Oct 9, 2015 14:56:03 GMT -5
Here's a question about SR. What we call "SR" could also be called "TR"--THIS realization--the realization that who we are is the cosmos, or isness, or THIS--the whole shebang. I'm curious about what brings about TR in people who never felt as if they were "little people inside their heads" who controlled the body and made things happen. In the case of this body/mind there was always a strong sense of a "me," as if I were a little person inside the head looking out through the eyes, who moved the body around, had motives, thoughts, feelings, and sensory perception, and made things happen. After an initial CC experience, it became obvious that what I had thought was an objective reality "out there" composed of things and events located in space and time was an illusion, and that reality was a unified, infinite, whole. After that initial experience, I knew that I was one-with THAT, but the "me" was still intact. I felt like "I" had had an experience of cosmic consciousness and had been allowed by Grace to see what was behind the conventional appearances of the world. My goal then became psychological unity with THAT. I wanted to FEEL and BE the state of oneness that I had felt for a short period of time during the CC experience. During the next fifteen years I had many unity-consciousness experiences of oneness, but they were all transitory, and the "me" (the little guy in the head) always returned. I call this sense of having a "me" "a hard-core sense of selfhood." Apparently some people do not have this same kind of hard-core sense of selfhood. In 1999, after several days of hiking in the mountains doing ATA-T, I had a deep emotional experience. Afterwards, consciousness looked within, and discovered that the "me" had vanished. The "little guy" was gone. Once the little guy was gone it then became obvious that the "little guy" had never existed; it had been totally imaginary. It also became obvious that what I was was what remained in the absence of the "little guy"--THIS. Discovering that I was THIS ended the spiritual search and resulted in freedom. Inside and outside were seen to be one; oneness with isness was felt; and the "little guy" never returned. Whatever "I" did after that day, is what THIS did, and this doing continued as a kind of flow of being. With this story in mind, I'm curious how this realization occurs in other people who never had a strong sense of being a little person inside a body making things happen. There are at least 6 to 10 people on this forum who have attained TR (THIS realization), and I'd like to know what happened that allowed them to see through the illusion of personal selfhood. Did they have a "me" that suddenly disappeared, as in my case, or did something else happen that made the obvious suddenly become obvious? Sixteen years ago, having had no previous interest whatsoever in anything remotely spiritual I had my first 'THIS realisation'. I say first, but when it happened it had a familiarity about it which was so powerful that I was convinced that this was how things really were. (From here I immersed myself in a steady meditation practice, read all I could find on anything related to the experience - both eastern and western - and for a while became part of a Buddhist group.) After several 'openings' it became clear that habits of mind, conceptual thought and belief were responsible for generating/perpetuating a veil over the natural, wide-open, felt-sense of existence simply happening of its own accord. Coming up to date, I have to report that the me has not completely vanished and is unlikely to - it is a phenomenon that has a certain (practical) persistence to it. But it can be seen to be insubstantial and intermittent. In its context I don't actually see it as a problem (which leads me to wonder if the me is experienced differently or more problematic in some cases.) Once the felt-sense of Reality as the ground of appearance/manifestation is recognised (not just intellectually but as feeling-realisation), what we might call intermittent secondary identification (father, musician, person, me…) is not an issue. These 'roles' are nested within true identity, within THIS. True identity always comes out on top, how can it not? Moondance: From talking to other people on this pathless path, I gather that the felt/imagined sense of "me" can indeed vary somewhat. What you call "intermittent secondary identification" seems to be a good way to describe our everyday identity--name, familial relationship, occupation, characteristics of the body, personality, etc--, and that seems to continue (except in samadhi, sleep, or CC experiences) no matter how deep one's realization of THIS. If someone calls one's name, one responds accordingly. Fortunately, people who have a "hard-core" sense of selfhood (as "a little person inside the body" looking at an "outside world") can lose this strong sense of imagined separation completely and permanently. Apparently, people who do NOT have such a "hard-core" sense of identity, do not have such a strong sense of separation to lose. FWIW, I can state with great certainty that the felt sense of identity was never the same after that day in 1999 when "the little guy" finally vanished. Perhaps needless to say, I'm very happy that "the little guy" went away, and never came back. Ha ha.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Oct 9, 2015 15:06:01 GMT -5
Sixteen years ago, having had no previous interest whatsoever in anything remotely spiritual I had my first 'THIS realisation'. I say first, but when it happened it had a familiarity about it which was so powerful that I was convinced that this was how things really were. (From here I immersed myself in a steady meditation practice, read all I could find on anything related to the experience - both eastern and western - and for a while became part of a Buddhist group.) After several 'openings' it became clear that habits of mind, conceptual thought and belief were responsible for generating/perpetuating a veil over the natural, wide-open, felt-sense of existence simply happening of its own accord. Coming up to date, I have to report that the me has not completely vanished and is unlikely to - it is a phenomenon that has a certain (practical) persistence to it. But it can be seen to be insubstantial and intermittent. In its context I don't actually see it as a problem (which leads me to wonder if the me is experienced differently or more problematic in some cases.) Once the felt-sense of Reality as the ground of appearance/manifestation is recognised (not just intellectually but as feeling-realisation), what we might call intermittent secondary identification (father, musician, person, me…) is not an issue. These 'roles' are nested within true identity, within THIS. True identity always comes out on top, how can it not? Moondance: From talking to other people on this pathless path, I gather that the felt/imagined sense of "me" can indeed vary somewhat. What you call "intermittent secondary identification" seems to be a good way to describe our everyday identity--name, familial relationship, occupation, characteristics of the body, personality, etc--, and that seems to continue (except in samadhi, sleep, or CC experiences) no matter how deep one's realization of THIS. If someone calls one's name, one responds accordingly. Fortunately, people who have a "hard-core" sense of selfhood (as "a little person inside the body" looking at an "outside world") can lose this strong sense of imagined separation completely and permanently. Apparently, people who do NOT have such a "hard-core" sense of identity, do not have such a strong sense of separation to lose. FWIW, I can state with great certainty that the felt sense of identity was never the same after that day in 1999 when "the little guy" finally vanished. Perhaps needless to say, I'm very happy that "the little guy" went away, and never came back. Ha ha. ZD, is the 'I thought' in Ramana Maharshi terms, the same as this 'little person inside the body' you speak of? For example, you have no 'I thought' any more, even intermittantly?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 9, 2015 15:51:46 GMT -5
Moondance: From talking to other people on this pathless path, I gather that the felt/imagined sense of "me" can indeed vary somewhat. What you call "intermittent secondary identification" seems to be a good way to describe our everyday identity--name, familial relationship, occupation, characteristics of the body, personality, etc--, and that seems to continue (except in samadhi, sleep, or CC experiences) no matter how deep one's realization of THIS. If someone calls one's name, one responds accordingly. Fortunately, people who have a "hard-core" sense of selfhood (as "a little person inside the body" looking at an "outside world") can lose this strong sense of imagined separation completely and permanently. Apparently, people who do NOT have such a "hard-core" sense of identity, do not have such a strong sense of separation to lose. FWIW, I can state with great certainty that the felt sense of identity was never the same after that day in 1999 when "the little guy" finally vanished. Perhaps needless to say, I'm very happy that "the little guy" went away, and never came back. Ha ha. ZD, is the 'I thought' in Ramana Maharshi terms, the same as this 'little person inside the body' you speak of? For example, you have no 'I thought' any more, even intermittantly? No, no. I have "I" thoughts all the time, and they refer to a body named "Bob," but they are no longer imagined to be generated by an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. "I" am THIS manifesting through a particular human form. If I meet someone new, and they ask me who I am, I will respond, "I'm Bob," but if someone who is searching for the truth asks me that question, I will respond, "I am you," or "I am THIS (spreading my arms open to indicate what has no boundary)," or "I am what just asked the question." IOW, I am the same thing that you are--the entire process of reality.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Oct 9, 2015 16:16:41 GMT -5
ZD, is the 'I thought' in Ramana Maharshi terms, the same as this 'little person inside the body' you speak of? For example, you have no 'I thought' any more, even intermittantly? No, no. I have "I" thoughts all the time, and they refer to a body named "Bob," but they are no longer imagined to be generated by an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. "I" am THIS manifesting through a particular human form. If I meet someone new, and they ask me who I am, I will respond, "I'm Bob," but if someone who is searching for the truth asks me that question, I will respond, "I am you," or "I am THIS (spreading my arms open to indicate what has no boundary)," or "I am what just asked the question." IOW, I am the same thing that you are--the entire process of reality.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:31:01 GMT -5
ZD, is the 'I thought' in Ramana Maharshi terms, the same as this 'little person inside the body' you speak of? For example, you have no 'I thought' any more, even intermittantly? No, no. I have "I" thoughts all the time, and they refer to a body named "Bob," but they are no longer imagined to be generated by an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. "I" am THIS manifesting through a particular human form. If I meet someone new, and they ask me who I am, I will respond, "I'm Bob," but if someone who is searching for the truth asks me that question, I will respond, "I am you," or "I am THIS (spreading my arms open to indicate what has no boundary)," or "I am what just asked the question." IOW, I am the same thing that you are--the entire process of reality. I am THIS(World) is what we call a 'human being'. It is the knowing you exist and the identification with Bob as a human, a person, an individual. When you only know you exist, you forget Bob and when you only know Bob, you forget you exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:37:59 GMT -5
No, 'Pulling' means pulling yourself when you loose passion. When you are in passion, you don't need to pull yourself, it's a pleasant movement. So does it mean forcing yourself? Really, you need to find another word, please. Lifting may be a more appropriate word. As in, he has to lift himself up to the task that he set himself, because the original fire and momentum that started it, has waned. The term pull would actually be coming from the view of the end point. In the example of learning a new language there is no real end point, so it's natural that waning would happen.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:42:23 GMT -5
Unfortunately, I'd fit right in with that crowd. I had you and Marie up and dancing with the couple at 1.14
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 16:55:57 GMT -5
No, no. I have "I" thoughts all the time, and they refer to a body named "Bob," but they are no longer imagined to be generated by an entity inside a body looking at an outside world. "I" am THIS manifesting through a particular human form. If I meet someone new, and they ask me who I am, I will respond, "I'm Bob," but if someone who is searching for the truth asks me that question, I will respond, "I am you," or "I am THIS (spreading my arms open to indicate what has no boundary)," or "I am what just asked the question." IOW, I am the same thing that you are--the entire process of reality. I am THIS(World) is what we call a 'human being'. It is the knowing you exist and the identification with Bob as a human, a person, an individual. When you only know you exist, you forget Bob and when you only know Bob, you forget you exist. Everything is trying to help you see that you already know that the whole world and beyond is actually your body. The resistance set up to deny that is in itself perfect, though it's also emotionally exhausting. Do yourself a big favour and take yourself off of invisible in this forum Source.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 17:04:28 GMT -5
I think it's about time we reeled you in. Hey, trout out to us if there's anything on the line. All that space in between makes it hard to see for sure. Cod always be just how it's manta be..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 17:16:56 GMT -5
I am THIS(World) is what we call a 'human being'. It is the knowing you exist and the identification with Bob as a human, a person, an individual. When you only know you exist, you forget Bob and when you only know Bob, you forget you exist. Everything is trying to help you see that you already know that the whole world and beyond is actually your body. The resistance set up to deny that is in itself perfect, though it's also emotionally exhausting. Do yourself a big favour and take yourself off of invisible in this forum Source. My relationship with things and my conduct in life depend upon the way in which I understand things. If that is true for you as well and you know that I am 'actually your body', then why is it important for you to have 'your body' take itself off of invisible?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 17:38:15 GMT -5
Everything is trying to help you see that you already know that the whole world and beyond is actually your body. The resistance set up to deny that is in itself perfect, though it's also emotionally exhausting. Do yourself a big favour and take yourself off of invisible in this forum Source. My relationship with things and my conduct in life depend upon the way in which I understand things. If that is true for you as well and you know that I am 'actually your body', then why is it important for you to have me take myself off of invisible? I know the psychology felt by staying invisible and the freedom and trust felt by coming off of it. I offer the same to you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 17:48:13 GMT -5
My relationship with things and my conduct in life depend upon the way in which I understand things. If that is true for you as well and you know that I am 'actually your body', then why is it important for you to have me take myself off of invisible? I know the psychology felt by staying invisible and the freedom and trust felt by coming off of it. I offer the same to you. But your understanding, your knowledge is that I(world and beyond) is actually your body, yes? So why are you relating to your body as if it lacks something; freedom and trust? How would you describe that kind of behavior towards your own body, that you have something it doesn't?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 9, 2015 18:08:10 GMT -5
I know the psychology felt by staying invisible and the freedom and trust felt by coming off of it. I offer the same to you. But your understanding, your knowledge is that I(world and beyond) is actually your body, yes? So why are you relating to your body as if it lacks something; freedom and trust? How would you describe that kind of behavior towards your own body, that you have something it doesn't? I don't think that you understand. We're talking 3 or 4 years ago when I deliberately stayed invisible so that I could move within this forum and it not be known that I was here by the other participants. Once it was decided that that illusiveness was no longer enticing for me, I have stayed visible for the majority of the time. Any invisibility has only been for a few hours in length since. The psychological recognitions made in such a move, are on offer. Take it or leave it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 9, 2015 18:39:25 GMT -5
Does consciousness use a machine to fabricate space, or how does that work? I meant to say space exist in consciousness(Perceiver) not outside! Or space doesn't exist in itself! In what form would you say it exists in consciousness?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 9, 2015 18:41:44 GMT -5
I spose I should ask, what does 'pulling' mean? Pulling happen when there is no passion, when there is passion, you don't need to pull yourself! That doesn't help me understand what you mean by 'pulling'.
|
|