jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 22, 2015 0:23:39 GMT -5
So, guys..which is what?
I'm sure it's been heavily debated in here but I haven't been keeping up and I'm interested and also mildly confused. I guess I felt that suddenly I wasn't sure about what I'm doing. Self improvement has definetely been my thing but I like to think that that's shifted. Not entirely, mind you, because there's the idea that a healthy self is better than a not so healthy self so in some ways there doesn't have to be a conflict (said the self).
So there's the process of becoming more conscious and in that process also becoming more aware of a more authentic self. This, to the self, would be self improvement. At the same time there is deconstructing of ideas of self going on. "A more authentic self" is made of the same stuff that an unhealthy self is. And it seems to me one can walk in this jungle forever, never knowing what's doing the looking. I guess my question is weather you believe there is any correlation between becoming more conscious and SR. Is a fully conscious human SR?
|
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 22, 2015 1:31:02 GMT -5
Does this topic even make sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jun 22, 2015 2:36:51 GMT -5
I would say any kind of focus, or action taken, that looks principally at internal processes instead of external conditions, is 'self-improvement'.
So whether it's affirmations, EFT, NLP, self-inquiry or meditation.....it's all self-improvement because it's all focused on internal processes, and it all changes physiology. In this sense non-duality teachings are just one facet or aspect of self-improvement, and Self-Realization is a label given to a particular kind of physiological change that may happen through practices or may not.
One thing that caught my eye is when you said 'I like to think that that has shifted'. That's interesting, because non-duality seekers sometimes have a tendency to put non-duality 'above' self-improvement in subtle or not so subtle ways. That's why it can be useful to flip the ideas round and notice that non-duality is still selling 'improvement' (there's no bigger improvement that 'the end of all suffering'!), it is still selling physiological change, it is still advising to look within.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 9:21:01 GMT -5
So, guys..which is what? I'm sure it's been heavily debated in here but I haven't been keeping up and I'm interested and also mildly confused. I guess I felt that suddenly I wasn't sure about what I'm doing. Self improvement has definetely been my thing but I like to think that that's shifted. Not entirely, mind you, because there's the idea that a healthy self is better than a not so healthy self so in some ways there doesn't have to be a conflict (said the self). So there's the process of becoming more conscious and in that process also becoming more aware of a more authentic self. This, to the self, would be self improvement. At the same time there is deconstructing of ideas of self going on. "A more authentic self" is made of the same stuff that an unhealthy self is. And it seems to me one can walk in this jungle forever, never knowing what's doing the looking. I guess my question is weather you believe there is any correlation between becoming more conscious and SR. Is a fully conscious human SR? self and Self exist on discontinuous levels, that's why this question arises at all. There is the Zen story of the Master seeing the disciple meditating. Master says, Why are you meditating? the answer comes, in order to become enlightened. Master picks up two bricks and begins to rub them together. Disciple asks, What are you doing? Master says, by rubbing the two bricks together, I intend to make a mirror. Disciple exclaims, Master! You will never make a mirror in such a manner! And Master, answers, And you will never become enlightened by meditating in such a manner. Two discontinuous levels. Now, I know that doesn't suit the nonduality bunch, there is only Oneness. But then, there isn't, obviously. The nondual bunch says the separation is merely imaginary, ya-da, ya-da, ya-da. But practically speaking, there is sorta twoness. The problem is how to reconcile the oneness with the twoness. There is absolutely nothing that self can do to make the trip from self to Self. There is no traversing time and space to get from one level to the other. You can't rub two bricks together to make a mirror. No amount of fixing self will get you to Self. But yes, by becoming more conscious, this jump from one level to the higher can take place. How? Part of our being already exists on the higher level (not, self/ego/personality/cultural self/imaginary self). But imaginary doesn't mean a wispy ephemeral nothing like smoke disappearing into the atmosphere. Ego is a pretty tough old bastard. |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 23, 2015 11:50:18 GMT -5
Exactly. That's also my take. I wonder if ego is equally tough in everyone. From some teachers I read a lot about awareness being all, and that all the other stuff is "just" thought forms, clouds passing by. While that may be true, in a sense, the "just" isn't exactly helpful for most seekers. It feels and acts very real and going into it rather than away from it is becoming conscious and noticing the nature of it. Then, perhaps, you'll be in a position to call it wispy and ephemeral.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2015 12:01:53 GMT -5
Exactly. That's also my take. I wonder if ego is equally tough in everyone. From some teachers I read a lot about awareness being all, and that all the other stuff is "just" thought forms, clouds passing by. While that may be true, in a sense, the "just" isn't exactly helpful for most seekers. It feels and acts very real and going into it rather than away from it is becoming conscious and noticing the nature of it. Then, perhaps, you'll be in a position to call it wispy and ephemeral. But then some folks run from an idea of a split mind. But I don't think one can avoid this sense of two-ness, it has to be dealt with, and not by running away from it or just saying it isn't so. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2015 12:26:59 GMT -5
Exactly. That's also my take. I wonder if ego is equally tough in everyone. From some teachers I read a lot about awareness being all, and that all the other stuff is "just" thought forms, clouds passing by. While that may be true, in a sense, the "just" isn't exactly helpful for most seekers. It feels and acts very real and going into it rather than away from it is becoming conscious and noticing the nature of it. Then, perhaps, you'll be in a position to call it wispy and ephemeral. But then some folks run from an idea of a split mind. But I don't think one can avoid this sense of two-ness, it has to be dealt with, and not by running away from it or just saying it isn't so. Whelps, thing is, that in letting the mind quiesce and observing what it is within us that would take ownership of thought, feeling, or any form external to us, we can notice what it is that would stand with ego face-to-face and "deal with it". "Dealing with" a "sense of twoness" involves and entangles a "sense of twoness", and that's exactly what's meant by "split-mind". Simply put: the only thing that would battle ego, is ego. |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 23, 2015 14:30:31 GMT -5
But then some folks run from an idea of a split mind. But I don't think one can avoid this sense of two-ness, it has to be dealt with, and not by running away from it or just saying it isn't so. Whelps, thing is, that in letting the mind quiesce and observing what it is within us that would take ownership of thought, feeling, or any form external to us, we can notice what it is that would stand with ego face-to-face and "deal with it". "Dealing with" a "sense of twoness" involves and entangles a "sense of twoness", and that's exactly what's meant by "split-mind". Simply put: the only thing that would battle ego, is ego. But are we even particularly conscious of a "sense of twoness"? The involvement and entanglement will increase the volume, as it were, and the futility might become clearer. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 23, 2015 15:51:22 GMT -5
Whelps, thing is, that in letting the mind quiesce and observing what it is within us that would take ownership of thought, feeling, or any form external to us, we can notice what it is that would stand with ego face-to-face and "deal with it". "Dealing with" a "sense of twoness" involves and entangles a "sense of twoness", and that's exactly what's meant by "split-mind". Simply put: the only thing that would battle ego, is ego. But are we even particularly conscious of a "sense of twoness"? The involvement and entanglement will increase the volume, as it were, and the futility might become clearer. The sense of twoness is quite natural, as it permeates each and every instant of experience. For example, I only know I've typed a letter by the feel of the depression of a key and the sound of the click. No opposition, no twoness, no sense. Here you can see the limiting nature of language and concepts by asking, is a sense of identity founded on that sense of twoness natural, or not? Consciousness of it is a different question and here language-confusion only gets deeper, as I was trying to illustrate to you in my reply here: it's quite possible for peeps of all different stripes to consciously ego if what we mean by consciousness of ego is that they're focusing on getting something that they want. What I sense you're interested in is witnessing ego as it arises within us, do I have that right? By this question: "are we even particularly conscious of a sense of twoness?", are you asking, how can we know when we're expressing ego? Are you asking, how can we be sure whether or not we've got a sense of identity based on a sense of twoness that we're not conscious of? |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 25, 2015 11:11:21 GMT -5
But are we even particularly conscious of a "sense of twoness"? The involvement and entanglement will increase the volume, as it were, and the futility might become clearer. The sense of twoness is quite natural, as it permeates each and every instant of experience. For example, I only know I've typed a letter by the feel of the depression of a key and the sound of the click. No opposition, no twoness, no sense. Here you can see the limiting nature of language and concepts by asking, is a sense of identity founded on that sense of twoness natural, or not? Consciousness of it is a different question and here language-confusion only gets deeper, as I was trying to illustrate to you in my reply here: it's quite possible for peeps of all different stripes to consciously ego if what we mean by consciousness of ego is that they're focusing on getting something that they want. What I sense you're interested in is witnessing ego as it arises within us, do I have that right? By this question: "are we even particularly conscious of a sense of twoness?", are you asking, how can we know when we're expressing ego? Are you asking, how can we be sure whether or not we've got a sense of identity based on a sense of twoness that we're not conscious of? Well, yeah, what I was advocating was diving into the sense of twoness by witnessing/experiencing ego as it arises in us. This is bound to create further division, as you say, and I'm suggesting that further division is a stepping stone to no division. That's all. And of course I'm talking from my perspective, which has had the feel of what I wrote and while I can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience, I can speak of becoming a lot more conscious of the way experience is seemingly divided and at the same time more conscious of awareness. Make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2015 13:16:36 GMT -5
The sense of twoness is quite natural, as it permeates each and every instant of experience. For example, I only know I've typed a letter by the feel of the depression of a key and the sound of the click. No opposition, no twoness, no sense. Here you can see the limiting nature of language and concepts by asking, is a sense of identity founded on that sense of twoness natural, or not? Consciousness of it is a different question and here language-confusion only gets deeper, as I was trying to illustrate to you in my reply here: it's quite possible for peeps of all different stripes to consciously ego if what we mean by consciousness of ego is that they're focusing on getting something that they want. What I sense you're interested in is witnessing ego as it arises within us, do I have that right? By this question: "are we even particularly conscious of a sense of twoness?", are you asking, how can we know when we're expressing ego? Are you asking, how can we be sure whether or not we've got a sense of identity based on a sense of twoness that we're not conscious of? Well, yeah, what I was advocating was diving into the sense of twoness by witnessing/experiencing ego as it arises in us. This is bound to create further division, as you say, and I'm suggesting that further division is a stepping stone to no division. That's all. And of course I'm talking from my perspective, which has had the feel of what I wrote and while I can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience, I can speak of becoming a lot more conscious of the way experience is seemingly divided and at the same time more conscious of awareness. Make sense? Yes, crystal. The witnessing doesn't necessarily create division, as it depends on what's witnessing. If it is a mind split though, then yes, I agree that the more dramatic that gets, then the greater the contrast, the louder the knock on the door.  I'd disagree with you that you can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience. It rather seems to me that you might be cautious about associating any particular experience you've had with "no division" or perhaps curious about what it might mean. |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 25, 2015 13:48:50 GMT -5
Well, yeah, what I was advocating was diving into the sense of twoness by witnessing/experiencing ego as it arises in us. This is bound to create further division, as you say, and I'm suggesting that further division is a stepping stone to no division. That's all. And of course I'm talking from my perspective, which has had the feel of what I wrote and while I can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience, I can speak of becoming a lot more conscious of the way experience is seemingly divided and at the same time more conscious of awareness. I'd disagree with you that you can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience. It rather seems to me that you might be cautious about associating any particular experience you've had with "no division" or perhaps curious about what it might mean. I had a feeling you'd say that  And yes, I am somewhat curious about what it might mean. I often hear "teachers" talk about how we've all had more intense "no division" experiences (Tolle "being in the now", f ex) and I seldom recognise any particular experience here, which has led me to conclude that I might be more divided than most people. But I can't know that and that sorta belief isn't helpful, either. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2015 13:59:28 GMT -5
I'd disagree with you that you can't speak of "no division" as a felt lived experience. It rather seems to me that you might be cautious about associating any particular experience you've had with "no division" or perhaps curious about what it might mean. I had a feeling you'd say that And yes, I am somewhat curious about what it might mean. I often hear "teachers" talk about how we've all had more intense "no division" experiences (Tolle "being in the now", f ex) and I seldom recognise any particular experience here, which has led me to conclude that I might be more divided than most people. But I can't know that and that sorta belief isn't helpful, either. Well, I've had a particular recurring experience -- more like a specific thought -- that is directly applicable to this question. I've had it corroborated in various ways over the years by a common description of the experience by others, and in some cases, agreement as to a counter-conclusion, which takes the form of a pointer. Interested? Are you familiar at all with kiki over on the Tolle forum? |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Jun 25, 2015 14:08:03 GMT -5
I had a feeling you'd say that And yes, I am somewhat curious about what it might mean. I often hear "teachers" talk about how we've all had more intense "no division" experiences (Tolle "being in the now", f ex) and I seldom recognise any particular experience here, which has led me to conclude that I might be more divided than most people. But I can't know that and that sorta belief isn't helpful, either. Well, I've had a particular recurring experience -- more like a specific thought -- that is directly applicable to this question. I've had it corroborated in various ways over the years by a common description of the experience by others, and in some cases, agreement as to a counter-conclusion, which takes the form of a pointer. Interested? Are you familiar at all with kiki over on the Tolle forum? Sure, I'm interested. I'm not familiar with kiki and not a regular visitor of the Tolle forum, although I stumbled by it yesterday, actually. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2015 14:56:39 GMT -5
Jazz: The only thing preventing a direct apprehension of what's going on, and also what YOU are, is thought. If you will shift attention away from thoughts to what the body can see, hear, feel, etc, the truth will sooner or later become obvious as thought structures fall away and the intellect becomes silent.
Thinking that "you" can do something to realize YOU is like thinking that "I" can get rid of "I." The obstacle to SR is the sense of there being a "me."
During each day there are many times when "you" disappear; the body gets involved in some activity which absorbs attention, and self-reflection ceases. The same thing can happen during meditation.
If you want to understand, simply look at the world nonconceptually, and remain silent.
|
|
