|
Post by zendancer on Aug 3, 2017 10:34:46 GMT -5
1. Is a molecule of water in the ocean the entire ocean? The molecule is one-with the ocean, and there is no dividing line between them, but it would be a bit presumptive of the molecule to claim that it's anything more than a molecule. The problem is one of boundaries; if there is no boundary, no distinction of any kind can be made that will not be false to itself. 2. There is only now. What matters is what matters. Make a decision or don't make a decision. Speculation remains speculation. 3. Anyone who doesn't see through this issue clearly, might want to do the volition experiment (Sit in a chair and make no effort to either get up or stay seated. Watch what happens.) As the saying goes, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." People used to ask Papaji, "What will happen if I do x?" Papaji would respond, "Wait and see." Hi ZD In that first bit I would add that presumptive or not, God is boundless and infinate in every aspect and part, so even the molecule has the infinate nature of God. All that God is, is in the Molecule just as it is simultaneously in all of existence. so if one truly takes away the imagined boundaries from the boundless infinate, then it is equally presumptuous for the molecule to say that it is NOT the totality of God. This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life."
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 3, 2017 10:40:50 GMT -5
Hi ZD In that first bit I would add that presumptive or not, God is boundless and infinate in every aspect and part, so even the molecule has the infinate nature of God. All that God is, is in the Molecule just as it is simultaneously in all of existence. so if one truly takes away the imagined boundaries from the boundless infinate, then it is equally presumptuous for the molecule to say that it is NOT the totality of God. This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Agreed though there was at least one Indian Saint that I read about who did in fact literally RUN around saying he was God...but soon after he ran off a high cliff and stopped shouting that he was God as soon as he hit the bottom lol Nahavera or something like that lol
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2017 21:35:54 GMT -5
Hi ZD In that first bit I would add that presumptive or not, God is boundless and infinate in every aspect and part, so even the molecule has the infinate nature of God. All that God is, is in the Molecule just as it is simultaneously in all of existence. so if one truly takes away the imagined boundaries from the boundless infinate, then it is equally presumptuous for the molecule to say that it is NOT the totality of God. This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Well - there was Shirley MacLaine...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 2:54:51 GMT -5
Hi ZD In that first bit I would add that presumptive or not, God is boundless and infinate in every aspect and part, so even the molecule has the infinate nature of God. All that God is, is in the Molecule just as it is simultaneously in all of existence. so if one truly takes away the imagined boundaries from the boundless infinate, then it is equally presumptuous for the molecule to say that it is NOT the totality of God. This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Or at most, just offer some breathing practices?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 4, 2017 2:56:04 GMT -5
This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Well - there was Shirley MacLaine... She was a God-daughter.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 4, 2017 4:54:33 GMT -5
Any programmer who's done a focused multi-hour marathon moving seamlessly between dozens of source files in a design/edit/test loop, as the code just seems to create itself, can relate to what the carpenter described. The experiences are different in that the physical movement involved in manual labor exercises the body, while the sedentary nature of the desk work leads to a different state. But the point is that this type of samadhi isn't dependent on abstract thought. There is a version of work flow that centers on abstract thought free of self-reference. And the products of it are ultimately just as palpable as any truss. Your old line of work is an excellent example of a middle ground between the carpenter and the programmer/analyst. We're at 180 degrees between one another on your use of the term conscious/unconscious. In my experience, the absence of self-reference isn't aptly associated with "unconsciousness". Rather, the opposite is true. States free of self-reference, with motion in the world, are grand opportunities to become conscious of the movements of mind as they happen, but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening. Self-reference centered on the senses forms the basis for a cognitive illusion of being a person in the world, other than that world, which, in turn, forms the basis for the consensus material trance. It's a very strange comment on the mystery of human life that some folks understand and accept this notion, but that understanding and acceptance isn't enough to free them from the illusion. Beginning of second paragraph, I was speaking to ZD's post, the Zen carpenter, the description given. Will come back to this. OK, back. I changed my designation ____-awareness to ~~~~-awareness so as not to confuse it with ZD's non-language. ~~~~ is a specific word, but I don't wish to use it. It's been the subject of numerous posts and even threads, by me. (It's not really a koan, more of a "puzzle" that you have to experience to get, so I don't wish to be explicit. Oh well, it is a kind of koan). Saying that (or not-saying), I keep forgetting the word conscious as used here is the ordinary use of the word, whereas ~we~ use it, as a given, in the sense of self-aware or self-conscious (and more specifically self-remembering). And this always includes ~~~~-awareness. Now, can the eye see itself? No, it is that by which we see. Can small s self see itself? No. So what is it that can see the small s self? ~We~ would say, consciousness. So what do we call this consciousness that can see small s self? ~We~ call it self-remembering (or self-awareness or self-consciousness). So what is "unconsciousness"? "unconsciousness" is our ordinary state of the small s self, that which we move through the world, the small s self which (virtually) by definition cannot be aware of itself. So one can be conscious all day long, without this something present which can be aware of the small s self. So self-remembering has the connotation of something else present besides the small s self. As far as I can tell, it has also been called here, awareness of awareness, I have no problem with that. "but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening" may be relevant here. I don't know if all that puts us closer than 180 degrees apart. If one is operating solely from the small s self, that is a kind of unconsciousness. OK, now, what's the relationship to self-referential thinking and the small s self? self-referential-thinking is small s self internal dialoguing about/with itself. But if there is no internal dialogue does that mean there is no small s self? I say absolutely not (necessarily). Now, the NDist say that in SR the self is seen through, seen to be an illusion. Does even that do away with the small s self? All I can say is it seems not to in most cases. It seems in most cases the conditioning remains, and if the conditioning remains, then in what sense can it be said that the small s self no longer is? And if it still is, then what's the point? IOW, what ~ good~ is SR if the small s self remains and is the tail wagging the dog? So I'd say as long as the conditioning remains, no self-referential thinking is a tiny "~sacrifice~". Now, if there is ~something else~ present, along with the absence of self-referential thinking, now then, that's a whole other ball game. This something else was the point of my post. "grand opportunities" are different from the actualization of a "grand" opportunity. So, anyway, your reply did not really speak to the point of my post. Have you ever lost your keys, mislaid your keys? Sure you have, everybody has. How did you find them? OK, one way is to just keep looking and keep looking, you check all your pockets, check where you usually place your keys, a lots of ect.-ering. I've done this, but if this is exhausted without result then what do you do? I've found to be very effective, try to retrace my actions from the last time I know I had my keys. First, what is at the root of misplacing the keys? Try this on for size. You were acting "unconsciously" when you came into the house, you were being unconscious. So, retrace. OK, I unlocked the door. ?? Oh yes! I dropped the keys in the grocery bag knowing I would remember doing so, but then I sat that bag on the kitchen counter, knowing that stuff was not a priority in being put away. I didn't MAKE a memory, I just assumed I would remember. But if you had acted consciously, or more-consciously, the memory would have been made in the process. A key point in relation to the Zen carpenter, when one is more-conscious (not acting within the realm merely of the small s self) this being more-conscious necessarily as a byproduct, forms memories, accessible memories. In school we call this study, we try to create an artificial situation so as to be able to remember stuff. But if the Zen carpenter had been in a ~ conscious~ flow, he could have answered the question easily, Oh no my friend, quite the contrary! One is not oblivious to the world, you take-in more of the world! It's an expansive state, not a contracting state. dot...dot...dot... I think what's going on 99.9% of the time is the thinker of thought i.e. your small s self is in play even when there are no self referential thoughts, that .01% is 'SR', here there is no thinker of thought to see through, the illusion of separation can not be without the thinker of thought to create the illusion. What I've noticed is the sensation of 'self' when triggered by a circumstance that causes embarrassment or the desire of a 'wanting' can be followed back in a sense to its source , even the 'I' thats doing the following is seen as being nothing there, literally there is no source, it is always quite humorous and surprising.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 4, 2017 8:46:58 GMT -5
Beginning of second paragraph, I was speaking to ZD's post, the Zen carpenter, the description given. Will come back to this. OK, back. I changed my designation ____-awareness to ~~~~-awareness so as not to confuse it with ZD's non-language. ~~~~ is a specific word, but I don't wish to use it. It's been the subject of numerous posts and even threads, by me. (It's not really a koan, more of a "puzzle" that you have to experience to get, so I don't wish to be explicit. Oh well, it is a kind of koan). Saying that (or not-saying), I keep forgetting the word conscious as used here is the ordinary use of the word, whereas ~we~ use it, as a given, in the sense of self-aware or self-conscious (and more specifically self-remembering). And this always includes ~~~~-awareness. Now, can the eye see itself? No, it is that by which we see. Can small s self see itself? No. So what is it that can see the small s self? ~We~ would say, consciousness. So what do we call this consciousness that can see small s self? ~We~ call it self-remembering (or self-awareness or self-consciousness). So what is "unconsciousness"? "unconsciousness" is our ordinary state of the small s self, that which we move through the world, the small s self which (virtually) by definition cannot be aware of itself. So one can be conscious all day long, without this something present which can be aware of the small s self. So self-remembering has the connotation of something else present besides the small s self. As far as I can tell, it has also been called here, awareness of awareness, I have no problem with that. "but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening" may be relevant here. I don't know if all that puts us closer than 180 degrees apart. If one is operating solely from the small s self, that is a kind of unconsciousness. OK, now, what's the relationship to self-referential thinking and the small s self? self-referential-thinking is small s self internal dialoguing about/with itself. But if there is no internal dialogue does that mean there is no small s self? I say absolutely not (necessarily). Now, the NDist say that in SR the self is seen through, seen to be an illusion. Does even that do away with the small s self? All I can say is it seems not to in most cases. It seems in most cases the conditioning remains, and if the conditioning remains, then in what sense can it be said that the small s self no longer is? And if it still is, then what's the point? IOW, what ~ good~ is SR if the small s self remains and is the tail wagging the dog? So I'd say as long as the conditioning remains, no self-referential thinking is a tiny "~sacrifice~". Now, if there is ~something else~ present, along with the absence of self-referential thinking, now then, that's a whole other ball game. This something else was the point of my post. "grand opportunities" are different from the actualization of a "grand" opportunity. So, anyway, your reply did not really speak to the point of my post. Have you ever lost your keys, mislaid your keys? Sure you have, everybody has. How did you find them? OK, one way is to just keep looking and keep looking, you check all your pockets, check where you usually place your keys, a lots of ect.-ering. I've done this, but if this is exhausted without result then what do you do? I've found to be very effective, try to retrace my actions from the last time I know I had my keys. First, what is at the root of misplacing the keys? Try this on for size. You were acting "unconsciously" when you came into the house, you were being unconscious. So, retrace. OK, I unlocked the door. ?? Oh yes! I dropped the keys in the grocery bag knowing I would remember doing so, but then I sat that bag on the kitchen counter, knowing that stuff was not a priority in being put away. I didn't MAKE a memory, I just assumed I would remember. But if you had acted consciously, or more-consciously, the memory would have been made in the process. A key point in relation to the Zen carpenter, when one is more-conscious (not acting within the realm merely of the small s self) this being more-conscious necessarily as a byproduct, forms memories, accessible memories. In school we call this study, we try to create an artificial situation so as to be able to remember stuff. But if the Zen carpenter had been in a ~ conscious~ flow, he could have answered the question easily, Oh no my friend, quite the contrary! One is not oblivious to the world, you take-in more of the world! It's an expansive state, not a contracting state. dot...dot...dot... I think what's going on 99.9% of the time is the thinker of thought i.e. your small s self is in play even when there are no self referential thoughts, that .01% is 'SR', here there is no thinker of thought to see through, the illusion of separation can not be without the thinker of thought to create the illusion. What I've noticed is the sensation of 'self' when triggered by a circumstance that causes embarrassment or the desire of a 'wanting' can be followed back in a sense to its source , even the 'I' thats doing the following is seen as being nothing there, literally there is no source, it is always quite humorous and surprising. I guess it depends if by source one means the cause of or creator of, or if by source one means the thingy that is,
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Aug 4, 2017 16:16:20 GMT -5
I think what's going on 99.9% of the time is the thinker of thought i.e. your small s self is in play even when there are no self referential thoughts, that .01% is 'SR', here there is no thinker of thought to see through, the illusion of separation can not be without the thinker of thought to create the illusion. What I've noticed is the sensation of 'self' when triggered by a circumstance that causes embarrassment or the desire of a 'wanting' can be followed back in a sense to its source , even the 'I' thats doing the following is seen as being nothing there, literally there is no source, it is always quite humorous and surprising. I guess it depends if by source one means the cause of or creator of, or if by source one means the thingy that is, In the context of my post, source is meant to refer to the "thinker of thought'. I could have worded it differently. The point I'm trying to make is the 'thinker of thought is the source of the sense of embarrassment and desire or wanting, when "I' as the thinker look at what is having these sensations nothing is seen. For me its disconcerting and instantly uncomfortable. the action of looking at no-thing ends, its as if there are two perceptions one from the 'I' and one from without 'I', and the thought occurs how funny what is feeling embarrassed just is not there.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2017 3:15:59 GMT -5
I guess it depends if by source one means the cause of or creator of, or if by source one means the thingy that is, In the context of my post, source is meant to refer to the "thinker of thought'. I could have worded it differently. The point I'm trying to make is the 'thinker of thought is the source of the sense of embarrassment and desire or wanting, when "I' as the thinker look at what is having these sensations nothing is seen. For me its disconcerting and instantly uncomfortable. the action of looking at no-thing ends, its as if there are two perceptions one from the 'I' and one from without 'I', and the thought occurs how funny what is feeling embarrassed just is not there. lolz "thingy that is" refers to what you really are, while your description of tracing the thought back for a cause is the mind troubleshooting itself as a machine. As you put it yourself, in those moments of surprise at finding nothing there, the illusion of separation is collapsed. Might this underlying notion that you're not a machine be there at the root of the disconcerting discomfort? Can't it sometimes be comforting to think of ourselves in terms that can be explained?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 5, 2017 9:12:49 GMT -5
In the context of my post, source is meant to refer to the "thinker of thought'. I could have worded it differently. The point I'm trying to make is the 'thinker of thought is the source of the sense of embarrassment and desire or wanting, when "I' as the thinker look at what is having these sensations nothing is seen. For me its disconcerting and instantly uncomfortable. the action of looking at no-thing ends, its as if there are two perceptions one from the 'I' and one from without 'I', and the thought occurs how funny what is feeling embarrassed just is not there. lolz "thingy that is" refers to what you really are, while your description of tracing the thought back for a cause is the mind troubleshooting itself as a machine. As you put it yourself, in those moments of surprise at finding nothing there, the illusion of separation is collapsed. Might this underlying notion that you're not a machine be there at the root of the disconcerting discomfort? Can't it sometimes be comforting to think of ourselves in terms that can be explained? Yesterday I went to meet Don Oakley, author of "Wake up Now." He was giving a talk to some seekers. He had some humorous things to say, and the one that comes to mind while reading this thread is, "When they do an autopsy on your body after it dies, they won't find an ego, and they won't find a self." Haha. If the internal dialogue suddenly ceased, it would only be a matter of time before the truth became blindingly obvious. Thoughts, alone, perpetuate the illusion of separateness and selfhood. This is why Tolle talks so much about the gap between thoughts and how to widen that gap. If attention is regularly shifted away from thoughts to "what is," the likelihood of realization dramatically increases.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2017 14:23:32 GMT -5
lolz "thingy that is" refers to what you really are, while your description of tracing the thought back for a cause is the mind troubleshooting itself as a machine. As you put it yourself, in those moments of surprise at finding nothing there, the illusion of separation is collapsed. Might this underlying notion that you're not a machine be there at the root of the disconcerting discomfort? Can't it sometimes be comforting to think of ourselves in terms that can be explained? Yesterday I went to meet Don Oakley, author of "Wake up Now." He was giving a talk to some seekers. He had some humorous things to say, and the one that comes to mind while reading this thread is, "When they do an autopsy on your body after it dies, they won't find an ego, and they won't find a self." Haha. If the internal dialogue suddenly ceased, it would only be a matter of time before the truth became blindingly obvious. Thoughts, alone, perpetuate the illusion of separateness and selfhood. This is why Tolle talks so much about the gap between thoughts and how to widen that gap. If attention is regularly shifted away from thoughts to "what is," the likelihood of realization dramatically increases. .. oh, that's a gem ... wow so you never met this guy before? .. this sure reads to me as if you likely had a lot in common!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 5, 2017 15:30:53 GMT -5
Yesterday I went to meet Don Oakley, author of "Wake up Now." He was giving a talk to some seekers. He had some humorous things to say, and the one that comes to mind while reading this thread is, "When they do an autopsy on your body after it dies, they won't find an ego, and they won't find a self." Haha. If the internal dialogue suddenly ceased, it would only be a matter of time before the truth became blindingly obvious. Thoughts, alone, perpetuate the illusion of separateness and selfhood. This is why Tolle talks so much about the gap between thoughts and how to widen that gap. If attention is regularly shifted away from thoughts to "what is," the likelihood of realization dramatically increases. .. oh, that's a gem ... wow so you never met this guy before? .. this sure reads to me as if you likely had a lot in common! Oh yes, we do have a lot in common! He's also a builder (as well as an engineer) who at one time had a large construction company in the Northwest. He had an initial awakening experience while attending a Tolle retreat at Satyam Nadeen's Pura Vida center in Costa Rica. He worked in Adyashanti's organization for several years, and met his wife there. He woke up after attending retreats with Adyashanti. He ultimately sold his business and bought a beautiful 260 acre piece of land in new Tazewell, Tennessee (upper east Tennessee) where he's built a retreat center with two miles of river frontage. Several months ago I had talked to him on the phone and emailed him, but hadn't yet had a chance to visit him. When I heard that he was coming to Knoxville to give a talk about the gateless gate, I immediately made plans to be there. He and his wife are delightful people, and I hope to visit his Well Being Center in the near future. I had lunch with them after the presentation, and they know many of the people in the non-duality world that I know. I told them that I had even visited Satyam Nadeen's retreat center in Dahlonega, GA, and we realized as we talked, that it's a very small world indeed. His wife came to Nashville with Adyashanti many years ago for a presentation at a Unity Church, and that was where I first met Adyashanti.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 7, 2017 9:57:27 GMT -5
I guess it depends if by source one means the cause of or creator of, or if by source one means the thingy that is, In the context of my post, source is meant to refer to the "thinker of thought'. I could have worded it differently. The point I'm trying to make is the 'thinker of thought is the source of the sense of embarrassment and desire or wanting, when "I' as the thinker look at what is having these sensations nothing is seen. For me its disconcerting and instantly uncomfortable. the action of looking at no-thing ends, its as if there are two perceptions one from the 'I' and one from without 'I', and the thought occurs how funny what is feeling embarrassed just is not there. maybe there's an irony concerning no-self and true-self
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2017 15:23:17 GMT -5
This is why a wise molecule will remain silent. FWIW, I've never met anyone who had a deep CC experience who afterwards said, "I am God." Some will say, "I am one-with God," or "God, alone, is," or "I am 'what is,'" but non-conceptually encountering what the word "God" points to is such a humbling experience that a statement like "I am God" would seem laughable. People who encounter the Absolute usually have the same attitude as Kabir, who said, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Well - there was Shirley MacLaine...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 10:09:47 GMT -5
Agitation happens when you fart in public and no amount of "enlightenment" will stop it. Is this the "natural state?"
|
|