|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2018 7:59:09 GMT -5
After so much time here (on st) I did begin to see most of self-referentiality as a burden. However, I am still curious about other people! I like to hear their seeker-stories especially. Yes, identity is a burden, whether it's realized or not. It's actually hard to write about its absence. Nothing changes, yet everything changes because there's no longer a personal self at the center of whatever is happening. There's no longer a distinction between "inside" and "outside" because that kind of distinction is gone. One realizes that whatever is happening is the activity of something that is intellectually incomprehensible, ineffable, impersonal, unpredictable, yet also inherently logical. One might imagine that a sage would not accumulate wealth, yet Tolle now has a net worth above 15 million, and I'm sure that his only thoughts about that are something like, "Well, that's what THIS does. Who knows what IT will do next, or how this will all play out?" The body/mind still has likes and dislikes, but they no longer have any intensity or inner propulsion, and there's a basic willingness to "go with the flow." Life has a matter-of-fact quality, so there's no psychological resistance to whatever happens. Rumi says it perfectly: "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness. Then one swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over. Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope, free of mountainous wanting. The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw blown off into emptiness. These words I'm saying so much begin to lose meaning: Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw: Words and what they try to say swept out the window, down the slant of the roof." "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness." (Rumi) ---> That's me, and it's still valid!! I think a big part of existential dread is this anxiety about 'first of all, being capable of existing'! (ha ha).. To me it seems like if I don't perform sufficient amount of actions and if I don't live certain states each day, I can't be counted as existing. And that means 'dead'!!
But Rumi does not mind his status. And you're saying "There's no longer a distinction between "inside" and "outside" because that kind of distinction is gone." Sounds the same. Ok.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 8, 2018 8:24:31 GMT -5
This thread coincided with my interest in 'fragments and whole', so I think that the thinking function which goes on by words is slow because words are fragments. Also looking for cause/effect is a fragmentary act. I may be seeing everything from this pov now but thinking about me/others is so, too (I mean, slow). But someone experienced in thinking on a certain subject might do this quickly (make some calculations quickly for example). But there is a beauty in thinking, too, and I don't exactly know why this is so : )
Oh, of course, these 'centers' have common points with each other, if we talk in Gurdjieff-teaching terms. I mean, there is an emotional part of intellectual center, etc.. I like to read on them but it may sound as tmt! Yes, the thinking is a step removed from the happening. This step is a sort of fragmentation. It's a double-edged sword. It enables us to get a big picture before we act -- like assembling the ingredients for cookies or the parts to fix a sink. It also enables us to learn new skills. But eventually, in the doing, there can be a wonderful magic in the flow, and thought can interrupt that. I don't think describing this is tmt at all. I am interested in 'intellectual center' a lot, especially its functions other than the ordinary thinking we know. The following kind of explanation easily fascinates me : )
"The emotional part of the intellectual centre consists chiefly of what is called an intellectual emotion, that desire to know, desire to understand, satisfaction of knowing, dissatisfaction of not knowing, pleasure of discovery and so on, although again all these can manifest themselves on very different levels."
And I can understand the 'on very different levels' (at least some). There can be an ambition about these things, and feelings of superiority... or not! Maybe the pure forms of these things are among the most powerful 'hooks' to existence...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 8, 2018 11:33:58 GMT -5
Yes, the thinking is a step removed from the happening. This step is a sort of fragmentation. It's a double-edged sword. It enables us to get a big picture before we act -- like assembling the ingredients for cookies or the parts to fix a sink. It also enables us to learn new skills. But eventually, in the doing, there can be a wonderful magic in the flow, and thought can interrupt that. I don't think describing this is tmt at all. I am interested in 'intellectual center' a lot, especially its functions other than the ordinary thinking we know. The following kind of explanation easily fascinates me : )
"The emotional part of the intellectual centre consists chiefly of what is called an intellectual emotion, that desire to know, desire to understand, satisfaction of knowing, dissatisfaction of not knowing, pleasure of discovery and so on, although again all these can manifest themselves on very different levels." And I can understand the 'on very different levels' (at least some). There can be an ambition about these things, and feelings of superiority... or not! Maybe the pure forms of these things are among the most powerful 'hooks' to existence... Is that a Gurdi' quote? Bennett? The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort ... and by "perfection", I mean the word in the sense that you feel that something is done, like when you've put the finishing touches on a cake or you've got your child dressed just right to go to school or someplace like it. But you are already perfect just as you are in this moment. There can be a process of becoming more and more innocent in our desire to know, where, in the most extreme, the knowledge is ultimately sought only for the sake of the seeking itself. And there will never be an end to our exploration of what appears to us. There will always be something more to learn. Every question we answer opens up new avenues of questioning. But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self, can definitely come to an end. In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery that no relative knowledge can ever come close to capturing. So, as we become conscious of how our thirst for knowledge about what appears to us is related to our desire to prefect our knowledge of ourselves, we're always presented with the opportunity to suspend what it is we think that we know about ourselves. This is a process of unbecoming. A process, of unknowing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2018 10:20:33 GMT -5
The last, self-remembering and self-observation are both conscious efforts. So no, they don't mean exactly the same, in all cases. (I will try to be more specific next time). Also, conscious breathing is a practice, so you could say in conscious breathing you are working consciously, but not necessarily remembering-self. But ideally, self-remembering is simultaneous with any practice. Gurdjieff covers this in In Search of...the why. [And there are levels of self-remembering, but the deeper (levels) ALWAYS include the "beginning" level]. Are you 'in' the centers at self-remembering? This sounds like a strange question but otherwise, what is the difference between self-observation and self-remembering? We hear the expression "be here now" a lot and this usually reminds me of being in the environment, being aware of sense-impressions (maybe mine is a limited view).. In self-remembering it sounds like specifically being in the psyche. About attention and being in different parts of centers: I wrote elsewhere, I was interested in fragments and whole. And this includes the concept of 'me/others', too. I thought some on it. In the mechanical parts/scattered attention, people are like 'things' to us. In emotional parts, we are related to people through our likes and dislikes; *that* is what keeps us related. But when it comes to intellectual parts, to me it astonishingly seems like we become aware of our 'sameness' with people. On the one hand there are the differences coming from the structure of each body/mind... on the other, there is this sameness. But it is easy to get lost in the play of differences. Maybe writing like this seems to go nowhere : ) but I'd like to know what changes with self-remembering.
self-remembering, awareness, a whole thing, a "flood light" self-observation, attention, a particular thing, a "spot light" (or a [pen] lazer) self-remembering is specifically not being in the psyche ( not being in the head) It is about getting outside the psyche/head {You have to experiment-do, you cannot think it, to come up with the answer}
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2018 10:22:45 GMT -5
Yes, identity is a burden, whether it's realized or not. It's actually hard to write about its absence. Nothing changes, yet everything changes because there's no longer a personal self at the center of whatever is happening. There's no longer a distinction between "inside" and "outside" because that kind of distinction is gone. One realizes that whatever is happening is the activity of something that is intellectually incomprehensible, ineffable, impersonal, unpredictable, yet also inherently logical. One might imagine that a sage would not accumulate wealth, yet Tolle now has a net worth above 15 million, and I'm sure that his only thoughts about that are something like, "Well, that's what THIS does. Who knows what IT will do next, or how this will all play out?" The body/mind still has likes and dislikes, but they no longer have any intensity or inner propulsion, and there's a basic willingness to "go with the flow." Life has a matter-of-fact quality, so there's no psychological resistance to whatever happens. Rumi says it perfectly: "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness. Then one swoop, one swing of the arm, that work is over. Free of who I was, free of presence, free of dangerous fear, hope, free of mountainous wanting. The here-and-now mountain is a tiny piece of a piece of straw blown off into emptiness. These words I'm saying so much begin to lose meaning: Existence, emptiness, mountain, straw: Words and what they try to say swept out the window, down the slant of the roof." "For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness." (Rumi) ---> That's me, and it's still valid!! I think a big part of existential dread is this anxiety about 'first of all, being capable of existing'! (ha ha).. To me it seems like if I don't perform sufficient amount of actions and if I don't live certain states each day, I can't be counted as existing. And that means 'dead'!!
But Rumi does not mind his status. And you're saying "There's no longer a distinction between "inside" and "outside" because that kind of distinction is gone." Sounds the same. Ok. You could in a very real sense say this is the meaning of I don't remember myself. {Now you have to ask yourself: What did it mean to write that? (what you said [but dead means lack of possibility, so just say ~asleep~])}
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 9, 2018 10:52:44 GMT -5
Are you 'in' the centers at self-remembering? This sounds like a strange question but otherwise, what is the difference between self-observation and self-remembering? We hear the expression "be here now" a lot and this usually reminds me of being in the environment, being aware of sense-impressions (maybe mine is a limited view).. In self-remembering it sounds like specifically being in the psyche. About attention and being in different parts of centers: I wrote elsewhere, I was interested in fragments and whole. And this includes the concept of 'me/others', too. I thought some on it. In the mechanical parts/scattered attention, people are like 'things' to us. In emotional parts, we are related to people through our likes and dislikes; *that* is what keeps us related. But when it comes to intellectual parts, to me it astonishingly seems like we become aware of our 'sameness' with people. On the one hand there are the differences coming from the structure of each body/mind... on the other, there is this sameness. But it is easy to get lost in the play of differences. Maybe writing like this seems to go nowhere : ) but I'd like to know what changes with self-remembering.
self-remembering, awareness, a whole thing, a "flood light" self-observation, attention, a particular thing, a "spot light" (or a [pen] lazer) self-remembering is specifically not being in the psyche ( not being in the head) It is about getting outside the psyche/head {You have to experiment-do, you cannot think it, to come up with the answer} Maybe I should've said "centers" instead of "psyche". What do you say for that? Are you "in" centers in self-remembering? Sort of "inhabiting". I am not saying confined or identified.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2018 17:42:52 GMT -5
self-remembering, awareness, a whole thing, a "flood light" self-observation, attention, a particular thing, a "spot light" (or a [pen] lazer) self-remembering is specifically not being in the psyche ( not being in the head) It is about getting outside the psyche/head {You have to experiment-do, you cannot think it, to come up with the answer} Maybe I should've said "centers" instead of "psyche". What do you say for that? Are you "in" centers in self-remembering? Sort of "inhabiting". I am not saying confined or identified. To me psyche meant mind (or defined as this thinking we do in the head), so yes, different. There are different levels of self-remembering. The beginning practice is the beginning level. In the full state of self-remembering, yes, one is simultaneously in the four centers. But one cannot-get-there without the beginning practice. self-observation saves energy. self-remembering saves transforms energy to a quality not ordinarily experienced in ordinary life. All day long we use the energy we have created from air and ordinary food (and with self-remembering, impressions). With a conscious effort (self-observation) some of this energy is saved. This energy can be accumulated in the organism. Visualize pouring water(/energy) into a vase (or you could visualize marbles instead of water). Now, visualize, from self-remembering, the water turning "blue", to illustrate this different quality of finer energy (mi12) that is created and saved from the practice (add the signature below, time and energy). Now, this energy can be lost/burned up* in minutes or even seconds, and then you have to just start over (I did a thread once illustrating, juggling, if you * stop-juggling, the balls drop). However, the right quantity of the right quality of energy, brings the full state of self-remembering. I am fully convinced that something has been left out of Zen meditation. There has to be more than "Just sit". I think what has been left out is self-remembering. (Meaning, once [upon a time], it was given as part-of). This comes from many hints reading Buddhist sources. It first hit me reading Dogen: Enlightenment is sitting, sitting is enlightenment".
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 9, 2018 21:28:39 GMT -5
I am interested in 'intellectual center' a lot, especially its functions other than the ordinary thinking we know. The following kind of explanation easily fascinates me : )
"The emotional part of the intellectual centre consists chiefly of what is called an intellectual emotion, that desire to know, desire to understand, satisfaction of knowing, dissatisfaction of not knowing, pleasure of discovery and so on, although again all these can manifest themselves on very different levels." And I can understand the 'on very different levels' (at least some). There can be an ambition about these things, and feelings of superiority... or not! Maybe the pure forms of these things are among the most powerful 'hooks' to existence... Is that a Gurdi' quote? Bennett? The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort ... and by "perfection", I mean the word in the sense that you feel that something is done, like when you've put the finishing touches on a cake or you've got your child dressed just right to go to school or someplace like it. But you are already perfect just as you are in this moment. There can be a process of becoming more and more innocent in our desire to know, where, in the most extreme, the knowledge is ultimately sought only for the sake of the seeking itself. And there will never be an end to our exploration of what appears to us. There will always be something more to learn. Every question we answer opens up new avenues of questioning. But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self, can definitely come to an end. In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery that no relative knowledge can ever come close to capturing. So, as we become conscious of how our thirst for knowledge about what appears to us is related to our desire to prefect our knowledge of ourselves, we're always presented with the opportunity to suspend what it is we think that we know about ourselves. This is a process of unbecoming. A process, of unknowing. The quote is from Ouspensky (I forgot to mention), a person related to both Gurdjieff and Bennett.
"The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort" ... Do you say that this is valid for everybody? To me you and I seem to be different there. My usual inclination is finding things/people with whom I can 'participate' in this or that... it's like looking for play. And when you say "you are *already*...", doesn't it take the fun out! For example, take "the pleasure of discovery"... Will you say something like "you have already discovered everything"?.. Yes I write a bit nonsense, but... maybe I don't understand you.
"But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self"... I have to admit that I am not that much interested in my sense of self! Maybe you'd say this is for continuing the hamster-wheel... I don't know. It's like there might be a perfection but it's not me. If you say "there is no you anyway".. then what are these 'drives'?
"In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery".. and then you live in peace? (I remember Mooji talks where he makes fun of "and then" : )) Relative knowledge does not spoil that embrace & acceptance I think..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2018 21:47:04 GMT -5
Is that a Gurdi' quote? Bennett? The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort ... and by "perfection", I mean the word in the sense that you feel that something is done, like when you've put the finishing touches on a cake or you've got your child dressed just right to go to school or someplace like it. But you are already perfect just as you are in this moment. There can be a process of becoming more and more innocent in our desire to know, where, in the most extreme, the knowledge is ultimately sought only for the sake of the seeking itself. And there will never be an end to our exploration of what appears to us. There will always be something more to learn. Every question we answer opens up new avenues of questioning. But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self, can definitely come to an end. In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery that no relative knowledge can ever come close to capturing. So, as we become conscious of how our thirst for knowledge about what appears to us is related to our desire to prefect our knowledge of ourselves, we're always presented with the opportunity to suspend what it is we think that we know about ourselves. This is a process of unbecoming. A process, of unknowing. The quote is from Ouspensky (I forgot to mention), a person related to both Gurdjieff and Bennett. "The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort" ... Do you say that this is valid for everybody? To me you and I seem to be different there. My usual inclination is finding things/people with whom I can 'participate' in this or that... it's like looking for play. And when you say "you are *already*...", doesn't it take the fun out! For example, take "the pleasure of discovery"... Will you say something like "you have already discovered everything"?.. Yes I write a bit nonsense, but... maybe I don't understand you.
"But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self"... I have to admit that I am not that much interested in my sense of self! Maybe you'd say this is for continuing the hamster-wheel... I don't know. It's like there might be a perfection but it's not me. If you say "there is no you anyway".. then what are these 'drives'?
"In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery".. and then you live in peace? (I remember Mooji talks where he makes fun of "and then" : )) Relative knowledge does not spoil that embrace & acceptance I think..
All the discussions about the details of how experience is in the "life after" have the potential to be a major distraction. They all share the common trait of describing subjective states in objective terms. Ultimately, it's best to let people think what they think about themselves. No I can't say for you what your internal process is like, so I can't say that you're on a hamster wheel. No, I wouldn't say that everyone engaged in seeking knowledge is necessarily seeking that perfection. Some people are done with self-inquiry, and curiosity about the world, remains. But if someone is seeking knowledge, then asking themselves whether they might be looking for some sort of completion, and getting conscious to that, could be a grand opportunity for them.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 9, 2018 22:01:08 GMT -5
"For years I pulled my own existence out of emptiness." (Rumi) ---> That's me, and it's still valid!! I think a big part of existential dread is this anxiety about 'first of all, being capable of existing'! (ha ha).. To me it seems like if I don't perform sufficient amount of actions and if I don't live certain states each day, I can't be counted as existing. And that means 'dead'!!
But Rumi does not mind his status. And you're saying "There's no longer a distinction between "inside" and "outside" because that kind of distinction is gone." Sounds the same. Ok. You could in a very real sense say this is the meaning of I don't remember myself. {Now you have to ask yourself: What did it mean to write that? (what you said [but dead means lack of possibility, so just say ~asleep~])} You are saying that I was describing my 'sleep'.
And here I'd like to tell something which I find a bit strange... 'Fourth Way' says self-remembering is man's birth right. And then this self-remembering is taught only in work groups or in teacher-student relationships which should continue at least half a year. While the sleep is so common in life of ordinary people, the cure is quite exceptional...
I am not saying that it should be described everywhere.. But it is strange that it (self-remembering) is at least for some time a 'practice', done for a certain time or at x number of times in a given period. What I wrote in my above post is a simple thing.. so ordinary.. why does it take so many things to cure it? (not sure whether cure is the right word)
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 9, 2018 22:41:58 GMT -5
Maybe I should've said "centers" instead of "psyche". What do you say for that? Are you "in" centers in self-remembering? Sort of "inhabiting". I am not saying confined or identified. To me psyche meant mind (or defined as this thinking we do in the head), so yes, different. There are different levels of self-remembering. The beginning practice is the beginning level. In the full state of self-remembering, yes, one is simultaneously in the four centers. But one cannot-get-there without the beginning practice. Thanks for that!
It seems almost impossible to deal with 'energy' in this way. You will save, transform, and then not waste... I think it is just impossible to do. I understand the necessity of some efforts related to spirituality.. but these, I don't.. I mean how are you going to make the calculations! Sometimes I am happy to have a conception of God! (who helps with everything). But don't misunderstand me, I do like to talk on different energies.. Maybe we will come to that later.
When do you think it was omitted (if that's true)? And why did it happen? If I remember rightly, you had some similar ideas on Christianity, too.. but I am not sure.. I am not knowledgeable on meditation so I can't say anything.
|
|
|
Post by zin on Jul 9, 2018 23:07:23 GMT -5
The quote is from Ouspensky (I forgot to mention), a person related to both Gurdjieff and Bennett. "The drive to know has at it's root a longing for completion of one's self. It's a desire for a perfection of a sort" ... Do you say that this is valid for everybody? To me you and I seem to be different there. My usual inclination is finding things/people with whom I can 'participate' in this or that... it's like looking for play. And when you say "you are *already*...", doesn't it take the fun out! For example, take "the pleasure of discovery"... Will you say something like "you have already discovered everything"?.. Yes I write a bit nonsense, but... maybe I don't understand you.
"But any aspect of that questioning directed inward, toward our sense of self"... I have to admit that I am not that much interested in my sense of self! Maybe you'd say this is for continuing the hamster-wheel... I don't know. It's like there might be a perfection but it's not me. If you say "there is no you anyway".. then what are these 'drives'?
"In that ending, is an embrace and an indescribable acceptance of a mystery".. and then you live in peace? (I remember Mooji talks where he makes fun of "and then" : )) Relative knowledge does not spoil that embrace & acceptance I think..
All the discussions about the details of how experience is in the "life after" have the potential to be a major distraction. They all share the common trait of describing subjective states in objective terms. Ultimately, it's best to let people think what they think about themselves. No I can't say for you what your internal process is like, so I can't say that you're on a hamster wheel. No, I wouldn't say that everyone engaged in seeking knowledge is necessarily seeking that perfection. Some people are done with self-inquiry, and curiosity about the world, remains. But if someone is seeking knowledge, then asking themselves whether they might be looking for some sort of completion, and getting conscious to that, could be a grand opportunity for them. Yes I understand. Thank you!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2018 0:52:08 GMT -5
All the discussions about the details of how experience is in the "life after" have the potential to be a major distraction. They all share the common trait of describing subjective states in objective terms. Ultimately, it's best to let people think what they think about themselves. No I can't say for you what your internal process is like, so I can't say that you're on a hamster wheel. No, I wouldn't say that everyone engaged in seeking knowledge is necessarily seeking that perfection. Some people are done with self-inquiry, and curiosity about the world, remains. But if someone is seeking knowledge, then asking themselves whether they might be looking for some sort of completion, and getting conscious to that, could be a grand opportunity for them. Yes I understand. Thank you! Yeah, I had more than a passing hunch that you would. There's also another opportunity, one that's a little dicier. As you read and check out videos, you might be able to sometimes figure out when the author or the speaker is self-seeking through knowledge seeking.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 10, 2018 9:47:52 GMT -5
You could in a very real sense say this is the meaning of I don't remember myself. {Now you have to ask yourself: What did it mean to write that? (what you said [but dead means lack of possibility, so just say ~asleep~])} You are saying that I was describing my 'sleep'.
And here I'd like to tell something which I find a bit strange... 'Fourth Way' says self-remembering is man's birth right. And then this self-remembering is taught only in work groups or in teacher-student relationships which should continue at least half a year. While the sleep is so common in life of ordinary people, the cure is quite exceptional... I am not saying that it should be described everywhere.. But it is strange that it (self-remembering) is at least for some time a 'practice', done for a certain time or at x number of times in a given period. What I wrote in my above post is a simple thing.. so ordinary.. why does it take so many things to cure it? (not sure whether cure is the right word)
Gurdjieff said we are born awake but in a few years we go to sleep because we are raised by people who are asleep. And then most people remain asleep. We are born as essence. Then the self forms around essence, and our ~sense of who/what we are~ shifts from essence (what Is real In us) to personality (what is not-real in us, what is acquired). This is sleep. Now, why are the practices not given in public? One reason, we are self-developing organisms, a person has to choose this life. Another reason, the practices change you. One has to in a real sense be trained, to be somewhat prepared for the changes. Eventually, if one practices, there is a shift back to living through essence, ~who/what one really is~. This can be and will inevitably be disruptive. There is a very real perils of the path aspect. I was given the beginning practices on the condition that I not give then to anyone else without permission to do so. But people do not practice anyway. Even if one understands a little in the beginning, it takes a while to understand the value of practice. self-remembering is also called the first conscious shock. We all get accidental shocks in life, some smaller some greater. I was ten when John F Kennedy was assassinated. This is an example of a strong accidental shock. I remember where I was, what was said (in sixth grade teacher said, Boys and girls, our president has been shot). A strong shock like this (and it for everyone) puts one in the 4 centers simultaneously (what you asked about earlier). There are physiological changes in the organism which ~fixes~ the occurrence in the memory. Now, self-remembering is a shock one gives oneself, the first conscious shock. So, eventually, if one practices, the practice becomes the state. And eventually one again lives through their essence. One other thing in relation. Gurdjieff said as we are we do not have our own I. So down the road, the work is about having one's own I. But again, this has to be (self)-chosen. Choosing is (necessarily) a part of the process. Choosing this or that. Basically, at base, choosing to practice, or not. (But really, if one does not choose to practice, by default, you automatically are choosing not to practice). I know that's more than you wanted to know...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2018 11:17:12 GMT -5
You could in a very real sense say this is the meaning of I don't remember myself. {Now you have to ask yourself: What did it mean to write that? (what you said [but dead means lack of possibility, so just say ~asleep~])} You are saying that I was describing my 'sleep'.
And here I'd like to tell something which I find a bit strange... 'Fourth Way' says self-remembering is man's birth right. And then this self-remembering is taught only in work groups or in teacher-student relationships which should continue at least half a year. While the sleep is so common in life of ordinary people, the cure is quite exceptional... I am not saying that it should be described everywhere.. But it is strange that it (self-remembering) is at least for some time a 'practice', done for a certain time or at x number of times in a given period. What I wrote in my above post is a simple thing.. so ordinary.. why does it take so many things to cure it? (not sure whether cure is the right word)
It's actually not too strange. As Nisargadata once said to a seeker, "You didn;t get into this mess overnight." The "mess" he was referring to is the mess of imagining that one is a separate entity inhabiting a body, and that reality is composed of other separate things. This doesn't happen overnight. It happens gradually as the intellect becomes dominant, and humans shift from a child-like way of directly interacting with reality through the senses to an adult-like way of interacting with ideas about reality. Staying in the I AM, ATA-T, zazen, Self-remembering, etc. are different ways of shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is." By constantly shifting attention away from thoughts it's possible to escape the attachment to ideas that keep most humans lost in the labyrinth of mind. The goal in most non-dual traditions is to attain non-abidance in mind, which Zen calls "no mind," and this attainment, which in some rare people happens suddenly, is usually something that happens only after a certain amount of practice. The brain exhibits what scientists call "neuro-plasticity" (which means that its functionality can be changed), and the brains of long-time mediators function quite differently than those of non-meditators. The same thing is true for some people who take psychedlic drugs and other people who have major realizations--they discover that there is a "Big Picture" of reality that is quite different from conventional conceptions of it. The most common path to non-abidance, the disappearance of "me," understanding, and a felt sense of oneness with "what is" is that of pursuing some activity that, in essence, is the shifting of attention away from thoughts to "what is." After a certain period of time there can be a sudden realization or experience of the Infinite, or a sudden realization that the entity one imagined oneself to be was a complete fiction. From my POV it doesn't seem surprising that this process usually takes from 5 to 15 years, or even longer.
|
|