Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 13:54:18 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 13:54:18 GMT -5
It IS a good conversation.
There is still 'crappy' stuff, because there are still likes and dislikes, still some things and happenings that are preferred and others that are not.
Even in a nightime dream where I am fully aware I am dreaming, I can still identify a 'crappy' storyline...or crappy happening.
The drama still has a degree of pull, sure, but it does not extend so deep that suffering would ensue. (I define 'suffering' as becoming lost to the dream...losing sight of the peace of Being.....becoming unconsciously swept up in the drama of it all to the degree that Being is completely, but temporarily, obscured.)
There can still be some resistance, but again, it only goes so deep...resistance, if/when it arises is very surfacey when awareness abides.
Acceptance/allowance goes much deeper than just the surface of things. For ex: I can dislike really frigid weather, but in a deeper sense, be in full acceptance that that's just how it currently is.
Much deeper than preferences. I like vanilla ice cream. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I like children. I don't like child molesters. See my drift. I love children and loathe child molesters. It's much deeper than mere preferences. Now I recognize that I am the child and the child molester, and I know, but for the grace of "cabbage" go I. I see all this and am moved by an unabiding awe for creation. No amount of illusion self talk can convince that it isn't real. But I am the first one to admit that I am not awake. It's just that argument, about mere preferences, is a bit tepid. I guess that then is specifically what changes in awakening. Strong, deep aversions of the hate/loathing variety, no longer have legs to stand upon.
How can you 'hate' a person who is a slave to his conditioning...who is not actually, volitionally choosing the 'bad' behavior?
The whole child molestation thing when I encounter it, makes me sad for sure, but I generally feel just as compassionate towards the perpetrator as I do for the victim.
The only thing that can illuminate the experiential as having less substance, (as being 'dream-stuff' in comparison to that which lies foundational,) is realizing that which lies foundational to the experiential, to be what you really are. Once that is clearly seen, that which arises TO 'You' loses it's ability to fully captivate/enmesh awareness.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:02:03 GMT -5
Much deeper than preferences. I like vanilla ice cream. I don't like chocolate ice cream. I like children. I don't like child molesters. See my drift. I love children and loathe child molesters. It's much deeper than mere preferences. Now I recognize that I am the child and the child molester, and I know, but for the grace of "cabbage" go I. I see all this and am moved by an unabiding awe for creation. No amount of illusion self talk can convince that it isn't real. But I am the first one to admit that I am not awake. It's just that argument, about mere preferences, is a bit tepid. I guess that then is specifically what changes in awakening. Strong, deep aversions of the hate/loathing variety, no longer have legs to stand upon.
How can you 'hate' a person who is a slave to his conditioning...who is not actually, volitionally choosing the 'bad' behavior?
The whole child molestation thing when I encounter it, makes me sad for sure, but I generally feel just as compassionate towards the perpetrator as I do for the victim.
The only thing that can illuminate the experiential as having less substance, (as being 'dream-stuff' in comparison to that which lies foundational,) is realizing that which lies foundational to the experiential, to be what you really are. Once that is clearly seen, that which arises TO 'You' loses it's ability to fully captivate/enmesh awareness.
I don't think awareness has compassion for the child molester or the child, that's very much a human trait.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 14:04:11 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2019 14:04:11 GMT -5
One who is abidingly SR does not 'lose his mind' in the way that common term generally means. He's actually 'free from mind' in the sense that he does not become 'lost' to or within it. But even in the most trying of circumstances, conscious awareness, Being, abides and remains acutely present. Thus, one never finds him/herself getting swept up and away in the drama of life. Awareness/Presence, abides every appearance, every experiential happening....even the really crappy stuff.
That does not necessarily though preclude intervening in a physically aggressive manner in a circumstance such as you describe above. The physical aggression though would be happening 'consciously' with full abiding awareness of what was happening vs. the result of an angry knee-jerk, unconscious reaction.
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered. etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my casual knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 14:31:22 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:31:22 GMT -5
I guess that then is specifically what changes in awakening. Strong, deep aversions of the hate/loathing variety, no longer have legs to stand upon.
How can you 'hate' a person who is a slave to his conditioning...who is not actually, volitionally choosing the 'bad' behavior?
The whole child molestation thing when I encounter it, makes me sad for sure, but I generally feel just as compassionate towards the perpetrator as I do for the victim.
The only thing that can illuminate the experiential as having less substance, (as being 'dream-stuff' in comparison to that which lies foundational,) is realizing that which lies foundational to the experiential, to be what you really are. Once that is clearly seen, that which arises TO 'You' loses it's ability to fully captivate/enmesh awareness.
I don't think awareness has compassion for the child molester or the child, that's very much a human trait. No doubt about it, 'compassion' is itself an arising within the story... but it's an arising that is reflective of the absence of judgement, seeing through of volition, seeing through of cause/effect, in general, an absence of identification with personhood.
Realizing that I am the awareness that the story arises within has a way of removing or at least lessening the depth of personal judgements that has us often vilifying appearing others.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 14:37:56 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 14:37:56 GMT -5
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered. etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my causal knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
Pretty much on board with all you say there, other than I don't draw any distinction between the terms 'awake' vs. 'Self realized.'
Being awake (for me) means being awake to the Truth of Self, the Truth about 'what in blazes is going on here.' Same for Self realization. Awakening to Truth necessarily incorporates realizing Self.
Can you explain how what you term as 'awakening' specifically differs from what you term 'SR'?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 14:43:57 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2019 14:43:57 GMT -5
etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my causal knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
Pretty much on board with all you say there, other than I don't draw any distinction between the terms 'awake' vs. 'Self realized.'
Being awake (for me) means being awake to the Truth of Self, the Truth about 'what in blazes is going on here.' Same for Self realization. Awakening to Truth necessarily incorporates realizing Self. Can you explain how what you term as 'awakening' specifically differs from what you term 'SR'?
The consensus trance is a matter of degree, so for one thing, it seems to me that some are snoring more loudly than others. But someone who's had their sense of identity challenged, and has opened themselves to not knowing, and is consciously seeking the existential truth, is certainly someone that I'd consider woke.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 15:10:02 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:10:02 GMT -5
Pretty much on board with all you say there, other than I don't draw any distinction between the terms 'awake' vs. 'Self realized.'
Being awake (for me) means being awake to the Truth of Self, the Truth about 'what in blazes is going on here.' Same for Self realization. Awakening to Truth necessarily incorporates realizing Self. Can you explain how what you term as 'awakening' specifically differs from what you term 'SR'?
The consensus trance is a matter of degree, so for one thing, it seems to me that some are snoring more loudly than others. But someone who's had their sense of identity challenged, and has opened themselves to not knowing, and is consciously seeking the existential truth, is certainly someone that I'd consider woke. Ah...So for you, 'awakening' references seeing through or coming out of, the consensus trance...?
I see coming out of the consensus trance more about just 'living consciously' or what Jed Mckenna refers to as 'adulthood.' And yeah, that can happen by degree for sure.
And...One can be free from bamboozlement by the consensus trance, but still not be awake to the Truth about what's "actually" goin on here. (Awareness, as that which is actual, fundamental, giving rise to the world, which is transient, ephemeral, in it's entirety).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 15:23:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:23:41 GMT -5
Apologize for using E as the initial person in example C. But this is a good conversation, where we can get down to brass tacks, something meaningful. If it's an illusion, why is this crappy stuff? Just labeling this as "crappy" indicates that there is some pull from the drama, some for lack of a better term compassion, giving in to the story. Right? Isn't there a bit of resistance, not liking what life is giving you, not accepting what's offered. etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my casual knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
This fits Rupert's model except he doesn't call it conditioning. He calls it "residual layers of contracted energy." Or something like that. I agree with your assessment regarding fear of death and realization, but you must admit that there are many "unrealized" folk who also don't fear death and who have also stopped searching for answers. We sometimes call them religious fanatics now granted these, usually, embrace the notion of an afterlife. It seems the crux of the matter is etolle's question and to me it's simply realizing the answer to his question is "yes." This is the seed that sprouts awakening. First the mind grows skeptical of its own chatter and with practice grows silent. To me what you call realization CAN BE transposing the mind chattering about what's not happening with self talk about the illusory nature of reality, adding just another layer of conditioning. In my own case all this talk about what we are and are not is interesting fodder for the mind, but ego distractions never-the-less. As to anger and other emotions, when mind stops, everything seems to have a place and fits perfectly in the flow.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 15:43:41 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:43:41 GMT -5
etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my casual knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
This fits Rupert's model except he doesn't call it conditioning. He calls it "residual layers of contracted energy." Or something like that. I agree with your assessment regarding fear of death and realization, but you must admit that there are many "unrealized" folk who also don't fear death and who have also stopped searching for answers. We sometimes call them religious fanatics now granted these, usually, embrace the notion of an afterlife. It seems the crux of the matter is etolle's question and to me it's simply realizing the answer to his question is "yes." This is the seed that sprouts awakening. First the mind grows skeptical of its own chatter and with practice grows silent. To me what you call realization CAN BE transposing the mind chattering about what's not happening with self talk about the illusory nature of reality, adding just another layer of conditioning. In my own case all this talk about what we are and are not is interesting fodder for the mind, but ego distractions never-the-less. As to anger and other emotions, when mind stops, everything seems to have a place and fits perfectly in the flow. And I might add in atma vichara and Zen, the mind coming to rest, subsiding, stopping, is critical. There are just different methods used to help bring this about. Meditation in the case of Zen, except for that weird Rinzai sect, and self-inquiry for those who prefer mental rather than physical torture.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 15:52:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 15:52:14 GMT -5
etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my casual knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
This fits Rupert's model except he doesn't call it conditioning. He calls it "residual layers of contracted energy." Or something like that. I agree with your assessment regarding fear of death and realization, but you must admit that there are many "unrealized" folk who also don't fear death and who have also stopped searching for answers. We sometimes call them religious fanatics now granted these, usually, embrace the notion of an afterlife. It seems the crux of the matter is etolle's question and to me it's simply realizing the answer to his question is "yes." This is the seed that sprouts awakening. First the mind grows skeptical of its own chatter and with practice grows silent. To me what you call realization CAN BE transposing the mind chattering about what's not happening with self talk about the illusory nature of reality, adding just another layer of conditioning. In my own case all this talk about what we are and are not is interesting fodder for the mind, but ego distractions never-the-less. As to anger and other emotions, when mind stops, everything seems to have a place and fits perfectly in the flow. On that note, I watched the movie "Free Solo" yesterday, and found it really interesting how the dude was clearly not afraid of death and yet was still completely and totally driven by the idea of 'being perfect.' So yeah....seemingly that fear of death CAN go, and one still not be SR.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 15:55:42 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 11, 2019 15:55:42 GMT -5
etolle's question raises a good place to start, because, in my opinion, there's a useful distinction to be made: between "awake", and what on this forum is typically referred to as "realized". "Realized" isn't a matter of degree and not temporary, and putting focus on the "realized individual" is exactly the wrong focus in terms of understanding what I'm referring to by "realization", because "what's realized", ultimately, has nothing to do with the conditioned individual. That's not to say that a person doesn't change after realization, and my casual knowledge of both the Zen and Advaita cultures suggests that this is something that "realized people" have written about in the past. There's quite a bit of controversy on this forum among the people who will either claim or not deny "realization". That's an opportunity to make up your own mind, and it also illustrates the point quite nicely that a conditioned individual remains after the fact of realization. People are all so excruciatingly unique, which is a direct reflection of the boundlessness that we all really are. What I say, in particular, is that the conditioning expressed by a given body mind, and the material conditions that body is relative to, are precisely the same in the instant prior to realization as the instant following. I also don't think that realization happens in the same way for everyone, so I think some of the templates people write about can be informative, but I don't agree with insisting that there's a single or a pair or a particular set of multiple realizations that are going to apply to everyone. To me, realization means the end to any existential curiosity. No big "why?" question left, but that doesn't mean a "realized person" couldn't engage with a story or a causal chain of events, and I think that sort of engagement with someone where and how they are can be useful in terms of facilitating a process of that individual becoming conscious of the content and dynamics of their mind. Unlike awakening, there's no potential to obscure what's realized by the ups and downs of life, but that doesn't mean that many of the same unconscious processes happening in Joe C. Trance or someone awake but not realized aren't happening relative to the "realized one".
But not all of those processes are still happening. Realization definitely means the end of the fear of death -- without either loss of the survival instinct, and certainly absent any embrace of any sort of idea of "afterlife". It also means the permanent end of suffering, which, ironically, makes empathy and compassion easier to experience, but is utterly indefensible by intellectual argument. In terms of the resistance embodied by a "realized person", there is a commonality as to what's absent, and it's what is at the root of most anxiety, and related to a purely existential dread that has to do with that fear of death. This is a material edge, but it's not one that will pay the bills, and realized peeps will still need to exercise to stay in shape and will get fat if they eat more calories than they burn. Pain and the potential for dissatisfaction are simple facts of being alive. In contrast, angst is actually -- as I think most people would be surprised to find -- optional. Now, it's common to mellow and accept life more willingly with age, but a realized peep will approach their final days completely free of curiosity, clinging or regrets, That doesn't mean they might not make a will or even feel a sense of urgency about the plight of the people they're going to leave behind. As far as getting angry is concerned .. well, a corollary to the first noble truth is that alot of suffering is directly relatable to people unconsciously perpetuating cycles of misery on the other people around them. A realized person accepts this as the way that it is, without rancor, but why would you expect them not to react when it happens right in front of them?
This fits Rupert's model except he doesn't call it conditioning. He calls it "residual layers of contracted energy." Or something like that. I agree with your assessment regarding fear of death and realization, but you must admit that there are many "unrealized" folk who also don't fear death and who have also stopped searching for answers. We sometimes call them religious fanatics now granted these, usually, embrace the notion of an afterlife. It seems the crux of the matter is etolle's question and to me it's simply realizing the answer to his question is "yes." This is the seed that sprouts awakening. First the mind grows skeptical of its own chatter and with practice grows silent. To me what you call realization CAN BE transposing the mind chattering about what's not happening with self talk about the illusory nature of reality, adding just another layer of conditioning. In my own case all this talk about what we are and are not is interesting fodder for the mind, but ego distractions never-the-less. As to anger and other emotions, when mind stops, everything seems to have a place and fits perfectly in the flow. Ultimately, whether we call finding the witness a realization or an awakening is just language. The salient distinction being whether or not there's still existential questioning going on afterward. There's never a shortage of potential ego distractions. Seems to me people have all sorts of ways of coping with the fact of their impermanence. The adult thing to do is to accept it. Hoping for some sort of disembodied personal existence after-the-fact might put someone's mind at rest on the surface. What I remember of it didn't involve that, just a suppression of it, which seems to me common. Every now and then, it would rise to the forefront of my mind .. this eventuality of oblivion .. and it would lead to a few moments of visceral, palpable panic. As this is ultimately all subjective I can't rule out that some people find a genuine acceptance of death short of realization, but I have serious doubts about it, with the possible exception of an NDE. And while I perceive some genuine expression by some of those folks (and my knowledge here is casual), there's also a propensity for them to start building mind castles of mythology based on their perceptions, as time goes on. Also, I guess there are some folks with a fearlessness gene, but I just can't relate, as it's a foreign perspective to me. But in any event, what I wanted to convey was really just how minimal the conditioned result of realization can be, and sometimes, the descriptions of that by people holding themselves out as realized strike me as just as misleading as some of the cliched expectations of what a realized saint should be by folks curious about it. Bottom line, There is a depth to the mystery, and it's one that everyone is swimming over. It's simultaneously the most profound and important thing one can ever encounter, and yet, as immediate as the nose on your face, and as common, and even ordinary, as the air of your breath. It's a buzz without a downside that leaves you hopelessly in love with the world. But no two lovers ever express themselves in quite exactly the same way.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 18:20:05 GMT -5
Post by bluey on Mar 11, 2019 18:20:05 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. Absolutely. You can read books on masters and see sages on batgap. And come away with the impression that butter doesn't melt in their mouths or they are sitting on a mountain top untouched When I fell awake being with different teachers after I could see yes im in That but I also have effed up parts. Now twenty years later it seems less so. But like today at work a customer really pissed me off on one level but I could also see the play on another level. The problem is when most seekers are attracted to teachers in a satsang bubble Their projections on a teacher. But put ramana Maharishi or papaji In a work setting probably where most have to work in this time here and now against the setting of a satsang setting you may get a different result they may shake under orders or a bad customer if they had to pick up a phone to discuss an internet order sent out to them as they are so used to a satsang setting of western and Indian students just projecting smiling nodding without knowing or like Gurdjieff let him dig a hole he talks of the perfect man But let him dig a hole away from a satsang setting where his students which he was find of digging a hole for some strange reason while he and ouspensky dined on fine food and then talk of the perfect man He probably never dug a hole ever 😂
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 18:48:29 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2019 18:48:29 GMT -5
The fact that there is no separate self does not mean there is no self. (Poking around, this could have been a reply on another thread, but this is just the beginning of Why?) If there is a self that is not separate, there would have to be one (and only one) Self, which never made sense to me.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 19:30:09 GMT -5
Post by krsnaraja on Mar 11, 2019 19:30:09 GMT -5
Why? From the dualistic point of view
The Self refers to the Atma. Atma is one with the Paramatma (Super Self). Both are situated in the heart of all living beings. The Atma moves the body like the driver manuevring a car. The Paramatma who is seated beside the Atma gives proper instructions to the Atma as to how this body /car should be driven. If the Atma abides by the instructions from the Paramatma, well and good. If not, there's the possibility the body /car bumps into another body /car. The Atma suffers the consequence from the accident. The Paramatma seated next to the driver /Atma is not affected.
If by chance the Atma /driver awakens that he's not the body /car but spirit-self then he liberates himself from the bondage of having to drive a body /car. Awakened, the Atma gets out from the body /car and starts walking home back to God with the Paramatma (the eternal companion) .
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 11, 2019 20:08:17 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Mar 11, 2019 20:08:17 GMT -5
It's not clear what this statement means unless it's intended in an extremely superficial way. I doubt that anyone who's seen through the illusion of "me" would agree with it the way it's written. "No self" means no imaginary entity inhabiting or animating a body. From the standpoint of conventional language we can refer to a body as "me" or "self," but if the illusion has been seen through, it isn't believed in or experienced in the same way as before. This is where ND gets funky. Because in my view even getting angry is evidence that you, whatever "you" is, has bought into the illusion of a separate self, even if it's only for an instant. There's always that tug in the story. And for the life of me it seems that it's a continuum. Some folks who are SR seem to buy into it more or less often. You can counter that by saying that it's not the "real" me. It's the body/mind, but somehow that seems hokey. Spira comes to terms with it by saying that the realization of oneness or no separation is just the beginning, that it needs to followed by a slow but willed purging of the body/mind's habits. Fig and E just say that you still "engage" in the dream. But that doesn't explain why SR folk REACT to the dream at times very much like the rest of us. The goal of SR is not to stop feeling, Which I suspect you can appreciate, or to stop feeling 'bad' feelings, the labeling of which is entirely ego driven. Given that, feelings arise unadulterated, as pure feeling without the judgment. It doesn't require a 'me identification' in order to engage and to feel in response to experience happening, and so all 'pure' feelings are felt and enjoyed. Feelings such as rage and terror will not arise, not because they are not good feelings, but because they are not real feelings. They are creative overlays of the mind in turmoil.
|
|