|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 2:10:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 2:10:22 GMT -5
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. Googled ( from a blogger who watches Burt Harding's views on You Tube ) Pure feeling is pure awareness. When you listen to your favorite piece of music you might literally forget yourself. In this 'self-forgetting' there is joy and innocence -- the true spiritual qualities. In other words, the qualities that we cherish such as freedom, love, joy, peace, happiness and inner fulfillment are not qualities at all -- they are the 'NOW' itself. Did you ever feel so drawn to something or someone where you actually disappeared? In that moment you were 'real' and 'egoless.' Did you ever watch performers perform incredible feats of focused energy? In that moment there was no ego (no personal 'I') but pure action emerging from the focused 'now.' Did you ever laugh so heartily that tears ran down your cheeks? In that moment there was spontaneous action from pure awareness. Pure feeling is always 'positive' because it brings out our true natural being of love and oneness. Nice. Notice how he 'quoted' the word .. 'positive'?
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 2:19:07 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 2:19:07 GMT -5
Agreed and no onee eats french fries with carrots. That's just too cryptic. Have you ever eaten a french fries sandwich? Savage.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 2:30:49 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 2:30:49 GMT -5
That's just too cryptic. Have you ever eaten a french fries sandwich? Not cryptic at all. Just about as relevant to your post as yours was to mine. I was challenging the notion that SR means you never buy into believing the life story is not an illusion. I say emotional responses indicate that you believe if only temporarily that the story is not illusory. Btw, I disengage from the movie quite often, too scary or too gory. Remember Cat People or American Werewolf in London? I had to cover my eyes in certain parts. French fry sandwish sounds good. How about french fry pie? Nah. Yuck. Oh man the first time I saw the wolf transformation I was a stoned 20-year-old. From the outside looking in, it can seem as though the "realized one" is no different from Joe C. T. .. but looks, can be deceptive, and no amount of explanation will ever resolve the issue. Focus on the individual is precisely 180 degrees from where it should be. Not to say that some bullsh!tter's don't reveal themselves as bullsh!tter's in this way, but the converse just doesn't hold true, no matter how much it might make sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 5:31:23 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 5:31:23 GMT -5
That's just too cryptic. Have you ever eaten a french fries sandwich? Not cryptic at all. Just about as relevant to your post as yours was to mine. I was challenging the notion that SR means you never buy into believing the life story is not an illusion. I say emotional responses indicate that you believe if only temporarily that the story is not illusory. Btw, I disengage from the movie quite often, too scary or too gory. Remember Cat People or American Werewolf in London? I had to cover my eyes in certain parts. French fry sandwish sounds good. How about french fry pie? Nah. Yuck.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 8:25:06 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 8:25:06 GMT -5
Not cryptic at all. Just about as relevant to your post as yours was to mine. I was challenging the notion that SR means you never buy into believing the life story is not an illusion. I say emotional responses indicate that you believe if only temporarily that the story is not illusory. Btw, I disengage from the movie quite often, too scary or too gory. Remember Cat People or American Werewolf in London? I had to cover my eyes in certain parts. French fry sandwish sounds good. How about french fry pie? Nah. Yuck. Oh man the first time I saw the wolf transformation I was a stoned 20-year-old. From the outside looking in, it can seem as though the "realized one" is no different from Joe C. T. .. but looks, can be deceptive, and no amount of explanation will ever resolve the issue. Focus on the individual is precisely 180 degrees from where it should be. Not to say that some bullsh!tter's don't reveal themselves as bullsh!tter's in this way, but the converse just doesn't hold true, no matter how much it might make sense. Yes, your first post on this topic accounts for it all. Normally, I would have "liked" your post and stopped. But last night the ego wanted some exercise, being a little bit of a d$$ck, this editor changes the "d" word to penis, lmao.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 8:25:59 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 8:25:59 GMT -5
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. This is a reply to ZD('s post) via zazeniac's post. The mind-body ZD has certain characteristics, certain learned skills, ways of seeing and acting in the world, "pouring concrete", handling finances, etc. If you want to call that superficial, fine, but ZD is unique to ZD. I think E would be fine with calling this the individuation (broadly). Previously, I have compared this ~self~ to the narrow part of an hourglass, where "All This" ~passes through~ (the "characteristics"). ZD has always said no, that the Whole is always and only acting, there is no glass narrowing. It's obvious to me, each mind-body has certain characteristics, call it conditioning or reaction to conditioning or whatever, but that's what I mean by self, but no, it is not a separate self. "Personalized" characteristics of an "individual" mind-body = (superficial?) self. ZD also maintains that this (imaginary) self cannot act in the world, because it doesn't exist. But skill exists, there are certain things ZD can accomplish (the mind-body can accomplish) which other mind-bodies cannot accomplish, to the same extent and creativity. Chuang Tzu makes this point in the story of the Wheelwright, who can't pass on what he knows even to his own sons. wayofoneness.com/2013/05/17/the-duke-and-a-wheelwright-by-zhuangzi/ This is what I mean by self, the narrow part of the hourglass that is the Wheelwright. (sdp would not say it's superficial). zazeniac has rightly understood the point(ing). And, what should we call that not-self? SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 9:09:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 9:09:51 GMT -5
This is a reply to ZD('s post) via zazeniac's post. The mind-body ZD has certain characteristics, certain learned skills, ways of seeing and acting in the world, "pouring concrete", handling finances, etc. If you want to call that superficial, fine, but ZD is unique to ZD. I think E would be fine with calling this the individuation (broadly). Previously, I have compared this ~self~ to the narrow part of an hourglass, where "All This" ~passes through~ (the "characteristics"). ZD has always said no, that the Whole is always and only acting, there is no glass narrowing. It's obvious to me, each mind-body has certain characteristics, call it conditioning or reaction to conditioning or whatever, but that's what I mean by self, but no, it is not a separate self. "Personalized" characteristics of an "individual" mind-body = (superficial?) self. ZD also maintains that this (imaginary) self cannot act in the world, because it doesn't exist. But skill exists, there are certain things ZD can accomplish (the mind-body can accomplish) which other mind-bodies cannot accomplish, to the same extent and creativity. Chuang Tzu makes this point in the story of the Wheelwright, who can't pass on what he knows even to his own sons. wayofoneness.com/2013/05/17/the-duke-and-a-wheelwright-by-zhuangzi/ This is what I mean by self, the narrow part of the hourglass that is the Wheelwright. (sdp would not say it's superficial). zazeniac has rightly understood the point(ing). And, what should we call that not-self? SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined. I don't see a lot of distance between the two views. Liken it to an actor playing a role in play. The role only exists while in the play. ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice, he knows he's just playing his role in this play of life.I argue that even after SR, the actor sometimes gets lost in the play. Laughy concedes, and I think ZD will as well, that that can happen for very short periods and some times for longer periods. Some folk, still believe they are their role. For me, my practice, is for the role player to see that he/she are in a Theater, a playhouse. Is the role real. Yes, in the context of the play. And I think the actor can't help but love the play and his role.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 10:21:20 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 10:21:20 GMT -5
SDP: I'd prefer to use E's "individuation" rather than "self" to refer to the body/mind organism. No one denies that each body/mind has unique characteristics (if we want to make those distinctions), but to call that a "self" seems to add confusion from my POV. If we look at "what is" without distinction, words and ideas do not apply, so there's no constriction, no hourglass, no entities, etc. It's all one unified movement, or flow. In everyday life the activity of making abstract distinctions is unnecessary, and in the absence of distinctions life unfolds more smoothly and effortlessly than can be imagined. I don't see a lot of distance between the two views. Liken it to an actor playing a role in play. The role only exists while in the play. ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice, he knows he's just playing his role in this play of life.I argue that even after SR, the actor sometimes gets lost in the play. Laughy concedes, and I think ZD will as well, that that can happen for very short periods and some times for longer periods. Some folk, still believe they are their role. For me, my practice, is for the role player to see that he/she are in a Theater, a playhouse. Is the role real. Yes, in the context of the play. And I think the actor can't help but love the play and his role. "ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice." Not really. The idea of choice is gone as well as the idea that one is playing a role. That kind of reflective thought is gone, and what remains is simply whatever's happening. This is a subtle point, but it's significant. To understand, watch a young child. The child is always present, and is always non-reflective (in the adult sense). A sage lives exactly the same way. Sahaja samadhi is a condition of permanent flow. This is different than other forms of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa, because those kinds of states come and go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 10:47:50 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 10:47:50 GMT -5
I don't see a lot of distance between the two views. Liken it to an actor playing a role in play. The role only exists while in the play. ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice, he knows he's just playing his role in this play of life.I argue that even after SR, the actor sometimes gets lost in the play. Laughy concedes, and I think ZD will as well, that that can happen for very short periods and some times for longer periods. Some folk, still believe they are their role. For me, my practice, is for the role player to see that he/she are in a Theater, a playhouse. Is the role real. Yes, in the context of the play. And I think the actor can't help but love the play and his role. "ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice." Not really. The idea of choice is gone as well as the idea that one is playing a role. That kind of reflective thought is gone, and what remains is simply whatever's happening. This is a subtle point, but it's significant. To understand, watch a young child. The child is always present, and is always non-reflective (in the adult sense). A sage lives exactly the same way. Sahaja samadhi is a condition of permanent flow. This is different than other forms of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa, because those kinds of states come and go. Yes, that makes more sense. I liken my meditation practice to a respite from the role. In mushin the actor is in the play as the actor, no longer playing the role. But this is all academic to me and am not sure whether the panoramic view is helpful to just me. I don't discount that it might be helpful to others. For me it's like trying to walk before learning to crawl.
|
|
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 11:11:49 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 11:11:49 GMT -5
"ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice." Not really. The idea of choice is gone as well as the idea that one is playing a role. That kind of reflective thought is gone, and what remains is simply whatever's happening. This is a subtle point, but it's significant. To understand, watch a young child. The child is always present, and is always non-reflective (in the adult sense). A sage lives exactly the same way. Sahaja samadhi is a condition of permanent flow. This is different than other forms of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa, because those kinds of states come and go. Yes, that makes more sense. I liken my meditation practice to a respite from the role. In mushin the actor is in the play as the actor, no longer playing the role. Yes. In everyday life people periodically get so deeply involved in what they're doing that they don't reflect ABOUT what they're doing. If it's really deep, then even self-referential thinking ceases. Usually this occurs during activities that one finds enjoyable or particularly interesting. Attention shifts from reflective thoughts to whatever is happening. This is a form of samadhi, which can be defined as a state of "psychological unity." People can become so attentive and so focused upon what's happening that they totally lose track of time. Everyone has had these kinds of experiences, but they're usually intermittent. Samadhi can't become permanent until the illusion of selfhood has been seen through and non-abidance has been attained. The Buddha called it a "non-attained attainment" because there isn't a "me" at the center of that happening.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 12, 2019 11:17:25 GMT -5
"ZD says that once realized the actor still plays his role, but it's a choice." Not really. The idea of choice is gone as well as the idea that one is playing a role. That kind of reflective thought is gone, and what remains is simply whatever's happening. This is a subtle point, but it's significant. To understand, watch a young child. The child is always present, and is always non-reflective (in the adult sense). A sage lives exactly the same way. Sahaja samadhi is a condition of permanent flow. This is different than other forms of samadhi, such as nirvikalpa, because those kinds of states come and go. Yes, that makes more sense. I liken my meditation practice to a respite from the role. In mushin the actor is in the play as the actor, no longer playing the role. But this is all academic to me and am not sure whether the panoramic view is helpful to just me. I don't discount that it might be helpful to others. For me it's like trying to walk before learning to crawl. If you think you have volition and you are the doer then that's what you should continue to think. How could you think otherwise, by pretending not to be the doer or trying to convince yourself that you are not the doer, and worst of all somehow mimicking the way a sage is supposed to see things? There's no point in doing that. Just do the meditation.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 11:26:51 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:26:51 GMT -5
Yes, that makes more sense. I liken my meditation practice to a respite from the role. In mushin the actor is in the play as the actor, no longer playing the role. Yes. In everyday life people periodically get so deeply involved in what they're doing that they don't reflect ABOUT what they're doing. If it's really deep, then even self-referential thinking ceases. Usually this occurs during activities that one finds enjoyable or particularly interesting. Attention shifts from reflective thoughts to whatever is happening. This is a form of samadhi, which can be defined as a state of "psychological unity." People can become so attentive and so focused upon what's happening that they totally lose track of time. Everyone has had these kinds of experiences, but they're usually intermittent. Samadhi can't become permanent until the illusion of selfhood has been seen through and non-abidance has been attained. The Buddha called it a "non-attained attainment" because there isn't a "me" at the center of that happening. I'm screwed then because no amount of talking gets me closer to "seeing through," actually increases the skepticism. Jesus said "judge a tree by its fruit" sometimes that fruit ain't looking too appetizing. But permanent samadhi, mushin, whatever, makes me drool. I actually feel that the biggest obstaclle isn't seeing through the illusion for me. I think it's the folks around me will be unnerved, but I guess that's part of not seeing through the illusion.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 11:34:53 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:34:53 GMT -5
Yes, that makes more sense. I liken my meditation practice to a respite from the role. In mushin the actor is in the play as the actor, no longer playing the role. But this is all academic to me and am not sure whether the panoramic view is helpful to just me. I don't discount that it might be helpful to others. For me it's like trying to walk before learning to crawl. If you think you have volition and you are the doer then that's what you should continue to think. How could you think otherwise, by pretending not to be the doer or trying to convince yourself that you are not the doer, and worst of all somehow mimicking the way a sage is supposed to see things? There's no point in doing that. Just do the meditation. Excellent point.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 11:42:20 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:42:20 GMT -5
Yes. In everyday life people periodically get so deeply involved in what they're doing that they don't reflect ABOUT what they're doing. If it's really deep, then even self-referential thinking ceases. Usually this occurs during activities that one finds enjoyable or particularly interesting. Attention shifts from reflective thoughts to whatever is happening. This is a form of samadhi, which can be defined as a state of "psychological unity." People can become so attentive and so focused upon what's happening that they totally lose track of time. Everyone has had these kinds of experiences, but they're usually intermittent. Samadhi can't become permanent until the illusion of selfhood has been seen through and non-abidance has been attained. The Buddha called it a "non-attained attainment" because there isn't a "me" at the center of that happening. I'm screwed then because no amount of talking gets me closer to "seeing through," actually increases the skepticism. Jesus said "judge a tree by its fruit" sometimes that fruit ain't looking too appetizing. But permanent samadhi, mushin, whatever, makes me drool. I actually feel that the biggest obstaclle isn't seeing through the illusion for me. I think it's the folks around me will be unnerved, but I guess that's part of not seeing through the illusion. Are their needs greater than yours?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Why?
Mar 12, 2019 11:48:07 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:48:07 GMT -5
Yes. In everyday life people periodically get so deeply involved in what they're doing that they don't reflect ABOUT what they're doing. If it's really deep, then even self-referential thinking ceases. Usually this occurs during activities that one finds enjoyable or particularly interesting. Attention shifts from reflective thoughts to whatever is happening. This is a form of samadhi, which can be defined as a state of "psychological unity." People can become so attentive and so focused upon what's happening that they totally lose track of time. Everyone has had these kinds of experiences, but they're usually intermittent. Samadhi can't become permanent until the illusion of selfhood has been seen through and non-abidance has been attained. The Buddha called it a "non-attained attainment" because there isn't a "me" at the center of that happening. I'm screwed then because no amount of talking gets me closer to "seeing through," actually increases the skepticism. Jesus said "judge a tree by its fruit" sometimes that fruit ain't looking too appetizing. But permanent samadhi, mushin, whatever, makes me drool. I actually feel that the biggest obstaclle isn't seeing through the illusion for me. I think it's the folks around me will be unnerved, but I guess that's part of not seeing through the illusion. I say that increased skepticism, you're talking about, the judgement of the fruit of the tree, is just ego rearing up because you are having glimpses/glimmers of seeing through. In the actuality of seeing through, ego has to take the back-burner and it just doesn't like that. It also loves the idea of permanent peaceful feelings. And really, that is why I'm generally not terribly fond of suggestions to practice. Sometimes it just strengthens egos resolve that it will arrive at permanent bliss.
Fwiw, you seem to me to be right on the edge.
|
|