|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 23, 2019 8:26:39 GMT -5
Ramana still woke up every day and engaged in dialogue with other people, and this was obviously a big tendency of his. He may have even had a habit of picking his nose, and I don't think stopping his nose picking is a precursor to anything. You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 17:13:27 GMT -5
Lopez: "Could we get there through Self abidance?" The way I see it is that we are always abiding as Self whether enlightened or unenlightened. I prefer to think of the path as leading to non-abidance in intellect, and I suppose one reason I like Tolle as a teacher is that he usually points to that state and explains various ways to get there. These days I laughingly refer to my path as one of mindLESSness rather than mindFULness. LOL. After my first insights into how I had become entranced, I saw very little value in the habit of watching thoughts. The problem I faced, and the problem most people face, is that I was already habituated to incessant thought. I realized that little children are not burdened by incessant thoughts, so I began doing what little children do--looking, listening, smelling, tasting, and touching. I kept shifting attention away from thoughts to what could be seen, heard, felt, etc. I can relate. I did this for quite some time in my late 20's. The ole shifting attention into presence. Would you agree that your mind's refusal to generate thoughts or active desire to not think is what shifting attention involved? Shifting attention away from thoughts was observed by 'that' which doesn't shift. Do you consider the person you appear to be to be beyond further evolution? This simple and effortless functioning is something I'm sure many have a reference for. Do you think someone accustomed to and able to get basically whatever they want would also find life effortless? There could still be a fear of wanting what you don't have based on the idea you can't have it operating unconsciously. I'm not saying this is happening with you, I'm just giving an example of how consciousness can be more aware of personal functioning. Well, even the arising of thinking is observed by something that does not arise and fall. I wouldn't equate that with your mind that thinks when it wants to. While it seems you are conditioned to think much less than the people around you, I also wouldn't call such a mind state enlightenment. I wouldn't call it not enlightenment either. Ok, so consciousness doesn't abide in mind, but in your case, it does seem your mind is abiding in consciousness. I also am aware of the wonderful effects this can lead to in the form of various absences. Yet I'm also aware that such abidance won't necessarily make people any more conscious as individuals. But it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't entranced by the verbiage of someone like Maharshi. Again, I'm not saying this is the case with you, just pointing that mind states of silence can be embodiments of entrancement as well.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 17:17:46 GMT -5
You believe conscious and unconscious minds are equal and the same? Or only that becoming conscious isn't possible? Do you actually want to engage me in a dialogue, or just throw one liners you heard from someone else while keeping your conditioning as far away from consciousness as possible? **awkward silence** I don't believe that there are individual minds, though I understand that they are completely necessary. You don't believe individual minds exist but you also believe they are completely necessary? It's a logical fallacy you could address. Ok, and I'm just saying people can not just be more present, but also more conscious in their functioning. I prefer a world that functions more consciously than the one we currently inhabit, and I would hope that folks posting on this forum would feel the same. I, of course, understand some folks actually want the opposite, which is how the mop flops I spose.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 17:30:43 GMT -5
I think you were pretty spot on with the destroying mind fallacy. If we look at the person as a conditioned entity, we could say conditioning is observed by unconditioned consciousness. This conceptual split gives rise to the illusion that one is separate from the other, or even better, embodies the illusion that what you are prior to enlightenment is separate from what you could be after. Obviously, you don't need to remove the person in order for there to be enlightenment. Ramana still woke up every day and engaged in dialogue with other people, and this was obviously a big tendency of his. He may have even had a habit of picking his nose, and I don't think stopping his nose picking is a precursor to anything. I believe we spoke previously about conscious and unconscious tendencies, the latter of which I would call vasanas which could be uprooted to bring one closer to God or a life in harmony with oneness, the embodiment of realization. Uprooting vasanas isn't about Self knowledge, it's about the absence of avoidance of self knowledge, the absence of your mind functioning unconsciously to avoid already existing emotions. That absence is brought about through making the mind conscious. So, we have the already debunked split between the unconditioned consciousness and the conditioned consciousness, and yet, another apparent and experiential split between a person conditioned to be unconscious of itself, who thus possesses the potential to achieve greater consciousness through loss of unconsciousness. Could an argument be made that you get there through Self abidance? I spose, but then we're equating the Self with the observer and calling the conditioned person not Self. All is the Self. It's true you aren't a person. But from another angle it's also true you aren't not a person either. The person is an expression of Self and there is no True Self to abide in. There is nowhere to hide, and no need to either. All is amicably, and sometimes un-amicably, One. I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. I see a continued increase in consciousness between the relationship of my conditioning with the ever changing conditions in consciousness. While each of the two is essentially consciousness, as I become more aware, I also see myself getting closer to God. This has a lot more to do with a developing and processing than it does with simply realizing I wasn't separate from God in the first place. Of course consciousness doesn't increase, the person I appear as becomes less unconscious, and accordingly, there is less identification of consciousness with thoughts and feelings. Life unfolds more smoothly because the mind isn't unconsciously wired to resist it's own happenings which occur spontaneously based on appearing conditions, which on the ultimate level, you yourself create. I find myself less willing or even less able to behave in a way which would lead to my own degradation, which is to say, arises out of an unconscious need to avoid how I'm feeling. And so on and so forth. In this sense, we are talking about spiritual ascension, but I don't think the desire to ascend mount woo woo is going to get anyone anywhere, except for maybe stuck. When belief structures which no longer serve us are noticed and inquired into, they are transcended and left behind. If the belief structures still serve us, even if harbored unconsciously, not likely they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. All very much self regulating and very much beyond one's control. Nevertheless, I wouldn't discount the power of intention and application of will to achieve various ends. Often in pursuit of such ends is where becoming conscious takes place...
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 17:32:22 GMT -5
Ramana still woke up every day and engaged in dialogue with other people, and this was obviously a big tendency of his. He may have even had a habit of picking his nose, and I don't think stopping his nose picking is a precursor to anything. You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things. I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 17:52:54 GMT -5
I don't believe that there are individual minds, though I understand that they are completely necessary. You don't believe individual minds exist but you also believe they are completely necessary? It's a logical fallacy you could address. Ok, and I'm just saying people can not just be more present, but also more conscious in their functioning. I prefer a world that functions more consciously than the one we currently inhabit, and I would hope that folks posting on this forum would feel the same. I, of course, understand some folks actually want the opposite, which is how the mop flops I spose. It's not that they want the opposite, it's that they fully understand what a distortion and disturbance the desire to want the world to be other than how it is, is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 17:55:04 GMT -5
You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things. I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you.What was he conditioned by? He left home when he was still a teenager.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 23, 2019 17:58:02 GMT -5
I think I'm kind of on your side in this debate. It's what Laffy argues. He postulates there's "Realization," which is noticing you are not the seaprate self, but you're still a drip, and then there's "Awakening" where you become more "saintly." I'm neither. But think I'll skip the big "R" component. I believe in many instances there's proprtional relationship between it and psychopathy. Maybe too strong a statement there. I see a continued increase in consciousness between the relationship of my conditioning with the ever changing conditions in consciousness. While each of the two is essentially consciousness, as I become more aware, I also see myself getting closer to God. This has a lot more to do with a developing and processing than it does with simply realizing I wasn't separate from God in the first place. Of course consciousness doesn't increase, the person I appear as becomes less unconscious, and accordingly, there is less identification of consciousness with thoughts and feelings. Life unfolds more smoothly because the mind isn't unconsciously wired to resist it's own happenings which occur spontaneously based on appearing conditions, which on the ultimate level, you yourself create. I find myself less willing or even less able to behave in a way which would lead to my own degradation, which is to say, arises out of an unconscious need to avoid how I'm feeling. And so on and so forth. In this sense, we are talking about spiritual ascension, but I don't think the desire to ascend mount woo woo is going to get anyone anywhere, except for maybe stuck. When belief structures which no longer serve us are noticed and inquired into, they are transcended and left behind. If the belief structures still serve us, even if harbored unconsciously, not likely they'll be going anywhere anytime soon. All very much self regulating and very much beyond one's control. Nevertheless, I wouldn't discount the power of intention and application of will to achieve various ends. Often in pursuit of such ends is where becoming conscious takes place... That's good to read man.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 19:02:19 GMT -5
You don't believe individual minds exist but you also believe they are completely necessary? It's a logical fallacy you could address. Ok, and I'm just saying people can not just be more present, but also more conscious in their functioning. I prefer a world that functions more consciously than the one we currently inhabit, and I would hope that folks posting on this forum would feel the same. I, of course, understand some folks actually want the opposite, which is how the mop flops I spose. It's not that they want the opposite, it's that they fully understand what a distortion and disturbance the desire to want the world to be other than how it is, is. Axooly, there are people on this forum that actively campaign against greater consciousness. Regardless, the desire for the world to change hardly necessitates unease. Change is the only constant, and so one might argue to not want change is more of an affliction. In practical terms, I think folks who consciously engage the enterprise of desire or manifestation will enjoy seeing how things unfold and playing their part in the grander scheme. To engage a desire for change unconsciously, on the flip side, will bring suffering at some point down the line, as its arising stems from already existing disharmony.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 19:04:31 GMT -5
I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you.What was he conditioned by? He left home when he was still a teenager. Conditioned by his experience.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 23, 2019 20:27:00 GMT -5
You mean others just saw him appear to do those things and assumed someone with a name and body called Ramana was doing those things just as they themselves thought they were also doing things. I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you. 31. As the movement of the cart, its standing still and its being unyoked are to the passenger asleep in the cart, even so are action, contemplation and sleep to the Sage asleep in the cart of his body. Reality in Forty Verses Ramana Maharshi
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 20:55:24 GMT -5
I agree with this, but it's not what I meant. I'm saying Ramana was a conditioned person just like me and you. 31. As the movement of the cart, its standing still and its being unyoked are to the passenger asleep in the cart, even so are action, contemplation and sleep to the Sage asleep in the cart of his body. Reality in Forty Verses Ramana Maharshi And human beings are conditioned creatures. Still not sure if you agree with that, so I will just ask you. Do you believe the person you appear to be can be conditioned to do stuff? Or is your take that the person has been destroyed and hence conditions no longer influence your behavior in any way?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jun 23, 2019 21:06:54 GMT -5
31. As the movement of the cart, its standing still and its being unyoked are to the passenger asleep in the cart, even so are action, contemplation and sleep to the Sage asleep in the cart of his body. Reality in Forty Verses Ramana Maharshi And human beings are conditioned creatures. Still not sure if you agree with that, so I will just ask you. Do you believe the person you appear to be can be conditioned to do stuff? Or is your take that the person has been destroyed and hence conditions no longer influence your behavior in any way? You have missed my point. Everyone is conditioned, Ramana, the Buddha, everyone, but the difference is that the sage knows he is not the conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2019 21:54:26 GMT -5
Lopez: "Could we get there through Self abidance?" The way I see it is that we are always abiding as Self whether enlightened or unenlightened. I prefer to think of the path as leading to non-abidance in intellect, and I suppose one reason I like Tolle as a teacher is that he usually points to that state and explains various ways to get there. These days I laughingly refer to my path as one of mindLESSness rather than mindFULness. LOL. After my first insights into how I had become entranced, I saw very little value in the habit of watching thoughts. The problem I faced, and the problem most people face, is that I was already habituated to incessant thought. I realized that little children are not burdened by incessant thoughts, so I began doing what little children do--looking, listening, smelling, tasting, and touching. I kept shifting attention away from thoughts to what could be seen, heard, felt, etc. I can relate. I did this for quite some time in my late 20's. The ole shifting attention into presence. Would you agree that your mind's refusal to generate thoughts or active desire to not think is what shifting attention involved? Shifting attention away from thoughts was observed by 'that' which doesn't shift. Do you consider the person you appear to be to be beyond further evolution? This simple and effortless functioning is something I'm sure many have a reference for. Do you think someone accustomed to and able to get basically whatever they want would also find life effortless? There could still be a fear of wanting what you don't have based on the idea you can't have it operating unconsciously. I'm not saying this is happening with you, I'm just giving an example of how consciousness can be more aware of personal functioning. Well, even the arising of thinking is observed by something that does not arise and fall. I wouldn't equate that with your mind that thinks when it wants to. While it seems you are conditioned to think much less than the people around you, I also wouldn't call such a mind state enlightenment. I wouldn't call it not enlightenment either. Ok, so consciousness doesn't abide in mind, but in your case, it does seem your mind is abiding in consciousness. I also am aware of the wonderful effects this can lead to in the form of various absences. Yet I'm also aware that such abidance won't necessarily make people any more conscious as individuals. But it doesn't necessarily mean you aren't entranced by the verbiage of someone like Maharshi. Again, I'm not saying this is the case with you, just pointing that mind states of silence can be embodiments of entrancement as well. I agree with pretty much everything that you're pointing to. Yes, that which doesn't move sees all movement, and all apparent movement is one-with THAT. In this sense life is both highly personal and totally impersonal at the same time. From my POV there's no end to what can be realized, and conditions change all the time, so I have no idea what will happen next, which is perfect. It's almost like watching a movie from the standpoint of an actor in a movie who is playing a role and watching it unfold from inside the role. I agree that being able to think or not think has nothing to do with enlightenment, but sustained mental silence does seem to be correlated with the occurrence of existential realizations and an increased sense of unity with "what is." Even before the illusion of selfhood is seen through, people whose minds are relatively silent will often have a significantly greater sense of unity with life than people whose mind's are incessantly active. I don't have a sense that this body/mind is any more conscious today than it was in the past, but today there is understanding and equanimity which is probably best attributed to realizations that informed the intellect about "what's going on." From a dualistic perspective it could be said that there's been an evolution in understanding, but from a non-dualistic perspective it seems to have been a unified isness that involved no movement at all. If, in the future, the body/mind became more "saintly" (from a conventional perspective) than it currently is, it would just be a continuing part of the impersonal unfoldment of "what is." As for becoming entranced by the words of any sages, that seems unlikely, though not impossible, simply because what has been directly experienced has so far superceded all else. The Infinite has remained an unassailable touchstone for almost 35 years. This could change tomorrow, but the odds of that happening seem remote.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Jun 23, 2019 22:04:47 GMT -5
And human beings are conditioned creatures. Still not sure if you agree with that, so I will just ask you. Do you believe the person you appear to be can be conditioned to do stuff? Or is your take that the person has been destroyed and hence conditions no longer influence your behavior in any way? You have missed my point. Everyone is conditioned, Ramana, the Buddha, everyone, but the difference is that the sage knows he is not the conditioning. Ok. From your viewpoint, can conditioning be conditioned to think it isn’t conditioning?
|
|