|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 8, 2020 0:51:05 GMT -5
I recommend an effortless approach, but at the same time a disciplined one. The two shouldn't be confused. How could a true and direct notice of the infinite possibly escape the interest of a seeker who encounters it? Anything else, that requires coercion, is simply not .. that. There must initially be some small effort or intention but that leads to effortlessness which is self-sustaining awareness of itself. Who practices? The ego practices until the disappearance of the practicer.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 0:57:15 GMT -5
There is no witness, only witnessing, and the simple distinction between the thought, and the thinker, illuminates an empty spacious room .. that is the ground of your being. And all thoughts are ephemeral, so there's no need to divorce what is here one minute, and gone the next. The space of the process of witnessing simply puts this all into perspective. You say there is no witness only witnessing but then say there is a thinker, so why no thinker but only thinking? it would be more accurate to say there is a witness because the witness can exist without having anything to witness whereas the thinker is I and that definitely arises. The witness is passive and uninvolved and untainted by what is witnessed. These are all valid ways of pointing, but you were equating detachment with a severing/separation ("divorce"). It's true that witnessing is passive and leaves the witness unmoved, but conceiving of the witness as a noun can lead to a false implication that the witness is personal, and other than what is witnessed, when that's certainly not anything I've directly suggested.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 1:00:59 GMT -5
How could a true and direct notice of the infinite possibly escape the interest of a seeker who encounters it? Anything else, that requires coercion, is simply not .. that. There must initially be some small effort or intention but that leads to effortlessness which is self-sustaining awareness of itself. Who practices? The ego practices until the disappearance of the practicer. It appears that way, for certain, sure - and I've even suggested that myself already, but "discipline" suggests something else, something coersive. If you answer the question of self-inquiry with "I'm the ego" .. well .. ok. Best wishes.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 8, 2020 1:11:28 GMT -5
There must initially be some small effort or intention but that leads to effortlessness which is self-sustaining awareness of itself. Who practices? The ego practices until the disappearance of the practicer. It appears that way, for certain, sure - and I've even suggested that myself already, but "discipline" suggests something else, something coersive. If you answer the question of self-inquiry with "I'm the ego" .. well .. ok. Best wishes. There is no answer to the question, who am I, which dissolves into the source but it is the ego that initiates the question. The answer is not that you are the ego, on the contrary. 😀
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 1:15:46 GMT -5
It appears that way, for certain, sure - and I've even suggested that myself already, but "discipline" suggests something else, something coersive. If you answer the question of self-inquiry with "I'm the ego" .. well .. ok. Best wishes. There is no answer to the question, who am I, which dissolves into the source but it is the ego that initiates the question. The answer is not that you are the ego, on the contrary. 😀 You answered "who practices?" with "it is the ego that practices". Rather, I'd say, that this question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. It's yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question, of which, there really is, only one.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 8, 2020 2:15:25 GMT -5
There is no answer to the question, who am I, which dissolves into the source but it is the ego that initiates the question. The answer is not that you are the ego, on the contrary. 😀 You answered "who practices?" with "it is the ego that practices". Rather, I'd say, that this question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. It's yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question, of which, there really is, only one. "I" practice. This is the experience. Who practices is not answered by conceptual discourse. It is I. Pure and simple. It is not self inquiry that practices. What is that but a conceptual overlay, a mystical sounding answer which is all too often de rigueur in a forum discussing spirituality. Let's stick with the basic obvious experience. It is I.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2020 7:38:43 GMT -5
There is no answer to the question, who am I, which dissolves into the source but it is the ego that initiates the question. The answer is not that you are the ego, on the contrary. 😀 You answered "who practices?" with "it is the ego that practices". Rather, I'd say, that this question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. It's yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question, of which, there really is, only one. ~You~ find what's behind what's trying to practice, and then what's behind that, and then what's behind that. But Madame de Salzmann put it this way, ~You~ have to get in front of yourself. That is, attention/awareness gets in front of ego, intercepts incoming stuff before it activates ego-response.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 8:17:59 GMT -5
You answered "who practices?" with "it is the ego that practices". Rather, I'd say, that this question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. It's yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question, of which, there really is, only one. "I" practice. This is the experience. Who practices is not answered by conceptual discourse. It is I. Pure and simple. It is not self inquiry that practices. What is that but a conceptual overlay, a mystical sounding answer which is all too often de rigueur in a forum discussing spirituality. Let's stick with the basic obvious experience. It is I. Inferring I was suggesting that from what I wrote is TMT. I didn't write " it is self-inquiry that practices", which is a meaningless nonsense. I wrote, very simply, that the question "who practices?", is self-inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 8:20:11 GMT -5
You answered "who practices?" with "it is the ego that practices". Rather, I'd say, that this question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. It's yet another of the myriad forms of the existential question, of which, there really is, only one. ~You~ find what's behind what's trying to practice, and then what's behind that, and then what's behind that. But Madame de Salzmann put it this way, ~You~ have to get in front of yourself. That is, attention/awareness gets in front of ego, intercepts incoming stuff before it activates ego-response. Infinite regress is also TMT. It's a prime example of intellect making a mess out of the simple suggestion to recognize that the voice in your head, isn't you.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jan 8, 2020 9:31:26 GMT -5
"I" practice. This is the experience. Who practices is not answered by conceptual discourse. It is I. Pure and simple. It is not self inquiry that practices. What is that but a conceptual overlay, a mystical sounding answer which is all too often de rigueur in a forum discussing spirituality. Let's stick with the basic obvious experience. It is I. Inferring I was suggesting that from what I wrote is TMT. I didn't write " it is self-inquiry that practices", which is a meaningless nonsense. I wrote, very simply, that the question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. Oh I see. Sorry, I misunderstood.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2020 9:41:36 GMT -5
~You~ find what's behind what's trying to practice, and then what's behind that, and then what's behind that. But Madame de Salzmann put it this way, ~You~ have to get in front of yourself. That is, attention/awareness gets in front of ego, intercepts incoming stuff before it activates ego-response. Infinite regress is also TMT. It's a prime example of intellect making a mess out of the simple suggestion to recognize that the voice in your head, isn't you.The point is to come to a *full stop*, the end of the regress. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 8, 2020 15:00:06 GMT -5
~You~ find what's behind what's trying to practice, and then what's behind that, and then what's behind that. But Madame de Salzmann put it this way, ~You~ have to get in front of yourself. That is, attention/awareness gets in front of ego, intercepts incoming stuff before it activates ego-response. Infinite regress is also TMT. It's a prime example of intellect making a mess out of the simple suggestion to recognize that the voice in your head, isn't you. I would put it this way, "The voice in your head isn't spoken by who/what you THINK is doing the speaking."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 19:31:37 GMT -5
Inferring I was suggesting that from what I wrote is TMT. I didn't write " it is self-inquiry that practices", which is a meaningless nonsense. I wrote, very simply, that the question "who practices?", is self-inquiry. Oh I see. Sorry, I misunderstood. .. (** rubs eyes **) .. (** looks again **) ..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 19:44:19 GMT -5
Infinite regress is also TMT. It's a prime example of intellect making a mess out of the simple suggestion to recognize that the voice in your head, isn't you.The point is to come to a *full stop*, the end of the regress. Correct. Always a point worth making.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2020 19:51:42 GMT -5
Infinite regress is also TMT. It's a prime example of intellect making a mess out of the simple suggestion to recognize that the voice in your head, isn't you. I would put it this way, "The voice in your head isn't spoken by who/what you THINK is doing the speaking." This strikes me as a gentler way to put it, with less apparent contradiction to clear up later. But the shock of the underlying realization can be like a carnival ride to some extent, so I wouldn't deny anyone that.
|
|