|
Post by zendancer on Sept 24, 2010 10:40:56 GMT -5
Imagine that ten seekers go to visit the same enlightened teacher. Each seeker asks the same thing, “What must I do to find the truth?” The teacher says the same thing to each seeker; she says, “Stop and be still. Spend every waking minute interacting with the world through your senses. Look, listen, feel, smell, taste, attend, and contemplate everything that happens.” Each seeker asks for more explanation, and the teacher further explains everything in exactly the same way.
The mystery is that one seeker will do exactly what the teacher advises. Eight seekers will do some variation of what the teacher advises and will do it for various amounts of time ranging from ten minutes to three hours per day. One student will ignore the teacher’s teaching totally.
Each student came to the teacher in psychologically the same place, lost in the mind, but interested in waking up. One student will wake up. Several students will attain various degrees of understanding without waking up, and the rest will attain virtually no understanding and will stay lost in the mind. The initial interest is the same, the intention is the same, and the teaching is the same, but how each student will respond is a complete mystery. Who we THINK we are has NOTHING to do with how the body/mind responds to __________. Who we THINK we are is an imaginary construct. To understand how much control this imaginary construct has we can imagine a cartoon gremlin and then ask ourselves if that imaginary gremlin can lift a paper clip off of our desk. Who we THINK we are has exactly the same power to move a paper clip or control what we see the body/mind doing.
The one who actually controls the body/mind is the same one who pumps blood, transmits nerve impulses, regulates hormone levels, sees, and thinks. There is no space between the see-er and the seen and there is no space between the thinker and the thought. Look around. What we see if we are not thinking is ______________, and the one who sees is also ________________. So, to sum up
_______________________________________________________________________!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2010 11:59:05 GMT -5
Really nice! Now, I would surely like to solve the mystery. But what happens to a mystery once it's solved?
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 24, 2010 15:44:37 GMT -5
You make it sound like there actually exists an entity or power, something that is in charge of the universe. I can't accept that thought. When I read the last paragaph, I immediately got angry and wished that I could meet "_____" and punch it in the face for the poor job it's doing in managing the universe. I find it so much more beautiful and easier to cope with life when absolutely nobody is in charge.
As for the mystery, I don't see a problem there. Each of the students' body and brain is structured differently and some few possess the talent for nondual realisation. Nine are unlucky to have a brain that prevents understanding, one student is lucky to have a brain that doesn't prevent understanding.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 24, 2010 17:41:06 GMT -5
Zendancer,
You say interact with the world thorough your senses, however your senses can and do mislead you. For example, you know the story of one who sees a snake which turns out on further investigation to be a rope or the one in which you cross your fingers and then slide a pencil between them your sense of touch tells you there are two pencils instead of one pencil. Of course these are simple examples, but they show how your senses can and do mislead you.
Of course who we think we are is an imaginary construct, otherwise the age old question of "who am I " would have no relevance today and this board would be obsolete. We know intuitively who we think we are is an imaginary construct, but that tells us nothing more then who we think we are is an imaginary construct.
To tell me there is no space between see-er and seen, thinker and thought much less who or what controls the autonomic nervous system may be as much an imaginary construct as who we think we are.
There may be only chaos which our imagination transforms into infinite constructs.
What ever ________ is may be chaos transformed into a construct and a construct can fall back into chaos.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2010 18:19:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Sept 24, 2010 18:57:45 GMT -5
In 1976, a young Dustin Hoffman was shooting one of the biggest movies of his career – Marathon Man. The role called for Hoffman to play a man at the end of his physical and psychological rope since most of the film involved double crosses and shady killers out to get him. To put himself in the mindset of a man losing control Hoffman didn’t sleep for days at a time and let his body become disheveled and unhealthy. Finally, after all this work Hoffman notices his co-star Sir Lawrence Olivier sitting comfortably on a stage chair without a care in the world. Surprised that he is the only one on set who has gone to such rigorous lengths, he asks Olivier how he’s able to make his performance look so real. The confused Olivier stops, takes a breath and calmly responds, “Dear boy, it’s called acting
|
|
|
Post by unveilable on Sept 25, 2010 6:00:19 GMT -5
Nothing to do and nothing to understand. It keeps slapping my face and I keep acting otherwise. Very frustrating.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2010 8:10:13 GMT -5
You say interact with the world thorough your senses, however your senses can and do mislead you. For example, you know the story of one who sees a snake which turns out on further investigation to be a rope or the one in which you cross your fingers and then slide a pencil between them your sense of touch tells you there are two pencils instead of one pencil. Of course these are simple examples, but they show how your senses can and do mislead you. Klaus: No, this is not the case. Your senses do not mislead you in these examples; your thinking misleads you. Your senses do not define or imagine anything. Your senses see ______, but your mind imagines things like "snake" or "rope." Again, the senses do not create; they are passive and function like the lens of a camera. They are innocent and empty. Using only the senses, one is led from creation to ____________. You also wrote, "There may be only chaos which our imagination turns into constructs." Please notice that "chaos" is another construct. I'm pointing to what is beyond all constructs. Look around. If you see anything (any thing), you aren't seeing what I'm pointing to. Only if you see WITHOUT KNOWING will you see "what is." Anyone can learn to not-know, but few people are willing to take the time to do so. It is ironic that having taken the trip from not-knowing to knowing few adults have any interest in taking the reverse journey. Yet, they often talk fondly and longingly of dimly remembered childhood memories where everything was alive and present, magical and mysterious, carefree and joyous.
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 8:20:12 GMT -5
Enigma,
Innocence denotes the lack of guilt because the innocent is simply not responsible for the actions in question. Or it can denote the lack of guilt because the innocent is unaware or ignorant of the outcome of its own actions. If the first is true, then it's not creative. If the latter is true, then it's not intelligent. In any case I don't see how innocence can be attributed to _______.
Next, an intelligence that doesn't think, doesn't choose, predict or plan? Then why even bother calling it intelligent? What are the exact facts that necessitate an intelligent cosmic power?
Then you say that there is no arbitration except from within the creation. Where do you draw the line of where arbitration begins and ends? Intelligence and creation are arbitrations, they and innocence all make sense only from within prior creation. This is what Klaus is saying, you're borrowing pretty and fuzzy concepts and then project them onto some idea of the absolute.
Lastly, I don't see a qualitative difference of the God you would be ready to fight till death and the innocent creative intelligence that is excused from all the world's suffering because from it's absolute point of view it's all cool. You see, doership and identity isn't limited to the traditional sense of a person, it can equally be attributed to a process. If there is a process at work that is responsible for the world's suffering then I will do everything to end this process, and if I can't end it, I will avoid it, if I can't avoid it, I will minimize its effects, if I can't do that then the only choice is to quit the game. Do you see how impossible it is to live a life for which something is responsible? I can't live such a life and so I have to think my way out of believing that there is anything at all responsible for anything.
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 8:24:42 GMT -5
Zendancer, in your original post you're talking about something that "controls" the body/mind. Then you give this controller an identity, which is: "_____". Control and identity are complex concepts, how can you accuse Klaus of being stuck in the conceptual mind while you yourself are clearly using concepts?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2010 8:34:28 GMT -5
For some reason what you wrote in this paragraph reminds me of the famous quote by Meister Eckhart, "If I had to choose between God and the truth, I would cling to the truth and let God go." Fortunately, if we're not attached to the words, we have no such choice to make; we can relax and revel in the gift of THIS.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 25, 2010 8:59:07 GMT -5
Zendancer, in your original post you're talking about something that "controls" the body/mind. Then you give this controller an identity, which is: "_____". Control and identity are complex concepts, how can you accuse Klaus of being stuck in the conceptual mind while you yourself are clearly using concepts? A young man was wandering lost in a deep forest. He came to a small clearing where an old man was sitting by a tree. The young man said, "I'm lost. Where is the way out?" The old man silently held out his arm and pointed in a particular direction. The young man replied, "I'm not asking you about your arm; I'm asking you how to get out of here." The old man then pointed with both arms. The young man yelled, "You stupid fool; we all have arms. How can arms help me?" Filled with disgust the young man stomped back into the woods to see if he could find a way out.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 25, 2010 9:51:27 GMT -5
Question:
How open are you to things that are not concepts? Can you give examples of things that are not concepts?
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 10:41:41 GMT -5
Zendancer, in your original post you're talking about something that "controls" the body/mind. Then you give this controller an identity, which is: "_____". Control and identity are complex concepts, how can you accuse Klaus of being stuck in the conceptual mind while you yourself are clearly using concepts? A young man was wandering lost in a deep forest. He came to a small clearing where an old man was sitting by a tree. The young man said, "I'm lost. Where is the way out?" The old man silently held out his arm and pointed in a particular direction. The young man replied, "I'm not asking you about your arm; I'm asking you how to get out of here." The old man then pointed with both arms. The young man yelled, "You stupid fool; we all have arms. How can arms help me?" Filled with disgust the young man stomped back into the woods to see if he could find a way out. Hello old man from the forest, you know that I am grateful to you, and so I don't want to say anything wrong, but I still have to say that this analogy really isn't fair.
|
|
|
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 10:42:17 GMT -5
Question: How open are you to things that are not concepts? Can you give examples of things that are not concepts? Reality is not a concept, how can I not be open to reality? I wish I could live in a purely conceptual world, but it doesn't matter whether my mind is thinking or not, reality still happens.
|
|