|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 6, 2009 16:08:18 GMT -5
I need a total description before I commit for a lack of better words! Well Misc, I fear that you will never attempt anything if you wait for a total description of it before you start. As I see it, a lot of spiritual development is about feeling your way in the dark, and something that you realise for yourself - perhaps by making a mistake - is worth far more than anything you'll receive being 'taught' by others! Why not make a commitment for a week and see if you get anywhere with it? If you then feel like it's a waste of time, ditch it.  Cheers, Peter |
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Jan 6, 2009 16:29:59 GMT -5
misc, you can't put this away now, I dare you to try. You've opened a door that cannot be closed now. You will always come back to it at least in this life, I don't know what happens in the next life but I do know that 3 years ago I was thinking somewhat like you are and now I can't go backward. It's coming and I know it.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 7, 2009 10:45:10 GMT -5
Yep, Awakening is coming for you. You're screwed.  misc, you can't put this away now, I dare you to try. You've opened a door that cannot be closed now. You will always come back to it at least in this life, I don't know what happens in the next life but I do know that 3 years ago I was thinking somewhat like you are and now I can't go backward. It's coming and I know it. |
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Jan 7, 2009 15:30:47 GMT -5
I need a total description before I commit for a lack of better words! Well Misc, I fear that you will never attempt anything if you wait for a total description of it before you start. As I see it, a lot of spiritual development is about feeling your way in the dark, and something that you realise for yourself - perhaps by making a mistake - is worth far more than anything you'll receive being 'taught' by others! Why not make a commitment for a week and see if you get anywhere with it? If you then feel like it's a waste of time, ditch it. Cheers, Peter Well that is not what I mean... A total description as in if i'm going to be pointed I want to be pointed correctly. If someone says be in the state before consciousness, I want them to tell me with the best possible wording. Is it before CONTENT consciousness, or just before consciousness, and what would that even mean.. before content consciousness would be PURE consciousness or awareness if you want, see what im saying? I don't want to be pointed and then Im actually going in the wrong direction. Another example would be, what about the people who are new to this? They could be thinking their aware, and never realize its the thinking they have to be aware of. They might be saying in their heads, I am aware, I am being aware... the master has to be masterful in his pointing, total description, or whatever you want to call it! LightMystic has been helping me lots... and the question on memory of 24/7, I think that if someone is aware all the time, which means no-time, just the NOW then memory of the past is useless to them for they live in the present. And for anything they have to do, it is already ingrained. They don't have to search through their head from what I have read and common sense of the now. How would one even be aware of the now and have hundreds of hours of the last moments floating in their heads. |
|
fear
Full Member
Posts: 128
|
Post by fear on Jan 7, 2009 16:40:29 GMT -5
Glad you're getting the help you're looking for misc, but I still feel that you do not need to be pointed in the right direction. How can you ask for directions on how to get "here" but I guess we all keep pressing on until we are tired of looking and we eventually settle and just stay here.
Don't get me wrong, I'm also guilty of trying to find a method or a way to get to enlightenment but when I realize what I'm doing I stop until the next new fad that gets me without realizing.
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Jan 7, 2009 17:53:53 GMT -5
Yeah, it seems to have happened like that to a lot of people. The best thing I think, is simply watching your self (without judging the thoughts with more thoughts). Watch the body to, as if it is not you but you are still in control of it and same with thought. Sometimes I just watch my self, and try not to get identified with it, and it becomes effortless and I feel at peace. But the ego sneaks back up, but eventually I think it will get better for me.
|
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Jan 7, 2009 22:26:44 GMT -5
You know where you are awake, you know where you are dreaming. Where are you in the dreamless state? Hi Klaus, I found that interesting when read as a Zen Koan. Did you have an answer for your own question? However when answering the question literally, I'd say that I'm nowhere in the dreamless state - I exist only as potential. The most important thing about it for me is that I have no memory of it, and things that I have no memory of I don't have much use for! The analogy came to mind of powering down a computer, putting it into "Standby" perhaps. All the data is there on the hard drive, it all still 'exists', but it's not active, there is no change, no experience, no memory. Actually arguably, there is no Time either. LightMystic, a while ago you spoke about awareness being present 24/7 - is that something you experience yourself and if so, do you have memory of every minute of the day? Cheers, Peter Hi Peter. "I" have no experience whatsoever in the dreamless state because there is no "I" to experience that state. The paradox is that, that is your state. It is enlightenment made easy. No struggle, no pain of ego death, but the ego does die, and without ego no experience. Even when a person is fully awake the moment of enlightenment will never be experienced because the ego will have died. When my state is between full wakefulness and dreaming the Witness observes the full reconstruction of ego, body and the world and again" I" assume an egoic existence. But there is continual awareness that this reconstruction is arising out of Consciousness. I hope I have somewhat answered your question. Klaus |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 8, 2009 4:08:43 GMT -5
It is enlightenment made easy. No struggle, no pain of ego death, but the ego does die, and without ego no experience. Even when a person is fully awake the moment of enlightenment will never be experienced because the ego will have died. When my state is between full wakefulness and dreaming the Witness observes the full reconstruction of ego, body and the world and again" I" assume an egoic existence. Are you saying that the Witness is independent of the ego? If so, is it present as awareness during Enlightenment? If so, are you saying that experience and awareness are different things? Cheers, Peter |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Jan 8, 2009 6:19:47 GMT -5
A total description as in if i'm going to be pointed I want to be pointed correctly. When a finger points to the moon, neither the finger, nor the act of pointing, nor what is seen of the moon itself can be said to be a total description. That said, I think pointing you to 'before' consciousness is pointing in the wrong direction. Asking "what that even means" seems like a good question to me. In my experience, 'before' consciousness is a very hazy state full of jumbled thoughts and imagery. If anything it's 'lower' and less refined than ordinary waking consciousness. Personally I'm looking for 'higher' consciousness hence 'post', 'after', etc. What is 'Content Consciousness'? I've not come across the term before and a Google search turned up no relevant references to it. They could be thinking their aware, and never realize its the thinking they have to be aware of. They might be saying in their heads, I am aware, I am being aware Yup, that could happen but I've not yet come across it in any group I've attended. I think even the greenest beginner will quickly become aware that awareness exists in the spaces between thoughts. They must have already have found that spark otherwise they wouldn't be there. It's certainly not happened in your case Misc, so I wouldn't worry too much about quality control of others if I were you - that's what discernment is for. Anyhoo, I'm glad you're finding LightMystic helpful - I also think he's writing very clearly on the subject. I think that if someone is aware all the time, which means no-time, just the NOW then memory of the past is useless to them for they live in the present. No, all the time means all the time. No-time is outside of time. Everyone needs a memory of the past in order to function. I mean, how would you find your way home or even to the toilet if you didn't have a memory of the past? And for anything they have to do, it is already ingrained. They don't have to search through their head from what I have read and common sense of the now. How would one even be aware of the now and have hundreds of hours of the last moments floating in their heads. By ingrained I assume you mean they have a memory of it? Othewise what does 'ingrained' mean? What if someone came up to them and said "Oh sorry Master, the gents has flooded, we're using a porta-loo round the back of the shrine room" You'd be a pretty sorry enlightened being if you didn't remember that. I think something has to happen - a sense experience, a feeling, a thought or some event - in order to be remembered. And there has to be awareness present too - if something happens and you're not aware of it, it won't get remembered. If you have no memory of something, how would you know it's happened? |
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Jan 9, 2009 1:46:00 GMT -5
content consciousness to me is thoughts, feelings, etc... and before consciousness would be the awareness that is pure, just pure seeing?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 9, 2009 11:56:08 GMT -5
Hmm... It seems the question is about whether one can really be thought-free in the moment and still function and how that would work...
Think about this: have you ever been so completely emotional in a public place that you were entirely consumed by it? If so, you'll notice that you probably managed to make it out of that area without paying much too attention to the outside circumstances. You weren't thinking anything like "that's a door that I can open", or "that's a sidewalk which I, as a separate human being, can walk on to get out of here." That was automatic. It takes such a tiny part of the mind to recognize the appropriate distinctions and act accordingly. Really what gets silenced when one is "in the moment" is all of those other thoughts that busy and occupy our minds most of the time. That's what takes up so much energy. The energy needed to get around and function in the world is so minimal, that it doesn't need to become an issue.
Does that make sense?
|
|
misc
New Member
Posts: 43
|
Post by misc on Jan 9, 2009 13:48:45 GMT -5
Hmm... It seems the question is about whether one can really be thought-free in the moment and still function and how that would work... Think about this: have you ever been so completely emotional in a public place that you were entirely consumed by it? If so, you'll notice that you probably managed to make it out of that area without paying much too attention to the outside circumstances. You weren't thinking anything like "that's a door that I can open", or "that's a sidewalk which I, as a separate human being, can walk on to get out of here." That was automatic. It takes such a tiny part of the mind to recognize the appropriate distinctions and act accordingly. Really what gets silenced when one is "in the moment" is all of those other thoughts that busy and occupy our minds most of the time. That's what takes up so much energy. The energy needed to get around and function in the world is so minimal, that it doesn't need to become an issue. Does that make sense? I think that answers peter's question, that is what I thought he was asking and I tried to say something similar to that. Anyway, I don't think I will be looking to much into the 'I am' technique. Simple witnessing... Last night I was just sitting and being aware of my sitting, and it almost felt as if I was falling into dreams as I was sitting, first random words from random people would manifest in my mind, then faint images. It was very weird, almost scary. The mind is always going crazy! I was slipping into unconsciousness whenever I tried to be aware of the sitting then I think, since that was happening? |
|
jinky
New Member
Posts: 1
|
Post by jinky on Jan 10, 2009 7:35:35 GMT -5
The following is from Mike Grahams web site www.theendofseeking.net It perhaps gives a reason on why our minds constantly try to complicate what is incredibly simple. When this is seen, it is so obvious it's not funny. Is there Enlightenment, Realization or Awakening? Your own essential nature - Aliveness - Life itself - is not personal. There is not a separate entity there which is 'you'. It is pure Life itself. NonDual. We have a sense of self when the conceptual self-image builds up - and it is just that - a mental image. It is not who or what we actually are. That self image becomes a reference point. But it is a 'cherry picked', modified and edited version of your characteristics, your foibles, your personality, your attributes, your history, your good points, your faults, your tragic qualities, etc. Just a mental image - not 'you'. It is insubstantial and has no existence other than the content of thought. The apparent 'me' actually does not exist and when looked for cannot be found. The 'me' is an abstraction. The actuality of what you are is what exists in the immediacy of the moment - which is Presence - Awareness / Aliveness. All the rest is a mental construct - an abstraction. What that means is that 'the one who you think you are' is a mental abstraction and is 'not it' So then comes the 'desire' to become enlightened, or to awaken, or become self realized. But your essential nature, which is present and aware right now as you read this, is an expression of the One Life. It is completely NonDual and completely untouched by the travails of life. Your essential nature does not need to become enlightened, or to wake up, or to become self realized. It does not need to 'learn' how to become 'more Present', become more compassionate, be able to 'surrender' or 'go 'deeper'. It is already 100% Present and the concept of 'surrender' does not arise. Who then 'wants' to be come 'Enlightened'? Who wants to 'Wake up'? It is the one who feels incomplete, unsatisfied, unhappy. Who is the one who suffers? It is the Self Image, the Reference Point, the Ego, the one who we think we are. The one who we believe is us. It is entirely a case of mistaken identity. We are not who we think we are and we want to fix that one up. Our real nature does not need 'fixing up'. Our true nature does not need to become 'enlightened'. Our true nature was never asleep and does not need to 'wake up' Our true nature does not need to become 'realized' as it is already fully Real. The reference point, the Ego, has no existence beyond the content of thoughts, has no aliveness of its own and has no awareness whatsoever in its own right. No wonder it feels incomplete and miserable! No wonder it suffers. Who is the one that is the "I" in "When I awoke" or "I am enlightened", or "I am self-realized"? The only 'one' there that regards itself as a separate entity is the Ego itself - the reference point. In fact there is no one there at all. The reference point, the so-called ego, does not exist beyond the content of thought. It has no substantial nature at all. Our essential nature is Aliveness / Presence Awareness /Consciousness - but that is entirely non-personal - there is no separate entity at all. No Self, as the Buddha puts it. So there are three good reasons to discard the old concepts of enlightenment, awakening and self realization. 1. Firstly there is no separate 'me' there to 'achieve' enlightenment, an awakening or self-realization. 2. Secondly, our true nature does not need enlightening, waking up, or self-realization. 3. Thirdly - 'enlightenment', 'waking up' and 'self realization' are actually concepts - more than that - they are abstractions. Far better to look into the matter of mistaken identity - just that and only that. There-in lies the end of suffering and the end of seeking. Written by Mike Graham, posted by jinky |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 16, 2018 19:53:31 GMT -5
Notice that you are Aware. There is Awareness there. It's not attributed to anything in particular. It's just Awareness. Everything else takes place purely within that. Nothing actually happens outside your awareness if you want to get real literal about it. And I definitely want to get really really literal here. Your ability to teach is really shining through in that posting LightMystic - very clear communication. I'd Exalt you a Karma point if you didn't already have twice as many as I do I'm going to take a different line though, and I hesitated to post this because it's just my opinion on it. I hope having another point of view is helpful rather than confusing. As I see it, the "I AM" is that feeling of presence, of self-awareness which is more real, more 'here' than ordinary waking consciousness. It's that quality of awareness that can suddenly spring up on you when you're not particularly concentrating on getting something done. If you're in the middle of an argument, it's that quality that allows you to work creatively, instead of reacting automatically. So in that respect, spritual practice has tangible and immediate benefits in the 'real' world regardless of any 'attainment'. It's a feeling of being connected to a higher 'Me', and to the Universe and Not Universe. It's pointed to by playing The Game www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+lost+the+game It's like wakening up when you're already awake and the first thing you do is remember how long ago it was that you were last awake and - if it's been a couple of days - despair about how little spiritual progress you're making. So I have to disagree with LightMystic when he says that everything takes place within Awareness. Perhaps it does for him, but for me things seem to take place regardless of my level of awareness. I wouldn't claim to be 'Aware' unless I was in that feeling of 'present', of actually being where I am, rather than some sort of semi-distracted barely listening state that I seem to spend most of my weekends in. I had a little too much of it one time I was on a week long silent meditation retreat - it all got a little too immediate, a little too 'raw'. As LM says, you need to become comfortable with that relationship to Awareness. I'd also have to disagree with Fear. I agree with him that 'I AM' is about 'Being'. Being Present (I AM) does not require any 'thinking' but it does require a modicum of effort to avoid being swept away (into the past or the future) by a train of thought - at least that's true of where I am now. So as I see it, it is a method, and a possible one at that. The brief thought 'i am' can be used to bring you back to the present when you eventually manage to get off that train (and I'm not sure that we actually have much choice in when the train lets us go, which is why it's better not to get on board in the first place!). So I also disagree with Morrie about 'pre' consciousness. As I see it, 'I AM' is a quality that exists over and above ordinary waking consciousness - 'Post' conscious perhaps Cheers, Peter sdp likes. ...... |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 17, 2018 4:26:16 GMT -5
Your ability to teach is really shining through in that posting LightMystic - very clear communication. I'd Exalt you a Karma point if you didn't already have twice as many as I do I'm going to take a different line though, and I hesitated to post this because it's just my opinion on it. I hope having another point of view is helpful rather than confusing. As I see it, the "I AM" is that feeling of presence, of self-awareness which is more real, more 'here' than ordinary waking consciousness. It's that quality of awareness that can suddenly spring up on you when you're not particularly concentrating on getting something done. If you're in the middle of an argument, it's that quality that allows you to work creatively, instead of reacting automatically. So in that respect, spritual practice has tangible and immediate benefits in the 'real' world regardless of any 'attainment'. It's a feeling of being connected to a higher 'Me', and to the Universe and Not Universe. It's pointed to by playing The Game www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I+lost+the+game It's like wakening up when you're already awake and the first thing you do is remember how long ago it was that you were last awake and - if it's been a couple of days - despair about how little spiritual progress you're making. So I have to disagree with LightMystic when he says that everything takes place within Awareness. Perhaps it does for him, but for me things seem to take place regardless of my level of awareness. I wouldn't claim to be 'Aware' unless I was in that feeling of 'present', of actually being where I am, rather than some sort of semi-distracted barely listening state that I seem to spend most of my weekends in. I had a little too much of it one time I was on a week long silent meditation retreat - it all got a little too immediate, a little too 'raw'. As LM says, you need to become comfortable with that relationship to Awareness. I'd also have to disagree with Fear. I agree with him that 'I AM' is about 'Being'. Being Present (I AM) does not require any 'thinking' but it does require a modicum of effort to avoid being swept away (into the past or the future) by a train of thought - at least that's true of where I am now. So as I see it, it is a method, and a possible one at that. The brief thought 'i am' can be used to bring you back to the present when you eventually manage to get off that train (and I'm not sure that we actually have much choice in when the train lets us go, which is why it's better not to get on board in the first place!). So I also disagree with Morrie about 'pre' consciousness. As I see it, 'I AM' is a quality that exists over and above ordinary waking consciousness - 'Post' conscious perhaps Cheers, Peter sdp likes. ...... Thanks for digging this up SDP, really interesting to see what I was writing a decade ago. Disagreeing with everyone on the forum apparently! I think it answers my question (if I have one) of why I have so little to say these days - I've already said it, and I'm not a fan of repetition. Cheers, Peter |
|
