|
Post by m on Nov 30, 2010 10:45:55 GMT -5
No "you", no sense, no existence, no consciousness...( however, it's there).... deeper and deeper..... indeed, the best we can talk with words. How could we otherwise? How the did the illusion come to ? That's the amazing and funny part !! m P.S: What means "IMO" and "dunno" (does'nt exist in french) It's very powerful actually. If one were to actually sit down and work it out, there is no question in my mind that they would awaken. One cannot truly awaken until no-self has been realized. IMO, realizing no-self is the quickest and easiest method to awakening. I would consider it the "first step." I've seen some crack it in 10 minutes once they actually sat down to work it out. Some, of course, take longer. Of course, the awakening continues. The rabbit hole is infinitely deep. This is simply a d**ned good place to start. I'm referring to "you". The sense of individuality. "You" may think you are real, but "you" is merely the mind identifying with, well nothing. "You" is nothing more than a mind-made construct. Those true masters that you refer to are talking about consciousness, but it truly has nothing to do with "you" at all. That's my biggest beef with some of these guys. Wording is very finicky, and I think certain terms should be chosen very carefully. The notion of "Self" and the "real you" paints inaccurate mental pictures which does indeed mislead many, many people. And of course, the ego likes the idea of a "true self." This notion of no-self (or no you) is nothing new of course... Ramana Maharshi's query, "Who am I?" was designed to realize exactly this. You will find nothing there =) (but what's left when you find that there's no self?) The existence of self [aka you] is an illusion, and there is no wrong in this world, no vise, no evil, except what flows from the assertion of self -Buddha You will never achieve spiritual enlightenment. The you that you think of as you is not you. The you that thinks of you as you is not you. There is no you, so who wishes to become enlightened? -Jed McKenna The person is a very small thing. Actually it is just a composite, it cannot be said to exist by itself. Unperceived, it is just not there. It is but the shadow of the mind, the sum total of memories. Pure being is reflected in the mirror of the mind, the sum total of memories, as knowing. What is known takes shape of a person, based on memory and habit. It is but a shadow, or a projection of the knower onto the screen of the mind. -Nisargadatta Maharaj There is no self to be realized. The whole religious structure that has been built on this foundation collapses because there is nothing there to realize. - U.G. Krishnamurti www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvgvDkdG2Mwww.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvgvDkdG2Mwww.youtube.com/watch?v=V2uHTJNr3CI(the last one is not a guru, but true nonetheless) It is not the "real you" they are referring to. There is no real "you." There is only consciousness. It is "you" that gives the illusion of separateness / duality. No you = non-duality But what's left when there is no you? and you are nothing buy a fragment projected by the absolute like people on a movie screen Correct. An illusory self projected and identified with by the mind on an imaginary movie screen. That illusory self is you. But like I said, "you" are not the body, "you" are not the mind. There is a body and a mind. "You" did not exist before "you" were born, therefore it is not "your" body or "your" mind. How then did the illusion of "you" come to be?
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 30, 2010 10:48:16 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? If there is a fata morgana in a desert, then you walk there and check it out. But the location of self was never specified, so where can one go, what can one do to confirm its absence?
|
|
|
Post by question on Nov 30, 2010 10:49:03 GMT -5
P.S: What means "IMO" and "dunno" (does'nt exist in french) imo = in my opinion dunno = don't know
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 30, 2010 11:02:33 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? If there is a fata morgana in a desert, then you walk there and check it out. But the location of self was never specified, so where can one go, what can one do to confirm its absence? A jabbering mind obscures the truth. In stillness the truth becomes obvious. There is mind-knowing (dualistic) and body-knowing (non-dualistic). Body-knowing is a thousand times more powerful than mind-knowing.
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Nov 30, 2010 11:13:31 GMT -5
I agree, do not TRY to silence the mind. But silence- Yes! And stillness- Yes!
"You do have to think" No matter what it is- All points to the opposite of this.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 30, 2010 11:22:24 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? Well, the easiest way to see that is when the illusion stops being projected. So, stop generating the illusion. The illusion is a thing that appears to you from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by m on Nov 30, 2010 11:22:59 GMT -5
Question: Thank you for IMO & dunno. So I test my new vocabulary: IMO Reality is Reality and the easiest way to get to Reality is through Réality. Illusion is not even an appearance of Reality. It is not Reality (although it kind of belongs to it) Illusion is just Illusion. I find it amazing! And funny, too. P.S: a fata morgana in a desert is not an illusion. It's an appearance (just like anything we can perceive and name). Only the belief that there is something (real) like a fata morgana in a desert is an illusion. No absolute truth no relative truth, just a most illusory illusion.That just blow my mind! m
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Nov 30, 2010 11:28:45 GMT -5
A jabbering mind obscures the truth. In stillness the truth becomes obvious. Yes, nice. But most minds start crying when they hear that, because it's too similar to dying (e.g. "I'll be quiet enough when I'm dead"). Obviously, non-stop chatting is still very interesting. What would you guys say to such a mind?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 30, 2010 12:57:04 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? Well, the easiest way to see that is when the illusion stops being projected. So, stop generating the illusion. The illusion is a thing that appears to you from time to time. Porto is correct. If you get deeply involved in some activity, time, space, and selfhood disappears. If you think you exist, selfhood appears. If you don't think, selfhood disappears. If you want to verify this, do a simple experiment. Stop thinking and see what happens.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2010 15:05:01 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? If there is a fata morgana in a desert, then you walk there and check it out. But the location of self was never specified, so where can one go, what can one do to confirm its absence? Optical illusions are confirmed by examining the physical phenomena more closely. Mental phenomena such as beliefs are confirmed by examining the conceptual foundation more closely. You're not trying to confirm the absence of a belief any more than you try to confirm the absence of an optical illusion, you're just looking to see what the foundation is and whether or not it rests on something solid. The location of self is not specified precisely because it is one of these beliefs that doesn't rest on a solid foundation. It's an assumption, an inference, a conclusion based on appearance, and one that seems so natural and obvious that it is rarely truly examined. An entire 'me world' of personality, identity, attributes, qualities, accomplishments, personal experiences and goals has been constructed around this assumption of a person, and since nobody else seems to question it, why would you? It seems so fundamental and obvious to everybody. Once this structure of 'my life' is built, everything seems to be invested in it and since the unquestioned belief in the person lies at the foundation, there's no motivation to really look, and in fact a strong motivation to not look. How can it possibly turn out well for me?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2010 15:10:25 GMT -5
If self is an illusion then how can there be a confirmation of this? How can there be a confirmation of the absence of an illusion? Well, the easiest way to see that is when the illusion stops being projected. So, stop generating the illusion. The illusion is a thing that appears to you from time to time. The illusion is a belief. You say stop believing, Lexi says stop thinking, I say look and see. This may involve thinking and questioning beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2010 15:59:53 GMT -5
I'm glad you didn't name any names. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by teetown on Nov 30, 2010 15:59:58 GMT -5
It's quite easy to see that there is no foundation. But you have to take it a step further. You have to see how the illusion of that foundation ever came to be in the first place. Please elaborate more on this. Intellectually I can see that there is not necessarily a need for a "me." But the belief still seems to be there and I'm not sure how it got there in the first place.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 30, 2010 16:18:27 GMT -5
I likely have a different view on this. How the belief came to be isn't mysterious at all. There actually is existence here, and along with consciousness comes the sense of existing, or 'I am'. You do exist and you do know it through that sense, and if it stopped there it would be fine, but through this experiential process we call thinking and conceptualizing, we naturally want to know what it is that I am, and this is where the conceptualizing, assuming, concluding happens.
The idea that I am this body or mind or thoughts or feelings or experience leads to the idea that you are not that; that you have your own body/mind. I am here and you are there. You can relate to me and know some things about me but you are not me. Since I am a mind/body separate from you, I have to protect myself from you since you have the same self interest and it's not my self interest. Etc, etc, etc.
This whole structure is built on the assumption that this sense of 'I am' means that I am this or that exclusively. You don't know this, you only know 'I am'. Or if you like 'I am conscious, I am aware'. You don't know what is conscious or aware.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 30, 2010 16:24:19 GMT -5
It's quite easy to see that there is no foundation. But you have to take it a step further. You have to see how the illusion of that foundation ever came to be in the first place. Please elaborate more on this. Intellectually I can see that there is not necessarily a need for a "me." But the belief still seems to be there and I'm not sure how it got there in the first place. Your mother kept calling a body that came out of her body "Tee-town" or something similar to that. As it developed, the body's mind imagined that the body was separate from everything else and carried the name that other people kept calling it. It began to think, "I am Tee-town. I am here and everything else is "out there" separate from me." This basic assumption of separateness was never examined. Gradually, the entire imagined universe began to revolve around the idea of "Tee-town." The mind has become so dominant that it now controls how the universe is perceived. The IDEA of Tee-town is so strong that it over-rides sense data and contradictory evidence. The idea is reinforced a thousand times (or more) each day. If you become sufficiently still, the idea/image/feeling of "Tee-town" will be seen for what it is--an idea, only. Withdraw attention from Tee-town and Tee-town will disintegrate, and you will get a big laugh.
|
|