lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 1, 2010 13:45:33 GMT -5
Nobody, Still with all your posts which sound right and correct you are only dealing with the intellect that's it no more. When your focus is extreme and your desire is extreme what happens is something gets made up by the mind. This something is cloned to you the same genotype of who you are but who you are in the illusion of body/mind. This is not waking up what it is has to do with a manufactured illusion by illusion to give you a certain"truth" and satisfaction that you finally know who you are it's nothing more than this but you will never know this unless you actually get past the mind into what I call real truth. You will not even believe what I just wrote here because the illusion you have made by the forces of desire has created the perfect illusion of waking up for you. There is only one way out of this trap or you will forever be where you are. You have to go beyond the mind, beyond consciousness to really see/be the truth there is no other way. As you do this be prepared it has a very strong effect on your illusion.there are no pointers or thinking, words or mind at this place. The most that can be said of it and this doesn't really tell you how it is because it's just words is you have a sense of falling into a abyss and the more you let go of everything your body/mind has stored the deeper you go. You will come out on the other side of true reality if you are strong enough to adsorb what is happening when you make it then you truly realized you are one of the awaken ones. You will have a hard time for sometime in the physical body it will be very difficult at first to see any separation in the world or boundaries in a way you will feel like you got throw into some quantum soup. Later you will begin to function but not as before. What you call insight will be perfect and complete. Needless to say but very very few get to this place. There is probably more than one would think but in numbers if would be a very small fraction. Anything less than this is only the mind playing with you. The mind is extremely subtle it will show you that you are now in a place outside the mind it will give you whatever you desire and it will turn that desire into the perfect illusion of truth. Peace Michael I Agree.
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 1, 2010 14:11:28 GMT -5
Nobody, are you part of The Ruthless Truth?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 1, 2010 14:15:11 GMT -5
Does anyone one know who Jed McKenna really is. The last I heard many have come to the conclusion that Jed is not 1 person at all but a small group of nondualist working together to produce his writings. It doesn't matter the message is good but I would like to know out curiosity.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Dec 1, 2010 14:53:53 GMT -5
Hi Lexi, I can see why you would believe this but there is thought in looking and seeing. You may not think there is but there is it's more subtle that's all. When you look to see there is a thought first that I am looking to see and when you see there is a thought I am seeing. In truth there is no such thing as looking and seeing without thought at least in my understanding and experience. Now it is certainly possible to be in a place that is before any thought and before looking and seeing this place is the true "you" But once anything gets put in motion such as looking or seeing it will have thought attached IMO Michael Looking and seeing- simply looking and seeing- there is no thought. If there is thinking there is not looking and seeing.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 1, 2010 14:58:24 GMT -5
"Who am I ? " rephrased in " what is me?" drive me not at all in the same "direction" (Reality vs assumption) m Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=misc&thread=1091&page=6#ixzz16tMDsbXgIn my opinion, the most successful teachers would be the ones that are effective in getting their students/readers to sit down and do the work themselves. In other words, not the softies. That being said, I take the stance that waking up requires effort. I'm pretty new to the game, so I'm not familiar with most of the teachers, but here's my analysis of the few that I am at least slightly familiar with. 1. Jed McKenna (my main influence): No-nonsense, straight to the point, very blunt. He says that if he had one teaching, it would be "Think for yourself and figure out what's true. Ask yourself what's true until you know." He says that waking up is a process of eliminating what's untrue/false (He also spoke of Maharshi's query, "who am I"… but says to rephrase it as "what is me?" … he claims the only reason one wouldn't wake up is if they don't sit down and ask the question). 2. Eckhart Tolle: He's too soft, he's got no edge. He has a HUGE number of followers, and most that I've met in person and on forums are totally lost in his teachings. I personally would file his books in the self-help section of the book store. 3. Adyashanti: It seems he claims that awakening is no-self realization. I've only read "The end of your world", but he also seems too soft. 4. Karl Renz: He seems to take the stance that nothing is worth doing and nothing needs to be done. In other words, all spiritual practices and efforts are futile. He says he does what he does simply because he likes to talk, not because he feels the need to. But, he said that if he had just one teaching it would be, "recognize everything as a lie, specially the one who recognizes everything as a lie". 5. Sri Nisargadatta Maharaj - I just started reading "I AM THAT". I haven't gotten very far into the book yet, but I love his attitude. Another guy who seems to be very direct. He says to give up all questions except for one, "Who am I?" He also says, "To know what you are, you must first investigate and know what you are not. Discover all that you are not -- body, feelings thoughts, time, space, this or that -- nothing, concrete or abstract, which you perceive can be you. The very act of perceiving shows that you are not what you perceive. The clearer you understand on the level of mind you can be described in negative terms only, the quicker will you come to the end of your search and realise that you are the limitless being."
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Dec 1, 2010 15:05:26 GMT -5
Hi ZD I'm feeling that this forum is the cutting edge of non-duality teaching the wild west of non-duality. I gain a clearer understanding when reading the different way pointers are being pointed from various teachers.
When I read something I don't grok, the answer can be found on this forum, Usually from yours or enigma's posts but I find answers from other posters to.
Variety is truly the spice of life here, following just one teacher can make one miss the point the way the faithful of the main religions have.
Some of the links on the main page and in various posts have exposed me to ideas and understandings and just plain fun I could not have found on my own.
Awakening/realization will surely geneses from here.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 1, 2010 15:10:12 GMT -5
Variety is truly the spice of life melikes spicy life too! the dharma is everpresent, even the bland can rock out
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 1, 2010 15:44:56 GMT -5
Looking and seeing- simply looking and seeing- there is no thought. If there is thinking there is not looking and seeing. What is looking and seeing is the space, the awareness between the thoughts. Then the thought happens. But one can go without any thought for a quite a while. Or thoughts come but they are not paid attention to. Just the looking, the seeing, that which looks, that which sees. Thinking and questioning beliefs are fine, but they will not reveal Reality. Though they may lead one to looking and seeing and no thought. Stopping beliefs is like asking to stop one's breathing. Nice idea but it doesn't work. Taking periods of time where one simply looks, looks at the tree, looks at the spaces between the leaves, looks. That is that which dissolves the illusion and reveals Reality. Which ultimately is within. Or the same as One- where within and without are recognized as One. No separation, no duality, no illusion. I don't see a single method, which is why I balk at the 'just do this' approach. Looking, alone, only results in seeing if there is the willingness to see. Otherwise one can sit and meditate and look for decades and not realize anything of real value, which happens. Stopping the thoughts is only possible if there's the willingness to not think, and I don't mean a conscious desire to not think, which is in direct conflict with unconscious desires, or a practice would not be needed at all. How hard is it to not think? The practice itself is a self delusion. How much practice does it take to drop a diamond in the ocean? The issue becomes one of willingness, not practice. If there is willingness, the 'practice' will be instantly and effortlessly successful. If there is not the willingness, decades of practice will result in failure, and if it's a total failure it may result in liberation. Irreconcilable failure is the only possible goal for a practicer. So the issue of willingness must also be addressed in almost every case. This involves conditioning of the mind; beliefs, fears, ignorance, unconsciousness. With unconscious motivations in place as one does his looking practice of no-thought, nothing will be seen. Mind is very good at not seeing what it doesn't want to see. Even the most obvious denial or projection cannot be seen without the willingness to see it, and since it IS obvious, the willingness and the seeing become the same. This is why unconsciousness is so intractable. This function of unconsciousness is to hide it from ourselves, and so it's a given that there is not the willingness to see it, until there is. A child-like curiosity is very useful in this, a bit like a baby exploring that interesting wheat thresher. Some parts of the 'me' are likely to be accidentally lost, which is really the only way it CAN be lost. Looking 'beyond mind' is critical because mind contains nothing but it's own illusions and 'proof' of the validity of those illusions (or they wouldn't be held to be true), but without a focus of mind all that is seen is the emptiness that 'we' are, obscured by the unwillingness to notice that 'we' are That. To mind it's simply empty. Mind states and woo woo experiences may happen, which mind immediately claims as it's own, and even if realization occurs, it's found that one cannot 'stay there' as the 'me' identity has not been dissolved because nobody wants to look at it. This is how we find so many 'enlightened persons' trying to teach us how to become enlightened like them. Mind cannot find Truth because there's nothing for it to find, but it can avoid the obvious. This avoidance has to be addressed, and so one must deal with the mind and look and see what's going on. There may or may not be the willingness to do this, but understanding the need for it can be helpful, along with a deep longing that cannot turn away. Suffering and futility are the strong motivators. When one is wanting to escape from his self created prison, it helps when it's on fire.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 1, 2010 17:40:55 GMT -5
Enigma: Thank you. Perfect talk. m
|
|
iris
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by iris on Dec 1, 2010 19:12:12 GMT -5
Does anyone one know who Jed McKenna really is. The last I heard many have come to the conclusion that Jed is not 1 person at all but a small group of nondualist working together to produce his writings. It doesn't matter the message is good but I would like to know out curiosity. Michael Very curious myself. I rather enjoyed the books.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 1, 2010 23:16:27 GMT -5
Hi Lexi, I can see why you would believe this but there is thought in looking and seeing. You may not think there is but there is it's more subtle that's all. When you look to see there is a thought first that I am looking to see and when you see there is a thought I am seeing. In truth there is no such thing as looking and seeing without thought at least in my understanding and experience. Now it is certainly possible to be in a place that is before any thought and before looking and seeing this place is the true "you" But once anything gets put in motion such as looking or seeing it will have thought attached IMO Michael Looking and seeing- simply looking and seeing- there is no thought. If there is thinking there is not looking and seeing. Michael: Let's say that you're walking down a street and a loud noise occurs behind you. Do you not instantly, and without thought, turn to look and see what caused the noise? Do any thoughts occur, such as, "I must turn around and find out what caused that noise."?? Let's say that you're watching monkeys at the zoo for fifteen minutes. Are thoughts continually occurring, such as, "I am seeing monkeys. I am seeing monkeys. I am seeing monkeys." ?? Is there not silent seeing, at least some of the time, without any kind of reflective thought or comment?
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 2, 2010 11:48:42 GMT -5
Hi Lexi, I can see why you would believe this but there is thought in looking and seeing. You may not think there is but there is it's more subtle that's all. When you look to see there is a thought first that I am looking to see and when you see there is a thought I am seeing. In truth there is no such thing as looking and seeing without thought at least in my understanding and experience. Now it is certainly possible to be in a place that is before any thought and before looking and seeing this place is the true "you" But once anything gets put in motion such as looking or seeing it will have thought attached IMO Michael Thanks Michael, But I disagree.
There is that which looks and sees and no thought. If you do not know this, you Can know this to be true. As aware as you are, I am surprised that you don't know this to be true. Be very still, be in the body, be in nature best, and look. You'll see.
|
|
lexi
Junior Member
Posts: 79
|
Post by lexi on Dec 2, 2010 11:53:20 GMT -5
Hi Lexi, I can see why you would believe this but there is thought in looking and seeing. You may not think there is but there is it's more subtle that's all. When you look to see there is a thought first that I am looking to see and when you see there is a thought I am seeing. In truth there is no such thing as looking and seeing without thought at least in my understanding and experience. Now it is certainly possible to be in a place that is before any thought and before looking and seeing this place is the true "you" But once anything gets put in motion such as looking or seeing it will have thought attached IMO Michael Michael: Let's say that you're walking down a street and a loud noise occurs behind you. Do you not instantly, and without thought, turn to look and see what caused the noise? Do any thoughts occur, such as, "I must turn around and find out what caused that noise."?? Let's say that you're watching monkeys at the zoo for fifteen minutes. Are thoughts continually occurring, such as, "I am seeing monkeys. I am seeing monkeys. I am seeing monkeys." ?? Is there not silent seeing, at least some of the time, without any kind of reflective thought or comment? Exactly. (note- no monkeys in zoos please!)
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 2, 2010 12:33:51 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? 1) An optical illusion is seen through, but one can't unsee the actual optical illusion, one can only stop believing that it represents something that is not. Probably one can't even choose to do that. Either you get it or you don't. Just like either you get that 2+2=4 or you don't. But it doesn't matter, because 2+2 equals 4 regardless of whether I understand it or not. A false assumption is false regardless of whether it's seen through or not. Similar with self: best case scenario is that it's seen that self is a belief that doesn't refer to anything. Maybe even after that the belief remains, a selfing feeling remains, but it's left alone and nothing is done to it, just like nothing is done to a sound when hearing or a colour when seeing. So I think I understand now why it's said that even after recognition everything stays exactly the same and nothing is meddled with in any way. 2) Let's say today I see through an optical illusion. Then the new knowledge is stored in my memory banks. Now let's say I completely forget what happened today. I mean everything forgets, even body knowledge or whatever other esoteric intelligence device there is. Will the false assumption then be active again? If the false assumption, despite memory loss, is still absent, then how and why? Not trying to split hairs here, just trying to figure out the mechanics of this thing in order to learn how to see through the false assumption, because right now it still doesn't work. Those are the questions I have for now. This whole thing is so fuzzy, I know there are some other more direct questions about no-self waiting to be asked, but I'm not able to express them right now.
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 2, 2010 12:52:02 GMT -5
"you're just looking to see what the foundation is and whether or not it rests on something solid." 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. I'm not really sure that this is possible. Enigma and ZD have presented their views on how the false assumption came to be. I disagree with their explanations. Firstly the explanations don't feel true to me and I secondly there is actual research that points to the fact that it's not so simple and that there is a much more difficult mechanism involved. My point is not to discredit ZD or Enigma, I'm just saying that "seeing how the false assumption came to be" seems to me like inventing a story that is plausible enough to justify dropping the false assumption that there is a self. In other words, you're not actually discovering the mechanism how the false assumption came to be, you're just discovering that the assumption is false and the inventing of a narrative of how the assumption came to be is a tool to go far enough that the assumption is seen to be false. The point is that once I understand this, I can't really transfer my faith into working with that narrative, because I see that the narrative I'm inventing is bs.
|
|