|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2012 14:00:44 GMT -5
The idea that there is momentum carrying you forward or habits that need to fade is not really true. If you had been carrying around a 50 pound backpack your whole life, and then realized it had no purpose and could be put down any time, how long would it take for that habit momentum to end? It would be the greatest discovery of your life and the thought that you should strap on the backpack would seem absurd. It's more like - how many times would you reach back to grab something from the backpack after it's gone? If you'd been wearing for decades, maybe quite a bit at first. Might even still fell the impression of it on your back. The point of making the distinction was to suggest that momentum implies that the foot has been removed from the gas and that the vehicle is coasting to a stop. I'm suggesting that the foot is still on the gas, which implies there can be no coasting to a stop and attention could be turned to the lead foot. FYI: I've found that bolding quotes doesn't always work, which is why I sometimes underline stuff. The point is not to say non-existent, but rather 'non-separate'. The reason that what you are is not definable is that it is not distinct from anything else, which is a requirement for defining anything. The question of existence or non-existence is a misconception, as is the question of identification and volition. Hencely, seeing that there is no self just ends the questions about self, it doesn't resolve the issues of how to improve the experience that is still happening, which is what I was trying to address. Maybe what's more useful is to talk about this desire to improve the experience regardless of who or what is experiencing. If this is 'The Matrix' and you're really laying in a pod somewhere, you don't care nearly as much about what's going on in the pod as you do the experience you're having in the matrix because the pod is not your experience. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2012 15:08:51 GMT -5
The point of making the distinction was to suggest that momentum implies that the foot has been removed from the gas and that the vehicle is coasting to a stop. I'm suggesting that the foot is still on the gas, which implies there can be no coasting to a stop and attention could be turned to the lead foot. I understood that. I didn't address it because I couldn't get past the "no you" business. Why are you "suggesting the foot is still on the gas"? What clues are you picking up that lead you to suggest it? Seems to me I'm constantly willing to look at the foot - just can't always see what's going on. I do think the momentum thing happens. And when it is seen as just an echo of some old conditioning and nothing to be much interested in, it fades off by itself. By improve the experience, are you talking about a desire for clarity? A desire to be done with ignorance and delusion? Because that's what the conversation with Max was about. No, apparently you're talking about focusing on the experience, not at all concerned about waking up in the pod. Until one does wake up in the pod, isn't looking into the nature of the experience what we have to work with? Are you telling me to....go to the park??? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2012 16:07:50 GMT -5
The point of making the distinction was to suggest that momentum implies that the foot has been removed from the gas and that the vehicle is coasting to a stop. I'm suggesting that the foot is still on the gas, which implies there can be no coasting to a stop and attention could be turned to the lead foot. I understood that. I didn't address it because I couldn't get past the "no you" business. Sounds like you and Max have both been fighting with some ruthless truth ideas while reading my posts. I haven't followed the conversation, so I don't know what sort of trauma you've been through. ;D I'm talking generically about why seeing through the identity doesn't usually change anything. You call it momentum, I'd call it ego playing ostrich. I say 'momentum' is part of the ostrich story. ;D I wasn't talking about how that improvement might come about, just saying it's always about improving the experience. Enlightenment is an attempt to improve the experience. Why would you want to awaken to a dark, clammy pod? You want a better experience. That's what I've been saying. The park is for squirrels and ostriches. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2012 17:14:25 GMT -5
Well, that was confusing.  So, without knowing what my comment about momentum was about, you know immediately that it's false and what's really happening is the ego is playing ostrich. I ask how you know that and get nada. I'm open to your interpretation, but I don't understand why you believe that to be true. As far as seeing through identity not changing anything. again. That hasn't been my experience. At. All. Enlightenment - I don't even know what that means anymore. Yes, having a better experience was the impetus for starting all this. But if that were all it was, I'd have stopped by now. Or seen a shrink. Now it just seems to be about following what keeps appearing in front of me. Go here, talk to this person, hug that person, do what needs to be done, look at what comes up and find if it's true, pay attention, listen as deeply and 'cleanly' as possible. These aren't self-imposed directives, btw, they're descriptions of my day to day. The most recent realization I had was seeing the 'mind creates a problem to solve, then struggles to solve it' loop (thank you Desires Thread). I'd, of course, heard it before - but I finally actually 'saw' it. A whole load of bullnuts dropped off. Does the mind still come up with new 'problems'? Sure. Less and less, but - sure. That's the momentum I was talking about. IMO, those are the ostriches. They come out in plain sight thinking I can't see them cause their little heads are buried. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2012 18:04:05 GMT -5
Well, that was confusing. So, without knowing what my comment about momentum was about, you know immediately that it's false and what's really happening is the ego is playing ostrich. I ask how you know that and get nada. I'm open to your interpretation, but I don't understand why you believe that to be true. As far as seeing through identity not changing anything. again. That hasn't been my experience. At. All. Enlightenment - I don't even know what that means anymore. Yes, having a better experience was the impetus for starting all this. But if that were all it was, I'd have stopped by now. Or seen a shrink. Now it just seems to be about following what keeps appearing in front of me. Go here, talk to this person, hug that person, do what needs to be done, look at what comes up and find if it's true, pay attention, listen as deeply and 'cleanly' as possible. These aren't self-imposed directives, btw, they're descriptions of my day to day. So now you don't want your experience to be better? You don't know why you're doing what you're doing? You questioned, you had some clarity, and you took your foot off the gas some more. Where I come from we don't call that process coasting on momentum. (Your mileage may vary) You may define momentum differently, and you might call whatever was pushing the gas pedal something other than ego, but you may not be the only one who reads this discussion, so I'm just clarifying for whoever might be interested. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 30, 2012 19:01:08 GMT -5
So now you don't want your experience to be better? You don't know why you're doing what you're doing? Right. I don't know why. As far as looking for experience to be better - when I have the foot cramps, you betcha. ;D Other than that, it's not a driving force. Okay. Just to be clear, the momentum comment was not about the foot on the gas at all. Yes, I would call the foot ego. The momentum was about the vehicle still moving as it slows down after the foot lifts. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 30, 2012 20:34:28 GMT -5
So now you don't want your experience to be better? You don't know why you're doing what you're doing? Right. I don't know why. As far as looking for experience to be better - when I have the foot cramps, you betcha. ;D Other than that, it's not a driving force. So your seeking is just continuing on it's own momentum? ;D Yeah, that's momentum. All I've been suggesting, and there's no need for you to agree, is that momentum is not happening at all. All that is happening is the letting up on the gas. Since that's what you're doing, it's not important what you call it. It's just that others may be waiting for the car to stop. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 1, 2012 0:56:40 GMT -5
So your seeking is just continuing on it's own momentum? ;D That's the way I see it, too. The momentum seems to be the actual seeker here. Things get only complicated because the momentum is using quinn as a kind of suckpoppet. To make it look like quinn is the seeker and then quinn gets all the blame and the momentum gets away unscathed ...  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 1, 2012 5:05:45 GMT -5
So your seeking is just continuing on it's own momentum? ;D That's the way I see it, too. The momentum seems to be the actual seeker here. Things get only complicated because the momentum is using quinn as a kind of suckpoppet. To make it look like quinn is the seeker and then quinn gets all the blame and the momentum gets away unscathed ... Yeah, it's the momentum's fault. Yeah, that's it. Is this the suckpoppet?  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 1, 2012 7:52:13 GMT -5
I haven't followed this conversation at all, but I'll throw in my two cents after reading the last page. These words are not addressed to any particular poster, but to any poster who happens to read it.
THIS imagines separation. THIS also sees through the illusion of separation. THIS is whole and complete. The illusion is separation. There is nothing other than THIS. The seeker thinks that there is a seeker seeking truth or enlightenment, but there is not. Enlightenment is the realization that there never was a seeker, only THIS. Any idea about progression towards anything is an illusion. There is never any movement or progression because there is only THIS, undivided. Asking, "How can I get free, or find the truth, or get enlightened?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" This is why a sage must respond, "There is nothing you can do because who you THINK you are does not exist. Who you THINK you are is imaginary."
You think that you are a person, but who you REALLY are is THIS. You think that you are a person searching for freedom, but who you REALLY are is already free. You think that you are a person searching for the truth, but who you REALLY are IS the truth.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2012 9:12:09 GMT -5
I haven't followed this conversation at all, but I'll throw in my two cents after reading the last page. These words are not addressed to any particular poster, but to any poster who happens to read it. THIS imagines separation. THIS also sees through the illusion of separation. THIS is whole and complete. The illusion is separation. There is nothing other than THIS. The seeker thinks that there is a seeker seeking truth or enlightenment, but there is not. Enlightenment is the realization that there never was a seeker, only THIS. Any idea about progression towards anything is an illusion. There is never any movement or progression because there is only THIS, undivided. Asking, "How can I get free, or find the truth, or get enlightened?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" This is why a sage must respond, "There is nothing you can do because who you THINK you are does not exist. Who you THINK you are is imaginary." You think that you are is a person, but who you REALLY are is THIS. You think that you are a person searching for freedom, but who you REALLY are is already free. You think that you are a person searching for the truth, but who you REALLY are IS the truth. The illusion of progress is pretty convincing. There seems to be progress within the illusion. The illusion is becoming less illusory? I write that last sentence knowing that anything that is illusory is an illusion, whether it seems less illusory or not. It seems like BK's The Work is all about progress. Just whittle away at those beliefs and pretty soon the stick is gone. (Ah yes the illusory whittler is still there, looking for another stick). My foray into buddhism hilighted progress too. Just stick with mindfulness and things will get better and betterer. And someday if you really really persevere, maybe you too can attain liberation. So one approach, as preached, on good days, via RT folks for example, is to recognize the actual absence of the person. Nuthin there ('cept everything else). Not unlike Harding's The Headless Way. Makes sense. And experientially, a worthwhile trick -- Looking and not seeing anything there. Some folks seem to get a lot of mileage out of this trick. You know when you look at a faint star and you can't really see it by looking directly at it -- you can only see it peripherally (a function of the placement of the eye's rods and cones)?. Sometimes I think this is analogous to what is going on here. Looking internally for this person thing, I see nothing. But peripherally I can see behaviors and reactions that directly point to a self (or a belief in the self). Defensiveness, control issues, demands on others, arguments with what is ... all seem like evidence that, despite the absence of any self when looking for one, there is nonetheless a culprit (or belief in one). What is it that propels one to look for the self (and see the absence of one). Suffering? If that's it, it's pretty minor, in this THIS' case. It's more like: what's all the hoopla? But also, I mention those culprit generated behaviors -- defensiveness, control, demands, yada yada. It'd be nice if those went away and I could be just a confident effective loving compassionate man of action. Yet I hear over and over that this enlightentment thingy doesn't really change anything. (I also hear the contradictory thing that it is extra cool and everything is more and such -- extra dimensional, etc). And that would explain how former persons who've traveled through the gateless gate can still behave like such buffoons and continue to cause suffering and hardship to others. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2012 11:41:51 GMT -5
I haven't followed this conversation at all, but I'll throw in my two cents after reading the last page. These words are not addressed to any particular poster, but to any poster who happens to read it. THIS imagines separation. THIS also sees through the illusion of separation. THIS is whole and complete. The illusion is separation. There is nothing other than THIS. The seeker thinks that there is a seeker seeking truth or enlightenment, but there is not. Enlightenment is the realization that there never was a seeker, only THIS. Any idea about progression towards anything is an illusion. There is never any movement or progression because there is only THIS, undivided. Asking, "How can I get free, or find the truth, or get enlightened?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" This is why a sage must respond, "There is nothing you can do because who you THINK you are does not exist. Who you THINK you are is imaginary." You think that you are is a person, but who you REALLY are is THIS. You think that you are a person searching for freedom, but who you REALLY are is already free. You think that you are a person searching for the truth, but who you REALLY are IS the truth. The illusion of progress is pretty convincing. There seems to be progress within the illusion. The illusion is becoming less illusory? I write that last sentence knowing that anything that is illusory is an illusion, whether it seems less illusory or not. It seems like BK's The Work is all about progress. Just whittle away at those beliefs and pretty soon the stick is gone. (Ah yes the illusory whittler is still there, looking for another stick). My foray into buddhism hilighted progress too. Just stick with mindfulness and things will get better and betterer. And someday if you really really persevere, maybe you too can attain liberation. So one approach, as preached, on good days, via RT folks for example, is to recognize the actual absence of the person. Nuthin there ('cept everything else). Not unlike Harding's The Headless Way. Makes sense. And experientially, a worthwhile trick -- Looking and not seeing anything there. Some folks seem to get a lot of mileage out of this trick. You know when you look at a faint star and you can't really see it by looking directly at it -- you can only see it peripherally (a function of the placement of the eye's rods and cones)?. Sometimes I think this is analogous to what is going on here. Looking internally for this person thing, I see nothing. But peripherally I can see behaviors and reactions that directly point to a self (or a belief in the self). Defensiveness, control issues, demands on others, arguments with what is ... all seem like evidence that, despite the absence of any self when looking for one, there is nonetheless a culprit (or belief in one). What is it that propels one to look for the self (and see the absence of one). Suffering? If that's it, it's pretty minor, in this THIS' case. It's more like: what's all the hoopla? But also, I mention those culprit generated behaviors -- defensiveness, control, demands, yada yada. It'd be nice if those went away and I could be just a confident effective loving compassionate man of action. Yet I hear over and over that this enlightentment thingy doesn't really change anything. (I also hear the contradictory thing that it is extra cool and everything is more and such -- extra dimensional, etc). And that would explain how former persons who've traveled through the gateless gate can still behave like such buffoons and continue to cause suffering and hardship to others. There IS progress in terms of self improvement in the same way progress happens in a non-spiritual context. To the degree that they're successful, there isn't much interest in 'enlightenment'. One way of talking about it is the transcendence of the whole self improvement game, which is the realization that it goes on forever without establishing a permanent state of happiness. I don't think anybody bypasses the self improvement game and goes straight for enlightenment, though it is often pursued with the idea of self improvement in mind. At some point it's necessary to see through the self improvement game, and it's this that the teachers are pointing to when they say nothing really changes. They're not saying you still suffer, and still cause suffering for others, and still act like an egomaniacal buffoon. They're just saying that life goes on much the way it has and you don't suddenly get everything you want and walk around with a blissed out smile on your face all the time. You don't find a one-ended stick and remain in the happy end of the happy/unhappy duality because Peace is not about dualistic happiness. You're not going to be the poster boy for peaceful loving-kindness and divinity (unless you are) because this is just an image formed about how one should act in the ultimate state of self improvement. There are all sorts of judgments, projections and misconceptions involved in that image because the seeker doesn't yet know what Peace, Love and Freedom are really about, or he wouldn't be seeking it. I talk a lot about what suffering is not in hopes of dispelling some of the self improvement misconceptions. If one is trying to be a morally good person or follow a strategy to become a perpetually joyful person or one who never feels sadness or acts to resist anything or express anger, then one is chasing their own image of what Peace and Love actually mean. Spiritual forums are like watching the Misconception Channel: all misconceptions all the time. And so there is a lot to talk about, and it's all to say, 'It isn't so'. We can't say that in collapsing these misconceptions that we have come closer to the truth because there's no movement whereby a person can get closer or farther from truth. The idea of progressing doesn't make sense anymore when we're talking about self realization because it's not a process of self improvement. It's just a collapse, a loss, the ending of the search in the realization that there was never anything to search for because nothing was ever missing. The seeker is looking for something that he only imagines is missing, and so it makes no sense to say he's getting warmer. Still, the collapse is necessary. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Oct 1, 2012 12:21:01 GMT -5
Can things collapse and still be a good and a bad? per se?
One can reach this state of collapse and there still be a warm, positive sense of things - and have a sense of what - more precisely - may be Good (Loving) and its opposite Evil?
I mean, without wheels, can a society, as it were, exist without a whole bunch of insane / chaos?
Will things still be relatively reasonable and decent by rolling things back to the 50's or something?
;D
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2012 15:54:55 GMT -5
Can things collapse and still be a good and a bad? per se? One can reach this state of collapse and there still be a warm, positive sense of things - and have a sense of what - more precisely - may be Good (Loving) and its opposite Evil? I mean, without wheels, can a society, as it were, exist without a whole bunch of insane / chaos? Will things still be relatively reasonable and decent by rolling things back to the 50's or something? ;D It seems as though good and evil are objective realities, which we then label as such, and to not know the difference would be dangerous. It's essentially true, but we need to know why. Good and evil have been fundamentally imagined, and what you observe is the expression of that imagining. There may be greed (imagined lack) which is then expressed as selfishness, which we can observe and label bad. There may be anger at that selfishness, which is then expressed as retribution (imagined responsibility deserving of punishment), which we also label as bad. It begins to look like a war is being waged between opposing forces of good and evil (imagination) and so we wage a physical war that seems to justify cruelty and murder. The entire process of good and evil forms this way, with some kind of imaginary falsehood at it's root. Once expressed, it continues on it's own momentum, and so none of the solutions are effective. The only solution is to stop imagining, and this is a personal matter. Billy Shakespeare said "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so." |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Oct 1, 2012 21:53:49 GMT -5
I haven't followed this conversation at all, but I'll throw in my two cents after reading the last page. These words are not addressed to any particular poster, but to any poster who happens to read it. THIS imagines separation. THIS also sees through the illusion of separation. THIS is whole and complete. The illusion is separation. There is nothing other than THIS. The seeker thinks that there is a seeker seeking truth or enlightenment, but there is not. Enlightenment is the realization that there never was a seeker, only THIS. Any idea about progression towards anything is an illusion. There is never any movement or progression because there is only THIS, undivided. Asking, "How can I get free, or find the truth, or get enlightened?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" This is why a sage must respond, "There is nothing you can do because who you THINK you are does not exist. Who you THINK you are is imaginary." You think that you are a person, but who you REALLY are is THIS. You think that you are a person searching for freedom, but who you REALLY are is already free. You think that you are a person searching for the truth, but who you REALLY are IS the truth. ZD, The Ruthless Truth organization was dedicated towards "enlightening" others, and their tactics and mannerisms in doing so were less than couth. It's one thing to hang a shingle up and say "come to me if you want to be free of your delusions" but its another thing entirely to go out to others and try to free them of their "delusions" through domination and intimidation. Ruthless Truth kept a count of how many people they "freed" from the "delusion of self". Everything they did was oriented towards to image and appearance of enlightenment. What does This need with keeping count of how many people This had made aware of This? For that matter, why does This care that other people exhibit speech patterns which seem to be obsessed with This? The dogmatic approach of RT is what made it miss the mark in a fundamental way. There is no dogma in This, as dogma is a shackle upon This's dynamic expression. RT became a hive mind where people derived a new self-identity as belonging to the group, belonging to the movement. Your status within the group was tied into how well you performed at "liberating others" from their presumed belief in self. My argument is this: Any intentional endeavor by This has a holistic intent, which has strong entailment on the manner of interaction between This and something which thinks itself is not This. Forcing realization and awakening on others can be damaging and unnecessarily traumatic. In fact it exhibits a fundamental distrust in the natural ways of This. People have to cook and gestate in their cocoon before they are ready to emerge into the raw visceral direct experience of This. The shedding of the Husks comes in its own time through healing of the psyche's fractures. This does not need us to rule and dominate each other into forced compliance with being This. All This needs from us is that we be Mid-wives to each other, to help ease and facilitate the emergence of This in another. The problem with RT is that they were not patient in waiting for people to become pregnant with This, they would go out of their way to induce labor in others. RT was not concerned with the dynamic and organic emergence of This, they wanted to inseminate others with their particular way of being and relating. That is fundamentally anti-This. |
|
