|
Post by m on Dec 3, 2010 10:46:32 GMT -5
frankshank: I could have written your post. On the other hand this forum may be like food to the monkey-mind. A good way to let the inner-work going on as it does; free from the monkeys playing with words, jumping from post to post. "Come in spiritualteachers.org : a good way to feed your mind and to meditate at the same time!" m I probably exaggerated. This is a great site for debate and most of the posters are very helpful. If I had a specific question I'd probably come here. However, if I was serious about waking up this would be a very small part of the equation I think. It's too easy to get hooked on getting closer to the truth by learning more when silence and looking inward would be a lot more helpful. I'm on the lower rung of the ladder as I still think I'm the doer but I can't believe all of this is as complicated as it's made out on this site. There's too much analysis and ultimately the words are throwaway as is often confirmed by the senior posters.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2010 11:10:51 GMT -5
What differentiates between a distraction and an exploration is the intention to be distracted or to explore. Where or how it is done is irrelevant. If the intention is pure, Truth can be found on the back of a cereal box because there's nothing here but Truth Truthing. "Split a piece of wood... and I am there, lift a stone... and you will find me." Would I find anything if I explored? You advised me previously to pay no attention to the words. I also keep reading that the key to waking up is unlearning. For me a site like this encourages people to think that they are learning and getting closer to the truth. If the aim is to unlearn I don't see how it can be helpful, no matter what the intention. Well, you might stumble upon yourself, but it won't be an object or an idea. Lately I've been jabbering about how the void isn't real, and the drama about others is being imagined and the practicer is deceiving himself and that the path doesn't go anywhere and that not knowing what to do next is great and I say come empty to every relationship. I say you can never get closer or farther from Truth. I say I don't know anything at all and I keep proving it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 3, 2010 12:00:53 GMT -5
Twice in my life I have been called "extremely clever" and neither time was it a compliment. The first time was when I gave a talk about art to a two-hundred member Rotary Club. I used fifteen "works of art" to show that beauty is in the eye of the beholder and that there is no such thing as objectively "good art" versus "bad art." Two art collectors in the audience later told someone in a very dismissive manner that although I was very clever I didn't "understand" art. In that case, their ignorance was greater than mine.
In the second case, a Zen teacher, at the end of my first face-to-face interview, said, "You're a very clever fellow." In that case my ignorance was far greater than his. Since that time, my ignorance has grown substantially, and I now take great pride in knowing how much I don't know. LOL
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 3, 2010 13:05:45 GMT -5
I probably exaggerated. This is a great site for debate and most of the posters are very helpful. If I had a specific question I'd probably come here. However, if I was serious about waking up this would be a very small part of the equation I think. It's too easy to get hooked on getting closer to the truth by learning more when silence and looking inward would be a lot more helpful. I would say the use of these conversations for debate, or to learn stuff, speaks to the intention I was trying to talk about and doesn't say much about the potential value of the forum. I was trying to say, 'break a post and there's truth, lift a post and you'll find truth'. It doesn't mean the words are Truth or that the poster knows anything about Truth or that some monkey ass knows more than you do, it basically means that if ones intention is to know Truth/truth, the whole universe will conspire to help you find it because the universe isn't 'out there' and the poor seeker needing to go look 'in here'. It's all the same. I get these daily guru quotes in the mail and have for years, and what's remarkable is that they almost always refer to whatever my focus of attention is, which usually means they talk about what I'm talking about on these forums. In fact, I probly have a couple waiting for me. Lemme check............. "The guru is always there and ready with grace. All that is needed on the part of the disciple is the capacity, the requisite kind of receptivity, to accept it. Nature does the rest." Ramesh There it is. That's what I've been talking about, though I've been trying to avoid the guru reference cause the guru is everywhere. Escaping from the forums so that you can get silent and look within is the attempt to separate the truth from whatever is happening now, and to identify a method that works better than whatever is happening now. If the intention is pure, what you need will show up in your mailbox, or on the forums, or on a billboard along the freeway, because what you seek is not different from what you find. "Seek and ye shall find". If the intention is to find diversion or frustration, that's what is found. What does it take to be silent and go within? Read a post, be silent, and look. This is what I do with every post. This is what I habitually do with every experience, every question. The guru is always 'here' in essence, and always 'there' in form. It can't be otherwise. I say nobody is on a different place on the imaginary path, and you think that you're on a lower rung on the ladder. I say Truth is too simple to talk about and you think it can't be as complicated as this site makes it out to be. I keep talking about what isn't true, and you think there's too much analysis going on. The difference between what is said here and what is heard here, is what could make this forum useful.
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 6, 2010 8:58:45 GMT -5
Mind, Ego, Imagination. One in the same, or different entities?
How do you trust the thinker in your head (at all)?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2010 9:40:05 GMT -5
Mind, Ego, Imagination. One in the same, or different entities? How do you trust the thinker in your head (at all)? Well, none of these things exist, any more than a "tree," but we use the words to point to different imaginary things. Most of us use the word "mind" as synonymous with "intellect." We use the word "imagination" to point to what the intellect does. And we use the word "ego" to point the product of imagination that is synonymous with both a sense of selfhood and sometimes an inflated sense of self importance. As for trusting the thinker in my head, I don't feel like there is a thinker in my head; there is just thinking. Thinking is no problem if we don't get attached to thoughts (invested in thoughts). Byron Katie, in talking about her awakening, said, "I realized that I didn;t have to believe my thoughts."
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 6, 2010 10:07:28 GMT -5
I am unable to comprehend the concept "does not exist".
However, I can see the effects of egos/minds/imaginations in action.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 6, 2010 10:41:14 GMT -5
Same for me ! m I am unable to comprehend the concept "does not exist". However, I can see the effects of egos/minds/imaginations in action.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2010 10:56:17 GMT -5
I am unable to comprehend the concept "does not exist". However, I can see the effects of egos/minds/imaginations in action. Yes, it takes a direct experience to grasp the difference between the idea of existence and what the idea of existence points to. The word "exist" means "to come forth from," but come forth from what? We can only talk about reality by imagining that it is a something composed of other somethings, but this is all imagination. If we look at the world without imagining we see "what is," a unified suchness. What we see is undivided until imagination "pictures" what is seen in the mind. These pictures are like mental cartoons. What a tree is, for example, has no boundaries, and is therefore unimaginable. When we imagine a "tree" we make an imaginary distinction and artifically divide something that is not divided. We therefore bring the idea/image/symbol "tree" into existence, psychologically. We are so habituated to interacting with the world through imagination that we overlook the underlying reality. The idea of "existence" is like the idea of "tree." To see the truth we have to see without knowing. When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains. The idea of "trees," for example, is just as imaginary as lines of longitude and latitude, but this does not become obvious until one has learned to see without knowing. What a tree IS is real, but the idea that a tree is a separate thing is imaginary.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 6, 2010 11:42:52 GMT -5
Zendancer : as you said in another post, if you hit your hand with a hammer you can feel its "existence" nothing to compare with " lines of longitude and latitude" (nobody ever met them in a sensorial way". On the other hand,you say "we see isness", really ? So what color it is ? You say also : "When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains."As the actual (Reality) was never hidden, by any boundaries, the boundaries (mental or sensorial) never go for good. What goes is the confusing-mixing of Reality and boundaries. Inthis way what exists do exist (even if one second) and what is, IS. All that is just cleaning words, on the whole I see what you mean, its red with blue stripes on it, is'n it ? m I am unable to comprehend the concept "does not exist". However, I can see the effects of egos/minds/imaginations in action. Yes, it takes a direct experience to grasp the difference between the idea of existence and what the idea of existence points to. The word "exist" means "to come forth from," but come forth from what? We can only talk about reality by imagining that it is a something composed of other somethings, but this is all imagination. If we look at the world without imagining we see "what is," a unified suchness. What we see is undivided until imagination "pictures" what is seen in the mind. These pictures are like mental cartoons. What a tree is, for example, has no boundaries, and is therefore unimaginable. When we imagine a "tree" we make an imaginary distinction and artifically divide something that is not divided. We therefore bring the idea/image/symbol "tree" into existence, psychologically. We are so habituated to interacting with the world through imagination that we overlook the underlying reality. The idea of "existence" is like the idea of "tree." To see the truth we have to see without knowing. When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains. The idea of "trees," for example, is just as imaginary as lines of longitude and latitude, but this does not become obvious until one has learned to see without knowing. What a tree IS is real, but the idea that a tree is a separate thing is imaginary.
|
|
|
Post by wynn on Dec 6, 2010 12:02:09 GMT -5
I accept there is no separation. I accept that this moment can not be improved upon.
But where can I find this "direct experience" you speak of?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2010 12:21:10 GMT -5
I accept there is no separation. I accept that this moment can not be improved upon. But where can I find this "direct experience" you speak of? The direct experience is what we see when we see without knowing. Most of us look around and see what appears to be an external world composed of things located in time and space. If we look without imagining anything (any thing), then we see what can only be described as "what is" or "a unified suchness." If you simply look around without imagining what you see, then you are seeing what is actual. The average adult regularly oscillates between seeing the actual and the imaginary, but is not aware that this is happening and cannot distinguish between the two. By spending a fair amount of time silently looking at the world, the illusions created by imagination are gradually dispelled.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 6, 2010 12:52:22 GMT -5
"Direct experience" can be misleading because what we call "experience" is a very complexe stuff inducing a transe-like state in which we spend most of our time. there is nothing like a "direct" experience. Experience is always very complicated and leading us farer and fared from where we always are !
In this sense "reality as it is" , reveals itself when we stop looking for it.
But since we cannot help from doing, searching, whatever... the best way to not do it anymore is to keep on doing it till we are really tired of it, and therefore drop it!
So, nowhere to go? let's go! Nothing to do? lets do it! m
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 6, 2010 12:55:41 GMT -5
Zendancer : as you said in another post, if you hit your hand with a hammer you can feel its "existence" nothing to compare with " lines of longitude and latitude" (nobody ever met them in a sensorial way". On the other hand,you say "we see isness", really ? So what color it is ? You say also : "When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains."As the actual (Reality) was never hidden, by any boundaries, the boundaries (mental or sensorial) never go for good. What goes is the confusing-mixing of Reality and boundaries. Inthis way what exists do exist (even if one second) and what is, IS. All that is just cleaning words, on the whole I see what you mean, its red with blue stripes on it, is'n it ? m Yes, it takes a direct experience to grasp the difference between the idea of existence and what the idea of existence points to. The word "exist" means "to come forth from," but come forth from what? We can only talk about reality by imagining that it is a something composed of other somethings, but this is all imagination. If we look at the world without imagining we see "what is," a unified suchness. What we see is undivided until imagination "pictures" what is seen in the mind. These pictures are like mental cartoons. What a tree is, for example, has no boundaries, and is therefore unimaginable. When we imagine a "tree" we make an imaginary distinction and artifically divide something that is not divided. We therefore bring the idea/image/symbol "tree" into existence, psychologically. We are so habituated to interacting with the world through imagination that we overlook the underlying reality. The idea of "existence" is like the idea of "tree." To see the truth we have to see without knowing. When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains. The idea of "trees," for example, is just as imaginary as lines of longitude and latitude, but this does not become obvious until one has learned to see without knowing. What a tree IS is real, but the idea that a tree is a separate thing is imaginary. M: Yes. Good points. What color is isness? Ha ha. What color do you want it to be? Isness has no name, form, color, or quality until we imagine those things. Red with blue stripes sounds good to me. Ha ha. As for the hammer's "existence," my point was that the actual is not an illusion, as evidenced by the pain that occurs if the body interacts with the actual. A hammer is not a hammer; it is what it is, beyond name and form. We call it a hammer for utilitarian purposes, but what it IS has no boundaries. The word "hammer" is a noun; what a hammer IS is a verb. Nevertheless, you brought up another good point. I realized after posting the words above, that I had made a large leap from the idea of lines of longitude to the idea of a tree. Most of us realize that lines of longitude and latitude are imaginary. Most of us also realize that the boundaries defining states are also imaginary. Is there a state of Texas? Only if we want to imagine such a thing. It is less obvious that there are no such things as "hands," "wrists," or "arms," until we begin to search for the boundaries defining those things. It is even less obvious that "things with hard edges," such as a beachball or an automobile are equally imaginary things. The boundaries seem so solid that we overlook what is happening at the microscopic level of the boundaries. For example, what we call "an automobile" is always oxidizing, which means that it is disintegrating in front of our eyes, but the rate of disintegration is so slow that we never grasp the transformative nature of what is happening, nor the imaginary nature of the boundaries. A line of longitude is totally imaginary; we will only see it in our imagination, in our mind's eye. The idea of a tree is also imaginary; it, too, is seen in the mind's eye. But what the word/idea "tree" represents--what it Is-- can be seen with the eyes.
|
|
|
Post by m on Dec 6, 2010 15:17:50 GMT -5
Zendancer although we are just using words which are all falling into the boundaries-illusion process, I think it is important when travelling on the spiritual conveyor belt :-)) So thank's for our posting on this forum, even if nothing to compare with the "sit down and keep quiet" approach! As you said the matter needs "experience. the understanding comes after (if it comes. If not no importance at all :-)).. To speak your language: When you see a tree it's a blend of sensory experience and egotistic-emotional and cognitive understandings + "reality as it is" but like not consciously recognized. When you "sees" a tree it's like a blend of "sensory experience-"reality as it is"(everywhere-all the time). And that is indeed the most living beauty one can never see. Is that what you mean? m Zendancer : as you said in another post, if you hit your hand with a hammer you can feel its "existence" nothing to compare with " lines of longitude and latitude" (nobody ever met them in a sensorial way". On the other hand,you say "we see isness", really ? So what color it is ? You say also : "When we do this, we see isness, undivided into things. When we do this, all names, words, concepts, and boundaries vanish, and only the actual remains."As the actual (Reality) was never hidden, by any boundaries, the boundaries (mental or sensorial) never go for good. What goes is the confusing-mixing of Reality and boundaries. Inthis way what exists do exist (even if one second) and what is, IS. All that is just cleaning words, on the whole I see what you mean, its red with blue stripes on it, is'n it ? m M: Yes. Good points. What color is isness? Ha ha. What color do you want it to be? Isness has no name, form, color, or quality until we imagine those things. Red with blue stripes sounds good to me. Ha ha. As for the hammer's "existence," my point was that the actual is not an illusion, as evidenced by the pain that occurs if the body interacts with the actual. A hammer is not a hammer; it is what it is, beyond name and form. We call it a hammer for utilitarian purposes, but what it IS has no boundaries. The word "hammer" is a noun; what a hammer IS is a verb. Nevertheless, you brought up another good point. I realized after posting the words above, that I had made a large leap from the idea of lines of longitude to the idea of a tree. Most of us realize that lines of longitude and latitude are imaginary. Most of us also realize that the boundaries defining states are also imaginary. Is there a state of Texas? Only if we want to imagine such a thing. It is less obvious that there are no such things as "hands," "wrists," or "arms," until we begin to search for the boundaries defining those things. It is even less obvious that "things with hard edges," such as a beachball or an automobile are equally imaginary things. The boundaries seem so solid that we overlook what is happening at the microscopic level of the boundaries. For example, what we call "an automobile" is always oxidizing, which means that it is disintegrating in front of our eyes, but the rate of disintegration is so slow that we never grasp the transformative nature of what is happening, nor the imaginary nature of the boundaries. A line of longitude is totally imaginary; we will only see it in our imagination, in our mind's eye. The idea of a tree is also imaginary; it, too, is seen in the mind's eye. But what the word/idea "tree" represents--what it Is-- can be seen with the eyes.
|
|