About John Wren-Lewis's The Dazzling Darkness

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 10:25:15 GMT -5 enigma said:

The seeking is happening because of the belief in some ideas that aren't true.

Okay, so locate those ideas. Is there a basis for them? poof.

When we talk about belief in an idea what is the meaning of 'belief'? For example I'm thinking now of belief in a separate personal identity or self. That is pointed to as one of the keystone erroneous ideas.

I've seen the logic of this. I've 'looked' within, back, up, down, in stillness, in silence and see nothing there. If asked I would even say that I tend to believe there is no such thing as a separate autonomous self. No free will/ no volition. No doer around. No time, no location. It makes sense, actually.

It seems to me it still must be there though, because I'm nowhere near confident talking about realization or whatever, much less end of seeking.

[Deleted]

Not totally on topic, but not totally off the thread mark, since I got to John WL via Shawn Nevins, at his site which spawned this forum, here's what Shawn says regarding "What is to be done":

Two Conceptions

If you know me, you know I'm a believer in the concept of the path of spiritual progress. Not that there was a bright uphill line I followed, but that good old hard work, effort, perseverance, and honesty paid off - just like your mom might say. Yet, in spirituality I find an increasing polarity between dogmatic step-by-step/stay-within-the-line practices and practices that, well, advise practicing nothing at all.

The path of spiritual progress is littered with those doggedly chanting mantras for twenty-five years; it is likewise littered with those muttering, "I am that which I seek". The later muttering is the first of two conceptions I will address. Waylaid by good intentions, the "I am already that" crowd has fallen under the spell of some sage trying a shortcut to wisdom or trying to assuage impatient Westerners. The cat is out of the bag that there is nothing to do, nothing to become, and you are that which you already seek. The spiritual search is over and, in fact, was the main impediment to realizing what was right in front of you the whole time. So there you have it: mission accomplished. How does that make you feel? Are you satisfied? Content? Are you better off now than you were while the cat was bagged? Can you stand with ease in the face of your oblivion? Do you see what you really are? Has that seeing penetrated your bones such that you have become a part of it rather than it becoming a part of you? Instead of you getting the truth, has the truth gotten you?
A second conception out of the proverbial bag is that you are awareness. Once again, some smiling, well-intentioned guru has led the thirsty horse of your ego to the trough and you're lapping up assurance. If you are lucky, you've seen that thought is a thing apart from you. Likely as not, most people simply believe they are that which they seek. They either accept or reject such a bold statement. Awareness, however, is a beast of practical experience and seeing is far better than simply believing. There is observation of thought and therefore you must be that which sees. You are superior to the words and images that flash through the mind.

Are you satisfied with that conclusion? Content? Are you better off now than you were? Is it the thought of being the observer that brings you peace or the experience of being the observer?

Let's look at thought versus experience. The phone rings. A voice tells you a loved one is dead. The words cascade through your body. Yes, you finally say, he is dead - parroting the words you heard from another. You imagine not seeing your loved one again. You review your memories and tell yourself they are gone. Words beget tears that eventually stabilize under the weight of grief. Then, later, you stand in front of a body, or a closed coffin or a gravestone and this undeniable fact pounds through your imagination; becomes reality. You are forever changed.

That's what a spiritual realization, an awakening, is: an undeniable fact that pounds through your imagination.

Back to our first concept: you are that which you already seek. It's true, but you can't just smile and nod your head. Let's strip the phrase down to its implications. Can you stand in front of the coffin of those words? You are that which you already seek. Can you stand in front of their glory? You are God. Indefinable. Unmanifested. Unimaginable. Unparticularized. You are all; you are nothing. Now remove the word "you". Without a "you" where does that leave you?

Now for our second concept: you are awareness. This statement is a little less prone to blind belief, because you can experience it for yourself. Studying the mind eventually leads to the observation and recognition of patterns - of the automatic nature of thoughts. When you see parts of your "self" as clearly as seeing a street lamp, you won't mistake those street lamp thoughts for your "self" anymore. This is not an easy discovery. There are a lot of thoughts, feelings, memories (or whatever words you partition the mind with) that we hold dearly. Yet honest observation reveals that the observed is not the observer. You are the observer; you are awareness. This is a revelation.

Yet you are not done. The watcher is also being watched. Honest and diligent meditation will reveal awareness is an object of awareness - a ballet of awareness watching awareness. Which are you? The answer to that must be your own discovery. For the ego will claim all words and all experience, and the answer will be a surprise. Only undeniable standing in front of Truth will lead to reality.

So how do you move from conception to reality? How do you stand in front of Truth? For one, accept conceptions as best guesses until further proof comes along. Realize that everything is a conception. Everything. If it appears in your mind, then it's subject to doubt. No need, though, to be paralyzed by indecision. The attitude is to work with your "highest light" until something better comes a along. This is truly keeping an open mind. How do you recognize "something better?" Sometimes it is obvious, like walking around a mud puddle rather than through it. Sometimes it requires intuition, which you hone through use and through conserving and directing your energy. And how do you do that? You let fall by the wayside anything not in alignment with your highest goal. And how do you know your highest goal? Well, my friend, you stand on a hill at night and watch the stars, and let your mind drift, then see the obvious.

There are moments in your life where you know what is important and what is not. Remembering these moments is the fundamental spiritual practice. All hard work, effort, perseverance, and honesty flow from the automatic "yes" of seeing our deepest desire.
~ Shawn Nevins

[topology]

Apr 25, 2013 10:42:46 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:25:15 GMT -5 enigma said:

The seeking is happening because of the belief in some ideas that aren't true.

Okay, so locate those ideas. Is there a basis for them? poof.

When we talk about belief in an idea what is the meaning of 'belief'? For example I'm thinking now of belief in a separate personal identity or self. That is pointed to as one of the keystone erroneous ideas.

I've seen the logic of this. I've 'looked' within, back, up, down, in stillness, in silence and see nothing there. If asked I would even say that I tend to believe there is no such thing as a separate autonomous self. No free will/ no volition. No doer around. No time, no location. It makes sense, actually.

It seems to me it still must be there though, because I'm nowhere near confident talking about realization or whatever, much less end of seeking.

What do you see in person X who you think "has got it" that you don't see in yourself? Are you using them as a baseline for comparison as to whether or not there is something to seek or obtain? Where does your belief that there is something to seek (gain or lose) coming from?

[zendancer]

JWL's idea of lateral thinking is okay, but the Catch 22 is caused by thinking, so thinking one's way out of the Catch 22, even laterally, is unlikely.

If someone is washing dishes (the proverbial example-ha ha) with full attention, there is only the truth of *scrub scrub scrub*. The idea that there is a person washing dishes is an idea. The idea that time is involved is an idea. The idea that something is occurring is an idea. The idea that something needs to be done after doing the dishes is an idea. *scrub scrub scrub* or "look look look* or "listen listen listen* is the path to freedom.

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 10:55:03 GMT -5 topology said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:42:46 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Okay, so locate those ideas. Is there a basis for them? poof.

When we talk about belief in an idea what is the meaning of 'belief'? For example I'm thinking now of belief in a separate personal identity or self. That is pointed to as one of the keystone erroneous ideas.

I've seen the logic of this. I've 'looked' within, back, up, down, in stillness, in silence and see nothing there. If asked I would even say that I tend to believe there is no such thing as a separate autonomous self. No free will/ no volition. No doer around. No time, no location. It makes sense, actually.

It seems to me it still must be there though, because I'm nowhere near confident talking about realization or whatever, much less end of seeking.

What do you see in person X who you think "has got it" that you don't see in yourself? Are you using them as a baseline for comparison as to whether or not there is something to seek or obtain? Where does your belief that there is something to seek (gain or lose) coming from?

What I seem to have that X doesn't have or doesn't express is doubt. Similarly, what X expresses that I don't possess is confidence, an authentic confidence. Perhaps the confidence I read and hear is merely projection on my part.

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 10:59:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

JWL's idea of lateral thinking is okay, but the Catch 22 is caused by thinking, so thinking one's way out of the Catch 22, even laterally, is unlikely.

If someone is washing dishes (the proverbial example-ha ha) with full attention, there is only the truth of *scrub scrub scrub*. The idea that there is a person washing dishes is an idea. The idea that time is involved is an idea. The idea that something is occurring is an idea. The idea that something needs to be done after doing the dishes is an idea. *scrub scrub scrub* or "look look look* or "listen listen listen* is the path to freedom.

This morning I stumbled upon JWL identifying Douglas Harding as demonstrating lateral thinking. I think he was using the value of lateral thinking in the science world as a parallel for what he wished would happen more often in the Seeking world. It's not a different type of thinking per se but maybe a whole new different kind of approach, like two-pointed looking headlessness.

Whenever I do something not requiring thought my intention is to attend to the actuality of that activity -- like washing dishes. Of course, as you say, attention gets yanked around by thinking. And this is just a human thinking manifestation of what is. It's not a problem really.

[Deleted]

Peace isn't luck
For six years stand facing a silent wall
Until the you of your face
melts like a candle.


~ Ikkyu
1394 - 1481
Crow with no Mouth

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 10:59:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

JWL's idea of lateral thinking is okay, but the Catch 22 is caused by thinking, so thinking one's way out of the Catch 22, even laterally, is unlikely.

If someone is washing dishes (the proverbial example-ha ha) with full attention, there is only the truth of *scrub scrub scrub*. The idea that there is a person washing dishes is an idea. The idea that time is involved is an idea. The idea that something is occurring is an idea. The idea that something needs to be done after doing the dishes is an idea. *scrub scrub scrub* or "look look look* or "listen listen listen* is the path to freedom.

ZD, on ATA, when not thinking, sometimes attention is on the sensory experience *scrub scrub scrub* and sometimes it slips 'back' 'onto' the witnessing observing perspective (for lack of a better way to express this). In meditation on breath, when not tangled up in some thinking, sometimes it's zero'd in on the sensations of breathing (around the nostrils) and sometimes it watches this witnessing perspective. I understand ATA is about attending to what is in the nonconceptual sense, but what about this apparent choice between sensation/perception and just plain observing perspective? In the latter, the sense experience is still attended to but maybe not as finely as when just focusing on sense experience.

[topology]

Apr 25, 2013 11:05:14 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:55:03 GMT -5 topology said:

What do you see in person X who you think "has got it" that you don't see in yourself? Are you using them as a baseline for comparison as to whether or not there is something to seek or obtain? Where does your belief that there is something to seek (gain or lose) coming from?

What I seem to have that X doesn't have or doesn't express is doubt. Similarly, what X expresses that I don't possess is confidence, an authentic confidence. Perhaps the confidence I read and hear is merely projection on my part.

what do you have doubt/insecurity about?

It is a bit of a mystery, isn't it. ZD posts with a fair amount of confidence and he talks about not knowing as the way through...

Zendancer, would you like to weigh in on where your apparent confidence stems from?

[enigma]

Apr 25, 2013 10:42:46 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:25:15 GMT -5 enigma said:

The seeking is happening because of the belief in some ideas that aren't true.

Okay, so locate those ideas. Is there a basis for them? poof.

When we talk about belief in an idea what is the meaning of 'belief'? For example I'm thinking now of belief in a separate personal identity or self. That is pointed to as one of the keystone erroneous ideas.

I've seen the logic of this. I've 'looked' within, back, up, down, in stillness, in silence and see nothing there. If asked I would even say that I tend to believe there is no such thing as a separate autonomous self. No free will/ no volition. No doer around. No time, no location. It makes sense, actually.

It seems to me it still must be there though, because I'm nowhere near confident talking about realization or whatever, much less end of seeking.

So the situation is that there's no direct evidence to support this separate person, but the indirect evidence is that you act as though there is? Kinda like a self fulfilling prophecy, right?

[zendancer]

Apr 25, 2013 11:12:04 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:59:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

JWL's idea of lateral thinking is okay, but the Catch 22 is caused by thinking, so thinking one's way out of the Catch 22, even laterally, is unlikely.

If someone is washing dishes (the proverbial example-ha ha) with full attention, there is only the truth of *scrub scrub scrub*. The idea that there is a person washing dishes is an idea. The idea that time is involved is an idea. The idea that something is occurring is an idea. The idea that something needs to be done after doing the dishes is an idea. *scrub scrub scrub* or "look look look* or "listen listen listen* is the path to freedom.

This morning I stumbled upon JWL identifying Douglas Harding as demonstrating lateral thinking. I think he was using the value of lateral thinking in the science world as a parallel for what he wished would happen more often in the Seeking world. It's not a different type of thinking per se but maybe a whole new different kind of approach, like two-pointed looking headlessness.

Whenever I do something not requiring thought my intention is to attend to the actuality of that activity -- like washing dishes. Of course, as you say, attention gets yanked around by thinking. And this is just a human thinking manifestation of what is. It's not a problem really.

That's correct, but what E. has stated in the past, quite well, is that many belief structures are extremely deep. They are so much a part of our way of seeing and interacting with the world that they go totally unrecognized. After fifteen years of silent retreats and experiments with dozens of meditation techniques, I still felt like there was a "me" that needed to find a way to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind. Only when the "me" was seen to have vanished and to have been a figment of imagination in the past did the search finally come to an end. Only then did it become obvious what had motivated the search for truth--the deep belief/idea/sense/set-of-thoughts/story that there had been a separate "me" who needed to understand reality. Only then did it become obvious that what I AM is Reality, Itself. The dog had unknowingly been chasing its own tail. ha ha.

As an experiment, you can stop for a moment and look around. Imagine not knowing the name or concept of anything. It isn't possible to know what's looking, and nothing in the field of view is known, conceptually. There is seeing, and what's seen in obvious, but the mind is totally silent. There is no name or concept for what is seen. The past is not remembered, the future is not imagined, and even the present is not imagined as a point in time. There is only "what is." No distinction is possible because the mind is momentarily inert and inactive. Take a few moments to walk around and look at the world in this state of empty unknowingness. Even if the mind jabbers a bit, ignore the jabbering and just look. This is the world that sages and little children live in. Even the tiniest glimpse of that world may help shift one's perspective somewhat.

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 11:48:06 GMT -5 topology said:

Apr 25, 2013 11:05:14 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

What I seem to have that X doesn't have or doesn't express is doubt. Similarly, what X expresses that I don't possess is confidence, an authentic confidence. Perhaps the confidence I read and hear is merely projection on my part.

what do you have doubt/insecurity about?

Well what I'm experiencing is apparently just a human manifestation of Oneness. Just a wave in the ocean, not possibly other than the ocean but yet expressing unique differences from other waves/manifestations. While I wrote those last two sentences, I wrote without real confidence. It is a conclusion based on study and looking for evidence etc. I can't say that I've realized this, there has been no epiphany of any kind.

[topology]

Apr 25, 2013 11:43:26 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:59:14 GMT -5 zendancer said:

JWL's idea of lateral thinking is okay, but the Catch 22 is caused by thinking, so thinking one's way out of the Catch 22, even laterally, is unlikely.

If someone is washing dishes (the proverbial example-ha ha) with full attention, there is only the truth of *scrub scrub scrub*. The idea that there is a person washing dishes is an idea. The idea that time is involved is an idea. The idea that something is occurring is an idea. The idea that something needs to be done after doing the dishes is an idea. *scrub scrub scrub* or "look look look* or "listen listen listen* is the path to freedom.

ZD, on ATA, when not thinking, sometimes attention is on the sensory experience *scrub scrub scrub* and sometimes it slips 'back' 'onto' the witnessing observing perspective (for lack of a better way to express this). In meditation on breath, when not tangled up in some thinking, sometimes it's zero'd in on the sensations of breathing (around the nostrils) and sometimes it watches this witnessing perspective. I understand ATA is about attending to what is in the nonconceptual sense, but what about this apparent choice between sensation/perception and just plain observing perspective? In the latter, the sense experience is still attended to but maybe not as finely as when just focusing on sense experience.

Can you elaborate more about the choice you're perceiving? What is the choice between and what is deciding to alternate between decisions?

[topology]

Apr 25, 2013 12:03:50 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Apr 25, 2013 11:48:06 GMT -5 topology said:

what do you have doubt/insecurity about?

Well what I'm experiencing is apparently just a human manifestation of Oneness. Just a wave in the ocean, not possibly other than the ocean but yet expressing unique differences from other waves/manifestations. While I wrote those last two sentences, I wrote without real confidence. It is a conclusion based on study and looking for evidence etc. I can't say that I've realized this, there has been no epiphany of any kind.

You wouldn't catch me uttering those words. Why try to force/fake authenticity for something that isn't an expression that resonates with you?

Can you let the words go? Or do you feel like you need to be able to breath life into them?

[Deleted]

Apr 25, 2013 11:52:32 GMT -5 enigma said:

Apr 25, 2013 10:42:46 GMT -5 maxdprophet said:

Okay, so locate those ideas. Is there a basis for them? poof.

When we talk about belief in an idea what is the meaning of 'belief'? For example I'm thinking now of belief in a separate personal identity or self. That is pointed to as one of the keystone erroneous ideas.

I've seen the logic of this. I've 'looked' within, back, up, down, in stillness, in silence and see nothing there. If asked I would even say that I tend to believe there is no such thing as a separate autonomous self. No free will/ no volition. No doer around. No time, no location. It makes sense, actually.

It seems to me it still must be there though, because I'm nowhere near confident talking about realization or whatever, much less end of seeking.

So the situation is that there's no direct evidence to support this separate person, but the indirect evidence is that you act as though there is? Kinda like a self fulfilling prophecy, right?

Are you implying that the indirect evidence needs to be believed in as having a self at it's origin and that that belief is 'self-fulfilling'? The indirect evidence is stuff like: lack of certainty, continued reactivity in relationships (though not as much). If the goal is to end the seeking game, and I'm seeking certainty or confidence, that search is already taking me a step away from the source from which authentic confidence is founded? aye, okay. So one method for explaining away the reactivity thing is to say that it is just the behaviour resulting from conditioning. Button Z is pushed and behavior Z! results. No central self required.