Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:23:24 GMT -5
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? It's not really a choice. But it does seem like there are two focal areas. There's (1) sensations and (2) witnessing perspective (?). The intention is to stick with (1) but I've found (2) to be enticing so have been checking it out. Is that just more distraction hocus pocus? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:25:41 GMT -5
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? I understand the words and have no prob at all letting go of them. As you say, they're not mine, and not my voice. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 25, 2013 12:34:16 GMT -5
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? I understand the words and have no prob at all letting go of them. As you say, they're not mine, and not my voice. But you use them as evidence of a lack of confidence. If you simply stayed true to your "voice", would you feel more confident/authentic? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:38:32 GMT -5
I understand the words and have no prob at all letting go of them. As you say, they're not mine, and not my voice. But you use them as evidence of a lack of confidence. If you simply stayed true to your "voice", would you feel more confident/authentic? I try to be authentic here. I'd say I'm authentically lacking confidence. The reason I tried on those words is because I was grasping at an example that would illustrate the difference between speaker X, speaking nondualese with confidence and authenticity, and YO, speaking without confidence or any foundation for uttering anything related to nondual realization. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2013 12:40:24 GMT -5
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. doing this now |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 25, 2013 12:44:15 GMT -5
Can you elaborate more about the choice you're perceiving? What is the choice between and what is deciding to alternate between decisions? It's not really a choice. But it does seem like there are two focal areas. There's (1) sensations and (2) witnessing perspective (?). The intention is to stick with (1) but I've found (2) to be enticing so have been checking it out. Is that just more distraction hocus pocus? If I may ask, why does there need to be a preference between the two foci? Going back to the QM, whether there is an apparent focus on sensation or an apparent focus on the witnessing perspective, both are being rendered as "what is" for you right now. moment 1: Now the body is looking at a computer screen and mind is constricted in thought moment 2: Now the body is sitting on the couch, mind relaxed, in meditation moment 3: Now the body is rutting around with another body, mind flooded with emotion. moment 4: Now the body is showering, the mind is humming to itself. moment 5: Now the body is driving, the mind is switching attention to feel the world moving within a still reference frame. moment 6: Now the body has cut itself while chopping carrots for dinner, the mind is in a panic to stop the bleeding. ... I would propose that there is more encompassing perspective than the two you are presenting which allows the mind and body to do what it does and wander between narrowed attention, broad attention, watching the observer, losing self-consciousness in play, etc. Simply be aware of what state the body-mind is in right now and allow that state to freely change moment by moment. No requirement of one state over another. Present, aware, listening, observing however the experience manifests. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2013 13:47:21 GMT -5
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? Confidence arises from direct experience. If you stub your toe on a rock, there is no doubt about what happened. If you have an experience of cosmic-consciousness, you directly experience oneness, so there is no doubt that any sense of separation is an illusion. Even after the experience ends, it is remembered, so the certainty of what happened and what was realized never goes away. If you have an experience in which selfhood disappears, even for a short period of time, there is no doubt that such a thing is possible. If selfhood is seen to be non-existent, as a realization rather than an experience, there is never any doubt about what was seen. When gaps between thoughts first appear, the mind usually thinks, "Oh, silence has appeared," but that thought breaks the silence. Eventually, silence can occur and be known without any words or thoughts appearing. Sustained silence makes it obvious that discursive thinking is not necessary for most daily activities. Cumulatively, a wide range of direct experiences and various realizations regarding the nature of reality generates considerable confidence concerning how mind generates the illusions underlying the trance-like state of mind most people mistake for reality. Until someone tastes a lemon, one does not know how a lemon tastes. Until someone directly experiences the vastness of the Infinite, one does not know what the word "infinite" points to. When the Infinite is directly experienced, it is not experienced by a separate person; the Infinite experiences Itself through some unknown faculty of perception that is not conceptual/intellectual. Any body/mind through which that occurs never forgets what happened, and always feels deep humility, awe, and reverence concerning what happened and what was perceived. In Christian terms any body/mind that experiences God directly never imagines that s/he IS God. The body/mind is conceived, whenever it is conceived, as an infinitessimally tiny fragment of being that is one-with the vastness of God. AAR, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it! Ha ha |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2013 13:51:10 GMT -5
Max: Like Top, I would ask you to watch what's happening when direct sensory perception shifts to an observational mode. During ATA there is no observer. What's probably happening is a subtle shifting back and forth between non-conceptual and conceptual observation. Check it out.
|
|
|
|
Post by topology on Apr 25, 2013 15:09:58 GMT -5
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? Confidence arises from direct experience. If you stub your toe on a rock, there is no doubt about what happened. If you have an experience of cosmic-consciousness, you directly experience oneness, so there is no doubt that any sense of separation is an illusion. Even after the experience ends, it is remembered, so the certainty of what happened and what was realized never goes away. If you have an experience in which selfhood disappears, even for a short period of time, there is no doubt that such a thing is possible. If selfhood is seen to be non-existent, as a realization rather than an experience, there is never any doubt about what was seen. When gaps between thoughts first appear, the mind usually thinks, "Oh, silence has appeared," but that thought breaks the silence. Eventually, silence can occur and be known without any words or thoughts appearing. Sustained silence makes it obvious that discursive thinking is not necessary for most daily activities. Cumulatively, a wide range of direct experiences and various realizations regarding the nature of reality generates considerable confidence concerning how mind generates the illusions underlying the trance-like state of mind most people mistake for reality. Until someone tastes a lemon, one does not know how a lemon tastes. Until someone directly experiences the vastness of the Infinite, one does not know what the word "infinite" points to. When the Infinite is directly experienced, it is not experienced by a separate person; the Infinite experiences Itself through some unknown faculty of perception that is not conceptual/intellectual. Any body/mind through which that occurs never forgets what happened, and always feels deep humility, awe, and reverence concerning what happened and what was perceived. In Christian terms any body/mind that experiences God directly never imagines that s/he IS God. The body/mind is conceived, whenever it is conceived, as an infinitessimally tiny fragment of being that is one-with the vastness of God. AAR, that's my story, and I'm sticking to it! Ha ha Hitting the bong, or dropping a tab might lead to doubt about the legitimacy of the experience, though... The key seems to be the deep humility, awe, or reverence that one is brought to, the antidote to the mind rising up again to take control/authorship of the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Apr 25, 2013 15:29:36 GMT -5
Now and as very often on this forum, I cannot buy the smug advice on how to improve one's situation, realization, clarity etc. As far as I can see it is more condoning and stimulating the vanity of a self taking the reins of destiny, dangling the carrot in front of the hamster wheel. I admit it is to be expected and fair going on a website called spiritualteachers, but I seem to always come back to a simple question: who is for seeking improvement on what-is, and who is interested in the wonder of what-is as it is? Dream of a cunning plan in hope for paradize (the original sin in christian legend) or give-up in appreciation? Everytime I want to post something of this sort I end-up not going there lest I should ruffle feathers or go against the grain of a popular forum (as in "leave it, that's what those guys are into and it's o so fine") or for fear of talking as if I knew stuff —I don't, I'm dead lost, and living with it rather than trying to be found, and that's no recommendation or advice. I don't even know if I mean anything, just using this space for a rant, with love  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 25, 2013 16:55:27 GMT -5
Watching the mind spin ZD's "Not knowing is the Way" into a self-referential TMT-trap is sort of like watching a really short slap-stick bit a-la Charlie Chaplin or Abbot & Costello with the focus-group ending of a shift of perspective on the object from thought to pointer.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 25, 2013 17:22:53 GMT -5
Now and as very often on this forum, I cannot buy the smug advice on how to improve one's situation, realization, clarity etc. As far as I can see it is more condoning and stimulating the vanity of a self taking the reins of destiny, dangling the carrot in front of the hamster wheel. I admit it is to be expected and fair going on a website called spiritualteachers, but I seem to always come back to a simple question: who is for seeking improvement on what-is, and who is interested in the wonder of what-is as it is? Dream of a cunning plan in hope for paradize (the original sin in christian legend) or give-up in appreciation? Everytime I want to post something of this sort I end-up not going there lest I should ruffle feathers or go against the grain of a popular forum (as in "leave it, that's what those guys are into and it's o so fine") or for fear of talking as if I knew stuff —I don't, I'm dead lost, and living with it rather than trying to be found, and that's no recommendation or advice. I don't even know if I mean anything, just using this space for a rant, with love Hi Vacant: On the last two pages of this thread please look where the words are pointing. They are pointing AWAY from selfhood, and are not saying anything about improving upon "what is." The words are pointing toward the seeing of "what is," and being "what is," rather than having thoughts ABOUT "what is." The idea of paradise implies that "there's something in it for me." The words here are pointing to the opposite of that. There is nothing in it for a "me." On this path everything is eventually lost. The words are saying that what a seeker is searching for is what the seeker already is. The seeker and the finder turn out to be the same one. As for ruffling feathers, please do! |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2013 20:42:59 GMT -5
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. In the largest sense, self IS conditioning. So conditioning doesn't run without a self. I'm actually saying something else. Lets say you contribute a large portion of your paycheck every month to a charity called United Pay. You decide to check up on this charity, and you can't find any mention of it. There's no evidence at all that it exists beyond the deduction listed on your paycheck. It would make sense that you would choose to stop making this (voluntary) contribution because there's an obvious cost to you and no evidence of a benefit going to those in need. You wouldn't continue contributing because of conditioning. However, the situation of a self is a little different. While there is no real evidence of it, and presumably the downside of believing in it is understood, there is also an apparent upside. The upside, of course, is as delusional as the belief in the self, since it is dependent upon that belief that is not in evidence. So what we're talking about is pretending to believe in something for which there is no evidence, because the game of pretending is something that you want to play. In order to keep playing, it may be necessary to come up with a story as to why you're still contributing to a charity that doesn't exist. Not buying the stories would be a step in the right direction. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2013 21:04:54 GMT -5
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. Doubt is inherent to mind because mind really is 'making it all up' and on some level it knows it. How could mind make stuff up and still keep that toadally secret from itself? So there is doubt whenever mind seeks to validate an idea. To see the boundaries of an idea means to notice that it's being made up and has no real validity. This isn't another idea for mind to play with, it's seeing through the game that mind is playing, and since this game is the reason for doubt, there is no doubt in this seeing. We say that it is self evident because it doesn't require a made up mind story for it's validation. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 25, 2013 21:31:38 GMT -5
It's not really a choice. But it does seem like there are two focal areas. There's (1) sensations and (2) witnessing perspective (?). The intention is to stick with (1) but I've found (2) to be enticing so have been checking it out. Is that just more distraction hocus pocus? If I may ask, why does there need to be a preference between the two foci? Going back to the QM, whether there is an apparent focus on sensation or an apparent focus on the witnessing perspective, both are being rendered as "what is" for you right now. moment 1: Now the body is looking at a computer screen and mind is constricted in thought moment 2: Now the body is sitting on the couch, mind relaxed, in meditation moment 3: Now the body is rutting around with another body, mind flooded with emotion. moment 4: Now the body is showering, the mind is humming to itself. moment 5: Now the body is driving, the mind is switching attention to feel the world moving within a still reference frame. moment 6: Now the body has cut itself while chopping carrots for dinner, the mind is in a panic to stop the bleeding. ... I would propose that there is more encompassing perspective than the two you are presenting which allows the mind and body to do what it does and wander between narrowed attention, broad attention, watching the observer, losing self-consciousness in play, etc. Simply be aware of what state the body-mind is in right now and allow that state to freely change moment by moment. No requirement of one state over another. Present, aware, listening, observing however the experience manifests. Only indirectly related, but there's a very natural way to handle focus. Most of our day can be viewed with the lens set for wide angle, with occasional moments of adjusting the lens for telescopic viewing. This telescopic view is indeed a constriction of view, but can be useful at times when detail needs to be noticed. The difficulty, perhaps, is that it's easy to conclude that the telescopic view is always needed and always useful, which leaves our view always constricted. One reason may be that we like to imagine mind is in charge of everything and therefore has to micro-manage everything. Another reason may be that we don't really want to see the wide angle view because our illusions can't survive the scrutiny. |
|
