|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 26, 2011 12:17:20 GMT -5
Yes, this sounds familiar. The person doing kriya was quite fixated on the 144,000 thing. Strangely enough, when I first decided to take up meditation it was a result of reading a kriya disciple's insights- Yogananda. There was an info card about it in the book I was reading, I sent it along their way, and never got a response... It all worked out. I was always somewhat a skeptic, so, maybe,....dunno. The meditation sort of found its way here, anyway. Interesting that (almost?) every organized religion or practice is dancing around the number 12 and its multiples.  Yeah, that's where I've heard about kriya too, Yogananda and the mysterious Babaji. ;D Yes, the intro to babaji was interesting. Autobiography of A Yogi was first read back in the mid-80's...Yogananda's teacher was sri yukteswar, I think... Good read. Kinda made me realize I just might be missing something with regard to life... started getting inquisitive at that point in time...  |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Dec 26, 2011 12:24:22 GMT -5
Yes, the intro to babaji was interesting. Autobiography of A Yogi was first read back in the mid-80's...Yogananda's teacher was sri yukteswar, I think... Good read. Kinda made me realize I just might be missing something with regard to life... started getting inquisitive at that point in time... I thought something similar, but yogananda's path turned out to be the garden path...  |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 26, 2011 12:35:38 GMT -5
You have reason to believe that? personally? i dunno. This yogananda opened a few doors to the mystery we were, one day, all confronted with.... Another expression. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 26, 2011 19:32:40 GMT -5
So you conlclude that you infer sleep? Have you ever fallen asleep, only to awaken say a minute later, such that there is no obvious evidence to indicate you have slept? And yet you know that you slept. Is it because you watch consciousness come and go? Can consciousness watch itself come and go?Yes, sleep is infered; it's just a function of memory/thought, which isn't very trustworthy and misunderstood if memory is taken to say anything about the reality of anything. Same way as you say that if you turn your head away from the monitor it's a conclusion to say that the monitor still exists. You don't know that you exist?There's just presence, it is 'known' by virtue of being present. Thought-knowledge may or may not be present. A red colour is 'known' because the qualia is actually present right here and now, not because a thought says so. The same principle applies to the thought-knowledge about presence. Because even presence comes and goes. We want to back up to that which is aware of even the most subtle appearance. THAT must be what you are. That which never appears. What knows of this presence you talk about? It must be prior to presence, right? By definition presence doesn't come or go, in experience it doesn't come and go. Sometimes there are thoughts which tell the story of a coming and going presence, but these thoughts are present. These thoughts and memories report a story about a now absent presence (immediate contradiction, but contextually valid (for example: "what day was yesterday?")), but what they're talking about can't be presence, because presence is present while thoughts are telling the story of an absent presence. What you call presence is observed. What is observing it? No, presence is not observed, presence is simply there. I don't understand why you insist that there must be an observer. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Dec 26, 2011 21:29:05 GMT -5
You have reason to believe that? personally? i dunno. This yogananda opened a few doors to the mystery we were, one day, all confronted with.... Another expression. Well, yogananda certainly did help reshuffling my deck of identity poker cards. ;D But I've followed that Babaji story after reading yogananda and he showed up again in the 1970's in Haidakhan, they found him meditating in a cave. There are books and videos about him, Haidakhan Babaji, the founder of kriya yoga. |
|
|
|
Post by exactamente on Dec 26, 2011 21:30:51 GMT -5
Sri yukteswar's book....The Holy Science Was one of my favorites for a long time Yes, interesting read that book, brings some old concepts into perspective. But apart from that, irrelevant. |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 27, 2011 6:26:53 GMT -5
But I've followed that Babaji story after reading yogananda and he showed up again in the 1970's in Haidakhan, they found him meditating in a cave. There are books and videos about him, Haidakhan Babaji, the founder of kriya yoga. It is compelling... |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 27, 2011 6:28:01 GMT -5
What you call presence is observed. What is observing it? No, presence is not observed, presence is simply there. I don't understand why you insist that there must be an observer. question When you have a spare moment, would you elaborate on this a bit more? thanks |
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 27, 2011 9:24:38 GMT -5
question When you have a spare moment, would you elaborate on this a bit more? thanks On what? |
|
|
|
Post by nonny on Dec 27, 2011 9:35:14 GMT -5
question When you have a spare moment, would you elaborate on this a bit more? thanks On what? ;D Indeed! Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 28, 2011 0:07:25 GMT -5
What you call presence is observed. What is observing it? No, presence is not observed, presence is simply there. I don't understand why you insist that there must be an observer. Well, it's a subtlety, but I see it as extremely important. You know that presence is there, and so you cannot be this presence for the same reason you cannot be the body or the mind. You can say it is not observed, but this is your observation you are reporting. That to which presence presents itself is absolutely empty. That which stands prior to presence knows nothing at all about presence. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Dec 28, 2011 7:46:22 GMT -5
There is nothing 'to which' presence presents itself, presence is simply present, no observer required. There is nothing that stands 'prior to' presence. Presence is known by virtue of being present, not via consciousness, there is no consicousness, presence is simply there, no knowing is required. 'I see a red colour', the red colour is just there, no knowing or awareness is required, we are way beyond any subjectivity/objectivity games.
To me your observer thingy is imagination and thinking. There is a thought present, the thought says that there's gotta be an observer, the body/mind has been conditioned to believe that there's gotta be an observer. Now you check out what this oberver is and lo and behold the observer is utterly empty (surprise surprise, and how convenient).
My system is at any moment verifiable. Everytime you question that presence does not have to be there for presence to be, you look at see that yes presence is there. My 'system' does not require an observer in order to be operational.
Your system always requires an observer. This observer is never verified, it can in fact by definition never be verified. The observer can only be infered, but never verified, and the observer never adds any meaning/substance/simplicity to the system, the observer is simply a redundant axiom which adds unnecessary complexity. If you think that this is not so, then I invite you to justify your use for 'observer'. I see no use or validity to saying that there is an 'observer' on the same axiomatic level as 'presence'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 11:49:44 GMT -5
This is the first of Greg Goode's "Two Common Blocks to Inquiry." This and more can be found here. www.heartofnow.com/files/nondual.inquiry.html#blocks I found it helpful. ------ (1) Fetishizing Enlightenment One of the linguistic features of the term "enlightenment" is that it stands for the very highest. In this way, it's similar to the word "here." When Jane and Susan stand face to face and utter the word "here," they are pointing to different geographical spots on the ground. Nevertheless, they're using the word in an identical sense, indicating co-location with the speaker. "Enlightenment" is similar. Jane and Susan might differ as to just which characteristics constitute enlightenment (Is it to no longer have thoughts? Or to no longer believe thoughts? Does it include the ability to levitate? To see into the future?) But as users of the term, Jane and Susan probably agree whatever the characteristics are, they indicate the highest, the summum bonum. Therefore, as the highest, enlightenment is not something that one would trade away for a gazillion dollars. This is precisely why fetishizing enlightenment is a misunderstanding. (But it's almost inevitable, so the misunderstanding gets more and more subtle as inquiry proceeds)) No matter what your conception of enlightenment is, if you desire enlightenment in order to serve a further goal, then you're fetishizing it. You're making a tool, a juju or lucky charm out of it. A tool to allow you to remain on the scene with all the comforts of home, but free from fear, insecurity, uncertainty and problems. I've known people who have sought enlightenment for many reasons according to their beliefs, including: it would allow them stop their self-disapproval; it would improve their romantic relationships; it would make them famous and sought-after; it would improve their career. Sometimes the reason for seeking enlightenment is explicitly held, as it was for a friend of mine who sought enlightenment because her guru told her it would bring her that hotly-desired record contract. And sometimes the ulterior reason for seeking enlightenment is not as close to the surface. One very intelligent and experienced person told me he was interested in knowing the ultimate truth of things. He confidently told me he'd had 20 years of Zen training and was well-prepared, closing in on the very end of things. I asked him why he was interested in the ultimate truth. He said he just was, that it was all that was left for him. I asked him how motivated he was, "How bad do you really want to know?" and he said it was the most important thing in life for him. I was starting to get a feeling about his take on it, and asked him, "If you had a choice, which would you prefer, (A) or (B): (A) to feel a life of emotional bliss and neverending pleasant sensation, or (B) to know the truth?" He paused for about a minute, then replied: "They are the same thing." He had cleverly fetishized enlightenment by identifying it with his own goals. Accustomed as he was to being in an intense spiritual context, he did the spiritually correct thing by seeking enlgightenment. But he "cheated," redefining enlightenment to suit his purpose: emotional well-being. Being blissed-out certainly isn't how Zen defines enlightenment! Not that there is a correct and incorrect notion of "enlightenment." That's just it, there isn't. It's one of the vaguest terms in the English spiritual vocabulary, probably edging out "God" for the honor! The word is systematically vague. Its very vagueness and socially-constructed nature are required to permit it to serve its main linguistic purpose: to express all of one's highest spiritual aspirations in a single word. And different people aspire to different things. Different traditions use the word in different ways. Spiritual schools with an emphasis on psychology will have a mentalistic-sounding definition, yogic schools will have a magical-sounding notion, and nondual paths will have a clever and abstract definition that seems to pull the rug from under your feet. Even if several schools seem to agree on the term, their definitions aren't really expressing a simple true/false sentence "There's a cat on the mat." A more useful way to think about the word is as a window into the spiritual tradition. That is, the use of the term witin a tradition is really a way of telling you what that tradition wants to go on record as advocating, as how it desires to be known. And that's not all. Sometimes there's a secondary use made of the word's primary linguistic function as a superlative. That is, the word is sometimes employed as a spiritual advertising slogan, an ultimate aroma to sell a not-so-ultimate bit of something else. Sometimes the very vagueness of the term "enlightenment" is taken advantage of. It's used as a "sizzle to sell a steak." For example, do a Google search on "spiritual enlightenment" and look at the sites that come up. Many of them are selling some book, technique, teaching or teacher. "Enlightenment" becomes an advertising slogan, capitalizing on the reader's idealizations and fantasies, aimed at a financial transaction. OK, so the term "enlightenment" is vague - so it serves a linguistic purpose.... Does this mean it really doesn't exist as a state, as a real thing? Is there no true referent to the word? This of course is one of the things investigated in nondual inquiry, along with bodies, minds, cats and mats! Self-Checking Of course some checking is helpful. There are times you might doubt whether the inquiry is even worth it. But try not to interrupt the inquiry itself in order to check your progress. For example, if you do the inquiry in the morning, save the checking for the afternoon. Checking every month is better than every week. After you reach a certain confidence that inquiry is for you, less checking carries you further than more checking. Why is that? Too much checking and self-monitoring is counterproductive whether you are doing nondual inquiry or learning ballroom dancing. Obsessive monitoring is based on wanting to be safe and secure. It also breaks the flow. It also creates another character like a subtle psychological camera-operator. This character will at some point also need to be investigated. Let's say you're in dance class, and just learned a hard move in a tango step. Try not to immediately assess how your ballroom skills are coming along. Try not to imagine yourself rocking this move on the ballroom floor Friday night — if you do, oops! You've probably just missed the next move in class! The Dalai Lama once said that it's fine if you'd like to check the results of Buddhist practice to determine whether you've become wiser or more compassionate. "Sure, check! Once every fifteen years!" Comparing yourself to published stories There's another feature to the monitoring process. This is the search for wonderful enlightenment stories, and the inevitable comparison of your own experiences with what you read. "Do I measure up if I don't see a blue pearl? If I don't feel a cool breeze coming from the top of my head? If my body still has feeling?" It seems as though you have to have the very same bells and whistles or else you don't have "it." Projecting and comparing like this are almost irresistible. They are an extension of the seeking process in the first place, a desire to want to make an improvement, to want to arrive and reside in a secure place. Irony There are two ironies about this visualizing, monitoring and comparing process. First, the result of the inquiry is never, ever what it's expected to be. For example, it's not as though the end is equivalent to a super-high degree of the various "progress indicators" (more peace, more love, less separation). It's not a matter of degree at all. There's a quantum difference between any point along the path, and the conclusion. Seen from "before," comparison seems inevitable. But seen from "after," there are no more comparisons or descriptions at all! The other irony is that monitoring is not necessary in order to be done, or to know you're done. It's not like driving on the highway, where you'll end up in the wrong place if you miss your turn. There will be no doubt when the inquiry is done. It's not a matter of assessing progress through a comparison to images. Actually, if there is still monitoring, the inquiry has not ended. The end of this inquiry is also the end of self-monitoring. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 8, 2012 11:54:04 GMT -5
And here's the second of the two blocks, also found here www.heartofnow.com/files/nondual.inquiry.html#blocks I polycoated this block the most. ---- (2) Belief in the independence of physical objects — Why is this a block? What do I mean by "belief in the independence of physical objects"? I mean the belief that the desk or pencil pre-exists on its own, outside the scope of awareness. And that awareness uses the function of perception to go out and somehow reach the object, bringing the information back and into the scope of awareness. What kind of a block is that? Who could have made that up! The belief that objects are really out there is as normal as brushing your teeth! But the belief in the independence of physical objects is responsible for the lion's share of our feelings of separation. For when we believe that objects are separate from us, we also feel separate from them. This separateness amounts to the fundamental duality between "me" and "not me." Separation shows up as a belief and a feeling. The belief says "objects are out there, independent of my awareness," and the feeling is a disconnected, cut-off kind of alienation, vulnerablity and suffering. Furthermore, this notion of separateness pervades the thought-world too. The notion of physical separation actually serves as one of our most powerful metaphors for "difference." When we think of one thing differing from another (whether it's "blue" vs. "green" or "me" vs. "not-me"), we most often revert to thinking of them in spatial terms. Things are different from each other, it is often thought, because they somehow occupy different spaces. When the metaphor is seen through, when it is seen that nothing like physical separation can be the literal truth, things don't seem radically cut off from each other. I don't see "myself" in terms of one location, absolutely cut off from "the world" supposedly occupying another location. There are two reasons I came to notice this particular belief as a sticking point. First, when I began my nondual investigation in a systematic way, I happened not to have this belief. Years previously, it had dissolved with the help of one of the world's great teachers (who worked relentlessly on this one point). So for my own nondual inquiry, it was smooth sailing past these particular rocky reefs. Second, having helped many others in their investigation, I've seen their journey hit rocks, and almost always in this same spot. It actually happens relatively late in the process of a person's inquiry. Often when they think they are past mundane physical things! The physical objects belief is related to the feeling that I am the body, or somehow in the body. We usually experience the world as a flipside of what we take ourselves to be. Normal as this belief is, it's an impediment to nondual inquiry because it will always return you to feeling cut off from what you believe is not-you. This "not-you" includes what you take to be external, independent objects. And no matter how many global, oceanic or cosmically connected experiences you have, you will always return to feeling cut off from these objects that you take to be independent. And what seems more resolutely independent than physical objects? Many people are able to feel globally connected much of the time, and have acquired the belief that they are awareness in a world of awareness. But the unexamined belief that objects exist outside of awareness will always bring about the sneaking suspicion that something is out there, cut off from me and unobserved by me. This can lead to various unpleasantnesses and anxieties, including the worry about whether I have chosen the right path, the correct inquiry. Part of the reason for this is that we think of things in terms of spatial metaphors. So in a vague way, we might think of a path and a goal as "out there" like physical objects. So if the inquiry is taken far enough, you'll bump up sooner or later against the question whether there are objects existing outside of awareness. It is sometimes helpful to tackle this one issue on its own. The Spectator View The conventional view, (often called the spectator view) says, "Of course there are physical objects! What a dumb thing to question!" The spectator view is based on several interlocking parts: The part referring to you: according to the spectator view, you are a kind of spectator inside your body. The part referring to the objects: according to the spectator view, objects such as trees and cars are separate, independent chunks of material substance that reside mainly outside the scope of awareness, but which might come into the scope of awareness for brief periods of time. The part referring to the process: according to the spectator view, here's how we become aware of objects. We all learn it in school. Namely, trees, cars and other objects are out there, and you are in here. These external objects initiate a chain of events. This causal chain, which includes light or sound waves bouncing off the objects, might intersect with your body's senses. If so, this causal chain will send signals and information through your sensory and perceptual channels. The result will be your awareness of the outside object. Questioning the Spectator View Nondual inquiry examines each of these assumptions. Each assumption turns out to be unwarranted. In spite of this, the assumptions all contribute to our feeling cut-off, helpless and powerless. But do these assumptions warrant belief? For example, if I am a spectator, what is the evidence for this? Is the brain the spectator? What is it that knows and establishes this? Do I see observe the brain observing? Is there another brain observing the first brain (this would need to be repeated ad infinitum...) Or perhaps my sepectator-self is not the brain, but a tiny point of sentience inside the body? Where would that be? Behind the forehead? Can pure sentience have a physical location? If objects Out There are unobserved, what is the evidence for this, other than observation itself? This just sounds like babble. Isn't the spectator view true? This is precisely what the inquiry is examining! Nondual inquiry isn't for the faint of heart. It helps to have some degree of courage to put yourself wholly into it without holding back, and to follow the inquiry wherever it leads. Some confidence helps as well, in this David and Goliath situation where you challenge long-held and popular beliefs and models. So what's the alternative? Freedom! The goal of this inquiry is not to come up with an alternate, more sensible model. Rather, the goal is to see that all models are limiting. Models and structures are useful in building skyscrapers and flying airplanes, but they are excess baggage when it comes to following your own experience to investigate the nature of things. Seeing through these beliefs frees you from them and their limitations. And you won't run into walls either! The belief that you are an internal spectator separated by a gap from the world is not necessary for life to be lived. The belief in physical objects is not what prevents you from getting hit by a car while crossing the street. In fact, the entirety of your experience becomes infused with an amazing smoothness. You will actually find it easier to keep the body safe and healthy. Life becomes light and free, an amazing dance, a spontaneous celebration. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 4, 2012 9:40:47 GMT -5
emptiness.co/5westernbooks3Pyrrhonism Pyrrhonism is not too well known by this name, but its techniques for deconstructing dogmatic claims have been so influential in the West that for several thousand years, philosophers have been arguing over them. The Pyrrhonist is peacefully undisturbed by all this. The Pyrrhonist suspends judgment about about all claims that go beyond experience, including metaphysical claims like these: I exist. There is a self. There is no self. The world is real. The world is not real. The world is knowable. The world is not knowable. Knowledge is possible. Knowledge is not possible. My happiness is something good in itself. The Pyrrhonist suspends judgment about all such claims because they assert conclusions about things in themselves outside of what appears. Because these claims assert what is the case beyond experience, they are in competition with other claims and other experiences that seem to indicate different conclusions. The Pyrrhonist investigates these claims by opposing them to each other, suspending judgment about them, and discovering peace. There are many clever ways that Pyrrhonism investigates metaphysical (and other) claims. In fact, Pyrrhonism characterizes itself as a way of life, not a fixed, decided philosophy. The Pyrrhonist contrasts this way of life with “dogmatism,” the approach in which a person adopts and defends a claim as true. Pyrrhonism itself doesn't see itself as based on a dogmatic claim, but rather on the spontaneous discovery that a life without dogmatism is more peaceful. The Pyrrhonist became a Pyrrhonist by accident. In trying to achieve peace by inquiring into the truth behind appearances, the inquirer failed, and so gave up and suspended judgment. Peace immediately followed! The following story that is often told about Pyrrhonism: {Once upon a time, when the painter Apelles] was painting a horse and wished to depict the horse's froth, he failed so completely that he gave up and threw his sponge at the picture – the sponge on which he used to wipe the paints from his brush - and ... in striking the picture the sponge produced the desired effect. —Sextus Empiricus, The Outlines of Pyrrhonism. Pyrrhonism is sometimes called scepticism, but writers distinguish Pyrrhonism from the sorts of ancient and modern scepticism which assert, “Knowledge is impossible.” This claim is seen by Pyrrhonists as dogmatic. The Pyrrhonist suspends belief about whether knowledge is possible. With ataraxia, appearances, no longer confused with the distracting and confining beliefs ordinarily held about them, could now be appreciated for what they were, thus opening the way to a new, nondogmatic way of life.
—Adrian Kuzminski
|
|
