|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 19:21:43 GMT -5
There seems to be a convieniant double standard here to enigma ...ivory can think and have insights, but he cannot choose to let it all go lol Did I imply he chose to have insights, or did you find another straw man argument?  Was talking about ivory enigma, his previous posts. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 22, 2011 19:28:17 GMT -5
Yes but yes but no but yes… How much help can the guide offer when talking to the dreamer within the dream? Some advisers make sense within my dream but it feels like the quick sands are swallowing me more, advise well intended or not. Guidance from the sage is often beyond grasp and disturbing because it is not concerned with the seeker’s dream, it talks past reasonable dialectics to the source. On the receiving end of this I can tell (sometimes  )that there is such communication as direct pointing. Thank goodness! Yes, I resonate with that. It really makes little sense to talk to the imaginary person who can't do anything anyway, which only encourages the delusion. 'Something' is listening and noticing, so it makes sense to address what is actually here and point to what's actually going on and away from the delusion. Was talking about this quote when talking about the trees....you talk about talking past the illusional self directly to the actual self lol...but the actual self of the delusional person is the same actual self of the tree...and just as likely to respond to your talking LOL...the actual self has no aspect, It has all aspects....how can it hear and respond except from within a movement of the individual self....no, might as well talk to a tree if your going to ignore the person and talk to the stillness...that, or pray |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 19:33:33 GMT -5
Haha...how can you talk to what's actually there...sounds like prayer to me lol....nothing wrong with that...but my gosh is it fundementally nihilistic....if you are going to speak to what is actually there what do you think is going to actually respond....under that logic you would do just as well talking to a tree as to a person. Trees don't seem to be burdened with delusions. What is reading this right now? Is it Tath? E., you beat me to it! I was going to ask the very same thing. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 19:42:24 GMT -5
Did I imply he chose to have insights, or did you find another straw man argument? Was talking about ivory enigma, his previous posts. Well, that was clear as mud. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 19:45:34 GMT -5
This thread is becoming funnier and funnier. "The actual self has no aspect, how can it hear and respond...?" Ya gotta be kidding. Whaddaya mean "Stay in the middle?" Middle of what? C'mon T.
E. was crystal clear with his question. Who is reading these words? Is it Tath?
What's this nonsense about nihilism or prayer?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 20:00:53 GMT -5
Yes, I resonate with that. It really makes little sense to talk to the imaginary person who can't do anything anyway, which only encourages the delusion. 'Something' is listening and noticing, so it makes sense to address what is actually here and point to what's actually going on and away from the delusion. Was talking about this quote when talking about the trees....you talk about talking past the illusional self directly to the actual self lol...but the actual self of the delusional person is the same actual self of the tree...and just as likely to respond to your talking LOL...the actual self has no aspect, how can it hear and respond except from within a movement of the individual self....no, might as well talk to a tree if your going to ignore the person and talk to the stillness...that, or pray Fundamentally, Satsang (just an example, not some new straw man) is not a social gathering where folks are invited to think about what is said and offer their opinions on the matter. Some sort of intelligent response is not required. There can, however, be an effortless noticing as existence talks to itself. All communication is Self talking to Self. |
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 22, 2011 20:45:06 GMT -5
I gave up seeking at birth. I saw it was a done deal. You escaped that dark, clammy, cramped dungeon, and that was good enough, eh? Actually, just awareness, then awareness of penetrating light, then darkness, then sensation. The deal was done. |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 22, 2011 20:47:50 GMT -5
This thread is becoming funnier and funnier. "The actual self has no aspect, how can it hear and respond...?" Ya gotta be kidding. Whaddaya mean "Stay in the middle?" Middle of what? C'mon T. E. was crystal clear with his question. Who is reading these words? Is it Tath? What's this nonsense about nihilism or prayer? There is absolutely no doubt in my 'mind' that the imagined conceptual Tath, is experiencing the reading of these words. And that's true because 'Nothing' can't read...lol Peace |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2011 21:22:04 GMT -5
This thread is becoming funnier and funnier. "The actual self has no aspect, how can it hear and respond...?" Ya gotta be kidding. Whaddaya mean "Stay in the middle?" Middle of what? C'mon T. E. was crystal clear with his question. Who is reading these words? Is it Tath? What's this nonsense about nihilism or prayer? There is absolutely no doubt in my 'mind' that the imagined conceptual Tath, is experiencing the reading of these words. And that's true because 'Nothing' can't read...lol Peace Then you have at least one huge thing yet to discover. There is no Tath or TRF, and what E. and I are pointing to is what is actually reading these words. The living truth has nothing to do with any kind of conceptualization. I have no doubt that there is no doubt in your mind, but this has nothing to do with mind. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 22, 2011 21:54:19 GMT -5
This thread is becoming funnier and funnier. "The actual self has no aspect, how can it hear and respond...?" Ya gotta be kidding. Whaddaya mean "Stay in the middle?" Middle of what? C'mon T. E. was crystal clear with his question. Who is reading these words? Is it Tath? What's this nonsense about nihilism or prayer? There is absolutely no doubt in my 'mind' that ... Whoops! Derailment right there. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 22, 2011 22:48:08 GMT -5
Oh boy, what a party!
Though I'm surprised to see some people don't like veggies.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 22, 2011 22:49:48 GMT -5
The advice I give can vary wildly too. Meditations of different kinds, Ho'oponopono, EFT, yoga, Sedona Method, Byron Katie's work, self-enquiry, energy work, healing work, NLP, a practice of forgiveness, a practice of gratitude and appreciation, hynotherapy, neurofeedback, shadow self work....to name but a few. Are these really just a few?  |
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Sept 22, 2011 22:58:53 GMT -5
You said it, the clinging and obsession. First thing to look at is whether the mechanics of your mind are indicating that clinging and obsession should not be happening. If these programs are running, they clearly should be happening because they seem to be happening. Whether mind is desiring enlightenment or some form of change in the story of separate self doesn't seem to matter, its the obsession which you are "noticing" as a burden and the obsession which can be transcended, NOT, however, through resisting it.
I'm not going to tell you to shift your attention to silence or find that which isn't appearing. The kiddie game is down the street, and I know you're not buying in. Mind thinks when it wants to think, obsesses when it wants to obsess, resists when it wants to resist, and yes, suffers when it wants to suffer. Of course "nobody actually wants to hear this", and you are never not nobody. Whatever resistance is taking place on the surface level must be reversed. Mind wants to obsess over desire and then thinks it doesnt want to. See the issue? Mind wants to think certain thoughts, and then thinks that its own desire to think along certain lines is a problem.
Make friends with whatever you are looking at. Its only thought, mind minding, mind doing its thing, and that's ok. If we break desire down to its simplest form, we could say mind thinks when it desires to think. This isn't actually "you doing anything", its an uncontrollable process which mechanics are more often than not "geared to control". Thought mechanics geared to control thought mechanics are the issue. Mind actually wants to be in control of itself, and it is this want, this desire, which must be seen clearly, understood, and transcended. Left to itself, mind will "think how 'it' actually wants to think", without 'itself' getting in its own way, which does include allowing emotional pain to arise should mind want to interpret a certain situation in a certain way. Right now, "allowing that process to occur" is being resisted by the mind itself. Mind wants to control life, which is simply another way of noticing the projection of mind wanting to control the emotional body. If you weed out that desire to control one's own emotions, see what happens to the desire to control life, or experience, or the ability to think, emote, remember, project, and 'my personal favorite', desire, hehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Sept 22, 2011 23:21:19 GMT -5
LOL porto. I could use a few more practices.
|
|
|
|
Post by ivory on Sept 22, 2011 23:29:16 GMT -5
I see the issue. I also see the other 5 million issues. I just feel that all of these mind mechanics are a complete sh*t show.
This is a good reminder. I think this is one of the BIGGIE'S. There are times when I remember to simply allow, but it's so frickin' easy to forget.
Good stuff.
|
|
)that there is such communication as direct pointing. Thank goodness!
