|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2012 12:00:53 GMT -5
I never understood why that would have anything to do with releasing a belief. I think a lot deponds on personal beliefs and the effort you put in to a method . There are many methods , not ever one works for ever body . There are other methods of regressing to the point of the repressed problem , reliveing them to let them go . desert rat They're all expressions of your intention to let go, or not. They're never the cause of letting go. You let go when you're ready to let go, usually when what you're carrying gets too durn heavy. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2012 12:03:58 GMT -5
The real deal is the absence of the person who wants to be loving. Most peeps are naturally pretty loving, but the one who wants to become loving apparently isn't. Im not sure that I agree that most peeps are naturally pretty loving but its not that relevant. Someone who is loving is without attachment to personal beliefs. Wanting to become a loving person is wanting to become someone who has no attachment to personal beliefs. Its the same thing. The goal is to become someone loving/become someone who has no attachment to personal beliefs. The method I advocate Ive already described. Which is only possible when the belief in personhood is seen for what it is. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 23, 2012 12:06:08 GMT -5
Akchuly, you're telling your story over and over and not listening. Oh you're not listening then? The mirror game? Shame on you, Andrew. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 12:38:13 GMT -5
Im not sure that I agree that most peeps are naturally pretty loving but its not that relevant. Someone who is loving is without attachment to personal beliefs. Wanting to become a loving person is wanting to become someone who has no attachment to personal beliefs. Its the same thing. The goal is to become someone loving/become someone who has no attachment to personal beliefs. The method I advocate Ive already described. Which is only possible when the belief in personhood is seen for what it is. Seeing it for what it is doesnt change anything, it just adds to the knowledge. The conditioning itself has to be addressed and transmuted. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 12:39:14 GMT -5
Oh you're not listening then? The mirror game? Shame on you, Andrew. Who do you think taught it to me? The only person I would use that on is you, because you do it. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 13:27:17 GMT -5
We 'notice' stuff to be not true. How can we directly notice that stuff is not true? |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 13:34:05 GMT -5
Coz releasing beliefs is a holistic matter of transmutating fear into love. That's not done by visualizing white light and such. No toy left unbroken ;D |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Jan 23, 2012 13:42:24 GMT -5
I don't know. The enlightenment fairy hasn't visited you yet? Apparently not. So if the falling away of the question then has nothing to do with enlightenment, why are you recommend a letting go of questions? This is actually what I meant with my 'first, then, now' post to Enigma about techniques. You recommend something, then we look at it closely and it turns out to be bs advice once again. Letting go of the questions about enlightenment is letting go of that obsessive focus. It's not so that you can let go of that set of questions and then immediately focus on a new set of questions about how letting go of that should have produced this 'enlightenment thing'. Nor did I ever say it would. What I'm pointing to is your expectation that you're going to get all these groovy answers to your questions and I keep telling you the questions are irrelevant. I'm pointing to the moon and you're convinced it's more worthwhile to try to see the reflection of the moon in a tiny dew drop on a blade of grass. If you recall, a few weeks ago (I think) I explicitly told you that it seemed to me like you were approaching seeing that it's all a bunch of BS and just letting it all go. My advice is still the same, I was just focusing on the BS aspect of your enlightenment focus specifically. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 13:45:11 GMT -5
We 'notice' stuff to be not true. How can we directly notice that stuff is not true? Im not exactly sure what you are asking me but I will give an answer anyway and maybe that will answer your question. When we notice something isnt true there is a subtle intellectual weighing up process in which we use evidence of some kind to come to a decision. Thats why this particular kind of noticing is an intellectual activity. A dog might witness a ball being thrown but it wouldnt notice whether something is true or not. So I see this strategy as a way of trying to think our way out of thinking. It is using a tool to solve a problem, that when used, creates the very problem it is trying to solve. It can only lead to more knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 14:04:34 GMT -5
^^^ I'd say that the value of direct noticing/witnessing (without reflection) is that we can only see the truth (what is).
We can then think that it's not so and other stories, but that's just imagination.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 14:15:04 GMT -5
^^^ I'd say that the value of direct noticing/witnessing (without reflection) is that we can only see the truth (what is). We can then think that it's not so and other stories, but that's just imagination. Well, lets say that what you called 'direct noticing' is witnessing and is therefore not an intellectual activity, I would say that this is another way of talking about non-conceptual seeing, which is a WAY of seeing. We still dont 'see the truth' or 'see what is' in non-conceptual seeing, because all seeing is subjective. So it is a way of seeing that is without the filter of fixed self-images and attachment to beliefs. In witnessing or direct noticing there is no attachment to a belief that something is true or not true, therefore knowledge is transcended. |
|
|
|
Post by nobody on Jan 23, 2012 14:22:53 GMT -5
In witnessing or direct noticing there is no attachment to a belief that something is true or not true, Right. No interest (or attachment as you say) in seeing something as true or false is called attachment to the false. I don't know why you are touting this as some amazing spiritual or conscious characteristic when 99.99% of the population is non-attached to seeing something as true or false. therefore knowledge is transcended. Therefore delusion remains firmly intact and nothing is transcended.  |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 23, 2012 14:35:58 GMT -5
We still dont 'see the truth' or 'see what is' in non-conceptual seeing, because all seeing is subjective. Can you witness the subject/subjectivity, or do you have to think about it? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 14:36:47 GMT -5
In witnessing or direct noticing there is no attachment to a belief that something is true or not true, Right. No interest (or attachment as you say) in seeing something as true or false is called attachment to the false. I don't know why you are touting this as some amazing spiritual or conscious characteristic when 99.99% of the population is non-attached to seeing something as true or false. therefore knowledge is transcended. Therefore delusion remains firmly intact and nothing is transcended. I would say that most people are totally attached to seeing stuff as true or false. It comes with the belief in an objective external reality, and the belief that the truths and falsities of that external reality can be observed/known objectively. Not being attached to seeing stuff as true or false cannot be attachment to the false by definition. The true/false duality is the fundamental duality, the core duality. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 23, 2012 14:37:51 GMT -5
We still dont 'see the truth' or 'see what is' in non-conceptual seeing, because all seeing is subjective. Can you witness the subject/subjectivity, or do you have to think about it? Again I dont quite understand the question, but any thing witnessed is witnessed through mind. |
|
