|
|
Post by question on Feb 15, 2012 16:15:18 GMT -5
How can 'what is' be 'that which is not'?  That's the ineffable part. Redness is non-existent as "redness", or what one thinks as "redness". If you're color blind, red might actually look like brown, but that particularly shade of brown would be "redness" to you. Meanwhile, there's still the quality of redness, which remains real redness. Sure. Why not? That I've not experienced something doesn't necessarily mean that the 'isness' of that something doesn't exist. Redness will still exist, whether I see it, or not. You seem to be defining 'Being' as essence/substance. It would be fun to see what happens if you expose your definition of 'Being' to Zendancer's ATA. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 16:17:46 GMT -5
That's the ineffable part. Redness is non-existent as "redness", or what one thinks as "redness". If you're color blind, red might actually look like brown, but that particularly shade of brown would be "redness" to you. Meanwhile, there's still the quality of redness, which remains real redness. Sure. Why not? That I've not experienced something doesn't necessarily mean that the 'isness' of that something doesn't exist. Redness will still exist, whether I see it, or not. Some animals see in very different ways to humans. It begs the question....'who is seeing the correct way?' It may be that you no better way of putting it, but I don't agree with the term 'correct way' here. I don't think there's an inherently 'correct' way to do anything. Yes, 'somethingess'. We just call it 'redness', because 'redness' has that certain 'somethingness' that makes us think of 'redness'. And indeed, that is the subjective part. What is not subjective is the 'somethingness'-- the inherent and innate qualit(ies) that make something what it is (i.e., essence). |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 16:28:16 GMT -5
Some animals see in very different ways to humans. It begs the question....'who is seeing the correct way?' It may be that you no better way of putting it, but I don't agree with the term 'correct way' here. I don't think there's an inherently 'correct' way to do anything. Yes, 'somethingess'. We just call it 'redness', because 'redness' has that certain 'somethingness' that makes us think of 'redness'. And indeed, that is the subjective part. What is not subjective is the 'somethingness'-- the inherent and innate qualit(ies) that make something what it is (i.e., essence). Yes, I also dont think there is a correct way either. And yes, I think I also agree with the second part. I might also describe this somethingness as 'energy'. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 16:35:07 GMT -5
It may be that you no better way of putting it, but I don't agree with the term 'correct way' here. I don't think there's an inherently 'correct' way to do anything. Yes, 'somethingess'. We just call it 'redness', because 'redness' has that certain 'somethingness' that makes us think of 'redness'. And indeed, that is the subjective part. What is not subjective is the 'somethingness'-- the inherent and innate qualit(ies) that make something what it is (i.e., essence). Yes, I also dont think there is a correct way either. And yes, I think I also agree with the second part. I might also describe this somethingness as 'energy'. It's completely ineffable, indescribable, indefinable to me. You can call it anything you like--Truth, 'what is', 'I amness', awareness, etc. And indeed, it does possess a quality similar to energy, but it also possesses the quality of emptiness, so I wouldn't call it an energy, myself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 16:54:50 GMT -5
Yes, I also dont think there is a correct way either. And yes, I think I also agree with the second part. I might also describe this somethingness as 'energy'. It's completely ineffable, indescribable, indefinable to me. You can call it anything you like--Truth, 'what is', 'I amness', awareness, etc. And indeed, it does possess a quality similar to energy, but it also possesses the quality of emptiness, so I wouldn't call it an energy, myself. Okay...if this 'somethingness' is 'what is' I think I would describe 'emptiness/nothingness' as 'what is not'. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 16:59:50 GMT -5
It's completely ineffable, indescribable, indefinable to me. You can call it anything you like--Truth, 'what is', 'I amness', awareness, etc. And indeed, it does possess a quality similar to energy, but it also possesses the quality of emptiness, so I wouldn't call it an energy, myself. Okay...if this 'somethingness' is 'what is' I think I would describe 'emptiness/nothingness' as 'what is not'. You can try to describe Reality any way you'd like, Andrew, but, to me, words fail miserably to describe it. It is what most would call 'God', after all. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Feb 15, 2012 17:10:59 GMT -5
Okay...if this 'somethingness' is 'what is' I think I would describe 'emptiness/nothingness' as 'what is not'. You can try to describe Reality any way you'd like, Andrew, but, to me, words fail miserably to describe it. It is what most would call 'God', after all. Yes, I like the word 'God'. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 17:46:08 GMT -5
You can try to describe Reality any way you'd like, Andrew, but, to me, words fail miserably to describe it. It is what most would call 'God', after all. Yes, I like the word 'God'. Frankly, I don't. As far as words I 'like', " Borracho", yes; "prestidigitation", yes; but "God"? No way. Too much garbage in the way of personal definitions with most people. Even to Enigma, God's a "he", and is experiencing some kind of deluded dream. No, thanks. I'll stick with Being, or Truth. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 15, 2012 17:48:36 GMT -5
You seem to be defining 'Being' as essence/substance. It would be fun to see what happens if you expose your definition of 'Being' to Zendancer's ATA. The "attending" is the key part in ATA....becuase by simple alert empty attending you are absorbed in essential nature.....the "actual" is just mind movement pared down to the sensate movement of mind. So you are "observing" sensate experience/thought from essential nature. Works for me.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 15, 2012 21:32:25 GMT -5
Sure, it makes sense, but I have to start disagreeing with you here.
The 'point of free will' is being imagined. This doesn't mean that nothing can happen, it just means you (the person) are not the cause of it.
Awareness is always 100% present. You are living 100% as awareness now. It's simply a matter of noticing that. Noticing is a 'function' of awareness rather than mind/ego, so whether or not the person has volition is irrelevant. However, awareness is not driven by volition, it is driven by interest. This is why God (awareness) is not trapped within it's own dream of imagining. When there is no more interest in the mind/ego, the attention of awareness will quite spontaneously fall back on itself.
...............................
So the question may arise, what is all this ego work and such for? Where the attention of awareness lands is critical. If it lands on mind, you sleep. If it lands on itself, you awaken. Where attention goes is a spontaneous function, and it is driven by interest that arises as awareness touches mind. There's no question of volitionally directing attention of awareness where you want because there's nothing volitional involved. If there were, you could decide to direct your attention there and absolutely guarantee your enlightenment.
So what has to happen is the interest in mind stuff is lost so that the attention can be shaken loose, and this involves doing the only thing that you as a noticer can ever do: notice. To notice illusions is to lose interest in illusions. To notice how you create your own suffering is to lose interest in doing that. To notice you are not an ego is to lose interest in improving it.enigma, I think ego is much tougher than you realize. It happens spontaneously, through interest? But then you say that the only thing we can do is notice. Is that doing not a form of volition? How can you say that your use of noticing here is different from my use of voluntary attention? You actually offer no way of breaking free from ego. You say: "Where the attention of awareness lands is critical". I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we wait for it to land *spontaneously*, from interest, we can wait our whole life, and die, without becoming free. We are what we say "I" to. You don't offer a real way to pass from ego-functioning to awareness. You don't offer a way to cease saying "I" to ego so that one can be awareness. What you seem to say is it either happens, or it doesn't. I can't accept that.......... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 16, 2012 1:41:29 GMT -5
Sure, it makes sense, but I have to start disagreeing with you here.
The 'point of free will' is being imagined. This doesn't mean that nothing can happen, it just means you (the person) are not the cause of it.
Awareness is always 100% present. You are living 100% as awareness now. It's simply a matter of noticing that. Noticing is a 'function' of awareness rather than mind/ego, so whether or not the person has volition is irrelevant. However, awareness is not driven by volition, it is driven by interest. This is why God (awareness) is not trapped within it's own dream of imagining. When there is no more interest in the mind/ego, the attention of awareness will quite spontaneously fall back on itself.
...............................
So the question may arise, what is all this ego work and such for? Where the attention of awareness lands is critical. If it lands on mind, you sleep. If it lands on itself, you awaken. Where attention goes is a spontaneous function, and it is driven by interest that arises as awareness touches mind. There's no question of volitionally directing attention of awareness where you want because there's nothing volitional involved. If there were, you could decide to direct your attention there and absolutely guarantee your enlightenment.
So what has to happen is the interest in mind stuff is lost so that the attention can be shaken loose, and this involves doing the only thing that you as a noticer can ever do: notice. To notice illusions is to lose interest in illusions. To notice how you create your own suffering is to lose interest in doing that. To notice you are not an ego is to lose interest in improving it.enigma, I think ego is much tougher than you realize. It happens spontaneously, through interest? But then you say that the only thing we can do is notice. Is that doing not a form of volition? How can you say that your use of noticing here is different from my use of voluntary attention? You actually offer no way of breaking free from ego. You say: "Where the attention of awareness lands is critical". I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we wait for it to land *spontaneously*, from interest, we can wait our whole life, and die, without becoming free. We are what we say "I" to. You don't offer a real way to pass from ego-functioning to awareness. You don't offer a way to cease saying "I" to ego so that one can be awareness. What you seem to say is it either happens, or it doesn't. I can't accept that..........sdp Yeah, I'd have to say that's how it is. Almost everybody dies without becoming free. It's not a very upbeat message, but I suspect you've heard it before. Still, if there's a deep longing to realize Truth, and it's sincere, I would say the probability is very high you will awaken. A sincere longing is very rare. Even most of those who have a sincere desire, don't actually want what Truth is, since it is the end of the wanter. That's why trying to talk about what Truth actually is can be useful. Most will find they want something else. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 16, 2012 6:49:37 GMT -5
enigma, I think ego is much tougher than you realize. It happens spontaneously, through interest? But then you say that the only thing we can do is notice. Is that doing not a form of volition? How can you say that your use of noticing here is different from my use of voluntary attention? You actually offer no way of breaking free from ego. You say: "Where the attention of awareness lands is critical". I agree wholeheartedly. However, if we wait for it to land *spontaneously*, from interest, we can wait our whole life, and die, without becoming free. We are what we say "I" to. You don't offer a real way to pass from ego-functioning to awareness. You don't offer a way to cease saying "I" to ego so that one can be awareness. What you seem to say is it either happens, or it doesn't. I can't accept that..........sdp Yeah, I'd have to say that's how it is. Almost everybody dies without becoming free. It's not a very upbeat message, but I suspect you've heard it before. Still, if there's a deep longing to realize Truth, and it's sincere, I would say the probability is very high you will awaken. A sincere longing is very rare. Even most of those who have a sincere desire, don't actually want what Truth is, since it is the end of the wanter. That's why trying to talk about what Truth actually is can be useful. Most will find they want something else. Yep, I'll second that. That's why we say whether peeps wake up or not is a total mystery. |
|
|
|
Post by freddy on Feb 16, 2012 7:01:39 GMT -5
Still, if there's a deep longing to realize Truth, and it's sincere, I would say the probability is very high you will awaken. A sincere longing is very rare. Even most of those who have a sincere desire, don't actually want what Truth is, since it is the end of the wanter. That's why trying to talk about what Truth actually is can be useful. Most will find they want something else. The desire for enlightenment or experiencing spiritual experiences is itself the greatest obstacle to enlightenment. The reason is that the one who wants enlightenment (having a desire for enlightenment) must necessarily project itself (the false self) into the future and in doing so he reinforces only the concept of the false self. So by being in the moment right now, attending what is infront of oneself, without imagining the future or reminding the past, this phantom self (ego) will weaken because it isn't reinforced everytime. Going through life solely with concepts and the intellect, always reinforcing the ideas of what we know or what we think we must know, we are robbed of a sense of discovery. "Nothing of value can happen to a mind which knows exactly what it wants." Niz |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 16, 2012 9:20:03 GMT -5
Still, if there's a deep longing to realize Truth, and it's sincere, I would say the probability is very high you will awaken. A sincere longing is very rare. Even most of those who have a sincere desire, don't actually want what Truth is, since it is the end of the wanter. That's why trying to talk about what Truth actually is can be useful. Most will find they want something else. The desire for enlightenment or experiencing spiritual experiences is itself the greatest obstacle to enlightenment. The reason is that the one who wants enlightenment (having a desire for enlightenment) must necessarily project itself (the false self) into the future and in doing so he reinforces only the concept of the false self. So by being in the moment right now, attending what is infront of oneself, without imagining the future or reminding the past, this phantom self (ego) will weaken because it isn't reinforced everytime. Going through life solely with concepts and the intellect, always reinforcing the ideas of what we know or what we think we must know, we are robbed of a sense of discovery. Eggzackly. |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Feb 16, 2012 9:52:12 GMT -5
Still, if there's a deep longing to realize Truth, and it's sincere, I would say the probability is very high you will awaken. A sincere longing is very rare. Even most of those who have a sincere desire, don't actually want what Truth is, since it is the end of the wanter. That's why trying to talk about what Truth actually is can be useful. Most will find they want something else. The desire for enlightenment or experiencing spiritual experiences is itself the greatest obstacle to enlightenment. The reason is that the one who wants enlightenment (having a desire for enlightenment) must necessarily project itself (the false self) into the future and in doing so he reinforces only the concept of the false self. So by being in the moment right now, attending what is infront of oneself, without imagining the future or reminding the past, this phantom self (ego) will weaken because it isn't reinforced everytime. Going through life solely with concepts and the intellect, always reinforcing the ideas of what we know or what we think we must know, we are robbed of a sense of discovery. "Nothing of value can happen to a mind which knows exactly what it wants." Niz True. Nice post. |
|
