|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2012 11:25:11 GMT -5
Then what method do you use to release the need to release the need? It reminds me of 'observing the observer of the observing' and 'putting the out front out front'. It's not so much wrong as it is pandering to mind weaving layer upon layer of doing in a futile attempt to undo itself. Well, it seems to work for those that use the Sedona Method. What happens is that as we release the releasing, the energy to do the questioning falls away and leaves us empty handed. These days I quite simply dont have the kind of energy required to do the questioning (though there are times when I might 'allow a feeling to be here' or 'welcome a feeling' - both of these are Sedona Method strategies). Aside from the many ways that the Sedona Method helps people with emotional problems, mental problems, and even physical pain, the questions are for those that still have an energy of seeking/doing/achieving. And you are now 'empty handed'? Is that what you're saying? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 12:26:28 GMT -5
Well, it seems to work for those that use the Sedona Method. What happens is that as we release the releasing, the energy to do the questioning falls away and leaves us empty handed. These days I quite simply dont have the kind of energy required to do the questioning (though there are times when I might 'allow a feeling to be here' or 'welcome a feeling' - both of these are Sedona Method strategies). Aside from the many ways that the Sedona Method helps people with emotional problems, mental problems, and even physical pain, the questions are for those that still have an energy of seeking/doing/achieving. And you are now 'empty handed'? Is that what you're saying? I think there is the potential for even more empty handedness, but these hands are too empty to do the 4 questions. As I said, there are times though when I will deliberately allow or welcome a feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 5, 2012 13:10:42 GMT -5
And you are now 'empty handed'? Is that what you're saying? I think there is the potential for even more empty handedness, but these hands are too empty to do the 4 questions. As I said, there are times though when I will deliberately allow or welcome a feeling. In order to deliberately allow a feeling, doesn't that require that you also resist feelings? Otherwise it wouldn't even occur to you that you're now 'allowing' a feeling. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 14:22:38 GMT -5
I think there is the potential for even more empty handedness, but these hands are too empty to do the 4 questions. As I said, there are times though when I will deliberately allow or welcome a feeling. In order to deliberately allow a feeling, doesn't that require that you also resist feelings? Otherwise it wouldn't even occur to you that you're now 'allowing' a feeling. If there is a negative feeling (anger or frustration or fear for example) then there is ALREADY a resistance. Negative emotions are manifestations OF resistance. But there aint nobody I know that doesnt experience any kind of negative emotion. Resisting happens sometimes, though these days, its kind of happening to 'no-one'. It happens in a much more present way than it used to. So when I allow a feeling to be here, its just a very simple way of handling the resistance that is already present. For example, having just dealt with a slightly difficult situation with my Mum a few minutes ago, if I look closely I can see that there is a subtle layer of frustration in my body. So I allow it to be here fully and.....no more subtle layer of frustration. As I said, I aint claiming to be some kind of perfected human. These hands can be emptied further Im sure. But the impetus and energy to do much more than a bit of allowing/welcoming sometimes isnt there any more. That energy got burned off in a frenzy of seeking and failing hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 5, 2012 14:51:24 GMT -5
In order to deliberately allow a feeling, doesn't that require that you also resist feelings? Otherwise it wouldn't even occur to you that you're now 'allowing' a feeling. If there is a negative feeling (anger or frustration or fear for example) then there is ALREADY a resistance. Negative emotions are manifestations OF resistance. But there aint nobody I know that doesnt experience any kind of negative emotion. Resisting happens sometimes, though these days, its kind of happening to 'no-one'. It happens in a much more present way than it used to. So when I allow a feeling to be here, its just a very simple way of handling the resistance that is already present. Have you considered the possibility that if you didn't categorize your feelings in any shape or form that resistance wouldn't seem to already be there? That perhaps you're merely experiencing your ideas about your feelings and not the actual sensations themselves? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 15:31:31 GMT -5
If there is a negative feeling (anger or frustration or fear for example) then there is ALREADY a resistance. Negative emotions are manifestations OF resistance. But there aint nobody I know that doesnt experience any kind of negative emotion. Resisting happens sometimes, though these days, its kind of happening to 'no-one'. It happens in a much more present way than it used to. So when I allow a feeling to be here, its just a very simple way of handling the resistance that is already present. Have you considered the possibility that if you didn't categorize your feelings in any shape or form that resistance wouldn't seem to already be there? That perhaps you're merely experiencing your ideas about your feelings and not the actual sensations themselves? What I would say is that to notice a feeling (or sensation) IS to categorize it in a very subtle way. I can notice a feeling (or sensation) and then choose NOT to categorize it as a way of handling the negative emotion, and then may well be a good strategy for handling them, but the point is that the categorization has already happened. The resisting is already happening. Thats the thing with negative feelings, is that when noticed, they demand that we do something about them, and thats because a negative feeling comes with a level of physical discomfort and a very natural aversion to that discomfort . Those feelings demand our attention in the same way that our toe demands our attention when we stub it. For example, when frustration arises, people might reach for a beer, some people punch other people, some people may walk out of a situation, some people may quietly observe the feeling without categorizing it, some people may 'forgive', some people may choose to look from a wider perspective....there are hundreds of ways of handling the negative feeling, though spiritual people tend to have different strategies than non-spiritual people. They have more strings to their bow. They dont necessarily reach straight for the beer immediately a negative feeling arises. Ive said this before, but in a way, I think that all that really distinguishes spiritual peeps or enlightened peeps from 'regular' folk, is that spiritual/enlightened folk have more behavioural options available to them. They have less set (conditioned) rules about how to behave in any given situation, so they are able to go with the most intelligent option. Reaching for a beer sometimes might WELL be the most intelligent option, but equally, the most intelligent option might be taking a wider perspective of perfection. I used to talk of the metaphor of an expert kayaker navigating a river. The river we are flowing on has rocks and rapids and waterfalls, and we need plenty of good strategies. There might be a time to paddle hard, to slow down, to avoid, to go straight through, to get out and walk around! Because the 'enlightened' are not bound by their former conditioning, they are able to be flexible and deal with each issue on the river spontaneously and intelligently. The unenlightened are inflexible and rigid and bound by their conditioning, and therefore struggle on the river. Talked a lot there! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 15:43:10 GMT -5
And of course the good feelings...the joy, the bliss, the peace, the ease....they dont demand that we do something 'about'. They dont demand our attention as such because by definition they arise when there is no resisting happening at all.....and actually we only notice them because we also experience negative emotions. The good feelings arise naturally as a result of being fully in the flow. If we were fully in the flow all the time, we wouldnt notice them. They would be a given in our experience, a fact of our reality.
In this reality we constantly flip flip between positive and negative, allowance and resistance/aversion. For spiritual people, this flip flopping happens on the periphery of their experience, and for these peeps, the positive prevails even when negative feelings are also arising. The negative doesnt 'take over'. It doesnt become 'all consuming'.
And some peeps like to talk about this as being 'Peace', and this can be helpful at times, but not on this forum in my opinion - there is too much reification already! In actuality all humans experience the same positive and negative feelings. Spiritual peeps just experience them in a different way.
Yikes Im still talking!
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Apr 5, 2012 16:01:11 GMT -5
And of course the good feelings...the joy, the bliss, the peace, the ease....they dont demand that we do something 'about'. They dont demand our attention as such because by definition they arise when there is no resisting happening at all.....and actually we only notice them because we also experience negative emotions. The good feelings arise naturally as a result of being fully in the flow. If we were fully in the flow all the time, we wouldnt notice them. They would be a given in our experience, a fact of our reality. In this reality we constantly flip flip between positive and negative, allowance and resistance/aversion. For spiritual people, this flip flopping happens on the periphery of their experience, and for these peeps, the positive prevails even when negative feelings are also arising. The negative doesnt 'take over'. It doesnt become 'all consuming'. And some peeps like to talk about this as being 'Peace', and this can be helpful at times, but not on this forum in my opinion - there is too much reification already! In actuality all humans experience the same positive and negative feelings. Spiritual peeps just experience them in a different way. Though I don't see anything 'wrong' with positive/negative emotions, I do ... witness an underlying Peace that can't be touched by anything considered positive or negative. It's just there. Call it a gift, if you want, but at the same time, I don't consider 'reification' to talk about the 'Peace of God, which passes all understanding." You either recognize it and accept it, or you don't. It's not something one gains. But, Peace is neither positive nor negative. It's ineffable. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 5, 2012 16:12:35 GMT -5
And of course the good feelings...the joy, the bliss, the peace, the ease....they dont demand that we do something 'about'. They dont demand our attention as such because by definition they arise when there is no resisting happening at all.....and actually we only notice them because we also experience negative emotions. The good feelings arise naturally as a result of being fully in the flow. If we were fully in the flow all the time, we wouldnt notice them. They would be a given in our experience, a fact of our reality. In this reality we constantly flip flip between positive and negative, allowance and resistance/aversion. For spiritual people, this flip flopping happens on the periphery of their experience, and for these peeps, the positive prevails even when negative feelings are also arising. The negative doesnt 'take over'. It doesnt become 'all consuming'. And some peeps like to talk about this as being 'Peace', and this can be helpful at times, but not on this forum in my opinion - there is too much reification already! In actuality all humans experience the same positive and negative feelings. Spiritual peeps just experience them in a different way. Though I don't see anything 'wrong' with positive/negative emotions, I do ... witness an underlying Peace that can't be touched by anything considered positive or negative. It's just there. Call it a gift, if you want, but at the same time, I don't consider 'reification' to talk about the 'Peace of God, which passes all understanding." You either recognize it and accept it, or you don't. It's not something one gains. But, Peace is neither positive nor negative. It's ineffable. I understand what you are saying but this is reification. What you are talking about is a state, or a feeling, or an experience or quite simply.... ''something'' (which you are also saying is ineffable). This something is NOT unique to enlightened people, the unenlightened have a reference for it too (though it is not a very direct reference). The enlightened just do not get as 'involved' or 'attached', and therefore this 'something' prevails even when there is negativity. If there was no negativity, there would be no noticing this 'something'. Its the arising of negativity that enables us to notice this 'something'. If there was no negativity, this 'something' would be a fact of our reality. We would basically be unconscious of this 'something'. It makes sense to say this 'something' is positive as it is noticed only BECAUSE we notice the negative i.e because we experience both allowance and aversion. It would be neither positive or negative if there was no negativity noticed, and no aversion. But then we wouldnt even be speaking about this 'something' or thinking about it. To say that there is 'something' that only enlightened peeps have a reference for can be very divisive and separating. It can be helpful to speak of this 'something' to newbies, but if we are not careful this helpful pointer can become another trapping. There is no Peace, there is only the experience of peace that everyone has a reference for, though some may experience peace more directly than others. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2012 18:18:45 GMT -5
Here is Lester Levenson's story (the guy who 'came up with' the Sedona Method)..... www.lesterlevenson.org/about-lester.php#Its more for those that resonate with a holistic process than those who like to do the work at the level of the conscious mind. Lester: I thought you had a low tolerance for that pretentious 'special state that only some know about' BS. Lester: Of course, what Lester found was what we pointy at every day here, but since we haven't formulated it into a method you can add to your ever-growing toolbox, you don't have any use for it. Lester's physical crisis brought the willingness to explore deeply and get clear about the problem, and then to take radical action to stop creating his own suffering. The difficulty is that such dedication to his own freedom cannot be formulated into a method. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2012 18:42:34 GMT -5
And you are now 'empty handed'? Is that what you're saying? I think there is the potential for even more empty handedness, but these hands are too empty to do the 4 questions. As I said, there are times though when I will deliberately allow or welcome a feeling. Does 'empty handed' mean empty of feeling then? |
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Apr 5, 2012 20:57:12 GMT -5
Though I don't see anything 'wrong' with positive/negative emotions, I do ... witness an underlying Peace that can't be touched by anything considered positive or negative. It's just there. Call it a gift, if you want, but at the same time, I don't consider 'reification' to talk about the 'Peace of God, which passes all understanding." You either recognize it and accept it, or you don't. It's not something one gains. But, Peace is neither positive nor negative. It's ineffable. I understand what you are saying but this is reification. What you are talking about is a state, or a feeling, or an experience or quite simply.... ''something'' (which you are also saying is ineffable). This something is NOT unique to enlightened people, the unenlightened have a reference for it too (though it is not a very direct reference). The enlightened just do not get as 'involved' or 'attached', and therefore this 'something' prevails even when there is negativity. No, it's not a state. It's not 'something', but rather more like 'nothingness', or (to use a familiar phraseology around here) a 'stateless state'. In any event, that it's ineffable means that even you can't describe or define it, try though you might (and, of course, you do ;D). It's THIS, baby. Again, I say it's not a 'something', but rather like a nothingness against which 'somethingness' is highlighted, contrasted. Well, I agree that speaking of THIS as though it is 'something' can mislead folks into thinking that it IS 'something', which is why most of us don't talk about it with those folks who might be so convinced. At least I don't. Otherwise, I say again, that the Peace is there, whether you want to call it a 'something', or 'positive', or 'negative', or whatever else. THIS is just what is, and all 'enlightenment' is, as far as I can see, is simple acceptance of it. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 6, 2012 1:53:52 GMT -5
Here is Lester Levenson's story (the guy who 'came up with' the Sedona Method)..... www.lesterlevenson.org/about-lester.php#Its more for those that resonate with a holistic process than those who like to do the work at the level of the conscious mind. Lester: I thought you had a low tolerance for that pretentious 'special state that only some know about' BS. Lester: Of course, what Lester found was what we pointy at every day here, but since we haven't formulated it into a method you can add to your ever-growing toolbox, you don't have any use for it. Lester's physical crisis brought the willingness to explore deeply and get clear about the problem, and then to take radical action to stop creating his own suffering. The difficulty is that such dedication to his own freedom cannot be formulated into a method. He did formulate a method. Its called the Sedona Method! It is 4 basic questions. There are also methods for intensifying willingness. I saw the bit you quoted and thought you might mention it, but thought it worth posting it anyway. If he had capitalized the 'P' he might have crossed the line hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 6, 2012 1:58:40 GMT -5
I think there is the potential for even more empty handedness, but these hands are too empty to do the 4 questions. As I said, there are times though when I will deliberately allow or welcome a feeling. Does 'empty handed' mean empty of feeling then? No, not really...I think it means more.... empty of attachment, or empty of wanting. The energy of attachment/wanting is not strong enough in this bodymind to do the 4 questions. An emotion is noticed/felt, but aside from allowing it/welcoming it, the movement isnt there to do much more than that. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 6, 2012 2:09:33 GMT -5
I understand what you are saying but this is reification. What you are talking about is a state, or a feeling, or an experience or quite simply.... ''something'' (which you are also saying is ineffable). This something is NOT unique to enlightened people, the unenlightened have a reference for it too (though it is not a very direct reference). The enlightened just do not get as 'involved' or 'attached', and therefore this 'something' prevails even when there is negativity. No, it's not a state. It's not 'something', but rather more like 'nothingness', or (to use a familiar phraseology around here) a 'stateless state'. In any event, that it's ineffable means that even you can't describe or define it, try though you might (and, of course, you do ;D). It's THIS, baby. But you are saying there is an 'it', which implies an existence. You can call this 'it' nothingness, you can describe 'it' as ineffable, but you are still creating an 'it' when there is no 'it'. This is reification, which might be helpful initially, but can become another trapping.
Again, I say it's not a 'something', but rather like a nothingness against which 'somethingness' is highlighted, contrasted. Well, I agree that speaking of THIS as though it is 'something' can mislead folks into thinking that it IS 'something', which is why most of us don't talk about it with those folks who might be so convinced. At least I don't. Otherwise, I say again, that the Peace is there, whether you want to call it a 'something', or 'positive', or 'negative', or whatever else. THIS is just what is, and all 'enlightenment' is, as far as I can see, is simple acceptance of it. The only place this 'Peace' is, is in your mind. 'It' doesnt exist. Yes, it IS possible to experience peace, which all people do to some degree and at different points in their lives, and some people do experience peace more directly than others (i.e. the enlightened), but there is no 'it' that enlightened people have a reference for that unenlightened people dont. We reify this 'it' (or Peace) initially only to get people off the starting blocks. Eventually, it has to be released too. It has to be seen as a B.S story of the mind that is relevant only when we are exploring a particular body of thought (non-dualism). We have to come back down to earth and stop separating ourselves out from the those who we believe dont have a reference for something that we believe we do. |
|
