|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2013 13:38:21 GMT -5
my sympathies, fwtw on the tinnitus ... I'm reminded of Maries post over on RH ... with me the chronic is lower back pain ... that moment when you say ... "oh well, always gonna be this way ...", yeah that's memorable. all this time I've been imagining you doing magnificent aerial ski jumps. No wonder you have back pain! hehe ... the physical embodiment of paradox ... it hurts so good ...
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 4, 2013 13:40:08 GMT -5
I'd say we can talk about mind as being something that's not ever truly at rest which can be a very good pointer for people waiting around for such a time when mind turns into some calm tensionless stuffed animal. Then we can also talk about the very real possibility of mind not looking around for things gone missing, grasping at anything to solve imaginary problems. There's still a necessary level of tension happening which makes life possible but the perpetual neurotic anxiety has ceased. ooooh yeah
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Apr 4, 2013 13:41:58 GMT -5
Actually, other friends think I'm just 'out to lunch'. I think you actively play into that description. Well, you can think what you want, in any event.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 13:43:46 GMT -5
But you are turning truth into a oneness blob whether you mean to or not, by explaining your thought system on the matter aren't you? Are you hoping to have a conversation about the limitations of language? Not really I think your doing a great job of illustrating that point in your posts.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2013 13:43:58 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it has to be lived. Realizations are simply realized when there is the willingness to look and to see. Nothing else is required and time is not a factor. What you mean by a "willingness to look and see" is sort of a puzzler to me. It's sort of like the 'sincerity' business. From my perspective there is willingness and sincerity. But obviously if the fruits of the willingness and sincerity you are speaking of are to realize some of that aforementioned stuff, it's not the same willingness and sincerity. Yes I see 'putting and end to the game' as similar to the willingness and sincerity differences. In your use of the terms, who is willing or not willing, who can put and end to the game or not put an end to the game? From my perspective, there is willingness, and there is no game of pretending not to know. I think I understand what your saying. Re: the pendulum perspective. 'Being present' aids in the shift of perspective. In the context of your declarations of willingness and sincerity (which I'll take as true on their face), FWIW I hear what you said about letting it happen as it happens to be a turning away from futile effort rather than trying to deceive yourself. Of course, that being said, what E says about the unknown knowns is an unavoidable truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 4, 2013 13:44:57 GMT -5
hey that's red! where's the carrot-flavored kool-aide??
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 4, 2013 13:59:49 GMT -5
I think you actively play into that description. Well, you can think what you want, in any event. Well, it makes sense at least in the context of spiritual matters. Since it doesn't seem to you that mind is involved in your version of perpetual prayer/inquiry, bringing mind back into the picture to talk about complex or highly subtle matters is likely to distort or even completely shift that focus off the prayer and be determined to be some sort of unnecessary distraction.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 4, 2013 15:05:45 GMT -5
I'm not sure what you mean when you say it has to be lived. Realizations are simply realized when there is the willingness to look and to see. Nothing else is required and time is not a factor. What you mean by a "willingness to look and see" is sort of a puzzler to me. It's sort of like the 'sincerity' business. From my perspective there is willingness and sincerity. But obviously if the fruits of the willingness and sincerity you are speaking of are to realize some of that aforementioned stuff, it's not the same willingness and sincerity. Okay, we can make up a new term and call it True willingness and True sincerity. The distinction is very clear with peeps on this forum, but I don't really know what you have and haven't noticed in that regard. Do you see peeps who declare their willingness and sincerity who clearly are not willing and sincere? Do you see folks declaring their honesty who are actually deceiving themselves? Mind is a vewy twicky critter. The question is misconceived. Where did you get the idea that there has to be a "who" doing something before it can happen? Yeah, it's just attention turned toward what is happening and away from what is thought about what is happening, or has happened, or will happen. Non-abidance in mind. The 'pendulum perspective' is just about looking from where you are (on the ground) instead of where you think you are. (swinging from the pendulum)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 4, 2013 15:49:18 GMT -5
What you mean by a "willingness to look and see" is sort of a puzzler to me. It's sort of like the 'sincerity' business. From my perspective there is willingness and sincerity. But obviously if the fruits of the willingness and sincerity you are speaking of are to realize some of that aforementioned stuff, it's not the same willingness and sincerity. If you zoomed all the way out so to speak it would be obvious that the situation is not what it seems. In other words, you're pretending not to know what you already know. Zoom back down again and there very well may be willingness and sincerity present but likely only to see a very limited amount at a time. In any case it's never about waiting for God to slam his gavel and grant you realization. It's about catching on to the very game you're playing. Once you're on to yourself it's much more difficult to keep the sharade going. Zakly, and it's actually good news cuz it takes waiting for God's Grace out of the equation and puts the problem back in the individual mind where it actually is. So there is the potential for anybody to 'change their mind' at any time and notice what in blazes is really going on. From that perspective, the difficulty is not really that there is nobody here to realize something, which is just another justification of the unwillingness to notice. It's a bit more insidious than that. Most minds function unconsciously, saying we want one thing and actually wanting another. Saying we want to know the truth while maneuvering every which way to prevent precisely that from happening. This is why 'becoming conscious' is so important. It's a tricky thing for unconsciousness to become conscious.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 4, 2013 15:53:26 GMT -5
What you mean by a "willingness to look and see" is sort of a puzzler to me. It's sort of like the 'sincerity' business. From my perspective there is willingness and sincerity. But obviously if the fruits of the willingness and sincerity you are speaking of are to realize some of that aforementioned stuff, it's not the same willingness and sincerity. Yes I see 'putting and end to the game' as similar to the willingness and sincerity differences. In your use of the terms, who is willing or not willing, who can put and end to the game or not put an end to the game? From my perspective, there is willingness, and there is no game of pretending not to know. I think I understand what your saying. Re: the pendulum perspective. 'Being present' aids in the shift of perspective. I'm stilling wondering how 'Being present' is another means to an end of 'Being present'? The practice of being present is not the same as being present. We are always being present, so obviously the practice is something else. It's a purposeful non-abidance in mind. It's mostly a split mind game and i don't necessarily encourage it, just explaining it.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 4, 2013 16:21:00 GMT -5
Vezzy interesting,.. Zakly, and it's actually good news cuz it takes waiting for God's Grace out of the equation and puts the problem back in the individual mind where it actually is. This is different to how I thought things worked. I thought it was along the lines of : - struggle struggle struggle - surrender - God's Grace - job done So there is the potential for anybody to 'change their mind' at any time and notice what in blazes is really going on. From that perspective, the difficulty is not really that there is nobody here to realize something, which is just another justification of the unwillingness to notice. It's a bit more insidious than that. Most minds function unconsciously, saying we want one thing and actually wanting another. Saying we want to know the truth while maneuvering every which way to prevent precisely that from happening. This is why 'becoming conscious' is so important. It's a tricky thing for unconsciousness to become conscious. The practice of being present is not the same as being present. We are always being present, so obviously the practice is something else. It's a purposeful non-abidance in mind. It's mostly a split mind game and i don't necessarily encourage it, just explaining it. So this non-abidance in mind is ATA? and this side steps the saying one thing and wanting another? I had thought that ATA was a form of surrender, that the simplicity of just attending to whats in front of you weakens all the mental gymnastics until it collapses. I'd be really interested to hear you speak more about this...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 16:29:30 GMT -5
I'm stilling wondering how 'Being present' is another means to an end of 'Being present'? The practice of being present is not the same as being present. We are always being present, so obviously the practice is something else. It's a purposeful non-abidance in mind. It's mostly a split mind game and i don't necessarily encourage it, just explaining it. So the mind is explaining how the practice of being present is a split mind game?? So what sees this mind doing the splaining, would that also be another mind? It's kind of like the mind conceptualizing it's conceptualizations and thinking that it's doing if from outside of it's conceptualizations. I mean why can't thought be seen as thought instead of imagining there's something behind that seeing that can be thought about?
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 4, 2013 16:37:48 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting to know your true nature? Is this on a personal level (authentic self) or impersonal level (what am I)? At the personal level I feel like I've done enough. It's good to know things like what do I get emotionally triggered by, what conditioning I carry around, etc. That makes sense at a practical day to day interacting with people and the world level. Sure, I could know more etc, but I've run out of interest in it. It's knowing true nature at the impersonal level that I'm after. My plan at this stage is largely based around the idea that "I" can't make it happen, but I can make myself accident prone, and that I need to "come empty" into the process. So that involves formal meditation practice, ATA outside of that, bit of reading (mainly this forum), listening to SIG weekly meetings, interacting with people (Rose's 3 rungs of the ladder).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2013 16:52:37 GMT -5
How do you plan on getting to know your true nature? Is this on a personal level (authentic self) or impersonal level (what am I)? At the personal level I feel like I've done enough. It's good to know things like what do I get emotionally triggered by, what conditioning I carry around, etc. That makes sense at a practical day to day interacting with people and the world level. Sure, I could know more etc, but I've run out of interest in it. It's knowing true nature at the impersonal level that I'm after. My plan at this stage is largely based around the idea that "I" can't make it happen, but I can make myself accident prone, and that I need to "come empty" into the process. So that involves formal meditation practice, ATA outside of that, bit of reading (mainly this forum), listening to SIG weekly meetings, interacting with people (Rose's 3 rungs of the ladder). To really see the conditioning clearly, is to then transcend it. Beliefs don't survive our seeing through them. I can't say with any degree of certainty where you're actually at in all this, but I see many who want to essentially 'jump the track' and understand 'true nature at the impersonal level', when they've still yet to see through all the personal stuff. The impersonal is realized through the releasing of attachment to the personal. When our conditioning's got us by the short & curlies, there's no such thing as 'coming empty.'
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 4, 2013 16:53:43 GMT -5
Sorry Earnest, I was guilty of jumping into the thread without reading the 'rules' you'd suggested...(hehe....not that that would have necessarily changed anything : . Fact is though, I was just spontaneously offering observation, not wanting to starts any 'wars' here myself. All good Figless, I think I jumped in a bit hard anyway. When I first began with self inquiry, I found that minor things that irritated me and created an urge of needing to control outcome was a really great starting point. To look into the 'why's' behind my sense of wanting/needing things to be a certain way, I came to see that often, there was a whole mountain of layered beliefs behind that. The main belief being that circumstances MUST align with all of my preferences or peace cannot be. Interesting to hear about your experiences with inquiry. I found that the why questions started to have a natural end point. They were helpful in peeling back a layer or two and there was useful stuff to be found, but there seemed to be just layer after layer in the why stuff. Why questions seemed to bring back a "word response" for me, but what questions seem to bring back a visceral beyond the mind response. So.....(and I hope I'm not breaking one of your rules here... You could start by asking yourself 'why' do you want this thread to adhere to the rules you've laid out (if you really are not anti drift or pro drift as you say?) You can break the rules if you like, and I may give you a good natured dig about it but I don't care about the rules I set. I don't think that inquiry on why I set the rules is going to go anywhere useful for me personally, like i said above, I think its just going to bring back a story of some sort and that's more of the in my head stuff I'm not so interested in. I only set them because I was tired of what I saw as a lot of the three ring word circus that goes on here. I figured if I set them at the start, then I could steer the thread if I felt inclined, and refer back to the toothless rule tiger (Rahhhh... )
|
|