|
Post by Reefs on Apr 5, 2013 11:29:20 GMT -5
The spontaneous realization in Joe Blow is going to release the tension in his mind, bring him existential peace, but not necessarily change his personality, external behavior or bodily manifestation in the world. People might notice that he's "calmed down" or become more content, easier to be around, but that's about it. He may never talk about his insight or share it with anyone. He has no need to. Yes, your personality is always going to be unique and that's the way it's supposed to be. Which is why all the emulation of saints and teachers is completely missing the point. The only thing that's pretty much guaranteed is that the absence of an imaginary moderator filtering and distorting your personality will likely make you much more direct. Dear Dude/Dudette, And following that logic, somehow folks seem to think that a 'non-dualist' should be a "man without qualities". Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 11:29:34 GMT -5
Okay, we can make up a new term and call it True willingness and True sincerity. uh oh Well since I haven't been booted of the RH forum yet, and I assume the sincerity requirement there refers to the hallowed True Sincerity, doesn't this mean I've passed some sort of test? It was the willingness thing. It seems like willingness should belong to someone. If we're talking a universal willingness, belonging to no one except Oneness, I don't really understand why this particular manifestation/experience would lack it. You don't understand why a particular expression of oneness would experience and express lack? It's illusion stuff.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 11:32:54 GMT -5
what E says about the unknown knowns is an unavoidable truth. What E is saying about unknown knowns remains unknown to me. I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 11:41:22 GMT -5
The intention and effort made to ATA must fall away at some point Actually, what happens eventually is that the one who was imagined to be ATA'ing is seen through, and then it doesn't matter what is happening. It is realized that there is no person behind any activity, even ATA. That's why I said that everyone starts out under the illusion that there is a person who is meditating, ATA'ing, etc, but this illusion utlimately collapses, and all twoness comes to an end. From that point on there is neither oneness nor twoness because there is no longer any imagined separation. There is simply washing dishes, mowing the lawn, having dinner with friends, going to work, etc. The body/mind will still meditate, ATA, or think, but the previously imagined separation is no longer imagined. The body is intelligent, and it becomes obvious that ordinary everyday life is perfect just the way it is. (If the sage is in the middle of a war zone and is asked, "Is this perfect?" she will respond, "Shut up and pass the ammunition!") By the time the illusion of selfhood is seen through, imagination has been realized as the culprit that gave rise to the illusion of separation, so imagination plays a much smaller role in the life of the sage than in people who have not seen this. The sage, who is one-with the truth, is content with life however it manifests, acts appropriately, and is no longer jerked around by fantasies and other machinations of mind. Mind is a docile servant providing practical answers to practical questions, and no longer roams around in a world of complex layered abstractions. There is no longer any need to control thinking (because the imagined controller has vanished), but the body may enjoy sitting and looking at the world in mental silence (ATA) in the same way that a bird watcher may enjoy watching birds. There is no ulterior purpose in that activity; it is simply what the body does. If someone asks a sage, "Why do you sit and look at the world in silence?" the sage will simply smile. Yeah, I agree, I would also say that it coincides with my theory about the nature of perception, being two intimate ingredients, perceiving and conceiving. Before the development of our mental construction or conceiving ability, we were pure being or pure perceiving. We were perceiving but we couldn't conceive consensually what was being perceived. For example if I break down the perception of looking at a bird singing, it looks like this. I AM perceiving and then conceiving a bird singing. Going deeper, I AM perceiving the sense of sight and the sense of sound, then conceiving a bird singing. If I remove the conceiving, leaving the pure being or pure perceiving state, I AM perceiving the sense of sight and perceiving the sense of sound but I don't know what sense of sight and sound is because I have removed the conceiving. Going deeper still, if I remove the perceiving... I AM, but I cannot perceive nor conceive that I AM. And so that which cannot be perceived or known creates a reflection of itself to perceive and conceive. And just to really mess this theory up I conceive that which cannot be perceived or conceived is Love... Just a musing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 11:58:13 GMT -5
What E is saying about unknown knowns remains unknown to me. I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. IMO, the mind or rather the EGO cannot 'know' the truth, because it is in direct opposition to the truth. The EGO can only attack the truth, which justifies it's very own existence.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 12:33:25 GMT -5
I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. IMO, the mind or rather the EGO cannot 'know' the truth, because it is in direct opposition to the truth. The EGO can only attack the truth, which justifies it's very own existence. That's why the pretending happens.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 13:18:13 GMT -5
Just a musing. Just birdsong.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 5, 2013 13:20:03 GMT -5
What E is saying about unknown knowns remains unknown to me. I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. Hey Max ... read this like right after my last reply to you on this sub-topic: Niz: What you say is true. Your personal body is a part in which the whole is wonderfully reflected. But you also have a universal body. You cannot even say that you do not know it, because you see and experience it all the time. Only you call it 'the world' and are afraid of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 13:27:22 GMT -5
What E is saying about unknown knowns remains unknown to me. Well you know me by now Max, and that was just me having a little fun, and I know you well enough by now to realize the likely possibility that you are too. In the interest of not propagating confusion and at the risk of working directly against that I'll add the following. Assuming that one has not realized what enigma was referring to, when they do realize, part of the realization will include the notion that what they realized was something that they actually knew all along. ie: an unknown known. Oh that unknown known. Yea, that's why I say "I'll see it when I see it." Maybe I should be saying "I'll see what I'm already seeing when I see what I'm already seeing." There is a delightful absurdity to that. Can you confidently say that everything is created from consciousness? Did you witness yourself being born? Little arms and legs wiggling? Those are the sorts of realizations that I can only imagine and/or take on faith and say something like "I'll see it when I see it" or see from a zoomed out perspective, etc. Not a big deal. *ski jump* is where it's at.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 13:28:47 GMT -5
What E is saying about unknown knowns remains unknown to me. I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. I'M NOT TAKING ANYTHING PERSONALLY!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 13:30:26 GMT -5
I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. Hey Max ... read this like right after my last reply to you on this sub-topic: Niz: What you say is true. Your personal body is a part in which the whole is wonderfully reflected. But you also have a universal body. You cannot even say that you do not know it, because you see and experience it all the time. Only you call it 'the world' and are afraid of it. He had a nice way with words. Hats off to the ol curmudgeon.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 5, 2013 13:32:24 GMT -5
I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. IMO, the mind or rather the EGO cannot 'know' the truth, because it is in direct opposition to the truth. The EGO can only attack the truth, which justifies it's very own existence. noted. It's the but but club.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 5, 2013 13:51:56 GMT -5
Right. If I go up to someone staring at some birds intensely and I ask them why they're doing this and they tell me they're "ATA'ing", I would be inclined to ask why. If the answer, the real answer is about this activity creating or causing or altering their experience in some way there is self deception happening. This is mind purposefully going into low gear, temporarily shutting down overt thinking because it's thought that doing so will get it what it wants. This is mental gymnastics and THAT should be addressed rather than making bird watching into a full time activity. If on the other hand there is a natural inclination to let go to various degrees for various amounts of time and soak in what's going on outside of imagination, there is no issue. Tapping into that inclination more and more is like opening the veil and letting some light into the sanitorium. Thanks Silence, that made a lot of sense. The bit in bold is what I was on about when I said that I was becoming more interested in what was going on than my thoughts about what was going on. Yea. I'm a big fan of engaging where the interest currently is rather than trying to reroute it because it was heard that something might work better.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 14:10:56 GMT -5
Well you know me by now Max, and that was just me having a little fun, and I know you well enough by now to realize the likely possibility that you are too. In the interest of not propagating confusion and at the risk of working directly against that I'll add the following. Assuming that one has not realized what enigma was referring to, when they do realize, part of the realization will include the notion that what they realized was something that they actually knew all along. ie: an unknown known. Oh that unknown known. Yea, that's why I say "I'll see it when I see it." Maybe I should be saying "I'll see what I'm already seeing when I see what I'm already seeing." There is a delightful absurdity to that. Can you confidently say that everything is created from consciousness? Did you witness yourself being born? Little arms and legs wiggling?Those are the sorts of realizations that I can only imagine and/or take on faith and say something like "I'll see it when I see it" or see from a zoomed out perspective, etc. Not a big deal. *ski jump* is where it's at. Maybe it should be mentioned that there's no experiencer apart from experiencing, which is to say experience happens from within the experiential perspective rather than from without, which is to say there is no consciousness thingy with an objective viewpoint on the events of consciousness that one can tune into. So we can say there was, in fact, an experiencer of your birth (your mother) but the experiential perspective called Max didn't have the accumulation of experience necessary to store and recall that event, so while it WAS witnessed, you don't have a recollection of that witnessing. (Unless you're Arisha, of course.)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 5, 2013 14:12:24 GMT -5
I'm saying you already know the truth, you're just pretending not to. Don't take it personally, it's a very big club. I'M NOT TAKING ANYTHING PERSONALLY!!! Good to hear! ***Casually glancing around to identify the location of exit doors***
|
|