Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 12:42:30 GMT -5
You keep saying that I'm trying to avoid, divorce, and eliminate the minds dualistic functioning but I'm not. Rather I'm attempting to align the mind with the Reality that it IS an expression of Reality. That Reality, God, Enlightenment, NOW, presence, or Love, is an expansion of creation and what that creation gives birth to is the mind. But the mind cannot give birth to God, Love, Enlightenment, etc, etc, it can only share that power and give birth to it's own creations. Beauty is not in the perceiving of a live apple tree anymore than ugliness is perceived in a dead tree. The duality is conceived in the mind. The Reality of perceiving itself is complete and whole, no duality is ever experienced. So the conceiving mind is aligned with duality and not with the eternal moment or perceiving which holds no duality. Your saying that the mind conceives beauty in the live tree and than conceives that it's beauty lays in the duality of ugliness. It conceives ugliness in a dead tree and than conceives it's ugliness lays in the duality of beauty. That's the minds time based attempt at non-duality gymnastics. On the other hand, aligning the mind with perceiving, which can only take place in this moment, the mind no longer sees duality in the world, it only sees God in everything. Always nice to read a response to a post that cuts through all the contrived conceptual bs.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2013 14:22:46 GMT -5
Greetings.. Marie and I were just in the park, and we were talking about a beautiful apple tree that is in full bloom. I mentioned that if all we had were apple trees in bloom, we would not be perceiving the beauty of this one. I pointed out the dead tree behind it and suggested that this tree is also part of that beauty because it too makes the apple tree beautiful. (Maybe we shoulda made a Neo-advaita youtube video of that conversation.) Hehe. Hi E: Nice awareness of the relationship and understanding revealed through experiencing the 'apple trees'.. Does naming that awareness "Neo-advaita" enhance the experience, awareness, and understanding? Be well.. I didn't name that awareness neo-advaita. I was making a little joke (uh, oh) about the parallel between the conversation about the tree in the park and the neo advaita bear video that was posted by Figgy recently.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 10, 2013 14:45:40 GMT -5
You keep saying that I'm trying to avoid, divorce, and eliminate the minds dualistic functioning but I'm not. Rather I'm attempting to align the mind with the Reality that it IS an expression of Reality. That Reality, God, Enlightenment, NOW, presence, or Love, is an expansion of creation and what that creation gives birth to is the mind. But the mind cannot give birth to God, Love, Enlightenment, etc, etc, it can only share that power and give birth to it's own creations. Beauty is not in the perceiving of a live apple tree anymore than ugliness is perceived in a dead tree. The duality is conceived in the mind. The Reality of perceiving itself is complete and whole, no duality is ever experienced. So the conceiving mind is aligned with duality and not with the eternal moment or perceiving which holds no duality. Your saying that the mind conceives beauty in the live tree and than conceives that it's beauty lays in the duality of ugliness. It conceives ugliness in a dead tree and than conceives it's ugliness lays in the duality of beauty. That's the minds time based attempt at non-duality gymnastics. On the other hand, aligning the mind with perceiving, which can only take place in this moment, the mind no longer sees duality in the world, it only sees God in everything. Always nice to read a response to a post that cuts through all the contrived conceptual bs. Right back to square one.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2013 14:56:05 GMT -5
I think Quinn's 'Liberation' thread speaks to your approach in your attempt to eliminate the 'bad' end of those dualistic sticks. The moment you perceive beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure, you also pick up ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain. Marie and I were just in the park, and we were talking about a beautiful apple tree that is in full bloom. I mentioned that if all we had were apple trees in bloom, we would not be perceiving the beauty of this one. I pointed out the dead tree behind it and suggested that this tree is also part of that beauty because it too makes the apple tree beautiful. (Maybe we shoulda made a Neo-advaita youtube video of that conversation.) Hehe. You keep saying that I'm trying to avoid, divorce, and eliminate the minds dualistic functioning but I'm not. Rather I'm attempting to align the mind with the Reality that it IS an expression of Reality. That Reality, God, Enlightenment, NOW, presence, or Love, is an expansion of creation and what that creation gives birth to is the mind. But the mind cannot give birth to God, Love, Enlightenment, etc, etc, it can only share that power and give birth to it's own creations. Beauty is not in the perceiving of a live apple tree anymore than ugliness is perceived in a dead tree. The duality is conceived in the mind. The Reality of perceiving itself is complete and whole, no duality is ever experienced. So the conceiving mind is aligned with duality and not with the eternal moment or perceiving which holds no duality. Your saying that the mind conceives beauty in the live tree and than conceives that it's beauty lays in the duality of ugliness. It conceives ugliness in a dead tree and than conceives it's ugliness lays in the duality of beauty. That's the minds time based attempt at non-duality gymnastics. On the other hand, aligning the mind with perceiving, which can only take place in this moment, the mind no longer sees duality in the world, it only sees God in everything. I think the problem for me is that you keep saying things like "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...", and then calling that perception nondual. If "the reality of perceiving is complete and whole", then it is not beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. Once you have applied those labels, you are conceiving duality. To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then. It is not beautiful, it is what it is, and that is enough because there is nothing that it is not. A kaleidoscope of movement and change that lacks nothing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2013 15:29:31 GMT -5
I think the problem for me is that you keep saying things like "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...", and then calling that perception nondual. If "the reality of perceiving is complete and whole", then it is not beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. Once you have applied those labels, you are conceiving duality. I think you've pinned the corsage on the nail here. This is exactly the point at which folks seem to object to your comments. They say something about an experience that has a positive concept tied to it and call that whole experience nondual, and you comment that this is just an example of a one-ended stick. And then they respond saying that the experience was actually nondual. And then you say that the concept tied to it is representative of duality...yada yada. Reams.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 10, 2013 16:43:09 GMT -5
I think the problem for me is that you keep saying things like "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...", and then calling that perception nondual. If "the reality of perceiving is complete and whole", then it is not beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. Once you have applied those labels, you are conceiving duality. I think you've pinned the corsage on the nail here. This is exactly the point at which folks seem to object to your comments. They say something about an experience that has a positive concept tied to it and call that whole experience nondual, and you comment that this is just an example of a one-ended stick. And then they respond saying that the experience was actually nondual. And then you say that the concept tied to it is representative of duality...yada yada. Reams. From my perspective, they object because they're still hanging onto one of the stick and trying to call it nondual. The clue is this: "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for..."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 10, 2013 19:29:51 GMT -5
I think the problem for me is that you keep saying things like "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...", and then calling that perception nondual. If "the reality of perceiving is complete and whole", then it is not beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. Once you have applied those labels, you are conceiving duality. I think you've pinned the corsage on the nail here. This is exactly the point at which folks seem to object to your comments. They say something about an experience that has a positive concept tied to it and call that whole experience nondual, and you comment that this is just an example of a one-ended stick. And then they respond saying that the experience was actually nondual. And then you say that the concept tied to it is representative of duality...yada yada. Reams. SSSSHHHHHHHH!!! shush now Max! ... it's like givin' 'way the answer to a koan in public ...
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 10, 2013 20:41:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then. It is not beautiful, it is what it is, and that is enough because there is nothing that it is not. A kaleidoscope of movement and change that lacks nothing. The train-wreck begins when the 'perceiver' conspires with their 'self' in the pretense of no 'perceiver'.. i affirm that what you have posted is valid through the actuality of the perceiver.. diversity and therefore reality are dependent on individual unique perceivers.. word-games are not useful expedients to a relationship with reality.. " To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver".. this is a great illusion, a word-game that crumbles when the 'perceiver' compares their perceptions against the perceptions of other perceivers, when the individual perceivers cite differences between themselves and others, when one perceiver's guru is compared to another perceiver's guru.. " To be with 'reality' as it is", is to let go of attachments to theoretical mind-play.. when it is possible to just be present, without regard for perceiver/perceived, or subject/object, or whatever other mind-play distorts what 'is'.. perhaps then we can set-aside right/wrong in favor of what 'is' is.. the journey is magnificent when we all join hands and sing 'Kumbaya', then someone says, "no, you have to sing it 'this' way".. Be well..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 3:54:09 GMT -5
[lip synch is out, though it's forgiveable]
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 11, 2013 5:16:01 GMT -5
Greetings.. I think you've pinned the corsage on the nail here. This is exactly the point at which folks seem to object to your comments. They say something about an experience that has a positive concept tied to it and call that whole experience nondual, and you comment that this is just an example of a one-ended stick. And then they respond saying that the experience was actually nondual. And then you say that the concept tied to it is representative of duality...yada yada. Reams. SSSSHHHHHHHH!!! shush now Max! ... it's like givin' 'way the answer to a koan in public ... Then, when non-dual is conceived, duality arises in the same conception.. it has become mind-play. We name a tree for reference to an existent condition, a physical component of reality that consistently and reliably reveals itself in our experience.. this is so about the 'components' of physical reality, they can be reliably referenced by symbolism that is understood to represent a 'known' feature of the human experience.. Then, there is the mind-play.. references to thoughts, ideas, beliefs, understandings, imaginings, insights, etc.. these references are understood differently by each perceiver, because each perceiver has their own unique history, their own unique mind-scape shaped by their history, their experiences, and their perspectives.. mind-play comes and goes, it reshapes itself as our experiences reveal more information, and.. it requires consensus and agreement referencing the mind-play between multiple perceivers to take on the illusion of actuality, the illusion that it is of the same reliable consistency as the 'tree'.. and, this seems to be the source of much conflict, where some perceivers conceive their illusion of actuality and expect consensus from other perceivers who are doing the same thing.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 11, 2013 10:01:38 GMT -5
E: I may have misunderstood your response to OHC, and OHC can answer for himself, but I think what OHC meant by "youthful clarity" is the clarity of a child who sees and interacts with the world directly--ATA. There is no naming, filtering, interpreting, reflection, or self-referentiality. What you see is what you get. If an adult stays in the same mode, conceptual structures cease to be reinforced and eventually collapse, fall away, etc. I personally know OHC, and what he wrote accurately describes his own experience. From my POV mind labeling is neither necessary nor inevitable, so what we're really talking about concerning labels is clarity of consensus rather than simply clarity. The greater the consensus concerning labeling the clearer the resulting communication. All of us have to choose words that best describe our experiences and realizations, but there is often little consensus in this realm. Somewhere you wrote, "There is no mystery," but from my POV, "Everything is a mystery." Each of us is pointing to the same thing, but we often use different words to express ourselves and our understanding. You asked OHC, "What is this thing you recognize 'which all our words try to point to'?" His answer was "______________", by which he was saying that whatever words we use to describe __________ are inadequate. From OHC's POV there is definitely something to see beyond the falsity of beliefs, and that something is __________. That seemed pretty clear to me, so I'd be interested in what wasn't clear to you about that. During the last year or so I've been communicating with a lot of young people who get the ATA thing very fast, probably because they're not carrying around a lot of intellectual baggage. I got a note from a sixteen year old the other day who got clear very fast using ATA. Scary fast. This is why I'm madly writing a new book. I'll bet you can guess the title. Ha ha. The idea is that conceptual structures that are not engaged with will 'collapse'on their own, which implies that beliefs have no power beyond that which is given them through repetition of thought alone. If this were true, then one could reverse the process and simply repeat the concept/thought that one is perpetually happy,(or whatever) and this repetition alone would be sufficient to bring about that perpetual happiness. Seems like that active process would be more effective than the avoiding process prescribed, since mind IS that active process and is more than willing to engage. Of course, this is what is done with positive thinking and affirmations and the like, and most find that it works a little for a while, and then it doesn't. Likewise, avoiding thoughts, as such, has a similar effect. It works as long as the thoughts are not engaged, and various experiences can be reported, and yet the belief structures remain just as they do with attempting to overlay positive thoughts. These belief structures return with a remarkable tenacity because one forms his individual world before there is even the conscious thought about that world. The conscious thoughts are just the surface of the pond, and what happens at the surface is affected by whatever is happening below the surface as well. So, the issue here is really not about whether or not belief structures collapse, which they clearly do in many cases, but rather how does this actually happen? Does it happen strictly because attention is removed from those thoughts and so they are no longer continually reinforced, or is there something else that happens and which is required in order for those structures to collapse? This is really the question i was getting to with OHC because I detected that the notion of clarity was never being applied to mind, which says that illusions never have to be seen through so as to remove confusion from mind, but simply not thought about long enough for them to go away. Andrew would likely agree that mind can just remain in confusion and ambiguous paradox forever, but I don't. In this vein, I think you would agree that these illusions in fact are seen through, which is to say mind IS informed of the falsity of these notions and is forced to abandon them, and this is what I mean by clarity. If this is so, the informing of mind is what actually collapses those structures and not the process of no longer enforcing them. Once an illusion is seen through, it may appear that it simply collapsed and was replaced with a non-conceptual realization, but I suggest that the realization is actually informing mind, and this is what constitutes the collapse. E: I wanted to reply to this response in considerable detail, but there was so much to say that I decided to concentrate on the book I'm writing about this. My short response would be as follows: People talk and write about the path to realization, regarding conceptual thought, in two ways. The first is summed up well by Huang Po (Obaku). Here are some examples: "Ordinary people all indulge in conceptual thought based on environmental phenomena, hence they feel desire and hatred. To eliminate environmental phenomena, just put an end to your conceptual thinking. When this ceases, environmental phenomena are void; and when these are void, thought ceases. But if you try to eliminate environment without first putting a stop to conceptual thought, you will not succedd, but merely increase its power to disturb you." "If you would spend all of your time---walking, standing, sitting, or lying down---learning to halt the concept-forming activities of your own mind, you could be sure of ultimately attaining the goal." We might call this a "via negativa" approach, and most people have no idea how to implement such an approach. The reason I emphasize ATA (rather than ridding oneself of conceptual thought) is because ATA requires psychological presence. It focuses attention upon "what is," and ignores mind completely. With this approach the emphasis is upon Being rather than any effort to ignore thought. The ignoring of thought occurs as a consequence of attentiveness; it is not the primary goal (which is what it might seem from reading Huang Po and others). As I mentioned earlier, my sister enjoys what she calls "bobber therapy." She and her husband on on fishing trips to an isolated area where they fish from sunup til sundown. She sits in her canoe and silently watches (attends) her fishing line float. She doesn't think about this activity in non-dual terms, but what she is doing is ATA. She is watching "what is" rather than thinking about it. She finds this extremely relaxing, integrative, healing, peaceful, etc., and she comes away from her periods of focused attention highly contented and in a different frame of mind than usual. Bird watchers and hunters do the same thing, but, like my sister, they don't usually realize how those activities differ from their usual way of interacting with the world. The Zen student sitting on her cushion following the breath is doing the same thing. What all of these people are doing is the same thing that little children do UNconsciously; they are interacting with Reality directly and non-conceptually and they therefore become one-with it, psychologically. If someone understands the importance of this kind of direct interaction with the world, and focuses attention upon "what is" for a sustained period of time, thought-created illusions will automatically unwind. Nothing else needs to be done. What ATA is doing is what you call "seeing what in the blazes is going on." In the process of remaining psychologically and non-conceptually present, everything known falls away, and one ends up in the Void, as the Void, in an incomprehensible state of pure being. As Huang Po puts it: "Our original nature is, in highest truth, devoid of any atom of objectivity. It is void, omnipresent, silent, pure; it is glorious and mysterious peaceful joy--and that is all. Enter deeply into it by awaking to it yourself. That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete. Even if you progress, step by step, when you attain realization, you will only be realizing what has been with you all along, and you will have added nothing to it. You will come to look upon all your past efforts as no better than unreal actions performed in a dream." IOW, ATA has nothing to do with "positive thinking"-like mind approaches (which do nothing to dispel thought-created illusions). If anything, such mind approaches usually add another layer of thought on top of already-existing layers ("Hey, I've been doing positive thinking, and it has greatly-improved my life!" ha ha). If my sister returned home after one of her fishing vacations, and continued attending all of the various activities of her life (washing dishes, dining with friends, walking in the park, etc) in the same way that she attends the bobber on her fishing line, time, space, and selfhood would ultimately disappear, and she would find that she already lives in the kingdom of God (which her religious beliefs currently postulate as something that is only experienced after death of the body).
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2013 13:06:48 GMT -5
The idea is that conceptual structures that are not engaged with will 'collapse'on their own, which implies that beliefs have no power beyond that which is given them through repetition of thought alone. If this were true, then one could reverse the process and simply repeat the concept/thought that one is perpetually happy,(or whatever) and this repetition alone would be sufficient to bring about that perpetual happiness. Seems like that active process would be more effective than the avoiding process prescribed, since mind IS that active process and is more than willing to engage. Of course, this is what is done with positive thinking and affirmations and the like, and most find that it works a little for a while, and then it doesn't. Likewise, avoiding thoughts, as such, has a similar effect. It works as long as the thoughts are not engaged, and various experiences can be reported, and yet the belief structures remain just as they do with attempting to overlay positive thoughts. These belief structures return with a remarkable tenacity because one forms his individual world before there is even the conscious thought about that world. The conscious thoughts are just the surface of the pond, and what happens at the surface is affected by whatever is happening below the surface as well. So, the issue here is really not about whether or not belief structures collapse, which they clearly do in many cases, but rather how does this actually happen? Does it happen strictly because attention is removed from those thoughts and so they are no longer continually reinforced, or is there something else that happens and which is required in order for those structures to collapse? This is really the question i was getting to with OHC because I detected that the notion of clarity was never being applied to mind, which says that illusions never have to be seen through so as to remove confusion from mind, but simply not thought about long enough for them to go away. Andrew would likely agree that mind can just remain in confusion and ambiguous paradox forever, but I don't. In this vein, I think you would agree that these illusions in fact are seen through, which is to say mind IS informed of the falsity of these notions and is forced to abandon them, and this is what I mean by clarity. If this is so, the informing of mind is what actually collapses those structures and not the process of no longer enforcing them. Once an illusion is seen through, it may appear that it simply collapsed and was replaced with a non-conceptual realization, but I suggest that the realization is actually informing mind, and this is what constitutes the collapse. E: I wanted to reply to this response in considerable detail, but there was so much to say that I decided to concentrate on the book I'm writing about this. My short response would be as follows: People talk and write about the path to realization, regarding conceptual thought, in two ways. The first is summed up well by Huang Po (Obaku). Here are some examples: "Ordinary people all indulge in conceptual thought based on environmental phenomena, hence they feel desire and hatred. To eliminate environmental phenomena, just put an end to your conceptual thinking. When this ceases, environmental phenomena are void; and when these are void, thought ceases. But if you try to eliminate environment without first putting a stop to conceptual thought, you will not succedd, but merely increase its power to disturb you." "If you would spend all of your time---walking, standing, sitting, or lying down---learning to halt the concept-forming activities of your own mind, you could be sure of ultimately attaining the goal." We might call this a "via negativa" approach, and most people have no idea how to implement such an approach. The reason I emphasize ATA (rather than ridding oneself of conceptual thought) is because ATA requires psychological presence. It focuses attention upon "what is," and ignores mind completely. With this approach the emphasis is upon Being rather than any effort to ignore thought. The ignoring of thought occurs as a consequence of attentiveness; it is not the primary goal (which is what it might seem from reading Huang Po and others). As I mentioned earlier, my sister enjoys what she calls "bobber therapy." She and her husband on on fishing trips to an isolated area where they fish from sunup til sundown. She sits in her canoe and silently watches (attends) her fishing line float. She doesn't think about this activity in non-dual terms, but what she is doing is ATA. She is watching "what is" rather than thinking about it. She finds this extremely relaxing, integrative, healing, peaceful, etc., and she comes away from her periods of focused attention highly contented and in a different frame of mind than usual. Bird watchers and hunters do the same thing, but, like my sister, they don't usually realize how those activities differ from their usual way of interacting with the world. The Zen student sitting on her cushion following the breath is doing the same thing. What all of these people are doing is the same thing that little children do UNconsciously; they are interacting with Reality directly and non-conceptually and they therefore become one-with it, psychologically. If someone understands the importance of this kind of direct interaction with the world, and focuses attention upon "what is" for a sustained period of time, thought-created illusions will automatically unwind. Nothing else needs to be done. What ATA is doing is what you call "seeing what in the blazes is going on." In the process of remaining psychologically and non-conceptually present, everything known falls away, and one ends up in the Void, as the Void, in an incomprehensible state of pure being. As Huang Po puts it: "Our original nature is, in highest truth, devoid of any atom of objectivity. It is void, omnipresent, silent, pure; it is glorious and mysterious peaceful joy--and that is all. Enter deeply into it by awaking to it yourself. That which is before you is it, in all its fullness, utterly complete. Even if you progress, step by step, when you attain realization, you will only be realizing what has been with you all along, and you will have added nothing to it. You will come to look upon all your past efforts as no better than unreal actions performed in a dream." IOW, ATA has nothing to do with "positive thinking"-like mind approaches (which do nothing to dispel thought-created illusions). If anything, such mind approaches usually add another layer of thought on top of already-existing layers ("Hey, I've been doing positive thinking, and it has greatly-improved my life!" ha ha). If my sister returned home after one of her fishing vacations, and continued attending all of the various activities of her life (washing dishes, dining with friends, walking in the park, etc) in the same way that she attends the bobber on her fishing line, time, space, and selfhood would ultimately disappear, and she would find that she already lives in the kingdom of God (which her religious beliefs currently postulate as something that is only experienced after death of the body). Hi Bob I have no issue with the need to end conceptual thinking, and I don't mean to equate ATA with an ineffective process such as positive thinking. The comparison was made on the basis of a hypothetical. The hypothetical was the idea that thoughts/concepts/beliefs not attended to for some amount of time simply dissolve on their own due to lack of attention in the way that a plate spinning on a stick will fall if it is not regularly attended to. The opposite of that approach would be attending to certain happy thoughts and allowing the unhappy thoughts to fall off the stick due to lack of attention, which is the idea behind positive thinking. I'm not equating to two because I don't accept the hypothetical as true. IOW, I don't accept that not attending to thoughts/beliefs is actually the reason that such thoughts ultimately cease to arise. It is not an indictment of the effectiveness of ATA, it is the questioning of what in blazes is actually happening with ATA. I understand 'bobber therapy', 'bird bliss', 'hunter harmony' and 'Zen zoning'. The mind is an abusive task master for most and any opportunity to escape for a while is quite refreshing. The issue here is in the difference between the prisoner who keeps finding different ways to escape for a while, and the one who is released from prison officially and permanently. My claim is that the number of escape attempts is not relevant since the dogs will pick up the scent every time. What's needed is an official parole so that nobody ever sends the dogs out at all. What I'm suggesting is that something else happens, and in fact happened to you, while attending the actual; something critical to achieving parole which did not require that the guards lose interest in chasing after you, because it is their job to be interested. ATA opens up a space in that thought process that is normally very closed and constricted. In this space is the potential for realization, and in this realization is the potential for the collapse of various thought structures. (seeing through illusions) They collapse because the realization informs mind and not because they simply starved to death due to lack of proper care and feeding. The distinction is important because the former does not require mind involvement while the latter does. When I hear of folks mantra meditating or practicing presence or Zen zoning or bobber blissing for decades, I suspect that this distinction is not being recognized, and it's quite understandable because the effect of what I'll call proper mind involvement is quite subtle. Realization eats away at (mostly unconscious) belief structures and one simply stops thinking about them because they aren't there anymore. Mind is not interested in noticing what doesn't happen anymore, and so the entire process may not be recognized at all, especially if one is disinclined to engage mind. It might seem like Grace, or it may seem like withdrawing attention from the thoughts has caused them to starve to death, but that's not what happens. I'm looking forward to your next book.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2013 14:06:12 GMT -5
Greetings.. SSSSHHHHHHHH!!! shush now Max! ... it's like givin' 'way the answer to a koan in public ... Then, when non-dual is conceived, duality arises in the same conception.. it has become mind-play. We name a tree for reference to an existent condition, a physical component of reality that consistently and reliably reveals itself in our experience.. this is so about the 'components' of physical reality, they can be reliably referenced by symbolism that is understood to represent a 'known' feature of the human experience.. Then, there is the mind-play.. references to thoughts, ideas, beliefs, understandings, imaginings, insights, etc.. these references are understood differently by each perceiver, because each perceiver has their own unique history, their own unique mind-scape shaped by their history, their experiences, and their perspectives.. mind-play comes and goes, it reshapes itself as our experiences reveal more information, and.. it requires consensus and agreement referencing the mind-play between multiple perceivers to take on the illusion of actuality, the illusion that it is of the same reliable consistency as the 'tree'.. and, this seems to be the source of much conflict, where some perceivers conceive their illusion of actuality and expect consensus from other perceivers who are doing the same thing.. Be well.. That expectation, when dashed, becomes an excellent opportunity. If the consensus is encountered absent that expectation, the experience is of a different quality altogether. It might lead to an initial spark of the expectation, but then again, it might not.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 14:15:05 GMT -5
You keep saying that I'm trying to avoid, divorce, and eliminate the minds dualistic functioning but I'm not. Rather I'm attempting to align the mind with the Reality that it IS an expression of Reality. That Reality, God, Enlightenment, NOW, presence, or Love, is an expansion of creation and what that creation gives birth to is the mind. But the mind cannot give birth to God, Love, Enlightenment, etc, etc, it can only share that power and give birth to it's own creations. Beauty is not in the perceiving of a live apple tree anymore than ugliness is perceived in a dead tree. The duality is conceived in the mind. The Reality of perceiving itself is complete and whole, no duality is ever experienced. So the conceiving mind is aligned with duality and not with the eternal moment or perceiving which holds no duality. Your saying that the mind conceives beauty in the live tree and than conceives that it's beauty lays in the duality of ugliness. It conceives ugliness in a dead tree and than conceives it's ugliness lays in the duality of beauty. That's the minds time based attempt at non-duality gymnastics. On the other hand, aligning the mind with perceiving, which can only take place in this moment, the mind no longer sees duality in the world, it only sees God in everything. I think the problem for me is that you keep saying things like "The perceiving is the beauty, joy, wonder, and pleasure. It is the conceiving of the ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain that I need a divorce lawyer for...", and then calling that perception nondual. If "the reality of perceiving is complete and whole", then it is not beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. Once you have applied those labels, you are conceiving duality. To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then. It is not beautiful, it is what it is, and that is enough because there is nothing that it is not. A kaleidoscope of movement and change that lacks nothing. Yeah, I can see where it's a problem for you, because that's not what I am attempting to communicate to you. What I meant to say was that just like the mind aligned with duality conceives ugliness, sorrow, banality and pain, it also conceives 'perceiving' to be the beauty, joy, wonder and pleasure. It also conceives that perceiving is non-dual, but in Reality conceiving by a mind is not perceiving. Perceiving gave birth to the mind that is aligned with duality, but the mind aligned with duality cannot give birth to perceiving. The mind aligned with duality is conceiving 'perceiving' as a perceiver and the perceived, but that's not true. There is no separate perceiver in 'perceiving' just as there is no separate perceived in 'perceiving'. You are trying to get rid of a perceiver that doesn't exist, so that you can perceive Reality without a perceiver. Perceiving IS the totality, IS the wholeness, IS the Oneness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 11, 2013 15:14:48 GMT -5
When I hear of folks mantra meditating or practicing presence or Zen zoning or bobber blissing for decades, I suspect that this distinction is not being recognized
|
|