|
Post by enigma on Apr 11, 2013 16:05:07 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. 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.I don't have any recollection of trying to get rid of a perceiver. Why are you telling me all this as though I haven't said the same thing dozens of times over a period of years?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 11, 2013 22:51:36 GMT -5
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.I don't have any recollection of trying to get rid of a perceiver. Why are you telling me all this as though I haven't said the same thing dozens of times over a period of years? You said, "To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then." 'Without the perceiver', implies a perceiver, which is conceived by a mind aligned with duality. So your statement implies doing something to perceive Reality without your dualistic perceiver. The fact is that a perceiver that perceives Reality doesn't exist. So perceiving Reality ' without the perceiver' is the dualistic mind engaging in non-dual gymnastics.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 0:04:09 GMT -5
I don't have any recollection of trying to get rid of a perceiver. Why are you telling me all this as though I haven't said the same thing dozens of times over a period of years? You said, "To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then." 'Without the perceiver', implies a perceiver, which is conceived by a mind aligned with duality. So your statement implies doing something to perceive Reality without your dualistic perceiver. The fact is that a perceiver that perceives Reality doesn't exist. So perceiving Reality ' without the perceiver' is the dualistic mind engaging in non-dual gymnastics. In the name of all that is good and holy, stop the insanity! <--Diseased apple or sumthin.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 12, 2013 0:36:13 GMT -5
You said, "To be with 'reality' as it is, is to perceive, without the perceiver, that which is here/now, knowing nothing of there or then." 'Without the perceiver', implies a perceiver, which is conceived by a mind aligned with duality. So your statement implies doing something to perceive Reality without your dualistic perceiver. The fact is that a perceiver that perceives Reality doesn't exist. So perceiving Reality ' without the perceiver' is the dualistic mind engaging in non-dual gymnastics. In the name of all that is good and holy, stop the insanity! <--Diseased apple or sumthin. As a betting man living in Las Vegas, I still say TRF is a big ACIM fan and that is the source of this silliness. Note that I don't have a problem with the book as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 12, 2013 1:17:29 GMT -5
What's REALLY going on here, and can that even be 'known'?
Or as Mooji puts it, "Can the seer be seen?"
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 12, 2013 1:56:20 GMT -5
What is this question coming from?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 2:36:02 GMT -5
In the name of all that is good and holy, stop the insanity! <--Diseased apple or sumthin. As a betting man living in Las Vegas, I still say TRF is a big ACIM fan and that is the source of this silliness. Note that I don't have a problem with the book as a whole. Okay, I'm open to that. As I've mentioned, what I notice about ACIM'ers is the tendency to get trapped in the words, to kind of go word mad from all the concepts, symbols, metaphors, analogies, similes, parables and allegories, and 600 pages as an introduction to the workbook, fer Christ sake. Is it anything like that?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 2:39:04 GMT -5
What's REALLY going on here, and can that even be 'known'? Or as Mooji puts it, "Can the seer be seen?" Have you misplaced that seer again? Have you checked the lost and found?
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 12, 2013 3:15:48 GMT -5
What's REALLY going on here, and can that even be 'known'? Or as Mooji puts it, "Can the seer be seen?" Have you misplaced that seer again? Have you checked the lost and found? Nah....Just offering up questions that MAY be helpful to self-inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 9:54:35 GMT -5
Have you misplaced that seer again? Have you checked the lost and found? Nah....Just offering up questions that MAY be helpful to self-inquiry. Oh, you mean, like, on-topic stuff?? You should give some warning before you do that. Hehe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 12, 2013 11:45:07 GMT -5
What's REALLY going on here, and can that even be 'known'? Or as Mooji puts it, "Can the seer be seen?" Yes, what is going on here in this moment? When Mooji asks "Can the seer be seen?", he is talking about this NOW moment of perceiving. In other words, he is asking the mind that conceives if it can be a perceiver of this NOW moment?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 12, 2013 12:44:52 GMT -5
Phil: You wrote:
“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 guess I don’t understand the distinction you are making regarding how mind is involved in realizations. You talk about “proper mind involvement,” but what do you consider proper mind involvement to be? Bottom line: what would you advise a seeker to do?
When I review the specific moments when various thought structures collapsed in my life, I find that they first collapsed, and afterwards the mind realized that they had collapsed. Mind was always late to the party. Afterwards, the mind often had other realizations concerning the implications of the collapse. From my POV the actual collapse had nothing to do with mind because mind did not know what had happened until afterwards.
Like most folks on this path I’ve had lots of realizations, but the most significant one was the one that ended the spiritual search. After six days of fairly continual ATA’ing, the body had an emotionally-unifying experience coupled with a feeling of immense gratitude. The emotional thing seemed to arise, spontaneously, but it’s possible that it was triggered by thoughts that are no longer remembered. After the experience, I felt just like anyone who has had a deeply emotional experience; there was a feeling of emptiness, peace, contentment, buoyancy, joy, etc, as if the body/mind had been washed clean in some manner.
After that emotional experience, there was a subtle sense that something was missing, but that sense of missingness did not rise to the level of cognition. It was only later that I realized that the sense had been extant in some vague under-the-surface way. Two hours after the emotional experience, I suddenly realized that the sense of being a separate entity, a “me,” had totally vanished, and it became instantly obvious that there had never been a “me” in any sense. I realized that the body/mind’s sense of having a personal identity had been an illusion. When it was seen that who I had thought I was had vanished, it then became crystal clear that what I AM is “what is.” This became obvious simply because there was no longer anything separate from “what is.”
Looking back at other realizations, I find the same sort of thing. Several times it felt as if the bottom had dropped out of the mind, and there was a strong emotional component. In one case, the mind understood what had happened and understood the implications two full days after the internal shift. Consequently, I do not see that mind had anything to do with what happened. Mind had not been engaged prior to the shift, or during the shift, and only recognized what had happened after the fact.
Of course, the issue that most interests me is what is the best advice--the easiest path or most likely path that will lead to awakening--that can be given to a seeker? Eckhart was once asked by an interviewer, "You have said that Ramana Maharshi was once asked how one could judge the level of a person’s spiritual attainment, and he answered,'By the degree to which thought is absent.' Do you agree with Ramana?
Eckhart responded, "Yes, I do." He went on to explain that the structure of egoic thought revolves around the non-acceptance of "what is," and he concluded by saying, "The most powerful spiritual activity is the uncompromising acceptance of 'what is', and this kind of acceptance is most likely to occur when thought is absent."
We might then ask, "What leads to an uncompromising acceptance of 'what is?" I would answer, in essence, "By looking at ‘what is’ without intellectual knowing until body-knowing becomes dominant." ATA will initially be pursued under the illusion that there is someone pursuing it, but if pursued, that illusion will collapse because eventually "what is" is all that will remain. For most people, I think ATA, alone, will lead to clarity, and the speed will depend upon how much time is spent pursuing it. I see the path to truth as the replacement of intellectual knowing with body knowing. The body already understands everything, but the intellect hides the truth by projecting a screen of ideas in front of it, so to speak.
It’s a bit like looking through a frosty window pane in the winter. If we just look at the surface of the glass, we see the frost, but if we keep staring, we eventually see through the frost to what’s on the other side of the glass. I see ATA in the same way. We stare at “what is” through the frost of the intellect (innumerable ideas and beliefs) until we see more and more what lies beyond the frost. At some point the view becomes so clear that nothing can obscure it.
The problem, as I see it, is what kind of intellectual baggage is brought to the table that will prevent one from seeing the efficacy of the methodology. IOW, before anyone ever hears about non-duality, s/he is already indoctrinated to believe that s/he is a separate entity "in here" perceiving a world of things and events "out there." On top of this fundamental illusion are layers and layers of other illusions and ideas that comprise a complex fictitious meta-reality (imaginary simulation of reality) with which one incessantly interacts. There are countless paths that may expose someone to non-duality, and also countless possible responses after one becomes aware of it.
The question this observation raises is: If someone hears a clear intellectual explanation of what's going on, is advised to ATA, understands why ATA will lead to truth, understands the importance of doing it, and does it intensely, how quickly would it lead to self-realization? Speaking in general terms, I would say that it would depend primarily upon one's initial age (which is a determinant of how much intellection has occurred and how dense the obscurations) and the amount of time it is pursued.
Niz was unusual in that he was a fairly simple guy. His guru told him what to do (a form of ATA), he did it, and he woke up in three years. Most of us are not as simple-minded nor as trusting in the advice of a teacher.
If we cut through all of the verbiage, what’s the bottom line? There is only "what is," and that is what we ARE. How does this become obvious? It becomes obvious by focusing attention upon "what is" until “what is” is all there is.
For those of us who are lost in complexities of thought, never hear a clear explanation of what's going on, and don't trust anyone, then the unfoldment of truth-seeking will probably involve innumerable complex twists and turns. Imagine, however, someone who hasn't yet become deeply entrenched in mind, who hears this message, and shifts attention to "what is." My experience with young people suggests that it is possible for them to become free of their conditioning very fast.
The following is part of an email from a sixteen year old who started pursuing ATA last year:
“(Hi Bob). Yeah, the other day I was trying to explain to my Dad why I enjoyed Science, but know it isn't truly whats going on. Quantum physics isn't some tangible object in some sub stream of reality that scientists like to imagine and talk about. I mean, I like model cars, but I'd rather drive the real thing. Same with Science. Chemistry and Physics interests me, but it's all a model. I can describe a cabinet in pure mathematics, but I can't store my clothes in a set of equations. I enjoy Science, but understand that even in it's most precise state, it's a poor model of the universe because it talks about it from a purely observational standpoint. Until Science becomes PART of the big IS; the observer remains inseparably a part of the experiments, and I think scientists who don’t see this will continue to frustrate themselves. Like Allen Watts said about Philosophy, "when you can't find an answer, you’re usually asking the wrong question, or going about the question in the wrong way." What I enjoy most though is that my Dad is not one of the scientists who is fanatical about science in the same way as a fundamentalist preacher.
When I brought up that Science has become similar to a Religious institution, he totally agreed. He also said that you can't negatively judge Science as a whole, because some Scientists are fanatics, just like you can't judge Christianity because some practitioners are fanatics. I totally agreed.
Last night, my Dad and I got into an even more existential conversation. It ended up with me saying that we can talk and talk and write and write, and compute and compute about reality. But reality is here now, always. Thinking, writing, talking about reality IS reality. Getting a glass of water, IS reality. The deepest darkest, unperceivable corners of our minds and sub-concious minds IS reality. Writing on a chalk board ABOUT reality is of course inseparably part of the ever changing, expanding, contracting, exploring, reality HERE NOW. Yesterday, me and some friends were throwing a frisbee around and after a while there wasn't any thought about me throwing it to anyone and anyone catching it. This strange sensation came over me while we were throwing it that was, in words, like everything was happening by itself and I could do nothing to change it. The outcome was always guaranteed, and my thoughts and sense of control over the throwing and catching of the disk proved to be all fake. I was throwing it to my self, and my self was catching it. I spontaneously understood why people say "when your enlightened, all beings are enlightened." What was throwing the disk was also catching it. What I consider to be my self is a total facade, and what is just beyond words and distinctions is the underlying fabric of everything and everyone. I was really taken away and I had the 'throwing it to myself' sensation for like 5 minutes. The same thing happened to me later that night when I was playing basketball. After like 10 minutes all thought of trying to make a basket ceased and once again I was shooting the ball at my self, with no thought or intention to do so. I was really taken aback. I feel really clear about this to be honest.
To loop back around to the beginning of the note, I really enjoy the conversations I have with my Dad because he, unlike most people, questions these types of things, and is interested in them. Most people never look beyond what is socially acceptable, and social acceptability and social behavior is by far the most on the surface, so to speak, you can get. He definitely thinks about this stuff and totally claims that he doesn't know a damn thing about any of it. Which is great because 'you' wont ever know haha.
Most of all though, I like his ZM like responses when we get existential. "I can build a bridge, and it holds me up," he said last night. Now all I have to do is show him that IT builds ITSELF and holds ITSELF up hahaha. Have a good one.”
Whether this young man will eventually see through the illusion of selfhood completely remains to be seen, but his understanding is fairly advanced already.
Seng Stan in about 620AD wrote, “Stop thinking and there is nothing you will not be able to know.” This has been my experience, as well, but the issue is how to stop thinking. Fighting thoughts with thoughts is hopeless. From my POV thinking slows down (the gaps between thoughts increase) and loses its dominance in direct proportion to how much one focuses upon “what is” (ATA). AAR, I’d be interested in hearing your thoughts about any or all of these issues. Bob
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 12, 2013 12:57:24 GMT -5
What's REALLY going on here, and can that even be 'known'? Or as Mooji puts it, "Can the seer be seen?" Yes, what is going on here in this moment? When Mooji asks "Can the seer be seen?", he is talking about this NOW moment of perceiving. In other words, he is asking the mind that conceives if it can be a perceiver of this NOW moment? He's asking if subjectivity can objectify itself. He's asking you to notice that you cannot be an object appearing to you. He's implying that nothing you can see can be what you are. He's not actually addressing mind. As he says "I love you too much to treat you like a person."
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 12, 2013 13:35:03 GMT -5
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. Beautifully put E, couldn't agree with you more man.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 12, 2013 13:53:53 GMT -5
Yes, what is going on here in this moment? When Mooji asks "Can the seer be seen?", he is talking about this NOW moment of perceiving. In other words, he is asking the mind that conceives if it can be a perceiver of this NOW moment? He's asking if subjectivity can objectify itself. He's asking you to notice that you cannot be an object appearing to you. He's implying that nothing you can see can be what you are. He's not actually addressing mind. As he says "I love you too much to treat you like a person." I was going to answer trf the exact same way .... the mind draws an equivalence ("conceives of", in his parlance) between "seer", "perceiver", "subject", "witness". This commonality of pointer is of course of interest only to the mind. It is in sitting with this idea, in considering it without thinking about it or reasoning about it, that the body gives you an answer by the way of a feeling, and that feeling finds expressions with the words "calm", "still", "peaceful", "joyful", "blissful". Funniest d@mned thing it is. So subtle and soft ... but not really.
|
|