|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 3, 2013 10:27:09 GMT -5
Greetings.. Okay, that's something I can understand and discuss. From my perspective, to say that it's all imagination, (which I HAVE said) is to suggest that creation in the largest context is fundamentally imagined into apparent existence. Time/space, as the framework in which experience occurs, is itself conceptual in origin. Imagination is occurring on both individual and 'collective' levels as there is no separation between what seems objective and subjective. Ideas about faeries and unicorns (and who's right and wrong) are not separate from the scientific principles that seem to drive the universe. Likewise, the nature of man is not separate from the nature of life we call 'mother nature'. The reason duality consists of a coin with two sides is that there is no foundation for any of it other than imagination, and so mutually defining polarities are imagined into apparent existence and experienced. There quite literally is no solid place to stand, and no-one to stand there. There isn't even a 'there'. Do you believe that because you believe this understanding to be true, that you may not be able to see clearly the understandings that others share? Be well.. Sometimes I don't understand what others are saying because I don't share their presuppositions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 3, 2013 10:38:45 GMT -5
Greetings.. The conceptual structure presented has the potential to collapse upon itself, and maintaining it requires quite a bit of effort. There is no way it can stand in a mind informed by nonconceptual realization. If "just letting go" were all that easy, if the mind could be willed into silence, then I imagine that what we would observe looking outward would be very very different. It IS that easy, but the choice to do it is less so.. the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. if there is a practice or training that has merit, it is to enhance the capacity for 'noticing' without engaging the mind.. Be well.. I akshuly agree with that.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jun 3, 2013 10:42:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. It IS that easy, but the choice to do it is less so.. the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. if there is a practice or training that has merit, it is to enhance the capacity for 'noticing' without engaging the mind.. Be well.. I akshuly agree with that. *Topology's Latest Facebook Status Update*: Currently Ice-Skating in Hell. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 3, 2013 12:12:39 GMT -5
Hi tzujinli,
Thank you and yes that is also my understanding that awareness comes one goes presumably dependent upon whether there is anything happening requiring attention. Remembering the absent 20 miles has cast a doubt over that view however. Presumably the driving required attention. What do you think?
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2013 12:30:23 GMT -5
Greetings.. It IS that easy, but the choice to do it is less so.. the mind isn't "willed into silence", it's allowed to fall silent.. we are still and silent more than we understand, but precisely because we are still and silent, it isn't 'noticed'.. if there is a practice or training that has merit, it is to enhance the capacity for 'noticing' without engaging the mind.. Be well.. I akshuly agree with that. When I read that the thought was "you've just said the same thing that Phil did ...", and if he isn't reading RH then it's a synchronicity but I kept quiet because the pace of the bloodletting has slowed of late and I didn't want to re-trigger it  |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 3, 2013 12:42:06 GMT -5
Okay, that's something I can understand and discuss. From my perspective, to say that it's all imagination, (which I HAVE said) is to suggest that creation in the largest context is fundamentally imagined into apparent existence. Time/space, as the framework in which experience occurs, is itself conceptual in origin. Imagination is occurring on both individual and 'collective' levels as there is no separation between what seems objective and subjective. Ideas about faeries and unicorns (and who's right and wrong) are not separate from the scientific principles that seem to drive the universe. Likewise, the nature of man is not separate from the nature of life we call 'mother nature'. The reason duality consists of a coin with two sides is that there is no foundation for any of it other than imagination, and so mutually defining polarities are imagined into apparent existence and experienced. There quite literally is no solid place to stand, and no-one to stand there. There isn't even a 'there'. OK, I guess this is where we came to an impasse before. By imagination I take you to mean something ephemeral, insubstantial, a misunderstanding of the term maya. I have a friend who weighs at least double what she should. What you seem to mean by imagination is like saying that her extra 130+ lbs. does not really exist, it's merely imaginary. There is an ancient description of reality called the Great Chain of Being. A comparable description is the Kabbalistic Tree, likewise the description of the universe by Plotinus in The Enneads, and another called the Ray of Creation. In each there are at least seven orders of being, seven planes or seven gradations of vibrations of energy between Oneness and our material world. I take it you are saying that these are all imaginary. For me this is the same as saying that my friends extra 130+ lbs. is imaginary. This is also like saying that cultural self/ego/personality/false self is imaginary. For me, to say it's imaginary, is imaginary. Those extra pounds of my friend are stored energy. To lose the extra pounds she will have to burn more calories than she takes in, a most difficult task she has kept trying for over 35 years. To be fully liberated one has to take the energy out of false self like one has to take the energy out of those fat cells. For me, this necessitates cultivation of spiritual practice, interior spiritual practice. This is the purpose of living through one's attention and through one's awareness. One is either feeding false self or taking the energy out of false self, there really isn't any neutral ground. zd's ATA is the firm foundation, the solid place to stand. .....But it continually gets lost in....imagination...... Your attention is what can, metaphorically, burn the fat, of false self. sdp By 'imagination', I don't mean "imaginary" in the way you are hearing it. "ephemeral, insubstantial, a misunderstanding of the term maya" has nothing to do with with what I'm saying. Again, imagination is operative on all 'levels' and in all contexts. You're familiar with the person imagining, either purposely or unknowingly, but I mean to use the term to apply to creation itself. Again, time and space are fundamentally imagination, and this is the foundation of experiencing. Nothing has any underlying absolute reference. The origin of nature is fundamentally imagination, though now we're operating in a larger context in which it is not a particular individual's imagination we're talking about. I hesitate to go further unless we can get on the same page. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2013 19:56:06 GMT -5
There is a difference between thought as function, and being conscious. (I first noticed this in elementary school. I could be reading but suddenly notice that even though my eyes were still following each word on the page, my mind was elsewhere, thinking of something different. I would then have to go back and find the place where my mind was still engaged with the words on the page, as I always could. Why did I have to go back? Because I was not conscious of what I had read and therefore remembered nothing of what the eyes had actually been following. Of course I did not put it into those words, then, I only knew I had to go back and read again what I had just read, very annoying. It was only years later that I was taught and came to understand the difference between scattered attention, interested attention and directed attention). You can always go back and look at how a newborn baby encounters the world. A newborn baby has no self, no ego, no cultural self, no thoughts as abstract representations. But a newborn baby knows of hunger, knows of a wet or dirty diaper, (and communicates this through crying). How? Through their inborn awareness, through their attention. Your attention and awareness are there, within, just as pristine as a newborn's. But they are continually caught and held prisoner by the contents of the neural structure, false self. This is the boundary. Spiritual practice is separating out and living through your attention (&/or awareness) instead of it continually being held captive by the tiny little self. But what's simple is not easy. sdp Thanks for relating a story of your own. Outside of that, you seem to have a more new age version of good vs. evil going on with the false/little self thing. I consider it to be the case that what we are born with is our true nature, AKA true self or essence. In Buddhism it's called Buddha Mind, Buddha nature or the unborn. Our mind as we are born is also part of our essential nature. However, as a baby encounters life it begins to store information in the neural network of the brain. This is the beginning of the formation of our acquired self which I have called our cultural self. The mind, by which we are aware and attend, belongs to our essential nature. The contents of the mind as stored information belongs to cultural self/personality/ego/mask/persona/ false self/tiny little self. False self is reactionary, mechanical, garbage in-garbage out. Functioning through ego/personality does not require being conscious, we mostly operate through habit, conditioning and autopilot. I'm going to follow up on this presently in responding to some other posts, but basically, responding to you here, what's good is whatever helps us to become conscious, what's "evil" is whatever keeps us asleep, whatever detracts from becoming more conscious. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2013 20:43:46 GMT -5
Hi stardustpilgrim, When we attempt to communicate in words as we do here, our mind tries to make contact with how we are feeling about whatever the subject may be and put it into words which are then communicated to another mind which tries to relate what has been heard to feeling. Back and forth it goes, maybe some clarification is asked for and received, and maybe some groking is experienced. People seem to like that sort of thing "I know what you mean" or "I have felt that way myself". People call it sharing. Is there anything wrong with that process as far as you are concerned? Awareness is an interesting subject. Are we aware when we are sleeping for instance? Is awareness always present? Does awareness have to be of something for it to be present? In the 60's we used the term "Goofing out" at least we did here in Wales. You'd be driving along and would become suddenly aware that you were 20 miles up the road with no memory or awareness of those intervening miles or your existence during them. Yet the car had covered the distance with presumably you turning the wheel this way or that, braking occasionally and reaching for the spliff. Is awareness therefore never absent and not dependent on whether you are present or not? It seems like it is in which case there is no such thing as the absence of awareness. amit amit .......nothing wrong with sharing as you describe, I think that's why we're all here....... There are different states of consciousness. Ordinary sleep would be the first state of consciousness. The mind operates in cycles during sleep, in REM sleep we dream, then we cycle into deep sleep where we do not dream. I am not aware when I sleep (although it is possible to be aware in sleep, the first stage of this is probably what's called lucid dreaming, I think there are later stages where one can be fully aware while the body sleeps). It might be the case that there is a deeper level of Self that is always aware, I haven't found it yet (added note below). Now, at least once a night, usually, my urge to go to the bathroom overcomes sleep, I become aware of the need, and wake up. There are periods when I am not aware. ........Over 35 years ago I read Franklin Merrill-Wolfe's Pathways Through to Space and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without an Object. One can be conscious without a thing to be conscious of. The following is a continuation of my previous post. .....I'm not a big Adam Sandler fan, but anyone who hasn't seen the movie Click, should see it. I'm sure it's accidental, but the film shows how we drift through life, unconscious. This dude gives Sandler a remote control that he can use to fast-forward through the boring parts of life. I noticed your example of driving, and ending up down the road, sometimes many miles and realizing that you were not aware of the events from point A to point B, when I was still a teenager. This was very shocking and very frightening. ......How can you say that awareness was never absent even though you were not present? When this happens, no, you were not aware. This is how accidents happen. Our ordinary state of consciousness has been called sleep. The second state of consciousness, ordinary consciousness, is a state of sleep compared to what's possible for us. Your post is a perfect example of what the second state of consciousness is like. When this happens we are operating on autopilot. We are operating through conditioned habit. This is actually just like my earlier example of reading, part of my mind was following the words on the page but part of my mind was elsewhere, daydreaming. Most of us do not realize how much we go through life on autopilot, unless we begin a practice like ATA. But driving a car on autopilot is much more dangerous that reading on autopilot. .......................... ..............(added note) Now, I have had a sense form time to time throughout my life that there is something deeper that is always aware of what's going on and has given direction during certain circumstances. ........... sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2013 21:26:59 GMT -5
Hi tzujinli, Thank you and yes that is also my understanding that awareness comes one goes presumably dependent upon whether there is anything happening requiring attention. Remembering the absent 20 miles has cast a doubt over that view however. Presumably the driving required attention. What do you think? amit There is a phenomenon of walking in one's sleep (my parents told me I did this a couple of times as a kid). If (any)one can walk in their sleep, (any)one can drive unconsciously. I'm sure everybody on spiritualteachers has had the experience described of finding oneself many miles down the road with no memory of driving those miles. When something becomes habituated, it requires zero attention. You had to learn to walk, you learned to run, most of us have learned to ride a bicycle. These are now completely automatic, zero attention required. Here's something easy to try. You have no idea how many times you itch each day and scratch that itch, unconsciously. When you itch, try not to scratch. Now, if you take this as a temporary experimental task, just giving it as an exercise will bring to your consciousness the sensation of an itch, and trying not to scratch it will help make it less automatic. Prepare to be amazed. ................................ ..................... ........................................ ............. ............................................................. Now, you would think that driving is a lot more complicated than scratching an itch, but not really. .............When my kids were learning to drive I told them that driving would probably be the most dangerous thing they would ever do......... I call daydreaming going to la-la land. There are certain things that one just cannot do while in la-la land, driving a car is one of those things. ...........The real danger is something out of the ordinary happening, a dog runs in front of you, another car crosses the yellow line, somebody is walking on the edge of the road, a car pulls out in front of you. These things will usually snap you back into reality, catch your attention, but sometimes too late to escape an accident........ sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 3, 2013 21:35:42 GMT -5
OK, I guess this is where we came to an impasse before. By imagination I take you to mean something ephemeral, insubstantial, a misunderstanding of the term maya. I have a friend who weighs at least double what she should. What you seem to mean by imagination is like saying that her extra 130+ lbs. does not really exist, it's merely imaginary. There is an ancient description of reality called the Great Chain of Being. A comparable description is the Kabbalistic Tree, likewise the description of the universe by Plotinus in The Enneads, and another called the Ray of Creation. In each there are at least seven orders of being, seven planes or seven gradations of vibrations of energy between Oneness and our material world. I take it you are saying that these are all imaginary. For me this is the same as saying that my friends extra 130+ lbs. is imaginary. This is also like saying that cultural self/ego/personality/false self is imaginary. For me, to say it's imaginary, is imaginary. Those extra pounds of my friend are stored energy. To lose the extra pounds she will have to burn more calories than she takes in, a most difficult task she has kept trying for over 35 years. To be fully liberated one has to take the energy out of false self like one has to take the energy out of those fat cells. For me, this necessitates cultivation of spiritual practice, interior spiritual practice. This is the purpose of living through one's attention and through one's awareness. One is either feeding false self or taking the energy out of false self, there really isn't any neutral ground. zd's ATA is the firm foundation, the solid place to stand. .....But it continually gets lost in....imagination...... Your attention is what can, metaphorically, burn the fat, of false self. sdp By 'imagination', I don't mean "imaginary" in the way you are hearing it. "ephemeral, insubstantial, a misunderstanding of the term maya" has nothing to do with with what I'm saying. Again, imagination is operative on all 'levels' and in all contexts. You're familiar with the person imagining, either purposely or unknowingly, but I mean to use the term to apply to creation itself. Again, time and space are fundamentally imagination, and this is the foundation of experiencing. Nothing has any underlying absolute reference. The origin of nature is fundamentally imagination, though now we're operating in a larger context in which it is not a particular individual's imagination we're talking about. I hesitate to go further unless we can get on the same page. Getting late...catch you tomorrow........ sdp |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 0:11:26 GMT -5
Hi stardustpilgrim, When we attempt to communicate in words as we do here, our mind tries to make contact with how we are feeling about whatever the subject may be and put it into words which are then communicated to another mind which tries to relate what has been heard to feeling. Back and forth it goes, maybe some clarification is asked for and received, and maybe some groking is experienced. People seem to like that sort of thing "I know what you mean" or "I have felt that way myself". People call it sharing. Is there anything wrong with that process as far as you are concerned? amit I'd say there is. Relating to the world from feeling is one way to go about it, but it's rife with reactivity and self created illusion. When I attempt to communicate, I try to make contact with a deeper clarity, which is not subservient to either feeling or knowledge. I'm not particularly interested in what you feel or think about anything. I want to know what you see. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 0:19:32 GMT -5
I akshuly agree with that. *Topology's Latest Facebook Status Update*: Currently Ice-Skating in Hell. Try the ice fishing too, while there's still time. Weather conditions can change quickly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jun 4, 2013 0:25:25 GMT -5
I akshuly agree with that. When I read that the thought was "you've just said the same thing that Phil did ...", and if he isn't reading RH then it's a synchronicity but I kept quiet because the pace of the bloodletting has slowed of late and I didn't want to re-trigger it Yes, it could be a page out of the Enigmatic Bible. Seems like there should be some shame on somebody's part for that. Hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 4, 2013 0:32:09 GMT -5
When I read that the thought was "you've just said the same thing that Phil did ...", and if he isn't reading RH then it's a synchronicity but I kept quiet because the pace of the bloodletting has slowed of late and I didn't want to re-trigger it Yes, it could be a page out of the Enigmatic Bible. Seems like there should be some shame on somebody's part for that. Hehe. Dear Dude/Dudette, He's still monitoring RH? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 4, 2013 0:40:49 GMT -5
Yes, it could be a page out of the Enigmatic Bible. Seems like there should be some shame on somebody's part for that. Hehe. Dear Dude/Dudette, He's still monitoring RH? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize it seems to me that digital stalking is an offense punishable by public humiliation! I will cast the first stone!  |
|
