|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 25, 2017 20:03:08 GMT -5
 more self honesty? What the 'pilgrim wrote was an excellent particular example of the distinction between attention and awareness. But notice that his use of "awareness" is subtly different from the awareness that Rupert is inviting you to rest in/as. This distinction isn't important if it seems confusing, but can be an interesting one to explore. Some folks like to distinguish between the two by calling what Rupert was speaking about "awareness", and what the 'pilgrim was referring to as "consciousness". The natural state of our consciousness is fragmented into a multitasking of different concurrent segments of attention. We most often have some primary focus of attention, like when we're driving or balancing a checkbook. Awareness abhors a vacuum, so if the task at hand doesn't need our complete attention, our consciousness naturally divides into various threads. There is a process that scans all the different threads of thought in our mind at any given time for the interests to amplify and demand more attention. This is how we suddenly become cognizant of how we forgot to mail the electric bill last week. This process is subconscious, and has evolved to be very efficient at detecting threats and identifying opportunities. Tolle's prescription to "watch the thinker" is all about becoming conscious of the content of our interests, and the process of how those interests play out, and Tolle tells us that we can find what Rupert was referring to as that object-free "Presence of Awareness" in the silent still space between thoughts. As Ramana would have said ... who is it that asks the question: "is that it?". Yes thanks Laughter, good stuff. Ramans's question is a question I have asked time and time again. I have looked for the thinker and not found it. I honestly think my mind is still too active or something. I find the ATT happens from time to time but not as often as I'd like. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 25, 2017 20:10:32 GMT -5
Excellent post. What you may not be aware of is that Rupert practised TM for more than twenty years. It's mantra meditation as you know, so it's interesting that he refers to those kind of practices and compares them with what he is advocating in the video about relaxing into awareness or defocusing and not attending to an object. A mantra would be such an object. But as you beautifully point out in your last paragraph which is exactly the same thought I had, if your mind is already silent, and 20 years of TM will certainly do that, it is easy to tell someone to rest in awareness when you can do it so easily yourself. I also made the point in the past that using an object like a mantra is usually easier than trying to locate awareness directly. The end result is the same because thinking finer and finer levels of mantra leads to transcendence to awareness. You could argue it's less direct, but it's easier. So this is the slight flaw in a way in what Rupert is saying. Another example is Papaji who meditated for many years but continually said in his satsangs that there was nothing to practise. Osho was the same, he tried everything. But he did recommend practice. Yes. I think that many people have objected to the word "practice" because they know that it's impossible to practice your way to being what you already are. For that reason I generally emphasize that meditation is an "activity" that increases mental silence, and mental silence increases the likelihood that the obvious will become obvious. We don't meditate to get somewhere as much as we meditate to see clearly what's already here and now--to penetrate illusions created by thought. Thanks you two. This actually helps me understand these teachings more. |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 25, 2017 20:35:47 GMT -5
Thanks for that P. I'll need to read through your posts tonunderstand the word 'cloak' but think I have an idea, and in that case I'll steer clear. I don't have anything I want work on, was just intrigued. The lady who worked on me was Korean. She was the apprentice of a Reiki master. At the time, I didn't have any interest in listening about Reiki or this idea of being an apprentice to a master. I was an enlightenment guy above and beyond need for energy work, albeit completely cloaked by unconscious forces. But her character was so genuine and light that when she offered to clear I said, yea sure sounds dope. I stay connected with her to this day (energetically). Cloaking. Hmmm. Welp lemme think of a simple example. You become conscious of cloaks by seeing the forces that hold up the facade. So, if one is living entirely through the facade, de-cloaking isn't going to happen. There has to be some discontent with the facade identity. The facade identity, is created as a compensation for our blockages. Shame is the most common energy that allows facade construction and maintenance to unfold. Some people would rather die than experience their shame. And because of that, this fear of shame creeps up from the shadows. Whatever one feels ashamed about, is then compensated for through facade construction. If I'm ashamed of being abandoned, then one dynamic of my facade will be preventing a feeling of abandonment from surfacing. 'Clinging', the belief that I am invincible or can't be hurt, are one dynamic and belief that would make up the facade. Making the belief and dynamic conscious, can begin the deconstruction of the facade. The spiritual energy holding the facade together will run in opposition to this deconstruction. This is where addictions come in. Addictions, as I mention them here, are split mind tendencies. Meaning, something you want to stop but want to continue, and that's an indication that there's some spiritual energy cloaking the facade trying to maintain its hold on the mind. Spirits can drop thoughts in your mind through dreams, and 'cause' you to self seek through images and confirmations you may receive throughout the day. Some people are completely unconscious of how spirits are programming the subconscious during sleep. And others think that dark spirits perpetuating addictive behaviors are actually guides and guardians, when in truth it points closer to say the spirits are using the mind and body, they are cloaking and enjoying the addictions through degrading the person. Many of these addictions are facade addictions. Addiction to being validated, needed, desired, and in some cases victimized, hurt, or abandoned. The vibrational sequencing of the facade often perpetuates (actually always perpetuates) the unconscious energy holding the facade together. Meaning, the facade is an effective short term solution with no long term answer to the problems of life. The facade itself is the problem. This topic interests me greatly. However, I won't lie, it is all a bit 'out there' for me. I have only just started believing in channelling and astral travel although not experienced anything remotely like it. Energy work, spirits etc, is like a whole new world to me. AH's alignment resonnates a lot so that's why I listen there but I had considerable amount of resistance at the start. I still feel, as with Tolle's painbody metaphore, we are over complicating things..but let's not go there again lol! I am genuinely interested in reading these kind of posts, thanks P. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 25, 2017 21:19:50 GMT -5
I think we all understand the difference between the sense of I'ness alone and what the I identifies with as I am this or that or whatever. If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 25, 2017 23:52:51 GMT -5
more self honesty? What the 'pilgrim wrote was an excellent particular example of the distinction between attention and awareness. But notice that his use of "awareness" is subtly different from the awareness that Rupert is inviting you to rest in/as. This distinction isn't important if it seems confusing, but can be an interesting one to explore. Some folks like to distinguish between the two by calling what Rupert was speaking about "awareness", and what the 'pilgrim was referring to as "consciousness". The natural state of our consciousness is fragmented into a multitasking of different concurrent segments of attention. We most often have some primary focus of attention, like when we're driving or balancing a checkbook. Awareness abhors a vacuum, so if the task at hand doesn't need our complete attention, our consciousness naturally divides into various threads. There is a process that scans all the different threads of thought in our mind at any given time for the interests to amplify and demand more attention. This is how we suddenly become cognizant of how we forgot to mail the electric bill last week. This process is subconscious, and has evolved to be very efficient at detecting threats and identifying opportunities. Tolle's prescription to "watch the thinker" is all about becoming conscious of the content of our interests, and the process of how those interests play out, and Tolle tells us that we can find what Rupert was referring to as that object-free "Presence of Awareness" in the silent still space between thoughts. As Ramana would have said ... who is it that asks the question: "is that it?". Yes thanks Laughter, good stuff. Ramans's question is a question I have asked time and time again. I have looked for the thinker and not found it. I honestly think my mind is still too active or something. I find the ATT happens from time to time but not as often as I'd like. Thanks for the kind words spongee. There's a Niz dialog headlined "A Quiet Mind is all You Need". It was worth re-reading. It's the one that's got zindarud's sig line: "You must be extreme to reach the supreme". But I'd say that you don't even need that. The advice to quiet the mind is good advice for sure. But while I've never seen Shawn's "Closer Than Close", I can vouch for the title. So isn't "energy goes where attention flows" an LOA saying? How would you relate that to your interest in a quiet mind and self-realization? |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Jun 26, 2017 0:20:38 GMT -5
Yes thanks Laughter, good stuff. Ramans's question is a question I have asked time and time again. I have looked for the thinker and not found it. I honestly think my mind is still too active or something. I find the ATT happens from time to time but not as often as I'd like. Thanks for the kind words spongee. There's a Niz dialog headlined "A Quiet Mind is all You Need". It was worth re-reading. It's the one that's got zindarud's sig line: "You must be extreme to reach the supreme". But I'd say that you don't even need that. The advice to quiet the mind is good advice for sure. But while I've never seen Shawn's "Closer Than Close", I can vouch for the title. So isn't "energy goes where attention flows" an LOA saying? How would you relate that to your interest in a quiet mind and self-realization? Yes, I've been thinking exactly that lately regarding LoA. Will go read that thread. Funny you calling me Spongee..long story but it's actually my daughter's nickname!😜 |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2017 0:59:44 GMT -5
If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego.Can give some quotes or links, Satch? I'd like to read a bit more about that. Ramana used the terms 'I' and 'I-I', what's your take on that? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2017 1:27:28 GMT -5
Seth talks a lot about channeling. Although he doesn't call it that. It's quite fascinating, actually and also practical in a way. Why work thru dozens of books when you could just ask that guy who created it directly? That's the question that occurred to me recently while looking at my rather long Seth reading list. About healing, Seth says that everything is constantly created or recreated every single moment. He also says that illness is some kind of miscreation, a creation with some errors. Said that, someone with a chronic illness is then chronically miscreating, i.e. doing that same mistake over and over again. If he could fix that bug in his creation process, then he could basically go from terminally ill to fully healthy in an instant. So in that sense, the phenomenon of instant healing isn't really a miracle but actually scientifically sound. And following the A-H logic, anything that is not working out smoothly for you is a sign of resistance present in you, i.e. asking for more than you are ready to allow/receive. A-H say a lot of healers and spiritual teachers have that kind of issue. Maybe that's what's behind your Christmas tree episode. That's why this topic of alignment is so important. Yeah, would be cool if we could finally settle this 'take an ax to the I AM' issue. On miscreation, I agree that there is a logic to healing identification. Reverse compartmentalizing solves everything. But it isn't something the individual does, but path of least resistance allows. As far as Niz, I had a free moment the other day when I was cooking eggs, and asked, Niz, why are you with me? He said, "To eat eggs". Reverse compartmentalizing is an interesting choice of words. Reminds me of Niz' term 'retracing your steps'. If you're really into channeling and alternate realities and reincarnation etc I think you should read Seth's early sessions. It's basically like a manual, a study course that teaches you the basic knowledge and skills you need in order to explore those realms safely and woo-woo free. Seth's approach is to keep the ego intact and in charge so that the data from the inner senses can be integrated in real life. And I think that's a very reasonable approach because, as he says, a lot of folks, after they've had some experiences with inner sense data, overwhelmed their outer ego or conscious self and went loco. And about dissociation. Seth is saying that kind of dissociation Jane is using is similar to the kind of dissociation you experience after you've just had a glass of wine! When I'm done with Seth, I think I'll take another look at Carlos Castaneda's books again. I read them years ago, but it felt too spaced out at the time. But with the Seth background now it should make a lot more sense. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 1:29:20 GMT -5
Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego.Can give some quotes or links, Satch? I'd like to read a bit more about that. Ramana used the terms 'I' and 'I-I', what's your take on that? I posted some other quotes a few days ago. I can look for some more. As far as what Ramana said about I-I, it's actually a bad translation from the Tamil but it seems to have stuck as so many quote it from what's been published. What Ramana said in Tamil was I am I. In the Tamil language the am is implied and not written so in Tamil it appears as I I, but it was translated literally. Interestingly Ramana thought there was nothing better in Vedic scripture to compare with the Old Testament, I am that I am. (Exodus 3.14). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 26, 2017 1:56:48 GMT -5
Can give some quotes or links, Satch? I'd like to read a bit more about that. Ramana used the terms 'I' and 'I-I', what's your take on that? I posted some other quotes a few days ago. I can look for some more. As far as what Ramana said about I-I, it's actually a bad translation from the Tamil but it seems to have stuck as so many quote it from what's been published. What Ramana said in Tamil was I am I. In the Tamil language the am is implied and not written so in Tamil it appears as I I, but it was translated literally. Interestingly Ramana thought there was nothing better in Vedic scripture to compare with the Old Testament, I am that I am. (Exodus 3.14). That would be cool. Maybe even an entire chapter with full context. Oh, interesting. Did you find any other mistranslations? Sri Yukteshwar thought the same way. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 2:35:36 GMT -5
Yeah, FGM is a global issue and it may also be more common in your own country than as yet is known. There are some huge movements to educate women and girls, and men, about it. Male circumcision has within it a bonding element that is experienced within all the males of that culture. Though female circumcision doesn't happen from within a comparable vibration. And yeah, we discussed the roots of the word Religion some years back. I remember Beingst and Maxdprophet being involved in it. We eventually uncovered that it can also mean.. respect for perfection. Here is the woman (Manal al Sharif) I heard speak on the radio the other night (http://www.npr.org/2017/06/08/532068532/for-one-saudi-woman-daring-to-drive-was-an-act-of-civil-disobedience ) She wrote a book about her experience that seems to be bringing light to what's going on. I haven't checked it out, but I feel blessed having heard her speak for what was about a 30 minute interview. As far as female circumcision is concerned, it's basically a sexual repression issue taking gross form from generations of patterns cycling in degrading fashion. If the cause of female circumcision is men's desire to enslave them, the correction would be bringing consciousness to the driving forces behind the desire. We may see nukes go off before that movement is allowed. Of course we could then look at the cross resonance in the girls that are being mutilated. How the adult females are shame based compartmentalized to not speak about it is a huge part of the problem. In this sense, Manal seems to be a step in the right direction. FWIW, she did have a surgery to correct the deformity, and is now happily married. Although the global chatter from her book has led her to fear her own freedom when stepping foot in her home country, where her son is. Yeah I did hear about this as well, we may well have listened to the same broadcast. There are plenty of jokes that could be made about a woman in charge of a car, though when it's actually an imprisonable offence in your country, it isn't funny. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 2:39:19 GMT -5
I posted some other quotes a few days ago. I can look for some more. As far as what Ramana said about I-I, it's actually a bad translation from the Tamil but it seems to have stuck as so many quote it from what's been published. What Ramana said in Tamil was I am I. In the Tamil language the am is implied and not written so in Tamil it appears as I I, but it was translated literally. Interestingly Ramana thought there was nothing better in Vedic scripture to compare with the Old Testament, I am that I am. (Exodus 3.14). That would be cool. Maybe even an entire chapter with full context. Oh, interesting. Did you find any other mistranslations? Sri Yukteshwar thought the same way. Sri Yukteshwar thought the same way about what exactly and do you have a reference? Niz does seem to use the word ego in a more personal way I've noticed. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2017 6:26:42 GMT -5
If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. Yes, but the I that arises, for the child, the two year old, 3, 4, 5, 6, is a false sense of self, it's ex-centric. It says I to things and other people and ideas, mis-identifies. The real sense of being gets lost, covered up, covered over. This is what has to be recovered, authenticity. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 26, 2017 6:55:24 GMT -5
Most peeps here would agree with you then. SDP and Enigma have stated in the last couple of days that there is no ego until there are beliefs, feelings, ideas, concepts thoughts, etc. I disagree however and say that when the I alone arises there is egoity. The I is the root of ego. Without I there are no beliefs, in the same way there are no leaves and branches without roots. But all of it is tree. If tree is ego then the root as well as the leaves and branches are all tree. My view is consistent with Vedanta which says that I is aham is ego. Yes, but the I that arises, for the child, the two year old, 3, 4, 5, 6, is a false sense of self, it's ex-centric. It says I to things and other people and ideas, mis-identifies. The real sense of being gets lost, covered up, covered over. This is what has to be recovered, authenticity. Not only for a two-year old. That same I rises in adulthood and that too is false. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 26, 2017 7:40:54 GMT -5
If peeps understood the difference then they would understand that there is no ego for the I'ness until I'ness believes it is something . If simply explaining this to someone was the same as an embodied understanding of it there would be no self-realization industry. My guess is that the only peeps interested in that construct likely have some sort of experiential reference for the distinction. But they might not be conscious of what it is that they've experienced, or how, precisely, that experience relates to the belief that they are something. Nizzy's "I am concept" is only one possible concept for the mind to rest on. Others are God, "Source", "Awareness/Consciousness", "The Universe", "the witnessing presence" etc.. This resting, this identity, is happening subconsciously, and in such a way as to deliberately and very cleverly disguise itself. In a way, it's all it is . I-ness can't entertain a concept of ego without mind being engaged in relation / reflection of what you think you are . The search engine of self creates and makes sense of what you are . The awareness of I-ness that has yet to cast a shadow or create a self profile can't be at the heart of what ego is or refers too . It can only be what has been created at the heart of I-ness into something tangible that is . |
|
more self honesty? What the 'pilgrim wrote was an excellent particular example of the distinction between attention and awareness. But notice that his use of "awareness" is subtly different from the awareness that Rupert is inviting you to rest in/as. This distinction isn't important if it seems confusing, but can be an interesting one to explore. Some folks like to distinguish between the two by calling what Rupert was speaking about "awareness", and what the 'pilgrim was referring to as "consciousness".
