|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 7:53:37 GMT -5
I listened to this while doing some work. The practice explained may indeed lead to a hot boil of the psychological sense of self, at which point it may no longer seem advantageous to cling to it so tightly. It could almost work as an inwardly directed form of morality in which one is in a constant state of observation and discernment, whilst inviting the "Knowledge of the absence of self nature". If listened to in light of the potential for their being no inherent self, it would be understood that it is not a mental knowledge per se, which is something we've talked about (Greek: gnossis v episteme, Spanish: conocer v saber, etc). The psycho-mento-personal struggle is to take such ideas as 'fact/belief' and pursue them at all cost (to the self). Some may get a glimpse, let go of a shit ton of baggage, and think they are done, and then the mind takes over again and creates a lot of personal stories around the 'experience', maybe forms a new cult/sect/religion/path (different designer bag, same mind tricks). And maybe they even mean well. Who knows? But the true KNOWLEDGE is having been Here, being Here, and stabilized Here, which kinda brings me to the point I find a bit misleading. At around 17:00, there's a discussion about steeping on a thorn and saying 'ow', which I sense as indicative of some ignorance. I do not know of the intention of presenting that in such an exposition, but I suspect it creates confusion. Maybe I misunderstood it, but to conclude that saying 'ow' means that one is "still subject to the dualistic condition and that the absence of self nature...." seems to be indicative of having had the realization of no self, but then being attached to that Nothingness. Experiencing pain via the body is entirely within the realm of possibilities, and has very little to do with self, if ya know what I mean.  This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good. Interestingly, soon thereafter, the video goes on to address something akin to an "attachment to Freedom", which is often part of the subsequent journey to Here after Nothingness (and detachment from it) has been realized. At least that's how I would explain it away in abstractions. I'd be curious to hear others' ideas on this. In the Plotinus model, the journey to Here transcends up through the 'levels' of SVP existence, maybe gets a glimpse of Nous stuff, maybe even The One/ Here. Maybe they even understand IT deeply enough to say (i.e., with a sense of Gnossis/Knowledge) that EVERYTHING emanates from/as/within The One as THIS, right Here, right Now. Either way, to get Here, one will need to travel light. But as you stated later to SDP, same same, but different expression and/or value (and path), depending on how the mind studying/praying/meditating/etc hears it. I enjoyed the vid. It reminded me of so many things:self-inquiry, surrender, mindfulness, ATA. It reminded me of Hedderman's "living in what's not happening." I particularly liked the poison cup analogy to explain "presence." I enjoyed the vid much like I enjoy reading RM or listening to Hedderman or Tony Parsons. It's like listening to different composers. I don't agree or disagree with any of it. As to the "ow" comment. It reminded me of Thic Quang Duc. Quite a high bar huh. Freedom can be misconstrued. I have a thirteen year old granddaughter. Smart as a whip. I listened to the video again, just now. Only about minute 9, quoting a Buddha-quote, and then at 9:50 does he go 'off the rails'. But he quickly gets back on track. After quoting The Mirror, and browsing the book, and watching the video, I realized the lady is quoting the book, only somewhat modified, I followed her from the book. She starts on page 36, ends on page 48 of the book. The book then continues with a section of commentary. But page 48 Norbu says he gave this talk in 1978 at a New Years celebration where he gave explanations of the Kulaya raja and other teachings to over 100 people. Then he decided to put it in book form, for others of the Dzogchen Community. Cool you found this and shared it. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 8:01:39 GMT -5
This quote is also misleading. Who/what is it that would make an effort to not get distracted? Who/what is it that imagines a need to be present?  Everything depends upon ~you~, that's the whole point. ~You~ have to decide that. I just added a second quote, and a Upanishad quote, to this, from Mr. Ripman, it is somewhat helpful, unless it isn't. Everything centers around what your aim is. If you have no aim, the words mean nothing, it's just like reading baseball scores. The most important part of the quote, finding out the meaning of distraction and illusion. If you don't know what it means to be present, then you are never present. I can't help that. But my point is the video isn't clear about the difference between thought-mental-processing, and awareness. Added note, just started listening to the video again. The first eight minutes are very clear, the whole video has to be heard on that basis. Thoughts-mental-processing mean very little, like a fly on an elephant. Awareness means everything. And neither Norbu nor Ripman mean ordinary awareness, which is mostly unconscious, that is, it just happens. This extraordinary awareness, means you are present to what you are doing. Otherwise, nobody at home. Mere thinking, mere feeling/emotions, mere sensations, mere bodily actions, mean, nobody at home. Nobody. ZD, listen to at least the first eight minutes of the Norbu video. If you don't get that, I don't want anything you think you have. You still have a separation between Extraordinary awareness and the perceiver of it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 8:39:13 GMT -5
Everything depends upon ~you~, that's the whole point. ~You~ have to decide that. I just added a second quote, and a Upanishad quote, to this, from Mr. Ripman, it is somewhat helpful, unless it isn't. Everything centers around what your aim is. If you have no aim, the words mean nothing, it's just like reading baseball scores. The most important part of the quote, finding out the meaning of distraction and illusion. If you don't know what it means to be present, then you are never present. I can't help that. But my point is the video isn't clear about the difference between thought-mental-processing, and awareness. Added note, just started listening to the video again. The first eight minutes are very clear, the whole video has to be heard on that basis. Thoughts-mental-processing mean very little, like a fly on an elephant. Awareness means everything. And neither Norbu nor Ripman mean ordinary awareness, which is mostly unconscious, that is, it just happens. This extraordinary awareness, means you are present to what you are doing. Otherwise, nobody at home. Mere thinking, mere feeling/emotions, mere sensations, mere bodily actions, mean, nobody at home. Nobody. ZD, listen to at least the first eight minutes of the Norbu video. If you don't get that, I don't want anything you think you have. You still have a separation between Extraordinary awareness and the perceiver of it. No, the awareness is the perceiver. That's the whole point. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 9:04:12 GMT -5
You still have a separation between Extraordinary awareness and the perceiver of it. No, the awareness is the perceiver. That's the whole point. How come it's not Extraordinary anymore? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2024 9:17:58 GMT -5
This quote is also misleading. Who/what is it that would make an effort to not get distracted? Who/what is it that imagines a need to be present? Everything depends upon ~you~, that's the whole point. ~You~ have to decide that. I just added a second quote, and a Upanishad quote, to this, from Mr. Ripman, it is somewhat helpful, unless it isn't. Everything centers around what your aim is. If you have no aim, the words mean nothing, it's just like reading baseball scores. The most important part of the quote, finding out the meaning of distraction and illusion. If you don't know what it means to be present, then you are never present. I can't help that. But my point is the video isn't clear about the difference between thought-mental-processing, and awareness. Added note, just started listening to the video again. The first eight minutes are very clear, the whole video has to be heard on that basis. Thoughts-mental-processing mean very little, like a fly on an elephant. Awareness means everything. And neither Norbu nor Ripman mean ordinary awareness, which is mostly unconscious, that is, it just happens. This extraordinary awareness, means you are present to what you are doing. Otherwise, nobody at home. Mere thinking, mere feeling/emotions, mere sensations, mere bodily actions, mean, nobody at home. Nobody. ZD, listen to at least the first eight minutes of the Norbu video. If you don't get that, I don't want anything you think you have. Who would this "you" be that would be present to whatever is happening? FWIW, there's nothing that I could give you that you don't already have. If I thought I had something that other people don't have, that would prove a lack of understanding. Even the idea of "letting go" implies that there is a someone who can do that. The truth lies beyond language and thought (but includes language and thought). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 9:24:44 GMT -5
No, the awareness is the perceiver. That's the whole point. How come it's not Extraordinary anymore? I was just doing shorthand, it's still Extraordinary. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 9:28:41 GMT -5
How come it's not Extraordinary anymore? I was just doing shorthand, it's still Extraordinary. And it's the perceiver of itself? There is no intermediary at all? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 9:30:24 GMT -5
Everything depends upon ~you~, that's the whole point. ~You~ have to decide that. I just added a second quote, and a Upanishad quote, to this, from Mr. Ripman, it is somewhat helpful, unless it isn't. Everything centers around what your aim is. If you have no aim, the words mean nothing, it's just like reading baseball scores. The most important part of the quote, finding out the meaning of distraction and illusion. If you don't know what it means to be present, then you are never present. I can't help that. But my point is the video isn't clear about the difference between thought-mental-processing, and awareness. Added note, just started listening to the video again. The first eight minutes are very clear, the whole video has to be heard on that basis. Thoughts-mental-processing mean very little, like a fly on an elephant. Awareness means everything. And neither Norbu nor Ripman mean ordinary awareness, which is mostly unconscious, that is, it just happens. This extraordinary awareness, means you are present to what you are doing. Otherwise, nobody at home. Mere thinking, mere feeling/emotions, mere sensations, mere bodily actions, mean, nobody at home. Nobody. ZD, listen to at least the first eight minutes of the Norbu video. If you don't get that, I don't want anything you think you have. Who would this "you" be that would be present to whatever is happening? FWIW, there's nothing that I could give you that you don't already have. If I thought I had something that other people don't have, that would prove a lack of understanding. Even the idea of "letting go" implies that there is a someone who can do that. The truth lies beyond language and thought (but includes language and thought). Yeah, I thought that but it wasn't my place to say. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 9:35:06 GMT -5
Everything depends upon ~you~, that's the whole point. ~You~ have to decide that. I just added a second quote, and a Upanishad quote, to this, from Mr. Ripman, it is somewhat helpful, unless it isn't. Everything centers around what your aim is. If you have no aim, the words mean nothing, it's just like reading baseball scores. The most important part of the quote, finding out the meaning of distraction and illusion. If you don't know what it means to be present, then you are never present. I can't help that. But my point is the video isn't clear about the difference between thought-mental-processing, and awareness. Added note, just started listening to the video again. The first eight minutes are very clear, the whole video has to be heard on that basis. Thoughts-mental-processing mean very little, like a fly on an elephant. Awareness means everything. And neither Norbu nor Ripman mean ordinary awareness, which is mostly unconscious, that is, it just happens. This extraordinary awareness, means you are present to what you are doing. Otherwise, nobody at home. Mere thinking, mere feeling/emotions, mere sensations, mere bodily actions, mean, nobody at home. Nobody. ZD, listen to at least the first eight minutes of the Norbu video. If you don't get that, I don't want anything you think you have. FWIW, there's nothing that I could give you that you don't already have. If I thought I had something that other people don't have, that would prove a lack of understanding. Even the idea of "letting go" implies that there is a someone who can do that. The truth lies beyond language and thought (but includes language and thought). It isn't a who, or a you, it's just awareness (Extraordinary awareness  ). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2024 9:38:59 GMT -5
Who would this "you" be that would be present to whatever is happening?FWIW, there's nothing that I could give you that you don't already have. If I thought I had something that other people don't have, that would prove a lack of understanding. Even the idea of "letting go" implies that there is a someone who can do that. The truth lies beyond language and thought (but includes language and thought). It isn't a who, or a you, it's just awareness (Extraordinary awareness ). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world. That would be a good trick. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 9:40:29 GMT -5
I was just doing shorthand, it's still Extraordinary. And it's the perceiver of itself? There is no intermediary at all? Correct, there's no intermediary. Awareness can eventually be aware of the Totality, all thoughts [if there happen to be any], all emotions [if there happen to be any], the totality of the body, all simultaneously, in the present moment. That's the 3rd state of consciousness, self-remembering. This is knowing oneself, objectively. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 9:43:19 GMT -5
It isn't a who, or a you, it's just awareness (Extraordinary awareness ). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world. That would be a good trick. Yes, exactly. In the Norbu video, he says it's not easy in the beginning. Absolutely correct. This is a way to be able to see that you- are-not the SVP. ~You~ become "A man is unable to describe what he himself really is". |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 23, 2024 9:48:55 GMT -5
FWIW, ATA-T is simply a means to an end. It begins with the imagined idea that there is a "someone" who can shift attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception, and at first this shifting seems to involve a lot of effort. Eventually sensory attentiveness becomes a habit and isn't thought about. As this process proceeds, the mind becomes increasingly silent and various realizations often spontaneously occur. One major realization is that there was never a separate volitional entity shifting attention or doing anything else. Everything that happened, and is happening, was, and is, an unfolding of THIS. When the illusion of a "me" evaporates, the illusion of efforting also evaporates, and what remains is what we call "the natural state."
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 23, 2024 9:54:06 GMT -5
FWIW, ATA-T is simply a means to an end. It begins with the imagined idea that there is a "someone" who can shift attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception, and at first this shifting seems to involve a lot of effort. Eventually sensory attentiveness becomes a habit and isn't thought about. As this process proceeds, the mind becomes increasingly silent and various realizations often spontaneously occur. One major realization is that there was never a separate volitional entity shifting attention or doing anything else. Everything that happened, and is happening, was, and is, an unfolding of THIS. When the illusion of a "me" evaporates, the illusion of efforting also evaporates, and what remains is what we call "the natural state." is the difference between ATA-T and a conscious effort. A conscious effort never becomes habitual, never just happens. ATA-T is done with interested attention (you've explained very well). Genuine spiritual practice is done with voluntary attention (AKA directed attention). Voluntary attention never just happens, never becomes habitual. Norbu doesn't use the word voluntary, but he shows he knows what-it-is. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 23, 2024 10:01:30 GMT -5
And it's the perceiver of itself? There is no intermediary at all? Correct, there's no intermediary. Awareness can eventually be aware of the Totality, all thoughts [if there happen to be any], all emotions [if there happen to be any], the totality of the body, all simultaneously, in the present moment. That's the 3rd state of consciousness, self-remembering. This is knowing oneself, objectively. How do you know it's Extraordinary if there's no intermediary? |
|
This 'attachment to Nothingness' is not uncommon with anyone who has had the realization, but in a way, it is only halfway to Here. I sometimes get the feeling that some of the push back here on the board seems to unconsciously question this, which is good.
). It's put this way, you have to become two, awareness is aware of the functions of the ordinary self, the body, the mind, the feelings/emotions (or an exterior object, but then it's not self-awareness). This is different from ATA-T. With the two, awareness is aware (1) of what's attended to (2). In ATA-T all your attention goes-in-to the object. Between the two, there's all the difference in the world.