|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 21, 2014 15:25:54 GMT -5
And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. What is clear to me, is that 'mind' is the medium through which the realization is revealed to the experiencer.. the effect of the realization is integrated into the experiencer's existence through the mind's understanding of that realization.. what was revealed/realized, is that i experience 'me' in every experience, when i look into the eyes of another, i see 'me' looking back, even when that version of 'me' interprets the experience differently, hence the suggestion to 'pay attention' unconditionally.. Conceptual exploration of a definition of mind or thought in a discussion about clarity or self-realization can be self defeating, in that the primary way of arriving at clarity isn't the means of conceptual definition. If someone insists on using one set of ideas or another to refer to the terms, this can either be accomadated or not, and in that choice the intent toward the dialog becomes important. Objectively speaking, it can be noticed that central to any notion of mind and thought is the question of the relationship of these artifacts to the individual. The question of the nature of that relationship, is one of self-inquiry. Noone can perform self-inquiry for anyone else.Aye, which is one of the inspirations for sharing openly honestly and civilly our individual experiences of that inquiry.. in that sharing an observer is free to choose, without threat of imposed consequence, which if any of the shared experiences seems worthy of their own exploration.. often, it is the evidence inherent in the sharing that gives counsel to efficacy of the experience shared..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 21, 2014 16:07:08 GMT -5
Conceptual exploration of a definition of mind or thought in a discussion about clarity or self-realization can be self defeating, in that the primary way of arriving at clarity isn't the means of conceptual definition. If someone insists on using one set of ideas or another to refer to the terms, this can either be accomadated or not, and in that choice the intent toward the dialog becomes important. Objectively speaking, it can be noticed that central to any notion of mind and thought is the question of the relationship of these artifacts to the individual. The question of the nature of that relationship, is one of self-inquiry. Noone can perform self-inquiry for anyone else.Aye, which is one of the inspirations for sharing openly honestly and civilly our individual experiences of that inquiry.. in that sharing an observer is free to choose, without threat of imposed consequence, which if any of the shared experiences seems worthy of their own exploration.. often, it is the evidence inherent in the sharing that gives counsel to efficacy of the experience shared.. As experience is inherently subjective it's description is defenseless, and any disparaging attack on the statement of it is indefensible. There inevitably appears a boundary between the descriptions of the experiences and ideas about the experiences which is ever unclear, as those descriptions themselves are necessarily ideas about the experiences.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:32:51 GMT -5
Don't make it more complicated than it actually is. What is real exists in its own right. It does not come and it does not go. What is false does not exist in its own right. And it does come and go. I don't necessarily see that anything is over complicated about ascertaining what is real and what is not . The evaluation of what is or what isn't has to come from a point of evaluation . Such a point of evaluation is perceived in relation to whom or what you are that perceives / evaluates . If the observer is in someway illusory then the illusionary self is trying to ascertaining what is real . That is never going to bring about an evaluation of how anything really is . The point of perception had in relation to self must be real in the first instance in order to ascertain or notice / recognise self as being real or having a real sense of what is and what isn't self . Otherwise it would be likened to the blind leading the blind, the fool being fooled by their own perception of self . Realizing what is real in relation to self will then and only then allow self to perceive with clarity .. Otherwise one will only relate to anything through an awareness that is in reflection of how they perceive self .. Yeah, it's a no-brainer that what is false cannot tell what is real from what is false. Was that your point?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:37:29 GMT -5
I agree, and there's more.. 'oneness' became manyness, independently functioning versions oneness, much like birthing a child, oneness birthed a Cosmos of independently functioning versions of itself.. in this is the authenticity of self-discovery, actually experiencing itself on equal terms, without hierarchy.. whole and part each becoming the other, and that 'becoming' is the happening we call creation/Life.. like the ocean/snowflake analogy, the happening is oneness and separateness happening simultaneously, and the experiencer chooses which will be experienced, either or both.. Now you are not only objectifying oneness again, you are even treating it as an entity with a purpose and create an entire belief system around it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:39:10 GMT -5
Well, think about it, without how-to advice, how many followers would he have? His background is as a corp consultant so I guess it's a framework he knows. As long as he doesn't say or imply that the seeker is basically in charge of realization, I'm fine with it.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:41:39 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Re: #3: I've looked through some of your past posts and cannot find where you clearly share your definition of self realization. Re: #4: Allowing my body to answer, also, might be interesting, but when it comes to a dialogue with another, there are clearly better ways to cut to the chase. Re: #5...."let it Go"?
yes....looks like that's the one I'll hafta take. I will fully support this decision. You're the only one who didn't get it right away. And I think I can live with that. The more we talk about it, the more profane it gets. And it won't make you understand either. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:43:46 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Re: #3: I've looked through some of your past posts and cannot find where you clearly share your definition of self realization. Re: #4: Allowing my body to answer, also, might be interesting, but when it comes to a dialogue with another, there are clearly better ways to cut to the chase. Re: #5...."let it Go"? yes....looks like that's the one I'll hafta take. No! Don't let it go! You want to know, so you need to find out. Can a brain-dead body become self realized? This has nothing to do with Reefs. This is about YOU. Contemplate the issue in silence until you become one-with the issue. Discover what you already understand at a deeper level than mind. In Zen this is called "homework." You can't force sincerity. And that's one thing I don't like about Zen practice.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 8:48:56 GMT -5
Reefs main point was that mind is not involved in self-realization, and I agree. Here's how I would put it in my own words: There is only one actor here. We can call it "the cosmos," "oneness," "God," "the field of all being," etc. It is the only see-er. It sees "what is," which is Itself, because it is all there is. In the form of a human it thinks, and it sees thoughts. There is no separate entity that sees. Because thoughts occur, what I call "thought structures" or "thought circuits" or something like that get formed. One of those thought structures is selfhood. The see-er, which is the cosmos, sees everything filtered through this imaginary thought structure and mistakenly takes the thought structure to be real. When the thought structure collapses, the see-er realizes that It, alone, is all there is, and that no separate self ever existed. This realization does not involve mind, but mind becomes informed by the realization. The realization can happen in many ways. In my case I had spent many years intermittently looking at the world in mental silence and during the previous week I had been on a silent mountain-hiking retreat in which I had been doing intense, almost non-stop, ATA-MT. One afternoon I vaguely noticed that something was missing. I looked within and was surprised to discover that my prior sense of selfhood had simply vanished without a trace. There was nothing there. I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. There is no longer any need for self improvement or self anything because self, in the conventional sense, is gone. Freedom from thinking about thinking is real freedom, and the body/mind can then go about its business free of all that searching nonsense. It knows what it is--an aspect of Vastness unfolding however it unfolds. The body/mind still has a name, and it moves around just as before, doing one thing after another, but there is no personal sense of self at the center of what is happening. So, if someone asks, "Can a rock become self realized?" how would you answer that question? If you answer yes or no, you miss the point. "Can a brain-dead person become self realized?" Same thing. "Can a brain-dead person climb Mount Everest?" Same thing. "Can YOU climb Mount Everest?" A different answer is required, but not a yes or no answer. If mind gets involved, it will only obscure the issue. Cheers. "but mind becomes informed by the realization." I'd say that bit (mind being informed) is a pretty large component of the whole enchilada.
And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication.
My interest is in clarity and simplification. It almost seems like there are some who'd prefer to keep it all shrouded in mystery and seemingly more complicated than it really is.
Indeed, realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought, intellect or logic ....but clearly, absent conscious awareness of self, the term "self realization" becomes meaningless.
Being Consciously self aware may not require minding in the form of actual thinking about it, but, it's not wholly absent mind's involvement either. And to say so, is to unnecessarily go to far imo.
I always enjoy your sharings about how awakening. I think your specificity in description there is likely really helpful to those who have questions about the whole matter.
I think we've discussed before how some folks have a very solid sense of being a very specific 'someone' who lives in the head and controls the mind/body, while others never really experienced that way from the get-go. My own sense of self was never solidified like the way you describe yours was previously to the falling away you describe...thus, I can't really pin-point any one moment where suddenly something that was there previously, fell away.
I think this is partly because from a pretty young age my experience was rife with profound synchronicity and psychic phenomena that for the most part, was just accepted as the norm...thus, experience itself mirrored back the seamless unity of existence...therefore, the 'what or who am I' questions, never really arose in the way some who sought avidly, describe.
Perhaps it's for this reason that I come at all this from a slightly different angle.....I DO see the value in pointing beyond identification with a separate, singular, limited self, but because of the fact that the experience of 'self' varies significantly, even in those who may be deemed to not be 'self realized,' I think it's important to be as clear as possible regarding the use of common terms, making sure that there is a clear understanding of them when talking about 'self realization'.....'collapse of sense of personhood' etc.
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Dec 22, 2014 8:59:40 GMT -5
I don't necessarily see that anything is over complicated about ascertaining what is real and what is not . The evaluation of what is or what isn't has to come from a point of evaluation . Such a point of evaluation is perceived in relation to whom or what you are that perceives / evaluates . If the observer is in someway illusory then the illusionary self is trying to ascertaining what is real . That is never going to bring about an evaluation of how anything really is . The point of perception had in relation to self must be real in the first instance in order to ascertain or notice / recognise self as being real or having a real sense of what is and what isn't self . Otherwise it would be likened to the blind leading the blind, the fool being fooled by their own perception of self . Realizing what is real in relation to self will then and only then allow self to perceive with clarity .. Otherwise one will only relate to anything through an awareness that is in reflection of how they perceive self .. Yeah, it's a no-brainer that what is false cannot tell what is real from what is false. Was that your point? Yes thats my point .. so how one perceives self through whatever means has a baring on how one perceives / relates to anything be it what is real, true, false, illusory .. etc .. An earlier discussion had with the frogmeister entertained such an understanding that one can only perceive as they do in relation to self . I can't see it being any other way as every which way is self .
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 9:01:17 GMT -5
hehe....this is silly Reefs; re #1: Looking within 'aint gonna tell me a whole lot about how you define the term 'self realization'....Im already well aware how I define it. Re: #2: wondering about how someone who speaks of self realization on a spiritual forum defines the term is really not a problematic form of thought that 'should be' dropped or stopped....it's simply an attempt to garner a deeper understanding of what the other it saying. Yes, you're right, it's not problematic, but that's not what's behind "stop thinking" in this case. Even if reefs gave you a definition, it would just be more fuel for thought.Precisely. We are already so hopelessly far off the main road and deep into the profane that I'm afraid even camel tow won't be able to help here anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 9:03:14 GMT -5
I realized that who I had THOUGHT I was was NOT who I was; it had been a figment, a powerful figment, of imagination. I looked around in a sort of wonderment, and realized that I was the entire process of reality, or cosmos, and that there had never been a separate entity of any kind. That ended the spiritual search because it became obvious that the cosmos is the only actor, and It had been the real searcher, because it is the only thing here. Mind had obscured the truth for many years, but mind had not been involved in seeing what was seen. Mind is always late to the party. Ha ha. After it is realized that "I am This," it no longer matters what mind thinks, and there is no longer any reason to control or limit thinking because the imaginary controller is gone. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/3912/real-illusion?page=10#ixzz3MTpkk9Q2Similarly, i realized i was not who i THOUGHT i was, i realized i was 'that' which was doing the thinking.. then, i realized that "I AM", and any further description is excess.. further descriptions can point to the AMness/ISness, but generally those descriptions suffer the attachment of self-identification, of desirability or lack thereof.. What is clear to me, is that 'mind' is the medium through which the realization is revealed to the experiencer.. the effect of the realization is integrated into the experiencer's existence through the mind's understanding of that realization.. what was revealed/realized, is that i experience 'me' in every experience, when i look into the eyes of another, i see 'me' looking back, even when that version of 'me' interprets the experience differently, hence the suggestion to 'pay attention' unconditionally.. Here's the fundamental inconsistency, that some people claim oneness is all there is, then they want to exclude the mind through which they just communicated their understanding of experiencing their realization of oneness.. mind is another part of the whole.. The spiritual search ends when the experiencer understands that if they are searching for something, they are excluding what they don't believe is that 'something'.. if the experiencer is searching for 'truth', they will exclude what they think is not 'true'.. the spiritual search ends when the experiencer lets it all go, and pays attention with genuine curiosity.. setting aside what doesn't work, and applying what does.. The still mind has no filter that sees oneness or separation, it simply sees.. in that same stillness, the sum of the experiencer's existence integrates with the happening appropriately for the experience as it happens, in that continuous 'now'.. in that 'zone/flow' there is no hesitation and no doubt, that would fracture the fluid dynamism of creation unfolding, the experiencer would be aware of the all of everything, realizing that the interruption of conceptualization/thinking would put distance (time/space) between the experience and experiencer's awareness of the experience.. it is in that distance (time/space) that the filter of belief and attachment distort and alter the experiencer's clarity.. As much as i favor Zen and Tao as clear understandings, i am eager to let those ideas go, too.. they are still a 'cut too deep', an us/them intervention into the fluid dynamism of the experiencer's clarity.. Be still, just look.. If you tell what is false to be still and and just look, what's the result going to be?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 9:08:10 GMT -5
And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication. What is clear to me, is that 'mind' is the medium through which the realization is revealed to the experiencer.. the effect of the realization is integrated into the experiencer's existence through the mind's understanding of that realization.. what was revealed/realized, is that i experience 'me' in every experience, when i look into the eyes of another, i see 'me' looking back, even when that version of 'me' interprets the experience differently, hence the suggestion to 'pay attention' unconditionally.. Conceptual exploration of a definition of mind or thought in a discussion about clarity or self-realization can be self defeating, in that the primary way of arriving at clarity isn't the means of conceptual definition. If someone insists on using one set of ideas or another to refer to the terms, this can either be accomadated or not, and in that choice the intent toward the dialog becomes important. Objectively speaking, it can be noticed that central to any notion of mind and thought is the question of the relationship of these artifacts to the individual. The question of the nature of that relationship, is one of self-inquiry. Noone can perform self-inquiry for anyone else. Yeah, I'd say, discussions about non-duality can only have the point of testing other peeps' actual understanding. A side effect may be that one or the other peep will lose some illusions in the process, but generating self-realization can't really be on the agenda.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 22, 2014 9:11:18 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a no-brainer that what is false cannot tell what is real from what is false. Was that your point? Yes thats my point .. so how one perceives self through whatever means has a baring on how one perceives / relates to anything be it what is real, true, false, illusory .. etc .. An earlier discussion had with the frogmeister entertained such an understanding that one can only perceive as they do in relation to self . I can't see it being any other way as every which way is self . Yeah, the Self is all there is, as Ramana used to say, which doesn't mean however, that all states are the natural state (as some folks here have concluded).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 22, 2014 10:05:38 GMT -5
Similarly, i realized i was not who i THOUGHT i was, i realized i was 'that' which was doing the thinking.. What I found interesting about your story was that there seemed to have been some moments at the very beginning of your experience where you were not thinking at all, but rather were simply seeing/looking with a still, quiet mind. From here it looked like that at least in the initial moments, you were actually experiencing the kind of pure perception minus thoughts ZD and others around here talk about from time to time. My impression was that the thinking was a secondary overlay added to an initial wordless experience.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 22, 2014 13:12:31 GMT -5
"but mind becomes informed by the realization." I'd say that bit (mind being informed) is a pretty large component of the whole enchilada.
And I think I use the term 'mind' in this case, in a much broader sense than you do. As I see it, mind in the broadest sense, often gets vilified in non-dual circles........exaggerations get made in order to drive certain points home...and I think sometimes that can be misleading to those who are still seeking. I speak to lots of folks who are under some really strange impressions due to some of the ways common words are used in different ways here than how they are in mainstream communication.
My interest is in clarity and simplification. It almost seems like there are some who'd prefer to keep it all shrouded in mystery and seemingly more complicated than it really is.
Indeed, realization is not something that can be reasoned or figured out with thought, intellect or logic ....but clearly, absent conscious awareness of self, the term "self realization" becomes meaningless.
Being Consciously self aware may not require minding in the form of actual thinking about it, but, it's not wholly absent mind's involvement either. And to say so, is to unnecessarily go to far imo.
I always enjoy your sharings about how awakening. I think your specificity in description there is likely really helpful to those who have questions about the whole matter.
I think we've discussed before how some folks have a very solid sense of being a very specific 'someone' who lives in the head and controls the mind/body, while others never really experienced that way from the get-go. My own sense of self was never solidified like the way you describe yours was previously to the falling away you describe...thus, I can't really pin-point any one moment where suddenly something that was there previously, fell away.
I think this is partly because from a pretty young age my experience was rife with profound synchronicity and psychic phenomena that for the most part, was just accepted as the norm...thus, experience itself mirrored back the seamless unity of existence...therefore, the 'what or who am I' questions, never really arose in the way some who sought avidly, describe.
Perhaps it's for this reason that I come at all this from a slightly different angle.....I DO see the value in pointing beyond identification with a separate, singular, limited self, but because of the fact that the experience of 'self' varies significantly, even in those who may be deemed to not be 'self realized,' I think it's important to be as clear as possible regarding the use of common terms, making sure that there is a clear understanding of them when talking about 'self realization'.....'collapse of sense of personhood' etc. Ah yes Reefs, because somehow all your posts on this forum are devoid of thinking. Yes, thinking happens on a forum when folks come to a forum to share and compare ideas and particularly when they judge one another's understanding. What exactly is it you 'think' is significant about those 'thinks' highlighted in red? Seems perhaps you 'think' they indicate something important that is somehow different in a 'bad' way from how you operate...?
|
|