|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 12:38:31 GMT -5
I've been considering a thread where people could somewhat elaborate their "metaphysical" stance, that is, their basis for living, for making decisions and maneuvering through life, in short, your world view. Many of us have done this through posting, but it is not succinct or in one place. There is generally the non-dual view expressed here, but with many variations. And I have asked the question many times, but how does that relate to your ordinary life, how does that apply to how you function in day by day life circumstances? I don't usually get a satisfactory reply. And then some have [what I consider] a very healthy ~bridge~ between their world view and the tasks of operating in life, getting from point A to point B, earning a living, putting food on the table and a roof over one's head.
So, it seems some have a divided life, OTOneH expressing certain views here on ST's which seem like conceptual constructs with a little pixie-dust spread over them, and I want to call bs (belief-system, or whatever else comes to mind), and OTOH some of the views expressed here couldn't realistically get you a coffee at McDonald's.
The basis of this thread is the desire for some to completely ignore the material world, I want to call you on that. Yes, I accept that all we can know is our own consciousness, but if I walk into a gas station and plunk down a few bills for gasoline, a Pepsi and a pack of peanuts, I want to know how you can say there is no external world. That, it seems to me, is living in illusion. And also some will say, well, we act as if the external world exists, etc. That just doesn't cut the mustard for me, that is living in illusion too. IOW, I'm looking for a unifying principle or principles for your life.
Yes, there is only One universe, there isn't anything outside all that is. There is all that is, why can't we call that what's real, or call that reality? So, illusion, Maya, is to operate outside of a right relationship to all that is, the illusion is a false relationship to all that is.
So, we are born into the real world. If baby gets food and nourishment and love and affection, baby learns how to function in the actual world, it hurts if you fall out of your highchair. Baby forms mind-brain memories that relate to the world so as to be able to eat, play, learn and interact with the people, plus, of course, starting with varying genetic predispositions which these are built upon.
But then also a child learns illusory stuff, how to manipulate mommy and daddy or grandma and grandpa to get stuff that isn't needed, extra toys, candy (basically unneeded stuff which doesn't contribute to a healthy body and mind, and these can result in jealousy, envy, wanting stuff just to have stuff, etc.). Maybe child is mistreated, has to learn to cope with how the world is not supposed to operate. So child becomes a mixture of illusory misinformation as well as how the world actually operates. So child goes through life collecting illusory data and real-world-how-life-operates data. And then they become teenagers and the misinformation is multiplied, and then we become young adults and have to make our way in the world with this combination of illusory ~stuff~ and data concerning how reality actually operates. We all have varying degrees of this combination. The illusory stuff causes suffering in one way or another, and can lead to further delusion. Of course ~real life situations~ will inevitably cause pain (broken legs, disease, etc.), but we have to learn to deal with painful situations, it's part of ~real life~. Suffering is extra psychological baggage.
So how does a person, upon reaching adulthood, a separate self, learn to sort out the illusory versus the real? (That which does not contribute versus that which does contribute).
And eventually, we learn to be successful in life, or not. We eventually develop our own world view (or if we are immature, we continue to try to live out the world view which was handed to us by the culture we grew up in, but I think most everybody here is past that). So that brings us back to the question of the thread (beginning of OP). Of course this is going to pull in questions of volition and will and many etcs.
{The Silent Pulse is the link between ordinary life (which can be/is a mixture of ~real~ and the illusory) and All That Is [Real]}.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 12:56:10 GMT -5
So everybody, (virtually, FAIAP), is a mixture of what's actual and what's illusory. We throw these words around, but we could say everybody is a mixture of what's objective and what's subjective. There is a famous film by Kurosawa called Roshomon. In it an event is told from the perspective of three different people (or more, don't recall specifically). What happened, is what objectively happened. But three or four witnesses each had an entirely different opinion as to what happened, IOW, subjective. If you're as old as me you remember the Smother's Brothers, Tom and D!ck, a singing duo. They also had a TV program on CBS in the early '70's. Well, they would converse and sing and converse and Tom would come up with some inaccuracies, and they would get more and more outrageous, and D!ck would challenge him on these. Then Tom would get frustrated and blurt out: "Mom always liked you best"! (This having absolutely nothing to do with the conversation). Now, that probably wasn't so, Mom probably liked them both equally, or would never at least show partiality. But (part of their act) Tom's opinion was subjective.
The point is we have distorted views of what is, or of what happened. The distorted views are illusory, and every distorted view contributes to a distorted view of our own self. And then multiply this by 7 billion people and we have the mess we have in the world today. In the Middle East and elsewhere babies are raised to be terrorists, to hate everyone who opposes their view of the world. And then these effect others, now easily through the internet, and this gets played out every month somewhere in the world, if not weekly. Some even here on ST's live where a bomb could go off any minute.
And in most of our lives these distortions get handed down from others, from parents mostly, some get more distortions some less. And if we don't sort through what's real and what's not, we will inevitably pass on our illusions to our kids. So then the question becomes, is it possible to sort through self, and see what's ~real~ and what's not? This sorting out has relatively little to do with the physical world, unless one has a mental illness. But most of us cannot be objective towards self, and have at least some illusory views, we each get different baggage to deal with.
Now, whatever reality consists of, the fullness of all that is, the Wholeness, we have a link to it, or at least a possibility of a link. The Silent Pulse is a metaphor. The silent pulse comes from the actual real universe, the ~place~ of no distortions, just what is. You have a pulse as long as the body lives, but most of the time you are unaware of your pulse. Likewise, then there are times when you suddenly know something 'in your bones', call it a realization, two pieces of the puzzle suddenly come together, you see something, for me this could be called finding the silent pulse, getting in touch with What Is, nothing illusory. [edit: incidentally, The Silent Pulse comes from the title of a book by George Leonard, his using more or less as used here, read many years ago].
Now, I don't have a problem with calling the "material" universe relatively real. But what I'd like to get to in this thread is the nuts and bolts of how your world view fits into your day by day ordinary life. How do you interact with people in general? You don't assume your mailman is illusory, he brings bills you have to pay. Electricity isn't illusory, you couldn't sit and type on and read your computer screen without electricity, your computer isn't illusory. self isn't illusory, at least the mind-body, you know where you live, you know where you work, you know how to get there and back. If there were zero sense of identity, you couldn't. I just don't get how some of you post, it's disconnected, disjointed, there's a duality between your so-called nonduality and your life. Explain that. (Now, I know about context, so don't throw that at me).
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 18:44:45 GMT -5
OK, I will try to encapsulate my view, (which is a view within a view, some somewhat disguised, here, until about two years ago), giving pertinent points to give some perspective on what I'm asking for on this thread. I've shared the following in many places here over the years, knowing ahead of time it's not very popular here on ST's. Some necessarily conceptual, a sense of trust, from what isn't conceptual.
Originally, existing, Supreme Ordering Conscious Intelligence, the Absolute, One.
The One "creates", consciously forms three forces; positive/active/first force, negative/passive/second force, neutralizing/reconciling/third force.
Through a series of octaves, the three forces combining eventually form this material universe (the two fundamental laws of the universe being the law of three and the law of seven, eight being either the new beginning of an ascending octave or descending octave). These two fundamental laws operate in all situations and events in all the worlds.
We are born as essence, in a very real sense a seed, which comes from a higher level of ~reality~ than the material universe, and is small and weak and vulnerable.
Essence grows as a baby is born, essence is active. Through awareness and attention a baby collects information concerning the universe it is born into (the material universe), the incoming impressions feed essence. From this information personality is formed (this necessarily includes illusory stuff mentioned in the first two posts, IOW inaccurate information). Eventually, personality/(ego/cultural self), (personality defined as what we think and feel and do, these called our functions), almost completely covers over essence and thus essence ceases to be fed and so ceases to grow, essence becomes passive, personality active. In this condition most people live the remainder of their lives. In this condition life controls and drives the individual, IOW the events of exterior life drives personality, what we think, feel and do, IOW, a man (or woman) in this condition is not free, essence is subject to personality which is subject to the events of life. Meaning, we are two in a very real sense, essence, that which is our own, and personality/ego/cultural self, that which is not our own, it's acquired, added on.
The spiritual journey is about reversing passive essence and active personality and once again making essence active, so that essence will again be fed and can begin to grow again. At this point the only point of freedom we have is in awareness and attention, IOW, thinking just happens, feeling just happens, anything we do just happens (IOW, we can't control what we think, feel and do), but we can be aware of or attend to what we think, feel and do. As long as we function through personality/ego/cultural self, there is no freedom, no will, what we are as ~true self~ is held captive by personality and life events. This last paragraph can be subjectively verified. At any time you think to do so you can ask yourself, where is my attention?, where is my awareness? (You actually do it, don't think about it). And once verified it becomes subjectively (meaning only you know the results, whether what I've written is true or not) objective. (This is where the mentioned trust comes in, and then other things can be eventually verified).
|
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 1, 2016 18:50:02 GMT -5
Pure consciousness itself is radiant changelessness. This radiant changelessness is fundamentally one, without another, forever and ever. It is radiant 'of itself', simply because it is always already complete. Individuated consciousness is that one changelessness being radiated BY a particular form (that is, itself, absolutely part and parcel of the 'change' that eternally emanates FROM pure radiant consciousness) in a state of sufficiently complex physical equilibrium, also known as a 'life form' or a 'living organism'. Change and changelessness are not the same, and yet they are not different.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 19:03:38 GMT -5
Pure consciousness itself is radiant changelessness. This radiant changelessness is fundamentally one, without another, forever and ever. It is radiant 'of itself', simply because it is always already complete. Individuated consciousness is that one changelessness being radiated BY a particular form (that is, itself, absolutely part and parcel of the 'change' that eternally emanates FROM pure radiant consciousness) in a state of sufficiently complex physical equilibrium, also known as a 'life form' or a 'living organism'. Change and changelessness are not the same, and yet they are not different. Thanks relinquish. What I'm asking (on this thread), for instance, does relinquish ~function~ FROM pure radiant consciousness, always and everywhere? |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 1, 2016 19:12:38 GMT -5
Pure consciousness itself is radiant changelessness. This radiant changelessness is fundamentally one, without another, forever and ever. It is radiant 'of itself', simply because it is always already complete. Individuated consciousness is that one changelessness being radiated BY a particular form (that is, itself, absolutely part and parcel of the 'change' that eternally emanates FROM pure radiant consciousness) in a state of sufficiently complex physical equilibrium, also known as a 'life form' or a 'living organism'. Change and changelessness are not the same, and yet they are not different. Thanks relinquish. What I'm asking (on this thread), for instance, does relinquish ~function~ FROM pure radiant consciousness, always and everywhere? Once it is clearly seen that radiant consciousness is what one TRULY is, then the functioning seems to tend more and more to consciously originate FROM That (even though, in truth, it never actually ISN'T coming from That). However, from the relative perspective of the organism, the emanation can sometimes seem be full of fascinating little distractions, usually to do with the organisms own survival and security. These distractions can be very hypnotic, and the hypnosis makes them seem very important. But ultimately, the organism isn't secure, because it isn't going to survive, is it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 19:37:24 GMT -5
Thanks relinquish. What I'm asking (on this thread), for instance, does relinquish ~function~ FROM pure radiant consciousness, always and everywhere? Once it is clearly seen that radiant consciousness is what one TRULY is, then the functioning seems to tend more and more to consciously originate FROM That (even though, in truth, it never actually ISN'T coming from That). However, from the relative perspective of the organism, the emanation can sometimes seem be full of fascinatingly hypnotic little distractions, usually to do with the organisms own survival. But ultimately, the organism isn't going to survive, is it? OK, thanks, that seems a very honest and sincere answer. But I would suggest that the 'little hypnotic distractions' don't relate so much to physical (organism) survival as to psychological (read ego) survival. But yes, the body always dies. (Although we are moving to longer physical survival, and eventually, possibly, if even centuries ahead, to survival via transfer of 'self-information' to computer. Not that I wanted this conversation to go there, but something to consider). But what if (individuated) consciousness could survive the death of the body? Would that be of interest? |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 1, 2016 19:53:04 GMT -5
Once it is clearly seen that radiant consciousness is what one TRULY is, then the functioning seems to tend more and more to consciously originate FROM That (even though, in truth, it never actually ISN'T coming from That). However, from the relative perspective of the organism, the emanation can sometimes seem be full of fascinatingly hypnotic little distractions, usually to do with the organisms own survival. But ultimately, the organism isn't going to survive, is it? OK, thanks, that seems a very honest and sincere answer. But I would suggest that the 'little hypnotic distractions' don't relate so much to physical (organism) survival as to psychological (read ego) survival. But yes, the body always dies. (Although we are moving to longer physical survival, and eventually, possibly, if even centuries ahead, to survival via transfer of 'self-information' to computer. Not that I wanted this conversation to go there, but something to consider). But what if (individuated) consciousness could survive the death of the body? Would that be of interest? Your right. The vastly complex 'self-conscious' organism (like us, who know that we know) naturally has the capacity to get psychologically 'hung-up' on the issues of survival and security. I really don't know how I feel about individuation surviving the death of the body, to be quite honest. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 20:21:26 GMT -5
OK, thanks, that seems a very honest and sincere answer. But I would suggest that the 'little hypnotic distractions' don't relate so much to physical (organism) survival as to psychological (read ego) survival. But yes, the body always dies. (Although we are moving to longer physical survival, and eventually, possibly, if even centuries ahead, to survival via transfer of 'self-information' to computer. Not that I wanted this conversation to go there, but something to consider). But what if (individuated) consciousness could survive the death of the body? Would that be of interest? Your right. The vastly complex 'self-conscious' organism (like us, who know that we know) naturally has the capacity to get psychologically 'hung-up' on the issues of survival and security. I really don't know how I feel about individuation surviving the death of the body, to be quite honest. OK, thanks. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 22:33:03 GMT -5
What your posts convey to me pilgrim, is a fear of losing your individuality while at the same time wanting to dip your toe into the waters of oblivion.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 1, 2016 22:52:35 GMT -5
What your posts convey to me pilgrim, is a fear of losing your individuality while at the same time wanting to dip your toe into the waters of oblivion. No, sorry. I have actually lived most of my adult life wishing for oblivion (there is a whole book in that). So, there is no fear of losing individuality, but you are half right. I know, unequivocally, "pilgrim"/ego will some day cease to exist. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 1, 2016 23:11:06 GMT -5
What your posts convey to me pilgrim, is a fear of losing your individuality while at the same time wanting to dip your toe into the waters of oblivion. No, sorry. I have actually lived most of my adult life wishing for oblivion (there is a whole book in that). So, there is no fear of losing individuality, but you are half right. I know, unequivocally, "pilgrim"/ego will some day cease to exist. So why are you looking for distinctions between someone who has realized the truth who is paying for gasoline and someone who hasn't and is paying for gasoline. Neither is ignoring the world. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 2, 2016 2:23:36 GMT -5
I know, unequivocally, "pilgrim"/ego will some day cease to exist. Correct. Completely. Absolutely. Totally. It will truly be as if it never was. If this thought scares you in ANY way, just consider deep dreamless sleep. In deep dreamless sleep, we are in no way 'in there' hoping that we will ever 'come out of it'. There are no 'stories' 'there' at all (not even THAT story). If deep dreamless sleep were never to be 'emerged from' again, in WHAT way would it matter to the one who had 'entered' it? We LOVE that (stateless) state, do we not? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 2, 2016 8:40:40 GMT -5
No, sorry. I have actually lived most of my adult life wishing for oblivion (there is a whole book in that). So, there is no fear of losing individuality, but you are half right. I know, unequivocally, "pilgrim"/ego will some day cease to exist. So why are you looking for distinctions between someone who has realized the truth who is paying for gasoline and someone who hasn't and is paying for gasoline. Neither is ignoring the world. Didn't see this last night, conked out, just read it. I had to read my first three posts again to make clear your question. I guess you have encapsulated what I've written into "someone who has realized the truth" (but I'm still not comfortable with that language, the ~meaning~, your meaning, I speak a different language). I'm thinking of practicality. I'm thinking, First you have to row a little boat. First of all, I'm just asking (in this thread) for people to describe the ~guts~ of their worldview, the marrow, and then how that relates to their ordinary, take the kids to school, pick them up at soccer practice, stop and get some supper on the way home, etc., and yes, and buying gas. And then I give a brief description of my worldview, the most pertinent part, last paragraph of post three. (This also seems be what you have zeroed in on here). So then I still didn't understand your question, sca's question (I would have understood it from most other people here). What are the distinctions? Everything, everything. ( edit: Shoyoroku, case 17, Hogen to Shuzanshu, "If there is only a hairsbreadth of difference, it is the distance between heaven and earth". This is why I say you have to make ~ it~ practical, here, now). (But I'm not looking for them, I'm trying to point people to ~them~ in order to be able to experience the difference, live it). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 2, 2016 14:31:14 GMT -5
Anything written here will be both true and false at the same time, but I'll try to capture the flavor of it.
The path to what we can call "the living truth" traverses a big circle--from ignorance to understanding to non-reflective acceptance, from thinking to not-thinking to freedom from either thinking or not-thinking, from seeing little pictures to seeing The Big Picture to seeing little pictures in the context of The Big Picture, from a personal perspective to an impersonal perspective to a trans-personal perspective, from separation to unity to unity manifesting as separation, from "me" to "ME," to THIS/this, and from time to timelessness to the flow of being beyond either time or timelessness.
Those who come full circle live an ordinary life free from the kinds of reflective thoughts that consume most adults. They do not feel that they live life as much as they feel that they are lived by life--that whatever is happening through them is an expression of something that is cosmic in scale and scope. They act as if they have purpose and control, but they know that something vaster is expressing itself through them--that there is no personal entity "inside" who is directing whatever the body/mind is doing.
Those who come full circle live in the present moment, and they are highly conscious of what is happening. They spend more time looking at the world in silence, and being silent, than people who have not spent time searching for the truth. They are generally fascinated by whatever is happening. They are also fully engaged with whatever is happening. They are always willing to help sincere seekers find what they have found, because they feel that what they have found is more valuable than anything else in human existence. They have peace of mind, they're not searching for anything, and they know who they are.
After coming full circle, there is always more to see, but the seeings are smaller and more like refinements and clarifications. Gradually, the search, the circle of searching, and any attainments on the path are left behind, and the activities of ordinary life once again become quite ordinary. There's nothing special about it. When its time to pump gas, it's time to pump gas.
|
|
