|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 12, 2016 20:01:01 GMT -5
The inquiry into the truth is not a desire for an experience. I question: what can be desired if there is no desire for an experience? There would be no inquiry into the truth if there was no desire for it. Why bother? But desire for what exactly? There is a desire but it is not possible to know the nature of this truth until it is known. Until then it is a conceptual idea, an imagining of what the truth is. So how can we explain the search for truth if we don't know what it is. There can only be one answer, and that is because we are already complete. We already know the truth but it is obscured by the veil of ignorance of identifying with objects and a personal self. If we weren't already complete, unlimited and free, nothing would motivate us to find it. There is a confused mix of identities, the unbounded universal I and the limited personal I. It's there. That's why we seek it. And when that shift occurs, four things happen. Firstly the final dissolution will happen unexpectedly. Secondly it will not be what you are expecting. Thirdly it will be so familiar you knew what it was all along. And fourthly, there will be absolutely no doubts of any kind about what has happened. This is the end of suffering. I don't think what's true gives a damn in hell what you desire. I claim desire is precisely what has to be resolved. The inquiry into the truth has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone wants. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 12, 2016 22:06:54 GMT -5
There would be no inquiry into the truth if there was no desire for it. Why bother? But desire for what exactly? There is a desire but it is not possible to know the nature of this truth until it is known. Until then it is a conceptual idea, an imagining of what the truth is. So how can we explain the search for truth if we don't know what it is. There can only be one answer, and that is because we are already complete. We already know the truth but it is obscured by the veil of ignorance of identifying with objects and a personal self. If we weren't already complete, unlimited and free, nothing would motivate us to find it. There is a confused mix of identities, the unbounded universal I and the limited personal I. It's there. That's why we seek it. And when that shift occurs, four things happen. Firstly the final dissolution will happen unexpectedly. Secondly it will not be what you are expecting. Thirdly it will be so familiar you knew what it was all along. And fourthly, there will be absolutely no doubts of any kind about what has happened. This is the end of suffering. I don't think what's true gives a darn in hell what you desire. I claim desire is precisely what has to be resolved. The inquiry into the truth has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone wants. Well if you don't want it why bother inquiring into it? Cause and effect. Truth isn't an entity that does or doesn't give a darn. You are already truth. Desire doesn't disappear after realization. There's just no attachment to it. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2016 4:59:13 GMT -5
I don't think what's true gives a darn in hell what you desire. I claim desire is precisely what has to be resolved. The inquiry into the truth has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone wants. Well if you don't want it why bother inquiring into it? Cause and effect. Truth isn't an entity that does or doesn't give a darn. You are already truth. Desire doesn't disappear after realization. There's just no attachment to it. Yes. Prior to SR the burning desire to know the truth is the only worthwhile desire. It may be imagined that the search for truth is for an experience, but what ends the search for truth is a realization. Equanimity is a consequence of SR, but it is not the goal. The goal is for understanding. Realizing what's going on and who one IS puts all of human life into a different perspective. What is the truth? Something closer than one's own breath. May all beings find THAT. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 13, 2016 7:42:55 GMT -5
I don't think what's true gives a darn in hell what you desire. I claim desire is precisely what has to be resolved. The inquiry into the truth has absolutely nothing to do with what anyone wants. Well if you don't want it why bother inquiring into it? Cause and effect. Truth isn't an entity that does or doesn't give a darn. You are already truth. Desire doesn't disappear after realization. There's just no attachment to it. The inquiry into the truth doesn't entail desire because the truth is what it is and what you want doesn't matter. This means the approach is one of surrender, and not any form of pursuit. It is the cessation of pursuit. Pursuit is merely the reproduction of volition. This renders means to an end superfluous because the practice and the goal are not two different things. Practice is the goal. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 13, 2016 8:10:50 GMT -5
Well if you don't want it why bother inquiring into it? Cause and effect. Truth isn't an entity that does or doesn't give a darn. You are already truth. Desire doesn't disappear after realization. There's just no attachment to it. Yes. Prior to SR the burning desire to know the truth is the only worthwhile desire. It may be imagined that the search for truth is for an experience, but what ends the search for truth is a realization. Equanimity is a consequence of SR, but it is not the goal. The goal is for understanding. Realizing what's going on and who one IS puts all of human life into a different perspective. What is the truth? Something closer than one's own breath. May all beings find THAT. Desire, craving is not characteristic of awareness, and it inevitably entails its counterpart, aversion. Equanimity is definitively free from desire, and it is the essential quality of awareness. This quietude has no real meaning unless it is brought through as the balance of mind, which means a mind unperturbed by desire/adverse reactivity to sensation. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 13, 2016 9:12:19 GMT -5
Yes. Prior to SR the burning desire to know the truth is the only worthwhile desire. It may be imagined that the search for truth is for an experience, but what ends the search for truth is a realization. Equanimity is a consequence of SR, but it is not the goal. The goal is for understanding. Realizing what's going on and who one IS puts all of human life into a different perspective. What is the truth? Something closer than one's own breath. May all beings find THAT. Desire, craving is not characteristic of awareness, and it inevitably entails its counterpart, aversion. Equanimity is definitively free from desire, and it is the essential quality of awareness. This quietude has no real meaning unless it is brought through as the balance of mind, which means a mind unperturbed by desire/adverse reactivity to sensation. Yes exactly. Peace of mind means you are undisturbed by desires or thoughts because your true nature is awareness which is unconditional Peace which has no characteristics or attributes. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2016 11:02:35 GMT -5
Yes. Prior to SR the burning desire to know the truth is the only worthwhile desire. It may be imagined that the search for truth is for an experience, but what ends the search for truth is a realization. Equanimity is a consequence of SR, but it is not the goal. The goal is for understanding. Realizing what's going on and who one IS puts all of human life into a different perspective. What is the truth? Something closer than one's own breath. May all beings find THAT. Desire, craving is not characteristic of awareness, and it inevitably entails its counterpart, aversion. Equanimity is definitively free from desire, and it is the essential quality of awareness. This quietude has no real meaning unless it is brought through as the balance of mind, which means a mind unperturbed by desire/adverse reactivity to sensation. There are two ways of teaching about this. The first is to tell people, "Give up all desire. Don't want anything. You are already what you are looking for. Be still and know." The second way, and probably the most common, is to tell people, "Desire the truth with all your heart. Give up wanting anything else but the truth. Be persistent, and don't accept anything less than the full truth." I suspect that more people wake up following the second approach than the first, but both approaches are pointing at the same thing. Most people usually find the first approach too frustrating and also incomprehensible. They will ask, "How can I find the truth if I don't search for it? How can I find it if I don't hunger for it?" Which approach will trigger a realization is unpredictable in advance. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 13, 2016 14:48:24 GMT -5
It's also useful and informative to distinguish between life pre and post SR. Prior to SR, people have heard about Self-realization and enlightenment, and they think that it's something that they can attain through volition. They have thoughts, such as, "If I practice hard enough and long enough, or follow various prescriptions I've read about, I can become free and/or selfless." At the center of this kind of thinking is the idea that there is an entity that can do something in order to attain something. That idea is false because the imagined volitional entity is imaginary. It literally does not exist, and until that thought-structure collapses, true freedom cannot be felt.
After SR, practice may or may not continue, but it is certainly not necessary. People who are free know that they are free, and practice will not make a body/mind any freer than it already is. The discovery that one makes upon attaining SR can be verbalized as, "I am the truth," or, "I am one-with the Infinite," or "I was always free but didn't realize it before." Equanimity is an automatic consequence of SR. If equanimity is a goal, and it is desired, then it is no different than the desire for truth or freedom or union with God or anything else. All desires arise from the mistaken idea that there is an entity who can attain some goal, and no such entity exists. As the Buddha put it upon his realization, "In all the universe I am the only one."
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 13, 2016 18:54:50 GMT -5
Desire, craving is not characteristic of awareness, and it inevitably entails its counterpart, aversion. Equanimity is definitively free from desire, and it is the essential quality of awareness. This quietude has no real meaning unless it is brought through as the balance of mind, which means a mind unperturbed by desire/adverse reactivity to sensation. There are two ways of teaching about this. The first is to tell people, "Give up all desire. Don't want anything. You are already what you are looking for. Be still and know." The second way, and probably the most common, is to tell people, "Desire the truth with all your heart. Give up wanting anything else but the truth. Be persistent, and don't accept anything less than the full truth." I suspect that more people wake up following the second approach than the first, but both approaches are pointing at the same thing. Most people usually find the first approach too frustrating and also incomprehensible. They will ask, "How can I find the truth if I don't search for it? How can I find it if I don't hunger for it?" Which approach will trigger a realization is unpredictable in advance. I claim that desire is an obstacle, or rather, the obstacle, considering it entails its inverse proportion, aversion. The quality of awareness itself is devoid of such a thing, so the meditation can be described as observation with pure awareness. There is a third option in articulating the inquiry into truth as the surrender to the moment as it is, as Tolle does. But I think this requires some elaboration considering the perpetual habitualisation of reactivity that propels the ego through time. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 14, 2016 3:14:26 GMT -5
There are two ways of teaching about this. The first is to tell people, "Give up all desire. Don't want anything. You are already what you are looking for. Be still and know." The second way, and probably the most common, is to tell people, "Desire the truth with all your heart. Give up wanting anything else but the truth. Be persistent, and don't accept anything less than the full truth." I suspect that more people wake up following the second approach than the first, but both approaches are pointing at the same thing. Most people usually find the first approach too frustrating and also incomprehensible. They will ask, "How can I find the truth if I don't search for it? How can I find it if I don't hunger for it?" Which approach will trigger a realization is unpredictable in advance. I claim that desire is an obstacle, or rather, the obstacle, considering it entails its inverse proportion, aversion. The quality of awareness itself is devoid of such a thing, so the meditation can be described as observation with pure awareness. There is a third option in articulating the inquiry into truth as the surrender to the moment as it is, as Tolle does. But I think this requires some elaboration considering the perpetual habitualisation of reactivity that propels the ego through time. Lolly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the meditation that can be described as "observation with pure awareness," which is what some of us call "ATA-T," is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. That's okay, but I suspect that most people who pursue ATA-T do so with the idea that it will lead to SR and a change in understanding that will result in a permanent sense of freedom, equanimity, etc. If it were only possible to be free and equaniminous while doing ATA-T, then one would need to do ATA-T all the time for freedom and equanimity to be one's permanent way of being. I agree that while doing ATA-T, there is no desire or thought ABOUT freedom or equanimity, but if freedom and equanimity are dependent upon that practice, then it is dependent upon a transient state. One does not do ATA-T 24/7, so what is the state of mind of someone after ATA-T ceases? Can you explain your thoughts a bit more about this issue? For those who attain SR, neither thoughts nor ATA-T affect one's sense of freedom or equanimity in any way because the entity who was imagined to be at the center of ANY activity (including ATA-T) has been seen through. The permanent freedom that most sages point to is freedom from the sense of being a separate entity and realizing that one is, in Niz's words, "THAT" or in Ramana's words, "The Self." |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 14, 2016 4:26:45 GMT -5
I claim that desire is an obstacle, or rather, the obstacle, considering it entails its inverse proportion, aversion. The quality of awareness itself is devoid of such a thing, so the meditation can be described as observation with pure awareness. There is a third option in articulating the inquiry into truth as the surrender to the moment as it is, as Tolle does. But I think this requires some elaboration considering the perpetual habitualisation of reactivity that propels the ego through time. Lolly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the meditation that can be described as "observation with pure awareness," which is what some of us call "ATA-T," is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. That's okay, but I suspect that most people who pursue ATA-T do so with the idea that it will lead to SR and a change in understanding that will result in a permanent sense of freedom, equanimity, etc. If it were only possible to be free and equaniminous while doing ATA-T, then one would need to do ATA-T all the time for freedom and equanimity to be one's permanent way of being. I agree that while doing ATA-T, there is no desire or thought ABOUT freedom or equanimity, but if freedom and equanimity are dependent upon that practice, then it is dependent upon a transient state. One does not do ATA-T 24/7, so what is the state of mind of someone after ATA-T ceases? Can you explain your thoughts a bit more about this issue? For those who attain SR, neither thoughts nor ATA-T affect one's sense of freedom or equanimity in any way because the entity who was imagined to be at the center of ANY activity (including ATA-T) has been seen through. The permanent freedom that most sages point to is freedom from the sense of being a separate entity and realizing that one is, in Niz's words, "THAT" or in Ramana's words, "The Self." I really mean that meditation is fundamentally "observation with pure awareness", and it's an end in itself because it is already the case at hand or it is the actual truth of the situation, but people are distracted by the act of seeking itself. I can remember J, Krishnamurti once saying that a person has to stop seeking in order to meditate, because seeking is finding something in the future whereas looking regards what is observable here and now. I don't what one does to do ATA-T so can't comment on that specific practice, but basically, if it involves awareness of what's presently the case, then desire is most certainly an obstacle. It's futile in terms of SR because of the accidental, unplanned, unexpected nature of that moment. The art of pure observation is more like the way of bringing pure awareness to the mind/body as the healing or purification, but it doesn't involve trying to fix anything or change anything (that only indicates aversion/desire). It is based on the fact that equanimity is the still conscious mind in which change can occur freely, and merely becoming conscious of things 'brings them to light' as the saying goes, where the hard issues that have actually passed already are finally revealed and dissolved. The pure observation is this peering of pure conscious awareness (without judgment/desire/aversion) into the subtle layers, not the self image which is characterised by reactivity, but the self as it spontaneously occurs as the mind/body dymanic - which unites as the sensations. This dissolves the hard and solid, and as it opens up, brings motion to the form. Then one really needs the equanimity of awareness as their balance of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 14, 2016 7:58:50 GMT -5
Lolly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the meditation that can be described as "observation with pure awareness," which is what some of us call "ATA-T," is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. That's okay, but I suspect that most people who pursue ATA-T do so with the idea that it will lead to SR and a change in understanding that will result in a permanent sense of freedom, equanimity, etc. If it were only possible to be free and equaniminous while doing ATA-T, then one would need to do ATA-T all the time for freedom and equanimity to be one's permanent way of being. I agree that while doing ATA-T, there is no desire or thought ABOUT freedom or equanimity, but if freedom and equanimity are dependent upon that practice, then it is dependent upon a transient state. One does not do ATA-T 24/7, so what is the state of mind of someone after ATA-T ceases? Can you explain your thoughts a bit more about this issue? For those who attain SR, neither thoughts nor ATA-T affect one's sense of freedom or equanimity in any way because the entity who was imagined to be at the center of ANY activity (including ATA-T) has been seen through. The permanent freedom that most sages point to is freedom from the sense of being a separate entity and realizing that one is, in Niz's words, "THAT" or in Ramana's words, "The Self." I really mean that meditation is fundamentally "observation with pure awareness", and it's an end in itself because it is already the case at hand or it is the actual truth of the situation, but people are distracted by the act of seeking itself. I can remember J, Krishnamurti once saying that a person has to stop seeking in order to meditate, because seeking is finding something in the future whereas looking regards what is observable here and now. I don't what one does to do ATA-T so can't comment on that specific practice, but basically, if it involves awareness of what's presently the case, then desire is most certainly an obstacle. It's futile in terms of SR because of the accidental, unplanned, unexpected nature of that moment. The art of pure observation is more like the way of bringing pure awareness to the mind/body as the healing or purification, but it doesn't involve trying to fix anything or change anything (that only indicates aversion/desire). It is based on the fact that equanimity is the still conscious mind in which change can occur freely, and merely becoming conscious of things 'brings them to light' as the saying goes, where the hard issues that have actually passed already are finally revealed and dissolved. The pure observation is this peering of pure conscious awareness (without judgment/desire/aversion) into the subtle layers, not the self image which is characterised by reactivity, but the self as it spontaneously occurs as the mind/body dymanic - which unites as the sensations. This dissolves the hard and solid, and as it opens up, brings motion to the form. Then one really needs the equanimity of awareness as their balance of mind. Okay. That's what I thought you meant, and I have no issue with any of that as far as it goes. ATA-T is simply looking at "what is" in the present moment sans thought. If thoughts arise, they are seen and then ignored in favor of direct perception. When a person does sitting breath awareness practice, that is a formal type of ATA-T. When it is pursued informally, such as walking in the woods or going about one's daily activities, it is the practice of looking, listening, feeling, etc. whatever is happening without thinking about it. If pursued diligently, the practice can lead to a very silent mind as well as insights into one's conditioning and in many cases freedom from such conditioning. That kind of practice, like all meditation practices, shifts attention away from thoughts ABOUT "what is" to "what is," itself, and leads to a life that is significantly lived in the present moment with great attentiveness. My point is that all such practices, alone, may or may not result in Self-realization and permanent peace, equanimity, etc, but without Self-realization all states of peace and equanimity during meditation remain transient. Even deep Samadhi is a transient state, and sooner or later one must leave that state and function in ordinary everyday life. Yes, there is a beneficial carryover effect from a regular meditation practice, but unless one sees through the illusion of personal selfhood and the meditator as a separate volitional entity, there cannot be permanent freedom, peace, and equanimity. As Satch noted, desires still arise after SR, but they are not attached to nor understood in the same way as before. After SR, everything that happens is seen and understood as a unified unfolding of "what is," and all activity related to the body/mind is actually seen as IMpersonal. Yes, conscious desire for attainment can be an obstacle, and that is why many sages tell people not to conceptually check on their "spiritual progress." In essence, they are saying, "Do whatever practice you resonate with without any gaining idea." Or, as one Zen Master used to tell his students, "Just do it!" However, a spiritual seeker always knows whether or not the mind has been permanently put to rest and whether or not SR has occurred. In his book, "The Rainman's Third Cure," Peter Coyote reported that even after meditating for decades, he was still not satisfied with his understanding of "what's going on" and felt unsettled about that issue. For people who see through the illusion of personal selfhood, this is not the case. The Buddha advised people to meditate, but he likened it to using a boat for the purpose of crossing a lake. He told his disciples that when you have crossed the lake and reached the far shore, there is no need to carry the boat with you any longer. The people I've met and read about who've crossed the lake and reached the shore have used all kinds of boats to get there. Some have crossed using an ATA-T boat, some have crossed using a mantra boat, some have crossed using a self-inquiry boat, some have crossed using an "I am focus" boat, some have used a koan boat, some have crossed using a shikan taza boat, and some have used other kinds of boats. The goal in crossing the lake is the far shore; it is not to remain forever in the boat. Does this make sense? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 14, 2016 8:23:12 GMT -5
I claim that desire is an obstacle, or rather, the obstacle, considering it entails its inverse proportion, aversion. The quality of awareness itself is devoid of such a thing, so the meditation can be described as observation with pure awareness. There is a third option in articulating the inquiry into truth as the surrender to the moment as it is, as Tolle does. But I think this requires some elaboration considering the perpetual habitualisation of reactivity that propels the ego through time. Lolly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the meditation that can be described as "observation with pure awareness," which is what some of us call "ATA-T," is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. That's okay, but I suspect that most people who pursue ATA-T do so with the idea that it will lead to SR and a change in understanding that will result in a permanent sense of freedom, equanimity, etc. If it were only possible to be free and equaniminous while doing ATA-T, then one would need to do ATA-T all the time for freedom and equanimity to be one's permanent way of being. I agree that while doing ATA-T, there is no desire or thought ABOUT freedom or equanimity, but if freedom and equanimity are dependent upon that practice, then it is dependent upon a transient state. One does not do ATA-T 24/7, so what is the state of mind of someone after ATA-T ceases? Can you explain your thoughts a bit more about this issue? For those who attain SR, neither thoughts nor ATA-T affect one's sense of freedom or equanimity in any way because the entity who was imagined to be at the center of ANY activity (including ATA-T) has been seen through. The permanent freedom that most sages point to is freedom from the sense of being a separate entity and realizing that one is, in Niz's words, "THAT" or in Ramana's words, "The Self." Hey ZD, ATA-T all the time, this would the minimal state of what Gurdjieff called a Conscious Man. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 14, 2016 9:36:26 GMT -5
Lolly: Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're saying that the meditation that can be described as "observation with pure awareness," which is what some of us call "ATA-T," is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. That's okay, but I suspect that most people who pursue ATA-T do so with the idea that it will lead to SR and a change in understanding that will result in a permanent sense of freedom, equanimity, etc. If it were only possible to be free and equaniminous while doing ATA-T, then one would need to do ATA-T all the time for freedom and equanimity to be one's permanent way of being. I agree that while doing ATA-T, there is no desire or thought ABOUT freedom or equanimity, but if freedom and equanimity are dependent upon that practice, then it is dependent upon a transient state. One does not do ATA-T 24/7, so what is the state of mind of someone after ATA-T ceases? Can you explain your thoughts a bit more about this issue? For those who attain SR, neither thoughts nor ATA-T affect one's sense of freedom or equanimity in any way because the entity who was imagined to be at the center of ANY activity (including ATA-T) has been seen through. The permanent freedom that most sages point to is freedom from the sense of being a separate entity and realizing that one is, in Niz's words, "THAT" or in Ramana's words, "The Self." Hey ZD, ATA-T all the time, this would the minimal state of what Gurdjieff called a Conscious Man. SDP: That's rather hard to believe because that would mean a total cessation of all thought. I've never heard that interpretation of his teachings, and I doubt that it is accurate. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 14, 2016 10:49:44 GMT -5
Hey ZD, ATA-T all the time, this would the minimal state of what Gurdjieff called a Conscious Man. SDP: That's rather hard to believe because that would mean a total cessation of all thought. I've never heard that interpretation of his teachings, and I doubt that it is accurate. I posted here for years without giving my background. Then some time ago (maybe 1 & 1/2 yrs ago +) you made a comment about self-remembering, something an acquaintance said. So then I posted, that's incorrect, that's not the meaning of self-remembering. And then I posted a couple of quotes from Life Is Real Only Then When I Am, and said, these reference self-remembering, and not what your acquaintance said. After being hit by a stray bullet and the injury resulting, I think it was in Tibet, Gurdjieff said he was unable to remember himself, even to such a small degree as to be unable to stop associative thinking. That quote is still on record somewhere here. The minimal state of being a Conscious Man (the term used In the earlier post) is self-remembering. This state is not specifically defined or described anywhere in the many books, including Gurdjieff's own writings. He does describe in Meetings With Remarkable Men the first time he experienced this state. He was a youth (guessing from description of the events about 12 or 13) and made a challenge with a rival, who would stay on an artillary practice range during live practice. Events there (being very close to death being very close to live rounds hitting) brought this state. But you are correct, self-remembering does not require absence of thinking, IOW, thinking is not necessarily an obstruction to the state, one can think and be in the state (again, which encompasses ATA), but, as shown from the quote, a normal aspect of self-remembering is the ceasation of mental chatter, uncontrollable associative thinking. So, it would be more correct to say, ATA-T, ATA+T, by choice. Thanks. |
|
