|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 30, 2016 9:44:43 GMT -5
Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. what does an understanding of unchanging awareness mean? and some talk about resting in it, like all of the time.. whatever that means or turning and looking back at itself.. whatever that means I suppose it means exactly that which maxdprophet's #2 contemplation pointer was referring to - that everything that changes is an object of awareness, but awareness itself does not change. In fact it's inconceivable that it could change, as any change must be registered as an object of awareness, and so it is not the awareness itself, which has no qualities. What I just wrote could be seen as intellectual understanding of unchanging awareness, and when this is realized in a more embodied way, then this could be seen as a deeper kind of understanding of it. As far as I can see awareness itself cannot become an object of awareness, so I suppose "resting in awareness" (e.g. all the time) or turning and looking back at itself are sort of methods to quieten the mind and achieve non-abidance in thoughts, similar to the question "who am I?". You try to turn your gaze to something that it ultimately cannot turn to, and by doing so can end up in a very fruitful state of open not-knowing. |
|
|
|
Post by wei sa on Sept 30, 2016 9:59:34 GMT -5
japhy's challenge re: avoiding one's weak points is interesting. Your musings about what exactly a weak point might be is very natural. I think you're right that these are conditioned patterns of behavior. ZD and Satch advise stilling the mind in some way will break those patterns eventually. I've been at it for a while now without a whole lot of luck. But perhaps my hair isn't on fire enough or the tiger that has my head is feeling bored and not very hungry. Byron Katie's method of examining the text and veracity of underlying beliefs seems like a good tool. I really wish I had some wand that could zap the hell out of things. I think I might have misunderstood it. Haha, it's a funny image that your head is in the mouth of a tiger that's not hungry enough. So, your head is resting on the huge tongue of a giant tiger, the tongue is wet and your head is drenched with saliva, the tiger's heavy breathing rattles in your skull - and then nothing, this situation just continues as the tiger cannot be bothered to bite. Sorry, I just wanted to spend a moment imagining this situation!  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 30, 2016 10:01:04 GMT -5
what does an understanding of unchanging awareness mean? and some talk about resting in it, like all of the time.. whatever that means or turning and looking back at itself.. whatever that means I suppose it means exactly that which maxdprophet's #2 contemplation pointer was referring to - that everything that changes is an object of awareness, but awareness itself does not change. In fact it's inconceivable that it could change, as any change must be registered as an object of awareness, and so it is not the awareness itself, which has no qualities. What I just wrote could be seen as intellectual understanding of unchanging awareness, and when this is realized in a more embodied way, then this could be seen as a deeper kind of understanding of it. As far as I can see awareness itself cannot become an object of awareness, so I suppose "resting in awareness" (e.g. all the time) or turning and looking back at itself are sort of methods to quieten the mind and achieve non-abidance in thoughts, similar to the question "who am I?". You try to turn your gaze to something that it ultimately cannot turn to, and by doing so can end up in a very fruitful state of open not-knowing. That sounds pretty well-stated to me. I think the revelation that awareness has no qualities and does not age or change is simply something most people have never thought about. When it's pointed out to them, some people are quite shocked by it. I have one friend who was stunned for several days after encountering this issue. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 30, 2016 10:05:27 GMT -5
Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. what does an understanding of unchanging awareness mean? and some talk about resting in it, like all of the time.. whatever that means or turning and looking back at itself.. whatever that means You being a mad grammarian, nonetheless skipped right over that essential adjective I used: visceral. Have you ever done a stereogram? |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 30, 2016 10:40:27 GMT -5
Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. Yes, many people are amazed when they are asked to do the thought experiment regarding #2. The first time I heard it, a teacher asked a group of people I was with to remember some vivid experience from the past. Then, he asked them if the awareness that was present during that experience was any different than the awareness of the present moment. Then, he asked them if it had changed in any way, or if it had aged. Many people in the group expressed astonishment at what was clearly a revelation. Regarding #1, I agree with Reefs. I doubt that anyone can viscerally grasp the truth of that without a major experience or realization. The intellect cannot understand it until it has been informed by a non-conceptual seeing. Maybe there's some intermediary level of understanding between intellectual and realization? The 'knocked flat' experience was not a result of intellectual/conceptual understanding. I say visceral because it was a clearly seeing sort of thing, an experience rather than a conclusion. A lightbulb moment. Grokking. I'd even call it a realization. But SR?? One of the immediate side effects was that I also clearly understood the meaning of namaste. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 30, 2016 10:47:10 GMT -5
japhy's challenge re: avoiding one's weak points is interesting. Your musings about what exactly a weak point might be is very natural. I think you're right that these are conditioned patterns of behavior. ZD and Satch advise stilling the mind in some way will break those patterns eventually. I've been at it for a while now without a whole lot of luck. But perhaps my hair isn't on fire enough or the tiger that has my head is feeling bored and not very hungry. Byron Katie's method of examining the text and veracity of underlying beliefs seems like a good tool. I really wish I had some wand that could zap the hell out of things. I think I might have misunderstood it. Haha, it's a funny image that your head is in the mouth of a tiger that's not hungry enough. So, your head is resting on the huge tongue of a giant tiger, the tongue is wet and your head is drenched with saliva, the tiger's heavy breathing rattles in your skull - and then nothing, this situation just continues as the tiger cannot be bothered to bite. Sorry, I just wanted to spend a moment imagining this situation! I'm not really sure what exact weak points he was emphasizing and will leave that to you to suss out. But I like his suggestion that, for those who are especially clever, there are garrulous ways to avoid addressing them. It had me thinking about honesty v. "honesty" this morning. We can express vulnerability and such and not really be vulnerable. Tricks of the trade. The trade being protection of ego identification. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 30, 2016 10:57:52 GMT -5
That's interesting. Tell me about those fruits. I'd rather think that #2 is a no-brainer anyway. Everyone can relate to that no matter how enlightened. #1 is a nice thought experiment but there's no way you could ever intellectually relate to that. In fact, it's actually absurd. It has to be experienced. And when that happens, it will knock your monkey mind socks off.  Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. The stereogram analogy is a good one. It's difficult to describe in words what happens, I used to call it 'realer than real' in the past. The 'who am I' contemplation should have a similar effect as #2. If you do it thoroughly, you'll end up in silence with intellect check mate because the intellect is running out of concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 30, 2016 11:03:02 GMT -5
I suppose it means exactly that which maxdprophet's #2 contemplation pointer was referring to - that everything that changes is an object of awareness, but awareness itself does not change. In fact it's inconceivable that it could change, as any change must be registered as an object of awareness, and so it is not the awareness itself, which has no qualities. What I just wrote could be seen as intellectual understanding of unchanging awareness, and when this is realized in a more embodied way, then this could be seen as a deeper kind of understanding of it. As far as I can see awareness itself cannot become an object of awareness, so I suppose "resting in awareness" (e.g. all the time) or turning and looking back at itself are sort of methods to quieten the mind and achieve non-abidance in thoughts, similar to the question "who am I?". You try to turn your gaze to something that it ultimately cannot turn to, and by doing so can end up in a very fruitful state of open not-knowing. That sounds pretty well-stated to me. I think the revelation that awareness has no qualities and does not age or change is simply something most people have never thought about. When it's pointed out to them, some people are quite shocked by it. I have one friend who was stunned for several days after encountering this issue. That's exactly the point, no qualities, no attributes means there's nothing to conceptualize. What remains is total conceptual silence aka stunned, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 30, 2016 11:05:16 GMT -5
what does an understanding of unchanging awareness mean? and some talk about resting in it, like all of the time.. whatever that means or turning and looking back at itself.. whatever that means You being a mad grammarian, nonetheless skipped right over that essential adjective I used: visceral. Have you ever done a stereogram? Visceral is key because it affects your entire being way beyond the intellect, on an existential level. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 30, 2016 14:06:39 GMT -5
rupert a propos
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2016 15:15:37 GMT -5
Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. Yes, many people are amazed when they are asked to do the thought experiment regarding #2. The first time I heard it, a teacher asked a group of people I was with to remember some vivid experience from the past. Then, he asked them if the awareness that was present during that experience was any different than the awareness of the present moment. Then, he asked them if it had changed in any way, or if it had aged. Many people in the group expressed astonishment at what was clearly a revelation. Regarding #1, I agree with Reefs. I doubt that anyone can viscerally grasp the truth of that without a major experience or realization. The intellect cannot understand it until it has been informed by a non-conceptual seeing. Just curiously, neuroscientists say that when we remember something, we do not remember the original happening, we merely remember the last time we remembered it (this has to do with neuroplasticity). I doubt this concerning a "vivid experience from the past", but for ordinary memory, I'd say yes, quite possible. (I haven't yet done #1 or #2, will do so now. But "if it had changed in any way" is pretty significant for me. From my earliest memories, I am the same now as I was then [in the deepest sense of "self", or not-knowing exactly how to say that, maybe just say in a manner of speaking]). Edit: At this posting I hadn't yet read #1 or #2. Did them. So already spoke to #2. All healthy babies are born with pristine awareness. Collecting sensory data VIA awareness is what makes for differentiation, otherwise known as conditioning. (Although everyone/variously is born with innate potential, not everyone is a Mozart). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2016 15:31:13 GMT -5
With the paradox of spiritual talk, do you mean that one is somehow engaging intellect / thought in order to point away from and beyond intellect/thought? Maybe that could be seen as a paradox, although teachers like Gary Weber are of the opinion that it's possible to do all kinds of things that normally people assume require thinking - like talking, writing, doing complex problem solving etc - without thinking. (I suppose in that view "thinking" is defined as mental chatter, the kind of thoughts that we can consciously observe as they appear to the "mind's eye".) On the other hand ZD's contemplation-story from earlier in the thread was a good example on what kind of role thinking can play in a process that ultimately happens outside of thought. Maybe thinking played a part in him even realizing that contemplating on the perception of a toddler would be a useful project - the importance of discrimination is sometimes talked about - but other faculties surely factored in as well, like intuition. As for weak points - many different kinds of things could be perceived as weaknesses and so how they would be avoided or worked upon would vary a lot. I would not necessarily call my habitual over-reliance on intellect and over-abidance in thoughts/mind as a weak point, but rather a conditioned tendency or a bad habit (or possibly even an addiction), and so I'm gradually correcting what I see as a habitual imbalance. I suppose one aspect of the whole path is a movement from abidance in the mind to non-abidance in the mind. But even if we forget about the whole waking up -thing, I noticed that this constant thinking was getting pretty tedious/tiring (and IMO was actually taxing my health), and so I'd like to reduce it even if I would never wake up... japhy's challenge re: avoiding one's weak points is interesting. Your musings about what exactly a weak point might be is very natural. I think you're right that these are conditioned patterns of behavior. ZD and Satch advise stilling the mind in some way will break those patterns eventually. I've been at it for a while now without a whole lot of luck. But perhaps my hair isn't on fire enough or the tiger that has my head is feeling bored and not very hungry. Byron Katie's method of examining the text and veracity of underlying beliefs seems like a good tool. I really wish I had some wand that could zap the hell out of things. maxdp, I've made a distinction which only you and quinn have acknowledged understanding (you did this some months ago, with no further discussion. quinn, recently, a couple of weeks ago. That's not to say no one else has gotten it, but no one else has specifically replied to me [as far as I know I have read anything in direct reply to me, otherwise, I do a lot of skimming]). Our attention can be captured and held by some person, place or thing, (this is our ordinary state). Or, our attention can be intentionally directed to some person, place or thing. One is vastly different from the other. The first does relatively nothing in regard to conditioning. The second is what will eventually "break those patterns". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2016 15:39:31 GMT -5
That's interesting. Tell me about those fruits. I'd rather think that #2 is a no-brainer anyway. Everyone can relate to that no matter how enlightened. #1 is a nice thought experiment but there's no way you could ever intellectually relate to that. In fact, it's actually absurd. It has to be experienced. And when that happens, it will knock your monkey mind socks off. Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. I think if you took a cross section of people, a random selection, many would not even understand the relevancy of #2, many people do not have much memory past the age of about 5. Many people live almost exclusively through the ~clouding filter~ of the conditioned little s self, and not through pristine awareness, so "it" would not be "sort of a no-brainer". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 30, 2016 15:43:09 GMT -5
Yea both of them in combination definitely knocked me flat. It's like when you see a stereogram for the first time -- everything just comes into 3D focus. First there's noise then there isn't. On #2, it is sort of a no-brainer but I hadn't ever thought of it. The fruit is a visceral understanding of what is referred to as unchanging awareness. and some talk about resting in it, like all of the time.. whatever that means or turning and looking back at itself.. whatever that means It means living without the filter(s) of conditioning. |
|
|
|
Post by zin on Sept 30, 2016 22:39:23 GMT -5
Which challenge do you mean exactly? I think I might have misunderstood it. Haha, it's a funny image that your head is in the mouth of a tiger that's not hungry enough. So, your head is resting on the huge tongue of a giant tiger, the tongue is wet and your head is drenched with saliva, the tiger's heavy breathing rattles in your skull - and then nothing, this situation just continues as the tiger cannot be bothered to bite. Sorry, I just wanted to spend a moment imagining this situation! I'm not really sure what exact weak points he was emphasizing and will leave that to you to suss out. But I like his suggestion that, for those who are especially clever, there are garrulous ways to avoid addressing them. It had me thinking about honesty v. "honesty" this morning. We can express vulnerability and such and not really be vulnerable. Tricks of the trade. The trade being protection of ego identification. Not long ago I read this exercise in a book, maybe you will like it. It's about 'qualities', I mean non-material things.. "I am going to suggest an exercise that may help you. Take some quality and sit still for a few minutes and empty out all material associations. For example, take the color yellow. This will evoke the image of a yellow object or a yellow flower or (...) Throw away any such images. Then your mind may turn to the idea of light as a vibration. (...) Push (these ideas) out of your mind. (...) If you really try, you will have glimpses of a reality in the bare yellowness of yellow. Then go on to a more inward quality like honesty. (...) Send away everything that has any kind of materiality and remain with: the honesty of honesty." I tried it about 'sincerity' for a few minutes and forgot it.. then after a few hours while walking I had a small realization  .. |
|
..