lee
New Member
Posts: 31 
|
Post by lee on Nov 30, 2017 10:39:35 GMT -5
Yes, how much suffering we have boils down to how much attachment we still have, and SR is just one of the many tools that can help us find non-attachment and therefore non-suffering. One thing though in SR and Self-Actualization (SA) -- that is perhaps absent from most other paths/methods -- is that we go into an absolute state of bliss and to say it is "freedom from suffering" becomes quite an understatement. That said, although I have't tried all the paths/methods myself, it is fair to infer that most of them will eventually lead to SR and SA. Thoughts are nondual/absolute when they happen while we are immersed or abiding in the Absolute. Put another way, they are non-attachment thinking as opposed to attachment thinking, hence the freedom from suffering. For this to happen, what we really require is not so much SR but SA, especially if SR happened a while ago and has become merely a memory rather than a day-to-day / moment-to-moment reality. As the saying goes, it is easy to attain enlightenment but not so easy to maintain it. Just to clarify that I am not referring to the Maslow kind of SA (although it can include that as well) but one that is in the words of RM, "perpetual abidance in Brahman, the Absolute." The drag of attachments cause pain, the suffering is optional. I'm attached enough to my car to abide by all the laws necessary to keep it on the road. A life truly rift of all attachment would be similar to a life devoid of all emotion. No rules apply to the absence of limitation that is freedom. Well said!! |
|
|
|
Post by bubbananda on Nov 30, 2017 11:57:42 GMT -5
,,, At the moment, most people are using much more intellect than intuition, partly because our education systems have been focusing on developing the intellect and have neglected intuition. Although the hitherto unknown is unknowable to our intellect, it is knowable to our intuition -- not all of it but at least some of it. So the more we use our intuition -- which does require a fair amount of alignment with the Absolute/Source, the more we are able to make a better-informed decision as to what to believe regarding the unknown. By intuition I mean the feeling we have about something or a knowing/awareness that happens spontaneously. Or both -- sometimes we need to use our feeling to verify and validate our knowing/awareness. Not sure if you buy this intuition stuff but I'm sure you are drawn to Niz & RM (and this forum) not purely because of what you think but also what you intuitively know and feel. ,,, Thanks for sharing this. I thought for many years that I could think my way through these questions of self but I finally realized my intellect isn't going to figure out the illusory nature of self. It seems to me now that intuition/heart/feelings have to be some part of this. To paraphrase one of my favorite Niz quotes, "My mind tells me I am nothing, my heart tells me I am everything, between these my life flows" |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 30, 2017 14:56:48 GMT -5
From what I know of Buddhism it's a big enough tent that there are Buddhists on either side of the notion. Fair enough point about NDE's: I can certainly admit that if I'd ever had one that my opinions might be different than they are now. My question here was in part about experiences .. have you had an NDE? The flip side to NDE's is precisely the point that you make about them: near death, isn't death. There is a leap that's different from induction involved in accepting that these experiences apply to an afterlife. As far as I know -- and I sincerely don't mean this flippantly -- noone has ever actually returned from the grave. By the time I'd read what Niz and Marharshi said on the topic my inquiry process was winding down. It's certainly possible that I read it with confirmation bias, but that process involved very intense scrutiny of those particular types of movement of mind. About the only sure commonality in terms of life experience I've found in discussing "life after SR" with others who I believe have found it, is that death is no longer feared. Most of the writing about afterlife that I've encountered seems to me to be driven primarily by that fear, and as Maharishi's story in particular illustrates, becoming conscious of that can be a grand opportunity. Attachment to theories of afterlife will always obscure that opportunity. Yes, NDEs are subject to the same induction problem. Never had an NDE. Had a very brief OBE many years ago. Agree that beliefs about afterlife can be driven by fear and can also be a distraction. So I can appreciate why many a time Buddha, RM & Niz refrained from dwelling on the afterlife despite there understandably having so many questions about it. We all have a belief system, whether we like it or not, conscious of it or not, because there is just too much unknown. Whether it is agnosticism, theism, atheism or something else, it is still a belief system. And we all choose a belief system using both our intellect and intuition, whether we are aware of it or not. At the moment, most people are using much more intellect than intuition, partly because our education systems have been focusing on developing the intellect and have neglected intuition. Although the hitherto unknown is unknowable to our intellect, it is knowable to our intuition -- not all of it but at least some of it. So the more we use our intuition -- which does require a fair amount of alignment with the Absolute/Source, the more we are able to make a better-informed decision as to what to believe regarding the unknown. By intuition I mean the feeling we have about something or a knowing/awareness that happens spontaneously. Or both -- sometimes we need to use our feeling to verify and validate our knowing/awareness. Not sure if you buy this intuition stuff but I'm sure you are drawn to Niz & RM (and this forum) not purely because of what you think but also what you intuitively know and feel. So end of the day, given that there is so much unknown, we just have to go with whatever (afterlife or no-afterlife perspective) that resonates for us and feel drawn to. There's plenty of things I believe but it's quite possible to get crystal clear on belief, and I assure you that an existential belief system is completely optional. Underlying every emotion is a thought, so while the dichotomy between intellect and intuition can be useful in all sorts of contexts, thought and feeling are ultimately intertwined, as the mind and the body aren't really two different things. The existential truth is beyond either intellect or intuition. Becoming conscious of the content of our own minds reveals these dynamics for what they are. There is really only one existential question, but it comes in many forms. "What is it that is living?" or "what is it that dies?" is one of the most direct versions. "What is my purpose?" is far more indirect and entangles the subjective and objective elements of our perspective relative to what that perspective is on. But the questioning can and does end, and when it does there is no relative answer as to why you're here. Every moment is full of meaning, and poetry can sometimes capture the wind in a paper cup for the time it takes to read a page, but that meaning is nonconceptual, and ever outside the grasp of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 30, 2017 15:36:30 GMT -5
The drag of attachments cause pain, the suffering is optional. I'm attached enough to my car to abide by all the laws necessary to keep it on the road. A life truly rift of all attachment would be similar to a life devoid of all emotion. No rules apply to the absence of limitation that is freedom. Well said!! Well, thanks. I agree with the distinction between SA and SR, but the only significant relationship I see between the two is that someone seeking SR might find the existential questioning to be an impediment to their actualization, but that obstacle, like any, is only ever a product of their own creative/interpretive thought process. There are human beings who are at inner peace and free of suffering. Any version of SR that isn't this as a baseline that includes a permanent end to the existential questioning isn't a version that I'd subscribe to. But the cleverness of the mind is such that the simplicity of these notions can always be twisted into a knot of confusion, contradiction, and paradox. For example, what if you hit an SR-peep hard enough on the head? Will they still be self-realized if their brain is severely damaged? Do they still know who they are if they can't remember their own name? I've been a party here over the years to some intense and prolonged dialog on the questions of "what is suffering? what is inner peace?". People are interested in refining their understandings and their expressions of those understandings. The divide for me in those dialogs quickly became the distinction between those who could relate these issues to self-inquiry, and the most direct form of the existential question: "what am I? what are you?". It isn't possible to indefinitely obscure an unconscious process of existential questioning from those who are done with that process. Another way to illustrate this non-relationship between SA and SR is with the form of the existential question: "where does the body begin and end?". You see, ultimately, the only way to foreclose these dialogs is to admit up front that the idea of the enlightened person is a myth.  It's also possible to illustrate this with a few simple abstract distinctions between the relative and "the absolute", but the resulting intellectual understanding is, unsurprisingly, rather unsatisfying to a mind engaged with existential questioning. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 30, 2017 16:08:19 GMT -5
Great, then it seems like you, me, and lee are all in agreement here. I agree that the "in the Absolute" phraseology is inaccurate... but I was just using it to dispute the idea that some people I've encountered seem to have that there is some "non-egoic" way of acting & thinking (which is when the mind would be "merged in the Absolute") as opposed to an "egoic" way of acting & thinking (when it wouldn't be). I disagree, and, unless I've misinterpreted, it sounds like you and lee do too. Yes. My last existential question was, “How is it possible to escape selfhood and stay in a unified state of mind permanently?” Haha. It was like asking, “How can I stay in the Absolute permanently?” When the “me” vanished, it became clear that the Absolute is all there is, or ever was, and there was never a separate entity seeing, thinking, or doing anything. For peeps who see this there is a spectrum of manifestation from RM types who are drawn to sit in NS for years on end to peeps who are drawn to stay fully engaged in a myriad of worldly activities. The Absolute plays every role, and it’s all absolutely perfect. 😁 Sometimes peeps are quite up front that they're acting and speaking from ego. Perfection can only be pointed to, but the self-referential sense of identity can be quite well defined in relative terms. We can describe what obscures in those relative terms quite clearly, but require poetry to describe what is revealed. Some forms of that poetry are stark in their simplicity, other's are lyrical, all are beautiful. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 30, 2017 16:14:11 GMT -5
I've found that sometimes attachment to certain cultures can obscure a peeps deep existential insight, but that if allowances are made in translation it can come through. Harris is da bomb, man. This question is for Max too: if you were to recommend one book or one series of youtube videos what would it be? |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 30, 2017 19:46:54 GMT -5
Can't access that clip on me Tablet. A simple 'yes or no' would've been easier to post surely. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 30, 2017 23:53:10 GMT -5
This question is for Max too: if you were to recommend one book or one series of youtube videos what would it be? Krishnamurti - what is meditation - and why should one meditate at all. www.youtube.com/watch?v=lW96eZsR710Krishnamurti's series of talks with David Bohm and David Shainberg is worth a look but it's 7 videos long www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSMf8oW8jX8 |
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by lee on Dec 1, 2017 0:13:11 GMT -5
,,, At the moment, most people are using much more intellect than intuition, partly because our education systems have been focusing on developing the intellect and have neglected intuition. Although the hitherto unknown is unknowable to our intellect, it is knowable to our intuition -- not all of it but at least some of it. So the more we use our intuition -- which does require a fair amount of alignment with the Absolute/Source, the more we are able to make a better-informed decision as to what to believe regarding the unknown. By intuition I mean the feeling we have about something or a knowing/awareness that happens spontaneously. Or both -- sometimes we need to use our feeling to verify and validate our knowing/awareness. Not sure if you buy this intuition stuff but I'm sure you are drawn to Niz & RM (and this forum) not purely because of what you think but also what you intuitively know and feel. ,,, Thanks for sharing this. I thought for many years that I could think my way through these questions of self but I finally realized my intellect isn't going to figure out the illusory nature of self. It seems to me now that intuition/heart/feelings have to be some part of this. To paraphrase one of my favorite Niz quotes, "My mind tells me I am nothing, my heart tells me I am everything, between these my life flows" My pleasure Yes, absolutely, thanks for sharing that quote. The Absolute must be directly felt with our heart rather than just an idea in our head. And the more we feel it with our heart, the more love we will feel. Feeling, being a direct experience, is an excellent way to move away from thinking. Reminds me of how some people's meditation is just to feel the sensations of their body: the sensations of their breaths in and out, the sensations on their palm and fingers while holding a cup, or the sensations/pressure on their soles as they walk. |
|
lee
New Member
Posts: 31
|
Post by lee on Dec 1, 2017 0:49:30 GMT -5
I agree that the "in the Absolute" phraseology is inaccurate... Yes, there is no one in the Absolute other than the Absolute. We are the Absolute immersing in the Absolute so as to realize that we are the Absolute. We are an ocean who has been paying too much attention to the surface (of form/duality) so much so that we have begun to think that we are a wavelet. Moving away from the surface and immersing ourselves back into the ocean (Source/Absolute) can help us feel/realize/remember that we are in fact not a wavelet but an ocean. “Align” is another useful "finger pointing at the moon", as we (the Absolute) are shifting from aligning with the surface/form/duality to aligning with the Ocean/Source/Absolute. Esther/Abraham and many others frequently use the word “alignment”. “Centering” and “returning” are useful fingers too. Great, then it seems like you, me, and lee are all in agreement here. There is only being, doing. Even "there is only" is too much. Being. Doing. Chopping wood, carrying water? No. Tired, get into bed, close eyes, sleep. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 1, 2017 5:12:18 GMT -5
I don’t know Metzinger, but I wouldn’t reccomend Harris. He seems very unclear to me. The book that a friend showed me two days ago was a nonsense. Which book was it? Max: I don’t remember the title, but I’ll find out. 3 things struck me. Harris mentions Gutei’s one finger zen koan, but he doesn’t understand it, nor the basis for it. No one who’ had a deep CC experience could possibly call himself an atheist or an agnostic. He’s also far too involved in the process of becoming and seeking for someone who’s discovered the Absolute. Probably a nice guy, but definitely not free. Read Don Oakley’s book about the 10 obstacles to realization. it’s infinitely clearer, and far more down to earth. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 1, 2017 5:21:39 GMT -5
Max: the Harris book was “Waking Up.” The Oakley book is “Wake Up Now.”
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 1, 2017 11:20:26 GMT -5
Can't access that clip on me Tablet. A simple 'yes or no' would've been easier to post surely. Like you, I prefer accuracy. Here's the link to that clip: i.imgur.com/day66mk.mp4 |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 1, 2017 11:27:21 GMT -5
Max: the Harris book was “Waking Up.” The Oakley book is “Wake Up Now.” Will check out Oakley's It's Time to Wake Up Now. Sounds good, and on the mark. I read Harris' Free Will first, then Waking Up. I liked both, but ymmv. I don't think he had a CC, just describes seeing no self, etc. I would never claim he's a good teacher, just an advocate for a secular version of 'waking up' which involves detaching from the notion of selfhood, etc. I find his podcasts better. He has a few with Joseph Goldstein that are good. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 1, 2017 11:37:45 GMT -5
This question is for Max too: if you were to recommend one book or one series of youtube videos what would it be? I like his podcasts. Methinks he broadcasts them as youtube vids as well. Lots there...meditation with Joseph Golstein...free will with Daniel Dennet...perception/consciousness with David Chalmers.... www.samharris.org/podcast/full_archive |
|
It's also possible to illustrate this with a few simple abstract distinctions between the relative and "the absolute", but the resulting intellectual understanding is, unsurprisingly, rather unsatisfying to a mind engaged with existential questioning.
