|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 10, 2017 7:12:35 GMT -5
From my limited reading on the topic, it seems that there can be either a realization or an experience that informs mind of what is, or what isn't, without it being the end of the road. That's the story I'd tell as well. The intensity of the energy of these events, as well as whether that's positive or negative in relative and personal terms, seems to me to be all over the map, and that's what I'd expect: forget about expectation. My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. From the direct experience of this body/mind, CC experiences can result in numerous realizations which inform mind just as strongly as any other realizations. Experiencing oneness is the most powerful experience of all, but it may not be an experience in the usual sense because there is no person who experiences that. All sense of separation or personal identity is absent. Nevertheless, whatever we want to call it, it definitely informs mind about the unity, intelligence, perfection, benevolence, and vastness of _____________________ and the illusory nature of all cognitively-imposed boundaries. Such experiences can also inform mind of many other things, and can even reorganize and change the content of mind. Ironically, such experiences rarely result in freedom from the sense o selfhood. It usually takes SR for that to occur. I think awakesowhat was the only poster on this forum who ever claimed that a CC experience resulted in SR. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 10, 2017 7:24:45 GMT -5
That's an interesting thought. Like you, my wife has no sense of the little gal in the head thingy, and says that she has never known or had any sense of who or what she is. She used to joke that she'd need to create a sense of self before she could ever get rid of it. Haha. Our daughter, OTOH, knows exactly what I mean when I refer to the little homunculus in the head. She therefore psychologically experiences a distinct difference between a volitional "me" inside and a world outside. Just out of curiosity, Max, if you think, "I want to know x," or "I feel x," or "I think/believe x," what is the sense of "I" that the word refers to in statements like that? If it doesn't refer to anything distinctly identifiable (homunculus), then maybe pursuing the question, "Who am I, really?" is a waste of time. If someone who doesn't have a strong sense of self says, "I want to know who I am," why would s/he even ask that kind of question?" My wife theorizes that she started asking that question because the people all around her seemed to have a strong sense of self, and she thought that perhaps she needed to acquire one. Perhaps for people without a hard-core sense of selfhood (homunculus) finding one's True Self or absolute identity is not necessary because they don't suffer from that particular illusion. As a result of talking to people about this issue, I suspect that there are lots more people without a homunculus in the head than with one. If that's true, then why would people without a sense of self worry about dying? Is that because they solely identify with a body that dies? People with a homunculus worry about dying because they think that the inside "me" will disappear. For those people the body and the inside "me" are a single unit, but the "me" is probably the dominant aspect of the entity--or, the whole thing (interests, sense of volition, homunculus, body, etc) are the same big ball of wax. Thoughts? Thoughts come and go. That's about the extent of it. "I want this or that" comes and goes along with everything else. One thing that really struck me once was "you aren't your thoughts." I don't remember when I understood that but it resounded when it did. There was a time previous to that where I dwelled alot -- a very self-lacerating process. Dwelling into misery. Sometime after soaking in dharma and meditating a lot, including long silent retreats, I was walking on the sidewalk and just recognized the dwelling and it went away and never returned. In the past year I've learned that the particular content or subject matter of thoughts is highly related to what is happening in the body. It's really a no brainer but I've viscerally understood and witnessed this and have a deeper appreciation for it. Whereas the sidewalk dwelling event was a recognition of the activity of thinking, especially of the self-flagellating stripe, this 'insight' has been more around the specific text of the thoughts. I witnessed a whole genre of thoughts disappear because of changes in body chemistry. Occasionally thoughts with the content that I dwelled on previously do arise but they are just clear flags now. No ensuing dwelling happens because they are just recognized, like potholes in the road. Just drive by. On "You aren't your thoughts", wrt SR, it's primarily another form of neti neti. Maybe this is why that particular practice resonated well -- I'd already known it. But whereas neti neti may be an negative approach, with that illusive Grace, and "result" in SR, SR seems fundamentally a positive thing. There is "you are not your thoughts" and there is "what am I then?" The nonconcept of Oneness or _____, and not being other than that, is yet something I understand. I suspect that for some people the neti neti approach eventually results in SR. One psychologically keeps removing everything that may be contributing to a false sense of identity until only __________________ remains, and sooner or later _____________________ wakes up to itself. I trust that you'll let us know if that happens.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2017 9:55:00 GMT -5
Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, and so the question is really how that comes about. Certainly, the realization of what one is, is one way, but the realization of what one is not is another. IOW, along with the realization that seeking one's true identity is merely an intellectual exercise comes the clarity that the original identity was also such an exercise. This is simply seeing through the illusion and not finding anything true on the other side of it. It's anti-climactic, but nothing else is needed. It's kind of like that bowl of oatmeal which is just right.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2017 11:44:00 GMT -5
How do you remove the scent of dwad from the influence/inform dichotomy? Soaking overnight in bleach usually does the trick, but really you just trade one scent for another.  One can be influenced by experience in such a way as to drive one deeper into illusion, or informed by realization by which we mean oriented away from illusion. You mean experiencing what one is rather than realizing what one is not? Which one are you thinking is pocketed? Agree with what?  Hey! A cut-wall ..  .. haven't seen one 'o them 'round here ... well, for awhile.  I was disagreeing with my own straw-man of an opinion: intermediate states of body/mind prior to a realization that permanently ends existential questioning are insignificant with regard to the notion of freedom. In terms of what the mind can co-opt after the fact ("pocketing"), my interest in this dialog is that it seems to me this sort of misinformation of mind could apply to either via-negative or via-positive. The flip side of the coin to the bliss-bunny hopping after a one-ended carrot are the peeps who've come out the other side of despair. For example, the Christians have their "dark night of the soul" and my casual readings from Zen suggest a common meme of "practice as dry as dust". Ultimately, I could describe my own story in terms that would blur both of the via-positive/via-negative as well as the experience/realization dichotomies. But I appreciate the power and importance of those ideas even as I'd explore the boundaries of their usefulness. Experience can also influence in such a way as to put one on notice of the illusion, from within the illusion, and that, of course, is a matter of degree. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2017 18:13:03 GMT -5
Quote of the century - no - the millenia: One can be influenced by experience in such a way as to drive one deeper into illusion, or informed by realization by which we mean oriented away from illusion.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2017 21:44:07 GMT -5
Quote of the century - no - the millenia: One can be influenced by experience in such a way as to drive one deeper into illusion, or informed by realization by which we mean oriented away from illusion. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Nov 11, 2017 3:54:01 GMT -5
When there was no longer awareness of the mindful self and the universe you could say that is there is freedom from even the thought that I AM free from the awareness of self and the universe .
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 13, 2017 16:21:43 GMT -5
I'm definitely in the category of folks who aren't cognizant of a little guy/gal. But also still waiting for the word re SR. Perhaps not being cognizant of the little guy/gal is symptomatic of having further to go -- it's so identified with that there is no possible space to get around it. Perhaps when there is a distinguishable homunculus, then there is the capacity to see it as an illusion/mirage and poof it is gone, with a little Grace. But if one is fully identified/merged with that voice, there is no ability to distance from it. dunno I actually don't understand how anyone can grow up in this world and not see themselves as 'in the body' looking out on the world. The illusion is all but seamless. To me, an internal homunculus voice is a bit different than what you describe above. Seems to me ZD referring to one end of a spectrum of the seamless illusion you refer to. Similar to, for example, the Introvert/Extrovert scale. At ZD's end the internal voice, agency, intensity of identification was very loud and strong. Nearer to the other end it might not be as noticeable but it doesn't mean the illusion doesn't exist and doesn't color/manifest experience. As I read ZD he's interested in how folks who SR were placed on such a spectrum, if there is such a thing, and what the SR experience was like and ensuing phenomena. Does the quiet homunculus end SR in the same way, or at all? Can't help there. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 13, 2017 16:24:17 GMT -5
Thoughts come and go. That's about the extent of it. "I want this or that" comes and goes along with everything else. One thing that really struck me once was "you aren't your thoughts." I don't remember when I understood that but it resounded when it did. There was a time previous to that where I dwelled alot -- a very self-lacerating process. Dwelling into misery. Sometime after soaking in dharma and meditating a lot, including long silent retreats, I was walking on the sidewalk and just recognized the dwelling and it went away and never returned. In the past year I've learned that the particular content or subject matter of thoughts is highly related to what is happening in the body. It's really a no brainer but I've viscerally understood and witnessed this and have a deeper appreciation for it. Whereas the sidewalk dwelling event was a recognition of the activity of thinking, especially of the self-flagellating stripe, this 'insight' has been more around the specific text of the thoughts. I witnessed a whole genre of thoughts disappear because of changes in body chemistry. Occasionally thoughts with the content that I dwelled on previously do arise but they are just clear flags now. No ensuing dwelling happens because they are just recognized, like potholes in the road. Just drive by. On "You aren't your thoughts", wrt SR, it's primarily another form of neti neti. Maybe this is why that particular practice resonated well -- I'd already known it. But whereas neti neti may be an negative approach, with that illusive Grace, and "result" in SR, SR seems fundamentally a positive thing. There is "you are not your thoughts" and there is "what am I then?" The nonconcept of Oneness or _____, and not being other than that, is yet something I understand. I suspect that for some people the neti neti approach eventually results in SR. One psychologically keeps removing everything that may be contributing to a false sense of identity until only __________________ remains, and sooner or later _____________________ wakes up to itself. I trust that you'll let us know if that happens. You bet!! I'll definitely unload a lot of holy stink on y'all. And I can't wait to have some sort of non-integrated raging meltdown where I threaten to sue and storm away warning all ST innocents to STAY AWAY!! hahaha fun enlightened times ahead, god willing of course. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2017 19:14:31 GMT -5
Well, I mean freedom from identifying oneself as the limited mind/body that is born, and dies, and in the interim is subject to the vagaries of life. This is the source of all existential suffering. I don't know if that changes anything for you because I don't know what your definition is. My interpretation is all you've done is clarify what Advaita claims people need to detach from. That is, all you've done is clarify Advaita freedom. None of that addresses this... Maybe we can all agree that freedom is really freedom from the separate identity, ..where I interpret you're saying the true\real defination of freedom is freedom from the separate identity, and that simply is not the secular or common definition of freedom. Sometimes you'll see that the dictionary lists slightly different definitions for a given word, and they're designated as '1', '2' etc. These are actually different contexts in which the same word can be used. The dictionary isn't likely to list a spiritual context for freedom. I only mean to introduce the concept of context to you. I hope that clarifies things for you. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2017 19:20:56 GMT -5
My perspective, which is probly clear by now, is that, while experience can influence mind, it doesn't actually inform mind the way realization does. From the direct experience of this body/mind, CC experiences can result in numerous realizations which inform mind just as strongly as any other realizations. Experiencing oneness is the most powerful experience of all, but it may not be an experience in the usual sense because there is no person who experiences that. All sense of separation or personal identity is absent. Nevertheless, whatever we want to call it, it definitely informs mind about the unity, intelligence, perfection, benevolence, and vastness of _____________________ and the illusory nature of all cognitively-imposed boundaries. Such experiences can also inform mind of many other things, and can even reorganize and change the content of mind. Ironically, such experiences rarely result in freedom from the sense o selfhood. It usually takes SR for that to occur. I think awakesowhat was the only poster on this forum who ever claimed that a CC experience resulted in SR. Okay. I'm fine with agreeing to disagree about that. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2017 19:41:43 GMT -5
Soaking overnight in bleach usually does the trick, but really you just trade one scent for another. One can be influenced by experience in such a way as to drive one deeper into illusion, or informed by realization by which we mean oriented away from illusion. You mean experiencing what one is rather than realizing what one is not? Which one are you thinking is pocketed? Agree with what? ! A cut-wall .. .. haven't seen one 'o them 'round here ... well, for awhile. I was disagreeing with my own straw-man of an opinion: intermediate states of body/mind prior to a realization that permanently ends existential questioning are insignificant with regard to the notion of freedom. In terms of what the mind can co-opt after the fact ("pocketing"), my interest in this dialog is that it seems to me this sort of misinformation of mind could apply to either via-negative or via-positive. The flip side of the coin to the bliss-bunny hopping after a one-ended carrot are the peeps who've come out the other side of despair. For example, the Christians have their "dark night of the soul" and my casual readings from Zen suggest a common meme of "practice as dry as dust". Ultimately, I could describe my own story in terms that would blur both of the via-positive/via-negative as well as the experience/realization dichotomies. But I appreciate the power and importance of those ideas even as I'd explore the boundaries of their usefulness. Experience can also influence in such a way as to put one on notice of the illusion, from within the illusion, and that, of course, is a matter of degree. I'm interested in the idea that mayhaps CC experiences and the like may be expressions of, or simultaneous with, the corresponding realization such that, while mind is informed, it's not really being informed by the experience. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2017 21:51:14 GMT -5
I actually don't understand how anyone can grow up in this world and not see themselves as 'in the body' looking out on the world. The illusion is all but seamless. To me, an internal homunculus voice is a bit different than what you describe above. Seems to me ZD referring to one end of a spectrum of the seamless illusion you refer to. Similar to, for example, the Introvert/Extrovert scale. At ZD's end the internal voice, agency, intensity of identification was very loud and strong. Nearer to the other end it might not be as noticeable but it doesn't mean the illusion doesn't exist and doesn't color/manifest experience. As I read ZD he's interested in how folks who SR were placed on such a spectrum, if there is such a thing, and what the SR experience was like and ensuing phenomena. Does the quiet homunculus end SR in the same way, or at all? Can't help there. Ok |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2017 22:00:18 GMT -5
I suspect that for some people the neti neti approach eventually results in SR. One psychologically keeps removing everything that may be contributing to a false sense of identity until only __________________ remains, and sooner or later _____________________ wakes up to itself. I trust that you'll let us know if that happens. You bet!! I'll definitely unload a lot of holy stink on y'all. And I can't wait to have some sort of non-integrated raging meltdown where I threaten to sue and storm away warning all ST innocents to STAY AWAY!! hahaha fun enlightened times ahead, god willing of course. We shall know you by your fruits. (and vegetables, of course) |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 14, 2017 0:52:13 GMT -5
My interpretation is all you've done is clarify what Advaita claims people need to detach from. That is, all you've done is clarify Advaita freedom. None of that addresses this... ..where I interpret you're saying the true\real defination of freedom is freedom from the separate identity, and that simply is not the secular or common definition of freedom. Sometimes you'll see that the dictionary lists slightly different definitions for a given word, and they're designated as '1', '2' etc. These are actually different contexts in which the same word can be used. The dictionary isn't likely to list a spiritual context for freedom. I only mean to introduce the concept of context to you. I hope that clarifies things for you. Clarification of that matter wasn't necessary, as all you've done is once again restate your definition of Freedom that is specialized and only relevant to your religious beliefs, SR, Advaita, Non-duality. What you continue to avoid addressing, no suprise there, is your attempt to redefine Freedom, attempting to transplant your SR version into the position already held by the establishedwith the established secular one. Makes sense. You're so firmly attached to the idea that Advaita is the correct description of reality, therefore it makes sense to re-write the dictionary to match these beliefs. |
|
Hey! A cut-wall .. 
.. haven't seen one 'o them 'round here ... well, for awhile. 
