|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 22, 2018 14:48:37 GMT -5
Recent discussions have left me with a better sense of the majority opinion here, that we are conscious in only one sense. The futility of giving/sharing another meaning to being conscious had given me pause, but I chanced yesterday upon a dialogue I first read over 20 years ago from Nicoll's Commentaries. The commentaries were written to be given in Nicoll's meetings. In full it's pretty long, but I'll edit the beginning, and it will end as (Then you mean that we can do nothing at all?) as is, with my main point. The dialogue speaks to several issues regularly discussed here. A hint is given that to awaken in Gurdjieff's sense is different from that spoken of here. Nonvolition is given a twist, a different meaning. (Basically, we are machines, but it's possible to cease to be a machine). Gary Weber's work also enters, seen at the end in pertinent questions. Nicoll studied with both Ouspensky and Gurdjieff.
Commentaries On One's level of Being Quaremead, Ugley, February 9, 1946
Someone asks Nicoll a question. (In the margin I wrote: New person).
Nicoll: We therefore find ourselves in the position in this Work of being able to see better than we can do. What then should I do? Nicoll: The question should be: What should we not do? It is just here that the Work comes in. The Work teaches a great many things we should not do, real doing begins with not doing...the Work speaks about realizing our mechanicalness as one of the first steps towards greater Being. If you always attribute to everything you do in life the idea that YOU are doing it, of course you will never quite understand where the Work comes in. ...If you observe yourself sincerely over a sufficient period you will begin to realize that you cannot do. ...everything we do in all our relationships, in all the thoughts and feelings we go with, we identify with. But the Work teaches that we are not machines if we begin to wake up. ...the Work teaches, we can awaken, we can remember ourselves, we can change ourselves. How then is all this possible? Nicoll: The Work begins with self-remembering and self-observation (* see note below, sdp) whereby gradually we may realize how we are machines and how we react mechanically to everything. ...that all our lives up to now have been mechanical--a series of petty, personal, sensitive, mechanical reactions to everything. Just this whole point comes in that man can cease to be a machine. This entry of another consciousness of himself is the beginning of the Work. Then you mean that we can do nothing at all? Nicoll: Yes, you can do one thing. You can remember yourself, and if you remember yourself you can observe yourself. That is the only thing said on the positive side of doing this Work. How can I remember myself? Nicoll: By realizing you never remember yourself. But I am sure I always remember myself. Nicoll: You may be sure you always remember yourself but just notice if you do. But I always do what I do consciously. Nicoll: Do you always speak quite consciously, knowing exactly what you are going to say? Yes, I am sure that I do everything consciously and am quite aware of what I am saying and doing all the time. Nicoll: In that case you must observe sincerely and see whether it is quite true. If you are sincere with yourself you will find that you do and think and feel mechanically and that for the greater part of the day you are not aware of yourself at all. I do not agree with you. Nicoll: Well, in that case you must practice self-observation. It is only through self-observation done sincerely and uncritically that you can come into the standpoint of this Work in regard to yourself. If you take yourself for granted as being a conscious person who does everything consciously and deliberately you are not able to connect yourself with this Work. This Work will fall on deaf ears. What is the object of self-obsersation? Nicoll: The object of self-observation is to make you aware of the fact that you are not in any way what you think you are. The object of self-observation is to show you by direct self-experience that you are really a mechanical person person who cannot help doing what you do at every moment and that if you want to change yourself, which is the object of this Work, you have to realize this. Is this not an extremely depressing point of view? Nicoll: Yes. Then why should I take up this Work? Nicoll: I see no reason why you should if you are quite satisfied with yourself as you are. (emphasis sdp, *note: there is preparatory Work, which is sensing, using the five senses, essentially ZD's ATA-T) pgs 846-848 Psychological Commentaries on the Teachings of Gurdjieff and Ouspensky Vol 3 (of 5) by Maurice Nicoll
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 23, 2018 14:14:25 GMT -5
We are not singular, we are not one. There is a vertical scale, and part of us exists on one level and part on another level. The ~less real~, the unreal part, moves us downward. The real is the only part that can move upward in the scale. So to take ourselves as one is imaginary. Yes, the universe, the cosmos, is One, but in the One is this vertical scale, there are movements upward and downward. The primary characteristic of man, a particular man or woman, is the capacity, the potential, to choose, within himself or herself, to move upward. The default position is movement downward. But first one has to see two in oneself, only then is choosing possible, and the implication is a struggle ensues, inevitably. A salmon swimming upstream is a good metaphor. Polarity is an obvious fact in the universe, but a third factor always tips the scales one way or the other. (Almost) all that is, is a series of triads.
This distinction, in oneself, is between less conscious (unconscious), personality/ego/cultural self, and being more conscious, in essence, (conscious vs conscious).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 23, 2018 16:51:13 GMT -5
More Nicoll
A Note On Personal Work On Oneself Great Amwell House, October 19, 1946
When we are identified we do not remember ourselves. In the method and practice of the 4th Way the attainment of the 3rd State or level of Consciousness is made a central theme. Self-Remembering, Self-Consciousness and Self-Awareness are some of the characteristics of the 3rd State of Consciousness. When we identify we drop to the second level of Consciousness. What results? A number of related things then result. We fall asleep. (note sdp, the second state of consciousness, the so-called waking state), we come under the Law of Accident. We serve Nature and the influenes created by Life. We are under the power of whatever we identify with and lose force to it. The inner work of the organism is altered. We forget our aim. Consciousness contracts. ...when we identify we shut ourselves to influences coming down from a higher level and open ourselves to those coming from beneath us. ...If a man makes no effort to awaken, what energy he has for awakening will be used elsewhere. ...a man in the State of Self-Remembering and a man in a state of sleep are two quite different people although they may be sitting next to each other. They are not sitting next to each other in the vertical scale of Being. ...they are separated by an immense distance--not a distance in space but a distance in Being. Let us take identifying with oneself. By saying 'I', by thinking it is always ONESELF and so taking oneself as ONE self, we are continually identified, continually asleep. pgs 953, 954 Psychological Commentaries vol 3, Maurice Nicoll
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 24, 2018 9:23:32 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this.
Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others.
He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body.
In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself.
His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality.
His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi.
In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena.
His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions.
FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state."
All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma:
S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life?
R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is."
IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God."
This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree.
There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 24, 2018 12:06:42 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others. He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body. In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself. His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality. His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi. In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena. His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions. FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state." All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma: S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life? R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is." IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God." This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree. There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked. Yes, the pointer about "becoming conscious" is about waking up from "being something in a dream" to "the dream being within the one and only somenothing", hehe. Peeps keep identifying with something that has to realize something. As such, there's looking outward for that something, identifying as what they assume is in the middle, not following the "what is looking" pointer to its source. Typically, in discussion/conversation, it's the distractions of the dream that compel unconscious identification with the dream character. "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives...." Love it! Bag to digging holes.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 24, 2018 14:28:14 GMT -5
February 28, 1948
Commentary On Imaginary 'I' and False Personality
At a recent meeting here I spoke about Imaginary 'I' and False Personality from the point of view that unless this inner situation begins to alter, nothing can alter. This means that you will always attract the same life, the same experiences, the same disappointments, the same sense of frustration, the same boredom, the same internally unsatisfactory existences and so on. The Work says: "Change yourself and your life will change. Remain the same in yourself and everything in your life will remain the same and repeat itself". It is always worthwhile for a person to remind herself or himself of this central idea of the Work. Remain the same, as regards your Being, and you can only attract the same things that hitherto you have attracted. Understand that if you remain the same in your Being, in the kind of person you are, you cannot possibly have anything different. Change your Being--and your life will change. Do nothing to change yourself, and your life will--and inevitably must remain the same. ..........
As I said, the Work is internal, and is about change of oneself, not change in outer circumstances. But I ask you, how can you have a better world if people are not better? ...everyone thinks the solution of things lies in outer changes and political creeds and scientific discoveries--it is very difficult, I say, for anyone to have that reserve of force that makes it possible for a man or woman to even hear even a single word of what this Work is teaching. Change, people think, can only be outside--not within. ...But as people are losing all sense of understanding and do not wish to think at all, we can expect it will be more difficult to find people who wish to work on themselves. Everything is inevitably going mass--that is, no one thinks individually. Gurdjieff said once: "Nothing can stop the present movement of the pendulum". He added that since people are throwing away the small amount of consciousness they are given, it is possible for some people to collect this unwanted and unused consciousness and begin to awaken. ...
Now you can only collect conscious force from those not wanting it, by self-remembering. If you are asleep--that is, identified with everything taking place outside yourself in the visible world and everything taking place inside yourself in your invisible world--with every thought, mood, emotion, sensation--then you are asleep and so not remembering yourself. You are in the so-called Waking State--the Second State of Consciousness--which Western psychology takes as full Waking Consciousness--a tragic mistake. ...By remembering yourself you cut yourself off for the moment from the drain of force that is being taken from you every moment by identifying. "If" said Gurdjieff, "Man were properly conscious, he would not serve Nature. He was created to awaken--to develop. But he is gradually losing all sense of himself--losing indeed everything of value for himself". ...
Now what is the cure the Work suggests in regard to Imaginary 'I'? The Work says: "Imaginary 'I' must go". The Work suggests that if you begin to use the first inner sense that can be developed called the power of self-observation, you will find that you have many different 'I's, all contradictory, and that you have no Real 'I' and so this Imaginary 'I' is not you at all. This is the first real step in the work--to break up the imagination that you have one real, permanent 'I'. This illusion the Work calls Imaginary 'I'. pgs 1132-1134 Psychological Commentaries, vol 3, M Nicoll
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 24, 2018 15:17:28 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. I don't get any sense at all that you get what I'm trying to point to. You show no value at all concerning the difference between different states, your non-duality makes all things equal. If that's fine with you, that's fine. But like it or not, what you say/write is "teaching", even if you want to merely call it pointers, you have a lot of weight around here. I'm just trying to show there is an alternative way to look. So if I dialogue, I'm not trying to change your view, I'm just presenting an alternative, for whoever happens to read. I don't get that you see as equal: just pouring concrete on autopilot OTOH, and OToH being conscious while pouring concrete. I don't know if you're like a fish who has no awareness of the water it is swimming in, Water? What the hell is water? Or, Oh yes, once I was not aware of the water, and it came as a very! big! surprise! to come to awareness of water. But now it is no big deal, sure, I know about water, and I can be aware of the water, but I am usually not, because it's not a big deal. So I don't know if you're a fish who has never learned it is swimming in water, or if you have, but it is no longer a big deal. There are still a lot of fish in the sea who would value finding out about water. But the answer is not in the water, it's in the fish. I don't know what kind of fish you are. You post as if you are just an ordinary fish who doesn't know, has never known, it is swimming in water. It IS a blanking big deal to find out about water. For me, there is a very big difference between operating on autopilot, and being conscious. Sure, I can get lost "swimming", forget about the water, but then again, significant difference, to remember the H 2O. You say there is no difference. I find that very difficult to comprehend if you really know about water. You talk about permanent changes, about realizations being permanent and you have never found something learned from a realization to be inaccurate, or to change. I would like to know about some "nuts and bolts" (versus what you gnosis from realizations), are you permanently aware of the water?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 24, 2018 15:35:40 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others. He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body. In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself. His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality. His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi. In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena. His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions. FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state." All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma: S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life? R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is." IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God." This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree. There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked. Yes, the pointer about "becoming conscious" is about waking up from "being something in a dream" to "the dream being within the one and only somenothing", hehe. Peeps keep identifying with something that has to realize something. As such, there's looking outward for that something, identifying as what they assume is in the middle, not following the "what is looking" pointer to its source. Typically, in discussion/conversation, it's the distractions of the dream that compel unconscious identification with the dream character. "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives...." Love it! Bag to digging holes. Would likewise ask ("nuts and bolts"), are you always aware of the dream, or do you sometimes go back to being lost in the dream?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 24, 2018 17:44:28 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others. He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body. In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself. His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality. His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi. In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena. His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions. FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state." All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma: S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life? R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is." IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God." This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree. There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked. The focus on simplicity is a good one. I've found myself talking more and more about absence and not knowing and conceptual boundaries in the face of 3-layer cakes and SR/CC combo meals. (Maybe we need forum lunch breaks) I understand the attraction to complexity because that added discrimination is how mind makes sense of things in the world, but really we're better off trying to understand mind's limitations and why it loves complexity.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2018 1:12:28 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others. He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body. In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself. His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality. His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi. In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena. His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions. FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state." All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma: S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life? R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is." IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God." This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree. There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked. The focus on simplicity is a good one. I've found myself talking more and more about absence and not knowing and conceptual boundaries in the face of 3-layer cakes and SR/CC combo meals. (Maybe we need forum lunch breaks) I understand the attraction to complexity because that added discrimination is how mind makes sense of things in the world, but really we're better off trying to understand mind's limitations and why it loves complexity. Sorry, but one last equation is called for. We must finally factor out the "other person" who may or may not be perceiving and who acts as if there is gravity. Only then will the level of simplicity have finally arrived at a point where there's nothing left to say, and all awareness will be at non-experiential peace, but only if you first meditate or TM-chant your way to an OBE/NDE communion with your deceased love ones and all of your past life selves in a state of completely shattered and gaping wide chakras where you've lost the belief in the Santa Clause of Jesus Christ because you successfully unlearned the information that led to it in the first place. Naked walks in the rain for good measure are always a bonus too, but you might have to stamp someone specifically for that purpose to get them to go along with the idea.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 25, 2018 1:50:54 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. Gurdjieff talked about a "fourth way," but this is just a pointer, and there are dozens of different models that point to abstracted levels of spiritual development. Da Freejohn, for example, taught that there are seven stages of life. His first stage of life is the process of individuation, of becoming identified with a personal physical body. In this stage one gradually adapts functionality to physical existence and eventually achieves a basic sense of physical autonomy or personal independence from all others. He described the second stage of life as a process of socialization, or social exploration and growth in relationships, and adaptation to the emotional/sexual or feeling dimension of the physical body. In Da's third stage one develops discriminative intelligence and the will, and achieves basic adult integration of body, emotion, and mind in the context of the physical body in relation to existence itself. His fourth stage is the transitional stage between the gross, bodily-based point of view, and the subtle, psychic point of view. It involves spiritual devotion, surrender of the self, etc. etc. In this stage the bodily-based personality is purified through reception of the Spiritual Force, or Holy Spirit, or Shakti of the divine reality. His fifth stage involves cosmic mysticism, contemplative exercises, etc. and the ultimate achievement of the fifth stage is absorption in mystical union with the divine via nirvikalpa samadhi. In his sixth stage of life the characteristic view of existence is not based on identification with the body or in identification with the psyche. Rather, it is based in identification with the independent personal consciousness, or essential self, exclusive of the phenomena of the body/mind and world. In this stage one lives and acts from the position and domain of Consciousness as the Transcendental Witness of psyche, body, and all psycho-physical phenomena. His seventh stage is the realization of the Divine Self beyond all points of view as the one reality, prior to and beyond the body, the mind, and ego. It involves freedom from every kind of dissociative effort relative to body, mind, world, and even spirit. In this stage the realizer enjoys continuous, permanent, total identification with Divine Being, Itself, and s/he experiences no fundamental difference between "Divine Consciousness" and body, psyche, self, or any and all psycho-physical states and conditions. FWIW, Da considered Ramana an introverted Jnana, or sixth stage individual, until he became more overtly involved in the seventh stage, which both he and Ramana called "sahaja samadhi." That state connotes naturalness, effortlessness, and spontaneity, and signifies the seamless unity or non-difference between the absolute unconditional and formless realization of the Divine Self and fully active participation in conditional embodiment. In this stage there is no "inner," and it corresponds to what some of us on the forum have called "the natural state." All of the different "stages" or abstract "levels" of development posited by people like Gurdjieff, Da Freejohn, Zen Masters, and other such sages are just pointers to what is already and always present here and now. They're just different ways of describing how different people perceive and understand what's going on. However, the movement, spiritual evolution, progress, (or "greater consciousness"), implied by these stages are nothing more than models of something that cannot be modeled, and is inherently unified. To understand what these words are pointing to, consider this dialogue between Ramana and a professor Sarma: S: Bhagavan, in the lives of the mystics, we find three stages called purgation, illumination, and union. The stage of purgation is what we call 'sadhana' or spiritual practice. Was there such a stage in your life? R: I know no such period. I never performed any japa (repetition of God's name) or pranayama (breath control). I know no mantras. I have no rules of meditation or contemplation. Even when I came to hear such things later, I was never attracted to them. Sadhana implies that an object has to be gained. It also implies the means of attaining it. What is there which we do not possess now? What is there to be gained that is new? In what is called 'meditation,' what we must do is to not think of anything but to be still. That is the natural state. For a time i remained with my eyes closed. That does not mean that I was doing sadhana.......People think that the Self will some day descend on them as something very big. .....The Self is imperishable and immediate at all times, but there is no karam (doer) or kritam (performer) about it. Karam means that someone is doing something. But the Self is to be realized not by doing something but by refraining from doing something, that is to say, by remaining still and being simply what one is." IOW, all apparent effort to attain anything (or become more conscious) is an illusion, because the Self/Absolute/Infinite/Unborn is always here and now, and once this is realized, psychological freedom is the result. There is nothing that needs to be done, or can be done, because there is no separate doer. As Adyashanti says, "Relax, and be as you are." All effort at becoming more conscious, or attaining union with the Unborn, is, ultimately, a play of the Unborn because there is nothing other than the Unborn. Going to the grocery store is the Unborn going to the grocery store. Getting lost in a daydream is the Unborn getting lost in a daydream. Imagining stages of spiritual development is the Unborn imagining stages of spiritual development. This is the fundamental truth behind the biblical verse Psalms 46:10--"Be still and know that I am God." This is why ZM Seung Sahn used to tell his students, "Put it all down!" It is why Papaji told Gangaji at their first meeting, "Stop all your efforting. Just stop!" Gangaji later said, "Somehow on that day I heard those words and everything stopped." When fruit gets ripe, it falls from the tree. There's a famous Zen story about a monk like Gangaji who was doing everything imaginable to get enlightened, without success. One day he met a ZM who said, "Drop all of your ideas about this, and just stop." The monk thought for a moment and replied, "I can't." The ZM shrugged his shoulders and said, "Okay, then keep on carrying them with you, but don't expect to find anything other than this," and he turned around three times, smiled, and walked away." It's reported that the monk did not understand. The truth is so obvious that it almost inevitably gets overlooked. The focus on simplicity is a good one. I've found myself talking more and more about absence and not knowing and conceptual boundaries in the face of 3-layer cakes and SR/CC combo meals. (Maybe we need forum lunch breaks) I understand the attraction to complexity because that added discrimination is how mind makes sense of things in the world, but really we're better off trying to understand mind's limitations and why it loves complexity. Or you could just walk off the battlefield.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 25, 2018 2:17:25 GMT -5
The focus on simplicity is a good one. I've found myself talking more and more about absence and not knowing and conceptual boundaries in the face of 3-layer cakes and SR/CC combo meals. (Maybe we need forum lunch breaks) I understand the attraction to complexity because that added discrimination is how mind makes sense of things in the world, but really we're better off trying to understand mind's limitations and why it loves complexity. Sorry, but one last equation is called for. We must finally factor out the "other person" who may or may not be perceiving and who acts as if there is gravity. Only then will the level of simplicity have finally arrived at a point where there's nothing left to say, and all awareness will be at non-experiential peace, but only if you first meditate or TM-chant your way to an OBE/NDE communion with your deceased love ones and all of your past life selves in a state of completely shattered and gaping wide chakras where you've lost the belief in the Santa Clause of Jesus Christ because you successfully unlearned the information that led to it in the first place. Naked walks in the rain for good measure are always a bonus too, but you might have to stamp someone specifically for that purpose to get them to go along with the idea. I was also wondering how the emptiness/not-knowing dogma applies to psychics/channels, telepathy and clairvoyance.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 25, 2018 8:20:18 GMT -5
SDP: In the non-dual community people often talk about becoming "more conscious," but this is only a pointer, and it should not be taken literally. We can become conscious OF different things, but we cannot become more conscious than conscious. Even in a CC experience, there is just consciousness of whatever is happening. In the deepest sense nothing ever happens, and there is no movement of any kind, but a particular realization is necessary in order to see this. I don't get any sense at all that you get what I'm trying to point to. You show no value at all concerning the difference between different states, your non-duality makes all things equal. If that's fine with you, that's fine. But like it or not, what you say/write is "teaching", even if you want to merely call it pointers, you have a lot of weight around here. I'm just trying to show there is an alternative way to look. So if I dialogue, I'm not trying to change your view, I'm just presenting an alternative, for whoever happens to read. I don't get that you see as equal: just pouring concrete on autopilot OTOH, and OToH being conscious while pouring concrete. I don't know if you're like a fish who has no awareness of the water it is swimming in, Water? What the hell is water? Or, Oh yes, once I was not aware of the water, and it came as a very! big! surprise! to come to awareness of water. But now it is no big deal, sure, I know about water, and I can be aware of the water, but I am usually not, because it's not a big deal. So I don't know if you're a fish who has never learned it is swimming in water, or if you have, but it is no longer a big deal. There are still a lot of fish in the sea who would value finding out about water. But the answer is not in the water, it's in the fish. I don't know what kind of fish you are. You post as if you are just an ordinary fish who doesn't know, has never known, it is swimming in water. It IS a blanking big deal to find out about water. For me, there is a very big difference between operating on autopilot, and being conscious. Sure, I can get lost "swimming", forget about the water, but then again, significant difference, to remember the H 2O. You say there is no difference. I find that very difficult to comprehend if you really know about water. You talk about permanent changes, about realizations being permanent and you have never found something learned from a realization to be inaccurate, or to change. I would like to know about some "nuts and bolts" (versus what you gnosis from realizations), are you permanently aware of the water? Hui Neng summed it up well when he said, "Without hindrance let the mind function freely." When there is deep existential understanding, one no longer has to think about thinking, or try to control thinking, or try to become more conscious, or try to refrain from functioning on autopilot, or make an effort to do anything. One can relax, and just be at-one with the Infinite. Source is all there is, and Source has everything under control. If this can be seen, deeply, real freedom will be the result. A CC reveals that reality is not what we imagine. What we call "reality" is alive, aware, incomprehensibly intelligent, and UNIFIED. SR reveals that we are NOT who we imagine, and that what we are is Reality, Itself, UNIFIED. There are other lesser realizations, but those are the two big ones. The bottom line is that there are NOT two here. Not two. Not two. Not two! Once seen, this not-twoness is never forgotten. Afterwards, there is never any doubt about what's going on. There is only one doer, and That One does everything. Until this is seen there can be no real relaxation, peace, or equanimity. Source is typing these words, and Source is reading these words, and despite what one might imagine, there is no one else here. You can take that to the bank.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Mar 25, 2018 11:40:34 GMT -5
Yes, the pointer about "becoming conscious" is about waking up from "being something in a dream" to "the dream being within the one and only somenothing", hehe. Peeps keep identifying with something that has to realize something. As such, there's looking outward for that something, identifying as what they assume is in the middle, not following the "what is looking" pointer to its source. Typically, in discussion/conversation, it's the distractions of the dream that compel unconscious identification with the dream character. "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives...." Love it! Bag to digging holes. Would likewise ask ("nuts and bolts"), are you always aware of the dream, or do you sometimes go back to being lost in the dream? It seems the question might be best approached via the ocean-wave analogy, which most peeps seem to understand, but perhaps only to varying degrees. That's kind of why "Awareness", serves as a bettererer pointer to the inner most depths of the ocean; whereas, using "Consciousness" to point to the movements near/at the surface of the ocean (i.e., of which we can be conscious). The surface itself is merely the story/dream in which interactions, consensus reality, and all that jazz take place. The fact that all analogies and metaphors reach ultimately fail is assumed, but that's where pointers are born and die, depending on the degree of understanding. The question alludes to the surface only, so that's what is being addressed here. In awareness of the human condition, rarely does someone question whether they're lost or not when all is positive. The question of being "lost" typically refers to the negative aspects of life in which most will feel overwhelmed. We're addressing both here though. The concept of "waves" used here refers to when peeps feel great, are happy with the way things are, or things are going fine, so most are quite fine to identify with being the wave. To take a step back from identifying with a wave, the whole surface can be seen for what it is. It can be noticed that there can be no wave without a trough. This is where people often get to feeling "lost" as they are being pulled into the depths of despair and visceral suffering. But clearly, both are on the surface. Most peeps live and assume the "experience in identification with the wave or trough", wanting to be the one over the other. It is interesting though that when the surface comes to a perfect calm clarity, for however long that timelessness lasts (yes, a seemingly paradoxical poetic license is used here to convey), it is "seen" as the mirror/mind that it is, what is happening within what one actually IS. This is what is referred to as "everything is a dream". But once seen, one is awake to the dream and its impermanence. Once realized, it can never be lost except by falling into the dream that is believed to be true. Does this point to an "answer" that satisfies the present curiosity? I can get more personal, though it is likely that that will give rise to more questions, which, in turn, will give rise to answers that sound brown bearish and heartless on their surface. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Huineng's Mirror is not about mastering the concept or the logic of it on the surface most understand as consensual reality, but "seeing/realizing/living" the profound depths that give rise to that surface. As such, it derails and/or undermines all discursive thought that once gave life to consensual reality. This is what starts to choke the life out of the psychological self. Not to put the cart before the donkey, but once one can learn to "allow" that derailment/undermining/choking to happen, and begin to see clarity come into being, it gets a little "easier". There is a mirror. There is no mirror. There is a mirror. The first mirror does not equate with the third mirror. This cannot be overemphasized.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 25, 2018 14:59:27 GMT -5
Would likewise ask ("nuts and bolts"), are you always aware of the dream, or do you sometimes go back to being lost in the dream? It seems the question might be best approached via the ocean-wave analogy, which most peeps seem to understand, but perhaps only to varying degrees. That's kind of why "Awareness", serves as a bettererer pointer to the inner most depths of the ocean; whereas, using "Consciousness" to point to the movements near/at the surface of the ocean (i.e., of which we can be conscious). The surface itself is merely the story/dream in which interactions, consensus reality, and all that jazz take place. The fact that all analogies and metaphors reach ultimately fail is assumed, but that's where pointers are born and die, depending on the degree of understanding. The question alludes to the surface only, so that's what is being addressed here. In awareness of the human condition, rarely does someone question whether they're lost or not when all is positive. The question of being "lost" typically refers to the negative aspects of life in which most will feel overwhelmed. We're addressing both here though. The concept of "waves" used here refers to when peeps feel great, are happy with the way things are, or things are going fine, so most are quite fine to identify with being the wave. To take a step back from identifying with a wave, the whole surface can be seen for what it is. It can be noticed that there can be no wave without a trough. This is where people often get to feeling "lost" as they are being pulled into the depths of despair and visceral suffering. But clearly, both are on the surface. Most peeps live and assume the "experience in identification with the wave or trough", wanting to be the one over the other. It is interesting though that when the surface comes to a perfect calm clarity, for however long that timelessness lasts (yes, a seemingly paradoxical poetic license is used here to convey), it is "seen" as the mirror/mind that it is, what is happening within what one actually IS. This is what is referred to as "everything is a dream". But once seen, one is awake to the dream and its impermanence. Once realized, it can never be lost except by falling into the dream that is believed to be true. Does this point to an "answer" that satisfies the present curiosity? I can get more personal, though it is likely that that will give rise to more questions, which, in turn, will give rise to answers that sound brown bearish and heartless on their surface. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Note: Huineng's Mirror is not about mastering the concept or the logic of it on the surface most understand as consensual reality, but "seeing/realizing/living" the profound depths that give rise to that surface. As such, it derails and/or undermines all discursive thought that once gave life to consensual reality. This is what starts to choke the life out of the psychological self. Not to put the cart before the donkey, but once one can learn to "allow" that derailment/undermining/choking to happen, and begin to see clarity come into being, it gets a little "easier". There is a mirror. There is no mirror. There is a mirror. The first mirror does not equate with the third mirror. This cannot be overemphasized. Precisely, and when the waves on the surface of the ocean, and the silent depths of the ocean that give rise to the waves, and the One who sees both the surface and the depths, are all seen as undivided, one can finally relax (or play) in the beingness of "what is." Or, to more accurately modify the purported words of Jesus, "Let him who seeks continue seeking until he finds. When he finds he will become troubled. When he becomes troubled, he will be astonished, and he will joyfully and gratefully live in service to the ALL."
|
|