Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2019 2:01:53 GMT -5
I stopped meditating 10 years ago when I reached the end of practice, when it was no longer necessary. I reached a point where I stopped meditating because a still mind was my conditioned state. Then I started becoming conscious, which gave me a new understanding of meditation. That's perfectly correct!
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Dec 5, 2019 3:08:42 GMT -5
A still mind is you being conditioned to not think. Stillness is already conscious and transcends mind and thought. Somehow this hasn’t dawned on you yet. A still mind has nothing to do with conditioning or thinking. How could it be. If I told you stop thinking and listen to me, I would be conditioning you to be silent. You may or may not listen. Stillness that transcends mind actually exists. Not thinking to be something that transcends thinking is illogical, because it already is in the presence or absence of your thoughts. Sequentially according to your conditioning. You aren’t waking up in the morning thinking like Rudolf the reindeer. You think according to the experience of the person with the name provided to you by whoever named you. you don’t forget who you are every time your mind goes still and you start thinking again. In the same way, you aren’t transcending or going beyond thinking or losing the unconsciousness embedded into your conditioning every time you are in a still mind. You’re just in denial about being a conditioned mind, driven by a tendency to suppress emotion, which you still haven’t noticed.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Dec 5, 2019 3:09:30 GMT -5
I reached a point where I stopped meditating because a still mind was my conditioned state. Then I started becoming conscious, which gave me a new understanding of meditation. That's perfectly correct! Correct but not enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Dec 5, 2019 3:29:16 GMT -5
Stillness that transcends mind actually exists. Which is exactly what I've been telling you.
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 5, 2019 6:47:49 GMT -5
Yes. It’s more or less a conclusion derived from a mental process. It’s not the same as what can be understood as “realization”. Right. Realization that you know mind is nothing known by mind. At train stations throughout India there are usually a number of hawkers, and some of them have these Rs5-10 books on Hinduism, Patanjali, and the like. One of the common themes was expressed as “Supreme Knowledge”. For so long, I interpreted that to mean “understanding something reeeeaaaasllllly important, the truth”. For the most part, I’d read through them a bit, recognizing this or that concept, getting into the flowery language used, and then my eyes and mind would begin to glaze over 😆. It wasn’t until after waking up that I could read with diligence: knowing what was being pointed to in clear statements, what was hubris, what was conceptual nonsense, and what was dogma made the endeavor a little more palatable before my eyes would glaze over (though my mind would at least feel a little sharper). It’s a purddy decent tool sometimes. Others, not so much. 😌
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 5, 2019 8:03:55 GMT -5
Did you see the movie Jolie directed that portrayed them in the lead as a couple? It was an absolute masterpiece, and was sort of like a self-therapy for the two of them. You can see the suffering that's playing out in the relationship, painted, garishly, all over the screen. No wonder the critics hated it. No wonder it bombed. Yes, our opinions of Zen differ. I see your point about the cultural artifact it embodies, and in that it expresses a sort of paradox. But, you see, the purest form of the Zen meditation, which I think of by the term, shikantaza, involves sitting without rejecting anything that arises from within, but instead, remaining steadfastly present to it all. Nowhere to run, nowhere to hide, because, everywhere and anywhen you might ever possibly go .. there, You .. are. The height of self-honesty, my friend, is an empty room, and some clock time. .. ps: I think you'll find that Buddhist topic of dependent origination well worth your time ...Watching Groundhog Day at the moment! I saw bits and pieces of the CIA one. I like Jolie, and Brads work speaks for itself. Zen, jeez, maybe I was harsh. A lot of my Zen understanding comes from Adyashanti, who is able to bridge through the nonsense more so than most teachers. Tolles quotes from zen and some of the stuff Zd shares from zen I also resonate with, so I don’t mean to dismiss it entirely. I’ve read Siddhartha great book. But like you mention, sitting without rejecting anything. The mind that could reject its own processes isn’t what you are, and so thought rejection can only happen unconsciously, like having a thought followed by the idea that the thought should not have happened. This type of split mind happens for emotional reasons, and when I see these emotional reasons bypassed in hopes that a still mind or oneness experience will solve a lifetime of compartmentalized thinking, my only suggestion is to stop bull sh.itting yourself. Maybe things need to get noisy for a while. As far as an empty room and self honesty. I’d much rather see how you react under pressure. How you’re doing when someone cuts you off in traffic. How you process the woman who spits in your food. Maybe you might agree that zen promotes pacifism. Or are we talking about the zen that includes Buddha’s decapitated head on a stick? Now, not to split hairs, I mean, maybe emotions should be processed alone in a room so as not to harm people. But staring at a wall and hoping for a oneness shebang and reverse compartmentalizing your way out of delusion are two different actions with two very different causes and effects. Agreed? Right, the test in motion. Well, I'd say I agree, but with a caveat. We can predict how a conditioned person deep in unconsciousness will react to adversity, but the flip side of predicting how a person who is either less unconscious or has realized the existential truth is another matter altogether. What I found, and which makes perfect sense to me, is that sitting meditation can be an integral part of the process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our own minds. Personally, I've always been relatively comfortable in my own skin, and people who can't stand their own company and didn't like silent solitude sort of puzzled, and frankly, rather annoyed me (at times). But, if you go deep enough into a practice like this, it's possible to come to empathize with them. Like Tolle wrote, many of us live (or lived) life with an internal inquisitor that never ceased criticizing. It's his advice to "watch the thinker" that can make this all quite clear. While I understand your objection to conditioning the mind not to think, like Tolle, what I found was that a substantial percentage of my day-to-day thought and emotional processes simply trailed off after having realized what he was pointing to in terms of the witness. What happens though, is that after the internal inquisitor implodes, a new normal is established, and if one looks for it quietly, like Elmer Fudd, various conditioned, and yet subtle and muted, movements of mind can be revealed. Thought/emotion has a certain creative horizon to it that meditation can plumb. There really is no end to that depth, and an alternative meaning of a quiescent body/mind isn't one that is conditioned to repress or ignore thought, but rather, a description of someone who's arrived at a state relatively free of internal resistance. This is a description of Csikszentmihalyi's "flow". Like many modern psychological constructs, this has an analog in Zen: "mushin". The difference of Zen from Csik' is, from my understanding, a disinterest in the intellectual descriptions of why this happens, but rather, a practical emphasis on the doing of it. I understand how meditation can lead to a split-mind, and don't object to this observation, but you see, this isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion, and when some people refer to a quiet mind, they're not referring to a split-mind.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Dec 6, 2019 2:22:52 GMT -5
Watching Groundhog Day at the moment! I saw bits and pieces of the CIA one. I like Jolie, and Brads work speaks for itself. Zen, jeez, maybe I was harsh. A lot of my Zen understanding comes from Adyashanti, who is able to bridge through the nonsense more so than most teachers. Tolles quotes from zen and some of the stuff Zd shares from zen I also resonate with, so I don’t mean to dismiss it entirely. I’ve read Siddhartha great book. But like you mention, sitting without rejecting anything. The mind that could reject its own processes isn’t what you are, and so thought rejection can only happen unconsciously, like having a thought followed by the idea that the thought should not have happened. This type of split mind happens for emotional reasons, and when I see these emotional reasons bypassed in hopes that a still mind or oneness experience will solve a lifetime of compartmentalized thinking, my only suggestion is to stop bull sh.itting yourself. Maybe things need to get noisy for a while. As far as an empty room and self honesty. I’d much rather see how you react under pressure. How you’re doing when someone cuts you off in traffic. How you process the woman who spits in your food. Maybe you might agree that zen promotes pacifism. Or are we talking about the zen that includes Buddha’s decapitated head on a stick? Now, not to split hairs, I mean, maybe emotions should be processed alone in a room so as not to harm people. But staring at a wall and hoping for a oneness shebang and reverse compartmentalizing your way out of delusion are two different actions with two very different causes and effects. Agreed? Right, the test in motion. Well, I'd say I agree, but with a caveat. We can predict how a conditioned person deep in unconsciousness will react to adversity, but the flip side of predicting how a person who is either less unconscious or has realized the existential truth is another matter altogether. What I found, and which makes perfect sense to me, is that sitting meditation can be an integral part of the process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our own minds. Personally, I've always been relatively comfortable in my own skin, and people who can't stand their own company and didn't like silent solitude sort of puzzled, and frankly, rather annoyed me (at times). But, if you go deep enough into a practice like this, it's possible to come to empathize with them. Like Tolle wrote, many of us live (or lived) life with an internal inquisitor that never ceased criticizing. It's his advice to "watch the thinker" that can make this all quite clear. While I understand your objection to conditioning the mind not to think, like Tolle, what I found was that a substantial percentage of my day-to-day thought and emotional processes simply trailed off after having realized what he was pointing to in terms of the witness. What happens though, is that after the internal inquisitor implodes, a new normal is established, and if one looks for it quietly, like Elmer Fudd, various conditioned, and yet subtle and muted, movements of mind can be revealed. Thought/emotion has a certain creative horizon to it that meditation can plumb. There really is no end to that depth, and an alternative meaning of a quiescent body/mind isn't one that is conditioned to repress or ignore thought, but rather, a description of someone who's arrived at a state relatively free of internal resistance. This is a description of Csikszentmihalyi's "flow". Like many modern psychological constructs, this has an analog in Zen: "mushin". The difference of Zen from Csik' is, from my understanding, a disinterest in the intellectual descriptions of why this happens, but rather, a practical emphasis on the doing of it. I understand how meditation can lead to a split-mind, and don't object to this observation, but you see, this isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion, and when some people refer to a quiet mind, they're not referring to a split-mind. Welp, I don’t object to conditioning mind into stillness, as it is a virtually inevitable consequence of being more conscious, like less emotionally unconscious. Shifting attention away from emotions doesn’t make one less emotionally unconscious, and so I only mean to discuss what’s true in that regard. A state free of internal resistance is just fine, even dandy, but there is also the potential to be mushin to a spiritual force, meaning, mushin into mind states of stillness while forces more or less controlling your conditioning are primarily lower dimensional. This is not a good thing for a number of reasons, loss of free will being one, but also an incredible tax on the auric system. And so, Meditation wouldn’t lead to a split mind, but would rather appeal to the mind already divided against itself. Through attention shifting, through deliberate repression of thought and emotion, the ‘winning mind’, as we see in the enlightened facade, takes the form of an awareness concept. The person is officially disassociated from, and awareness pervades the mind state, but the person itself is just as unconscious as when it starts a practice. Consciousness of course is being conscious, timelessly. Accordingly, I think sitting mediations where the content of mind is observed is great. Where the mind takes on the role of being an observer mind there to combat or even just watch the thinking mind, things get more complex via what Freud referred to as the super ego. Maharaj said the witness is the bridge to awareness, which crudely encapsulates what happens when the mind deludes itself that it can observe itself. Pain is bypassed for the sake of being an observer mind, rather than just allowing consciousness to be aware of conditioned, automatic responses. Maybe something can be said for inviting awareness into minds processes, in the same way we might invite pain from our conditioning into awareness, for transmutation. And so, not all silent minds are split minds, but some are cloaked in spiritual unconsciousness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 6, 2019 9:35:17 GMT -5
Right, the test in motion. Well, I'd say I agree, but with a caveat. We can predict how a conditioned person deep in unconsciousness will react to adversity, but the flip side of predicting how a person who is either less unconscious or has realized the existential truth is another matter altogether. What I found, and which makes perfect sense to me, is that sitting meditation can be an integral part of the process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of our own minds. Personally, I've always been relatively comfortable in my own skin, and people who can't stand their own company and didn't like silent solitude sort of puzzled, and frankly, rather annoyed me (at times). But, if you go deep enough into a practice like this, it's possible to come to empathize with them. Like Tolle wrote, many of us live (or lived) life with an internal inquisitor that never ceased criticizing. It's his advice to "watch the thinker" that can make this all quite clear. While I understand your objection to conditioning the mind not to think, like Tolle, what I found was that a substantial percentage of my day-to-day thought and emotional processes simply trailed off after having realized what he was pointing to in terms of the witness. What happens though, is that after the internal inquisitor implodes, a new normal is established, and if one looks for it quietly, like Elmer Fudd, various conditioned, and yet subtle and muted, movements of mind can be revealed. Thought/emotion has a certain creative horizon to it that meditation can plumb. There really is no end to that depth, and an alternative meaning of a quiescent body/mind isn't one that is conditioned to repress or ignore thought, but rather, a description of someone who's arrived at a state relatively free of internal resistance. This is a description of Csikszentmihalyi's "flow". Like many modern psychological constructs, this has an analog in Zen: "mushin". The difference of Zen from Csik' is, from my understanding, a disinterest in the intellectual descriptions of why this happens, but rather, a practical emphasis on the doing of it. I understand how meditation can lead to a split-mind, and don't object to this observation, but you see, this isn't necessarily a foregone conclusion, and when some people refer to a quiet mind, they're not referring to a split-mind. Welp, I don’t object to conditioning mind into stillness, as it is a virtually inevitable consequence of being more conscious, like less emotionally unconscious. Shifting attention away from emotions doesn’t make one less emotionally unconscious, and so I only mean to discuss what’s true in that regard. A state free of internal resistance is just fine, even dandy, but there is also the potential to be mushin to a spiritual force, meaning, mushin into mind states of stillness while forces more or less controlling your conditioning are primarily lower dimensional. This is not a good thing for a number of reasons, loss of free will being one, but also an incredible tax on the auric system. And so, Meditation wouldn’t lead to a split mind, but would rather appeal to the mind already divided against itself. Through attention shifting, through deliberate repression of thought and emotion, the ‘winning mind’, as we see in the enlightened facade, takes the form of an awareness concept. The person is officially disassociated from, and awareness pervades the mind state, but the person itself is just as unconscious as when it starts a practice. Consciousness of course is being conscious, timelessly. Accordingly, I think sitting mediations where the content of mind is observed is great. Where the mind takes on the role of being an observer mind there to combat or even just watch the thinking mind, things get more complex via what Freud referred to as the super ego. Maharaj said the witness is the bridge to awareness, which crudely encapsulates what happens when the mind deludes itself that it can observe itself. Pain is bypassed for the sake of being an observer mind, rather than just allowing consciousness to be aware of conditioned, automatic responses. Maybe something can be said for inviting awareness into minds processes, in the same way we might invite pain from our conditioning into awareness, for transmutation. And so, not all silent minds are split minds, but some are cloaked in spiritual unconsciousness. Pain is an inevitability of life, but suffering, is never not rooted in the existential trick of people-peepness. What Niz was pointing to with his witness concept was distinguishing the false, as false, which enables one to feel the pain fully without creating suffering. In my book, this is the result of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of body/mind. And Niz was quite clear that you "don't build a house on a bridge".
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Dec 7, 2019 9:10:51 GMT -5
Welp, I don’t object to conditioning mind into stillness, as it is a virtually inevitable consequence of being more conscious, like less emotionally unconscious. Shifting attention away from emotions doesn’t make one less emotionally unconscious, and so I only mean to discuss what’s true in that regard. A state free of internal resistance is just fine, even dandy, but there is also the potential to be mushin to a spiritual force, meaning, mushin into mind states of stillness while forces more or less controlling your conditioning are primarily lower dimensional. This is not a good thing for a number of reasons, loss of free will being one, but also an incredible tax on the auric system. And so, Meditation wouldn’t lead to a split mind, but would rather appeal to the mind already divided against itself. Through attention shifting, through deliberate repression of thought and emotion, the ‘winning mind’, as we see in the enlightened facade, takes the form of an awareness concept. The person is officially disassociated from, and awareness pervades the mind state, but the person itself is just as unconscious as when it starts a practice. Consciousness of course is being conscious, timelessly. Accordingly, I think sitting mediations where the content of mind is observed is great. Where the mind takes on the role of being an observer mind there to combat or even just watch the thinking mind, things get more complex via what Freud referred to as the super ego. Maharaj said the witness is the bridge to awareness, which crudely encapsulates what happens when the mind deludes itself that it can observe itself. Pain is bypassed for the sake of being an observer mind, rather than just allowing consciousness to be aware of conditioned, automatic responses. Maybe something can be said for inviting awareness into minds processes, in the same way we might invite pain from our conditioning into awareness, for transmutation. And so, not all silent minds are split minds, but some are cloaked in spiritual unconsciousness. Pain is an inevitability of life, but suffering, is never not rooted in the existential trick of people-peepness. What Niz was pointing to with his witness concept was distinguishing the false, as false, which enables one to feel the pain fully without creating suffering. In my book, this is the result of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of body/mind. And Niz was quite clear that you "don't build a house on a bridge". I guess we are in the same book, although I don’t think I’ve ever heard Niz speak of feeling pain fully. He certainly alludes to the psychological concepts of repression, and maybe speaks more eloquently on seeking than any man who’s ever walked the planet, but from what I’ve read of how he followed his Gurus words, his throwing a sneaker at someone, the smoking, the cancer, how he answered certain questions, I have little doubt he was somewhat emotionally desensitized as opposed to transcended. I’m not a guru, and so deal less with the elevating projections and facade restructuring that could take place in the Niz type climate. The nuances of conditioning are virtually infinite, and I’m still noticing new ways to look at dynamics and thought structure. I appreciate Jung because he made it ok to think scientifically about the collective unconscious, spiritual forces, and interfacing patterns between individuals and the collective, and how residuals can transcend time, and Yet still exist in temporally influential way. More pointedly, how this ties into the individual minds repressed contents or pain body and how something like an angel or guardian can take shape, even if only as an archetype that aligns perfectly with how you think, like an invisible gear ratio bringing the engine to the sweet spot of required strain for desired output. Now, McKenna eloquently discuss invisible lines to your experience, score keepers, and the divine tapestry, but correctly points out, if the universe doesn’t want you dead, you won’t die, but crossing the line from blind faith to clarity and knowing who is expressing what and for what reason, matters to the extent we are getting real with ourselves. When I first heard enigma say that becoming conscious or transcendence is a process of inclusion and going beyond, I knew I had to take a look at exclusion, particularly in the context of self honesty. It seems so many of us are drawn to spirituality because of how our minds function, or you could say we Rez with truth because of an innate repulsion away from self division.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 7, 2019 10:52:38 GMT -5
Pain is an inevitability of life, but suffering, is never not rooted in the existential trick of people-peepness. What Niz was pointing to with his witness concept was distinguishing the false, as false, which enables one to feel the pain fully without creating suffering. In my book, this is the result of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of body/mind. And Niz was quite clear that you "don't build a house on a bridge". I guess we are in the same book, although I don’t think I’ve ever heard Niz speak of feeling pain fully. He certainly alludes to the psychological concepts of repression, and maybe speaks more eloquently on seeking than any man who’s ever walked the planet, but from what I’ve read of how he followed his Gurus words, his throwing a sneaker at someone, the smoking, the cancer, how he answered certain questions, I have little doubt he was somewhat emotionally desensitized as opposed to transcended. I’m not a guru, and so deal less with the elevating projections and facade restructuring that could take place in the Niz type climate. The nuances of conditioning are virtually infinite, and I’m still noticing new ways to look at dynamics and thought structure. I appreciate Jung because he made it ok to think scientifically about the collective unconscious, spiritual forces, and interfacing patterns between individuals and the collective, and how residuals can transcend time, and Yet still exist in temporally influential way. More pointedly, how this ties into the individual minds repressed contents or pain body and how something like an angel or guardian can take shape, even if only as an archetype that aligns perfectly with how you think, like an invisible gear ratio bringing the engine to the sweet spot of required strain for desired output. Now, McKenna eloquently discuss invisible lines to your experience, score keepers, and the divine tapestry, but correctly points out, if the universe doesn’t want you dead, you won’t die, but crossing the line from blind faith to clarity and knowing who is expressing what and for what reason, matters to the extent we are getting real with ourselves. When I first heard enigma say that becoming conscious or transcendence is a process of inclusion and going beyond, I knew I had to take a look at exclusion, particularly in the context of self honesty. It seems so many of us are drawn to spirituality because of how our minds function, or you could say we Rez with truth because of an innate repulsion away from self division. Yes, as a person, Niz had quite a few rough edges, no doubt. But I'll tell you this, I'd rather quadruple his problems plus imprisonment, torture, and a whole lot worse than being an emotionally perfected human being who dies without realizing the existential truth that Niz spoke about in such singular fashion. How old was he they started recording his dialogs, now, I wonder? You see, the one primary negative emotion that comes through loud and clear in what he said is impatience. He never had any time to waste in any of those dialogs. Each one is unique and tailored to the questioner, but he'd get to the heart of where the questioner was within a few Q&A's, and then lay out the truth in stark, and uncompromising terms. Of course this is going to elicit some negative reaction. The man just wasn't f#cking around. He had zero time for that. But through it all, quite a bit of what he says is obviously filled with a deep compassion. You raise some very interesting issues, all well worth considering. I haven't read enough Jed to know what you're alluding to there. From what I have read of the first book, Jed is well versed in certain cultural movements that I've been exposed to only lightly. One chapter I'm thinking about is his video game metaphor in book #1, but there are several others. The same goes for your allusions to spiritual forces -- I just don't have much of a cultural reference point for any of that. But this doesn't mean I can't discern the meaning of what you're writing. It's through a filter with a very different perspective, one I know you're no stranger to: the conditioned scientist/historian. So, it's clear to me that much of what you're referring to can be described in terms of the sequences of events that lead up to someone being as they are in any particular point in time: what conditioning have they lived through, and what conditions do they find themselves living within, right now? I'm still biased toward my perspective, of course, as evidenced by the Buddhist dependent origination link. This doesn't mean that there isn't some serious potential value there for you if you make time to follow-up on it. The one deficiency of what I know is that it doesn't explain non-locality, like, at all. You know -- miracles and ghost stories .. but I've had enough of a taste of that in my own direct experience to know enough not to sneer at non-locality anymore. Not to mention it's an artifact of Quantum mechanics. And while I want to stress that I see the value in what you're writing about, and my interest in it is genuine, I also have to balance that with the opinion that realizing the existential truth is by far the greater humanitarian imperative than emotional healing. Many people are confused at the idea that realization doesn't perfect the individual -- and this confusion manifests in a cacaphonic myriad of perspective and matter of degree. Ultimately, that has to be d@mned. "Can a self-realized person go emotionally unconscious?" is both a koan, and has a clear and obvious answer in the affirmative.
Anyone interested in that ideal of existential realization would do well to cultivate a process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of their body/mind and what they sense as "the world". But I'd be lying to them if I told them it was necessary or was going to lead them any closer to the truth. In the direction away from falsity, is enough. There really is no need to identify the details of the negative spiritual forces someone is subject to, and enlightenment should and can never be postponed to some imaginary future life or incarnation, as it can only ever happen, and there never is any reason that it shouldn't happen, right here, and right now. Why miracles happen is of no significance, and our ghosts stories are, ultimately, always the stuff of our own imagination.
|
|
|
Post by lopezcabellero on Dec 9, 2019 12:34:09 GMT -5
I guess we are in the same book, although I don’t think I’ve ever heard Niz speak of feeling pain fully. He certainly alludes to the psychological concepts of repression, and maybe speaks more eloquently on seeking than any man who’s ever walked the planet, but from what I’ve read of how he followed his Gurus words, his throwing a sneaker at someone, the smoking, the cancer, how he answered certain questions, I have little doubt he was somewhat emotionally desensitized as opposed to transcended. I’m not a guru, and so deal less with the elevating projections and facade restructuring that could take place in the Niz type climate. The nuances of conditioning are virtually infinite, and I’m still noticing new ways to look at dynamics and thought structure. I appreciate Jung because he made it ok to think scientifically about the collective unconscious, spiritual forces, and interfacing patterns between individuals and the collective, and how residuals can transcend time, and Yet still exist in temporally influential way. More pointedly, how this ties into the individual minds repressed contents or pain body and how something like an angel or guardian can take shape, even if only as an archetype that aligns perfectly with how you think, like an invisible gear ratio bringing the engine to the sweet spot of required strain for desired output. Now, McKenna eloquently discuss invisible lines to your experience, score keepers, and the divine tapestry, but correctly points out, if the universe doesn’t want you dead, you won’t die, but crossing the line from blind faith to clarity and knowing who is expressing what and for what reason, matters to the extent we are getting real with ourselves. When I first heard enigma say that becoming conscious or transcendence is a process of inclusion and going beyond, I knew I had to take a look at exclusion, particularly in the context of self honesty. It seems so many of us are drawn to spirituality because of how our minds function, or you could say we Rez with truth because of an innate repulsion away from self division. Yes, as a person, Niz had quite a few rough edges, no doubt. But I'll tell you this, I'd rather quadruple his problems plus imprisonment, torture, and a whole lot worse than being an emotionally perfected human being who dies without realizing the existential truth that Niz spoke about in such singular fashion. How old was he they started recording his dialogs, now, I wonder?
I dunno. I'm also not sure it would be possible to be emotionally perfected without some existential realization. A belief in separation, or any belief which isn't true, can only be driven unconsciously, that is to say, be held due to some underlying injury. The collective human psyche is operating under all sorts of self inflicted programmed degradation, and so to be an unconscious mind within this greater tapestry can at best be a somnambulist's dream. As we both know, emotional perfection is itself a myth, because we're essentially speaking of full consciousness of conditioned dynamics that could potentially be pain driven. The list is infinite. The point you make essentially is saying that an existential realization is better than the absence of an unconsciously driven behavioral cycle. It depends, considering a lot of the bliss most folks experience in the wake of existential realization is itself unconsciously driven, meaning, temporarily available due to a lack of conscious thinking that is undesirable. Now, this idea also brings up whether something like becoming conscious can happen without existential realization, and anyone who has ever repressed grief for loss of a loved, knows first hand that it can. The grief was unconscious, until it was made conscious through noticing resistance to it. Yes, the mind can remain in the dark about how becoming conscious happens, but it can still happen. What seems most interesting is how existential realization can allegedly take place without becoming conscious following in its wake. If the realization was genuine, we would see a dissipation of mind inability to recognize self contradiction, and yet, so often this isnt what we see. We see attack and defend, because the facade is still identified with in a different form. It is still a pain driven 'entity', and quite toxic to the collective psyche, and so I can't say implicitly these realizations that are taking place on a broad scale are pure or genuine. They seem to be realizations that one is nothing apparent, followed by an apparent belief that one is nothing appearing. Well, from what I understand a lot of I Am That was translated and written through Maurice, or whoever was his homey, but point being, we only know what we know about the man and the legend of Maharaj. He was the man for his time and place, but that time and place has passed and so when I see people playing Maharaj, or impersonating Maharshi, I know I'm looking at a cloaking device that can only present itself due to unhealed emotional injury in the presenter. I would explain that a spirit can pretend to be Maharaj or Maharshi to gain control of the students mind, but this would require some contextual foundation. My perspective is that Maharaj and Maharshi both experienced a degree of ascension and became comfortable with where they were on an emotional scale because how their conditions made them feel. They can sometimes be seen confusing realization with their own state of mind, and I've seen a number of contemporary teachers do the same, speaking of themselves as the person in one context, and as an identityless witness in another in order to avoid rubbing people the wrong way or making themselves look bad. To the extent we can consciously compartmentalize an identity, is to the same extent the engine we interface with is ripe to project unhealed emotions and attack or elevate us, or maybe even stalk you for sex. And what is this driven by if not a collective fear of acceptance or an individuals need for approval, which are not consciously driven dynamics, but rather, facade maintenance regimens. Yea Jed is good. I found some of his recent stuff to be a bit self indulgent, but I feel you could find a gem in any of his writing if you look hard enough, or are relaxed enough to be easy and see. I haven't read a couple of his newest works, but the original trilogy equips the individual with some tools for ascension, and surely entices ego with lots of ridiculousness for facade restructuring. Even Tolle and others do the same, as if ego won't go to the ledge to contemplate its own non existence without a parachute on. Spirit cloaking and spiritual forces requires an understanding of non locality, because that's what it is, 'spooky action at a distance'. I would also say that the individual mind is most vulnerable to cloaking or undue influence (well it's due only because of lack of consciousness) just prior to and during meditation, for spiritual folks. This happens because often meditation is driven by a need to sooth fear, even if only a fear of fear rising later if you don't get your hour or two in, and I don't mean to discount the value of a nice walk in the park or sitting alone in a room with your thoughts. But that some spiritual energy is attracted fear and isn't dynamically oriented to help you be conscious of it but rather to avoid it so it can gain control of your mind through the compensation mechanism. As far as the non local nature of spiritual energy, you may find your mind is capable of deciphering the spirit pool, if not the spiritual entourage, of an individual emotionally connected to you during the sleep state. You may also see synchronicity due to a spirit guiding you or influencing you, like having a dream about the future and then seeing the dream come true. The spirit could already see the future, or is already in the future, so we are really talking about self reflective spherical telemetry. That is to say, the ability to predict what will happen based on the emotional conditioning of the individual and individuals on Earth. Now, this isn't to say visions or reflections can't be changed by the individual, and isn't meant to promote a fatalistic viewpoint. Just because you see a sign in the road, doesn't mean you need to follow it. I would go one step further and say that God will never overthrow your will or tell you what you need to do at any point in time. Spirits on the other hand, will. I might even say you are God, but would rather say you aren't separate from the source of creation, or that creation is perception. If you want to remain under the control of negative influence, then you're right, remaining unconscious of what's going on is going to be path of least resistance. I don't know what staying in a fear based mind state has to do with truth, but I do know that nothing has to do with ultimate truth. The ultimate truth is that life is a dream and you aren't part and parcel to it. You experience life as a character of your own creation conditioned by circumstance you created. Our conceptualizing minds divide life into time bound experience, and we do so for emotional reasons. The conscious aspect of self can witness conceptualization patterns (behaviors) which can lead to the absence of fear resistance, through encountering fear and transcending it. When knowing the ultimate truth is nothing known, becomes known for fear avoidance, there's gonna be some issues. My buddy Randy once said schizophrenia is enlightenment, which is to say the unraveling of mind identification is likely to lead to spiritual and emotional issues that manifest as a divided mind. That's not a bad thing, and yet, tell that to the collective engine.
|
|