|
|
Post by karen on Jan 21, 2010 14:18:34 GMT -5
Knowing is used in so many ways. It's used as thinking one is right. Or it can refer to a deep body knowing - like thinking one thing, but the body knows otherwise (thinking you're quitting smoking whilst you're actually purchasing a fresh pack of cigarettes).
From what I've seen so far is that both can be bullshyte.
Is there another knowing?
PS: it's amusing that the forum software will edit out bullshyte and replace it with bullnuts. I guess bull's testicles are less profane than bull feces?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 21, 2010 19:26:33 GMT -5
Hey Karen,
Can you relate to that which does not change? That which you can feel on a level deeper than knowing through any external sensation or intellectual process? If you can relate to that, what level would you call that experience?
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 21, 2010 19:58:46 GMT -5
Hi LM,
I can relate. I'd call that being. Not being anything in particular, but just being. But I'm not sure that is not some subtle structure of the brain.
It's not a deal breaker. I don't need proof before seeking proof; I seem to have no macro choice in this. But I often wonder (when it's brought up) how people like you can be so sure.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 22, 2010 0:04:59 GMT -5
I watched a live Wayne Liquorman video meeting where someone asked a related question. It clicked with me with regard to this thread.
Basically, enlightenment is the removal of the sense of personal authorship and the feeling of separation. And that feeling of authorship and separation came about gradually through a structure of belief. How is it that a disease could then rebuild that structure that was taken down by enlightenment?
The only way then that enlightenment could be taken away by disease would be if enlightenment was a structure that is superimposed over the feeling of separation and authorship that would be at the core - which doesn't appear to be the case.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 22, 2010 8:25:42 GMT -5
Basically, enlightenment is the removal of the sense of personal authorship and the feeling of separation. And that feeling of authorship and separation came about gradually through a structure of belief. How is it that a disease could then rebuild that structure that was taken down by enlightenment? The only way then that enlightenment could be taken away by disease would be if enlightenment was a structure that is superimposed over the feeling of separation and authorship that would be at the core - which doesn't appear to be the case. Hi Karen, The illusion could be the one that comes and goes (and most likely is). It could also be that the illusion never stays forever or goes forever. Edit Another way to look at it, based on one of Zendancer's analogies: Everything is one cosmic being, so all experiences are happening simultaneously and no one "owns" them. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 22, 2010 10:46:00 GMT -5
Karen: Enlightenment is not something that a person gets and owns like a possession. It is not a thing of any kind, and there is no one who can get it and no one who can own it. When we talk about waking up, we are using words in a very loose and illusory way to point to something unimaginable. We say that a person "wakes up," but that is not really accurate because there is no separate individual who does anything. The universe, through a particular body/mind, sees through the illusion of separateness created by imagination. In this seeing, nothing really happens, and there is no separate person who does anything. The only change that occurs is that an illusion evaporates and seeking simultaneously comes to an end (because the seeker has disappeared). Ordinary everyday life continues exactly as before but without the illusion that there exists someone separate from the truth who needs to get enlightened (or needs anything else for that matter).
Do not think that Richard Rose lost his enlightenment due to Alzheimers. There was no Richard Rose, and there was no Richard Rose who got enlightened. The universe, through the body/mind we call "Richard Rose," realized that "Richard Rose" was an illusion. Everything it saw at that point was realized to be empty and self-illuminating. It could see itself (what is), but IT could never know itself. In order to know itself there would have to be two distinct states (observer and observed) and it saw that there are no such states that really exist. There is only a unified suchness--oneness. This is what was here before "Richard Rose," during "Richard Rose," and after "Richard Rose." A mirage cannot get enlightened and "Richard Rose" was a mirage.
When the body/mind we call "Richard Rose" died, that which once looked out of his eyes was not affected. It is still here looking out of our eyes and the eyes of every other living thing, and it is possible to experience this truth through some mysterious internal source of perception. Every moment that we spend focusing upon "what is" puts pressure on the circuit of mind that maintains the illusion of consensual reality. Or, looked at in a different way, it removes the reinforcing agent of that illusion. At some point isness becomes so dominant that the illusion collapses and only truth remains--fingers typing on a keyboard, TV images flickering on a nearby screen, heater humming on the floor, universal sound ringing in the ears. No time or space. No one who sees or hears. Just this. Profound presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Jan 24, 2010 14:15:20 GMT -5
Hey Karen, Sure, that makes sense. I think that it's often referred to as a knowing because, the clearer it gets, the more direct knowledge seems to come out of it. By direct knowledge I mean a sort of intuitive knowing that is not on a conceptual level. So it can almost be said to be knowledge, but not knowledge in a limited way, so it can be called a sort of know-ing-Ness.... Hi LM, I can relate. I'd call that being. Not being anything in particular, but just being. But I'm not sure that is not some subtle structure of the brain. It's not a deal breaker. I don't need proof before seeking proof; I seem to have no macro choice in this. But I often wonder (when it's brought up) how people like you can be so sure. |
|
|
|
Post by souley on Jan 25, 2010 11:28:32 GMT -5
...universal sound ringing in the ears. No time or space. No one who sees or hears. Just this. Profound presence. Like tinnitus? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 25, 2010 11:58:16 GMT -5
Souley: Ha ha! No, not tinnitus. "Universal sound" is what it is called, but I have no idea what it is. Most people only hear it when their minds become relatively silent, but once aware of it, it can be heard anytime. Maybe it's the human equivalent of background radiation left over from the "big bang." LOL. In the past I often used it as a focus for listening meditation. If you put your ear up to a seashell, you'll hear a sound like a faint roaring. This is more like a faint ringing, but not quite a ringing. It's hard to describe.
|
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Jan 25, 2010 13:48:25 GMT -5
...universal sound ringing in the ears. No time or space. No one who sees or hears. Just this. Profound presence. Like tinnitus? There was an excellent post by a guest about this sound, a few months ago, but I can't find it now, I became aware of this myself about two years ago, when the mind became totally still, and was accompanied by this sound, I even asked myself- do silence have a sound?, since then it is there all the time, it can even be "roaring" when things are "very quite" otherwise I don't put any importance to it, probably the difference between this and tinnitus/music/ and other sounds is that this dose'nt become uncomfortable... |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 25, 2010 15:00:23 GMT -5
UG said he could constantly hear his blood flowing. Maybe it was the same thing, different, or perhaps he was wrong about what it was.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 25, 2010 20:52:52 GMT -5
Karen: The mind has to be extremely quiet in order to hear either heartbeats or blood flow. To hear those things a very strong focus of attention is required. They are not nearly as obvious and easy to hear as the sound Alpha and I are referring to. Universal sound is a constant background sound that is very easy to hear after it is discovered. I don't usually think about it or pay any attention to it, but when I listen for it, I can always hear it instantly. I don't have to search around for it. To hear heartbeats or bloodflow, however, requires considerably more attentiveness. They are always there, also, but not nearly as easy to hear without signficant concentration. Heartbeat pulses will come into focus long before bloodflow. Maybe UG had high blood pressure and that's why he could hear it all the time. LOL. Who knows? The human body is a mysterious thing. During cold weather I always think about the guy in Minnesota (I read about him in a newspaper several years ago and later saw him featured on a TV show) who learned how to turn up his internal thermostat at an early age. He can walk to work in a snowstorm and feel totally comfortable in a short-sleeve shirt. He simply adjusts his internal temp to whatever level is necessary to compensate for the outside temp. There are all kinds of other astounding things that people have learned to do with their bodies, but I better not write about them. Someone may think is has something to do with spirituality! I can already envision people sitting around listening for universal sound tonight! Oh well, better that than staying lost in thoughts. Ha ha. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by souley on Jan 26, 2010 16:53:35 GMT -5
Well I often hear a sound that is pretty close to how an old TV sounds. Like ultra-high pitch ringing. But I figure it's just something that is wrong with my system, some kind of swelling in the ears or something like that, since my nose is also acting up lately. This is also what I envision tinnitus to be like, and maybe I have that. Anyway I can't say this sound is very pleasant.. I would be interested to hear what you hear, I think my mind is pretty silent by now.
|
|
alpha
New Member
Posts: 7
|
Post by alpha on Jan 26, 2010 18:05:58 GMT -5
Well I often hear a sound that is pretty close to how an old TV sounds. Like ultra-high pitch ringing. But I figure it's just something that is wrong with my system, some kind of swelling in the ears or something like that, since my nose is also acting up lately. This is also what I envision tinnitus to be like, and maybe I have that. Anyway I can't say this sound is very pleasant.. I would be interested to hear what you hear, I think my mind is pretty silent by now. souley, I don't want to mystify something that is very simple, I can't do better than ZD in calling this "background radiation". it would be one of the least important topics on this forum, also if it had anything to do with been "advanced" on the "path" I feel you would have it before me,(judging from some of your posts) I understand tinnitus is heard in the ears, I dont think this sound is dependant on the ears... |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Jan 26, 2010 20:47:25 GMT -5
I can hear that sound, too - similar to a seashell, but weaker.
A simplistic explanation would be that it is a kind of background activity of the auditory system (ears and nerves).
Something similar happens with the eyes: even when they are closed, we can still see some very faint tinges.
Of course, what I wrote above is just going one step behind.
Ultimately, this sound exists for the same reason the universe exists - which I have no clue why.
|
|
