|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 18:23:10 GMT -5
amit likes this
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 18:23:10 GMT -5
Absolutely! At their best concepts can lead one to an interest in pursuing reality directly. Definitely no free will or volition in it anywhere that I can see either. In the thought-free state there's no need for any of this conversation to take place, and in a sense a large part of this forum is a great example at 1) how interesting and addictive thoughts about reality can be, and 2) how even a conversation and argument for the thought free state will still be completely pointless if it doesn't lead to the actual looking at reality itself. So true! I was at a ND retreat last year and I asked someone who was sitting in a chair on a porch looking lost in thought what he was doing. He replied, "Examining thoughts in order to understand thinking and how to stop thinking." I said something like, "If you'll just shift attention away from whatever thoughts are arising and look at what's in front of your eyes, you'll find that activity far more effective than doing anything mentally--either battling with thoughts or trying to understand why particular thoughts are arising." The view from the porch was stunning, with large old trees in the foreground, a huge mowed field beyond, a forest on one side, a massive rock bluff on the other side, and a river in the valley below. Fleecy white clouds were drifting overhead, and birds were flying around. He said, "That wouldn't be doing the hard work necessary for overcoming the mind." I replied, "Hard work isn't necessary; all you have to do is look. Looking, alone, or listening, can lead to freedom from the mind." He said, "I can see and hear quite well. Are you describing some sort of special seeing or hearing?" I said, "No, but can you look without naming what you see or commenting upon what you see? IOW can you look at the world in total mental silence?" He admitted that he could not. I said, in effect, "Well, it's no big deal; that's just one easy way to become free from the dominance of mind." Later in the day I saw him again sitting on the porch looking lost in thought. Maybe a subconscious seed, at least!
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 18:38:28 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 18:38:28 GMT -5
An ancient metaphor is "the taste of honey". What you say here about the hypothetical seeker is true, in that it's a tautology: until they realize "where nonduality points" the potential realization is only a sort of rumor .. a description of a color they've never seen or a tone they've never heard. Even a logical mind can acknowledge this potential, for themselves. But amit's point about the search ending can be stated a different way, in terms of the search changing. The key to this distinction is whether or not the seeker is self-honest about whether oneness is more than just a rumor for them. If they're not, then, it's as you say, just another round of identity poker. But even in that instance, the orientation has changed. It's a different hand. Not sure what you mean by change. We used to talk about sincerity and how it changes the search, how it is a sign that the search is coming to an end. To Niz it is a sign that the Absolute has taken over. But that's not what Amit is talking about. Oneness doesn't really compute from the SVP perspective, but there's interconnectedness. So I'd say, that's as far as it goes from the SVP perspective. Right, well, inter connectivity is an example of a change similar to the one I'm inferring into Amit's writing: Joe C. Trance isn't aware of even the apparent inter-connectivity of what he thinks of as the physical world, much less the interplay between the physical and non-physical. Learning about this can make nonduality seem less foreign. So, you, see, one sense of identity and reality before learning about and accepting inter-connectivity, and, another one - a changed one - after. Similarly, if someone reads someone like Niz, there are a range of possible reactions. I can imagine that 20 years ago I would have found him entirely uninteresting, and 13 years ago I would have found him objectionable. It's harder for me to imagine trusting in the idea that the SVP is an illusion, but that's certainly a very different outlook from what it seems to me that most people would express. And the thing is, that if someone is holding out that they're taking this on trust, then they're either also admitting that they haven't yet realized what they're taking on trust - whether they accept that admission, or not - unless they deny the potential of realization, altogether.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 18:43:00 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 13, 2020 18:43:00 GMT -5
No actual reference, no. But, various degrees of indirect enticement of interest and attention. Most people have some sort of intuitional pull away from the existential delusion. Without that, noone would have any interest in Zen or Advaita or, whatever. Alignment is addictive! oh, ok. So that's a potentially interesting dialog - the possible interplay between realization and alignment. Why hasn't this ever come up before??
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 19:27:38 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 13, 2020 19:27:38 GMT -5
Yes the message in the words does not impact without resonance. It seems that the message in the words you attribute to Jesus/Christianity did not resonate enough with you, so the search continued. No, the truth of Jesus resonated to such an extent that they contradicted what I was being taught in church, and I had to go outside. That's why I said I was raised Southern Baptist. Jesus is still my main dude. I think you didn't get my point. Ok so it was the words of the church that did not resonate with you, but the words of Jesus do. Hope thats understanding what you meant. So presumably the words of Jesus ended the search for you.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 19:59:34 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 13, 2020 19:59:34 GMT -5
Trusting that one is already what is sought ends the search by rendering it pointless for one cannot become what one already is. This is so regardless of what state one may already be in for Brahman/Oneness is all states, including the state of not realizing any of this, OR trusting. Feeling disconnected from Oneness is not disconnected. Nothing whatsoever needs to change for connection to be always total, unconditional, and unavoidable. I've read all the way to the end of this thread. I thought of an analogy that might apply. I was raised as a Southern Baptist. The view was you say this prayer asking Jesus into your heart and you're done, that's all it takes. You are then saved forever and forever. End of story. That's what you seem to be saying. Except everything is already all right. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ But that was not good enough for me. So I essentially left the church to find my own answers (gradually, starting about age 14 and then essentially leaving at 17). Later (about 12-15 years), after getting some answers, I saw that was a totally shortsighted view of Christianity and the exact opposite of what Jesus actually taught. The words, the view, has to be actualized. Trust is not enough. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Jesus said, he who believe my words, and does what I say... Yes, from a nondual perspective, if all is Brahman/Oneness resonates, then all is perfectly Brahman/Oneness just as it already is, including not realizing/actualizing. No matter what state one is already in, absolutely nothing can change or be done to increase or decrease that connection, so practise is rendered pointless, for one cannot become what one already is.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 22:34:32 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 22:34:32 GMT -5
But you see, Niz had a real guru, he didn't just trust some words he read in a book that resonated with him. He had someone he could talk to, someone he could observe in real life, someone he felt drawn to. That's different from mere intellectual exposure to truth. Niz met the real deal in the flesh in real life. So his entire being came in contact with the truth. And that's something you can trust, I agree. I think Amit is claiming a bit more than that. Niz met his teacher who said, "You are the ultimate, and in order to realize that, stay with the thought 'I am'." Niz trusted his teacher, but he still had to spend three years staying with the sense of "I am" in order to attain freedom and realize through direct experience (via a realization) that he was, indeed, the whole shebang. Amit is claiming that if someone simply trusts that s/he is the ultimate (due to resonance with that claim), that resonance short-circuits the need to do anything else. He's claiming that trust, alone, is a shorter and more direct path than any kind of practice/doing activity, and he is making that claim based upon something Niz told a seeker. He can correct me if this is not what he's claiming. I have no doubt that Niz told people that trust, and what he called "earnestness," will lead to realization faster than meditative practices that are not based on trust or earnestness, but I don't think Niz is saying that trust, alone, is all that it takes to attain SR, freedom, peace, etc. Yes, I think you are correct about Niz.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 23:23:04 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 23:23:04 GMT -5
Not sure what you mean by change. We used to talk about sincerity and how it changes the search, how it is a sign that the search is coming to an end. To Niz it is a sign that the Absolute has taken over. But that's not what Amit is talking about. Oneness doesn't really compute from the SVP perspective, but there's interconnectedness. So I'd say, that's as far as it goes from the SVP perspective. Right, well, inter connectivity is an example of a change similar to the one I'm inferring into Amit's writing: Joe C. Trance isn't aware of even the apparent inter-connectivity of what he thinks of as the physical world, much less the interplay between the physical and non-physical. Learning about this can make nonduality seem less foreign. So, you, see, one sense of identity and reality before learning about and accepting inter-connectivity, and, another one - a changed one - after. Similarly, if someone reads someone like Niz, there are a range of possible reactions. I can imagine that 20 years ago I would have found him entirely uninteresting, and 13 years ago I would have found him objectionable. It's harder for me to imagine trusting in the idea that the SVP is an illusion, but that's certainly a very different outlook from what it seems to me that most people would express. And the thing is, that if someone is holding out that they're taking this on trust, then they're either also admitting that they haven't yet realized what they're taking on trust - whether they accept that admission, or not - unless they deny the potential of realization, altogether. I actually do think that most people are very much aware of that interconnectedness on a feeling level. It's also the basis of our core moral values. It's something universal. On a purely intellectual level though, this interconnectedness is totally lost, of course, as are all moral values. So, I would concede only as much as to acknowledge that there is some kind of yearning for wholeness, which really is just the natural state, true alignment. But since the situation of the seeker is similar to those folks in Plato's cave, all they can see is shadows on a wall, appearances dancing in front of them, but never the real thing. In that sense, I'd say interconnectedness is a faint shadow of oneness. But getting thru interconnectedness to oneness (if that should be what you are suggesting) that's not how I know this to work. I've heard Niz' I AM THAT mentioned all the time when my interest turned to non-duality right before the end of the search. It always seemed like a brain teasers to me back then, somehow it rang true, but it just didn't compute. And that was before Amazon and I didn't know where to get the book. So when I eventually first read Niz, that was post-SR. And reading Niz helped me immensely in putting what had happened into words and concepts. That's as far as the usefulness of Niz' words went in my case.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 13, 2020 23:59:49 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 13, 2020 23:59:49 GMT -5
Alignment is addictive! oh, ok. So that's a potentially interesting dialog - the possible interplay between realization and alignment. Why hasn't this ever come up before?? It did come up before, I think in some dialogs with Figgles. I think I've explained this before that I can use the term alignment in two different contexts, the absolute context and the relative context. Alignment in the relative context is basically the different levels of flow experience, with varying degrees of a self being present. That kind of alignment depends entirely on your focus. That's why it is conditional. And if you want to be healthy, wealthy and wise in this world, that's what you should go for. You can basically gauge your progress with that kind of alignment by using the emotional scale, anything beyond boredom would be considered succeeding. Alignment in the absolute context is basically what we call the natural state, the PTPAU or cabbage (hehe), I sometimes call it true alignment. It's probably best described as quiet peacefulness, and that's not on the emotional scale, because it's not referring to an emotion. There is also no self present, so becoming healthy, wealthy and wise, while possible, wouldn't even arise as a topic. True alignment happens independently of focus and is therefore unconditional, spontaneous actually. So alignment on the relative level can lead to some profound insights about the simulation on a functional level, like QM, LOA, ESP, channeling etc. A lot of inventors or creative people actually know how to create such an insight conducive environment and can use it accordingly. But since it is a function on the relative level, the (false) core assumptions of the relative realm itself like individual doership remain untouched. Alignment on the absolute level is what we usually associate with a realization or with the aftermath of a realization. It's entirely spontaneous, it cannot be planned or induced. And it actually doesn't have to, because it's always there in the background. So in that sense it is synonymous with the impersonal perspective, which in a way is always the default fallback perspective. And only from that perspective the relative realm can be seen for what it is. So that's where realizations happen. But you are probably going to disagree with my A vs. B presentation and trying to blur some lines that I don't want to see blurred.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 14, 2020 2:26:27 GMT -5
Absolutely! At their best concepts can lead one to an interest in pursuing reality directly. Definitely no free will or volition in it anywhere that I can see either. In the thought-free state there's no need for any of this conversation to take place, and in a sense a large part of this forum is a great example at 1) how interesting and addictive thoughts about reality can be, and 2) how even a conversation and argument for the thought free state will still be completely pointless if it doesn't lead to the actual looking at reality itself. So true! I was at a ND retreat last year and I asked someone who was sitting in a chair on a porch looking lost in thought what he was doing. He replied, "Examining thoughts in order to understand thinking and how to stop thinking." I said something like, "If you'll just shift attention away from whatever thoughts are arising and look at what's in front of your eyes, you'll find that activity far more effective than doing anything mentally--either battling with thoughts or trying to understand why particular thoughts are arising." The view from the porch was stunning, with large old trees in the foreground, a huge mowed field beyond, a forest on one side, a massive rock bluff on the other side, and a river in the valley below. Fleecy white clouds were drifting overhead, and birds were flying around. He said, "That wouldn't be doing the hard work necessary for overcoming the mind." I replied, "Hard work isn't necessary; all you have to do is look. Looking, alone, or listening, can lead to freedom from the mind." He said, "I can see and hear quite well. Are you describing some sort of special seeing or hearing?" I said, "No, but can you look without naming what you see or commenting upon what you see? IOW can you look at the world in total mental silence?" He admitted that he could not. I said, in effect, "Well, it's no big deal; that's just one easy way to become free from the dominance of mind." Later in the day I saw him again sitting on the porch looking lost in thought. Lovely story which illustrates this point well, thank you for sharing! The "Four Faults of Natural Awareness" come to mind: “So close you can’t see it so deep you can’t fathom it so simple you can’t believe it so good you can’t accept it“
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 15, 2020 5:18:58 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 5:18:58 GMT -5
Right, well, inter connectivity is an example of a change similar to the one I'm inferring into Amit's writing: Joe C. Trance isn't aware of even the apparent inter-connectivity of what he thinks of as the physical world, much less the interplay between the physical and non-physical. Learning about this can make nonduality seem less foreign. So, you, see, one sense of identity and reality before learning about and accepting inter-connectivity, and, another one - a changed one - after. Similarly, if someone reads someone like Niz, there are a range of possible reactions. I can imagine that 20 years ago I would have found him entirely uninteresting, and 13 years ago I would have found him objectionable. It's harder for me to imagine trusting in the idea that the SVP is an illusion, but that's certainly a very different outlook from what it seems to me that most people would express. And the thing is, that if someone is holding out that they're taking this on trust, then they're either also admitting that they haven't yet realized what they're taking on trust - whether they accept that admission, or not - unless they deny the potential of realization, altogether. I actually do think that most people are very much aware of that interconnectedness on a f eeling level. It's also the basis of our core moral values. It's something universal. On a purely intellectual level though, this interconnectedness is totally lost, of course, as are all moral values. So, I would concede only as much as to acknowledge that there is some kind of yearning for wholeness, which really is just the natural state, true alignment. But since the situation of the seeker is similar to those folks in Plato's cave, all they can see is shadows on a wall, appearances dancing in front of them, but never the real thing. In that sense, I'd say interconnectedness is a faint shadow of oneness. But getting thru interconnectedness to oneness (if that should be what you are suggesting) that's not how I know this to work. I've heard Niz' I AM THAT mentioned all the time when my interest turned to non-duality right before the end of the search. It always seemed like a brain teasers to me back then, somehow it rang true, but it just didn't compute. And that was before Amazon and I didn't know where to get the book. So when I eventually first read Niz, that was post-SR. And reading Niz helped me immensely in putting what had happened into words and concepts. That's as far as the usefulness of Niz' words went in my case. I'm not suggesting that there is a path from interconnectedness to oneness, although, this seems to me to be a common, after-the-fact path story. That might seem a subtle distinction to someone who doesn't accept the notion that realization is acausal, but I think you may see where I'm coming from without too much further clarification/explanation. In any event, that dichotomy is a digression. What I am suggesting is twofold: (1) Those feeling levels translate directly into the 1st and 2nd bulls, and as Sekida points out in Zen Training, "retracing your steps", is a thing. So, those feeling levels also apply all throughout the apparent collapse of the fortress of mind, as it happens, and, if you'll notice, the poetry of the 7th and 9th bulls is explicitly expressed in the language of emotional catharsis. In terms of Joe C. Trance, he's not consciously aware of interconnectness, and would probably scoff at it, in direct contradiction of what he feels, while a new-age yogini who burns lots of incense and deliberately goes vegan might, in contrast, get all excited about how "it's all connected, man". (2) Those feeling levels are always a subjective matter of degree. See now, that's really just a parroting what you said here about the wreckage that gets strewn about by the collapse. I know you were referring to post-realization but I'm (heh heh) even more zd than zd on the potential multiplicity of realization. I understand the efficacy of the model of distinguishing between kensho and satori and singling-out these two particular realizations, but, I opine, like any other model, it has its' limits. So, this relates directly to the change in perspective expressed in terms of an orientation to nonduality going from disinterest to objection to what amit called "trust". The state of trust doesn't necessarily have to describe an intellectual resolution to suppress the old objections and believe the pointers - if it does, then that's clearly a mind game, and pointing away from trust would seem to me the best advice. What it might be describing, instead though, is just a matter-of-degree along a spectrum of perspective and feeling states relative to the existential truth that just happens, as it happens.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 15, 2020 5:30:22 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 5:30:22 GMT -5
oh, ok. So that's a potentially interesting dialog - the possible interplay between realization and alignment. Why hasn't this ever come up before?? It did come up before, I think in some dialogs with Figgles. I think I've explained this before that I can use the term alignment in two different contexts, the absolute context and the relative context. Alignment in the relative context is basically the different levels of flow experience, with varying degrees of a self being present. That kind of alignment depends entirely on your focus. That's why it is conditional. And if you want to be healthy, wealthy and wise in this world, that's what you should go for. You can basically gauge your progress with that kind of alignment by using the emotional scale, anything beyond boredom would be considered succeeding. Alignment in the absolute context is basically what we call the natural state, the PTPAU or cabbage (hehe), I sometimes call it true alignment. It's probably best described as quiet peacefulness, and that's not on the emotional scale, because it's not referring to an emotion. There is also no self present, so becoming healthy, wealthy and wise, while possible, wouldn't even arise as a topic. True alignment happens independently of focus and is therefore unconditional, spontaneous actually. So alignment on the relative level can lead to some profound insights about the simulation on a functional level, like QM, LOA, ESP, channeling etc. A lot of inventors or creative people actually know how to create such an insight conducive environment and can use it accordingly. But since it is a function on the relative level, the (false) core assumptions of the relative realm itself like individual doership remain untouched. Alignment on the absolute level is what we usually associate with a realization or with the aftermath of a realization. It's entirely spontaneous, it cannot be planned or induced. And it actually doesn't have to, because it's always there in the background. So in that sense it is synonymous with the impersonal perspective, which in a way is always the default fallback perspective. And only from that perspective the relative realm can be seen for what it is. So that's where realizations happen. But you are probably going to disagree with my A vs. B presentation and trying to blur some lines that I don't want to see blurred. No, not really. I do think of the notion of "alignment in the absolute context" in different terms (vocabulary and concepts), and likely have various perspective on it that differ in some details from yours, but they're ultimately not that consequential or likely very much of interest to you. Thanks for taking the time to spell that out, it's a clear, well-expressed, interesting read.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 15, 2020 5:35:10 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 15, 2020 5:35:10 GMT -5
But you see, Niz had a real guru, he didn't just trust some words he read in a book that resonated with him. He had someone he could talk to, someone he could observe in real life, someone he felt drawn to. That's different from mere intellectual exposure to truth. Niz met the real deal in the flesh in real life. So his entire being came in contact with the truth. And that's something you can trust, I agree. I think Amit is claiming a bit more than that. Niz met his teacher who said, "You are the ultimate, and in order to realize that, stay with the thought 'I am'." Niz trusted his teacher, but he still had to spend three years staying with the sense of "I am" in order to attain freedom and realize through direct experience (via a realization) that he was, indeed, the whole shebang. Amit is claiming that if someone simply trusts that s/he is the ultimate (due to resonance with that claim), that resonance short-circuits the need to do anything else. He's claiming that trust, alone, is a shorter and more direct path than any kind of practice/doing activity, and he is making that claim based upon something Niz told a seeker. He can correct me if this is not what he's claiming. I have no doubt that Niz told people that trust, and what he called "earnestness," will lead to realization faster than meditative practices that are not based on trust or earnestness, but I don't think Niz is saying that trust, alone, is all that it takes to attain SR, freedom, peace, etc. Well, what I'm reminded of here is that Buddha quote about the horse, the whip, and the shadow.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 15, 2020 6:53:13 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 15, 2020 6:53:13 GMT -5
I think Amit is claiming a bit more than that. Niz met his teacher who said, "You are the ultimate, and in order to realize that, stay with the thought 'I am'." Niz trusted his teacher, but he still had to spend three years staying with the sense of "I am" in order to attain freedom and realize through direct experience (via a realization) that he was, indeed, the whole shebang. Amit is claiming that if someone simply trusts that s/he is the ultimate (due to resonance with that claim), that resonance short-circuits the need to do anything else. He's claiming that trust, alone, is a shorter and more direct path than any kind of practice/doing activity, and he is making that claim based upon something Niz told a seeker. He can correct me if this is not what he's claiming. I have no doubt that Niz told people that trust, and what he called "earnestness," will lead to realization faster than meditative practices that are not based on trust or earnestness, but I don't think Niz is saying that trust, alone, is all that it takes to attain SR, freedom, peace, etc. Well, what I'm reminded of here is that Buddha quote about the horse, the whip, and the shadow. I don't think the Buddha's story was about trust as much as ripeness.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 18, 2020 10:57:34 GMT -5
Post by Reefs on Sept 18, 2020 10:57:34 GMT -5
I actually do think that most people are very much aware of that interconnectedness on a f eeling level. It's also the basis of our core moral values. It's something universal. On a purely intellectual level though, this interconnectedness is totally lost, of course, as are all moral values. So, I would concede only as much as to acknowledge that there is some kind of yearning for wholeness, which really is just the natural state, true alignment. But since the situation of the seeker is similar to those folks in Plato's cave, all they can see is shadows on a wall, appearances dancing in front of them, but never the real thing. In that sense, I'd say interconnectedness is a faint shadow of oneness. But getting thru interconnectedness to oneness (if that should be what you are suggesting) that's not how I know this to work. I've heard Niz' I AM THAT mentioned all the time when my interest turned to non-duality right before the end of the search. It always seemed like a brain teasers to me back then, somehow it rang true, but it just didn't compute. And that was before Amazon and I didn't know where to get the book. So when I eventually first read Niz, that was post-SR. And reading Niz helped me immensely in putting what had happened into words and concepts. That's as far as the usefulness of Niz' words went in my case. I'm not suggesting that there is a path from interconnectedness to oneness, although, this seems to me to be a common, after-the-fact path story. That might seem a subtle distinction to someone who doesn't accept the notion that realization is acausal, but I think you may see where I'm coming from without too much further clarification/explanation. In any event, that dichotomy is a digression. What I am suggesting is twofold: (1) Those feeling levels translate directly into the 1st and 2nd bulls, and as Sekida points out in Zen Training, "retracing your steps", is a thing. So, those feeling levels also apply all throughout the apparent collapse of the fortress of mind, as it happens, and, if you'll notice, the poetry of the 7th and 9th bulls is explicitly expressed in the language of emotional catharsis. In terms of Joe C. Trance, he's not consciously aware of interconnectness, and would probably scoff at it, in direct contradiction of what he feels, while a new-age yogini who burns lots of incense and deliberately goes vegan might, in contrast, get all excited about how "it's all connected, man". (2) Those feeling levels are always a subjective matter of degree. See now, that's really just a parroting what you said here about the wreckage that gets strewn about by the collapse. I know you were referring to post-realization but I'm (heh heh) even more zd than zd on the potential multiplicity of realization. I understand the efficacy of the model of distinguishing between kensho and satori and singling-out these two particular realizations, but, I opine, like any other model, it has its' limits. So, this relates directly to the change in perspective expressed in terms of an orientation to nonduality going from disinterest to objection to what amit called "trust". The state of trust doesn't necessarily have to describe an intellectual resolution to suppress the old objections and believe the pointers - if it does, then that's clearly a mind game, and pointing away from trust would seem to me the best advice. What it might be describing, instead though, is just a matter-of-degree along a spectrum of perspective and feeling states relative to the existential truth that just happens, as it happens. Well, if we are talking about an imaginary journey thru the realm of the relative, then of course you can draw as many relative lines as you like and distinguish between as many levels as you like as long as it is serving its purpose. And the dual realization model is just a product of these discussions on this forum about what self-realization means. My original model is actually a single realization model, similar to the Buddha, Ramana and Niz. But I'm flexible enough to allow for different paths, even though what is realized is always the same, eventually. I used to think the one big realization model is the standard, but I've learned over the years on this forum, that may not actually be so. In either case, it's just a model that helps to illustrate certain aspects of SR that seem to be universal and absolutely key. And in that sense, I think this model does serve its purpose well because it's these two key aspects of SR that do generate most of the discussions here. NS seems to be just a side issue. Not sure what other realizations you have in mind that are essential.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 20, 2020 12:03:48 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2020 12:03:48 GMT -5
I'm not suggesting that there is a path from interconnectedness to oneness, although, this seems to me to be a common, after-the-fact path story. That might seem a subtle distinction to someone who doesn't accept the notion that realization is acausal, but I think you may see where I'm coming from without too much further clarification/explanation. In any event, that dichotomy is a digression. What I am suggesting is twofold: (1) Those feeling levels translate directly into the 1st and 2nd bulls, and as Sekida points out in Zen Training, "retracing your steps", is a thing. So, those feeling levels also apply all throughout the apparent collapse of the fortress of mind, as it happens, and, if you'll notice, the poetry of the 7th and 9th bulls is explicitly expressed in the language of emotional catharsis. In terms of Joe C. Trance, he's not consciously aware of interconnectness, and would probably scoff at it, in direct contradiction of what he feels, while a new-age yogini who burns lots of incense and deliberately goes vegan might, in contrast, get all excited about how "it's all connected, man". (2) Those feeling levels are always a subjective matter of degree. See now, that's really just a parroting what you said here about the wreckage that gets strewn about by the collapse. I know you were referring to post-realization but I'm (heh heh) even more zd than zd on the potential multiplicity of realization. I understand the efficacy of the model of distinguishing between kensho and satori and singling-out these two particular realizations, but, I opine, like any other model, it has its' limits. So, this relates directly to the change in perspective expressed in terms of an orientation to nonduality going from disinterest to objection to what amit called "trust". The state of trust doesn't necessarily have to describe an intellectual resolution to suppress the old objections and believe the pointers - if it does, then that's clearly a mind game, and pointing away from trust would seem to me the best advice. What it might be describing, instead though, is just a matter-of-degree along a spectrum of perspective and feeling states relative to the existential truth that just happens, as it happens. Well, if we are talking about an imaginary journey thru the realm of the relative, then of course you can draw as many relative lines as you like and distinguish between as many levels as you like as long as it is serving its purpose. And the dual realization model is just a product of these discussions on this forum about what self-realization means. My original model is actually a single realization model, similar to the Buddha, Ramana and Niz. But I'm flexible enough to allow for different paths, even though what is realized is always the same, eventually. I used to think the one big realization model is the standard, but I've learned over the years on this forum, that may not actually be so. In either case, it's just a model that helps to illustrate certain aspects of SR that seem to be universal and absolutely key. And in that sense, I think this model does serve its purpose well because it's these two key aspects of SR that do generate most of the discussions here. NS seems to be just a side issue. Not sure what other realizations you have in mind that are essential. None that are essential, and don't get me wrong, I do see the value in the topics of satori and kensho, no doubt. But a potential realization that's relevant to the OP and the thread would be: "ok, maybe this guy here, he's talking about a color I haven't seen, a sound I've never heard, a scent I've never tasted". And, the notion of "the end of the search", in the way amit used it, was contextual to that: it's not the same "end" as alluded to by either kensho or satori.
|
|