|
Post by zendancer on Dec 4, 2021 14:10:22 GMT -5
Seekers (and also some teachers!) are all too eager to establish a causal link between right practice and SR. Which is why we usually say SR is acausal and play practice curmudgeons. But that's also just a pointer, or counter point to the practice mania and result orientation that is so common in spiritual circles. In reality, neither causal nor acausal really explain anything. So in the end, we just have to stick with 'grace' or 'God's ways are mysterious'... which isn't a very satisfying prospect for a seeker, of course. And this is also where an intellect-driven approach fails spectacularly. It's like with statistics. If you use statistics as guidance, you'll live forever in uncertainty and can't tell up from down. Strawberries can kill. Fact. But in the statistical average, that risk becomes almost nonexistent. Strawberries are declared safe. So, how do you know on which side of the statistics you are? Similarly to right practice. Ramakrishna got there by prayer. Ramana by introspection. Niz essentially by ATA. So, how do you know how it will unfold for you? Should you follow Ramakrishna's advice and worship Kali? Or should you follow Ramana's advice and contemplate "Who am I?" Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I AM'? Or maybe do a bit of everything just to be on the safe side? This is where Niz' point about sincerity is insightful, when he says that there will be a point in the search, when essentially the Absolute takes over and the seeker's will is cast aside, he finds himself just driven to do a certain practice for no other reason than doing that practice. And that's, ironically (or not), when practice suddenly shows results and the pathless path isn't pathless anymore. After all, post-SR, looking back at what had been done, usually a clear path emerges, a story of how we got here, i.e. this action led to these results. But what we usually forget is that millions of others followed the exact same instructions and this same course of action, but didn't get any results. So then, it's not really about doing or not doing this or that, is it? And if we look at all the people who meditate these days or have meditated in the past in order to get enlightened and compare that number to the number of people who actually got enlightened, we may realize that meditation does have such a low success rate, that looking at this entirely rationally, one would wonder why people still keep recommending mediation. Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other. I overlooked that point, but I, too, was surprised by the claim that Niz pursued ATA-T. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter because both exercises take one "beyond the mind" in the words of Niz, but staying with the sense of one's beingness or one's "I amness" is different than focusing on the direct sensory perception of "what is." I'm not sure that one is more significant than the other because both exercises can have the same ultimate effect--freedom from the illusion of separateness. In a sense one exercise looks "outwards" and the other exercise looks "inwards," and that reminds me of what Jesus reportedly said in the Gospel of Thomas--"The kingdom is both inside of you and outside of you....." How can one go wrong if what one's looking for lies in both directions?
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 4, 2021 14:32:04 GMT -5
Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other. I overlooked that point, but I, too, was surprised by the claim that Niz pursued ATA-T. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter because both exercises take one "beyond the mind" in the words of Niz, but staying with the sense of one's beingness or one's "I amness" is different than focusing on the direct sensory perception of "what is." I'm not sure that one is more significant than the other because both exercises can have the same ultimate effect--freedom from the illusion of separateness. In a sense one exercise looks "outwards" and the other exercise looks "inwards," and that reminds me of what Jesus reportedly said in the Gospel of Thomas--"The kingdom is both inside of you and outside of you....." How can one go wrong if what one's looking for lies in both directions? The same in this sense. It's turning away from the thought drama. You can't turn toward what you are. Trees, birds, clouds and I AM or the I-thought are temporary place holders used to starve the illusion. Eventually those objects dissipate as well. RM likened them to the stick used to light the funeral pyre. Eventually it too is thrown in the fire
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 4, 2021 14:43:34 GMT -5
Seekers (and also some teachers!) are all too eager to establish a causal link between right practice and SR. Which is why we usually say SR is acausal and play practice curmudgeons. But that's also just a pointer, or counter point to the practice mania and result orientation that is so common in spiritual circles. In reality, neither causal nor acausal really explain anything. So in the end, we just have to stick with 'grace' or 'God's ways are mysterious'... which isn't a very satisfying prospect for a seeker, of course. And this is also where an intellect-driven approach fails spectacularly. It's like with statistics. If you use statistics as guidance, you'll live forever in uncertainty and can't tell up from down. Strawberries can kill. Fact. But in the statistical average, that risk becomes almost nonexistent. Strawberries are declared safe. So, how do you know on which side of the statistics you are? Similarly to right practice. Ramakrishna got there by prayer. Ramana by introspection. Niz essentially by ATA. So, how do you know how it will unfold for you? Should you follow Ramakrishna's advice and worship Kali? Or should you follow Ramana's advice and contemplate "Who am I?" Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I AM'? Or maybe do a bit of everything just to be on the safe side? This is where Niz' point about sincerity is insightful, when he says that there will be a point in the search, when essentially the Absolute takes over and the seeker's will is cast aside, he finds himself just driven to do a certain practice for no other reason than doing that practice. And that's, ironically (or not), when practice suddenly shows results and the pathless path isn't pathless anymore. After all, post-SR, looking back at what had been done, usually a clear path emerges, a story of how we got here, i.e. this action led to these results. But what we usually forget is that millions of others followed the exact same instructions and this same course of action, but didn't get any results. So then, it's not really about doing or not doing this or that, is it? And if we look at all the people who meditate these days or have meditated in the past in order to get enlightened and compare that number to the number of people who actually got enlightened, we may realize that meditation does have such a low success rate, that looking at this entirely rationally, one would wonder why people still keep recommending mediation. Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other. I said "essentially" for a reason, because to me, the point of and the result of both practices is to be fully present. So from my perspective, same same but different. Even though you are right in terms of technicality, but again, from my perspective, that would be nitpicking.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 5, 2021 10:44:23 GMT -5
Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other. I overlooked that point, but I, too, was surprised by the claim that Niz pursued ATA-T. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter because both exercises take one "beyond the mind" in the words of Niz, but staying with the sense of one's beingness or one's "I amness" is different than focusing on the direct sensory perception of "what is." I'm not sure that one is more significant than the other because both exercises can have the same ultimate effect--freedom from the illusion of separateness. In a sense one exercise looks "outwards" and the other exercise looks "inwards," and that reminds me of what Jesus reportedly said in the Gospel of Thomas--"The kingdom is both inside of you and outside of you....." How can one go wrong if what one's looking for lies in both directions? This is the commonality I perceive. The only "actuality" is the eternal isness, the (sometimes seemingly subtle) presence, what never comes and goes, or, as Niz would say the "I AM", or, as Tolle put it, the "being" in the "felt sense of Oneness with Being". To ATA is, essentially, to " refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". The "I AM thought", is, in clarity, simply the here and now. To tie this to Ramana and Low (and sifty): questioning whether a given thought or emotion or other state is THAT is to shift attention away from a falsity on which the mind might rest. Different words. Same point. The potential mind hooks here, are myriad and many. Those d@mned senses. "are they real?? ". heh heh ... No helping that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 3, 2022 23:47:26 GMT -5
Niz essentially by ATA(-T) and Or should you follow Niz advice and stick with the 'I Am'?, quoting, are not the same thing, that is, cannot be interchanged as being equal. In ATA-T, as usually defined by zd, attention is focused on something other-than the locality of one's self, that is, usually some visual or auditory sensation (but not necessarily limited so). What Niz meant by staying in the 'I Am' is expressly to ~remain in~ the "locality" of his own being, we could also say, to be present. To be present to Self, and to not-be present to the chattering small s self, cannot be equated (which you seem to be doing). What might eventually result from either practice is a different story. And they can be practiced simultaneously, but to do so needs to be expressly explained, or understood, and one is always more significant than the other. I overlooked that point, but I, too, was surprised by the claim that Niz pursued ATA-T. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter because both exercises take one "beyond the mind" in the words of Niz, but staying with the sense of one's beingness or one's "I amness" is different than focusing on the direct sensory perception of "what is." I'm not sure that one is more significant than the other because both exercises can have the same ultimate effect--freedom from the illusion of separateness. In a sense one exercise looks "outwards" and the other exercise looks "inwards," and that reminds me of what Jesus reportedly said in the Gospel of Thomas--"The kingdom is both inside of you and outside of you....." How can one go wrong if what one's looking for lies in both directions? I recorded a YouTube audio talk about the difference (or not) between Ramana's self-inquiry and Nisargadatta's I am practice.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 5, 2022 9:08:31 GMT -5
I overlooked that point, but I, too, was surprised by the claim that Niz pursued ATA-T. Ultimately, it probably doesn't matter because both exercises take one "beyond the mind" in the words of Niz, but staying with the sense of one's beingness or one's "I amness" is different than focusing on the direct sensory perception of "what is." I'm not sure that one is more significant than the other because both exercises can have the same ultimate effect--freedom from the illusion of separateness. In a sense one exercise looks "outwards" and the other exercise looks "inwards," and that reminds me of what Jesus reportedly said in the Gospel of Thomas--"The kingdom is both inside of you and outside of you....." How can one go wrong if what one's looking for lies in both directions? I recorded a YouTube audio talk about the difference (or not) between Ramana's self-inquiry and Nisargadatta's I am practice. Such a lovely voice! Yes, both practices are meant to lead back to the source - beyond (or prior to) separation or any objectification, so in that sense same same but different.
|
|