|
Post by sree on Sept 21, 2022 21:32:11 GMT -5
Ok, I believe you, but just for carrying out an experiment to test your claim. What existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? 1. What could explain the observer paradoxes in physics? 2. What is a subatomic particle, really? 3. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? 4. What is time? There are probably some others, but those are ones that I clearly remember. There were dozens of other questions, but they were either formal koans or existential questions of a different kind. To be clear, although I was a scientist, I wasn't asking questions in the same way that scientists usually ask their questions. I wasn't interested in the "standard model" because I intuited that it was somehow flawed. I was interested in what's going on at a more fundamental level. Scientists are culturally conditioned to imagine reality in the same way as other humans, so they begin by accepting that the universe is an empty space filled with separate things being looked at by separate things. Very few of them ever question this basic assumption. So, what existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? I would like Reefs to help you out here because he also disses the intellect. Have you guys figured out what time is? Scientists have no issue with time. They can measure it with atomic clocks and have developed the GPS which locates you for a drone strike.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2022 21:49:06 GMT -5
Analyzing their words is what I call pointer-licking. That's missing the point of the pointer. And the problem with your step 3 is that what is reasonable depends on what you think where you are going is like. But as a seeker, you have no idea where you are even going, let alone what it is like. You only know that where you are right now is not it. What you have though is a million ideas in your head about where you are going and what it is going to be like, based on travel books you've read or postcards you received from others. Ask yourself, can reasoning out the taste of honey give you the actual experience of the taste of honey? You see, you have to main flawed premises: 1) you think reason matters on matters that are beyond reason 2) you think realizing your timeless true nature is a process in time Basically, someone tells you there a thing called honey and says it's thick, golden and sweet - step 1 (some stop here)
They say the bees get nectar from flowers and collect in in a hive - and you figure, that makes sense - step 2 (some stop here)
You actually notice there are bees eating off the flowers - so you have insight; I see what he was saying now, and
one day you find a hive and taste the honey - step 3 (some don't stop) To me personally there is a very refined balance point, and although it's not spectacular or anything, it's highly refined and subtle, and whereas most will say self-realisation, enlightenment etc is the ultimate, I claim everything is of mere consequence to that finest point of balance. It's very nuanced, so the slightest agitation is enough to distract you from it, so we only practice calm - the cessation of reactivity - even when very slight. The majority of people are at a denser level of perception, and not sharp enough to notice the balance point in a really refined way, but it really doesn't matter or change anything. You just look into it as closely as possible without reacting to anything and subtler levels start to become revealed. Be that on a hard physical level or an extremely refined level, the practice is essentially the same.
What you are describing there is alignment. Alignment is a very delicate balance, a moment to moment thing, so you're never done, because you either have it in the moment or you don't. It's not like once you've achieved it, it's yours. And there's no end to ever deeper states of alignment. So it seems to me that you and SDP may be confusing SR with alignment. Because SR and alignment, especially deep alignment (loss of sense of self) can look almost identical from the outside. I think this explains SDP's doubting thomas attitude. He somehow knows that that's not it. But that's all his maps can ever capture. So he stubbornly sticks with it, even though it says on the map "burn after reading"!
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2022 22:15:39 GMT -5
Basically, someone tells you there a thing called honey and says it's thick, golden and sweet - step 1 (some stop here)
They say the bees get nectar from flowers and collect in in a hive - and you figure, that makes sense - step 2 (some stop here)
You actually notice there are bees eating off the flowers - so you have insight; I see what he was saying now, and
one day you find a hive and taste the honey - step 3 (some don't stop) To me personally there is a very refined balance point, and although it's not spectacular or anything, it's highly refined and subtle, and whereas most will say self-realisation, enlightenment etc is the ultimate, I claim everything is of mere consequence to that finest point of balance. It's very nuanced, so the slightest agitation is enough to distract you from it, so we only practice calm - the cessation of reactivity - even when very slight. The majority of people are at a denser level of perception, and not sharp enough to notice the balance point in a really refined way, but it really doesn't matter or change anything. You just look into it as closely as possible without reacting to anything and subtler levels start to become revealed. Be that on a hard physical level or an extremely refined level, the practice is essentially the same.
What you are describing there is alignment. Alignment is a very delicate balance, a moment to moment thing, so you're never done, because you either have it in the moment or you don't. It's not like once you've achieved it, it's yours. And there's no end to ever deeper states of alignment. So it seems to me that you and SDP may be confusing SR with alignment. Because SR and alignment, especially deep alignment (loss of sense of self) can look almost identical from the outside. I think this explains SDP's doubting thomas attitude. He somehow knows that that's not it. But that's all his maps can ever capture. So he stubbornly sticks with it, even though it says on the map "burn after reading"! First paragraph = exactly.
Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2022 23:33:35 GMT -5
What you are describing there is alignment. Alignment is a very delicate balance, a moment to moment thing, so you're never done, because you either have it in the moment or you don't. It's not like once you've achieved it, it's yours. And there's no end to ever deeper states of alignment. So it seems to me that you and SDP may be confusing SR with alignment. Because SR and alignment, especially deep alignment (loss of sense of self) can look almost identical from the outside. I think this explains SDP's doubting thomas attitude. He somehow knows that that's not it. But that's all his maps can ever capture. So he stubbornly sticks with it, even though it says on the map "burn after reading"! First paragraph = exactly. Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2022 23:44:58 GMT -5
But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'. To me that sounds like typical non-duality rhetoric, but ND teachers have methods that require relentless, persistent returning of attention. The Ramana method applies that to self-inquiry, whereas although the Buddha method certainly entails that, it is also geared for the purpose of purification. The formally noted purpose is. "The purification of beings, overcoming sorrow and lamentation, extinguishing suffering and grief, walking the path of truth and realising nirvana" . Hence one investigates the entire framework of mind and matter via the mindful objects formally cited as body, sensation, mind and mental content. Since 'body' and 'mind' are abstract references to feeling and thought, 'the objects' can be reduced to these two.
Mind can continue to reference such things as focus, attention, concentration, sensitivity and the balance, stability or equanimity of the mind; while body can reference generalities like being born, aging, dying, decay of dead bodies, sickness and etc When one accepts the non-conceptual truth that reefs pointed to there, but can still admit they are a seeker who is practicing, that's when they are ready for the kind of practice you describe. That's when their head is in the tiger's mouth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2022 23:57:53 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them?** shakes head sadly ** Nothing. sometimes, a muttley snicker can be a kindness!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2022 23:59:14 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true. 1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense. Tolle makes it clear, quite explicitly that he's not addressing rational mind, and many people find him quite unreasonable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 22, 2022 0:16:58 GMT -5
Basically, someone tells you there a thing called honey and says it's thick, golden and sweet - step 1 (some stop here)
They say the bees get nectar from flowers and collect in in a hive - and you figure, that makes sense - step 2 (some stop here)
You actually notice there are bees eating off the flowers - so you have insight; I see what he was saying now, and
one day you find a hive and taste the honey - step 3 (some don't stop) To me personally there is a very refined balance point, and although it's not spectacular or anything, it's highly refined and subtle, and whereas most will say self-realisation, enlightenment etc is the ultimate, I claim everything is of mere consequence to that finest point of balance. It's very nuanced, so the slightest agitation is enough to distract you from it, so we only practice calm - the cessation of reactivity - even when very slight. The majority of people are at a denser level of perception, and not sharp enough to notice the balance point in a really refined way, but it really doesn't matter or change anything. You just look into it as closely as possible without reacting to anything and subtler levels start to become revealed. Be that on a hard physical level or an extremely refined level, the practice is essentially the same.
What you are describing there is alignment. Alignment is a very delicate balance, a moment to moment thing, so you're never done, because you either have it in the moment or you don't. It's not like once you've achieved it, it's yours. And there's no end to ever deeper states of alignment. So it seems to me that you and SDP may be confusing SR with alignment. Because SR and alignment, especially deep alignment (loss of sense of self) can look almost identical from the outside. I think this explains SDP's doubting thomas attitude. He somehow knows that that's not it. But that's all his maps can ever capture. So he stubbornly sticks with it, even though it says on the map "burn after reading"! (drops this here and tip-toes away)
We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. Quick now, here, now, always— A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything) And all shall be well and All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flame are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire and the rose are one.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 22, 2022 1:16:13 GMT -5
1. What could explain the observer paradoxes in physics? 2. What is a subatomic particle, really? 3. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? 4. What is time? There are probably some others, but those are ones that I clearly remember. There were dozens of other questions, but they were either formal koans or existential questions of a different kind. To be clear, although I was a scientist, I wasn't asking questions in the same way that scientists usually ask their questions. I wasn't interested in the "standard model" because I intuited that it was somehow flawed. I was interested in what's going on at a more fundamental level. Scientists are culturally conditioned to imagine reality in the same way as other humans, so they begin by accepting that the universe is an empty space filled with separate things being looked at by separate things. Very few of them ever question this basic assumption. So, what existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? I would like Reefs to help you out here because he also disses the intellect. Have you guys figured out what time is? Scientists have no issue with time. They can measure it with atomic clocks and have developed the GPS which locates you for a drone strike.
People who are stuck in the intellect won't like the answers to existential questions provided by sages because they have no reference for them. The observer paradox occurs in physics, anthropology, and other sciences. It appears to be a paradox because scientists imagine that they're separate from what they observe, but this is an illusion. The observer and the observed are the same unified field of being. This means that they're always looking at themselves. It's the intellect that makes them imagine a universe divided into separate states. What is a subatomic particle? It's an idea, only, a way of imagining how to explain the structure of matter and various phenomena. At first, scientists thought matter was composed of atoms which were composed of smaller particles, but then those smaller particles appeared to be composed of yet smaller particles, etc. It's like a dog chasing its own tail without knowing it. They built bigger accelerators and then had to imagine yet smaller particles (quarks) with odd qualities (charm), etc. Today, we have books with titles like "The Matter Myth" because some scientists have begun to realize what's going on. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? It didn't; the whole thing "is alive, Igor; it's alive." What is time? It's a cognitive grid, just like lines of latitude and longitude. It's a totally imaginary concept. In truth, there is only now.. Make no mistake, imagination is useful and extremely powerful as a survival tool. It allowed early humans to imagine how to trap and kill large animals. It allows architects to design spaces that can be walked through and looked at in the mind's eye before they're constructed. In short, it's a great gift, but that gift is both a blessing and a curse. It's a curse when humans do not realize the difference between what is actual and what is imaginary. What a tree IS is actual whereas the image/idea/symbol "tree" is imaginary. The greatest tragedy is that humans rarely discover the living truth because they're culturally conditioned to spend 99% of their time imagining. This is why they don't know what they are, what's going on, or why they feel alienated.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2022 2:35:37 GMT -5
What you are describing there is alignment. Alignment is a very delicate balance, a moment to moment thing, so you're never done, because you either have it in the moment or you don't. It's not like once you've achieved it, it's yours. And there's no end to ever deeper states of alignment. So it seems to me that you and SDP may be confusing SR with alignment. Because SR and alignment, especially deep alignment (loss of sense of self) can look almost identical from the outside. I think this explains SDP's doubting thomas attitude. He somehow knows that that's not it. But that's all his maps can ever capture. So he stubbornly sticks with it, even though it says on the map "burn after reading"! (drops this here and tip-toes away)
We shall not cease from exploration And the end of all our exploring Will be to arrive where we started And know the place for the first time. Through the unknown, unremembered gate When the last of earth left to discover Is that which was the beginning; At the source of the longest river The voice of the hidden waterfall And the children in the apple-tree Not known, because not looked for But heard, half-heard, in the stillness Between two waves of the sea. Quick now, here, now, always— A condition of complete simplicity (Costing not less than everything) And all shall be well and All manner of thing shall be well When the tongues of flame are in-folded Into the crowned knot of fire And the fire and the rose are one.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 22, 2022 7:30:52 GMT -5
Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true. 1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense. Tolle makes it clear, quite explicitly that he's not addressing rational mind, and many people find him quite unreasonable. I think i people discern it's unreasonable then they'd have to point out some glaring contradictions, otherwise there's no reason to discern it unreasonable, but if it stacks up and no part outright defeats another, then one has to accept the possibility that it might have some actual merit. Sometimes people are clinging to their preconceived notions and simply react when that's confronted, so you have to revert to pure reason to overcome such strong bias. Otherwise it might be a style issue, which is why I'm not a fan, but still, distaste for style is irrelevant to the consistency of the content or lack thereof.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 22, 2022 8:06:54 GMT -5
First paragraph = exactly. Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. Well it gets complicated because not only are people suffering due to reactivity toward current circumstance, but they have been traumatised and have old gunk remaining from the past, including that which they are not yet stable minded enough to endure without losing the plot, so I'm not sure what 'alignment is' as I am unfamiliar with that terminology, but I know how clearing the old blocks opens the heart, if I may generalise using figure of speech.
Since self realisation is here defined as recognising the false self as false, then I'm going to have to say such a recognition is an outcome of meditation. Essentially, if you relentlessly cease to fuel the ego with reactivity, it will ultimately be revealed, and you'll be like, 'that's what has been pretending to me' and/or 'I can't believe I've been living as that'. Even then, it can, I think usually does, take a bit of persistence to become established...
That is of the things that happens with regard to self or existence. There is another which is like space opens up all around, and another where you directly contact like - "I am that" . It's more like 'that is the truth of my nature' - and it's weird. Then there's the balance point I mentioned, which has nothing to do with the more 'I am' related things, but I consider it the ultimate, even though its a bit of a nothing burger.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 22, 2022 9:08:26 GMT -5
First paragraph = exactly. Second paragraph isn't exact. It's more like self realisation might occur any time, or maybe not, whereas the alignment is more about further refinements of subtlety. Essentially, the balance is the cessation of reactionary tendencies that perpetuate false notions of self, because all reactions are essential self-referential. Hence meditation is 'stop doing that' rather than something that you do. Sorry I just put 99% of spiritual teachers out of business.
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. This is my fulcrum. I really shouldn't reply yet as I don't have time to finish. I put you, Reefs, one rung ahead of ZD because you take into consideration alignment, ZD doesn't. I have always considered this a conflict between you and ZD, but I know the two of you don't. I understand ZD considers alignment irrelevant, as it has nothing to do with SR. ATST I understand why you consider it, period (but alignment still having nothing to do with SR). That's a beginning background for a further reply later (my today, your tomorrow). Basically, consider SR a kind of mountaintop, [looking around and down] seeing the Whole. But ZD seems to have realized ~we~ (nobody) can live there continually (I think I recall that was his last realization), it doesn't matter. So we have to come back down to the "valley" to live. For ZD it ends there. For Reefs, alignment enters the picture, as an aid to living in the valley (but still being irrelevant to SR, not effecting SR, what was realized in SR). So that sets the table for a further reply, which concerns the relationship between the "mountaintop" (SR) and living in the "valley". That's my essential concern and my fulcrum. {This will also speak to lolly's concerns, having read up the [then] end}. TBC...
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 22, 2022 10:01:05 GMT -5
So, what existential question have you resolved that scientists using the intellect could not? I would like Reefs to help you out here because he also disses the intellect. Have you guys figured out what time is? Scientists have no issue with time. They can measure it with atomic clocks and have developed the GPS which locates you for a drone strike.
People who are stuck in the intellect won't like the answers to existential questions provided by sages because they have no reference for them. The observer paradox occurs in physics, anthropology, and other sciences. It appears to be a paradox because scientists imagine that they're separate from what they observe, but this is an illusion. The observer and the observed are the same unified field of being. This means that they're always looking at themselves. It's the intellect that makes them imagine a universe divided into separate states. What is a subatomic particle? It's an idea, only, a way of imagining how to explain the structure of matter and various phenomena. At first, scientists thought matter was composed of atoms which were composed of smaller particles, but then those smaller particles appeared to be composed of yet smaller particles, etc. It's like a dog chasing its own tail without knowing it. They built bigger accelerators and then had to imagine yet smaller particles (quarks) with odd qualities (charm), etc. Today, we have books with titles like "The Matter Myth" because some scientists have begun to realize what's going on. How did life appear in what appears to be a lifeless universe? It didn't; the whole thing "is alive, Igor; it's alive." What is time? It's a cognitive grid, just like lines of latitude and longitude. It's a totally imaginary concept. In truth, there is only now.. Make no mistake, imagination is useful and extremely powerful as a survival tool. It allowed early humans to imagine how to trap and kill large animals. It allows architects to design spaces that can be walked through and looked at in the mind's eye before they're constructed. In short, it's a great gift, but that gift is both a blessing and a curse. It's a curse when humans do not realize the difference between what is actual and what is imaginary. What a tree IS is actual whereas the image/idea/symbol "tree" is imaginary. The greatest tragedy is that humans rarely discover the living truth because they're culturally conditioned to spend 99% of their time imagining. This is why they don't know what they are, what's going on, or why they feel alienated. You know what? I do agree with your assertions; however, scientists (including you) do not imagine that they are separate from what they observe. The separation is an actuality, as actual as the fact that they are human beings living on planet earth. The actuality of separation is caused by perception. There are tons of theories published by scientists/academics refuting that separation but none is convincing. Case in point: Bernardo Kastrup, who worked at CERN. He rejects the separation and posits what you have asserted. His theory debunking the objective reality of materialism has gained no traction. All sages perceive themselves as people and not trees or rocks. Therein lies the separation. Living one way and preaching another way is disgusting to me.
One of you guys said that only nutjobs don't see themselves as human beings living on planet earth. And all of you concurred in silence. If that is the case, then stop discussing nonduality bs in this forum. If you folks are human beings and not planet earth, that is the separation. Then, there is the car you drive, the computer you use to discuss nonduality with other non-nutjobs, the food you shove in your mouths, the wives you yell at. They are all separate from you.
Look, I understand why you people gather to converse on nonduality and disdain the intellect as though you have a special "prior to concept" power of perception at your disposal to transcend the mundane world of scientists and folks like Gopal and sree. And you huddle together for warmth and comfort. I get that. My grandma huddled with Catholics all her life. She was a good woman and I loved her as much as she loved me. I think she loved me more. Like you folks,she also believed she had a special power, in Jesus, the Savior. Your special power is in nonduality, the holy grail of western spirituality.
My grandma is dead but you are not. Also, you folks come across as smarter than scientists and professors of physics at the top schools in the US. This is why I have been trying to shove my brand of spirituality in your faces. Reefs don't like it and said it is toxic. I was hoping that at least one of you would check it out. The separation between "the observer and the observed" (Krishnamurti) is indeed an illusion. Krishnamurti, apparently, could live it but couldn't explain it. You guys are just saying it but cannot live in that state of oneness. Using the intellect, I can explain the illusion. It is not a bad thing but a marvelous feature of the wholeness of life.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 22, 2022 10:07:54 GMT -5
Alignment might also occur at any time, spontaneously, because it is your default state after all. As you say, all you need to do is 'stop doing that' which keeps you out of alignment and immediately you'll be back into your default state, alignment. The floating cork analogy comes to mind here. Now, here's the difference to SR. SR basically just means seeing things as they are, i.e. seeing what is false as false and what is real as real. So when the false self disappears in deep alignment, then the false self just disappears, but it isn't recognized as false when it reappears. But in SR the false self is recognized as false. Which means the false self reappearing or disappearing forever makes no difference. The mirage metaphor comes to mind here. Well it gets complicated because not only are people suffering due to reactivity toward current circumstance, but they have been traumatised and have old gunk remaining from the past, including that which they are not yet stable minded enough to endure without losing the plot, so I'm not sure what 'alignment is' as I am unfamiliar with that terminology, but I know how clearing the old blocks opens the heart, if I may generalise using figure of speech.
Since self realisation is here defined as recognising the false self as false, then I'm going to have to say such a recognition is an outcome of meditation. Essentially, if you relentlessly cease to fuel the ego with reactivity, it will ultimately be revealed, and you'll be like, 'that's what has been pretending to me' and/or 'I can't believe I've been living as that'. Even then, it can, I think usually does, take a bit of persistence to become established...
That is of the things that happens with regard to self or existence. There is another which is like space opens up all around, and another where you directly contact like - "I am that" . It's more like 'that is the truth of my nature' - and it's weird. Then there's the balance point I mentioned, which has nothing to do with the more 'I am' related things, but I consider it the ultimate, even though its a bit of a nothing burger.
Alignment is just the word I prefer. ZD prefers to call it flow. Dispenza calls it coherence. In essence, it is a state of peace of mind, active or inactive, focused or unfocused. SR is acausal. And self does play no role in SR since it is shoved aside. So on the level of self, there are no requirements to be met, no one can bestow it upon you (self), you (as self) cannot earn it and you (self) cannot mess it up either. Because you (self) have no part in it. So mediate or don't, extinguish your ego or don't, it doesn't matter. So, as a seeker, you cannot bring SR about and you also cannot prevent it from happening. Where you can do something though is alignment. That's why I keep talking about alignment. I just think it's better to be unenlightend but in alignment, which means living a pretty good and satisfying life, than unenlighted and out of alignment, which is a living hell.
|
|