|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 9:35:17 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with that. It's said that the Buddha referred to himself as the tathagata for similar reasons. I was using 'personing' in a similar sense to the individuated mind-body expression. No doubt that sort of 'autonomic' response is quite prevalent and likely accounts for the bulk of experientiality. However, just because choices are routinely being made on a subconscious level doesn't negate the fact that choices are being made. I guess we might conclude that differently. Additionally, such choice would be coloured by kamma, which may well encompass what we think of as genetic and biological predisposition, i.e innate behaviour. I consider variations in levels of apparent individuated consciousness to be a factor here too. What I mean is, someone who is generally 'being [more] conscious' than another may respond differently to the same stimuli, even subconsciously.
That said, there are also instances where informed conscious decisions/choices are being made after in depth consideration. And I'm not one who subscribes to this notion that things can only ever unfold one way. In either instance actually.
I rez with that Tao line but perhaps interpret it a bit differently. There is doing even though there is no doer per se. But that isn't to say there is an ultimate doer, such as THIS or the Unborn. I suppose it depends upon what has been seen and/or experienced. On the day that "the little guy in the head" was seen to have vanished without a trace and the past sense of selfhood collapsed, it became obvious that who I had thought I was had been a total illusion about a fictional character who had never existed in any sense-- a story of mistaken identification. The consequent realization that was verbalized internally at that time was, "OMG, everything that ever happened was done by the process of reality, itself." This character had apprehended the Infinite in some unimaginable way fifteen years earlier, so it then became obvious that what had been seen at that earlier point in time was the underlying "doer" of everything or force behind everything. Later, I began to call it "the unified field of all being," and later still, "THIS." It's hard to put into words, but during that earlier apprehension of the Infinite there was a sense that a foundational aspect of what was apprehended was a living presence that loved everything. Whether we call it "the Unborn," THIS, Brahman, or "Buddha Nature" all we can do is point to THAT and acknowledge that THAT is totally beyond human comprehension. One of my first major existential questions of importance was, "Is there really such a thing as God?" On March 5, 1984 that question got answered, but not in a way that I could have ever expected. Somehow this character saw in some direct way what the word "God" pointed to, and anyone who apprehends THAT will never be the same. As Kabir so eloquently wrote, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." , when you had a glimpse the 15 years earlier, you had a temporary shift into essence-True Self, but the circuits of the old self became again operational, that is, the connections between neurons that constituted the imaginary self shifted back into operation. I would also suggest that from 15 years of ATA-T, this *practice* slowly began taking the energy out of the self-circuits-neural connections that constituted the imaginary self. And, suddenly the center-tent-pole just collapsed (that's what happened to Tolle in one night), there wasn't even the energy left to hold itself up. I would also suggest that "ZD" then lived wholly from essence-True Self. I have zero problem with your description, the little man in the head was yes, always imaginary, the false self IS imaginary, it's acquired, it's not who-what we are (thus the word false). All this fits perfectly into my POV (what Gurdjieff taught). Today seemed like a good day to say so. Tolle's experience fits perfectly into my POV, sleeping on park benches for 2 years afterwards. Life can be thoroughly disrupted, as, it takes a period of adjustment to begin living from this newness, to know how-to-be, what-to-do. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 9:54:41 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again.  The only part of 'no SVP' I agree with is the 'no S' part. The volitioning and the personing are entirely apparent. Yet even they, ultimately, are divine expression. But apparent nonetheless. Hence, from my pov the issue is not the limitation of language, but a lack of clarity. Yeah, well, that can cut either way. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 9:57:33 GMT -5
FWIW, most of us use the word "person" to refer to people lost in the concensus paradigm; we use the word "character" or "individual" or "Mind-body organism" to refer to humans who have seen through the illusion of selfhood. That's one reason that many sages refer to themselves as "this character" rather than "I" or "me." It feels more accurate and in alignment with what one has realized. Volition is an interesting subject. What are your thoughts about various scientific experiments that have shown that when there seems to be a choice between two options, the body acts before there is conscious awareness of the choice that the body has made? IOW, the sense of having made a choice comes AFTER the body has already begun responding to the issue at hand. As the Tao Te Ching puts it, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." From a sage's POV THIS, or the Unborn, is what does whatever is done.That's a cool 'in the dream' facet that demonstrates the inherent wisdom of the body....body/intuitive responses that lie beyond intellect/overt, obvious minding/mental processes.
The firing of neurons/synapses (whatever) in the brain, is a physical phenomena. "One singular movement" points beyond ALL physical phenomena that that which is prior to/beyond.
The problem with using that scientific finding to try to make the point for Oneness/no separation is that is reifies the apparent body and brain processes as fundamentally "causal" to the experiential making of a choice. When really, those brain processes AND the sense of choosing are BOTH facets of experience.....neither has actual causal/catalyzing, "inherent power," over the ohter. Both are temporal expressions of the unchanging.
Right, ultimately, the best an intellectual notion can ever do is rouse someone's interest in a topic or challenge their ingrained position. Intellect can only ever cast shadows, but shadows do follow the outline of what they are casting. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 10:00:34 GMT -5
E' used to explain that to gopal as "clipping" .. but he never advised it, just described it.  Yup. There is the naturally unfolding shift in personal wants/interests that means proclivities/inclinations that were once in play are no longer and then there is the SVP who 'tries valiantly' to avoid the pull towards behaviors/actions he's judged to be 'dangerous.'
One is natural, the other, contrived.
He also used to sometimes write something along the lines of "everyone is always ever doing the best that they can". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 10:10:37 GMT -5
That's a cool 'in the dream' facet that demonstrates the inherent wisdom of the body....body/intuitive responses that lie beyond intellect/overt, obvious minding/mental processes.
The firing of neurons/synapses (whatever) in the brain, is a physical phenomena. "One singular movement" points beyond ALL physical phenomena that that which is prior to/beyond.
The problem with using that scientific finding to try to make the point for Oneness/no separation is that is reifies the apparent body and brain processes as fundamentally "causal" to the experiential making of a choice. When really, those brain processes AND the sense of choosing are BOTH facets of experience.....neither has actual causal/catalyzing, "inherent power," over the ohter. Both are temporal expressions of the unchanging.
Here is the distinction (I've made for 14 years here), what we are born with-as belongs to essence-True Self, this includes the body-brain-neurons. The false self is acquired after birth. This includes thoughts and negative emotions (learned from other people's negative emotions). And these come-from the connections between neurons, that's the distinction. Neurons essence; connections between neurons, the false self.The wisdom of the body as pumping blood and breathing air etc., is essence-connected to Source-Ground-All That Is. "Meditation" is something new, ATA-T is something new. But it's not-new, it's a return to bare-attention, bare-awareness, a return to essence-True Self. In meditation-ATA-T one doesn't go-with the firing of connected-neurons (of which the false self consists). That, begins taking the energy out of what perpetuates the false self. That, is true not-doing. Intellectual shadows are always a form or fragment of machine blueprint. Here you express the perspective that the conditioning expressed by the individual is significant, but here you suggest the opposite. Or, are you saying there that only some patterns of neural connections are the "false self", but not all? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 10:32:51 GMT -5
It's the exact opposite. If you stray into a self-referential thought in some circumstances that demand your complete attention it can be dangerous. I understand your perspective, but I see it limited to only certain circumstances of "absorption". In sitting meditation, attention-on-attention can give way to awareness-of-awareness. "Focus", halts that progression. I don't understand "It's the exact opposite". Sitting meditation is basically ~practice~ for attention-awareness in ordinary life, always and everywhere. ANYTHING means anything, it means always and everywhere. So ~my perspective~ is not limited in any way. What Gurdjieff called a conscious man (or woman) means exactly never being lost, never having one's attention or awareness taken by people, places, things, events, thoughts, feelings or bodily actions (which is the normal state for 99.9999% of people, and is what Gurdjieff meant by sleep (the second state of consciousness, ordinary, the so-called waking state, the first state being ordinary sleep-unconsciousness-+ dreams-for about-8-hours), that is, not-awake, IOW, not what is meant here, ST's forum discussion, by awakening from the consensus trance. IOW, it's not a one-time some-nothing, that is WAY down the road). So for Gurdjieff a conscious man lives from {attention}-awareness, without qualification. Up-to becoming a conscious man, conscious efforts are necessary. When conscious efforts are maintained continuously, that's being a conscious man, the definition. (satch and I had a discussion about this. He asked, Why would you want this? That question basically tells me everything). So, then, a field of energy has been built up which ~holds the state~, without effort, the field of energy maintains {attention}-awareness. However, only later is the state ~self-perpetuating~, until then, it takes interior practice to maintain the state, the field of energy, otherwise it will dissipate eventually. [Another practice enters here and can-only enter here. You have to come to this practice, that is, understand it own your own, it will never be given by another person, thus, the secret protects itself. This new practice is the way to move forward, IOW, without it, the journey stops. I say the new practice can only enter here, as for instance you can only build a third story floor if you have built a second story floor. The *first floor* is the body]. This {"new"} field of energy is perceptible, it can't-be ignored, it's monumental, extraordinarily extraordinary. Saying all that to say you are simply wrong, you can't possibly understand my perspective, if you understood it you couldn't say "it is limited to only certain circumstances". BTW, the beginning of the field of energy is faintly perceptible, and then more-so (you have written about it, your experience). Understand, and agree, "it can be dangerous".For many people, if not most, what gets "lost" in flow is the false self, but only temporarily. Flow refers to lucid absorption (in an activity like juggling, for instance), not a daydream. "Lost in a daydream" is a use of "lost" that fits your use of the word "lost" here. But that's not what descriptions of flow are relating. Ever seen a top chef and his knife work? He is in flow. He keeps all of his fingers precisely because his false sense of self, which operates through indirect layers of perception, is "lost". What you write here suggests an obvious form of the existential question : what is it, that maintains conscious efforts continually? You are, of course, completely closed off to the possibility that I have to offer a facet of perspective within your current blind spot. That is, what it is.  This effort to consciously maintain attention, if done in self-reference, eventually all it will do is serve to reinforce the ego. Witnessing is a state with all sorts of subtle layers to it, and one can reach states of witnessing that are quite sublime and profound. But, for as long as there is the witness, and what is witnessed, there is existential delusion.
Resistance is, after all, quite futile. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 10:43:59 GMT -5
I suppose it depends upon what has been seen and/or experienced. On the day that "the little guy in the head" was seen to have vanished without a trace and the past sense of selfhood collapsed, it became obvious that who I had thought I was had been a total illusion about a fictional character who had never existed in any sense-- a story of mistaken identification. The consequent realization that was verbalized internally at that time was, "OMG, everything that ever happened was done by the process of reality, itself." This character had apprehended the Infinite in some unimaginable way fifteen years earlier, so it then became obvious that what had been seen at that earlier point in time was the underlying "doer" of everything or force behind everything. Later, I began to call it "the unified field of all being," and later still, "THIS." It's hard to put into words, but during that earlier apprehension of the Infinite there was a sense that a foundational aspect of what was apprehended was a living presence that loved everything. Whether we call it "the Unborn," THIS, Brahman, or "Buddha Nature" all we can do is point to THAT and acknowledge that THAT is totally beyond human comprehension. One of my first major existential questions of importance was, "Is there really such a thing as God?" On March 5, 1984 that question got answered, but not in a way that I could have ever expected. Somehow this character saw in some direct way what the word "God" pointed to, and anyone who apprehends THAT will never be the same. As Kabir so eloquently wrote, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." , when you had a glimpse the 15 years earlier, you had a temporary shift into essence-True Self, but the circuits of the old self became again operational, that is, the connections between neurons that constituted the imaginary self shifted back into operation. I would also suggest that from 15 years of ATA-T, this *practice* slowly began taking the energy out of the self-circuits-neural connections that constituted the imaginary self. And, suddenly the center-tent-pole just collapsed (that's what happened to Tolle in one night), there wasn't even the energy left to hold itself up. I would also suggest that "ZD" then lived wholly from essence-True Self. I have zero problem with your description, the little man in the head was yes, always imaginary, the false self IS imaginary, it's acquired, it's not who-what we are (thus the word false). All this fits perfectly into my POV (what Gurdjieff taught). Today seemed like a good day to say so. Tolle's experience fits perfectly into my POV, sleeping on park benches for 2 years afterwards. Life can be thoroughly disrupted, as, it takes a period of adjustment to begin living from this newness, to know how-to-be, what-to-do. I agree. It didn't dawn on me until a few years ago that following that dramatic shift in 1984 this character lived in exactly the same state of mind that Tolle described. The only difference was that it dissipated after about three days whereas Tolle apparently stayed in that state for two or more years. He claims that 80% or more of his thinking simply stopped and did not return. In my case old incessant thinking patterns returned fairly quickly as a result of wanting to understand what had happened, and the default mode neural network got re-activated as the intellect got cranked back up to full speed. I also agree with the speculation that the thousands of hours of ATA-T had the effect of gradually putting pressure on the default mode neural network until one day it suddenly shifted to a new neural pathway that I often refer to as "a unified perspective neural pathway." None of the dramatic non-local stuff happened following that second shift, but thinking patterns definitely changed. There was an initial period of intermittent fear that selfhood might re-assert itself as a result of reflective thought, but that quickly ended because it was so easy to return to silence and confirm what had been seen. As you correctly noted, there was a gradual deepening process of integration and embodiment that continued to unfold, but fortunately, this character never had to deal with the kind of past psychological traumas that many people describe. Consequently, there didn't seem to be any vasanas that people like Tyler Matthew describe that needed to be released. It was more like, "Oh, now there's freedom because there's no longer a "me" that doesn't feel free and there's no longer a "me" that's at the center of anything that's happening." haha! One of the small ironies of life is that becoming a total loser is a lot of fun! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 10:49:17 GMT -5
Yup. There is the naturally unfolding shift in personal wants/interests that means proclivities/inclinations that were once in play are no longer and then there is the SVP who 'tries valiantly' to avoid the pull towards behaviors/actions he's judged to be 'dangerous.'
One is natural, the other, contrived.
He also used to sometimes write something along the lines of "everyone is always ever doing the best that they can". I also say that all the time, but Carol doesn't like my insertion of the word "best." She prefers to say, "Everyone is just doing what they do," but I still prefer the flavor of "best" because it captures a little something extra that I can't quite define.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 10:52:06 GMT -5
He also used to sometimes write something along the lines of "everyone is always ever doing the best that they can". I also say that all the time, but Carol doesn't like my insertion of the word "best." She prefers to say, "Everyone is just doing what they do," but I still prefer the flavor of "best" because it captures a little something extra that I can't quite define. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 11:08:41 GMT -5
I don't understand "It's the exact opposite". Sitting meditation is basically ~practice~ for attention-awareness in ordinary life, always and everywhere. ANYTHING means anything, it means always and everywhere. So ~my perspective~ is not limited in any way. What Gurdjieff called a conscious man (or woman) means exactly never being lost, never having one's attention or awareness taken by people, places, things, events, thoughts, feelings or bodily actions (which is the normal state for 99.9999% of people, and is what Gurdjieff meant by sleep (the second state of consciousness, ordinary, the so-called waking state, the first state being ordinary sleep-unconsciousness-+ dreams-for about-8-hours), that is, not-awake, IOW, not what is meant here, ST's forum discussion, by awakening from the consensus trance. IOW, it's not a one-time some-nothing, that is WAY down the road). So for Gurdjieff a conscious man lives from {attention}-awareness, without qualification. Up-to becoming a conscious man, conscious efforts are necessary. When conscious efforts are maintained continuously, that's being a conscious man, the definition. (satch and I had a discussion about this. He asked, Why would you want this? That question basically tells me everything). So, then, a field of energy has been built up which ~holds the state~, without effort, the field of energy maintains {attention}-awareness. However, only later is the state ~self-perpetuating~, until then, it takes interior practice to maintain the state, the field of energy, otherwise it will dissipate eventually. [Another practice enters here and can-only enter here. You have to come to this practice, that is, understand it own your own, it will never be given by another person, thus, the secret protects itself. This new practice is the way to move forward, IOW, without it, the journey stops. I say the new practice can only enter here, as for instance you can only build a third story floor if you have built a second story floor. The *first floor* is the body]. This {"new"} field of energy is perceptible, it can't-be ignored, it's monumental, extraordinarily extraordinary. Saying all that to say you are simply wrong, you can't possibly understand my perspective, if you understood it you couldn't say "it is limited to only certain circumstances". BTW, the beginning of the field of energy is faintly perceptible, and then more-so (you have written about it, your experience). Understand, and agree, "it can be dangerous".For many people, if not most, what gets "lost" in flow is the false self, but only temporarily. Flow refers to lucid absorption (in an activity like juggling, for instance), not a daydream. "Lost in a daydream" is a use of "lost" that fits your use of the word "lost" here. But that's not what descriptions of flow are relating. Ever seen a top chef and his knife work? He is in flow. He keeps all of his fingers precisely because his false sense of self, which operates through indirect layers of perception, is "lost". What you write here suggests an obvious form of the existential question : what is it, that maintains conscious efforts continually? You are, of course, completely closed off to the possibility that I have to offer a facet of perspective within your current blind spot. That is, what it is. This effort to consciously maintain attention, if done in self-reference, eventually all it will do is serve to reinforce the ego. Witnessing is a state with all sorts of subtle layers to it, and one can reach states of witnessing that are quite sublime and profound. But, for as long as there is the witness, and what is witnessed, there is existential delusion.
Resistance is, after all, quite futile. Correct; all forms of conscious practice are based on the idea of a "me" doing something in order to get something, and only when the "me" falls away does it become obvious that there was never a "me" doing anything ever. That's the cosmic joke, and it's why nobody ever gets enlightened. In order for someone to get enlightened there would have to be a someone, and there isn't. The truth is too funny for words. I don't know if Gurdjieff has been misinterpreted by his followers or whether he actually believed what he seems to have implied about the necessity of being relentlessly conscious. That idea makes me tired just thinking about it! I'm so glad that I don't have to care about whether THIS is thinking or not thinking any longer. When Hui Neng said, "Let the mind function freely without hindrance," that's what he was pointing to-- the only real and lasting freedom--, but that statement can't be fully appreciated as long as one is trying to get to some imaginary state of higher consciousness. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 11:21:17 GMT -5
I dunno about all this actual stuff, coz it's all in the realm of appearance. Which isn't to say it's somehow unreal (even though I know some like to make that distinction). I'm saying that in the context of the individuated mind-body expression, there is the power to influence or determine outcomes. To inter-actively shape the directionality of experientiality. (Which I know does sound a lot like the positing of fundamental separation, but I don't think so). It's a feedback loop.
I'm talking about will power, and saying I acknowledge it happens predominantly subconsciously but also overtly consciously.
In terms of the individuated mind-body expression, this 'directed intent' arises in conjunction with the expression itself, and more broadly, individuated experientiality as a whole. And in that sense I'm talking about the creative process that is perception, in action. All of which, is transient in nature and ultimately empty [of inherent and abiding existence]. Hence, it is in the realm of appearance only, and it can be said that, 'there is doing even though there is no doer per se'.The relative experience is rife with various assumptions that if you look closer, are not really appearing at all. Does "power" actually appear or it inferred in the experience/relative happenings of stuff getting done?
The same means by which it is realized that there is ultimately "no doer" despite the fact that experientially, stuff seemingly "gets done," is the same realization by which it's seen that the experiencing of being a me character who makes choices, is not actually evidence of "volition."
Just as the 'doer' gets seen through, so does "volition/personal agency/power to choose."
While it may very much seem as though there is personal "power/agency" in play to influence and determine outcomes, SR, a seeing from beyond/prior to it all, clearly reveals that that was only ever an erroneous assumption....if you really look, 'where' exactly is that power....'who' exactly holds it?....who/what does it belong to?
I don't think there's a satisfying answer to that. Not 'the person' and not 'G-d'. Both positions are problematic for different reasons. (Although I can totally relate to where zd is coming from with the latter).
I just don't think that negates it, and counter by saying that if you look closely enough, the phenomenon is apparent and self-evident. Power isn't a great turn of phrase either, coz I spose it has those sort of connotations, i.e who wields it? But I say it does arise, momentarily. Directed intent is a kind of force, a movement, but ultimately it's not something someone has or does. Like focus I suppose. It happens. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 11:24:22 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with that. It's said that the Buddha referred to himself as the tathagata for similar reasons. I was using 'personing' in a similar sense to the individuated mind-body expression. No doubt that sort of 'autonomic' response is quite prevalent and likely accounts for the bulk of experientiality. However, just because choices are routinely being made on a subconscious level doesn't negate the fact that choices are being made. I guess we might conclude that differently. Additionally, such choice would be coloured by kamma, which may well encompass what we think of as genetic and biological predisposition, i.e innate behaviour. I consider variations in levels of apparent individuated consciousness to be a factor here too. What I mean is, someone who is generally 'being [more] conscious' than another may respond differently to the same stimuli, even subconsciously.
That said, there are also instances where informed conscious decisions/choices are being made after in depth consideration. And I'm not one who subscribes to this notion that things can only ever unfold one way. In either instance actually.
I rez with that Tao line but perhaps interpret it a bit differently. There is doing even though there is no doer per se. But that isn't to say there is an ultimate doer, such as THIS or the Unborn. I suppose it depends upon what has been seen and/or experienced. On the day that "the little guy in the head" was seen to have vanished without a trace and the past sense of selfhood collapsed, it became obvious that who I had thought I was had been a total illusion about a fictional character who had never existed in any sense-- a story of mistaken identification. The consequent realization that was verbalized internally at that time was, "OMG, everything that ever happened was done by the process of reality, itself." This character had apprehended the Infinite in some unimaginable way fifteen years earlier, so it then became obvious that what had been seen at that earlier point in time was the underlying "doer" of everything or force behind everything. Later, I began to call it "the unified field of all being," and later still, "THIS." It's hard to put into words, but during that earlier apprehension of the Infinite there was a sense that a foundational aspect of what was apprehended was a living presence that loved everything. Whether we call it "the Unborn," THIS, Brahman, or "Buddha Nature" all we can do is point to THAT and acknowledge that THAT is totally beyond human comprehension. One of my first major existential questions of importance was, "Is there really such a thing as God?" On March 5, 1984 that question got answered, but not in a way that I could have ever expected. Somehow this character saw in some direct way what the word "God" pointed to, and anyone who apprehends THAT will never be the same. As Kabir so eloquently wrote, "I saw the truth for fifteen seconds and became a servant for life." Yep, I can actually relate to all that. And I understand how your ' can't unfold any other way' and 'perfection' stances tie in with that too. I had the same Experience. Although in my case, there was still something niggly so 'the little guy in the head' was reinstated in the form of a tool to be utilised toward further understanding. At least that was part of it. I spose in one sense my main issue with the Unborn as ultimate "doer" is that, due to the ineffability of THAT, as a position I see that it becomes problematic quite quickly. But I relate to your pointers in that regard. I still maintain though, that even within the paradigm of appearance as divine expression, volitioning arises. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2023 11:34:58 GMT -5
For many people, if not most, what gets "lost" in flow is the false self, but only temporarily. Flow refers to lucid absorption (in an activity like juggling, for instance), not a daydream. "Lost in a daydream" is a use of "lost" that fits your use of the word "lost" here. But that's not what descriptions of flow are relating. Ever seen a top chef and his knife work? He is in flow. He keeps all of his fingers precisely because his false sense of self, which operates through indirect layers of perception, is "lost". What you write here suggests an obvious form of the existential question : what is it, that maintains conscious efforts continually? You are, of course, completely closed off to the possibility that I have to offer a facet of perspective within your current blind spot. That is, what it is. This effort to consciously maintain attention, if done in self-reference, eventually all it will do is serve to reinforce the ego. Witnessing is a state with all sorts of subtle layers to it, and one can reach states of witnessing that are quite sublime and profound. But, for as long as there is the witness, and what is witnessed, there is existential delusion.
Resistance is, after all, quite futile. Correct; all forms of conscious practice are based on the idea of a "me" doing something in order to get something, and only when the "me" falls away does it become obvious that there was never a "me" doing anything ever. That's the cosmic joke, and it's why nobody ever gets enlightened. In order for someone to get enlightened there would have to be a someone, and there isn't. The truth is too funny for words. I don't know if Gurdjieff has been misinterpreted by his followers or whether he actually believed what he seems to have implied about the necessity of being relentlessly conscious. That idea makes me tired just thinking about it! I'm so glad that I don't have to care about whether THIS is thinking or not thinking any longer. When Hui Neng said, "Let the mind function freely without hindrance," that's what he was pointing to-- the only real and lasting freedom--, but that statement can't be fully appreciated as long as one is trying to get to some imaginary state of higher consciousness.  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 11:40:42 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'll say it again. The only part of 'no SVP' I agree with is the 'no S' part. The volitioning and the personing are entirely apparent. Yet even they, ultimately, are divine expression. But apparent nonetheless. Hence, from my pov the issue is not the limitation of language, but a lack of clarity. It's complicated. Correct, no separation (I don't even know what separation would mean). But I think we have to distinguish between the *person* (OTOH) and the conditioning (OToH). We are all conditioned to one extent or another. Plus you can consider samskaras and vasanas baggage we might even be born with. So if a person is acting out from their conditioning, then it's not volitional, it's the conditioning operating. So, for me, nothing works without 3 aspects, [1] the Ground-Source, [2] True Self-true individuality, [3] the false self-persona-mask as conditioning (which I also consider including samskaras-vasanas). If one is acting from conditioning, one is not free, and you can't consider it volitional (it's "knee-jerk compulsive-acting). IOW, correct, no separation. If one is acting from conditioning, no volition. If one is acting from the small s self, this is the false self and can't be called the person, no person. I fully accept with these qualifications no SVP. IOoW, no Separation, period. Volition, acting from True Self- Person begins with the many forms of "meditation", including ATA-T, and only that. The no separation comes through clarity by way of realisation. Somthing along the lines that undifferentiated Awareness is primary and Consciousness is effectively universal. Therefore, Oneness is the case. That sort of thing. I assumed it's pretty much the one thing everyone agrees on.
I see the way you are talking about conditioning as problematic. For a start, the way I use Consciousness- it is synonymous with 'the conditioned', and appearance. The universe, (or universal) is 'the conditioned'. So the sort of conditioning you allude to, social or whatever is merely a subset of that.
Then there is kamma as you have also alluded. But even in the case of one having apprehended the state of the cessation of the production of kamma with life-force remaining ... that life-force and associated experientiality would be residual kamma effect. Therefore, 'conditioned/conditioning'. Mundane experientiality, or the physical realm if you like, is synonymous with 'the conditioned'.
Therefore, ultimately you can't distinguish between the person and the conditioning.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 11:53:02 GMT -5
Again, in this convo, definitions/meanings are important.
The term "volition" as used in Nonduality circles has a very specific meaning. Thus, when it's said that SR reveals personal volition to be false/a misconception or an illusion, what's being referenced there is very much the "underlying, actuality of power...ability to determine/act with personal doership," referenced in this Merriam-Webster definition of the term: "Volition: the power of choosing or determining."
The fact that there is no fundamental separation....no inherent, independent existence to the apparent me character/person/body-mind, means there's also no actual "power" to choose/determine.
Truth always addresses what is "actually/fundamentally so." The term "volition" as well as "causation" have built-in reference to actuality/fundamentals.
I've been disagreeing on this for 14 years here. (Explained in the post above). No Person doesn't follow from no Separation. Person doesn't mean independent existence. No Volition (period) doesn't follow from no Separation. I think maybe 15 years is the charm! |
|
