|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 14:11:46 GMT -5
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!  Very most excellently we're on the same page. I knew we'd get there some day. Thanks. I'd say these new neural pathways are proof man-the-animal-body is not a product of Darwin's evolution (alone). How would you evolve something you will only have (potential) use for in the future. But yes, they obviously exist. Why would this be so? What we are, and what everything else is, is what we could call "a ceaselessly transformative process," but it's all one seamless unified unfolding. A human is born OF and AS "what is," falls into delusion due to misidentification, and later wakes up from the error of misidentification. IOW, THIS (all that is) wakes up to its own inherent and infinite isness. There is no "you" that evolves; there is only THIS/isness/oneness/whateverwewanttocallit. There are no actual boundaries of any kind anywhere except in imagination. If I lift a finger to scratch an itch, it is THIS scratching Itself because there is no "other." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 14:18:55 GMT -5
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! That's an interesting statement. Coz I would associate fear with the CT perspective, so from that perspective there could only be fear that in ATA-T (or deeper, such as NS) something might be irrevocably lost, but not the other way around. So there can't be fear in ATA-T that selfhood might return. After all, that fear would be based on reflective thought, right? Dunno if that make sense. Reading this from ZD I immediately thought of Suzanne Segal. It seems pretty clear she experienced the same, but she was still very attached to her false self, the persona-mask. So she had a negative reaction to the loss of self. There is something to explore here, as she had- memories-of-who-she-had-been, but ATST knew ~she~ was gone. Same for ZD, he didn't forget where he lived or who he was married to or what he did for a living and how to do it, he had the memories, but he wasn't himself any longer. But ZD had a very positively most wonderful, relief. But I hesitated to go further in that post... |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 14:25:59 GMT -5
Very most excellently we're on the same page. I knew we'd get there some day. Thanks. I'd say these new neural pathways are proof man-the-animal-body is not a product of Darwin's evolution (alone). How would you evolve something you will only have (potential) use for in the future. But yes, they obviously exist. Why would this be so? What we are, and what everything else is, is what we could call "a ceaselessly transformative process," but it's all one seamless unified unfolding. A human is born OF and AS "what is," falls into delusion due to misidentification, and later wakes up from the error of misidentification. IOW, THIS (all that is) wakes up to its own inherent and infinite isness. There is no "you" that evolves; there is only THIS/isness/oneness/whateverwewanttocallit. There are no actual boundaries of any kind anywhere except in imagination. If I lift a finger to scratch an itch, it is THIS scratching Itself because there is no "other." I just really brought up an irrelevant point. I was just saying that materialistic-atheistic-scientists who believe in a bottom-up paradigm, having these circuits shows they are wrong. For me it shows Consciousness runs the show, not dirt and evolution. I went to pains to say man-the-animal-body already has these circuits, Darwin's evolution wouldn't explain them. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 14:37:09 GMT -5
One "seamless" movement means that there is no some-thing that has personal agency/volition to "actually" choose in a way that affects/lies causal to that singular, seamless movement. Can you see the future? Do you accept that there is an unknown? (at least for figs anyway). It's like that. I say agency begins with observing, with {bare} attention, {bare} awareness. (Most) everybody fought me for years on this, here, no, you can't even be aware of what you want to be aware of, they (mostly) all said. I don't argue this. ZD can ATA-T, and not claim personal agency. ATA-T is a name by any other name. I don't care to argue, but, no, [still] doesn't follow. But all this is why we need [1] Source, Ground, All That Is; [2] essence, True Self, true individuation; [3] the false self-imaginary self. [2] makes all the difference. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 14:37:14 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. Again, this surprises me. In terms of 'being conscious' it's more Capital C Consciousness that is being referred to (which is less effortful) than default small c or individuated consciousness, (which accordingly is relatively more effortful). Capital C Consciousness is close to pure undifferentiated Awareness (which of course is completely effortless).
Small c being synonymous with CT perspective/rat race stuff, and especially associated with learning and thinking etc. So mentation. Which is why you get more tired in that state. Babies and small children get tired more easily than adults because they are in descent from Consciousness to consciousness and consciousness is not yet naturalised. So eventually consciousness becomes habituated.
By contrast, 'being conscious', (so capital C) is more the hallmark of the enlightened, which is why it's said Buddha's rarely need to sleep. The mentation is mostly dormant. To put it another way, ... 'being conscious' really means Being Conscious of being conscious, or the riverbank/witness position. In this state, the small conscious, not being identified with, is actually less dense than default CT perspective modus operandi (i.e. consciousness without 'being conscious'). Therefore the former state is actually less effortful and the latter moreso. It's not about watching thoughts it's about being aware, which is a subtle distinction. The conscious referred to in 'being conscious' comes about as a result of cessation, or less doing. As the result of realisation. And this cessation of a certain obscuration merely allows Consciousness to shine through more clearly, and is ultimately less effortful than the default position. Not more. I'm sure that's all as clear as mud! Edit. Just had another thought ... If I said 'being conscious' was akin to ATA+T, would you consider that as more effortful than CT perspective [identified] rat-race stuff? (I should say I don't know anything about Gurdjieff btw) |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2023 14:46:51 GMT -5
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! That's an interesting statement. Coz I would associate fear with the CT perspective, so from that perspective there could only be fear that in ATA-T (or deeper, such as NS) something might be irrevocably lost, but not the other way around. So there can't be fear in ATA-T that selfhood might return. After all, that fear would be based on reflective thought, right? Dunno if that make sense. Yes, that makes sense. I assume that it was just an old habit of mind that momentarily reappeared. Fifteen years earlier, after selfhood disappeared for three days, it came back. I assumed that it came back as a result of excessive intellection as the reflective function of mind cranked back up. I remembered talking endlessly to my wife and others at that time about what had happened and about all of my thoughts about that occurrence. After the second shift, I came home from the solo mountain-climbing retreat trip and again began talking incessantly about what had been realized, etc. The intellect hadn't ceased to function, and at some point a thought arose, "OMG, this happened fifteen years ago. Is it possible that endless talking and thinking could cause the same loss of clarity and unity-of-mind to happen again?" After this thought appeared, I immediately stopped talking and became silent for a while and then relaxed because a great deal had changed over that fifteen year period. The intellect, though still active, was no longer dominant in the same way as before even though there was tendency to engage with old thoughts. That's one aspect of what I was referring to as a continuing process of integration or embodiment. I think this happened twice, but then it never happened again. In the past I had often "looked inside" to see what I thought or felt about things, but when I became silent and attempted to "look inside" the "inside" was still gone. It's a bit hard to explain in words, but after a few days it became clear that "the little guy in the head" was gone for good. I hadn't thought about this until now, but it's similar to what happened after the day when I suddenly saw how the persistent thought of escaping the responsibilities of running a company and running off to a wilderness to get enlightened was nothing more than a fantasy separating me from the truth of what was actually happening in the present moment. On that day I asked myself, "What must I be doing this moment?" and it became obvious that I had to be pouring concrete. One would think that seeing the truth so clearly would have ended that fantasy completely, but it didn't. About a week later I was standing in an office waiting to get a building permit, and that old fantasy reappeared. I thought, "If only I didn't have to be waiting on this bureaucratic paperwork, I could be...." Suddenly, in the middle of that old thought process, I remembered what had happened a week earlier, and I asked myself, "What must I be doing this moment?" And, again the answer was crystal clear. I had to be patiently waiting for a building official to finish up some necessary paperwork. I don't think I ever had to ask that question again because after it happened the second time, the old fantasy never reoccurred. I suspect that this was the same sort of thing because it only happened twice and never happened again. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 15:04:54 GMT -5
If it's True, relative unfolding is contained within a greater, unified, singular, seamless movement, then what does that say about the "actuality/Truth" of the relative unfolding? . OK, admittedly the following is speculation, a predilection. "Can "God" make a rock so heavy he can't lift it"? Can stuff exist other than All That Is? My answer is creativity. I'd say Source-Ground is Intentional. Can Source-Ground be ~Greater~ than It Is? I'd speculate ~we~ exist, figuratively, as an "apple" that doesn't fall too far from the tree. So One Tree can ~make~ a Thousand apples, that's what Individuation IS. So ~we~ are an extension of Creativity, to see what we can contribute-to and add-to and be-different from All That Is. This works better for me than "God" playing hide and seek from Herself. That's saying it simply, I don't think I'm up to today, saying it more complicated. Probably 1970 I learned about Leibniz and his view of Monads (kind of a basic unit of Oneness). It seemed verily like a good idea, such that I never forget it. This is very akin to the Consciousness Units of Seth (Jane Roberts). Let's call it the Lego theory of All That Is. Have you ever seen what they can make of of Legos? >This world< is made from Legos. So ~we~ are a kind of sparkly seed, each unique, a packet of potential. Consciousness Intends to see what consciousness can-do-with its potential. That's about all I've got, today. But, less than 1% even get to the point of exercising their potential, it's not easy to get there. (Thus the question, do you know your future? And, is there an unknown for figs? (As analogy). The fact that we can make many different things from "Legos" does not negate the basis of All That Is, is "Legos". It's complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 21, 2023 15:04:55 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.  I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it! It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 21, 2023 15:26:11 GMT -5
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. I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it!It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. From the Multiverse perspective.. everything that is happening on this Earth has already happened on an original Earth and what we're experiencing could be nothing more than a very elaborate and sophisticated replay. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 15:30:08 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. In conversation many years ago you asked me if Gurdjieff lived in "Cosmic Consciousness" always. I didn't answer, I just dropped it. But yes, "Cosmic Consciousness" (probably not the same as you mean, he meant conscious of reality as it is, conscious of Isness the way it is, I kind-of invented the words of that last part) was always accessible to Gurdjieff, he called it the 4th state of consciousness. That's a step beyond what was being discussed here, which is consciousness of one's self as one is in actuality (the body-mind-brain-thoughts-feelings-emotions-bodily doing), that's what self-remembering IS, the full state, that's the 3rd state of consciousness. These two higher states of consciousness are not imaginary, at least the 3rd state isn't imaginary. I ask like I asked figs, as analogy, can you know the future? Is there anything unknown for ZD? I would suggest the 3rd state of consciousness is unknown for ZD (evident from you posting and our conversations). No problem, the path there is very specific. For one thing, there Is an inside and an outside (not in any sense that there is separation). See?, that alone stops you. One only has to browse In Search of the Miraculous to see Gurdjieff meant what he said, his followers didn't misinterpret. But necessity is not involved, no necessity is ever involved. Gurdjieff taught all of this must come without coercion of any kind whatsoever, even self-coercion. Anyone chooses to work because they wish to, there can be no coercion. Necessity doesn't enter in any way. So, we're getting to where I didn't want to go today. But I can always take a nap, and get back to it, answering questions. (I sort of evaded the question with figs just now). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 15:37:40 GMT -5
I can define it. It ties in with your 'can only unfold one way' and 'perfection' stances. I just can't get on board with it!It's basically determinism par excellence, as opposed to my ' fated yet not determined' stance …. which I'm still working on. From the Multiverse perspective.. everything that is happening on this Earth has already happened on an original Earth and what we're experiencing could be nothing more than a very elaborate and sophisticated replay. This is a pretty good film, especially pertinent for sdp. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2023 15:44:09 GMT -5
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. Again, this surprises me. In terms of 'being conscious' it's more Capital C Consciousness that is being referred to (which is less effortful) than default small c or individuated consciousness, (which accordingly is relatively more effortful). Capital C Consciousness is close to pure undifferentiated Awareness (which of course is completely effortless).
Small c being synonymous with CT perspective/rat race stuff, and especially associated with learning and thinking etc. So mentation. Which is why you get more tired in that state. Babies and small children get tired more easily than adults because they are in descent from Consciousness to consciousness and consciousness is not yet naturalised. So eventually consciousness becomes habituated.
By contrast, 'being conscious', (so capital C) is more the hallmark of the enlightened, which is why it's said Buddha's rarely need to sleep. The mentation is mostly dormant. To put it another way, ... 'being conscious' really means Being Conscious of being conscious, or the riverbank/witness position. In this state, the small conscious, not being identified with, is actually less dense than default CT perspective modus operandi (i.e. consciousness without 'being conscious'). Therefore the former state is actually less effortful and the latter moreso. It's not about watching thoughts it's about being aware, which is a subtle distinction. The conscious referred to in 'being conscious' comes about as a result of cessation, or less doing. As the result of realisation. And this cessation of a certain obscuration merely allows Consciousness to shine through more clearly, and is ultimately less effortful than the default position. Not more. I'm sure that's all as clear as mud! Edit. Just had another thought ... If I said 'being conscious' was akin to ATA+T, would you consider that as more effortful than CT perspective [identified] rat-race stuff? (I should say I don't know anything about Gurdjieff btw) Good stuff, very well explained. Being more conscious means not letting operating on autopilot *ruin one's day*, so to speak. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 21, 2023 15:49:27 GMT -5
One hack to being more balanced is to know exactly where your extremes are, and not visit them so often. E' used to explain that to gopal as "clipping" .. but he never advised it, just described it.  I never noticed those conversations. Makes sense though. Extremes have something new in them in the beginning. New information that's wanted and needed. Though you can't keep collecting the same information and pretend it's original. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 21, 2023 16:09:33 GMT -5
From the Multiverse perspective.. everything that is happening on this Earth has already happened on an original Earth and what we're experiencing could be nothing more than a very elaborate and sophisticated replay. This is a pretty good film, especially pertinent for sdp.  |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 21, 2023 16:54:53 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. The experience of having power is not the same as actual, inherent, fundamentally existent, creative/causal power. |
|
