|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 7:14:16 GMT -5
Whether "you" ignore the phone ringing has nothing to do with whether your mind and body decide to pick up the call. That's kind of my point. There's no need to turn away from the world at all. Vedanta is very clear about not rejecting the world when it speaks of the two powers of Maya. There is the projecting power of Maya which gives rise to the appearance of the world. That isn't a problem. You should fully engage with the world. It is the veiling power of Maya that one must address which is that which prevents you from knowing Brahman. Meditating to the point of nirvikalpa samadhi can be characterized as "turning away from the world". But that, of course, is just a narrative. One particular narrative. A seeker practices. That is the most open, generalized version of the narrative. Ultimately, any narrative is just that. Mind-talk. Not all mind-talk is unnecessary, repetitive or negative though. For instance, someone might tell you that they meditate to escape. Seems to me, in that instance, directly addressing the narrative might be helpful to them. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 7:19:44 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. There's no need to turn away from the world at all. Vedanta is very clear about not rejecting the world when it speaks of the two powers of Maya. There is the projecting power of Maya which gives rise to the appearance of the world. That isn't a problem. You should fully engage with the world. It is the veiling power of Maya that one must address which is that which prevents you from knowing Brahman. Meditating to the point of nirvikalpa samadhi can be characterized as "turning away from the world". But that, of course, is just a narrative. One particular narrative. A seeker practices. That is the most open, generalized version of the narrative. Ultimately, any narrative is just that. Mind-talk. Not all mind-talk is unnecessary, repetitive or negative though. For instance, someone might tell you that they meditate to escape. Seems to me, in that instance, directly addressing the narrative might be helpful to them. Everything that is expressed here is mind talk even if it's about something that has nothing to do with mind. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 7:26:22 GMT -5
When I disappears then the world disappears along with all the experiences of world. Why attend to these innumerable experiences when you can deal with all by subduing I? You might say yes maybe when sitting with the eyes closed, but what about when you're active in the world? The same applies by turning the attention inwards to the source rather than trying to lose interest in what your senses are showing you. There is a difference and it's a significant one. Just examinate this carefully. If an experiences arises and you decide to ignore it how does that actually work? You cannot ignore what is placed in front of you as far as the senses are concerned. You are captured by your experiences. Doesn't it seem to you far easier to specifically attend to the source of that which appears in experience. Instead of trying to subdue what I is experiencing. Just find out who am I that is experiencing and then you will subdue everything with one fell swoop. Take the axe to egoity and quite automatically you will be withdrawing from the senses instead of trying to withdraw from every sensory impression you experience. Surely this must make sense to you. Turning back to the source is not the same as rejecting the world although by turning back to the source the world automatically disappears. Big difference! The 16/7 eyes-open walking/talking practice is very different, but quite complimentary to sitting practice. There are times when mind is used as a tool, and sometimes there are long periods where this isn't necessary. I'm sure that this spins out as many ways as there are people who have ever practiced. Some people write about only one, and not the other. Some people express the clarity of realization without having done either sort of practice. Yep that's true. Some people can just run very fast. Look at Forrest Gump! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 7:59:16 GMT -5
Meditating to the point of nirvikalpa samadhi can be characterized as "turning away from the world". But that, of course, is just a narrative. One particular narrative. A seeker practices. That is the most open, generalized version of the narrative. Ultimately, any narrative is just that. Mind-talk. Not all mind-talk is unnecessary, repetitive or negative though. For instance, someone might tell you that they meditate to escape. Seems to me, in that instance, directly addressing the narrative might be helpful to them. Everything that is expressed here is mind talk even if it's about something that has nothing to do with mind.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 8:06:48 GMT -5
Everything that is expressed here is mind talk even if it's about something that has nothing to do with mind. That's rather reductive. Your point about "turning away from the world" is an interesting one, potentially worth exploring to some extent. With more mind talk. It should be explored by just turning away from the world without the mind talk. It's shifty who is talking about turning away from the world. I'm talking about turning towards silence which then makes the world disappear without trying to turn away from the world. But enough mind talk! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 8:42:05 GMT -5
People get carried away by emotions, often being manipulated by others. For example the current take on Hamas' terrorist attack and Israel's response ... People thing in terms of being right to support one or the other. But, thinking of an analogy with getting a grave disease (e.g. cancer), and dealing with it ... The disease is always the materialization of a psychic imbalance, a detrimental belief, that was neglected or not observed in time. When you get the diagnostic, you immediately address the physical part of the disease (e.g. surgery, medication, radiation, lifestyle changes, ...), but to heal it, to expedite the healing, not to have recurrences or other manifestations, you have to address the psychic cause of that disease. The same thing with Hamas and Israel. The conflict is the materialization of a psychic imbalance in the make up of those people, that was neglected, and that was not recognized in time for what it is (the psychic imbalance). Media, people, governments back one of the two parts for whatever reasons, but with this approach the patient will die. All the fear, anger, hate avalanche into quite regrettable consequences. The situation needs to be addressed as a disease. The terrorist attack has to be dealt with for what it is (using analogues of surgery, medication, ...), but lifestyle changes are as urgent and indispensable. In the Hamas and Israel case, I believe that the psychic imbalances are unlikely to be recognized, so unlikely to be addressed, and the "disease" will keep recurring and / or breaking out under other manifestations of the same psychic imbalance. , that people go all wrong about this conflict, as they go all wrong about disease. This isn't even an analogy; it is exactly the same thing, just at different levels of gestalts: group of people (cultures, nations, religious groups, ...), individual human body (animals. plants, other physical identities too). The way people address the Hamas terror attack and the Israel response, in the current and historical context, is like amputating your arm because you grew a carbuncle because of poor hygiene (those who support Israel), or let the carbuncle devolve into sepsis to pay for your negligent hygiene habits (those who accept Hamas' action). You have to immediately apply an adequate response to the acute phase of the disease (the terrorist attack and threat), while also timely address the neglected or overlooked factors that caused the disease (the simmering conflictual situation). I also expressed the opinion, the each one of the two sides brought their current painful realities on themselves alone, because of the psychic make up of each one of those peoples. In the case of the Jews, they had been persecuted historically by almost every other group, at group and individual level. I believe that this is caused by their religious make up, by fearing an angry and cruel God, that instilled an exaggerated fear into its faithful believers. Think about the fact that even the Israeli government used their people as lab-rats for the covid vaccine, the population accepted it almost with no protest; all because of a disproportionate fear! In the case of the Palestinians, I believe that the group characteristic, also born from their religious make up, is anger and hate (even if exacerbated by desperation, but this isn't the cause). I don't say that some of these emotions don't seem to be justified on a case by case basis, but they just seem so. The cause-effect goes the opposite way: the emotion causes the predicament, not the predicament causes the emotion. . We are like a carriage, the body; pulled by horses, the emotions; with a driver, the intellect; with an absent ~owner of the carriage~. So, despite what we think, the emotions are the primary factor in all things. People don't see it's their emotions being manipulated. [Emotions = desires, that's for Buddhists]. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 9:12:32 GMT -5
You can ignore a TV even when it's on. It can be there in the background, but you needn't be entranced by it, and you needn't respond to it as if it were reality. When you think you've ignored the TV, then you realize that where your attention remains now is in fact another TV. You ignore that too. And repeat. It would be interesting to hear the views of the other usual suspects. You can only turn away from the TV if you have first been exposed to it so it has already left its impression. Then a thought may arise and you might ignore it but of course it's too late because the thought has already been and gone, so you are just experiencing another thought which is saying I must ignore that last thought. Then you feel a pain in your toe and you decide to ignore it. Can you? Then your phone rings and you decide to ignore it. That might have been an important call. For me this is a very unnatural way of living. On the other hand if you are able to cultivate regular deep samadhis in practice there will be no TV suddenly popping into existence to distract you which you will have to subsequently reject by turning away from it or thoughts for that matter, or at least very few. Then when you start to experience that silent non-dual awareness more and more it will start to be spontaneously experienced simultaneously in the foreground of your experience in daily activity quite naturally without you having to do anything. As a result of cultivating this awareness, witnessing consciousness will become more and more apparent, effortlessly and choicelessly. Trying to keep rejecting your worldly experience takes constant effort and I'm against effort. But to go back to the source just requires the most subtle intention and then you are pulled in to infinite silence and Bliss. It's effortless. satch is more-correct here. I did tree work for 4 years, cutting-off lots of stuff every day. We used to have a debate, when is a tree dead? When is a part of a tree dead? You can cut a tree clean down to the ground, most trees will grow back, in a week or two the stump will sprout new green shoots. I had a cousin who would cut limbs off a weeping willow tree and stick them in the creek bank. They would grow roots and you could plant the rooted tree-limbs and you had a new tree. So it all depends upon what you desire, desires are the roots. If you manipulate thoughts, emotions or actions in any way, you are never dealing with the roots. Simply turning away from a TV is just a way of manipulating an action, it does nothing to the roots. If you ~surrender~ your TV, that means nothing, the roots will cause new shoots to spring up elsewhere. Attention, and awareness, are separate from thoughts, emotions and actions. When I learned about self-inquiry I did it for about a day or so. It led directly, for me, to self-remembering. I saw self-inquiry was effective, but sdp had something more-effective, already. satch is correct. Just ~abide~ in awareness, and/or attention (or vice versa). This is the only thing that actually cuts the roots of attachment. But it begins with *what your aim is*. Your result will always stop with what your aim is. Attention/awareness is the deepest connection. If ~you~ go anywhere else but ~there~, it's temporary. If ~you~ desire anything except to dwell in attention/awareness, that's a root-manifestation-of-ego. "Ego" becomes just a tool, and you don't carry around a shovel unless and until you need it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 9:16:59 GMT -5
It would be interesting to hear the views of the other usual suspects. You can only turn away from the TV if you have first been exposed to it so it has already left its impression. Then a thought may arise and you might ignore it but of course it's too late because the thought has already been and gone, so you are just experiencing another thought which is saying I must ignore that last thought. Then you feel a pain in your toe and you decide to ignore it. Can you? Then your phone rings and you decide to ignore it. That might have been an important call. For me this is a very unnatural way of living. On the other hand if you are able to cultivate regular deep samadhis in practice there will be no TV suddenly popping into existence to distract you which you will have to subsequently reject by turning away from it or thoughts for that matter, or at least very few. Then when you start to experience that silent non-dual awareness more and more it will start to be spontaneously experienced simultaneously in the foreground of your experience in daily activity quite naturally without you having to do anything. As a result of cultivating this awareness, witnessing consciousness will become more and more apparent, effortlessly and choicelessly. Trying to keep rejecting your worldly experience takes constant effort and I'm against effort. But to go back to the source just requires the most subtle intention and then you are pulled in to infinite silence and Bliss. It's effortless. satch is more-correct here. I did tree work for 4 years, cutting-off lots of stuff every day. We used to have a debate, when is a tree dead? When is a part of a tree dead? You can cut a tree clean down to the ground, most trees will grow back, in a week or two the stump will sprout new green shoots. I had a cousin who would cut limbs off a weeping willow tree and stick them in the creek bank. They would grow roots and you could plant the rooted tree-limbs and you had a new tree. So it all depends upon what you desire, desires are the roots. If you manipulate thoughts, emotions or actions in any way, you are never dealing with the roots. Simply turning away from a TV is just a way of manipulating an action, it does nothing to the roots. If you ~surrender~ your TV, that means nothing, the roots will cause new shoots to spring up elsewhere. Attention, and awareness, are separate from thoughts, emotions and actions. When I learned about self-inquiry I did it for about a day or so. It led directly, for me, to self-remembering. I saw self-inquiry was effective, but sdp had something more-effective, already. satch is correct. Just ~abide~ in awareness, and/or attention (or vice versa). This is the only thing that actually cuts the roots of attachment. But it begins with *what your aim is*. Your result will always stop with what your aim is. Attention/awareness is the deepest connection. If ~you~ go anywhere else but ~there~, it's temporary. If ~you~ desire anything except to dwell in attention/awareness, that's a root-manifestation-of-ego. "Ego" becomes just a tool, and you don't carry around a shovel unless and until you need it. Satch likes your tree story very much. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 9:28:05 GMT -5
You only think you're choosing to scrap it. If you think you are the doer then deeds will be done. If you don't think you are the doer then deeds will still be done. So why be concerned about doership or the lack thereof? I was simply pointing out the contradiction in the language. It is neither here nor there whether you think you have free will or not. Yes. That which is concerned with free will, is ego. J Krishnamurti is good on this. Look at a situation clearly. The best solution will arise, and you just do it. When you see the best course of action, free will is not involved. For sdp, of what does ego consist? The small s self just consists of conditioning, programming, period. It's programs upon programs upon programs. So ego doesn't have free will in any sense. In ego-mode, a circumstance pulls up an old program, just activates a program, and the program operates. It's all knee-jerk. But ego always thinks it's the doer, thinks it's in control. But ego-mode is always just reactionary. All this is immeasurably difficult to see. Because ego consists of layers upon layers upon layers. But it's layers of nothing, just data, just memories, just shadows. Behind all the nothing, is attention/awareness. It's difficult to get-back-to just-there. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 9:37:39 GMT -5
Everything that is expressed here is mind talk even if it's about something that has nothing to do with mind. Any mind-talk, is similarly, just a tool. A hammer is just a tool. The Large Hadron Collier is just a tool. A hammer and chisel in the hands of a Michelangelo, are still just tools. What is an Einstein? He was more-connected to reality, more deeply, to how-things-actually-are. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 9:49:04 GMT -5
Well written guy. For me, following Low's prescription was at times exhilarating, and involved a sort of counterpoint to a profound bliss from the sudden absence of "I". A sort of existential kick-in-the-ass. Indeed. I'd see that profound bliss of the sudden absence of the I, as you so beautifully put it, as in a sense the last temptation. And it must be either surrendered (i.e. in some sense ignored/the aroused mind must not be allowed to rest in it) or else one must inquire to whom such bliss occurs (that's the inquiry way). Yup, yup. Ramana says the same thing. But note with what the Heart sutra starts: The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five
skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused
him suffering.Practice is what it starts with. I think that's the key difference between neo-advaita and advaita: the necessary inclusion of the practice perspective. Yes, the practice perspective leads to the "there was never any practice" perspective, but both sides of that kaleidoscopic coin must be addressed. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 9:51:51 GMT -5
Whether "you" ignore the phone ringing has nothing to do with whether your mind and body decide to pick up the call. That's kind of my point. There's no need to turn away from the world at all. For the seeker, there is. Willful attention for the seeker must be turned away from the world, even if the mind and the body are still engaged in it all the while. Such a turning away while in the world weakens attachments and creates a process of discernment. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 9:54:00 GMT -5
Surrender for the seeker could be seen from at least three different perspectives (a trinity, if you will -- three that are in fact one). The gradual: The seeker who feels like they have will exerts this will to do "the practice of surrender" -- the practice consists of hypervigilantly preventing the will & attention from being entrapped in anything BUT the practice. It is, in effect, what laughter just called "arousing the mind without resting it anywhere." This practice tends to increase a relative sense of peace, and in the process, weakens other attachments and identifications. A mind where attachments are weakened is less resistant to seeing the truth. Also, crucially, surrender in this practice sense is an act of continuous discernment between the me and not-me (because it constantly asks the question: what is happening now? I need to know so that I can refrain from taking it seriously and getting my attention & willpower entrapped in it). So the "gradual" practice of surrender sets the stage for the next perspective. The sudden: This surrender cannot be "willed" but can come about in a flash -- either a temporary one, which is a glimpse, or a permanent one, which is realization. It's an insight. It's transitional moment of recognition that there is no independent surrenderer, no one who wills (not even to will surrender in the gradual sense above). Often this is a 'unity' kind of experience. The message contained in this insight envelope is in fact the next perspective. The absolute: This perspective is really no perspective at all. Because from this perspective there was never any problem, never any ignorance, never any surrenderer, never any finder. This is only a perspective, really, when seen from one of the other two perspectives above. The other two perspectives, from this 'non-perspective perspective,' cannot be said to be perspectives at all. And so the "gradual practice of surrender" is itself no such thing, really, since its doing is not what it seems to be, and it is "done" by an entity that is not what it seems to be. Well written guy. For me, following Low's prescription was at times exhilarating, and involved a sort of counterpoint to a profound bliss from the sudden absence of "I". A sort of existential kick-in-the-ass. I'd also add that this "practice of surrender" seems to me to describe a sort of universal Christian koan: If every hair is counted, and nothing happens that is not God's will, then surely, the only choice of free will in any given instant is whether one is in acceptance of God's love, or not. One can never know. Perhaps a choice involves sin, perhaps not.  This, further, seems to me to implicate something similar to the Zen Rinzai/Soto dichotomy. On one hand, the practitioner of such a moment-by-moment "Christian koan" hasn't realized the existential truth. But I can imagine, that in some instances, this eventually won't really matter, at all. I'd also imagine that those cases are likely as rare as the realized flavor of state. But of course, there's always necessary caveat: the rest of the Heart Sutra, which kind of strikes me as rather neo-Advaitan  : No ignorance or end of it,
Nor all that comes of ignorance;
No withering, no death,
No end of them.
Nor is there pain, or cause of pain,
Or cease in pain, or noble path
To lead from pain;
Not even wisdom to attain!
Attainment too is emptiness. is a fallacy, this is not what that means. God being aware of everything that happens does not mean God's approval of everything that happens. Just look at the Lord's Prayer. ...thy kingdom come, they will be done, on earth, as it is in heaven. What does that mean? it means God's will IS NOT BEING DONE ON EARTH. It can't mean anything else. God picks and chooses, not by whim, but by our agreement with the best choices at all times. The best choices would mean, what would God do here? (Or, what's best for all concerned? Meaning, not myself first, unless it just happens to fall that way, serendipitously) God partnerships with wise men. We are not here to just enjoy the ride. We're here to operate effectively in our own sphere of influence. For most of us, that's a small sphere. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 9:55:44 GMT -5
Well written guy. For me, following Low's prescription was at times exhilarating, and involved a sort of counterpoint to a profound bliss from the sudden absence of "I". A sort of existential kick-in-the-ass. Indeed. I'd see that profound bliss of the sudden absence of the I, as you so beautifully put it, as in a sense the last temptation. And it must be either surrendered (i.e. in some sense ignored/the aroused mind must not be allowed to rest in it) or else one must inquire to whom such bliss occurs (that's the inquiry way). Yup, yup. Ramana says the same thing. But note with what the Heart sutra starts: The Bodhisattva of Compassion,
When he meditated deeply,
Saw the emptiness of all five
skandhas
And sundered the bonds that caused
him suffering.Practice is what it starts with. I think that's the key difference between neo-advaita and advaita: the necessary inclusion of the practice perspective. Yes, the practice perspective leads to the "there was never any practice" perspective, but both sides of that kaleidoscopic coin must be addressed. . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 9:59:22 GMT -5
That's kind of my point. There's no need to turn away from the world at all. That's a misunderstanding. The belief that it is YOU that is choosing to either engage or not engage in the world is the problem. And that requires first turning what feels like you away from the world; it will then be revealed that you did not in fact turn away from the world. No that's just non-duality BS. It's not a problem at all. The Seeker thinks he is the doer and that's absolutely fine. What are you supposed to do, talk yourself out of it? You can't, that's the whole purpose behind practice, to realize that you are prior to doership. You've got the cart before the horse. Turning away from the world now and again isn't going to make you realize that there is no one who is turning away. That realization may take some time. Why are those who come to non-duality so obsessed by doership and individuality. Just leave it alone and let it be. |
|
