|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 10:01:13 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. Exactly, all we have to go on is just the words on the screen. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 10:03:16 GMT -5
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. . |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 10:20:11 GMT -5
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. I was taught, early, you don't have to give up anything externally, but you have to give up everything, internally. That seemed a fair deal. It took me some years to see that giving up everything internally, leaves the external, superfluous. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 11:02:47 GMT -5
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. No, you're not supposed to talk yourself out of it. What happens is that the seeker directs their attention in a very specific way. They either pursue inquiry or surrender. In both cases, there happens a turning away from the world. In the resulting ease, the mind weakens its attachments and generates a process of discernment that eventuates in a recognition of non-doership. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 11:03:09 GMT -5
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. I was taught, early, you don't have to give up anything externally, but you have to give up everything, internally. That seemed a fair deal. It took me some years to see that giving up everything internally, leaves the external, superfluous. Yes indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 11:32:08 GMT -5
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. No, you're not supposed to talk yourself out of it. What happens is that the seeker directs their attention in a very specific way. They either pursue inquiry or surrender. In both cases, there happens a turning away from the world. In the resulting ease, the mind weakens its attachments and generates a process of discernment that eventuates in a recognition of non-doership. You can't look at it this way. ~You~ have to get to the point of bare-attention, no attender attending. If there is an attender you always have the possibility of a wolf slipping in in sheep's clothing, ego. An attender attending is how ego stays alive, this feeds ego. In true surrender there is no sense of surrender. There is no political correctness. Do we say the child of eight surrenders their security blanket, they had at 18 months? I have always looked at it as backing up. You back up to a point of honesty. Eventually ~you~ back up past the point which ego exists, to bare attention-awareness. And, there, there is nothing to give up. IOW, ego can never surrender. Surrender is not in its DNA. Surrender, for ego, means I give up this to get that. IOW, ~you~ basically have to be already-outside-ego for any of this to work. (That's the meaning of self-remembering). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 15:11:20 GMT -5
Not all mind talk is of similar tamber  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 laughter on Oct 20, 2023 15:12:41 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. 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. The "Christian koan" I described is what remains after all this sort of mind talk expressed in what I'm replying here to eventually quiesces. Or not. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 15:17:20 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. , it depends, and it's ultimately another narrative. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 20, 2023 15:22:29 GMT -5
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. My reading on the topics philosophy and theology is incredibly shallow. Even still, it's quite clear that the question of volition has been around for as long as men have been writing down words. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 20, 2023 15:36:13 GMT -5
This 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. The "Christian koan" I described is what remains after all this sort of mind talk expressed in what I'm replying here to eventually quiesces. Or not. All I'm saying, is that from a Biblical perspective, everything that happens is not God's will (obviously). |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Oct 20, 2023 16:12:41 GMT -5
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. , it depends, and it's ultimately another narrative. True! Though one thing I wanted to clarify about what you mentioned re: the "Christian koan" of everything being God's will... you said therefore the only free will would be whether or not you (freely) chose to accept God's love? I assume that means accepting whatever is the case in the moment, since that is God's will? Or did you mean something else? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 21:11:26 GMT -5
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. My reading on the topics philosophy and theology is incredibly shallow. Even still, it's quite clear that the question of volition has been around for as long as men have been writing down words. Yes this topic has been discussed for eons and it's very entertaining and it seems to preoccupy the minds of non-dualists for some reason. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2023 21:43:48 GMT -5
IOW, ego can never surrender. Surrender is not in its DNA. Surrender, for ego, means I give up this to get that. IOW, ~you~ basically have to be already-outside-ego for any of this to work. (That's the meaning of self-remembering). Well said. That's it in a nutshell. Succinct. You have total mastery over this! |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 21, 2023 0:26:29 GMT -5
No, you're not supposed to talk yourself out of it. What happens is that the seeker directs their attention in a very specific way. They either pursue inquiry or surrender. In both cases, there happens a turning away from the world. In the resulting ease, the mind weakens its attachments and generates a process of discernment that eventuates in a recognition of non-doership. You can't look at it this way. ~You~ have to get to the point of bare-attention, no attender attending. If there is an attender you always have the possibility of a wolf slipping in in sheep's clothing, ego. An attender attending is how ego stays alive, this feeds ego. In true surrender there is no sense of surrender. There is no political correctness. Do we say the child of eight surrenders their security blanket, they had at 18 months? I have always looked at it as backing up. You back up to a point of honesty. Eventually ~you~ back up past the point which ego exists, to bare attention-awareness. And, there, there is nothing to give up. IOW, ego can never surrender. Surrender is not in its DNA. Surrender, for ego, means I give up this to get that. IOW, ~you~ basically have to be already-outside-ego for any of this to work. (That's the meaning of self-remembering). Surrender is nebulous term that refers to cessation of volition. In the practical sense it means stop reacting. Simple but nuanced. |
|
