|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 9:16:32 GMT -5
Before 2015 I use to smoke 1 pack of cigarettes per day. Never believed that the ones closest to me will get bronchitis, asthma, cancer through passive smoking. So one day I finally decided to quit. How? I will tell myself to consume half a pack per day. This went on for a few weeks. Then one fourth pack/day for the next few weeks. Until I only smoked one stick per day. Consequently, I reached that point I would not put a cigarette between my lips and lit it. As for my anxiety pill, it's primarily a substitute for.my drinking habit. Never a day I dont drink a touch of ice cold bottles of beer, a glass or two of whiskey/brandy. The anxiety goes away when I drink. But I cant always be that way in front of my patients smelling alcohol. I found a way, the anti-anxiety pill I pop each day worked for me. The alcohol habit gradually disappeared from the menu. I dont drink coffee because whenever I drink a cup or two my heart beat goes way up. I had to take a beta blocker to slow it down. Coffee, alcohol, smoking are vices people find them difficult to get rid. I guess you here in this forum practice self-realization to rid of this bad habits. I even think sex is a bad habit. But can not get away doing it. Since sex hormones control our bodies. You can get even an erection not thinking of it. As long as we are grounded to this body/ mind we can never escape these bad habits. Using nonduality may remove some of them but not totally. It will just return to haunt you for the rest of your life. There goes the saying, " I preach to you in public, but don:t follow me in private." It's a phrase that holds true for everyone here. If you say, " Nope, I am not doing that." You are a hypocrite. Until one's breath even at a very old age bad habits dont really die, they just fade away. That's why the alternative remedy to all this according to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is to chant the maha mantra. He says, " There's no other way, no other way." "Using nonduality" is a curious expression. Perhaps that's the problem. The using. It implies that it is a means to an end. I don't think it is. It's the opposite. The key is to subvert the "using." But that can't be done directly. Eventually the "using" will swallow you whole. Obviously this mantra chanting is not the right path for you. Not saying that it isn't for others.
I find solace chanting the " lamb of God" prayer. I'll chant it for you. Why did you say that. Please explain further. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 22, 2024 9:22:50 GMT -5
"Using nonduality" is a curious expression. Perhaps that's the problem. The using. It implies that it is a means to an end. I don't think it is. It's the opposite. The key is to subvert the "using." But that can't be done directly. Eventually the "using" will swallow you whole. Obviously this mantra chanting is not the right path for you. Not saying that it isn't for others.
I find solace chanting the " lamb of God" prayer. I'll chant it for you. Why did you say that. Please explain further. You know I'm probably wrong. I am quite often. My apologies. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 10:17:23 GMT -5
Why did you say that. Please explain further. You know I'm probably wrong. I am quite often. My apologies. It' s okay Zen, no need to apologize. I understand. Even Figs gets pissed- off with my insulting comments. But that's the way how I write. I once read a book written by Isaac Azimov. It was something to do with how a robot responds to certain situations but never as a rule go against its maker to the point of killing. So, in his writing that as soon thoughts come out from his mind, an idea, a phrase, or whatever, he immediately writes them down without pause. Whatever that arises from those moments do not really come from him but from a super computer data that's wired to his brain, which kinda weird, you know. My point is that whatever that comes from your mind and you write them down does not come from you but from somewhere else. The pure self/atman has nothing to do with what the ego/mind does. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2024 10:23:21 GMT -5
Before 2015 I use to smoke 1 pack of cigarettes per day. Never believed that the ones closest to me will get bronchitis, asthma, cancer through passive smoking. So one day I finally decided to quit. How? I will tell myself to consume half a pack per day. This went on for a few weeks. Then one fourth pack/day for the next few weeks. Until I only smoked one stick per day. Consequently, I reached that point I would not put a cigarette between my lips and lit it. As for my anxiety pill, it's primarily a substitute for.my drinking habit. Never a day I dont drink a touch of ice cold bottles of beer, a glass or two of whiskey/brandy. The anxiety goes away when I drink. But I cant always be that way in front of my patients smelling alcohol. I found a way, the anti-anxiety pill I pop each day worked for me. The alcohol habit gradually disappeared from the menu. I dont drink coffee because whenever I drink a cup or two my heart beat goes way up. I had to take a beta blocker to slow it down. Coffee, alcohol, smoking are vices people find them difficult to get rid. I guess you here in this forum practice self-realization to rid of this bad habits. I even think sex is a bad habit. But can not get away doing it. Since sex hormones control our bodies. You can get even an erection not thinking of it. As long as we are grounded to this body/ mind we can never escape these bad habits. Using nonduality may remove some of them but not totally. It will just return to haunt you for the rest of your life. There goes the saying, " I preach to you in public, but don:t follow me in private." It's a phrase that holds true for everyone here. If you say, " Nope, I am not doing that." You are a hypocrite. Until one's breath even at a very old age bad habits dont really die, they just fade away. That's why the alternative remedy to all this according to Sri Chaitanya Mahaprabhu is to chant the maha mantra. He says, " There's no other way, no other way." "Using nonduality" is a curious expression. Perhaps that's the problem. The using. It implies that it is a means to an end. I don't think it is. It's the opposite. The key is to subvert the "using." But that can't be done directly. Eventually the "using" will swallow you whole. Obviously this mantra chanting is not the right path for you. Not saying that it isn't for others. I find solace chanting the " lamb of God" prayer. I'll chant it for you. I've seen 'non-duality' defined many ways, but I don't recall any of them being defined in such way that it becomes something to be used. I like to play with words and definitions, and at most....in a particular context or conversation, I might say that it's a ' non-approach'. So yeah, Melvin, given your interest in Niz, it might be worth considering Zaz's point here about 'using'. Have you also looked into Ramana? I have a gut feeling that he may have something for you to consider. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2024 10:28:19 GMT -5
You know I'm probably wrong. I am quite often. My apologies. It' s okay Zen, no need to apologize. I understand. Even Figs gets pissed- off with my insulting comments. But that's the way how I write. I once read a book written by Isaac Azimov. It was something to do with how a robot responds to certain situations but never as a rule go against its maker to the point of killing. So, in his writing that as soon thoughts come out from his mind, an idea, a phrase, or whatever, he immediately writes them down without pause. Whatever that arises from those moments do not really come from him but from a super computer data that's wired to his brain, which kinda weird, you know. My point is that whatever that comes from your mind and you write them down does not come from you but from somewhere else. The pure self/atman has nothing to do with what the ego/mind does. Are you saying that you just write what comes to your mind in the moment? If so, that's good to know, helps me to understand a bit more about your messages. I imagine that must be kind of nice to be able to do that here? Given that in your job, I assume you have to be very considered and thoughtful with your words. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 10:53:32 GMT -5
"Using nonduality" is a curious expression. Perhaps that's the problem. The using. It implies that it is a means to an end. I don't think it is. It's the opposite. The key is to subvert the "using." But that can't be done directly. Eventually the "using" will swallow you whole. Obviously this mantra chanting is not the right path for you. Not saying that it isn't for others. I find solace chanting the " lamb of God" prayer. I'll chant it for you. I've seen 'non-duality' defined many ways, but I don't recall any of them being defined in such way that it becomes something to be used. I like to play with words and definitions, and at most....in a particular context or conversation, I might say that it's a ' non-approach'. So yeah, Melvin, given your interest in Niz, it might be worth considering Zaz's point here about 'using'. Have you also looked into Ramana? I have a gut feeling that he may have something for you to consider. I got fond of Nisa when I followed his teachings in youtube. My interest was in his " I am." Wanting to know what it really was. Since I had hard time trying to understand what he was saying, I chanted from within the maha-mantra, suddenly I began to comprehend what he was trying to imply. Each time he hit the word , " I am, " it matched Krishna. Do you get me what I am trying to explain here. " I am, " Krishna, " I am ," Krishna. " I am " Krishna. Everything Nisa says started falling into place. As for Ramana, I watched his documentary in youtube. As a young boy, he experimented on dying, holding his breath. That's where he became realized. So, he traveled to that mountain, Achala..a holy place. There he meditated, went into samadhi. He became so skinny, bitten by ants while in trance. People who watched him took him in, gave him food, treated his wounds, so on and so forth. Then he started preaching about self-inquiry to those who wanted to experience what he gone through. Ramana later got bone cancer in his arm. Doctors wanted to heal him but eventually succumbed to Kansr. Anagram for Kansr is Krsna. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 10:57:36 GMT -5
It' s okay Zen, no need to apologize. I understand. Even Figs gets pissed- off with my insulting comments. But that's the way how I write. I once read a book written by Isaac Azimov. It was something to do with how a robot responds to certain situations but never as a rule go against its maker to the point of killing. So, in his writing that as soon thoughts come out from his mind, an idea, a phrase, or whatever, he immediately writes them down without pause. Whatever that arises from those moments do not really come from him but from a super computer data that's wired to his brain, which kinda weird, you know. My point is that whatever that comes from your mind and you write them down does not come from you but from somewhere else. The pure self/atman has nothing to do with what the ego/mind does. Are you saying that you just write what comes to your mind in the moment? If so, that's good to know, helps me to understand a bit more about your messages. I imagine that must be kind of nice to be able to do that here? Given that in your job, I assume you have to be very considered and thoughtful with your words. The only thing you won't hear from me, Andrew are cuss words. The rest is plainly me. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2024 11:16:40 GMT -5
I've seen 'non-duality' defined many ways, but I don't recall any of them being defined in such way that it becomes something to be used. I like to play with words and definitions, and at most....in a particular context or conversation, I might say that it's a ' non-approach'. So yeah, Melvin, given your interest in Niz, it might be worth considering Zaz's point here about 'using'. Have you also looked into Ramana? I have a gut feeling that he may have something for you to consider. I got fond of Nisa when I followed his teachings in youtube. My interest was in his " I am." Wanting to know what it really was. Since I had hard time trying to understand what he was saying, I chanted from within the maha-mantra, suddenly I began to comprehend what he was trying to imply. Each time he hit the word , " I am, " it matched Krishna. Do you get me what I am trying to explain here. " I am, " Krishna, " I am ," Krishna. " I am " Krishna. Everything Nisa says started falling into place. As for Ramana, I watched his documentary in youtube. As a young boy, he experimented on dying, holding his breath. That's where he became realized. So, he traveled to that mountain, Achala..a holy place. There he meditated, went into samadhi. He became so skinny, bitten by ants while in trance. People who watched him took him in, gave him food, treated his wounds, so on and so forth. Then he started preaching about self-inquiry to those who wanted to experience what he gone through. Ramana later got bone cancer in his arm. Doctors wanted to heal him but eventually succumbed to Kansr. Anagram for Kansr is Krsna. Are you saying that your contemplation on the words 'I am' gives you the same 'inner sense' or 'felt knowing' that contemplation on the words 'Krishna' does? If I've misunderstood you, maybe you could clarify? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2024 11:18:03 GMT -5
Are you saying that you just write what comes to your mind in the moment? If so, that's good to know, helps me to understand a bit more about your messages. I imagine that must be kind of nice to be able to do that here? Given that in your job, I assume you have to be very considered and thoughtful with your words. The only thing you won't hear from me, Andrew are cuss words. The rest is plainly me. Cool. I still feel I'm getting to know your forum presence, it takes time. And you seem a bit different to how I remember you from before (not in a bad way to be clear). |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 11:36:40 GMT -5
I got fond of Nisa when I followed his teachings in youtube. My interest was in his " I am." Wanting to know what it really was. Since I had hard time trying to understand what he was saying, I chanted from within the maha-mantra, suddenly I began to comprehend what he was trying to imply. Each time he hit the word , " I am, " it matched Krishna. Do you get me what I am trying to explain here. " I am, " Krishna, " I am ," Krishna. " I am " Krishna. Everything Nisa says started falling into place. As for Ramana, I watched his documentary in youtube. As a young boy, he experimented on dying, holding his breath. That's where he became realized. So, he traveled to that mountain, Achala..a holy place. There he meditated, went into samadhi. He became so skinny, bitten by ants while in trance. People who watched him took him in, gave him food, treated his wounds, so on and so forth. Then he started preaching about self-inquiry to those who wanted to experience what he gone through. Ramana later got bone cancer in his arm. Doctors wanted to heal him but eventually succumbed to Kansr. Anagram for Kansr is Krsna. Are you saying that your contemplation on the words 'I am' gives you the same 'inner sense' or 'felt knowing' that contemplation on the words 'Krishna' does? If I've misunderstood you, maybe you could clarify? I am " is the pure self/Atman. Krishna is the Absolute Truth. So when you say, " I am" and connect it with Krishna make sense. Non-duality's goal is merging with the Absolute Truth and become One, right? By doing so as the " I am " the pure self/Atman becomes the Absolute Truth itself. When I say, " I am " Krishna, the Absolute Truth, I become Krishna. This is the concept of non-dualism, to become one with the Absolute Truth, to become one with Krishna. By chanting the maha mantra I become one with Krishna, the Absolute Truth |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 22, 2024 11:51:27 GMT -5
You know I'm probably wrong. I am quite often. My apologies. It' s okay Zen, no need to apologize. I understand. Even Figs gets pissed- off with my insulting comments. But that's the way how I write. I once read a book written by Isaac Azimov. It was something to do with how a robot responds to certain situations but never as a rule go against its maker to the point of killing. So, in his writing that as soon thoughts come out from his mind, an idea, a phrase, or whatever, he immediately writes them down without pause. Whatever that arises from those moments do not really come from him but from a super computer data that's wired to his brain, which kinda weird, you know. My point is that whatever that comes from your mind and you write them down does not come from you but from somewhere else. The pure self/atman has nothing to do with what the ego/mind does. You misread my post. I'm not pissed off at all. I like your honesty. I empathize which is a no-no among the preppy ND crowd. Solace is an interesting thing. It's something that eludes the ego. |
|
|
|
Practice
Sept 22, 2024 12:16:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by steven on Sept 22, 2024 12:16:56 GMT -5
This is a very subtle thing. I spent many many many years with this and still return to it from time to time as a centering technique. Observe the observer. Whatever phenomenon you are experiencing with your five senses, whatever thoughts you are thinking internally, Whatever activities you are Participating in including observing the observer, are all phenomenon that are being observed… With this technique, you were turning inward beyond all that. Turning attention and maintaining it on the observer, including the observer that’s observing the observer lol It’s fundamentally the same as being aware of your awareness. If there is any difference between observe the observer and being aware of awareness is that the former is the same as the latter, but with more intensity and focus. In someways, it can be kind of an odd sensation when you first start doing it because your attention is continuously pulled to phenomenon, But you have to just keep saying to yourself and turning your attention toward what is the observer of this thought that’s happening, What is the observer of me TRYING to observe the observer?… You just keep pealing back the layers of the onion until you find that still silent observer, and then hold your attention on it as fastidiously as you can. , and yes. The saying to yourself, Mr. Ripman discusses this, that's not it, anything that's not-silent, is not it. But the saying can be a reminder. But you describe it well, anything whatever that arises, observe that, especially the saying to yourself, make sure you observe that, too. At some point you have to see that the actual observing, is, at least in the beginning, very brief, that's the actual moment of a conscious effort. Everything other than that moment is a mechanical effort, relatively useless. The saying to yourself is a mechanical effort, it's a kind of alarm clock. Yes, whatever arises, observe that. Actually for the technique I’m describing I’m specifically saying to NOT give attention to whatever arises, as all that arises is phenomenon. Instead don’t let your attention get drawn to whatever arises, keep turning inward to the observer of ALL that arises…it’s a fairly difficult thing to do because you are continuously having your attention pulled away from the central still silent observer by all sorts of phenomena including the phenomena of the effort of trying to observe the observer. So each time you notice you attention being drawn to phenomena you say to yourself ‘no, observe the observer of this.’ What you are talking about is subtly different. You are talking about residing in that still silent observer and being the witness of all phenomena from that center…that’s also a very good technique, but different. Here I am talking about turning all of you attention TO that still silent observer. In doing so repeatedly enough a kind of feedback loop arises where you are doing BOTH what you are describing and what I’m describing. You are centered in the still silent observer the way you are describing, but the only thing being observed IS the still silent observer, not other phenomena. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 22, 2024 12:24:44 GMT -5
Are you saying that your contemplation on the words 'I am' gives you the same 'inner sense' or 'felt knowing' that contemplation on the words 'Krishna' does? If I've misunderstood you, maybe you could clarify? I am " is the pure self/Atman. Krishna is the Absolute Truth. So when you say, " I am" and connect it with Krishna make sense. Non-duality's goal is merging with the Absolute Truth and become One, right? By doing so as the " I am " the pure self/Atman becomes the Absolute Truth itself. When I say, " I am " Krishna, the Absolute Truth, I become Krishna. This is the concept of non-dualism, to become one with the Absolute Truth, to become one with Krishna. By chanting the maha mantra I become one with Krishna, the Absolute Truth I understand, kind of. My personal view is that I don't think a chant of any kind can create that 'becoming one', in the moment of the chant, as becoming one happens in a moment of 'NOT-doing', rather than 'doing'. But it might be the case that repeated chanting is still useful in some way to the end 'goal' of becoming one, and if the chant brings you a measure of peace in the short term, then that's surely a good thing, relatively speaking. My experience of the becoming one is that it is like 'slipping into a hole'. In a sense, it pulls me, to the extent that I gently allow it to happen. I can't use force of will to bring it about. In fact, I surrender a sense of will first. About the most I can do to facilitate that, is to become still, and quiet. I imagine chanting might facilitate that stillness/quietness though. |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Sept 22, 2024 12:42:18 GMT -5
It' s okay Zen, no need to apologize. I understand. Even Figs gets pissed- off with my insulting comments. But that's the way how I write. I once read a book written by Isaac Azimov. It was something to do with how a robot responds to certain situations but never as a rule go against its maker to the point of killing. So, in his writing that as soon thoughts come out from his mind, an idea, a phrase, or whatever, he immediately writes them down without pause. Whatever that arises from those moments do not really come from him but from a super computer data that's wired to his brain, which kinda weird, you know. My point is that whatever that comes from your mind and you write them down does not come from you but from somewhere else. The pure self/atman has nothing to do with what the ego/mind does. You misread my post. I'm not pissed off at all. I like your honesty. I empathize which is a no-no among the preppy ND crowd. Solace is an interesting thing. It's something that eludes the ego. Are you saying you empathize with the preepy ND crowd since what I said was a no-no. That's why you reacted that way? I did not know it was a no- no for saying that about using non-dualism, as you said to justify the end. I wrote that without an iota it was a no-no. If I did I would not have said it. I write what flows from my mind at the moment, same as Isaac Azimov. Once he has something in his mind to tell, he immediately writes it down in response what triggered him to write those words, no second thoughts. Though as if his brain was wired to a super computer data base. As I said, the pure self/Atman has nothing to do with how we write since everything we write is all in the mind. The self-realized who knows the Truth is not aggitated with what one says or writes. It's just a play of words. The Absolute Truth is beyond words. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Sept 22, 2024 13:10:45 GMT -5
I am " is the pure self/Atman. Krishna is the Absolute Truth. So when you say, " I am" and connect it with Krishna make sense. Non-duality's goal is merging with the Absolute Truth and become One, right? By doing so as the " I am " the pure self/Atman becomes the Absolute Truth itself. When I say, " I am " Krishna, the Absolute Truth, I become Krishna. This is the concept of non-dualism, to become one with the Absolute Truth, to become one with Krishna. By chanting the maha mantra I become one with Krishna, the Absolute Truth I understand, kind of. My personal view is that I don't think a chant of any kind can create that 'becoming one', in the moment of the chant, as becoming one happens in a moment of 'NOT-doing', rather than 'doing'. But it might be the case that repeated chanting is still useful in some way to the end 'goal' of becoming one, and if the chant brings you a measure of peace in the short term, then that's surely a good thing, relatively speaking. My experience of the becoming one is that it is like 'slipping into a hole'. In a sense, it pulls me, to the extent that I gently allow it to happen. I can't use force of will to bring it about. In fact, I surrender a sense of will first. About the most I can do to facilitate that, is to become still, and quiet. I imagine chanting might facilitate that stillness/quietness though. When I heard that self enquiry mean't focussing on I am 24/7 it didn't really make much sense to me. I understand however that focus is a way of allowing the ordinary mind states to be transcended. It's a technique isn't it. Like yourself my transcendence came about while doing a run and even running is a meditative state, in a way a natural state of mind where the mind drifts for use of a better word. A focus 24/7 for years on end without a break seems like to much effort  |
|
