|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 5, 2010 23:28:19 GMT -5
I fully agree. The jackhammer one is the only one I found that I can really recommend. Hehe. Yeah, I've run across Ben before but I obviously don't do enough good drugs to appreciate him. Still, he makes a good jackhammer point. The motivation for seeking Truth is to get something, and what ego gets is it's head cut off. Still, this comes from a misunderstanding that the problem is that something is missing, while the real problem is an excess. Suffering results from the belief in something that isn't so. To stop doing that is a better answer to suffering than trying to tip the duality balance and do only stuff you love to do. |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 5, 2010 23:32:01 GMT -5
Ah, I love the fun questions! That's poking at it's finest! Nice to have you here Notme. Anyway, you are correct that nondualism doesn't make any more sense as a concept than the idea of separateness. What nondualism is actually trying to do is point to what is beneath any concept. The edglessness beneath the concept of any edges. Needless to say, it's not a CONCEPT of edglessness, as that is just another idea. This is what is "a priori" more fundamental than all thoughts, ideas, concepts, etc. It's the moment between thoughts when experience clearly hasn't gone away, but no thought has arisen...... Do you know what I'm talking about when I refer to that "place"? It's That which cannot be further reduced. And it's not saying that there is no relative. It's just that there is no relative as separate from our own infinite perception. That "place" IS our own infinite perception. If anything I'm saying isn't clear, please make me aware and I will be happy to clarify. Hi, First I just wanted to say how much I’ve enjoyed reading this forum for the last couple months. I haven’t been too much concerned about expressing my thoughts as I have been more interested in reading and contemplating all of your responses. I am still trying to straighten things out with myself in regards to dualism and non-dualism and I admit that much of your lingo is sometimes above me. But there is one question I would like to put to you (or to myself as it seems). It seems to be the consensus here, that this is only an illusion, there is no separate self, that this is just one whole ‘isness’ or something like this. You all appear to have a very strong conviction of this. What if ‘that’ idea is just an illusion. What if you are all deceiving yourselves into this belief. What if there really is an entity ‘God’ and we are all separate beings with a separate identity or consciousness or soul and we just haven’t tapped into this yet. Please help me understand why you are all so sure that I am not separate from you. I still fail to extinguish this view of having a separate soul, however illusive it might be. I strongly feel like there’s a veil of ignorance that shields us from knowing either way. Please help me understand why there’s a 100% certainty about your convictions. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 6, 2010 0:19:55 GMT -5
Convictions are of the mind. Mind imagines, grasps, believes, and it has no power. Do you see how empty and frail belief and concepts are? Like wisps of smoke that we would anchor our being to, our sense of self. The slightest breeze comes along and we're thrown into doubt. This is the nature of mind and it's beliefs; ghosts living on the energy of our faith in them. The words have no power.
For many it is arrogant to say that something can be known beyond mind, and many see these things with all of their being; wondrous things, things that humble them and bring them to tears; things that tear at the heart and break it open; things that are known from a place before knowledge, solid as granite and as unspeakable as it is certain, and so it is not spoken.
I have a longing to hear those who can see from this place, and I know it when i hear it because the words have the power of that place and the feel of granite and they touch me where mind cannot go. I don't care anything about appearing arrogant, I want to slash at the smallness that says nothing can be known. You CAN know. Don't listen to the clever, foolish mind. Be quiet and look, and give what you see a voice.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 6, 2010 3:17:05 GMT -5
Notme: Welcome to the board. Glad to have you join the discussion. In essence, there are two ways of knowing anything--through the body or through the intellect. Most adults only interact with the world through head-knowing (what most of us call "the mind"). This involves the projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. Body knowing is a million times more powerful than head-knowing--like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear bomb.
Let's imagine that you've forgotten and left a stove cooktop on high. What is the difference between (1) someone telling you that the cooktop is hot, so that you now "know" it is hot, and (2) accidentally putting your hand on the stovetop and "knowing" it is hot through your body? In both cases you "know" its hot, but the second kind of knowing is visceral and far more powerful. This kind of direct experience is what makes people on this board so confident.
The difference between (1) believing in God, having ideas about God, or having faith in the existence of God and (2) having a direct experience of God is the difference between having a glass of water gently poured over your head and standing directly under Niagara Falls. As Kabir said, "I experienced the truth for fifteen minutes and became a servant for life."
To glimpse the vastness of what the word "God" signifies is utterly mind-boggling. One glimpse is all it takes, and you will never look at the world in the same way again. Ironically, to see God "you" can't be there. Only the infinite can see the infinite. The quest for absolute truth is not for the timid, or the faintly curious, or the dilittante. It is for those who are so consumed by the quest that they are willing to give up everything to find what they're looking for. It is for those are so persistent and so tenacious that God finally feels sorry for them and yanks them out of the known and into the mystery of pure being. As Rumi (or maybe Kabir) put it, "That One can only be seen with luminous eyes."
As Enigma said, "You can know. Be quiet and look." Or, as Nisargadatta said, "The key is silence." Or as Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know that I am God." Be still. Look within. The Kingdom of God is closer than your own breath. All of the words in all of the world's holy books are vaprous fluff compared to the solidity of the living truth.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Apr 6, 2010 5:32:31 GMT -5
How many books have you guys read in order to 'know' the truth?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 6, 2010 8:42:25 GMT -5
I read thousands of books, and could not find the truth. I became silent, and the truth found me.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Apr 6, 2010 8:50:55 GMT -5
I think it was enigma who stated that there needs to be some understanding of what's happening otherwise there's a chance you'll end up in an asylum. That suggests to me that this 'knowing' is not as pure as you believe. On top of it is everything you've learnt from books, from chatting to people, from watching videos etc.. Without all of that you'd know very little about what was happening and the stuff on top is bull**** as you enlightened folk so often like to point out.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 6, 2010 9:17:09 GMT -5
Frank, nobody is reading those books out of boredom.
The craving has to be already there - that's when the books show up, and that's why the books are written.
Also, I'm sure a lot of people can live happily under a tree without a care about books. Others are imprisoned, sent to an asylum, or even killed.
If I learned anything, is that anything can happen.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Apr 6, 2010 18:30:50 GMT -5
Because the process is one of letting go of old feelings we get attached to, and of allowing more and more, it can be very useful to have some intellectual understanding of what is going on. That intellectual understanding is useful because it helps us accept, helps us let go. So that is the value...but that doesn't have top be true for everyone. It does tend, however, to be true for most people. It's just true for most people to different extents. I think it was enigma who stated that there needs to be some understanding of what's happening otherwise there's a chance you'll end up in an asylum. That suggests to me that this 'knowing' is not as pure as you believe. On top of it is everything you've learnt from books, from chatting to people, from watching videos etc.. Without all of that you'd know very little about what was happening and the stuff on top is bull**** as you enlightened folk so often like to point out. |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Apr 6, 2010 21:11:05 GMT -5
Frank, I wanted to learn and "get it" with book learning because I instinctively felt that this was the right direction, and it also scared the bejeezus out of me, and it weirded me out. I wanted that fear gone and the weirdness to be neutered. I was left with a very feeble understanding that wasn't near enough for me. I'm now no longer uncomfortable about non duality.
And since about June or so of last year I've been trying to set that stuff aside and go into body experience rather than more head knowing (still in progress BTW).
Also from others' stories, it seems that having the knowledge can contextualize it once realization takes place - thus some people reacting with fear whereas to others realization can seem wonderful. That probably has something to do with the head knowledge and being able to contextualize it.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2010 0:39:25 GMT -5
Notme: Welcome to the board. Glad to have you join the discussion. In essence, there are two ways of knowing anything--through the body or through the intellect. Most adults only interact with the world through head-knowing (what most of us call "the mind"). This involves the projection and manipulation of ideas, images, and symbols. Body knowing is a million times more powerful than head-knowing--like the difference between a firecracker and a nuclear bomb. Let's imagine that you've forgotten and left a stove cooktop on high. What is the difference between (1) someone telling you that the cooktop is hot, so that you now "know" it is hot, and (2) accidentally putting your hand on the stovetop and "knowing" it is hot through your body? In both cases you "know" its hot, but the second kind of knowing is visceral and far more powerful. This kind of direct experience is what makes people on this board so confident. The difference between (1) believing in God, having ideas about God, or having faith in the existence of God and (2) having a direct experience of God is the difference between having a glass of water gently poured over your head and standing directly under Niagara Falls. As Kabir said, "I experienced the truth for fifteen minutes and became a servant for life." To glimpse the vastness of what the word "God" signifies is utterly mind-boggling. One glimpse is all it takes, and you will never look at the world in the same way again. Ironically, to see God "you" can't be there. Only the infinite can see the infinite. The quest for absolute truth is not for the timid, or the faintly curious, or the dilittante. It is for those who are so consumed by the quest that they are willing to give up everything to find what they're looking for. It is for those are so persistent and so tenacious that God finally feels sorry for them and yanks them out of the known and into the mystery of pure being. As Rumi (or maybe Kabir) put it, "That One can only be seen with luminous eyes." As Enigma said, "You can know. Be quiet and look." Or, as Nisargadatta said, "The key is silence." Or as Psalms 46:10 says, "Be still and know that I am God." Be still. Look within. The Kingdom of God is closer than your own breath. All of the words in all of the world's holy books are vaprous fluff compared to the solidity of the living truth. That's what I be talkin bout. Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2010 0:48:52 GMT -5
Without all of that you'd know very little about what was happening and the stuff on top is bull**** as you enlightened folk so often like to point out. In the event that I'm included in 'enlightened folk', please remove me from that mailing list. |
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Apr 7, 2010 4:10:02 GMT -5
Without all of that you'd know very little about what was happening and the stuff on top is bull**** as you enlightened folk so often like to point out. In the event that I'm included in 'enlightened folk', please remove me from that mailing list. I don't include you in any list; you're a never was, never will be, nobody!  |
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Apr 7, 2010 4:44:53 GMT -5
Frank, I wanted to learn and "get it" with book learning because I instinctively felt that this was the right direction, and it also scared the bejeezus out of me, and it weirded me out. I wanted that fear gone and the weirdness to be neutered. I was left with a very feeble understanding that wasn't near enough for me. I'm now no longer uncomfortable about non duality. And since about June or so of last year I've been trying to set that stuff aside and go into body experience rather than more head knowing (still in progress BTW). Also from others' stories, it seems that having the knowledge can contextualize it once realization takes place - thus some people reacting with fear whereas to others realization can seem wonderful. That probably has something to do with the head knowledge and being able to contextualize it. Hi Karen. Maybe 'knowledge' does help one to feel more at ease but I doubt it's providing a true picture of what's happening. It's yet more paint on the canvas. I don't believe anything can be known for certain including the belief/'knowing' that we are all one. Suzanne Segal didn't believe/'know' that until it was explained to her. It's all conjecture. |
|
|
|
Post by karen on Apr 7, 2010 10:16:22 GMT -5
Yes of course. That knowing is only an poor mental model. That's why I had to give it up and start anew.
|
|
Hehe. Yeah, I've run across Ben before but I obviously don't do enough good drugs to appreciate him. Still, he makes a good jackhammer point. The motivation for seeking Truth is to get something, and what ego gets is it's head cut off. Still, this comes from a misunderstanding that the problem is that something is missing, while the real problem is an excess. Suffering results from the belief in something that isn't so. To stop doing that is a better answer to suffering than trying to tip the duality balance and do only stuff you love to do.
