|
Traps
Sept 23, 2010 9:41:27 GMT -5
Post by charliegee on Sept 23, 2010 9:41:27 GMT -5
those wabbit twaps are tweachewous ...
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 23, 2010 20:16:14 GMT -5
Post by peanut on Sept 23, 2010 20:16:14 GMT -5
Gangaji has a helpful CD titled Spiritual Traps. It can be purchased at www.gangaji.org. Her teachings are clear and genuine.
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 11:34:00 GMT -5
Post by lobo on Sept 24, 2010 11:34:00 GMT -5
To me, there are nothing but traps for anyone. Seeking anything is a diversion that has to burn itself out and end in utter futility. Seeking enlightenment is the biggest trap of all. That which seeks is what is being sought. How could it ever find? this is the truest, clearest statement for me, it is over and over again suckered in to thinking I can actually do something about it
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 11:50:26 GMT -5
Post by lobo on Sept 24, 2010 11:50:26 GMT -5
Unpossible! If I don't try then I'm going to die an ignorant schmuck like everyone else. If I try, then I'm already doing it wrong. Is this paradox another trap? Question: What if you shifted your awareness from this thought to what you can see or hear? Then, if a thought arises about what's happening or why, you could again shift your attention to what you can see or hear, and so forth. You might try this just for fun. Each moment that you are looking or listening would be one moment that you're not thinking. While you are looking or listening, is there any paradox? Is there any problem? This is one of many gateways to _______. question, paradox is in the way you look at it, where you are looking from. Is there a looking, just seeing what is happening, but not interfering, not doing anything, just seeing? .......not a technique or trick of manipulating attention or awareness...... not having any intention at all, just seeing what is happening, whatever is happening, be it busy mind, thinking of paradox, worrying about progress, or just sitting breathing, whatever, just be, and let attention or awareness see what it sees? Is that possible? Is just being possible? some of the things like zendancer is suggesting can be helpful with improving your experience, and making a natural movement into _____ seem easier, but those are not necessary, and there is no technique unless you would say just being is a technique, but then you are already and always doing this
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 15:59:15 GMT -5
Post by question on Sept 24, 2010 15:59:15 GMT -5
Question: What if you shifted your awareness from this thought to what you can see or hear? Then, if a thought arises about what's happening or why, you could again shift your attention to what you can see or hear, and so forth. You might try this just for fun. Each moment that you are looking or listening would be one moment that you're not thinking. While you are looking or listening, is there any paradox? Is there any problem? This is one of many gateways to _______. question, paradox is in the way you look at it, where you are looking from. Is there a looking, just seeing what is happening, but not interfering, not doing anything, just seeing? .......not a technique or trick of manipulating attention or awareness...... not having any intention at all, just seeing what is happening, whatever is happening, be it busy mind, thinking of paradox, worrying about progress, or just sitting breathing, whatever, just be, and let attention or awareness see what it sees? Is that possible? Is just being possible? some of the things like zendancer is suggesting can be helpful with improving your experience, and making a natural movement into _____ seem easier, but those are not necessary, and there is no technique unless you would say just being is a technique, but then you are already and always doing this From my earlier posts I think you know my position on this whole thing. Actually there is not a paradox anywhere in the world. A paradox only enters the system when a paradoxical narrative is introduced, such as the message of nonduality, more specifically the message of nondual realisation. Just being is posssible. But it's not enough and more importantly it's not what I'm looking for, because it's temporary. One moment I am and the next moment I will be dead, no more "just being", in fact I experience this every night.
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 17:13:36 GMT -5
Post by peanut on Sept 24, 2010 17:13:36 GMT -5
Question.... being or noticing as E says. How is that temporary? The same thing that is noticing now will be noticing after the body is dead. What are you looking for? I mean do you have an idea of what waking up is? And if that's the case is it true? Have you really looked at who/what are you?
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 17:33:03 GMT -5
Post by question on Sept 24, 2010 17:33:03 GMT -5
Hi Peanut,
being or noticing as E says. How is that temporary? - How is it NOT temporary?
The same thing that is noticing now will be noticing after the body is dead. - Cool story, but without evidence I will not believe.
What are you looking for? - I really don't know.
I mean do you have an idea of what waking up is? - I assume you're referring to some kind of spiritual "waking up", in which case the answer is "no".
Have you really looked at who/what are you? - I don't know what you mean.
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 24, 2010 18:55:58 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Sept 24, 2010 18:55:58 GMT -5
"Just being is posssible. But it's not enough and more importantly it's not what I'm looking for, because it's temporary."
The experience of being, from the perspective of mind, is temporary, but being is always the case. It's beingness that experiences the illusion that being is temporary. Beingness cannot NOT be, it's just the realization of that which can be obscured.
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 0:40:04 GMT -5
Post by runstill on Sept 25, 2010 0:40:04 GMT -5
Hi Question I love where your coming from, your posts evoke responses from us non-dualist that create clarity. Your logic has me at times questioning the non dualist teaching which is good it causes me to go deeper into this. Two things that have made this a passion for me are my own experience of ego-less non separation of seerer and seen and for me the big one is what is the alternative to nonduality, I mean the human condition sucks if this is it I'm not buying lol. Keep up the yeoman's work we're all pulling for you
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 8:15:33 GMT -5
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 8:15:33 GMT -5
"Just being is posssible. But it's not enough and more importantly it's not what I'm looking for, because it's temporary." The experience of being, from the perspective of mind, is temporary, but being is always the case. It's beingness that experiences the illusion that being is temporary. Beingness cannot NOT be, it's just the realization of that which can be obscured. Beingness cannot not be... so what? In my world there is ONLY the experiential aspect of being and that is temporary. The nonexperiential aspect doesn't do me any good, because it's indistinguishable from nothing.
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 11:23:33 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2010 11:23:33 GMT -5
"Just being is posssible. But it's not enough and more importantly it's not what I'm looking for, because it's temporary." The experience of being, from the perspective of mind, is temporary, but being is always the case. It's beingness that experiences the illusion that being is temporary. Beingness cannot NOT be, it's just the realization of that which can be obscured. Beingness cannot not be... so what? In my world there is ONLY the experiential aspect of being and that is temporary. The nonexperiential aspect doesn't do me any good, because it's indistinguishable from nothing. Welp, it DOES do you some good. The adjective is not in question here but rather the pronoun. Freedom and Peace actually ARE good. The issue revolves entirely around the question of whose Freedom, whose Peace? When you say it doesn't do me any good, the beneficiary of that good is misidentified, and so what you say is actually true. This misidentification cannot benefit except by apparently having and experience of beingness, but then it must end as all experiences do and what remains is an apparent experiencer with a memory of an experience, and perhaps a rather serious longing to have another. It's true that Peace is a kind of nonexperience, not because there isn't Peace, but because there isn't an experiencer happening. The experience requires an experiencer and an experience; a subject and an object. The difficulty is that since the subject is assumed and perceived, it becomes an object itself, and so it's experience becomes a state condition of that object (a mind state). IOW, a thought of an experiencer occurs, and then founded on that thought are other thoughts about what this thought needs in order to experience Beingness, which is also just a thought. All of these thoughts are objects happening in subjectivity. The thought of 'me', and the thought that the 'me' wants to experience something, and the thought that 'me' IS experiencing something, are all objects appearing in front of what you actually are. If they weren't, it wouldn't be possible for you to know about these thoughts. That to which all these thoughts/experiences appear is what you actually are, which is Beingness itself, and Beingness cannot have an experience of Beingness that comes and goes. The subject cannot have an experience of the subject without turning it into an object, and subjectivity cannot come and go. Hencely, the whole subject/object paradigm collapses into subjectivity only, and in this an experience is not gained, but rather lost. The experience of one who is separate, and therefore vulnerable and in need, who is seeking an experience of something to mitigate the fear and suffering of being separate, is seen to not have any validity at all, and along with the ending of the belief in this story of suffering, there can be no more suffering. Is it enough to end suffering, or is it necessary to create another experience? Freedom is not the experience of freedom, it's the end of the belief in imprisonment. Peace is not the experience of peace, it's the end of the belief that something is needed in order to have Peace. Oneness is not the experience being one, it's the ending of the belief in separation. This is all about the ending of what never was. Nothing in the universe can rob you of a Peace that is here because of what is seen to NOT be here.
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 12:14:57 GMT -5
Post by lobo on Sept 25, 2010 12:14:57 GMT -5
From my earlier posts I think you know my position on this whole thing. Actually there is not a paradox anywhere in the world. A paradox only enters the system when a paradoxical narrative is introduced, such as the message of nonduality, more specifically the message of nondual realisation. Just being is posssible. But it's not enough and more importantly it's not what I'm looking for, because it's temporary. One moment I am and the next moment I will be dead, no more "just being", in fact I experience this every night.[/quote] Question, I haven't read all your posts, but it does seem you are quite certain of your position. I would like to suggest that when one is holding a solid position it is a good time to question it lol, lind of like your name I am going to offer this. What is being? Does it go beyond the you that goes away? Has the you ever gone away while you were concious? If there is nothing for you in these words, no problem for sure
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 12:20:14 GMT -5
Post by lobo on Sept 25, 2010 12:20:14 GMT -5
Question.... being or noticing as E says. How is that temporary? The same thing that is noticing now will be noticing after the body is dead. What are you looking for? I mean do you have an idea of what waking up is? And if that's the case is it true? Have you really looked at who/what are you? There are quite a few assumptions behind these statements. Can you see and question what you think you know?
|
|
|
Traps
Sept 25, 2010 14:09:06 GMT -5
Post by question on Sept 25, 2010 14:09:06 GMT -5
Hi Burt,
What is being? Does it go beyond the you that goes away? - 1) Being is being, other than that I don't know. 2) Yes.
Has the you ever gone away while you were concious? - Not sure what you mean. I've never had a "nondual experience", if that's what you're asking. I don't think though, that the ego is continually functional in daily life, frankly I don't even know what the "ego" is supposed to be, I've never seen or heard it.
|
|
lobo
Full Member
Posts: 193
|
Traps
Sept 28, 2010 13:55:03 GMT -5
Post by lobo on Sept 28, 2010 13:55:03 GMT -5
Hi Burt, What is being? Does it go beyond the you that goes away? - 1) Being is being, other than that I don't know. 2) Yes. Has the you ever gone away while you were concious? - Not sure what you mean. I've never had a "nondual experience", if that's what you're asking. I don't think though, that the ego is continually functional in daily life, frankly I don't even know what the "ego" is supposed to be, I've never seen or heard it. Hi Question, this is really good may I ask how you determined the yes answer to #2 above? there is a you that goes away and yet there is still something else? don't tkae this as a suggestion that there is something identifiable there maybe it is this just being? As to the second question, have you ever experienced this ego or self concept either dissolve, dissengage, or reconstitute itself? to me it is the change that is most identifiable I am quite happy to leave the non-dual concepts and language at the door, i.e., discard them. They seem to be playthings for some egos LOL I have come to use ego, self-concept, and even self interchangeably in writing, journaling. I would say ego is whatever you think you are, as a self that has been built into an identity, something you identify as yourself. It is more of an activity because it is either active or not. If someone says "I am pure awareness" that sounds like ego identifying itself as something identifiable. But when that program that identifies itself is not running, what is there? If it is not named or identified, what is it? Identification becomes a concept, and that is not it. There seems to be a great temptation to name, claim, identify, but none of that is necessary, just a reflex or habit.
|
|