|
Post by Izarith on Sept 11, 2009 3:31:56 GMT -5
Bob,
I'm making a thread for you because...well it's just better than the intro thread.
That and I really enjoy reading your posts and I can tell, hopefully, that there may be many more. ;D
I hope you don't dumb things down for the sake of practicality, as some fellow members have suggested. I like the way you convey your information. It reminds me greatly of The Architect from the movie The Matrix. ;D
So to start this thread off here are some questions for you.
I see certain levels of delusional forms of consciousness. For example playing your favorite song loud so others are forced to hear how cool you are. Another example is a contagious one for some, the new term for prosperity "Bling, Bling". these are very obvious low level forms of consciousness that are very easy to break away from. But what I'm having trouble with is the idea of seeing based the "I" part of consciousness. How does one eliminate the "I" with out consciously observing oneself doing so?
What anchor do we use to let the conscious self flow bast us?
You take a lot of photographs and you name them. Some of them are of you, some of you wife, some of other things but how do you detach yourself from being the photographer of these photos?
Thanks
Izzy.
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 11, 2009 17:38:31 GMT -5
Hehe, Izzy -- in another Keanu Reeves movie, “Little Buddha”, there was a great scene in which the Buddha, at the moment of his awakening, confronts his most deep-seated delusion, his core story of self-identity, and exclaims:
“Architect! You are seen. You shall build no house again. All your rafters are broken. Your ridge-beam is shattered. O Lord of my ego – You are pure illusion, You do not exist!”
Rather than attempting to eliminate it, just investigate it thoroughly until it reveals itself for what it is. Remember, we can’t abandon what we do not know. To go beyond this self, this ‘me story’, we must know the inside and outside of it. Only then can we recognize its illusionary nature. Ultimately, to study the self is to forget the self, and to forget the self is to awaken to that which is prior, prior even to consciousness itself.
Non-dwelling.
Q: Whereon should the mind settle and dwell?
A: It should settle upon nondwelling and there dwell.
Q: What is this nondwelling?
A: It means not allowing the mind to dwell upon anything whatsoever.
Q: And what is the meaning of that?
A: Dwelling upon nothing means that the mind is not fixed upon good or evil, being or nonbeing, inside or outside, or somewhere between the two, void or nonvoid, concentration or distraction.
This dwelling upon nothing is the state in which it should dwell; those who attain to it are said to have nondwelling minds - in other words, they have Buddha-minds!
~THE ESSENTIAL GATEWAY TO TRUTH BY MEANS OF INSTANTANEOUS AWAKENING, Hui Hai
There is a ‘state’ prior to the arising of conscious perception -- call it empty awareness -- just as there is something there prior to waking in the morning. This state is there all along during wakefulness, deep sleep, and even regardless of whether the sense of “I am” is operating or not. There is something constant, a timeless substrate or background, if you will. The problem is that we get so caught up in what arises upon this screen that we mistake the scenery for the light. We get so bewitched by the display of consciousness that we can’t see the forest through the trees, we can’t realize or recognize the basis, that which lets us perceive and conceive. Like seeing the black of a dark room, that which lets us REALIZE the darkness is awareness. No matter where we travel in the various planes or dimensions, we are never apart from It. It is always with us. The function of our original nature is this awareness. The essence behind awareness is the fundamental state, the empty essence that is real, non-moving, silent, still, pristine, spacious, immaculate, perfect, complete.
When thoughts are not there, for example with the case in-between successive thoughts, we can just abide in the true nature of empty awareness, ready to let thoughts be given birth again. Thoughts are not the problem, even the thought “I am”. The problem only comes with identification, aka dwelling -- just never cling to the mindstream or any temporary identity that it seems to imply, and you’ll always be in awareness. If you stay in that state of presence without clinging because it’s become natural, then the subtle mental delusions of selfishness will eventually disappear, giving way to the prior universal awareness. That’s a good step. Some might say a good first step! In any case, here in kindergarten we are just clinging to local consciousness because of the chronic habit of identifying with the body, but since true Mind is everywhere, we can realize That when practicing beingness without clinging, iow, non-dwelling.
Photographing is doing the photographing -- the “I” as some sort of separate entity apart from the activity is just a fantasy of interpretation on perception superimposed by the imagination. Easy to dispel.
Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by noface on Sept 13, 2009 15:15:37 GMT -5
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 13, 2009 16:45:03 GMT -5
Sure – we’ve all heard the expression, “losing oneself in one’s work”. Everyone has this experience of absorption to the point of impersonal, timeless awareness, whether involved in a favorite hobby or listening to music or focused on some task, where the sense of a personal “I” temporarily drops away. Now extend that attitude to all activities. No matter what the path one takes, you will have to “lose yourself to find yourself”, so to speak. Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by noface on Sept 13, 2009 18:40:23 GMT -5
Sure – we’ve all heard the expression, “losing oneself in one’s work”. Everyone has this experience of absorption to the point of impersonal, timeless awareness, whether involved in a favorite hobby or listening to music or focused on some task, where the sense of a personal “I” temporarily drops away. Now extend that attitude to all activities. No matter what the path one takes, you will have to “lose yourself to find yourself”, so to speak. Blessings! Yeah, I know Bob. Been there. My point is that "you" are still there as an individual having that experience of non-self-reflection, or being awareness itself. It is just in a way that you can't imagine because the egoic self-image only exists when you are in your imagination. IOW, when you are imagining about yourself - thinking about yourself in any way. Your egoic self-image is just a concept.
|
|
|
Post by Izarith on Sept 13, 2009 18:55:27 GMT -5
Hello Bob, That's what I understood from your replies to my questions. That moment in which you lose yourself and your just there living. One thing I have noticed is that when I look at other people I can't help but see this lack of consciousness on their faces. Of course I don't know what really is going on in their minds but they seem to be in this state of "just awareness" that I now understand you mean. I have to admit that just being aware is very hard for me. I'm always stuck in a state of a conscious "I" and very rarely catch myself just being aware. Some times I feel set apart from others because of this. But you bringing this up adds a new paradigm to this whole threads experience. What you are saying can only be targeted to people in a conscious path to this blissful state of unconsciousness. So I guess I'm saying that people not seeking a path of enlightenment, people opposite of the people of this board are the ones who are truly at the enlightened point we are trying to achieve. Am I making sense? This can be tied to Sleepers information. If you think about it, most of Sleepers information is no different that any other religious instruction. There is an up and a down and being good will get you where you want to be. Us on this thread are not to different that attendees at Sunday service consciously attempting to attain goodness to get the goodies at the end of the road. So if I get what you possibly could be eluding to is that only those who are not attempting can we be revealed for who we really are, anything else is just practice for the real test. The test everyone else not consciously searching for is all ready doing. What a kick in the teeth. Izzy.
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 14, 2009 0:37:10 GMT -5
Hiya Bud No Face!
If the recognition is true -- not as a concept but as stable direct experience -- then you always already are there, Brother! There’s no been, no will be, no maybe could or should or would be if I only ___ ____________ (fill in the blank with any particular scheme or strategy du jour to get you to where you already are).
If you say so, but in any case we can appreciate the mechanics of consciousness simultaneously producing and processing innumerable bits of flowing data, and then abstracting out and abstracting out and abstracting out from the vast panorama of this immediately infinite experience arising at any given moment a subject/object concept with which to coordinate the functioning organism, such that we stop on red and go on green, for example. Hey, it works as a pretty good navigational tool, but it was never meant to imply an actual and enduring person. That’s an interpretation we’ve grown comfortable with, nevertheless, to the point of enshrining it as our default position: “me”, “I am”.
In the face of impermanence, however, this sort of shaky assumption or case of mistaken identity perpetrated by consciousness sooner or later turns out to represent an unsatisfying prospect, ie dukkha, suffering. After all, even for the most angelic of our self-images, whatever has a beginning has an end, and so the primal fear arises, and with it the chronic ambition to defend and preserve this self-sense, which has even now become threatened by the very appearance of anything else at all.
Things go around and around ad infinitum from there, endlessly generating causes and conditions which keep the self-identification spinning on that old wheel forever. Here you get the worlds and the heavens and the hells and the whole cosmic mandala, pure consciousness if truth be told, but running in a real tight squeeze in this little masquerade of you and me.
Sure, how can the imagination which arrives later know anything about that which is prior to its inception?
There ya go!
Blessings!
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 14, 2009 0:44:42 GMT -5
Hiya Izzy!
This is what they mean when they say that the ordinary mind is Buddha, and that everybody from the beginning has the awakened fundamental nature. No need to look elsewhere for it – that’s the big mistake of ‘spiritual’ strategies for example, and really confuses aspirants for the truth – not realizing that they are what they are seeking.
Self-consciousness – it’s a lot of baggage accumulated over many lifetimes. Moreover, verbal conviction alone is not enough to break the bonds of memory and self-identification.
“Hard facts alone can show the absolute nothingness of the self-image. " ~Nisargadatta
On the other hand, if you’re tending to imagine yourself stuck in some kind of conscious ”I” state, then great! Just stay with that sense of “I am”, really stick with it and inspect it, to the point where it reveals itself, and then the conflict will end, the struggle will fall away like a dried leaf. This takes some perseverance, but liberation in this very life is possible for the earnest ones who will accept no substitute for what’s true.
There is no enlightened person, no such critter. There is no such thing as enlightenment.The full appreciation of this fact is, itself, enlightenment.
There is no end of the road, it’s just the seeker that disappears – the one who wants some self-confirming result of his/her efforts, the one who would survive and prosper as some enduring and independent entity.
Everyone and everything is seeking. That’s the universal functioning in action. The search for reality is itself the activity of reality. In a way, all search is for the real bliss, or the bliss of the real, for the root of being conscious, and as the light beyond the mind. This search will never end, as long as there remains a restless craving for anything else, and only then can true "progress" take place.
“You can do nothing to bring it about, but you can avoid creating obstacles. Watch your mind, how it comes into being, how it operates. As you watch your mind, you discover yourself as the watcher. When you stand motionless, only watching, you discover yourself as the light behind the watcher. The source of light is dark, unknown is the source of knowledge. That source alone is. Go back to that source and abide there. It is not in the sky nor in the all-pervading ether. Reality is not the result of a process; it is an explosion. It is definitely beyond the mind, but all you can do is to know your mind well. Not that the mind will help you, but by knowing your mind you may avoid your mind disabling you. You have to be very alert, or else your mind will play false with you. It is like watching a thief - not that you expect anything from a thief, but you do not want to be robbed. In the same way you give a lot of attention to the mind without expecting anything from it." ~ Nisargadatta
Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by noface on Sept 14, 2009 3:32:43 GMT -5
Hi Bob If the recognition is true -- not as a concept but as stable direct experience -- then you always already are there, Brother! There’s no been, no will be, no maybe could or should or would be if I only ___ ____________ (fill in the blank with any particular scheme or strategy du jour to get you to where you already are). I went in and out of stable direct experience for about 6 months. Then it left and has never came back in a stable direct way. We are all already there bro, it's just a matter of recognizing it, or not. This is one of the reasons I like Lou's philosophy. Just do the right thing. When the karma is good enough states of consciousness are gifted, or not, it doesn't matter. All that matters is to do the right thing, live with integrity. That process will burn away any ignorance born of self-reflecting ego. Grace takes care of the rest. Yeah, and yet still there you are Bob, an individual that is not free of heavens, hells and cosmologies. How do you explain that knowing what you know? After being through all that you've been through? I repeat Thurman's, "You will have your individual experience of Buddha Awareness and I will have mine." I think freedom from the illusion comes from having no need to be free of the illusion. Awareness and impermanent objects of awareness are not one. The impermanent objects perish while awareness of being who you are remains, albeit you are intimately connected with the objects while they are within your field of awareness. While those objects ae within your field of awareness that is what you can define yourself by. Otherwise you cannot be objectively defined. You can only know you are being subjective awareness. Becoming free of all identification with objects of awareness is nothing I need concern myself with. My job is to live with integrity, rise above hatred, envy and greed and do the right thing. I'm quite content with that since I'm already "there/awareness" anyway whether I recognize it, or not. Like that saying, "Whether you understand, or not, you are still in The Tao." Why conceptualize about not being an individual when you clearly are, just not in the way you imagine? If only one in a billion has the chance to become enlightened why worry about such things? Take care of doing the right thing and everything unfolds as it should. Even if you are that one.
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 14, 2009 5:23:54 GMT -5
Hiya again, my Friend!
The direct experience is the experience of the self-sense coming and going, arising and dissolving -- awareness itself is motionless. It does not fluctuate, come from somewhere, nor go anywhere. When this recognition stabilizes (in other words, when it is true, rather than an experience of the concept of free spaciousness), then doing the right thing is not some strategy, but spontaneity itself.
Sweet!!
I suspect you didn’t read the link I suggested to you about relative and absolute views, back in the intro post, but I’d once again refer you to it to clarify your question here.
You seemed fixed on the premise that there is this ‘Bob the separate individual who is not free’, but do you realize that you are referencing your own mental construct in this matter, Bud? In reality, there is no freedom and no bondage, except that which is projected or superimposed on immaculate beingness itself, based invariably on our conditioned and conditional fantasies of interpretation on perception.
So says Bob Thurman. ;D
Not necessarily, just look around at folks who believe they have no need to be free from illusion, and I bet you’ll notice that they are nevertheless suffering the illusion.
Only by first knowing what you are not does the recognition of what you truly are have sufficient space to make itself perfectly obvious. As long as we are still identified with the false, the true will wait patiently. For most of us, that will be a long long time.
I’m not trying to argue you out of any belief you may have about the best way to proceed, my Friend, or into some other approach. Please don’t misunderstand my intent. My intent is simply to offer the whole matter for reflection here among fellow pilgrims.
Not sure where you get those numbers, nor suggesting some cause for anxiety or worry about the issue either. We’ve got a gentle warm rain tonight, after weeks of high heat, and everything here in the forest is dripping with bliss!
Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by noface on Sept 14, 2009 19:40:25 GMT -5
The direct experience is the experience of the self-sense coming and going, arising and dissolving -- awareness itself is motionless. It does not fluctuate, come from somewhere, nor go anywhere. When this recognition stabilizes (in other words, when it is true, rather than an experience of the concept of free spaciousness), then doing the right thing is not some strategy, but spontaneity itself. Yeah, I recognize that. It must have been direct experience that didn't stabilize, as in, it went away. Not that it was just a concept. And yes, doing the right thing was spontaneous to a point. I always had freewill to choose, even when it seemed choiceless. No. I realize freedom and bondage are concepts superimposed on beingness. My point was that you are an individual having an individual experience of the heavens, hells and cosmologies. Can you deny this is not so? So says whomever you quote. ;D To learn from, or simply to endure, suffering is what many are here to do, according to Lou. They are here doing their hard time. To be free of suffering would be a moot point to them. That is how they learn to do the right thing. It would be nice to just "insight" our way through the illusion, but that is not reality, is it? Yeah, neti-neti. Bob my friend, unless you are established in that direct stable experience you were talking about earlier this is all just conceptual ideas that you are relishing. Yeah, directly seeing one's true identity as awarness itself is something everyone should have the wonderful opportunity to experience. But I like Lou's take on things like this. It is an experience of Grace and Grace is only gifted if the individual has done what it takes to deserve it. Be cool, noface
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 15, 2009 0:16:43 GMT -5
Hiya No Face! It is neither so nor not so, nor both nor neither – depends on the angle of vision. Many are also here to serve and help relieve suffering. They are the real heroes and heroines -- with prajna (awakening recognition) comes bodhicitta (genuine selfless compassion) -- not so that they can get their 'individual self' off this rock and into a cleaner and more heavenly suit, but simply because the heart's mandate is clear. Without the awakening of prajna, we will never abolish delusion. It’s the light in the darkness of a very long night. Indeed! Grace is always present and available, regardless of where one imagines oneself to be in the scheme of things. Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by Izarith on Sept 15, 2009 1:47:27 GMT -5
This is what they mean when they say that the ordinary mind is Buddha, and that everybody from the beginning has the awakened fundamental nature. No need to look elsewhere for it – that’s the big mistake of ‘spiritual’ strategies for example, and really confuses aspirants for the truth – not realizing that they are what they are seeking. Well I guess it's a good thing to know if your practicing ‘spiritual’ strategies. Makes sense to me. ;D Your right, verbal conviction did not work. But is not the baggage in a way an opportunity or reminder for inspection of the imagined "I am"? Kind of like the albatross. So in other words your saying, I will eventually admit that I'm not stuck, once I get tired of imagining "I am" the albatross? I can kind of see what your saying but for some reason your words boarder truthful sarcasm. But I could be mistaken because I'm not sure I am understanding correctly. I hold no grudge against truthful sarcasm, but I hate not at least thinking I understand. Now this I get. Ah crap.......I just felt enlightened.......never mind. Guilty as charged. This is where I am stuck. Ah...crap...I just felt enlightened again because I revealed this to "I am", grrrrr did I just say "I am" again. Hey your right Bob, This investigation stuff is cool. ;D Well I understand what you are saying, and because of this I can see that this seeker is going to be on this road for a good long while. I do thank you for helping me see an intent behind many of my actions that intent being a hidden want for some self-confirming result of his/her efforts. It actually very astonishing how obvious it has been all along, hidden in plain sight.... Thanks, Izzy.
|
|
bob
Full Member
Posts: 216
|
Post by bob on Sept 15, 2009 3:45:43 GMT -5
Hiya Izzy!
To follow up, you might find this analysis clarifying (I'd just post a link, but I don't have one, so am copying from a word file):
"In order to cut through the ambition of ego, we must understand how we set up me and my territory, how we use our projections as credentials to prove our existence. The source of the effort to confirm our solidity is an uncertainty as to whether or not we exist. Driven by this uncertainty, we seek to prove our own existence by finding a reference point outside ourselves, something with which to have a relationship, something solid to feel separate from. But the whole enterprise is questionable if we really look back and back and back. Perhaps we have perpetrated a gigantic hoax?
The hoax is the sense of the solidity of I and other. This dualistic fixation comes from nothingness. In the beginning there is open space, zero, self-contained, without relationship. But in order to confirm zeroness, we must create one to prove that zero exists. But even that is not enough; we might get stuck with just one and zero. So we begin to advance, venture out and out. We create two to confirm one's existence, and then we go out again and confirm two by three, three by four and so on. We set up a background, a foundation from which we can go on and on to infinity. This is what is called samsara, the continuous vicious cycle of confirmation of existence. One confirmation needs another confirmation needs another ...
The attempt to confirm our solidity is very painful. Constantly we find ourselves suddenly slipping off the edge of a floor which had appeared to extend endlessly. Then we must attempt to save ourselves from death by immediately building an extension to the floor in order to make it appear endless again. We think we are safe on our seemingly solid floor, but then we slip off again and have to build another extension. We do not realize that the whole process is unnecessary, that we do not need a floor to stand on, that we have been building all these floors on the ground level. There was never any danger of falling or need for support. In fact, our occupation of extending the floor to secure our ground is a big joke, the biggest joke of all, a cosmic joke. But we may not find it funny: it may sound like a serious double cross.
To understand more precisely the process of confirming the solidity of I and other, that is, the development of ego, it is helpful to be familiar with the five skandhas, a set of Buddhist concepts which describe ego as a fivestep process.
The first step or skandha, the birth of ego, is called "form" or basic ignorance. We ignore the open, fluid, intelligent quality of space. When a gap or space occurs in our experience of mind, when there is a sudden glimpse of awareness, openness, absence of self, then a suspicion arises: "Suppose I find that there is no solid me? That possibility scares me. I don't want to go into that." That abstract paranoia, the discomfort that something may be wrong, is the source of karmic chain reactions. It is the fear of ultimate confusion and despair.
The fear of the absence of self, of the egoless state, is a constant threat to us. "Suppose it is true, what then? I am afraid to look." We want to maintain some solidity but the only material available with which to work is space, the absence of ego, so we try to solidify or freeze that experience of space. Ignorance in this case is not stupidity, but it is a kind of stubbornness. Suddenly we are bewildered by the discovery of selflessness and do not want to accept it, we want to hold on to something.
Then the next step is the attempt to find a way of occupying ourselves, diverting our attention from our aloneness. The karmic chain reaction begins. Karma is dependent upon the relativity of this and that of my existence and my projections - and karma is continually reborn as we continually try to busy ourselves. In other words, there is a fear of not being confirmed by our projections. One must constantly try to prove that one does exist by feeling one's projections as a solid thing. Feeling the solidity of something seemingly outside you reassures you that you are a solid entity as well. This is the second skandha, "feeling."
In the third stage, ego develops three strategies or impulses with which to relate to its projections: indifference, passion and aggression. These impulses are guided by perception. Perception, in this case, is the self-conscious feeling that you must officially report back to central headquarters what is happening in any given moment. Then you can manipulate each situation by organizing another strategy.
In the strategy of indifference, we numb any sensitive areas that we want to avoid, that we think might hurt us. We put on a suit of armor. The second strategy is passion - trying to grasp things and eat them up. It is a magnetizing process. Usually we do not grasp if we feel rich enough. But whenever there is a feeling of poverty, hunger, impotence, then we reach out, we extend our tentacles and attempt to hold onto something.
Aggression, the third strategy, is also based upon the experience of poverty, the feeling that you cannot survive and therefore must ward off anything that threatens your property or food. Moreover, the more aware you are of the possibilities of being threatened, the more desperate your reaction becomes. You try to run faster and faster in order to find a way of feeding or defending yourself. This speeding about is a form of aggression. Aggression, passion, indifference are part of the third skandha, "perception /impulse."
Ignorance, feeling, impulse and perception -all are instinctive processes. We operate a radar system which senses our territory. Yet we cannot establish ego properly without intellect, without the ability to conceptualize and name. By now we have an enormously rich collection of things going on inside us. Since we have so many things happening, we begin to categorize them, putting them into certain pigeon-holes, naming them. We make it official, so to speak. So "intellect" or "concept" is the next stage of ego, the fourth skandha, but even this is not quite enough. We need a very active and efficient mechanism to keep the instinctive and intellectual processes of ego coordinated. That is the last development of ego, the fifth skandha, "consciousness."
Consciousness consists of emotions and irregular thought patterns, all of which taken together form the different fantasy worlds with which we occupy ourselves. These fantasy worlds are referred to in the scriptures as the "six realms." The emotions are the highlights of ego, the generals of ego's army; subconscious thought, daydreams and other thoughts connect one highlight to another. So thoughts form ego's army and are constantly in motion, constantly busy. Our thoughts are neurotic in the sense that they are irregular, changing direction all the time and overlapping one another. We continually jump from one thought to the next, from spiritual thoughts to sexual fantasies to money matters to domestic thoughts and so on. The whole development of the five skandhas-ignorance/form, feeling, impulse/perception, concept and consciousness is an attempt on our part to shield ourselves from the truth of our insubstantiality.
The practice of meditation is to see the transparency of this shield. But we cannot immediately start dealing with the basic ignorance itself; that would be like trying to push a wall down all at once. If we want to take this wall down, we must take it down brick by brick; we start with immediately available material, a stepping stone. So the practice of meditation starts with the emotions and thoughts, particularly with the thought process."
~from "Cosmic Joke", Chogyam Trungpa
Blessings!
|
|
|
Post by Izarith on Sept 17, 2009 3:21:13 GMT -5
Hello Bob, I read what you posted and it surprisingly described ego very well. But the idea of going back to nothingness just does not sit right with me. Even if it is a joke I still want to be able to laugh at it. There are a lot of egotistical illusion I want to enjoy. Like having children, a wife to love and be loved by, persevering through some struggles in life, relaxing after a hard days work. I just want the bad jokes revealed in myself so I can better enjoy the good ones. I think one of the worst jokes out there is how in all religious texts all the buddhas and the Christs takes things to far. Some get nailed on a cross and others die fat from indigestion. Izzy.
|
|