Guest guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Share Posted June 2, 2002 on 6/1/02 10:07 AM, jodyrrr at jodyrrr wrote: , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: [snip] > Such things have to do with an awakened human being. Is > not the Self incarnating AS A HUMAN? These things (prana, chi, etc.) are found in *any* human being. An awakened human being is no different than any other aside from the fact that they are awakened. We are always the Self. The conditions of awakening exist in everyone at all times. The only difference is in the recognition of this. Some haven't recognized it, some are striving to recognize it, and some have already recognized it, but the recognition or non-recognition of it doesn't change the fact of it in every human being. ==================== It changes the human being. We are not only the Self. We are human. We are the self being human. When we get out of the way, the Self is better able to express itself THROUGH the human manifestation. The average jo walks around dimly lit but when the being is let loose within the human , the wattage goes up significantly. It is a psycho-physical process, NOT just a psychological turn-around of somekind! ===================== [snip] > no action at all can be said to "bring it closer." > I believe the Self radiates as a kind of conscious > love ENERGY. > > And it is felt physicly.... No action does nothing, but that doesn't change the fact that we are already the Self. There is no becoming, only uncovering that which already exists. But if you're feeling something, that is not the Self. =================== If everywhere the Beloved is, how can I feel that which is not the Self? ======================== "Not by speech, not by mind, Not by sight can He be apprehended." --Katha Upanishad ======================================= that is a limited point of view! When there is NO seperation how can I not see Him, not think him, not speak him? The Self is everywhere and nowhere. How can you presume not to see him if all vision arises in Him? All thought springs from Him, how can you presume He is not present in a thought? All words exist in him, so how can you fail to hear?--Shawn Upanishad ( this Katha guy is old hat-throw him out!) Once Osho, while pretending to be Rajneesh said, (and I'm paraphrasing)"there are people who will only follow the dead Masters. The living ones are scary, the dead can't kick ass!" Apparently Osho still kicks butt! ========================= That's not to say all feelings are insignificant. As the mind undergoes the rigors of sadhana, there are many feelings present. ================ Don't ever put your mind through rigors! That way is poison! As my friend Bob says, " when we have excused mind and emotions to go out and play for the time being while this inquiry is pursued" ......so, you see? no rigors...understanding and then recess. ....if you insist on the rigors, I suggest the tomato...the creamsauce is much too heavy. ==================================== They may indicate ongoing transformation, or not. But the Self is always present throughout any spiritual practices. ==================================== Where is your evidence? In practicality, the Self is only present if it is absolutely obvious to you that this is true. Ongoing transformation for who? Ahhh, the bodymind transforms! The shakti comes alive, increases or however you want to put it! =============================== We might feel something akin to bliss, but if it's mediated by the senses then it's of the senses. ====================================== You are thinking too much, I suggest you feel more.( just a friendly suggestion, to be sure, go ask your guru if it would be wise) ( if your guru is dead though, you might be in trouble) =========================== The Self is ever beyond the senses, yet feelings are always limited to them. ======================= The senses are not evil! The self is not LIMITED TO the senses, but the senses are not other than the Self! In other words, do not seek the Self in the senses, but see the senses in the Self! But whatever you do, don't go seeing selfish by the sense-shore. Ha! ===================================== [snip] > ...but it IS glamorous, you're saying a false belief in a > thing causes magic. I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that a person's belief in another's ability to awaken loosens their own bonds psychologically. ========================= Psychological shmychological, you think everything is psychological! What does that MEAN? Loosens the bonds psychologically? It loosens EVERYTHING. We are not split into different parts,one part thought , one part psyche, emotion...we are bodymind, ONE thing, all the parts are effecting all the others. It is not our fault we think we are individuals! It is naturally so. If I pinch you're arm real hard, will you tell me the pain is an illusion? ========================== We are always the Self, but as individuals we've developed in this life entirely within the context of being an individual. Our only touchstone in life has been back to our being an individual. We've never forgotten who we are, it's just that we've never *noticed* who we are because the basis of our experience has always been from the regard of the individual. ======================= In order to learn how to function in this world as a bodymind, we identify with it as "I" ...but who identifies with it? No harm is done...except to the bodymind! The potential 1000 watt bulb is constricted to 15 watts! ========================== When we decide to find ourselves again, it is from within the *assumption* that we don't yet know ourselves. The fact is that we exist in the constant knowledge of ourselves, we just don't see it. When we go to a so-called transmission teacher, we go with the belief that they will be able to show us who we are. Since we exist in the knowledge of who we are anyway (just not believing we do,) by going to someone we believe can help us, we just start believing we *can* know ourselves, and as a result, some may come to indeed do so. There's nothing magic about it. It's all purely psychological. ============================ I am more of the opinion-feeling of Einstein who basically said there is either no God or everything is God. My concept of magic is the same. It is magic the way a plant can "learn" to develope fake moth egg-spots to protect itself from the moth.It is just more magic how one person can transmit physical energy by a look or touch. =================================== However, there are still questions about the authenticity of these awakenings. I know in my experience many of what were being called awakenings were just emotional experiences labeled as awakening. By calling these experiences awakenings, the person who supposedly provides them is assured of the continued attendance of those who were supposedly awakened. ======================== Yes, I know what you mean....this Shankara guy seems a little shakey! ====================== > It is interesting, you say, "to this mind!" > What about feelings? My definition of the mind includes feelings. > Sometimes I find the whole concept of Maya to be not only > utterly useless, but dangerous also. Everything is real > AND devine. Absolutely true. However, that's not to say it isn't Maya as well. It's usually understood that "Maya" is a concept employed to describe differentiated manifestation. It exists and we give it a name. We know the Self is undifferentiated, yet we appear to be surrounded by the different, and that's been given the name "Maya" by the rishis. You may not like the concept, but it forms the foundation of Shankara's philosophy and it has its uses in these discussions. ========================================================= I respect all the great people who have helped this great process along, but I hold none of them as infallable or beyond improvement. I think "enlightenment" is a step toward a new chapter in evolution and in no way represents some sort of final understanding. What if they were all WRONG? =========================================================== > How can you move away? or toward? Isn't this force, like > everything else not seperate from the Self. Did I say "wait?" You cannot move away or toward, yet the idea of an awakening force seems to suggest that something pushes you toward awakening. If there is an "awakening force", then it's just the psychological movement inherent in spiritual practice. Those engaging in sadhana are cultivating certain states of mind. The cultivation of these states seems to assist in coming to the recognition known as Self realization. During this process it appears to the mind that progress is being made. The movement of this progress could be called an awakening force I suppose. However, that doesn't change the fact that we are always awake in the knowledge of our own being, whether or not we've come to see it from our standpoint as individuals. ========================================= We are always the Self. There is no knowledge in us. We cannot know the Self, only the Beloved, the Dance. The body knows the Self better than the mind. The body includes the mind like the Self includes the body. We are just bodies talking, thank you, I have enjoyed this. Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 2, 2002 Report Share Posted June 2, 2002 , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 6/1/02 10:07 AM, jodyrrr at jodyrrr wrote: > > , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > > [snip] > > > Such things have to do with an awakened human being. Is > > not the Self incarnating AS A HUMAN? > > These things (prana, chi, etc.) are found in *any* human > being. An awakened human being is no different than any > other aside from the fact that they are awakened. We are > always the Self. The conditions of awakening exist in > everyone at all times. The only difference is in the > recognition of this. Some haven't recognized it, some are > striving to recognize it, and some have already recognized > it, but the recognition or non-recognition of it doesn't > change the fact of it in every human being. > ==================== > > It changes the human being. We are not only the Self. We are > human. We are the self being human. When we get out of the > way, the Self is better able to express itself THROUGH the > human manifestation. You choose to believe that the Self expresses. This belief could a template which may limit understanding to its parameters. The Self does not express, at least not in the way you are imagining. The Self simply is, and Its "isness" is the foundation of all being. Its "expression" is to provide being its place to be. It does nothing other than that. Anything like a "higher purpose" is limited to the realm of the relative, and as such has nothing to do with the Self, or has as much to do with the Self as anything else, including the many "lower purposes" that exist in the world. > The average jo walks around dimly lit > but when the being is let loose within the human , the > wattage goes up significantly. It is a psycho-physical > process, NOT just a psychological turn-around of somekind! That is a prevailing view I'm afraid. It leaves those who believe it with the idea that they as individuals will acquire more "wattage" until they finally have enough to be realized. There is no less true statement that could be made about realization. > ===================== > [snip] > > > no action at all can be said to "bring it closer." > > I believe the Self radiates as a kind of conscious > > love ENERGY. > > > > And it is felt physicly.... > > No action does nothing, but that doesn't change the fact > that we are already the Self. There is no becoming, only > uncovering that which already exists. But if you're feeling > something, that is not the Self. > =================== > > If everywhere the Beloved is, how can I feel that which > is not the Self? If you are having a feeling, it is a feeling. It may exist within the context of Self, but so does the feeling you get when you're sitting on the toilet. These feelings are no different from the regard of the Self. > ======================== > "Not by speech, not by mind, > Not by sight can He be apprehended." > --Katha Upanishad > > ======================================= > that is a limited point of view! > When there is NO seperation how can I not see Him, not think > him, not speak him? You can see, think and speak, but it won't be any *more* Him than any other sight, thought, or words. That is, you can be talking about basketball, and that will be as close to the Self as talking about the Upanishads. From the regard of the Self there is no differentiation, so it doesn't matter what you are seeing, thinking, or saying. The point of the passage is to illustrate that you cannot get close by seeing, thinking, or saying. It's only by direct *being* that one can know the Self. > The Self is everywhere and nowhere. How can you presume not > to see him if all vision arises in Him? All thought springs > from Him, how can you presume He is not present in a > thought? All words exist in him, so how can you fail to > hear?--Shawn Upanishad ( this Katha guy is old hat-throw him > out!) Then He is just as present in the thoughts of a child-killing pedophile as He is in the most serene sage. > Once Osho, while pretending to be Rajneesh said, (and I'm > paraphrasing)"there are people who will only follow the dead > Masters. The living ones are scary, the dead can't kick > ass!" Apparently Osho still kicks butt! > > ========================= > > That's not to say all feelings are insignificant. > As the > mind undergoes the rigors of sadhana, there are many > feelings present. > ================ > > Don't ever put your mind through rigors! That way is poison! > As my friend Bob says, There are those who experience some rigors during their sadhana, whether or not they meant themselves to. > " when we have excused mind and emotions to go > out and play for the time being while this inquiry is pursued" > > .....so, you see? no rigors...understanding and then recess. > > ...if you insist on the rigors, I suggest the tomato...the > creamsauce is much too heavy. I personally am against austerities of any kind, but there are many who find themselves in the throes of personal transformation, and sometimes this can be a rigorous undertaking. > ==================================== > They may indicate ongoing transformation, > or not. But the Self is always present throughout any > spiritual practices. > ==================================== > Where is your evidence? In practicality, the Self is only > present if it is absolutely obvious to you that this is > true. Ongoing transformation for who? When one comes to know themselves as the Self, one realizes that they have *never* been anything but, no matter what they've been doing in their lives up to that point. > Ahhh, the bodymind transforms! The shakti comes alive, increases > or however you want to put it! Again, this view is common but occluding. Nothing needs to increase or come alive or anything. We are all living as the Self. We have done so for all our lives, eternally. It's a simple noticing, and it has nothing to do with energy of any kind. > =============================== > We might feel something akin to bliss, > but if it's mediated by the senses then it's of the senses. > > ====================================== > You are thinking too much, I suggest you feel more.( just a > friendly suggestion, to be sure, go ask your guru if it would > be wise) ( if your guru is dead though, you might be in trouble) Thanks for the advice, but I think I'll be ok as I am. > =========================== > > The Self is ever beyond the senses, yet feelings are always > limited to them. > ======================= > > The senses are not evil! The self is not LIMITED TO the > senses, but the senses are not other than the Self! In > other words, do not seek the Self in the senses, but > see the senses in the Self! I'm not saying the senses are evil. However, the senses are limited to the relative, and the Self is absolute. You cannot "detect" the absolute using the relative senses. So, don't expect to be able to "feel" the Self the way you feel love. Love may be akin to the Self, but love is a discreet sensation in the relative, the Self is never any such thing. > But whatever you do, don't go seeing selfish by the > sense-shore. Ha! > > ===================================== > > [snip] > > > ...but it IS glamorous, you're saying a false belief in a > > thing causes magic. > > I'm not saying that at all. What I'm saying is that a > person's belief in another's ability to awaken loosens their > own bonds psychologically. > ========================= > > Psychological shmychological, you think everything is > psychological! Everything which can be considered "on the path" is psychological. > What does that MEAN? Loosens the bonds psychologically? It > loosens EVERYTHING. We are not split into different > parts,one part thought , one part psyche, emotion...we are > bodymind, ONE thing, all the parts are effecting all the > others. It is not our fault we think we are individuals! It > is naturally so. If I pinch you're arm real hard, will you > tell me the pain is an illusion? Of course not. However, what we think and how we conceptualize is psychological. It is our concept of self that appears to keep us from knowing ourselves as the Self. Hence, spiritual practice is primarily psychological. > ========================== > > We are always the Self, but as > individuals we've developed in this life entirely within the > context of being an individual. Our only touchstone in > life has been back to our being an individual. We've never > forgotten who we are, it's just that we've never *noticed* > who we are because the basis of our experience has always > been from the regard of the individual. > ======================= > > In order to learn how to function in this world as a > bodymind, we identify with it as "I" ...but who identifies > with it? No harm is done...except to the bodymind! The > potential 1000 watt bulb is constricted to 15 watts! As the Self we are always running at 1000 watts, every one of us. It's the *belief* that some of us are at 15 watts that keeps us thinking we're only at 15 watts. > ========================== > When we decide to find ourselves again, it is from within > the *assumption* that we don't yet know ourselves. The fact > is that we exist in the constant knowledge of ourselves, we > just don't see it. When we go to a so-called transmission > teacher, we go with the belief that they will be able to > show us who we are. Since we exist in the knowledge of who > we are anyway (just not believing we do,) by going to someone > we believe can help us, we just start believing we *can* > know ourselves, and as a result, some may come to indeed do > so. > > There's nothing magic about it. It's all purely psychological. > ============================ > > I am more of the opinion-feeling of Einstein who basically > said there is either no God or everything is God. My concept > of magic is the same. It is magic the way a plant can > "learn" to develope fake moth egg-spots to protect itself > from the moth.It is just more magic how one person can > transmit physical energy by a look or touch. > > =================================== > > However, there are still questions about the authenticity of > these awakenings. I know in my experience many of what were > being called awakenings were just emotional experiences > labeled as awakening. By calling these experiences > awakenings, the person who supposedly provides them is > assured of the continued attendance of those who were > supposedly awakened. > > ======================== > > Yes, I know what you mean....this Shankara guy seems > a little shakey! >From a certain worldview, yes, indeed. > ====================== > > > It is interesting, you say, "to this mind!" > > What about feelings? > > My definition of the mind includes feelings. > > > Sometimes I find the whole concept of Maya to be not only > > utterly useless, but dangerous also. Everything is real > > AND devine. > > Absolutely true. However, that's not to say it isn't Maya > as well. It's usually understood that "Maya" is a concept > employed to describe differentiated manifestation. It > exists and we give it a name. We know the Self is > undifferentiated, yet we appear to be surrounded by the > different, and that's been given the name "Maya" by the > rishis. You may not like the concept, but it forms the > foundation of Shankara's philosophy and it has its uses in > these discussions. > ========================================================= > I respect all the great people who have helped this great > process along, but I hold none of them as infallable or > beyond improvement. I think "enlightenment" is a step toward > a new chapter in evolution and in no way represents some > sort of final understanding. What if they were all WRONG? In relative terms I agree. Nobody can know everything. But in absolute terms you are incorrect. When one knows directly and experientially the absolute Self, that's as far as things go. It is what it is and it is always what it is. Relative knowledge comes and goes and develops, but knowing oneself as the Self is always the same. > =========================================================== > > How can you move away? or toward? Isn't this force, like > > everything else not seperate from the Self. Did I say "wait?" > > You cannot move away or toward, yet the idea of an awakening > force seems to suggest that something pushes you toward > awakening. > > If there is an "awakening force", then it's just the > psychological movement inherent in spiritual practice. > Those engaging in sadhana are cultivating certain states of > mind. The cultivation of these states seems to assist in > coming to the recognition known as Self realization. During > this process it appears to the mind that progress is being > made. The movement of this progress could be called an > awakening force I suppose. However, that doesn't change the > fact that we are always awake in the knowledge of our own > being, whether or not we've come to see it from our > standpoint as individuals. > ========================================= > We are always the Self. There is no knowledge in us. We > cannot know the Self, only the Beloved, the Dance. The body > knows the Self better than the mind. We cannot know intellectually the Self, but we can know ourselves *experientially* as the Self, and this comprises a special kind of knowledge called jnana. When realization is noticed in a life, that life can be said to include jnana, and the person can be said to be a jnani. > The body includes the mind like the Self includes the body. > > We are just bodies talking, thank you, I have enjoyed this. > > Shawn I'm glad you're having fun here. --jody. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2002 Report Share Posted June 3, 2002 on 6/2/02 10:39 AM, jodyrrr at jodyrrr wrote: , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > on 6/1/02 10:07 AM, jodyrrr at jodyrrr wrote: > > , shawn <shawn@w...> wrote: > > [snip] > The average jo walks around dimly lit > but when the being is let loose within the human , the > wattage goes up significantly. It is a psycho-physical > process, NOT just a psychological turn-around of somekind! That is a prevailing view I'm afraid. It leaves those who believe it with the idea that they as individuals will acquire more "wattage" until they finally have enough to be realized. There is no less true statement that could be made about realization. > ===================== > [snip] ========================================== A misunderstanding, yes. Maharshi had a phisical "tick." It is said that when asked about it, he said that realizing is sometimes somewhat like letting a huge elephant into a tent that won't fit. It effects you (the bodymind) psycho-physically. I did not mention anything about how the mechanics of that work.....it is always different. And I am not equating the shakti with the Self, it is a manefestation like the body. If it were merely psychological, realization could be done with mental manipulation, but clearly the "one" who would "do" this must be transcended. This is what Adi Da calls Radical Understanding. Peace, Shawn Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.