Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 >>D: Reflecting involves twoness, the reflector and that which >>is reflected. > >Tim: I'm not sure. In deep reflection, the reflector and the reflected upon >dissolve (or are seen as the illusions they are), if there is interest -- >and only the reflection itself remains. D: Tim, words can be problematic sometimes. The reflection to which I referred is self-reflection, the reflection of experience toward oneself. >Why should there be separation? There never was a perceiver or a >perceived, only perception. Separation is apparently deep-seated for we humans -- based as much on emotional reactivity as thought-based formulations of reality. Although ultimately not " truth " , separation is " real enough " in its apparent effects on lives. Separation is the archetypal condition of the human being perceiving self as an entity apart -- aware of life and death -- Intellectually grasping that " truth " is " nonseparation " still leaves the separation of thought and living - of knower and known ... only when the Unknown is experienced as creating me by knowing me ... this instant... is the perceiver fully the perceived... Thanks for sharing your observations here, Tim... Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 8, 2000 Report Share Posted March 8, 2000 >> D: The reflection to which >> I referred is self-reflection, the reflection of experience toward >> oneself. > >T: Which self are you referring to - the ego, the mind, the body-sense, the >body/mind combination, the " personality? " When I attempt to examine > " myself, " there are a multitude of things - none of which (at least >individually) can be identified as " I. " " Who am I? " seems to have reached >a limit here... an " I " simply cannot be located (although the feeling of > " I " comes and goes, perhaps out of simple habit). D: I'm looking at self-reflection as self-referencing. Self-reflection is basic to human ways of associating, defining, and understanding experience. The unreflected is the nonunderstood, nonunderstandable, noncomparable, nonassociational truth of being. Self-reflection, as self-reference, occurs as " I need to get money to buy food. " " I wonder how that experience affected me? " Even statements/experiences like, " the rain is cold " or " truth is valuable, " are self-referencing. The feeling of cold refers to " me, " as does the value placed on truth - it doesn't matter if no " me " is discussed or noticed. Association occurs, and the framework for associating experiences is " me " . Clearly, the one speaking of coldness or truth refers to a point of view, a position in experience, a contrast of one state or reality with another. One can say there is no " me " there, but that doesn't change the fact of self-reference that occurs with reflection, thought, awareness of being a " thing, " e.g., a " body " in your example - but it could even be an automatic association such as " very hot -- move away " ... occurring on a nonverbal level. So I see self-reference as very basic, probably inherent even in cellular struture. Not to be done away with, but to be " seen through " , when " seen through " there is clarity, the " emptiness " of the self-referencing is clear. >There is awareness - which seems to coalesce around thought patterns, >desires and memories (these are also permeated by awareness), and forms a >sort of " skin " around these things which is the " I. " This separating >barrier called " I " is seen as " within " and " without, " and seems to be the >basis of all perceived dualities. D: Okay. I'm simply wanting to point out that there is reflection and nonreflection. Nonreflected reality has no self-consciousness. It is that which is " prior to reflection/association " , the One " within Whom " all reflection/association occurs -- the One who encompasses and is all experiencing, and yet is no-experience, is beyond experience. When reflection occurs in clarity, the reflection becomes as you discussed previously - without a separated one who reflects nor a separated object of reflection. Experience isn't occurring to a " someone " who " goes through " experiences. Experience simply *is*, without choice or explanation, and experience *is* by virtue of what *is not* - the " beyond experience " Totality. Totality and experience are not-two, this is inexplicable and indescribable. >>Separation is apparently deep-seated for we humans -- >> based as much on emotional reactivity >> as thought-based formulations of reality. > >Emotions are also a form of thought, and it seems here that it all boils >down to the mind. Even the body is a projection of the mind, perceived by >the mind as a constant, intricate stream of sensations and " externally " as >an image seen by the eyes. D: You speak of a something that perceives something else. What is the mind perceived by? And what is that something perceived by? This infinite regress can only end here, with the " pure reflection " in which nonreflected reality and reflection occur simultaneously. The self-referencing of experience " empties. " One can say, " the rain is cold, " at the same time one realizes the full emptiness of the statement and experience " the rain is cold. " >Once a perceiver ( " individual " ) appears in awareness, the >trouble starts. If/when the perceiver disappears, the trouble ceases. D: True - and this involves the whole thought-emotion-reaction complex. When this " tendency, " or " predisposition " is " undone " or " seen through " ... there is no position, no stance - there is the Incomparable, the Nonassociated, the Nonconceptual -- yet, It cognizes, It compares - it is and isn't, does and doesn't, neither is nor isn't. This can't be described. >Hinduism ascribes it to simple ignorance or " incorrect view, " beginningless >but eventually coming to an end. Makes sense here. Life and death are >both of the body, of course, and the root trouble seems to be some >variation on " I am the body. " D: I have yet to arrive at an adequate explanation of so-called " ignorance, " " the primal contraction " whatever you want to call it. All explanations are for convenience and according to a " path to truth " . Ultimately, there is no explanation. One can say, " I am the body, " or " I am not the body. " Either of these statements lead to all kinds of complications. Only when the nonconceptual and conceptual function in harmony, without splitness, only when paradox is fully expressed with no self-reflective awareness of paradox, is conflict ended. And then, there are no explanations nor definitions, although explanations and definitions can be used when appropriate. >>Intellectually grasping that " truth " is " nonseparation " still leaves >>the separation of thought and living - of knower and known ... > >Granted... > >>only when the Unknown is experienced >>as creating me by knowing me ... >this instant... is the perceiver >>fully the perceived... > >Nicely put... 99.9% of the time, you have a wonderful way with words :-) D: Thank you. And Life is the " no-thing, " the nonplace where my words never go :-) My words are unconvincing, as the .01% reveals their futility - and I'm happy that it's this way :-) >Time applies to the mind... space and causation to the body. In attempting >to locate awareness somewhere, it appears to have no location in either >time or space, it simply IS. D: Yes, something simply is. Once noticed, it is everything and nothing. Everything simply is, and is not. All isness is no-thing. >Something has to crack the " I " dea eventually. Some say this " I " is firmly >rooted, some say it's actually weak and needs be constantly renewed... >infinite are the arguments of sages :-) D: Yup, the arguments can go back and forth, spiral on and on, spawning galaxies of arguments. >>Thanks for sharing your observations >>here, Tim... > >Always a pleasure, and thanks for sharing yours as well. D: A joy to do so. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 9, 2000 Report Share Posted March 9, 2000 >T: I respect your point of view on that. Mine differs somewhat (as does that >of Nisargadatta Maharaj, Ramana Maharshi and others), but mental >agreement/disagreement doesn't amount to a pile of beans here. It's our >commonalities I'm interested in, not our differences. D: What is common is who we are before thought, perception, and point of view interrupt. Debating differences in points of view is beside the point, since any point of view covers Truth with a filter. >>D: Okay. I'm simply wanting to point out that there is reflection >> and nonreflection. Nonreflected reality has no self-consciousness. > >Certainly. In fact, one might say it has no consciousness whatsoever. I >like Nisargadatta's distinction between " consciousness " and " awareness " >(awareness being the essence of " The Supreme, " while consciousness is its >reflection - or something like that). Again, mental views on this don't >amount to a pile of beans - the question is, is suffering relieved, is >there peace and bliss, is the fear of death gone? D: Yes. It isn't that " I " discover something I didn't have. It isn't that I learn a new way to think and then apply this new way of thinking. It's " what is " before an I is constructed, before thinking formulates a stance - this " what is " is always already all there is. The constructed " I " and the formulations of thought never changed " This " at all. Being " This, " suffering's perspective ends. If the feeling of suffering arises, it's a transitory phenomenon. It's not avoided as a feeling, because the perspective that supports avoidance isn't there. Nonavoidance, nonanxiety - this is the " nature " of " what is " . " What is " has no nature, as it Alone is. Peace, bliss, no fear of death - the danger with these words is that they make " This " sound desirable, like something to have to relieve suffering. As seen here, " This " simply has no " place " for the splits that support anxiety and conflict. It's not that it's desirable to have this, it's that it's inevitable that the beginning and ending of everything is in That which is unsplit. There is no one to have " That " , so no one " gets " bliss, peace, etc. At the same time, there is no death to be tasted " Here " . >There's no way to say what the mind is perceived by, as the concept of " the >mind " is simply another idea, another thought (perhaps in the mind?!). >There's no way to verify that such a thing as a mind even exists! :-) D: Well said, Tim. You say what can be said up to the point where nothing can be said :-) >The body certainly experiences rain (and cold), but it's questionable >whether I am a body, and *I* experience rain and cold. When I experience >rain and cold, I suffer. When the body experiences rain or cold, the body >suffers and *I* am untouched, simply observing affectionately whatever >occurs within the sphere of the body/mind. D: There is an ocean from which the body/mind arises, and to which it returns. This ocean is within and without the body/mind this very moment, having Itself no inside nor outside. When the body experiences rain or cold, this Itself " absorbs " the body/mind's experiencing as It " absorbs " all experiencing everywhere in all space and time. It is never altered by any of the experience It absorbs, because It is always only absorbing Itself. Thus, It moves not, while expressing and absorbing all movement. >Indeed, words are empty. But it can be very entertaining to attempt to >describe the indescribable :-) (10 whacks from a Zen Roshi). D: Oh yes. And the Zen Roshi has taken the position of making his whacks be the " Supreme Comment. " There is no Supreme Comment! Thus, we are free to describe the indescribable and laugh at our folly! Much love, Dan >Love Always, > >Tim > >----- > " Apart from thoughts, there is no independent entity called >the world. " -- Ramana Maharshi > >Visit " The Core " Website at http://coresite.cjb.net - >Music, Poetry, Writings on Non-dual Spiritual Topics. >Tim's other pages are at: http://core.vdirect.net. > >------ >PERFORM CPR ON YOUR APR! >Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as >0.0% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. >Apply NOW! >http://click./1/2121/4/_/691401/_/952564903/ >------ > >..........INFORMATION ABOUT THIS LIST.......... > >Email addresses: > Post message: Realization > Un: Realization- >Our web address: http://www.realization.org > >By sending a message to this list, you are giving >permission to have it reproduced as a letter on >http://www.realization.org >................................................ > > 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.