Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nondual awakening or realization is sometimes characterized as realization of the false nature of self, " loss of self " , or liberation from the false self-concept. This article presents a point of view for interpreting this phenomenon. " Self " is in effect a " strange-attractor " . It amounts to an " organizing principle " of the brain. Note that I said brain, not mind. For this reason freedom from " self " is not attainable by any conceptual understanding of the mind. While there is the concept of " self " , certainly, the root of self is not in the concept but in operation of the brain in terms of an ordering principle. This is a crucial point and is why freedom from the self-principle is so difficult to attain, and why conceptual understanding in particular is not up to the task. It is as if a character in a comic book were to undertake a reordering of the frames in the comic strip. In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) different kind of ordering principle. So the question becomes one of altering the manner of ordering of the brain to induce a fundamental change in that ordering. Most methods of achieving that involve various " practices " , such a zazen etc., which push the brain to some kind of limit, hopefully inducing a fundamental change. One approach to inducing such a transition is to maintain vigilant attention to what is strictly now, the absolutely immediate present. If such a " practice " is maintained vigilantly, eventually the brain " discovers " a much simpler organizing principle, which supplants the former self-based one. This is a crucial point. It is the brain that discovers, not the (non-existent) " self " . When the brain undergoes such a radical transition the subjective experience is of an astounding, even violent transformation. What could be more radical? But the subjective experience of such a transition is still illusion, and in the long run unimportant. Once that shift by the brain occurs the " programming " of the system gradually undergoes thorough and pervasive revision. Over time the " choppiness of the waves of experience " subsides and a deeper and deeper harmonic resonance in experience develops. This phase could be called the " purification of the Buddha fields. " But in all of it there is only one real " event " , and that is the transition by the brain to a different organizing principle. All the rest is insignificant detail. Exactly what induces the shift by the brain to a different ordering principle is unknown. Sometimes the term " grace " is used. But it could be something as impersonal as some a kind of " butterfly effect " , some tiny factor that triggers a cascade of transformation, much as a grain of sand triggers the sudden crystallization of a super-saturated solution. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn wrote: > > B: In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > different kind of ordering principle. > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, if not yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > B: In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > > different kind of ordering principle. > > > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand > what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and > liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, > your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. > By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, > ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, > if not yourself? > And you are telling this to another self? toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > B: In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > > > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > > > different kind of ordering principle. > > > > > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand > > what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and > > liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, > > your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. > > By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, > > ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, > > if not yourself? > > > > > > And you are telling this to another self? P: Toe to toe, mano a mano, neuron to neuron, moron to moron, I'm telling that to another brain. Capice? No? > > > > > toombaru > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " toombaru2006 " <lastrain@> wrote: > > > > Nisargadatta , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > Nisargadatta , Bill Rishel <illusyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > B: In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > > > > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > > > > different kind of ordering principle. > > > > > > > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand > > > what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and > > > liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, > > > your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. > > > By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, > > > ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, > > > if not yourself? > > > > > > > > > > > And you are telling this to another self? > > P: Toe to toe, mano a mano, neuron to neuron, > moron to moron, I'm telling that to another brain. > Capice? No? > > > > > > > > > > toombaru > > > No. You are telling that to another imagined self. That's all there is here in this dream of separation. .......and that cannot be understood. toombaru Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 NondualitySalon , " cerosoul " <pedsie6 wrote: > > > > > > In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > > different kind of ordering principle. > > > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand > what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and > liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, > your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. > By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, > ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, > if not yourself? I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. As for the remainder, your trash-talking nature is well-known. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " billrishel " <illusyn wrote: > > NondualitySalon , " cerosoul " <pedsie6@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > In short, the transition from " self " as an organizing principle of > > > the brain entails a transition by the brain to a (radically) > > > different kind of ordering principle. > > > > > P: I'm glad that you're beginning to understand > > what I have been saying for years: enlightenments, and > > liberations happen to a brain. But don't kid yourself, > > your brain is still organized in the old fashion way. > > By the self, and for the self. If you don't think so, > > ask yourself, what was your carrying on at GR about, > > if not yourself? > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance > since 1970. As for the remainder, your trash-talking > nature is well-known. P: Is that so? You have been posting here for a few years, can you point to any post by you more than a year ago or so that mentions that? > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... More seriously: of course the brain is significant but you can not focus efforts into trying to change the brain. That will happen if you have the proper perception of the scenario - from a centerlesss point of wiew. After all the very brain is just a brain consctruct - what else could it be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. > > geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... > Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... > Just on my say-so? Please send me all your money. Contact me privately for address etc. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. > > geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... > Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... > > More seriously: of course the brain is significant but you can not focus efforts > into trying to change the brain. That will happen if you have the proper perception > of the scenario - from a centerlesss point of wiew. After all the very brain is just > a brain consctruct - what else could it be? > more seriously, you are right of course... The main point of the article was that because the brain is the true locus of any significant transformation, conceptual diddly-twaddle will not do. Bill Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. > > geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... > Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... it's only been the locus since 1970. before that.. lights out. :-) ..b b.b. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 - billrishel Nisargadatta Monday, May 11, 2009 6:19 PM Re: Self as Strange Attractor Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. > > geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... > Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... > > More seriously: of course the brain is significant but you can not focus > efforts > into trying to change the brain. That will happen if you have the proper > perception > of the scenario - from a centerlesss point of wiew. After all the very > brain is just > a brain consctruct - what else could it be? > more seriously, you are right of course... The main point of the article was that because the brain is the true locus of any significant transformation, conceptual diddly-twaddle will not do. Bill geo> Is it not also the readers responsability not to transform into concepts eventual insights described by any member? Is this not the whole problem with comunication? Say... somebody sees something that he considers relevant for any reason. He actualy has an insight into the matter. How can he try to convey it here except through words? So... from non-self there is no bridge to the self. Only the other way around. From the selfs point of wiew everything said is conceptual diddly-twaddle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 12, 2009 Report Share Posted May 12, 2009 Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor wrote: > > > - > billrishel > Nisargadatta > Monday, May 11, 2009 6:19 PM > Re: Self as Strange Attractor > > > > > > Nisargadatta , " geo " <inandor@> wrote: > > > > > > > > I've considered the brain as the locus of significance since 1970. > > > > geo> Wow!!! So the brain is significant... > > Now I can see the light....I can see the light.... > > > > More seriously: of course the brain is significant but you can not focus > > efforts > > into trying to change the brain. That will happen if you have the proper > > perception > > of the scenario - from a centerlesss point of wiew. After all the very > > brain is just > > a brain consctruct - what else could it be? > > > > more seriously, you are right of course... > > The main point of the article was that > because the brain is the true locus of > any significant transformation, conceptual > diddly-twaddle will not do. > > Bill > > geo> Is it not also the readers responsability not to transform into > concepts > eventual insights described by any member? Is this not the whole problem > with comunication? > Say... somebody sees something that he considers relevant for any reason. He > actualy > has an insight into the matter. How can he try to convey it here except > through words? > > So... from non-self there is no bridge to the self. Only the other way > around. From the > selfs point of wiew everything said is conceptual diddly-twaddle. > Good point Geo, if I read you aright... the writer can't bear all the burden. It is like reading mathematics, for example. To understand it is to reconstruct something in your own head. The formulas or axioms are only " recipes " . As for " conceptual diddly-twaddle " ... you liked that too? I bet toom has is eyes on that 'un. Bill 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.