Addiction/Moller

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 14 Mar 2000 14:07:25 Greg Goode wrote:

>>[Patanjali]

>>>explains that it comes in three steps -- dharana (concentration, or fixing

>>>the attention on one object), dhyana (continuous flow of cognition towards

>>>the object), and samadhi (shining of the object alone and the collapse of

>>>the subject/object distinction.

>>

>actually come more amorphously, maybe as a flow, the way you are describing

>it.

>>Will cannot direct the complete relaxation

>>of attention. Ask me not what, but something else allows for this.

 

Yes, my experience is also that "flow" is a good

way to describe the process of cognition

towards an object.

Sometimes it feels as if being drawn towards

an object or thought rather than the other way

around, i.e. casting out a flow of cognition

towards a thought or object.

But I don't know

where this strong "current" comes from though.

>>I am not sure if the object can ever exist by itself. Somewhere in the

>>background still lurks the abserver.

 

I agree with you on that.

 

The flow of cognition feels like a sort of

magnification inside the mind.

You direct a portion of the mind towards

something experience the flow. Then as it

grows in perceptual (and conceptual ?)

size, getting bigger and bigger,

filling the mind, suddenly it disappears,

leaving the mind with a confused

"what happened ?" feeling.

 

This happened at work and I had to do something

twice because I could not remember having

done it, gotten absorbed by a thought on the

way.

 

Isn't it often yu look back at things that

have been done and think:

did I really do that ?

 

Or maybe it's just me who's absent minded.

 

Love,

 

Amanda.

 

 

 

Angelfire for your free web-based e-mail. http://www.angelfire.com

[Guest guest]

Dear Greg,

Thank again for your kind and considerate reply to my post. It is very much

appreciated.

 

Moller said:

 

>>~~(M) Yes, Greg. this is true, except that perhaps you are using the

wrong

>>word when you say that we cannot direct attention. I somehow have the

sense

>>that I can, and do, direct attention at will during the course of the day

as

>>and when needed, like in concentration or when something requires my

>>'attention'. But this is of little importance for this discussion.

 

 

Greg replied: (very beautifully and passionately)

>Actually, I think it is the *crux* of the discussion. Yes, the sense of

>being able to direct attention is often quite palpable and strong. But

>this sense is something that arises in consciousness, then subsides. Does

>it mean there really *is* a do-er?

 

~~(M)These are difficult questions. Perhaps both of us have had enough

experience along these lines to say categorically NO to the last question.

Ultimately there is no such thing or even process. there is ALWAYS just the

strange sense of such a creature. Having 'seen' it to be false, we

nevertheless still experience 'it' in periods of lesser clarity.

 

You then ask:

 

< Is the do-er more than a thought?

 

~~(M) At the cost of giving a glib standard 'answer' to this, I would say

that it is my experience that the I-sense is always a thought. At least it

has never been my experience to be something other than thought. But here

is a BIG provisor, and perhaps I can come to it a little further along your

communication.

 

Greg:

 

A

>thought is inert, rising and falling - can a mere thought control or

>predict another thought?

 

~~(M) No, this is not my experience. General trends in thinking may allow

for the flow of thought in a particular direction. Like I am writing to you

now about these issues, and this general subject matter seems in a way to

precipitate the way in which thought will work. But I do not sense that one

thought can control or (definitely not) predict another.

 

Greg:

Two thoughts do not even touch each other.... Is

>attention more than a thought?

 

~~(M) You are very sharp, Greg. This is a beautiful statement. I agree,

two thoughts cannot touch one another. But I feel a little uncomfortable

with the next question which somehow wants to link attention in the same

category as thought. I do not sense that the two has anything to do with

one another. Neither is above or below the other, even in ordinary

dualistic consciousness.The way I sense this one is that there is only total

present arising in each living moment, including thoughts. Attention is

ultimately part of this present arising, but attention seems to be able to

focus, with or without the I-sense onto aspects of present arising, perhaps

for survival, interest and so on. In the same way it can focus itself on

that part of present arising called thought.

 

Greg:

If the do-er was not present during the

>relaxed attention, where did it go, and where did it re-appear from? What

>makes it the *same* do-er as the one that left the scene during the relaxed

>attention? These are rhetorical questions....

 

~~(M) My dear friend, now its my turn to let you know that this is to me

THE crux of the matter.

 

Let's just start by reminding ourselves that we are here not discussing

something real. The 'do-er' is fiction. But it has a way of presenting

itself as reality. My own investigation into the nature of this do-er is

that it must be looked for in the thought 'category' of human ability.

 

For me the do-er is an illusion for one reason only, and that is that it

always takes place in a state of unconsciousness. I-consciousness is really

a state of unconsciousness pretending to be awake and aware and present.

But it is always awake, aware and present with itself as central

headquarters. So at its most fundamental sense, I-consciousness is asleep

to its own happening. And what is this happening?

 

To me it is simply that thought can make images and project assumptions

about reality which it then mistakes as existing separately from itself.

Let us fit this into your very valuable question:

 

What was present as I-consciousness (do-er) and vanished during the process

of relaxation of attention? And does it always have the same quality?

 

Let us look at the process of attention. Up to now we have assumed that

attention is the culprit. Still attention, relax it, and unity

consciousness is the case. We somehow assumed that attention, BEING OF

NATURE SEPARATE FROM ITS OBJECT, must relax or fall away for the spell of

duality to be broken. To me this is false.

 

What is real, is that because we can pay attention, thought has ASSUMED that

attention is separate from its object, and because we are caught in thought

as an unconscious process, we have come to believe that this subliminal

assumption is in fact the truth. We cannot be caught in thought

consciously. The ability of thought to determine our reality is because it

operates in us sub-consciously and all we are aware of is its content. We

are not aware of the process as such. Just so, can we not be caught in

I-consciousness consciously. Awareness is the antidote to i-consciousness.

So when attention relaxes and the general sense of centreless awareness is

present, there is no attention left for thought to grab hold of about which

it can make the assumption that the observer is separate from the observed,

by first project an observer, and then experiences this observer as though

it has independent reality outside of itself.

 

The problem to be solved along the meditative path is therefore not one of

finally relaxing attention (into its source,as the pundits like to tell us)

but to do this while staying fully awake so that the incipient thought

process cannot create realities and experience them as real - albeit

unconsciously. The relaxation of attention can in this regard be seen

merely as one of the final steps to be taken as PRACTICE. This is where

effort changes into non-effort. Don't ask me how! But finally it is the

waking out of the dream of a presumed or deduced subjectivity created by

thought, which has to take place in full consciousness - without

self-consciousness.

 

I am not sure if this has explained much. Chew on it and let me know if

time allows.

 

Love,

Moller.

[Guest guest]

Dear Moller,

 

You are raising some very profound questions. I hope we don't put folks to

sleep, so I'll try to keep it short. Plus I'm at work, and have to write

quickly....

 

If the do-er is nothing more than a thought, then why would attention more

than a thought? Is attention something that controls or links thoughts

together? How would that be? If not even a thought can touch another

thought, then what else could touch or shift the flow of thoughts? What

makes the links between thoughts something other than thoughts? Attention,

if anything, is just the fact of the present thought. That thought (A) is

in the spotlight at that moment, and other thoughts (B,C,D...Z) aren't. So

we say that thought (A) had our attention, but this is a later conclusion,

another thought. Later, a thought (B) might arise, saying that we somehow

brought thought (A) up, or that it (A) arose spontaneously. But then this

thought (B) is itself just a thought. At no time can we find true

directing or controlling.

 

If we know that doership/I-consciousness is a tricky clown or jester, who

pushes his way onto the stage to take the bow after the ballerina's

performance, then how is this different from a patch of blue or a sunset?

Just another arising ...

 

One of the problems you point out with thought is this:

>To me it is simply that thought can make images and

>project assumptions about reality which it then mistakes

>as existing separately from itself.

 

Now let me ask you... I'm not sure, Moller-ji, but this paragraph seems to

indicate that things can exist exist outside of awareness..... Much

frustration, yearning, anxiety and sense of separation are based on the

belief that there are things/objects/persons separate from conscious

awareness. Like awareness goes out and contacts things. If we have this

belief, then our experience will feel separate and trapped "in here." We

will feel that there are external objects pointed to by our experience.

Now even though there are thoughts that suggest this, if we look at our

experience carefully, we can see that there's absolutely no evidence for

the existence of anything independent of experience or awareness.

>The problem to be solved along the meditative path is therefore not one of

>finally relaxing attention (into its source,as the pundits like to tell us)

>but to do this while staying fully awake so that the incipient thought

>process cannot create realities and experience them as real - albeit

>unconsciously.

 

This is a very good and realistic thing to do for one who maintains such a

practice! Otherwise it is easy to feel that we're in the "right place"

when we're at home meditating, and somehow "lost it" when we get on the

train to go to work. One of my best friends stayed home, not working, for

about 3 months so as not to lose this oceanic, spread-out feeling.

>I am not sure if this has explained much. Chew on it and let me know if

>time allows.

 

Lots of fun chewing with you!

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

Dear Roger,

 

My sincere apology for not coming back to you sooner. The discussion we

started was somehow taken into rather great detail by Greg and myself over

the last few postings. Unfortunately i allow myself a limited time at the

computer, lest I neglegt my meditaion practice.

 

May I just say that I find it difficult to write into a situation where so

much of the communication from the 'other' side relates to quotes from books

or teachers and so on. For me this thing is rather real in the sense that

this path is my very own life and everything I say is from direct experience

with perhaps the occasional reference to what others might have said or

experienced. I have little or no interest in speculation or intellectual

arguments and statements which do not come from actual experience.

 

I am sure you have gained considerable experience over the years of your own

practice and involvement in these matters. May I indulge and ask you please

to bring only this to me in our conversations. Then our communication will

be for real and we may be very able to be of assistance to one another. To

quote Osho and other such illuminaries and then meke deductions from what

they have said, or even to communicate their deductions, leaves the two of

us with little to talk about. However, you have made one very valuable

question:

>I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

>a) Realization is "witnessing" made permanent (arguments from those who

>speak from experience welcomed, I'm anticipating), I think the point is

>worth making cause it might have significance for one's quest.

 

~~(M) In my experience the witness is part of delusion. In fact I would go

as far as to say that is THE ultimate delusion. It is separateness

presenting itself as some high attainment and is little else than just the

fulfillment of the prior notion of detachment. It is ultimate detachment,

and to my understanding detachment (I am not talking of non-attachment) is a

path which can only lead to this witness position which in my understanding

represents the ultimate dualistic point of view. It is literally a point of

view, and nothing more. Much more important to ask is if this witness is

not of the same stuff as ordinary I-consciousness, just magnified.

 

So your question seems to me to be based on the assumption, rightly or

wrongly gained, that the witness is something to strive for, or to be

established or 'realised' and then to make this position of ultimate

detachment from everything permanent. I would say, that the next step after

the witness position is to realise its ultimate falseness. The witness is

to be stuck in the last vestage of thought.

 

Love

Moller

 

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Isaacs <RIsaacs

< >;

NondualitySalon <NondualitySalon >

14 March 2000 12:35

Addiction/Moller

 

>"Roger Isaacs" <RIsaacs

>

>Moller wrote:

>> So to go back to your sense that while paying attention to just the sense

>> (energy or otherwise) of touch there appears to be an inherent

separation

>> between the observer and the observed, is based on this thought

projection

>I

>> described above. The act act of paying attention does not create the

>> separation, but the thought projection which says that 'because attention

>> can be paid to an aspect of present arising, 'I' must be separate from

it.

>> And as we are totally identified with our thinking this side of

>non-duality,

>> this thought assumes the final reality of our being which is presented as

>> the separate observer.

>

>Thanks for your thoughts Moller, and Harsha, and Greg, and whoever else

I've

>missed...

>

>There is identification with duality (ordinary waking awareness).

>

>Then there is a state of witnessing where the observer is entirely separate

>from everything observed (Osho call this "Realization", MMY calls it

"Cosmic

>Consciousness", Barry Long says it is 'beyond death'. If thoughts arise

they

>are witnessed, no thought can impact the observer, any sense or thought

>activity is witnessed, the observer is not pulled into the sense active,

>does not identify in any way with the sense activity.

>

>This state is partially non-dual because the observer is entirely

>permanently independent from the duality or play of opposites. I say

>"partially non-dual": this state where the witness is non-varying is

>enlightenment, however, according to Osho,MMY,Barry Long etc... this

initial

>realization of immortality may rise to even a higher truth.

>

>Even in this state of realization (as Osho calls it, see his book 'in

search

>of the miraculous') a duality remains: the observer is established but

there

>is still "the other" as Osho says, everything seen is separate from the

>observer.

>

>They point to a higher state, a finality of NonDuality (ha?) where the

>distinction between the observer and observed dissolves such that the

>entirety of creation is literally perceived as oneself. (MMY calls this

>'Unity Consciousness', Osho says the 6th or 7th level as does Barry Long,

>see Barry's book "The Origins of Man and the Universe : The Myth That Came

>to Life".

>

>

>b) Thoughts about non-duality are just inspirational and in fact the

>ultimate nonduality is apparently a stage AFTER realization. This might

have

>some significance for the quest: thoughts about non-duality aren't even

>realization: identification with thought is the barrier to realization.

>

>c) This higher state of "unity consciousness" or ultimate non-duality can

be

>inferred from glimpses of "separation" or witnessing or realization or

Dan's

>"original stillness". Conceptually, this witnessing is TWO: the witness and

>the other, conceptually from this we can at least infer a state of ONE.

>

>Roger

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>------

>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./1/937/3/_/520931/_/952986912/

>------

>

>//

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear friend,

 

Again your deep questions. Much appreciated. May i just ask you at this

point whether these questions are relevant to the practice required for

moving out of the non-dual condition? I found that up to a point deep

questioning can be very useful for this process, but beyond a certain point,

the questions can no longer be answered in a clear and meaningful way. By

this I mean that thought can ask questions to which it cannot produce the

answers. It may ask"What is awareness? and then proceed to look for answers

to this question form within the confines of its own limitations and

operational ability. If pursued to its end, thought may come to the end of

its ability. The 'answer' to the question obviously lies outside of the

field of thinking/insight even, in the arena of direct experience. No

thought is necessary here to confirm this awareness. It s existence is its

own clarity. But this is not an attempt to try and side-step your questions.

I thought it may just be worthwhile to throw it in at this stage for both

our consideration.

 

 

You said:

 

Is attention something that controls or links thoughts

>together? How would that be? If not even a thought can touch another

>thought, then what else could touch or shift the flow of thoughts?

 

~~(M) Here you force me speculate, because I do not know. But my guess

would be that somewhere in the innerds of our minds also operates

intelligence, mere biological functioning and unanswerable movements of the

process of life. At this level things get very vague for me, and I admit I

am happy to let be.

 

Greg:

 

That thought (A) is

>in the spotlight at that moment, and other thoughts (B,C,D...Z) aren't. So

>we say that thought (A) had our attention, but this is a later conclusion,

>another thought.

 

~~(M) Yes, from I am with you again. And you are right. To say anything

about anything is always in retrospect, and therefore a thought.

 

Greg:

 

.. At no time can we find true

>directing or controlling.

>

~~(M) Yes again. Perhaps this is what I meant by saying that at this level

things get very vague. As a loose thought, I have no sense of freewill.

Its all jsut one mega disatrous, mysterious happening out of which we must

somehow make sense in order to break the spell of the basis of our human

dilemma which is I-consciousness. At some point of my own enquiry it became

clear that thought was not going to answer this problem. So I looked for

ways of opening up which might reveal the sense of non-duality in a direct

way. I must confess that my meditation practice would appear to show very

promising 'results' in this direction.

 

Greg:

>One of the problems you point out with thought is this:

>

>>To me it is simply that thought can make images and

>>project assumptions about reality which it then mistakes

>>as existing separately from itself.

>

>Now let me ask you... I'm not sure, Moller-ji, but this paragraph seems to

>indicate that things can exist exist outside of awareness

>awareness. Like awareness goes out and contacts things. If we have this

>belief, then our experience will feel separate and trapped "in here." We

>will feel that there are external objects pointed to by our experience.

>Now even though there are thoughts that suggest this, if we look at our

>experience carefully, we can see that there's absolutely no evidence for

>the existence of anything independent of experience or awareness.

>

 

~~(M) Greg, I am not sure exactly what you mean with the word 'awareness'.

I have a problem with this notion, and prefer to use your other word

"experience". Do you in your own insight use these as meaning the same?

 

But to come to your suggestion:

 

I think we are saying the same thing. I was just pointing the ability of

thought to project an idea as having independent existence beyond itself.

This of course is an illusion, but many don't seem to readily recognise it.

Millions of people for instance go to church every Sunday, believing in a

god of their own making, yet also 'know' as a 'fact' that this god exists

somewhere in heaven. I am suggesting that the I-thought is not different.

Thought created it, then projected it as existing separate from itself, and

then dramatises life on the basis of this projection, which is obviously

false. I guess this is what you mean by saying how many people suffer from

having this notion.

 

Greg:

 

if we look at our

>experience carefully, we can see that there's absolutely no evidence for

>the existence of anything independent of experience or awareness.

 

~~(M) Yes, that is is what I am trying to work towards. This clarity of

which you speak can only reveal itself when the veil of the illusion of the

I has been lifted, including the subtle projection of the separateness as

observer by thought as explained above.

>This is a very good and realistic thing to do for one who maintains such a

>practice! Otherwise it is easy to feel that we're in the "right place"

>when we're at home meditating, and somehow "lost it" when we get on the

>train

 

~~(M) Yes thats right. But whats wrong with such a feeling or observation?

Sometimes we are indeed closer to the non-dual state tha n at other times.

The way I see this things works is like this:

 

Allow me this analogy. There is light and there is darkness. Light is

non-dual, darkness dual. Light is everywhere already, but for various

reasons not revealed in the darkness. Correct practice thins the darkness

at times or even totally, so that the there are various degrees of light

ranging from clear light to dim light ot no light at all. So to the extent

that practice removes the darkness (and that is all practice can ever do, it

cannot move one closer to the light) the light is there. So from this it is

quite possible to be in light now, and in darkness on the bus. This path is

about the gradual removal of darkness. It is only an absolute affair in the

final stage where there is only light left and no darkness. Up to then it

is a gradual removal of darkness with its subsequent (or even co-incident)

revelation of light. That is why I say that we, ourselves ARE the path.

There is no other path. Both the darkness and the light is us. To which

extent it will reveal itself in either direction, depends on our form of

practice (or perhaps on grace or luck).

Love Moller

 

 

Greg Goode <goode

< >

15 March 2000 09:18

Re: Addiction/Moller

 

>Greg Goode <goode

>

>Dear Moller,

>

>You are raising some very profound questions. I hope we don't put folks to

>sleep, so I'll try to keep it short. Plus I'm at work, and have to write

>quickly....

>

>If the do-er is nothing more than a thought, then why would attention more

>than a thought? What

>makes the links between thoughts something other than thoughts? Attention,

>if anything, is just the fact of the present thought. But then this

>thought (B) is itself just a thought>If we know that

doership/I-consciousness is a tricky clown or jester, who

>pushes his way onto the stage to take the bow after the ballerina's

>performance, then how is this different from a patch of blue or a sunset?

>Just another arising ...

>

to go to work. One of my best friends stayed home, not working, for

>about 3 months so as not to lose this oceanic, spread-out feeling.

>

>>I am not sure if this has explained much. Chew on it and let me know if

>>time allows.

>

>Lots of fun chewing with you!

>

>Love,

>

>--Greg

>

>------

>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./1/2121/3/_/520931/_/953147874/

>------

>

>//

>

>All paths go somewhere. No path goes nowhere. Paths, places, sights,

perceptions, and indeed all experiences arise from and exist in and subside

back into the Space of Awareness. Like waves rising are not different than

the ocean, all things arising from Awareness are of the nature of Awareness.

Awareness does not come and go but is always Present. It is Home. Home is

where the Heart Is. Jnanis know the Heart to be the Finality of Eternal

Being. A true devotee relishes in the Truth of Self-Knowledge, spontaneously

arising from within into It Self. Welcome all to a.

>

>To from this list, go to the ONElist web site, at

> www., and select the User Center link from

the menu bar

> on the left. This menu will also let you change your

subscription

> between digest and normal mode.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Moller-ji,

 

I agree with you -- overall, we aren't saying too much different...

>Again your deep questions. Much appreciated. May i just ask you at this

>point whether these questions are relevant to the practice required for

>moving out of the non-dual condition?

 

For the vast majority of people, these kinds of questions never come up!!

Notice how not a lot of other folks are joining this discussion? Some

people are interested in these things, other people are interested in other

things. On the spiritual path, some people feel a need to *know* the

answers. Other people fel a need to *feel* a certain way. Others believe

they must *look* a certain way. In my case, I dealt intensely with all

these questions for over 25 years, till POP!!, they came to their natural

conclusion, which was, they never arose again. But they don't hit

everyone. For example, one of the reasons that it's I instead of Harsha-ji

who is talking to you on this stuff is that Harsha was just fine without

ever thinking about the minutiae of it all. He didn't really have a lot to

say about it, asked me to pitch in, etc. If someone ever asks me about the

arising of Kundalini, and really thinks they need some details, I'll

quickly ask for Harsha and Jan's and others' help, maybe your help!!

 

In short, I agree -- why ask questions if they don't hit?

>If pursued to its end, thought may come to the end of

>its ability. The 'answer' to the question obviously lies outside of the

>field of thinking/insight even, in the arena of direct experience. No

>thought is necessary here to confirm this awareness.

 

I agree. Thought pursued to its end does not result in another thought,

rather in its subsiding into the silence from which it arose.

>~~(M) Yes again. Perhaps this is what I meant by saying that at this level

>things get very vague. As a loose thought, I have no sense of freewill.

>Its all jsut one mega disatrous, mysterious happening out of which we must

>somehow make sense in order to break the spell of the basis of our human

>dilemma which is I-consciousness. At some point of my own enquiry it became

>clear that thought was not going to answer this problem. So I looked for

>ways of opening up which might reveal the sense of non-duality in a direct

>way. I must confess that my meditation practice would appear to show very

>promising 'results' in this direction.

 

Great! I'm happy for you!

>~~(M) Greg, I am not sure exactly what you mean with the word 'awareness'.

>I have a problem with this notion, and prefer to use your other word

>"experience". Do you in your own insight use these as meaning the same?

 

Not exactly, but for the purposes of these discussions, we can certainly go

with "experience."

>Greg:

>

>if we look at our

>>experience carefully, we can see that there's absolutely no evidence for

>>the existence of anything independent of experience or awareness.

>

>~~(M) Yes, that is is what I am trying to work towards. This clarity of

>which you speak can only reveal itself when the veil of the illusion of the

>I has been lifted, including the subtle projection of the separateness as

>observer by thought as explained above.

 

Side comment -- You know, among people on spiritual paths, I've never known

anyone really happy, peaceful or content who strongly believes in the

independent, external existence of objects or of a personal, identifed "I".

>Allow me this analogy. There is light and there is darkness. Light is

>non-dual, darkness dual. Light is everywhere already, but for various

>reasons not revealed in the darkness. Correct practice thins the darkness

>at times or even totally, so that the there are various degrees of light

>ranging from clear light to dim light ot no light at all. So to the extent

>that practice removes the darkness (and that is all practice can ever do, it

>cannot move one closer to the light) the light is there. So from this it is

>quite possible to be in light now, and in darkness on the bus. This path is

>about the gradual removal of darkness. It is only an absolute affair in the

>final stage where there is only light left and no darkness. Up to then it

>is a gradual removal of darkness with its subsequent (or even co-incident)

>revelation of light.

 

This is a nice statement of what's known as the gradual path. Allegedly it

can progressively remove all the traces of darkness until there is only

light. There is also a "sudden" or direct path, which re-interprets the

process as follows. We embark on the practice of removing the darkness bit

by bit. Our experience is consistent with there being both light and

darkness. But the actual end of darkness isn't really accomplished by all

the sweeping and polishing. Instead, the end of darkness is a causeless

shift, a timeless moment in which it is deeply experienced that there is

not now nor was there ever, darkness. Our experience is now consistent

with there being only light.

 

Love,

 

--Greg

[Guest guest]

> Dear Roger,

>

> My sincere apology for not coming back to you sooner...

 

Oh Hi Moller, I almost missed your msg. Sometimes it's a challenge to keep

up.

 

I'll accept your suggestion about not quoting others, as best as possible in

our conversations. Yet, quoting authors certainly does not prove lack of

experience. Sometimes these issues are very difficult to pin down, thus

quotations seemed appropriate.

> I am sure you have gained considerable experience over the years of your

own

> practice and involvement in these matters. May I indulge and ask you

please

> to bring only this to me in our conversations.

 

I have brought nothing to the conversation which was not in my experience. I

you wanted to persue this point you could bring up a particular quotation

and I'll tell how what my experience is. But we do not need to go there...

> >I guess the point I'm trying to make is this:

> >a) Realization is "witnessing" made permanent (arguments from those who

> >speak from experience welcomed, I'm anticipating), I think the point is

> >worth making cause it might have significance for one's quest.

>

> ~~(M) In my experience the witness is part of delusion.

 

I experience a state of perfect witnessing where at the time of the

experience the witness is totally & completely separate from everything else

in existance, in a way you could say the witness is out of existance but

watching it all. During this, there is no possibility of the witness every

being touched by fear/anger or any other emotional activity. Any thought

activity is seen as if from a great distance in that the witness could never

go out into the thought. There is perfect separation. Volition has

disappeared along with the doer.

> In fact I would go

> as far as to say that is THE ultimate delusion. It is separateness

> presenting itself as some high attainment and is little else than just the

> fulfillment of the prior notion of detachment.

 

Attainment involves some seeking. There is no seeking in this witnessing.

There is nothing to seek. The seeking mechanism has died.

> It is ultimate detachment,

> and to my understanding detachment (I am not talking of non-attachment) is

a

> path which can only lead to this witness position which in my

understanding

> represents the ultimate dualistic point of view. It is literally a point

of

> view, and nothing more. Much more important to ask is if this witness is

> not of the same stuff as ordinary I-consciousness, just magnified.

 

There is a very noticable, very distinct difference between this witnessing

and ALL OTHER activity having happened in life thus far. If all of your life

you believe, you know that your are the body, and then suddenly you have the

perceptual actual literal realization that you are not the body and never

could be, this is fairly distinct and can't be mistaken for any "ordinary

I-consciousness".

 

"Ordinary I-consciousness" is the state of volition, doing, identification

etc. None of these are present during witnessing.

> So your question seems to me to be based on the assumption, rightly or

> wrongly gained, that the witness is something to strive for, or to be

> established or 'realised' and then to make this position of ultimate

> detachment from everything permanent. I would say, that the next step

after

> the witness position is to realise its ultimate falseness. The witness is

> to be stuck in the last vestage of thought.

>

> Love

> Moller

 

The witnessing state IS. Your attacks are based on assumption. How could

someone "realize the falseness.." when during witnessing there is absolutly

no volition? You say "next step after the witness position is to realize..."

isn't this an assumption? Weren't we going to dispense with assumptions?

 

The witness has absolutely nothing to do with thought or emotion or

volition, it can NEVER be touched or go out into anything. The witness is

established in permanance, noting that the experience is typically brief for

me.

 

I've given you some description. Now, you say you think this is the "the

ultimate delusion". I'm not sure your assumptions allow my experience, which

is reasonable. But where do we go from here?

 

BTW, I enjoyed the discussion with Greg and others, and I enjoy your passion

for inquiry.

 

Thanks,

Roger