Guest guest Posted March 14, 2000 Report Share Posted March 14, 2000 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 17, 2000 Report Share Posted March 17, 2000 > 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 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.