Guest guest Posted March 15, 2000 Report Share Posted March 15, 2000 > M: I- consciousness lies deeply >embedded in the entire phsyche, and has to be seen and transcended at all >levels of our being lest we mistake our search for psychological security >for the spiritual path. D: From here, the attempt to transcend I-consciousness appears itself to be "I-consciousness". Could such an attempt be made with no thought to benefit myself, either in terms of security, enjoyment, gaining a certain image, being "special", proving something, attaining something, achieving a prized state, etc.? I suggest looking carefully at who is transcending what. Because if you are "aware of awareness" that isn't an I-thought, then your present awareness is beyond transcendence, with nothing "other" to be transcended. If you're not "aware of awareness," then the journey to transcend an I-thought has the potential to be extended indefinitely, ensuring continuity to the self who claims to want such transcendence. Love, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 16, 2000 Report Share Posted March 16, 2000 Dear dan, Thank you for your reply and advice. You said: If you're > not "aware of awareness," then the journey to transcend an I-thought > has the potential to be extended indefinitely, ensuring continuity > to the self who claims to want such transcendence. ~~(M) Yes you are right. This to me is one of THE great dangers along this way. Seems to me that it is always the 'way' itself which needs inspection lest it perpetuates the very thing it is supposed to transcend. But I am still on this side, and all I can do is to be as aware as possible of this pitfall. More than this I cannot do. Perhaps that goes for all of us. Love from your brother in the Dharma, Moller Dan Berkow, PhD <berkowd < > 15 March 2000 08:24 Re: Moller/transcending the "I" >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > > >> M: I- consciousness lies deeply >>embedded in the entire phsyche, and has to be seen and transcended at all >>levels of our being lest we mistake our search for psychological security >>for the spiritual path. > >D: From here, the attempt to transcend I-consciousness appears itself > to be "I-consciousness". > Could such an attempt be made with no thought to benefit myself, either > in terms of security, enjoyment, gaining a certain image, > being "special", proving something, attaining something, > achieving a prized state, etc.? I suggest looking carefully > at who is transcending what. Because if you are > "aware of awareness" that isn't an I-thought, > then your present awareness is beyond transcendence, > with nothing "other" to be transcended. > > Love, > Dan > > > > > >------ >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% >Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! >http://click./1/936/3/_/520931/_/953144642/ >------ > >// > >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 17, 2000 Report Share Posted March 17, 2000 >Dear dan, > >Thank you for your reply and advice. D: Dear Moller - Thank you for sharing your infinite journey into, and as "now". It is wonderful to hear from you. I offer only an "observation" -- "advice" would imply I know "the correct way" - a stance I don't claim :-) If such observation rings true, and is useful, happiness "here"! >M: You said: > >If you're >> not "aware of awareness," then the journey to transcend an I-thought >> has the potential to be extended indefinitely, ensuring continuity >> to the self who claims to want such transcendence. >~~(M) Yes you are right. This to me is one of THE great dangers along this >way. Seems to me that it is always the 'way' itself which needs inspection >lest it perpetuates the very thing it is supposed to transcend. But I am >still on this side, and all I can do is to be as aware as possible of this >pitfall. More than this I cannot do. Perhaps that goes for all of us. D: Ah. I'm glad for this resonance, Mollerji. "Being on this side" is an intriguing phrase. It brings up for me: "what is it like to be unsituated on a side?" Meister Eckhardt's "the eye with which I see God is the same eye through which God sees me." One notices that the conceptualization of an "I-thought" as something to uproot and discard assumes an endeavor that will take time. During this time, awareness will presumably be engaged in a beneficial practice. Noticing closer still, one "sees" that this endeavor perpetuates the "I" that assumes a positive outcome will ensue, and that this assumption itself involves versions of "I-thought". With clarity, awareness notices that this endeavor is self-contradictory. This "takes the wind out of the sails" of the project of uprooting versions of the "I-thought". Awareness is left with stillness, alone, here, now. Timeless. There is no movement. Any movement is seen for what it is - the "activity of I" and immediately there is questioning - "from where can such activity originate, for what purpose?" - instantly is seen that the activity is the preservation of an assumption of a separate center for awareness - and instantly is seen the nonviability of such a separate center for awareness - the more closely this is followed the more "unsplit" awareness reveals itself to be - this instant. As such, "nondoing" *is* "meditation" - a "meditation" that has no partitions, no opposite, no "non-meditation"... Remaining with and as "now" is meditation, is effortless, is stillness, involves "all of one's energy and being"... Love, Dan >Love from your brother in the Dharma, > Moller > >Dan Berkow, PhD <berkowd > < > >15 March 2000 08:24 > Re: Moller/transcending the "I" > > >>"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd >> >> >>> M: I- consciousness lies deeply >>>embedded in the entire phsyche, and has to be seen and transcended at all >>>levels of our being lest we mistake our search for psychological security >>>for the spiritual path. >> >>D: From here, the attempt to transcend I-consciousness appears itself >> to be "I-consciousness". >> Could such an attempt be made with no thought to benefit myself, either >> in terms of security, enjoyment, gaining a certain image, >> being "special", proving something, attaining something, >> achieving a prized state, etc.? I suggest looking carefully >> at who is transcending what. Because if you are >> "aware of awareness" that isn't an I-thought, >> then your present awareness is beyond transcendence, >> with nothing "other" to be transcended. > >> Love, >> Dan >> >> >> >> >> >>------ >>GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates as low as 2.9% >>Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR and no hidden fees. Apply NOW! >>http://click./1/936/3/_/520931/_/953144642/ >>------ >> >>// >> >>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. >> >> >> >> > > >------ >MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! >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./1/2122/3/_/520931/_/953266623/ >------ > >// > >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 18, 2000 Report Share Posted March 18, 2000 Dear Dan, Thank you again for your kind letter. You have a very beautiful way of explaining these matters in our communications. The process you have described cannot be faulted measured by my own experience. You sem to have gone into these matters with great care, both intellectually and experientally, for what you say cannot have its origin in intellectual sophistication alone. So for this I honour you and appreciate you. May I please ask you for my sake to keep your very sophisticated usage of the English language just a little more simple. English is my second language, and despite me really trying my best to understand what you try to relate in most of your postings, (strange enough not your posting directed at me 'personally) I find it very often going over my head. I have no academic background, so I find it difficult to follow always the total depth of your communications. You have clearly such a vast pool of experience to share. Please keep it as simple as you can. This is just a personal request which if accommodated will be sincerely appreciated. Hope you understand. You said: > One notices that the conceptualization of an "I-thought" as something > to uproot and discard (snip)... ~~(M) Dan, I REALLY don't think I can add anything to your understanding about these matters. So when I communicate with you, I see it more as a pre-understood sharing between two persons who have come some way along this path. It is really just filling in, rather than trying to point out something I sense you are missing. So, about the above, may I just say that the problem for me has never been the fact of thought per se, including the I-thought. I know many traditions have attacked thought because it persents itself as such an obvious 'factor of darkness'. But here I must agree with what Harsha once remarked. He said that the problem is not with thought, but withe one's IDENTIFICATION with the thought process. So for me the process of my own meditation has taken on the form of a continuous relaxation of attention around thought which always results in a genral sense of direct experience presenting itself, by itself. This relaxation leads to full bodily presense, and not just something like the stillness in my head. On this let me say that at this level of quietness there is no sense of body as form. There is just a total being-ness of that present circumstance, absolutely appearing by itself, with no sense of observer and therefore observed. So this has lead me to believe that the path is through the body, not inward somewhere in the depths of what has been referred to as 'within'. I am not saying that the truth is in the body, alone. I am saying that the Zen notion of Shikan -taza (just sitting - full bodily without any concepts about it) is a very useful practice. I reject the notion put forward by many commentators that truth is within. Truth is no more within, than without. In fact, to my insight, it is clear that unless the quality or essense of the divider (or the dividing line) between inner and outer is seen and transcended, truth, as non-duality cannot be the case. Only an observer can talk of within and without. To me they are both the same. That which is external to the observer (even if some has called this by the erudite term of (with a capital W), Witness-consciousness) either within or without has the same quality of separateness to it than ordinary experience, but just without the complications of all sorts of psychological prjections interfering to make the soup a little thicker. I am not saying that this is not a useful postion to be in, but in and of itself, it has nothing to do with non-duality until 'seen' (I wish I did no longer have to put such words in " ", when speaking to you?) to be so. Please share your kind thoughts on this. You then go on to describe very beautifully as follows: ". Awareness is left with stillness, > alone, here, now. Timeless. There is no movement. > Any movement is seen > for what it is - the "activity of I" . ~~(M) Lately my meditation has taken on the form of total non-interference. Absolutely everything is left to be by itself. I agree this can only be from a position of rather deep quietness of the entire instrument as you described above. But even this I-thought is allowed to present itself as part of everything else. What appears appears by itself and is self-aware. Nothing is implied. Nothing which arises disturbes anything. This is a kind of Dzogchen practice, but has only recently begin to present itself to my mediation as a natural simplification of even the quietness associated with the full bodily practice described above. This gives even me hope. Dan: > Any movement is seen > for what it is - the "activity of I" and immediately there is > questioning - "from where can such activity originate, for > what purpose?" - instantly is seen that the activity is the > preservation of an assumption of a separate center for awareness - > and instantly is seen the nonviability of such a separate center > for awareness - the more closely this is followed the more > "unsplit" awareness reveals itself to be - this instant. > ~~(M) Dan, may I just get your feel here? I somehow get the sense that the process you describe has a certain logic to it. Please correct me if I am missing the mark here. My own process has no logic to it beyond a certain point. There is only the clarity of perception of the I-sense, and the dropping of attention around it to reveal what you describe as 'unsplit'. I used to follow thoughts through its own process until it somehow became clear that they are only valid while there is identification with them. When this became clear, thought is no longer followed to ever more refined insights about itself. It is abandoned early in the meditaion process with the practice of silence taking over, leading to what I have described before. Please enlighten me here? The reason I ask is that from what I can understand from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika system, is that thought , through a process of the subtle logic of dialectic can actually lead itself to its own end. In fact may even lead to Emptiness, which is form. With this I sit somewhat uncomfortable. You have so much knowledge/experience on this, please give me your understanding. Your brother in the Tao, Moller >> >>------ >>MAXIMIZE YOUR CARD, MINIMIZE YOUR RATE! >>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./1/2122/3/_/520931/_/953266623/ >>------ >> >>// >> >>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. >> >> >> >> >> > > >------ >GET A NEXTCARD VISA, in 30 seconds! Get rates >as low as 0.0% Intro APR and no hidden fees. >Apply NOW! >http://click./1/975/5/_/520931/_/953326557/ >------ > >// > >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 18, 2000 Report Share Posted March 18, 2000 >Dear Dan, > >M: Thank you again for your kind letter. You have a very beautiful way of >explaining these matters in our communications. The process you have >described cannot be faulted measured by my own experience. You sem to have >gone into these matters with great care, both intellectually and >experientally, for what you say cannot have its origin in intellectual >sophistication alone. So for this I honour you and appreciate you. D: Blessings, Moller. Your sweet expression of resonation brings joy. I appreciate your way of elucidating your meditation, and thank you as well. >M: May I please ask you for my sake to keep your very sophisticated usage of >the English language just a little more simple. English is my second >language, and despite me really trying my best to understand what you try to >relate in most of your postings, (strange enough not your posting directed >at me 'personally) I find it very often going over my head. I have no >academic background, so I find it difficult to follow always the total depth >of your communications. You have clearly such a vast pool of experience to >share. Please keep it as simple as you can. This is just a personal >request which if accommodated will be sincerely appreciated. Hope you >understand. D: Ah, the main thing here is that when responding directly to you, I've spoken to you. I'm glad to hear this. Abstract concepts can get difficult to trace, as can subtle points being made -- "Its" roots are Simplicity, so the discipline of speaking simply and directly is a good one :-) >You said: > >> One notices that the conceptualization of an "I-thought" as something >> to uproot and discard (snip)... > >~~(M) Dan, I REALLY don't think I can add anything to your understanding >about these matters. So when I communicate with you, I see it more as a >pre-understood sharing between two persons who have come some way along this >path. It is really just filling in, rather than trying to point out >something I sense you are missing. So, about the above, may I just say >that the problem for me has never been the fact of thought per se, including >the I-thought. I know many traditions have attacked thought because it >persents itself as such an obvious 'factor of darkness'. But here I must >agree with what Harsha once remarked. He said that the problem is not with >thought, but withe one's IDENTIFICATION with the thought process. D: Yes, you raise a valid and fairly complex point, and I'll try to answer it as simply as possible. Agreed that identification is a useful explanatory tool, and more useful than the clearly erroneous notion that "thought is the problem". However, "identification" as all tools has it limits. I note: the concept of identification includes the One who identifies and that with which it identifies. Thus, even the concept of identification includes a duality within its construction, and itself must be released upon "opening of nonduality". Ultimately, there is no division between subject and object, identifier and identified with. So the problem could be said to be identification with "this" as opposed to "that," to want to be more of "this" and less of "that", to want to stay with "this" and away from "that". It's not so much identification with thought as identifying with thought more than with feeling, or more than with spontaneity, or more than with the world. Thought is an interdependent arising. It is interdependent with perception, the body, and social interaction. Interdependence means all are involved with all, and identifying with one over the other is to miss how it works. I hope I'm saying this simply enough to be understood here. We are a self-organizing universe of perception. Thought tends to take the position of organizer. We tend to identify with thought because we like the idea of control and initiation and this is associated with thought. To disidentify with thought is to disidentify as "controller", "possessor" and "organizer". > M: So for me the process of my own meditation has taken on the form of a >continuous relaxation of attention around thought which always results in a >genral sense of direct experience presenting itself, by itself. This >relaxation leads to full bodily presense, and not just something like the >stillness in my head. On this let me say that at this level of quietness >there is no sense of body as form. There is just a total being-ness of that >present circumstance, absolutely appearing by itself, with no sense of >observer and therefore observed. So this has lead me to believe that the >path is through the body, not inward somewhere in the depths of what has >been referred to as 'within'. I am not saying that the truth is in the body, >alone. I am saying that the Zen notion of Shikan -taza (just sitting - full >bodily without any concepts about it) is a very useful practice. D: Yes, I am with you on this. It isn't an "inner" truth as opposed to the "outer" being. The body is the world, the perception is the reality. The "inner" being and the "outer" being are the same Being. The body we take as "our" body is not the true Body, which is the universe/awareness. So, yes, being with and as the body is a useful practice. The tendency to rejecting aspects of bodily experience can be observed, and seen as the "place" where disidentification can occur. To disidentify with thought is also to disidentify with preferences of one bodily state over another, and with attempts to control or subdue bodily experience. This involves keen awareness, to notice how society, language, bodily tendencies toward survival, and neurological organization all interact to construct the "controller," the "entity". Thus, meditation is not an attack against the entity, it is clear awareness that dissolves the entity as having any grounding in Reality, yet maintains the "program" involved in social, linguistic, and bodily functioning. The Nondual transcends neurological and social organizations of reality, but isn't "against" them, doesn't seek to eliminate anything nor continue anything. > M: I reject the notion put forward by many commentators that truth is within. >Truth is no more within, than without. In fact, to my insight, it is clear >that unless the quality or essense of the divider (or the dividing line) >between inner and outer is seen and transcended, truth, as non-duality >cannot be the case. Only an observer can talk of within and without. To me >they are both the same. That which is external to the observer (even if >some has called this by the erudite term of (with a capital W), >Witness-consciousness) either within or without has the same quality of >separateness to it than ordinary experience, but just without the >complications of all sorts of psychological prjections interfering to make >the soup a little thicker. I am not saying that this is not a useful >postion to be in, but in and of itself, it has nothing to do with >non-duality until 'seen' (I wish I did no longer have to put such words in >" ", when speaking to you?) to be so. D: It's fine for me to leave out "" but other people "see" this, too ;-) I'm with you here, Moller. The "point" where there is no inside nor outside, is the point that includes infinity. In infinity, everything includes everything else, as there is no inside nor outside. Yet, everything manifests freely "as is" - and this manifestation can be "seen" as "no inside, no outside manifestation". I can talk about the inside of my car, and the outside of my car, yet I know there is no inside nor outside to anything. Thus, no "car" really exists, yet to talk about the inside and outside of the car can have practical meaning, e.g., if I'm having car repairs done. Thus, thought and concept have their uses, although those uses don't include awareness as the "one point" that includes All, and through which All manifests "each". >You then go on to describe very beautifully as follows: > >". Awareness is left with stillness, >> alone, here, now. Timeless. There is no movement. >> Any movement is seen >> for what it is - the "activity of I" . > >~~(M) Lately my meditation has taken on the form of total non-interference. >Absolutely everything is left to be by itself. I agree this can only be >from a position of rather deep quietness of the entire instrument as you >described above. But even this I-thought is allowed to present itself as >part of everything else. What appears appears by itself and is self-aware. >Nothing is implied. Nothing which arises disturbes anything. This is a >kind of Dzogchen practice, but has only recently begin to present itself to >my mediation as a natural simplification of even the quietness associated >with the full bodily practice described above. This gives even me hope. D: I'm with you here, as well. Hope/hopelessness, each includes the other. Why identify with either? :-) I find my meditation such as you describe - to be non-interfering because interference is not possible as "no position". This is "meditation of non-meditation" as any "nonmeditative experience" is equally included as arising of and as itself. No dividing line. Unsplitness. What then happens when a "split thought" or split feeling arises? One notices that as is, without interference. What happens with the tendency of that thought or feeling to "want" to interfere? Its tendency to interfere is observed dispassionately. This noninvolvement, nonidentification is the "work" of awareness, which is equivalent to "play" of awareness. The ending of identification is this abiding, to which one lifetime or two thousand lifetimes doesn't make a difference, as there are no divisions. Its patience is literally infinite, it is capable of boundless work/play, and the manifestation of this universe is evidence. :-) >Dan: >> Any movement is seen >> for what it is - the "activity of I" and immediately there is >> questioning - "from where can such activity originate, for >> what purpose?" - instantly is seen that the activity is the >> preservation of an assumption of a separate center for awareness - >> and instantly is seen the nonviability of such a separate center >> for awareness - the more closely this is followed the more >> "unsplit" awareness reveals itself to be - this instant. >> >~~(M) Dan, may I just get your feel here? I somehow get the sense that the >process you describe has a certain logic to it. D: Only when explained in words. In and of itself is it spontaneous and inherent to reality. It doesn't prefer one thing to another, doesn't try to approach things in a predetermined (e.g. "logical" or "nonlogical") way. >M: Please correct me if I am >missing the mark here. My own process has no logic to it beyond a certain >point. There is only the clarity of perception of the I-sense, and the >dropping of attention around it to reveal what you describe as 'unsplit'. I >used to follow thoughts through its own process until it somehow became >clear that they are only valid while there is identification with them. >When this became clear, thought is no longer followed to ever more refined >insights about itself. It is abandoned early in the meditaion process with >the practice of silence taking over, leading to what I have described >before. D: That sounds on-target to me. I think we can easily be led astray here when one brings up a point and another responds, attempting to put into language something that isn't ultimately a language process. Such is life :-) >M: Please enlighten me here? The reason I ask is that from what I can >understand from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika system, is that thought , through a >process of the subtle logic of dialectic can actually lead itself to its >own end. In fact may even lead to Emptiness, which is form. With this I sit >somewhat uncomfortable. You have so much knowledge/experience on this, >please give me your understanding. D: I am only who I am. My knowledge is as empty as any one's, and my experience is only whatever it is, simply this experience as is. Thought can notice its self-contradictory tendencies. Noticing this leads to abandonment of thought as a basis for reality. However, what is left? It's Unthinkable :-) And it's this "Unthinkable" that was actually "using" thought to bring about the demise of thought (as basis for reality). Noticing the contradictions of thought prepares the ground for opening. The ending of thought being taken as reality doesn't come about through thought. It is "That" which is beyond thought that "leaps" beyond these contraints when the moment is ready. The moment is always only "now," and the "leap" always involves no movement and no doing. Arising from and as Tao with you, Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 19, 2000 Report Share Posted March 19, 2000 Dear Dan, Again my humble gratitude. I have just written Roger a long letter. Now I feel a little tired. Will try to make some useful comments on your very beautiful and insightful reply to my posting tomorrow. Maybe add a new point or two for your kind consideration. Together with you, Love, Brother M. Dan Berkow, PhD <berkowd < > 18 March 2000 08:41 Re: Moller/transcending the "I" >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >>Dear Dan, >> >>M: Thank you again for your kind letter. You have a very beautiful way of >>explaining these matters in our communications. The process you have >>described cannot be faulted measured by my own experience. You sem to have >>gone into these matters with great care, both intellectually and >>experientally, for what you say cannot have its origin in intellectual >>sophistication alone. So for this I honour you and appreciate you. > >D: Blessings, Moller. Your sweet expression of resonation brings joy. > I appreciate your way of elucidating your meditation, and > thank you as well. > >>M: May I please ask you for my sake to keep your very sophisticated usage of >>the English language just a little more simple. English is my second >>language, and despite me really trying my best to understand what you try to >>relate in most of your postings, (strange enough not your posting directed >>at me 'personally) I find it very often going over my head. I have no >>academic background, so I find it difficult to follow always the total depth >>of your communications. You have clearly such a vast pool of experience to >>share. Please keep it as simple as you can. This is just a personal >>request which if accommodated will be sincerely appreciated. Hope you >>understand. > >D: Ah, the main thing here is that when responding directly to you, I've > spoken to you. I'm glad to hear this. > Abstract concepts can get difficult to trace, as can > subtle points being made -- "Its" roots are Simplicity, so the discipline > of speaking simply and directly is a good one :-) > >>You said: >> >>> One notices that the conceptualization of an "I-thought" as something >>> to uproot and discard (snip)... >> >>~~(M) Dan, I REALLY don't think I can add anything to your understanding >>about these matters. So when I communicate with you, I see it more as a >>pre-understood sharing between two persons who have come some way along this >>path. It is really just filling in, rather than trying to point out >>something I sense you are missing. So, about the above, may I just say >>that the problem for me has never been the fact of thought per se, including >>the I-thought. I know many traditions have attacked thought because it >>persents itself as such an obvious 'factor of darkness'. But here I must >>agree with what Harsha once remarked. He said that the problem is not with >>thought, but withe one's IDENTIFICATION with the thought process. > >D: Yes, you raise a valid and fairly complex point, and I'll try to answer it > as simply as possible. Agreed that identification is a useful explanatory > tool, and more useful than the clearly erroneous notion that > "thought is the problem". However, "identification" as all tools has > it limits. I note: the > concept of identification includes the One who identifies and that with > which it identifies. Thus, even the concept of identification includes > a duality within its construction, and itself must be released upon > "opening of nonduality". Ultimately, there is > no division between subject and object, identifier and identified with. > So the problem could be said to be identification with "this" as opposed > to "that," to want to be more of "this" and less of "that", to want to > stay with "this" and away from "that". It's not > so much identification with thought as identifying with thought more than > with feeling, or more than with spontaneity, or more than with the >world. > Thought is an interdependent arising. It is interdependent with >perception, the > body, and social interaction. Interdependence means all are involved > with all, and identifying with one over the other is to miss how it > works. I hope I'm saying this simply enough to be > understood here. We are a self-organizing universe of perception. >Thought > tends to take the position of organizer. We tend to identify with thought > because we like the idea of control and initiation and this is associated > with thought. To disidentify with thought is to disidentify as >"controller", > "possessor" and "organizer". > >> M: So for me the process of my own meditation has taken on the form of a >>continuous relaxation of attention around thought which always results in a >>genral sense of direct experience presenting itself, by itself. This >>relaxation leads to full bodily presense, and not just something like the >>stillness in my head. On this let me say that at this level of quietness >>there is no sense of body as form. There is just a total being-ness of that >>present circumstance, absolutely appearing by itself, with no sense of >>observer and therefore observed. So this has lead me to believe that the >>path is through the body, not inward somewhere in the depths of what has >>been referred to as 'within'. I am not saying that the truth is in the body, >>alone. I am saying that the Zen notion of Shikan -taza (just sitting - full >>bodily without any concepts about it) is a very useful practice. > >D: Yes, I am with you on this. It isn't an "inner" truth as opposed to > the "outer" being. The body is the world, the perception is the reality. > The "inner" being and the "outer" being are the same Being. The body > we take as "our" body is not the true Body, which is the >universe/awareness. > So, yes, being with and as the body is a useful practice. The tendency to > rejecting aspects of bodily experience can be observed, and seen as > the "place" where disidentification can occur. To disidentify with > thought is also to disidentify with preferences of one bodily state over > another, and with attempts to control or subdue bodily experience. This > involves keen awareness, to notice how society, language, bodily > tendencies toward survival, and neurological organization all > interact to construct the "controller," the "entity". Thus, meditation is > not an attack against the entity, it is clear awareness that dissolves > the entity as having any grounding in Reality, yet maintains the >"program" > involved in social, linguistic, and bodily functioning. The Nondual > transcends neurological and social organizations of reality, but isn't > "against" them, doesn't seek to eliminate anything nor continue anything. > >> M: I reject the notion put forward by many commentators that truth is >within. >>Truth is no more within, than without. In fact, to my insight, it is clear >>that unless the quality or essense of the divider (or the dividing line) >>between inner and outer is seen and transcended, truth, as non-duality >>cannot be the case. Only an observer can talk of within and without. To me >>they are both the same. That which is external to the observer (even if >>some has called this by the erudite term of (with a capital W), >>Witness-consciousness) either within or without has the same quality of >>separateness to it than ordinary experience, but just without the >>complications of all sorts of psychological prjections interfering to make >>the soup a little thicker. I am not saying that this is not a useful >>postion to be in, but in and of itself, it has nothing to do with >>non-duality until 'seen' (I wish I did no longer have to put such words in >>" ", when speaking to you?) to be so. > >D: It's fine for me to leave out "" but other people "see" this, too ;-) > I'm with you here, Moller. The "point" where there is no inside nor > outside, is the point that includes infinity. In infinity, everything > includes everything else, as there is no inside nor outside. Yet, > everything manifests freely "as is" - and this manifestation can > be "seen" as "no inside, no outside manifestation". I can talk about the > inside of my car, and the outside of my car, yet I know there is no > inside nor outside to anything. Thus, no "car" really exists, yet > to talk about the inside and outside of the car can have practical > meaning, e.g., if I'm having car repairs done. Thus, thought and > concept have their uses, although those uses don't include awareness > as the "one point" that includes All, and through which All manifests > "each". > >>You then go on to describe very beautifully as follows: >> >>". Awareness is left with stillness, >>> alone, here, now. Timeless. There is no movement. >>> Any movement is seen >>> for what it is - the "activity of I" . >> >>~~(M) Lately my meditation has taken on the form of total non-interference. >>Absolutely everything is left to be by itself. I agree this can only be >>from a position of rather deep quietness of the entire instrument as you >>described above. But even this I-thought is allowed to present itself as >>part of everything else. What appears appears by itself and is self-aware. >>Nothing is implied. Nothing which arises disturbes anything. This is a >>kind of Dzogchen practice, but has only recently begin to present itself to >>my mediation as a natural simplification of even the quietness associated >>with the full bodily practice described above. This gives even me hope. > >D: I'm with you here, as well. Hope/hopelessness, each includes the other. > Why identify with either? :-) > I find my meditation such as you describe - to be non-interfering > because interference is not possible as "no position". This is > "meditation of non-meditation" as any "nonmeditative experience" is > equally included as arising of and as itself. No dividing line. > Unsplitness. What then happens when a "split thought" or split feeling > arises? One notices that as is, without interference. What happens > with the tendency of that thought or feeling to "want" to interfere? > Its tendency to interfere is observed dispassionately. This >noninvolvement, > nonidentification is the "work" of awareness, which is equivalent to > "play" of awareness. The ending of identification is this abiding, to > which one lifetime or two thousand lifetimes doesn't make a difference, > as there are no divisions. Its patience is literally infinite, it > is capable of boundless work/play, and the manifestation of this universe > is evidence. :-) > >>Dan: >>> Any movement is seen >>> for what it is - the "activity of I" and immediately there is >>> questioning - "from where can such activity originate, for >>> what purpose?" - instantly is seen that the activity is the >>> preservation of an assumption of a separate center for awareness - >>> and instantly is seen the nonviability of such a separate center >>> for awareness - the more closely this is followed the more >>> "unsplit" awareness reveals itself to be - this instant. >>> >>~~(M) Dan, may I just get your feel here? I somehow get the sense that the >>process you describe has a certain logic to it. > >D: Only when explained in words. In and of itself is it spontaneous > and inherent to reality. It doesn't prefer one thing to another, > doesn't try to approach things in a predetermined (e.g. "logical" > or "nonlogical") way. > >>M: Please correct me if I am >>missing the mark here. My own process has no logic to it beyond a certain >>point. There is only the clarity of perception of the I-sense, and the >>dropping of attention around it to reveal what you describe as 'unsplit'. I >>used to follow thoughts through its own process until it somehow became >>clear that they are only valid while there is identification with them. >>When this became clear, thought is no longer followed to ever more refined >>insights about itself. It is abandoned early in the meditaion process with >>the practice of silence taking over, leading to what I have described >>before. > >D: That sounds on-target to me. I think we can easily be led astray here > when one brings up a point and another responds, attempting to put into > language something that isn't ultimately a language process. Such is >life :-) > >>M: Please enlighten me here? The reason I ask is that from what I can >>understand from Nagarjuna's Madhyamika system, is that thought , through a >>process of the subtle logic of dialectic can actually lead itself to its >>own end. In fact may even lead to Emptiness, which is form. With this I sit >>somewhat uncomfortable. You have so much knowledge/experience on this, >>please give me your understanding. > >D: I am only who I am. My knowledge is as empty as any one's, and my >experience > is only whatever it is, simply this experience as is. > > Thought can notice its self-contradictory tendencies. Noticing this > leads to abandonment of thought as a basis for reality. However, what is > left? It's Unthinkable :-) And it's this "Unthinkable" that was actually > "using" thought to bring about the demise of thought (as basis for > reality). Noticing the contradictions of thought prepares the ground > for opening. The ending of thought being taken as reality doesn't come > about through thought. It is "That" which is beyond thought that > "leaps" beyond these contraints when the moment is ready. The moment is > always only "now," and the "leap" always involves no movement and no >doing. > >Arising from and as Tao with you, >Dan > > > > >------ >DON'T HATE YOUR RATE! >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./1/2120/5/_/520931/_/953404901/ >------ > >// > >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...
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.