2 of 2
2
The self, a question about reality.
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 16 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  20
Joined  2012-09-22

They are pretty much the same,and the enlightenment that Adyashanti talks about is the feeling of freedom from his body,we all can do that,it just happens that people stick to regular stability of the thinking of others that they don’t think for themselves.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 17 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
toombaru - 20 September 2012 10:03 PM
acrobat - 20 September 2012 08:43 PM
toombaru - 20 September 2012 09:53 AM
acrobat - 20 September 2012 12:56 AM

Hi toombaru,
      I respect your experience and may I say that I can sort of understand what you are getting at here. I once saw an Indian movie “Siddhartha” based on Herman Hesse’s novel of the same name. It summarized all this very lucidly. How the mind falls in its own trap when it creates this target ‘enlightenment’ ,actually creating dissatisfaction with the present state because there is ,apparently,somewhere better to be reached.I feel these are just tricks of the mind or should I say its nature to do this.I mean what is this enlightenment anyway? controlling your thoughts,emotions? I think the dissatisfaction with the present state leads us to think that there is some state of absolute bliss, even though we don’t know that means. So maybe this seeking is the problem itself. The mind creates this goal to be reached, and becomes obsessed with this goal, so it creates a state of dissatisfaction for itself. It judges that the present state is not acceptable and so it meditates in order to reach the imaginary state of bliss or peacefulness.But, in reality these are just games played by the mind.The duality of dissatisfaction-satisfaction or enlightenment—non-enlightenment is a creation of the mind, so it cannot be overcome by the mind.  As you say you have meditated for 14 years, I am sure if that’s true , u know what u r talking about.Even in a meditator’s life the mind is busy, assessing its progress, judging others and how they are the slaves of their impulses etc.
    Even when we are meditating there is the feeling that I am the meditator. Don’t you think setting up of such goals by the mind is like the dog chasing its own tail? Enlightenment and non-enlightenment are just concepts created by the mind, aren’t they? Isn’t the quest for achieving ‘enlightenment’ a ploy by the ego/mind to boost itself and in a way self-delusion in same way as other pursuits of the mind. Aren’t we already THAT?
  I would love to hear your views about this.


There are no authorities in these matters.
No one knows more than anyone else about things made up.
Run from anyone who tells you they know the truth and can help you find something they possess.
Sentient life progresses because it has an innate insecurity.
It seeks to soothe its ever emerging angst.
The conceptual mind is a program evolved to “search for something better”.
It was born hungry and will die hungry.
Man’s imaginary psychological perspective is not exempt from this agenda.
That is the fundament out of which all metaphysical thoughts arise.
All religions attempt to define and extend the life of the self and its host.
The sense of self evolved to help the organism survive and reproduce.
It is the primary reason that humans dominate the earth.
But it is a phantom that enters a private shadowland when it attempts to improve itself.
It is practising medicine in the morgue.
It can’t improve itself simply because the self does not exist.
It tries to find shadows with a flashlight.
It is applying makeup to the mirror.
It is shooting arrows at smoke.
It cannot elevate itself or escape its imaginary circumstances.
It arranges and rearranges its acquired concepts hoping to find the magic combination that will expel its very logical fears.
Enlightenment is its annihilation.
There is another perspective that simply embraces the limitations, the unknowing, the fear, and the emotional turmoil.
There is great joy in simply being a living, pulsating center of scintillating awareness.
It is flying headless through a vast mystery in which the sight of a hummingbird or a grandchild’s smile is enough to pull one into the most sublime bliss.

 


I get a sense of what you are trying to say but I would still like you to clarify a few things you’ve said:-

“The sense of self evolved to help the organism survive and reproduce.” 
—But organisms were and are able to survive and reproduce without a sense of self,like bacteria and insects etc. So isn’t this statement contra-factual?

“There is another perspective that simply embraces the limitations, the unknowing, the fear, and the emotional turmoil.”
—Does this mean we should be ‘passive’,for the lack of a better word, to all that we face in life? Just accept everything that happens to us without reacting?

“It is flying headless through a vast mystery in which the sight of a hummingbird or a grandchild’s smile is enough to pull one into the most sublime bliss.”
—Aren’t we ‘flying headless through a vast mystery’ as it is, that describes how we live our lives, doesn’t it?
I am sorry, but I find myself unable to get to the heart of the argument you are trying to make here.

Thanks in advance.

 

 


I am familiar with your quandary.
A thousand books…...dozens of teachers and techniques…....getting closer and closer to the ultimate understanding….....
....cutting the distance in half over and over.

Living organisms adapt to an always changing environment.
A better wing…....a longer claw….....and objectified world.
The mind of man creates a consensus conceptual overlay which helps the group and the individual
survive and reproduce.
Objects in the perceived world are conceptually separated and given a name.
“Rivers” and ‘mountains” appear to become things in themselves and the names are mistaken for an actual reality.
There is great benefit to the organism and its tribe to share a named world.
But when the names of things that have no material counterpart (love, morality, free will)  only confusion results.
The mind asks questions about things that actually do not exist.
It combines things material with things immaterial and into a pseudo reality.
At the center of this mind game emerges a psychological entity…...the I am.
It looks out into its conceptual collage and searches for its own meaning.
It almost never dawns that it doesn’t have one.

Thinking is structured to solve problems encountered by the organism.
It can build a shelter or plant a seed.
But it is not equipped to deal with questions that concern its own nature.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 23 September 2012 06:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 18 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
anneyours - 23 September 2012 06:52 PM

They are pretty much the same,and the enlightenment that Adyashanti talks about is the feeling of freedom from his body,we all can do that,it just happens that people stick to regular stability of the thinking of others that they don’t think for themselves.

 

I have sat with Adya.
I’m afraid that he, like most teachers, has fallen into his own outhouse.

 

 

Profile
 
 
   
2 of 2
2
 
‹‹ Kant      Sam’s new thoughts on free will ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed