strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by Nemo » October 2nd, 2011, 3:12 am
What brings you here my friend?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
Nemo- Posts: 42
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
- Location: Australia
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 2nd, 2011, 10:11 pm
Sorry for the delay, just noticed you pinged me!
I am here to wake up from the thought of me. It feels like
I've gotten about as far as one can go in understanding this
on an intellectual level. The past five days or so has been
about getting very focused and intentional about living it
experientially.
What appears to be in the way is the persistent belief that I
exist as a point of view/the one having a perspective. I get
that the body isn't me, that doing isn't done by me, etc. But
is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?
So there is stuck-ness on the I being the experiencer.
Thank you for working with me, Nemo. I read your blog
posts the other night and found them incredibly moving.
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by Nemo » October 4th, 2011, 6:41 am
Hello! Yes, I pinged you. Although plucked might be a better
word, strangechord :)
Welcome here. And thanks for the blog feedback, I'm happy
that it resonates.
So. You said -
"is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
Let's take a look. Is there someone or something inside
looking out and through, or can you only find the
perspective itself? Does seeing require a seer?
Say you're sitting in a small room at a computer (which you
probably are right now). You can see the room, which is
probably a couple meters in each direction, and all the stuff
in the room. Maybe you can see a little way outside through
the window. Now imagine you're standing at the top of a
mountain. You can look out to the hills, valleys, trees, and
out to sea. That perspective now encompasses many many
miles instead of a few metres. So where is this point of
reference, this centre of experience? Is it where the body is,
or where the eyes are? Or is it somewhere between the
closest point in seeing and the furthest point - somewhere
between the body and the ocean? And what if you're driving
in a car, and trees, rocks, buildings, phenomena are rushing
past, popping in and out of experience?
Is this really one stuck perspective, or is it ever-moving and
ever-changing, all-encompassing? Is there absolutely
anything permanent and concrete about it? "Your" reference
point isn't necessarily unique, or one separate from many,
it's the only reference point. Any information given to you
about other "reference points" or experiences is always
second-hand. So while it may or may not be true, you can
never know for sure because it's not verifiable through direct
experience. This is the only knowable reality. Hence the only
reality - the only thing you can honestly call "true".
So let's rewind. Let's take a look at direct experience and go
back to that original question you asked.
"is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
Nemo- Posts: 42
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
- Location: Australia
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 4th, 2011, 3:48 pm
Nemo wrote:
Hello! Yes, I pinged you. Although plucked might be a betterword, strangechord :)Welcome here. And thanks for the blog feedback, I'm happythat it resonates.So. You said - "is "I" that which sees everything through thisperspective?"Let's take a look. Is there someone or something insidelooking out and through, or can you only find the perspectiveitself? Does seeing require a seer?
No, I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer. It's
the thoughts that arise that I am the one seeing that are
then believed that cause the distinction of seer.
Nemo wrote:
Say you're sitting in a small room at a computer (which youprobably are right now). You can see the room, which isprobably a couple meters in each direction, and all the stuffin the room. Maybe you can see a little way outside throughthe window. Now imagine you're standing at the top of amountain. You can look out to the hills, valleys, trees, and outto sea. That perspective now encompasses many many milesinstead of a few metres. So where is this point of reference,this centre of experience? Is it where the body is, or wherethe eyes are? Or is it somewhere between the closest point inseeing and the furthest point - somewhere between the bodyand the ocean? And what if you're driving in a car, and trees,rocks, buildings, phenomena are rushing past, popping in andout of experience?
The point of reference is where the eyes are/where the body
is. If driving in a car, the point of reference is the seeing of
everything out the window popping in and out of view.
Nemo wrote:
Is this really one stuck perspective, or is it ever-moving andever-changing, all-encompassing? Is there absolutelyanything permanent and concrete about it? "Your" referencepoint isn't necessarily unique, or one separate from many, it'sthe only reference point. Any information given to you aboutother "reference points" or experiences is always second-hand.So while it may or may not be true, you can never know forsure because it's not verifiable through direct experience. Thisis the only knowable reality. Hence the only reality - the onlything you can honestly call "true".
Not sure I understand the first few sentences. I feel like I'm
getting something wrong or overlooking something! lol It
does feel like there's one stuck perspective, from these
eyes/this center, that is permanent and concrete, yet sees
ever-moving and ever-changing phenomena outside of it.
I do get that the only thing verifiable is that which is directly
experienced. I can't know how it is ever from someone else's
perspective. In this sense, I understand that all there is is the
reference point.Nemo wrote:
So let's rewind. Let's take a look at direct experience and goback to that original question you asked."is "I" that which sees everything through this perspective?"
In asking that again, what comes in response is that there is
just this perspective. It doesn't matter whether I call it "I" or
not. To call it "I" is an unnecessary label. To call it "I" is just
to believe a thought that persistently wants to be believed.
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through
the fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg
to be believed (are really "sticky")? Because I think what's
also in the way is a lot of beliefs and ideas about what
liberation must be like and it limits openness to whatever
shows up. I grew up in a meditation community where we
kids learned all sorts of untrue notions about enlightenment
from adults who were not awakened but were yearning for it.
As an adult, I have spent years deconditioning most of those
childhood notions, reading spiritual books and listening to
talks (Adya, Tolle, Balsekar, etc), attending satsangs. A
spiritual teacher I met a few weekends ago said that I was a
"spiritual connoisseur" and that that was likely the last refuge.
I feel intuitively that that's true because at this point I've
accumulated so much knowledge and stuff in my head around
awakening that it's likely in the way now. Anyway, felt
compelled to give a little back story, whatever it's worth. :-)
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by Nemo » October 5th, 2011, 12:46 pm
Hey there strangechord.
Do you play the guitar or piano?
Okay, so firstly, this point of reference stuff.
Sorry that you didn't understand what I was getting at, some
things can be seen clear enough but sometimes difficult to
express! Also keep in mind that everything said here is not
truth itself, only potential pointers to the truth.
Let's try a different line of attack here.
Think of "experience", or "life" as like the ocean. A wave can
appear in it (much like "strangechord", as an expression of life
appearing in the void), but the wave can't really said to be a
point of reference per se, it's always moving and changing and
never consists of the same water particles. It contains the
ocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,
it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does that
make sense?
ocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,
it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does that
make sense?
You said -
I understand that all there is is the reference point.
If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be called a
reference point? Is the ocean a point of reference in the ocean?
the point of reference is the seeing of everything out thewindow popping in and out of view.
You also said -
I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer.
So, there is no seer, but there is seeing, which appears to start
at the eyes and move outwards from there, yeah?
But how can you be certain that this "seeing" doesn't actually
start from the furthest point in the visual field and move in
towards the eyes? Perhaps neither of these scenarios are true?
Seeing requires both the eyes to see and the thing seen. Take
the seen away and there is no sight. Take the sight away and
there is nothing to see. So sight and what is seen are not really
two separate things, but instead crucial for the existence of
each other, but more importantly of this one thing known as
seeing. Nonduality - "not two".
Here's another way to look at this point of reference thing.
(I hope I'm not confusing you too much, but we're jamming,
yeah? Point of reference actually confused me a whole lot and
seemed to be my last piece of the puzzle too when I was
examining self, and I still have a whole lot of fun exploring it.
So please bear with me! It's an important thing to look at so I
am actually quite exited to be discussing it, I'm really glad you
brought it up. Also, I think the fact that you've been confused
by it means you have been looking closely and honesty at this
and are serious about it. A great sign.)
Okay, so anyway. Consider this.
What ever is verifiable in experience, can be said to be true.
Anything that is not in direct, verifiable experience may or
may not be true, but it can never really be more than just
conjecture, hearsay. You can never know for sure if it's true or
not. It's something that needs to be thrown out in scientific
study, in courts of law, and also here, in examining reality. Not
necessarily ignored, just discounted, ultimately. How could
hearsay be accepted over direct knowing? Why would you take
someone else's word for it if you could find out directly?
I feel like I'm in ramble mode a bit. Please stay with me :)
People tell you what their experiences are like, stories about
their lives, what things are like from "over there". However,
they will only ever exist as stories. And stories are great,
they're fun and interesting and exciting, and even real, a real
part of experience, but only as stories in "your" experience.
So maybe these stories are describing other real reference
points, and maybe they're just part of a dream. And you'll
probably never know for sure either, but either way it doesn't
even matter. All that exists is the one reference point which
contains stories about other reference points. Which bring us
back to - 'If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be
called a reference point?'
And when death comes, when this reference point ceases to
exist, does the world and everything in it continue along?
(One thing I also used to trip myself over a lot were
paradoxes, but they make sense now, because ala
Schrodinger's cat, it seems two opposite things can be true
at the same time. (Except maybe when directly looked at!))
Yes, possibly life still goes on, maybe even probably. Also -
No. In fact most likely not. Gone, nothing, nada. Experience
melts away back into the void and the whole world with it.
Existing stops, existence with it.
Whew! I'm really enjoying this here. And hoping that I'm not
being too self-indulgent, and most importantly that you're
getting something from this :)
I can see plainly that seeing doesn't require a seer. It's thethoughts that arise that I am the one seeing that are thenbelieved that cause the distinction of seer.
And -
In asking that again, what comes in response is that there isjust this perspective. It doesn't matter whether I call it "I" ornot. To call it "I" is an unnecessary label. To call it "I" is just tobelieve a thought that persistently wants to be believed.
Really nice stuff my friend. Beautiful. I think it was Alan Watts
who spoke about how much of our language (particularly
concerning personal pronouns) is unnecessary, or at least
misleading and badly constructed, and that it's entirely
conceivable for a new language to be developed to correct
these linguistic problems. So, fingers crossed for that one!
But until then, unfortunately, we still need this language to
communicate, so using terms like I, me, my is fine, if there is
an awareness of what they are really pointing to.
You said:
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through
the fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg to
be believed (are really "sticky")?
Yes, of course. Seeing through "I" doesn't actually destroy it,
right? It's seeing it never actually existed. So what ever was
there beforehand can definitely continue to come up after.
But once no-self is seen, it can never be unseen. Sometimes
sense of self can still come up quite strongly.
But sense of self isn't the same thing as belief in self.
I feel intuitively that that's true because at this point I've
accumulated so much knowledge and stuff in my head around
awakening that it's likely in the way now.
Yes, certainly, it can seem like the more you've learned, the
more there is to unlearn. But it's not as big an obstacle as it
seems. Knowledge isn't so bad and you don't need to be
completely rid of it. You just need to be able to set it aside for
long enough to do an honest enquiry. It's like hearsay. It
doesn't have to be banished, just let go of, so real knowing
can happen. See that knowledge isn't you or yours, that there's
no need to identify with it, and detaching comes easy. And
knowledge isn't something you can set your watch by either.
Something can be true or known one moment, and not the
next. Or, both true and not true at the same time, like
Schrodinger's cat.
I've said a lot of stuff about direct experience, and examining
it to find out what's true.
This is what it all boils down to - can a self, or any irrefutable
evidence of a self, be found in any way shape or form?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
Nemo- Posts: 42
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
- Location: Australia
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 5th, 2011, 5:27 pm
Nemo wrote:Hey there strangechord.
Do you play the guitar or piano?
No, neither. I sing, though. And I love music so much - pretty
wide musical taste. Everything from old school goth to
ambient to indie folk.
Nemo wrote:
Okay, so firstly, this point of reference stuff.Sorry that you didn't understand what I was getting at, somethings can be seen clear enough but sometimes difficult toexpress! Also keep in mind that everything said here is nottruth itself, only potential pointers to the truth.Let's try a different line of attack here.Think of "experience", or "life" as like the ocean. A wave canappear in it (much like "strangechord", as an expression of lifeappearing in the void), but the wave can't really said to be apoint of reference per se, it's always moving and changing andnever consists of the same water particles. It contains theocean itself. And if it is separated from the rest of the ocean,it can no longer be called either a wave or ocean. Does thatmake sense?
Yes, that makes sense. I've listened to Jeff Foster talk a lot
about the wave/ocean analogy and it makes perfect sense.
Nemo wrote:You said -
I understand that all there is is the reference point.
If a point of reference is all that is, can it still be called areference point? Is the ocean a point of reference in the ocean?
Touche! Yes, when this is "tried on" (all there is is reference
point), it is seen that there is also no reference point. This
body, these eyes see things differently and see different
things, however, from another person's eyes. It is this
different seeing that has always been called "I" or referred
to as the "I"'s reference point.
So, there is no seer, but there is seeing, which appears to startat the eyes and move outwards from there, yeah?But how can you be certain that this "seeing" doesn't actuallystart from the furthest point in the visual field and move intowards the eyes? Perhaps neither of these scenarios are true?Seeing requires both the eyes to see and the thing seen. Takethe seen away and there is no sight. Take the sight away andthere is nothing to see. So sight and what is seen are not reallytwo separate things, but instead crucial for the existence ofeach other, but more importantly of this one thing known asseeing. Nonduality - "not two".
Yes, that is clear, that both are crucial for the existence of
each other, for seeing.
Nemo wrote:
Let me ask you something, can there be a seeing-through the
fallacy of "I" and still "I" thoughts can come up and beg to be
believed (are really "sticky")?
Yes, of course. Seeing through "I" doesn't actually destroy it,
right? It's seeing it never actually existed. So what ever was
there beforehand can definitely continue to come up after.But once no-self is seen, it can never be unseen. Sometimessense of self can still come up quite strongly.
This gives some freedom, that it's not about destroying the
ego (just another word for sense of self), but seeing through it.
Here's where I'm hung up, though. No-self has been seen,
many times, but has not abided. The "me" comes up again at
some point and is believed again to some extent. So isn't that
the same as saying no-self is unseen again? I have a strong
desire for ABIDING seeing, for permanent liberation from
seeking. I am waiting for some "click" whereafter there is no
seeking or uncertainty anymore. I keep having the thought,
"Has there been awakening or not?" and am not 100% sure of
the answer. But then I think, probably not, or there wouldn't
still be all this seeking energy.
Nemo wrote:
I've said a lot of stuff about direct experience, and examiningit to find out what's true.This is what it all boils down to - can a self, or any irrefutableevidence of a self, be found in any way shape or form?
A self cannot be found. Only thoughts about a self, based in
time, based in story. Those thoughts don't have nearly the
hooking power they used to, not even close. But they're not
gone completely. They don't need to go away completely
because they only have hooking power when believed.
They are not believed or taken to be true that often anymore.
But if that is seen and understood - why no "click" still??
There is the intuitive feeling that the big block is some
expectation of what awakening will be like. Also, that it's
based in the future sometime.
It's all very exhausting - this seeking, this yearning. You
know, I don't feel any fear really (like most people do at the
gate?), but there's an awful lot of frustration and desperation.
When welcomed and met, these emotions melt away. But it
keeps arising.
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 5th, 2011, 7:09 pm
Ok, so after I typed that to you, I did some inquiry writing on
the computer. Here's what I wrote:
"What is this doubt?
This doubt is a fear of uncertainty.
Question: Who is uncertain? Who has doubt?
Reveals: It’s just thoughts.
Because I have images/ideas about what awakening looks/
feels like, I keep seeking just for that and discount
everything that isn’t that. The mind thinks it knows what it’s
after and will feel certain once it’s found. But who says the
mind’s ideas about awakening are accurate? The mind is
relying upon second hand knowledge from others and past
direct experiences to inform itself what to look for.
What if all of those ideas/images are relaxed?
There’s the persistent thought whenever I do inquiry or
presence meditation: “Is it about to click?” Almost as if the
mind believes it can will awakening to occur, to POP.
Everything is done with an “in order to” pop.
What if there is no POP, no click? Ever? What would that feel
like?
There’s a fear of just bumbling along through the rest of life,
being resigned to a blah life and feeling this yearning, this
seeking all the while in the background. There’s a fear that the
seeking would never stop and I would just be miserable and
hopeless. It feels like hope for awakening holds everything
together right now. That without the possibility of awakening,
I would just want to die. There wouldn’t be any point to
anything. There’s fear of living in this limbo the rest of my life.
There’s so much fear. There’s fear of hopelessness. There’s
not fear of annihilation of self, there’s fear of never seeing
through the self. Of being stranded, hopeless, in limbo, in
exile with this deep never-ending seeking."
After I wrote that, there were some tears and fear emotion. I
closed my eyes and welcomed that and took a look. Suddenly,
a voice out of nowhere said, "What do you know is true?" And
there was a resting-in-awareness. Resting in that I am, I exist.
That is the only thing known to be true.
There was then a few minutes spent absorbed in that, with
eyes closed. All the while, a lightness, almost spacey feeling in
the body and head. I then wrote:
"The mind throws up doubt. Doubt is just mental noise. Every
so often there’s a grasping – a wanting to hold onto what’s
here. Then there is a relaxing of that and a recognition that
what is always here can never be lost, just not seen.
There is looking: Is there an “I” who has woken up? There’s no
I, or rather, I is just seen as a thought that can be believed or
not. It is just not automatically believed. There’s only
identification with “I” if it is preferred.
Fear and doubt and grasping arise occasionally. There is still
“getting lost in thoughts” that happens. There’s even a little
judgment about that that arises. These are all such habits!
Same old, same old! Laughing and crying with this at the same
time. Same old habit, patterns, it really is just conditioning.
They are automatic, these habits. Emily gets lost in thoughts
and then judges herself for it. Habit.
Fear that this will not be abiding arises. That too is habit.
Wanting reassurance arises. Pet that thought on its head and
love it. Recognize that that thought doesn’t need to be
believed or taken seriously. There is just this."
Had a call with my husband (I am in my office at work during
all this!) and there was listening to him with total love,
acceptance and no strong opinions or desire to control. Very
effortless. A coworker came into my office go over something
work-related and there was a slight stunned-ness looking at
him, a sense that I had never seen him before. Nothing major,
just subtle.
So, every so often there is the wondering if this will be abiding.
And then the recognition that that is just a habit thought. An
echo of an echo of an echo thought, still reverberating around
my head. Who knows what this is. Who knows what will be
going on here tomorrow.
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by Nemo » October 6th, 2011, 2:24 am
Strangechord.
Emily.
Gahhhhhhhhh!!!!!
Your story resonates so much here it's astounding.
You write with such clear, fresh honesty. I feel as though I am
gulping lungfuls of pure cold oxygen.
No, neither. I sing, though. And I love music so much - pretty
wide musical taste. Everything from old school goth to ambientto indie folk.
Me too :) I sing a little and play piano/guitar. Have fun
mucking around with electronic sounds too. And very wide
musical taste. Music is my religion, for sure.
You seem to have responded to your own (brilliant) first post
with your second one, which is wonderful, so we can go from
there if you're good with that.
I love, love, love how you approach your inquiry.
Because I have images/ideas about what awakening looks/
feels like, I keep seeking just for that and discount everythingthat isn’t that. The mind thinks it knows what it’s after andwill feel certain once it’s found. But who says the mind’s ideasabout awakening are accurate? The mind is relying uponsecond hand knowledge from others and past directexperiences to inform itself what to look for.What if all of those ideas/images are relaxed?
Nothing to add to that. Simply perfect.
There’s the persistent thought whenever I do inquiry or
presence meditation: “Is it about to click?” Almost as if themind believes it can will awakening to occur, to POP.Everything is done with an “in order to” pop.
You know, there is no need to try and even stop the mind from
waiting for a pop. Just watch it with a playful curiosity, allow it
to play itself out and dissolve. Which is exactly what you seem
to be doing. Such a joy to watch!
Just as a side note in this - waiting for something to happen in
the future, and projecting in a future, will always remain in the
future. There is no waiting required for what is happening
right now - which is where "it" is already happening.
Future (and past) exist only as thoughts in this moment.
What if there is no POP, no click? Ever? What would that feel
like?
This made me grin like a goofy idiot. Aaaaahhhhh!!! :D
There’s a fear of just bumbling along through the rest of life,
being resigned to a blah life and feeling this yearning, thisseeking all the while in the background. There’s a fear that theseeking would never stop and I would just be miserable andhopeless. It feels like hope for awakening holds everythingtogether right now. That without the possibility of awakening,I would just want to die. There wouldn’t be any point toanything. There’s fear of living in this limbo the rest of my life.There’s so much fear. There’s fear of hopelessness. There’snot fear of annihilation of self, there’s fear of never seeingthrough the self. Of being stranded, hopeless, in limbo, inexile with this deep never-ending seeking."After I wrote that, there were some tears and fear emotion.
This made me tear up too!! I feel you. I am so with you in this,
every step of the way.
There is looking: Is there an “I” who has woken up? There’s no
I, or rather, I is just seen as a thought that can be believed ornot. It is just not automatically believed. There’s onlyidentification with “I” if it is preferred.
I know this analogy has been flogged to death but it's a good
one. You stopped believing in Santa as a kid, right? Can you
really, honestly, choose to believe in him again? Or just
entertain thoughts, fantasies, "what ifs"?
Why did you stop believing in Santa in the first place? Because
you realised your parents had been putting presents under the
tree the whole time. It was all a big charade. Maybe there is
some bearded guy actually living in the North Pole wearing a
red suit, who knows? It's possible. Even so, he still couldn't be
the Santa you once believed in, the one who climbed down
your chimney each year. That Santa didn't just disappear one
day, ready to return when you choose to believe again. He
never existed.
However - certain things were attributed to this Santa fallacy.
Presents, half-eaten cookie, empty glass of milk. The joy of
being a kid waking up on christmas morning. The nostalgia
and reliving of that joy. But these things didn't disappear
along with the Santa belief, these things were always real.
They existed without Santa the whole time. It's just been a
case of misidentification.
It's the same with self.
I said this before but I think it's quite an important distinction.
Sense of self isn't the same thing as belief in self.
Fear and doubt and grasping arise occasionally. There is still
“getting lost in thoughts” that happens. There’s even a littlejudgment about that that arises. These are all such habits!Same old, same old! Laughing and crying with this at the sametime. Same old habit, patterns, it really is just conditioning.They are automatic, these habits. Emily gets lost in thoughtsand then judges herself for it. Habit.
Crap, I've been laughing and crying along with you! Thank you
so much for sharing all this Emily. Really.
I don't get very emotional over this stuff too often. I think I
usually have a somewhat methodical, scientific feel to my
approach a lot of the time. Thanks for reminding me of the
humanity... tenderness... fragility.
Habits are patterns that have built up over a life time, as you
said. Quite often there are a lot built up around belief in self.
Seeing no-self doesn't make them disappear, but they don't
have to be there forever. Self is like their fuel, and when the
source is gone they are able to just run their course and fade
away without the continuous reinforcing there to maintain
them. Burning away karma. Don't force it, just observe, be
open, and allow things to unfold as they should.
Fear that this will not be abiding arises. That too is habit.
Yeah, things are going to happen the way they are meant to no
matter what your expectations. Trust. You're not in control,
life is steering this ship. And whatever happens, it will always
be the right and real and true thing.
It cannot be otherwise.
Wanting reassurance arises. Pet that thought on its headand love it. Recognize that that thought doesn’t need tobe believed or taken seriously. There is just this.
*heart melts*
Awesome! Why do you think this happened?
A coworker came into my office go over something work-related and there was a slight stunned-ness looking at him,a sense that I had never seen him before. Nothing major,just subtle.
Awesome! Why do you think this happened?
So, every so often there is the wondering if this will be abiding.And then the recognition that that is just a habit thought. Anecho of an echo of an echo thought, still reverberating aroundmy head. Who knows what this is. Who knows what will begoing on here tomorrow.
Yep. Yep. Yep. Thought. Wondering if it will be abiding,
or thinking it is not abiding, just thought.
Reality - truth - what is real, can never not be abiding.
No matter what.
You mentioned you have seen no-self several times.
Would you be willing to try and put these aside and do
it fresh, as if for the first time?
Let's go back to this statement:
The mind is relying upon second hand knowledge fromothers and past direct experiences to inform itself what tolook for.
Instead of only doing internal inquiry with the mind,
strip it right back and see how no-self might apply,
make sense, or not make sense in simple every-day
reality. Instead of just mind, use/look at body, senses,
environment, observation, honesty. How does self or
no-self relate?
Look in every place that self could possibly hide.
Illuminate every corner. Take as much time as is
needed to explore this.
Then come back and lay down some free-flow :)
Describe as much as you can about I/me/self.
What, where, why, how, who.
Really looking forward to it.
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/
Nemo- Posts: 42
- Joined: September 18th, 2011, 2:09 am
- Location: Australia
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 6th, 2011, 3:48 am
Thank you so much for working with me, Nemo. I am so glad
to hear there's resonance! So much delight reading your reply...
It's funny... There has been an attachment around a story of
needing to be special my whole life, of wanting to be more
memorable, more interesting, more deep than other people.
Your replies to my last post stirred that story and thoughts
arose around "see, look how special I am". They were caught
immediately - recognized as old, habitual story thoughts and
kinda made me chuckle. There is a tendency of mind here to
have "spiritual superiority" thoughts and want to believe them
and make it part of identity. Vigilance is absolutely important
here. Not judgment for those thoughts (which would just be
further personalization it seems), but vigilance that they
don't hook into belief. To be vigilant is to be awake.
After I wrote that last post to you and after an amazing
lunchtime in the outdoors and around people, I spent the
afternoon at the office feeling very tired and like there was
a "coming down", a fading of the certainty and exhilaration
I felt earlier. Still, though, the aperture, so to speak, stayed
somewhat more open than usual. I didn't have as much of a
disappointed, frustrated, hopeless feeling as I have in the
past that "oh, this wasn't abiding!". Instead, there was a gentle
recognition that nothing was lost, that any obscuration was all
in the mind. There was the knowing that thoughts of
separation and frustration did not have to be believed.
There's still the lingering question, how is there certainty that
the gate has been crossed? I heard Adya once say that the sure
sign that awakening has occurred is that seeking has ceased -
there is no more seeker to be found. I can't tell if seeking has
ceased... I think I'm too tired tonight and kind of worn out.
It's about 9pm here right now.
I love your question at the end of your post about self/no-self
in daily life. I will definitely answer it in the morning. Thank you
again, you are wonderful. There is so much gratitude here that
you understand what I have written and the particular inquiries
here.
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Re: strangechord, come in, let's make some music
by strangechord » October 6th, 2011, 11:45 pm
Hi, Nemo! What an internal roller coaster today! Huge
awakening this morning just like yesterday morning and
then a "coming down" and de-intensifying in the afternoon
with huge tiredness and some dizziness present. Is this
common? It feels like a definite process is going on here
this past week. The states go up and down, but there is an
underlying assuredness that all is well and there is nothing
that can be lost, even after blissful states have passed. It's
starting to seem that rather than one certain click, there is a
two steps forward, one step back kinda feel to all this. Does
that all make sense?
Wanted to share something I wrote this morning (after I wrote
this, I had to take a bathroom break because the urge to laugh
and cry simultaneously over how hilarious and wonderful it all
is was overwhelming!):
"If the 'I' identity is only found in thoughts and thoughts just
appear spontaneously, there really is no 'I' at all outside being
a thought about ownership that is believed. What is owned,
willed and claimed is simply a spontaneous appearance.
THIS is bliss. We are here to enjoy. All there is is this. Laughing
– it’s hilarious that there was ever believed to be any control!
It is so wonderful that there is no control – 'I' have no control
over anything!
There’s no fear of not abiding, because there’s just this. This
is always here. The fear of not abiding is just believing
thoughts about the I having any control over anything."
Anyway, I want to answer your question from before:
Nemo wrote:
Instead of only doing internal inquiry with the mind, strip itright back and see how no-self might apply, make sense, ornot make sense in simple every-day reality. Instead of justmind, use/look at body, senses, environment, observation,honesty. How does self or no-self relate?Look in every place that self could possibly hide. Illuminateevery corner. Take as much time as is needed to explore this.Then come back and lay down some free-flow :)Describe as much as you can about I/me/self.What, where, why, how, who.
With no-self, there's no urge to try and control anything.
Everything just kinda flows. There is a deep peace and
assuredness that everything that occurs and is experienced
is apt and fine. There is the recognition that any attempt to
control or get bent out of shape about anything is pointless
and just adds instant suffering. Life is going to unfold as it
unfolds whether the overlay of control is added or not. And
life is far more enjoyable and effortless without it.
There was a bit of an internal struggle all afternoon that I
should still feel all sorts of bliss and delight if this was indeed
IT. But let's take a look at that... An hour or so ago, there was
a familiar irritability/anger at having to do some work task
that previously hadn't been bothering me all day, and in fact
at times, had totally delighted me because there was so much
delight with everything. I saw that both the anger and the
delight were just states and that states come and go
spontaneously, just like thoughts, and that there is no control
over their coming and going. Freedom. Relief. When that
strange little anger arose earlier, I acknowledged it and
though there was the thought that this irrational anger was
odd, I welcomed it anyway. It barely lasted any time at all -
a few minutes at most.
This tiredness and a bit of dizziness/spaciness in the head
and eyes keeps coming every afternoon. This body probably
just needs more sleep this week!
There's no longer such an intense need for certainty as there
was even yesterday. So much seeking energy has gone. Is
there still seeking? It's not so much seeking, but a feeling
that this burgeoning awakening is fragile and needs to be
tended... the best analogy I can think of is that the fire has
been started and now needs to be stoked and tended so that
the blaze can burn ever brighter and hotter. Hmm, now that
I write that, I see that that's assuming the fire could go out if
not tended to, which implies that this seeing can be lost
again. *sigh* I don't know. Feeling really tired.
It was interesting being at work today while all of this was
going on. There are huge, productive bursts of getting stuff
done with no stories running in commentary. No old stories
of self-pity over the boringness of the work, no stories of
resentment toward coworkers, no stories of feeling the need
to irritatedly check in and control my husband from afar as
he takes care of our toddler at home. Just clean doing of the
work and it was delightful! The body/mind knew how to do
the work that had to get done and just did it.
Bits of experience over lunch at a restaurant of loving every
person I saw. Just heart melting love. Seeing them as no-self,
as having no control over anything and just loving them in
their humanness. Feeling really at ease with people - little
bits of self-conscious will pop up here and there, but there
is much more confidence in interacting with others. People
that normally kinda intimidated me (like my boss), there's
been ease and friendliness and almost no fear. There's so
much more patience than before with my husband. With the
recognition that he is not my long-running stories about him,
there is just love and patience.
There's still a pining for an all-is-one, world breaking down in
a crazy, ecstatic way kind of experience that will bring finality,
certainty, etc. But isn't it probably perfect that that is not
what's occurring? It allows me to see that that kind of
experience is what the mind wants.
I'll leave it at that for now - that was just a riff. Looking
forward to YOUR response!
strangechord- Posts: 9
- Joined: September 28th, 2011, 11:04 pm
- Location: Portland, Oregon, USA
Share |
1 comments:
This dialogue is amazing, gonna read it couple times at least. The whole issue about abiding/ non-abiding realization and the fact that Emily had awakening experiences in the morning, all the small little details speak to me. Thanks for posting this.
Post a Comment