The Futility of the Search for Meaning, or Why Everybody Loves Saturday Night

[another bob]

Irrespective of whatever temporary states, views, emotions, experiences, imaginations, or subtle perceptions arise in the course of life, I have never been able to separate myself from that mystical condition of being essentially clueless in regard to any and all of them.

This took a while to sink in, but it is frankly undeniable. Oh sure, I could usually grab a handy concept in retrospect and superimpose it on the field of chaos that passes for experience, and it might have even made some eccentric sense.

I might have even fallen down in awe at the bright clarity that mind conjures up from its limitless storehouse of holy self-confirming interpretations on what no longer exists -- the “me” that just was, before the current model replaced it (the one that also just got away).

Where did they come from, where do they go – these vanishing faces that leave no traces, moment to moment to moment?

Regardless, and to the point: the famously perpetual search for meaning -- who said we actually needed such a thing? Did it do any of them any enduring good – the meaning makers -- to have some reassuring meaning?

Were they able to re-direct the preposterous fluids swishing about in their neural viaducts in such a way that simply taking another breath amounted to something more significant than a reflexive impersonal automaticity?

And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning – an endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict. Who needs that?

Taking it all the way, is there really even any meaning to “Saturday Night”? Perhaps there is no Saturday Night, except by some consensus agreement, and speaking of which, why do we still have so much difficulty just getting along?

Maybe it's because we think we know something. Those who seem to think that they know something usually tend to be contentious, haven’t you noticed?

The truly humble ones don't ordinarily find themselves in conflict, because they understand right from the get-go that they don't know, so what's the beef?

It's only when we think we know something -- that we are in possession of some particular meaning that appears in need of protecting and defending -- that the waters get a bit choppy (even though the “meaning” itself was supposed to calm and pacify the turbulence of everyday life challenges).

We can even get pretty reactive when that meaning is challenged, is it not so? After all, our meanings are often essential to our self-images, and despite our grafted-on spiritual idealism to the contrary, those valiant stories of fascinating "me" won't go down without a fight (or flight)!

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires protection and defense. Defense implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge our cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.

If somebody is moved to bicker and fuss about whether the ego is an illusion or not, whether we are going to be annihilated or ascended or not, whether this religion is superior to that one or not, or whether enlightenment is a many splendored thing or not, let them knock themselves out. What’s the big problem?

Nevertheless, most of us habitually go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings perpetually, like little cranial factories that never shut down for the week-end so that everyone can rest, and maybe have some meaningless fun on Saturday Night.

After years of effort to figure it out, I myself have evolved/devolved to the point where finishing sentences requires more attention to pointless continuity than I care to summon any longer, and so I find that I’d rather just hum nonsense ditties and dance about like a fool with two happy feet.

Just so, imagine if somebody was getting a blood transfusion in one arm and bleeding it out through a hole in their chest. These days, there’s a big hole where my rib cage was. The wind blows through me, the sky breathes through me, sun and rain pour through me, without my encouragement or resistance, and certainly without any enduring meaning.

Really, there’s no need for some grand ultimate meaning, and who is there who could explain it all anyway? Maybe after all is said and done, that's what’s great about Saturday Night, and why everybody loves it!


:yo:

[marique3652]

Another Bob, I just have to tell you, you are a wonderful writer. You have a talent. Also I want to wish you a Happy weekend. The allusion about getting a blood transfusion and having it bleed out of their chest sounds like the story of my life actually. I feel pretty empty these days, and nothing seems to affect me much. Hopefully I will pull out of my trance soon. I no longer know who I am, where I am going, or where I will end up. I relate with what you have written, and what I think you are saying, lol. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

[another bob]

I no longer know who I am, where I am going, or where I will end up.

My Friend, this is actually an advantageous situation for you! Why? Because it is filled with the potential of the whole universe.


Here's a pertinent bit of wisdom in that regard, from Adyashanti:


"Human beings have a drive for security and safety, which is often
what fuels the spiritual search. This very drive for security and
safety is what causes so much misery and confusion. Freedom is a
state of complete and absolute insecurity and not knowing. So, in
seeking security and safety, you actually distance yourself from the
Freedom you want. There is no security in Freedom, at least not in
the sense that we normally think of it. This is, of course, why it is
so free; there's nothing there to grab hold of.
The Unknown is more vast, more open, more peaceful, and more freeing
than you ever imagined it would be. If you don't experience it that
way, it means you're not resting there; you're still trying to know.
That will cause you to suffer because you're choosing security over
Freedom.
When you rest deeply in the Unknown without trying to escape, your
experience becomes very vast. As the experience of the Unknown
deepens, your boundaries begin to dissolve. You realize, not just
intellectually but on a deep level, that you have no idea who or what
you are. A few minutes ago, you knew who you were—you had a history
and a personality—but from this place of not knowing, you question
all of that. Liberated people live in the Unknown and understand that
the only reason they know what they are is because they rest in the
Unknown moment by moment without defining who they are with the mind.
You can imagine how easy it is to get caught in the concept of the
Unknown and seek that instead of the Truth. If you seek the concept
you'll never be Free, but if you stop looking to myths and concepts
and become more interested in the Unknown than in what you know, the
door will be flung open. Until then, it will remain closed. I've seen
people who have never meditated come to satsang and have a deep
experience of the Unknown, and I've known many who remain in the
trance because they stay with the mind's techniques and strategies.
There is no prerequisite for experiencing the Unknown. Everyone has
equal access to it."



:yo:

[dan i el]

Come off it Bob, no offence Brother but the penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:

[Whiskey_Mystic]

Come off it Bob, your penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:

You say "snikkety comments" like that's a bad thing.

[dan i el]

Come off it Bob, your penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:

You say "snikkety comments" like that's a bad thing.

lulz not at all!!

[songsfortheotherkind]

I might have even fallen down in awe at the bright clarity that mind conjures up from its limitless storehouse of holy self-confirming interpretations on what no longer exists -- the “me” that just was, before the current model replaced it (the one that also just got away)...
Regardless, and to the point: the famously perpetual search for meaning -- who said we actually needed such a thing? Did it do any of them any enduring good – the meaning makers -- to have some reassuring meaning?
...
And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning – an endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict. Who needs that?

Taking it all the way, is there really even any meaning to “Saturday Night”? Perhaps there is no Saturday Night, except by some consensus agreement, and speaking of which, why do we still have so much difficulty just getting along?

Maybe it's because we think we know something. Those who seem to think that they know something usually tend to be contentious, haven’t you noticed?

The truly humble ones don't ordinarily find themselves in conflict, because they understand right from the get-go that they don't know, so what's the beef?

It's only when we think we know something -- that we are in possession of some particular meaning that appears in need of protecting and defending -- that the waters get a bit choppy (even though the “meaning” itself was supposed to calm and pacify the turbulence of everyday life challenges).

We can even get pretty reactive when that meaning is challenged, is it not so? After all, our meanings are often essential to our self-images, and despite our grafted-on spiritual idealism to the contrary, those valiant stories of fascinating "me" won't go down without a fight (or flight)!

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires protection and defense. Defense implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge our cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.

If somebody is moved to bicker and fuss about whether the ego is an illusion or not, whether we are going to be annihilated or ascended or not, whether this religion is superior to that one or not, or whether enlightenment is a many splendored thing or not, let them knock themselves out. What’s the big problem?

Nevertheless, most of us habitually go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings perpetually, like little cranial factories that never shut down for the week-end so that everyone can rest, and maybe have some meaningless fun on Saturday Night.

After years of effort to figure it out, I myself have evolved/devolved to the point where finishing sentences requires more attention to pointless continuity than I care to summon any longer, and so I find that I’d rather just hum nonsense ditties and dance about like a fool with two happy feet.

Just so, imagine if somebody was getting a blood transfusion in one arm and bleeding it out through a hole in their chest. These days, there’s a big hole where my rib cage was. The wind blows through me, the sky breathes through me, sun and rain pour through me, without my encouragement or resistance, and certainly without any enduring meaning.

Really, there’s no need for some grand ultimate meaning, and who is there who could explain it all anyway? Maybe after all is said and done, that's what’s great about Saturday Night, and why everybody loves it!


:yo:

*laughing, bowing* The Sui Generis in me salutes the Sui Generis in you.

Infinite complexity and opposite perspectives, all dancing without conflict... :)

[Selene]

What a superb meditation, Another Bob!

Like you, I know nothing. Except that every once in a while I imagine I might know "something", a little bit. I am undoubtedly temporarily deluded but these illusions allow me to struggle onward, step by step on my mountainous path toward truth.

My fondest and most respectful greetings, my dear brother and companion along the way.

Please write on. You are heard with gratitude and most respectful fondness.

Regards,

Selene

[gooty64]

Come off it Bob, no offence Brother but the penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:

[Mod-edit: comment deleted. -Paul.]

[dan i el]

Come off it Bob, no offence Brother but the penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:[Mod-edit: comment deleted. -Paul.]


Jeez, there's really no need to [Mod-edit: details of reply deleted. -Paul.]

dLAaEP6R6Zg

[songsfortheotherkind]

well, *that* didn't take long...

*heads back to the Pub*

[jorr lundstrom]

Meaning, naaa. Never found any. Saturday nights, I remember
experiencing those, they are gone. As are all the other nights. LOL
Experiencing living, the feeling of being alive is nice, joyful, but I
cant say it carries meaning. I suddenly realize, I dunno wot the word
meaning is pointing at any longer. LOL

All is well


Jorr

[greybeard]

"A Course in Miracles" devotes a lot of exercises to this but basically things only have the meaning we give them and that is flawed.
One exercise is "I am determined to see things as they really are"
Only the enlightened can do that--- they see everything fresh and anew as though for he first time.
Nothing has any meaning or even purpose-- everything has potential though.
When you begin to question "who I am?" progress i being made.
Saturday nights were, at one time, freedom from this illusion by diving into another one.

C

[Alie]

I created a useful exercise a while back called "favorite days". Although more to it than what I'm offering here, this helps me "feel" free.

List your favorite days --- maybe two or three. Don't think and rationalize, just write down what comes to mind. Ok, now you have a few of your favorite days listed, so now describe EVERYTHING about those days -- all the ingredients that were in that day. Do this for each one.

Now look across your list and find the common ingredients.

Whatever you find that is common to all or most of your favorite days, add to your day whenever you can.

For me, I add a warm gentle breeze, very blue sky, driving/walking around lots of trees. That always resets me.

[Sebastion]

I would beg to differ with some opinions on this thread. Life does have a meaning and it's all about Love. It's about exploring what that may be in all of It's aspects, what it is and what it is not. It's as simple and profound as that. It's about taking the "idea" of love to its profoundest depths in as many ways and aspects as can be imagined. I have found no other purpose for Life as it exists through out all of creation. The best place to start is with yourself! There are many who talk about Love but how many really, really walk the talk?

[marique3652]

I no longer know who I am, where I am going, or where I will end up.

My Friend, this is actually an advantageous situation for you! Why? Because it is filled with the potential of the whole universe.


Here's a pertinent bit of wisdom in that regard, from Adyashanti:


"Human beings have a drive for security and safety, which is often
what fuels the spiritual search. This very drive for security and
safety is what causes so much misery and confusion. Freedom is a
state of complete and absolute insecurity and not knowing. So, in
seeking security and safety, you actually distance yourself from the
Freedom you want. There is no security in Freedom, at least not in
the sense that we normally think of it. This is, of course, why it is
so free; there's nothing there to grab hold of.
The Unknown is more vast, more open, more peaceful, and more freeing
than you ever imagined it would be. If you don't experience it that
way, it means you're not resting there; you're still trying to know.
That will cause you to suffer because you're choosing security over
Freedom.
When you rest deeply in the Unknown without trying to escape, your
experience becomes very vast. As the experience of the Unknown
deepens, your boundaries begin to dissolve. You realize, not just
intellectually but on a deep level, that you have no idea who or what
you are. A few minutes ago, you knew who you were—you had a history
and a personality—but from this place of not knowing, you question
all of that. Liberated people live in the Unknown and understand that
the only reason they know what they are is because they rest in the
Unknown moment by moment without defining who they are with the mind.
You can imagine how easy it is to get caught in the concept of the
Unknown and seek that instead of the Truth. If you seek the concept
you'll never be Free, but if you stop looking to myths and concepts
and become more interested in the Unknown than in what you know, the
door will be flung open. Until then, it will remain closed. I've seen
people who have never meditated come to satsang and have a deep
experience of the Unknown, and I've known many who remain in the
trance because they stay with the mind's techniques and strategies.
There is no prerequisite for experiencing the Unknown. Everyone has
equal access to it."



:yo:

Thank you so much for this response, it is just what I needed to hear. I think I want to go in the direction mentioned. I am coming out of a real bad year where a lot of loved ones passed away. I found in the past I defined myself a lot by the role I played in peoples' lives and that gave me security and identity. I lost my two parents in two months time, Mom in November 2011 and my Dad in Jan, 2012, and I lost my son in February 2011. It has been a really rough emotional time for me. All of a sudden I could not define myself as being the loving and devoted daughter, nor can I now define myself as my son Markie's parent, he was murdered and now gone. It was as if all of a sudden everyting I thought about who I am and why I am here got yanked out from under me, and I felt myself drowning and very very afraid about the future, it looked so bleak and empty to me. I am disabled and cannot work any longer and I defined myself a lot by my job, which has always been public service helping people less fortunate than myself which I took a great deal of satisfaction with, I am divorced, which is another role I defined myself by, being the best wife I could be, and that role is shot to hell too. Kids are grown and one is dead, so no active role there to fulfill my time and energies anymore. I am not sharing this information to get sympathy or hold a pity party, lol, just trying to clarify why I said I do not know who I am anymore, or where I am going in life, or why I even exist.

I am now going to try to shed all the preconcieved thoughts about who I am and why I am on the planet earth. Time for a whole new me, as your sharing helped me to see. The quote "That will cause you to suffer because you're choosing security over Freedom." is so true and accurate. I always felt secure in all the roles I played and defined myself by. I feel insecure now, very very insecure. So now is the time to stop looking back and take the "Eckhard Tolle" approach and begin to live totally in the now, with no looking back and no projecting worry forward. Just revel in the now of things and explore the unknown as you said. Guess now I am an empty basket just waiting to be filled. I will try to look at it that way, it should help immeasurably. Adyashanti's wisdom has really helped me to look at things differently. Kind of the like the cup being half full or half empty comes to mind.

Thank you so much for your response, it has really resonated with me, and helped to snap me out of my trance. Love to you.

[another bob]

Come off it Bob, no offence Brother but the penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:


Hiya Dan!

It seems that you believe yourself to be a someone who's "swimming in gloop" -- good luck with that self-image!




*laughing, bowing* The Sui Generis in me salutes the Sui Generis in you.

Infinite complexity and opposite perspectives, all dancing without conflict... :)


Songs, what can I say? Your continual brilliance is breath-taking! This forum was lucky/blessed when you signed on!



Like you, I know nothing. Except that every once in a while I imagine I might know "something", a little bit. I am undoubtedly temporarily deluded but these illusions allow me to struggle onward, step by step on my mountainous path toward truth.

Selene, Dear Sister, your kind regard is deeply appreciated!

Two guides who've helped me:

"To know that you do not know -- that is true knowledge." - Sri Nsargadatta
 
"The joy of the saints is a joy of incomprehension; they understand that they cannot understand." - Angela Foligna





well, *that* didn't take long...

*heads back to the Pub*


Hey, take Dave with you . . .

http://i43.tinypic.com/2jfkves.gif







I suddenly realize, I dunno wot the word
meaning is pointing at any longer. LOL


My Dear Friend, for you (and Maria):

"I set myself in a corner, and there had my work with me, but could scarcely do anything by reason of the force of the attraction which
made the work fall out of my hands. I passed whole hours this way, without being able either to open my eyes or know what passed; but I
had nothing to wish for, nor yet to be afraid of. Everywhere I found my proper center, because everywhere I found God. My heart could then desire nothing but what it had. This disposition extinguished all its desires; and I sometimes said to myself, "What wantest thou? What fearest thou?" I was surprised to find upon trial that I had nothing to fear. Every place I was in was my proper place.”

~Jeanne-Marie de la Motte-Guyon


"The soul, then, experiences and possesses God's sweetness more from what it does not comprehend than from what it comprehends, more from what it does not see than from what it sees, more from what it does not feel than from what it feels, more finally, from what it does not know than from what it knows. It seems to me that this is the reason that no matter how perfect the soul, even if it is as perfect as that of the Blessed Virgin, it comprehends nothing of God, the ordainer, uncreated and infinite. From looking at what it sees, feels and knows, it sees, feels, and knows that it cannot see, feel, and know".

~Angela of Foligno




...basically things only have the meaning we give them....

Hiya Chris!

Echoing your thought:

"All you need to understand is you are the source of reality, you give reality instead of getting it, you need no support and no confirmation."

~Sri Nisargadatta




I created a useful exercise a while back called "favorite days". Although more to it than what I'm offering here, this helps me "feel" free.

Hiya Alie!

Something for you:

Every day you play with the light of the universe.
Subtle visitor, you arrive in the flower and the water.
You are more than this white head that I hold tightly
as a cluster of fruit, every day, between my hands.

You are like nobody since I love you.
Let me spread you out among yellow garlands.
Who writes your name in letters of smoke among the stars of the south?
Oh let me remember you as you were before you existed.

Suddenly the wind howls and bangs at my shut window.
The sky is a net crammed with shadowy fish.
Here all the winds let go sooner or later, all of them.
The rain takes off her clothes.

The birds go by, fleeing.
The wind. The wind.
I can contend only against the power of men.
The storm whirls dark leaves
and turns loose all the boats that were moored last night to the sky.

You are here. Oh, you do not run away.
You will answer me to the last cry.
Cling to me as though you were frightened.
Even so, at one time a strange shadow ran through your eyes.

Now, now too, little one, you bring me honeysuckle,
and even your breasts smell of it.
While the sad wind goes slaughtering butterflies
I love you, and my happiness bites the plum of your mouth.

How you must have suffered getting accustomed to me,
my savage, solitary soul, my name that sends them all running.
So many times we have seen the morning star burn, kissing our eyes,
and over our heads the gray light unwind in turning fans.

My words rained over you, stroking you.
A long time I have loved the sunned mother-of-pearl of your body.
I go so far as to think that you own the universe.
I will bring you happy flowers from the mountains, bluebells,
dark hazels, and rustic baskets of kisses.
I want to do with you what spring does with the cherry trees.

Pablo Neruda




It's about taking the "idea" of love to its profoundest depths in as many ways and aspects as can be imagined.


Hiya Sebastion!

Sometimes it's our *idea* of love that paradoxically stands in the way of love's full realization.

Here's something you might enjoy:


Twelve Hours

The nature from which true love springs has twelve hours which drive love out of herself and bring her back in herself. And when love comes back in herself she brings with her all that makes the unspeakable hours drive her out of herself: a mind that seeks to know, a heart full of desire, and a soul full of love. And when love brings these back she throws them into the abyss of the mighty nature in which she was born and nurtured. Then the unspeakable hours enter nature unknown. Then love has come to herself and rejoices in her nature, below, above, and around. And all those who stay below this knowledge shudder at those who have fallen into the abyss and work there and live and die. For such is love's command and her nature.

In the first unspeakable hour of the twelve that draw the soul into love's nature, love reveals herself and touches the soul unexpected and uninvited when her nobility leads us to least suspect it. No matter how strong-natured, the soul fails to understand, for this is truly an unspeakable hour.

The second unspeakable hour love makes the heart taste a violent death, and the heart goes through death, but it does not die. And yet the soul has not known love for long, and has barely moved from the first to the second hour.

In the third unspeakable hour love shows how one may die and live in her, and how one cannot love without great suffering.

In the fourth unspeakable hour love makes the soul taste her hidden designs, which are deep and darker than the abyss. Then love reveals how miserable the soul is without love. But the soul does not yet partake of love's nature. This hour is truly unspeakable, for the beloved is made to accept love's designs before he possesses love.

In the fifth unspeakable hour love seduces the heart and the soul, and the soul is driven out of herself and out of love's nature and back into love's nature. The soul has then ceased to wonder about the power and darkness of love's designs, and has forgotten the pains of love. Then the soul knows love only through love herself, which may seem lower but is not. For where knowledge is most intimate the beloved knows least.

In the sixth unspeakable hour love despises reason and all that lies within reason and above it and below. Whatever belongs to reason stands against the blessed state of love. For reason cannot take away anything from love or bring anything to love, for love's true reason is a flood that rises forever and knows no peace.

In the seventh unspeakable hour nothing can dwell in love or touch her except desire. And touch is love 's most secret name, and touch springs from love herself. For love is always touch and desire and feasts on herself forever. Yet love is perfect in herself.

The eighth unspeakable hour brings bewilderment when the beloved learns that he cannot know love's nature from her face. Yet the face is held to reveal the inmost nature, and that is most hidden in love. For that she is herself in herself. Love's other limbs and her works are easier to know and understand.

The ninth unspeakable hour brings love's fiercest storm, harshest touch, and deepest desires. The face is sweetest there, at peace, and most winsome. And the deeper love wounds the one she assails, the sweeter she drowns him in herself with the soft splendor of her face. And there she shows herself in her loveliness.

The tenth unspeakable hour is that when no one judges love, but when love judges all things. From God she takes the power to judge all she loves. Love does not yield to saints or men, or angels, heaven or earth, and she enfolds the divine in her nature. To love she calls the hearts who love, in a voice that is loud and untiring. The voice has great power and it tells of things more terrible than thunder. This word is the rope love uses to bind her prisoners, this is the sword she turns on those whom she touches, it is the rod she uses to chastise her children, this is the craft she teaches her companions.

In the eleventh unspeakable hour love possesses the beloved by force. For not a moment can he stray from her, or his heart desire or his soul love. And love makes the memory shrink and the beloved cannot think of saints or men, or angels, heaven or earth, God or himself, but of love alone who has possessed him in a present ever new.

In the twelfth unspeakable hour love is the likeness of her uppermost nature. Only now she breaks out of herself and she works with herself and sinks deep in herself, utterly satisfied with her nature.
She fully rejoices in herself, and even if no one loved her, the name of love would give her enough loveliness in the nature of her splendid self. Her name which is her nature inside her, her name which is her works outside her, her name which is her crown above her, her name which is the soil under her.

These are the twelve unspeakable hours of love. For in none of the twelve can love be understood, except by those I mentioned, those who have been thrown into the abyss of love's mighty nature and those who belong there, and they believe in love more than they understand her.

~Hadewijch of Antwerp



I am now going to try to shed all the preconcieved thoughts about who I am and why I am on the planet earth. Time for a whole new me, as your sharing helped me to see.

Dear Marique,

Thank you for your generosity in sharing, as well as your resolve and determination to rise above the past! I can relate to your life experience to some extent. I too lost both parents within a few months of each other, at the same time I was going through a divorce and a big career change and transcontinetal relocation. I now consider those difficult experiences to be gifts of true blessing, despite how they seemed then, since I was forced to dig much deeper than I had been willing to go, prior to that time. In doing so, I discovered a treasure for which my gratitude has no limit, so all I can say is, persevere with your inner exploration, and realize that you have been given an opportunity to mature in real wisdom and understanding.

Here's something more for you that might be useful:


When Marpa, the great Tibetan meditation master and teacher of Milarepa, lost his son he wept bitterly. One of his pupils came up to him and asked: "Master, why are you weeping? You teach us that death is an illusion." And Marpa said: "Death is an illusion. And the death of a child is an even greater illusion."

Marpa showed his disciple that while he could understand the truth about the conditioned nature of everything and the emptiness of forms, he could still be a human being. He could feel what he was feeling; he could open to his grief. He could be completely present to feel that loss.

There is nothing incongruous about feeling our feelings, touching our pain, and, at the same time understanding the truth of the way things are. Pain is pain; grief is grief; loss is loss - we can accept those things. Suffering is what we add onto them when we push away, when we say, "No, I can't."

...So the difference between pain and suffering is the difference between freedom and bondage. If we're able to be with our pain, then we can accept, investigate and heal. But if it's not okay to grieve, to be angry, or to feel frightened or lonely then it's not okay to look at what we are feeling, and it's not okay to hold it in our hearts and to find our peace with it. When we can't feel what must be felt, when we resist or try to run from life, then we are enslaved. Where we cling is where we suffer, but when we simply feel the naked pain on its own, our suffering dies... That's the death we need to die.

Through ignorance, not understanding who we are, we create so many prisons. We are unable to be awake, to feel true loving-kindness for ourselves, or even to love the person sitting next to us. If we can't open our hearts to the deepest wounds, if we can't cross the abyss the mind has created through its ignorance, selfishness, greed, and hatred, then we are incapable of loving, of realising our true potential. We remain unable to finish the business of this life.

By taking responsibility for what we feel, taking responsibility for our actions and speech, we build the foundation of the path to freedom. We know the result that wholesome action brings - for ourselves and for others. When we speak or act in an unkind way - when we are dishonest, deceitful, critical or resentful - then we are the ones that really suffer. Somewhere within us, there is a residue of that posture of the mind, that attitude of the heart.

In pain we burn but, with mindfulness, we use that pain to burn through to the ending of pain. It's not something negative. It is sublime. It is complete freedom from every kind of suffering that arises; because of a realisation - because of wisdom - not because we have rid ourselves of unpleasant experience, only holding on to the pleasant, the joyful. We still feel pain, we still get sick and we die, but we are no longer afraid, we no longer get shaken.

When we are able to come face to face with our own direst fears and vulnerability, when we can step into the unknown with courage and openness, we touch near to the mysteries of this traverse through the human realm to an authentic self-fulfillment. We touch what we fear the most, we transform it, we see the emptiness of it. In that emptiness, all things can abide, all things come to fruition. In this very moment, we can free ourselves...

Nibbana is not out there in the future; we have to let go of the future, let go of the past...Jelaluddin Rumi wrote: "The most secure place to hide a treasure of gold is some desolate, unnoticed place. Why would anyone hide treasure in plain sight? And so it is said: 'Joy is hidden in sorrow.'"

The illumined master Marpa weeping over his child - does his experience of the loss of his young child diminish his wisdom? Or is it just the supreme humility of a great man, a great sage expressing the wholeness of his being, of his humanity.

I want to encourage each one of you to keep investigating, keep letting go of your fear. Remember that fear of death is the same as fear of life. What are we afraid of? When we deeply feel and, at the same time, truly know that experience we can come to joy. It is still possible to live fully as a human being, completely accepting our pain; we can grieve and yet still rejoice at the way things are.

- Ayya Medhanandi
The Joy Hidden in Sorrow



Again, Deep Thanks to all who have joined in this consideration!

:yo:

[dan i el]

Come off it Bob, no offence Brother but the penchant for snikkety comments in your posts belies the fact that you're still essentially swimming in the gloop just like the rest of us :smokin:


Hiya Dan!

It seems that you believe yourself to be a someone who's "swimming in gloop" -- good luck with that self-image!

:yo:

THE gloop, Bob. I'm describing it as a general condition.

"If you are attached to the positive states, you'll be attached to the negative states..you can't have one without the other" - Adyashanti "Awake in the Modern World"

[onawah]

I am not feeling a need to add to this discussion just now, but am very grateful it is here to be read, digested and enjoyed...thanks.

[Ba-ba-Ra]

Reading lengthy texts no longer has appeal for me, although I did it for many years. More often these days I randomly select a book from my shelves and then randomly open it, only to read a sentence, page or paragraph that seems to call to me.

Today, after reading this thread I opened "The Third Millennium" by Ken Carey and here are the words that popped out at me.

"Often the initial phase of awakening is more emotional than conceptual, but that is enough to allow the thought and sensation of Divine Intelligence to flow into them and their decision making. They may not fully understand it mentally, but they feel something, experience something. They have tapped into a new way of being. They act on it, trust it and it works. Now they are acting on intuition rather than programming."

[another bob]

"Often the initial phase of awakening is more emotional than conceptual, but that is enough to allow the thought and sensation of Divine Intelligence to flow into them and their decision making. They may not fully understand it mentally, but they feel something, experience something. They have tapped into a new way of being. They act on it, trust it and it works. Now they are acting on intuition rather than programming."

Thanks, Ba!

Reminds me of this, from Nisargadatta:

"Spiritual knowledge should not be studied. It is knowledge derived from listening. When the listener hears it, and accepts it, something clicks in him. What you hear must enter you like an arrow and hit something deep within you. There must be an internal reaction; without the reaction, what you hear won't do you any good. You should know it when the arrow reaches its mark.
As our spiritual knowledge grows, our identification with an individual body mind diminishes and our consciousness expands into universal consciousness. While I am talking about knowledge that is beyond the phenomenal world, you are trying to understand through worldly concept and words.
If you continue in the realm of intellect you will become entangled and lost in more and more concepts. Spirituality is nothing more than understanding this play of consciousness. You must have a thorough knowledge of this consciousness. And having known everything about the consciousness, you come to the conclusion that it is all unreal, and then it should drop off.
Then you will understand that, this is also to be discarded. It is not possible for you to acquire knowledge, you are knowledge. You are what you are seeking. This kind of knowledge comes only in a rare case, and is a very elusive kind of knowledge, where no effort is necessary. In fact, effort itself is a hindrance. It is intuitive understanding."


:yo:

[Ernie Nemeth]

Thanks Bob. I've have diffuculty separating the illusion from reality, duh.

Because of my mistaken identification with form, with concepts, I often overlook the context, the truth.
And so I say I hate this world and the life I am forced to live. But I do not hate my life, only the society I find myself chained to.
This distinction seems trivial, yet it makes all the difference.

I love life and its potential. And the meaning I ascribe to things is my personal reality, no one else's.
However, meaning rides atop our communications. Meaning is the communication itself, not the form it takes. Communication is the context, the content is always the same.

For if we knew ourselves as we truly are and not as we believe ourselves to be, communication would be unnecessary.
Meaning would just BE.

Thanks so much.

[Maria Stade]

When the grabbing stops and you can be what you truly are ... you are ..free.
To live in the moment and experice life as it is... is joy.
With no attatchment to the fiction made up person ..that was not me.. she did what she tought to be the best in every moment.
Life have given experieces, meetings in the moment with many souls. Some just for a moment and others we have had the oportunity to know for longer time.
The day you see every moment shared with others as pressus, and special and unic you are there and can enjoy the other as they are.
Memorys is the movie about the shared past, it is sellective and also a construct of the programing and system.
When the mirror crash a new movie will revile it self, the one that saw it all from a nother perspectiv, not with any opinions, just recording.

Life is filled with moments be there.

The future is fiction made up by mind. All toughts about tomorrow is made up.

Love is the life flowing trough the One... that is the soul self realised by the one.
One can not be love by affimation or training or anything else ... that would just be ..wanna be love.

Love thy self.. when every aspect of self is accsepted by self, then love is possible and the truth is, that as long as one dose not love and honore self,
there will be no true LOVE.

Peek moments many have had.. to be IN LOVE.

Love is in the core of every soul, but it is like a flower that blossoms when it is ready.
Like the flower the soul dont need any confirmation or metods it just need to say YES.

Thank you for this exellent thread :grouphug:

[another bob]

Thanks Bob. I've have diffuculty separating the illusion from reality, duh.

Because of my mistaken identification with form, with concepts, I often overlook the context, the truth.
And so I say I hate this world and the life I am forced to live. But I do not hate my life, only the society I find myself chained to.
This distinction seems trivial, yet it makes all the difference.

I love life and its potential. And the meaning I ascribe to things is my personal reality, no one else's.
However, meaning rides atop our communications. Meaning is the communication itself, not the form it takes. Communication is the context, the content is always the same.

For if we knew ourselves as we truly are and not as we believe ourselves to be, communication would be unnecessary.
Meaning would just BE.

Thanks so much.

Hiya Ernie, and Thanks for your comments!

It occurs to me that you might enjoy looking over the conversations taking place on the thread "Perspectives on the Mind Virus . . .", where on page 3, especially, the issue of words as well as wordless communication is being examined.

:yo:

[aranuk]

Irrespective of whatever temporary states, views, emotions, experiences, imaginations, or subtle perceptions arise in the course of life, I have never been able to separate myself from that mystical condition of being essentially clueless in regard to any and all of them.

This took a while to sink in, but it is frankly undeniable. Oh sure, I could usually grab a handy concept in retrospect and superimpose it on the field of chaos that passes for experience, and it might have even made some eccentric sense.

I might have even fallen down in awe at the bright clarity that mind conjures up from its limitless storehouse of holy self-confirming interpretations on what no longer exists -- the “me” that just was, before the current model replaced it (the one that also just got away).

Where did they come from, where do they go – these vanishing faces that leave no traces, moment to moment to moment?

Regardless, and to the point: the famously perpetual search for meaning -- who said we actually needed such a thing? Did it do any of them any enduring good – the meaning makers -- to have some reassuring meaning?

Were they able to re-direct the preposterous fluids swishing about in their neural viaducts in such a way that simply taking another breath amounted to something more significant than a reflexive impersonal automaticity?

And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning – an endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict. Who needs that?

Taking it all the way, is there really even any meaning to “Saturday Night”? Perhaps there is no Saturday Night, except by some consensus agreement, and speaking of which, why do we still have so much difficulty just getting along?

Maybe it's because we think we know something. Those who seem to think that they know something usually tend to be contentious, haven’t you noticed?

The truly humble ones don't ordinarily find themselves in conflict, because they understand right from the get-go that they don't know, so what's the beef?

It's only when we think we know something -- that we are in possession of some particular meaning that appears in need of protecting and defending -- that the waters get a bit choppy (even though the “meaning” itself was supposed to calm and pacify the turbulence of everyday life challenges).

We can even get pretty reactive when that meaning is challenged, is it not so? After all, our meanings are often essential to our self-images, and despite our grafted-on spiritual idealism to the contrary, those valiant stories of fascinating "me" won't go down without a fight (or flight)!

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires protection and defense. Defense implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge our cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.

If somebody is moved to bicker and fuss about whether the ego is an illusion or not, whether we are going to be annihilated or ascended or not, whether this religion is superior to that one or not, or whether enlightenment is a many splendored thing or not, let them knock themselves out. What’s the big problem?

Nevertheless, most of us habitually go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings perpetually, like little cranial factories that never shut down for the week-end so that everyone can rest, and maybe have some meaningless fun on Saturday Night.

After years of effort to figure it out, I myself have evolved/devolved to the point where finishing sentences requires more attention to pointless continuity than I care to summon any longer, and so I find that I’d rather just hum nonsense ditties and dance about like a fool with two happy feet.

Just so, imagine if somebody was getting a blood transfusion in one arm and bleeding it out through a hole in their chest. These days, there’s a big hole where my rib cage was. The wind blows through me, the sky breathes through me, sun and rain pour through me, without my encouragement or resistance, and certainly without any enduring meaning.

Really, there’s no need for some grand ultimate meaning, and who is there who could explain it all anyway? Maybe after all is said and done, that's what’s great about Saturday Night, and why everybody loves it!


:yo:

Hi Bob great thinking here. BTW what are you doing tonight?:rolleyes:

Stan

[another bob]

Love is in the core of every soul, but it is like a flower that blossoms when it is ready.
Like the flower the soul dont need any confirmation or metods it just need to say YES.


The listening born within silence, the intimacy of the sun with the horizon, the way some streams just end in the middle of nowhere in particular, exhaling an invisible secret sound that every light-eyed creature among us can bathe in – all of this is evidence to anyone divided from themselves that they are truly not.

Each sound we make is carried on the breath of some god that nobody has yet found a way to worship. We are a feather on that breath – blown far and deep into the Heart's unconditional embrace by welcoming songs for which none can account, any more than that fluid music streaming gently though an empty sky can be explained as random rain.

The ordinary person dreams in the mind, unaware of their home in the Heart. The lover lives in the Heart. The lover is lived by the Heart, awakening to a constant lyrical whisper of Union. For the lover, there is nothing but the mysterious singing of Love into all forms and relationships as a symphonic poem with no beginning, no end.

In the realm some call "this world", the lover knows that whatever they hear is not separate from That in which all arises and dissolves as the myriad forms of their own singing being. Love hears nothing as greater or lesser, higher or lower, better or worse, more or less desirable. All is only Love to such ears.

Friends, Lovers – beyond any rhyme or reason, be that kind of hearing that all ears grow themselves for,Yes-- for that unfailing homing sound of Love!


:yo:

[another bob]

BTW what are you doing tonight?

Hiya Stan!

Tonight, nothing makes a difference. Perhaps it always has.

Blown along cold coasts of reason, the breeze is winding down now to a softer part of the feeling, is warm on the tip of the eye I am keeping like a lover on this moon.

This moon!

Her naked radiance, blatant and unashamed, blasts the billion tiny mirrors studded diamond-like within my cells, now set ablaze with urgent whitelight moonshine!

Some familiar fog now slips between us two, my Love and I, as far from my nose as it is to her toes, while we are tempted to the old debate:

“Since perception is experience and emptiness is experience, since knowing is experience and delusion is experience, since arising is experience and cessation is experience, what remains when all of our cherished assumptions about experience are eliminated?”

Clearly, talking breeds its own dilemmas -- streams of concepts chasing mirages -- so we assume no fixed positions, nodding to each other in that sweet redundancy ancient loving brings.

We've learned from experience that anything other than the most impeccable humor in the face of delusion merely postpones true serenity.

Nevertheless, we’re in no hurry. That’s true serenity -- not anything like the idea of itself, nor are we, essentially.

We indulge no secret motive to have it be anything other than what it is -- a passing phantom flash of itself, reflected like moonshine on the shiny black lacquer of itself.

I move closer to her, though between us no distance exists. The subtle movements we make with our eyes stir visions for beings still waiting for birth, serenely anticipating our next breath.

We are incapable of disappointment. In the bosom of this fog of sweet forgetfulness, something seems to persist, impaled by shafts of intermittent moonshine on the exquisite tip of attention.

Grasping at nothing, turning nothing away, we pause here, poised at the outermost reach of vision's lighthouse light beam, transfixed at the nexus of darkness and light.

All effort has led us here. All efforts dissolves here. From this time on, there will be no landmarks, no buoys.

Somewhere, in the measureless distance, a fog horn sounds:

I feel her . . . breathing . . . me

[aranuk]

You write terrific prose Bob! I enjoy reading it although sometimes you leave me quite clueless and not to mention, speechless. Again I like reading your unmistakeable style. No need to question what you say sometimes. Just an open mouth and silence.



Stan

[Alie]

Another Bob
What a lovely poem you presented for me. Thanks. Alie

[RUSirius]

Speechless, not even sure how to spell speachless.

[TraineeHuman]

Words are the only means we have to communicate on this Forum, generally speaking. The only means, period (not counting the occasional picture oir photo, which needs words to explain it.) OK, some may also use Skype (which still only gives words, plus electronic pictures of facial expressions).

However hugely and mind-blowingly it is true that the unknown precedes and engulfs and runs through all that is ever known, without words the meaning of sharing or reading this thread would not even exist.

Actually, there is one alternative, and that’s telepathy – which happens to be the universal language used by ETs. Unfortunately, most Forum members wouldn’t be able to use that accurately, and I doubt I would, either.

In this thread I see so many very eloquent words, particularly from Bob and the others he quotes.

I’d just like to point out that on this Forum without words (or, rarely, words combined with pictures) we can’t point to anything whatsoever, or ever point anything out (neither love, nor awareness, nor understanding, nor even “nothing”).

I’d like to quote the words of a very famous mystic, who resigned from his academic post to spend ten years living as a hermit literally in a cave. His name was Ludwig Wittgenstein, and he was the most influential figure in the world of philosophy for over half of the twentieth century. (Incidentally, I happen to know that the discoveries of philosophy have a huge influence – usually decades later -- on society and culture, and mostly for the better.)

As somebody who became aware of who I really am while an adolescent and then obtained a postgraduate degree in philosophy because I wanted to find words to understand, so I could look in the mirror more completely, I’d like to say this. I consider Wittgenstein’s depth of understanding (in his later period, after time in the cave) to be in some respects considerably deeper than, say, Adyashanti’s or Nisargadatta’s. Anyway, here’s the quote from (the later) Wittgenstein:

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

Later philosophers have pointed out that the meaning of the word “language” here should be broadened to include signs, expressions, gestures, pictures, and so on. But the vast majority of contemporary philosophers continue to totally agree that this statement is true. That’s one reason why I find it hilarious to read any assertions about how the deeper reality, or love, or whatever, is “unsayable”, or about how inadequate a medium language is. The truth is, folks, that the language we use isn’t some kind of passive servant. It actively shapes what’s possible and what’s not possible to say, and therefore even to understand. We can’t understand anything unless we can communicate it to ourselves. And we can’t communicate it to ourselves without using “language” of some kind, maybe in some broader sense.

Go on, folks, give me some big laughs. tell me how “wrong” I am about “the” unsayable.

[another bob]

Anyway, here’s the quote from (the later) Wittgenstein:

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.


Trudy Dixon

Excerpted from
Crooked Cucumber
The Life and Zen Teachings of
Shunryu Suzuki

In the spring of 1968, the manuscript for Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind
was turned over to Trudy Dixon, who had been an editor for Wind Bell,
the modest periodical which featured Suzuki’s lectures.

From the book:

Trudy took to the task even though she had two small children, had undergone surgery for breast cancer, and was in poor health. She threw herself completely into it, listening to the original tapes, painstakingly working on the material word by word, thought by thought, organizing it and conferring often with Richard (Baker) and occasionally with Suzuki directly.

Trudy Dixon had been doing graduate studies in philosophy at U. C. Berkeley, specializing in Heidegger and Wittgenstein, when her husband Mike first took her to hear Suzuki lecture in 1962. They arrived late and stood in the back of the zendo. Suzuki embarked upon an unusual line of thought that evening. He compared the practice of Zen with the study of philosophy – expressing one’s truth with one’s whole body and mind instead of thinking and being curious about the meaning of life. He said he had a good friend in Japan who was a philosopher. Ultimately his intellectual pursuits didn’t satisfy him, and he killed himself. At exactly that point in the lecture, Suzuki looked intently at Trudy. She backed up a few steps. Trudy could not get that experience out of her mind. She and Mike continued coming to lectures and soon decided to start practicing with Suzuki. They became close disciples.

In Zen Mind, Beginner’s Mind, Trudy put her whole being into expressing the essence of Suzuki’s teaching. After she passed the manuscript on to Richard, she concentrated on taking care of herself at home and dealing with her approaching death. She remained cheerful on the outside, but her mind was possessed by fear, which she revealed to her analyst. After an operation her lungs filled with liquid, and she couldn’t breathe. She struggled for breath with all the energy she could find until she went beyond thoughts, words, and fear into what she called breath-struggle samadhi. After she had undergone five difficult days of recovery, Mike brought Suzuki and his wife Okusan to visit her. She said the sight of them was like seeing the sun rise for the first time.
She went to the Tassajara mountain monastery and fasted. There she had a powerful, joyous experience that included life and death, health and illness, fear and courage. She said she finally stopped fighting and was “accommodating the enemy”, as Suzuki had described it. On the verge of death Trudy had been reborn. Her analyst said that at her next visit she seemed like a new person, a fearless and radiant woman. To her husband, caretakers, and friends she became an inspiration. “My self, my body,” she wrote, “is dissolved in phenomena like a sky’s rainbow caught in a child’s soap bubble.”
One day after zazen, Betty Warren visited Trudy. She arrived wishing there was something she could do. Trudy burned away Betty’s pity with one phrase, referring to her illness as “this blessed cancer.”
On Mondays Suzuki visited Trudy at her home after speaking at the Marin Zen group. One day after such a visit he returned to the car with Bob Halpern. Suzuki’s eyes were wet. “Now there’s a real Zen Master,” he said of Trudy, as he sank into his seat.
On July 1 Trudy’s brother drove her to Tassajara. They shared a cup of clear creekwater with Suzuki, slept outside in the moonlight, and returned the next day to the hospital. A couple of days later she returned to Tassajara and practiced prone zazen lying on her back in the zendo with Suzuki and the students. On the eighth she and her teacher returned to San Francisco.
On July 9, 1969, Mike called Suzuki and told him that Trudy had just died in the hospital – too quickly for Suzuki to have gotten there. Suzuki fell apart crying on the phone, which disturbed Mike – he thought of Suzuki as imperturbable. Suzuki came to the hospital and was composed by then.
At Trudy’s funeral two days later Suzuki was uncharacteristically emotional. He cried and said, “I never thought I’d have a disciple this great. Maybe I never will again.” Then he delivered a eulogy:

Go, my disciple. You have completed your practice for this life and acquired a genuine warm heart, a pure and undefiled Buddha mind, and joined our sangha. All that you have done in this life and in your past lives became meaningful in the light of the Buddha mind, which was found so clearly within yourself, as your own. Because of your complete practice, your mind has transcended far beyond your physical sickness, and it has taken full care of your sickness like a nurse.
A person of joyful mind is contented with his lot. Even in adversity he will see bright light. He finds the Buddha’s place in different circumstances, easy and difficult. He feels pleasure even in painful conditions, and rejoices. For us, for all who have this joy of Buddha mind, the world of birth and death is nirvana.
The compassionate mind is the affectionate mind of parents. Parents always think of the growth and welfare of their children, to the neglect of their own circumstances. Our scriptures say, “Buddha mind is the mind of great compassion.”
The magnanimous mind is as big as a mountain and as wide as an ocean. A person of magnanimous mind is impartial. He walks the middle way. He is never attached to any side of the extreme aspect of things. The magnanimous mind works justly and impartially.
Now you have acquired the Buddha mind and become a real disciple of Buddha. At this point, however, I express my true power . . . . .

Then Suzuki let out a long, mighty roar of grief that echoed throughout the cavernous auditorium.



:yo:

[Delight]

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires protection and defense. Defense implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge our cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.....

And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning – an endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict. Who needs that?.....

Really, there’s no need for some grand ultimate meaning, and who is there who could explain it all anyway? Maybe after all is said and done, that's what’s great about Saturday Night, and why everybody loves it!

I read your post when it was new. I went away and thought about what "meaning" is for me. When I was taking a class once, I read all I could find from Victor Frankl. I wrote a paper that was mostly aimed at his best known work "Man's Search for Meaning". The main message I took from his work then was that we are helped by the meaning we give to "life". He observed in the extreme stress of life and death situations, focus on survival only does not have the same power as holding larger sense of meaningfulness.

That I look for meaningfulness is clear to me. Is your post a sort of reaction to Egotism? Honestly, I don't see myself as an Egotist but if I believed my life was just a weekly round of stuff punctuated by a serious night of drinking (or whatever) on Saturday, I'd just go ahead and commit suicide. In Victor Frankl's observation, without a larger meaning, people generally lose the will to live. So what I think is that "yes", I don't have a clue about the great endeavor but feeling that I have an endeavor is my touch stone.

You are good with words and yet, I am not sure of what you mean by this initial post? Do you feel a sense of "why" you get up in the morning? I get up so I can dig a little deeper into my what is meaningful (the mystery and the promise of something revealed from doing the daily round) and it may be a bit more cerebral than is balanced but my thoughts and my sense of making meaning of what I observe is very pleasurable. Maggie

[jorr lundstrom]

Delight, when I read Frankl:s first book, In Swedish called corresponding:
"Life must have meaning", I found that he really meant that. Life must have
meaning, not "a" meaning. Life itself must have meaning.
If we attach "a" meaning to life, living, we
try to make that meaning greater than life itself. I found
that being a big, big mistake, nothing in life can be greater than life itself.
Just wanna say. LOL Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

All is well


Jorr

[Delight]

Delight, when I read Frankl:s first book, In Swedish called corresponding:
"Life must have meaning", I found that he really meant that. Life must have
meaning, not "a" meaning. Life itself must have meaning.
If we attach "a" meaning to life, living, we
try to make that meaning greater than life itself. I found
that being a big, big mistake, nothing in life can be greater than life itself.
Just wanna say. LOL Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

All is well


Jorr

Hi,
Oh I understand what you are saying. With "a" meaning, one becomes bereft of purpose if That "One" meaning is lost. And so we must be able to relinquish any "one" meaning. Maybe you are helping me see what the original post "means" (hehe): Those who make "a" meaning larger than life itself are going to become brittle and very rigid. That calls for loosening up with a drink or whatever on Saturday. It is Sunday now here so have to wait till next week..Maggie

[Chumley]

Ill have some f whatever hes smokin. Futility is only futile when its acceppted

[TraineeHuman]

Anyway, here’s the quote from (the later) Wittgenstein:

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

... Trudy Dixon had been doing graduate studies in philosophy at U. C. Berkeley, specializing in Heidegger and Wittgenstein, when her husband Mike first took her to hear Suzuki lecture in 1962. They arrived late and stood in the back of the zendo. Suzuki embarked upon an unusual line of thought that evening. He compared the practice of Zen with the study of philosophy – expressing one’s truth with one’s whole body and mind instead of thinking and being curious about the meaning of life. He said he had a good friend in Japan who was a philosopher. Ultimately his intellectual pursuits didn’t satisfy him, and he killed himself. At exactly that point in the lecture, Suzuki looked intently at Trudy. She backed up a few steps. Trudy could not get that experience out of her mind. She and Mike continued coming to lectures and soon decided to start practicing with Suzuki...

... Trudy burned away Betty’s pity with one phrase, referring to her illness as “this blessed cancer.”
On Mondays Suzuki visited Trudy at her home after speaking at the Marin Zen group. One day after such a visit he returned to the car with Bob Halpern. Suzuki’s eyes were wet. “Now there’s a real Zen Master,” he said of Trudy, as he sank into his seat...

Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.

I fully agree with Shunryu Suzuki that intellect is only one area of the human being, and that we need to achieve liberation, and demonstrate wisdom, in all areas, including how we deal with our bodies and feelings and so on.

But we do need the intellectual understanding. I claim Trudy couldn't have reached the depth of wisdom she gained without some substantial intellectual understanding. Like Suzuki had, himself. One ongoing frustration I’ve had at Avalon for some time is that many members have apparently been so dumbed down they just don’t seem interested in that area. Apparently, they don’t really know that they’ve been dumbed down.

[another bob]

Delight, when I read Frankl:s first book, In Swedish called corresponding:
"Life must have meaning", I found that he really meant that. Life must have
meaning, not "a" meaning. Life itself must have meaning.
If we attach "a" meaning to life, living, we
try to make that meaning greater than life itself. I found
that being a big, big mistake, nothing in life can be greater than life itself.
Just wanna say. LOL Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

All is well


Jorr

Hi,
Oh I understand what you are saying. With "a" meaning, one becomes bereft of purpose if That "One" meaning is lost. And so we must be able to relinquish any "one" meaning. Maybe you are helping me see what the original post "means" (hehe): Those who make "a" meaning larger than life itself are going to become brittle and very rigid. That calls for loosening up with a drink or whatever on Saturday. It is Sunday now here so have to wait till next week..Maggie

Hiya Maggie!

Thanks for your inquiry!

I think that Jorr offered a good take on the matter, and it seems you got the jist. I'll just elaborate a bit, in the midst of my Saturday Night enjoyment:

What I’m talking about is freedom from limitation, which only comes when one is able to thoroughly inspect, see through, and discard the conditioned and conditional fantasies of interpretation on perception that constitute the known, and not just for a moment’s respite, but continuously. This involves a letting go of all clinging to provisional meanings (that are typically second hand anyway), all fixation on conceptual identities that we take to be who and what we are, all solidified positions, and all programed filters on experience that keep us dumbed down and asleep. If not, then our life will merely amount to a manifestation of what the mind thinks it knows – a circular game of self-confirmation, grasping at the false security of the known, the accepted, the expected, and always avoiding the unknown, the only “place” where real freedom has the spaciousness to awaken and thrive.

:yo:

[another bob]

Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.

Greetings, my Friend!

Thank you for your comments, much appreciated as always!

I have no problem with your point. Obviously, I'm a big fan of language, and in fact I'm in the process of setting up a literary blog (to which I'll be devoting much more attention in the near future, and so may be stepping back from Avalon for a bit). My point was never about the futility of language, but more about our clinging to fixed positions, provisional meanings, and limiting (and often conflictual) conceptual beliefs and second-hand notions, separating us in the process from the raw, unfiltered experience of life and love. Philosophical systems offer a wide range of recipes, but one can't eat the recipes, eh.

You will find a more detailed discussion and investigation of language per se at the thread that I referred Ernie to earlier, on the "mind virus", started by songsoftheotherkind.


:yo:

edit to add link: http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?42688-Perspectives-on-the-mind-virus-booby-traps-and-other-fun-stuff.

[TraineeHuman]

Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.

Greetings, my Friend!

Thank you for your comments, much appreciated as always!

I have no problem with your point. Obviously, I'm a big fan of language, and in fact I'm in the process of setting up a literary blog (to which I'll be devoting much more attention in the near future, and so may be stepping back from Avalon for a bit). My point was never about the futility of language, but more about our clinging to fixed positions, provisional meanings, and limiting (and often conflictual) conceptual beliefs and second-hand notions, separating us in the process from the raw, unfiltered experience of life and love. Philosophical systems offer a wide range of recipes, but one can't eat the recipe...

Thank you for the clarification, Bob.

My understanding is that intellectual discussion frees us all somewhat from our fixed positions, etc. Or at least it helps us get more insight into wherever we individually are stuck or lacking or ignorant, or, perhaps, free. I would have thought that is a big part of what Avalon is about, or is meant to be about.

You would seem to have a curious idea of what philosophy is about. It's all about freeing people up. Professional philosophers in the West largely gave up believing in philosophical systems in the early twentieth century. At that time it became clear that no one system could ever come remotely close to capturing or portraying "the raw, unfiltered experience of life and love," or reality by whatever name you may like to see it. Not with anything remotely close to accuracy or completenes or lack of onesidedness. Philosophers in ancient China came to a similar conclusion several thousand years ago, and those in India did the same a little later.

As far as I'm aware, ancient Eastern paths -- such as Zen Buddhism -- weren't religions but were philosophies and psychologies and psychotherapies, all carried out with a strong emphasis on practicality that's largely absent in traditional Western or Middle Eastern religions.

[Jenci]

Irrespective of whatever temporary states, views, emotions, experiences, imaginations, or subtle perceptions arise in the course of life, I have never been able to separate myself from that mystical condition of being essentially clueless in regard to any and all of them.

This took a while to sink in, but it is frankly undeniable. Oh sure, I could usually grab a handy concept in retrospect and superimpose it on the field of chaos that passes for experience, and it might have even made some eccentric sense.

I might have even fallen down in awe at the bright clarity that mind conjures up from its limitless storehouse of holy self-confirming interpretations on what no longer exists -- the “me” that just was, before the current model replaced it (the one that also just got away).

Where did they come from, where do they go – these vanishing faces that leave no traces, moment to moment to moment?

Regardless, and to the point: the famously perpetual search for meaning -- who said we actually needed such a thing? Did it do any of them any enduring good – the meaning makers -- to have some reassuring meaning?

Were they able to re-direct the preposterous fluids swishing about in their neural viaducts in such a way that simply taking another breath amounted to something more significant than a reflexive impersonal automaticity?

And what’s the harvest from that great endeavor, that noble quest for meaning – an endless circus of competing personal, religious, and political belief systems, rife with war and conflict. Who needs that?

Taking it all the way, is there really even any meaning to “Saturday Night”? Perhaps there is no Saturday Night, except by some consensus agreement, and speaking of which, why do we still have so much difficulty just getting along?

Maybe it's because we think we know something. Those who seem to think that they know something usually tend to be contentious, haven’t you noticed?

The truly humble ones don't ordinarily find themselves in conflict, because they understand right from the get-go that they don't know, so what's the beef?

It's only when we think we know something -- that we are in possession of some particular meaning that appears in need of protecting and defending -- that the waters get a bit choppy (even though the “meaning” itself was supposed to calm and pacify the turbulence of everyday life challenges).

We can even get pretty reactive when that meaning is challenged, is it not so? After all, our meanings are often essential to our self-images, and despite our grafted-on spiritual idealism to the contrary, those valiant stories of fascinating "me" won't go down without a fight (or flight)!

Granting our personal story some sense of fanciful meaning often leads to a humorless sense of self-importance, which in turn requires protection and defense. Defense implies taking offense at anyone who might challenge our cherished meaning, and so we set ourselves up for a life of being offended by this, that, or the other.

If somebody is moved to bicker and fuss about whether the ego is an illusion or not, whether we are going to be annihilated or ascended or not, whether this religion is superior to that one or not, or whether enlightenment is a many splendored thing or not, let them knock themselves out. What’s the big problem?

Nevertheless, most of us habitually go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings perpetually, like little cranial factories that never shut down for the week-end so that everyone can rest, and maybe have some meaningless fun on Saturday Night.

After years of effort to figure it out, I myself have evolved/devolved to the point where finishing sentences requires more attention to pointless continuity than I care to summon any longer, and so I find that I’d rather just hum nonsense ditties and dance about like a fool with two happy feet.

Just so, imagine if somebody was getting a blood transfusion in one arm and bleeding it out through a hole in their chest. These days, there’s a big hole where my rib cage was. The wind blows through me, the sky breathes through me, sun and rain pour through me, without my encouragement or resistance, and certainly without any enduring meaning.

Really, there’s no need for some grand ultimate meaning, and who is there who could explain it all anyway? Maybe after all is said and done, that's what’s great about Saturday Night, and why everybody loves it!


:yo:

Thank you for this wonderful post, Bob.

Our beliefs, ideas, concepts, conditioning etc distort our perception of reality - our true essence - like filters.

Removing these filters allows our true essence to reveal itself, undistorted.

Some beliefs can be very obvious and therefore, with sincerity, the process of removing them can be fairly easy. Other beliefs (ideas, concepts, conditioning, etc) can be much more subtle and can be running invisibly in the background like a program on a computer. Identifying them first can take vigilance as well as sincerity. Some of these very silent beliefs are at the very core of our identity as a person and the process of removing them can take great courage because we can literally feel like we are going to crumble or die in the exposing of them.

Even the idea, however, that we have to remove our beliefs etc, is another belief itself. In truth we don't remove anything.

What we do when we identify one of these filters which is distorting our true essence, is that we hold it up to the Truth. Is this really true? Am I absolutely 100% certain of this? Who or what is believing this?

Then what we can find is that the belief is like a weed growing on the surface but underneath it is a root and the root needs to be revealed to pull the weed up. This revealing back to the root belief can take time but with practice it becomes easier.

The root belief is revealed and held up in the Truth. Seeing the illusion from the Truth, there is nothing more to do. The illusion will dissolve in that Truth. One by one we dissolve our beliefs, ideas, concepts in this Truth until there is nothing left.

To the intellectual and conceptual mind, the idea of "nothing left" seems undesirable and pointless.

So why do we do this? Because when nothing is left, there are no filters to distort our true essence, our perception of life is different. What happens then is that life is allowed to spontaneous arise, fresh each moment with nothing grasping or resisting it.

When this happens, this is extraordinary and indescribable. It's beyond all ideas about what God, Source, reality, love is.

I could also, paradoxically, describe it as very ordinary but it is where you know that you are Home and there is no more seeking.
Jeanette

[Jenci]

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

Later philosophers have pointed out that the meaning of the word “language” here should be broadened to include signs, expressions, gestures, pictures, and so on. But the vast majority of contemporary philosophers continue to totally agree that this statement is true. That’s one reason why I find it hilarious to read any assertions about how the deeper reality, or love, or whatever, is “unsayable”, or about how inadequate a medium language is. The truth is, folks, that the language we use isn’t some kind of passive servant. It actively shapes what’s possible and what’s not possible to say, and therefore even to understand. We can’t understand anything unless we can communicate it to ourselves. And we can’t communicate it to ourselves without using “language” of some kind, maybe in some broader sense.

Go on, folks, give me some big laughs. tell me how “wrong” I am about “the” unsayable.


Hi TraineeHuman

I am not going to say that you are wrong because this is your experience and it is right for you. My experience, though, is different.

What I am is unsayable. It's beyond my mind and all of its language. It's prior to everything so therefore anything which arises in it, is secondary. The secondary can never be the primary.

It's like a knife which cannot cut itself. Perhaps not a great metaphore but one to illustrate that the naming of this cannot be done with something which comes after it.




Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.



We are not denying language here or the mind, intellect and ego. Everything is included but it is recognising that these are only a fraction of what we truly are. These are tools that we can use to navigate our way through this life but they are not what we are.

As tools, they can give what we truly are, a way to fully express itself as a human being.

Jeanette

[Maria Stade]

Peeling, peeling the union. What is me.
Why am I here... the meaning of life.. is there one ?
Yes I can find only one mening with life and that is to be That what you are.
To find The home and seat of the soul.

There is no short cut, the one needs to die to self, the false need to go, to get space for what is genuine.
I love music because it is energy in sound forms, and it gives another dimention to the experience.

This is Dead can dance. As the ego and all false dies and cryes the soul rise to other dimentions to find self.
The spirit is free and have allways been.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9bfLHhyViI&feature=related

It is allways a pleasure and honore to meet other genuine self realised souls expressing them self, in this ever changing dance of life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yJx4fgFUg&feature=related


:grouphug:

[RunningDeer]

Hi TraineeHuman

I am not going to say that you are wrong because this is your experience and it is right for you. My experience, though, is different.

What I am is unsayable. It's beyond my mind and all of its language. It's prior to everything so therefore anything which arises in it, is secondary. The secondary can never be the primary.

It's like a knife which cannot cut itself. Perhaps not a great metaphore but one to illustrate that the naming of this cannot be done with something which comes after it.




Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.



We are not denying language here or the mind, intellect and ego. Everything is included but it is recognising that these are only a fraction of what we truly are. These are tools that we can use to navigate our way through this life but they are not what we are.

As tools, they can give what we truly are, a way to fully express itself as a human being.

Jeanette

Honey and sweetness in your Teachings. The simple elegance assist my understanding and knowledge base. I am also learning courage from you. I watch and learn how you stand unwaveringly in strength of your conviction. Thank you, Jeanette

WhiteCrowBlackDeer

[createnjoy]

most of us habitually go about the business of manufacturing and modifying meanings perpetually

This is very well said. Isn't it delightful that as we move through our lives, moment by moment, we continuously create our notions of what is important (to us) and what is not and have our varied emotional responses to all of that and our experiences. While I still feel that love is most important...at least on this plane..., I wonder if Source has any conditions of contrast.

[RunningDeer]

Reading lengthy texts no longer has appeal for me, although I did it for many years. More often these days I randomly select a book from my shelves and then randomly open it, only to read a sentence, page or paragraph that seems to call to me.

Today, after reading this thread I opened "The Third Millennium" by Ken Carey and here are the words that popped out at me.

"Often the initial phase of awakening is more emotional than conceptual, but that is enough to allow the thought and sensation of Divine Intelligence to flow into them and their decision making. They may not fully understand it mentally, but they feel something, experience something. They have tapped into a new way of being. They act on it, trust it and it works. Now they are acting on intuition rather than programming."

Thank you, Ba-ba-Ra.

These are the words I needed. My words now leave more than stay. Yet I don't want to offend, and also know it is not a me that is offending anyone. (This last sentence is respectfully added for those that need further clarification.)

WhiteCrowBlackDeer

[dan i el]

Not once on this forum in all the many many posts and threads I have poured through have I ever found the simple acknowledgement that dissolution of ego does not equate to loss of self/personality. Now don't please misunderstand me, I am what you would probably refer to as an "unevolved soul" or some such...but, nevertheless, although I am 'just' 38, an aspie and from the so called proletariat, by some strange twist of fate did find myself living out of a global suitcase for about 10 years or so before becoming a parent some years ago.

I just deleted much of what I wrote as it is fluff.

The Papua New Guinean highlanders I lived with made it unwaveringly clear to my european self that the nephilim were indeed a reality. The Tibetans, that I didn't need to need to renounce myself to connect with "source". etc etc. a compote of exotic spiritual travelling first hand.

It truly disturbs me that the onus appears to be destruction of self to acheive peace..here.

It is nonsense to believe that one has deny their personality to acheive higher consciousness. No true teaching exudes this thought. You are not an object of the subject/source. You are not simply a vehicle for source to experience experience. you did not come from dust to dust to return. In my humble opinion the second law of thermodynamics is sorely overlooked. entropy is inherent in every known or perceived system.

Gurdjieff blew the lid off this. Plant 100 cress seeds - do 100 definitely prosper in the conditions provided? In cress utopia maybe, but otherwise, no, they don't - some do.

As an aspie, i am supposed to be inherently better at pattern recognition than you neurotypicals out there...but much less able in the natural social communication...at least the latter should be clear! lol ...but when one takes stock of the very patterns we see repeated in the golden spiral of life..is it not sanity to apply them to question of spirit?

It is a comforting belief to hold that both you hitler, pol pot, kony et al are all divine children of source plodding through incarnation until ready to be received back liberated and shining to the primordial borg mind. but it doesn't necessarily mean it is so! the material patterns right in front of your eyes do NOT suggest it.

Personally, I am GLAD genocidalists are mulch! They HAVE to be given unlimited recourse to evolve to support the belief system that "all is well".

the Gnostics had a better scope of the material plane than most. That is why they were annilhilated. over the last 20 years or so I have had numerous "alien abduction" experiences, daily I live with CLEARLY extraneous entities trying to feed off me...for all I know, maybe you do too.

we are in THE gloop. It is mere opium to play spiritual folk music and pretend everything is fine. I am reticent to say it, but in my humble opinion the love energy the conscious soul must manifest is tantamount to TOUGH love. Passivity is spiritual terms is bondage. Daoism led to Mao. What do I know?

sorry to say it but there is an adversary and obssessing the self with self dissoulution is simply putting the species on the dinner plate. jmho

[another bob]

Hi Bob, it seems to me that you’re not addressing the issue I raised, which was that language, in some broad sense of that word, is all that we have to communicate anything to anyone.

Greetings, my Friend!

Thank you for your comments, much appreciated as always!

I have no problem with your point. Obviously, I'm a big fan of language, and in fact I'm in the process of setting up a literary blog (to which I'll be devoting much more attention in the near future, and so may be stepping back from Avalon for a bit). My point was never about the futility of language, but more about our clinging to fixed positions, provisional meanings, and limiting (and often conflictual) conceptual beliefs and second-hand notions, separating us in the process from the raw, unfiltered experience of life and love. Philosophical systems offer a wide range of recipes, but one can't eat the recipe...

Thank you for the clarification, Bob.

My understanding is that intellectual discussion frees us all somewhat from our fixed positions, etc. Or at least it helps us get more insight into wherever we individually are stuck or lacking or ignorant, or, perhaps, free. I would have thought that is a big part of what Avalon is about, or is meant to be about.

You would seem to have a curious idea of what philosophy is about. It's all about freeing people up. Professional philosophers in the West largely gave up believing in philosophical systems in the early twentieth century. At that time it became clear that no one system could ever come remotely close to capturing or portraying "the raw, unfiltered experience of life and love," or reality by whatever name you may like to see it. Not with anything remotely close to accuracy or completenes or lack of onesidedness. Philosophers in ancient China came to a similar conclusion several thousand years ago, and those in India did the same a little later.

As far as I'm aware, ancient Eastern paths -- such as Zen Buddhism -- weren't religions but were philosophies and psychologies and psychotherapies, all carried out with a strong emphasis on practicality that's largely absent in traditional Western or Middle Eastern religions.

Hello again, my Friend!

Like you, I spent a good deal of time, earlier in my life, surveying the various philosophers and their intellectual constructs. Rather than finding them liberating, however, I found philosophy itself to be a dead end. That is why I turned to the practice of Zen Buddhism as a medicine for the sickness of mental fabrication. Zen (or Chan, as it is originally known in China), is not a philosophy or psychotherapy or psychology. Eventually, I discovered that Zen itself had to be left behind, because even the medicine, if clung to, can make one sick. That's another story, however, and what I'd like to share with you here and now is an excellent elaboration by a true master of what Chan (Zen) is and isn't, for clarification


"I wish to start by telling you that Chan is not the same as knowledge, yet knowledge is not completely apart from Chan. Chan is not just religion, yet the achievements of religion can be reached through Chan. Chan is not philosophy, yet philosophy can in no way exceed the scope of Chan. Chan is not science, yet the spirit of emphasising reality and experience is also required in Chan. Therefore, please do not try to explore the content of Chan motivated by mere curiosity, for Chan is not something new brought here [to the USA] by Orientals; Chan is present everywhere, in space without limit and time without end. However before the Buddhism of the East was propagated in the western world, the people of the West never knew of the existence of Chan. The Chan taught by Orientals in the West is not, in fact, the real Chan. It is the method to realise Chan. Chan was first discovered by a prince named Siddhartha Gautama (called Shakyamuni after his enlightenment), who was born in India about 2500 years ago. After he became enlightened and was called a Buddha, he taught us the method to know Chan. This method was transmitted from India to China, and then to Japan. In India it was called dhyana, which is pronounced 'Chan' in Chinese, and 'Zen' in Japanese. Actually, all three are identical.

Chan has universal and eternal existence. It has no need of any teacher to transmit it; what is transmitted by teachers is just the method by which one can personally experience this Chan.

Some people mistakenly understand Chan to be some kind of mysterious experience; others think that one can attain supernatural powers through the experience of Chan. Of course, the process of practising Chan meditation may cause various kinds of strange occurrences on the level of mental and physical sensation; and also, through the practice of unifying body and mind, one may be able to attain the mental power to control or alter external things. But such phenomena, which are looked upon as mysteries of religion, are not the aim of Chan practice, because they can only satisfy one's curiosity or megalomania, and cannot solve the actual problems of peoples lives.

Chan starts from the root of the problem. It does not start with the idea of conquering the external social and material environments, but starts with gaining thorough knowledge of one's own self. The moment you know what your self is, this 'I' that you now take to be yourself will simultaneously disappear. We call this new knowledge of the notion of self 'enlightenment' or 'seeing ones basic nature'. This is the beginning of helping you to thoroughly solve real problems. In the end, you will discover that you the individual, together with the whole of existence, are but one totality which cannot be divided.

Because you yourself have imperfections, you therefore feel the environment is imperfect. It is like a mirror with an uneven surface, the images reflected in it are also distorted. Or, it is like the surface of water disturbed by ripples, the moon reflected in it is irregular and unsettled. If the surface of the mirror is clear and smooth, or if the air on the surface of the water is still and the ripples calmed, then the reflection in the mirror and the moon in the water will be clear and exact. Therefore, from the point of view of Chan, the major cause of the pain and misfortune suffered by humanity is not the treacherous environment of the world in which we live, nor the dreadful society of humankind, but the fact that we have never been able to recognise our basic nature. So the method of Chan is not to direct us to evade reality, nor to shut our eyes like the African ostrich when enemies come, and bury our heads in the sand, thinking all problems are solved. Chan is not a self-hypnotising idealism.

By the practise of Chan one can eliminate the 'I'; not only the selfish, small 'I', but also the large 'I', which in philosophy is called 'Truth' or 'the Essence'. Only then is there absolute freedom. Thus an accomplished Chan practitioner never feels that any responsibility is a burden, nor does he feel the pressure that the conditions of life exert on people. He only feels that he is perpetually bringing the vitality of life into full activity. This is the expression of absolute freedom. Therefore the life of Chan is inevitably normal and positive, happy and open. The reason for this is that the practise of Chan will continually provide you with a means to excavate your precious mine of wisdom. The deeper the excavation, the higher the wisdom that is attained, until eventually you obtain all the wisdom of the entire universe. At that time, there is not a single thing in all of time and space that is not contained within the scope of your wisdom. At that stage wisdom becomes absolute; and since it is absolute, the term wisdom serves no further purpose. To be sure, at that stage the 'I' that motivated you to pursue such things as fame, wealth and power, or to escape from suffering and danger, has completely disappeared. What is more, even the wisdom which eliminated your 'I' becomes an unnecessary concept to you.

Of course, from the viewpoint of sudden enlightenment it is very easy for a Chan practitioner to reach this stage; nevertheless before reaching the gate of sudden enlightenment one must exert a great deal of effort on the journey. Otherwise the methods of Chan would be useless.

The Three Stages of Chan Meditation
At present [1977], the methods of meditation that I am teaching in the United States are divided into three stages.

Stage 1: To Balance the Development of Body and Mind in order to Attain Mental and Physical Health
With regard to the body, we stress the demonstration and correction of the postures of walking, standing, sitting and reclining. At the same time we teach various methods of physical exercise for walking, standing, sitting and reclining. They are unique exercise methods combining Indian Hatha Yoga and Chinese Tao-yin, and can bring physical health as well as results in meditation. Thus, one who practises Chan and has obtained good results will definitely have a strong body capable of enduring hardship. For the mind we emphasise the elimination of impatience, suspicion, anxiety, fear and frustration, so as to establish a state of self-confidence, determination, optimism, peace and stability.

A good student, after five or ten lessons here, will reach the first stage and be able to obtain results in the above two areas. One of our student's reports stated: "This kind of Chan class is especially good for someone like myself who, by profession or habit, has been used to having the brain functioning just about every minute of the day. I often find this Chan sitting very helpful as rest or relief. So even for no greater purpose, this Chan class has been very useful and should be highly recommended." [from Chan Magazine Vol.1; No.1]

In the first lesson of each class, I always ask each of the students individually his or her purpose in learning Chan whether he or she hoped to benefit the body, or sought help for the mind. The answers show that the latter were in the majority. This indicates that people living in American society today, under the strain and pressure of the present environment, suffer excessive tension, and many have lost their mental balance. Some are so severely tense that they have to consult a psychiatrist. Among those who come to learn Chan, I have one woman student, an outstanding lecturer in a well-known university, who asked me at the first meeting if I could help to relieve her from tense and uneasy moods. I told her that for a Chan practitioner this is a very simple matter. After five lessons she felt that Chan was a great blessing to her life.

The method of the first stage is very simple. Mainly it requires you to relax all the muscles and nerves of your entire body, and concentrate your attention on the method you have just learned. Because the tension of your muscles and nerves affects the activity of the brain, the key is therefore to reduce the burden on your brain. When your wandering thoughts and illusions decrease, your brain will gradually get a little rest. As its need of blood is reduced, more blood will circulate through the entire body. Meanwhile, because of the relaxation of the brain, all the muscles also relax; thus your blood vessels expand, you feel comfortable all over, your spirit feels fresh and alert, and your mental responses are naturally lighter and more lively.

If one's object of study is just to acquire physical and mental balance, and not to study meditation proper, then one will probably feel that the completion of the first stage is enough; but many students are not content with this, and indeed, some from the outset are looking for the goal of the second stage.

Stage 2: From the Sense of the Small 'I'
The first stage only helps to bring concentration to your confused mind; but when you practise concentration, other scattered thoughts continue to appear in your mind - sometimes many, sometimes a few. The concept of your purpose in practising Chan is for mental and physical benefits. This is a stage where your concept is purely self-centred. There is no mention of philosophical ideals or religious experience. When you reach the second stage, it will enable you to liberate yourself from the narrow view of the 'I'. In the second stage you begin to enter the stage of meditation. When you practise the method of cultivation taught by your teacher, you will enlarge the sphere of the outlook of the small 'I' until it coincides with time and space. The small 'I' merges into the entire universe, forming a unity. When you look inward, the depth is limitless; when you look outward, the breadth is limitless. Since you have joined and become one with universe, the world of your own body and mind no longer exists. What exists is the universe, which is infinite in depth and breadth. You yourself are not only a part of the universe, but also the totality of it.

When you achieve this experience in your Chan sitting, you will then understand what is meant in philosophy by principle or basic substance, and also what phenomenal existence is. All phenomena are the floating surface or perceptible layer of basic substance. From the shallow point of view, the phenomena have innumerable distinctions and each has different characteristics; in reality, the differences between the phenomena do not impair the totality of basic substance. For instance, on the planet on which we live, there are countless kinds of animals, plants, minerals, vapours, liquids and solids which incessantly arise, change and perish, constituting the phenomena of the earth. However, seen from another planet, the earth is just one body. When we have the opportunity to free ourselves from the bonds of self or subjective views, to assume the objective standpoint of the whole and observe all phenomena together, we can eliminate opposing and contradictory views. Take a tree as an example. From the standpoint of the individual leaves and branches, they are all distinct from one another, and can also be perceived to rub against one another. However, from the standpoint of the trunk and roots, all parts without exception are of one unified whole.

In the course of this second stage, you have realised that you not only have an independent individual existence, but you also have a universal existence together with this limitlessly deep and wide cosmos, and therefore the confrontation between you and the surrounding environment exists no more. Discontent, hatred, love, desire - in other words dispositions of rejecting and grasping disappear naturally, and you sense a feeling of peace and satisfaction. Because you have eliminated the selfish small 'I', you are able to look upon all people and all things as if they were phenomena produced from your own substance, and so you will love all people and all things in the same way you loved and watched over your small 'I'. This is the mind of a great philosopher.

Naturally, all great religious figures must have gone through the experiences of this second stage, where they free themselves from the confines of the small 'I', and discover that their own basic substance is none other than the existence of the entire universe, and that there is no difference between themselves and everything in the universe. All phenomena are manifestations of their own nature. They have the duty to love and watch over all things, and also have the right to manage them; just as we have the duty to love our own children and the right to manage the property that belongs to us This is the formation of the relationship between the deity and the multitude of things he created. Such people personify the basic substance of the universe which they experience through meditation, and create the belief in God. They substantiate this idea of a large 'I' the self-love of God and formulate the mission of being a saviour of the world or an emissary of God. They unify all phenomena and look upon them as objects that were created and are to be saved. Consequently, some religious figures think that the basic nature of their souls is the same as that of the deity, and that they are human incarnations of the deity. In this way, they consider themselves to be saviours of the world. Others think that although the basic nature of their souls is not identical to and inseparable from that of the deity, the phenomenon of their incarnation shows that they were sent to this world by God as messengers to promulgate God's intention.

Generally, when philosophers or religious figures reach the height of the second stage, they feel that their wisdom is unlimited, their power is infinite, and their lives are eternal. When the scope of the 'I' enlarges, self-confidence accordingly gets stronger, but this stronger self-confidence is in fact merely the unlimited escalation of a sense of superiority and pride. It is therefore termed large 'I', and does not mean that absolute freedom from vexations has been achieved.

Stage 3: From the Large 'I' to No 'I'
When one reaches the height of the second stage, he realises that the concept of the 'I' does not exist. But he has only abandoned the small 'I' and has not negated the concept of basic substance or the existence of God; you may call it Truth, the one and only God, the Almighty, the Unchanging Principle, or even the Buddha of Buddhism. If you think that it is real, then you are still in the realm of the big 'I' and have not left the sphere of philosophy and religion.

I must emphasise that the content of Chan does not appear until the third stage. Chan is unimaginable. It is neither a concept nor a feeling. It is impossible to describe it in any terms abstract or concrete. Though meditation is ordinarily the proper path leading to Chan, once you have arrived at the door of Chan, even the method of meditation is rendered useless. It is like using various means of transportation on a long journey. When you reach the final destination, you find a steep cliff standing right in front of you. It is so high you cannot see its top, and so wide that its side cannot be found. At this time a person who has been to the other side of the cliff comes to tell you that on the other side lies the world of Chan. When you scale it you will enter Chan. And yet, he tells you not to depend on any means of transportation to fly over, bypass, or penetrate through it, because it is infinity itself, and there is no way to scale it.

Even an outstanding Chan master able to bring his student to this place will find himself unable to help any more. Although he has been to the other side, he cannot take you there with him, just as a mother's own eating and drinking cannot take the hunger away from the child who refuses to eat or drink. At that time, the only help he can give you is to tell you to discard all your experiences, your knowledge, and all the things and ideas that you think are the most reliable, most magnificent, and most real, even including your hope to get to the world of Chan. It is as if you were entering a sacred building. Before you do so, the guard tells you that you must not carry any weapon, that you must take off all your clothes, and that not only must you be completely naked you also have to leave your body and soul behind. Then you can enter.

Because Chan is a world where there is no self, if there is still any attachment at all in your mind, there is no way you can harmonise with Chan. Therefore, Chan is the territory of the wise, and the territory of the brave. Not being wise, one would not believe that after he has abandoned all attachments another world could appear before him. Not being brave, one would find it very hard to discard everything he has accumulated in this life - ideals and knowledge, spiritual and material things.

You may ask what benefit we would get after making such great sacrifices to enter the world of Chan. Let me tell you that you cannot enter the world of Chan while this question is still with you. Looking for benefit, either for self or for others, is in the 'I'-oriented stage. The sixth patriarch of the Chan sect in China taught people that the way to enter the enlightenment of the realm of Chan is: "Neither think of good, nor think of evil". That is, you eliminate such opposing views as self and other, inner and outer, being and non-being, large and small, good and bad, vexation and Bodhi, illusion and enlightenment, false and true, or suffering of birth and death and joy of emancipation. Only then can the realm of Chan or enlightenment appear and bring you a new life.

This new life you have had all along, and yet you have never discovered it. In the Chan sect we call it your original face before you were born. This is not the small 'I' of body and mind, nor the large 'I' of the world and universe. This is absolute freedom, free from the misery of all vexations and bonds. To enter Chan as described above is not easy. Many people have studied and meditated for decades, and still have never gained entrance to the door of Chan. It will not be difficult, however, when your causes and conditions are mature, or if you happen to have a good Chan master who guides you with full attention. This Master may adopt various attitudes, actions and verbal expressions which may seem ridiculous to you, as indirect means of assisting you to achieve your goal speedily. And when the Master tells you that you have now entered the gate, you will suddenly realise that there is no gate to Chan. Before entering, you cannot see where the gate is, and after entering you find the gate non-existent. Otherwise there will be the distinction between inside and outside, the enlightened and the ignorant; and if there are such distinctions, then it is still not Chan.

When you are in the second stage, although you feel that the 'I' does not exist, the basic substance of the universe, or the Supreme Truth, still exists. Although you recognize that all the different phenomena are the extension of this basic substance or Supreme Truth, yet there still exists the opposition of basic substance versus external phenomena. Not until the distinctions of all phenomena disappear, and everything goes back to truth or Heaven, will you have absolute peace and unity. As long as the world of phenomena is still active, you cannot do away with conflict, calamity, suffering and crime. Therefore, although philosophers and religious figures perceive the peace of the original substance, they still have no way to get rid of the confusion of phenomena.

One who has entered Chan does not see basic substance and phenomena as two things standing in opposition to each other. They cannot even be illustrated as being the back and palm of a hand. This is because phenomena themselves are basic substance, and apart from phenomena there is no basic substance to be found. The reality of basic substance exists right in the unreality of phenomena, which change ceaselessly and have no constant form. This is the Truth. When you experience that phenomena are unreal, you will then be free from the concept of self and other, right and wrong, and free from the vexations of greed, hatred, worry and pride. You will not need to search for peace and purity, and you will not need to detest evil vexations and impurity. Although you live in the world of phenomenal reality, to you, any environment is a Buddha's Pure Land. To an unenlightened person, you are but an ordinary person. To you, all ordinary people are identical with Buddha. You will feel that your own self-nature is the same as that of all Buddhas, and the self-nature of Buddhas is universal throughout time and space. You will spontaneously apply your wisdom and wealth, giving to all sentient beings everywhere, throughout all time and space.

What I have said reveals a small part of the feeling of one who has entered the enlightened realm of Chan, and is also the course which one follows in order to depart from the small 'I' and arrive at the stage of no 'I'. Nevertheless, a newly enlightened person who has just entered the realm of Chan is still at the starting section of the entire passage of Chan. He is like one who has just had his first sip of port. He knows its taste now, but the wine will not remain in his mouth forever. The purpose of Chan is not just to let you take one sip, but to have your entire life merge with and dissolve in the wine, even, to the point that you forget the existence of yourself and the wine. After tasting the first sip of egolessness, how much farther must one travel?

What kinds of things remain to be seen?

I will tell you when I have the chance!"


Master Sheng-yen (1977)

[dan i el]

"Therefore, from the point of view of Chan, the major cause of the pain and misfortune suffered by humanity is not the treacherous environment of the world in which we live, nor the dreadful society of humankind, but the fact that we have never been able to recognise our basic nature. "

Bob, this is ludicrous propaganda. When one looks into it it is clear we subjugated by extraneous forces.

"The modern English word 'Angel' is derived from it's immediate Latin root 'angelus' via the Greek translation 'angelos' ('a messenger'). Variations of an angel include the Anglo-Saxon designation 'engel' from the Old french word 'angele'. 'Angelus' (a messenger) records the Latin transitive verb 'aggero' ('to bring forward, utter or convey'; comparable to the Japanese verb 'ageru ('to give') and is closely matched with 'agere' ('to actor do') with the appended meaning ('to chase or hunt').

Hellenistic scholars known as the Sepuagint (70), responsible for the Greek translation of the Old Testament ( 3rd-2nd century BC), interpreted the Hebrew name 'mal'akh' (an angel as an emissary), taken from the Semitic stem 'amar' (to speak or command). The angel is noted as diplomatic representative.

A degree or rank of angel is listed as an 'archangel', conceptualised as an 'embassador'. The Latin prefix 'arch' derives from the Greek stem 'arkh' (a chief), rendered formally as 'arkhos' (a ruler), deductive of 'arkho' (to rule). 'Arkhos' is cognate with the German title 'haco' (a high kin) - a permutation on the Greek honour 'archon' (a supreme ruler). 'Haco','arkhos' and 'archon' recpitulates the Arabic dignitary 'hakim' (a ruler, governor or sovereign) from 'hakam' (to reign). 'Hakim's titular determines the Syrian root 'haka' (to speak, talk or tell).

Contextually the 'talker' describes a 'messenger or type of angel', mutual to 'hakim' (sovereign) - an appellation equated with the 'snake'.

'Hakim' and it's Greek appropriation 'arkhos' is preserved in the Old English noun 'hack' (a serpent), differentiated from the Babylonian noun 'acan' (a flaming seraph). 'Acan' is consistent with the Old Egyptian stem 'akh' (to shine) and 'arq' (to twist). In the Greek mysteries, 'arq' is inimical to 'akhos' (pain or distress), additional to 'agkho' (to throttle) - actions accorded to 'arkhos' (a ruler).

The signatory 'arkhos' (Arabic hakim) originates from the Sanskrit lexicon. Enumerated as 'arga' (a lord), the title parallels the related verb 'akishi' (to rule). Honorific 'arga' conforms to the Hindu noun 'arka' (sun), correlated in Persian with the noun 'ankh' (eye). Through-out Indo European languages, the monarch is represented with the motif of the circle and eyes symbols or the reptile or dragon. In Greek, the assignment of 'arga' (lord) in analogous to 'ago' the suffix (to lead), figurative of the adjective 'hagios' (holy), iconic of 'halos' (a disk). The 'halo' Greek 'halos' is a homonym of (salt), Hebrew 'melakh', referential to 'mal'akh' (an angel). Universally combined with the 'deity' the 'halo' is associated with the 'serpent' and the 'light'.

To summarize, the prefix 'arch' (a chief) represents a 'circle', demonstrated in Latin as 'archus' (a type of arch or curve), assigned to 'arkos' (a ruler). The auxillary prefix 'arch' (Greek arkh) is obtained from the Egyptian stem 'arq' (to wriggle or bind around) and 'akh' (to shine), corresponding with the Babylonian titular 'acan' (a burning seraph).

Esoterically 'akh' is employed in Arabic as the noun 'akh' (brother), despcriptive of the 'enlightened' or 'illuminated', lateral to 'acan' (a shining serpert). The verbal stem 'akh' in Modern Arabic is addendum to the idiom 'haqq' (truth) - a term constant with 'luminary', the 'hakim', indexed as (a ruler). 'Akh' is further utilised in Hebrew as the suffix 'mal'akh' (an angel), denoting a (shining king).

Delegation of 'mal'akh' bequeaths the Persian title 'mal' (a leader or king), opposite 'mar' (a snake). Relationship between the 'monarch and snake' is also evident in Classical Greek. The Hellenistic adjective 'basiliskos' (a serpent). Appointment of the regal, 'basileus' is equivalent in Arabic to 'hakim' (a ruler), taken from theBabylonian root 'acan' (a snake or uraeus).

Recorded within the Greek and Arabic traditions, the angels are represented as serpentin in appearance - a feature evident in the Latin language. For example, the Roman word 'angelos' (angel) is consistent with the Latin etymology 'anguis' (snake) and informs the English adjective 'angry', suggesting a correlation in sacrificial atonement. Relationships between the 'snake and monarch' is evident also in the Indo-European languages.

[another bob]

Thank you for this wonderful post, Bob.

Our beliefs, ideas, concepts, conditioning etc distort our perception of reality - our true essence - like filters.

Removing these filters allows our true essence to reveal itself, undistorted.

Some beliefs can be very obvious and therefore, with sincerity, the process of removing them can be fairly easy. Other beliefs (ideas, concepts, conditioning, etc) can be much more subtle and can be running invisibly in the background like a program on a computer. Identifying them first can take vigilance as well as sincerity. Some of these very silent beliefs are at the very core of our identity as a person and the process of removing them can take great courage because we can literally feel like we are going to crumble or die in the exposing of them.

Even the idea, however, that we have to remove our beliefs etc, is another belief itself. In truth we don't remove anything.

What we do when we identify one of these filters which is distorting our true essence, is that we hold it up to the Truth. Is this really true? Am I absolutely 100% certain of this? Who or what is believing this?

Then what we can find is that the belief is like a weed growing on the surface but underneath it is a root and the root needs to be revealed to pull the weed up. This revealing back to the root belief can take time but with practice it becomes easier.

The root belief is revealed and held up in the Truth. Seeing the illusion from the Truth, there is nothing more to do. The illusion will dissolve in that Truth. One by one we dissolve our beliefs, ideas, concepts in this Truth until there is nothing left.

To the intellectual and conceptual mind, the idea of "nothing left" seems undesirable and pointless.

So why do we do this? Because when nothing is left, there are no filters to distort our true essence, our perception of life is different. What happens then is that life is allowed to spontaneous arise, fresh each moment with nothing grasping or resisting it.

When this happens, this is extraordinary and indescribable. It's beyond all ideas about what God, Source, reality, love is.

I could also, paradoxically, describe it as very ordinary but it is where you know that you are Home and there is no more seeking.
Jeanette

Thank you for your excellent comments, Sister, which are very clarifying to the discussion! I hope readers will take the time to savor your fine contributions, rather than mistake this process of awakening beyond fixation, conditioning, and borrowed assumptions for some kind of effort to deny the role of the intellect, or even as some method to "destroy the self to achieve peace", much less some kind of "opium spiritual folk music".

:yo:

[another bob]

"Therefore, from the point of view of Chan, the major cause of the pain and misfortune suffered by humanity is not the treacherous environment of the world in which we live, nor the dreadful society of humankind, but the fact that we have never been able to recognise our basic nature. "

Bob, this is ludicrous propaganda. When one looks into it it is clear we subjugated by extraneous forces.

I look to the results. Is one happy and at peace, able to express unselfish regard for their fellows, or disturbed and aggravated by mental currents, at odds with their neighbors and surrounding envorinment? The test is in real life, not in linguistic analysis. In this life, we are constantly being given tests, to see how we will react. If we are motivated by greed, envy, hatred, and fear, then we will fail the tests. If we are able, on the other hand, to meet these tests with integrity, then we can and will move on. Each of us must find our own way in this matter, but regardless of who we are, we need to first discover our true nature, otherwise the dog will just keep on chasing its tail.

:yo:

[dan i el]

"Therefore, from the point of view of Chan, the major cause of the pain and misfortune suffered by humanity is not the treacherous environment of the world in which we live, nor the dreadful society of humankind, but the fact that we have never been able to recognise our basic nature. "

Bob, this is ludicrous propaganda. When one looks into it it is clear we subjugated by extraneous forces.

I look to the results. Is one happy and at peace, able to express unselfish regard for their fellows, or disturbed and aggravated by mental currents, at odds with their neighbors and surrounding envorinment? The test is in real life, not in linguistic analysis. In this life, we are constantly being given tests, to see how we will react. If we are motivated by greed, envy, hatred, and fear, then we will fail the tests. If we are able, on the other hand, to meet these tests with integrity, then we can and will move on. Each of us must find our own way in this matter, but regardless of who we are, we need to first discover our true nature, otherwise the dog will just keep on chasing its tail.

:yo:

It is easy for us whites to reflect on that when the bloodline primarily resides within segments of our community. The reality is, though what you say is true, it nevertheless functions in the real terms as simply soma.

I don't, for example, perceive the envy of the Eritrean mother looking on mcdonalds (snake) culture whilst trying to feed her children as that of being simply unenlightened ego delusion.

[another bob]

It is easy for us whites to reflect on that when the bloodline primarily resides within segments of our community.

Dan, may I suggest that you start your own thread to promote your theories? Your comments have little if any relation to this thread topic, and are actually a bit of a distraction and misdirection., imho.

Thanks for your kind consideration!

:yo:

[greybeard]

There are those who know and those who talk about it.
Having been up and down every dead end in search of Truth and a meaning to life I eventually found that the enlightened sages all said the same thing.
Life goes on exactly as before but perception is radically changed.
Everything is seen fresh, alive, vibrant and in its true nature.
Higher action and energy does arise for the uplifting of humanity en mass.

I personally dont know but I cross check the words of the ones who do and as said they are uniform in their love and desire to eradicate the suffering of humankind.
The Buddha saw the end of suffering via the state called enlightenment and endeavored to share that energy and knowledge.
After enlightenment there is a certain momentum and the persona carries on much the same as before--- however there is no identification with the story of me.
Nasargadatt said he was a likely to get killed (the body) saving some one else as anyone is.
So the uncovering of the Self is a very worthy pursuit.

Chris.

[dan i el]

It is easy for us whites to reflect on that when the bloodline primarily resides within segments of our community.

Dan, may I suggest that you start your own thread to promote your theories? Your comments have little if any relation to this thread topic, and are actually a bit of a distraction and misdirection., imho.

Thanks for your kind consideration!

:yo:

fair point :yo:

[Bo Atkinson]

Thanks for your thread and thoughts AnotherBob, (and thanks all for sharing thoughts). Here are my reflections, which i hope are brief and fit politely.

My recent subscription to redicecreations gave me access to full interviews. The 2nd part of the Paul Levy interview offered the the following meanings for me. I summarized a small part according to my own perception and resonance:

We need a certain ego-aspect to snap out of the brain washing, the hypnotic spell that's been cast upon us, from outer worldly distortions demanding crass conformity of some kind. Our better part of ego, can integrate with genuine spiritual awakening naturally. Awaken and thus creatively maintain our reality, protected from unwholesome challenges outside-- This is in regards to Wetiko...

Actually this word is new to me but http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wetiko says:
English

[edit]Etymology
From Cree Wīhtikōw.
[edit]Noun
wetiko (uncountable)
Cannibalism, or, figuratively, the consumption of humans for profit, wage slavery.
An alternative spelling of wendigo that particularly emphasises that figurative sense.

[another bob]

Peeling, peeling the union. What is me.
Why am I here... the meaning of life.. is there one ?
Yes I can find only one mening with life and that is to be That what you are.
To find The home and seat of the soul.

There is no short cut, the one needs to die to self, the false need to go, to get space for what is genuine.
I love music because it is energy in sound forms, and it gives another dimention to the experience.

This is Dead can dance. As the ego and all false dies and cryes the soul rise to other dimentions to find self.
The spirit is free and have allways been.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9bfLHhyViI&feature=related

It is allways a pleasure and honore to meet other genuine self realised souls expressing them self, in this ever changing dance of life.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yJx4fgFUg&feature=related


:grouphug:


Dear Maria, Heart Sister!

I just wanted to take a moment to Thank You for your beautiful offerings!

Yes, it's true -- the Dead can dance!


:rockon:

[another bob]

We need a certain ego-aspect to snap out of the brain washing, the hypnotic spell that's been cast upon us, from outer worldly distortions demanding crass conformity of some kind. Our better part of ego, can integrate with genuine spiritual awakening naturally.

It's like using a thorn to remove a thorn. Once its job is done, it too can be discarded.

Thanks for your comments, Wavy!

:yo:

[Bo Atkinson]

Ha, that can happen good sir, though my wife prefers her hat pin :confused:

I gathered from Levy and have followed this path myself-- that much better is to use art!

As in the an Italian saying, to the effect, "forgive the thorn for the beauty of the rose" :o


Quick quote from Levy pt2
"what Wetiko hates, what it can't stand, is the creative spirit. It wants to rigidify and train people to disassociate from that spirit because we actually are in a way- channels for that what happens then there is nothing to dispel"

[Carmody]

Reading this thread, I realize I've made my bit of contribution .. today, but in another thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30405-Here-and-Now...What-s-Happening&p=455346&viewfull=1#post455346

[Carmody]

Thought for the day: It is not just that the creation and use of the Native North American 'talking stick' was an upward evolution, but that the letting go of it -- was just as fundamental.

[another bob]

Reading this thread, I realize I've made my bit of contribution .. today, but in another thread:

http://projectavalon.net/forum4/showthread.php?30405-Here-and-Now...What-s-Happening&p=455346&viewfull=1#post455346


As a point of analysis of extremes, one could say that the bodhisattva type beings, the given being who is like a guru, or a sage...the most aware of them, that is ..they have dismissed obligation in it's entirety for a state of knowing, a state of knowing that looks like extremes of obligation to the ones who have not yet had the more evolved states of duality and 'knowing' reach them.


"Bodhicitta is the essential, universal truth.

This most pure thought is the wish and the will to bring all sentient beings to the realisation of their highest potential, enlightenment.

The Bodhisattva sees the crystal nature that exists in each of us, and by recognising the beauty of our human potential, always has respect.

For the disrespectful mind, human beings are like grass, something to be used. "Ah, he means nothing to me. Human beings are nothing to me."

We all try to take advantage of someone else, to profit only for ourselves. The entire world is built on attachment. Big countries overwhelm small countries, big children take candy from small children, husbands take advantage of their wives. I make friends with someone because he can benefit me. It is the same with the rest of the world. Boyfriends, girlfriends. Everybody wants something.

The desire to make friends only for the other person's benefit is extremely rare; however, it is very worthwhile. Buddha explained that even one moment's thought of this mind dedicated to enlightenment for the sake of others can destroy a hundred thousand lifetimes' negative karma.

We have attachment that makes us tight and uncomfortable. But even a tiny spark of bodhicitta's heat makes the heart warm and relaxed.

Bodhicitta is the powerful solution, the atomic energy that destroys the kingdom of attachment.

Bodhicitta is not emotional love. By understanding the relative nature of sentient beings and seeing their highest destination, and by developing the willingness to bring all beings to that state of enlightenment, the mind is filled with love born from wisdom, not emotion.

Bodhicitta is not partial. Wherever you go with bodhicitta if you meet people, rich people or poor people, black or white, you are comfortable and you can communicate.

We have a fixed idea; life is this way or that. "This is good. This is bad." We do not understand the different aspects of the human condition. But, having this incredible universal thought, our narrow mind vanishes automatically. It is so simple; you have space and life becomes easier.

For example, someone looks at us, at our home, at our garden and we freak out. We are so insecure and tight in our hearts. Arrogant. "Don't look at me." But with bodhicitta there is space. When someone looks we can say, "Hmm. She's looking. But that's O.K." Do you understand? Rather than feeling upset you know it is all right.

Bodhicitta is the intoxicant that numbs us against pain and fills us with bliss.
Bodhicitta is the alchemy that transforms every action into benefit for others.

Bodhicitta is the cloud that carries the rain of positive energy to nourish growing things.

Bodhicitta is not doctrine. It is a state of mind. This inner experience is completely individual. So how can we see who is a Bodhisattva and who is not? can we see the self-cherishing mind?

If we feel insecure ourselves we will project that negative feeling onto others. We need the pure innermost thought of bodhicitta; wherever we go that will take care of us.

Lama Thubten Yeshe

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Thought for the day: It is not just that the creation and use of the Native North American 'talking stick' was an upward evolution, but that the letting go of it -- was just as fundamental.

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/image/131853083

:yo:

[Jenci]

Not once on this forum in all the many many posts and threads I have poured through have I ever found the simple acknowledgement that dissolution of ego does not equate to loss of self/personality.

It truly disturbs me that the onus appears to be destruction of self to acheive peace..here.

It is nonsense to believe that one has deny their personality to acheive higher consciousness.

sorry to say it but there is an adversary and obssessing the self with self dissoulution is simply putting the species on the dinner plate. jmho


Hi Dan

No one here is saying do away with personality, quite the opposite.

There is a process here we are going through.

For most people their perspective of life is from the ego - which is a limited sense of a separate self. We could say in this process the goal is go from this to perceiviing life from the real Self, which is the total Self, rather than the limited one with the ego.

To do this, first we need to see the ego - limited, separate sense of self - for what it is. In the context of this thread we have been discussing all the ways the ego defines its limited sense of self through ideas, beliefs, opinions, conditioning etc.

When these are removed we can see beyond the ego and our perspective on life switches from the limited self of separate self to the real Self which is the whole - everything.

From this new perspective there is no ego - meaning a limited sense of separate self - as this has been transcended or gone beyond but the person is still left. There is still a body and a mind and contained within it is a personality.

The personality does not get destroyed, in fact in this process it gets to blossom. Unhindered by the constraints of the ego (limited sense of separate self) the personality can freely be the expression of the Divine that it is meant to be.

Jeanette

[Carmody]

Another Bob, I just have to tell you, you are a wonderful writer. You have a talent. Also I want to wish you a Happy weekend. The allusion about getting a blood transfusion and having it bleed out of their chest sounds like the story of my life actually. I feel pretty empty these days, and nothing seems to affect me much. Hopefully I will pull out of my trance soon. I no longer know who I am, where I am going, or where I will end up. I relate with what you have written, and what I think you are saying, lol. Thank you for sharing your thoughts.

s0YJaOPC8I8

[Bo Atkinson]

....From this new perspective there is no ego - meaning a limited sense of separate self - as this has been transcended or gone beyond but the person is still left. There is still a body and a mind and contained within it is a personality.

The personality does not get destroyed, in fact in this process it gets to blossom. Unhindered by the constraints of the ego (limited sense of separate self) the personality can freely be the expression of the Divine that it is meant to be.

Jeanette

With all due respect Jeanette, also with acceptance of these general perspectives: There are yet a small percentage of persons who actually manifest differently. Which should not be construed as wrestling your words nor Anotherbob's words per se.

Rather, that we do have an array of complementary people-types. Perhaps just tincture of traits, to offset the oblate. Some who lean all to heavily towards, a curious sort of creative approach, where self is ego-amour-ed.

As a child, before comprehending the way things are, what ever will be, will be. My path was to try on many glasses. Or the coolest shades around me-- To see what i could see, to be accepted, by what ever semblance was directed. Indeed, for the most part it hurt and drove me deep, way down and way out. I learned too many wrong ways to see and bad ways to be. Yet, in spite of my self imposed egoism, the creative side nevertheless tunneled it's way through. Some rays of light were learned and some lively meanings clear things up, the unwanted blockages (and excess beer). Reactive sensitivities clashed, with mounting reprehensibility, which in the long run lead, into devoted efforts, of building humility. Humility became my shouldered advocate. While this life's game plays out, the roles of selves, manifested as an art.

Thanks again AnotherBob, you inspire and impart.

[onawah]

Thanks especially for that music, which fit so well what I am feeling today.
This is a copy of the letter I sent out just now to a local Contact group that I recently initiated, which I wanted to share.
It's not exactly on topic in one sense, but in another sense, I think it fits right in here.
It has to do with what happened to me last night, Saturday night, and it was life changing...


It was a perfect night for it, as the sky was crystal clear, though it was damp and got cold (for me), and M____ had to tend the fire almost full time just to keep it going, because of the dampness and the firepit design, which was more for safety and containment than for a good fire.

It was just M_____ and me for our group's first attempt at intentional Contact.
But M____ had previous Contact experience (though not planned) and lots of perseverance...
And I had a lot of determination and had spent a lot of time in meditative preparation...
So I'm very happy to be able to report that our outing was a SUCCESS!! :)

The firepit was in a field with quite a few campers around us, and under some newly budding trees, so our view directly overhead was a bit blocked, and it wasn't exactly secluded or private.
But there was a vast panorama of field and sky in front of us, which was where we were looking for the most part. and we could also clearly see the sky and stars through the branches overhead.
Although as it happened, what we saw was overhead, and not out over the field.
Though it was unquestionably NOT actually stars or an airplane or satellite that we glimpsed through the branches.

I had been flashing a large flashlight in a regular pattern overhead, and I saw a very large, bright white light, though very soft in appearance, blink three times, in a similar timing pattern to my flashlight flashes.
I told M_____ what I was seeing and pointed to the direction where the light was, and he looked and saw the last one of the three flashes.
There were no other lights there other than the stars ( which of course, weren't flashing or nearly as bright), no airplanes or any other visible light sources.

The light was flashing in sequence, it appeared larger and brighter than any other light in the sky, and it also had a unique quality.
It looked more like it was shining through a hole that had been punched through space, rather than coming from an object in space.
I've seen that quality before, in videos on youtube of people who have filmed their Contact experience while exchanging signals with UFOs.
The light definitely has a different quality than light from stars or airplanes or satellites, which if I had to apply adjectives to, I would say it was soft, warm and inviting...

Perhaps it's normal for Contact to not quite sink in it first, because that's kind of how it was until after I got home and had a chance to put things in perspective.
I know it's not because I've talked myself into believing, and M_____ can confirm that because he saw the light too, and I don't think he has any issues with what I'm reporting here.
I think perhaps interdimensional Contact just acts on our brains differently somehow, and that was what we experienced.

But I am definitely excited now!
Today I know that I've had an important spiritual experience; a subtle one, but subtle is good!
I don't want to have to make those ET/EDs work too hard.. :)
But I'm feeling grateful as well as blessed.
And I want more...!

And hopefully you will be inspired too to make the effort to get out there next time, wherever the meeting place is.
Inspiration shared is inspiration exponentially increased.
If M_____ and I succeeded last night, our first attempt, even with all the distractions, I imagine we could achieve something more dramatic and sustained in a more private location, with more focus and a little more knowledge now of how to prepare.
I'm taking that initial success as a very good indicator that more will follow, and that this is a very good time for such an endeavor.
See last night's beautiful sky here: http://www.spaceweather.com/





http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9bfLHhyViI&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y_yJx4fgFUg&feature=related
:grouphug:

[dan i el]

Not once on this forum in all the many many posts and threads I have poured through have I ever found the simple acknowledgement that dissolution of ego does not equate to loss of self/personality.

It truly disturbs me that the onus appears to be destruction of self to acheive peace..here.

It is nonsense to believe that one has deny their personality to acheive higher consciousness.

sorry to say it but there is an adversary and obssessing the self with self dissoulution is simply putting the species on the dinner plate. jmho


Hi Dan

No one here is saying do away with personality, quite the opposite.

There is a process here we are going through.

For most people their perspective of life is from the ego - which is a limited sense of a separate self. We could say in this process the goal is go from this to perceiviing life from the real Self, which is the total Self, rather than the limited one with the ego.

To do this, first we need to see the ego - limited, separate sense of self - for what it is. In the context of this thread we have been discussing all the ways the ego defines its limited sense of self through ideas, beliefs, opinions, conditioning etc.

When these are removed we can see beyond the ego and our perspective on life switches from the limited self of separate self to the real Self which is the whole - everything.

From this new perspective there is no ego - meaning a limited sense of separate self - as this has been transcended or gone beyond but the person is still left. There is still a body and a mind and contained within it is a personality.

The personality does not get destroyed, in fact in this process it gets to blossom. Unhindered by the constraints of the ego (limited sense of separate self) the personality can freely be the expression of the Divine that it is meant to be.

Jeanette

Hiya Jeanette,

strange as it may well sound but i really do understand and embrace what you talk of. I just don't get how the "concept" is applicable to the real terms experience...we can try and try and try but ultimately ( FMPOV) this concept itself is illusion!! WE HAVE EGO TENDENCY. denying it is nonsense! give an example of at least one being that doesn't exhibit ego! for example UG Krishnamurti - pretty far out yeah - grumpy old sod ego still there! jmo

It is dangerous to wrap ourselves in these things. I have an ego! I dont mind that - nevertheless, i still FEEL intrinsic connection to creation itself. If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!! you, no?

I sound like a stanist! but i really have no interest in that!

[gripreaper]

Once you know who you are, then nothing from outside yourself can threaten you.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbn__Tta_0E

[another bob]

If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!!

Hiya Dan!

After 85 pages of Greybeard's thread on Enlightenment and the ego, it still appears that there is a lot of confusion about terms, and probably that situation will remain so for most, at least until they awaken through direct experience to that which is prior to the meaning-making mind.

In the meantime, in hopes of clarifying the term for the purposes of this thread at least, I'll offer a description which I feel cuts to the heart of the matter, characterizing "ego" as an activity, not an entity:

"Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception, in the form of grasping; and, away from objects, in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And "who" is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion".

~Adyashanti

[dan i el]

If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!!

Hiya Dan!

After 85 pages of Greybeard's thread on Enlightenment and the ego, it still appears that there is a lot of confusion about terms, and probably that situation will remain so for most, at least until they awaken through direct experience to that which is prior to the meaning-making mind.

In the meantime, in hopes of clarifying the term for the purposes of this thread at least, I'll offer a description which I feel cuts to the heart of the matter, characterizing "ego" as an activity, not an entity:

"Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception, in the form of grasping; and, away from objects, in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And "who" is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion".

~Adyashanti

Bob, you remember that post where I got called an asshole? In these terms Adyashanti refers to - do you really truly think that any of us on this forum are sincerely truly in at on such a place? I don't see that!

and the contentious point is - why the g**bler does that even actually matter ?? - why strive for this state if the very means of striving for it negates it?? if i live thinking i have no ego tendency and therefore become "i am" when in actuality it is a well meaning and gentle facade to cope with existential terror then what meaning could i afterwards ascribe to it were i to have such an opportunity? i'd just be either redundant or doing the same loop!!

[another bob]

In these terms Adyashanti refers to - do you really truly think that any of us on this forum are sincerely truly in at on such a place?

Dan, I'm in no position to make such a determination, because I am not looking out of anyone else's eyes, at least while occupying this current vehicle.

As Ramana Maharshi noted,

"A jnani is not conscious of liberation or bondage. Bondage, liberation, and
orders of liberation are all for the ignorant, in order that ignorance
might be shaken off. There is only liberation, and nothing else. Nor is
there any difference between the jnani and the ignorant (ajnani) in their
conduct; the difference lies only in their angles of vision."


:yo:

[dan i el]

In these terms Adyashanti refers to - do you really truly think that any of us on this forum are sincerely truly in at on such a place?

Dan, I'm in no position to make such a determination, because I am not looking out of anyone else's eyes, at least while occupying this current vehicle.

As Ramana Maharshi noted,

"A jnani is not conscious of liberation or bondage. Bondage, liberation, and
orders of liberation are all for the ignorant, in order that ignorance
might be shaken off. There is only liberation, and nothing else. Nor is
there any difference between the jnani and the ignorant (ajnani) in their
conduct; the difference lies only in their angles of vision."


:yo:

yes, Bob but not to be curt - the angles of vision are all splayed out for view,from all of us, through our keyboard tapping here... the very action of what we are doing here is sanctuary for the ego. why cant we grasp that?

It's clear that a definition of the term is necessary but elusive in this - but nevertheless, we have ego tendency. it's hardwired imo - that doesnt imho mean one cannot "raise their consciousness". I feel it is just honesty to say it! Perhaps, I am wrong and some people feel 2 inches off the floor but "normal" - I have an ego and, sorry to say it but you do too! we all do! what's the problem with that?

[Zor B]

That was a lot of fun to read .....sense you are a good friend to have .....We are all in this together as One......many aspects of......I like the Wing Maker approach.......over KS ......for what it is worth.
Zor B

[another bob]

... the very action of what we are doing here is sanctuary for the ego.

We're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one, Dan, since we apparently have two widely divergent views on what this community represents.

:yo:

¤=[Post Update]=¤



I have an ego and, sorry to say it but you do too! we all do! what's the problem with that?

If it's not a problem, then why apologize?

[dan i el]

... the very action of what we are doing here is sanctuary for the ego.

We're going to have to just agree to disagree on this one, Dan, since we apparently have two widely divergent views on what this community represents.

:yo:

¤=[Post Update]=¤



I have an ego and, sorry to say it but you do too! we all do! what's the problem with that?

If it's not a problem, then why apologize?

I think the community functions and facilitates both as a vehicle/endeavour to raise consciousness - hopefully through the nitty gritty of honesty, an aggregator of information that most are reticent to disseminate and also hopefully as a sanctuary from the toxicity that is sanctioned as approved thought...
I don't know if our views are divergent. How do you see it?

Apologising is something I got used to for unwelcome speaking - it's nigh on typical with aspergers :S

[another bob]

First off, Dan, I'd like to mention something about thread etiquette. You have a habit of regularly going back and editing your posts after they have already been responded to. This happened numerous times during our exchanges on Greybeard's thread, and it's happening here too. It does make for a rather bizarre conversation. If you want to say something, just say it. If you want to follow up, do so in a suceeding post, for the sake of cohernrence.

As far as how I see this forum -- again, that's really a subject for another thread, since we are once again veering off topic from my original comments. It appears you have a lot of judgments about people's levels of awareness, and I don't feel I want to support that particular line of inquiry in this thread.

Thanks again for your consideration!

:yo:

[dan i el]

First off, Dan, I'd like to mention something about thread etiquette. You have a habit of regularly going back and editing your posts after they have already been responded to. This happened numerous times during our exchanges on Greybeard's thread, and it's happening here too. It does make for a rather bizarre conversation. If you want to say something, just say it. If you want to follow up, do so in a suceeding post, for the sake of cohernrence.

As far as how I see this forum -- again, that's really a subject for another thread, since we are once again veering off topic from my original comments. It appears you have a lot of judgments about people's levels of awareness, and I don't feel I want to support that particular line of inquiry in this thread.

Thanks again for your consideration!

:yo:

Many apologies - I embellish my thoughts as fast as possible often..it is true! I'll stop doing so if it too bizarre! sorry! I didn't like to post too many posts, you know..
I make no judgements of peoples' levels of awareness other than we are all in the gloop! multifaceted gloop as you pointed out!

wanting to stay in the discussion - i will certainly pipe down somewhat and keep the topic on! I am simply very interested in the subject 'at hand'.

[TraineeHuman]

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

Later philosophers have pointed out that the meaning of the word “language” here should be broadened to include signs, expressions, gestures, pictures, and so on. But the vast majority of contemporary philosophers continue to totally agree that this statement is true. That’s one reason why I find it hilarious to read any assertions about how the deeper reality, or love, or whatever, is “unsayable”, or about how inadequate a medium language is. The truth is, folks, that the language we use isn’t some kind of passive servant. It actively shapes what’s possible and what’s not possible to say, and therefore even to understand. We can’t understand anything unless we can communicate it to ourselves. And we can’t communicate it to ourselves without using “language” of some kind, maybe in some broader sense.

Go on, folks, give me some big laughs. tell me how “wrong” I am about “the” unsayable.


Hi TraineeHuman

I am not going to say that you are wrong because this is your experience and it is right for you. My experience, though, is different.

What I am is unsayable. It's beyond my mind and all of its language. It's prior to everything so therefore anything which arises in it, is secondary. The secondary can never be the primary.

It's like a knife which cannot cut itself. Perhaps not a great metaphore but one to illustrate that the naming of this cannot be done with something which comes after it.

We are not denying language here or the mind, intellect and ego. Everything is included but it is recognising that these are only a fraction of what we truly are. These are tools that we can use to navigate our way through this life but they are not what we are.

As tools, they can give what we truly are, a way to fully express itself as a human being.

Jeanette

Hi Jeanette,

I don’t agree that my experience, or awareness, is (necessarily) any different than yours. Nor was Wittgenstein’s.

It’s very easy to confuse the formless with the unsayable. Certainly, the formless is harder to put into words than anything that has a fixed form. The formless often seems unsayable. It’s elusive.

May I suggest that if what you are truly is unsayable – as you say –-, then what you are must be equally unknowable – even to you.

Are you – the real you -- unknowable? If so, how do you know?

If not, are you telling me the process of how you know is completely unsayable?
_______


To put it another way, the knowing of what you are is, or is based on, the showing or telling yourself what you are. And if it's showing, for that showing to be complete it will be a form of telling. Telling, in some broad enough sense of language, of saying.

[another bob]

To put it another way, the knowing of what you are is, or is based on, the showing or telling yourself what you are.



One can show and tell themselves all sorts of things, but still be no closer to knowing what they actually are, except that they are, and that's about it, despite the fact that the effort to confirm our existence, our personal self-image, continues to be just about our favorite pastime.

Nevertheless, we can't use the mind to seek for mind, since the mind cannot grasp itself. Searching for it is like a wave searching for the ocean. We have never been, nor could we ever be, separated enough from what we are to have whatever that is be some kind of an object or goal to be known and attained. What we truly are is ungraspable and unknowable, but if you disagree, then by all means knock yourself out trying. In fact, though we can know all sorts of details about something, we can never know or describe what a thing truly is. Moreover, that's been the testimony of sages throughout human history, so I'm not just making it up.

Though it is beyond all labels and words, forever unnameable, we give our true self all kinds of names: Awareness, Mind, Buddha, true nature, original face, God, energy, spirit . . . They are just labels. When you experience true self, you just experience it. There is no one there experiencing it; there is just it. What is, simply is. No words can describe it. No example can point to it. Samsara does not make it worst, Nirvana does not make it better. It has never been liberated, it has never been deluded. It has never existed, it has never been nonexistent. It has no limits at all. It does not fall into any kind of category. This essence is not born and can never die. It exists eternally. But what is it? No one knows. Any concept we have of what it is can only be an analogy...


“The ocean moves, not because it wishes to move
or because it knows that it is wise or good:
it moves involuntarily, unconscious of movement.
It is thus that you also will return to Tao,
and when you have returned, you will not know it,
because you yourself would have become Tao.”

Wu Wei


:yo:

[Jenci]

Not once on this forum in all the many many posts and threads I have poured through have I ever found the simple acknowledgement that dissolution of ego does not equate to loss of self/personality.

It truly disturbs me that the onus appears to be destruction of self to acheive peace..here.

It is nonsense to believe that one has deny their personality to acheive higher consciousness.

sorry to say it but there is an adversary and obssessing the self with self dissoulution is simply putting the species on the dinner plate. jmho


Hi Dan

No one here is saying do away with personality, quite the opposite.

There is a process here we are going through.

For most people their perspective of life is from the ego - which is a limited sense of a separate self. We could say in this process the goal is go from this to perceiviing life from the real Self, which is the total Self, rather than the limited one with the ego.

To do this, first we need to see the ego - limited, separate sense of self - for what it is. In the context of this thread we have been discussing all the ways the ego defines its limited sense of self through ideas, beliefs, opinions, conditioning etc.

When these are removed we can see beyond the ego and our perspective on life switches from the limited self of separate self to the real Self which is the whole - everything.

From this new perspective there is no ego - meaning a limited sense of separate self - as this has been transcended or gone beyond but the person is still left. There is still a body and a mind and contained within it is a personality.

The personality does not get destroyed, in fact in this process it gets to blossom. Unhindered by the constraints of the ego (limited sense of separate self) the personality can freely be the expression of the Divine that it is meant to be.

Jeanette

Hiya Jeanette,

strange as it may well sound but i really do understand and embrace what you talk of. I just don't get how the "concept" is applicable to the real terms experience...we can try and try and try but ultimately ( FMPOV) this concept itself is illusion!! WE HAVE EGO TENDENCY. denying it is nonsense! give an example of at least one being that doesn't exhibit ego! for example UG Krishnamurti - pretty far out yeah - grumpy old sod ego still there! jmo

It is dangerous to wrap ourselves in these things. I have an ego! I dont mind that - nevertheless, i still FEEL intrinsic connection to creation itself. If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!! you, no?

I sound like a stanist! but i really have no interest in that!

Hi Dan,

I'm happy to answer questions on this subject to help people understand what we are talking about but I am not sure from your response to me that you are interested in exploring this topic.

What we are talking about is not dangerous. In fact many people who have had these experiences have had them at a point in their lives which has quite literally saved their saves.

This thread is important and helpful to people following this path but I certainly do understand that it is not for everyone.
Jeanette

[Jenci]

The limits of my language are the limits of my world.

Later philosophers have pointed out that the meaning of the word “language” here should be broadened to include signs, expressions, gestures, pictures, and so on. But the vast majority of contemporary philosophers continue to totally agree that this statement is true. That’s one reason why I find it hilarious to read any assertions about how the deeper reality, or love, or whatever, is “unsayable”, or about how inadequate a medium language is. The truth is, folks, that the language we use isn’t some kind of passive servant. It actively shapes what’s possible and what’s not possible to say, and therefore even to understand. We can’t understand anything unless we can communicate it to ourselves. And we can’t communicate it to ourselves without using “language” of some kind, maybe in some broader sense.

Go on, folks, give me some big laughs. tell me how “wrong” I am about “the” unsayable.


Hi TraineeHuman

I am not going to say that you are wrong because this is your experience and it is right for you. My experience, though, is different.

What I am is unsayable. It's beyond my mind and all of its language. It's prior to everything so therefore anything which arises in it, is secondary. The secondary can never be the primary.

It's like a knife which cannot cut itself. Perhaps not a great metaphore but one to illustrate that the naming of this cannot be done with something which comes after it.

We are not denying language here or the mind, intellect and ego. Everything is included but it is recognising that these are only a fraction of what we truly are. These are tools that we can use to navigate our way through this life but they are not what we are.

As tools, they can give what we truly are, a way to fully express itself as a human being.

Jeanette

Hi Jeanette,

I don’t agree that my experience, or awareness, is (necessarily) any different than yours. Nor was Wittgenstein’s.

It’s very easy to confuse the formless with the unsayable. Certainly, the formless is harder to put into words than anything that has a fixed form. The formless often seems unsayable. It’s elusive.

May I suggest that if what you are truly is unsayable – as you say –-, then what you are must be equally unknowable – even to you.

Are you – the real you -- unknowable? If so, how do you know?

If not, are you telling me the process of how you know is completely unsayable?
_______


To put it another way, the knowing of what you are is, or is based on, the showing or telling yourself what you are. And if it's showing, for that showing to be complete it will be a form of telling. Telling, in some broad enough sense of language, of saying.


Hi TH

What I am is unknowable to the mind, as it is unsayable by the mind but I am not talking here about the mind. I am talking about what is beyond it.

To answer your questions, yes I do know the real me. In that knowing - which is a direct experience - all the seeking and questions end but I can't put the knowing into words because I would then have to go back to the mind to do that and therefore be restricted to the mind's limitations and words.

As to the process of knowing this, I have outlined some of the process earlier in the thread in terms of removing all the distortions and filters from the limited sense of self to reveal the true Self.

Jeanette

[TraineeHuman]

To put it another way, the knowing of what you are is, or is based on, the showing or telling yourself what you are.

... we can't use the mind to seek for mind, since the mind cannot grasp itself. Searching for it is like a wave searching for the ocean. We have never been, nor could we ever be, separated enough from what we are to have whatever that is be some kind of an object or goal to be known and attained. What we truly are is ungraspable and unknowable, but if you disagree, then by all means knock yourself out trying. In fact, though we can know all sorts of details about something, we can never know or describe what a thing truly is...
Though it is beyond all labels and words, forever unnameable, we give our true self all kinds of names... It has never existed, it has never been nonexistent. It has no limits at all. It does not fall into any kind of category... But what is it? No one knows. Any concept we have of what it is can only be an analogy...


Well, yes, except that apparently the words in your post are evidently an expression of “spirit/Being/is-ness/etc” seeking itself, whereas my words, on the other hand, were only an expression of “mind seeking itself”? I don’t think so. Is not the “spirit/Being/is-ness/etc” or the "true self" you not-talk about itself just as much something from mind, written in words, which again are the stuff of mind? Add as much perfume as you like, you still won’t overcome the stink of mind.

My purpose in making my controversial post was to hopefully awaken some members a little to how quickly and readily the ego turns grand terms into superstitious beliefs. But maybe now isn’t the right time to do that.

[dan i el]

I really am interested, Jeanette. I am just not in a very good place right now in my life and it shows. I just meant dangerous in that ideas can be misappropriated.

[Jenci]

I really am interested, Jeanette. I am just not in a very good place right now in my life and it shows. I just meant dangerous in that ideas can be misappropriated.


I understand, Dan.

I don't know what you are going through right now but speaking in general, difficult life times can bring on the biggest spiritual breakthroughs. Although the topic of this thread is the end of seeking the answers, for some reason the seeking of answers is part of the journey.....a very important part.

We are all students of life here in this lifetime. For some of us, the lessons have got really hard, as we near the end of the course.
take care
Jeanette

[RunningDeer]

"Life’s an Etch-a-Sketch Doodle"

You have control
over the knobs
and the squiggles
and turns.
Go ahead.
Shake it.
Wipe the slate clean!

[greybeard]

If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!!

Hiya Dan!

After 85 pages of Greybeard's thread on Enlightenment and the ego, it still appears that there is a lot of confusion about terms, and probably that situation will remain so for most, at least until they awaken through direct experience to that which is prior to the meaning-making mind.

In the meantime, in hopes of clarifying the term for the purposes of this thread at least, I'll offer a description which I feel cuts to the heart of the matter, characterizing "ego" as an activity, not an entity:

"Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception, in the form of grasping; and, away from objects, in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And "who" is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion".

~Adyashanti

Hi another bob
I agree there is a lot of paradox on the ego thread and that is partly down to me as it reflects a progression of understanding over several years-- it also meets people where they stand.
My own understanding has evolved greatly with your posts, Jeanette's and of course now Tim.
That does not invalidate anyones contribution on that thread.
I feel that the process for, want of a better word, is speeding up for all.
Thanks to all who have assisted me in removing belief systems concepts etc.--- its still work in progress.

Chris

[TraineeHuman]

Perhaps I should mention something about the history of philosophy. Before the mid-twentieth century, in the world of philosophy the last vestige of any attempt to suppose mind could even possibly in any way be prior to existence/being was generally given up on.

Kierkegaard, who with Nietzsche was a prime mover in bringing about this conclusion, described the situation as “the death of philosophy” in the old sense of that term. Wittgenstein was another of various figures who helped bring that “death of the old form” about.

Consequently, for anyone to suppose I’m trying to “use the mind in an attempt to understand itself” is way off the mark. At this point, there’s little for me to do because right now it seems way too difficult – or too technical -- to explain why what I’m trying to say is being misunderstood.

Incidentally, I was trying to talk about language, but for some reason everybody seems to consider that language = mind. What about, e.g., the language of Nature, that gives it all its structures? What about the “silent music” of the everythingness that is not nothing and yet communicates so much? Isn’t that a type of language?

[another bob]

To put it another way, the knowing of what you are is, or is based on, the showing or telling yourself what you are.

... we can't use the mind to seek for mind, since the mind cannot grasp itself. Searching for it is like a wave searching for the ocean. We have never been, nor could we ever be, separated enough from what we are to have whatever that is be some kind of an object or goal to be known and attained. What we truly are is ungraspable and unknowable, but if you disagree, then by all means knock yourself out trying. In fact, though we can know all sorts of details about something, we can never know or describe what a thing truly is...
Though it is beyond all labels and words, forever unnameable, we give our true self all kinds of names... It has never existed, it has never been nonexistent. It has no limits at all. It does not fall into any kind of category... But what is it? No one knows. Any concept we have of what it is can only be an analogy...


Well, yes, except that apparently the words in your post are evidently an expression of “spirit/Being/is-ness/etc” seeking itself, whereas my words, on the other hand, were only an expression of “mind seeking itself”?


My Friend, creating strawmen at this point is kind of silly, isn't it . . .:p


http://i42.tinypic.com/121vfbt.jpg




Is not the “spirit/Being/is-ness/etc” or the "true self" you not-talk about itself just as much something from mind, written in words, which again are the stuff of mind? Add as much perfume as you like, you still won’t overcome the stink of mind


Only if we mistake the pointing finger for the moon. Remember, as we've mentioned repeatedly, without using words to communicate in this venue, there wouldn't be much of a forum here, eh . . .

[another bob]

If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!!

Hiya Dan!

After 85 pages of Greybeard's thread on Enlightenment and the ego, it still appears that there is a lot of confusion about terms, and probably that situation will remain so for most, at least until they awaken through direct experience to that which is prior to the meaning-making mind.

In the meantime, in hopes of clarifying the term for the purposes of this thread at least, I'll offer a description which I feel cuts to the heart of the matter, characterizing "ego" as an activity, not an entity:

"Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception, in the form of grasping; and, away from objects, in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And "who" is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion".

~Adyashanti

Hi another bob
I agree there is a lot of paradox on the ego thread and that is partly down to me as it reflects a progression of understanding over several years-- it also meets people where they stand.
My own understanding has evolved greatly with your posts, Jeanette's and of course now Tim.
That does not invalidate anyones contribution on that thread.


Hiya Chris!

Folks seem a bit touchy lately . . . Certainly, there was no intent to invalidate anyone's contribution, but merely to point out that we still have some confusion in terms when it comes to an understanding of "ego", as is apparent from some of the responses.



I feel that the process for, want of a better word, is speeding up for all.
Thanks to all who have assisted me in removing belief systems concepts etc.--- its still work in progress

Indeed!

[Delight]

If there is no Ego here (and I am making an assumption that this is the implication), why is there posting, why is there a forum, why is there an internet?

I read many posts that sort of seem to my own EGO (hehe) saying "Get over having a search for meaning, get beyond the mind, be without language and that is the desired state"? But I am naively disagreeing with there being any point while in this body that there is even a desired prolonged state of being without Ego and all the trappings of entangled language from the mind to which meaning is given.

There is a paradoxical turn in my singular perspective (Egoic?) where a gestalt happens and the Ego and all the rest start cooperating on a project. This is certainly before samadhi (definition menaing no longer in the world at all POOF gone for good) but has ins and outs of bliss from which many poetically inspired and colorfully painted and other urgent artistically driven messages form on the "lips" so to speak of the EGO+MIND+SOUL+SPIRIT complex.

I have heard the expression, you have to get all the way in to get out. I feel that rings true. The collusion of all the broken parts that fracture observes are not too desirable to me. What is desirable is the cohesion. It is mysterious and sometimes elsusve but is the meaning of life to me. Am I massively inflated solely in EGO to see things this way? I don;'t know but can the Ego alone feel so satisfied? It just feels like being good bread and wine and fairy shine. Maggie

[another bob]

If there is no Ego here (and I am making an assumption that this is the implication), why is there posting, why is there a forum, why is there an internet?

Hiya Maggie!

That would be an incorrect assumption. Please see my earlier post in which a definition of ego was provided, pointing out that it is not an entity, but an activity -- the activity of grasping and aversion.


:yo:

[another bob]

"Life’s an Etch-a-Sketch Doodle"

You have control
over the knobs
and the squiggles
and turns.
Go ahead.
Shake it.
Wipe the slate clean!


When we actually begin to investigate our beliefs and assumptions, our personal fixations and deeper motivations, we are inevitably drawn into an exploration of identity. We begin to question that which we had heretofore taken for granted. This requires real honesty, courage, and sincere perseverance, since the process inevitably demands that we empty ourselves of every cherished notion that constitutes our sense of personal self, as well as our world view. In letting go, discarding all our ideas about what will make us happy, what will provide meaning, we discover something very interesting. We discover that we are already happy, that happiness is our prior and natural condition, and that we have never actually been in a position that requires remedial attention or the superimposition of some provisional meaning. We are already the meaning of ourselves! We also discover that life itself is incapable of ever being tied down. While we generate volumes of theories and descriptions of reality, none of them can capture the mystery of its happening at all. And no matter now minutely we dissect and categorize experience, the lines we draw leave no trace on the seamless web of life itself.

:yo:

[RunningDeer]

"Life’s an Etch-a-Sketch Doodle"

You have control
over the knobs
and the squiggles
and turns.
Go ahead.
Shake it.
Wipe the slate clean!
While we generate volumes of theories and descriptions of reality, none of them can capture the mystery of its happening at all. And no matter now minutely we dissect and categorize experience, the lines we draw leave no trace on the seamless web of life itself.

:yo:

All's I got is crickets in my head right now. I'm trying to come up with something profound. A plain and simple thanks for this precious alignment of agreement. And a sincere appreciation for this acknowledgment, Sir Bob. :wave:

Peace and Joy,
WhiteCrowBlackDeer

[gripreaper]

If there is no Ego here (and I am making an assumption that this is the implication), why is there posting, why is there a forum, why is there an internet?

I read many posts that sort of seem to my own EGO (hehe) saying "Get over having a search for meaning, get beyond the mind, be without language and that is the desired state"? But I am naively disagreeing with there being any point while in this body that there is even a desired prolonged state of being without Ego and all the trappings of entangled language from the mind to which meaning is given.

There is a paradoxical turn in my singular perspective (Egoic?) where a gestalt happens and the Ego and all the rest start cooperating on a project. This is certainly before samadhi (definition menaing no longer in the world at all POOF gone for good) but has ins and outs of bliss from which many poetically inspired and colorfully painted and other urgent artistically driven messages form on the "lips" so to speak of the EGO+MIND+SOUL+SPIRIT complex.

I have heard the expression, you have to get all the way in to get out. I feel that rings true. The collusion of all the broken parts that fracture observes are not too desirable to me. What is desirable is the cohesion. It is mysterious and sometimes elsusve but is the meaning of life to me. Am I massively inflated solely in EGO to see things this way? I don;'t know but can the Ego alone feel so satisfied? It just feels like being good bread and wine and fairy shine. Maggie

I so agree. The lower chakras provide the grounding and the life force, as well as the personal power as the "inertia" for the body to "emote" experience. It is the emotion which is the silver chord to the soul, or the upper chakras. It is the heart which is the great transducer.

So, for me, ascension or enlightenment, or ego v non-ego boils down to holding the fulness of spirit in a body, not leaving the body or the ego behind. It's a process of integration of both the body and soul.

I totally resonate with what Delight says above.

[Jenci]

"Life’s an Etch-a-Sketch Doodle"

You have control
over the knobs
and the squiggles
and turns.
Go ahead.
Shake it.
Wipe the slate clean!
While we generate volumes of theories and descriptions of reality, none of them can capture the mystery of its happening at all. And no matter now minutely we dissect and categorize experience, the lines we draw leave no trace on the seamless web of life itself.

:yo:

All's I got is crickets in my head right now. I'm trying to come up with something profound. A plain and simple thanks for this precious alignment of agreement. And a sincere appreciation for this acknowledgment, Sir Bob. :wave:

Peace and Joy,
WhiteCrowBlackDeer

What's wrong with crickets :party:


Jeanette

[another bob]

What's wrong with crickets :party:




ujBTOPhGLMo



:yo:

[RunningDeer]

"Life’s an Etch-a-Sketch Doodle"

You have control
over the knobs
and the squiggles
and turns.
Go ahead.
Shake it.
Wipe the slate clean!
While we generate volumes of theories and descriptions of reality, none of them can capture the mystery of its happening at all. And no matter now minutely we dissect and categorize experience, the lines we draw leave no trace on the seamless web of life itself.

:yo:

All's I got is crickets in my head right now. I'm trying to come up with something profound. A plain and simple thanks for this precious alignment of agreement. And a sincere appreciation for this acknowledgment, Sir Bob. :wave:

Peace and Joy,
WhiteCrowBlackDeer

What's wrong with crickets :party:


Jeanette

I just logged on and scrolled to the bottom of the page and belted out a laugh! Ah, too funny! I love those little guys. Cricket-critters are nice and kind. They use their manners. They say please and thank you. And are respectful. Guess that's why they bring us good luck! I say please don't feed the fish. Use bread, instead. (non-GMO of course)
:amen:

Chirp, chirping, while one hand clapping,
Paula

[Eagle]

crickets are good with chocolate

[RunningDeer]

Bob, I bookmarked that cricket vid. Beautiful. I only thought they were black.

¤=[Post Update]=¤


crickets are good with chocolate
Aw, I don't know, Dig. I asked them and it seems that you are out numbered.

[another bob]

Bob, I bookmarked that cricket vid. Beautiful. I only thought they were black


http://www.pbase.com/1heart/drips_from_the_tsung_ching

http://www.pbase.com/1heart/cricket_bliss


:yo:

[RunningDeer]

If ego means "i am important, this is my car, this makes me wonderful in the eyes of others etc" then, yes - it is flub - is that the ego you talk about, this defensive me against the world condition? That is not at all what I refer to. I mean it in terms of "ooh, here i am and i am me." i am subject to the universe not it's object!!!!!

Hiya Dan!

After 85 pages of Greybeard's thread on Enlightenment and the ego, it still appears that there is a lot of confusion about terms, and probably that situation will remain so for most, at least until they awaken through direct experience to that which is prior to the meaning-making mind.

In the meantime, in hopes of clarifying the term for the purposes of this thread at least, I'll offer a description which I feel cuts to the heart of the matter, characterizing "ego" as an activity, not an entity:

"Ego is the movement of the mind toward objects of perception, in the form of grasping; and, away from objects, in the form of aversion. This fundamentally is all the ego is. This movement of grasping and aversion gives rise to a sense of a separate "me," and in turn the sense of "me" strengthens itself this way. It is this continuous loop of causation that tricks consciousness into a trance of identification. Identification with what? Identification with the continuous loop of suffering. After all, who is suffering? The "me" is suffering. And "who" is this me? It is nothing more than a sense of self caused by identification with grasping and aversion".

~Adyashanti

Hi another bob
I agree there is a lot of paradox on the ego thread and that is partly down to me as it reflects a progression of understanding over several years-- it also meets people where they stand.
My own understanding has evolved greatly with your posts, Jeanette's and of course now Tim.
That does not invalidate anyones contribution on that thread.


Hiya Chris!

Folks seem a bit touchy lately . . . Certainly, there was no intent to invalidate anyone's contribution, but merely to point out that we still have some confusion in terms when it comes to an understanding of "ego", as is apparent from some of the responses.



I feel that the process for, want of a better word, is speeding up for all.
Thanks to all who have assisted me in removing belief systems concepts etc.--- its still work in progress

Indeed!

potatoes potAHtoes The End. Period. (leaving....carry on)

[another bob]

potatoes potAHtoes The End. Period.


http://i40.tinypic.com/15n67f8.gif


;)

[jorr lundstrom]

I try to follow the thread. Ive found out that the small black
things are called letters and if more than one are close, its
called words. Fascinating indeed. LOL


2 in 1, Zaphod Beeblebrox

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/zaphodbeeblebrox.jpg

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

I try to follow the thread. Ive found out that the small black
things are called letters and if more than one are close, its
called words. Fascinating indeed. LOL

http://i41.tinypic.com/34i1un5.gif

[jorr lundstrom]

I try to follow the thread. Ive found out that the small black
things are called letters and if more than one are close, its
called words. Fascinating indeed. LOL

http://i41.tinypic.com/34i1un5.gif

Ive seen that too. Its called walking. LOL

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

Its called walking. LOL

Well, if the Dead can dance, I suppose they can walk too . . .


http://i41.tinypic.com/2m4389l.gif


:o

[greybeard]

The words are not the problem--- its the belief that the labeling is a true reflection of what the word is pointing to.
There is no denying we need words.
Understanding that is a walk in the park (easy)
Keep the humor coming guys.
Chris

[jorr lundstrom]

Well, if the Dead can dance, I suppose they can walk too . . .








Well I know they can at least experience walking. LOL

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/Happy_Easter.jpg

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/Happy_Easter.jpg

All is well


Jorr


In good hands . . .


;)

http://i43.tinypic.com/so5y4i.jpg

¤=[Post Update]=¤


The words are not the problem--- its the belief that the labeling is a true reflection of what the word is pointing to.

Right, Brother!

I posted this quote in another thread, but it bears repeating here:

The mind was originally a tool in the struggle for biological survival. It had to learn that the laws and ways of Nature working hand-in-hand can raise life to a higher level. But, in the process the mind acquired the art of symbolic thinking and communication, the art and skill of language. Words became important. Ideas and abstractions acquired an appearance of reality, the conceptual replaced the real, with the result that man now lives in a verbal world, crowded with words and dominated by words.
Obviously, for dealing with things and people words are exceedingly useful. But they make us live in a world totally symbolic and, therefore, unreal. To break out from this prison of the verbal mind into reality, one must be able to shift one’s focus from the word to what it refers to, the thing itself.
Words are pointers, they show the direction but they will not come along with us. Truth is the fruit of earnest action, words merely point the way.

Maurice Frydman

[jorr lundstrom]

Yeah, everyone is welcome in good hands. LOL


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/Smilodon_Fatalis_by_balaa.jpg

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

Yeah, everyone is welcome in good hands. LOL

Nice kitties!

Speaking of words and big cats . . .

http://i44.tinypic.com/ngeib5.gif

[RunningDeer]

Oh, I've always believed that you deep thinkers, philosophers, spiritual icons of another kind, played. Leaving now...walking now...going, going, gone.. (fade to black) Cut! It's a wrap.

[jorr lundstrom]

Our black female "Ball head" agrees. LOL

But I wonder. Is there anyone out there?


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/AngryBlackPanther.jpg

All is well


Jorr

[another bob]

Oh, I've always believed that you deep thinkers, philosophers, spiritual icons of another kind, played

Hehe, it's what it's all about, after all is said . . .


http://i44.tinypic.com/13ygdaq.gif

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Our black female "Ball head" agrees.

Cats like to play too . . .


http://i41.tinypic.com/986e8o.gif

[jorr lundstrom]

Cats like to play too . . .


Playing is all over. Its playtime universally. LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwBSEp6-2DY

All is well


Jorr

[Jenci]

Just because it is a favourite of mine and relevant to this topic. Eventually we get to the point where we look back on all those questions we had in the seeking....and we just laugh :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI

source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI


Jeanette

[another bob]

Playing is all over. Its playtime universally. LOL


http://i40.tinypic.com/n6chzc.gif





http://i40.tinypic.com/21odai0.gif



;)

¤=[Post Update]=¤


Just because it is a favourite of mine and relevant to this topic. Eventually we get to the point where we look back on all those questions we had in the seeking....and we just laugh :)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI

source:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1UuaOye9VyI


Jeanette



http://i43.tinypic.com/eiw9om.gif

[jorr lundstrom]

I had 2 hrs tonight under our car, on a frosty lawn, fixing a
broken gasoline tube. Fingers numb, icebergs in the vessels,
laughing all the time. Seriousness, well, not my cup of tea.

Hohoho

http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/chrysler.jpg


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/morotinsan.jpg

All is well


Jorr

[jorr lundstrom]

Jeanette, we have all seen this many times, but.................LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvgvDkdG2M


All is well


Jorr

[NancyV]

Just because it is a favourite of mine and relevant to this topic. Eventually we get to the point where we look back on all those questions we had in the seeking....and we just laugh :)

Jeanette
Thanks, Jeanette, absolutely delightful...I'm still laughing and just now had to wipe the tears off my cheeks! I laughed so hard I cried!

:clap2:

[Maria Stade]

Its called walking. LOL

Well, if the Dead can dance, I suppose they can walk too . . .


http://i41.tinypic.com/2m4389l.gif


:o

Yea they can that to :dance3::dance::dance3:

[another bob]

Its called walking. LOL

Well, if the Dead can dance, I suppose they can walk too . . .


http://i41.tinypic.com/2m4389l.gif


:o

Yea they can that to :dance3::dance::dance3:


Even in the etheric realms, they'll be dancin' in the streets . . .

http://i41.tinypic.com/33bjnms.gif



and of course, the flowers sprites . . .


http://i40.tinypic.com/2dsmv5x.gif


;)

[another bob]

I had 2 hrs tonight under our car, on a frosty lawn, fixing a
broken gasoline tube. Fingers numb, icebergs in the vessels,
laughing all the time. Seriousness, well, not my cup of tea.

Hohoho


http://i600.photobucket.com/albums/tt81/sakasvattaja/morotinsan.jpg

All is well


Jorr




http://i40.tinypic.com/2969zk.gif

[another bob]

Just because it is a favourite of mine and relevant to this topic. Eventually we get to the point where we look back on all those questions we had in the seeking....and we just laugh :)

JeanetteI laughed so hard I cried!:clap2:



http://i44.tinypic.com/6te4n6.jpg









http://i44.tinypic.com/sqplvs.gif

[jorr lundstrom]

Well, as Im about to be put to bed, this is my last(for now).LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2nEyPAmMr5A

All is utterly well


Jorr

[Delight]

[QUOTE=Jenci;456038]Just because it is a favourite of mine and relevant to this topic. Eventually we get to the point where we look back on all those questions we had in the seeking....and we just laugh :)

JeanetteI laughed so hard I cried!:clap2:



http://i44.tinypic.com/6te4n6.jpg

I watch this once in awhile and cry till I laugh.

9XrJWD9C8tw

[Selene]

Oh, geez – these are all purely wonderful… and tooooo good!

At the risk of being scooted out of the room for semi-seriousness here, I am reminded of something one of the good nuns of my childhood said:

“You will need ‘three bones’ to succeed in the spiritual life:

• A Head bone
• A Back bone
And
• A Funny bone

“Most of us”, she counseled, “can manage the first two. But it is the third bone – the funny bone – that will carry you the full distance….”

Wise lady, that.

http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/5577/gigglesr.png

Cheers,

Selene

[Debra]

I posted this quote in another thread, but it bears repeating here:

The mind was originally a tool in the struggle for biological survival. It had to learn that the laws and ways of Nature working hand-in-hand can raise life to a higher level. But, in the process the mind acquired the art of symbolic thinking and communication, the art and skill of language. Words became important. Ideas and abstractions acquired an appearance of reality, the conceptual replaced the real, with the result that man now lives in a verbal world, crowded with words and dominated by words.
Obviously, for dealing with things and people words are exceedingly useful. But they make us live in a world totally symbolic and, therefore, unreal. To break out from this prison of the verbal mind into reality, one must be able to shift one’s focus from the word to what it refers to, the thing itself.
Words are pointers, they show the direction but they will not come along with us. Truth is the fruit of earnest action, words merely point the way.

Maurice Frydman



Nice quote another bob ... and your elegant OP !

Just stepped into this thread and I can see that a few interesting cocktails and other interesting substances were mulled over last Saturday night. I missed being in the action. Darn. But in the early hours of Tuesday, this thread is still making a whole lotta meaning for me.

So it is not futile for me in this lovely moment. But hang on, as I am writing here, stream of consciousness, I am going downhill ..

HELP (note that I am feeling right now, not thinking) yet I am in a stream of making meaning - and know not where this post will end. I agree with you that the mind (note: I am thinking now) is a tool that trucks in words. And (I am feeling this as well) my mind can be a hard place, if you can think of a shared symbol for something immovable, cold, uncomfortable and unforgiving. Oh help me mother: the power of the word is still to my mind a jail that I find myself, and the jail I create for myself because - in word mode - I hand over way too much power, in my humble operating onion.

I need to break out and get out of this joint. Where is the action around here?

I have to keep reminding myself that I cannot rely on just this limited word software to help me to communicate what I feel is meaning for me. One, because I feel restricted by agreed meanings of symbols. And two, because it is an insidious distraction, I am spending more time writing, constructing, trying to make things clear and grammatically correct because I want to make meaning but I get caught up in a modality that is really not the whole me (right now, my mind is ruling, can you see?

I believe that words have their place. That is a judgmental mind concept, however, it is part of what my feeling zone is trying to understand and extrapolate meaning from to apportion the importance of words as one way, but not more important than other ways of communicating meaning. I am so guilty of mis using words, unconsciously but also with clear intent. Forgive me, but I have been guilty of manipulating as well in the word jungle - I hand myself in. Busted. Give me 10 years. I put my hand up, my words get carried away with themselves, and want to be the most important thing.

What a most futile way to live. Ha, there are masters out there who can spin words far far far better than I.

Then, some clarity when my heart rears up to remind me: WHEN are you going to DO instead of crutching on words? Trying to put words together, to reach out to everyone who reads, hoping, wondering but knowing every time that I start this exercise of words, that I don´t have enough word smith power to even begin to tell what I am meaning.

That is Prison.

Sure, I can hone my skills. Reluctantly, I also remind my children that to have currency on this planet, written, spoken communication is vital for survival. UGHHH

Always act from the heart kids and if you can, write that way too. That is not so easy, for me any way.

So, if you refer to making meaning through words, then I give in. It is futile. Although there are divine presentations of words that we can all soar to, we are also more inclined to be stumbling over each others words. As Greybeard says: The belief that the labeling is a true reflection of what the word is pointing to. is indeed a very quick course to an outbreak of ´war.´ War of words, which can divide and conquer (even for just a moment, nonetheless, the effect is set to reverberate, ripple out and return to start all over again). At a war with ourselves and each other.

By using words to make meaning, often times my experience is one of negotiating through minefields. I don´t really enjoy it. My feeling and thinking on this has boiled down to this simplistic understanding: on forums especially, I believe that we are often (but not always) engaging with words in the form of engagement that we call debate.

Not on this thread, I can see too much fun being had (i love the irreverence) :)

Of course, words are not the only text that we engage with in our communications with each other. Pictures, videos and recordings are also used to serve each other as well, and they too are pieces of text for analysis and interpretation.

However, and my point here is, they still fall into contexts that carry form and meaning - as powerful as the shared and diverse cultural meanings that we invest them with.

So the form they are carried in - for me - has significant weight to the flow or obstruction of meaning. And the form of ´debate´ which is actually underwritten as the invited form of discourse on this forum, I feel does not create altogether, mutually and beneficial outcomes. I bring this up, and sorry I cannot quarantine other exchanges that I have read on the way to this thread, or ones that I have found myself engaging within. They are just reminding me - yet again - that I much prefer the irreverent but respectful engagement I see here on this thread. This kind of openness activates creativity and flowing in the zone energy, which has much better chances of becoming a shared and positive reality.

Personally, I do not care for debate. It is a form (of enquiry and challenge) used by the court system, of people defending their point of view. And words predominantly rule that system, defining right from wrong yet drawing from alleged evidence - things and actions already done. Isn´t that a delicious irony? :)

I pray for a shared system of communication and enquiry that appreciates the value of multiple intelligences in dialogue with each other. That which stays mind full of the heart space. That assists everyone in their individual quests to make meaning. That transcends to a shared understanding, so that we can co create for ways to open up to our infinite possibilities.

As text in our textual universe, words serve to point the way, and yes they do have their purpose. But, so do thoughts and the energy that we float behind each idea, that we set sail in.

I can be so confused in my search for meaning but really, I know it will never be futile. Momentarily yes, but it is something far greater than my mind that keeps calling me back, and I believe you all are a part of a magnificent, universal font that I go to :) Hmm, words as text, are a way forward (if we are talking about proceeding on a time line). If I have evolved just a speck, it is to dismount from my mind to feel the ground on which these words are placed. And I ask myself, what´s behind these words, mine as well as others? And where are they pointing to?

Zebra

[another bob]

“You will need ‘three bones’ to succeed in the spiritual life:

• A Head bone
• A Back bone
And
• A Funny bone

“Most of us”, she counseled, “can manage the first two. But it is the third bone – the funny bone – that will carry you the full distance….”



http://i42.tinypic.com/sndxnb.gif


;)

[another bob]

And I ask myself, what´s behind these words, mine as well as others? And where are they pointing to?


If I had to answer, I would say, deep intimacy.


Here's a tale I'll share, will you understand?

The destined successor, background unknown, is functioning as attendant to the living Buddha, carrying his ceremonial robe. As they stand together in the Dharma Hall, the attendant opens for the Master this venerable patchwork robe. The old sage turns and whispers,

"What is really going on beneath this robe?"

The successor, deeply prepared for the transmission of light, remains poised in silence. Intensely, the master continues to whisper,

"To study and practice the Buddha way without reaching what is beneath the robe creates the greatest pain. Please ask me the question."

The successor repeats the sage's words,

"What is really going on beneath this robe?"

With almost no sound, the Zen Master responds,

"Deep intimacy."

Immediately the successor awakens, places the ceremonial robe over the shoulders of his master, and performs three prostrations of
gratitude, abundant tears soaking his own upper robe.

Master: "You have now greatly awakened, but can you express it?"

Successor: "Yes."

Master: "What is going on beneath this robe of transmission?"

Successor: "Deep intimacy."

Master: "And even deeper intimacy."


:yo:

[Debra]

That is great! I can take this on many levels ab :)

And oh yes, the pain it is exquisite.

I´ll just nod, that I am left with no final answer. I´ll just take a well deserved pause and just bliss on this :washing:

[Jenci]

Jeanette, we have all seen this many times, but.................LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvgvDkdG2M


All is well


Jorr


.....but it is still funny ! :clap2:

[Debra]

Jeanette, we have all seen this many times, but.................LOL



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfvgvDkdG2M


All is well


Jorr


.....but it is still funny ! :clap2:




That you Jor, thank you jenci. That is the best laugh. I am so relieved. This needs to accompany every thread on this forum from now on: :bump2::bump2::bump2:

[Bhusunda]

Such a great thread.
I bookmarked it to have a look at it again and again in case I forget.

Thanks to all who participated!
Bhusunda