| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Parallax
USA
348 Posts |
 Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 09:10:29 AM
|
 ...hope this isn't taken as an ego-thrust...just pure sugar
I bow to you and to all on the forum...now off to do my basti |
 |
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 09:52:50 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by gumpi
Getting rid of ego consciousness is very easy indeed. All you need to do is fall half asleep.
dreams are also the work of the ego......
...and when you are half asleep and you think you hear a burglar coming through the window......
....and when you are half asleep and sexual reverie starts to excite you.......
No, living half asleep will not eradicate the ego!
chinna |
|
|
|
Akasha
421 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 10:00:03 AM
|
quote:
Do you imagine that all the AYP practices are not ego-driven? Like stirring a fire with a stick, all yoga is ego-driven but ends ironically with the ego's non-existence being realised.
Excellent post chinna.
quote:
But again, we are deluded if we imagine that this theatre of yoga, whichever yoga path is imagined, is not riddled with ego. That is the illusory disease being treated here. No amount of sugaring our ego-thrusts with smiley buttons will change that. To imagine that the forum is an ego-free zone and that we should be hiding our egos is to turn it into conventional religion. Yoga is about authenticity, if nothing else, about seeing and treating the ostructions to clarity and freedom, whether mental, emotional, physical, karmic, pranic, etc etc.
|
|
|
|
Steve
277 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 11:17:43 AM
|
Thank you Chinna. Your posts have been most helpful. They have added clarity to the discussions which I am finding very practical and useful ... much appreciated.
Love and Light,
Steve |
Edited by - Steve on Sep 20 2009 11:28:16 AM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 11:28:00 AM
|
Only one "act" "destroys" the "ego" and THAT IS "looking" at "it." (Where "it" cannot be found anywhere, nor can an act or action.)
Then again, you cannot say the ego is destroyed either, because "I" am "talking" about "you." (Where "I" and "you" are valid objects of social discourse).
Therefore, we can say that the goal of yoga is to recognize a better ego or to develop the ego or to purify the ego. Talk like this is still useful to the game of yoga.
Perhaps you think yoga is not a game? But it has stages and levels and a result. The result has often been described as the final dropping of prejudgments and conceptual patterns. (What about pre-conceptual patterns?)
Can one even imagine what that might look like if imagining is patterned? Yet, that is what is being asked of you. As you play the game of yoga, you are being asked to imagine yourself in a state without patterns. If you did not think that state was useful or valuable you wouldn't engage in the exercises. When I say "that or "it," to what am I referring? Are we talking about something?
Am I asking questions? Do questions imply answers? Do answers imply questions? A questioner? An act of inquiry?
The fruit is in the looking. Just look... |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 12:01:53 PM |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 12:10:11 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
The fruit is in the looking. Just look...
The quality of the looking is dependent on the clarity of the looking glass. Yoga is first about purifying the looking glass. The fruit in the looking comes after that.
The guru is in you. |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 1:25:43 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by yogani
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
The fruit is in the looking. Just look...
The quality of the looking is dependent on the clarity of the looking glass. Yoga is first about purifying the looking glass. The fruit in the looking comes after that.
The guru is in you.
Indeed... That is what Chinna is saying.
Queries:
"Quality": state of mind?
"Dependent": not one?
"Clarity": knowledge?
"Looking glass": already present?
"Fruit...after that": Causation? time?
Is the meaning and understanding and knowledge already present? Obscured by time, [in]dependence and causality? What if the obscuration is not present; our viewing it just a mistake? Should be pretty simple to not make the mistake. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 1:47:47 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 2:48:30 PM
|
IMO,
One simply needs to get to a point where the thoughtstream (includes the thoughts I, my, mine) simply becomes another object in the room. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 3:07:34 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 4:18:48 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
IMO,
One simply needs to get to a point where the thoughtstream (includes the thoughts I, my, mine) simply becomes another object in the room.
What room?
The thoughtstream becomes as objectless as the mind/world.
Under the thoughtstream is the already present all-knowledge, an undifferentiated totality intuitively known. In some sense, fictions obscured it, and nothing else. The fictions are objects (and subjects). Meaning the looking glass is already the nature of pure clarity, and the obscurations are not really present. One just needs to know how to use the looking glass correctly and the obstructions automatically disappear.
Another way of understanding is that the looking glass/smudge analogy is not apt. It is more like space and clouds in the sky. The clouds naturally dissipate without any effort from the sky or the land. In fact, the clouds are one's effort.
Yoga is remembering/familiarizing this very basic capacity. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 5:00:18 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:26:33 PM
|
| We are saying the same thing, although mine is a lot shorter to say. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 5:27:47 PM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:35:53 PM
|
yes,
the room is a thought,
the thinker of the room is a thought.
|
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:36:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
We are saying the same thing, although mine is a lot shorter to say.
What is included in "thoughtstream"? What does that mean? I understand you to mean getting to the point where you understand "I" etc are just thoughts. But that is just thinking thoughts. And meditation is not just thinking thoughts.
How much does knowing you are just thinking really help (with suffering)? It's like an elementary understanding... "Wow, I'm thinking... 'I' is a thought..." What good is that, really? It's just language. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 5:44:35 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:41:20 PM
|
No...
I'm not talking about the analysis. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 5:45:23 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:47:42 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
No...
I'm not talking about the analysis.
"I'm saying something really deep." |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 5:51:27 PM
|
Forget that I mentioned "I"
One more time:
Let the entire thoughtstream simply be another object in the room. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 5:59:41 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 6:05:32 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Forget that I mentioned "I"
One more time:
Let the entire thoughtstream simply be another object in the room.
That it? Negative emotions, frustration, anxiety, all included in the thoughtstream? |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 6:13:45 PM
|
| did you miss the word "entire"? |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 6:23:05 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 6:28:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
did you miss the word "entire"?
Maybe. Does it matter? So you let the entire thoughtstream be another object in the room full of objects... That it? This is the meditation that uproots all suffering?
Mindfulness.
The step beyond this is seeing no seer, liberate the thoughtstream in the emptiness of objects.
How? Look and see no being or non-being. Not seeing, neither reach for nor release suffering or bliss.
One has to know how to point to it, the tathata. The pointing out instructions serve this purpose.
The quick and dirty way of liberating: Look directly at any thought coming up in the moment, and by looking, I mean, look at it not appearing. Only when one is attached and focused on the images do they appear. When one is not interested in them as objects, and just looks directly at them as the mind, they are not apparent. Repeat for subtle feelings and consciousness. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 9:32:23 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 9:58:33 PM
|
| We are saying the same thing, although mine is a lot shorter to say. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 10:09:34 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 10:01:01 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
We are saying the same thing, although mine is a lot shorter to say.
If the thoughtstream continues, there is a lack of clear seeing.
"Neither reach for nor release any being or non-being." <-- The short instruction. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 10:04:41 PM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 10:07:35 PM
|
The "seer" you mentioned and the idea of a thoughtstream are themselves thoughts in the thoughtstream
Let the ENTIRE thoughtstream simply be another object in the room. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 20 2009 10:29:41 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 10:32:38 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
The "seer" you mentioned and the idea of a thoughtstream are themselves thoughts in the thoughtstream
Let the ENTIRE thoughtstream simply be another object in the room.
What thoughtstream? What objects? What room?
Don't reach for objects. LOOK toward the unseen. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 20 2009 10:39:42 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 10:58:26 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by alwayson2
Those are all thoughts!
The [non]act of liberating thoughts is not a thought. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Sep 21 2009 03:14:02 AM |
|
|
|
alwayson2
USA
546 Posts |
Posted - Sep 20 2009 : 11:16:28 PM
|
Of course, the room is a thought in the thoughtstream. This is Madhyamaka.
Let the ENTIRE thoughtstream simply be another object in the room. |
Edited by - alwayson2 on Sep 21 2009 03:15:38 AM |
|
|
|
chinna
United Kingdom
241 Posts |
Posted - Sep 21 2009 : 05:03:49 AM
|
The ENTIRE thoughtstream, including the room and the thinker, cannot be an object, and cannot be in the room. It is Indefinable.
When this is completely and intuitively known, we are free, not-two, Indefinable, and live all-out, spontaneously, without self-concern.
chinna |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
Why no Madhyamaka subforum?
