|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
brother neil
USA
752 Posts |
 Posted - Oct 04 2009 : 5:03:19 PM
|
This is something that has been on my mind a bit. Sometimes we identify with lables, I am...... a teacher, student,husband, wife, child, golfer (brother carson ), 33 years old, tall etc...
however many say we are not that, we are beyond that. So if someone says "how was your day" and you say I had a good day, weekend, I had fun, etc....... is this not reinforcing the "false I"?
just a discussion
also, some talk that all is within us, there is not "out there" only in here. and in that people will say no one is "enlightened" till all are enlightened. If joe does not understand all is "in here" but yogani does, kirtanman does, etc.... Yogani and kirtanman understand "who" they are and Joe does not. Because joe does not understand who "he" is, does this not mean Yogani, kman, etc... does not as well
thanks for the conversation
brother Neil |
Edited by - AYPforum on Oct 05 2009 1:39:36 PM |
|
|
karl
United Kingdom
1812 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2009 : 1:23:25 PM
|
"small moves Ellie, small moves".
First the silence and then the Inquiry.
Who is it that asks 'if this reinforces the false I' ? Can that 'I' be found also ? Be present right now and ask what is missing from the moment. |
 |
|
|
AYPforum
351 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2009 : 1:39:36 PM
|
| Moderator note: Topic moved for better placement |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2009 : 2:03:18 PM
|
Hey Brother Neil.....
quote:
Originally posted by brother neil
This is something that has been on my mind a bit. Sometimes we identify with lables, I am...... a teacher, student,husband, wife, child, golfer (brother carson), 33 years old, tall etc...
however many say we are not that, we are beyond that.
We are not our labels it is true. What we "think" we are, we are not. But seeing through these illusions is not (IME) an "on/off" type of thing though....it is a progression, there are phases..... I used to consider myself an "angry yet intelligent, spiritual anarchist"....that was "who I was" for a long long time. Then I lost the angry part....then the intelligent part....and slowly over time I continue to lose more and more of who I "thought" I was. Now I am not even a "golfer"... I just enjoy golfing
quote:
Originally posted by brother neil
So if someone says "how was your day" and you say I had a good day, weekend, I had fun, etc....... is this not reinforcing the "false I"?
Only if you believe and attach to your words/thoughts. Conversation is not a "bad" thing. It is one thing to say, "I had a wonderful day", to someone who asks how your day was, but it is another to believe that "you" had a good day, and not that it just WAS a good day. Using the words "I", "me" etc etc, does not have to mean that you believe there is an actual "I"....it is just easier to participate in conversation using these words. Personally I have a hard time with the question of "how was your day", or 'how are you doing", because my instinctual answer often makes people feel uncomfortable.... My usual answer is "Everything is perfect", or "I have never been better", or something along those lines simply because that is the Truth for me. But it is often not helpful to simply state this Truth while in some situations. Sometimes it is just easier, (and less awkward for others) to simply say, "I'm good" and leave it at that. Sure *they* may believe you still identify with the "I-sense", and indeed they may be right, but they also may be wrong....only you will know.
Personally I only find talking from the "I" perspective a hinderance when you identify with what you are saying.
quote:
Originally posted by brother neil
also, some talk that all is within us, there is not "out there" only in here. and in that people will say no one is "enlightened" till all are enlightened. If joe does not understand all is "in here" but yogani does, kirtanman does, etc.... Yogani and kirtanman understand "who" they are and Joe does not. Because joe does not understand who "he" is, does this not mean Yogani, kman, etc... does not as well
Good question, and I don't have an answer. Hopefully a more knowledgable soul will.
Love,
Carson |
|
|
|
brother neil
USA
752 Posts |
Posted - Oct 05 2009 : 9:52:38 PM
|
I thank you for your replies
brother Neil
|
|
|
|
derekj
USA
2 Posts |
Posted - Oct 22 2009 : 6:43:32 PM
|
| We can play our part in society while knowing the truth so dont worry brotha. Once you've been awake to the truth of the false I you cant go back. Cheers! |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 22 2009 : 9:28:30 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by brother neil
also, some talk that all is within us, there is not "out there" only in here. and in that people will say no one is "enlightened" till all are enlightened. If joe does not understand all is "in here" but yogani does, kirtanman does, etc.... Yogani and kirtanman understand "who" they are and Joe does not. Because joe does not understand who "he" is, does this not mean Yogani, kman, etc... does not as well
Good question, and I don't have an answer. Hopefully a more knowledgable soul will.
Love,
Carson
Or a less knowledgeable One ....
It's actually very, very simple:
The phrase "until all are enlightened" ... per the word "are" .... naturally draws divided mind to multiplicity-centric thinking.
Trying to get any of this conceptually, is *very* dicey at best.
Experientially, it's simplicity itself ---- really.
More accurate to say:
When enlightenment occurs, it is seen that "all is enlightened" ...... awareness is always inherently experiencing itself as a single field ... yet, not all *knows* it is enlightened .... and hence the natural movement of helping all to know itself, consciously.
Just notice ..... every moment ...... a limitless field of awareness .... experiencing the stuff in it ...... perceptions, thoughts, etc.
Conditioning has focus on the "stuff", as opposed to relaxing all the way back into being the space-awareness experiencing the stuff (which is "also" made of the space-awareness; there's only One).
And so, it's not so much that there's an enlightened Kman or enlightened Yogani (or enlightened whoever) that's different than "unenlightened" so-and-so .... that's just the conceptual illusion of divided mind doing its thing.
It's more that enlightenment is/can be the experiencing from here (Kman or Yogani or whoever is expressing the wholeness "here", in a given way) ... and in this experiencing, it's seen/known that awareness is a single field.
This doesn't mean that the focus of duality disappears "forever" it just means that the focus of duality is seen as an aspect or perspective of the One, as opposed to being a divided actuality .... which is quite impossible, outside of conceptual thinking.
All of this One is here always, for-as everyone; it's not somewhere "else" .... what could that be??
And so, from the aspect of the one-as-one .... there's stepping all the way back into the view of/as the "subject who can never be an object" .... awareness-space ... recognizing every object, every thought, appearing in-from-as the oneness, yet not defining the whole I AM.
Then, there's the stepping forward of focus as a given human, being.
Then, relaxing back into-as wholeness now.
Spanda, eka-spanda-ing ("eka" is One in Sanskrit  ) .... this way and that ... as wholeness, as multiplicity.
It's not a "supernatural" thing at all; it's a natural thing .... an "unaugmented" thing .... that words can't describe .... because words *are* the augmentation.
In the wholeness, it's seen-known there's no unenlightenment; unenlightenment is only possible when there's undue focus on thinking, and mistaking thinking for actuality.
In the multiplicity ... it's seen-known that there's a relative "enlightening" of all, to be facilitated (the "until all are enlightened" that's being discussed here) .... because some of the one awareness isn't aware of itself as the one awareness, yet, now.
And so, "I" ("Kirtanman") or Yogani or whoever .... isn't really someone or something different from "you", and you are no "less" enlightened than those of us who express some of the experiencing of enlightenment .... you simply haven't had the conscious experiencing of it ... unless you are, now.
However, if you're thinking you haven't .... that doesn't mean there's any "less" enlightenment reading these words; there's just not the experiencing of enlightenment.
"Enlightening all" is more like the breathing of the wholeness of awareness; there's really nothing else *to* do, once the wholeness is known.
Sometimes, this looks like "spiritual teaching" .... sometimes, like something else, entirely.
It's not how it looks that matters; it's simply a matter of how the wholeness of awareness is expressing the knowing of itself .... which has zero connection with any form, yet shines through all form .... informing, now.
Yet there's no less doing the dishes, or enjoying good music, or giving and receiving love; non-duality includes duality, and the wholeness that knows itself as wholeness is simply inviting the wholeness that doesn't yet know itself as wholeness (unless it does now ... hint hint ) to be the knowing, too.
Enlightenment is much less the ultimate prize, and much more what's actually here when all the artificial concepts are not.
I hope this helps.
More than that .... I intend this to be enlightening.
_/\_
Just open all the way, past all thinking.
As natural relaxed sight doesn't artificially focus ....
As natural relaxed hearing doesn't artificially strain ....
So, enlightened awareness is simply the natural, whole state of awareness without any artificial thinking occluding the easy reality of it all.
That's all there is to it.
Actually, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Oct 22 2009 9:47:12 PM |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Oct 23 2009 : 12:56:31 AM
|
Awesome post Kirtanman.....thank you.
Love,
Carson
_/\_ |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Oct 23 2009 : 10:59:10 AM
|
thinking too much...
The I of everyday conversation facilitates everyday conversation...
Reinforcing the false I happens at an emotional level and must be penetrated by meditation.
One does not penetrate the false I by sitting down and saying "I will now penetrate the false I."
One must find the space between the two acts of accepting and rejecting, and the false I naturally dissolves, thus making discussions about the false I and non-self of objects moot. |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 23 2009 : 10:35:00 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
thinking too much...
The I of everyday conversation facilitates everyday conversation...
Reinforcing the false I happens at an emotional level and must be penetrated by meditation.
One does not penetrate the false I by sitting down and saying "I will now penetrate the false I."
One must find the space between the two acts of accepting and rejecting, and the false I naturally dissolves, thus making discussions about the false I and non-self of objects moot.
Agreed, Konchok, thanks for this.
In this realm of words, though, words can be used to point to the simplicity, the silence.
A bit of a bridge, which may serve some, if you will; a bridge to the one silence to which we're both referring.
And yes: the silence is where reality is met, and known as self; where the idea of separate self dissolves.
Initially, practices take form-mind, the thought-me, into the silence that is its true nature.
Then, silence begins to be seen between thoughts, feelings ... between any and all perceptions - when attention rests enough for this to be noticed.
Then, silence is where life is lived from, and it is seen-known that all is silence.
Many practitioners aren't aware of this .... and so, pointing to the reality that enlightenment isn't individual ... and that reality is never actually somewhere .... or "somewhen" else .... can hopefully be helpful.
That said, though -- I agree with you; the silence is what matters.
And, as you may know: accepting and rejecting can be very subtle ... the teachings that reference it refer directly to things such as the ending of one perception (the "rejecting" or dissolution), and the beginning of another perception (its "acceptance" or creation).
Ultimately, it's knowing that what we actually are has nothing to do with the reactions of form (body, thoughts, emotions, etc.) ... body-minds do what body-minds do; silence is.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Oct 23 2009 : 11:44:42 PM
|
| Silence is just a phase. It is not the highest realization... |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 24 2009 : 10:24:37 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
Silence is just a phase. It is not the highest realization...
Definitions vary.
I'll bite, though: if silence is just a phase and not the highest realization, what would you say *is* the highest realization?
Ultimately, as I'm guessing you agree, "the Tao which can be spoken of is not the Tao" (if it can be described or indicated, it's something less than wholeness).
Stillness, awareness, knowing, silence .... all indicators.
There's only wholeness here --- knowing itself, and/or not-knowing itself.
And no, those words don't describe it fully, either; it can't be described fully .... it/this is living; unbound ... infinitely beyond the power of words to describe, now.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Oct 24 2009 10:25:38 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Oct 25 2009 : 12:07:44 AM
|
silence is a focal point; the highest realization is without one...
but one this realization is attained it arises depending on causes and conditions |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Oct 25 2009 12:31:35 AM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 26 2009 : 9:30:50 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
silence is a focal point; the highest realization is without one...
but one this realization is attained it arises depending on causes and conditions
Words can be quite limiting, as you know.
When I speak of silence, I'm referring an aspect of experiential awareness; the ground of being ... not a focal point, but its opposite {quote-unquote }.
Book titles such as Emptiness Dancing (Adyashanti) and Stillness Speaks (Eckhart Tolle) highlight what I'm referring to, here.
I think (figure of speech ... ) I get what you're saying though:
Dualistic definitions are always "in comparison to" .... presumably sound, in this case.
When I say "silence is", it's the same as saying "awareness is", or "being is" .... words can't quite touch it .... but there's a stillness, a silence, an emptiness that's pervasive, that's awareness ... and that is ever still even as part of it arises, displays and dissolves, every moment, now.
And you're saying that highest realization is dependent upon causes and conditions?
Relatively speaking, this may be true (why realization happens in one body-mind at a certain {so-called} time, instead of another.)
However, highest realization isn't dependent upon causes and conditions; on the contrary:
Causes and conditions are dependent upon highest realization.
If it wasn't always already here (albeit veiled, for most, until it's not veiled, any longer) .... nothing else would be.
|
Edited by - Kirtanman on Oct 26 2009 10:58:12 PM |
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Oct 26 2009 : 10:58:04 PM
|
| It is simply a penetrative insight into phenomena co-emerging with oneself interdependently. |
Edited by - Konchok Ösel Dorje on Oct 26 2009 11:14:00 PM |
|
|
|
Kirtanman
USA
1651 Posts |
Posted - Oct 27 2009 : 11:44:47 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Konchok Ösel Dorje
It is simply a penetrative insight into phenomena co-emerging with oneself interdependently.
Good definition ... I like it!
And (for what it's worth) .... agreed.
There are two levels of realization .... "initial" and "ongoing"/"ever".
In a sense, realization cannot be separated from the "realizer" ... original awareness .... which is what I meant when I wrote:
Causes and conditions are dependent upon highest realization.
I wasn't referring to the initial penetrative insight .... but rather to its revealed condition, which I experience as equivalent to self / ground of being / limitless awareness, etc. etc.
Semantics and language can inherently occlude communication, at times; I don't get that we're talking about anything different here ... and it doesn't seem we disagree on anything (though it would be fine if we did) ... it just seems we're using familiar terms (realization, silence) in slightly different ways.
And, we both know (per previous statements we've both made) that it's not about the terms, but about that/this that is beyond all terms.
Wholeheartedly,
Kirtanman
|
|
|
|
Konchok Ösel Dorje
USA
545 Posts |
Posted - Oct 30 2009 : 12:02:32 PM
|
| Clearly stated: Realization is a result. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
reinforcing the I
