Kiwi

This is a read-only part of the forum. All threads where seeing happens are stored here and come from this forum, the Facebook guiding area and various LU blogs. The complete list, sorted by guide, contains all links. The archives include threads of those that came to LU already seeing as well.
User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Sun Feb 05, 2012 1:57 pm

Welcome.
Tell me where you're at...
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Mon Feb 06, 2012 12:14 am

Hi Nemo, thanks for making yourself available

About 12 months ago I had a "realisation", the result of which was that the chatter of the mind subsided and the sense of "I" being the mind or body disappeared. Since then the mind chatter has resumed (but is way more easy to quieten) and the sense of "me" being a localised "thing" associated with the entity called "Mike" has come back - but less stridently. Over the past 2-3 months I've had other brief glimpses of a reality beyond "me", but nothing lasting.

The past 12 months have been really good. Very little irritates or upsets me as I continue to explore "what's true" about me. I'm at a stage now where at an understanding level, I get it, but not at an experiencing level.

I'd really aprpeciate whatever help you can give
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Mon Feb 06, 2012 3:46 am

After posting and re-reading, that was full of beliefs wasn't it!
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Mon Feb 06, 2012 2:36 pm

Hey there Mike,

Nah, no need to judge or second guess your writing, just let it flow. Sure, it's story, and there's nothing wrong with story. It's just helpful to be aware that it's only story :)

Okay, so you have previously had an experience or feeling of being I-less. That's good. And you understand the I-illusion. Also good. All we really need to do now is actually look to see if this previous feeling and this understanding point to something real or not.

You feel like the self is a localised entity. Can you really define it's borders?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Mon Feb 06, 2012 11:58 pm

The sense of who I truely am has no borders - I have no feeling that who I truely am has anything to do with any part of this body. But I do have a feeling that who I truely am is associated in some way with this body. For example, when I walk I'll frequently have the sense that there is something "along for the ride" When I'm conscious of this its alomost like the ground is a long way away. If I had to put a "location" to this watcher when I'm walking, it would be behind my head and slightly to the right. Definitely not "in the body" but not miles away from it either. At other times, when I quieten myself this self appears to permeate every part of me, without being located in any one spot. Its a nice feeling. At such times, I experience swirling colours both in my mind if I close my eyes, or "out there" if I open my eyes. I have no idea whether these colours indicate the "permeating self", but it's an experience I'm happy to have!! This self never judges, just watches, just "is"

The other "self" is the one that springs up, unbidden and conducts an internal dialog. I recognise that this self speaks on my behalf, but is not truely "me" This "me" is definiely localised in my head and is a close buddy with my thoughts. I spend too much time telling this self that its not real and should go away. It is a lot less obtrusive than it used to be. I would like this 'self" to go away permanently!!

It as if there are two selves - the one that reacts to situations and uses my body's organs as if it owned them, and likes to chatter away and tell Mike what to do. Then there is the other self that, when allowed to, permeates every part of my body, is quiet, generates no noise and simply watches everything.
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Tue Feb 07, 2012 4:17 am

Hi Nemo

I hope you don’t mind, but I feel compelled to write this. Please feel free to tell me it’s all bullshit

Yesterday I noticed the Jed McKenna quote at the bottom of your postings, along with a link to your blog which I followed and [/u]got to the dialog between Mikko and yourself. Having started to read, I felt increasingly compelled to continue and got to the point where you wrote “The illusion cannot be destroyed. Only seen to be an illusion”
That immediately took me back to 12 months, when after lurking on the RT forum (too scared to poke my head up!), reading through their book and reflecting on what the hell it all meant, I had a moment of clarity and saw that I didn’t exist as I thought I had for 60-odd years. I also experienced the most wonderful knowing of nothingness that, no matter how much I urged it to stay, went away. I was left with the certainty that there was no “me”, just things happening

My point is that I didn’t know what the hell had happened. I had no “reference point” that I could use to interpret what had happened. The whatever-it-was had left me completely indifferent to finding out: I was unusually diffident about searching the internet or books in an effort to find out! So I didn’t know what had happened and couldn’t have cared less about finding out. Content. Content, that is for around 3 months when I noticed the was-still voice of the ego making a reappearance. Within 6 months, I had lost all notion of having found anything and was back to reading books and searching sites. To cut the story short, I found out that if you don’t know what you’ve got, you don’t know it should be nurtured. I doubted what I had enough to resume looking at web pages and reading more books and getting more and more tied up in the mind’s bullshit. I thought myself out of what I had been shown
If only I had been able to read your line of advice to Mikko! Just one line of honesty might have “settled me down”
Mikko obviously got to much the same point, had the same “was it the “real thing” or was it imaginary” feelings – but had you to effectively say in the line I quoted above “It was real – keep going but don’t doubt”

I’d like to say that reading the Mikko-Nemo dialog gave me the warm fuzzies – but it made me angry. With myself to start with (how could I have been so blind?), and then with the “guru industry” that blocks honesty with bullshit in a marketing ploy to increase their perceived value. If only one book or web site had told – or even hinted at – the truth, then I might have put two and two together. <sigh>

On the positive, though; I have never got the feeling that whatever-it-was has ever left. I may be delusional, but I still don’t see that I am anything else than the awareness that is observing all of the things that are done to and around “me”

Stereotypical expectations are a curse. What did I expect “it” to look like. I squirm with the word “enlightenment” because of its association with religiosity and saintly behaviour. But if I go back 12 months, that’s exactly what I thought it meant – and when I continued, post experience, to behave in an ordinary, non-saintly, manner, then it was too easy to say – “well that was something, but it obviously wasn’t enlightenment” At this point, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry! In fact, I’m in tears. Of relief or despair, I don’t know

So what do I know now? Whatever-it-was that I experienced had nothing to do with being religious or spiritual. I now realise what Richard Rose was banging on about – it’s all about finding out what’s true. Truth has nothing to do with me, truth is whatever happens, life, experience – call it what you like. Illusion exists within Truth and while bullshit may obscure the Truth, it does not negate or replace it. You were right “illusion cannot be destroyed. Only seen to be an illusion” I’m not saying that life is bullshit, but that bullshit is life

What do I do now? I have no idea

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Tue Feb 07, 2012 1:53 pm

Hey Mike,

Excellent post! Reading it really made me smile. There is certainly clarity present, beautiful.

What I am gathering is that you saw it, only it wasn't integrated - that is, it wasn't applied to reality/daily life. This is actually somewhat common. When my own first satori happened I had no idea what to make of it or what to do with it. It took many years to integrate it. If only I had the direct pointing method back then! :)

What triggers the shift can never be predicted, it is completely different for different people. As “illusion cannot be destroyed. Only seen to be an illusion” seems to have triggered something for you, it often happens that people are reading our blogs and our conversations and shift happens. That is why we post and publish absolutely everything and make it easily available. I find it so amazing and wonderful that people are often able to pinpoint the precise moment and phrase which acts as the catalyst. I feel great joy that you have discovered this trigger :)
So what do I know now? Whatever-it-was that I experienced had nothing to do with being religious or spiritual. I now realise what Richard Rose was banging on about – it’s all about finding out what’s true. Truth has nothing to do with me, truth is whatever happens, life, experience – call it what you like. Illusion exists within Truth and while bullshit may obscure the Truth, it does not negate or replace it. You were right “illusion cannot be destroyed. Only seen to be an illusion” I’m not saying that life is bullshit, but that bullshit is life
Wow, this whole paragraph is fantastic.
A very important distinction to make about enlightenment (this word can make me squirm for the same reasons - it has nothing to do with saintly behaviour, haha!) is that it is a process, not a result. Once you take that initial step, once you jump, you are falling and the deepening only continues, there is no bottom to hit. There is no destination to arrive at.

What to do now? That is the big question, huh? It seems like a good time to take another good hard look at no-self, get it back into focus, observe what it actually means and how it applies, remove the last traces of identification and start clearing away debris.

If I go back to your 2nd last post, you describe two different selves. Although, what you have really described are simply life itself, and thoughts about life. There is no self here anywhere except as a label. You describe a watcher, but what indication is there that this watcher exists, except that watching exists? This is an assumption we never even think to question, that we all completely take for granted: that for observing to exist, it requires an observer.

The other thing you spoke about was identification with awareness. This can often be the final frontier for self, the last stand, as it were. Belief in self is such a strong habit that has formed over a lifetime, and it doesn't give up easily, it needs to cling to something. There is awareness, it exists, this is an irrefutable truth. But what exactly has indicated that awareness is "me"?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Wed Feb 08, 2012 12:37 am

Hi Nemo

Thank you for your feedback. I’m in a much more “established” space right now. Yesterday was a bit cathartic in a confronting-but-good way. The relief of yesterday was the realisation that seeing that illusion existed within Truth. In my seeker role, I thought it was an either/or situation - that if I "saw" the Truth then I would be excluded from the illusion. Your words removed the fear of non-existance that i had seen as a consequence of Truth-realisation and enabled me to instantly see that Truth excludes nothing. Thank you for what you wrote in that blog post to Mikko – I am grateful to you beyond words for the realisation that your words triggered.

In the post you point to, I expressed a belief that there was a “true self” and an illusionary one. My question now is “who wrote that?”

Like so many other things, what I wrote unearthed an underlying assumption/belief. Lurking under the thoughts of “Am I this self, or that self?” is the belief that there must be a self to be separate from. I now know that there is nothing separate from anything. There is self – and I am that. What is that? Call it consciousness, awareness, life or whatever the label of the month might be, I am that. Anything else is, once again, simply an illusion – legitimised/dressed up with a label. So my prattling in that earlier post was perpetuating the illusion that there was, in fact a self to be separate from. That I wasn’t clear on where this self was, or where that self was shows that I was operating within the illusion. There is no separate self (other than in illusion). In truth, there is no self – just a label pointing to awareness. If you took the label “awareness” away, you’d be left with nothing - which is everything. Lao Tsu was right!!

This morning I awoke with the thought “in here/out there” When that thought unravelled itself, what was left was the knowledge that (like “this self/that self” illusion), there is no “in here” any more than there is an “out there” For there to be any “here-ness" or "there-ness" there must be a boundary. Any boundary exists only as a thought, a belief, and only serves to perpetuate the illusion of distinction, of separation. It is the thought of a boundary that creates the illusion that there must be two separate things to be kept apart. There is no boundary, there is no “in here” or “out there” – there is only “what is-ness” (ain’t vocabulary a bitch in describing this!!). No boundaries, no separation.

All the books, vidos etc which earnestly have told me to “look within” are further perpetuating the illusion that I have to “look” to find the truth and that I need to look in a specific location before it will reveal itself. (as in “look within” – no, not there – two inches to the left”). How laughably absurd. There is no “within” any more than there is a “without”. There is no “looking” – if anything, it’s more of an “unlooking” – removing the mind-generated crap that stops the very process of seeing what is there to see. Kind of funny, yet sad

So, the Truth is that I have no self. There is no “me”, you”, “us” or “them”. There is just awareness as a unity permeating everything. The awareness that I am is the same awareness that you are, that the cat is, as is that bird flying overhead. If I were to identify that awareness as “me” then I’d be erecting a boundary - denying in a way that it is also you – and thus sustaining an illusion that awareness is able to be chopped up and apportioned – this bit is “me” and that bit is “you” I see that I am that which you also are. No separation, no distinction, no identification.

Nemo, I now see that my comments on the “watcher” are just another bullshit illusion. I effectively personalised awareness, gave it an identity (the watcher) and even gave the watcher somewhere to sit while it watched. It was bullshit – albeit poetic bullshit. Any notion of a leprechaun-like watcher perched behind me somewhere and observing what is going on is crazy stuff. There is, as you say, just the activity of watching going on. For me to have described a watcher, I must first have thought that awareness needed to form itself into a separate entity whose job was to monitor what was going on. Hang on a moment! Awareness is everything. Why would it need to differentiate itself into a separate observer in order to see itself? Makes no sense. There is no observer, there is just observation. While I can say "I am walking", that is said within the illusion. The truth is that there is just walking happening within awareness/consciousness/life - call it what you want!

Your comment about integrating Truth with “my life” is timely. Another illusion! Who is this “my” who has a “life”? Just life. How, then, is truth integrated into life? Oxymoron – Truth is Life. Can truth integrate with itself? No – just let it be. Down the rabbit hole!! I need to reflect on what “integration” means and get back to you. Right now, it feels that layers of the onion are continuing to fall away and that “my life” is revealing new dimensions of itself from moment to moment.

On my walk last light, I stopped (for a breather!) on a hill overlooking the town. Storm clouds overhead, a few basketballers below shooting hoops and "me" puffing in the middle. What a magnificent illusion! What a game! That awareness was unifying and coordinating all of this illusion (and the many sub-illusions going on within individual households) was simply breathtaking. Ain't life grand!!

Outside the serenity and certainty of Truth, the circus of illusion jangles on. In that circus, the identities of “me”, you, ”us” and “them” play out our limitation games over and over, making little or no real progress on anything substantial.

Enough soliloquising! Like Mikko, I feel that something is still holding me back. I have let go of a shitload of stuff, but I can feel a slight holding back/resistance still that has to do with a fear of something. I don’t know. Perhaps it will lessen as I kill off a few more sacred cows and get comfortable living with truth?

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Fri Feb 10, 2012 12:50 am

Hi Nemo

I trust that, if you’re in Queensland or Northern NSW, that the floods are not the reason I haven’t heard from you. That’s not a criticism but an admission of how much I value your feedback and support. So until you give me something else to “graze upon”, I will continue writing about what has “bubbled up” It’s great therapy, if nothing else! Feel free to tell me that it’s all bullshit. I apologize in advance for its length

I notice by looking at other threads that a common “end of process” question is “what do you feel” and I thought about that yesterday. My expectations were that I would experience a feeling – of elation, happiness, joy or whatever. I haven’t felt any of those. I do have a feeling of relief which manifests as a “lightness”, almost as a pervading background sense of optimism, positivity, a “nothing can possibly screw me around” sort of thing. But that’s not a feeling – its as if what I’m experiencing is behind emotions and feelings. I now see the joke of things, and wonder how people can they take all this so seriously? But, essentially, I can’t see why I couldn’t manifest specific feelings exactly as I did last week

What I do find surprising; as I have to date been essentially a competitive person, is that I value the ongoing opportunity for dialog between us, rather than the outcome. I would have expected to be hanging on your verdict “you’ve got it” (or not). In actual fact, I am ambivalent about any result being declared – I’m revelling in the ongoing process, as it is encouraging me to grow further. And that is another strange outcome. Previously I would have spent hours at night exploring sites, reading books or listening to “guru recordings” – I was looking “out there” for something. Now I’m looking “in here” and some amazing things are presenting themselves as candidates for exploration. It’s as if it has been affirmed that true knowledge is within. I feel motivated by bemused curiosity rather than the intensity that was there before and the great thing about curiosity is that it gives me the freedom to inquire (which I love to do) without forcing me to become attached to the outcome: actually finding something. It’s as if I have given myself permission to just “poke about” and enjoy doing that. This writing is an example of that – Jed might call it “spiritual autolysis”. I’m loving just exploring “what is true?” without taking anything too seriously. Who was it who said that liberation is freedom? – I now know what they mean.

Last night’s walk had me reviewing events, along the “how could I not have seen?” line. Not a self beat-up, because it was quite humorous to trace events back and see that I was my own blindness.

For starters, I had a mind-set as to the outcome. I thought that I should/would “feel” something. Sort of an in-body sensation that would announce itself when I had “seen” whatever it was that I was going to “see”. The consequence of that was the belief that if I didn’t experience anything, then I hadn’t accomplished anything. Wrong. This particular belief, post the “got it” realisation can still bite – the expectation that “now I should feel different” every moment of every day. When I looked at this as saw that it was a mind-generated expectation, the word “illusion” entered the mind and the expectation went away. Every expectation is mind-stuff and mind stuff perpetuates the illusion. The fact that I can see stuff and know that it is part of an illusion indicates that I’m apart from that illusion that I’m looking at and grounded in the reality that is Truth.

As always, words can confuse me as much as clarify the issue, and it has certainly been a tendency of mine to look at key words (such as ‘see”) and to create a story around what I think that key word means. Of course, the meaning is context-dependent and as “I as seeker” hasn’t yet experienced the context within which the word is used by the person who has experienced and who therefore has a context, how can my “seeker mind” work it out with accuracy? My seeker’s mind couldn’t possibly work out what it truly means so it would always insert the common-usage of the word (in which “see” means “what the eyes pick up” when they look somewhere).
When the teacher enquires “what do you see?” the “I as seeker” responds and gets confused when the answer indicates to the teacher that that the “I as seeker” hasn’t “seen” what has been pointed out. Confusion leads to frustration, which leads to more confusion. Eventually the “I as seeker” will become disheartened. But how can the seeker “see” what the teacher “sees” when both are operating in two entirely different contexts, for starters and when words are being used inexactly.

There’s nothing to “see” – but there’s everything to “know”, and we can’t “see” until we “know”! It seems overlooked – that “seeking” has nothing to do with seeing and everything to do with realising. The “gate” is not a visual one, it’s an intellectual one. When my mind suddenly realised that it’s been interpreting (“seeing” if you like) events through the wrong lens, then realisation could occur. When the mind suddenly knows that the perceptual filters that it has been using have been misinterpreting, then misinterpretation instantly stops and clarity (of mind) results. At this point I can “see what you’ve been talking about”– except I don’t see anything different through the eyes than I did an instant before, I have, rather, achieved clarity in the mind – I “know” what is True

Truth realisation, to me, is simply knowing what is “real” and therefore what is illusionary or fabricated. And what has been fabricated? – all of the dualistic stuff within life itself. All of that is seen as an illusion – not as Truth. What did the fabrication? The mind. So self-realisation occurs when the mind – having fabricated the illusion that everything out there is “real” and of substance realises that it has got it wrong! Then the mind simply admits that it “fucked up” and quite happily accepts that, actually, what is seen “out there” is all fabricated bullshit and retreats. In an instant, the pecking order has changed: the mind has gone from being “the boss” to the status of a somewhat stunned “casual worker”. What steps up to the plate and assumes its rightful place is that which has always been there – consciousness/awareness/Life – call it what you like. I now know what is True

There is another word that caused me great confusion, and that it the word “reality” When I heard or read that the world “out there” is not real, I baulked and exclaim “of course it’s real, I can see (or smell, hear taste or touch) it. What other test of real-ness can there be?” The intellectual response that “quantum physics tells us that it looks solid but is 99.9% empty space” doesn’t alter the fact that it has a mass, colour etc and is therefore still “real”

As with the word “see”, the word “real” appealed to my visual nature. If I was able to see it, lift it up, taste it, then it must have a reality – and my mind would quickly latch onto that and proclaim “how can he say that what he can clearly see is not real – he’s speaking bullshit again. Don’t believe him” And so my seeker mind met another mind-imposed obstacle caused by a word. Reality is Maya – and Maya both knows it and will do anything to preserve the illusion that “reality is what you see”. My mind is Maya unless it is put in its place by the realisation of Truth.

What if I took out the word ‘real/reality” and substituted it with the word “Truth” (capitalised to indicate Absolute Truth, as in never changing, ever present) – That which is always there (exists) and never changes (constant) must be real – what other test of reality could there possibly be? That works for me

Now when I look “out there” I simply have to inquire “does anything that I can see satisfy the “Truth test” – is anything that I can see never-changing and ever present? Even my logical mind has come to the conclusion that nothing that can be perceived by my senses represents “the Truth” Everything is transitory and changeable. In short, what I see out there is pure illusion, as in “I think it’s going to last and never change, but its really always changing and never lasting.”

I now know that there certainly is a reality that I see when I look “out there” – except that it’s a relative reality, an “illusion” if you will, that is subject to constant change. It is Maya’s domain. It is the reality within which I live each day – but it is not life. The changeable stuff I see is the manifestation of life. What is life? The same consciousness/awareness (pick your favourite term) that I and you are a manifestation of. But what is life itself, if everything is a manifestation of life? An unanswerable question – with my finite faculties I cannot unravel what the infinite is – I can only stand in awe of what the infinite does.
Nothing illusionary is permanent. Impermanence is not a cornerstone of Truth. Any illusion is evidence of non-Truth. What is permanent (and therefore, Truth) cannot be seen. A paradox. A puzzle that once I saw through it is a puzzle no more.

So, to be absolutely clear – I now know, beyond any doubt at all that everything that I see with my eyes, hear with my ears or touch with my hands is building or reinforcing an illusion. Nothing “out there” has any Absolute Truth to it.

I keep on coming back to Richard Rose – the “journey” is a pursuit of “what is True” Truth-Realisation is what it’s all about and is a way better description of it than the label “enlightenment”

Most of the books, sages and gurus that I’ve read seemed to indicate that I would “see” something as a consequence of having seen it. At its nihilistic best the writings of some even seemed to indicate that upon “enlightenment, “my” eyes would perceive nothing “out there”. Norquist in particular scared the shit out of me for a long time with his brand of nonsense, and McKenna’s bleak and uninviting outlook didn’t help either. Ciaran “the world’s angriest bodhisattva” Healey’s honest efforts on RT did help, but his “in your face” abrasiveness didn’t. As I consequence of seeking I formed the limiting belief that enlightenment had a visible manifestation – and a pretty problematic one at that. Again, all bullshit. The extent to which I might believe that the “void” is empty, uninviting, nihilistic or unfriendly is a mind-created expectation. Maya again. My experience of “the void” was warm, supportive; love. Get stuffed Maya!!!!

The writings or sayings of the vast majority of gurus, sages or spiritual teachers are largely soporific claptrap aimed at improving their revenue stream by spreading vague fairy dust to soothe the sensibilities of those who hang on their words. Mostly, they didn’t help either as they’re focussed on techniques rather than on what the techniques are supposed to do – work out what’s true. “What do I now know?” should have been my yardstick all along; because the “journey” is all about truth-realisation. Seeing has nothing to do with anything, knowing has. What is the truth of “me” is the question that all self-inquiry leads to.

The Truth? “I” am all-ness and nothing-ness.

I cannot speak for you

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Fri Feb 10, 2012 4:18 am

Awww cripes! I just wrote such very long reply and it's vanished before I could post it. I hate it when that happens! Very frustrating.

Hey Mike.
Really great rants there, I enjoyed reading them immensly.
You're correct, I do indeed live in Northern NSW amidst the flooding. A landslide on the road had kept me from my home up in the mountains, but I'm back now. Mike, please forgive me, I am a little too worn out today to attempt re-writing my whole post, but I would like to show you two brief blog post that tie in with what you wrote about internal vs. external, consciousness/awareness, truth/Absolute Truth: http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com.au/20 ... point.html
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com.au/20 ... is-it.html

Your approach of valuing process over result is very refreshing, and the truth of it applies to so many aspects of life on so many levels. Result, in a very real way, doesn't actually exist. Anywhere at all. Process is all there is.
I have a couple of questions for you to mull over and write about. There is tonnes of great stuff happening here, plus a whole lot of intellectualising (which is great too - I'm highly cerebral myself and I also have great fun with it this way), but we need to make sure it's all-encompasing, and know that it permeates to include and carry on through from theory to practice. Tie everything in and strip it right back, refocus it on the gateless gate.

Firstly, when you say "I", what are you referring to?

What exactly is self, and how does it work?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Fri Feb 10, 2012 5:35 am

Hi Nemo
Glad you're back at home. I'm heading to Coffs next week for work and am keeping a wary eye on anything north of the Manning River. Thank you for your reply. I am going to be unusually brief as I'm shortly off home myself

Firstly, when you say "I", what are you referring to?

I’m not referring to anything – or, to put it another way, I’m referring to no-thing. There is no “I” “I” do not exist” The pronoun is used grammatically as the English structure requires an object for a verb. So when I day “I am walking” that is simply a group of words that obey a convention of a verb and its subject. In Truth, there is simply “walking” – the experience itself. No “I”

What exactly is self, and how does it work?

Self does not exist. It is an illusionary mind-concept that uses mind stuff such as thoughts, beliefs, opinions, judgments etc to create and sustain an identity of “me”. The “self” would see itself as the “owner of all of the mind-stuff”. It “owns” nothing. It doesn’t exist: It works by manipulating mind stuff (my first sentence) to sustain the illusion that there is an identity called “me”. In short: there is no self except inside the illusion. Beyond illusion, in truth, there is no self. Something that doesn’t exist can’t work

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Fri Feb 10, 2012 8:34 am

Hi Nemo

Awww cripes! I just wrote such very long reply and it's vanished before I could post it. I hate it when that happens! Very frustrating

I feel your pain!!

About my two rants - wading through them must make your job harder, and I apologize. From where I sit, they were an indulgence and great fun to write! <grin>I certainly accept that I can make a lot of words say not much. I'll try harder to be succinct, clear and to the point!!

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Sat Feb 11, 2012 2:37 am

Hey Mike,

No no, don't apologize, long rants are highly encouraged. And they were great fun to read as well! I agree completely that this is like Jed McKenna's Spiritual Autolysis, and in fact I like to call it Interactive Autolysis. It's just good to periodically collect and condense everything into a laser focus.
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Nemo
Posts: 130
Joined: Sun Sep 18, 2011 3:09 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Kiwi

Postby Nemo » Sat Feb 11, 2012 3:56 am

Mike, can you tell me, what does liberation mean to you?
And how would you explain anatta/no-self and nonduality to someone who had never heard of such things before?
"Having the answer isn't enough. You have to do the math." - Jed McKenna
http://nemonavigator.blogspot.com/

User avatar
Kiwi
Posts: 88
Joined: Sat Feb 04, 2012 11:19 am
Location: Australia

Re: Kiwi

Postby Kiwi » Sat Feb 11, 2012 9:17 am

Hi Nemo

I’ve just come though a period of self doubt that had me questioning whether I had achieved anything. Perhaps Maya? So, I went back to first principles to focus and this is what I have found to date:

• The point of this inquiry has been to find out what is true about me
• The “I” is a label, manufactured by the mind to create and sustain a self. The “I” is not the body but a fabrication, developed and strengthened over time through the input of others (eg parents, friends) and by my mind. The fabrication that points to “self”
• Do “I” exist in truth? No. There is no “I”
• My “self” is a creation of my mind and does not exist in reality. There is no self other than in thought and it exists only to give “me” an apparent identity by “owning” stuff (“my car”) and being the recipient of experiences (“I went walking”). It is entirely mind-made and is not real. “I am walking” is simply “walking” as there is no self to walk
• Reality is that which I am directly experiencing now. Any notions “I” might have as past and future realities are not real as they are mind creations built around thoughts, beliefs, judgements and opinions etc, and not real
• There is nothing beyond the reality of what I am currently experiencing. Any labeling of something as “illusionary” is a mind pretense that another reality exists. There is nothing apart from the current reality to experience. If I say that something is illusionary, I am saying that it doesn’t exist – not that it is “another reality”.
• Anything that I describe, think about or label, anything that changes, is impermanent, not real. Thoughts (wherever they come from) are not real. Anything that is mind-generated is not real. Anything that isn’t directly experienced is not real
• These is no “in here”. There is no “out there” There is only what is being directly experienced. “Here” and “there” are mind constructs to do with distance (another mind construct) and therefore illusionary. Not real
• “Life”/”consciousness”/”awareness” are labels and are not the Absolute Truth to which they point! They cannot be defined, but their manifestation is whatever is being experienced right now by me as the “I am”.
• I am what is being directly experienced by me right now. Totality, everything and nothing, what is. Truth.
• My reality is not your reality. Although we are the same consciousness, our direct experiences (and therefore our realities) differ. I cannot access your reality so it is not real to me

Thank you for your two links. The article in which you deal with reference points clicked with the notion of the holographic nature of the universe. My reference point can only ever be my hologram in which everything seems real but isn’t. The line there is no "Real world" going on out there, external to this, that you are unable to access in the article “This is it”. Am I saying the same thing in my last bullet point?

I was just about to post this to the LU site when I read your two questions, so instead of another post, I have bullet pointed my responses to your questions below:

• Liberation, to me, is freedom to experience life without any limitation imposed by my self. The ability to experience the completeness of “what is” without self-imposed restrictions
• Self creates and sustains an identity that “I” believe, falsely, is “me”, “who I am. No-self is simply the recognition that the identity which has been attached to “I” does not exist, and that any notion of identity is therefore not true and does not exist. Having no-self allows experience to occur without limitation
• Duality describes the “apparent” division by the mind of attributes into opposing pairs. So for “good” we have “bad”. Non duality is the realisation that only oneness exists and cannot be divided. A thing is neither good nor bad it just is what it is. Absolute

Mike
"...there's a system that searches for the Truth, and it's a process of challenging everything." - Richard Rose


Return to “ARCHIVES”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 0 guests