Cultivating a taste for reality

A place for anything that doesn't fit into the existing forums

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:15 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:I mean think about it Rach.....is it possible to not be home?

Yes, by believing home is somewhere over there, beyond the hill ... and that you might never manage to get there.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby Enlightened2B » Thu Jun 11, 2015 10:51 pm

rachMiel wrote:
Enlightened2B wrote:I mean think about it Rach.....is it possible to not be home?

Yes, by believing home is somewhere over there, beyond the hill ... and that you might never manage to get there.


But....(drum roll)....you are still home, even if you believe you are not home. How can you not be?

Two waves hanging out together. One wave realizes it's merely water, while the other wave, believes itself to be a separate being. Ultimately, both waves are still water, but one wave has not awoken to that realization yet. Both still home though.

Everything already merely just IS in the greater sense. But, the second part of the equation is realization that you are home in a more relative sense. You as 'Home'....waking up to yourself. Ultimately, whether you believe yourself to be Home or not, you are still Home. It's why human self aware experience with the ego has a far different nature than other types of experience on this planet at least. In my opinion, it's all in the experience itself because our own perception has such great power over our beliefs.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Thu Jun 11, 2015 11:35 pm

When I say find your way home I mean realize that you are already home. Home is the knowing.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby ashley72 » Fri Jun 12, 2015 12:55 am

rachMiel wrote:"I'm not very good at reality." - Aunt Jean

For those who live largely in their heads, reality (actuality, what is) can be a bitter pill to swallow.

The inner narration, the movie with self as central heroic or tragic character around whom everything revolves is just SO compelling and deeply engrained. Reality often just serves as a backdrop, a setting in which the action unfolds.

The move to presence, a conscious dwelling in here/now reality, can be very difficult for these kinds of people. It's a whole different ballgame, to simply be with what is. It can feel boring and meaningless. A taste for reality needs to be cultivated.


I think the perfect ideal of a human being living free of an inner voice & completely non-judgement to their surroundings is nothing more than a theoretical ideal.

By all means strive for the ideal in the search of the holy grail of inner peace, but I won't be jettisoning the thinking mind whilst I'm living.

As you know I've suffered with acute anxiety, and to overcome that nervous illness didnt require a lobotomy of the thinking mind.
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Fri Jun 12, 2015 1:27 am

ashley72 wrote:
rachMiel wrote:I think the perfect ideal of a human being living free of an inner voice & completely non-judgement to their surroundings is nothing more than a theoretical ideal.

By all means strive for the ideal in the search of the holy grail of inner peace, but I won't be jettisoning the thinking mind whilst I'm living.

As you know I've suffered with acute anxiety, and to overcome that nervous illness didnt require a lobotomy of the thinking mind.

I don't think anyone in this discussion is advocating an end to thought. I certainly am not.

Thought is a wondrous tool ... and great fun! But it's not the only thing our minds can do. There's meditation, feeling, sensation, flow. In this thread I'm exploring the ability of a mind to attend to the external world, which presents through sensory input.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby ashley72 » Fri Jun 12, 2015 10:48 pm

Sure.....

All Living systems "sense" their external environment. Of course Human beings have evolved to "sense" their external environment in the most comprehensive way.

Are you aware that even bacteria the most simplistic of living systems can communicate, cooperate, compete & even cheat?

Who would have thought that even bacteria can learn how to cheat (break the rules to get the reward)! :lol:

Ironically, even contributors on this board communicate, cooperate, compete & cheat!!!!!!! :wink:

But I bet you didn't know there are 10 times more bacteria cells than human cells in the human body... & more than 500 species living in the adult intestine only.

New age folk don't incorporate this kind of bodily knowledge (Reality) into their teachings. :wink:
User avatar
ashley72
 
Posts: 2533
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 3:24 am

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Sat Jun 13, 2015 5:21 am

ashley72 wrote:All Living systems "sense" their external environment. Of course Human beings have evolved to "sense" their external environment in the most comprehensive way.

And yet many treat the external world as a mere backdrop for their thoughts. When thought becomes a way of life rather than a tool, when you believe the story is real rather than just a compelling story ... I think it's worth wondering whether something fundamental has gone awry.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby EnterZenFromThere » Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:42 pm

Rach: "Sure am I of nothing! :-) Though I have strong doubts about Xenu"

Haha I wasn't expecting that :lol:

Rach: "Are you sure ... ? ;-) "

About as sure as I am of anything. It's hard to pinpoint exactly why. From my own point of view it's because of the way I experience reality. For a while now I've felt a part of me that is totally motionless at my middle. While I walk about the world this part remains still - the world rotating around it. As I feel into it I feel it open and this corresponds with changes in my external perception.

I don't know if anyone not experiencing what I am would think of that. There is evidence beyond this that comes to mind. Have you heard of the ice man?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wim_Hof.

Through the power of his relaxed mind he is able to withstand temperatures that are beyond medical sciences capacity to explain. I saw a documentary where he was in the arctic and cut two holes in a frozen lake and swam through the freezing water from one hole to the other. Medical experts monitored him and were amazed to find his heart rate never altered from a resting state. The astonished doctor said a normal person would have had a heart attack and died - he had no medical explanation. The ice man said it was because he is relaxed. The environment of his inner mind reality dictated the events within the external physical reality. A peaceful mind maintains the body. A chaotic mind destroys it.

Another way of explaining it is through mirrors. I'm saying the external physical reality is a projection/reflection of an inner reality. Therefore, the inner reality is primary and creates the external reality. An example in everyday life is looking into a mirror. In this example your mirror reflection is the external reality and your physical body is the inner reality. Imagine you move your hair with your hand. If all you were aware of was the reflection you would likely think the external mirror arm had created the movement of the hair. However, if you are aware of the body and the reflection, it is obvious that the inner physical reality created the movement and the external mirror reality is merely a reflection of this. In the same way, physical reality is a reflection of more primary reality.

That was probably a bit long winded for what may have just been a tongue in cheek answer...well it was fun to ponder it :p
User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby EnterZenFromThere » Sat Jun 13, 2015 12:50 pm

E2B: "Sure, can't disagree with the first part of it, in that expansion through experience, leads to a far deeper experience. Absolutely. However, the rest of it in bold is assumption, as you're talking about completely transcending vibration and that's nothing you or I have ever experienced directly and that's my point about it being a concept. You claimed you've never experienced it directly:"

It's all assumption isn't it? Everything. Direct experience is the assumption of the sensation of that experience. Mental concepts are the assumption of mental vibration experience. Physical concepts are the assumption of physical vibration experience. They are valid as assumptions. But they remain as assumptions.

E2B: "Therefore, just like you told me in recent threads ironically enough, that relying on experiences of other people who have had non physical experiences (NDE's, reincarnation, etc) is also an assumption, which you told me I was making (which I don't fully disagree with in a certain context), yet, you're doing the exact same thing here by relying on another person's experience of 'the absolute'. Ironically enough, even wanting to unconditionally accept reality as it is, is your own desire. The desire to transcend desire is a desire in itself."

Yes I am doing exactly the same thing. It's the only thing I do within my experience as it is now. There's nothing wrong with assumptions - they arise as they arise. I trust that the assumptions arising within the moment are totally valid and created by a primary benevolence guiding me deeper to more clarified assumptions - eventually leading beyond assumptions. This trust is, of course, itself an assumption.

You could say the desire to transcend desire is an assumption that is helpful in moving deeper into more clarified assumptions. Without it we have no motivation to move deeper. But it is still an assumption - valid as it arises within the moment.
User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby EnterZenFromThere » Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:00 pm

Rob: "Who are these people? I'd love to read their testimonies."

Most recently this was a member of this forum. I'm not sure if bringing others into conversations like this without checking with them is appropriate or not...they haven't been on for a little bit so I can't check with them directly. Aside from that I spoke to Francis Bennett via Skype a couple of times. He asked me specifically not to talk about our conversations publicly so, again, I'm unsure if it's appropriate to talk about this. I haven't read his books but they would be a good place to go for an opinion that he is comfortable in expressing publicly.

Rob: "The very act of experiencing implies an interaction, shift or exchange of some kind. I would classify that movement as subtle vibration"

I agree. The way it was described took this into consideration - sort of - this can't be explained and then an explanation as to why.


Rob: "That's quite a dogmatic statement. There are other interpretations of the concept. In Buddhism emptiness means empty of inherent existence. Ultimately there are no separate, independent things only (what amounts to) process."

To me dogma is excluding. I don't see a statement that there is a fundamental reality that is simultaneously nothing and everything as excluding - it's inclusive. I don't see a difference between your definition and mine.

Rob: "Okay. What I was getting at is how can something be encountered, known, registered, remembered and reported without subtle movement of some kind."

That's a good point. *shrug* :shock:
User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby EnterZenFromThere » Sat Jun 13, 2015 1:05 pm

Rob: "That very illumination that nothing is needed, that everything is already perfect as it is, is itself a glimpse of the great perfection of existence. It's an existential realisation."

This doesn't sound like Self Realisation to me. Sounds more like a spiritual trap. Perceiving the absence of any need to advance. Though it could also be a great stepping stone to greater clarity. There are lots of examples of people like this. Tony Parsons seems like a good example. He seems like quite a sad and bitter character to me.
User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Sat Jun 13, 2015 2:02 pm

EnterZenFromThere wrote:I'm saying the external physical reality is a projection/reflection of an inner reality. Therefore, the inner reality is primary and creates the external reality.

I think Bohm was on the right track with his implicate and explicate orders. The explicate order, which is like the world of form, is an expression of the intricate, unseen order. In this model, or at least my interpretation of it, the brain/mind is an explicate expression of the implicate order, just like everything else we can observe.

So I agree with you that an inner reality, the mystery, Brahman, the Tao, the force ... gives rise to the external. But I don't think that consciousness IS the inner reality ... rather a fruit of that reality, or perhaps a conduit between the external and internal orders.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby Enlightened2B » Sat Jun 13, 2015 3:14 pm

EnterZenFromThere wrote:Rob: "That very illumination that nothing is needed, that everything is already perfect as it is, is itself a glimpse of the great perfection of existence. It's an existential realisation."

This doesn't sound like Self Realisation to me. Sounds more like a spiritual trap. Perceiving the absence of any need to advance. Though it could also be a great stepping stone to greater clarity. There are lots of examples of people like this. Tony Parsons seems like a good example. He seems like quite a sad and bitter character to me.


I agree with Zen here on this. This does sound like a spiritual trap. I've never resonated with Tony Parsons or anyone in the neo-advaita community because I feel like many of them merely conceptually grasp the notion of Oneness.

Heck, I don't even understand Oneness on an experiential level, and I all really do is speculate. Yet, the notion of 'nothing to do as everything is already perfect', only really works from an Absolute perspective I believe, which none of us can possibly fathom from these limited human perspectives that we are. Sounds like some people like Tony Parsons are majorly suppressing some deep rooted emotions.

I just had a talk with a non-duality therapist via email not long ago (Susan Kahn) and she's awesome, but a pretty hardcore non-dualist and even she admitted that many people in the non-dual community largely suppress a lot of deeper emotional stuff as a form of denial, and from what I've read of Tony Parsons (granted, he, like many in the neo-advaita community might see that everything is already one on some level), he might be doing the same.

Everything already likely is perfect in a sense, but it's a huge huge trap I believe to just leave it at that. It's exactly what neo-advaita does so well in claiming the Absolute while ignoring the entire meat of experience which holds far more value than a conceptual realization of 'Absoluteness'. It's the experience itself which is where growth and learning come in and that experience is where perception of separation/ego resides. Another reason why ego is such a valuable tool early on.

On the other hand, looking at the posts in this thread, I agree with many of Rob's questions to Zen and I give Rob major props for asking the questions he did. I know the poster and post that Zen is referring to on this board as far as gaining 'direct experience' and while that poster's description of their meditation practice was absolutely fabulous which is an understatement, and I'll repeat that....absolutely fabulous (and it moved me enough to look into a Vipassanna meditation practice on some level), to believe that this person actually gained a direct experience of some sort of 'sensory less absolute' is a bit naive in my estimation. Nothing in their description of their experience makes me believe that it was anything other than an 'experience' of sorts and perhaps a profound one at best and even then, who knows? Heck, it didn't even happen during meditation. Just happened randomly. Perhaps a glimpse of something greater for sure. But, the simple recall of this experience, of course implies a form of knowing, just like any NDE. How could know you had 'no mind', if there was no form of 'vibration' or even non-physical sensory to claim this? Same question that Rob proposed and the same question that Smiley Jen proposed in the other thread.

Let's take a look at anesthesia sleep. Is there any recall of any individual experience there? No. And I've been under anesthesia numerous times over the last several years for colonoscopies, so I've taken an interest in the anesthesia experience. In my estimation, THAT is more of an indication what the Absolute might be like, in my own opinion. Just like any NDE, being able to recall the experience, implies that there was, of course, still a level of individuality and sensory (non physical sensory) to claim the experience happened. How else could one possibly know and recall it? If it was the Absolute, then there would be 'No thing' to claim such experience.

After looking into hundreds of near death experiences over the past year, even the most profoundest experiences such as Nanci Danison describing merging into Source, still implied a form of 'individuality' to an extent....meaning.....to claim that "I am aware that there was no mind, etc', implies an individual sense of 'knowing'.

Confusing a form of experience as a form of 'sensory less absolute' and striving for a similar type of experience, is also, in my opinion a form of spiritual trap. But, attempting to live as non-judgmental Awareness to the best of one's ability is as good a path as I could perceive.

Just my opinions of course.
Enlightened2B
 
Posts: 1885
Joined: Wed May 15, 2013 10:51 pm
Location: New York

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby rachMiel » Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:01 pm

Enlightened2B wrote:Everything already likely is perfect in a sense, but it's a huge huge trap I believe to just leave it at that. It's exactly what neo-advaita does so well in claiming the Absolute while ignoring the entire meat of experience which holds far more value than a conceptual realization of 'Absoluteness'.

This disconnect goes away with the understanding that samsara (the world of form, the explicate) *is* nirvana (the implicate). Experience is absoluteness, absoluteness is experience.
Merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily ...
User avatar
rachMiel
 
Posts: 2419
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 4:46 pm
Location: Pittsford

Re: Cultivating a taste for reality

Postby EnterZenFromThere » Sat Jun 13, 2015 4:39 pm

Your points about anesthesia and deep sleep are important I think. Francis talks publicly about never losing consciousness, including during deep sleep. The awareness is aware of itself. As awareness never ends he continues to be aware at all times. There is an interesting exception for him though, when he had an operation and was under general anaesthesia.

Nisargadatta speaks in the same way. Saying he never sleeps because he is awake. Or rather, he is always aware/awake. Harri Aalto has been like this most of his life. Unlike Francis, he is like this even under anaesthesia. Our mutual friend also mentioned this rather briefly in the other thread.

All of these individuals also describe deep multi dimensional experiences and highlight the importance of these experiences as part of the momentary experience as the way to further advancement. I hold them in high regard as they seem to be the real deal is all regards. People like Tony Parsons don't impress me as they seem to have little to no experience beyond the physical, suggesting their awakening is largely within their own minds and not self-realisation. Likewise, many within the new age and similar movements are largely focused only on multi-dimensional experiences and mistake identification with the higher selves as self-realisation/enlightenment.

People who meet my own interpretation of self-realisation are extremely rare. I'd say 95-99% of people who claim self-realisation are not self-realised.
User avatar
EnterZenFromThere
 
Posts: 854
Joined: Wed Dec 25, 2013 3:35 pm

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests