Fear of not existing

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

Fear of not existing

Postby Gazreth » Mon May 02, 2016 6:34 pm

So here's a thought I had.

Sometimes when practicing being in the moment I have a subtle sense of fear. I realised that it's a fear of not existing (Or something similar).

If we spend all our lives believing we are our mind made selves, and then our practice is of living in the moment where I guess you could say we are unconscious of our mind made self (Since we are only aware of it if we pay attention to it), then that mind made self (Which I am so used to believing is me) in effect doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.
If my experience of life is the now that I see, hear, feel etc in front of me then it's almost as If I don't exist as a me, but only as the life in front of me (Since that's where my consciousness lies).

That's a little spooky, does anybody get me/relate?
Gazreth
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon May 02, 2016 6:14 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Rob X » Wed May 04, 2016 9:10 pm

Gazreth wrote:So here's a thought I had.

Sometimes when practicing being in the moment I have a subtle sense of fear. I realised that it's a fear of not existing (Or something similar).

If we spend all our lives believing we are our mind made selves, and then our practice is of living in the moment where I guess you could say we are unconscious of our mind made self (Since we are only aware of it if we pay attention to it), then that mind made self (Which I am so used to believing is me) in effect doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.
If my experience of life is the now that I see, hear, feel etc in front of me then it's almost as If I don't exist as a me, but only as the life in front of me (Since that's where my consciousness lies).

That's a little spooky, does anybody get me/relate?


Hi Gazreth, welcome to the forum.

I get what you're saying but don't relate to the sense of fear.

Let's reword the above a little as 'I don't exist as a little me, but as the Life in which the me appears.' That's more or less the essence of what ET is pointing at.

Now let's be clear by what we mean when we say 'me'. Is it the body-mind? The sense of individuation? Or is it the voice (the tormentor) in the head - incessantly rehashing the past and rehearsing the future?

Right now in present actuality, a body-mind matrix is evident, so is a sense of a unique individuated outlook. It's only the third designation that cannot survive present actuality - because it is solely contingent on a past and future which simply doesn't exist.

Right now existence is vivid, fresh and alive. The body-mind matrix is intrinsically intelligent, responsive and engaged without the need for internal dialogue and constant self-reflection. The only thing that needs to fear annihilation is the bogus psychic aggregate that feeds on the past and future.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby dijmart » Fri May 06, 2016 10:14 pm

Gazreth wrote:So here's a thought I had.

Sometimes when practicing being in the moment I have a subtle sense of fear. I realised that it's a fear of not existing (Or something similar).

If we spend all our lives believing we are our mind made selves, and then our practice is of living in the moment where I guess you could say we are unconscious of our mind made self (Since we are only aware of it if we pay attention to it), then that mind made self (Which I am so used to believing is me) in effect doesn't exist, or at least doesn't appear to exist.
If my experience of life is the now that I see, hear, feel etc in front of me then it's almost as If I don't exist as a me, but only as the life in front of me (Since that's where my consciousness lies).

That's a little spooky, does anybody get me/relate?


To clarify, you (Gazreth) do exist, because you (awareness) experience it. However, you (Gazreth) are not real, because you are ever changing, come and go (wake, deep sleep and dream states) and one day will die. You (awareness) are always present, the substratum of all that is and will never die. You (awareness) are just associated with Gazreth, but have identified yourself "AS" Gazreth, that is where the fear is coming from....the belief that you are only Gazreth. Also, when this is seen through, Gazreth will still exist (although isnt real), until the death of the body. So, nothing to fear except getting rid of your delusions/ignorance of who you are. So, no, not spooky. :D
Take what you like and leave the rest.
User avatar
dijmart
 
Posts: 2078
Joined: Fri Jun 11, 2010 4:35 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby randomguy » Mon May 09, 2016 4:43 pm

Gazreth wrote:That's a little spooky, does anybody get me/relate?

Very much so. I felt a tremendous amount of fear kick up upon questioning the little "me". From the mind identified perspective of a separate self in time to touch on the vastness of one's true nature appears like the ultimate end. And in a sense it is. Except that when followed through it appears as not an end at all just another experience of change, plus a realization, and a shift of perspective where the clinging to inaccurate thoughts falls away. The importance of mind's stories falls away. The fear was like having the earth's crust fall apart beneath my feet. In a way it's life's great thrill ride to observe the undoing of the small self, to ignore the reflexive fear that says not to go there and just go there.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Sighclone » Tue May 10, 2016 7:19 am

Here are some thoughts on multiple levels of "self."

Four Selves

This is a kind of review of my experience and reading, after 40 years of meditation and reading 250 books on nonduality. Mostly it comes from experience.

It certainly doesn’t sound very “nondual” to say there are really “four selves.” But I think there are, at least for me:

From the bottom up:

1) “Sense of self”
2) The Ego
3) “The Witness”
4) “Brahman, Self, Pure Awareness”

“Sense of Self ” You will wake up tomorrow and recognize yourself as a living body/person. And you will know “who you are” in that relative world. Even if you never heard of Buddha or Eckhart Tolle, Ramana or Maharishi. Even if you are a fundamentalist Christian. Even if you are “enlightened,” and passed as such by many gurus and spiritual teachers, and have universities named after you. John Welwood, PhD, counseling psychologist and prolific writer says, in Toward a Psychology of Awakening, “In everyday life, we are … familiar with a part of us that is geared toward worldly function….we have a consistent sense of “I-ness.”…[and later,] “…the continuity of a known, familiar sense of self, the belief that “I am consistently me.”

I want to distinguish this “sense of self,” for the moment, from the ego. This “sense of self” is that “personal” awareness of the living body/mind in the world. It is very basic. It is the “individual” who wakes up from sleep and recognizes the room, the body and familiar thoughts in the brain. As well, you remember your life. It is clear you are not “somebody else.” Unlike the “ego” discussed below, this sense of self is not a fiction, and it is not conceptual, it is experienced. It is the primary experience of a “separate unique self”. It may later become trivial and incidental to “who you really are,” but it is not something which will vanish, leaving you in some dark empty anomie, not to worry!

“The Ego” I think it is useful to emphasize that the ego is an artificial hardening of this sense of self into something which can “choose to take action.” Adyashanti refers to ego as a verb, “Egoing.” Many have spoken of the “I thought.” Others have emphasized that the ego has many components, self-referential thoughts, “ego-states,” an autobiography “understood” to some degree, habits and preferences, structure, content, style and many methods of functioning (and dysfunctioning!). Welwood again notes: “Ego, then, is a control structure we develop for purposes of survival and protection.” But ultimately it is an incomplete identity, and, tragically, it masks our real nature and potentiality behind an elaborate belief system, shared by many other egos. It is based on images, memories, habits, cultural imperatives, rituals and finds its source in the reptilian brain, but expression in the cortex as well (research the ‘default mode network.’). It is actually often nourished by introspection, and sometimes it changes in appearance and affect as a result of discovery or psychotherapy. The egoic self has endless internal and external relationships, some in harmony, some in conflict. After many years an ego can be as complex as a Gordian knot. And it has an external “self-image,” as well, which may or may not align with the internal one. Psychological stress arises from many sources; the ego has many “buttons” or triggers which produce a sense of conflict or threat. Awakening, or even a glimpse of Unity Consciousness can be one of them!

It is the egoic self which forms relationships with other people, with society, and often, with God, or “spirituality.” “I am a fine Christian.” “I am a great meditator.” And even “I have an insurmountable problem – beyond help.” Egos fall in love with each other. Yes, of course, there are biological drives at work, too. But egos thrive on stroking. Romantic love can be very intoxicating, even rapturous. And divorces are equally nourishing for the ego. “You will not dishonor me like that, I want a divorce.” The ego is pathologically self-protective.

Regarding love and “stroking,” the ego immediately co-opts the experience of love. Love, authentic compassion, is not a personal event. It is felt, yes, but frequently the experience of love, to the extent that it is felt to be “my love for ___” is a validation of an egoic self-image/belief…perhaps even one recognized as such. “Diana is so beautiful and she loves me; I am fulfilled.” (subtext, often unconscious: “I have finally achieved what I’m supposed to, being loved by a beautiful woman and deserving that.”) Shared romantic love, in each others’ presence is very much felt and very intoxicating. I have absolutely been there! We do loving things for our partner and they appreciate it and tell us, and do loving things for us. But “doing loving things” occurs in much smaller and very natural ways, too – even simply smiling at a stranger. And all those shared moments are noteworthy – do we feel proud or just warm? (There is a big difference.) What is the motivation for loving action? It is compassion, perhaps originating in empathy, perhaps without an identifiable source. It’s natural, it’s part of all of us, and it’s very real by any measure. Moreover, it is a perfume, a backbeat, a melody which plays through all of life, and all forms of self. Awakening means, among other things, that the rhythm and impulse of love penetrates everything you do. And, oddly, part of the stress of remaining “asleep” or unconscious comes from the separation from our true Self, felt in subtle and various ways throughout our days. Often that “separation stress” comes from disrespect of the needs of our own body. “Do I really really need this?” is a useful question. Authentic “self-love,” is not egoic – while this might sound silly, the Self that is loved, is love itself.

The egoic self is a product of the mind. Eckhart Tolle refers to the ego as “…a false self created by unconscious identification with the mind.” It emerges from a series of thought-streams and images, which have a variety of sources, including genetic predisposition, family-of-origin belief systems and messages, schooling, and life experiences in general. Its hallmark is a continual thought-stream – maybe 60,000 thoughts per day. The ego, aligned so closely with the mind, is uncomfortable with even a brief period of “no thoughts at all,” also known as the pure form of “the present moment.” The empty mind is not a relaxing place for most people…it’s actually scary. Before a spiritual awakening or shift, our egoic identity is the essence of the only self we experience. It is very real, very familiar, very assuring and very assertive. It is fully supported by 95% of society, too. The ego is only false, and seen and felt to be false when an alternative “me” is experienced at sufficient depth and for a sufficient period that it becomes a familiar and comfortable “new me.” As alternative “selves,” (the witness or Brahman, below) arrive, they become the “new normal” over time, and in that transformation, the capacity and frequency of ‘watching’ the egoic autopilot both increase. As does the distance from that identity. Some people, however, get bumped very suddenly into the experience of authentic unity. Eckhart Tolle, Susan Segal, Gary Weber, David Carse and Jac O’Keeffe are examples. That experience may not be pleasant, without a contextual foundation in the concepts of Advaita or Zen.

So far, I’ve been pretty rough on the ego. However, after being de-fanged, and placed in the passenger seat, it can actually flourish as a delightful gamepiece on the gameboard of life in maya (aka “the real world of form and uniqueness.”) There is an old, wonderful phrase: “Don’t take yourself too seriously.” If you can just accept the unique personality you have (and maybe allow it to lovingly transform here and there as needed in flow) it need not be the bogeyman. Feeling good about cooking a nice meal for friends, or successfully rebuilding a carburetor or finishing a big project is not only “OK,” but actually might well be important. This has to do with a “healthy self-image, and self-esteem.” Yes, there is a fine line between that “healthy” state and pride/hubris/big ego. But because we are often so conditioned to disrespect and find fault with ourselves, part of the progress of spiritual growth often requires some early ego-strengthening in order to ultimately set it aside as our felt sense of “me.” There is great irony in this, yes.

The Gordian knot of ego is actually made of gossamer, quickly cut through by the “breath of the Absolute.” (Mooji) While a functional unit in society, and not something to be hated, it is not our ultimate identity.

The person ruled by an ego is the doer, believes it is a doer, and appears to be the master of its life. This “Doership” condition merits examination. It is part of the self-inquiry: “Whence cometh I?” Doership requires somebody to do the “doing.” Forms of self-inquiry and the results of that search are topics for another essay. The ending of “doership” is, for many, the final challenge, but not an absolute prerequisite for a deep, if not permanent recognition of pure awareness. However the observation of the “doing” and definition and substance of the “doer” will change.

The Witness: This is an intermediate state, but far closer to Brahman or Self than the ego. It is also known as the The Divine Witness or The Watcher, or God Consciousness. In my usage, it is more than just listening to yourself (which is useful in its own right.) I yield to higher authorities: from Nisargadatta’s I am That (Chetana, 1992):

Abandon all ideas about yourself and you will find yourself to be the pure witness, beyond all that can happen to the body or the mind. (p. 226)

There is the identity of what you are, and there is the person superimposed on it. All you know is the person. The identity, which is not a person, you do not know, for you never doubted, never asked yourself the crucial question: "Who am I". The identity is the witness of the person, and sadhana consists in shifting the emphasis from the superficial and changeful person to the immutable and ever-present witness. (p. 442)

Discovery of the witness likely varies for each individual. For some it is utterly unplanned and very disorienting. For others, it is a natural result of spiritual practices. Deconstructing an egoic identity built up over decades, fully encouraged by society is unlikely to happen in a flash, but, as mentioned, it can. Recognition of the witness can be uncomfortable or it can be a great relief, depending on the structure, strength and rigidity of a person’s egoic identity, and familiarity with ancient and some current spiritual teaching. Moreover, the Witness has a broadened and much clearer perspective on the egoic identity. Ego stuff arises into and through The Witness, even after the first big awakening kensho. Perhaps especially after the first big glimpse. The overall perspective on egoic identity is that person formerly known as “Andy” now becomes a generalized, but very intimate experience of “Andy-ness.”

For me, the shift was both gradual and sudden. ‘Gradual,’ because 35 years of meditation had prepared the neurophysiological foundation, but ‘sudden,’ because all the final veils fell at once, after a cognitive exploration of the “absolute immediate present moment.” That shift quickly morphed into an experience of the “witness,” which was at once familiar and new. ‘Familiar,’ because I had experienced it before from time to time, but new, because I did not recognize how important that perspective was, and soon, how comfortable. Yes, “distance” and “subject-object” are dualistic. The witness is not the final home.

There is a distinct timelessness to the witness state. It is not so much an “out-of-body” experience as a permeating “nobody” experience. There is just a simple sense of “I am.” And that is a very diffuse identity, not restricted to the body. It is actually more the experience of “am-ness,” rather than “I am-ness.” And guess what…it is not scary after all, in fact it is very peaceful! Even amusing and fun. The word “presence” has also been used to describe the Witness condition.

Brahman, Pure Awareness: This condition is one which is full of enigmas and paradoxes when discussed in language. It is a non-mental, or perhaps “trans-mental” experience. The sense of “I am” is replaced completely by “Am-ness.” Any sense of an authentic distinct separate self is completely absent. The ego has become the “personality,” or as David Carse says, in Perfect Brilliant Stillness ‘this David thing.’ The first self mentioned here, “sense of self” is not so much discarded as seen for what it was: a simple recognition that, in form, there is a separate organism, or as Adyashanti says: “a point of awareness.”

There is a subtle difference between witnessing and pure awareness. The witness witnesses something outside of itself, suggesting duality. But you cannot bite your own tooth. The transition from witness to this pure state/no-state has to do with the dissolution of distinctions felt between subject and object. Subject, object and the perceived differences between them merge into Pure Being. There is also a seamlessness noted between “inside” and “outside.” The koan question “is the universe in me or am I in the universe?” becomes irrelevant.

Pure awareness is the substrate and the totality of all existence. It is the Source, container and backdrop of all thoughts, feelings, energy and perception. It is unchangeable, a refuge, yet also ruthless…there is no room for delusion. After a time, it lends a fragrance to all individual experiences; and that fragrance grows in intensity and saturation. And there is irony here, too: while it can be sort of defined as “The Void,” empty of form, it also is pregnant with the potentialities of all forms of duality and space/time and universes. Identity becomes nonlocal. The subject merges with the object.

There is no doer in Pure Awareness; there is no one to do anything. I will conclude with words from two others, first, from Gary Weber: “Virtually every day there is a new discovery, a new opening, a new "yes", until that practice completes itself and on "its own", it falls away, and another arises, unsought, to learn within itself, about itself. It is an amazing dance; there is no "after", only "endless enlargement" and more deepening and stilling beyond what was previously imagined possible.”

And finally, from Jean Klein: “You are not the doer, the thinker that rejoices and suffers. Take this for a fact and do not try to be a spectator, to be detached. The fact that you can recall your previous acts proves that you were a witness to them. So above all do not try to be a witness -- this would only be projection, and would keep you in the frame of ideas and expectations. If you accept this, a change will come about within you, probably without your even realizing it at the time it occurs.

The witness is only a crutch to bring you to understand that you are not a doer. Once you are free from doership there will be a change of axis and the energy once directed towards the object will shift to the subject aspect, to the witnessing. In the end all residues of subjectivity dissolve and the witness with them. You discover yourself as that in which the object and subject exist, but you are neither one nor the other. Then there is only living silence.”

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Testigo » Thu May 12, 2016 11:03 am

Thank you, Andy. Simply, wonderful!
TESTIGO

To land Here and Now
Testigo
 
Posts: 60
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2012 6:47 pm
Location: Helsinki

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Sighclone » Fri May 13, 2016 5:28 am

Thanks, Testigo...

That is an essay I wish had been available when I had a big kensho...I was disoriented but "ok" --- John Welwood and kiki were very helpful.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby runstrails » Sat May 14, 2016 10:07 pm

Hi Andy,
Great essay. So well written. Thanks for sharing it with the forum.

I hope it's ok for me to use your essay to illustrate two points:

Andy wrote: You will wake up tomorrow and recognize yourself as a living body/person. And you will know “who you are” in that relative world.

This sense of personal awareness=atman or the self.

Andy wrote: Pure awareness is the substrate and the totality of all existence. It is the Source, container and backdrop of all thoughts, feelings, energy and perception.

This universal awareness =Brahman

Self realization is understanding that atman=Brahman.

That is, one's personal sense of self or awareness (atman) is the same as the universal awareness which is the substrate of reality/existence (Brahman).

Here is the logic for this in a nutshell:

There can be no existence or reality without awareness. That is, fundamental existence/reality and awareness are interchangeable. Now, by definition there can only be one fundamental reality, similarly there can only be one fundamental awareness. Therefore, your personal sense of awareness (called self or atman) is ultimately the same as the universal awareness (called brahman). Awareness is non-dual and constitutes the one fundamental reality. That is, atman=Brahman. This is the teaching of traditional Advaita Vedanta.

Hope I did not muddy the waters :D. Good to see you, Andy.
runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 2123
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Sighclone » Thu May 19, 2016 8:07 pm

Thanks, rt. I had a long discussion with Gary Weber about this atman/Brahman issue a while back. He allowed that Kashmir Shaivism identified atman as distinct from Brahman, but also atman=Brahman in self-realization. He then suggested, though, that pure Advaita Vedanta basically disallowed the concept of atman...everything was Brahman, and atman was a fiction. He was wrong, I think regarding the strict dogma Advaita Vedanta. Actually, Buddhism disavows atman.

Part of his argument was that Tolle and others say "you really are Pure Awareness, or Being, or Source, etc." ...except there is no "you" to be anything. And that all the pedagogy involving "you" was used because people who are reading it still have an egoic identity and need to believe that "they" are something. Gary's assertion was that there is no "they," no "person" to be anything. I'm more in the Kashmir Shaivism group, sort of shared by Adya when he talks about an individual being a "point of awareness."

Everyone's shift is different, because each unique body/mind/personality is different. The "self" that remains is just a convenience for conversation, and should not be confused with "little me." On another note, "not two" does not mean that a shoe is a fish is a history book is a toenail, etc. I think that "not two" is a pointer away from the mental observation of duality. I think "not two" suggests that the tool that sees "two" is the wrong tool to perceive and experience ultimate reality.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Rob X » Thu May 19, 2016 11:25 pm

Sighclone wrote:Thanks, rt. I had a long discussion with Gary Weber about this atman/Brahman issue a while back. He allowed that Kashmir Shaivism identified atman as distinct from Brahman, but also atman=Brahman in self-realization. He then suggested, though, that pure Advaita Vedanta basically disallowed the concept of atman...everything was Brahman, and atman was a fiction. He was wrong, I think regarding the strict dogma Advaita Vedanta. Actually, Buddhism disavows atman.

Part of his argument was that Tolle and others say "you really are Pure Awareness, or Being, or Source, etc." ...except there is no "you" to be anything. And that all the pedagogy involving "you" was used because people who are reading it still have an egoic identity and need to believe that "they" are something. Gary's assertion was that there is no "they," no "person" to be anything. I'm more in the Kashmir Shaivism group, sort of shared by Adya when he talks about an individual being a "point of awareness."

Everyone's shift is different, because each unique body/mind/personality is different. The "self" that remains is just a convenience for conversation, and should not be confused with "little me." On another note, "not two" does not mean that a shoe is a fish is a history book is a toenail, etc. I think that "not two" is a pointer away from the mental observation of duality. I think "not two" suggests that the tool that sees "two" is the wrong tool to perceive and experience ultimate reality.

Andy


I'm not sure what Gary Weber is getting at here Andy. Plainly there is a phenomenal 'you'. It's just that this 'you' has no inherent/abiding existence.

When we say 'I am so-and-so…' the I conventionally refers to the individuated expression. 'I am…' is a qualification of what the 'I' refers to. For instance 'I am a father' means this individuated expression fits the classification, father. (Additionally 'I' could be a musician, a husband, a human, a feminist and so on.)

Now when we say I am Source*. It plainly does not mean that the phenomenal/conventional 'I' (this individuated expression) is Source. The meaning is that I, this individuated expression, is in fact not other than Source. In other words, Source is all there is.

That's why it is a realisation. It is realised that this individuated manifestation is not other than the play of Source. I though I was this… but this turns out to be that.


* Reality, Totality, Being, Awareness, Consciousness, God… etc.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Sighclone » Mon May 23, 2016 7:14 am

Now when we say I am Source*. It plainly does not mean that the phenomenal/conventional 'I' (this individuated expression) is Source. The meaning is that I, this individuated expression, is in fact not other than Source. In other words, Source is all there is.


This is a delightful distinction. In my experience as "the personality Andy hisself" in interaction with others who are pretty much not awake, I seem to wear a hundred hats a day. I'm a counselor to a client, a friend to a friend, a husband to a wife, a customer to a clerk, a member of a forum, a driver on a road....etc. And in those roles my "unique style" is often perceived. So it is for all of us. It's so easy to believe that the foundation of all of us is just the embodied egoic "me," (with God "out there.") Left as that model, we have 7.35 billion "little me's." With more "being born" and "dying" every day. And whole professions trying to understand and manipulate the "human condition." In the relative world, "you" and "I" are different entities. Our uniqueness appears when criteria for differentiation appear. When auditions for symphony musicians were done behind curtains which concealed the sex of the performer, that distinction disappeared and magically women began to fill the seats of our orchestras. As the criteria for differentiation dissolve, the distinctions also fade away.

Nanci Danison, in her fascinating NDE book "Backwards" (2009) speaks of merging with five or six other light beings, with the ability to "stay merged" or drift apart. (She also claims to have briefly "merged" with Source, apparently to get bounced back into individuation.)

Which brings us to another thread topic...what happens when "I" die. ET was pretty clear in the Oprah webinars about saying "nothing important happens." But he also answered a question once suggesting that some form or ego survives physical death. We know what the Buddhists say ( the rebirth cycle continues until it doesn't)...I still have some idle curiosity.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Rob X » Mon May 23, 2016 6:19 pm

Sighclone wrote:
Now when we say I am Source*. It plainly does not mean that the phenomenal/conventional 'I' (this individuated expression) is Source. The meaning is that I, this individuated expression, is in fact not other than Source. In other words, Source is all there is.


This is a delightful distinction. In my experience as "the personality Andy hisself" in interaction with others who are pretty much not awake, I seem to wear a hundred hats a day. I'm a counselor to a client, a friend to a friend, a husband to a wife, a customer to a clerk, a member of a forum, a driver on a road....etc. And in those roles my "unique style" is often perceived. So it is for all of us. It's so easy to believe that the foundation of all of us is just the embodied egoic "me," (with God "out there.") Left as that model, we have 7.35 billion "little me's." With more "being born" and "dying" every day. And whole professions trying to understand and manipulate the "human condition." In the relative world, "you" and "I" are different entities. Our uniqueness appears when criteria for differentiation appear. When auditions for symphony musicians were done behind curtains which concealed the sex of the performer, that distinction disappeared and magically women began to fill the seats of our orchestras. As the criteria for differentiation dissolve, the distinctions also fade away.


Thanks Andy. I would say that when delusion falls away the individuated outlook (and the world) is not somehow left behind - although, of course, it fades from view to various extents in certain states such as samadhi, sleep and deep absorption etc.

Delusion, seeking and the falling away of delusion occur in phenomenal manifestation - they occur via the play of the body-mind. What is revealed is that the notion of enduring, independent, isolated entities is a fantasy - and that our deepest nature is (for want of an expression) this inexplicable event of existence itself. This is a waking up TO the dream (so to speak - it's not actually a dream) not FROM the dream. The 'dream' goes on - the individuated perspective doesn't dissolve it becomes re-contextualised as the contingent play of a deeper reality.

---

A quick note about your Buddhist comment. It's understood by many Buddhist scholars (especially secular Buddhists) that rebirth was adopted as a 'convenient fiction' from existing traditions such as Jainism. To this day it's a controversial topic as it is in conflict with the central Buddhist concepts of no self and sunyata (emptiness).
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Sighclone » Wed May 25, 2016 6:54 am

Delusion, seeking and the falling away of delusion occur in phenomenal manifestation - they occur via the play of the body-mind. What is revealed is that the notion of enduring, independent, isolated entities is a fantasy - and that our deepest nature is (for want of an expression) this inexplicable event of existence itself. This is a waking up TO the dream (so to speak - it's not actually a dream) not FROM the dream. The 'dream' goes on - the individuated perspective doesn't dissolve it becomes re-contextualised as the contingent play of a deeper reality.


It's posts like this that remind me why I continue to hang around here. Thank you.

The waking up is FROM a fantasy, an incomplete worldview. The waking TO is to the spectacular suchness of it all. The most compelling experience (and most unexpected) was the brilliant vibrancy of the divinity in everything. Also, my deepest experiences of intimacy with other people has always taken me to a transcendental state, sometimes shared, even before the kensho.

"The individuated perspective doesn't dissolve - it becomes re-contextualized as the contingent play of a deeper reality." For some, perhaps, that's just too academic. For me, it's pure gold.

Andy
A person is not a thing or a process, but an opening through which the universe manifests. - Martin Heidegger
There is not past, no future; everything flows in an eternal present. - James Joyce
User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 6182
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby Rob X » Wed May 25, 2016 5:32 pm

Sighclone wrote:The waking up is FROM a fantasy, an incomplete worldview. The waking TO is to the spectacular suchness of it all.


Nicely put Andy. And suchness is the key here. In this suchness of present actuality there is a perceived ocean of variation yet no separation to be found. Separation arises as an idea. But right here, right now before the analytical mind kicks in there is the intimate THIS-ness of existence. Not two, not one… just THIS.
User avatar
Rob X
 
Posts: 312
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 6:37 pm

Re: Fear of not existing

Postby randomguy » Wed May 25, 2016 7:07 pm

x wrote:...rebirth was adopted as a 'convenient fiction' from existing traditions such as Jainism. To this day it's a controversial topic as it is in conflict with the central Buddhist concepts of no self and sunyata (emptiness).

This makes so much sense.

Tolle from Stillness Speaks - "Reincarnation doesn't help you if in your next incarnation you still don't know who you are." Way to frame the importance of it ET.

x wrote:inexplicable event of existence itself

Nice. I could imagine on the wayward fringe of possibility the egoic act of taking credit for emerging from the birth canal all by one's self (I did it, where's my trophy?) but for the very self-evident fact of existence? Stare at that for a while and observe egoic thoughts recede to the periphery. Where is that switch to turn existence on and off anyway? I thought I had that in my pocket.
Do the yellow-rose petals
tremble and fall
at the rapid's roar?
- Basho
randomguy
 
Posts: 923
Joined: Sat Dec 13, 2008 1:00 am

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest