A tiny bit of clarity

Here you may share how the words Eckhart Tolle have affected your life.
seekerjon
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 5:17 pm

A tiny bit of clarity

Post by seekerjon » Sat Dec 08, 2007 7:18 pm

Today I had a tiny bit of clarity I understand now how we feed our pain-body and how easy it is to become identified with it because the ego is so clever. I realize now especially for me and other people who tend to worry a lot, that by analyzing our worries and trying to decide in our head if something is going to happen, or not going to happen is what feeds our pain-body we are giving life to it. The more you try to theorize the outcome of something the more you feed your pain so basically we should just drop the worry and watch the thoughts and not engage in them. Basically when we worry we try to push that worry out of our mind by saying its not going to happen and this push is resistance.

The hard part is though that when a worry appears in our mind our mind will make automatic judgements like no it will not happen or yes it will happen but we must just not analyze these judgements just hear them and tune into your feelings. You can then feel the pain these judgements cause you and realize you know what its not worth it at all to judge an outcome of something. So if the pain is hard to deal with just try and accept it say "Hi there, how are you today?" Well felt that I should type all this out hopefully it will help some people who worry like I do about everything.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by kiki » Sat Dec 08, 2007 9:57 pm

If you just stop and consider it, what value does worry have? None that I've ever discovered, so it's pointless to feed it by thinking more about it. When it's recognized to be present then accept that fact; that moment of recognition is the space that allows it to be dropped so it no longer gets fed unconsciously.

I remember years ago when I enlisted in the Marine Corps I was told all sorts of things to be wary of. For example, one thing I was told was that every recruit is privately brought before a drill instructor, and then the drill instructor would physically beat on them. I knew then that I would simply have to discover for myself if this was true or not. Worrying about it would serve no purpose. It turned out not to be true. Had I given in to that fear my life undoubtedly would have been much different; in what way I haven't a clue, but I wouldn't give up one thing in my life that has happened to me.

So, the bottom line is this: when worry arises, ask yourself "Where is truth, in the worry about some imagined future or in the consciousness of the present moment?" Live your life consciously and "worry" spontaneously disappears.

k
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

User avatar
erict
Site-Admin
Site-Admin
Posts: 1812
Joined: Mon Nov 22, 2004 9:24 pm
Location: Israel
Contact:

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by erict » Sat Dec 08, 2007 10:30 pm

Kiki, your post is brilliant. Although I must say that it implies that our behavior (both internal and external) is rational, which isn't so at all. Virtually everyone, myself included of course, does things that are totally irrational. I know that I do a lot of things, which I shouldn't be doing. The voice of reason and logic isn't the primary driving force. If I have to be totally honest with myself, I'd say that I am pushed and pulled by fear and desire. The influence of reason is minor, compared to these raw forces.

I suppose the only way out is to see through both fear and desire. I believe they are not real, but that isn't enough. Not really. They are just as real to me as they were before this belief.

What is it like for you? How do you experience fear and desire?
"Be sincere; don't ask questions out of mere interest. Ask dangerous questions—the ones whose answers could change your life."

User avatar
Onceler
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:35 am
Location: My house

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by Onceler » Sun Dec 09, 2007 12:40 am

Is being/acting rational the same as being/acting out of presence?

It seems to me, and I really don't know, that presence is somehow differant than reason. Perhaps vaster, deeper?
Be present, be pleasant.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by kiki » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:03 am

erict wrote:What is it like for you? How do you experience fear and desire?
When fear comes, which is very seldom now (actually, I can't remember the last time I was gripped by any kind of fear), I immediately realize that it is future based and release it. When thoughts come about the future that could turn into "fearful thoughts" I just see them for what they are and sort of say to myself, "Well, let's see what happens when the time comes. For now I will just stay present."

Those times when the present moment would seem to be fear generating, like a near accident with a car or some sort of mishap, those actual moments generate no fear within me. After such incidents, when the mind re-engages, is when what I would call a "shadow" of fear returns - faint thought forms about what has occurred. But then I recognize that those are only thought forms and it is useless to remain attached to them and have them turn into some story, and so the fear dissolves. The only thing that remains is an adrenaline rush which quickly dissipates.

Even my recent illness generated no fear. It was a situation that arose, steps were taken to remedy it, and that was all there was to it. Granted, there was physical pain, but there was no fear at all. When the doctor said surgery was what had to be done it was entirely OK with me - I had absolutely no apprehension about anything.

As for desire, none arises that I can detect - there really is nothing in particular I want. The body takes care of itself - I eat when hungry and drink when thirsty. Preferences remain but when they cannot be met it's entirely OK - I just go with the flow of what's occurring. Life is very simple, very basic - I don't feel "driven" to do anything. To an outsider it would in all likelihood appear quite boring, but to me it feels complete and satisfying, and is deeply peaceful and silent. For me that's enough.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by kiki » Sun Dec 09, 2007 4:11 am

Onceler wrote:Is being/acting rational the same as being/acting out of presence?

It seems to me, and I really don't know, that presence is somehow differant than reason. Perhaps vaster, deeper?
Yes, being is much vaster, much deeper than reason, which is only a mental viewpoint. What would seem rational to one person can be quite irrational to another. However, as you stated, presence allows rational thought to supplant conditioned irrational thought.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

shappy
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by shappy » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:25 am

kiki, you seem to be implying that being and presence are the same (or similar). If this is what you are implying, then I strongly disagree. Presence is nice but it is a complete joke in the face of simply being the utter freedom that you are (not that I'm an authority on this whatsoever... although I have experienced both and they're clearly unrelated).

I think it's important to make this distinction. Presence is a mindful activity. Being is completely beyond comprehension... yet it is absolutely innate to everyone.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:40 am

shappy wrote: Presence is a mindful activity. Being is completely beyond comprehension... yet it is absolutely innate to everyone.
Being... Being Presence... Being ego... Being Present as ego...

Aware... Aware of Being... Aware in Being... Aware as ego... Aware of being ego...

Go figure... or just Be...

shappy
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by shappy » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:50 am

hi Webwanderer,

No, unfortunately (or rather, very fortunately), it's not that easy. Being doesn't have you being anything because there is no "you". Being leaves no one to be anything... present, ego, whatever. I know that sounds cliche, but it is true. Your whole world blows up (or rather, it disappears)... it's a whole new ballgame.

By the way, practicing presence is practicing ego.
Last edited by shappy on Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4587
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by kiki » Sun Dec 09, 2007 6:36 am

Being doesn't have you being anything because there is no "you".
Yup.
Being leaves no one to be anything...
Yup.
By the way, practicing presence is practicing ego.
Yes, that is true. To "practice" presence is part of the show ego puts on until it's realized there is no one to practice anything. "Presence" is one of those words to describe how being appears to express through form. Being is always present - when the illusory form of "me" is no longer there, that being is consciously experienced by no one. To say one is "present" implies that there is a separate "me" to be present, but in reality there is no "me".

This is the trouble with words - they are simply inadequate to express "this" without confusion arising somewhere. It's hard to get "others" to realize there is no "me", and so the word "presence" often gets used. I wish there were an easier way to get through to people but we are stuck with what we have available while in form. There is no telling what will work for someone and what won't. It's all part of the apparent show.
"Miss Kelly, perhaps you'd like this flower. I seem to have misplaced my buttonhole ... Miss Kelly, you know, when you wear my flower you make it look beautiful." Elwood P. Dowd
---

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:17 am

shappy wrote:Being is completely beyond comprehension.
No, unfortunately (or rather, very fortunately), it's not that easy. Being doesn't have you being anything because there is no "you". Being leaves no one to be anything... present, ego, whatever. I know that sounds cliche, but it is true. Your whole world blows up... it's a whole new ballgame.
But shappy, what is your point(er)? Your invitation to debate is also an exercise of mind as ego. The world of form exists, even if temporary. One is cognizant within form whether trapped in ego focus or free in clear presence. One perspective promotes suffering, the other offers adventures in love. Analyzing the distinction between Being beyond comprehension and clear presence-awareness is but a philosophical exercise that can have no solultion beyond the mind that birthed it.

shappy
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by shappy » Sun Dec 09, 2007 8:14 am

my point is that there is a distinction. Is it egoic to discuss this? Well, sure it is. But in my mind, it is important to make the distinction and to discuss it if need be (otherwise, I wouldn't bother).

Clear presence-awareness is not being (a.k.a. self-realization, embodying true nature, etc). There is only one being and there is absolutely no need for being clear, or present, or aware. There is no state in being. Clear presence-awareness is a state... whether you think so or not.

You may think that I'm merely playing with words (as kiki pointed out), but I don't think that's the case. I know presence. I got "trapped" in presence and letting the moment/"what is" be. I also got trapped in thinking I know my true nature. And I do have a decent conceptualized picture of what our true nature is. But after being (twice... for literally a split second each time) all that flew out the window. All that knowledge was instantly rendered useless; absolutely and completely useless. Enlightenment is about self-realization and living it each moment... plain and simple. In my opinion, I don't see the embodiment of true nature seriously discussed anywhere on this site (meaning, we're talking about different things).

If you still don't think there is a difference, ask yourself with complete honesty if you are self-realized when you are in clear presence-awareness. Just to put things in perspective, Sri Ramana Maharshi was self-realized... this is hard-core shit we're talking about here.

User avatar
Onceler
Posts: 2257
Joined: Sun Nov 11, 2007 1:35 am
Location: My house

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by Onceler » Sun Dec 09, 2007 3:19 pm

From my point of view, and it is truly an egoic one, it appears that realization, no matter how clear, is still run through the nervous system of the individual--even if there is minimal psychological/emotional structure there. That is unavoidable. It also explains differing accounts of realization. I found Adya's explaination of his realization (see http://www.thesunmagazine.org) so simple, yet so different and complex; because there were stages. According to him and others, there is no end--but rather a deepening. I suspect a realized individual will change their perspective/understanding over time.

Then of course there is my egoic nervous system "interpreting" it all verbally/intellectually and looking for patterns and with my mind. Two ships....

I find the "debate" worthwhile and thank you all.

User avatar
Webwanderer
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6810
Joined: Fri May 12, 2006 12:03 am

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by Webwanderer » Sun Dec 09, 2007 5:03 pm

shappy wrote:my point is that there is a distinction
My question was not rhetorical. And discussions here are for the purpose of recognition of misperceptions and bringing clarity to awareness. (Read Awakening)

So let us throw the bones one more time...
Clear presence-awareness is not being (a.k.a. self-realization, embodying true nature, etc).
I don't see it that way. Clear presence-awareness is "being" a certain way. "Clear" is a condition within awareness relative to, and free from, living (being) through attachments to content within awareness.
There is only one being and there is absolutely no need for being clear, or present, or aware.
It seems there are two usages of the word "being" in this sentence; one a noun, the other a verb. If we are to make clear distinctions, maybe it's useful to start here. The first seems to be a reference to fundamental, non material, existance.(Words fail here) The second is an expression of experiential livingness. Intellectual understanding of the first must pale in comparison to reality, as any intellectual perception is merely content. The second however, seems to be more recognizable, as living is directly experiential and perceivable within the world of form.

As to the "need" to be clear, I agree that need is not relevant to Being. It is what it is, at least when considering the relationship of Being to experience. What is relevent is the need for clarity of perception as it relates to experience. It seems preferable to perceive the events of life free from the distorting obsticals of judgment and belief, and the consequences they entail.

There is also the issue of quality of life, at least from the perspective of life in form. (From that undefinable Essential Being, there may be considerably less distinction on quality, who can say?) As we have discussed here ad nausiam, there is no separate me to save from what ails us. Yet there remains a perception of the present conditions of life within a field of awareness; and within that perception there are experiences of joy and sorrow, etc. Is there not value to practicing certain tools of consciouness that help bring clarity to how such experiences are generated and thereby gain a measure of freedom from their entrapment? Is this not fundamental to the teachings of Tolle, et al?

shappy
Posts: 137
Joined: Fri Aug 31, 2007 5:21 pm
Location: Toronto

Re: A tiny bit of clarity

Post by shappy » Sun Dec 09, 2007 7:44 pm

Webwanderer wrote:My question was not rhetorical.
I know... which is why I answered. (?)
Webwanderer wrote:And discussions here are for the purpose of recognition of misperceptions and bringing clarity to awareness. (Read Awakening)
Yes, and this site is wonderful for that. But that is not Realizing. And there seems to be confusion about what these "things" are. Kiki has implied that they are the same. I'm attempting to define a very necessary distinction.
Webwanderer wrote:I don't see it that way. Clear presence-awareness is "being" a certain way. "Clear" is a condition within awareness relative to, and free from, living (being) through attachments to content within awareness.
"Being" a certain way is NOT self-realization. There is no certain way to be. There is just being. There is nothing to be relative to anything. Clarity doesn't exist (it only exists as a mind-made concept). If clarity exists, then the potential for unclarity exists. Being is simpler than all that. What you're pointing to and what I'm pointing to are completely different and completely unrelated. Clarity and the acceptance of "what is" is a much better state than the typical suffering that we all endure, but it is still a state. It's just better content.
Webwanderer wrote:It seems there are two usages of the word "being" in this sentence; one a noun, the other a verb. If we are to make clear distinctions, maybe it's useful to start here.
I italicized the first "being" to avoid confusion. But I could see that there still could be confusion. Actually, both are verbs. Being is not a thing. I'm not talking about a "god" or whatever. I'm talking about the act of being who you already are. This is different from living as who you think you are... which includes clear presence-awareness.
Webwanderer wrote:The first seems to be a reference to fundamental, non material, existance.(Words fail here) The second is an expression of experiential livingness. Intellectual understanding of the first must pale in comparison to reality, as any intellectual perception is merely content. The second however, seems to be more recognizable, as living is directly experiential and perceivable within the world of form.
I'm confused. This is very verbose and I'm having a hard time understanding what you have written and why. What are you attempting to point out here?
Webwanderer wrote:There is also the issue of quality of life, at least from the perspective of life in form. (From that undefinable Essential Being, there may be considerably less distinction on quality, who can say?) As we have discussed here ad nausiam, there is no separate me to save from what ails us. Yet there remains a perception of the present conditions of life within a field of awareness; and within that perception there are experiences of joy and sorrow, etc. Is there not value to practicing certain tools of consciouness that help bring clarity to how such experiences are generated and thereby gain a measure of freedom from their entrapment? Is this not fundamental to the teachings of Tolle, et al?
Yes, there are benefits to "practicing tools of consciousness". Like you said, it frees us from entrapment. However, this entrapment itself is an entrapment and it itself is not real. That is, only if there is a mind-made concept of entrapment can there be a mind-made concept of freedom. Or put more bluntly... constantly reminding yourself to try and be free is not freedom.

Imagine that your mind is a giant sandbox. You sit there and play with sand (i.e. concepts) all day. You stumble upon Tolle and you learn how to make big, beautiful, and intricate sand castles. However, you're still pushing around the same sand. Life is better but you are still trapped in the sandbox. When one is being, the sandbox and all the sand castles are automatically seen through. It instantly "disappears". And I mean instantly.

Post Reply