The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Talk about anything Tolle-related here.
User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:32 pm

Regarding past and future, you seem to be saying that there is a shift in point of view required, and when that shift has occurred, past and future become more of a game instead of being taken so seriously. I'm assuming when you say there is no "my", you mean we are no longer taking events in life personally, and therefore can have more ease making decisions. It's not that past and future disappear, but the way we relate to our memories and anticipations shifts. Is that close?
In the truest sense there is no past and no future; this is seen when there is a shift away from the perspective of an individual personal "me" to the true perspective of Consciousness itself. That Consciousness is strictly impersonal; there is no one present who "owns" it, no me, you, or other - it just is. From the perspective of truth, Consciousness itself, the "me" is seen as only an appearance in the mind (I enclose "me" inside quotation marks to denote that mind has encapsulated thoughts and turned them into a "me" that are then identified with - the "me" is only a collection of thoughts that an identity is built upon; there is no "me" when investigated. It's important for you to see this directly for yourself, which I will get into in another paragraph).

Mind is like the words on the screen and consciousness is the screen itself. Mind is like the clouds moving through the sky and consciousness is the sky itself. Without the screen or the sky neither words nor clouds could possibly exist. What appears on the screen or in the sky is always subject to change, but since the screen/sky is always present and non-changing it gives way, so to speak, for all appearances within it. Such is the nature of Consciousness/You. So, isn't it obvious that consciousness is here already? Has it ever been absent?

What does all this mean in practical terms? Life as seen from truth is no longer a burden. What is thought of as past and future is seen to be a play taking place via mind within Consciousness/You. Things relating to "past and future" are attended to in order to participate in this play, but identity and purpose are no longer driven by them because identity has shifted away from the "me" sense and onto Consciousness itself. When attention has made the shift onto truth/Consciousness the "me" begins to disappear more and more from the mind and attachment to it as one's identity begins to dissolve. What was previously in the background, Consciousness, is now in the foreground, and what was previously in the foreground, ego/mind, is now in the background or not there at all. So the awakened go about their lives much as before, but without the seriousness and heaviness that used to be there when identified with ego. Past and future no longer serve as the foundation for an identity, because it's seen quite clearly that all there ever is is now.
I understand a bit about the concept of ego, and that it is illusion, and that the "I" doesn't really exist. But I have no idea how to make the leap between understanding and experiencing. I do meditation, and while I've had some interesting experiences, I certainly have not experienced myself as something separate from ego (or to have experienced this physical/mental phenomenon I call me as not me, as pure consciousness). How does one move towards this experience/understanding, if it is not by the mind?
While you are meditating you can ask yourself, "Who is actually here meditating?" and then look. Pin down the "meditator" - where is it? Can you find it? Look and see for yourself; see if you can find the "meditator". Now, after you've done that (and let me know if you were successful) what notices what is seen or not seen? What is its nature?

This is what happened to me. I practiced a sit down formal eyes-closed meditation technique for 27 years but I didn't seem to be getting anywhere with it, then I came across Tolle and his ideas about enlightenment and now. After reading Tolle and I sat for "my" meditation period I looked for "kiki" - I couldn't find him! All I found were ideas about kiki, but there was no kiki entity as such; and then it hit me like a hammer - there was consciousness that was seeing this. I realized that that consciousness had always been present, but it was being overlooked because all of my attention was on the content arising in the mind, and mind was within consciousness. Every experience I had in and out of meditation was just some form of changing content that I was experiencing within the unchanging witness of that content, consciousness. The shift happened all by itself - it was if the bubble of thought that made up "kiki" simply popped, and what was left standing was what was already here, consciousness. With that recognition there was just a relaxing back into Self, into true nature - nothing to do, nowhere to go, only to see.

This is the direct path of Self-Realization. This is self-enquiry, what Ramana Maharshi taught. He is generally acknowledged as the greatest and most respected sage of the 20th century. Self-enquiry goes directly to what You are rather than remaining fixated on what you are not. What is dis-covered via self-enquiry is what has already been present in its fullness always - consciousness. That consciousness has the quality of simply being aware of what's going on - I just call it knowingness at times, or the sense of Being, or the sense of Existence, or Amness.
What else must be awakened in me to make that transition? I know this is the subject of volumes of work, but maybe you can throw a simpler hint my way, if you yourself have experienced this shift.
This is a question whose answer will perplex the mind - nothing needs to be awakened. What you are is already fully awake, though it may not yet be seen. So instead of trying to awaken some thing, the awakeness is simply seen to be already present and awake/alert/aware right now. This is the function of self-enquiry. One uses the mind in order to turn attention away from the mind and onto Awareness/Consciousness/You.

So if you want go ahead and meditate, but use that time to notice what is actually present and real, You as Consciousness itself. Look for the meditator by asking, "Who/what am I really?" and then see what is found to be true and real. By true and real I mean what is always present and never changes.
"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
---

Ralph
Posts: 596
Joined: Fri Dec 25, 2009 12:08 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by Ralph » Mon Jul 05, 2010 11:47 pm

Beautifully said !!! Thank you kiki.

.. I just added you to my short list of great spiritual teachers :D

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:30 am

I just added you to my short list of great spiritual teachers :D
:D
"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
---

xtallman
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:54 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by xtallman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:46 am

Thanks for the encouragement, Andy. I will look up your book - sounds interesting.
?

xtallman
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:54 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by xtallman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:19 am

Thanks, kiki, you said quite a lot here. So that I don't get swamped, let me just pick one point to focus on. You said,
kiki wrote:In the truest sense there is no past and no future; this is seen when there is a shift away from the perspective of an individual personal "me" to the true perspective of Consciousness itself. That Consciousness is strictly impersonal; there is no one present who "owns" it, no me, you, or other - it just is. From the perspective of truth, Consciousness itself, the "me" is seen as only an appearance in the mind (I enclose "me" inside quotation marks to denote that mind has encapsulated thoughts and turned them into a "me" that are then identified with - the "me" is only a collection of thoughts that an identity is built upon; there is no "me" when investigated. It's important for you to see this directly for yourself, which I will get into in another paragraph).
The idea that there is no "me" is confusing to me (or whoever is writing this). There is this body, which is definitely a real thing, separate and distinct from other bodies, takes up time and space, has a history and (hopefully) a future. There is this mind, that thinks things, and has thought things in the past. There are these emotions which also have history and life and a dynamic quality. This body, mind, set of thoughts, and set of emotions are tied to each other - the set of thoughts does not wander off from this body and invade someone else's body. So there is something here that is composed of all these parts, and presumedly other parts harder to define.

Why is it not permissible to give this assembly of parts a label, a name? What is wrong with using the pronoun "me" to identify this particular assembly of parts? This assembly of parts experiences life from its own perspective; your assembly of parts experiences something different. Obviously, there is consciousness, but it is unique to each individual, not one big universal consciousness. I have no access at all to what you are experiencing in this moment, nor you of me. The consciousnesses of each person overlap very little, and usually not at all. We may have similar experiences, but that is different than saying that we are one consciousness having all these different experiences.

My consciousness is always tied to the location of my body - I am not conscious of the Great Wall of China at this moment because my body is not anywhere near China. In what sense am I (or this assembly of parts) universally conscious? My access to experience is limited to a small geographical patch at any moment, and my patch is different than yours. So it seems my consciousness is indeed personal, being stuck to this one unique assembly of body/mind, and not to any other.

I vaguely get that this assembly of parts is in some sense theoretical, being seen by the mind as a unit, an entity, as labels are a product of the mind. But there is also some truth to the reality of this assembly being a separate entity, because the parts are tied together uniquely to this body, and not to anyone else's. And wouldn't it make sense that the mind associated with this body would be more concerned about this body than another, since it is much more capable of affecting and controlling this body than another?

I also vaguely get that it is possible to detach from taking everything personally - that one can see the events of one's life from a more detached and perhaps more objective point of view. But this is not the equivalent of saying the person doesn't exist, or his ego doesn't exist. It is simply the ability to realize that I am one of many, and other people feel similarly about themselves as I do about myself. I can relate to someone who is down, because I have been down, and I am mentally capable of reversing the situation to imagine that I am now the observer of the person who is down, rather than the down person being observed. So we can mentally step outside of ourselves and see things from a more universal point of view. But is that really anything more than a capacity for empathy?

Sorry for all the questions. My mind simply won't accept what others tell me until I can see it for myself, or experience it for myself.

I'm loving this discussion, by the way.

User avatar
Sighclone
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 6372
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 6:22 pm

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by Sighclone » Tue Jul 06, 2010 6:18 am

Xtall –

You are doing your very best to form a concept of awakening/enlightenment as something different from your “standard sense of me.” I don’t blame you, but, sadly, you have the wrong tool in your hand....you are using your reasoning mind and its processed experiences over your lifetime.

You understand from your other readings that, supposedly, no one wakes up. That the “awakening” is actually a replacement of the identity “xtallman” with no individual identity at all. And that sounds nuts to you. (And to a whole bunch of other people.) As Tim Freke says in “Lucid Living”, you are not a person. Huh? But he continues: (p. 47) “Common sense, of course, says you are a person. But in everyday speech, we say, “I have a body,” not “I am a body.” And we talk of “my mind” as if the mind is something we possess, not something we are. What is this mysterious “I” that is not the body or the mind?”

And later, “You appear to be a separate individual. Flip it around. You are the life-dreamer experiencing existence from a particular point of view.”

You might say, “But I like me. And I love my children. Are nondualists saying that’s all baloney?”

No. They are saying that the entire experience of yourself and your children is “like a dream.” Like a lucid dream, one in which you are the main character. But your character is constantly changing. And what happens when you are actually dreaming at night? Where do “you” go? Is there not something which does not change? What happens if you re-assign your identity to that consciousness? Well, for one, the ego gets all huffy. And comes up with all sorts of fears and frustrations and mental complaints. Your character is vigorous in its defense of the driver’s seat. That’s Ok, that’s its job in the big tough world of other egos.

Nondualists are saying that it’s all appearing on “life’s stage,” on which there are many willing players. While you are the main character in your own story, you are a supporting character in the individual “life stories” of your family and friends.

You appear to understand these concepts intellectually, and yet they do not resonate truth for you. Why do you not just dismiss them as lunacy and go about your life? There are lots of people with goofy ideas.

I think I know the answer. And it’s not just the sport of crossing swords with a bunch of nondualists in cyberspace. There is something intangibly and inherently appealing here about the nonsensical but very earnest effort of kiki and others. You seek truth. The mysteries of the Tao, of Self, of Zen remain intriguing. Why is that spiritual quest interesting? I think we all get to the place where we wonder about “the meaning of life.” And that there is something somehow appealing about nonduality which is more intriguing than a jillion other philosophies and new age metaphysics and religions. Is some “part” of you drawn to this? Nothing is easier to mentally discard than a philosophy which says “emptiness is form, form is emptiness,” which asserts the subject and object are the same, which places the specious “now” above any other time, which talks comfortably about the end of thinking, a conscious state which is a “pregnant void,” and an “emanation of love and joy, complete presence and openness toward all beings” (which has then got to include vicious criminals, etc.) Why is that bizarre stuff not tossed away like trivial junk?

Because something in you senses that it might be true…what could that be?

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
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:07 am

The idea that there is no "me" is confusing to me (or whoever is writing this). There is this body, which is definitely a real thing, separate and distinct from other bodies, takes up time and space, has a history and (hopefully) a future.
No, the body is not "definitely a real thing"; it is "real" only in the sense that it has a relative appearance in the world of form, but the world of form is only a kind of dance of mind, a set of sensory experiences that seems to provide continuity to what appears to be separate individuals. Just as all the characters of a night time dream seem to have a separate reality, they are created out of "your" consciousness. It is the same in what we call the world - all seemingly separate others in the world of form are a function of mind arising within one consciousness. Yes, the body seems to take up time and space, has a history and so forth, but all of that is only in the relative sense as a function of mind. In the absolute sense, however, it is only an appearance, a sort of dance of form that seems to have a physical substance. That "physical substance", however, is actually only sensory input, and without consciousness/You the "knowing" of that sensory input would be impossible.
There is this mind, that thinks things, and has thought things in the past. There are these emotions which also have history and life and a dynamic quality. This body, mind, set of thoughts, and set of emotions are tied to each other - the set of thoughts does not wander off from this body and invade someone else's body. So there is something here that is composed of all these parts, and presumedly other parts harder to define.
Yes, all of that seem to be tied to each other, and that is what makes the appearance of separate individuals so compelling. But all of that is only mind-stuff.


Why is it not permissible to give this assembly of parts a label, a name? What is wrong with using the pronoun "me" to identify this particular assembly of parts?
There is nothing "wrong" with that; in fact, it makes communicating much easier. But when you are identified with the "me" you will get lost in the limitations that the me perceives about itself. It is those perceived limitations that cause suffering.
This assembly of parts experiences life from its own perspective; your assembly of parts experiences something different. Obviously, there is consciousness, but it is unique to each individual, not one big universal consciousness.
What is unique to each "individual" is not a separate consciousness but how mind filters what is perceived. In other words, what is unique is the conditioning of mind. That's what makes a SEEMINGLY separate individual appear to be so real and convincing. That unique conditioning imparts a "personalized" perspective, ego, that isn't actually based on reality. That ego co-opts the one and only Consciousness and declares it to be "mine". Thus, it effectively cuts itself off from everyone and everything else.
I have no access at all to what you are experiencing in this moment, nor you of me. The consciousnesses of each person overlap very little, and usually not at all. We may have similar experiences, but that is different than saying that we are one consciousness having all these different experiences.
You are mistaking consciousness for mind. Mind seems to be different for each separate person because of the conditioning of it. What perceives mind is the one universal consciousness. The consciousness peering out of me is no different than the consciousness peering out of you or Buddha or anyone else.

If you look at a river closely you will see little unique swirls of water with perhaps differing bits of matter trapped in them, but those swirls are happening in one river. Mind is the swirl appearing in the one river of consciousness. What is perceived within the swirl is unique to the swirl, but the witnessing consciousness of each unique swirl is just the one consciousness.
My consciousness is always tied to the location of my body - I am not conscious of the Great Wall of China at this moment because my body is not anywhere near China. In what sense am I (or this assembly of parts) universally conscious? My access to experience is limited to a small geographical patch at any moment, and my patch is different than yours. So it seems my consciousness is indeed personal, being stuck to this one unique assembly of body/mind, and not to any other.
See my previous paragraph. It only seems like consciousness is personal because the ego entity co-opts the one consciousness and declares it to be "mine". But when investigated directly no separate entity will be found.
I vaguely get that this assembly of parts is in some sense theoretical, being seen by the mind as a unit, an entity, as labels are a product of the mind. But there is also some truth to the reality of this assembly being a separate entity, because the parts are tied together uniquely to this body, and not to anyone else's. And wouldn't it make sense that the mind associated with this body would be more concerned about this body than another, since it is much more capable of affecting and controlling this body than another?
The mind associated with a particular body needs a way to protect the body in order to survive in the world of form, so yes.
I also vaguely get that it is possible to detach from taking everything personally - that one can see the events of one's life from a more detached and perhaps more objective point of view. But this is not the equivalent of saying the person doesn't exist, or his ego doesn't exist.
Where is ego found? What is its substance, its nature?
It is simply the ability to realize that I am one of many, and other people feel similarly about themselves as I do about myself.
The "I" that is one of many is still only a mental phenomena.
I can relate to someone who is down, because I have been down,
That's right. When you wake up to what you are you see this even more clearly. You can see how "others" are no different than "you". When you perceive others you are actually perceiving yourself as a limited entity, but that perceiving is known/witnessed by the very same consciousness that is streaming through their mind/body mechanism.

and I am mentally capable of reversing the situation to imagine that I am now the observer of the person who is down, rather than the down person being observed.
Yes, you can imagine that, but the deeper reality is that You are what observes.
So we can mentally step outside of ourselves and see things from a more universal point of view.
This is what awakening is, stepping outside the mentally created self we take ourselves to be and into the consciousness that we are.
But is that really anything more than a capacity for empathy?
To be awake is to be naturally compassionate.
Sorry for all the questions. My mind simply won't accept what others tell me until I can see it for myself, or experience it for myself.
Yes, please see for yourself. This isn't about adopting a new belief system, this is about the dropping away of every belief, of every mental scenario and idea and just consciously abiding in your true nature.
I'm loving this discussion, by the way.
Good. You've been asking some very good questions.
"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
---

runstrails
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 2214
Joined: Wed Feb 10, 2010 12:33 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by runstrails » Tue Jul 06, 2010 7:21 am

I applaud (yet again) the moderators on this forum!

Kiki--your posts in this thread are simply great! You have a true gift (or rather you speak from stillness).
SC, you have the knack of cutting through 'minds' bs :wink:

I would only add, perhaps its time to take a break from all this thinking about awakening and go spend time in nature. Enjoy the stillness there. Really feel it. Really look at a flower or tree or bird with stillness and alert attention and don't label it. Then come back and read the posts again and see if you can relate to what is being said. All the best.

xtallman
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:54 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by xtallman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:17 pm

Wow, thank you all for your comments. This is very precious to me, to have people care enough to take the time to help me understand. There is so much here, I scarcely know where to begin. I think I will answer each of you in separate postings.

Sighclone, you are very right - many of these things sounds nuts, but that doesn't stop me from suspecting that there is more than that. There are so many people I respect, including some on this list, who have obviously come to see deep truth in these seemingly nonsensical statements, that there is no way I can lightly dismiss them as useless. So I persist, convinced that there is some nugget underneath the words that I have yet to grasp. Something in me does tell that there is more here than meets the eye. I don't know what that something is, except that I have experienced it before, and that is not verbal or logical, and it seems to have a different way of accessing truth than my mind that is more direct. I have experienced this other intelligence in me many times, and hope to reach a place where I can access it and trust it more.

On using "the wrong tool" on my search - I don't see an alternative. If I do not use my mind, I will just sink back down into the illusions I have always lived in. I understand that the mind will not produce the final product I am seeking - that deep knowing within myself of what the truth is, which is wordless and conceptless experience - but neither will not using the mind. And I fail to see any other tool that can open the door to a deeper understanding (other than attempting to dwell on the present, which I attempt to do, but honestly do not get much out of). Meditation helps a bit, but not that much. If you are saying there is some other tool I am not making use of, I would love to know of it. I know at some point my mind has to yield to a different kind of reality, but I see no way of getting there without using my mind to bring me there.

xtallman
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:54 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by xtallman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:51 pm

kiki, thanks so much for your deep replies. There is again so much there. I appreciate your time to give such thorough answers. Again, there is so much there that generates thought in e, it is hard to know where to start.

I do not get this "world of form". Are you saying that none of the material world exists, that there are no bodies, no people, no atoms, that all of science is somehow mistaken? To me, there is obviously something objective out there, otherwise two people looking into the same room could see totally different things. While our points of view do change how we perceive things, we are all pretty much in agreement when we see a table in a room, that that is what is actually there. The phenomenum of having common experiences is what allows us to connect to each other at all. Is there no reality to anything we experience in the physical realm?

One could claim it is all a dream or a fantasy, but if so, it is a very odd dream, because we all have approximately the same dream, and we can all attest the world over that there is a sun that is sometimes up and sometimes down. Doesn't there have to be an objective reality to our experience if it is identical to most other people's experience? How can it just be appearance? How does that differ from it being real?

That the sun exists is a fact that can be confirmed over and over through observation. In what sense is that just appearance? I don't think you're saying that some other fact is true in place of this, like it is actually two suns and for some reason we can't perceive the second. You seem to be making a more philosophical statement, but I'm not getting it. What does objective reality mean, if not a theoretical explanation for why we all tend to see a sun in the sky? Yes, we access this through sensory input, but does that mean it doesn't exist? How do you explain that our sensory input is so similar?

When you say the problem is identification with the "me" that we perceive ourselves to be, I vaguely grasp some kind of truth here, but it is very slippery. I still see our consciousness as having a unique and personal realm in which it operates - there is a body, a mind, feelings, emotions, that are somehow more associated with person A than person B - that person A has direct access to them, and person B does not. That seems like useful and real information. Why is there a problem with conceptualizing these discrete groups of things (body, mind, etc) as "me"? What am I if not that? How do I explain that what I personally am conscious of is limited and different than what others report they are conscious of? It still seems emperically useful to me to acknowledge the fact that there is a difference between my access to body A and body B. Why shouldn't I feel a personalness about the particular body, mind and memories which are accessable, when others are not? My experience of "me" is entirely different than my experience of "you". I experience "me" from the inside, "you" from the outside. Surely this is not useless information to be tossed aside as merely appearence, as a fantasy? It is reliable information that is important to living life, isn't it?

You said,
You are mistaking consciousness for mind. Mind seems to be different for each separate person because of the conditioning of it. What perceives mind is the one universal consciousness. The consciousness peering out of me is no different than the consciousness peering out of you or Buddha or anyone else.
Okay, maybe I'm confused by semantics. I can see that the consciousness I have is the same sort of "stuff", the same mechanism, as the consciousness that you have - it's an ability to connect in a unique way with my environment. But the things we perceive through that consciousness different for each person. "Mind" to me is the capability of processing information, not the perceived information itself. Are you using the terms differently? You seem to be saying that "mind" is the unique perception of each person as they perceive the world?

How did you make the leap from that to the concept that there is only one universal consciousness? This makes me think of a big eye in the sky, watching everything that happens, like an omniscient being. I'm missing something here.

There's more, but I'll stop there. I really am delighted to have some people willing to work with me on this. I've gone to several Eckhart Tolle groups, and generally get blank stares or pat answers when I try to ask questions. Thanks for the time you are giving me to answer me.

xtallman
Posts: 12
Joined: Mon Jul 05, 2010 6:54 am

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by xtallman » Tue Jul 06, 2010 3:57 pm

runstrails, thanks for your thought. I do try to spend time each day just being present. But these discussions, albeit somewhat theoretical, are doing me a lot of good, and are exciting to me. The pointers to what I need to look at are becoming a bit clearer. Believe me, if I knew today how to access truth without the mind, I'd gladly drop it all and just dwell in what is as much as possible. I know the trap of living in theory and concepts well enough - I've done it most of my life, and have become painfully aware of it. I have also slowly experienced what it is to have direct knowledge hit me without having gone through the mind at all. I want more of that! :)

Tara
Posts: 92
Joined: Mon Sep 22, 2008 2:15 pm

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by Tara » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:27 pm

I just want to say this thread is one of those that is "helping" not just the poster. This is one I am going to re-read and re-read. As I am reading it, it feels like it is coming from me. I am getting "it" intellectually and can "feel" the truth of "it" but there is still something that needs to unblock or fall away.

Thank you xtallman for pressing forward:)

User avatar
kiki
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:31 pm

Sighclone, you are very right - many of these things sounds nuts, but that doesn't stop me from suspecting that there is more than that. There are so many people I respect, including some on this list, who have obviously come to see deep truth in these seemingly nonsensical statements, that there is no way I can lightly dismiss them as useless. So I persist, convinced that there is some nugget underneath the words that I have yet to grasp. Something in me does tell that there is more here than meets the eye. I don't know what that something is, except that I have experienced it before, and that is not verbal or logical, and it seems to have a different way of accessing truth than my mind that is more direct. I have experienced this other intelligence in me many times, and hope to reach a place where I can access it and trust it more.
I felt the same way years ago when I first started reading Krishnamurti and Osho, but I just didn't "get it". I didn't get it because I tried to reason it out in my mind. Only when I first read Tolle, as previously mentioned, did it click. It clicked because suddenly I noticed "kiki" appearing as thought constructs, and more importantly, I noticed the ever present consciousness in which those thought constructs appeared. Then I went back and reread all those things that I didn't understand before and what they were saying was crystal clear.

On using "the wrong tool" on my search - I don't see an alternative. If I do not use my mind, I will just sink back down into the illusions I have always lived in.
That's what you think will happen, but is this so? Mind is where illusions are created, are they not? Even an illusion or a mystical experience happens in the mind, yet what is it that "sees" the illusion or mystical experience? That's what you are. It's obvious that what You are cannot be some thing that is observed. Look at all those things that can be observed: the body, the mind, emotions, sensations and all the rest of it - if they can be observed how can they be You? They can't. You must be whatever that is that observes those things.
I understand that the mind will not produce the final product I am seeking - that deep knowing within myself of what the truth is, which is wordless and conceptless experience - but neither will not using the mind. And I fail to see any other tool that can open the door to a deeper understanding
Which is why illusion will persist.
(other than attempting to dwell on the present, which I attempt to do, but honestly do not get much out of).
The irony here, of course, is that you seem to be dismissing the very thing that will reveal what you seek. Perhaps you haven't yet been consciously present. Being present and thinking about what it is to be present are two different things. Spend some clock time just being; not being anything in particular, but just being here. During those periods just look, just listen, just feel and taste and smell. Does any of that take effort? No - they happen all by themselves. And when you find yourself judging, labeling, or thinking about any of it return to the actual sensing of things. Return again and again to the very things that are standing before you, and each time you find yourself dwelling inwardly in thought about those things return to the immediacy of your environment. The idea here is to gain some distance from thought stream, to "stand back" from mind, and in that standing back consciousness is revealed. Without the mind being active there will be nothing clouding and distorting what is experienced through the senses and in that there is a great sense of freedom and lightness.
Meditation helps a bit, but not that much.
I'll say this much for my 27 years of formal meditation practice: it instilled a daily discipline. It was only when "kiki" was seen as a bundle of thought arising in consciousness did meditation bear fruit. It was then that I could also see that I had an identification as a "strong meditator". I had created another layer of identification in ego called "meditator" that ultimately was seen through. That identification dropped away upon seeing how it was created and sustained by my thinking.

So continue to meditate if you want because you may gain some temporary relief from thought stream, but use some of that time to look for the meditator. By the way, I would recommend Adyashanti's True Meditation; it fits perfectly with Tolle's teaching and it is easily integrated into everyday life.
If you are saying there is some other tool I am not making use of, I would love to know of it. I know at some point my mind has to yield to a different kind of reality, but I see no way of getting there without using my mind to bring me there.
What mind yields to is simply resting as consciousness itself, which is already present! The most effective tool, in my opinion, is to observe what's actually happening. Discern the difference between what's happening and what's observing. For lack of a better way of saying it, "try" this: sit down, close your eyes and pay attention to mind. Each time you notice mind trying to figure things out relax more deeply and just sit and put some attention inside the body if you want. Each time you notice a question or impulse to know more let go of that impulse by not following it, without pursuing it, and put some attention inside the body if that is helpful. Each time you mentally effort in any way, relax and let go of following through with that effort. Learning to recognize all those things the mind does as they happen and then releasing that effort is the key.

What mind has a hard time accepting is that without its effort the world will remain a mystery, which is actually true - but that, believe it or not, is quite a joyful thing. What a mystery this all is! What the ego fears is that without its drive to protect itself and its identity the entire universe will dissolve, including itself, which is its primary concern. What ego doesn't grasp, however, is that there will still be a place for it, but it will no longer be the basis of your identity. So what you see as the world will not go away, but what is thought about the world and yourself as a separate entity within it dissolves. It's in that releasing of thought about the world and yourself that your inherent freedom is found.
"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: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Tue Jul 06, 2010 4:33 pm

just want to say this thread is one of those that is "helping" not just the poster. This is one I am going to re-read and re-read. As I am reading it, it feels like it is coming from me. I am getting "it" intellectually and can "feel" the truth of "it" but there is still something that needs to unblock or fall away.
I'm glad to hear it, Tara. I try to keep in mind the broader audience whenever I post something.
"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: 4578
Joined: Fri Nov 26, 2004 8:55 pm
Location: Wherever "here" happens to be

Re: The Only THing I Have To Deal With Is The Present Moment

Post by kiki » Tue Jul 06, 2010 5:41 pm

xtallman, rather than answering each of your questions right now I would like for you to just stop everything for a while - just take some time to get familiar with what You are. I can answer questions till the cows come home and you won't get any closer to what is sought. Questions can always be indulged but they don't hold the key to awakening, which is what is primary. See what happens to questions and the need or desire to know something when you are consciously present.

I will say this much in regard to your last post. The "world of form" is the world you interact with, the one you are familiar with. It appears to have a dimension of space and time to it. Things come and things go in the world of form, objects have boundaries and edges, there is life and death, up and down, right and wrong (those two are personal perspectives and judgments), me and other, even thoughts have a beginning and an end. Everything that is seen, heard, touched, smelled, tasted, and thought about exists in the world of form, and no matter what that is it is subject to change.

Consciousness, on the other hand, is formless. It isn't anything that changes - it is constant, still, silent, and aware, and it is always here now in its fullness. I've heard Adyashanti call it "spirit", but I don't particularly like that term because of its religious overtones, but if it works for you then fine. You can't hold up a piece of consciousness and examine it because it literally has nothing grasp hold of. It doesn't grow or shrink because there is nothing there that could do that. It doesn't come and go because it is no-thing. There is no edge or boundary to consciousness - see for yourself. There is no time needed for consciousness to be present; in fact, consciousness is entirely outside of time, therefore, consciousness is eternal. It simply is, always. And though it is no thing it is obvious that it is here, and no matter where you go within the world of form consciousness is still present in its fullness because it is not bound within any dimension of time or space.

What You truly are is that consciousness, not any form that arises within consciousness, like a body or a mind. For another take on this read what Craig posted on another thread about Bob Adamson. Perhaps his description will be beneficial to you.

http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth ... =28&t=3667
"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
---

Post Reply