Back from the rabbithole and "I" am shocked.

[karmarider]

I don't know what formulation of the looking actually means, and in any case I'm not interested in philosophizing about formulations.

I'm interested putting forth the suggestion that the only problem there is is the context of fear which is the separation people feel from their own lives,and I'm interested in putting forth the suggestion of the looking, as it is plain and simple and effective; and I'm interested in sharing experiences about the recovery after the looking--which is what I thought I was doing with you, but for the third time I apologize in thinking that we were talking about the same thing.

[tod]

I don't know what formulation of the looking actually means, and in any case I'm not interested in philosophizing about formulations.

I'm interested putting forth the suggestion of that the only problem there is is the basic fear,and I'm interested in putting forth the suggestion of the looking, as it is plain and simple and effective; and I'm interested in sharing experiences about the recovery after the looking--which is what I thought I was doing with you, but for the third time I apologize in thinking that we were talking about the same thing.

Ok, thank you for the explanation. I now see that you are not interested in hearing about a slightly different way (and in my view a more positive way) of viewing Sherman's teaching. What I was saying above was not based on any teaching or philosophy, but my own experience.

Thankfully looking does not have to be experienced in any set way, and there is gratitude here for this.

Thank you for the discussion.

[karmarider]

.. I now see that you are not interested in hearing about a slightly different way (and in my view a more positive way) of viewing Sherman's teaching. What I was saying above was not based on any teaching or philosophy, but my own experience.

I actually would be very interested in that--but I've missed in your posts that which presents a different way of viewing Sherman's teaching. Maybe you can clarify.

If your view is this:

Over time, as I further look, gaze, am open eyed, at this intimation, it tends to 'expand' and relieve me (ego) of my tension, my burden, my anxiety. It is becoming an intimacy. I 'fall for' the relief this intimacy provides. I grow to love this intimacy. It is becoming a living embodied intimacy, a merging, a non-duality.

And it is seen that if I think that there is any difference between, or any separating, this tangible intimacy (or intimate tangibility), that is an indication of mind intrusion on this intimacy.

then I suggest this is just your experience of it, and not a different or more positive view of the teaching, just as my experience of the effects of the fear and looking and recovery is my unique experience of it, and not a different view. That the experience of the fear and recovery are highly individual (Sherman calls it idiosyncratic) is part to it.

You are also using words like "over time" and "becoming" and "merging" which suggest that you view the looking as over time leading to intimacy with life. If that's what you're saying, I suggest it is not what John Sherman or the people on his forum say. The end result is always as you say, intimacy with life--the going away of separation--but this is the same for everyone, and it is automatic and not controllable. It happens on it own whether the looking is continued as in your case, or it is abruptly stopped as in mine, or as a few people have reported, it is done just once.

Of course this is just my view, so if you think you really have a more positive view of the teaching, I would like to understand it, and I suggest you put it directly to John Sherman. He's pretty good about responding, and I would be interested in what he has to say about your view.

[MForell]

"The joke is happiness is there within you all the time watching the whole drama play out."

[tod]

Thanks for your response Kr. I do not wish to make this into a crusade . May I just say that I am grateful for your focus on the natural human (and think the fear angle is overdone). With respect.

[karmarider]

Thanks for your response Kr. I do not wish to make this into a crusade . May I just say that I am grateful for your focus on the natural human (and think the fear angle is overdone). With respect.

Thanks, tod.

Yes, the natural human thing is, well, natural.

And I agree, the fear angle is overdone--I don't think fear is even the best word for it. It is off-centeredness, a context which is a bit askew, what the Buddha called "dukkha." To call it fear is similar to ET calling the ego the ego--it gives it a disproportionate focus. What is perhaps good about the word fear is that it is common--most human beings are familiar with hum of anxiety in them.

Thanks for the discussion!

[tod]

I like the "hum of anxiety".

Hum (of) an(xiety) = the usual human.