blackfence

22 minutes ago, forestofemptiness said:

All teachings are thoughts, but some teachings point to direct experience and others do not. How experience arises (supposedly outside of experience) is one of those. One never experiences what occurs "behind the scenes" so to speak, experience always arises as it is. What happens outside of direct experience is no more than speculation in my view. Some of these speculations are more useful than others, of course, but usefulness has no necessary connection with truth. 

Reflectivity is not outside direct experience. It is that aspect of direct experience which is not its content, but is the shining awareness of the experience.

22 minutes ago, dwai said:

In Kashmir Shaivism, these are known as Prakāsha (Illumination) and Vimarsha (Reflection) and they go hand-in-hand. Illumination is the nature of Shiva, and reflection is his power (Shakti). The vimarsha part is articulated in chidābhāsha of Advaita Vedanta, in as much as I can grok it  

 

Interesting re: Prakasha and Vimarsha. Chidābhāsha refers to how the ego is neither pure awareness nor simple dead, insentient matter... but is the reflection of one off the other. It is the "location" of ignorance, so to say... because dead matter cannot be ignorant, and pure awareness cannot be ignorant either. So it is a kind of shimmering illusion which appears to be ignorant, and which, in the process of realization, is 'destroyed.' 

This reflection is also why realization is known as the destruction of the chit-jada (awareness-matter) granthi (knot). That knot between the two is the reflection, is the "superimposition thought" which mistakes one for the other. That's what has to be cut with the light of Knowledge, so to say.

3 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

Reflectivity seems like a clunky concept to me. I think I sort of get what is being talked about, but I am not comfortable using that label in direct experience. Reflectivity, at best, is an inference, and at worst it would be a mere concept. For me, it sounds like something is originating from somewhere, bouncing off of something else, and then returning to the originating source. I experience none of this except as a thought. 

Yes, and this is in fact very much along the lines of a conventional advaita vedanta understanding of experience -- inasmuch as experience exists. The light of the Self bounces off the ego and is reflected; that manifests as the I. That reflected light undergoes further superimpositions in the mind, body, etc. 

The reflectivity manifests as the illumination of the I in every experience; followed back, it traces back to that originating ego thought, and then back to the light of the Self.

Of course this is a thought, but all teaching is a thought. The point is that this is another way of showing that element of experience which is closest to the Self, which, when followed, leads back to it. It is the weak point of the illusion. 

3 hours ago, ilumairen said:

Is this your form of an expedient mean to realize the quality of mirror like wisdom which is undisturbed by reflections?

Yes.

7 hours ago, C T said:

Are you positing here that the outer world of forms reflected by the mind is awareness, bliss and the I, and for that reason practice is required to 'chase' such reflections down despite knowing that such effort is ultimately futile and exasperating? An interesting, radical perspective which seems to imply that reflectivity is a siddhi of some sort, key to eliminating the ignorant belief in an experiencer and actor, both of which are impediments to *true* reflectivity? Is this what you're conveying? And also, how does *false* reflectivity manifest, and how would one know the difference?

 

Cheers, thanks  

Not exactly. What I'm saying is that the world of forms has two aspects: content and reflectivity. The content changes, but the reflective quality is constant. Seekers should attempt to attend constantly to this reflectivity, to try to notice what it is. If they try this, they will find that the reflectivity is extremely elusive... every time they think they have it, they will have just grasped more changing content... but the effort will eventually silence the mind, and then in that silence, if the inquiry continues to be pursued, the reflectivity that is being chased will give way to the true reflectivity, which will be known because it is not something that is grasped. It is what one is.

Reflectivity is a central concept for the seeker... each moment has a kind of unchangeable quality which isn't about its content, but is a reflection of the experiencer, of the Self. The seeker needs to chase that reflectivity, which is nothing but being, awareness, bliss and, the I. The chase for reflectivity can never result in catching it, but it can result in a restructuring of the mind that destroys the ignorant belief that "I am an experiencing, doing person" that conceals the *true* reflectivity.

4 minutes ago, dwai said:

Nice point  

hmm...but the reflection is just a reflection. Does it really "realize" anything?

 

That’s a nice koan . It depends on from which side of the gateless gate the question comes...

12 minutes ago, dwai said:

I see. That makes sense. But the question is, isn't that the natural outcome of 'shravana - manana - nidhidhyasana'?

Sure, but this is part of the sravana-manana process: listening and contemplating.

Quote

That realization in itself is the unveiling. The stories we tell ourselves in this body-mind-personality complex is precisely that "self-image" one strives to preserve. 

In response to a question about "Who realizes?", I thought about the answer and this is what I could come up with, and is applicable in this conversation as well imho --

 

Nature of ignorance is such that it is both there and not there. It is there when there is a sense of “separateness” without knowing our true nature. It is clearly seen through as not there when we see our true nature and realize there was never a moment we are not that.

I’ll be wrong if I say no one realizes, and wrong if I say jiva realizes, and certainly wrong if I say Atman realizes. Maybe at the risk of sounding new age, realization always exists.

 

I agree with all that, though of course there are many angles from which one could speak. The question of who realizes is why Sankara in his Upadesha Sahasri advocates for the concept of chidabhasa— a reflection of the light of consciousness on the mind. Neither mind nor consciousness realizes but the reflection — “That,” if anything, is what “is ignorant” and thus “realizes.”

On 5/7/2020 at 12:50 PM, dwai said:

Not yet.  

Ok, I did watch it and its good.  @blackfence IMHO, it is not necessary to distinguish between the "preserver of Self-identity" and the "function of the Antahkarana, i.e. ahamakāra". The "preservation of self-identity" is just a result of the superimposition. 

I believe it is useful to discern these two functions, because these are often confused in the spiritual literature. For the seeker, it's useful to understand the ambiguities that come out in this word, and their interrelationship. The preservation of self-image is what, by distracting the mind, prevents the recognition of the real nature of the witness. And this is a psychological phenomenon that can be observed. 

At the same time, the real nature of the freedom from this attempted preservation is in recognizing its questionable existence -- because whether it exists is in turn dependent on who it is that is noticing this preservation. So that there is a kind of chicken and egg situation, where the existence of the problem is rooted in the assumption of its existence. Seeing this can help free seekers from the notion that they must be perfect mentally in order to progress, or that the way in which enlightenment purifies the mind is that there is an absence of negative thoughts in the way in which that absence is understood pre-realization.

Through self-inquiry and surrender, we orient towards the thought that is the base of all other thoughts... the thought that isn't a thought, that is our Self. Its vast impenetrable space is that against which all other thoughts dash themselves and evaporate harmlessly. Orienting towards that, we realize that there is nothing but that orientation, effortlessly and always. In this video I talk about the nature of this unthought thought, its position on the border of the timed and the timeless, and its feel.

On 5/7/2020 at 12:45 PM, ilumairen said:

 

Your ruminations were enjoyable, personable, and very open imo. It is indeed an interesting subject with multiple understandings, implications and even negations. And, imo, the bit at the end regarding denial was golden. 

 

Thank you for sharing these ruminations and explorations here. 

 

If I may make a suggestion: close at least a portion of the curtain so your camera isn't struggling with the light differential, and can more easily focus on (and more adequately light) you. Or not, if this was intentional. 

 

And again, thank you.

_/\_

Thanks for the kind words, and thanks for the tip regarding the light! I'll have to do that for my future videos. 

What is the meaning of ego? The word has many different and complicated meanings in the spiritual literature. Is it the sense that I am? Is it the emotions and fantasies connected to the self-image? Is it identification with these? Is it simply any kind of desire at all? In this video, I go through some of the possibilities and their implications…
 

1 hour ago, Pilgrim said:

looking deep into the I does it and there are many ways, out of curiosity what practice do you find work best for you in this regard?

Ramana Maharshi's version of self-inquiry, without a doubt. Focusing on the fact that "I know that I am" and trying to locate where it comes from, while noticing that any object that you are aware of cannot be the source of that "I feeling" -- for example, the I cannot come from the head because you are aware of the head, and you cannot be what you are aware of.

On 2/16/2019 at 11:52 AM, Pilgrim said:

Very, very good! 

Swami Chinmayananda is always entertaining, but I really dislike the idea that we get what we deserve. It's quite unfair.

I much prefer the idea that it is all god's will, but that we need not be touched by it for one second (indeed, we ARE never touched by it for one second) if we simply look deep into the "I" and find out who we are.

On 1/10/2019 at 7:45 AM, Zen Pig said:

Discussion this am with real person.

Today's modern spiritual teacher, (well,,, a good percentage of them),  have probably had, at some time in there lives,  some kind of profound seeing or knowing, or "ah-ha" moment where what they thought they were, the world was, life was,  fundamentally changed for a brief period of time. 

This kind of direct experience is nothing special,  in my experience, and with folks who have a daily long term meditation practice. 

 

Like most people, this kind of experience is transforming, but soon our thinking mind kicks back in attempting to analyze just what happened, and whether or not we can "make" it happen again. 

Depending on our own personality, we might spend years trying to get that initial experience back,  without success, until we just give up and stop trying, and then many will again have deeper and more interesting openings into this suchness of life.

 

once again, our thinking mind, our ego pop's back up , and we now think, "wow, I have had several amazing experiences,  I must tell others about this,  maybe become a teacher so I can help others see what I saw" - so good, so far.......

 

Now this person, who use to just go sit somewhere, or have there own spiritual practice is now teaching other folks,  many of whom , come to this teacher with deep seated issues, deep insecurity, a need to belong, or a need to have someone to follow.  The new spiritual teacher has given up his/her job, and says, "well, in order to help as many people as I can, i have to charge money so I can do this full time"........

 

Now this teacher has a career,  so now, the original teaching of "just drop all ideas about what you think you want or need and just go sit" is to simple because the new seekers need to hear talk, hear about experiences, hear things that will make them feel good. have someone to follow, to believe in. 

 

Many of these  seekers who are depending on this new teacher to "Make there life ok"  now fluff up the new teachers ass, with worship, sex favors,  lots of money,  which at this point the new teacher is now the old teacher, and has rationalized that he/she is sill helping these poor students by just his/her spiritual energy or power.  seekers spend thousands on retreats, books, and never ending arguing about the "true way to become enlightened, immortal, awakened, and the original practice,  just like the sitting cushion that was purchased years ago, are both sitting in a closet collecting dust.  Amazing times.  

And what's your solution?

It's an interesting question if, when someone follows the logic and 'experience' of non-duality/Brahman/Nirvana/the Tao all the way through... when the mind is therefore rendered silent -- when egoic desire is 'defeated' because the ego itself cannot stand in the face of the Truth -- how 'decision-making' and motivation works. This has long been a vexing question.

I'd like to pose a hypothesis: that there are two kinds of decision-making. Let's call them the common-sense version and the spiritual version, which is highly counterintuitive and really anti-common-sense.

The common-sense version examines normal human aims: health, well-being, happiness, peace in both the individual and society, etc. And it tries to figure out what the best means to those ends are, and attempts to execute on those means. It is fundamentally instrumental -- meaning that it's about accomplishing certain goals.

The spiritual version is not really decision-making at all. In the mind's silence, we can say that something else manifests. In the space of absolute effortless and 100% relaxation, in that creative space, in that primordial soup, lightning flashes and something appears, though at unpredictable times and in unpredictable ways, but -- intelligently.

So if we admit in this way that action still goes on even among and by the 'enlightened,' then the question is: upon what basis? 

The answer is: that the basis cannot be named. There can be no story, however complex or nuanced, however peaceful or 'good,' that accurately captures the enlightened one's conduct. As soon as one touches that question the mind again goes silent.

One cannot have both the mind and not the mind. One cannot be the Tao and also the person. Both the Tao and the person -- that distinction -- disappear in the silence that is the real Tao. The Tao that can be named, isn't.

So there is a wholly different way of going about things, one which avoids labels, names, goals, programs, categories, distinctions, and yet which acts intelligently, and yet in a way that cannot accurately be described or planned for.

What description or planning happens itself is the result of these trans-rational indescribable forces.

And the real kicker is, of course, that this is always true even for the so-called unenlightened minds... they are all of them in that mode alone. 

In the end, there is only a single version of decision-making. All the rest is imaginary.

Other than Lao Tzu and Zhuangzi, who are the greatest of all time?

Any who lived in the 20th century?

Any living now?

1 hour ago, steve said:

 

Huw Price wrote a wonderful, but difficult, book about the nature of time called Time's Arrow and Archimedes' Point.

Here is a brief interview with him you may find interesting. 

 

 

This just seems like yet another crass materialist philosopher. It seems to me that the pure physics notion of time is far less interesting than the mystery of time subjectively experienced. 

Just now, wandelaar said:

So you found in the Rig Veda what I already told you in a rational way. Does it make more sense now?

 

They're actually quite different. The Rig Veda admits ignorance and looks at it struck with wonder... you were suggesting the question is incoherent and/or pointless.

The Rig Veda had this to say on the topic thousands of years ago:

Quote

Then even nothingness was not, nor existence,
There was no air then, nor the heavens beyond it.
What covered it? Where was it? In whose keeping?
Was there then cosmic water, in depths unfathomed?

Then there was neither death nor immortality
nor was there then the torch of night and day.
The One breathed windlessly and self-sustaining.
There was that One then, and there was no other.

At first there was only darkness wrapped in darkness.
All this was only unillumined cosmic water.
That One which came to be, enclosed in nothing,
arose at last, born of the power of heat.

In the beginning desire descended on it -
that was the primal seed, born of the mind.
The sages who have searched their hearts with wisdom
know that which is kin to that which is not.

And they have stretched their cord across the void,
and know what was above, and what below.
Seminal powers made fertile mighty forces.
Below was strength, and over it was impulse.

But, after all, who knows, and who can say
Whence it all came, and how creation happened?
the Devas (gods) themselves are later than creation,
so who knows truly whence it has arisen?

Whence all creation had its origin,
he, whether he fashioned it or whether he did not,
he, who surveys it all from highest heaven,
he knows - or maybe even he does not know.

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

 

Perhaps they do ... are you familiar with this lady ?

 

 

 

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

I'm not familiar with her... I see that she's the Egyptian goddess of order... does she have something to do with paradox, too?

4 hours ago, Fa Xin said:

Why ask why?

Why ask that?

4 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

 

I've often wondered the same. If manifest reality conforms to the "laws of physics" then did these laws come into exist concurrently with manifest reality or did these laws exist extra manifest reality? In the latter case, what does it mean to have laws that exist independent of anything to operate upon?

Exactly... that's some of what excites me. There must be some realm that's not a normal realm. An Alice in Wonderland "place" where all the laws are "made," if you can use that word.

In certain psychedelic experiences, I've asked this question about what the meaning of it all is and gotten the answers that:

a) basically to know the answer to that you have to step out of "this game" -- you can't simultaneously be in the game and know how and why the game is created

b) there is something about this question that IS the meaning of this game we are playing, that enables it at all.

c) that there is something about the concept of repetition... it all being a repetition. And it all being "by design" -- an artistic object

d) that it is all about images... "THIS IS WHY"--all the images in consciousness

5 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Because there can not have been tools and machines before there were material things and laws of nature there can not have been a "workshop" in which the world was made. The existence of a God will not help either because then you could ask where God came from. A smart guy might say God always existed and did not need anything else to exist. But then one could just as well suppose the world to have always existed. So that's no solution either. But modern cosmology supposed the universe to have started with the Big Bang, but then what started the Big Bang? And where do the laws of nature derive from?  

 

Long story short: the foundation of it all (Tao) escapes our understanding but can be seen at work literally everywhere. Studying nature or even you own mind gives an idea of the operations of Tao.

 

The "Why?" asks for reasons. But reasons presuppose a "someone" evaluating the pro's and con's of certain lines of action. So there can be no answer to the question of why there is something (or this world) rather than nothing because that would have involved the impossibility of a someone being present at a time when there was nothing to deliberate about whether to create something.

You're assuming that the tools and machines of the workshop are anything like we can currently comprehend. Perhaps the gods work by logic and laws that are as different from our current notions of logic and law as humans' ideas are from ants, or perhaps bacteria. Perhaps in the gods' realm, it is possible for paradox to exist. Perhaps there are "not machine machines" and "up down black white" entities.

And anyhow this line of reasoning, which I've seen many times before, really works hard to explain the question away. Everyone knows in their heart that this question exists, however much we'd like to reason it away.

All the eastern philosophies focus on the realization of one's true nature as, essentially, beyond the individual mind, and thus, beyond all questions of why.

In my opinion, however, they don't answer the why question -- they "transcend" it.

Is anyone else here actually curious about the why, though? Literally, looking around right now -- where does all this come from? Who invented "sound," for example... not a particular sound, but sound itself?

Clearly however sound was invented, it must have been in a workshop outside of the mind. It must be outside of time and space. That workshop created the mind itself. What is the nature of that workshop?

It creates all the specifics, all the particulars, from the largest to the smallest... but how does it do that and why??