Non-ordinary reality

[Ian]

By non-ordinary reality, I mean experiencing yourself as something other than an intelligence in a body, looking out from, or centered in, the area behind the eyes.

 

This could be anything.

 

I'm curious as to how many people came to spiritual practice because of such experience, hoping to control or understand it, and how many came to it in the hope of having such experience in the first place.

 

And is there anyone for whom it's entirely irrelevant?

[freeform]

.

Edited December 18, 2019 by freeform

[TonyTao]

I'm curious as to how many people came to spiritual practice because of such experience, hoping to control or understand it, and how many came to it in the hope of having such experience in the first place.

 

And is there anyone for whom it's entirely irrelevant?

 

No, I was brought to it dragging and screaming, after disbelief and many tantrams by my "rational" mind!

Once I discovered Tao Te Ching, everything changed - resistance ended.

Then only after much meditation practice, did I start having experiences of myself as more than ego and body.

The curious thing is that this rarely happens during meditation. But during everyday activity it happens when quite suddenly and spontaneously the world seems to flip on itself and I get a much bigger perspective. These experiences quickly dissolve once my mind tries to attach to them, but I reckon that's OK. I enjoy their beauty and serenity even though they are fleeting insights.

 

And, for me, they are absolutely relevant. It's experiencing my world just as it is!

 

Tony

[fatherpaul]

By non-ordinary reality, I mean experiencing yourself as something other than an intelligence in a body, looking out from, or centered in, the area behind the eyes.

 

This could be anything.

 

I'm curious as to how many people came to spiritual practice because of such experience, hoping to control or understand it, and how many came to it in the hope of having such experience in the first place.

 

And is there anyone for whom it's entirely irrelevant?

ian

 

there is no reality let alone a non-ordinary reality

pardon me for my rudeness

[thelerner]

I'm in category of joining here to find the non-ordinary reality. Despite some deep experiences and years of meditation I'm still a rational mind in a Newtonian Universe- which is too bad. Hopefully I'll follow Tonytao experience and be dragged out of it.

 

Michael

[Ian]

ian

 

there is no reality let alone a non-ordinary reality

pardon me for my rudeness

 

You're not rude. You just desperately want people to know that you know something.

And with me, at least, you're wasting your time. But don't let that stop you.

[fatherpaul]

You're not rude. You just desperately want people to know that you know something.

And with me, at least, you're wasting your time. But don't let that stop you.

 

i know absolutely nothing

some here may think they do

[Ian]

i know absolutely nothing

That being the case, you make a surprising number of assertions.

[hagar]

For some reason, mountains, and especially Mont Blanc has that effect on me.

I think I came to spiritual practice form having those experiences spontaneously, but always after some kind of intense physical effort.

 

Then they came in class, and at lesser degree by myself.

 

I think what you are describing is something similar to the qigong-state.

 

h

[TonyTao]

I'm still a rational mind in a Newtonian Universe- which is too bad.

Michael

 

Well, I should confess that I'm still wrapped up in rational thinking! It's not easy to let go of it of course. Not that I want to dis the rational mind too much, though, since it keeps me alive and alert in the world much of the time. And it seems to me it's manifest by Tao in us naturally and for a reason. I just think it can sometimes get too intense and wrapped up in itself.

 

One way of getting over a rational belief system is to use it against itself, zen-like. Have you ever read Fritjof Capra's Tao of Physics? I found that reading this book was a good way of loosening up that old Newtonian belief system. It is well-written and presented scientifically (so keeping Rational-Mind happy!). It shows that what is going on in the universe is much more than a bunch of particles banging into each other deterministically in linear time. It certainly got me thinking more openly and imaginatively about how things are.

 

Tony

[fatherpaul]

That being the case, you make a surprising number of assertions.

test them then

[Ian]

test them then

 

My dear old thing, that's exactly the problem. You keep saying stuff, without context, without reference to your own or anyone's experience, without any mentions of any practices or circumstances.

 

It should be reasonably evident, for example, in this thread, that I'm talking about what we experience and that that experience is variable, and that I'm not trying to suggest that there is any sort of concrete reality.

 

So how exactly do you imagine it helps me, or anyone, for you to say "there is no reality".

 

It's simply not useful. It's like repeated layers of polystyrene in the sandwich which is any given thread.

 

We all have our practices and our lives, and our impression of truth, reality, and of whatever may or may not correspond to those words, well that changes and we try to express that for each other. But generally we contextualise it, attempt to make it relevant and useful. Maybe that's futile, but at least we're acknowledging each other's futlity.

 

What you say isn't testable, that's exactly the trouble. It doesn't help. It gives me the impression that you are simply trying to promote, repeatedly, the wisdom of Paul Kren.

 

If not, what the bloody hell are you trying to do?

Edited April 26, 2007 by Ian

[Wayfarer64]

Ian & Paul-

Obviously we all know nothing, yet we each believe that we know something or other. Still, the communication is often hard to grapple with. Some try to use this board to field ideas and get feed-back, others use it to express opinions with scant regard for feed-back, others to assert opinions as fact. The communication varies greatly between us. Some connect; some don't. That's only natural IMHO...

 

Ian, I too find Fatherpaul to be obscure at times, but also at other times enlightening. That has been the case with most who enter their thoughts regularly.

 

It is an irksome style that you offer to us here FatherPaul, but I for one, am willing to wade through the obfuscation to glean what your content may tender.

 

My go-round with Denty is an extreme example of contentions getting out of hand. I learned a lot from it. I now would rather cherry-pick from his entries than nit-pick at his (IMHO) - rudeness and meanness of spirit. Communication is the heart of the matter here. So there is bound to be some contention.

 

But to the thread-

 

Dream time in some cultures is the real life of their beings. In what I sumise from quantum theory, all is mind and energy at a basic level and our "reality" is ephimeral at best. I believe that we each have had dreams that seemed "real" and that we have experienced aspects of awakened mind that may have eluded our conscious mind.

 

I recently posted a philosophical look at mind and brain interaction. The difference between in body and out of body consciousness is a deep and often disturbing question. My experience of out of body consciousness is pretty unsettling. Durring out of body consciousness the mind is free and very exposed to forces and energies that our brains shield us from when we are "awake" in this reality that is shared and agreed to by us all as that which is "physical"....

 

I have experienced some out of body consciousness while asleep, while in dire danger, while making love and while meditating. The qualities were very different as were my own energy levels. But it is an aspect of my own consciousness that I wish to explore further. I have accepted the word -Kah as that which names the disembodied spirit. I am not sure which culture this word derives from. In a sense it is as if we are our own gaurdian angels, being aware of that "seperate" reality- as Castinada called it - only adds to our deeper experience of this "reality"...

 

It does not threaten my rational mind that such experiences are available. At one time, my rational mind tended to just reject the "reality" of those experiences. But my spiritual self remembers and relates to that larger sense of self. It may not seem rational to want to experience that sort of death-like consciousness, but I believe it keeps me tied to my original spiritual realm of consciousness. I do not "remember" past lives but I do remember being in the womb and being born, and much more of my early childhood than most seem to remember.

 

Children and animals sense the world on very basic levels of being. Sensing the inner spirit of things, places, other animals &/or other people... rather than the outer realities. For me the difference of these types of consciousnesses is just a matter of depth. The spiritual reality is always there to be aware of or "in". This is if and when I am able to manage it. Which is seldom enough indeed.

Edited April 26, 2007 by Wayfarer64

[fatherpaul]

My dear old thing, that's exactly the problem. You keep saying stuff, without context, without reference to your own or anyone's experience, without any mentions of any practices or circumstances.

 

It should be reasonably evident, for example, in this thread, that I'm talking about what we experience and that that experience is variable, and that I'm not trying to suggest that there is any sort of concrete reality.

 

So how exactly do you imagine it helps me, or anyone, for you to say "there is no reality".

 

It's simply not useful. It's like repeated layers of polystyrene in the sandwich which is any given thread.

 

We all have our practices and our lives, and our impression of truth, reality, and of whatever may or may not correspond to those words, well that changes and we try to express that for each other. But generally we contextualise it, attempt to make it relevant and useful. Maybe that's futile, but at least we're acknowledging each other's futlity.

 

What you say isn't testable, that's exactly the trouble. It doesn't help. It gives me the impression that you are simply trying to promote, repeatedly, the wisdom of Paul Kren.

 

If not, what the bloody hell are you trying to do?

 

 

you seem serious and sincere

it is a very serious matter to look into the tao

 

what help do you need?

i point out the fallacy of a statement

and you reject it, as you wish.

what use has this?

[indra]

Browse to Google.com and type in Douglas Harding into the search box. Well all I can say is that have a go at those wacky experiments and try to keep an open mind. You'll discover in a minute or two who you really are like I did.

 

Regards

[三江源]

ian

 

there is no reality let alone a non-ordinary reality

pardon me for my rudeness

 

hi.

 

the thing is, I think we're a bit ahead of your game here. we know what you say already. we're familiar with zen.

 

we're talking more about our direct experiences rather than playing mind games. you dont experience that

'there is no reality' - you just like the concept.

 

It's an interesting question that starts the thread. I'll think about it when I've forgotten this distraction.

[fatherpaul]

hi.

 

the thing is, I think we're a bit ahead of your game here. we know what you say already. we're familiar with zen.

 

we're talking more about our direct experiences rather than playing mind games. you dont experience that

'there is no reality' - you just like the concept.

 

It's an interesting question that starts the thread. I'll think about it when I've forgotten this distraction.

 

 

your "thinking" is the mind game

i merely point this out.

i will say no more on this thread.

[三江源]

your "thinking" is the mind game

i merely point this out.

i will say no more on this thread.

 

 

there are many ways of being an internet troll, arent there. some of them are perhaps even unconscious.

[fatherpaul]

there are many ways of being an internet troll, arent there. some of them are perhaps even unconscious.

there is a flower that grows only in the dark

[sunshine]

This could be anything.

 

I started searching because feeling to be out of place ... if that counts

[freeform]

there are many ways of being an internet troll, arent there. some of them are perhaps even unconscious.

 

I feel I need to step up and defend Paul a little (classic enneagram type 9 behaviour )

 

I dont think he's a troll, and even though many of his posts point either to a dead end or an empty black hole, they're usually short and to the point.

 

We tend to assign roles to people, even in this virtual discussion hall... (think about the very developed idea you have about plato, sean denty, taomeaow, yoda, karen etc...) so Paul fits into a tidy pigeonhole in our minds.

 

I think Paul's view of spirituality is largely fixated in the upper dan tien... he gives us constant reminders to not trust our small minds and points to the idea that an enlightened mind is everything and nothing - it reveals everything and thus nothing, but never one thing and not another (that's what the small mind does).

 

Most of us here are into Taoist based practices - which pay little attention to the upper dan tien untill much later in the cultivation process. So Paul, this is why I think people find you hard to digest - we try to be very grounded into our lower dan tien and interact with our heart (and form the supporting words/concepts/oppinions with our mind), your posts effectively (at least for me) tend to shine light on all the crap that's added to our interactions by the small mind, and tend to leave me in confusion (which imo is a very natural state) but don't provide the emotional backup of your heart and body - we're left confused and with no where to go... you may feel there is actually no where to go, but for us we have our bodies and hearts which are infinately more complex than a clear upper dan tien...

 

I think the reason you're being proded by these well-meaning people is because they (as well as I) want to feel more of you in your posts... and you are more than just your head.

[三江源]

 

 

We tend to assign roles to people, even in this virtual discussion hall... (think about the very developed idea you have about plato, sean denty, taomeaow, yoda, karen etc...) so Paul fits into a tidy pigeonhole in our minds.

 

Hi Freeform.

 

Have to say I dont resonate with that statement at all. My starting place on all this spiritual path stuff was a natural affinity with Zen that I seem to be born with, so maybe I'm a bit less duped by the fictions than I might otherwise be...

 

Anyway. this is all a bit OT...

[freeform]

Hey Cat!

 

sorry to include you in the 'we' ... I really mean I tend to make a personality for people... I certainly don't think of you as pixels on a screen, or a collection of words - in my mind you're a person with a certain 'feel' associated, but I cant see, hear or poke you to verify.

 

each of the people here have a 'feel' for me (I tend to use my kinesthetic sense a lot - but I mean a kind of palpable identity/role). I assumed this to be the case with *everyone* which is always silly - as silly as it is giving a clear personality to someone you've never met before - but it's quite human to do that no?

 

Anyway. this is all a bit OT...

 

I agree, and think Ian touched on something interesting, and for me, at least, got something moving, and as it's my nature to always restore things to neutral I watched myself raise the energy on the opposite side of the spectrum to allow neutrality... the lesson for me is to be aware whether I restore things to a true, centered, emobodied neutral - or an asleep disembodied unconcious neutral...

 

anyway thanks everyone

[fatherpaul]

I feel I need to step up and defend Paul a little (classic enneagram type 9 behaviour )

 

I dont think he's a troll, and even though many of his posts point either to a dead end or an empty black hole, they're usually short and to the point.

 

We tend to assign roles to people, even in this virtual discussion hall... (think about the very developed idea you have about plato, sean denty, taomeaow, yoda, karen etc...) so Paul fits into a tidy pigeonhole in our minds.

 

I think Paul's view of spirituality is largely fixated in the upper dan tien... he gives us constant reminders to not trust our small minds and points to the idea that an enlightened mind is everything and nothing - it reveals everything and thus nothing, but never one thing and not another (that's what the small mind does).

 

Most of us here are into Taoist based practices - which pay little attention to the upper dan tien untill much later in the cultivation process. So Paul, this is why I think people find you hard to digest - we try to be very grounded into our lower dan tien and interact with our heart (and form the supporting words/concepts/oppinions with our mind), your posts effectively (at least for me) tend to shine light on all the crap that's added to our interactions by the small mind, and tend to leave me in confusion (which imo is a very natural state) but don't provide the emotional backup of your heart and body - we're left confused and with no where to go... you may feel there is actually no where to go, but for us we have our bodies and hearts which are infinately more complex than a clear upper dan tien...

 

I think the reason you're being proded by these well-meaning people is because they (as well as I) want to feel more of you in your posts... and you are more than just your head.

 

i reply to you in a new thread called: reply to freeform

[Spectrum]

Every time I figure the Whole thing out, I end up forgetting it.

 

What is there to say? Taoist learning is forgetting.

 

Spectrum