Forum

Guest  

Welcome Guest, posting in this forum requires registration.

Pages: [1]
Topic: Ageing
weallone
Member
Posts: 19

Reputation: 0
Ageing
on: February 12, 2011, 05:41

Hair thinning & turning Grey, wrinkles, body seizing up- what a total onslaught to the idea of "self".

Mostly, this idea of ourselves is vastly different from how other people view us.

The way we "come across" to one another, has a vast non-verbal component that is much larger than the ideas we project upon each other.


As we age, do we struggle against the natural process, trying hard to solidify this changing appearance,or do we let the process happen from a place of ease, no struggle-surrender/release.

Ageing seems to be our opportunity to release the burden of our past, the "history" of our lives, and letting the life energy Flow as it must.


How refreshing, to meet someone that lets the life energy flow & whom radiates the energetic calm/solidity that is the natural state of no-self. Their age seems irrelevant as the vastness manifests palpably as eternal openness.


No self, no beginning, no end!

only constant creative/destructive motion ,that is paradoxically utterly still & silent yet seems to radiate as all.

Within this timeless vastness,"we" as "I", are, and it is here that we play out "our" delusions of time and space.


Just another brick in the wall

TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 12, 2011, 19:45

Hi Weallone,


What you posted appears to make sense to me, and I really enjoyed reading it.


The only minor reservation, for what it's worth — and this is based upon a quick reading of your post — is that your post seems to imply that "we" have a choice to fight aging or go with the flow! :-)


moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 13, 2011, 15:50

What a beautiful piece of writing! You have a talent my friend. I hope you develop it as you age!


Weallone said:


>>Hair thinning & turning Grey, wrinkles, body seizing up- what a total onslaught to the idea of "self".>>


(Moller)

Yes. It is interesting how we identify the body as one of the cornerstones of who and what we believe we are. Perhaps all we are is just this body. Without it nothing we believe we are would have existed – in imgination or otherwise. And in this bodily process there arises this sense of 'self'. Quite unnecessarily, yet we experience it as very real and solid. Unfortunately this self takes over and soon we forget the body. Could this be the start of our human problems?

When we manage to divide inwardly the sense of self from the body which gives birth to it?


Weallone:

>>Mostly, this idea of ourselves is vastly different from how other people view us.

The way we "come across" to one another, has a vast non-verbal component that is much larger than the ideas we project upon each other.>.


(Moller)

Very true. Perhaps we could even say that there are as many selves as there are people we get in touch with. Each holds a different view of us, and this 'reality' they believe they perceive, is for them all there is about us – all images mistaken for the poor guy I believe I am – which is also an image! All imagery?


Weallone:

>>As we age, do we struggle against the natural process, trying hard to solidify this changing appearance,or do we let the process happen from a place of ease, no struggle-surrender/release.

Ageing seems to be our opportunity to release the burden of our past, the "history" of our lives, and letting the life energy Flow as it must.>>


(Moller)

Exactly! Yet for most of us we cannot let go into the presense of the living moment. This presumed 'I' somehow does not take kindly to change. Any change. So much more if such change is perceived to signal the final demise of itself. Then it really gets up in arms! All angry at life as it moves along its inevitable destiny.


Weallone:

>>How refreshing, to meet someone that lets the life energy flow & whom radiates the energetic calm/solidity that is the natural state of no-self. Their age seems irrelevant as the vastness manifests palpably as eternal openness.>>


(Moller)

Beautiful!


Weallone:

>>No self, no beginning, no end!

only constant creative/destructive motion ,that is paradoxically utterly still & silent yet seems to radiate as all.

Within this timeless vastness,"we" as "I", are, and it is here that we play out "our" delusions of time and space.>>


(Moller)

Yes, the 'I' does happen as part of the broader context of our life. But perhaps it may be relevant to consider that when the 'I' is active as the separate self-sense, there is very little sense of the vast openness within which it takes place. While the delusion of 'I' is our present state, wholeness is greatly or completely obscured. We could say that from the point of view of wholeness the self is indeed just another form of diversified arising within our field of awareness. But from the point of view of the self, wholeness is effectively obscured.


Self cannot realize or 'see' the wholeness in which it inheres. Yet, wholeness of experience can notice the process of the formation of self and simply outshines it from moment to moment. That is why I use the term ' vigilance'. Wholeness and self-less awareness are one joint experience and these are not of the nature of the 'I'. That is why it can observe the activities which lead to, and sustain, the delusion of 'I'-consciousness. In this way it neutralises its strirring as and when it starts to develop momentum, thereby pre-empts its formation and effects.


weallone
Member
Posts: 19

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 13, 2011, 19:08

In reply to tenth man, yes,you can go for botox injections, have face lifts, hair transplants etc. to try and maintain an image you have of yourself which you then project to the world.


The other option/choice would be, to see that there is a natural process taking place that happens to all life forms eg: leaves wither and drop to the earth to become food for other life forms and continue the recycling of nutrients to feed the continuous manifestation of life in all it's wondrous variety of forms.


In this there is a natural order and beauty.


We as humans have been conditioned by society to accept youth as the only real purpose for our manifestation, adventure and fun,attracting another younger, more sexually attractive partner etc.has become a part of our global psyche.. to achieve this we cannot be seen as getting "old".

So in this sense we have a "choice".


Just another brick in the wall

TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 13, 2011, 22:23

Hi Weallone,


Could there not be another choice relative to the prevention of and even the reversal of physical degeneration from an intelligent "functional" and "health" maintanance persepctive?


For example: Mothers to be making sure they are eating well and taking a full range of b-complex vitamins to help prevent their baby to be from being born with spina bifida? Or getting contacts or an eye operation to see better? Or having a knee joint replaced so you can walk?


Or getting enough Vitamin D to help prevent a myriad of diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, asthma, and so on. In other words, not so much for reasons of "vanity" or "fear of aging".just to function physically with less suffering and more ease.


weallone
Member
Posts: 19

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 14, 2011, 13:59

As I see it Tenth Man, of course, you're perfectly right.

Let's read more of your understanding, you obviously have a wealth of life experience to share.


Just another brick in the wall

moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 16, 2011, 18:26

Thanks you guys for sharing thoughts on weallone's thread on aging.


My sense is that you are approaching the subject from two different, yet complimentary, points of view.


The way I get Tenthman's message is that the preservation of health and well-being is a necessary part of intelligent body-mind maintenance. This has nothing to do with ego-maintenance. A simple practical matter.


Weallone seems to say that there is a side to us which places far too much emphasis on physical appearance – motivated only by the ego's endless quest for enhanced self-image.


What weallone also may suggest is that if the ego gets hold of what Tenthman points to, we are right into the trap of ego-consciousness.


So, in my view, vigilance and discernment become crucial, because the ego is always ready to impose itself into every situation – even though what we believe we are doing is primarily for health reasons.


To me this is the beauty of this way of self-observation. It tends to bring us back into the arena of the real. And the real is often our profound propensity for self-delusion. J. Krishnamurti used to say: 'to see the false for the false, is the truth'.


Interesting here to notice how our ability to allow for inner clarity can 'see the false for the false', while the false can never see itself for what it is. Ignorance is always unaware of itself. What it sees is always part of its own delusions. How to move from the darkness of ignorance to the light of clear perception?


Any ideas?


weallone
Member
Posts: 19

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 17, 2011, 19:17

Hi Moller, I shall attempt to simply answer off the cuff to your invite -"any ideas?"

My view is, that meditation, pausing, etc.are management techniques that are useful and helpful to train/focus awareness. But I find, that awareness doesn't stay focused/trained, I find it attends to whatever is occurring within it's sphere eg: sounds in the distance, and then suddenly back to a converstion that is taking place.It seems we can only be aware of one thing at a time, even though it seems like we can multitask.Awareness seems to move instantaneously.


So for me the crux of the matter, is to "see" ourselves as self-observation,in the moment of action/relationship, which is where our delusion is actually playing out.

Reflecting on our meditation cushions, is therapeutic and calming, but does not have the living moment of interactive awareness that seems necessary to learn from and understand, whereby we clearly feel and see the structures of self created delusion arising and playing out with all the subtle components such as feeling etc.


After a period, however long, of vigilance/observation,we see thru our self created suffering, and at the same time, what we thought was happiness, also splutters and dies. This leaves us in a difficult impasse with no self reference, and no joy to pursue. Here in this so called "dark night of the soul" many of us get stuck, turn back, get addicted to escapismin it's many forms etc.etc.


As i see it, without distraction by using management techniques,this process must be allowed to occur completely. I see this as true surrender without choice and manipulation, with no guarantees of what may/may not transpire.

This is probably the most frightening undertaking we can undertake, as we literally have to die to all that we asumed to be the case. Now we are raw, naked, undone with no guarantees of future greatness, let alone survival.Everything has to be surrendered, given up.

Then maybe, transformation, that is not of your doing may occur.

This seems to me to be the reason why there are many teachers, some skilled and others not, but few really transformed people.


I guess i wavered off the topic – so much for my awareness hey!


Just another brick in the wall

TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 19, 2011, 18:32

Quote from weallone on February 17, 2011, 19:17

But I find, that awareness doesn't stay focused/trained, I find it attends to whatever is occurring within it's sphere eg: sounds in the distance, and then suddenly back to a converstion that is taking place.It seems we can only be aware of one thing at a time, even though it seems like we can multitask.Awareness seems to move instantaneously.


Hi Wellallone,


In regards to your statement above, it seems to me that "attention" generates a sense of or belief that independent "things/objects" exist but *they* actually don't. This is because attention focuses on (and *is* the very focusing itself) on an aspect of the total field of awareness thereby giving rise to the sensation that there is a "thing/object" *there*. This focusing (contractioning) isn't able to remain focused on and as "one place", then shift to another "place" and keep "both" intact. Sort of like a flashlight can highlight a certain area but when the beam is shifted to another section the "first" one disappears.


When attention is not focused anywhere, is inoperative, then I guess it could be said that attention doesn't "exist" since "focusing" *IS* attention. No focusing = no attention. What's left, so to speak, is direct unmediated awareness of and as the total field which is awareness modified, or qualities arising as permutations of the unqualified awareness.


Attention, if and when it springs into action, can then (if one is alert, so to speak) be seen as another of a myriad of "qualities" arising in, to, and as a modification of awareness just as every*thing* else is. In other words, a "functioning" co-existing with and inseparable from all "other" functionings! A *verb* within and as an aspect of the BIG VERB referred to as Life!


moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 21, 2011, 18:55

Hi weallone,


I quote your piece and then will try to unravel it as it unfolds.


Weallone said in response to my question of how to move from ignorance to intelligent living:


>>Hi Moller, I shall attempt to simply answer off the cuff to your invite -"any ideas?"

My view is, that meditation, pausing, etc.are management techniques that are useful and helpful to train/focus awareness.>>


(Moller)


Yes. Indeed. However I think it is important that we clearly distinguish between meditation as Passive Awareness and meditation as Direct Awareness. I descibe these two forms of meditation in my book: 'The Only Awakening'. The kind of 'training/focusing' meditation you refer to above is of the Passive Awareness variation. Here attention gets trained to settle down around an object by vigilanty focussing it on this object. In this way we train attention to remain stable for a period of time while at the same time we observe how it begins to contract (focus in on) some aspects of thought, emotion, etc in a completely unconscious and habitual manner. This kind of training brings the activities of attention under our conscious control, which is imperative for the next stage of our practice which is Direct Awareness.


Weallone

>>But I find, that awareness doesn't stay focused/trained, I find it attends to whatever is occurring within it's sphere eg: sounds in the distance, and then suddenly back to a converstion that is taking place.It seems we can only be aware of one thing at a time, even though it seems like we can multitask.Awareness seems to move instantaneously.>>


(Moller)

Yes. When attention is still untrained it will float around and seek and find any object to which it cares to attend to in any moment. This is the state of the so-called 'monkey-mind'. Attention jumps from one object to another as it pleases – not unlike an untrained dog does as it pleases, despite the demands and commands of its master.


Weallone:

>>So for me the crux of the matter, is to "see" ourselves as self-observation,in the moment of action/relationship, which is where our delusion is actually playing out.>.


(Moller)


Yes. this is indeed the task. But for this to happen we need to move into a completely different frame of reference through the practice of Direct Awareness. Only then can we begin to 'see' the process of the movement of attention into aspects of thought, emotion and other objects and maintain some kind of sustaining awareness. This is where the effort of holding attention stable on its object is transformed into into relative effortless awareness of the present where attention no longer determines the content of consciousness.


Weallonj;

>>Reflecting on our meditation cushions, is therapeutic and calming, but does not have the living moment of interactive awareness that seems necessary to learn from and understand, whereby we clearly feel and see the structures of self created delusion arising and playing out with all the subtle components such as feeling etc.>>


(Moller)


Reflecting on our meditation cusions is just another form of everyday living. It is another something we do, until we get control (relative control) over the random, habitual and unconscious movements of attention. Ordinary life does not stop while we are meditating. What we do 'out there'in life, we do while meditating. The monkey-mind rules supreme until it is arrested and transcended. I agree that meditation offers a very simple form of activity, but while the monkey-mind is active, very little has changed in any fundamental sense. It is up to us, and the quality of our meditation, which will determine whether we in a 'living moment' of Direct Experience or still caught in the spell of mind. But it is all there. Make no mistake.


Weallone:

>>After a period, however long, of vigilance/observation,we see thru our self created suffering, and at the same time, what we thought was happiness, also splutters and dies. This leaves us in a difficult impasse with no self reference, and no joy to pursue. Here in this so called "dark night of the soul" many of us get stuck, turn back, get addicted to escapismin it's many forms etc.etc.>.


(Moller)


If we work with Passive Awareness, where we observe the movements of attention and in the process observe the formation of the thought-attention knot (as I describe in my book)and learn how to relax out of its binding spell, there is really no 'dark night of the soul'. In fact, at this point our inner intelligence invites such dis-illusionment (to be away from illusion, or free from illusion) and ego dissolution. In this there is no sense of pain or loss. Just deep gratitude for the gradual sense of freedom this disentanglement from the clutches of the ego brings. What is necessary happens quite naturally, and what is happening if we pursue the right kind of meditative practices, is the gradual dissolution of the ego.


Weallone:

>>As i see it, without distraction by using management techniques,this process must be allowed to occur completely. I see this as true surrender without choice and manipulation, with no guarantees of what may/may not transpire.>>


(Moller)


Exactly. But as I said, this complete accepting state of openness is only possible during Direct Awareness. Not before, unless we are lucky or just happen to fall for some moments out of the ego-state.


Weallone:

>>This is probably the most frightening undertaking we can undertake, as we literally have to die to all that we asumed to be the case.>.


(Moller)


In the practices I propose, there is nothing frightening at this level of participatory meditation. We die willingly and joyfully to be fully integrated into the wholeness of our present situation. At this point the assumptions of who and what we are have been left behind. If not, then this 'dying' will become a forced issue, still an activity of mind. If there is pain involved, mind has not been left behind. This is why I place so much emphasis on creating the right inner conditions first through the practice of Passive Awareness before we move into the egoless state of Direct Awareness where the separate self-sense no longer dictate the terms for our participation in what is happening in and to us.


Weallone:

>>Now we are raw, naked, undone with no guarantees of future greatness, let alone survival.Everything has to be surrendered, given up.>>


(Moller)

As I said above, at this stage of relatively advanced inner clarity, these questions no longer arise. They have been dealt with already and are no longer the issue. Here it is simply a matter of vigilance – how to keep awake enough not to fall back into the hell of our own self-created suffering.


Weallone:

>>Then maybe, transformation, that is not of your doing may occur.>.


(Moller)

Personally I am not the least bit interested in transformation as some ultimate 'turnabout at the core of your being' as some Zen guys might describe itor as a permanent state. Life is not an either or affair. We always have to keep vigilance wide open lest the ever-active ego finds its way back pretending to be the center of our being. As I have said before in another post, to be human is to live with all the challenges presented to us at any given moment. And one of the greatest challenges we will ever face is that of the formation and domination of the ego state. We can only do our best. There is in my view no such state as permanent enlightenment. In this regard we could say that enlightenment as some permanent state in human life is a myth perpetuated by the religious and spiritual teachings who's advocates had to offer an ultimate carrot as reward for joining the party or local ashram. Human life can indeed change radically and express its own beauty,simplicity, intelligence and compassion without having to be perfect ('enlightened')in any sense whatsoever.


Weallone:

>>.This seems to me to be the reason why there are many teachers, some skilled and others not, but few really transformed people.>>


(Moller)

As I said there has to be no transformed folks (teachers or not). Transformation is an ongoing process and no permanent state. It is an ongoing activity in the present, where we allow for as much clarity, purity, wholeness, sensitivity, intelligence and compassion to filter from our deeper being into the moment to truly transform just this one single moment. This is why vigilance is so important. Enlightenment is always a present affair. A present process. It is not a permanent state like heaven or hell or the traditional holy man – robe, beard et al. Our job is, (as J. Krishnamurti one said) 'to keep the window open. The breeze will come in by itself'.


moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 26, 2011, 18:54

Thanks Tenthman for your interesting reply to Weallone.


I find myself in complete resonance with the ideas and insights you share here. I particularly like the phrase:


>>When attention is not focused anywhere, is inoperative, then I guess it could be said that attention doesn't "exist" since "focusing" *IS* attention. No focusing = no attention.>>


Moller:

Yes. This is very true. I guess here one may also see how attention is not awareness as such, but rather a focusing mechanism of awareness. It draws our awareness to the point of its focus.So there is never a conflict between attention and us becoming aware. To my understanding, the two processes are of different orders. Attention is a focusing mechanism and awareness is the actual direct, non-dual experience of any object.


Tenthman:

>>In regards to your statement above, it seems to me that "attention" generates a sense of or belief that independent "things/objects" exist but *they* actually don't. This is because attention focuses on (and *is* the very focusing itself) on an aspect of the total field of awareness thereby giving rise to the sensation that there is a "thing/object" *there*.>>


Moller:

Yes. This is exactly what happens when attention functions in its normal, habitual and unconscious manner. Thought then mistakes the object for something categorically separate from the awareness of the object. Here we see how the unconscious meovement of attention elicits the thought that the object is separate for the presumed observer. So the false sense of duality gets established in relation to that specific experience. This can only happen when our sense of awareness is dimmed or obscured by the thought of separation. This unfortunately happens most of the time.


Tenthman:

>>

This focusing (contractioning) isn't able to remain focused on and as "one place", then shift to another "place" and keep "both" intact. Sort of like a flashlight can highlight a certain area but when the beam is shifted to another section the "first" one disappears.>>


Tenthman:

>> When attention is not focused anywhere, is inoperative, then I guess it could be said that attention doesn't "exist" since "focusing" *IS* attention. No focusing = no attention. What's left, so to speak, is direct unmediated awareness of and as the total field which is awareness modified, or qualities arising as permutations of the unqualified awareness.>>


Moller:

Perhaps we could add here that attention need not be inactive for unmediated, direct awareness to be the case. After all, our natural, undivided condition still needs to make use of attention. So, as I said above, attention and wholeness are not inimical to one another. The problem arises only when attention moves in an unconscious, habitual manner. When we operate from the disposition of Direct Awareness, attention comes under the conscious control of awareness and thereby loses its unconscious functioning. When attention operates in this manner, it serves awareness correctly as its instrument, rather than leading it into all sorts of mischief, such as the thought-attention knot, which is fundamentally an unconscious process. This is an aspect of the relationship between attention and awareness I try to articulate as well I could in my book: 'The Only Awakening'.


Tenthman:

>>Attention, if and when it springs into action, can then (if one is alert, so to speak) be seen as another of a myriad of "qualities" arising in, to, and as a modification of awareness just as every*thing* else is. In other words, a "functioning" co-existing with and inseparable from all "other" functionings! A *verb* within and as an aspect of the BIG VERB referred to as Life!>>


(Moller)

Yes. From the perspective of wholeness (Direct Awareness), attention is indeed just another function within our human potential appearing and disappearing as the situation requires.


I feel somewhat uncomfortable with the notion of 'everything as a modification of awareness'. My sense here is that no-one has ever seen, felt, intuited, heard, etc this thing referred to as 'awareness'. So for all practical purposes it is always nothing but an inference taken for reality.


I explained in another post that to my understanding, awareness and the content of awareness, can never be separated. So for me awareness is not prior to content. It is also not superior in order to content. Content and awareness is always a joint-phenomenon. The content of awareness and the awareness of content is one non-dual phenomenon. Content is thus not a 'modification' of awareness. All appearance in my view is finally unfathomable mystery. All we can say about it is that, in our human context, the appearance of things is always a non-dual event. That is, if seen from the perspective of Direct Awareness.


Thank you for your very perceptive and insightful post. Much appreciated!


TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: February 26, 2011, 22:25

Moller:

Yes. This is very true. I guess here one may also see how attention is not awareness as such, but rather a focusing mechanism of awareness. It draws our awareness to the point of its focus.So there is never a conflict between attention and us becoming aware. To my understanding, the two processes are of different orders. Attention is a focusing mechanism and awareness is the actual direct, non-dual experience of any object.


Tenthman: So perhaps an analogy would be like a muscle in the relaxed condition vs contracted. Whether (and when) contraction is occuring or not, a muscle is a muscle is a muscle!


Tenthman:

>>In regards to your statement above, it seems to me that "attention" generates a sense of or belief that independent "things/objects" exist but *they* actually don't. This is because attention focuses on (and *is* the very focusing itself) on an aspect of the total field of awareness thereby giving rise to the sensation that there is a "thing/object" *there*.>>


To add to the above, when a "thing or object over *there*" is assumed to be the case, what's automatically generated is that therefore there "must be" a "thing/object/me/observer" *over here*". For every action there is an automatic equal and opposite reaction!


Question! If one (for lack of a better word or phrasing) abides in Direct Awareness AS Direct Awareness, then is is *being the whole* or the *whole is being one* as in there is the whole *only*! So instead of (mis)perceiving oneself as perhaps being a "leaf" on a river, there is the flowing of the river only. A flowing that goes nowhere, more like an everpresent "churning" akin to the contents of a kaleidoscope changing but the kaleidoscope doesn't move; or boiling water is constantly in motion (*is* the motioning) but the pot doesn't go anywhere.


So could it be said then that "one's" condition and/or fate is driven by, determined by, the "whole" and that the supposed "me" is impotent to change things since it is a "by product", a "derivative" of the *whole* and therefore isn't in a position to alter the *whole*. Please forgive the rather clumsy wording!


So when (due to clarity of understanding), there's a cessation of thinking/assuming/believing that there is a "me" separate from and over & against "what is", that there's always already only been "what is" (within which the sensation of a "me" arises as an aspect of functioning within and as *what is*), that then it's possible to consciously or knowingly abide in and as the *whole* (which is the result and effect of clear comprehension rather than an "effort" on the part of a "me") and that where *it* goes (which is to say as ever-occuring modifications) so goes "me"?


What comes up for me at this point is fear of letting go, of trusting unconditionally. Perhaps I don't (and never did) have a choice or even the ability to let go. That it's always been either a belief or imagination or hope that I did/do. I can see that these "thoughts" are arising and if simply witnessed they dissolve like not adding fuel to a fire simply becaue nothing is permanent, is flux only. Even so, there seems to be this rather deeply imbedded (or persisting) tension of graspingness, of being concerned about "survival", making enough money to survive, etc. Any thoughts on this would be deeply appreciated!


Thanks!


moller
Administrator
Posts: 68

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: March 2, 2011, 18:55

Quote from TenthMan on February 26, 2011, 22:25


>>Moller:

Yes. This is very true. I guess here one may also see how attention is not awareness as such, but rather a focusing mechanism of awareness. It draws our awareness to the point of its focus.So there is never a conflict between attention and us becoming aware. To my understanding, the two processes are of different orders. Attention is a focusing mechanism and awareness is the actual direct, non-dual experience of any object.>>


>Tenthman: So perhaps an analogy would be like a muscle in the relaxed condition vs contracted. Whether (and when) contraction is occuring or not, a muscle is a muscle is a muscle! >


(Moller)


I am not sure exactly what you are communicating here. Are you saying that awareness is awareness, whether focussed or not? If so, perhaps i would like to add that I have no sense of *having* something like awareness inside the body which becomes aware of things as separate to itself and which could be focussed in or out of objects. As I have explained in another post some time ago, it is impossible to become aware of awareness. So, all we can say, when we do become aware of something, is that there is now awareness of such and such. We cannot say *our awareness* which abides in us as a process is now aware of something. This would be a dualistic view of things.


Tenthman:

>

Question! If one (for lack of a better word or phrasing) abides in Direct Awareness AS Direct Awareness, then is *being the whole* or the *whole is being one* as in there is the whole *only*! >


(Moller)

This is not my sense or experience of things. For human experience to be non-dual or whole, does not imply that wholeness is 'one'. As I said before, diversity is not in opposition to wholeness. When our vision is whole, things still appear as separate from one another. Even this body will still discriminate itself from other forms of present arising. (How else could it protect itself from the attack of a tiger?)


However, when our experience is undivided, the experience does not include the sole factor of presumed division which is the separate self-sense. When the fasle sense of 'I' is not present, experience is simply not two (non-dual). It is not one. The opposite of duality is not oneness, but rather not-two-ness. That is why the sages have called this state 'non-dual', rather than oneness. The appearance of diverse forms within our present experiential field does not constitute or necessitate duality. Experience is whole when dualistic vision is not the case.


Tenthman:

>So instead of (mis)perceiving oneself as perhaps being a "leaf" on a river, there is the flowing of the river only. A flowing that goes nowhere, more like an everpresent "churning" akin to the contents of a kaleidoscope changing but the kaleidoscope doesn't move; or boiling water is constantly in motion (*is* the motioning) but the pot doesn't go anywhere.>


(Moller)

As I tried to indicate above, the river and the leaf floating on it, are from the perspective of holistic vision (experience) clearly two separately existing objects. However, when the 'I' is not present (which is what makes non-dual experience possible), the experience of both river and leaf is not-two. It is in fact diversity in wholeness. No analogy needs to be used to describe this direct, non-dual experience. We simply cannot describe the ever new nature of the present arising of phenomena. Things appear in our human field of experience and either this present experience is non-dual or dual. This where vigilance comes in again. At any moment human experience can take on either the dualistic or non-dualistic mode of operation. How we interact with forms of present arising determines whether the moment is whole or dualistic. Wholeness is a movement, not an observable fact. It is the sense we have of experience when the 'I' is not. This makes it a verb, not a noun. It is a process, not some permanent state.


Tenthman:

>So could it be said then that "one's" condition and/or fate is driven by, determined by, the "whole" and that the supposed "me" is impotent to change things since it is a "by product", a "derivative" of the *whole* and therefore isn't in a position to alter the *whole*. Please forgive the rather clumsy wording!>>


(Moller)

Not clumsy at all! You have put it well. But we have to appreciate that when the 'I'-sense prevails, that the 'I'-experience in and of itself has no sense of the whole in which it inheres. When the 'I' moves, it moves along the continuum of unconscious 'self'-determination. Ignorance is alwyas unaware of ignorance. When the 'I' is present as the dominating force in any moment of experience, it cannot sense its own falseness. This is why I place such emphasis on vigilance whereby we become aware of the contraction we call the 'I' and learn how to relax out from it instantly before it solidifies into the presumed observer, doer etc. This is how we integrtate true undivided awareness into the present moment.


Tenthman:

>So when (due to clarity of understanding), there's a cessation of thinking/assuming/believing that there is a "me" separate from and over & against "what is", that there's always already only been "what is" >


(Moller)

Yes. Exactly! Any moment of clarity reveals that there has always only been the non-dual, but that it has been obscured through the unconscious contraction of self and its projection into our present experience.


Tenthman:

>(within which the sensation of a "me" arises as an aspect of functioning within and as *what is*),>


(Moller)

My sense is rather that what may again appear while we are in the condition of wholeness (direct awareness) is the mere *thought* of the 'I' – not the 'I'-state as something real and solid. Should this happen, we are already again back into the 'I'-state. But when direct awareness experiences the thought of 'I' as a thought, and nothing but a thought, then we are not caught in the apparent reality of the 'I'-thought. It then truly appears as just another thought next to other thoughts.


Tenthman:

>that then it's possible to consciously or knowingly abide in and as the *whole* (which is the result and effect of clear comprehension rather than an "effort" on the part of a "me")>


(Moller)

I would not call it 'clear comprehension'. Rather direct experience. The two are of a categorically different nature. Comprehension is a state of mind. Direct experience is a state of being. Wholeness is a state of being, not a state of mind.


Tenthman:

>

and that where *it* goes (which is to say as ever-occuring modifications) so goes "me"?>


(Moller)

Not clear what you are trying nto communicate here?


Tenthman:


>What comes up for me at this point is fear of letting go, of trusting unconditionally. Perhaps I don't (and never did) have a choice or even the ability to let go. That it's always been either a belief or imagination or hope that I did/do. I can see that these "thoughts" are arising and if simply witnessed they dissolve like not adding fuel to a fire simply becaue nothing is permanent, is flux only. Even so, there seems to be this rather deeply imbedded (or persisting) tension of graspingness, of being concerned about "survival", making enough money to survive, etc. Any thoughts on this would be deeply appreciated!>


(Moller)


My senase is that the fear you describe here is because the 'I' does not want to let go of itself, after having suggested itself as the core of our being for as long we know ourselves. So the 'core of being' would quite naturally project fear if it senses that it may have no reality or stands to be shown to be false and superfluous to our everyday living – or even during a brief spell during meditation or so. Yet, once we appreciate that there is so much more to us than the contracted self-state, the fear of losing it, even for a moment, begins to soften on the edges and over time dissipate itself completely when we begin to sense the beauty of self-less, direct awareness.

With regard to your other question: To live is to have to earn money to survive or to have goods to barter with etc. This is a natural response to the bodymind's demands for survival. Our problems often arise when we try to maintain a certain standard of living which caters more for ego-needs than the necessities of life. The ego cannot distinguish between its own inflated demands and what we need to be healthy happy and physically secure. So fear is often part of this outward drive for more and more to satisfy the ego. Yet, once we recognise that this fear is founded on false premises, we could realistically re-assess our situation and plan a more simple, less stressful, life from there.


Thanks!


TenthMan
Member
Posts: 20

Reputation: 0
Re: Ageing
on: March 4, 2011, 17:51

Hi Moller! Thank you for your response to my post. I read through it and will come back to it again to "digest" it!


TenthMan


Pages: [1]
WP Forum Server by ForumPress | Lucid Crew
Version: 1.8.2 ; Page loaded in: 0.058 seconds.