In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Jan 20, 2019 23:02:24 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jan 20, 2019 23:02:24 GMT

Reefs: I recently mentioned a chapter in Derren Brown's book 'Happy' where he talks about how beliefs and the stories we tell ourselves limit our perception and understanding. And I think what he has to say is actually quite relevant to both the unenlightened and enlightened (hehe) readership here. The chapter in question is about 20 pages long, so I'm going to post a heavily edited version in order to keep it on point.

From what I can see, this guys approach to happiness focuses upon an acceptance of what is that has is basis in philosoohical Stoicism rather than SR. He provides a recipe for thinking about life in a way that mitigates unhappiness/discontent. Nothing wrong with that per se, but there is nothing at all 'spiritual' or transcendent regarding his message. Pure psychology.

He clearly believes that he exists as a separate person, that what he is, is dependent upon the existence of a physical body/brain and that an objective world exists 'out there,' a world that will continue to exist after he is dead and gone/non-existent.

"Schopenhauer said that when we die, the world disappears, as it can only ever exist in our perceptions. When we are no longer around to perceive it, it vanishes in the blink of an eye. It's an interesting thought to play with, but most of us would prefer to say that the world carries on happily without us once we've gone. This is life after us: the "after life," no less. Not a personal afterlife, and in that sense nothing to bring us much comfort. But in some important sense, it can do. Even 'we' might be said to live on after our deaths in the sense that those who know us now will carry around their memory of us after we've gone. And what that will mean depends on how we affect others now while we are alive.

What legacy would we leave behind in the minds and heart of others if we were to die right now?..." Derren Brown

Interesting to note, that he also is mired in knowing for certain that the others he experiences are in fact themselves experiencing, perceiving.

Last Edit: Jan 20, 2019 23:03:29 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Feb 2, 2019 17:52:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Feb 2, 2019 17:52:33 GMT

Reefs: The phenomenon of 'flow' has been referenced by many spiritual teachers (directly or indirectly) and the concept has become rather mainstream over the last two decades. It is, I believe, what some of us here are pointing to as well, although in different ways and with different words. But the one who first seemed to have coined the term and opened up a new and fascinating field of psychological research was MC. He wrote some books in the 1970s which were more of an academic nature and therefore not popular. But when he published his book "Flow: The Psychology of Optimal Experience" in 1990 - that's when the flow concept really seemed to go mainstream. I remember having bought his book at the time and while reading it I had one of those rare "That's it!" moments. He's written several books since, but the book is still a classic. It basically describes (from the perspective of a psychologist) what we're all after but can't quite put into words or concepts. It describes something we've all experienced at one time or another, an experience that most would describe as their most memorable or most meaningful experiences.

Here's an excerpt from the introduction of the book where MC describes how it all started, how he went about it and most importantly, what 'flow' actually is:

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5278/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi#ixzz5eOcJ0NjP

Wow. Really, eh?

so all along when you speak about 'flow' you've been referencing moments where personal control is at the forefront...where we are making something happen?

M.C.: "We have all experienced times when, instead of being buffeted by anonymous forces, we do feel in control of our actions, masters of our own fate..."

"The best moments usually occur when a person’s body or mind is stretched to its limits in a voluntary effort to accomplish something difficult and worthwhile. Optimal experience is thus something that we make happen."

"Getting control of life is never easy, and sometimes it can be definitely painful. But in the long run optimal experiences add up to a sense of mastery—or perhaps better, a sense of participation in determining the content of life—that comes as close to what is usually meant by happiness as anything else we can conceivably imagine."

I always thought pointers to 'flow' in spiritual convos referenced those times where the sense of personal control, voluntary effort, trying hard to accomplish something, make something specific happen, (the volitional person who is in control of life) was absent.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Feb 3, 2019 18:11:29 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Feb 3, 2019 18:11:29 GMT

Zazaniac: Yes. So true. Only I would argue the exertion is also satisfying. It's really loving what you are doing except you lose all sense of "you". You are the activity. There is nothing more satisfying. I recall telling a friend about meditation. He was very old. I was trying to sell him on the benefits. I was telling him how you lose yourself in the process. He stopped me. "I already do that," he said."I play the accordion for two hours every morning."

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5278/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi#ixzz5eUcNZQjW

Exactly! That's how I understand 'flow' experience as well.

There is no sense of efforting or trying to control at all. And really, that's the point. The one who thinks he has to effort and that he 'can' control, is absent.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Feb 8, 2019 16:41:33 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Feb 8, 2019 16:41:33 GMT

Reefs: That's the 'hands in the clay' feeling. The way I see it, what MC calls optimal experience is very similar to what A-H call leading edge experience, or Seth's value fulfillment. And this happens when, in Seth terms, the inner self/ego and outer self/ego merge. Or in A-H terms, when ego and Inner Being are in alignment. Joe Dispenza talks about a state of coherence. We could just called it presence, being fully in the NOW.

Being fully present, in a state of coherence, does not include a sense of efforting/trying to make something specific happen. Actual presence to the moment has no room for personal efforting. Indeed personal efforting may lead one to the gates of presence, coherence, flow, but make no mistake, in 'actual' presence, in actual flow, all of the mental structures behind 'efforting/trying' are transcended.

You are trying very hard here to merge a psychologist's observations and resultant philosophy with spiritual clarity/Truth. Once again, it seems, trying to create a bridge where there is none.

MC is describing the view from the position of separate personhood. The seeing that unobstructed 'flow' is absent the idea of a person who must effort/try, is transcendent of that...an impersonal view. (In the past you were quite fond of pointing out the difference between the two...remember..? )

In general, it's interesting how MC's research matches the A-H teaching (minus the new age stuff, of course). Quite simply, what MC is describing as flow here is alignment. And that comes in different shades. Maybe we could say that there's the fully passive version of alignment on one extreme end and then there's the fully active version of alignment on the other extreme end. In essence, at the core, there isn't an actual difference, alignment is alignment and presence is presence after all. But it does manifest as different mental states and so people are going to describe it differently. The passive version can be described as something like quiet peacefulness, the active version as elation or passion. In A-H terms, the passive version would be at the center of the emotional guidance scale (i.e. contentment) and the active version on the positive extreme end of that scale (i.e. joy, empowerment). And MC being a psychologist who needs to measure and statisticize is more interested in describing the active version, of course. OTOH, the passive version seems to be mostly described in spiritual (meditation) circles.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5278/mihaly-csikszentmihalyi#ixzz5exPwTfcb

Again, You are trying to pass off the difference between personal/impersonal, efforting/absence thereof, sense of volitional person/vs. absence thereof, as a mere difference between 'passive vs. active.' It's so much more than that.

And, The flow AH describe isn't about 'passive vs. active' engagement...rather, it's all about the absence of resistance, which really, when you look at that closely, has everything to do with the absence of seeking, striving, efforting...the absence of the volitional person, the seeker.

When they speak of 'getting into the vortex' they are quite clear....you can't DO your way in. Rather, the vortex sucks you in, when alignment is the case. Essentially what they are saying, is that when the 'person' gets outta the way, the vortex naturally 'sucks you in.'

Again Reefs, it seems that your view a few years ago was quite different. You seemed to clearly see the difference between the presence vs. absence of the volitional person.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Feb 8, 2019 16:54:00 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Feb 8, 2019 16:54:00 GMT

Zendancer: One of my favorite questions that I like to ask people who're engaged in religious arguments or interpretations goes like this: If you were on a desert island without any books of any kind, and without TV or radio or internet, how could you find the truth? No Bible, no Gita, no Koran, no sutras, etc. This is literally a conversation stopper, and I can't remember anyone ever willing to engage with the question.The question is usually followed by silence, and then someone will shift the conversation in another direction. Without an external basis of authority, people are at a loss concerning how to proceed, so they simply ignore the question.

And that would be an entirely relevant question IF someone in this conversation were looking to the written word, TV or the internet to find Truth.

A discussion about what a particular writing or teacher says/means is not necessarily evidence that one is looking outside of himself to find Truth. ST is after all a discussion forum.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 3, 2019 15:53:27 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 3, 2019 15:53:27 GMT

Andrew: Teachers point because they're still seeking 'it' themselves.

No. Pointing, actual pointing, means one has seen there is no 'it' for which to seek for or find. Pointing in one who is clear, means that seeking is no longer happening because the very thing/one who seeks, has been illuminated as imaginary.

So long as seeking is still happening, one is conceptualizing the Truth rather than pointing to it. Pointing vs. conceptualizing happens only after it's been seen that the Truth is not conceptual...not an idea that can be captured with thought/ideas/words.

That's not to say that they are useless, they are not the blind leading the blind. They have great insight and valuable experience, it's just that they're not finished with the interest (or it's not finished with them). Simply, they are interested in 'it', and all interest is seeking. They might have that interest their whole lives and be great teachers.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5260/?page=9#ixzz5h7jZmKxI

Again, an interest in attaining some specific understanding/knowing is what's at the helm of all seeking. Thus, Seeking and 'pointing' are two very different things. In pointing there is the seeing that there is no-thing, no idea, no thought, no doctrine TO understand/know. Apprehending the Truth is not about understanding or knowing something conceptual.

Insights and valuable experiences of one who is still seeking, are 'in the dream.' Not Truthy. I don't think you quite understand yet what 'pointing' actually means.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Mar 3, 2019 16:04:53 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Mar 3, 2019 16:04:53 GMT

Andrew: It's an expression [Kill the Buddha] often used in non-dual circles which sort of means... don't put the teacher, or even the teaching, on a pedestal because then you will miss the essence of the teaching.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5260/?page=9#ixzz5h7nDlRKN

It's an expression that speaks to this whole issue (post above) of 'pointing vs. conceptualizing.' It's a means of pointing mind away from the entire realm of ideas and things to looking/seeing from a place that is beyond.

It's a reminder that nothing that appears is Truthy. That Truth lies beyond the realm of form, beyond appearances.

Throughout the 'not knowing' conversation, a few of you were being invited to "Kill the Buddha"...your "Buddha" that required killing..? The certain knowing that appearances are alive, conscious, experiencing.

Some of those Buddhas can get pretty darned sticky indeed. A wonderful line of inquiry involves looking deeply at those ideas/concepts/knowings that we are unwilling to let go of.

Last Edit: Mar 3, 2019 16:05:07 GMT by Figgles

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Jun 22, 2019 14:54:42 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 22, 2019 14:54:42 GMT

Lopezcabellero: I figured that would go without saying. What really must be understood is that conscious minds are less stunted than unconscious ones.

ten-ten:It sounds like you're still re-decorating your living room.

Grey and pink can work well together with some subtle splashes of green.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5348/destroying-mind?page=3#ixzz5raXCINsS

(Wow. Even with barely anything going on on ST, Sharon's still sniping and it just flies under the radar.)

Sharon, what you're failing to acknowledge is that in the absence of SR, conscious awareness of mind's shenanigans IS the next best thing. It's important in terms of not getting completely caught up in/swept away in mind's machinations. Being conscious of mind's movements, of it's games, is not merely 're-decorating,' at all. Rather, it's 'looking at' the entire process of decorating....looking 'at' mind always makes for an auspicious position. And short of full out "SR," Being consciously aware of what's going on is no small thing at all. Jed McKenna's "human adulthood" comes to mind.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Jun 22, 2019 18:42:38 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 22, 2019 18:42:38 GMT

Reefs: I think you are correct in the sense that he rarely refers to it as NS directly. But he refers to it indirectly all the time, almost in every dialog. What you are describing (points 1-3) is the SR level of discourse which is what we are talking about here most of the time. But there's also another level of discourse, which I would call the NS level of discourse and that is basically the parts of Niz' message the solipsists got so interested in. In essence, it is the dream metaphor applied in the most radical sense. The difference though is that Niz does this from the perspective of the 'universal witness' or 'pure awareness' (as he tends to call it) which is fine because that way he integrates the SR perspective. Unlike the solipsists who do this from the the personal perspective which naturally puts them at odds with the SR perspective. I'll explain that in more detail when I'm done with the book. I've made some notes while reading and I am planning to post a synopsis of Niz' ontology. But that'll probably take a while given my current rate of progress, hehe.

ETA: Ramakrishna, too, sees NS as the ultimate goal. So this could actually be some yoga tradition thingy, dunno.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5345/nisargadatta-maharaj?page=3#ixzz5rbPU1IGt

You're really confused on this issue.

Those of us who speak of 'not knowing'...of the entire world, including people/characters who appear, being part and parcel of the arising dream-scape, are NOT looking/seeing from the personal perspective. That doesn't even make sense. Clearly you still do not grasp what is being said when it is said to all be 'akin to a dream,' all an arising within/to consciousness.

Seeing/realizing it all as akin to a dream means looking from beyond the dream! The personal perspective means seeing from 'within' the dream. One who is immersed within the personal perspective is asleep within the dream, thus, he's unable to see that the entire world is arising within that which he 'really' is.

Take a gander into your intense need to prove the validity of your knowing of things...knowing about the material world, knowing it to be conscious, alive, experiencing. All you are really doing is arguing for the personal perspective....the fast asleep, constricted, in the dream view that does not go beyond the person, does not see beyond the world and all it's appearing things, qualities and properties.

Figgles
Administrator

Posts: 24,056

In the Dream vs. Beyond the Dream Jun 24, 2019 16:57:26 GMT

Quote

Post by Figgles on Jun 24, 2019 16:57:26 GMT

Zendancer;

Lopez: "Could we get there through Self abidance?" The way I see it is that we are always abiding as Self whether enlightened or unenlightened. I prefer to think of the path as leading to non-abidance in intellect, and I suppose one reason I like Tolle as a teacher is that he usually points to that state and explains various ways to get there. These days I laughingly refer to my path as one of mindLESSness rather than mindFULness. LOL.

After my first insights into how I had become entranced, I saw very little value in the habit of watching thoughts. The problem I faced, and the problem most people face, is that I was already habituated to incessant thought. I realized that little children are not burdened by incessant thoughts, so I began doing what little children do--looking, listening, smelling, tasting, and touching. I kept shifting attention away from thoughts to what could be seen, heard, felt, etc. and the intellect became increasingly silent. Becoming silent seemed to trigger more and more realizations, and eventually even the illusion of selfhood collapsed. That was twenty years ago, and "the little guy in the head" never came back. After it became obvious that there's only one unified process that we call "reality," and that all of us are one-with THAT, life became simple and effortless.

These days I chuckle when I hear people say that it's impossible to stop thinking because I/THIS can stop thinking anytime I/IT wants to. It no longer matters to me/IT whether there's thinking or mental silence, because there's no longer a belief in a separate self that does anything. Nevertheless, because I/THIS spent so many years shifting attention away from thoughts, the body/mind can stop thinking at any time and just watch what's happening in total silence. This ability isn't special in any way; it's simply a consequence of spending a great deal of time living life like little children--without incessant thoughts constantly interpreting what's going on or thinking ABOUT what's going on.

I suppose "mindLESSness," despite being a humorous concept in comparison to "mindFULness," might more accurately be called "mental silence," but the common term for this in the Zen tradition is "non-abidance in mind." It simply means that one is not entranced by mental verbiage and locked into the conventional beliefs that usually arise as a result of continual mental verbiage.

Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/thread/5348/destroying-mind?page=6#ixzz5rmkziASY

Zd, this is where you don't go far enough. "non-abidance in mind," means more than simply not being entranced by 'mental verbiage'...not being locked into conventional beliefs. It means clearly seeing what constitutes 'mind,' in it's totality, and the cessation of identification with ALL OF IT.

True 'non abidance in mind,' would mean no longer arguing for the Truth of "It's all Alive!" The fact that you insist that qualities/properties you experienced during a mystical experience are the ultimate Truth, reveals that you are still very much actually, 'abiding in mind.' (identified with mind's content).