Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Feb 27, 2021 1:34:50 GMT
Am thinking about Dr Joe’s teachings now as this has been my more recent journey and path. He really is onto something and tries to get people back to wholeness, back to their divine nature and to come out of the mind’s mental habbits, however, the identity doesn’t quite break, it becomes a ‘better’ version and certainly pretty close to our true nature but it keeps the seeker seeking because when they fall out of alignment or don’t manifest outcomes they are back in lack and attached to outcomes!
FINALLY, all this stuff makes sense!
You can’t ‘let go’ as a SVP because it’s a doing. Now I can live life fully, lean right into this beauty!!
|
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Feb 27, 2021 1:36:11 GMT
I use reality creation by putting in beliefs into my client’s subsconscious. But of course, this is still dream stuff... Who is doing what? You used reality creation for putting beliefs into your client's subconscious? What? What kind of reality creation is this? I know about how to program other's subconscious mind secretly. But I did not get what you are talking now.
Yes, it's all dream stuff. No doubt! But this law(law of attraction) we have been talking about is actually about how dream unfolds! Did you notice that?
‘By’ not ‘for’ Change beliefs at subconscious ‘appears’ to make a difference in life. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 27, 2021 2:09:13 GMT
And as Tolle describes it at one point, we can suppress our "higher functions" - those of mind that fill-in-the-blanks, which brings us down, to a lower level of consciousness, or go the other way. The example he gives is meditating ("going higher") vs. abusing substances ("going lower").
Getting present to the way the mind works, getting present to the senses with all other movements of mind on mute can be illuminating. It can even lead to various substantially altered states of consciousness. Also, not-knowing is a powerful perspective. An opening. But, life goes on, and the mind has uses. What you sense isn't the product of what you are limited to perceiving by those senses. If you see anything in your room, it's because of light that originated from a process happening elsewhere. Tolle points a person inward, and this is a common way to point. But attention has two different directions to it, and you can get to the same states of mind by directing attention outward. The "Source" he points to, is evident from either direction. You've shifted on this question of "no you", but are you done with inquiry in term of "what is that Source"?
I’m not ‘stable’ in this knowing yet, however, it seems to be available when I look. All I find is an ever present emptiness, like a movie screen or the sky. Everything appearing in it. So everything is made of it. I am both nothing and everything. No idea if that answers your question. Its all ideas, beliefs and concepts other than this. Perfectly put. & that said, there does seem to be a certain 'stability' in the very fact that your interest in that 'looking' that continues to arise, then sees that 'ever present emptiness.' A person just cannot contrive that interest. It's either there or it isn't. A good Adya quote that I think applies here: "Some teachers would say that if awakening vacillates, then it is not true awakening. I'm not one of them, for reasons that's I've already described. If we have seen the truth, we have seen the truth. Whether we've seen it for two seconds or for two thousand years, it's the same truth." Adyanshanti - The End Of Your World (Fwiw, I'd highly recommend that book as in it he is specifically speaking to the phenomena of "I've got it...I lost it,"....lots of talk about the initial 'transition' after awakening.) |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 27, 2021 4:40:03 GMT
I’m not ‘stable’ in this knowing yet, however, it seems to be available when I look. All I find is an ever present emptiness, like a movie screen or the sky. Everything appearing in it. So everything is made of it. I am both nothing and everything. No idea if that answers your question. Its all ideas, beliefs and concepts other than this. Perfectly put. & that said, there does seem to be a certain 'stability' in the very fact that your interest in that 'looking' that continues to arise, then sees that 'ever present emptiness.' A person just cannot contrive that interest. It's either there or it isn't. A good Adya quote that I think applies here: "Some teachers would say that if awakening vacillates, then it is not true awakening. I'm not one of them, for reasons that's I've already described. If we have seen the truth, we have seen the truth. Whether we've seen it for two seconds or for two thousand years, it's the same truth." Adyanshanti - The End Of Your World (Fwiw, I'd highly recommend that book as in it he is specifically speaking to the phenomena of "I've got it...I lost it,"....lots of talk about the initial 'transition' after awakening.) Bye bye Figgles! |
|
Esponja
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 1,742
|
Post by Esponja on Feb 27, 2021 5:01:26 GMT
I’m not ‘stable’ in this knowing yet, however, it seems to be available when I look. All I find is an ever present emptiness, like a movie screen or the sky. Everything appearing in it. So everything is made of it. I am both nothing and everything. No idea if that answers your question. Its all ideas, beliefs and concepts other than this. Perfectly put. & that said, there does seem to be a certain 'stability' in the very fact that your interest in that 'looking' that continues to arise, then sees that 'ever present emptiness.' A person just cannot contrive that interest. It's either there or it isn't. A good Adya quote that I think applies here: "Some teachers would say that if awakening vacillates, then it is not true awakening. I'm not one of them, for reasons that's I've already described. If we have seen the truth, we have seen the truth. Whether we've seen it for two seconds or for two thousand years, it's the same truth." Adyanshanti - The End Of Your World (Fwiw, I'd highly recommend that book as in it he is specifically speaking to the phenomena of "I've got it...I lost it,"....lots of talk about the initial 'transition' after awakening.) Will buy it. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Feb 27, 2021 17:15:12 GMT
Perfectly put. & that said, there does seem to be a certain 'stability' in the very fact that your interest in that 'looking' that continues to arise, then sees that 'ever present emptiness.' A person just cannot contrive that interest. It's either there or it isn't. A good Adya quote that I think applies here: "Some teachers would say that if awakening vacillates, then it is not true awakening. I'm not one of them, for reasons that's I've already described. If we have seen the truth, we have seen the truth. Whether we've seen it for two seconds or for two thousand years, it's the same truth." Adyanshanti - The End Of Your World (Fwiw, I'd highly recommend that book as in it he is specifically speaking to the phenomena of "I've got it...I lost it,"....lots of talk about the initial 'transition' after awakening.) Bye bye Figgles! Why?  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 1, 2021 2:44:01 GMT
And as Tolle describes it at one point, we can suppress our "higher functions" - those of mind that fill-in-the-blanks, which brings us down, to a lower level of consciousness, or go the other way. The example he gives is meditating ("going higher") vs. abusing substances ("going lower").
Getting present to the way the mind works, getting present to the senses with all other movements of mind on mute can be illuminating. It can even lead to various substantially altered states of consciousness. Also, not-knowing is a powerful perspective. An opening. But, life goes on, and the mind has uses. What you sense isn't the product of what you are limited to perceiving by those senses. If you see anything in your room, it's because of light that originated from a process happening elsewhere. Tolle points a person inward, and this is a common way to point. But attention has two different directions to it, and you can get to the same states of mind by directing attention outward. The "Source" he points to, is evident from either direction. You've shifted on this question of "no you", but are you done with inquiry in term of "what is that Source"? See, again, you seem to be missing what Esponja is getting at, (what I see her saying) and are offering something back that isn't at all related. What I see Esponja describing is that she is seeing that all perceivables, everything sensed, thought, seen, heard, is appearing "immediately," or not at all, and it's in that "immediacy of appearing" that "knowing" IS. This is the same conversation as "when you turn your back on the mountain, do you know for certain it's still appearing"? She's describing the seeing through of an objectively existent world beyond immediate perception. You can imagine that I don't grasp emptiness, if that's what you like. Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 1, 2021 2:51:00 GMT
See, again, you seem to be missing what Esponja is getting at, (what I see her saying) and are offering something back that isn't at all related. What I see Esponja describing is that she is seeing that all perceivables, everything sensed, thought, seen, heard, is appearing "immediately," or not at all, and it's in that "immediacy of appearing" that "knowing" IS. This is the same conversation as "when you turn your back on the mountain, do you know for certain it's still appearing"? She's describing the seeing through of an objectively existent world beyond immediate perception. Correct. Reality, is neither objective, nor subjective, and as the Buddhist's say, form is emptiness, emptiness is form.
|
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 1, 2021 2:55:59 GMT
And as Tolle describes it at one point, we can suppress our "higher functions" - those of mind that fill-in-the-blanks, which brings us down, to a lower level of consciousness, or go the other way. The example he gives is meditating ("going higher") vs. abusing substances ("going lower").
Getting present to the way the mind works, getting present to the senses with all other movements of mind on mute can be illuminating. It can even lead to various substantially altered states of consciousness. Also, not-knowing is a powerful perspective. An opening.
But, life goes on, and the mind has uses. What you sense isn't the product of what you are limited to perceiving by those senses. If you see anything in your room, it's because of light that originated from a process happening elsewhere. Tolle points a person inward, and this is a common way to point. But attention has two different directions to it, and you can get to the same states of mind by directing attention outward. The "Source" he points to, is evident from either direction. You've shifted on this question of "no you", but are you done with inquiry in term of "what is that Source"? I’m not ‘stable’ in this knowing yet, however, it seems to be available when I look. All I find is an ever present emptiness, like a movie screen or the sky. Everything appearing in it. So everything is made of it. I am both nothing and everything. No idea if that answers your question. Its all ideas, beliefs and concepts other than this. Is the feel of the Earth on your body a concept? Does that originate within the four walls of your room? Just as you used those walls as a way to describe, that's how I'm using the notions of the Earth and your body. It's not the concepts of them that are important.
What you describe is a marvelous state of consciousness. A visceral, felt sense of the ephemeral nature of the world of the senses. I get that, I really do.  |
|
muttley
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 4,394
|
Post by muttley on Mar 1, 2021 3:05:46 GMT
Uh-huh.  Translation: you actually went back and read the words on the page.  No, I honestly don't grasp what you are saying and how it relates to what I was saying. Interesting though, that you didn't answer the direct question I posed to you here. If you had, you would have to admit that most of what you wrote to me in this sub-thread of dialog since that was based on your misunderstanding and reading past what I'd written. |
|
Translation: you actually went back and read the words on the page. 