No God

[running]

Originally Posted by django

I understand that silence and bliss have nothing to do with information, but to understand the nature of reality information is required, for example information about the subtle body and how to develop it. Not everyone will see this as valuable or necessary, but not developing the subtle body is the equivalent of being a metaphysical cripple who has been taught to just accept their lot in life as is.

im 100% in agreement about the subtle body. but im biased as that siddhi is stronger than my ears and eyes combined. but isn't necessary and is developed during the process of bliss and silence. i say not necessary because most people don't access that until sometime down the process. but without such access there is no experience of bliss and silence.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

its just something you become open to. it takes time to make a home in oneself. in the process all sorts of things can block it. after some time of expeeinces of it. to becoming permenant in the living expereince. the dual can live along side the non dual. its a paradox.

This takes me back what you had said earlier:
"as what one becomes open to and what one is merges".

I’ll try to approach this “the dual can live along side the non dual” from another angle (other than your Kundalini angle).

I posted a new Avatar picture not to mean the 4 directions nor the Buddha Families Mandala (teaching tools), but to depict our life situation as a Cross where the ‘horizontal and vertical dimensions’ meet.

Totality of ourselves consisting of 2 realities – the Absolute and the Relative.

*

The horizontal dimension is like our ordinary worldview. So the view is very dual. This and that. Focus is on form reality. Linear time.
To be a separate-self-identity one needs to emphasize this dualistic form-reality barrier, the gap between subject and object, the perceiver and the perceived.

Even though Buddhism teaches Anatta, here is the general view (from a book No Boundary by Ken Wilber, free download)
http://www.ebook3000.com/Ken-Wilber-...wth_84604.html

Something very simple happens when you answer the question, "Who are you?"
When you are describing or explaining or even just inwardly feeling your "self," what you are actually doing, whether you know it or not, is drawing a mental line or boundary across the whole field of your experience, and everything on the inside of that boundary you are feeling or calling your "self," while everything outside that boundary you feel to be "not-self."
Your self-identity, in other words, depends entirely upon where you draw that boundary line.

You are a human and not a chair, and you know that because you consciously or unconsciously draw a boundary line between humans and chairs, and are able to recognize your identity with the former. You may be a very tall human instead of a short one, and so you draw a mental line between tallness and shortness, and thus identify yourself as "tall."

You come to feel that "I am this and not that" by drawing a boundary line between "this" and "that" and then recognizing your identity with "this" and your non-identity with "that."
So when you say "my self," you draw a boundary line between what is you and what is not you.
When you answer the question, "Who are you?," you simply describe what’s on the inside of that line.

Now imagining the perceived worldview, when the boundary line of one's BEING drawn between this and that i.e. what is you and not-you include your ego only:
e·go·cen·tric
1. Holding the view that the ego is the centre, and norm of all experience.
2.a. Confined in attitude or interest to one's own needs or affairs.
b. Caring only about oneself; selfish.
3. Philosophy
a. Viewed or perceived from one's own mind as a centre.
b. Taking one's own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.

Egocentricity is very 2 dimensional and horizontal. (People might call this as "individual freedom").
The only suggestion here towards vertical is that "I am taller/whiter, more learned in sutras (whatever) than that which is not me" therefore I must be better, head above others because "I" is the first and foremost reference point for our awareness.
Ego-centeredness creates such a powerful mind-screen that everything classified as not-me becomes a mere mental object, a concept. Therefore everything perceived, in effect, is a projection.

*

But where is the centre for your BEING if you include the whole environment (All Forms and All Accommodating Space) into the size of “you” ….. your awareness?

*

Quoting myself
"When ‘identification’ is more with the spacious and empty, neutral, unmanufactured, vaaaaast awareness-space - which is spacious stillness, spacious silence enabled openness ……… then we really start hollowing out, emptying out from within also. Emptying out from the ‘centre of the small separate self id’ we have been boxed in".

Surrendering and Letting go of the mind & going beyond the mind can start at this point where the horizontal meets the vertical …….. a sense of presence or depth perception may start to develop ….

Just one idea, or suggestion to experiment with .....

*

[running]

Originally Posted by sentient

This takes me back what you had said earlier:
"as what one becomes open to and what one is merges".

I’ll try to approach this “the dual can live along side the non dual” from another angle (other than your Kundalini angle).

I posted a new Avatar picture not to mean the 4 directions nor the Buddha Families Mandala (teaching tools), but to depict our life situation as a Cross where the ‘horizontal and vertical dimensions’ meet.

Totality of ourselves consisting of 2 realities – the Absolute and the Relative.

*

The horizontal dimension is like our ordinary worldview. So the view is very dual. This and that. Focus is on form reality. Linear time.
To be a separate-self-identity one needs to emphasize this dualistic form-reality barrier, the gap between subject and object, the perceiver and the perceived.

Even though Buddhism teaches Anatta, here is the general view (from a book No Boundary by Ken Wilber, free download)
http://www.ebook3000.com/Ken-Wilber-...wth_84604.html


Now imagining the perceived worldview, when the boundary line of one's BEING drawn between this and that i.e. what is you and not-you include your ego only:
e·go·cen·tric
1. Holding the view that the ego is the centre, and norm of all experience.
2.a. Confined in attitude or interest to one's own needs or affairs.
b. Caring only about oneself; selfish.
3. Philosophy
a. Viewed or perceived from one's own mind as a centre.
b. Taking one's own self as the starting point in a philosophical system.

Egocentricity is very 2 dimensional and horizontal. (People might call this as "individual freedom").
The only suggestion here towards vertical is that "I am taller/whiter, more learned in sutras (whatever) than that which is not me" therefore I must be better, head above others because "I" is the first and foremost reference point for our awareness.
Ego-centeredness creates such a powerful mind-screen that everything classified as not-me becomes a mere mental object, a concept. Therefore everything perceived, in effect, is a projection.

*

But where is the centre for your BEING if you include the whole environment (All Forms and All Accommodating Space) into the size of “you” ….. your awareness?

*

Quoting myself
"When ‘identification’ is more with the spacious and empty, neutral, unmanufactured, vaaaaast awareness-space - which is spacious stillness, spacious silence enabled openness ……… then we really start hollowing out, emptying out from within also. Emptying out from the ‘centre of the small separate self id’ we have been boxed in".

Surrendering and Letting go of the mind & going beyond the mind can start at this point where the horizontal meets the vertical …….. a sense of presence or depth perception may start to develop ….

Just one idea, or suggestion to experiment with .....

*

you mentioned vertical and horizontal. got me thinking. in a real simple way of putting the nondual is another dimension that doesn't operate in the ones we are accustomed to. when opening to that the mind runs wild because it makes no sense. i think thats where the idea of having to be a nondual mind comes from. nothing can be further from the truth. that extra dimensional awareness because it is non dual has no issue with the dual. the mind sorts this out over time. then we become nornal again. in that we realize its ok with me. im ok with it. life goes on. lol.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by running

you mentioned vertical and horizontal. got me thinking.

ok.

in a real simple way of putting the nondual is another dimension that doesn't operate in the ones we are accustomed to.

Yeeeeaaaahh …. Other dimensional presence …

when opening to that the mind runs wild because it makes no sense. i think thats where the idea of having to be a nondual mind comes from. nothing can be further from the truth.

If sudden, 'a-shock-of-the-new perhaps?

that extra dimensional awareness because it is non dual has no issue with the dual.

Noooooo

the mind sorts this out over time. then we become nornal again. in that we realize its ok with me. im ok with it. life goes on. lol.

Awakening is the realization of timeless time in each moment of temporal activity. It is the moment that vertical time breaks through into horizontal or linear time, the absolute penetrating the relative. In Buddhist discourse it is also the moment of formless reality, called Dharmakaya, appearing as the Primal Vow of Amida (to benefit for all sentient beings).. in human consciousness.

They say …

*

[7luminaries]

There is a lot of good discussion here on the becoming or the being.
Specifically, on the individuated consciousness (each of us) opening to or becoming one with the causeless as being.
Even more specifically, perhaps just with regard to a particular non-dual aspect.

Yet, likewise, the causeless is foundational to all, both "dual" and "non-dual".
And, it is foundational both to the individual as being and as doing.
Likewise, as individuated consciousness, we open to and become one with the causeless as one being, in an integrated state.
As we awaken, all choice is conscious, present, centred, and illuminated. Meaning, we fully own and are responsible for all we are and do.
Including whether we choose OR do not choose to do, say, think, or intent this or that.

We are and do simultaneously from centre, from our causeless nature, and as individuated consciousness, we may simultaneously experience and acknowledge the experience of living in illumination from centre.
As we become, we simultaneous do. Both are manifest in us. We choose to do, just as we open to and allow or accept the becoming. Choosing is a conscious choice, just as non-choosing is also a conscious choice.

The further we go into the becoming, the more deeply we realise the beauty and power of doing. Of conscious choice in being and doing. The awakened becoming and the awakened doing. In clarity, presence, and illumination, in this moment, from centre.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by django

You don’t address emotions here, you say we are just choosing to keep our attention on mind and thoughts. You can choose to not attend to thoughts perhaps, but can you choose to not attend to emotions and stay psychologically healthy?

This is something I’ve been at for decades, IME clearing the mental and emotional channels does allow the wisdom mind stream to emerge.

Everything said or thought can be understood and acted on in different ways, some the opposite of each other. Like say the example of a child in a supermarket line throwing a loud temper tantrum because his or her mother won't let them get the candy that is on that display you have to pass to check out.

Imagine the child is screaming and stomping their feet and the poor mother is embarrassed, or maybe not if she does not care about such public displays, but then what is the mother's reaction?

The mother has several options, she can stop the tantrum and let the child have the candy, or she can yell at the child and threaten more physical punishment, which I have seen happen several times, and on and on.

The mother's thoughts and her relationship with those thoughts, her habits in thinking and acting, the patterns of thought and behaviors well worn in her body and mind, will determine the outcome. Present in all of that is the mothers understanding of the situation including her self awareness.

This is the original meaning of the word enlightenment, it related to self understanding. The belief in Buddhism, understanding at that level not only changes how everything is perceived and experienced, but that also frees one from the cycle of rebirth.

Obviously there are different levels of understanding, but even here understanding is related to intelligence and awareness and knowledge. Then these three things are related to experience and contemplating that experience, learning. Thus the need for rebirth.

Do all children throw tantrums when they see candy at the check out line? No they do not. I knew a "hippy" mom who taught her three sons from birth that sugar was bad and a poison. I babysat them once and asked them if they wanted candy when out getting a movie to watch. At the time, I did not know their mother had conditioned them in this way. They were young so the youngest was not talking yet, but the two older boys lectured me on how candy was bad and how I should never eat it.

So my guess would be children who throw tantrums for candy have probably been allowed to eat it before. Young children cannot understand why I could have it yesterday and not today. Last week and not this week. Also, the child has learned how to "punish" the parent to get what it wants. So the mother could be the root cause for the tantrum or whoever has taught the child candy is good and an possible option to get in that situation.

My point there is understanding, knowing all sides and aspects of a situation, who and how and what is happening, in any giver moment. Understanding the small details as well as the big ones. So it's more than having some rule like keep my attention off of thought or emotions. It's about self understanding and awareness.

We all are unique. Our bodies are unique. Our conditioning and experiences are unique. Even our souls themselves are unique. We have different skills, flaws, interests, and circumstances. But what is the same is we can strive to make something positive out of what we find ourselves to be and where we are. We can always bring more understanding and patience and love, for ourselves and others into each moment.

A lot of Buddhism points to the goal of liberation, to ending the cycle of rebirth. I would guess that means fully understanding ourselves. To have learned all we can learn here. But every single person has a different thing to work on and a different body, mind, and circumstance. Like I said, to learn requires experience, so that requires thousands on rebirths. I don't think spirituality or practice or religion is a one size fits all. One person may spend their whole life dealing with severe trauma and abuse they experienced in childhood, others may deal with severe tragedy, and others have none of this in their life and are born rich, nurtured and happy. So our path's are unique but they all lead to this experience and eventual understanding that frees us of a need for birth on this largely negative and violent physical plane.

I kind of wondered around the topic but tending to emotions, a huge deal for some people, not an issue for others at all, same with thoughts, huge deal for some, not an issue for others and everything in between. But none of these differences relate to how spiritual or enlightened a person is at all. We can't know that. A happy monk may be a new soul and a person suffering horrible experiences or addictions an old soul, no way to tell who is higher or lower as we all come here to learn individual things and for individual purposes.

[django]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Everything said or thought can be understood and acted on in different ways, some the opposite of each other. Like say the example of a child in a supermarket line throwing a loud temper tantrum because his or her mother won't let them get the candy that is on that display you have to pass to check out.

Imagine the child is screaming and stomping their feet and the poor mother is embarrassed, or maybe not if she does not care about such public displays, but then what is the mother's reaction?

The mother has several options, she can stop the tantrum and let the child have the candy, or she can yell at the child and threaten more physical punishment, which I have seen happen several times, and on and on.

The mother's thoughts and her relationship with those thoughts, her habits in thinking and acting, the patterns of thought and behaviors well worn in her body and mind, will determine the outcome. Present in all of that is the mothers understanding of the situation including her self awareness.

This is the original meaning of the word enlightenment, it related to self understanding. The belief in Buddhism, understanding at that level not only changes how everything is perceived and experienced, but that also frees one from the cycle of rebirth.

Obviously there are different levels of understanding, but even here understanding is related to intelligence and awareness and knowledge. Then these three things are related to experience and contemplating that experience, learning. Thus the need for rebirth.

Do all children throw tantrums when they see candy at the check out line? No they do not. I knew a "hippy" mom who taught her three sons from birth that sugar was bad and a poison. I babysat them once and asked them if they wanted candy when out getting a movie to watch. At the time, I did not know their mother had conditioned them in this way. They were young so the youngest was not talking yet, but the two older boys lectured me on how candy was bad and how I should never eat it.

So my guess would be children who throw tantrums for candy have probably been allowed to eat it before. Young children cannot understand why I could have it yesterday and not today. Last week and not this week. Also, the child has learned how to "punish" the parent to get what it wants. So the mother could be the root cause for the tantrum or whoever has taught the child candy is good and an possible option to get in that situation.

My point there is understanding, knowing all sides and aspects of a situation, who and how and what is happening, in any giver moment. Understanding the small details as well as the big ones. So it's more than having some rule like keep my attention off of thought or emotions. It's about self understanding and awareness.

We all are unique. Our bodies are unique. Our conditioning and experiences are unique. Even our souls themselves are unique. We have different skills, flaws, interests, and circumstances. But what is the same is we can strive to make something positive out of what we find ourselves to be and where we are. We can always bring more understanding and patience and love, for ourselves and others into each moment.

A lot of Buddhism points to the goal of liberation, to ending the cycle of rebirth. I would guess that means fully understanding ourselves. To have learned all we can learn here. But every single person has a different thing to work on and a different body, mind, and circumstance. Like I said, to learn requires experience, so that requires thousands on rebirths. I don't think spirituality or practice or religion is a one size fits all. One person may spend their whole life dealing with severe trauma and abuse they experienced in childhood, others may deal with severe tragedy, and others have none of this in their life and are born rich, nurtured and happy. So our path's are unique but they all lead to this experience and eventual understanding that frees us of a need for birth on this largely negative and violent physical plane.

I kind of wondered around the topic but tending to emotions, a huge deal for some people, not an issue for others at all, same with thoughts, huge deal for some, not an issue for others and everything in between. But none of these differences relate to how spiritual or enlightened a person is at all. We can't know that. A happy monk may be a new soul and a person suffering horrible experiences or addictions an old soul, no way to tell who is higher or lower as we all come here to learn individual things and for individual purposes.

I do see the need to remove conditionings, which I believe applies to all people -I perceive this as mental and emotional conditioning that needs to be removed.

Beyond this there is also karma of course.

I find myself fundamentally disagreeing with the idea that this is an intrinsically negative and violent plane, I would blame our mental and emotional distortions/obstructions, but I do believe they can be resolved. Once resolved we can operate from our Buddha nature, which I understand as the wisdom mind stream, life would look very different if people were operating from this level, which I honestly can imagine as a reality.

[Gem]

The basic dilemma with meditation is the undoing, and my teachers gave a number of analogies. One said you stop putting wood on the fire and the fire goes out when the remaining wood is spent. Another said it's like a wind up toy and if left alone it unwinds by itself. Another said you can wind up your watch, but you can't unwind your watch. To unwind it you simply stop winding it up. Another said it's like a twisted rubber band in a toy plane... you get the drift.



The underlying inquire is, how do we wind things up... and without going into a lengthy discourse, it is to find out how winding is done. I guess whatever meaning 'stop winding it up' implies is close enough.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by django

I find myself fundamentally disagreeing with the idea that this is an intrinsically negative and violent plane, I would blame our mental and emotional distortions/obstructions,

To me, animals are naturally self centered, possessive, territorial, competitive and all of that. We are animals of the mammal class. But then somebody can view animal behavior, like fighting, killing for food or territory etc not a negative or violent thing I suppose. To me it is violent and negative, even though it is natural or the given nature of things. But to me, that is the nature of this physical world.

I see positive as harmony. No violence, no conflict. Working together as a whole for the whole, which is not what animals do. Even plants compete for land and will kill each other as they struggle to survive. Some will poison and kill animals that try to feed off them. Many insects are violent as well.

Can animals go against the self centered animal nature? How and what goes against it? This leads to philosophy, religion, beliefs. Coming up with theories about what we are besides just an animal doing what animals are made to do. Fight and struggle to get it's needs met and live in a hostile competitive environment as a self centered competitive being.

Originally Posted by Gem

One said you stop putting wood on the fire

That could be the given, our animal nature, the putting the wood on the fire. Then you are saying there may be a way to rise above that in some way, saying you believe something exists that can end the putting of the wood on the fire.

[django]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

To me, animals are naturally self centered, possessive, territorial, competitive and all of that. We are animals of the mammal class. But then somebody can view animal behavior, like fighting, killing for food or territory etc not a negative or violent thing I suppose. To me it is violent and negative, even though it is natural or the given nature of things. But to me, that is the nature of this physical world.

I see positive as harmony. No violence, no conflict. Working together as a whole for the whole, which is not what animals do. Even plants compete for land and will kill each other as they struggle to survive. Some will poison and kill animals that try to feed off them. Many insects are violent as well.

Can animals go against the self centered animal nature? How and what goes against it? This leads to philosophy, religion, beliefs. Coming up with theories about what we are besides just an animal doing what animals are made to do. Fight and struggle to get it's needs met and live in a hostile competitive environment as a self centered competitive being.



That could be the given, our animal nature, the putting the wood on the fire. Then you are saying there may be a way to rise above that in some way, saying you believe something exists that can end the putting of the wood on the fire.

Everything (?) that I have come across in my path suggests that it is a fundamental point that we go beyond our ‘animal’ natures. I sometimes ponder why we are in this position, animalistic if you will, but called to go beyond this, but I never doubt the call, and I do everything I need to to follow what is in effect my personal (spiritual) evolution.