Back to Buddhist philosophy

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by JustBe

If one is aware and in the stillness, wouldn’t the expression be ‘all that arises in that stillness’ ...it’s not really about describing fleeting feelings in it, but rather expression of yourself as this.

And if this is so, I see it in myself as all expression integrated into that state of being.

If your ‘aware’ of what is moving through you more conscious of your own inner process, you would be ‘aware’ of yourself ‘aware’ and being that expression.

I’m not speaking of intellectual knowing, but integrated mind/body awareness as a whole person. It’s then not fleeting, not momentary, but consciously aware of yourself as emptiness and stillness without ‘thoughts’ as a whole movement of being you.

Once again, words become inadequate but I understand your point.

In this state, one is indeed very "aware of what is moving through you" and "being that expression" of knowing-without-thinking.

I agree that this is definitely NOT "intellectual knowing, but integrated mind/body awareness as a whole person". One gets glimpses of this initially but, eventually, as you indicated, "it's then not fleeting , not momentary".

Nicely put and, despite the inadequacy of words, your post is well-worded.

[Still_Waters]

Originally Posted by sky123

' When one tries to describe that stillness in words '

In moments of ' Stillness ' is there an observer who can later recall the experience and put it into words.....

That's a good question and I would say "not always".

It reminds me in a way of a Krishnamurti response to some one who asked him if he could repeat what he had just said. He responded that he could not repeat it because he did not know what he had just said.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

That's a good question and I would say "not always".

It reminds me in a way of a Krishnamurti response to some one who asked him if he could repeat what he had just said. He responded that he could not repeat it because he did not know what he had just said.

' He responded that he could not repeat it because he did not know what he had just said. '


I know the feeling

[sentient]

Originally Posted by JustBe

‘all that arises in that stillness’ ...

Beautiful.
Thank you for the reminder.

*

[sentient]

Originally Posted by sky123

In moments of ' Stillness ' is there an observer who can later recall the experience and put it into words.....

In the "deep now" there is no bell nor I - there is just ringing.

What might take 5 minutes in the “deep now”, might take 5 hours … 5 weeks, 5 months or years for the conscious awareness to try & explain … to put into words ...


*

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

That reminds me one time I needed to fill an arts requirement in college so I took a ceramic class only because it fit into my schedule and weirdly, having never done or tried such a thing before, once I started touching and forming clay, I could make pretty much anything. Horses, dogs, people, and the teacher kept telling me I was making replica's of ancient Egyptian pottery and sculpture. One time he told me I made the Egyptian Pharaoh God Anubis when at that time, I had no idea what or who that was. No matter what the assignment was, it always ended up looking like some old historical thing. I would just start moving the clay around and as stuff appeared to me I would keep refining it not really sure where it was going.

It's also odd that I tried other art classes like painting and drawing and could not pick it up at all. I was worse person in my drawing class. A past life in Egypt doing pottery and sculpture could explain it. I made some amazing pieces but something always seemed to happen to them that destroyed them. Like I made this huge pot with figures all around it, then the guy who carried the stuff to the kiln dropped it and it shattered in a zillion pieces. I was living at home at the time and my mother destroyed a lot of them while cleaning. So I never pursued the skill as I found the fragile nature of the dried clay frustrating. I bet the art studios in ancient Egypt were better to work in than some jr college with 500 18 year olds touching your stuff while it waited it's turn to be fired in the kiln crammed in with 40 other student pieces.

Yeah, some of that kind of stuff I consider coming from past lives.

It is a bit like motor skills. You, or rather your body/mind knows something – yet your mind as conscious awareness didn’t have a clue.
Perhaps one could say that it is an 'energy-body pattern'.

Sometimes, when your ‘energy-body’ i.e. your subconscious becomes aware of something ….. it might take some time playing with clay or sketching to draw it out – to bring that subconscious knowing into conscious awareness … to bring it into words.

*

[sentient]

Going back a bit …

Originally Posted by sentient:

In the beginning, since awareness did not recognize its true nature - Samsara began. So Hinayana path to liberation or Nirvana starts from Ignorance.

v

Once we re-discover ‘egolessness’ , non-self and the absence of the dual barrier Shunyata all of the above can be re-introduced in Tantra, but from an entirely different perspective.

I’ll just sketch the other (Tantric) side of things ….

Since awareness did recognize its true nature, or awareness cognized itself – there is cognition of the Beginless, the ‘Unborn’ – the 'Primordial Buddha' – 'Dharmadhatu' …. (I may not know exact expressions ….)

So. Instead of the 5 Skandhas: form (or material image, impression), sensations (or feelings, received from form), perceptions, mental activity or formations, and consciousness that resulted in the false idea of self (independently existing and separate from world) …… they (the 5 heaps or aggregates) now manifest as 5 Wisdoms.

Both 'Samsara' (with the 5 Skandhas) and ‘Nirvana’ (with the 5 Wisdoms) can be expressed as a Mandala.

There is a big difference, whether ‘we’ operate from The Groundless Ground, The All-Encompassing Space – Dharmadhatu perspective or the separate from the world “me” perspective.

https://i1.wp.com/mandala-of-love.co...g?w=1024&ssl=1

From:
https://mandala-of-love.com/2019/12/...-rupa-skandha/

*

[JustBe]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

Once again, words become inadequate but I understand your point.

In this state, one is indeed very "aware of what is moving through you" and "being that expression" of knowing-without-thinking.

I agree that this is definitely NOT "intellectual knowing, but integrated mind/body awareness as a whole person". One gets glimpses of this initially but, eventually, as you indicated, "it's then not fleeting , not momentary".

Nicely put and, despite the inadequacy of words, your post is well-worded.

Words never fail me�� Its what we contain in words that contains the expression, then we see words for words..
��


I just want to add, it’s more for me now, a ‘spontaneous’ arising of myself being me, not contained or thought about, but rather a deep trust in myself aware I’m no longer contained.

In this way there are a whole host of integrative processes one can attain through to deepen this awareness.

As I’ve mentioned previously, no fear, no judge, no pressure to perform better than, worse than.. etc etc..I suppose you would and could say, it all falls back into complete acceptance, as an inward reflected movement aware. So in this way, it all falls into an integrative aware being expressing, without containment, everything they have become in this integrative process.

And as for fleeting or momentary glimpses, practice doesn’t make you perfect, awareness and the integration process of all things you are, through realisation, allows you to be true to you, grounded in your being in a more balanced ongoing state. In this way it’s ‘your way’ of being.

And this only comes through mindful self reflective practice in all things that stir that process in you.

[Phaelyn]

Oh I can have fun thinking about these ideas:

Originally Posted by sky123

' When one tries to describe that stillness in words '

But I don't think "that" can be put into words. Because what "that" is is me being aware of the formation or presence of words without a "person" there to add it's own. The perceiver or "I" or "me" is free of words, is not conceptually "producing" them or identified with them, it is merely noticing them (non-verbal noticing) if they are there, but because I am not reacting or interpreting with my own, because I am not interpreting conceptually with words or the base or root of a thought or word based entity or "person," but instead am "interpretating" directly, experientially. I know myself experientially to be clear of the effects of these words which may or may not be there, know experientially I am not connected or identified, not conceptually connected as any "concept" I may be entertaining would make me a conceptual interpreter again and I would then be no longer experiencing directly but would instead be experiencing through a filter of mind, through a interpretation of mind. To "personally" connect with any idea would route me again through the "person" and it's bias, its conditioning, it's individual point of view. Though all have a point of view, but it's source is either the person, which is a delusional mind built fantasy or the unconditioned self which is perceived as no different from any other. It is clear perception, that's all and my clear perception would be no different from yours. It could not be.

Originally Posted by sky123

In moments of ' Stillness ' is there an observer who can later recall the experience and put it into words.....

If one knows it as "something," that "something" is only a thought, or group of thoughts if one is spending that much energy...so there it may be the word "stillness" or any other word or a bunch of words forming a phrase or sentence or even a paragraph or more. "It" is an experience and never a word or an idea. One can not put an ocean into a jar. Reduce what that experience is to a word or words. Really there is no real relationship between any concept of something and the thing itself. But it's like a map of Texas has "some" relationship with the actual Texas one can experience, likewise a concept of something gives one a mental image based "experience" which to a normal person, can be imagined to be the same.

One part of us, our mental conceptual formations do see the "real Texas" in the mental Texas because that "mental" area is a self enclosed, self defining box. An idea cannot see beyond itself. One cannot use thought to imagine a thoughtless state. The non-conceptual cannot be imagined because anything imagined is a concept. How then? "How" is the addition of a mental image to now. Get rid of the how? That is imagining a person who could do such a thing to such a thing. Where in reality is this non-conceptual? How will you ever know or find it looking for it mentally? How does one know one is "enlightened" or "liberated" if one does not know what those actually are? If one knows what they are, that knowledge is a concept. If one believes one has or is realized in such things, they can't be as "things" there are ideas. Non-conceptual has no ideas to see though. It sees directly.

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

That's a good question and I would say "not always".

It reminds me in a way of a Krishnamurti response to some one who asked him if he could repeat what he had just said. He responded that he could not repeat it because he did not know what he had just said.

I can put an experience into words, but where is the experience in the words? Can somebody experience drinking ice water with words only? With no actual glass with cold water in it? What are we really doing when we say, we are putting an experience into words? We are using the imagination. Scientists say the brain a lot of the time does not distinguish between a real experience or an imagined one. It reacts as if both are real. If it didn't, we would never enjoy a scary movie. We get scared looking at a 2d or 3d image of pictures strung together. But words can point to an experience.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

Oh I can have fun thinking about these ideas:



But I don't think "that" can be put into words. Because what "that" is is me being aware of the formation or presence of words without a "person" there to add it's own. The perceiver or "I" or "me" is free of words, is not conceptually "producing" them or identified with them, it is merely noticing them (non-verbal noticing) if they are there, but because I am not reacting or interpreting with my own, because I am not interpreting conceptually with words or the base or root of a thought or word based entity or "person," but instead am "interpretating" directly, experientially. I know myself experientially to be clear of the effects of these words which may or may not be there, know experientially I am not connected or identified, not conceptually connected as any "concept" I may be entertaining would make me a conceptual interpreter again and I would then be no longer experiencing directly but would instead be experiencing through a filter of mind, through a interpretation of mind. To "personally" connect with any idea would route me again through the "person" and it's bias, its conditioning, it's individual point of view. Though all have a point of view, but it's source is either the person, which is a delusional mind built fantasy or the unconditioned self which is perceived as no different from any other. It is clear perception, that's all and my clear perception would be no different from yours. It could not be.



If one knows it as "something," that "something" is only a thought, or group of thoughts if one is spending that much energy...so there it may be the word "stillness" or any other word or a bunch of words forming a phrase or sentence or even a paragraph or more. "It" is an experience and never a word or an idea. One can not put an ocean into a jar. Reduce what that experience is to a word or words. Really there is no real relationship between any concept of something and the thing itself. But it's like a map of Texas has "some" relationship with the actual Texas one can experience, likewise a concept of something gives one a mental image based "experience" which to a normal person, can be imagined to be the same.

One part of us, our mental conceptual formations do see the "real Texas" in the mental Texas because that "mental" area is a self enclosed, self defining box. An idea cannot see beyond itself. One cannot use thought to imagine a thoughtless state. The non-conceptual cannot be imagined because anything imagined is a concept. How then? "How" is the addition of a mental image to now. Get rid of the how? That is imagining a person who could do such a thing to such a thing. Where in reality is this non-conceptual? How will you ever know or find it looking for it mentally? How does one know one is "enlightened" or "liberated" if one does not know what those actually are? If one knows what they are, that knowledge is a concept. If one believes one has or is realized in such things, they can't be as "things" there are ideas. Non-conceptual has no ideas to see though. It sees directly.



I can put an experience into words, but where is the experience in the words? Can somebody experience drinking ice water with words only? With no actual glass with cold water in it? What are we really doing when we say, we are putting an experience into words? We are using the imagination. Scientists say the brain a lot of the time does not distinguish between a real experience or an imagined one. It reacts as if both are real. If it didn't, we would never enjoy a scary movie. We get scared looking at a 2d or 3d image of pictures strung together. But words can point to an experience.

I would say putting an experience into words is using the Memory not imagination...