Trust.

[Iamit]

Niz refers to fast realization as Trust, and slow as Practise, and that either is appropriate depending on the character of the seeker. We know what he means by Practise but do we know what he means by Trust? Presumably each will know from own experience, how trusting they are.

Dictionary defines Trust as firm belief in reliablity or truth, and is quite close to Faith in this respect.

From our own experience what does it mean/or what determines whether we Trust, or not? Does it depend on , like much else, our conditioning/experience in life? and if so , if we have been let down a lot, can our ability to Trust be restored? if so how?

If our ability to Trust has been undermined , are we more likely to choose practise in the spiritual search rather than Trust? and is this a major determinant of why some choose Practise and others just Trust?

Also what Trusts? Is it resonance by the mind? Or is resonance separate from mind. Niz is silent on this as far as I know. When he was asked "What discovers?", he replied "The mind".

[Starman]

Maybe trust has something to do with surrender. Spiritual surrender is often compared to “letting go.” Maybe practice is all about practicing to trust, or undergoing a process that will open us to trust.

When I first learned how to meditate I did not trust not thinking. I thought I needed to think all the time and my guru was telling me to quiet my mind and stop thinking. It was contrary to what I had believed, and trusted, all my life.

Most people trust reasoning and logic and they do not trust realizations or epiphanies. To them it is like telling a person you had a vision. Most people trust objectivity and view subjective experiences as baseless.

So I think trust may have a lot to do with open-ness and not locked into any preconceived ideas. There are people who run from their realizations, as it is my opinion that most people prefer not to expand their awareness. In this regard ignorance is bliss.

[FallingLeaves]

trust is all very nice, but in the end all you can get through that path is what others are willing to give you. Simply trusting isn't reliable to get you to a particular end that you might want...

OTOH it is icky having to choose a particular end and have to practise to get there...

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by FallingLeaves

trust is all very nice, but in the end all you can get through that path is what others are willing to give you. Simply trusting isn't reliable to get you to a particular end that you might want...

OTOH it is icky having to choose a particular end and have to practise to get there...

If seekers dont buy into traditional propoganda, there is no problem acceptng the message from Niz about trusting that you are already what you seek, so that dissillusion/despair about practise is no obstacle at all, and may even put one in a most advantageous position to trust.

[sentient]

Deep down - ultimately I do not trust anybody whom I do not experience non-duality (with), and certainly would not trust a ‘guru’ with whom I wouldn’t have a non-dual connection.
Nondual awareness automatically is “Trust”.

*

[Unseeking Seeker]

***

The conceptual understanding of nonduality requires reinforcement by directly experiencing oneness. Thereafter, since attention still oscillates, even though having been and seen, the assimilation of the understanding takes time to consolidate ... unless the ‘awakening to’ is permanent, instantaneously.

Jiva (this mind body) unifying with Atma (soul) unifying with Paramatma (God/spirit). In meditational terms we may call the first step Turiya (impermanent Samadhi) and the second Turiyatita (permanent Samadhi). The wisdom is real and definitive whereas the knowledge is theoretical and bookish.

I’ll go with Starman in the understanding that words like trust, surrender, acceptance, allowing are similar terms wherein we lower our level of resistance to experiencing what is offered.

***

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

The conceptual understanding of nonduality requires reinforcement by directly experiencing oneness. Thereafter, since attention still oscillates, even though having been and seen, the assimilation of the understanding takes time to consolidate ... unless the ‘awakening to’ is permanent, instantaneously.

Jiva (this mind body) unifying with Atma (soul) unifying with Paramatma (God/spirit). In meditational terms we may call the first step Turiya (impermanent Samadhi) and the second Turiyatita (permanent Samadhi). The wisdom is real and definitive whereas the knowledge is theoretical and bookish.

I’ll go with Starman in the understanding that words like trust, surrender, acceptance, allowing are similar terms wherein we lower our level of resistance to experiencing what is offered.

***

Experiencing what another is experiencing is not available to us, so much so that even attempts at such judgments are very suspect, especially if coming from an opposing point of view.

[Unseeking Seeker]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Experiencing what another is experiencing is not available to us, so much so that even attempts at such judgments are very suspect, especially if coming from an opposing point of view.

***

There is no ‘opposing’ view, so to speak, in the search for truth. Each affirms as of his understanding. If the understanding is a direct experience, the convictions are stronger, being a direct knowing.

It is futile attempting to convince anyone to any view. Most people have rigid mind sets, more eager to be heard rather than listen.

***

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Unseeking Seeker

***

There is no ‘opposing’ view, so to speak, in the search for truth. Each affirms as of his understanding. If the understanding is a direct experience, the convictions are stronger, being a direct knowing.

It is futile attempting to convince anyone to any view. Most people have rigid mind sets, more eager to be heard rather than listen.

***

Yes so may it be accepted by tradition that experience of another cannot be known and therefore not regarded as inferior.

[sentient]

“Nonduality is the great dream which we awaken not from but to”.

Once Zhuang Zhou dreamed he was a butterfly, a butterfly flitting and fluttering around, happy with himself and doing as he pleased. He didn’t know he was Zhuang Zhou. Suddenly he woke up, and there he was, solid and unmistakable Zhuang Zhou. But he didn’t know if he were Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou. Between Zhuang Zhou and a butterfly, there must be some distinction! This is called the Transformation of Things.

Which one is superior – which one is inferior? Zhuang Zhou who had dreamed he was a butterfly or a butterfly dreaming he was Zhuang Zhou?

Or is there an egalitarian reference point – of no reference point, dreaming them both?

*