kbone

Where do you live or where have you traveled? You look exceptionally familiar.

Noice. From the stand point of Realization, one could engage the mind and say, God IS. Apparent thought is ITs mind. Apparent reality is ITs body. Sometimes the simplicity is just too damn simple for the mind, especially when it is ignorant of its Source and almost miraculously unaware of its entanglement with appearances (all a matter of degree, and it's OK to go unconscious.... it's what makes up the tragio-comic drama). As such, paradoxes can ALWAYS be seen as entanglements in the mind.

I've stated this point more or less word for word elsewhere, and have also expressed it has Awareness (stillness) in/as which Consciousness (movement) appears/happens (i.e., Conscious of the Movement). This is also what I mean by being conscious of when the mind is engaged. So, perception is creation (movement), which is how an ingenious friend of mine stated it. It does indeed seem like splitting hairs, but for any peep who practices meditation with the 'goal' of transcending mind (such a rascal ), it can be a subtlety that points to their emotional 'annoyance' as to why realization doesn't happen. Realization is acausal, and contemplation, logic, meditation, taking medicines, hanging out in nature, and other such practices might make one more prone, but cannot 'make' the final tip of the existential scale. Only IT can make that 'happen'. God (Stillness) just keeps on Godding (Movement), hehe.

So, do you think Heraclitus ever realized what the Zennies (like Huang Po) point to? Just asking for an opinion, of course. So, your ongoing argument seems heavily influenced by/aligned with his idea of the self as being real, which might also imply that you also agree with his idea/belief in perpetual rebirth. That surely sounds 'limited'. Perhaps you can clarify what you mean by the words self, rebirth, and real/reality, existentially speaking. Heraclitus was more focused on the 'outer' appearing existence, (maybe from the stand point of being Realized) ... 'the unfolding', rather than the Zen focus on the 'inner' dynamics which might give rise to 'suffering' (for practitioners of Zen who are seeking from the stand point of 'unrealized'). That is, though they have many similarities, the philo of the Greeks tended more towards stating what reality and its structure is, rather than point to and provide admonitions for (re-)discovering/uncovering/re-cognizing that which is immediately realizable right Here, right now. In this approach to the discussion, I am not 'taking sides', but more or less see where the ways of thinking likely meet and what the resolution offers. I mostly just see them as same same. but different expressions, don't get lost in the details, and feel at peace where wisdom emerges. But, you've stated that the Zennies are more limited. I'm thinking that conclusion may just arise from a misunderstanding of the theoretical 'goal', and misses the contemplated appreciation of the contextual outcomes pointed to in the Zen stories of spontaneity or bare bones expressions. That might shed light on your consistent appeals for a very rational approach and the very logical nature of your expressed jnani approach focused on limited versus unlimited.

The search requires a LOT of 'missing the mark' (i.e., sin). Forward.

That's more or less what I said. The 'form is formless, formlessness is form' realization is easily a deeper and inclusive of nothingness. Sometimes, teachings intending to help beginning meditators or seekers focus their minds less on the 'everyday' objects/objectives in which the left-brained intellect is constantly engaged, choppy, and in solid control, might try to get them to shift their attention. A lot of the approach you advocate is engaging that aspect of the mind, rather than the right-brain (which you allude to indirectly). Check out a TED video by Jill Bolte-Taylor in which she describes her stroke experience. It has some clues.

I understand that and am open to it, yes.

Oh, sure, one can be very wrong. If they get knocked down by such wrong decisions or reach a dead end in their search, the mind is put on notice. If open, even a wee bit, they may get up and/or try a different way. If closed, stagnation starts to set in. Typically, mind can only handle that for so long until it gets up off its ass and tries something else. It's a relative thing, of course. @Davino is making guesses about people he knows close to nothing about based on his his mind's (with all its supercharged 5meo self knowledge-bearing experiences) interpretations, maybe even hoping he's right. Doesn't matter, like at all.

Aaah, OK. Yeah, those are better questions.

You can think whatever you want to think, reason whatever you want to reason, judge whatever you want to judge, etc. Paint the picture; see what you want to see...

Does what do what?

I understand your desire to explore Ralston. How about this... state and label what you find interesting, constructive, valid, revealing etc about Ralston's message. Those statements will provide springboards into the more in depth discussion you are seeking. The focal context will invite debate, rather than invite sweeping approvals or condemnations: you want the former, Breaking wants the latter, but you both want to flesh it out.

Tranquiiilo. But sure, finding and trusting the only 'guru' you really 'know' is a massive milestone. The return to the market place is a strange one, indeed. Now you know why Jesus went on the rampage flipping tables at the temple, hehe.

Very telling. I wonder what Ralston would say about many of the posts you (seemingly unconsciously) write. Would you want that kind of attention?

I'll eventually get around to listening to Ralston's expression more, but maybe there's a point to be made. Not sure if Ralston distinguishes this or not, but this mind might express that people are seeking a transcendent experience, and they may/may not follow it/them to its most trans-rational, trans-logical end... into the realization of the NOTHINGNESS you speak of. Yes, that is the realization of the formlessness. It is neither necessary, nor guaranteed, nor even likely that that 'penultimate goal' of seeking will emerge. Dunno. A lot of it depends on the existential necessity arising, or so it seems. Here's where @Breakingthewall feels the rub, and that's fine. Most 'teachers' in the various schools of unlearning, at least the one's worth listening to, are teaching to those that are seeking to transcend. The NOTHINGNESS is not the end all be all. In fact, when listening to certain teachers, one has to be aware of whether or not they get stuck and attached to nothingness, in which case the mind has taken credit for realization (as in, my seeking caused/succeeded in finding and now I'm gonna teach the only path, I'm special, everyone else is just dumb and blind... I alone hold the truth, so drink up). Breaking calls this 'limited', because it is. After the realization of NOTHINGNESS (i.e., infinite potentiality, fully pregnant as Beingness), things get even weirder as one grapples with the complexities of informing mind as one uses it to re-engage the world as it is unfolding. During that process, many/most will become enraptured by and attached to freedom itself. They get stuck in the returning phase. Only those that make it fully through this phase are said to be 'enightened'. Typically, there are certain nuances and qualities in the expression that can be intuited if one KNOWS how.

Many here ascribe to the notion that 'all is consciousness', including Ralston, the apparent teacher in question. So, any mention of 'more consciousness' would logically mean that they are lacking the 'needed consciousness' to understand the 'All'. The mind often reverts to amount, a quantity, rather than peel back into the layers of quality, all the way into the NOTHINGNESS to which is pointed. Once realized, only then can one begin to grapple with the mind's protests. You assume Ralston has never done psychedelics when it says on his webpage that he shacked up in Berkley, which is basically the Mecca of psychedlic studies in the US. So, there's that. Psychedelics can be useful for breaking down unconscious, misconceived barriers firmly entrenched in the mind, and these may be conducive to deep insights and profound experiences. No probs. But, they do not 'cause' Truth (or it's Realization), nor do they 'cause' enlightenment. Those are realized in the 'acausal' realm of/as existence. Sure, if you take them, you may experience profound states of consciousness, but that's just mind stuff. All good and fun/terrifying. Psychonauts, if caught up in their delusions, tend to get stuck there by the well, reaching into it again and again, looking for something they think they are missing.

What direction is that, exactly? Is it comforting drama, or is it providing the mind with contexts for penetrating perceived boundaries?

May they help you find what you're looking for. Insha'Allah.

'Increasing consciousness' tends to inspire a little giggle, if ya know what I mean. But yeah, I can understand why the psychonauts tend to think drugs 'causes more' of it, or that taking them is required 'to get it'.

tl;dr (sawwy) I typically don't 'take up for someone', as usually what happens in convos is that someone is exploring the boundaries that are appearing in the mind as thoughts/questions. But, rather than simply state the thought-judgment that comes to the mind like you have here, I like to see where a poster is pointing. After all, language is an abstraction used to convey meaning, which does not happen in a vaccum. From what I can tell, @Breakingthewall is very authentic, more than most, anyway. Filtered through this mind, what's noticed is that s/he is attempting to express what is necessarily unexplainable. I suspect that s/he has had a very profound experience of sorts that has completely turned everything that was previously believed on its head, and their mind is now coming to grips with the nuances of it. S/he is very methodically going through the steps of what I call 'cleaning house'. It is absolutely necessary after getting a glimpse of the Truth that has been pointed to for thousands of years. To become grounded in/as Truth is to come to terms with what comes and goes, is simply worldly cause-and-effect, what is impermanent, and so on and so forth versus what is absolutely true. Part of that involves being tired of hearing all the platitudes, one-liners, and repetitive vocabulary that often gets bandied about like it is free candy without penetrating the meaning of THAT to which they refer. That can be especially annoying to a VERY sincere mind when you have the little cliques of guru worship and hierarchies that get started in those little groups of online, anonymous palace warriors that want to be associated with the ordained ruler of some lost huddled mass. What was also interesting was that the only other person who I have kinda snorta 'seen' as a peep in the similar mindset coming to offer her support. When @Princess Arabia chimed in, I simply thought, 'Of course', which is why I mentioned the ZPD dealio in my previous post. As I've mentioned to her, she reminds me a good bit of my self, when it was going through the same period... at least from what I could tell by the words, thoughts shared, and (some) perspectives offered. As such, when Breaking recently shared their story of sailing/motorcycling, I could easily relate to the 'intensity' of the journey. It was easier to inhabit some of the shared emotional upheavals that are often encountered when going through the dark night period. Neither of these two have expressed anything that would necessitate the various rocks that have been caste via this thread, though it's quite easy to see where such judgments come from. Peeps like to throw rocks and crucify for various reasons. Most are not willing or brave enough to go through that dark night. I am always happy to see those that were/are willing. There's even more joy to chance upon the occasional, even rarer individuation that have found it to this precipice, staring out across the infinite, maybe with that telling little grin that might be expressed as a job well done.

Most people will begin by seeking something 'else', because they want some thing, life, circumstance, state, etc that is better than what they think they have now. It's mostly self-help and placing the idealized person on the altar, praying for what they want to be. If that's the case for anyone, so be it; but just be honest with your self and take full responsibility. After all, your supposed best thinking got you to exactly where you are right now. Only a few will open up enough to allow what they are actually seeking to emerge.

When 'actually' communicating, there's always going to be a certain degree of 'negotiation of meaning'. Sometimes people use different words to refer to the same thing. Furthermore, a lot of the pointing used to 'teach' can only be understood within the depths of one's Zone of Proximal Development (Vygotsky). Disclaimer: I haven't watched the vids, but I have a purddy good idea of where a decent chunk of the miscommunication, misunderstandings, and/or preferences show up. It's been going on for, historically, thousands of years. Rehashing the the Sufi tale... ______ A Persian, a Turk, an Arab and a Greek were traveling to a distant land when they began arguing over how to spend the single coin they possessed among themselves. All four craved food, but the Persian wanted to spend the coin on angur; the Turk, on uzum; the Arab, on inab; and the Greek, on stafil. The argument became heated as each man insisted on having what he desired. A linguist passing by overheard their quarrel. “Give the coin to me,” he said. “I undertake to satisfy the desires of all of you.” Taking the coin, the linguist went to a nearby shop and bought four small bunches of grapes. He then returned to the men and gave them each a bunch. “This is my angur!” cried the Persian. “But this is what I call uzum,” replied the Turk. “You have bought me my inab,” the Arab said. “No! This in my language is stafil.” All of a sudden, the men realized that what each of them had desired was in fact the same thing, only they did not know how to express themselves to each other. _______ Here are some key ways grapes and wine are used in Sufi symbolism: (from AI in the Sky) Spiritual Transformation/Purification: The process of turning grapes into wine, through fermentation, symbolizes the spiritual journey and the purification that comes from actively progressing along the Sufi path. Divine Intoxication/Ecstasy: Wine represents the spiritual rapture or divine intoxication experienced in love and connection with God. This ecstatic state is a metaphorical "spiritual" experience. Hidden Truth: The symbolic use of wine can also serve as a way to convey profound spiritual truths in a way that is not always easily understood by those who are not prepared for these experiences, potentially preventing unintended side effects or "divine madness". Unity of Religions: Grapes can also represent the common essence or underlying truth shared by different religions, even if their outward practices differ. In the end, only Truth (call it what you will) will set one free. Of course, by the time it is apprehended and the mind is fully informed and integrated, it will have rolled over and crushed a majority (if not all) of whatever 'truths and/or perceived facts' one hold's dear. But no worries, the clarity of what appears in/as one's life will make it worthwhile. Welp, at least that's how this mind appreciates it. It is what it is.

Yes, logical deduction. Existence is. Beyond that expression is fine, but many tend to veer off into greater and greater abstraction in order to facilitate the mind's limited understanding. I do understand what you are saying about 're-'flection and the ideas of forms that you are alluding to with respect to Platonian thought. I'm sure Rumi would understand, too. Many of the Sufi's were steeped in Greek thought. I dig'em. Any seeker of Truth is transcending the boundaries you speak of. Even when the individuation has apprehended Truth, it still takes time to inform the mind of its limitations. I use the term 'mind' as someone's capacity to think personally, impersonally, transpersonally, existentially. I suppose I might capitalize it as 'Mind' to emphasize the more transpersonal/existential, though I am aware that some peeps hate that kinda device. Whatevs... When I say 'Perfectly so", I mean so in the same way. It is what it is, and the mind's functions have inherent limitations though what's Realizable is unlimited... Perfectly so.

Fair enough if you want to give that kind of answer to a mind that is asking such question. The next how/why will pop up immediately after that. The mind is insatiable. Perhaps I should have stated that any how/why question about Truth is (in essence) misconceived. The way I see it, in order to fully appreciate the answers you gave, one would have to have at least transcended the typical mindset of cause-and-effect. Whether or not one would need to fully realize what has been pointed to for thousands of years as "Unlimited/Infinite/God/Consciousness/This/etc etc etc" before fully appreciating the answer is debatable, I guess, but what would be the point. I understand what you are saying. What you call 'unlimited' (adjective/noun) is your expression for what other people might refer to with other words, and that is perfectly fine. You do a great job of fleshing out your perspective in what I assume is your second language (at least). ¿Eres un Madrileño? You are very emphatic about aspects of your expression, which I think it to do just that, EMPHASIZE, and it does help me understand/respect what you are attempting to convey as a depth,,, as words simply do not do it justice. That is often why I say the "Realization" is beyond/prior to mind, as it seemingly is of a depth that transcends and includes the appearing world... (words, thoughts, the air we breathe, the love and horrors we experience, the majesties of the universe, etc etc etc).