kbone

It certainly seems advantageous to not personify god, imagine a personal god, or otherwise if one is in the more 'advanced' stages of being honest. Slippery slope and/or a back door for mind to come in and obscure the innate clarity via the domino effect of abstract thinking. It's kind of like what is said about telling a lie, and what one has to do to keep propping it up. "A lie is like a snowball: the further you roll it, the bigger it gets." ~Martin Luther Peeps use the word 'god' in all sorts of ways, and I've even heard peeps arguing for and against god in a way that they were talking right past each other, not even aware that they kinda snorta were actually 'idealizing' the same dealio. Some people have auditory problems and can't hear well. Others have listening problems simply because they are lost in their mind-driven ideals. It happens. Pay attention, be aware of when you have engaged the mind, and know that once you have done so, you have entered into the dualistic world of probability, communication, interpretation, relationship, cause/effect, etc.

Are you stating predeterminism is real, then? Slippery slope.

You sound upset, and maybe even a little confused between what states are versus what realization is. I could be wrong, but it's just how the post sounded. Psychedelics can have their value, but they can't ground you in the present with an innate gratitude. Quite often, people feel the need to persistently seek such gratitude via the use of such medicines. Metaphorically, crutches also have functional value, but if you feel the need to use them even though you can walk without them just fine, one might notice the psychological component of the dynamic.

That video more or less aligned with my general stance with the use of psychedelics. It talks about the potentials and the limitations. Thanks for sharing.

🎯

🎯

I'm perfectly willing to give you a number of historical and comparative linguistic anecdotes that could shed some light, if that's what you are looking for. Only for certain kinds of minds think they are interesting and/or relevant, and I don't wanna bore you or anyone. I've literally been told to shut up on a message board dedicated to non-duality when bringing up such things about the English and proto-Indo-European languages. He didn't assume (as I did) that because people thought in language and pictures, that those meaningful/logical aspects of mind might be part of what arose as confusion and obscuring thoughts, hehe. PS: I really like your essay and subsequent discussion with Jinzo on "existence-explained". Great stuff. You have a gift for putting things into words.

As for the thread title, "Why you don't live in the world / But in the Source", I'd poke at it like this... and with all due respect. @James123 is steadfast, direct, and a loving dream-character in my book. What is initially realized is profound, and often initiates the utter collapse of the entire thought structure previously understood by the mind as reality. Once the dust settles, the realization seems to point to the mind-based fact that, conceptually speaking, reality is in/of the world (i.e., existence), and what was/is Realized is inclusive of reality. This gives rise to the idea of illusion, perhaps, as if what is perceived is NOT the entire reality (such a problematic word, hehe). This, neurologically speaking, is the left-brained/logical expression, which is limited... still. The integration that is often alluded to, is to employ the right-brain, in the embodiment process in "the return". This latter part, the complete integration 'after the return', is what Zen Masters would be testing for (See: koans, Zen stories between master and monks, etc.... they can get pretty extreme, AND why they often gravitate around paradoxes - which are always born of the thinking mind, and not the open mind-heart). 'Together', they are what the Sino-Japanese character for mind pointed to ( 心 ). To add a further twist for students of the language, the exact same character is used for heart. Ch'an/Zen pointed to the full-on realization of (capitalized in order to distinguish) One Mind ( 一心, '一' means one or united), as the source of all that exists. Even that superficial understanding does not grasp the grasplessness of it, of course, as there were never 'two' to be united (which is the realization of 'not two'- non-duality). Some called it the Void, due to ITS inexplicable nature, beyond words, concepts.... mind.... IT is not a thing, but THAT in which all existence arises. Pisses the mind off during the search, hehe. So, how would I write the title? It would probably depend on the context, inclusive of the peep spoken to, the prior discussion/context, the goal of the interaction, the intensity of the peep, etc. But here are a few to tinker with: +Why you don't live in the world, but are in/as Source +Why you live in the world, but are not necessarily of it (Refers to the Bible, while not a direct quote, John 17, where he prayed for his followers, emphasizing that they are in the world but not of it) + Why the world is in the Source, but not necessarily of it Depending on the context (again), I might even go to the extreme Advaita Vedanta that Ramana or Niz often used, and say there is no 'you', but YOU in which existence unfolds. Lots of expressions.... All of this, it appears, James has realized, but he can chime in if he'd like. On a more inquisitive and then somber note: This may allude to reasons why when during conversations, many cultures, when referring to "me", will often point to their chest (heart). Interestingly, when the Japanese do the same gesture, they point at their face (which is how most are remembered by 'other people'). However, when committing suicide, statistics show that three times more people will shoot themselves in the head (mind) than in the heart. Hmmm...

Roight.

True dat; I've always been in awe of the spectacle. Gratitude. Sure, life can be difficult. What do you mean by "conquering myself"? Great soliloquy in a cool movie. Evidently Rutger ad libed that scene. Solid.

Going for a hike?

Correction: Now, go ahead, go unconscious, lash out, judge, and project. We're all watching. Live the lie. Going for a Sunday hike. Enjoy your self.

I was poor and living under the poverty line for 8-10 years. The Himalayas was where I could live on US$80-150/month, while also living in nature, away from the huddled masses. My mind was an absolute wreck from all the unconscious bullshit nonsense I had lived, believed, and acquired as my sense of self. Yes, I was a fucking needy, whiny, bitchy liar. Neither the Himalayas nor the speerchal nonsense that most consider sacred in sub-continent or in the Far East are going to help you. Only self-honesty and a pristine intense willingness to dig in and look are needed. You have neither. Now, go ahead, go unconscious and lash out and judge. We're all watching. Live the lie.

Yes, that is a very good question. Ramana boiled it down very well in that respect.

You're dishonest and a liar. Clearly. Good bye.

NOTHINGNESS is a tough one for the mind to "conceive", because the mind is always limited by what it can imagine. The word is just a pointer, not an actuality, not the 'thing' itself (don't eat the menu, and think you've tasted the meal). It has been said, even by physicists, that "absolute nothingness" is not possible, as there is always "something" present/happening at the quantum level. The same could be said for "prior to mind", as the subconscious is always bubbling stuff up. The same could be said for the realization, as there's always continuity thereafter. In their clearest renditions, they consistently point to the "absolute vacuum/nothingness/emptiness" as the greatest (i.e., infinite) potential. Mind is only the surface of a vastness that must be realized. Do what you will, but Truth will call in any number of ways, and the mind will react. If the mind is the master, what you think you are will wander in aimlessly in circles and loops marking out familiar, repetitive patterns until, welp, whenever it decides it has had enough. Only then does it get interesting.

I've met you with what you have presented in the discussion. I saw value in what you were sharing, though perhaps I should have read more.... you've said a lot, and I've only read a small sample. 1) Support for you theory and intensity was stated, and some basic context was provided (that again, supported your theory). You liked it, and wanted to talk more. 2) When mostly agreed upon, but then questioned and prodded, you cried condescension. 3) When even more personal context was provided that continued to support your theory, you said it sounded emotional (i.e., not phase 2 [after the power and delusion of the mind have been transcended] -returning to 'physical reality', rooting as omnipresent awareness, understanding the power of the heart in "ordinary life"). 4) Using your label of "emotional", it was noticed that you were unconscious of "the heart", I pointed out where that might originate from. You went further unconscious and started complaining about why I brought up your potential psychological stuff (i.e., unconscious emotional BARRIERS). Then shared a heart-wrenching story, which I acknowledged in alignment with your perception of it. 5) I asked you to take responsibility for "going there", and you went even further unconscious and now you are acting like your father, but with the ironic twist of labeling a perceived, unknown "other" as your father (the narcissist). Also, at your request, I focused almost the entire post on how "mind" is a tricky word in ancient Chinese, and how it must be penetrated, bot just read at some basic face value. But you're entire answer became very personal, and said absolutely ZERO about Zen/Huang Po or anything objective. And now you are "hoping" I become miserable with my life and my wife as you are "absolutely sure" I have not understood you even after I have supported you, provided context for your theory, and have continued to meet you on your terms. This is indicative of a hall of mirrors, to be sure. This is the split-mind in action. It's typical for 'strictly and presently' left-brained theorists (hyper rational) to resort to ad hominem attacks (hyper emotional) when their theory starts to get exposed as questionable. Are you conscious of what is unfolding here? Your theory is purddy dang good, but you haven't actually realized what it is alluding to or are just in the progress of seeing it through (i.e., the wall). But let's be clear, if you no longer "like me", I get it, and that's perfectly OK. The words on the page are all you have to go by, and you know nothing about my day-to-day reality, though it appears you seek others that are miserable, intense, and seeking to break the walls. That's cool; it can add to the intensity. In my experience, the journey does draaaaaiiiiiiin every last bit of energy, hope, and desire. There's no escape, but the mind will try over and over and over to conjure one. If you'd like to continue to project your hatred onto me, I am at your service. It might actually help. But one day, it may come to pass, that you might even find it in your heart of hearts to forgive... yes, even "that guy" whose voice, attitude, and condescension has taken root in the mind, echoing an unconscious sense of self (Suggestion: Study the simple Drama Triangle model -see below-, and then watch the movie Good Will Hunting a few times). In the model, most people will either see themselves as the rescuer/saviour or the victim, but rarely as the persecutor. Our discussion exemplifies how your perception of me went from friendly co-rescuer to persecutor (of your theory, which I poked at), and that you took personally, because you identified with the theory because it was about you (Breaking the wall). In the movie, there's drama, brilliance, delusion, selflessness, anger, redemption, and all the rest to observe and/or relate to. It might also shed a little more light on aspects of the journey.... dramas can be like that. I do not know anything about you, BreakingtheWall. We're anonymous here, but I sense we'd prolly get along quite well. I love your intensity, and wish you nothing but the best. You've done well, my friend. I am not your enemy. I'm offering a simplicity, but as you are intuiting, it will get more intense. Mind is the only thing that obscures Truth, and it's a rascal, indeed. Use it wisely, because the mind-heart (心) is the most powerful tool through which we perceive and express the existence that arises. Hugs, brother.

@Anton Rogachevski Hugs. Imo, don't talk about anything for a while. No point in doing so. Settle into the Presence.

That is quite a story, and it does wreak of the destructive aspects of the unconscious, self-obsessed, closed mind. It must have taken quite a bit of determination to rise above the negativity, abuse, and inherent trauma of such experiences as a child. You've done well. my friend. I am not a psychologist, so I will not offer anything else. Still love and respect your intensity to SEE clearly.

In speerchal seeking, self-inquiry is not really something anyone "teaches", but a tool that brings about an unlearning giving rise to transcendence. Only the mind obscures the Truth that is already shining brightly. Mind is the last to get the memo. Self-inquiry is already happening, even for people who are oblivious to what it means or what it is. Typically a mind that becomes aware of its suffering begins to take notice and responsibility... and THEN self-inquiry becomes a more conscious tool. Niz is solid.

BreakingtheWall was the one who introduced "emotions" into the convo. Now, Breaking is crying foul, blaming someone else for meeting them where he decided to go, and is now crying about projections and condescensions while acting all holier-then-thou "objective". Please, tell me you are conscious of doing so, and take responsibility. Otherwise, I'll assume it's just a split mind in control.. it's not uncommon when we get into the weeds of speerchal Truth talk. To be clear, I am not hung up on Huang baby, nor am I here to defend, promote, or proselytize a Zen message. And, I don't give a rat's ass about Po's personality. What's interesting is that you are carrying on like a Zen monk, grappling with a dead ZM as if you're still trying to defeat him in dharma combat, or maybe even trying to kill the Buddha. If you wanna engage in Zenny dharma combat with me, welp, OK, but I am not here to appease your entirely left-brain 'logic'. It misses the mark. But, if want to kill the Buddha, do it and quit just trying. Do you HEAR what I'm saying? You're grappling and battling with Zen linguistics, thinking you're figured out its weakness by READING it, not penetrating it, puncturing a hole into the heart of hearts, transcending the meaning of the words and going DIRECTLY to what they point to, thus putting the diamond-tipped spear into its bloodied head. Zen doesn't give a fuck about your logic or the meaning of the words it uses... such devices are so utterly limited...and it's YOUR head on its chopping block. But yes, the mind is a rascal indeed. To penetrate and see the emptiness that is pointed to, you're gonna have to get past the words that you're hung up on. Again, I know what they are pointing to, and it has nothing to do with flatness, polishing, or the word "mind" you consistently speak of as 'problematic'. As a matter of fact, start their. Do you even know what the various meanings of the word "mind" in ancient Chinese? You might be surprised. Here's a start. Just some simple copy-and-pastes from a simple search. "the term "心" - "heart-mind," encompasses a holistic understanding of the mind, integrating thoughts, emotions, and consciousness as a unified entity. In the East Asian tradition, it is often seen as the core of one's being and the source of perception, emotion, and volition." ***Plenty going on there. "conception of 心 is rooted in the Indian Buddhist concept of citta, which refers to the mind or consciousness ....Indian Mahayana influenced East Asian interpretations, which expanded on it by emphasizing the innate purity and potential enlightenment of the heart-mind" ***Drama of the search building. "Zen Buddhism emphasizes the direct experience of the ultimate source of the heart-mind, described as the "One Mind"" ***Key point: Zen is pointing to direct experience (i.e., realization), and is "described as". How that plays out is different depending on the, welp, shit tons of stuff. But yes, it is a massive undertaking that most will shy away from. That's fine, it ain't for everyone and life will go on regardless. That's why I've consistently mentioned the School of Necessity AND the School of Futility.... mostly only those that truly "need" to find it will likely have the will to carry out the exorbitant number of failings of the mind in its attempt to transcend itself. A descent way to express it is sharpening the intellect via the process of the search, while in turn the mind's hold is loosened, making it vulnerable/prone, but actual realization is acausal. No one knows if/when it might happen. Don't get caught up in the semantics... You're looking at the finger, not the moon it's pointing to (paraphrased Zenny saying). “执着于文字” (zhí zhuó yú wén zì) directly translates to "obsessed with words" or "clinging to the literal meaning of words". It is used to describe someone who gets caught up in the superficial details of language, failing to see the broader context or deeper meaning."

Again, I understand the logic you are presenting. I guess I'll have to read Huang Po's mind (or at least his daily journals) to get a better understanding of what the fuck is wrong with that guy. You remind me of a friend of mine who used to call Ramana 'diaper guy'. He liked to exhibit the same intensity; always fun to watch him get into feuds!

Yes, less ego, Breaking. Less ego. If that's what Huang Po actually thinks right now, there's be some things to hash out. But he's not here, and you don't seem to understand what he's pointing to. Of course, you're just saying that ... just saying so, does not make it actually realized. I've only agreed with that like, what,,, 4-5 times. You're talking about cognition, conditioning, and getting radically honest to break through barriers. I agree, and that what my looooong tl;dr was about. But.... AGAIN... you don't read into it, apparently. It was long, you're not a native speaker, and so maybe you just didn't read it. The synopsis was basically agreeing with your idea that it takes massive effort, massive self-honesty, and massive willingness to break out of the orbit of one's delusion. It is difficult. I have no doubts, as that what it was for me. Your conclusion about Huang Po is a logical guess based on whatever degree of clarity you 'assume' you have mustered. Just say you don't know, and make an educated guess. Is that so hard for you? Or do you feel the inner unfulfilled need to be better than Huang baby? It's starting to come across like there are some unconscious momma-poppa issues that you juuuuust maybe are not yet open to. They do run deep in the familial conditioning, and that's just part of it. Go swim in that pool a while, and see how far your theoretical modeling takes you in a dead honest, real time discussion with them. Be sure to give them a heads up on the model of thinking you want them to understand beforehand; it's only fair. But yes, living in Japan and Taiwan, you'll see that patriarchal rigidity does come through in the Zen/Ch'an stuff, less so the Taoists. That much was apparent, and I had thought that that was something you might be working towards in your convos with respect to 'existential relationship', cause-effect, phase 1/phase 2, infinity, absolute infinity, infinite absolute openness, and all the rest. But, quite often that's too 'emotionally' challenging and messy for people's mind-made cubic zirconia 'absolute infinite openness'. Best not take chances, eh? Is it still passive aggressive if I am calling it out in advance? Your 'logic' seems to only use one side of your brain.

Uh huh.