AW: Re: Andy/ and her awakening.

[Guest guest]

> : How can you sit down on something that doesn't exist, and

> there's nothing that can sit?

>

>

> *****This amount to there being no " you " at all.  (Reminds of the

> title of psychiatrist/meditation teacher Mark Epstein's first book,

> " Thoughts Without A Thinker. " )  Of course, on a Absolute level, this

> is " how it really is. "   But most of us don't live in that

> Understanding (and when one does, there is no " one " to record, note,

> or experience it).  Most of us live, operate, and function in

> relativity, phenomenality.  Leaving it is not an option that we can

> exercise.

Well, some curtains in front of naked reality. Enjoy the beautiful movement and

patterns of the curtains if you are not drawn to look behind.

this " different level " -concept of relative and absolute... Sounds like two sides

of a coin, when everything is coexisting (the coin is coexisting, as well, but

to me it sounds more like mutual exclusivity).

> with someone talking to it that doesn't exist, and there's no one

> talking to it, because it doesn't exist either. And yet it's all going

> on. And there's no teacher for it.  There's no one to tell you what it

> is, there's no one—there's no one there. And yet if someone would try

> to name it, it was really sweet, I have to tell you.

>

>

> *****This conforms to descriptions in ancient Advaita and zen texts of

> the experience of the Absolute.  There is an experience but no

> experiencer, at least not on a personal, individual level.

concepting the concept-less.

really sweet, she's right.

> The thing to recognize is that this is not " 's " awakening.

of course, it couldn't.

> Rather it is an *impersonal* arising.  The moment one personalizes it,

> it becomes a " thing " that a " person " can " have, " which is not at all

> how the ancient texts depict it.  And it can only be communicated from

> the pov of duality, when there IS, again, an identified being.

>

> Ramesh Balsekar, a contemporary Advaita sage/teacher living in Mumbai,

> understands this, and asks, quite reasonably:

>

> Why would anyone want *that*?

>

> If you want to disappear, to lose your entire sense of self and

> individuality, you can do it quite easily: commit suicide! :-))) 

Right, why would someone want to take off the curtains? Why despise the beauty?

> The alternative is to continue living in phenomenality and seek out

> ways to diminish (not eradicate since that is not possible as long as

> there is identification with a " self " ) the suffering and

> disappointments.

Understand. Explore. Not cancel.

> Prayer is one way.  Meditation another.

> Psychotherapy another.  And then there's The Work.  And one can do ALL

> of them if there is the drive.

I don't know about prayer. Eventually you come to see how it works. It's an

effort not to look. No one is blind. Everyone CAN see. Some are better in

wrapping than others.

> The thing is, what I've found, ... if one is psychologically

> " healthy, " i.e., if one has the mental/emotional " tools " to " cope "

> with day-to-day life, then the suffering and upsets are not a " big

> deal. "

Sounds like the definition of " sanity " .

> They are seen to be like the weather: they come and go, they

> are part of entification, being identified as a bodymind mechanism and

> they come with that territory.  And while they don't always please us

> (and sometimes they downright suck!), they remind us of what it means

> to be human.

I don't know about that.

> To escape them entirely

which you can't

> is to escape being human and, to

> an even greater degree, as 's words point out, to escape even

> being " here. "   (There are no upsets because there is no one to " have "

> the upsets.)

> Like Balsekar above, I am compelled to ask: who would want THAT?

Sure, why spoil the fun?

> My

> guess is that the desire for this " non-state " would arise in people

> who have not found a way to " cope " with life's ups and downs, who,

> because of their particular mental wiring are unable to put the

> " downs " in perspective, and thus will find that kind of

> non-existence/existence appealing (in that regard see the second quote

> below about " standing outside this world " ).

Nah... this desire would come from people who look for more curtains.

It would be used as an excuse to go on with the way their life is going.

> In contrast, I find most appealing the type of perspective embodied by

> the following two quotes from two different playwrights:

>

> " This is the true joy in life … being used for a purpose recognized by

> yourself as a mighty one … being a force of nature instead of a

> feverish, selfish little clod of ailments and grievances complaining

> that the world will not devote itself to making you happy.

Well, that is " taking responsibility " for your world.

> I am of the

> opinion that my life belongs to the whole community, and as long as I

> live it is my privilege to do for it whatever I can. I want to be

> thoroughly used up when I die. For the harder I work the more I live.

> I rejoice in life for its own sake. Life is no brief candle to me.

> It's sort of a splendid torch which I've got to hold up for the moment

> and I want to make it burn as brightly as possible before handing it

> on to future generations. "   ( Bernard Shaw)

Well, and do you, is that how you live?

> " I refuse to find the universal in a doctrine, in dogma.  The

> universal for me is chaos. The world (and hence the stage which it

> represents), is for me something monstrous, a riddle of misfortunes

> which must be accepted but before which we must not capitulate.  The

> world is far bigger than any man, and perforce threatens him

> constantly.  If one could but stand outside the world, it would no

> longer be threatening.  But I have neither the right nor ability to be

> an outsider to this world. "   (Friedrich Durrenmatt)

Ah, I love his humour.

How does a thing exist you can't think of, and how many things can you think of,

at once?

Nevertheless you create an Illusion of chaos! Of a whole world!

Together with a weight-system of importance and values, of preferences and

dislikes!

I find that sooooo fascinating.

> My sense of all these strategies (The Work, prayer, meditation,

> psychoanalysis) is that they aim not to remove

Interesting. In this moment I can't hold onto a concept of removal.

> the possibility of

> experiencing distressing emotions but to provide a foundation, a

> framework in which to " hold " the upsets in a manner unlike the one we

> are habituated to, and thus provide the potential of a kind of

> transformation, not eradication, of the unpleasant side of emotional life.

Nor onto a concept of distress, unpleasantness, etc.

Thank you for your thoughts!

Love,

Lesen Sie Ihre E-Mails jetzt einfach von unterwegs.

www.yahoo.de/go