Taking a step into the world of our Being

[seatrend8899]

I was lamenting the loss of Ta Tsu Wa's post that i never saw due to server outage...and resultant content purge.. that others were writing about.....thank you Coenrad!

[Coenrad Morgan]

Hey Cousin,

Not my doing, thank the Native American person / US / South American wisdom a.ka. Ta Tsu Wa, (based on the profile information - who knows where in the world he/she might be ).....those words where so profound and meaningful to me that I saved them, had they not been, I would not have.......I have never touched snow, just seen it on mountain tops but apparently being up to your neck in bears and ice leads to such insight or just being Ta Tsu Wa, so either Alaska here I come or I hope to hear much more from him/her......come to think of it, anything below 25 degrees Celcius is my idea of Hell, so best we hear more from Ta Tsu Wa here......glad it meant something to you as it did to me.

[Edwin]

Originally Posted by islovin

Edwin,

Don't say that... all is not lost....it will all come back...brilliance happens over and over again...

I was responding to the following concept

EGO = MIND = collection of thougths and memories

I think you said that there is no "egolobe" in the brain or something like that.

But the ego or the "active mind" can be measured through brainwaves so because there are brainwaves then ..... our ego or our mind or our collection of thoughts and memories do exist.

I agree our collection of thoughts and memories are stories that our mind creates and our mind creates these stories based on our own individual experiences....

I also believe in having attachments ...I choose to be attached to a thought, a belief, a thing, an event, a person or whatever ...if I am conscious and understand all of the consequences of that attachment...then I will hopefully only choose attachments that will serve me and the greater good.

First of all, Coenrad, you rock !

Islovin, I think we both agree to the same thing but look at it differently.
Like you said, choosing to what thought to respond, is what it is about.

Thoughts will come up anyway. When you don't personify your Self with that thought, you will recognise it as a thought appearing in the Self. That doesn't mean that you can't react to that thought. Of course you can. But usually, a bit like Youtube, mind sends a series of thoughts and images that are related to that thought when you respond to it, kind of like: "If you are interested in this, you might also be interested in this and this".
If some of the things that come up aren't usefull, you don't have to react. Careful ! Don't reject it. Mind will immediately try to justify itself when you reject it. It will want to defend it's position, the relevance it thinks there is. It can do that because rejecting it is also giving it attention. Like a whining child that is after attention, being it positive or negative. Ignore the whining, and at a certain time will it understand that whining is a waste of energy, because mum or dad won't respond anyway.

When not paying attention to a (non useful ) thought, that process is broken, and your mind will be able to focus it's attention completely on the thought that does need attention.

How often does it happen that you have an intention to do something, and that you find yourself having drifted off with your thoughts until you were thinking about something totally different ?
This is a dead give away that you think that you are in control, while in fact you are not. Or, like Eckhart Tolle sais: Most people think they control their thoughts. When they say that, I usually say to them, "Is that so, if you control your thoughts, stop thinking for the coming 5 minutes".

[Edwin]

"In circles of "spiritual growth", Ego often gets short shrift. It's looked upon as something undesirable, to be gotten rid of ASAP. This seems a very short-sighted course of action. Ego is a function of the "self" (lower case S). It incorporates abilities and characterists such as the ability to think and to experience Individuality.
What most Ego bashers are really saying is, "Self = good, self = bad". Unity is the goal, Duality is something to be overcome and discarded ASAP. This does not square well with most ancient spiritual accounts of original creation. Whether it be Taoist, Judaism, Christiantiy (especially the Gnostic variety,) Buddhism, Native American and other regional, indigenous people belief systems, or most other spiritual traditions you could think of, they all tell similar stories about how creation got started.
There is One, which differentiates Itself internally into many, which learn to recognize themselves as bits of the One again in addition to their individual natures. Let me share with you my experience of this whole process.
There exists an Undifferentiated Totality. Some traditions express it in anthropomorphic concepts, others in very impersonal terms. Call this, Unity or Totality. Unity has no peer since it encompasses all that is, all that can ever be, as well as all that cannot ever be in one, homegenous mode of existence.
Unity realizes if there were others that could exist in relational form, Unity would know them and experience the joy of their interactions, and the perfection of Unity would thereby be increased.
So Unity subdivides or compartmentalizes Itself giving rise to individual structures that can now relate to each other. Call these Individualities.
Initially, all the units of Individuality are still very much aware of their oneness with Unity. This is so much the case that the experience of their own individuality remains very limited at best if they could even experience it at all. Since there can never be anything that is truly outside of the Totality, the only way to grant the Individualities a true sense of being an individual is by having them adopt some scheme of forgetfulness; a sort of amnesia, if you will. Under those circumstances, though they are not outside of Totality, they have forgotten this, and to them it feels as if they are outside. The feeling is so genuine that for all practical purposes it might as well be literally true. In any event, with this veil of forgetfulness drawn over them, the Individualities can now truly experience what it would be like to be absolutely separate and independent.

Unity uses these Individualities something like we use our five senses. It sees through them. It hears through them. It shares all of the relational experiences they have through them as if they were Its own, in a way It could not have done before initiating the process of Its own subdivision.
This is the first half of a great circle. For full joy to be experienced however, the circle must be completed. This necessitates the Individualities relearning through their own experiences what it is to be identified with Unity, similar to the way they were in their beginning. The difference is that this time, when this process is completed, they will possess not only the experience of complete Unity, but will also take with them the experience of Individuality. Both experiences will exist and be appreciated fully at one and the same time.
In this final state Unity experiences relationship through the Individualities just as they experience it. Unity increases by the joy of the collective experiences of all Individualities. Each Individuality increases its joy by its own experiences. As each Individuality advances and progresses towards and ultimately achieves a "reunification" (technically inaccurate word I know, but you get the point) with Unity, it then adds not only the joy of its own individual experiences to itself, but the joy of all other Individualities through its identification with the Totality/Unity. As the Individual increases in joy, the Unity increases in joy, and as the Unity increases in joy, the perfected Individuals further increase in joy. The process forms a circle or sphere that grows ever greater without limit or end.
This is what I am convinced is the basic nature of our existence based not only on study but on my own personal experiences (no pun intended.)
If this is correct it becomes quickly apparent that any attempt to annihilate the Ego or to abolish all Thought, extinguish the self (lower case S) etc., thwarts completing the circle of our existence. In the end it is not a case of either/or. I'm not either Unified or an Individual. I am both, and I am both at the same time. To cling to just one or the other (it doesn't matter to which) always leads to an unbalanced view of our essential nature."

My reply to Ta-Tsu-Wa's post:

I very much enjoyed reading your post Ta-Tsu-Wa !

It is wonderfull to read it in your own words, to see your point of view. I recognise how you talk about completing the circle.

I think of it as the final stage in growing up.
When looking at my daughters growing up, I can see how the ego is built up. They started in perfect bliss, total unity and completely mind-less. Just consciousness. Much like before they were born, or even created.
However, in this reactive world, this is not usefull.

The mind is a complete blank, but from day one ( and probably before that in the womb ) it starts to process all the information coming at it.

At a certain age, in a relative short time after birth, some say within a year, others up to 3-4 years ( I don't agree ) a sense of "I" develops. It is the birth of both self-awareness, and the first step towards developing the ego. They are not yet seperated at this point.
The mind keeps processing information, and based on the awareness of "I", a logical assumption is made by mind. I am here. My body is "I". Where my body ends, I end. That means that everything else exists outside of me. I am seperate from you. This is the start of duality. All this is a healthy progress. It is crucial in the development of a human in this dualistic world.
During this process, the duality also creates duality inside your awareness.
Your thoughts, originating in that same consiousness that has been there from before you were born, being part of that consiousness, make you believe that they ARE consciousness.

I think of it as consiousness as the fire, and thought an iron bar placed in it by a blacksmith. The iron bar is part of the fire. Take it out, and it will quickly lose heat and return to it's before rigid state. It is not what keeps the fire going, it is simply a phenomena in the fire. fueled by the fire, not the fire itself.

The dualistic way of perceiving the world usually forms in puberty. It simply is a stage in growing up. At the end of adolescance, the insight I gave you with the example of the iron bar and the fire should come.
But our society doesn't see that anymore. The final stage in growing up, becoming a fully functional spiritual human being, has been forgotten, leaving the ego-mind the chance to keep growing uncontrollably.

I "grew up" only about a month ago.

Ever since, the search inside me, looking for the next experience, becoming something I didn't understand at all, thinking I wanted to become enlightened has disappeared. Nothing much has changed in my life. I am not suddenly a holy figure. I just realise that I am seperate from thought. Whatever may come in the future to deepen this experience, I will witness just as I witness the world around me and inside me. But there is no need to "chase" anymore

[islovin]

Yes Edwin, I totally think you and I and most of us on this forum share a similar…”mindset”. Each one of us interprets this and explains it in our own way.

Eckhart Tolle and Oprah are performing a tremendous service by bringing this information to the mainstream. This is not new information but somehow Eckhart Tolle was able to write about this information in a way that appeals to the masses.

I have attempted to read his book the power of now. I got about 1/3 of the way through and could not finish. I have read many books on this subject matter over the last 25 years and I am very familiar with the subject matter and have had many “aha” moments throughout my life.

The reason I could not relate to Eckhart Tolle’s presentation of a subject matter that is very near and dear to my heart is because he chose not to share his journey.

In his introduction to the power of now Eckhart writes about a night that brought him to a spontaneous awakening. He speaks about having a desire to kill himself during this night and then “awakening” the next morning to a new state of “being”.

1. I learn more when someone shares their journey with me.
2. Most people who have spontaneous awakenings do not just stay there.
3. While I was reading his book he wrote “listen to me” and I thought…I am reading your book you do not get much more of my attention then that. I was listening to him until that point.


For me… when I have an “awakening” I need to incorporate my new state of being into my life. It is a process. Meditation helps me to incorporate my new found awareness and my awakened state of being stays with me for longer periods of time. The more I practice the more I stay awake and the easier and faster I am able to incorporate my new levels of awareness.

Irene

P.S. This is the reason I started the thread what motivates you to meditate….I learn by hearing peoples stories rather then being told about awakening.

[Ta-tsu-wa]

Originally Posted by islovin

The reason I could not relate to Eckhart Tolle’s presentation of a subject matter that is very near and dear to my heart is because he chose not to share his journey...

While I was reading his book he wrote “listen to me” and I thought…I am reading your book you do not get much more of my attention then that. I was listening to him until that point...

There is an aphorism from Eastern wisdom that states: "The finger that points to the moon is not the moon."

In the West we have a comparable saying: "The map is not the territory."

No description, no picture, no account, no instruction, no text, will ever be able to convey the experience of transcendence from one person to another. If I could perfectly lay out the events in my life to you that have led me to my present state of existence, it wouldn't bring you any closer to that state yourself. It's an experience, not an intellectual understanding or an assemblage of facts.

Tolle is sharp enough to recognize this principle and to avoid wasting your time and his trying to "make" you relate to his own experiences by recounting them in detail. He lays out some conditions and gives you a few details about where they led him, but by intent he isn't trying to paint you a complete picture. All that would serve to do is to cause you to try to copy where he has traveled and he knows that isn't possible. Not only is it impossible, the act of trying would stifle your own progress because it encourages you to keep seeking an intellectual understanding of something that can only be directly experienced, not intellectually defined or quantified.

As I was reading your post one phrase in particular jumped out at me. You wrote, "The reason I could not relate to Eckhart Tolle’s presentation of a subject matter..."

Therein lies a great potential pitfall. We can only "relate to" things we've experienced ourselves. If we can "relate to it", no narrative explanation is required or even helpful because we've already got direct experience. But if we haven't got the direct experience ourselves then we don't have the necessary common frame of reference that would permit us to "relate to" the thing. Any narrative explanation, no matter how detailed or accurate is not going to resonate with us. It's a catch 22. Regardless of how meticulously detailed Tolle is in his narration of facts, if we lack the experience he is describing we will be incapable of "relating" to whatever he writes.

Tolle therefore tries to reach the reader with a two-pronged approach. First, he points a finger at the moon, so to speak. The meaning of his words are meant to touch you on an intellectual level in such a way that they get you looking in new and unfamiliar directions. He cannot give you the territory, but with his words he attempts to draw for you a crude map. His words are symbols, and like any symbol in order to be effective the reader has to recognize they point to "something" beyond their common meanings. What that "something" is he cannot tell you for, again, that would require a common frame of reference that the seeker is not yet in possession of. Words are imperfect, but they can be helpful if put into their proper context. The critical thing to grasp is that once the words have been recognized simply as pointers, they need to forgotten. They've done their job. If you hang on to them and continue to try to wrest from them the answer to your search they will only hinder you.

The second way he reaches towards the reader is by doing his writing from a place of presence. By writing while in that state he offers a direct, experiential taste of that same state to the reader. The words are meant to act as carriers of the "feeling of presence" rather than to convey any dictionary meanings. In that sense the meanings of the words he writes are actually irrelevent. He could type two hundred pages of bad poetry and it would be just as effective if the words trigger an experience of presence in the reader.

Here's something for you to try. Perhaps it will prove useful. Read some of Tolle's work. It doesn't really matter which, but if I was doing this myself I think I'd opt for his book, "Stillness Speaks." But choose whichever you like or whichever you have available. Then begin reading, but forget about trying to make sense of the words. Just read a few passages then set the book aside and get quiet. Let what you've just read seep into you like a sponge soaking up water. Don't analyze it or try to digest the meanings of the words you just read. Their textbook meanings are unimportant. All you want to do is absorb the sense of presence out of which Tolle wrote those words. This is an exercise of the Spirit, not the Intellect.

Maybe you will have a different experience this time. And maybe Tolle just isn't for you. There is no such thing as cookie-cutter spirituality. One size does not fit all. If Tolle isn't your cup of tea, try reading Thich Nhat Han, Tagore, or Teilhard de Chardin, but read them first as potential points of the experience of presence and second as pointers of the intellect towards truths which transcend the book meanings of the words.

[islovin]

I wish I could figure out how to do the quote thing.


Ta

you said "it's an experience not an intellectual understanding or an assemblage of facts."

What I am hearing is...."Touch my Heart."

This is exactly why the story or the journey is how I learn and grow...because on some level your story will "touch my heart"....and on some level....I am able to experience, to a certain degree, what you experienced.

What can I say....to me....all the rest of it is intellectual mumbo jumbo.

I will go on line and check out some of the authors you mention.
At some point, since I do have Echkarts "the power of now" I will try the exercise you mentioned.

[Ta-tsu-wa]

Originally Posted by islovin

This is exactly why the story or the journey is how I learn and grow...because on some level your story will "touch my heart"....and on some level....I am able to experience, to a certain degree, what you experienced.

Here is where I think you're going to hit a wall. You cannot "learn" an experience. No one can. Either you have it yourself, or you don't.

Knowing "about" something, which is what the intellect lets us do, is night and day different from "knowing" that thing. You indicated that it's all just a bunch of words to you. Alright, fair enough. Let's perform a thought experiment that will hopefully make those words become meaningful to you.

Let us imagine that I do not come from your planet; that I come from a world vastly different from this one. On my world there is no such thing as the flavor of salt. We have the other three primary tastes: sweet, sour and bitter, but on my world salt has never existed. None of my people has ever tasted it before. I come to visit Earth and we meet.

"Irene," I say, "I've just been exploring this fascinating world of yours. Over and over I run into references about something your people call 'salt'. I cannot conceive of what this taste is like. Can you help me understand this unknown taste?"

"Sure I can," you say with some confidence.

"Wow," I say, "you sure sound confident. You must have a lot of experience with it."

"I've tasted it a million times or more," you say.

"That's great," I tell you, "because my people pride ourselves on being very precise. When I go back to my planet to make my report I'll need to be able to tell them exactly what this 'salt' stuff tastes like. You're sure you're up to it?"

"Of course," you assure me, "I've been eating things with salt in them since I was an infant. It's a very common, but distinctive taste. Trust me, I know exactly what salt tastes like."

"That's terrific," I say, "but I'd like to make certain. On my way to meet you I stopped at one of your roadside diners. They had little paper packets of salt at their tables and they gave me one. I opened it and looked but it seems they may have made a mistake and given me a packet of sugar by accident. I opened a packet marked as sugar and compared it to the salt they gave me. I have to say they really do look pretty much the same."

"Yes," you agree, "outwardly they do look a lot alike. But as far as taste goes, they're very different."

"So then, Irene, if I let you taste a little of this salt from the diner and a little of the sugar without telling you which was which, you could identify which one of them was the salt? You know the taste of salt that well?"

"Yes," you say, beginning to get a little bit annoyed by my skepticism, "I promise you, I KNOW WHAT SALT TASTES LIKE! I know it as well as I know my own name. I taste it every day and I've been tasting it since the time I was born. Trust me, I know the taste of salt."

Alright, Irene, I've set the stage for our little thought experiment. Here's my character. I'm not from this world and no one from my world has ever tasted salt before. Let's imagine that for reasons of safety I'm not at liberty to simply taste the salt myself, but I need to make a precise report back on my home world about what it tastes like.

On the other hand, you (or your character in this thought experiment at least) have very detailed and explicit experience tasting salt. In fact as you're reading this I'd bet serious money you can close your eyes and recall it so vividly that your mouth begins to water just from the memory. So here's your part in our experiment:

Explain to me (the extraterrestrial me) exactly what salt tastes like. Your description has to be so exact and detailed that when I think about your words it will start my own mouth watering as if recalling something I've tasted before. That's your challenge.

Now, let me save you a little bit of time and tell you what won't work. You can't compare it to something else because salt is one of the four primary tastes. It is qualitatively different than any of the other three and therefore it cannot be described as tasting "like" anything else.

Also, don't describe it to me in terms of what it doesn't taste like because that would be virtually anything else you might name. Simply telling me it doesn't taste like anything else does not give me any idea of what it DOES taste like, so don't try the process of elimination approach.

Just share your experience of salt with me in words so that I know it in the same way you do. You do that and then we'll go from there.

Incidentally, this is essentially what you suggest Tolle and other writers should be able to do with regard to spiritual experiences; to write in such a way so that you, who has never had their experiences, can read their words and will feel as though you have personally had them. In other words, they've tasted salt that you haven't, and you want them to describe it for you so that it will be as clear to you as if you had tasted it for yourself without actually ever tasting it.

[daisy3]

WOw.. just to say a big thank you to all the members who have made their
contribution to this thread.The lessons are invaluable.
daffodil

[Edwin]

I am such a beginner compared to your explanatory skills Ta-Tsu-Wa...