Monday, August 19, 2013

There is only THIS !

There is only THIS !
What is THIS, you ask.
Thought.
Thought emerging from mystery. Uncontrolled. At least uncontrolled consciously.
This is easily tested.
If you think that you can control thoughts, then stop the ones that cause suffering or the ones that you don't want, or the stupid, rubbish ones. If you think that you can do this, then go back to your reality tv. This blog is not for you.
So, what are thoughts ?
A story here is that they are the description/expression of perception. (more on this in a moment)
Thoughts might also be more than this. They might be, hmm, let's think about this... they might be..
Hmm, i'll get back to this, as i can't think of any exceptions at the moment.
Can perception happen without thoughts ?
What is perception ?
Ha, it's one of those nouns that's not a thing. There is only perceiving. It can only exist as a verb.
OK, so what is perceiving ?
If i break the word down using common sense before going to the dictionary, i would say it consists of 'per' and 'ceiving'. 'ceiving' as in re-ceiving or taking in, obtaining. 'Per' as in 'by' or context. OK, let's go to the dictionary..
Wiki says;
Perception (from the Latin perceptio, percipio) is the organization, identification, and interpretation of sensory information in order to represent and understand the environment.[1] All perception involves signals in the nervous system, which in turn result from physical stimulation of the sense organs.[2] For example, vision involves light striking the retinas of the eyes, smell is mediated by odor molecules and hearing involves pressure waves. Perception is not the passive receipt of these signals, but can be shaped by learning, memory, and expectation.[3][4] Perception involves these "top-down" effects as well as the "bottom-up" process of processing sensory input.[4] The "bottom-up" processing is basically low-level information that's used to build up higher-level information (e.g., shapes for object recognition). The "top-down" processing refers to a person's concept and expectations (knowledge) that influence perception. Perception depends on complex functions of the nervous system, but subjectively seems mostly effortless because this processing happens outside conscious awareness.[2]

Dictionary.com says;
per·cep·tion [per-sep-shuhn]
noun
1.
the act or faculty of perceiving, or apprehending by means of the senses or of the mind; cognition; understanding.
2.
immediate or intuitive recognition or appreciation, as of moral, psychological, or aesthetic qualities; insight; intuition; discernment: an artist of rare perception.
3.
the result or product of perceiving, as distinguished from the act of perceiving; percept.
4.
Psychology . a single unified awareness derived from sensory processes while a stimulus is present.

Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English percepcioun  (< Old French percepcïon ) < Latin perceptiōn-  (stem of perceptiō ) comprehension, literally, a taking in. See percept, -ion
 
There is a gross presumption here (in language and the definitions above) that what is being perceived is coming in, from outside.
Coming back to the beginning of this post, There is only THIS !, then of course there is no outside or inside separate, as everything that exists as Real, only exists as its' perceiving. (and perceiving can only exist as it's description/expression, thought.)
Does anything exist before perception ?
Not for this organism. No. 
Oh, i can have a story about, let's say the Pacific ocean, but it can only exist as an idea until i am experiencing it. 
Ha, that means that it is the story about it that exists, and i am perceiving the story, not the actual ocean.
Well, that brings us back to the beginning. There is only THIS ! (thoughts about what i am currently perceiving)
 

Friday, July 26, 2013

more Joan Tollifson.

This lady says it so well !
When we speak of giving complete, nonjudgmental attention to the present moment, accepting what is and allowing it to be as it is, or when we say everything is perfect as it, this is sometimes misunderstood. No one is saying we shouldn’t identify problems (a flat tire, global warming, alcohol addiction, a broken bone), or that we shouldn’t imagine, seek out, or work to bring about constructive solutions—if we are so moved. ALL of that is part of this seamless and all-inclusive happening. The acceptance that is being pointed to is absolutely immediate—right here, right now, not a second or a minute from now—and the perfection of what is INCLUDES not only the problems but also the noticing of problems, the impulse to fix and heal things, and the actions that emerge from those impulses. 

It may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s actually deeply healing and transformative to simply attend to and fully accept the way things are right now in this moment (the tire is flat, the ice caps are melting, I was unable to resist having this 4th drink, my leg is in pain and I can’t walk). That doesn’t mean life won’t move us to seek a solution in the next moment. It means that right now, in this instant, we’re simply seeing and acknowledging the reality of how life actually IS. And when there is simply awareness—without thought, we can’t even say that “the tire is flat” or “the ice caps are melting,” because even that is an abstraction and a story—the bare actuality is prior to thought. It is pure sensation—energy—vibration—not those words, but the living actuality to which they point. That living actuality has no plotline, no central character, no past or future. And out of that simple awareness or nonjudgmental acceptance, intelligent action (or non-action) arises. We may change the tire, join a movement to stop climate change, go into a recovery program, or go to the hospital to have our broken leg attended to. (Or we might do something completely different—there is no single, correct “intelligent action”).

If we pay attention, we can perhaps notice the difference between the bare awaring of what is—simple, open, nonjudgmental attention—and the movement of thought (labeling, evaluating, judging, analyzing, story-telling). We’re not saying thought is bad or suggesting that we should strive to be entirely free of thinking—thought has its place—we’re simply noticing the difference between thinking and awaring. Awareness isn’t seeking a solution or passing judgment—it is simply AWARE. It accepts everything and resists nothing. It beholds everything equally. It has no agenda. It is nondual, meaning that in awareness, there is no separation between awareness and content—we have different words for purposes of communicating, but EXPERIENTIALLY (in awareness without thought), awareness/content is one whole, undivided, seamless happening. There is no separation.

Dualism is a creation of thought. It only exists notionally or conceptually. Thought divides, reifies, categorizes, compares, evaluates and strategizes. It creates the illusory (conceptual) division between “me” and “my problem.” (Or between subject and object, or awareness and content). If we’re “trying to be aware,” or “doing acceptance” or “being aware SO THAT THE PROBLEM WILL GO AWAY,” that’s not bare awareness, that’s the movement of thought, operating from an agenda. At the center of that agenda is the thought-sense of “me,” the one with a problem. Bare awareness is undivided, whole, empty of self. It simply SEES what is, without separation. There is no owner of awareness. 

Awareness has an intelligence that thought does not have. Awareness is alive and unconditioned, whereas thought is mechanical and conditioned. When there is resistance to how life actually is, when we are caught up in idealistic notions of how it “should” and “should not” be, the actions that arise from those habitual patterns of thought tend to repeat the same old grooves again and again. (Of course, that too is all the happening of life itself and in that moment could not be otherwise). If we think about all this, it may get confusing, but if we rely on actual, direct experience—awareness rather than thought—everything clarifies itself. 

Thought is a story-teller. It creates narratives. It comes up with stories and then forgets they are fictional. It tells stories like, "I’m a hopeless case because of my traumatic past, doomed to a life of addiction and depression, and I’ll never be able to have the spiritual experiences other people have because I’m too traumatized,” and we BELIEVE these stories that the mind has concocted out of thin air. They SEEM very believable—just the way the story and the characters in a movie seem real. We think there really IS a “me” who has been traumatized and who is now hopelessly doomed as a result. But the truth is, this “me” and the whole “story of my life” is a creation of smoke and mirrors. And it doesn’t really matter whether what appears Here / Now is expanded or contracted, tense or relaxed, bright or dull, pleasant or unpleasant. None of it is personal—it has no owner, no author—and ALL of it is the happening of life.

Taking the things in our lives that appear problematic personally, turning them into an identity and giving them meaning is a form of suffering, as is fighting them and trying to get rid of them. With my fingerbiting compulsion that still flares up, for example, I no longer believe this compulsion means something about me—that "I'm a spiritual failure" or “a real loser,” as I used to believe. I've come to genuinely accept that this compulsion may continue to show up periodically for the rest of my life, and I'm at peace with that possibility. It might end forever in the next instant. But it doesn’t matter either way. Yes, if it ended, that would be more pleasant for me, but life is not always pleasant. And I notice that when there is AWARENESS of fingerbiting—awareness without any overlay of thought, which could also be called total acceptance—that it isn’t even “fingerbiting” anymore. It is simply energy, movement, sensation—no-thing in particular. When the compulsion happens, it is a tense, unpleasant, contracted experience. But I no longer have some idea that “I” (this character) must be perpetually relaxed and open and blissful. The true I, which is Life Itself, has no problem with contraction, tension, depression, anxiety or dis-ease. It includes everything. 

There's always only this ever-present, ever-changing Here / Now, however it is. And the more desire and push there is to have special or different or better experiences, or the more regret and hopelessness over not having them, the more likely they are to evade us...sort of like what happens when we try really hard to fall asleep while simultaneously thinking about all the ways a sleepless night will ruin our life. In the end, experiences are just experiences...whether it is an experience of contraction or an experience of expansion. And no experience is there all the time. Magnificent experiences pass away and really don’t mean anything.

I remember in the Feldenkrais training I did some years back, sometimes they would suggest bringing attention to some part of the body, and at first, I'd be completely unable to sense anything in that place...it was a total dead zone. But over time, with relaxed attention, I could begin to sense something there, however slight. Or they'd suggest a movement that at first seemed impossible but eventually became possible. And even if the dead zone remains dead and the movement never becomes possible, what difference does it make, really?

Some people report dramatic experiences of intense kundalini energy coursing through their bodies and shooting out the tops of their heads. For years, I was never really sure what they were talking about—it sounded like some important mark of a truly enlightened being that I obviously didn't have. Yes, I could feel a kind of energetic vibration or tingling in certain parts of the body if I paid attention, but nothing as remotely dramatic as what many people seemed to describe. And then once during a massage I was receiving, for a few minutes, I felt powerful rivers of energy gushing through my body. It was quite amazing. “Wow!” I said to the person working on me, "This is what people talk about!” And she said, "Yes, this is what it's all about—energy." It has never happened again, not ever. I remember Wayne Liquorman telling a similar story, describing how he was meditating once, and he felt this huge surge of energy come rushing up his spine and shoot out the top of his head....and he was like, Wow!!! Fantastic!!!....and the next day, he sits down in meditation excitedly waiting for a repeat performance, and it never happens again, not ever. Experiences are just experiences. They come and go and they don't really mean anything. But many people in the spiritual world become experience junkies, endlessly seeking spiritual highs or trying to recapture moments of peace, unity, ecstasy or expanded consciousness. There’s nothing wrong with enjoying such experiences when they happen, but chasing them is really no better than getting hooked on drugs or getting drunk. Whatever comes will always go away again. Experiences are by nature impermanent and fleeting.

People often tell me they’ve never had the experience of unboundedness that I seem to be describing. I’m guessing they ARE having this experience all the time, but they are simply overlooking it because it's so ordinary...nothing special. Waking up is really just about noticing the wholeness, the seamlessness, the fluidity that is often overlooked in favor of our more habitual focus of attention on some particular, discrete object—and our habitual focus on thought rather than on perception. And the noticing that I’m speaking about isn’t some spectacular psychedelic event in which we see or experience or grasp wholeness as an object—this but not that. It’s very simple, very ordinary. Seeing IS the wholeness—whatever the content or form it is taking. And that seeing (or awaring) is happening right now. It is the registering of this present happening, jut as it is. And the registering is not separate from the happening. It is one, nondual, seamless, all-inclusive whole.

Life can only appear in polarities, but the polar opposites (contraction and expansion, tension and relaxation, agony and bliss, light and dark, enlightenment and delusion, good and bad, birth and death) are not opposing forces in conflict with each other—a conflict in which one will eventually defeat the other, as we often tend to think—but rather, they are interrelated and interdependent aspects of one whole harmonious arising. Enlightenment is not about “me” being permanently expanded, relaxed and blissed out. It is the recognition that nothing is separate, that everything is included, that there is only THIS and that no “thing” (including “me”) has any actual substance. There is only impermanence, which sounds scary if we still think there are “things” that are impermanent. But this impermanence is so thorough-going that no-thing ever even forms to be impermanent. Can you sense the freedom, the joy, the cosmic giggle? (If you can't, don't worry, it doesn't matter). 

Every apparent person is an ever-changing dance inseparable from everything else in the universe. And no two dances are exactly alike. We each have a totally unique part to play in the Great Dance of Life. At times, our different roles seem to clash and conflict (those on the political left vs. those on the political right, the so-called 1% vs. the so-called 99%, investment bankers vs. spiritual renunciates, vegetarians vs. carnivores, Buddhists vs. Advaitans, radical feminists vs. religious fundamentalists, soldiers vs. pacifists). But the apparent clash and conflict is all in perfect, interdependent harmony at a deeper level. Liberation might be described as the ability to play our particular part—dance our unique dance—to the fullest while not losing sight of the larger context, the unicity that includes it all. Then we can express our opinions and do whatever life moves us to do, but without imagining that the whole drama (or the whole universe) is quite as serious (or as substantial and permanent) as it often seems to be, or that the forces of good should (or will) eventually triumph over the forces of evil. We see that no-thing is really happening in the way we think it is. We may still experience pain, illness, disability, loss, contraction, compulsion, depression or anxiety—but it no longer seems like a personal insult or a personal failing. It is simply the ever-changing texture of life—an inexplicable, unavoidable, ungraspable, indivisible, fluid happening

Monday, June 3, 2013

A question was asked; "Are you Enlightened?"

Hi Friend.
Language is by nature dualistic. (subject and object)
Language is the expression of thought, and as such is designed to be understood by mind (thoughts).
Enlightenment is a word used to describe the indescribable.
Enlightenment is (perhaps) the Recognition of something that mind can never understand. It is like the eyeball trying to see itself. 
What is recognised was always there. 
A portal to this discovery, is the Recognition of what obscures it. A delusion. The illusion of a personal self, an I/me. This illusion creates the delusion that there is an actual self running the show. There isn't. (if you are burning for this, i will happily guide you to SEE it for yourself)
Given that the I doesn't exist, no being can say with technical accuracy "I am Enlightened" - there is no I, to be Enlightened. (i actually prefer the word liberation, as in liberated from the delusion. 
The experiencing here is certainly no finished state. Perhaps from a Buddhist' perspective, it might be more accurately described as Stream Entry. (it's all actually irrelevant except for the purpose of communication)
As for "ego", (depending on what you mean by that word) it still exists, but is no longer 'running the show'. LIke a raincoat, it is useful in certain circumstances. It is not an enemy and never was. It was just like an out of control child and just needs boundaries.
You ask "who is the one taking all the actions and thinking and seeing."
The underlying presumption here is that there must be a "who" or "what" to take the actions. Where is Akash when his body is in deep sleep ? 
There is a body. There is breathing happening. No 'self' doing it.
Try this; Look at your left hand. Move it a little. 
Was there an I doing the moving ? or did it just move ?

To be a seeker, and having no idea or understanding of what you are truly seeking is a distinct advantage over those that 'think' that they know what they can't yet know.
Perhaps everybody that is still stuck in the delusion is seeking 'home'. They know that something is wrong, even if they don't know exactly what.
Perpetual bliss is definitely a story, but the discovery here is that happiness and a knowing that everything is OK, is the default 'state' for humans being.

love

vince

Sunday, February 24, 2013

Can the world be a better place?

How to tell the world,
it can be a better place?
Of course there's no need.

How to tell myself,
That nothing needs to be fixed.
Of course there's no need.

How to understand,
That the need is only thought.
That thought is just thought.

Saturday, February 16, 2013

This inquiry...

This from Annette Nibley;
"What now? Can I tell you how to find out that you are not real? At this moment, nothing like that is arising, but perhaps it will. I don't think it's possible to tell another person how to begin or conduct this inquiry. Yours is unique, it is intimate. It is your business. What you need will come to you when you need it.

If I offer a pointer, it assumes that you are "ready" to hear it like I was when I met John Wheeler. Otherwise, you'll just continue the way you are going, and you'll distort my words into something that fits your existing mental view. But just in case you really are done with looking to your mind for solutions, this would be a solid pointer:

Ask, Am I real? Look for no other information. Ask no other questions. Find out if you are real - that's all. If you are not real, then the boundary between you and the source of all life is not really there, is it? If the boundary between you and the source of all life is not really there, then you would notice yourself as the source of all life, wouldn't you?"

Wednesday, February 13, 2013

A string of Haiku, a story to tell...

A place i see, that's now,
maybe for just a moment.
This Haiku to share.

NoWhere, EveryWhere.
NoWhen, All of time is Now.
What IS Now, is ALL.

My Reality
and the worlds Reality
are the same you SEE.

There's no world, no me,
there's just experiencing.
That's Reality.


Sunday, February 10, 2013

The paradox of searching...

UG Krishnamurti. The Mystique of Enlightenment - page 7;

Q: You think, Sir, that it is not the result of the search? I ask because I have heard that you studied philosophy, that you were associated with religious people ...
UG: You see, the search takes you away from yourself -- it is in the opposite direction -- it has absolutely no relation.
Q: In spite of it, it has happened, not because of it?
UG: In spite of it -- yes, that's the word. All that you do makes it impossible for what already is there to express itself. That is why I call this 'your natural state'. You're always in that state. What prevents what is there from expressing itself in its own way is the search. The search is always in the wrong direction, so all that you consider very profound, all that you consider sacred, is a contamination in that consciousness. You may not (Laughs) like the word 'contamination', but all that you consider sacred, holy and profound is a contamination.
So, there's nothing that you can do. It's not in your hands. I don't like to use the word 'grace', because if you use the word 'grace', the grace of whom? You are not a specially chosen individual; you deserve this, I don't know why.
If it were possible for me, I would be able to help somebody. This is something which I can't give, because you have it. Why should I give it to you? It is ridiculous to ask for a thing which you already have. 

Saturday, February 2, 2013

Joan Tollifson on 'Enlightenment'


Here is a grab of a Facebook post by Joan T, that points to some pretty big 'issues' regarding the myth of 'liberation'.

A question was posed to me yesterday. The person wrote: “Joan, in your interview with Rick Archer, you said that sometimes you identify as a person when, for example, hurt or anger arise. You also said you've never met anyone for whom the identification with the person has dropped away ‘forever.’ Tony Parsons says that for ‘him,’ there is no longer any sense of a person, and that it's clear that in ‘his’ body-mind, no personal identification will arise again. He also says that ‘he’ experiences no localization of consciousness. Would you be interested in addressing these points of confusion?”

Here is my response:

However we try to express this, it never quite comes out right because no words can re-present the actuality of Here / Now. The truth is that there IS no separate, independent, persisting person who is angry or hurt or misidentified as a person or for whom the sense of being a person is not happening anymore. In reality, these are ALL impersonal experiences happening to no one. Unicity is all there is.

It is very hard to speak of nonduality and so-called enlightenment or awakening or liberation without inadvertently reinforcing the illusion of the separate self or the illusion that enlightenment is some kind of permanent experience or personal achievement extended over an infinite duration in time. I don’t remember what I said in that interview or what I was trying to express at that moment, and I can’t speak for Tony Parsons, but here’s what I can say now about the underlying issues.

I spent many years comparing one person’s account and description of enlightenment with anothers, and then comparing my experience to theirs, and thinking that there was some final breakthrough I still needed to have—some experiential state that needed to be constantly present, or some illusion that needed to fall away forever and never return. I imagined myself going back and forth between clarity (aka nirvana, expanded energy, pleasure, success, identification as boundless unicity) and confusion (aka samsara, contracted energy, suffering, failure, identification as Joan), trying to stabilize permanently in clarity and banish confusion once and for all.

Eventually, it became clear that this entire concern was all about the imaginary “me” and how “I” was doing in some mythical battle between what I viewed as irreconcilable polar opposites. It became clear that the whole problem I was trying to solve was imaginary, as was the “one” who was supposedly going back and forth. The polar opposites were recognized as inseparable aspects of one interrelated and interdependent whole that was inescapable and unavoidable. The concern with “my enlightenment” (or lack of it) fell away—in my case, not in some big, dramatic, explosive event, but gradually and imperceptibly (and always only Now).

I suspect that in that interview, I was trying to make the point that there is no enlightened person, and that there is no such thing as a perpetual EXPERIENCE of expansion and pleasure and clarity. All apparent form is nothing but continuous change, so it is only as a concept (a mental abstraction) that any form (such as a person or an experience) seems to exist and persist as a separate and enduring “thing.” Consciousness is not encapsulated inside some imaginary form; Consciousness IS form, and form is actually empty of form (impermanence is so thorough-going that nothing forms to BE impermanent). NOW is the only eternity there is, so “forever after” is always a story.

So-called enlightenment points to the falling away (or seeing through) of the illusion of separation and encapsulation, and the recognition of the all-inclusive and seamless Totality from which nothing stands apart. This recognition isn’t an experience that someone has. It isn’t something that happens TO the imaginary fragment. What seemingly falls away was never really there to begin with—it was an imaginary problem. Instead, we often imagine that liberation means that “I” will abide “forever” in some experiential state of consciousness called “nirvana,” from which “I” will never return. But liberation is actually the dissolution of that whole picture.

Liberation is the realization that Totality INCLUDES the mirage-like experience of apparent separation and encapsulation; nothing is excluded from the wholeness of being. Liberation is the total embrace of samsara and the willingness to be in hell forever. It is the discovery that Nirvana is Here / Now, and that samsara IS nirvana. It is the recognition that NO experience is actually personal, whether it is an experience of separation and contraction or an experience of expansion and unity. And by not being personal, I mean that no one brings it about and no one possesses it. There is no owner, no author, no experiencer apart from the experiencing. There is simply THIS – the undivided totality of being.

When there is anger or hurt appearing Here / Now (and I’m speaking here of psychological anger or hurt, attached to a story of some kind), when that is happening here, the story in question always seems predicated upon and tangled up with the mirage-like illusion of being a separate somebody who feels hurt or threatened. I’m guessing that’s what I meant if I said that sometimes I identify as a person when hurt or anger arise. But there isn’t really “somebody” who identifies as a person—and not because Joan Tollifson’s “somebody” has been successfully eliminated in some Enlightenment Triumph, but because there never IS a separate, independent, persisting self to begin with—it is ALWAYS only a mirage.

The appearance of contraction and separation NEVER means that there really IS a separate self to whom ANY of this is happening. And although the structure of language is always suggesting otherwise, it is never the case that a separate self called Joan is identifying as Joan, or that a separate self called Tony has permanently lost his false self. And whether some kind of passing emotional upset (or inner stormy weather) seems to happen more frequently for Joan Tollifson than it does for Tony Parsons is of no concern here. It’s not personal either way. ALL of the weather (inner and outer) is an appearance in and of the wholeness of being (Presence, Awareness, Consciousness, Here / Now, the Tao, the One Self, this undivided present happening, just as it is).

Enlightenment is not a special experience that happens “to somebody,” but rather, it is the discovery that the nondual absolute is equally present as EVERY experience, even the passing sense of being somebody. The nondual absolute, the wholeness of being, the One Self has no boundaries, no seams, no limits, and no other. It is all there is, and all there is, is this.

Tony still answers if you call his name, and I assume that he can still discern the difference between his finger and the carrot he is chopping up for lunch, so obviously he continues to have a functional sense of identity as a particular bodymind. Does he ever get irritated or defensive or miffed or anxious (as Joan does)—in other words, is there ever any kind of momentary entrancement in the mirage of separation, or is that entirely absent? What difference does it make either way?

For Consciousness Itself, there is no end to being tricked and mesmerized and fooled, again and again. Only from the vantage point of the character (the illusory self-image), does it seem to matter whether “I” still get fooled sometimes, or whether “I” get fooled more or less often than somebody else. ALL experiences come and go—experiences of expansion and experiences of contraction. Unicity (the nondual absolute) is not a particular experience (this but not that); it is EVERY experience. Even the APPARENT misunderstanding is nothing other than unicity appearing as misunderstanding.

To speak about this at all, we have to use words, and whatever we say, it ends up being easily misunderstood. Language is used casually, spoken off the cuff, maybe carelessly at times, and then it winds up being scrutinized—sentences are taken out of the larger context, taken literally, put under the microscope, compared to other sentences, sometimes misheard or misquoted—and soon, confusion abounds. Plus, this whole subject of enlightenment has been so greatly mystified, idealized and misunderstood over so many centuries that it is hard not to be confused.

What is actually being pointed to (I would say by both Tony Parsons and myself) is not some special achievement, but rather, the all-inclusive, ever-present, unavoidable and thus unattainable natural state Here / Now (the stateless state, the groundless ground, the One Reality) that is appearing as you and me and tables and chairs and Facebook posts and the whole movie of waking life. Unicity is never not here. It is never not attained. It is all there is. It is a never-ending Self-realization.

But don’t take on any of this as a new belief. Instead, look and see. In your actual direct experience right now, can you locate an actual boundary where “inside of you” turns into “outside of you” – where “subject” ends and “object” begins? Can you actually FIND any such boundary in direct perception? Is Here / Now (Consciousness Itself, this present experiencing) localized anywhere? Doesn’t it take thought to conjure up some IDEA like “it’s happening in my brain” or to form an image of some boundary line such as “my skin” between “in here” and “out there”? If we cut open your brain, will we find this presently appearing Facebook page or this room you are sitting in? Where IS all of this happening?

“No localization of consciousness” is not some strange mystical experience that “you” have never had and that Tony Parsons is having “all the time” and that Joan Tollifson is only having “some of the time.” That is how thought interprets what has been said by Tony and by Joan (and by many others trying to express the inexpressible). But you might notice right now that in your own direct present moment experiencing, this awaring presence Here / Now is unlocatable, ungraspable, and yet utterly unavoidable. This present happening is magnificently diverse and varied but also seamless and boundless. It is without division and empty of self. (And that doesn’t mean I forget my name or lose all sense of being Joan, or that defensiveness or feeling hurt might not arise here).

Here’s another bit from my book, Painting the Sidewalk with Water: Talks and Dialogs about Nonduality (p 57):

“We try to zero in on ‘unicity’ as an experience. And we feel very frustrated because we keep seeing chairs and tables and different people, and so we wonder, where’s the unicity, where’s the boundless emptiness? All we’re seeing is chairs and tables. Unicity shouldn’t look like this! Or maybe we think we’ve got it, but as you may have noticed, that thought leads almost instantly to the opposite thought, ‘Oh, no! I’ve lost it.’ Any EXPERIENCE that we identify as unicity will go. If it came, it will go. It may stay for a minute, for an hour, or for a decade. But it WILL go. And then suddenly there's a different experience, that pesky dualistic ‘me’ experience again. And then the thought, ‘I’ve lost unicity. I’ve fallen out of the Now. My spiritual ship has sunk!’ Very disappointing, very humiliating.

“The mind can get very confused trying to THINK its way through all this and figure it out, but what's here right now is utterly simple.”

And this is Tony Parsons, from his book All There Is (p 231):

“There is no such thing as an awakened person; that’s a contradiction in terms…So let’s say there is just being and ‘me’-ing…If those so-called enlightened people were honest, they would probably say to you that…there can still be a contraction into ‘me’-ing, but the final liberation is that anything is accepted and everything is accepted; nothing is denied. So both are now seen as one…There is being, but contraction can happen. It happens within the perception of the whole. Anything can happen because this is liberation…Liberation includes the total acceptance of all that is.”

Sounds to me like Tony and I are saying the same thing! For the record, I’ve always loved Tony, and as far as I know, the only significant difference in our expression is that he more consistently holds the line on uncompromising, absolute, radical nonduality, while I might be talking about meditation or quoting Thich Nhat Hanh in my next breath. I also find that some of the ways Tony describes awakening CAN dangle a carrot in front of his listeners—e.g. when he seems to be talking about permanent "energetic shifts" and final "pops" or making statements like the ones attributed to him in the question that began this post. But I’m sure that’s not his intention, to dangle a carrot. Somewhere or other, he puts it like this: "There's nowhere to go. There's no goal. There's no carrot. There's no prize. All there is is this. But the difference between there just being what's happening and the sense that it's happening to you is immeasurable."

Immeasurable and imaginary! Both!

Saturday, January 19, 2013

Processing...

Ok, let's consider this; EVERYTHING that is outside of your current Experiencing is story. (they may or may not be accurate, but as they are not part of Experiencing in this instant, they can only be conceptualized.)
All beliefs and opinions are story. Every word or thought is story, even those 'original' thought/words used to describe/communicate Experiencing (because by the time a word ABOUT it is formed it is already only memory)
Only Experiencing is Reality for 'you'. In Experiencing there is no thought, no awareness. You are the Experiencing. Experiencing is 'you'.
So in order to have awareness, we have to have thought. The awareness is description of an Experience (memory).
The moment we have thought, we are in the realm of concept, of Story. In order to communicate we need story. This is useful. We have a useful story to enable the transfer of information to 'another'.
When does a story become the source of suffering ?
Is it when it adds something to the Experiential Reality ?
Is it when we respond to the conceptual instead of to the Experiencing ?
How do we Recognize when this occurs ? What triggers can we set that will evoke the Recognition ?
We know that when Recognition that we are responding to a story happens, that the response get 'short circuited', it gets dropped.
We also know that this de-conditions the habitual responding to this particular story.
So the key is the trigger.
If we have it clear that it is conceptual additions to Experiencing, that constitutes these stories, we can use the responding itself (the responding that will be dropped when Recognition occurs) as the trigger.
When emotion starts to rise, or has risen there will be investigation as to whether it it emotion as a response to the Experiencing that is occurring, or whether it is a response to something about that Experiencing.
If it is about it, then it is conceptual. This is SEEn and then reaction is dropped.

The difference between the liberated and 'others'

The first difference between the liberated and 'others', is that the liberated have stopped believing that they are the character in the story of a self.
The result of this is that they then recognize when they start to 'act out' the script, and with that recognition, a dropping of the responding to beliefs that come out of the story.
Each time a dropping occurs, the neuronal pathways associated with the habitual expressing of the reactive emotion, is weakened. It starts to atrophy with disuse.
Relatively (relative to the years lived in the delusion that an I was actual) quickly all of the extra dross is no longer a feature in the liberateds' life-ing.
Considering that this Reality distorting shit permeated all waking life (and even sleeping dreams), a huge burden has been lifted.
The result of the elimination of this load, is much more than just the absence of all of this emotion.
On a physical level, the body is not flooded with stress hormones regularly, which has obvious benefits.
On another level, an innate 'wisdom' is revealed that was previously swamped with the old reactions to almost every situation. There is a 'knowing' of all that needs to be known in every situation that 'life presents'.
i am describing experiencing here.
How much of it is story for you ?

Tuesday, December 4, 2012

Others...

There can be responding (by this mind/body organism) to Reality or to Story.
This is not a choice, it is a statement of observation.
Whether there is responding to animate or inanimate others (people or things), the moment meaning is applied, then i am responding to story. Any meaning is speculative and thus response is to actuality plus meaning. The response itself is actual and can be given the label of reality, but the meaning component of what was responded to, is imagined, is concept, is thought content and may or may not turn out to be accurate.
It would seem that Reality is confined to direct Experiencing as everything outside of this can only be thought about. (until it is encountered)
When it comes to other people, it is exactly the same. If you see them, there is a visual experiencing. If they touch you there is a kinaesthetic experiencing. If you hear them, an auditory experiencing. Of course it doesn't stop with the raw sensory stimulation. Almost always there is association with past experience. This is still Reality. It is the belief that past experience 'means' something about this person, that is where story starts to influence reality.
When i imagine that i know what another thinks or feels, when i imagine that the others personal... the others persona, their personality can be known by anybody else, then i am totally outside of reality and completely inside concept, imagination.
Of course, this is a somewhat simplistic description. At the other end of the spectrum is relationships.
My relationship with a rock brings with it a history and preferences. For reasons beyond awareness, i prefer solid rocks to crumbly ones. i like smooth surfaces as opposed to jagged. i am taken by unusual shapes, etc.
When it comes to relationships with other people, the complexity and extent of history and preferences is huge and unknowable.
The unknown component presents the 'most likely to corrupt', influence.
The question "What is actual, and what is imagined" is the best chance for a healthy relationship. It may well be the most difficult too, as we react so quickly and unconsciously to the stuff of our thoughts while thinking that we are reacting to the other.

Monday, November 26, 2012

Wisdom revisited...

A repost from a year before awakening happened...
"Your default setting is wisdom and peace. 
The only thing that ever covers over your experience of spaciousness and peace, in any moment, is believed thought." Vince Flammini
Now, a year post liberation (2 yrs later), this is seen rather differently.
Whereas before the 'default setting' was seen as a state, now it is seen as a flow.
Even the (newly) awakened being, when responding habitually to a 'button' being pushed, will not be expressing wise thinking. This is impossible while the current of emotion is raging. The wise perspective will certainly reappear the moment that the actual happening is seen to be the result of conditioning. (this will weaken it and cause it to eventually wither away)

Here are previous posts on this subject.
http://vince-wisingup.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/wisdom.html
http://vince-wisingup.blogspot.com.au/2011/09/before-wisdom.html


Is it possible for children to express wisdom ?
This question begets the need to describe wise thinking.
In view of what is currently seen, it is simply seeing 'what IS', that is the actual, without the distortion or addition of the mind filters. The filters produced by the story of self.
The saying "out of the mouths of babes." gives us a clue. How often do we hear an unfiltered statement  about 'how it IS' from children ?
Their ego (story of self) is not yet sufficiently complex for them to include in their script, the possible ramifications of what they say, so they just blurt it out. As it IS.
i guess this is unintentional wisdom ??

Can wisdom be expressed while not knowing it is wisdom ?
The child above certainly has no concept of wisdom.
It is infrequent that an adult will express anything without an inherent opinion/judgement. (therefore unlikely that wisdom is present)

Is there such a thing as accidental wisdom ? (is there such a thing as intentional wisdom ?)
If wise thinking is present, it most certainly isn't the result of seeking wisdom. It most likely is the result of someone grokking that suffering is induced by believing a story about how they & the world works, rather than SEEing the actuality. How IT Is.
Grok means to understand so thoroughly that the observer becomes a part of the observed—to merge, blend, intermarry, lose identity in experience. Wiki...

Friday, November 23, 2012

Separate or One ?

In seeing, Both see-er and seen are required. Remove any one, then neither exist. (except as a story in your mind)
How can there be separation ?
 Only the mind behaves as if separation exists. In experience, everything only exists because of everything else.
Consider the senses, hearing, tasting, smelling, seeing, feeling.
Isn't it the case that any of these senses require stimulation to become active ?
If they are being activated by a connection with whatever is being sensed, then that dance requires all partners. Ergo, no separation. In fact, a joining. And only when we are joined does experiencing start. Only when we are One, can the dance begin.
If something were truly separate, then it couldn't be part of Experiencing, as there would be no connection and thus no sense stimulation.

Belief...

A belief is where some thoughts have given other thoughts permission to generate a response without consulting the 'conscious' mind, that is without consulting thoughts in the present.
It is a given. If you believe something then you respond to it without any thought. Automatically.

It is impossible to resist beliefs as there is nothing there to push back against.

Do you believe that you are at the mercy of your beliefs ?

Is belief born of thoughts ?
Is it thoughts that resonated once, in the past ?
Thoughts that other thoughts said were right ?
Thoughts that other thoughts have said need not be questioned ?
Thoughts that bypass conscious awareness and directly effect emotion ?

The way to allow a belief to become irrelevant is to examine it.
All beliefs are story, and none stand up to close scrutiny. (as being reality)
Beliefs (and opinions) are always ABOUT something. They are never IT.

Belief is what handcuffs you to a fictitious self.
No self = No beliefs. (of course, the story of self and beliefs inherent to that, remain - but are seen for what they are. That is that they are SEEn to be nothing but a Concept.)

The moment i see a belief or an opinion, alarms go off here.

Does belief require faith ?
Is faith another form of belief ?

Why does belief have any credibility ? Lots of kids believe in Santa Clause. What's the difference between that belief and somebody that believes in god, or somebody that believes in conspiracy theories. Why is your belief more credible ?

When i was a kid, it happened that one day as normally happened, my mother woke me, telling me to get ready for school.
i got up and got dressed and was just heading out the bedroom door when my mother woke me for school.
i believed i was awake and it was so realistic that when i was woken for the second time i felt like i had to do it all again, even though the first time was in a dream.
This experience left me believing that i can't actually know anything, i can only have beliefs and they can be shown to be wrong at any moment. i.e. they have no credibility. In fact they are the cause of most (if not all) suffering.
Just to finish this, i now hold the following to be true (until it is shown not to be); i can't know anything. i can only have beliefs that i will use 'as if' they are true for the purpose of navigating a given situation, and then discard them until/if they become useful again.

Monday, November 12, 2012

Experiencing, or an Experience...

The verb, Experiencing, or a noun, an Experience... this is the question.
Conventional language always uses the noun Experience, but what is an experience ?
It is a memory, a mental thing about what was being experienced at the time Experiencing was happening. Even to say "what was being experienced" attempts to turn it into a thing. (a noun)
How can the awareness-ing of the constantly changing perception be a thing ?
Language convention escapes the paradox by introducing an 'acceptable' oxymoron, called an "abstract noun".  A dictionary description says; "In this instance, abstract means to exist apart from concrete existence. A noun that is abstract is an aspect, concept, idea, experience, state of being, trait, quality, feeling, or other entity that cannot be experienced with the five senses."
Language is both useful and necessary, but like assumptions (see previous post), can easily lead us astray when it comes to assessing reality.
This 'leading astray' occurs when we remember, that is, have thoughts about previous experiencing, and mistake that, for the actual experiencing.
Consider this; can there be sensory input without sense activation ?
Can there be seeing without the seen ?
Can there be hearing without the heard ?
Of course not ! They are inseparable. So when Seeing or Hearing is occurring, there is only SEEing or HEARing. The See-er and Seen, Hear-er and Heard are inclusive of the Seeing or Hearing.
While it is occurring, there is experiencing.
Experiencing is a constant and ever changing 'process' and this happening can only ever be NOW.
The moment we refer to the past (or future), we are in concept land. The realm of thought, and that is always ABOUT. It is never IT.

Friday, November 9, 2012

Assumptions...

Assumptions are great.
They save a lot of time and energy and make navigating daily life smoother.
example; we assume that we will arrive where we intend to go, so we don't need to consider a mechanical check of the car, or consult the public transport administration to see if everything is running ok.
You can imagine how bogged down it would get if we had to consider the details of every intention.
On the other hand, there are triggers that tell us that it's appropriate to put assumptions aside and check details. When a red light appears on the dashboard of the car, or when problems with public transport is detected.
There are those assumptions that have a more profound effect on quality of life.
The trigger for one of these is spiritual seeking. Searching for the 'meaning' of life. Dissatisfaction with happiness levels.
These triggers point to a really fundamental assumption that is universal. If everybody you know carries the same assumption, you might be forgiven for assuming that it is fact and not open to be re-considered.
When thinking of this one, the fact that the whole world once thought the earth was flat, says something...
Todays equivalent of the Flat Earth belief is the assumption that there is an actual self, that there is an I.
You don't need to be an astronomer to work this out. You can investigate it for yourself quite easily.

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Choice or Choice-less ?

Since awakening occurred, there is a willing acceptance of the arisings of life-ing.
No decisions need to be made, although it still seems that they are.
Sometimes there is a reminder that i will 'go with the flow', and this seems like a choice, but on investigation, it is seen that there was already put in place the intention to 'do' this.
Certainly, it seems (in hindsight) that i could have 'chosen' to take a different direction.
But that didn't happen.
Did i have the capacity to 'do' otherwise ? i don't know.
i do know that it seems like i did, but i also know that there were no alternatives considered.
There was recognising some resistance, then a 'letting go' when the memory arose of the 'going with the flow'.
By going with the flow, i mean that whatever is in front of me, is what is willingly accepted as the top priority. eg, i am typing this and my wife comes and asks will it attend to a job, whereas before i would feel intruded upon and interrupted, now there is just doing it. No reluctance, no resistance. Just happiness at the opportunity to practice 'going with the flow'.
This 'going with the flow' seems like a previous decision was made, but in fact was a recognition that it is either do this or add distortion by resisting.
Is there a choice here ?
Before that recognition, while the illusion of choice was present, there was habit.
There was a desire to continue what was happening (what i was 'doing') and so the request to 'change course' was seen as an interference. This was where conflict occurred, which resulted in anger and disharmony.
Once seen, where was the choice ? Could i choose to continue with an attitude/behaviour that induced stress ?
Of course, conditioning (habit) still sometimes arises, but is usually seen to be occurring, which instantly causes evaporation of resistance, accompanied by a chuckle of recognition.

Sunday, October 21, 2012

Friendship

In pre-awakened times, friendship, like all relationships existed on a spectrum.
There were those that were closer and those more distant.
An acquaintance, being the most distant, was someone that you shared little more with than a knowing of names, maybe occupation, and had somewhat regular visual contact with.
As the distance decreases, at some point we start calling it friendship.
It may be that this point is when personal sharing occurs.
'personal' is a whole rabbit hole of its' own.
Since awakening, it has been impossible to take anything personally. For a start, there is only a story of I or Me or self, so there is no-one to take anything personally. 
Then there is the recognition that others cannot actually know anything about 'me'. 
They can only relate to their story of me, 
and who knows how accurate that might be ?
There is no doubt that imagining that the other likes me is also important, and add to this an underlying sharing of attitudes and philosophy and the distance decreases even further.
In close friendships there is a non-judgemental acceptance of the others behaviour and thinking.
Predictability may have a place in the feeling of safety that exists when either interacting or thinking about a friend.
i used to think that it was important that a friend 'knew me'. Knew my likes and dislikes, knew my philosophy on life. Now, my 'best' friend clearly relates to a story of me, and there is complete acceptance that they will never really 'know' me.


Many so-called friendships, like most couples relationships, are actually each others demons feeding of the other.
When you say "friend", there is a softness, a warmth, good humor, connection. It is a heart thing.
When you say "acquaintance", there is a knowledge about that person. It is a mental thing (mostly).
The awakened can see clearly that the relationship with another is, in fact a relationship with a story they hold about the other, and actually is very loosely based on the actual person.
This doesn't preclude friendships as preferences still exist and the organism certainly prefers feeling safe and warm.

...maybe to be continued.

Tuesday, October 9, 2012

Is 'Looking At' the same as 'Seeing' ?

When we 'look AT' we are looking at labels, we are therefore relating to a brain generated overlay, complete with opinions and judgements, and just as opinions and judgements are ABOUT something, so too is the overlay, but when we are SEEing we are experiencing what IS. Not about it, but  direct experiencing. This includes the perception that what is being SEEN is not an object 'out there' but a focussing on details of interaction that are indescribable.  Indescribable because to attempt to describe them is to ignore the nuance that is the depth of the multi sensorial experiencing. 
Can the Seen be seen without the See-er ? Is there a See-er without the Seen ? Where does the See-er and the Seen begin and end ?
To appreciate that See-er and Seen are actually an experiencing of SEEing, that there can be No separation, is to begin to grok this.
It may not be possible to avoid the 'looking At', as brain conditioning has already taken place and all of the ingredients for labeling are already there, But it is possible to be aware that this is happening and to give it the attention that it deserves (which is very little usually, though to communicate with another, it may be useful to have a 'shared' perception) The mind is obsessed with applying meaning to everything and part of doing this is to categorise and label everything that it touches.
The realization that thoughts have no inherent integrity (thoughts are always about, always conceptual and can only interfere with direct experiencing.) allows a relationship with reality that doesn't distort it. (reality is not actually an "it", nor can it be related to,  but language...)

When looking at it,
mind knows what it's seen before.
and sees it again.

When SEEing something,
it's always for the first time,
and it's Wonder-Full