the observer and the observed

[Tibetan_Ice]

However you are defining "the gap" it is not it. How can that which everything arises in be defined by what arises in it? love and bliss are not necessarily present, it is beyond mind so whatever you say about it is going to be like trying to erect walls around infinite empty space and then saying only that inside the walls is it while ignoring that which is outside.

 

 

You don't need sustained attention to be what you are, it doesn't require any effort at all to be what you are because you already are it innately.

 

Hi Jetsun,

I agree. On a television set, the type of program that is displaying does not define what a television set it, but it does reveal something of the nature of the tv. It is that from which everything arises from, displays for an instant and then dissolves back into.

It is not affected by what it displays, passes no judgement for it is non-conceptual, and is infinite, luminous and beyond the bounds of time and space. And yes, it is filled with love and bliss. Love is not a mental construct, it is part of what we really are.

 

Your second statement is just plain disgusting to me. It is the kind of statement that some neo-advaitists will say to confound beginners, establish the upper arm and 'prove' that they know something that you do not. It is a top-down statement that most people who have no practical experience in the matter will regurgitate. It is not helpful. Once you are at the top of the mountain looking down, you can see everything. But when you are climbing up the mountain, you cannot see the cliffs, the slippery slopes, the thickly wooded patches or the best route to take. It is a non-dual statement that makes no sense in a dualistic context.

 

Think about that statement for a while. If it is effortless just to 'be', then why are so many people making efforts to realize their spirituality? Why do so many authentic spiritual teachers teach practices which require effort? If it is effortless, then why can't you walk through walls, heal others, manifest food or fly through the air just like that?

 

You don't need sustained attention attention to 'be what you are', you need sustained attention in order to fend off the obscurations, the hinderances, the thoughts/emotions/feelings that are standing in the way of you simply 'being'. You perform practices to calm the mind. You recieve instructions to learn where to direct your attention. You learn about the distractions, how to resolve them, how to increase clarity and vividness, exactly what to do.

 

Even releasing everything, neither grasping nor averting, is a form of sustained attention. It takes skill and effort. If attaining enlightenment or realizing what you really are required absolutely no effort, then we would all be enlightened in the first place.

 

On a very simple level, with reference to your statement "because you already are it innately", well how about this:

Inately, you are a walnut seed,

but the flesh cannot be tasted

without first cracking and removing the shell.

 

 

Think about it..

 

TI

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi TI,

 

People I have found (increasingly so over the years) are very difficult to convince in any which way. They tend to learn from their own experiences (and mistakes thereby) far better than listening to anyone else. So I don't really care to "teach" anyone anything. And given that I'm like most people, I too tend to learn off my own experiences and mistakes.

 

I don't really have any position to defend because I do agree with you that there are more than one way to realize the gap between thoughts. It used to happen when I practiced Yoga, Kriyas, sitting meditation, running and it happens when I practice Tai Chi.

 

There is no other way I know of to "directly" experience that which everything rises and falls into. The mind needs to stop. That which is after the mind "stops" is what I call the "gap between thoughts".

 

My teacher often tells us "hardest spiritual practice is to learn how to get out of our own way"... and patiently waiting for the mind to stop is the hardest "easy" practice I have ever had.

 

Lao Tzu's "The Real Tao is that which cannot be named" and Shankara's "Brahman is silence" have never rang truer to me (and rings truer still with each passing day).

 

 

 

Hi Dwai

Well thank you for explaining that.

Your definition of the 'gap' makes sense to me now.

 

All the best.

 

TI

 

Hmmm. This editor is putting all my posts into one post.. no gap there! Where is the gap? I miss the gap!

Edited September 15, 2013 by Tibetan_Ice

[Jetsun]

Your second statement is just plain disgusting to me. It is the kind of statement that some neo-advaitists will say to confound beginners, establish the upper arm and 'prove' that they know something that you do not. It is a top-down statement that most people who have no practical experience in the matter will regurgitate. It is not helpful.

 

I'm sorry it disgusts you but for some people it could be one of those most helpful things they have ever heard anyone say, think about the concept of doing loads of practices to become what you already are? isn't the whole concept absurd, as all the practices do is reinforce the seeking that you haven't found what you are looking for, the practice may actualy help maintain the delusion

 

As some of the Zen masters say your practice is meant to fail, it is meant to exhaust you so you give up seeking, then though the giving up of seeking you find.

 

 

Think about that statement for a while. If it is effortless just to 'be', then why are so many people making efforts to realize their spirituality? Why do so many authentic spiritual teachers teach practices which require effort? If it is effortless, then why can't you walk through walls, heal others, manifest food or fly through the air just like that?

 

Indeed why are so many people making efforts to realise their spirituality? Efforts may be necessary at some point, all i'm saying is that it is a not a requirement, how can it be if we already are it?

 

Of course it is effortless to be, how else could it be? I have no idea what walking through walls has to do with anything, we are talking about fundamental identity.

 

If attaining enlightenment or realizing what you really are required absolutely no effort, then we would all be enlightened in the first place.

 

No because people are always using effort and seeking all the time, not just spiritual seekers but regular folks also are always seeking and aiming for something in the future. Trying to be something or someone. The vast majority of people are trying to be the image their mind has of who they think they should be. If they didn't do that then everyone would be enlightened, but stopping doesn't have to require effort rather it is relinquishment of existing effort through either failure, exhaustion or just realising what it is that you are through changing where your attention is placed.

 

 

 

Think about it..

 

TI

 

It's not about thinking, that is where most people get stuck

[Tibetan_Ice]

Hi Jetsun

 

I'm sorry it disgusts you but for some people it could be one of those most helpful things they have ever heard anyone say, think about the concept of doing loads of practices to become what you already are? isn't the whole concept absurd, as all the practices do is reinforce the seeking that you haven't found what you are looking for, the practice may actualy help maintain the delusion

 

As some of the Zen masters say your practice is meant to fail, it is meant to exhaust you so you give up seeking, then though the giving up of seeking you find.

 

 

If all practices were meant to fail, then why would all the great spiritual teachers have taught 'practices'? This sounds like a piece of crap that Adyashanti would say. Actually, I think he did say something like that.

 

Semantics.. Zen Koans designed to exhaust the mind is still a 'practice'. One must still practice and put in effort.

It is a rare and overly ripe person whom, with the utterance of such a top down statement, realizes his true nature.

 

Indeed why are so many people making efforts to realise their spirituality? Efforts may be necessary at some point, all i'm saying is that it is a not a requirement, how can it be if we already are it?

 

You seem to be repeating your same argument, that enlightenment is innate therefore it requires no effort to realize it.

Thoeretically this may seem true except, the fact is that we don't realize it because of the veils we have mistaken for true identity.

The dissolution of the veils requires effort.

 

Of course it is effortless to be, how else could it be? I have no idea what walking through walls has to do with anything, we are talking about fundamental identity.

 

This again is a typical neo-advaitant ploy that you have bought into. First you redefine the term 'enlightenment' to be void of any powers or miraculous abilities and strip the definition of any semblance of true divinity. After doing so, it is easy to convince others that you are 'enlighened' and that they too can be 'enlightened'. But there is something terribly with doing that. If you realized your true nature, you could walk through walls, leave footprints in rocks, manifest objects - this is all child's play for God or whatever you'd like to call it. (primordial ground, presence, etc..). No realization? No omniscience, no omnipotence, no omniprescence..

 

This is the final chapter of 'Buddhahood Without Meditation'. page 169:

 

Ah, listen, spiritual one. The accumulations, aspirations, and positive karmic tendencies reinforced for immeasurable eons have come together simultaneously in you. If you wish to reach the omniscient state of buddhahood, do the following: Please your guru with unflagging devotion in all your conduct. Train without interruption in affectionate love and pure view toward your spiritual companions. Strive for the state of omniscience through intense compassion for beings."

 

Sarcasm: gee there is no effort there, is there?

And, was Dudjom Lingpa lying? He did use the term 'omniscient', didn't he?

 

No because people are always using effort and seeking all the time, not just spiritual seekers but regular folks also are always seeking and aiming for something in the future. Trying to be something or someone. The vast majority of people are trying to be the image their mind has of who they think they should be. If they didn't do that then everyone would be enlightened, but stopping doesn't have to require effort rather it is relinquishment of existing effort through either failure, exhaustion or just realising what it is that you are through changing where your attention is placed.

 

Failure, exhaustion or changing where your attention is placed are all acts which require effort. Failure implies having tried. Exhaustion implies having spent vast amounts of energy to the point of depletion. Changing 'where your attention is place' is not an easy thing to do as the conceptual mind keeps calling one back to what has been conditioned. Maintaining a shift in perspective 24 hours a day is a daunting task which for most people, takes years of practice.

 

It's not about thinking, that is where most people get stuck

 

No it definately isn't about 'thinking'. Effortful practices dissolve the conceptual mind and reveal what is beyond.

Here are some more top-down statements for you to add to your bag of tricks:

- this conversation is pointless because you really don't exist.

- we are all one so I guess I'm arguing with myself.

- nothing you 'do' will ever make you enlightened.

- a relinquishment of effort and maintaining that 24 hours a day does not require any effort whatsoever.

 

 

 

TI

[C T]

Being a jerk takes practice too.

[Jetsun]

Ti you do realise this is the Vedanta forum right? You can call what I'm saying unhelpful top down nonsense if you like but its a pretty fundamental point that both Vedanta and Buddhist masters often repeat that your original nature or Buddha nature is already present right now. So if you are seeking it some time in the future then you won't find it, if you think you have to create it then you will fail. But if you discover what you are now then what you are not will dissolve over time without the glue of identity holding it together.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Being a jerk takes practice too.

 

CT.

Well thank you for dropping by just to insult me. That is against the forum rules, isn't it?

 

If you don't have anything worth while to contribute to the debate, why don't you stay away?

 

If you don't like how I drive, then stay off of the sidewalk.

[Tibetan_Ice]

Ti you do realise this is the Vedanta forum right? You can call what I'm saying unhelpful top down nonsense if you like but its a pretty fundamental point that both Vedanta and Buddhist masters often repeat that your original nature or Buddha nature is already present right now. So if you are seeking it some time in the future then you won't find it, if you think you have to create it then you will fail. But if you discover what you are now then what you are not will dissolve over time without the glue of identity holding it together.

 

Jetsun

So I can't use examples from the penultimate Dzogchen teachings? Ok. But you know, sometimes Ramana sounds more like a Buddhist... I mean, here he says that objects have no substantive being.. and his method eradicates misery (suffering). Hmm..

 

http://bhagavan-ramana.org/selfenquirypractice.html

 

 

How then can the benefit be made lasting? It is by finding the cause of misery. Misery is due to the perception of objects. If they are not there, there will be no contingent thoughts and so misery is wiped off. ‘How will objects cease to be?’ is the next question. The srutis (scriptures) and the sages say that the objects are only mental creations. They have no substantive being. Investigate the matter and ascertain the truth of the statement. The result will be the conclusion that the objective world is in the subjective consciousness. The Self is thus the only reality, which permeates and also envelops the world. Since there is no duality, no thoughts will arise to disturb your peace. This is realisation of the Self. The Self is eternal and so also is realisation.

...

Again people often ask how the mind is controlled. I say to them, ‘Show me the mind and then you will know what to do.’ The fact is that the mind is only a bundle of thoughts. How can you extinguish it by the thought of doing so or by a desire? Your thoughts and desires are part and parcel of the mind. The mind is simply fattened by new thoughts rising up. Therefore it is foolish to attempt to kill the mind by means of the mind. The only way of doing it is to find its source and hold on to it. The mind will then fade away of its own accord. Yoga teaches Chitta Vritti Nirodha (control of the activities of the mind). But I say Atma Vichara (self-investigation). This is the practical way. Chitta Vritti Nirodha is brought about in sleep, swoon, or by starvation. As soon as the cause is withdrawn there is a recrudescence of thoughts. Of what use is it then? In the state of stupor there is peace and no misery. But misery recurs when the stupor is removed. So nirodha (control) is useless and cannot be of lasting benefit.

 

 

 

 

I didn't mind so much when you said that it is effortless, but what bothered me more was when you said that all practices are designed to fail. It makes me think that you have bought into beliefs that you have not verified and are just repeating what you've been told or read somewhere. You seem to refer to Adyashanti quite a bit. I have no use for him.

 

Let us take a look at Ramana's teachings as he does use the term 'effortless', even though later in his process he describes practices which would take effort. (And I do not think his practice was designed to fail).

 

 

In the early stages of practice attention to the feeling ‘I’ is a mental activity which takes the form of a thought or a perception. As the practice develops, the thought ‘I’ gives way to a subjectively experienced feeling of ‘I’, and when this feeling ceases to connect and identify with thoughts and objects, it completely vanishes. What remains is an experience of being in which the sense of individuality has temporarily ceased to operate. The experience may be intermittent at first but with repeated practice it becomes easier and easier to reach and maintain. When self-enquiry reaches this level there is an effortless awareness of being in which individual effort is no longer possible since the ‘I’ who makes the effort has temporarily ceased to exist. It is not Self-realisation since the ‘I’-thought periodically reasserts itself but it is the highest level of practice. Repeated experience of this state of being weakens and destroys the Vasanas (mental tendencies) which cause the '‘I’-thought to rise, and, when their hold has been sufficiently weakened, the power of the Self destroys the residual tendencies so completely that the ‘I’-thought never rises again. This is the final and irreversible state of Self-realisation.

 

This practice of Self-attention or awareness of the ‘I’-thought is a gentle technique, which bypasses the usual repressive methods of controlling the mind. It is not an exercise in concentration, nor does it aim at suppressing thoughts; it merely invokes awareness of the source from which the mind springs. The method and goal of self-enquiry is to abide in the source of the mind and to be aware of what one really is by withdrawing attention and interest from what one is not. In the early stages effort in the form of transferring attention from the thoughts to the thinker is essential, but once awareness of the ‘I’-feeling has been firmly established, further effort is counter-productive. From then on it is more a process of being than doing, of effortless being rather than an effort to be.

 

Being what one already is is effortless since beingness is always present and always experienced. On the other hand, pretending to be what one is not (i.e. the body and the mind) requires continuous mental effort even though the effort is nearly always at a subconscious level. It therefore follows that in the higher stages of self-enquiry effort takes attention away from the experience of being while the cessation of mental effort reveals it. Ultimately, the Self is not discovered as a result of doing anything, but only by being. As Sri Ramana Maharshi himself once remarked:

 

 

 

‘Do not meditate – be!

 

 

 

Do not think that you are – be!

 

 

 

Don’t think about being – you are!’

 

 

 

...

 

Question: How can I tell if I am making progress with my enquiry?

 

 

 

Sri Ramana Maharshi: The degree of the absence of thoughts is the measure of your progress towards Self-realisation. But Self-realisation itself does not admit of progress, it is ever the same. The Self remains always in realisation. The obstacles are thoughts. Progress is measured by the degree of removal of the obstacles to understanding that the Self is always realised. So thoughts must be checked by seeking to whom they arise. So you go to their source, where they do not arise.

 

 

 

So, even for Ramana, the initial stages require effort. Telling someone just to be is neglecting the preliminary practice. It is like saying "there is the summit, just go to it. It is your innate nature" without showing them the best path up the mountain. I mean, telling someone to "just be" is a good thing as long as they understand the practice of 'just being'..

 

And, gee, removal of obstacles..

 

TI

[RongzomFan]

It isn't rocket science. You only have 2 things:

 

conceptualizing mind

nowness

[C T]

CT.

Well thank you for dropping by just to insult me. That is against the forum rules, isn't it?

 

If you don't have anything worth while to contribute to the debate, why don't you stay away?

 

If you don't like how I drive, then stay off of the sidewalk.

Its strange you managed to conclude that that remark was directed at you.

 

something to work on i guess.

 

welcome, nonetheless.

[Jadespear]

I have an interesting idea about the relationship between the observer and the observed.

 

J. Krishnamurti says, "The observer is the observed."

 

Yet other teachers teach that they are different.

 

Maybe it's like the question, "Was Harrison Ford Han Solo?"

 

Yes and no.

 

He played the part, but the part was not his true self.

 

The observed is a part we play, but it might not reflect our true nature.

 

But the thing is that it's only when you FIRST see that you ARE the observed (seeing Harrison Ford AS Han Solo), that you can see that you are NOT the observed.

 

I'm not 100% certain about this stuff but it seems like something worth exploring.

 

Krishnamurti is very deep. He used his own terminology to discuss his own truth.

 

In this case, I believe all he is really saying is that "observations" or any type of mental activity apart from what he also describes as "choiceless awareness"... or "pure awareness, exist within the same mental space as that which is "observed". The name, meaning, and identity of that which you observe resonates within your field of observation... and only in that field. In other words, what you see is what you get, and Krishnamurti takes it a step deeper and says, what you see, what you label, what you observe is also what you are. Because as Krishnamurti believed, there is no actual "you" or "me" at all, these are human concepts engrained in the background of our minds that have been indoctrinated throughout centuries of thought and reinforcement.

 

The observer is the observed... meaning one is what one observes as long as one follows that continuum of thought. Krishnamurti set forth early in his life to "set man free". All of his thoughts and observances on the human mind sort of intermingle with one another and are mostly aimed at being fiercely independent and totally compassionate outside of the realm of thought, outside of the mind, to the end of being "creative" individuals.

 

It's strange, but at times I have felt this feeling of being observed by the entire universe outside of myself...like when I deeply still and am simply paying attention, am simply aware.... it feels like the whole of creation is staring at me. Maybe K, was correct.