Hey Sandeep - That sums it up nicely!
- D - On Nov 8, 9:49 am, Sandeep-Kuber Technologies <[email protected]> wrote: > So, I had the whole non-dual awakening, blah, blah a few years back. > > Since then I have been deeply and firmly rooted in reality. The whole > world and all it's dramas were nothing more then mere scenery. > > The past week so personal drama came up and my abidance in reality > started slipping... > > The mind was getting entangled in the drama. Normally a simple 'neti > neti' would make it fade. > > This time around the attention is on the mind, on the stories and it's > running with it and there are charged emotions coming up to the surface. > > Old anxieties, old habits(biting nails, not sleeping at night) are > started resurfacing. > > I'm losing myself, it feels like... There was a certain level of > sensitivity that I had and having all this come up on some level is > almost nauseating, insane... > > On top of it, the mind is having anxiety over having 'lost' something. > Again my attention is getting entangled. Having a hard time seeing past > the illusion. Intellectually sure, I see it, but experiencially it's > been difficult. > > Is this common? Is this an indication that there is quite a bit more > dissolution that needs to take place? > > ------------------ > > That which slips has to be have had happened, for it to have the quality > of slippage. > > The essence of an happening is an experience. > > An experience no matter it's depth or it's profoundity is an occurrence > in time and thus has a durational span. > > That span may be moments, decades or thousand of years across > life-times(a life time being once more, an experience) > > That-which-is, call it by any name or term makes no difference ( for > that-which is does not have the loci for even an "it" to be anchored) is > not an experience. > > Thus not a happening which can slip away in time. > > So what is happening as the above narration.........narrates. > > There was an experience where there was a sense of having understood > the non-dualiness of everything, based on the sense of the absence of > conflict/engagement/involvement, which was really the absence of the > feelings of conflict etc etc .... > > .....after a duration ...there is a sense of an identification with a > movement, connoted by the prevailing sense of conflict, anxiety, > nauseating insanity etc etc. > > There is really no difference between experiences..... > > .....whether the experience of non-dualness blah few years back ...... > > .....or the blah of present anxiety. > > Both are movements within the realm of thought. > > And there is no difference between the intellectual understanding and > the experiential blah.... > > ...an intellectual understanding being the experiential blah of the > thought of having understood intellectually. > > It is this sense of a distinction between intellectual hoarding of > premises/words/terms/principles ..... > > ....and...... > > ...... the experience of the same premises, the latter believed to be > the Holy Grail..... > > .....which is the very sense of the mind/entity/individuated self. > > Which morphs in time, into the sense of "having lost" that Holy Grail. > > To repeat, there was no entity/self/mind which received the holy waters > of non-duality and has now lost it. > > The sense of receiving(which is right now the sense of a recall of an > experience few years back)...... > > .....is the very sense of an entity..... > > .......a sense of entity inferred by the current sense of a loss. > > The prevailing sense that there was a dissolution few years back but > maybe now some more dissolution is to happened and thus how to, where > to, when to etc etc...... > > ......is the sense of the entity. > > The seeing/apperceiving of the sense of a receiving.... > > ... the seeming consequence of such a receiving ..........as a duration > of calmness, lack of conflict, lack of entanglement, witnessing the > passing scenery... > > ...(all the usual bromides) > > .......and the sense of now having lost all of it........... > > .......apperceiving the totality of that drama as the blah of thought....... > > .....the apperceiving is not within the realm of thought. > > Thus is not "gettable". > > And that which is not "gettable" cannot be "losable". > > This apperceiving also apperceves that in the very > articulation/verbalization/defining of something as not within the realm > of thought.... > > ......is the thought of so. > > Hence the reading these pixels in a particular arrangement on a PC > screen and the immediate dissolution in the Recycle Bin. > > And the witnessing................... that the prevailing AOWL witnesser > of the passing scenery .... > > ....is the passing scenery.
