Thanks for writing this Akasha. Made for a very interesting and insightful read.
So now I'll ammend my earlier statements about the utility of self- inquiry: the practice may be helpful to some; it may be attractive to some. Whether these two sets of people are the same isn't so clear. For some it may be just a way of thinking about experience, that will wear off as soon as the vicissitudes of daily life demand attention. I'd also like to ammend my earlier comment about experience always coming packaged with the knowledge necessary to understand the experience. Here's a counterexample that I thought of: that TM teacher who wrote a book about her "enlightenment" and then died of a brain tumor. She had no understanding for a decade or more. So the knowledge isn't always there. Hmm... --- In [email protected], akasha_108 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > --- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > In my experience, it is fun to contemplate such issues. And thank > > you to each and every one of you who contributed to this thread. > > > > But, having noticed that even deep immersement in these ideas over a > > period of years has not resulted in a gestalt awakening to what is > > really happening here, I go about my business as usual. Such > > metaphysical questions appear to get burnt up in the searing heat of > > life lived in the present. > > > > I have heard that some do awaken to the true nature of things as a > > result of this kind of self-inquiry, and so, do not condemn it > > outright. But I wonder sometimes at its utility. In under an hour, I > > am sure that someone familiar with the various conceptual nuances > > and schools of thought on the topics of I, ego, doer, individuality, > > self etc., could lay them all out so that anyone of reasonably > > developed intellect could grasp the ideas and check on how well they > > relate to their own experience. After that, what is the point, > > unless it is to check in once every few years to see if one's > > perspective has changed due to the clearing of fog or the shifting > > of mirrors? > > (Sorry Akasha for this linear thinking, non-gestalt > > conclusion - I don't fully mean it...am just stating how I feel at > > the moment.) > > > For the most part, the intellect thinks in a sequential, linear > fashion. I am not advocating anyone to try to abondon that at all - - I > don't think thats possible. What does occur at times though, is that > after examining various parts of a puzzle, in a systematic, linear > fashion, the various parts can "flash" -- fuse in new ways, providing > new insight. > > Sometimes the linear analysis and (sometimes) subsequent "flash" are > based on symbolic processing -- that is, its a logical refinement and > manipulation of concepts / abstractions -- sort of like solving an > algebraic equations where the variables are concepts. Concepts and > abstractions are the "content" of the processing. > > On the other hand, a different type of linear processing can occur, > also resulting in a, often later, gestalt-typr flash. However, now the > elements being processed, the content, the data being crunched, is > experiential. Or, sometimes a mixture of conceptual elelments and > experiential elements. The post linear analysis phase, the "flash" -- > fuses concepts and/or experience in new relationships and can result > in a new experiential foundation. > > The best analogy I can think of to explain the fusion of conceptual > and experiential elements -- each originally approached in very linear > systematic fashion, and it is only an analogy, is in learning a new > skill or sport. For example, for those that play tennis, a top-spin > serve becomes a valuable tool -- particularly as a second serve. It > almost always goes in, even when hit full force, and can be made to > bounce so high to an opponent's weaker side that it is hard to return > -- and further, can get the opponent out of position. > > When I was a kid and a teacher explained the top-spin serve to me, I > didnt get it. I got the concept, I got the mechanics. But I could not > "do it", I couldn't make it an experience. Later, some time later, > fooling around, I found I could make my serves really "kick" by doing > this "thing" that I could not explain, but could do. Some time later, > the concept and the experience fused in a flash, and I tealized what > I was doing was a self-learned top-spin serve. I then reused the > conceptual understanding of top-spin to refine and clarify the > mechanics of the "experience" and the feel of doing it. Soon, it was > just locked in. > > The point is, you don't attempt to think gestaltly, nonlinearly. I > don't know how to do that -- other than to set up the conditions that > let that happen. And that is to sharply look at different parts of an > issue or problem in a linear systematic fashion. And then, in a sense, > let go. And in time, sometimes, or often, a more holistic, > multi-component (symbols and /or experiential elements) creat a > "flash" of insight, almost as if the fusion of the elements creates > energy and light. > > The broader point is that I have found that periodically > systematically and intensely examining the components of the identity > / ownership / ego / consciousness puzzle, looking at and questioning > different views, various conceptual elements begand to flash / fuse -- > and over time these "insights" flashed/fused with experiential > elements. The result is that it is a clear experience that there is no > driver to this machine, no-doer in charge of this apparatus > (intellect, mind, senses, motor skills): that the apparati are > intelligent self-adaptive, ever learning, ever-correcting, > self-suficient, yet intertwined, interacting elements. > > This process is not adharmic, its not a muddle. > > And in particular that the decider, the intellect, the buddhi, the > pre-frontal cortex mechanisms, are not in charge. Nothing is. Other > than the design of the apparati. Which may be "intelligent design" or > "evolutionary design" -- it doesn't matter. The point is the apparati > has an inherently powerful design that dynamically moves forward, and > self-corrects, by many means, many learned -- and thus (its > corrective,self-balancing mechanisms) are expanding and becoming more > subtle and natural. > > What remains, beyond the apparati unfolding according to its nature > and design, is that glow/light of awareness -- devoid of content, > self-sufficient. > > This all may have nothing to do with the awakening or realization that > others report. It may have little to do with what various texts > report. However, it is a clear experience of no-doer, no driver to > this machine, and an awareness of awareness which is not distorted by > what is seen, or done or thought. > > The process that cultivated this is not adharmic, its not a muddle, it > is not a waste of time. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
