--- In [email protected], anonymousff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Thanks for writing this Akasha. Made for a very interesting and > insightful read.
Thank you. Your comments raised thoughts and some processing that I had not done before. I learned some things. > 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/
