Woo!

[asanerman]

I hope that you can see what I'm outlining here.

 

I hope we are all cool about this.

 

BAA.

 

BAA.

 

I "see" what you are outlining!

 

I consider self-confidence (the sense of efficacy) to be the conviction that my method of choosing and of making decisions--i.e,, my characteristic manner of using my consciousness (my psycho-epistemology)--is right, right in principle, appropriate to reality.

 

The more eclectic your seeking the more you'll trust and be satisfied with your own reasoning. That's the stuff from which self-confidence is honed.

 

I hope we are all cool about this.

 

Hey, I'm beyond cool with your approach! Beyond cool!

 

Encouraged!

 

Listen closely to what Antlerman is saying!

 

There is a vast and rich world of wisdom thinking and practice to be experienced even while "making up one's mind!" To settle for any thing less than courageous satisfaction is senseless.

 

I've left Christianity behind... but I did so for my own reasons.

 

My main issue that I face with popular theism is the loss of autonomy one must endure in becoming a "believer," a trust-er; specifically the "blurring" of psychological boundaries required by an infantile faith (complete trust) in the orators, i.e. the righteous or religious authorities.

 

What has been pivotal for me is the notion of the non-duality of existence, which, for me, addresses boundary i.e. transpersonal phenomena experiences and related

phenomena, without the the simple mindedness!

 

If an individual can't trust the apparatus of which they are dependent for survival and ultimately a satisfying life, I suppose alternatives must exist. Some can always devise a grand plan for my life and happiness If I so chose to allow them.

 

The season came when I had to work my own plan, no other suited my sense-abilities.

 

To echo Antlerman--

 

Self-realization defines spirited living.

[asanerman]

Perhaps a better word to describe the non woo spirituality could be introspection?

 

"Introspection is the first source of one's psychological knowledge; and without introspection no other avenue of psychological knowledge could be significant or meaningful, even if were possible." ~Nathaniel Branden

 

"If a person had no apprehension of such phenomena as ideas, beliefs, memories, emotions, desires, to which one could relate one's findings, what would the descriptive self-reports of other men and women, or of cultures and cultural products yield other than nothing?" ~ bid

 

While introspection is a necessary condition and source of psychological knowledge, it is not sufficient by itself.

 

The data of introspection requires integration, realization, actualization into a coherent knowledge to be relevant to evolutionary growth and health.

 

Integration, (realization, actualization) is an inside job, if which an individual is ultimately responsible.

 

The freedoms are in the details!

[bornagainathiest]

Ok folks (that is Deva, A-Man and ASM), I'm back again!

 

This time, with questions.

 

But, before I can ask them, I feel the need to describe something about these questions.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Like many who plunge truly, madly and deeply into Born-Again Evangelical Christianity, I did a good deal of submitting.

After my initial act of submission to Jesus, it became easier and easier to submit to anything and everything I thought was associated with him. The Bible, the church, the pastor, the elders, guest speakers, prayer partners, authors of books, etc., etc. In retrospect I can now see that what I was doing was eagerly abandoning my responsibilities and handing over the reins of my life to others, confident that this was what God wanted of me. Putting it more irreverently, I was joyfully making myself into one of the sheeple.

 

Why eagerly? Why joyfully? Because there's a definite sense of release, or even consumation, in just giving up and yielding to the Truth-of-Truths. It's the same feeling of completion you get when the search or the quest is finally over. "That's it! I don't have to seek any more! I've found it! I've found what I've been looking for!" You know the score?

 

Ok then, assuming you guys can relate to the above, you'll appreciate that this meekly-submitting mindset is now safely in my past. I can no longer just accept something as true - because an authority figure says it is. Things need testing. Questions need to asked. Claims need to be evaluated.

 

Therefore, I've carefully gone back over this thread and re-read the posts, searching for points asserted as real or viable or relevant. Looking for claims that have been made. Checking citations and quotations, who made them and in what context. I won't be taking anything as 'Gospel' any more, no matter who says it or how enthusiastically they endorse it.

 

That is the context in which I ask the questions.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

1.

In this thread I see a great deal of positive affirmation about inner knowledge. You (three) convey a strong feeling that it is good and helpful and uplifting. You use powerfully evocative terms and are obviously, intensely engaged by this. Ok. That's fine. Now I'm going to be thoroughly skeptical and ask the following...

 

Please tell me in plain, unemotive language why you think inner knowledge is a good thing.

 

Yes, I have my own, tentative ideas about his - but you get to shoot first. I am testing you, to see what you write about this and how you write it. I'm also going to be looking at what you don't write. That will tell me something too.

 

2.

So far I've gleaned that there is no single, one-size-fits-all, way to inner knowledge. That comes across clearly in this thread. The path appears to be free-form and as individual as you like. If something works for you, there's no reason and no suggestion that it should work (in the same way, in the same degree or at all) for others. There is no dogma, no formula, no creed and no book of set rules to govern this. It can be music, math or meditation. Prayer, philosophy or particle physics. Now, assuming this is so...

 

Why is it that ASM quotes Ken Wilber, Deva links to Nisagadatta Maharaj and the A-man to Sally Kempton?

 

If all ways are equally valid, why would you recommend one over another?

 

Just because this or that works for you, that's no reason to suppose it's going to work for me, is it?

 

Now, the sharpest swords cut both ways, so I'll apply the same measure to myself.

As you know I'm an Astronomy freak. But 99% of the science is forever closed to me. I can see some things thru my own scope and I can even buy some observing time on an automated research-grade scope, to see into the deep universe. Also, I can't get my head around the math. I'm an average Joe, not an Einstein or a Hawking. I comprehend astronomy at a surface level. The rest of it is closed to me.

 

So this leaves me in the position of more-or-less having to accept what I see in books, on tv and online as trustworthy. It's beyond my capacity to test everything I read about. Now, do you see where this puts me, in the context of submission to authority figures?

 

Yes. Exactly. I'm (almost, but not quite) back to where I was in my sheeple days of Christian 'belief'. I have little choice but to 'believe' what Astronomical science says. Realizing this, I can now see what the A-man means about how we should be careful in our approach to science. This explains why I'm proceeding v-e-r-y carefully in this thread and why I won't just jump in and accept something on face value.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Deva]

Please tell me in plain, unemotive language why you think inner knowledge is a good thing.

 

Yes, I have my own, tentative ideas about his - but you get to shoot first. I am testing you, to see what you write about this and how you write it. I'm also going to be looking at what you don't write. That will tell me something too.

 

2.

So far I've gleaned that there is no single, one-size-fits-all, way to inner knowledge. That comes across clearly in this thread. The path appears to be free-form and as individual as you like. If something works for you, there's no reason and no suggestion that it should work (in the same way, in the same degree or at all) for others. There is no dogma, no formula, no creed and no book of set rules to govern this. It can be music, math or meditation. Prayer, philosophy or particle physics. Now, assuming this is so...

 

Why is it that ASM quotes Ken Wilber, Deva links to Nisagadatta Maharaj and the A-man to Sally Kempton?

 

If all ways are equally valid, why would you recommend one over another?

 

Just because this or that works for you, that's no reason to suppose it's going to work for me, is it?

 

 

First of all, BAA, that was an excellent post. I get it 100% how you don't just trust authority. Why the hell should we, since we threw overboard all of the Christian authority, even when it felt really good at one time?

 

I was raised fundamentalist Baptist. When I was saved and baptized at age 12, I meant it. You better believe I felt the same sense of relief you are describing. I turned it all over to God and expected the rapture to come very soon. I believed for a short time that I was saved and all my problems would be solved.

 

Why would I ever want to be hooked into a system of any kind after it took me over 30 years to get out of one? I don't believe I am capable of it. I have even tried.

 

You are right, there is no book, no rules. Yes, I do point to Nisargadatta Maharaj, but he was not the only one. Please do not mistake me for a "follower of the one big guru that will solve all problems of life." I listened to a few teachers, what they had to say, and mostly, what questions they asked. I don't think everyone has the same psychological makeup, and I just think that Nisargadatta Maharaj spoke to me in a very direct way. No, it might not be the same for you. In any event, these teachers are only pointers. If some teacher says do some kind of meditation and nothing happens, then you have only yourself to blame for continuing to do it. However, if you listen to some teaching and have an insight or gain some understanding, then you also have the responsibility, but also the privilege to pursue it.

 

I don't believe I ever said it would be easy, or that all ways are equally valid. In fact, I don't think ANY way or path is valid. If its mapped out, it is not it- you can depend on it. "Truth is a pathless land" - J. Krishnamurti.

 

Don't ever let anyone tell you what you "should" do or "must" do. They are not qualified, since YOU are the guru.

 

It is you, that is responsible for this inner quest or journey or whatever you call it. Why is it a good thing? The only thing I am saying is that if you don't do it, people are always telling you in direct or subtle ways you who you are, and you will believe it and sooner or later life will end and you will still be trapped in other people's concepts. Don't you want to find out for yourself? You must get beyond the words and the labels.

 

To me, this really has nothing to do with scientific proof, although it would never contradict science. It is about finding out who you are. It is more of a psychological process. It is a process of inquiry.

[blackpudd1n]

I've been thinking over a response to this thread for the last couple of days.

 

If spirituality is little more than inner knowledge or understanding what one is or is not, well, I'm good with that. It may sound arrogant to some of you for me, at the age of 26, to say, "yes, I am aware of who I am and what makes me tick", but knowing and understanding myself is not a choice I had if I was to overcome the challenges that bipolar brought my life.

 

Gaining insight as a method to deal with a mental illness is a risky path to take, the mental health professionals have told me. I understand their reasoning- for some, the reality of their situation is so depressing that they prefer their fantasy, and to embark on the path of insight is to increase the risk of suicide. The benefits at the end of the journey are great, but the stakes during it are high. Nevertheless, I took that route, preferring reality to fantasy.

 

Ironically, two days ago when I sat talking to a friend who is coming to a point of acceptance of having a mental health condition and has been doing a lot of investigation into Buddhism, as I sat speaking to her about acceptance and coping mechanisms she kept saying to me, "that is what I've been reading about in Buddhism! You already know all this stuff!" I haven't investigated Buddhism myself, because independence of thought was a key factor in why I left christianity behind, but according to my friend, I've already come to an understanding of key principles on my own, through my own thought processes. I found that very amusing, as the unapologetic atheist that I am.

 

The thing is, though, I am bored with my own company now. I cannot manufacture any more understanding of myself than I already have right now. Any other lessons that I may learn about myself will only come with time and experience as I walk through life. That being said, though, there are other important gaps in my knowledge that must be addressed, and a major one of those is the understanding of many key scientific principles. And through the study of science, and trying to close those gaps in my knowledge, I become more aware of myself and my ultimate place in the grand scheme of things.

 

As a philosopher, I find Richard Dawkins enthralling. I love his argument that just because evolution was the means by which we came to be, that does not mean that we should use the Darwinian concept of natural selection as a way to structure our society and treat one another. He argues that we have evolved to a point where we can consciously choose to be different, and raise ourselves from our base animal-survival instincts. He argues for a society based on altruism, because atruism is a beautiful trait that enabled our development as we evolved, and that it is one we should be focusing on. As such, I cannot see how focusing on myself any more than I have already benefits anyone else, and neither can I see how it could benefit myself, when I have come to a point of self-acceptance, flaws and all.

 

Sometimes, more than getting bogged down in discussions of a theoretical nature and semantics, the path to a person understanding oneself is through selfless practical help by another. Sometimes this is the means by which one acquires insight and self-acceptance.

[Antlerman]

Ok folks (that is Deva, A-Man and ASM), I'm back again!

 

This time, with questions.

 

But, before I can ask them, I feel the need to describe something about these questions.

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Like many who plunge truly, madly and deeply into Born-Again Evangelical Christianity, I did a good deal of submitting.

After my initial act of submission to Jesus, it became easier and easier to submit to anything and everything I thought was associated with him. The Bible, the church, the pastor, the elders, guest speakers, prayer partners, authors of books, etc., etc. In retrospect I can now see that what I was doing was eagerly abandoning my responsibilities and handing over the reins of my life to others, confident that this was what God wanted of me. Putting it more irreverently, I was joyfully making myself into one of the sheeple.

 

Why eagerly? Why joyfully? Because there's a definite sense of release, or even consumation, in just giving up and yielding to the Truth-of-Truths. It's the same feeling of completion you get when the search or the quest is finally over. "That's it! I don't have to seek any more! I've found it! I've found what I've been looking for!" You know the score?

 

Ok then, assuming you guys can relate to the above, you'll appreciate that this meekly-submitting mindset is now safely in my past. I can no longer just accept something as true - because an authority figure says it is. Things need testing. Questions need to asked. Claims need to be evaluated.

 

Therefore, I've carefully gone back over this thread and re-read the posts, searching for points asserted as real or viable or relevant. Looking for claims that have been made. Checking citations and quotations, who made them and in what context. I won't be taking anything as 'Gospel' any more, no matter who says it or how enthusiastically they endorse it.

 

That is the context in which I ask the questions.

Positively awesome. You're taking the right approach.

 

1.

In this thread I see a great deal of positive affirmation about inner knowledge. You (three) convey a strong feeling that it is good and helpful and uplifting. You use powerfully evocative terms and are obviously, intensely engaged by this. Ok. That's fine. Now I'm going to be thoroughly skeptical and ask the following...

 

Please tell me in plain, unemotive language why you think inner knowledge is a good thing.

 

Yes, I have my own, tentative ideas about his - but you get to shoot first. I am testing you, to see what you write about this and how you write it. I'm also going to be looking at what you don't write. That will tell me something too.

I'll try to be non-emotional in language, but of course that's hard to do here.

 

First by inner knowledge it is a matter of degrees and quality. I believe it was elsewhere we talked about the distinction between introspection and a meditative path. Introspection is positive, self-examination, looking at yourself, being honest with yourself, checking yourself against yourself, analyzing your actions, behaviors, motives, emotional responses, mental states, anxieties, passions, and all the like. Too many people never spend time in self-examination, always and ever looking for distractions. People need to learn how to spend time with themselves, to be comfortable being alone, looking at themselves towards understanding and acceptance. The most phenomenal thing I have ever heard stated in this regard is something I believe Freud said. He said, "Loneliness is failed solitude". Wow! That is so the truth of it.

 

Now meditation. Meditation is much more than self-reflection, or introspection. Meditation takes you deep within, beyond what you think and analyze with your reflective mind. In fact it suspends any of those processes in the practice. The result of this is an opening to yourself, a surfacing of the deep to you conscious mind that simply 'presents' itself to you. In the practice of meditation you learn to resist the temptation to try to analyze and understand this (my personal hurdle I am overcoming in practice). Much of yourself is 'revealed' to you through the virtue of a clearing of the mind of active processing and thinking about things. You encounter yourself. You experience yourself independent of our normal thinking about ourselves sort of cognitive constructs. The result of this is a knowledge that cannot be penetrated by your normal introspection processes.

 

Now speaking from personal experience I'll describe the value of the latter over the former. My first things I said to my partner after for me personally less that a couple weeks of meditation was the following, "I feel healed. I didn't even realize how much out of balance I actually was." Those comments were the last thing I excepted would be the result. Additional benefits not derived any other way I can list as follows. Much higher intelligence. Anxieties mostly vanished. Better relationship skills. Greater awareness of myself, my environment, and others. Higher and deeper connections to the enjoyment of life in almost everything. Increasing wisdom, and a long list of such qualities.

 

That inner knowledge is as best I can describe it as an opening awareness from within to the conscious mind. Not a penetration of the mind inward in a an act of self-examination. Though, both, are important and work together. The one without the other would be incomplete.

 

2.

So far I've gleaned that there is no single, one-size-fits-all, way to inner knowledge. That comes across clearly in this thread. The path appears to be free-form and as individual as you like. If something works for you, there's no reason and no suggestion that it should work (in the same way, in the same degree or at all) for others. There is no dogma, no formula, no creed and no book of set rules to govern this. It can be music, math or meditation. Prayer, philosophy or particle physics. Now, assuming this is so...

I would say as above in describing the differences between introspection and a meditative practice, the same holds true here. I will say that the latter practice of meditation will expose what introspection cannot. So if you are looking for that 'deeper' plunge, then without hesitancy I will say only meditation will offer that, not introspection. I speak from firsthand understanding of the profound differences between them. I will not agree that listening to music or reading a spiritual text is identical in the take-away as meditation itself, but it can be complementary. In no way does that minimize them, as they are equally important in my view. Both, not one without the other gives the greatest benefit.

 

But, that said, within meditation, there is not only one way to do it. This is where it will be very individualized to you, and why I very much recommend that book by Sally Kempton I mentioned elsewhere, "Meditation for the Love of it". It's the first book of her's I've read and I'm about half way through it now. She is an advocate of trying different things, rather than necessarily a single traditions path. That works for me much better, as that is what I discovered for myself organically as I just learned myself how to 'listen', so to speak.

 

Why is it that ASM quotes Ken Wilber, Deva links to Nisagadatta Maharaj and the A-man to Sally Kempton?

 

If all ways are equally valid, why would you recommend one over another?

We're talking at cross purposes here. First of all, many ways may be valid, but not necessarily for you. I always say what works is truth for you. There are many practices that would not yield results for me, but they might for you. That doesn't make them wrong because they don't work for me.

 

The differences between these authors are for different purposes. Ken Wilber is a brilliant philosopher who is able to look at a wide range of the sciences and spiritual traditions both West and East and create these amazing models in which to understand them. He speaks particularly to the Western mind in a way that helps to theoretically model all these things into a certain "theory of everything". I am very fond of his work and have read many of his books. That said, he is really not a spiritual guru, a teach of the path to Enlightenment or any thing like that. He is very academic, and personally, I think you might truly get something from him. I could offer some titles as recommendations. He was extremely influential in my allowing myself to go in this direction. He 'gave me permission', I suppose I would say.

 

In no way should you 'follow him'. Nor anyone else. Sally Kempton I mentioned has insights into meditation practices speaking from years of her personal experience. We gain from what others have to say, but they are not to be our Authorities we place trust in. It is the sharing of insights, knowledge, and research. All of these things are not The Truth, but ways of looking at the Truth. It is a hold-over mistake from Christianity to look to Authorities for Answers. That's not the way this works. We're not looking into easy concrete knowledge like the age of a rock here. It's vastly more complex and subtle truths we're investigating.

 

Now, the sharpest swords cut both ways, so I'll apply the same measure to myself.

As you know I'm an Astronomy freak. But 99% of the science is forever closed to me. I can see some things thru my own scope and I can even buy some observing time on an automated research-grade scope, to see into the deep universe. Also, I can't get my head around the math. I'm an average Joe, not an Einstein or a Hawking. I comprehend astronomy at a surface level. The rest of it is closed to me.

 

So this leaves me in the position of more-or-less having to accept what I see in books, on tv and online as trustworthy. It's beyond my capacity to test everything I read about. Now, do you see where this puts me, in the context of submission to authority figures?

This is an entirely different animal than trusting authorities. The core of this is your own self knowledge through the inner path. Then you are your own authority on you as it becomes exposed to you. I cannot put this in any terms that can be understood in its nature without someone actually experiencing themselves this way. As much theoretical knowledge as I have, when I first exposed this within me I was dumbfounded. It was as if this massive knowledge of my head suddenly paled by comparison. I described it like getting a second brain on top of my other brain. It's a whole different domain of knowledge. It is an entirely different sort of knowledge that comes from falling into that Ocean, as opposed to understanding it through reading about it. That knowledge is not from anyone else but you in direct experience within it. Therefore, there is no authority, like me to tell you 'believe this, trust that, etc'. You know it yourself. It will be your discovery.

 

As far as being qualified, you are. Everyone is. Everyone can perform the same experiments. It's simply a matter of learning those ways to perform the experiment that work. And the good news is, they are reproducible. It not just some random and rare event that you happen to catch like a neutrino passing through your collector deep in the earth. You are able with practice and experience regularly move into these spaces, to swim in that Ocean. It is in this sense, scientific, and you are the experimenter.

 

I think the last thing to add, which removes this whole 'authority' problem is there is nothing to believe in. The source of this knowledge is not in any idea, or any thought, concept or model. There is no doctrines, research, or charismatic leaders to trust. It is self-knowledge. What you find, will in fact give those 'Answers', but it not in facts or data or such, but in knowing ourselves in a grounded sense of our very Being.

 

Sorry if I couldn't keep all emotive expressions out of it. It's hard for me not to just smile.

[asanerman]

Ok folks (that is Deva, A-Man and ASM), I'm back again!

 

This time, with questions.

 

BAA.

 

BAA I want you to know I'm working on a clear and concise response to your questions.

 

Given that I'm a little than more passionate about "honoring the self," I'll strive to cut to the chase!

 

I'll get back to you tomorrow if I'm still breathing!

 

saner

[VacuumFlux]

If spirituality is little more than inner knowledge or understanding what one is or is not, well, I'm good with that. It may sound arrogant to some of you for me, at the age of 26, to say, "yes, I am aware of who I am and what makes me tick", but knowing and understanding myself is not a choice I had if I was to overcome the challenges that bipolar brought my life.

 

Gaining insight as a method to deal with a mental illness is a risky path to take, the mental health professionals have told me. I understand their reasoning- for some, the reality of their situation is so depressing that they prefer their fantasy, and to embark on the path of insight is to increase the risk of suicide. The benefits at the end of the journey are great, but the stakes during it are high. Nevertheless, I took that route, preferring reality to fantasy.

 

My mental health issues are nowhere near as serious as yours, but I think I might have gone through a similar process. I get frequent comments from other people that I know myself well. To me, though, things like meditation are like exercise - knowing about exercise isn't enough to get into shape; it's something you have to do on a regular basis to maintain a certain level of health. Or like cleaning the house - just because you've got a spot on a shelf where something belongs doesn't mean you can stop picking it up and putting it back there. One particular trait of my form of anxiety is that I start lying to myself and being paranoid and getting a very warped view of reality. I need to occasionally take time to deconstruct the fake nightmare world I've convinced myself I'm living in and remind myself of what I know to be true about reality. When I'm not crazy, taking time to meditate is like... building up reserves and habits of sanity so that next time my biochemistry goes nuts, it doesn't pull me quite so far down. I do find it fascinating that a lot of the CBT techniques in psychology line up with some ideas from meditation, mostly about standing back and observing your thoughts, so that you can be aware of the triggers for bad things and stop the cycle before it gets too far.

 

So I guess I define spirituality as not just discovering who I am, but the ongoing process of making my day-to-day actions line up with that knowledge. Spirituality is also about focusing on the unchanging bits of myself during chaotic times so that I don't feel too overwhelmed and lost.

 

Ironically, two days ago when I sat talking to a friend who is coming to a point of acceptance of having a mental health condition and has been doing a lot of investigation into Buddhism, as I sat speaking to her about acceptance and coping mechanisms she kept saying to me, "that is what I've been reading about in Buddhism! You already know all this stuff!" I haven't investigated Buddhism myself, because independence of thought was a key factor in why I left christianity behind, but according to my friend, I've already come to an understanding of key principles on my own, through my own thought processes. I found that very amusing, as the unapologetic atheist that I am.

 

One thing that confused me about Buddhism as a christian was that there was no divine revelation involved. Just some dude sitting under a tree thinking about life until he had a eureka moment. As an ex-christian, I saw this as a point in favor of buddhism instead of a point against it. More recently, I read some buddhist stuff about differently types of people reaching enlightenment, and there was an entire section on people who figure it out themselves without needing a teacher. I liked that attitude, that we have the capacity to figure it out ourselves and we're not just helplessly waiting for someone else to tell us what to do. Since that's an attitude I have trouble with, I find value in Buddhist literature as a religious authority type figure giving me not just grudging permission but a command to not be a sheeple (yes, I am aware of how ridiculous that may sound, and that I am selecting the material I read to reinforce this idea and ignoring strains of Buddhism that doesn't have that sort of attitude. Don't care, as long as it works).

[Antlerman]

I read some buddhist stuff about differently types of people reaching enlightenment, and there was an entire section on people who figure it out themselves without needing a teacher. I liked that attitude, that we have the capacity to figure it out ourselves and we're not just helplessly waiting for someone else to tell us what to do. Since that's an attitude I have trouble with, I find value in Buddhist literature as a religious authority type figure giving me not just grudging permission but a command to not be a sheeple (yes, I am aware of how ridiculous that may sound, and that I am selecting the material I read to reinforce this idea and ignoring strains of Buddhism that doesn't have that sort of attitude. Don't care, as long as it works).

I think this is also a good reply to BAA's concerns about falling into believing some other authority as the Gospel Truth that you abandon your mind over to. The value of teachers is to benefit from their experience, insights, and knowledge if you need help, which most do. But the role of the guru is meant to pass when you have mastered it yourself. Then they are no longer your guru. It's a very different thing than Christian authoritarian hierarchies where you can't think for yourself. You're expected to grow.

 

Then again, if you are able to grow successfully on your own, that that is perhaps the best path for you. I avoid organized groups as I don't feel a need at the point for additional guidance. That's not to say at some point I won't benefit if things become stagnant, but its hardly that right now. I'm actually concerned it could hinder me, telling me 'that's not the right way, this is.' when it's already working for me! Call that my phobia of organized religions. Again, this is very not the same as Christianity where you are expected to stay close to the fold and follow in line.

[blackpudd1n]

My mental health issues are nowhere near as serious as yours, but I think I might have gone through a similar process. I get frequent comments from other people that I know myself well. To me, though, things like meditation are like exercise - knowing about exercise isn't enough to get into shape; it's something you have to do on a regular basis to maintain a certain level of health. Or like cleaning the house - just because you've got a spot on a shelf where something belongs doesn't mean you can stop picking it up and putting it back there. One particular trait of my form of anxiety is that I start lying to myself and being paranoid and getting a very warped view of reality. I need to occasionally take time to deconstruct the fake nightmare world I've convinced myself I'm living in and remind myself of what I know to be true about reality. When I'm not crazy, taking time to meditate is like... building up reserves and habits of sanity so that next time my biochemistry goes nuts, it doesn't pull me quite so far down. I do find it fascinating that a lot of the CBT techniques in psychology line up with some ideas from meditation, mostly about standing back and observing your thoughts, so that you can be aware of the triggers for bad things and stop the cycle before it gets too far.

 

So I guess I define spirituality as not just discovering who I am, but the ongoing process of making my day-to-day actions line up with that knowledge. Spirituality is also about focusing on the unchanging bits of myself during chaotic times so that I don't feel too overwhelmed and lost.

 

Meditation never worked for me, along with relaxation techniques and breathing exercises. After a lot of frustration, I finally got a mental health professional who understood the issues I was having with each of those techniques and their variants, and suggested a completely different strategy: occupying my mind as a way to slow it down. She explained to me that my mind becomes destructive when it's bored. Having me meditate would have the opposite effect to the one desired, and has done in the past, trust me. Why fight with my own mind to get it to heel, when I can achieve the same outcome in no time flat by studying? That's how I ended up back at university. It boiled down to a very simple choice: study, or get mentally ill again.

 

I've been up all night tonight studying. I was very agitated earlier in the evening, and rather than giving into what was building up, I sat down and started studying. I've done 60 pages of reading, and have worked my way through a quarter of the necessary exercises for a week. My right leg is going a thousand miles a minute, but my mind is calm. I have regained focus, and in a few hours, I will probably be asleep, around 9am, I reckon. Yeah, I'm manic, but I have control of the mania.

 

I guess I'm just different. But being in the here and now, firmly grounded in reality, is more calming for me than meditating

[VacuumFlux]

I've been up all night tonight studying. I was very agitated earlier in the evening, and rather than giving into what was building up, I sat down and started studying. I've done 60 pages of reading, and have worked my way through a quarter of the necessary exercises for a week. My right leg is going a thousand miles a minute, but my mind is calm. I have regained focus, and in a few hours, I will probably be asleep, around 9am, I reckon. Yeah, I'm manic, but I have control of the mania.

 

I guess I'm just different. But being in the here and now, firmly grounded in reality, is more calming for me than meditating

 

I definitely understand finding something else to focus on to avoid getting sucked into unhelpful thought patterns! And I'm very glad that you know what works for you (and hope I'm giving the impression that I find it fascinating to compare notes about how other people work, not that I'm trying to argue that you're doing it wrong).

 

I've had a few spiritual-type experiences and altered states of consciousness when working on long physics problems. I'd get so focused on it that I'd forget how to use words and become totally absorbed. Sometimes I'd even start experiencing plots of functions (plotting 3d graphs in my head is fun entertainment) in psychedelic colors and flavors and textures. (Due to the timing of and mood associated with my first strong memory of having a psychedelic experience like that, with molecular orbitals, I'm pretty sure that I was hypo-manic when it happened. Not understanding that, I felt very frustrated later when I was unable to recreate the experience.)

 

The down side of this ability is when I start making progress on some really nifty code too close to bed time, and instead of something I'm calmly focused on, it becomes a manic-like obsession that I don't want to stop. Somehow writing code, more so than physics and math problems, is a trigger for that. Sometimes a good novel will also prevent me from doing important things like eating and sleeping, with that feeling of desperate addiction. But then again, when I'm already hypo-manic, it's nice to have a selection non-dangerous things to channel it into (painting pictures late into the night left me with no regrets, unlike the unbudgeted shopping trip).

[asanerman]

1.

In this thread I see a great deal of positive affirmation about inner knowledge. You (three) convey a strong feeling that it is good and helpful and uplifting. You use powerfully evocative terms and are obviously, intensely engaged by this. Ok. That's fine. Now I'm going to be thoroughly skeptical and ask the following...

 

Please tell me in plain, unemotive language why you think inner knowledge is a good thing.

 

Yes, I have my own, tentative ideas about this - but you get to shoot first. I am testing you, to see what you write about this and how you write it. I'm also going to be looking at what you don't write. That will tell me something too.

 

To the extent that one fails or refuses to make awareness the regulating goal of his or her consciousness--to the extent that he/he evades the effort of thought and responsibility of reason--the result is cognitive inefficacy i.e. not competent to live

 

By the proper exercise of our rational faculty we make ourselves competent to live. How we choose to deal with this issue is, psychologically, the most significant fact about being human, because it lies at the very core of our being as a biological entity.

 

An emotion is the product of an evaluation.The nature of self-evaluation has profound effects on a persons thinking processes, emotion, desires, values, goals. It is the single most significant key to behavior. A human being is not born with the knowledge of what will satisfy the need for personal efficacy and personal worth or of the standard by which self-confidence and self-respect is to be gauged; she or he must discover it.

 

Inner knowledge is essential to health, body, mind, spirit.

 

I'll have to catch you later on question #2.

[blackpudd1n]

I've been up all night tonight studying. I was very agitated earlier in the evening, and rather than giving into what was building up, I sat down and started studying. I've done 60 pages of reading, and have worked my way through a quarter of the necessary exercises for a week. My right leg is going a thousand miles a minute, but my mind is calm. I have regained focus, and in a few hours, I will probably be asleep, around 9am, I reckon. Yeah, I'm manic, but I have control of the mania.

 

I guess I'm just different. But being in the here and now, firmly grounded in reality, is more calming for me than meditating

 

I definitely understand finding something else to focus on to avoid getting sucked into unhelpful thought patterns! And I'm very glad that you know what works for you (and hope I'm giving the impression that I find it fascinating to compare notes about how other people work, not that I'm trying to argue that you're doing it wrong).

 

I've had a few spiritual-type experiences and altered states of consciousness when working on long physics problems. I'd get so focused on it that I'd forget how to use words and become totally absorbed. Sometimes I'd even start experiencing plots of functions (plotting 3d graphs in my head is fun entertainment) in psychedelic colors and flavors and textures. (Due to the timing of and mood associated with my first strong memory of having a psychedelic experience like that, with molecular orbitals, I'm pretty sure that I was hypo-manic when it happened. Not understanding that, I felt very frustrated later when I was unable to recreate the experience.)

 

The down side of this ability is when I start making progress on some really nifty code too close to bed time, and instead of something I'm calmly focused on, it becomes a manic-like obsession that I don't want to stop. Somehow writing code, more so than physics and math problems, is a trigger for that. Sometimes a good novel will also prevent me from doing important things like eating and sleeping, with that feeling of desperate addiction. But then again, when I'm already hypo-manic, it's nice to have a selection non-dangerous things to channel it into (painting pictures late into the night left me with no regrets, unlike the unbudgeted shopping trip).

 

When it's time to sleep, but my mind doesn't want to play fair, I find watching two or three episodes of a show like Daria or Bones to be really helpful. Both of these are shows with more than one thing going on at a time. So I am able to watch the story of the particular episode, while at the same time there are themes in the background to analyse. Eventually, between watching the story and analysing the background themes, my mind becomes fully engaged in the show, and stops ruminating on whatever else it was obsessing about to begin with. I make sure I've done everything I need to do before I start watching, and wherever I fall asleep is where I fall asleep- I just make sure I'm able to lie down comfortably, whether it's in bed or on the couch.

 

Distraction as a method seems to be advocated less by psychologists, who are obsessed with whatever is the flavour of the month, and more by those actually living with mental illnesses. The best analogy I can use for mania or hypo-mania is that of a child-like mentality. I still know I am an adult, but it's almost like a regression to a child-like mentality while it's going on. I don't want to go to bed, I'm impulsive and irresponsible, I'm overly irritable when I'm tired, and I just want to keep playing. How do you deal with an over-tired child? You chuck them in the shower and then sit them down in front of a DVD. In this state, I don't watch anything I haven't seen before, because that will keep me awake. I put on something I like that I've already seen, so I know from the beginning that it doesn't matter if I miss the ending.

 

With the shopping sprees, I've found it helpful to write down every cent I spend and keep track of it. That helps me to wake up pretty quickly to what is going on, and take action to stop it. And when all else fails, and the mania is building too fast, there's always the antipsychotics on hand if I need them. Because I hate taking them, I do my best to manage my symptoms so that I don't get to that stage.

[bornagainathiest]

Thanks for the response A-Man.

 

As you can see, I'm taking my time with this. So far I've adopted a two-fold approach. To think analytically about it, calculating and assessing what I read. And to put that part of me aside and let my subconscious mind mull it over on a different level. So far so good, I think.

 

For now, I've addressed only the first portion of your reply. That's plenty to be going on with. I've also taken the liberty of altering the fonts, for the sake of clarity.

 

(Btw. This is fun! )

 

(Snipped out for brevity.)

 

Positively awesome. You're taking the right approach.

 

(Same snippage as above.)

 

I'll try to be non-emotional in language, but of course that's hard to do here.

 

First by inner knowledge it is a matter of degrees and quality. I believe it was elsewhere we talked about the distinction between introspection and a meditative path. Introspection is positive, self-examination, looking at yourself, being honest with yourself, checking yourself against yourself, analyzing your actions, behaviors, motives, emotional responses, mental states, anxieties, passions, and all the like. Too many people never spend time in self-examination, always and ever looking for distractions. People need to learn how to spend time with themselves, to be comfortable being alone, looking at themselves towards understanding and acceptance. The most phenomenal thing I have ever heard stated in this regard is something I believe Freud said. He said, "Loneliness is failed solitude". Wow! That is so the truth of it.

 

Ok then. Comparing the above (introspection) to the below (meditation), here's my initial evaluation.

 

You seem to describe introspection in active terms. You convey it as a 'doing'. It is not passive. It's an activity, undertaken by consious choice. It involves effort and concentration. It requires accessing one's memories. It requires comparison of one to another. It requires evaluation, consideration and examination. Past experiences are weighed up according to chosen measures. Questions are asked. Answers are sought. Judgements are made. Thoughts, actions, responses and emotions are all fair game. Then, assuming the introspection has been fruitful, lessons learned are put into practice and needed changes are made.

 

Now, before I write about meditation, here's an item of good news re: introspection.

Interestingly, it springs from a period of sadness and crisis in my life. While I was a Christian, two major, life-changing events occurred at around the same time. These were the break-down and failure of my marriage and the protracted death of my Dad. They destabilized me and I began to experience depression and emotional troubles. Now, I can't fault the care, the concern and the efforts made on my behalf by my fellow Christians. However, there came a point when prayers and the laying on of hands were simply producing no other effect than helping me feel cared and loved for. This was helpful, but only up to a point. The root causes simply were'nt being addressed. So I went to a shrink for counselling.

 

To cut a long story short, the counselling was effective and I was able to recover and deal with the problems in my life. Anyway, I remember her telling me that (in her professional opinion) I possessed an excellent capacity for self-reflection, something which she noted was either poorly-developed or non-existent in too many people. (That's almost exactly what she said, A-Man.) So, when it comes to matters of introspection, it looks like I have the ability.

 

Back to the topic in hand.

Your words below indicate the following to me. You seem to describe meditation in more passive terms than introspection. You convey it as a 'state of being' and not a 'doing'. Even though it is an activity, undertaken by conscious choice, it differs from introspection in that it doesn't involve effort and concentration. Though it requires a deliberate act of the will to initiate it, meditation sounds more like an 'emptying' of the mind, rather than a filling up with activity. As such, it cannot be consciously known until it is experienced. Rather like the difference between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, perhaps? Or even the problem one person has in trying to convey an experience to someone else? Right now I could try and describe to you some of my life experiences, but I'd only be able to use these inadequate symbols on this screen to do so. You could try and understand me, by comparing your experiences to mine, but you really won't know them, will you?

 

So, perhaps meditation is something that has to be experienced, rather than described? (Please note that there isn't even a hint of negativity in that sentence. I am not disappointed or frustrated. I simply accept that this is probably the case.)

 

Now meditation. Meditation is much more than self-reflection, or introspection. Meditation takes you deep within, beyond what you think and analyze with your reflective mind. In fact it suspends any of those processes in the practice. The result of this is an opening to yourself, a surfacing of the deep to you conscious mind that simply 'presents' itself to you. In the practice of meditation you learn to resist the temptation to try to analyze and understand this (my personal hurdle I am overcoming in practice). Much of yourself is 'revealed' to you through the virtue of a clearing of the mind of active processing and thinking about things. You encounter yourself. You experience yourself independent of our normal thinking about ourselves sort of cognitive constructs. The result of this is a knowledge that cannot be penetrated by your normal introspection processes.

 

Now speaking from personal experience I'll describe the value of the latter over the former. My first things I said to my partner after for me personally less that a couple weeks of meditation was the following, "I feel healed. I didn't even realize how much out of balance I actually was." Those comments were the last thing I excepted would be the result. Additional benefits not derived any other way I can list as follows. Much higher intelligence. Anxieties mostly vanished. Better relationship skills. Greater awareness of myself, my environment, and others. Higher and deeper connections to the enjoyment of life in almost everything. Increasing wisdom, and a long list of such qualities.

 

Ok A-Man. The above paragraph I have to take on the basis of what it is - your reportage of your subjective experience. Please note that I have no issue with your objectivity here. Nor am suggesting that because a certain body of information is subjective, it's therefore invalid. When Scotty says, "Mister Spock, the ship feels wrong." the half-Vulcan replies, "I may not understand your emotions, but I do note them."

http://en.memory-alp..._Which_Survives

 

That inner knowledge is as best I can describe it as an opening awareness from within to the conscious mind. Not a penetration of the mind inward in a an act of self-examination. Though, both, are important and work together. The one without the other would be incomplete.

 

Agreed. The conscious and active would seem to work hand-in-glove with the unconscious and passive. Perhaps they are two sides of the same coin? As you can see from the language I use to describe my thoughts on introspection and meditation, a kind of duality seems to be emerging.

 

Finally, to play Devil's advocate...

 

Are we looking at a duality (equality) or a hierarchy?

You write that meditation is... much more ...and ...takes you deep beyond.

Are you expressing a personal preference for one over the other here, in your use of such language?

Or is this just the way it is?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

[Antlerman]

Ok then. Comparing the above (introspection) to the below (meditation), here's my initial evaluation.

 

You seem to describe introspection in active terms. You convey it as a 'doing'. It is not passive. It's an activity, undertaken by consious choice. It involves effort and concentration.

I would suppose it's both active and passive. There are times we sit down and go the task of sorting junk out about ourselves (which I could go on at length about effective and ineffective practices), or we sit without that conscious act and simply ruminate about junk inside our heads, staring at our navels, so to speak. But for the sake of discussion let's not call introspection the same thing as navel-gazing. Let's say it's an effort of genuine self-reflection, not ineffective ruminations. Even so though, some of that process can be going on in the back of the mind as part of that more forward processing. You digest it, so to speak which makes it passive as well.

 

It requires accessing one's memories. It requires comparison of one to another. It requires evaluation, consideration and examination. Past experiences are weighed up according to chosen measures. Questions are asked. Answers are sought. Judgements are made. Thoughts, actions, responses and emotions are all fair game. Then, assuming the introspection has been fruitful, lessons learned are put into practice and needed changes are made.

The key to this is that we are in either case 'looking' at all of these realities of our life as objects of thought and consideration. Bear with me a second. Those objects are part of a mentally constructed symbols of the world we embed ourselves within as reality, in either memory spaces or in projections of the future. They exist "only in the head". I love to point that out, as we assume somehow these are 'real' because they represent various objects outside us in the world. They actually are real objects, but they are mental objects, not material objects. These construct the inner landscapes of our conscious realities. And so when we are introspecting, we are actively working with all these mental symbols, symbols created within the language centers of the brain. We identify our "self", that "me" doing the thinking, within this inner city of thoughts bouncing off all these mental objects.

 

With me so far?

 

In introspection, we are navigating around inside this part of the brain. We are trying to align the objects from jumbled states into some sense of order for us to be able to make sense of this reality. Very, very much goes into these realities, pulling from cultural referents, values, personalities, emotional histories, relationships, the list is endless. Now I'm going to through a term in here for your consideration we can reference later. "Consensus consciousness", is what that part of this inner landscape that aligns itself with others inner landscapes. That's the cultural worldview that is invisible to us. The world 'looks right' because we agree with others. How you look at the world today would be "nuts" to someone of a thousand years ago. We have common symbols we share that go into this.

 

I highly recommend you read this in order to get a better picture of what I'm talking about, and where meditation practices come into play later on. Much discussion is to be had here. Link: http://www.cantrip.org/charles_tart.html

 

I'll leave this at that for the moment to lay some groundwork. The salient point to remember though is that our self-identities in our normal waking mind is embedded within these landscapes, and therefore we normally do not see them. They are invisible to us. They are "reality", because its the world we live within - inside our heads.

 

Moving on....

 

Your words below indicate the following to me. You seem to describe meditation in more passive terms than introspection. You convey it as a 'state of being' and not a 'doing'. Even though it is an activity, undertaken by conscious choice, it differs from introspection in that it doesn't involve effort and concentration. Though it requires a deliberate act of the will to initiate it, meditation sounds more like an 'emptying' of the mind, rather than a filling up with activity.

It is both. I love how I've head it stated which reflects it well. It is an effortless effort. It is far more than just sitting there and going blank. It requires effort, far more so than just introspection. It is very difficult to learn how to overcome the normal things our brains like to do, what we ask it to do all the time we are awake, and that is to "think". I could think of hundreds of metaphors to describe this, but it is definitely an act of the will.

 

Things function differently within the space. We do not try to 'figure things out', in fact the work is in learning how to let go. We do not try to grasp, seize, or otherwise claim it. We learn to "let it". What is learned within this process is to open ourselves, rather than constricting ourselves within this tight world of rules of operation we normally function through in that inner mental world of symbolic reality through which we then move into the "real" world in how we interact with it. This is a work in "unlearning". And that is very difficult to do.

 

The "deconstruction" you hear Deva speak of is just this. You learn to see past these mental constructions of truth and reality, to allow it to unfold for itself, from within you, to your conscious mind. You learn to let it speak, rather than trying to comprehend it. You learn from it through a process of Witnessing. It's words, so to speak, are an experience of Self (that which transcends all that small self - that created identity embedded within that reality of mental symbols we call 'me', the ego). As such you come to know your Self. You become that Self. The locus, or seat of self moves from being embedded in the ego, to something far more expansive and timeless, the true Self.

 

The experience of this is to say the least expansive. And as such, we become freed from the constricting reality of the mental self. We are not embedded within that, but identified beyond that. As such, it is a spiritual experience. But it is far more than just that too. It is Awareness itself.

 

 

So, perhaps meditation is something that has to be experienced, rather than described?

The world, or the Self, is only known by lived experience. And through the practice of meditation we are able to open the door of ourselves to that. The more you do so, the more you become that. That locus of self-identity moves from the ego, to the 'transegoic', or transpersonal, as Asanerman spoke of.

 

The ironic thing that I found that I feel to add, is that 'door', or window as I called it, when you fist move through it like opening a window that was never actually there. It is Reality, and the 'reality' we live in is only reflections, impressions, and symbols of That. The Buddhists call it the gateless gate. That's a great description.

 

So what meditation really is my astronomy friend, is a telescope you put your eye up to that allows you to penetrate beyond our atmosphere into deep space and see what lays even before the Big Bang itself. Your original face.

 

 

I'll leave at this for now. And BTW, I too am enjoying our discussion here, picking up where we left off quite some time ago now.

[asanerman]

I've been up all night tonight studying. I was very agitated earlier in the evening, and rather than giving into what was building up, I sat down and started studying. I've done 60 pages of reading, and have worked my way through a quarter of the necessary exercises for a week. My right leg is going a thousand miles a minute, but my mind is calm. I have regained focus, and in a few hours, I will probably be asleep, around 9am, I reckon. Yeah, I'm manic, but I have control of the mania.

 

I guess I'm just different. But being in the here and now, firmly grounded in reality, is more calming for me than meditating.

 

I definitely understand finding something else to focus on to avoid getting sucked into unhelpful thought patterns! And I'm very glad that you know what works for you (and hope I'm giving the impression that I find it fascinating to compare notes about how other people work, not that I'm trying to argue that you're doing it wrong).

 

I've had a few spiritual-type experiences and altered states of consciousness when working on long physics problems. I'd get so focused on it that I'd forget how to use words and become totally absorbed. Sometimes I'd even start experiencing plots of functions (plotting 3d graphs in my head is fun entertainment) in psychedelic colors and flavors and textures. (Due to the timing of and mood associated with my first strong memory of having a psychedelic experience like that, with molecular orbitals, I'm pretty sure that I was hypo-manic when it happened. Not understanding that, I felt very frustrated later when I was unable to recreate the experience.)

 

The down side of this ability is when I start making progress on some really nifty code too close to bed time, and instead of something I'm calmly focused on, it becomes a manic-like obsession that I don't want to stop. Somehow writing code, more so than physics and math problems, is a trigger for that. Sometimes a good novel will also prevent me from doing important things like eating and sleeping, with that feeling of desperate addiction. But then again, when I'm already hypo-manic, it's nice to have a selection non-dangerous things to channel it into (painting pictures late into the night left me with no regrets, unlike the unbudgeted shopping trip).

 

When it's time to sleep, but my mind doesn't want to play fair, I find watching two or three episodes of a show like Daria or Bones to be really helpful. Both of these are shows with more than one thing going on at a time. So I am able to watch the story of the particular episode, while at the same time there are themes in the background to analyse. Eventually, between watching the story and analysing the background themes, my mind becomes fully engaged in the show, and stops ruminating on whatever else it was obsessing about to begin with. I make sure I've done everything I need to do before I start watching, and wherever I fall asleep is where I fall asleep- I just make sure I'm able to lie down comfortably, whether it's in bed or on the couch.

 

Distraction as a method seems to be advocated less by psychologists, who are obsessed with whatever is the flavour of the month, and more by those actually living with mental illnesses. The best analogy I can use for mania or hypo-mania is that of a child-like mentality. I still know I am an adult, but it's almost like a regression to a child-like mentality while it's going on. I don't want to go to bed, I'm impulsive and irresponsible, I'm overly irritable when I'm tired, and I just want to keep playing. How do you deal with an over-tired child? You chuck them in the shower and then sit them down in front of a DVD. In this state, I don't watch anything I haven't seen before, because that will keep me awake. I put on something I like that I've already seen, so I know from the beginning that it doesn't matter if I miss the ending.

 

With the shopping sprees, I've found it helpful to write down every cent I spend and keep track of it. That helps me to wake up pretty quickly to what is going on, and take action to stop it. And when all else fails, and the mania is building too fast, there's always the antipsychotics on hand if I need them. Because I hate taking them, I do my best to manage my symptoms so that I don't get to that stage.

 

As I read this exchange what comes to my mind is "directed mental effort."

 

Once we have experienced the matrix shift from concrete thinking to increasingly higher levels of abstract thinking, without the understanding our responsibility for and the need of regulating 'mind" activities (directed mental effort) poses difficulties i.e. the difficulties presented as the felt 'sense of self' marked by body/mind.ambivalence and conflict (my body demonstrates that I need rest but my mind has another plan, hello!). A felt 'sense of self ' that is conflicted, split, dis-easy, the sense that something "ain't" right and I need something other than the self I'm experiencing at the moment.

 

Would it be too large a leap to suggest that as one acquires (discovers) the ability to discriminate between a state of mental focus and a state of mental distress (anxious fog) and acquires the ability to choose one state or the other, that he/she uses the energy, the thrusting power, the inward thrust of such psychological attainment to transcend to levels of self?

 

Each developmental matrix shift (even those encountered in daily experiences) is toward greater independence survival, independent thinking, independent judgment, i.e autonomy. Does that suggesting that autonomy lies within self rather than in social environment?

 

You see what these notions are leading?-- meditative/transcending

 

Given my idiosyncrasies, at times I can catastrophize myself into a living hell and obsessing my way into disabling terror ending only in a deep situational depression.

 

I respond well to meditative practice.

 

I have a multitude of meditative paxis which I have developed around what I have been taught to be customary practices.

 

I’ve taken “chop wood, carry water,” and slightly modified it to my own idiosyncrasies or sense-abilities. I'm quite sure that the traditional guru would point out

how wrong my meditative practices are.

 

It’s my life and I’ll do what I need to be vibrant, assessable, supportive, creative, compassionate, kind, aware, a competent participant in the human endeavor toward wholeness.

 

And there are those who would argue that there are still further matrix shifts--from mind to the cosmic consciousness--larger Self.

 

I suppose we each must decide, for ourselves, if that is the case.

[bornagainathiest]

To Antlerman and ASanerMan...

 

I'll be responding to you guys more fully, possibly later today, possibly later in the week.

We've already covered a lot of ground and you've given me a whole lot more to think/reflect/ruminate about.

Thanks.

 

Getting back to you, as time permits.

 

BAA.

[stryper]

As as interjection, I always amazes me the way threads die or take on a life of their own.

[Antlerman]

As as interjection, I always amazes me the way threads die or take on a life of their own.

Yes, I agree. I like the spontaneous nature of these things, so long as it doesn't totally derail a topic into something completely unrelated, like 'I think 70's cars are awesome', or something. It really depends on the nature of the thread, if its somehow related or not, and where people are at in it.

[bornagainathiest]

To the Antlerman, Deva and ASanerMan...

 

http://www.ex-christ...ay/#entry819404

 

Please see message #19.

 

I have not forgotten or neglected what we've discussed here. New thoughts and insights have been forthcoming in the interim. I also have further questions. So, please maintain a holding pattern and I WILL return...

 

...just like MacArthur!

 

With gratitude and appreciation.

 

BAA

[Ravenstar]

Thi may be ridiculously simplified... but,

 

I have found that discovering the methods that work for me to gain greater knowledge, understanding and control over the inner self and being in tune enough with my thought patterns, emotional and mental biases, etc..to SEE them and acknowledge them with too much attachment... makes me free.

 

I uncover the amazing stuff that lies underneath all the cultural, psychological, and outward influence and because I can...

 

I become solid enough in myself/my relation to what is (reality) to always be at the point of being able to CHOOSE. And true choice is freedom. It is profound awareness and intentionality.

 

I also find the psyche to be a lot more fluid than I thought it was... and I can change without as much resistance or the need to 'maintain' my self-image/mental map to stave off the ego's fear of anhilation.

 

Others/society have much less ability to affect me... and that brings peace.

[Ravenstar]

oh

 

'teachers'... I try to read as much as I possibly can... even though people say basically the same things about developing this inner awareness—they all say it in different ways. Some I resonate to, some I don't.

 

example: the golden rule.. it's a pretty common thought/moral... and I always got it intellectually and agreed it was a 'good' moral, but it wasn't until I heard the version from Wicca (Do as thou wilt, an' it harm none) that I 'got' it in a way that worked for me... because my past training had taught me to put others before myself... which didn't work for me because then I was always drained and resentful... by giving myself permission to take care of myself first... I have much more to give and can be more tolerant and generous... freely.

[Noggy]

What I have found is that the preliminary practices of Tibetan Buddhism consist of nothing else than repetition. Repeat chants, repeat prayers, repeat actions, such as prostrations, thousands of times. Then it is on to observing ceremonies on certain dates.

 

I don't think I need to do this. Its not arrogance that leads me to say it, I just can't see how doing these things lead logically to the result, which is liberation. Its like putting yourself in shackles in order to get free! Otherwise, on an aesthetic level, and from point of view of making sense of the world, I am completely on board with Tibetan Buddhism, especially the Madhyamika school. I am enthralled by reading things like The Heart Sutra and The Diamond Sutra. This is the heart of Buddhism. If a person can deeply understand these texts, then what else is there to do?!

 

Perhaps these practices arose in a culture where the population was largely illiterate, without access to the resources a modern person has.

 

I don't feel like I should limit myself at all. If I see that there is a self-realized master in another tradition, such as Nisargadatta Maharaj, a Hindu, or even no tradition at all, I am going to learn as much from him/her as I can.

 

A true master who knows who they are is not overly concerned by the events of this life or by death.

 

maybe you're not supposed to view them as a limitation

[Deva]

maybe you're not supposed to view them as a limitation

 

I am not sure I understand what you mean.

[Rev R]

If I may interject a few things here.

 

 

1. Please tell me in plain, unemotive language why you think inner knowledge is a good thing.

 

Why does one seek any kind of knowledge? I think it is to settle an innate curiosity as well as an attempt to better humanity. I see little difference between the scientist and the seeker of wisdom. Both seek to unravel the fabric of reality but they have different foci and different tools.

 

The scientist and the seeker of wisdom both begin with the question "what is this and how does it work?" Where we split is in the nature of further questioning based on observation. The scientist examines reality through a physical line of questioning and uses tools such as mathematics. The seeker of wisdom examines the world from an existential perspective and uses tools such as contemplation or meditation.

 

I don't think there is any such thing that can be called "inner knowledge". It's all just knowledge and it's all important. Some people are geared toward unraveling the workings of a black hole, others are skillful at unraveling the fiction called Self.

 

Why is it that ASM quotes Ken Wilber, Deva links to Nisagadatta Maharaj and the A-man to Sally Kempton?

Most often it is just a matter of who has expressed what I think, or what I have seen far better than I can. However, if you look deeply into the web of who is cited there are common strains.

 

For example, Saner and Antler have both cited Ken Wilber. Wilber studies vedanta teachings as does Deva. Wilber, if I recall correctly, also associates with a Zen teacher named Bernie Glassman. I study Zen. Deva and I are both influenced by the ideas of Bruce Lee. Lee studied Zen, Taoism and Krishnamurti.

 

 

If all ways are equally valid, why would you recommend one over another?

Familiarity with how ideas are presented. Which suggestion carries more weight: the idea that I am familiar with and can discuss or the idea that I have no knowledge of?

 

This explains why I'm proceeding v-e-r-y carefully in this thread and why I won't just jump in and accept something on face value.

I think the Kalamas Sutta sums it up nicely (paraphrased and emphasis added)

 

"When you yourselves know:

These things are good

These things are not blamable

These things are not censured by the wise

Undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit

Then enter and abide in them."