Feeling good

Omkaradatta's picture



No votes yet

To feel right is, of course, right, but to the ego it is wrong. Ego will not let you alone, won't give you any peace. This is why we seek to understand it, and to transcend it.

— Omkaradatta



Phroggy's picture

Nowness theory

Yes, I'm talking with a group of folks now who have all experienced being in the moment, and I suspect most repeat the experience on a regular basis, probly through meditation.

The question I'm asking is, if this experience is so wonderful, and it is, why not stay in the NOW? After all, meditation is not a requirement and it can ultimately be expanded to become a permanent state.

My theory is that, as wonderful as the experience is, ego doesn't want it as a permanent state and it gets nervous in the absence of drama and the roller coaster experience of 'normal' life. What we're basically saying, then, is that we would rather have the suffering than the peace.

Phroggy | Sun, 09/28/2008 - 22:01
Omkaradatta's picture

The question is...

... can we 'get used to' being in the Now, get used to the absence of drama (or to put it another way, drop the drama habit)? It seems so in Nisargadatta's case, through merely spending three years 'just BEing' in his spare time. For others, it may not be so. This is why I think "Truth is a pathless land" is broadly applicable; nobody follows a single path to the truth. It probably depends on one's innate tendencies, and such.

When I first got into Advaita I looked at a very wide range of teachings, and I'm glad I did. All of them have been helpful in one way or another. I think it's a trap to get stuck into one path, one teaching, as all (valid) pointers are pointing to the same 'thing', only in different ways.

P.S. just my mind meandering all over the place, as usual... sorry 'bout that :-p. I agree about 'preferring the suffering', but prefer not to think along those lines, as it strikes me as too defeatist. If it's true, should we quit talking to people about it, quit offering 'pointers' and such?

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 00:20
Phroggy's picture

Rudderless boat theory

I'm beginning to believe the answer is that as long as 'mind' has the slightest interest in the illusion, that's where the focus of awareness remains because ego is the only thing trying to get somewhere, and it's not driving the boat.

Phroggy | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 00:21
Omkaradatta's picture

If the boat is really rudderless...

You may be right; All I can say in my case is that I lost interest in pretty much all but one thing (we discussed that via Email), and at some point of over-usage my interest in that more-or-less dropped as well. That seems to be when everything changed.

I don't know how it is/could be with other folks. All I can do is offer pointings, talk to people, etc. As you pointed out, whether or not it has any 'effect' isn't in my hands (or in theirs, for that matter).

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 00:27
Phroggy's picture

My game theory

One thing that's becoming more clear is that everything but the most subtle, effortless focus is some kind of a game. Either folks are looking for the wrong thing or they're playing games with themselves because the game is more interesting than what they imagine Truth to be. Of course, it's unconscious or they couldn't keep playing, but I'm willing to throw every technique and method and guru search into that same gaming category.

Phroggy | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 00:52
Omkaradatta's picture

My theory theory

I have a theory that you keep thinking quite a bit about folks calling discussion here 'analysis' and 'theory'. I also have a theory that you theorize quite a bit about why they said that, too ;-). My theory on that is that the mind is always involved directly in what it thinks about, e.g. thinking too much about the notion that "folks think too much", or feeling doubtful about there being "no doubt in my mind about it".

Earlier today, I had a thought about advaita being 'all a trick of the mind', and started getting nervous. This was, of course, the mind playing a trick. This is how the mind works -- it really isn't rational, but functions on some sort of 'verbal hypnosis' principle. It's becoming very easy to just 'let it go' here, as it's really all a game :-p.

"In the beginning was the word... and the word was with God, and the word was God". So, God is the word "God", which is true ;-).

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 02:26
Phroggy's picture

Good hypothesis

It's much broader than that. In the absence of discussion here, I've ceased to ponder the reactions that led to my theory obsession, in theory at least. But there is a more general focus on resistance that has taken the form of discussions elsewhere to which I refered. Both events are for me to look at and I don't know any other reason for them to be in my awareness.

I don't think that thinking is the right word for such explorations; more of a paying attention and looking. Of course the focus is always already inward, often to the degree that others don't get the sort of verbal feedback they're looking for.

It's interesting that you would mention doubt, because that's also a topic of discussion elsewhere today. I was saying that the more mind sees it's own functioning, the more it doubts that it can know anything at all, which in one sense is good to notice, but it also means it can never be certain that it has seen the truth of it's own delusions.

I concur with your mental involvement theory, though if the judgment and unconsciousness is removed, it becomes simply an exploration.

Phroggy | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 03:04
Omkaradatta's picture

You're right...

"I was saying that the more mind sees it's own functioning, the more it doubts that it can know anything at all, which in one sense is good to notice, but it also means it can never be certain that it has seen the truth of it's own delusions."

You're right... such certainty could only be a belief, which is itself a delusion. Ultimately, the mind can only shut the heck up and allow reality to be what it is. That is the only certainty we get, which is really in 'our' absence.

P.S. Nisargadatta has said that words are really only useful for exchanging information. They seem useful here too as an excuse to be around other folks in general ('the fact of socializing') but beyond that I agree. Aside from posting 'pointings' and such, I see my Internet participation on the way to near-zero... why chat online when one can chat with folks 'in person'?

"I concur with your mental involvement theory, though if the judgment and unconsciousness is removed, it becomes simply an exploration."

Oh, the mind can 'kick up' from time to time, even in the so-called awakened. Nisargadatta mentioned an occasional "old reaction" in "I Am That", and I believe it was written ~34 years after his 'awakening' ;-p. Just thought it worth mentioning.

http://www.omkaradatta.info

Omkaradatta | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 03:35
Phroggy's picture

Theoretically confused

You're right... such certainty could only be a belief, which is itself a delusion. Ultimately, the mind can only shut the heck up and allow reality to be what it is. That is the only certainty we get, which is really in 'our' absence.

Yup, now that I've seen that clearly for myself, mind is done for......Oh, wait....how can I be certain I've really seen that? :(

Phroggy | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 03:39
Omkaradatta's picture

As Jed stated...

As you mentioned Jed stated, we can be certain only of our own Being, the fact that we exist. The One who is certain/uncertain is Himself not in any doubt.

I originally typed a comment, deleted it, then decided to enter this one. And I'm done with the computer for tonight. Sleep good, frog :-).

Omkaradatta | Mon, 09/29/2008 - 04:09