|
Post by beingist on Mar 30, 2013 7:18:48 GMT -8
Lest we forget, you have to see the illusion, before you can see through it. Aren't they the same? How can seeing an illusion and seeing through an illusion be the same? Isn't the very point of the article to see through illusion? The point is, before you can understand that the mirage is not an oasis, you first have to see the mirage.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 30, 2013 9:10:18 GMT -8
How can seeing an illusion and seeing through an illusion be the same? Isn't the very point of the article to see through illusion? The point is, before you can understand that the mirage is not an oasis, you first have to see the mirage. To see an oasis as a mirage is to see that it is an illusion. To see the illusion for the illusion it is, is to see through the illusion. What more needs to be seen?
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Mar 30, 2013 13:33:51 GMT -8
here you are asking to see what's really going on,but when you try to see what's really going on, you are distracting the flow of thoughts, and creating the new creation named "looking" so when you start to look it will stop the thoughts flow,So it becomes a new creation, it will be created with it's own opposite "allowing".This allowing fetch you to the extreme level and pull you back to looking, so roller coaster, But when this happens in my life I realized that control is also attracted,so controlling is not possible, from that movement I allow everything to happen. So what I meant to say is, to allow everything to happen,we have to realize the illusion of control first, Without realization of illusion of control looking is also a creation which has to be attracted with it's own opposite.isn't it?Raj, FWIW this is how the sequence spun out for me: the intellectual realization of the illusion of control preceded my stumbling onto self-inquiry by a matter of decades. At this point, I'd say that this sequence isn't necessarily the way things have to go.
|
|
|
Post by beingist on Mar 30, 2013 22:07:26 GMT -8
How can seeing an illusion and seeing through an illusion be the same? Isn't the very point of the article to see through illusion? The point is, before you can understand that the mirage is not an oasis, you first have to see the mirage. To see an oasis as a mirage is to see that it is an illusion. To see the illusion for the illusion it is, is to see through the illusion. What more needs to be seen? The oasis (even though it may be a mirage).
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 1, 2013 0:32:40 GMT -8
burt
this sequence isn't necessarily the way things have to go.
Why this sequence is not necessary?
RAJ
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Apr 1, 2013 22:35:02 GMT -8
burt this sequence isn't necessarily the way things have to go. Why this sequence is not necessary?RAJ The recognition of the illusion of control is in relation to a controller. I know from experience that one can recognize the illusion of control and yet still have the notion of being a someone who does the best they can to maintain it -- a soldering on in the face of uncertainty. I can imagine that it is possible to skip a step and simply realize the illusion of the controller, the illusion of the separation of the individual, in which case the issue of control, or the issue of acceptance, become moot points.
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Apr 1, 2013 23:55:31 GMT -8
burt,
What step you meant to skip?
Allow everything to happen is also considered to be an idea unless illusion of control is realized, once illusion of control is realized,we can allow everything to happen,life be as it is, Now suffering is not because there is no resistance as phil says, but first realization of illusion of control, not looking. But this looking may lead to the realization of this illusion and then allowing, now at this point mind won't resist this allowing because truth is realized.
RAJ
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Apr 2, 2013 7:55:40 GMT -8
burt, What step you meant to skip? Allow everything to happen is also considered to be an idea unless illusion of control is realized, once illusion of control is realized,we can allow everything to happen,life be as it is, Now suffering is not because there is no resistance as phil says, but first realization of illusion of control, not looking. But this looking may lead to the realization of this illusion and then allowing, now at this point mind won't resist this allowing because truth is realized. RAJ Raj, What I meant by "skip" is based on the following ... I'll list out the steps that I perceive are suggested in what we are discussing so far: 1) The person who was previously trying to control events realizes that such attempts are futile 2) That person is subsequently untroubled by events and allows them to unfold as they will rather than trying to control them. 3) .... ---- What I'm suggesting is that the person can realize that they aren't actually separate from whatever it was that they were trying to control to begin with, in which case there's nothing to allow and noone to give up control. So by "skip", I'm saying skip steps 1) and 2). This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with steps 1) and 2). They're pretty cool actually, but as long as there's someone who's given up control there's always the potential for that someone to question their previous recognition or even to lose track of it for awhile. The only reason I even suggest it is from corresponding with others who've told a similar story of this type of "leap frogging", as it's not one that I can tell -- as I mentioned, I'm a veteran of the long way home.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 2, 2013 9:53:27 GMT -8
burt, What step you meant to skip? Allow everything to happen is also considered to be an idea unless illusion of control is realized, once illusion of control is realized,we can allow everything to happen,life be as it is, Now suffering is not because there is no resistance as phil says, but first realization of illusion of control, not looking. But this looking may lead to the realization of this illusion and then allowing, now at this point mind won't resist this allowing because truth is realized. RAJ Raj, What I meant by "skip" is based on the following ... I'll list out the steps that I perceive are suggested in what we are discussing so far: 1) The person who was previously trying to control events realizes that such attempts are futile 2) That person is subsequently untroubled by events and allows them to unfold as they will rather than trying to control them. 3) .... ---- What I'm suggesting is that the person can realize that they aren't actually separate from whatever it was that they were trying to control to begin with, in which case there's nothing to allow and noone to give up control. So by "skip", I'm saying skip steps 1) and 2). This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with steps 1) and 2). They're pretty cool actually, but as long as there's someone who's given up control there's always the potential for that someone to question their previous recognition or even to lose track of it for awhile. The only reason I even suggest it is from corresponding with others who've told a similar story of this type of "leap frogging", as it's not one that I can tell -- as I mentioned, I'm a veteran of the long way home. The attempt to control events isn't futile, and the attempt to do so need not be abandoned. When driving down the freeway, there is the attempt (generally successful) to control the car, and it's best not to abandon the attempt, as it's unlikely to result in being untroubled by the events that follow. The realization of no control is, as I think you're saying, the realization that there is no controller, and that control happens, in the same way that there is no chooser, but choosing happens. As such, the realization has little impact on what is done or not done, (there is nobody available to do differently) but does impact the attachment to the outcome of what is done. One always does the best one can, regardless of whether it is believed there is a controller or not. The impact of the belief or the realization is in the response to the results of one's efforts, though that change of conditioning may well have an indirect impact on what is done.
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Apr 2, 2013 16:06:18 GMT -8
Raj, What I meant by "skip" is based on the following ... I'll list out the steps that I perceive are suggested in what we are discussing so far: 1) The person who was previously trying to control events realizes that such attempts are futile 2) That person is subsequently untroubled by events and allows them to unfold as they will rather than trying to control them. 3) .... ---- What I'm suggesting is that the person can realize that they aren't actually separate from whatever it was that they were trying to control to begin with, in which case there's nothing to allow and noone to give up control. So by "skip", I'm saying skip steps 1) and 2). This isn't to say that there's anything wrong with steps 1) and 2). They're pretty cool actually, but as long as there's someone who's given up control there's always the potential for that someone to question their previous recognition or even to lose track of it for awhile. The only reason I even suggest it is from corresponding with others who've told a similar story of this type of "leap frogging", as it's not one that I can tell -- as I mentioned, I'm a veteran of the long way home. The attempt to control events isn't futile, and the attempt to do so need not be abandoned. When driving down the freeway, there is the attempt (generally successful) to control the car, and it's best not to abandon the attempt, as it's unlikely to result in being untroubled by the events that follow. The realization of no control is, as I think you're saying, the realization that there is no controller, and that control happens, in the same way that there is no chooser, but choosing happens. As such, the realization has little impact on what is done or not done, (there is nobody available to do differently) but does impact the attachment to the outcome of what is done. One always does the best one can, regardless of whether it is believed there is a controller or not. The impact of the belief or the realization is in the response to the results of one's efforts, though that change of conditioning may well have an indirect impact on what is done. I was differentiating between the realization of no controller on one hand, and an intellectual recognition, in the context of the personal, on the nature of control, on the other. I can live with the qualifier "ultimately", as in "the attempt to control events is ultimately futile", but even that could be reasoned against quite effectively as well. What I'm getting at by recognizing the futility of control purely with the thinking mind is that despite the efforts to control the vehicle on the highway there is always the possibility of a sudden violent collision that had nothing to do with whether or not you were in control of it. The most dramatic and extreme instance of this being caught on all those Russian dash cams a few months back now. This can be understood. It can be a source of anxiety, but maybe not. Point is it can be understood by a person who still sees himself as separate and capable of attempting control. I agree: the absence of attachment upon the realization of the vacant controllers seat implies that the control and choice that happens without the controller or the chooser now happens without the attachment -- while there is noone available to do it differently, it happens without attachment, which is to say, differently than if the attachment were present.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 3, 2013 12:35:06 GMT -8
What I'm getting at by recognizing the futility of control purely with the thinking mind is that despite the efforts to control the vehicle on the highway there is always the possibility of a sudden violent collision that had nothing to do with whether or not you were in control of it. The most dramatic and extreme instance of this being caught on all those Russian dash cams a few months back now. The probability is much much higher if no effort to control the vehicle is made
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 3, 2013 16:10:05 GMT -8
What I'm getting at by recognizing the futility of control purely with the thinking mind is that despite the efforts to control the vehicle on the highway there is always the possibility of a sudden violent collision that had nothing to do with whether or not you were in control of it. The most dramatic and extreme instance of this being caught on all those Russian dash cams a few months back now. The probability is much much higher if no effort to control the vehicle is made We should do some experiments and gather some empirical data.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 4, 2013 5:02:54 GMT -8
The probability is much much higher if no effort to control the vehicle is made We should do some experiments and gather some empirical data. Every time I get an urge to do some experiments, I start by checking to see if others have done the experiments before:
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Apr 4, 2013 7:51:57 GMT -8
What I'm getting at by recognizing the futility of control purely with the thinking mind is that despite the efforts to control the vehicle on the highway there is always the possibility of a sudden violent collision that had nothing to do with whether or not you were in control of it. The most dramatic and extreme instance of this being caught on all those Russian dash cams a few months back now. The probability is much much higher if no effort to control the vehicle is made That the possibility of getting blindsided by a distracted driver running a light at an intersection is no rationale for taking one's hands off the wheel is simply logic at play.
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Apr 4, 2013 10:30:01 GMT -8
The probability is much much higher if no effort to control the vehicle is made That the possibility of getting blindsided by a distracted driver running a light at an intersection is no rationale for taking one's hands off the wheel is simply logic at play. Ketterling's Law: Logic is an organized way of going wrong with confidence. ;D
|
|