from understanding to realization

me and my monkey mind

me and my monkey mind

The problem is this:

A 5 year old is able to comprehend that letters make words and words ‘make things I have said on paper‘. But the 5 year old can not read yet.

And then, she starts spelling words. She tries to write. Little things on paper, often needing a lot of help. Many months later she can read small children books.

So it is with the comprehension that all metaphysics is untrue, cause not experienced. But to realize this fact, that I cannot know anything with my limited mind, takes more time. I can store experiences but they will never be the real thing. Once I realized this, I found myself in the unknowing.

So I am in the unknowing and I start to understand how the mind works, and how it makes an image of self through memory and history. You are a résumé in your mind. But of course you are not that image, and of course I am not that image. Neither are we the past.

We can predict present and immediate future from today’s weather, but we cannot accurately foresee the weather for more than 4 days in advance.

So I comprehend that I am not that image of self, but still, I see my image of self being there. Not unlike the 5 year old seeing the letters all separately without connecting them.

Can the identification process be stopped, or is there a magic moment — that moment when the 5 year old starts to spell, that moment when the image of my self is replaced by my present self, my here and my now. That moment when desire stops and reality begins.

Who is doing this? Who enters that moment?

Advertisements

26 thoughts on “from understanding to realization

  1. Great minds are dancing on the same part of the floor these days. Over on another blog I greatly enjoy, “The Middle Pane”, bg is right in the thought zone with you.

    As you have so graciously allowed so much platform space for my M-ness to spill here in recent days, I will consolidate the real estate holdings by sending you to my comment there as it applies here, too. What a lovely meeting of two great minds blogging, with me having the joy of being in the mirror watching the doubled grace you both share. -x.M

    http://middlepane.com/2013/06/07/difference-of-opinion/


    I have never bought that whole in high heals dancing backwards Ginger and Fred difficulty ‘paradigm:)’. I think allowing coloring and dancing outside the lines is what is so important to re-member… and just think of the moves that can be made when done in the comfort of leaping barefoot! It is like taking off of ones mental shoes after a long arduous performance and plunging bare feet into the cool water stream of flowing truths.

  2. Tough question, isn’t it.
    Learning procedure and cognitive self.
    Every day since birth is adding to oneself ”something” and in my opinion, this is inevitable and separate from cognition of self.
    I view ”self” as an empty baloon ( though empty, the baloon exists ) that inflates with everyday’s ”air”. The ”air” is the result of how I respond to everything that stimulates my senses and is a totally objective->subjective derivative of my cognition. The air forms ”myself”. The baloon is ”me”
    You look at yourself but you would like to see only the balloon. How is this possible ?
    As (human) time passes, they appear to be united as one in substance.
    You can never be a child again, How is possible to view your ”pure” self ?
    If it is ,anyway, then my answer is ”you”.
    You are doing this
    You may enter this moment.
    How?
    A proper spiritual contemplation might be the way.

    ( Show compassion to my English 🙂 )

    • I came back to this comment at least 5 times. No compassion was needed :-), but great ideas you have shared.
      So the self is the balloon. And the inflated self contains a lot of ‘me’.
      This reminds me of bernadette roberts with an equal analogy when the self also disappears, in her groundbreaking work ‘the experience of no self’
      Still I’m not sure about who is the doer and maker of things. I was close 2 days ago to experience less separation – and then I wonder … the ‘doer’ seems to be the ‘magician’ of unlimited love …

      • Nice ! we can go further on this topic. I’ll be back asap. Thank you.
        I have to make a correction and replace the word ᾽᾽objective᾽᾽ with ᾽᾽subjective᾽᾽.

        • both objective and subjective are a modelling of mind. Neither sees things as they really are. Our ultimate confusion, and source of infinite frustration: “Why are thing not as they should be …” 🙂

          • 🙂

            you ‘re looking for answers in fundamental questions that I’m not sure we ‘re able even to discuss. In Greek litterature we use the word ” άρρητο ” – that reffers to things that we can not express with words but we do feel their existence.
            How sure are we about things should be ?
            (There are many issues that made us understand some tricky states for our mind, but I do not find them sufficient to convince me.)
            In biology they’re talking about programmed genes.
            Who is the programmer ? Nature ? Evolution ? -not sufficient answers.
            Mind that the way we pose a question underlies the answer.
            Who is the programmer ? – implies that there is a programmer.

            If you look around you’ll easily find a vast diversity of life, in addition to a non-living environment that although is the most significant factor for life to develop.
            (At this point we might have to define the word ”life”)

            We (humans) do not see the reality like other beings do. Should we ?
            We can not smell like a dog or run like a jaguar. We can not see in the dark, live in extreme temperatures and so on… .
            If we were able to see in sub-atomic level ,for example, we would loose the picture (the shape, the matter) of things as we know them.
            Would it be a better vision ?
            The same applies to the sum of our senses.
            The reality for a tree is definately different from ours, but this does not mean we are in front of two (or more) realities. One reality with many faces is more close to my perception.
            I tend to believe that there is a reason for this depsite the opinion of many biologists.

            The balloon exists even empty.
            Who made this ? (or better) Is this made ?
            Our exploration of the world is like reading a book. We have done nothing.
            (The matter to manufacture an i-phone existed on this planet. Our knowledge is that needs to get enough to do so.I do not think that this action defines ”progress” ,but innovation)
            All scientific achivements (till now) can only describe something that already exists, intending to find its origins or to explain the whole ”system” that seems to be very complex but it could be very simple.

            (To be continued… 🙂 if you are in the mood, of course)

            Dear Bert, I do not imply that you don’t already know all the above.
            I’m just sharing my thoughts.
            Have a nice day and continue to enlighten us with your brilliant thoughts.
            Believe me it is rare now a days to find people who like to share their thoughts and not to try to convince eachother.
            I find very strange that although we live in a relative reality we try to give absolute answers.

            • Dear Bert, I hope you’re doing well.
              I wonder if you have the following conversation in mind :

            • Doing well, but very busy with teaching and preparing courses.
              I will have to check this vid. The commentaries on living were published from 1955 till 1960. Most of the time, K brought the same life lessons over and over again.
              In my humble opinion, the commentaries on living 1, 2 and 3 are the most accessible of his works, and all written by himself.
              But this post I wrote here was only inspired by the elusive experience of self and Self.

            • Happy to hear you’re doing well.
              Yes, the video is not related to your post. I couldn’t find your mail address.

            • > answers in fundamental questions that I’m not sure we ‘re able even to discuss.

              The answer of those fundamental questions lies indeed outside of the mind, in the cloud of the unknowing, the cloud of kind action.

              > How sure are we about things should be?

              Our never ending source of frustration lies in the difference between how things should be and how they are.

              > Who is the programmer? Nature? Evolution?

              There is always another who and what after every answer to the preceeding who and what.

              > Who is the programmer? – implies that there is a programmer.

              Existence might be without a reason. We will never know the answer with our minds.

              > If we were able to see in sub-atomic level ,for example, we would loose the picture (the shape, the matter) of things as we know them.

              Perhaps if we would see at much larger scales, the same thing could be said. We are looking at a reality that seems to repeat itself in one or the other way in smaller of larger scales. Are we living in a fractal reality?

              > I tend to believe that there is a reason for this depsite the opinion of many biologists.

              Belief is futile. Belief is again of the mind. It is a concept. It is void of experience. It is a filter that limits our vision on reality as it is, because we would like to see reality through that filter. Regardless, reality might or might not be according to that belief.

              > The balloon exists even empty.

              Ian Gardner said that if we can get rid of the sum total of our experiences, we become one, we merge. But that is a logical and empty statement. I feel the truth in it, but i do not see its reality.

              > All scientific achivements (till now) can only describe something that already exists, intending to find its origins or to explain the whole ”system” that seems to be very complex but it could be very simple.

              Science can only describe the repeatable, while all reality is always different.

              > (To be continued… 🙂 if you are in the mood, of course)

              Today I had little time, and a right mood.

              > Have a nice day and continue to enlighten us with your “brilliant” thoughts.

              I think I will keep this blog on a low light till September. During summer, people don’t have time to read, and they should indeed spend a lot of time in the open, in nature, … with loved ones.
              I don’t know why anything I say would be brilliant. Although it goes a lot beyond mainstream, me too I am the sum total of all my experiences, and I express them and share them in this way, hoping to start a conversation like this one. Learning a lot from these conversations. Synergy.

              > Believe me it is rare now a days to find people who like to share their thoughts and not to try to convince eachother.

              Beyond mind there is not much need to convince. I’m slowly moving to that place, but will never ever arrive 🙂

              > I find very strange that although we live in a relative reality we try to give absolute answers.

              Now that is deep thinking!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s