So, perhaps to sum up, we encourage each to discover the self new each day, to find those areas which seem to be blocked or over-eager or in some way out of balance and to attempt to find time for silence and listening and reflection, time in which to open the self to that possibility of a better configuration of energies. It is a small thing to the conscious mind to pray as this instrument does, “Lord teach me Thy ways.” This sentiment can be said in many other phrases. However, that simple desire to know the better way has much more efficacy than the attempt to know precisely what to do next upon improving the self. The true work of spiritual evolution is done below the surface of consciousness, so you as a conscious being are working with your personality, working with your balance, working to aid your own evolution. When you choose to disengage the machinery of mind from the ephemeral business of the passing hour to the point where you become aware of the nature of the creation and of the self, when you can know that all is love at the same time you are expressing distorted views, you have indeed become wise.
This rules and is quite an antidote to the typical behaviorist view of spirituality. Something deeper — something we cannot simply take credit for and receive validation for — is occurring as the upward spiraling light arcs us back to the Creator. Thanks for sharing.
In what context is this so, me-wonders? Can we take credit for things that pass through us? Is there validation in that?
I’m questioning this “aloud” in the sense that the work we do is, I would say, to become a closer approximation to what I call the Love of Creation, what others call the Creator.
Can we claim credit for attuning to what we actually are? In a social context maybe? I guess?
I’m hearing a very noisy Acorn Woodpecker just now, sounding off his own self-validation.
I’m very likely over-complicating this sentiment (based upon past experience). I just find the process of spinning more quickly and in a more balanced fashion (like gyroscope) to be sufficiently self-validating. Of what use are claims of credit? I just don’t perceive it.
Anyhow, setting my own idiosyncrasies aside for just a moment, the quote prompts the question, how can we best work subconsciously, how can we best work with our own subconscious, as if we are a part of it, not it a part of us?
The implication above seems to be that it has to do with balancing the personality, presumably, so that it becomes increasingly transparent to the larger self. I suppose this also means different things to different individuals.
In this context: much of the discussion in spirituality circles I’ve found – especially in ours – centers on people ruminating on their personal polarity, their personal subjective experiences, and the insights they share in the company of others. What I’ve found, and maybe I’m generalizing overly, is that this invites judgment, from the self or others. I suppose it’s an open question whether every invitation is intentional, but when a culture forms around this in a community, it quickly turns into a de facto pecking order of enlightenment.
To understand that one will express distorted things and not have to defend one’s spiritual status requires a lot of work on the self, either in the form of disciplining and exacerbating existing narcissism or being able to forgive the self for how this personality does not achieve perfect discipline. If the true work is done below the waterline of awareness, then we cannot simply take credit for it or deny credit for it—it would seem to me it’s in another category in which credit is not meaningful to begin with. And therefore, no judgment can be accepted nor tendered.
I may simply be showing my own ass here, but it’s one of the things that challenge me about online communities like this.
edit: what I’m trying to say is that these communities infrequently emphasize “the true work of spiritual evolution.” Maybe they can’t. Maybe that’s not their role. Not sure.
Well, I know for my self, I post these things kind of to mark where i am in my peregrinations, if you will. They’re sorta like bread crumbs in the labyrinth.
This may be a reason for some of the conversations you note, maybe not so much staking territory as sharing current perspectives?
What I see here is people talking past each other most of the time. Just look at @flofrog commenting about animals instead of the main topic. But I guess that’s natural for a frog.
Swinging back to the idea of “the true work” of an incarnation, it seems to moi that what this implies is that we are ever the instrument, not the player, that what passes through us is what is significant, not our own creation. And yet, all this merges as we learn to stop acting from our animal sensibilities and move into creating a life for all our levels of self.
What does that look like? We can’t know. It is not meant to be seen by us in this Earthly context. But, I would submit, we can feel the greater or the lesser alignment with our deeper selves. For me, as I alluded to above, it feels like the gyroscope of self spinning faster and more in balance. This is my current metaphor for spiritual gravity. The gyroscope holds amazing power, and all it does is sit and spin, sit and spin. In my analogy, the more spinning and balancing, the more one can feel the alignment of deeper layers of self, of other selves (past and future), plus…who knows what?
in her lower right hand is a little illuminated flask in which is held the river water as she is also the Protector of Rivers, as water is our path back to Brahma, but I understand that you might not know that Mirror.
Cellphone indeed
As to her frog , if you count from the right side the irises, from the right, as you get to the fifth iris, just slightly above it, you can distinctly see under the water the tender eyes of the frog.
I wholeheartedly agree! But then what does discussion in a community on that topic look like? How would we know if we can’t know how it even looks to ourselves? This is what I’ve been thinking about for some time: if creating circles of practice and camaraderie are the model for transpersonal seeking, then how do we cultivate an environment in which we’re not just throwing subjective data at each other but finding the center of our association? There has to be some way we can relate deeply as fellow seekers, and yet to talk at each other like this (largely past each other, as you rightly pointed out) doesn’t seem to get us there. Hell, for that matter, flying dedicated seekers to joint workings in person isn’t guaranteed to deepen that trust and relating.
Not sure that’s meeting your point but it’s what I take away.
Decades ago, I was cranky rebellious teenager (hard to imagine now, I know). One day my father asked if I wanted to attend a meeting of the town’s poetry club of which he was member, and I said, “yes.”
I got there and sat in a group of complete strangers, knowing I had nothing in common with them.
One by one, they got up and read aloud about something that touched them personally. So, about a quarter of the way through, I looked around at mostly strangers I had nothing in common with, but I thought it was neat that I felt I had shared something personal with about a quarter of my fellow attendees.
About half way along, I noticed the same thing, but with different proportions. It was not until I felt a connection with about three quarters of the people in the room that I noticed that, in a fairly short period of time, I went from feeling coolly towards everyone in the room to feeling warmly towards most of them. And even then I was still skeptical about the remaining one quarter…but it all worked out in the end.
This is long introduction to saying, @oswg_jeremy , that I’ve done some thinking, as well, about how seekers could share meaningfully with one another. What I’ve come to so far is that when we share in a distilled manner what we truly care about, what truly moves us in our heart, that we do one another a significant service.
This particular construct (b4th) does not focus itself that way, but I expect you’d agree that it becomes most satisfying when people open their hearts and share what they love.
ADDENDUM
I had a further thought. We all come here to study various lessons of love. Is it not lovely when those who are traveling along specific lines of learning can share their experiences? For example, when those who learn why they no longer wish to abuse others because they see the sheer beauties of others can swap heartfelt experiences, I’m sure that huge amounts of light are released.
I translated with google translator a fragment of conversation, which is to my opinion saying about the same. I didn’t edit it perfectly, but hope the meaning should be OK.
Original
Был такой интересный учёный Бенджамин Либет, который в восьмидесятых годах провёл серию исследований, связанных провёл серию исследований, связанных с, если угодно, волей. Как были организованы исследования. Испытуемому, которому на голову надевался аппарат ЭКГ на сканирование, и предлагалось захотеть нажать на кнопочку мыши и нажать «Да». Всё. Всё исследование. А что регистрировали аппараты ЭКГ? Они регистрировали как раз-таки всплеск мозговой активности, которые характеризовали как намерение нажать, так и собственно моторную реакцию. То есть возбуждение, идущее по нервам и достигающее мышц пальца, который нажимал на эту самую пресловутую кнопочку. И что же удалось что же удалось установить Либету и его коллегам? Удалось установить, что существует зазор где-то в 450 миллисекунд, это почти половина секунды, между всплеском активности определённых зон коры мозга и реализации его намерения, то есть нажатием на кнопочку. А эти эксперименты интерпретировались по-разному. Они потом интерпретировались по-разному. Они потом много раз воспроизводились, в том числе в начале XXI века, уже другими совсем в начале XXI века, уже другими совсем людьми, другими лабораториями,но каждый раз подтверждалось вот примерно это же, там немножечко менялись диапазоны,где-то 450, где-то 430, где-то чуть больше, чуть меньше, но в целом примерно вот это воспроизводилось. А как интерпретировались результаты этих экспериментов? Ну, вообще по-честному, как только не интерпретировались, начиная от того, что никакой свободы воли нет и заканчивая наоборот тем, что всё свободная воля. Да, но нас интересует не это.
Нас интересует такой вот чисто технический момент, связанный с выводами, которые уместно сделать относительно того, как сознание соотносится со временем. Что же получается? Получается, что каждое наше действие, которое мы совершаем, ну, по крайней мере, осознанно, запаздывает на 450 миллисекунд по отношению к тому времени, когда у нас возникло намерение его реализовать. Лаг, да, временной лаг. Всё правильно. Временной лаг 450 миллисекунд. Да, почти половина секунды. Много это или мало? Ну, вообще это довольно много, 450 миллисекунд - это время, за которое можно улететь в кювет, если ты едешь на байке быстро.
Полсекунды. Мне кажется, это кажется это это невероятно. Во, и всем так показалось. Ну вот так опускают вот эту штуку и там вроде правильно и всем исследователям также показалось, что это невероятно. Чёрт, а как мы тогда вообще
невероятно. Если есть этот лаг, лётчики, да, лётчики, у них там меньше 450 миллисекунд. А вот есть ответ. И вот он очень очень интересен. Его следует серьёзно воспринять. Этот ответ заключается в том, что каждый из нас учится всю жизнь прямо с рождения предугадывать то, что будет дальше. И невероятные
ресурсы нашего мозга заточены под то, чтобы как раз предугадать, уменьшить уменьшить этот лаг. Ну, даже не уменьшить, а постоянно учитывая его, подкладывать себе как бы соломку, постоянно прогнозировать что будет происходить, и заранее предпринимать действия загодя за сколько-то миллисекунд для того, чтобы успеть отреагировать. Вот, в частности, на что это похоже. Давайте метафору приведу, и всё станет на свои места. Если вы играли в компьютерные игры наподобие гонок, ну, типа Формула- 1, вы знаете, что если вы попадаете в крутой поворот, надо заранее нажимать, например, налево для того, чтобы машинка вот так стала боком и вписалась поверх. Потому что если вы нажмёте налево, когда машинка уже на повороте сидит, она врежется в ограждение. Гарантированно не успеете. Да, да, я знаю. Вот. И даже для этой цели специально создатели игры делают такие вот стрелочки, указатели на ограждение для того, чтобы игрок заранее рассчитал расстояние и где-то примерно за 450
миллисекунд зажал эту самую кнопочку влево или вправо, и машинка уверенно
вписалась поворот. Вот примерно такой же трюк проделывает наш мозг, ну, вообще,
если угодно, наше сознание, а, постоянно сначала жизни. И мы стали такими большими экспертами, специалистами вот в этом предугадывании ближайшего будущего, что уверенно вписываемся в большинство жизненных поворотов. А если не вписываемся, вот нас это удивляет. Это шок, смятение и повод пересобраться, да, задуматься о своей стратегии и пересобрать её. Такое бывает, да. Вот мы живём не здесь и сейчас. Вот, да, в обычном режиме вот такого дефолтного существования, мы живём в будущем. Всё время мы сегодня вынесены в будущем. Всё время мы сегодня вынесены на сколько-то миллисекунд или даже больше в будущее. Почему? Потому что мы вынуждены в некотором смысле предугадывать, что будет просто, чтобы отреагировать, чтобы справиться с жизнью, чтобы успеть вписаться в её повороты. И у разных людей, да, вот разная, если угодно, глубина горизонта протекции, вот так это красиво называется. То есть вот этого горизонта предсказательности на некоторое количество секунд, может быть минут даже, может быть, часов вперёд для того,чтобы предсказать, предугадать, вписаться, справиться. Получается или нет? Ну, вообще у большинства получается. Мы довольно-таки поднаторевшие эксперты в этом деле раз мы вот доживаем до сидим до какого-то серьёзного жизненного возраста, это уже означает, что мы как
минимум справились с какими-то базисными вещами и научились предугадывать.
А что говорит на эту тему буддизм? Буддизм говорит о том, что быть здесь и сейчас в буквальном смысле это значит отключить весь этот механизм протекции вообще. Вот настолько это серьёзно, настолько-то глубоко. Вдумайтесь, что это означает на практике. Это означает, что, например, пребывая в медитации в абсолютно беззащитною перед будущим, перед перед будущим, перед изменением ситуации. То есть, если что-то произойдёт, вы не будете готовы на это отреагировать. Вы как бы ну готовы в 450 миллисекунд. То есть вам нужно будет сначала собраться, прийти в себя, а потом только ещё может быть какое-то время потребуется чтобы собрать сам этот механизм, который позволит предугадать то, что произойдёт 450 миллисекунд. Да, вот в чём дело. То есть быть здесь и сейчас, значит, перестроить перестроить взаимоотношения сознания со временем радикальным образом и вообще отключить этот механизм протекции, который настолько глубок, он настолько глубоко въелся, да, вот в сами базисные основы нашего миросозерцания, что даже трудно себе представить, как можно взаимодействовать с реальностью без него. Это кажется, ну, абсолютной как бы обнажённостью что ли, абсолютной незащищённостью. А как же тогда Дзен, который говорит не только про медитацию, а про 24/7? Вроде Будда даже этого говорил. Вот если человек настолько глубоко сумел проникнуть в структуры работы своего ума чтобы зафиксировать как именно
реализуется этот механизм протекции на собственном опыте, да, випасана, и даже
его, например, отключить. Вот после этого у неё появляется возможность по-другому реагировать на события, на реальность уже более осознанно и учиться перестраивать свои взаимоотношения с миром, с реальностью на радикально другом уровне, на радикально другом уровне, на гораздо более глубоком. Принять себя. Принять, что я тормоз. Ну, принять себя - это слова ни о чём. Ну, принять и принять слова ни о чём. Ну, принять эту задержку вынужденно примет каждый, потому что это просто просто реальность нашего бытия. Тут дело не в
реальности нашего бытия. Тут дело не в принятии совсем. Дело не в том, что вы с ней просто согласиться. Согласиться мы сейчас можем. Ну в смысле, что я не буду тратить огромное количество ресурсов и ставлю вот на это на карту. Дело в том, чтобы суметь жить, ходить, дышать, взаимодействовать с другими людьми на других основаниях, перестроиться этот механизм. Но ты уже не будешь тогда быстрее реагировать, чем вокруг. Может быть не будешь. Может быть будешь, но ты будешь делать это осознанно.
Benjamin Libet and Buddhism
There was an interesting scientist, Benjamin Libet, who in the eighties conducted a series of studies related to, if you like, will. How the studies were organized. The subject, who had an ECG device put on his head for scanning, was asked to want to press a mouse button and press “Yes”. That’s it. The entire study. And what did the ECG devices record? They recorded a surge in brain activity that characterized both the intention to press and the actual motor reaction. That is, excitation going along the nerves and reaching the muscles of the finger that pressed that very notorious button. And what did Libet and his colleagues manage to establish? They managed to establish that there is a gap of about 450 milliseconds, almost half a second, between the surge in activity of certain areas of the cerebral cortex and the implementation of his intention, that is, pressing the button. And these experiments were interpreted differently. They were then interpreted differently. They were then reproduced many times, including at the beginning of the 21st century, by completely different people, by different laboratories, but each time approximately the same thing was confirmed, the ranges changed a little, somewhere 450, somewhere 430, somewhere a little more, a little less, but in general approximately this was reproduced. And how were the results of these experiments interpreted? Well, honestly, in all sorts of ways, starting from the fact that there is no free will and ending, on the contrary, with the fact that everything is free will. Yes, but that is not what interests us.
We are interested in this purely technical point, connected with the conclusions that are appropriate to make regarding how consciousness relates to time. What do we get? It turns out that each of our actions that we perform, well, at least consciously, is delayed by 450 milliseconds in relation to the time when we had the intention to implement it. Lag, yes, a time lag. That’s right. A time lag of 450 milliseconds. Yes, almost half a second. Is that a lot or a little? Well, in general it’s quite a lot, 450 milliseconds is the time it takes to fly into a ditch if you’re riding a bike fast. Half a second. It seems to me that this is incredible. Well, and everyone thought so. Well, they omit this thing and it seems correct there and all the researchers also thought that it was incredible. Damn, and how did we then generally incredible. If there is this lag, pilots, yes, pilots, they have less than 450 milliseconds. But there is an answer. And it is very, very interesting. It should be taken seriously. This answer is that each of us learns all our lives, right from birth, to predict what will happen next. And the incredible resources of our brain are sharpened to predict, to reduce this lag. Well, not even to reduce, but to constantly take it into account, as if to put straws under ourselves, to constantly predict what will happen, and to take actions in advance, a few milliseconds in advance, in order to have time to react. This, in particular, is what it looks like. Let me give you a metaphor, and everything will fall into place. If you have played computer games like racing, like Formula 1, you know that if you get into a sharp turn, you need to press left in advance, for example, so that the car turns sideways and fits on top. Because if you press left when the car is already sitting on the turn, it will crash into the fence. Guaranteed not to make it in time. Yes, yes, I know. That’s it. And even for this purpose, the creators of the game make these arrows, pointers to the fence so that the player can calculate the distance in advance and somewhere around 450 milliseconds before pressing this very button left or right, and the car confidently fits into the turn. Our brain does approximately the same trick, well, in general, if you like, our consciousness, ah, constantly from the beginning of life. And we have become such great experts, specialists in this prediction of the near future that we confidently fit into most of the turns of life. And if we don’t fit in, that’s what surprises us. It’s a shock, confusion and a reason to regroup, yes, to think about our strategy and regroup it. That happens, yes. We don’t live here and now. Yes, in the usual mode of such a default existence, we live in the future. All the time today we are taken out in the future. All the time today we are taken out for some milliseconds or even more into the future. Why? Because we are forced in a sense to predict what will happen simply in order to react, to cope with life, to have time to fit into its turns. And different people, yes, have different, if you like, depth of the horizon of protection, that’s how it’s beautifully called. That is, this horizon of predictability for a certain number of seconds, maybe even minutes, maybe hours ahead in order to predict, anticipate, fit in, cope. Does it work or not? Well, in general, most people do. We are pretty seasoned experts in this matter, since we live to sit until some serious age in life, this already means that we have at least coped with some basic things and learned to predict.
And what does Buddhism say about this? Buddhism says that to be here and now literally means to turn off this entire protection mechanism altogether. That’s how serious it is, that’s how deep. Think about what it means in practice. It means that, for example, being in meditation, you are absolutely defenseless against the future, against a change in the situation. That is, if something happens, you will not be ready to react to it. You are, like, ready in 450 milliseconds. That is, you will first need to pull yourself together, come to your senses, and then maybe it will take some more time to assemble this mechanism itself, which will allow you to predict what will happen in 450 milliseconds. Yes, that’s the thing. That is, to be here and now means to radically rebuild the relationship of consciousness with time and generally turn off this protection mechanism, which is so deep, it has eaten so deeply, yes, into the very basic foundations of our worldview, that it is even difficult to imagine how one can interact with reality without it. It seems, well, like absolute nakedness, absolute vulnerability. But what about Zen then, which talks not only about meditation, but about 24/7? It seems that Buddha even said this. Now if a person has managed to penetrate so deeply into the structures of his mind’s work in order to record how exactly this protection mechanism is realized from his own experience, yes, vipassana, and even, for example, turn it off. After this, she has the opportunity to react differently to events, to reality, already more consciously and learn to rebuild her relationship with the world, with reality on a radically different level, on a radically different level, on a much deeper one. Accept herself. Accept that I am slow. Well, accepting yourself is a meaningless phrase. Well, accepting and accepting are meaningless phrases. Well, everyone will be forced to accept this delay, because it is simply the reality of our existence. It is not a matter of the reality of our existence. It is not a matter of acceptance at all. It is not a matter of simply agreeing with it. We can agree now. Well, in the sense that I will not spend a huge amount of resources and put this on the line. The point is to be able to live, walk, breathe, interact with other people on other grounds, to rebuild this mechanism. But then you will no longer react faster than those around you. Maybe you will not. Maybe you will, but you will do it consciously.
My off-hand reaction is that this is a mechanistic reduction of a metaphysical action.
The brain is an animal mechanism, it is not born of spirit. The experience of knowing that love is all there is, is a function of spirit, not of mind, not of brain.
It’s a natural impulse to reduce spirit to matter, but the journey actually moves in the other direction. Mind learns from body and spirit learns from mind.
Of course! But not all sharing is effective or equally valuable to the community, and frankly I think the intentions behind a lot of that sharing often smack of a thinly veiled narcissism. If I have a unique, subjectively compelling experience, the only reason to share it is to (A) impress others or (B) find the common inspiration and significance in it. Community is more than a FAQ for people looking for answers solely for themselves.
Well, I guess this is a context for one to explore that range from narcissism to being more deliberately of service to others. It’s quite a messy learning process for some of us–mine own self, for example.
