Everything Happens on the Edge

Everything we experience is the edges, the surface of things.

From the subtle vibration of the finest beginnings to the most violent galactic event. It is the front, the event horizon, the forward edge where everything happens.

Even the eye itself uses “lateral inhibition” of adjacent light receptors to sharpen perception and reduce noise – a technique since applied to digital image sharpening.

Now of course, the edge is what is experienced. This does not include who is experiencing and how they are experiencing. Put simply, it is attention and intention  that stirs the edge into activity. It is the movement of consciousness that creates the experience.  This same movement is the edge and the process and the knower of the edge.

Attention and intention. That is the cause of all things.
What are you thinking about?  😉
Davidya

[Update – oops – I had described the example badly – fixed.]

An analogy might be useful. We go to a movie theater to see a film. The image itself is flat, reflected from a flat screen. It’s also a series of still images, shown fast enough that the brain merges them into apparent motion. This is easy enough as the brain neurons fire in bursts rather than being a continuous stream. So the images we see are assembled from packets in our brain/mind. And finally, the images on the movie film itself are a coating on one side of a flat film. (hence the name)

Bookmark the permalink.

21 Responses to Everything Happens on the Edge

  1. zenkitties says:

    hey davidya,

    nice to see you’re still around dishin it out! It seems to be this way, that it has the illusion of being the beginning to thought. However there is no experiencer to experience.

    All of these things are just happenings.

    P.S. There is no you thinking, there is only thinking. 😉

  2. Davidya says:

    Hi ZK!
    Interesting comment. It’s useful to recognize everything as just a stage. No experiencer, only thinking, etc. illustrates that an old way of being has ended. But we can ask – what/who is thinking then? And who is aware/experiencing that there is no experiencer?

    There are a surprising number of layers to this. But I will observe that as long as words like no, nothing, and empty describe it well, it has not been fully seen. The world may be a dream but who’s dream? Who could dream up something this big?

    The answers to such questions lead to some very profound understanding.

  3. zenkitties says:

    Hey Davidya,

    We can ask these questions, but they all seem to lead to a dead in no? But how about this, does there have to be an experiencer in order for experience to happen? Does there have to be a doer in order for waves to be formed through the ocean? The answer is no one has to be there, there does not have to be a doer of thought (and there isn’t) or someone aware. The only reason it feels like something is there is because there is the I thought there to claim it. But look inside and see if you can see the doer, or if its just all a bundle of thoughts acting and attaching themselves to each other to make it seems like it’s something. Mainly to look at the self, and see that that is not you, the self is a thought that just attaches itself to other thoughts as well. There is no one to have the thought, there is no controller of thought, thought merely happens regardless of whether “I” is there or not. That’s the flowering trappings all this time, there is no I there. Experience is happening, and there is seeing, but there is no seer.

    The world is very real, you are the dream. The thought of I is real, just as any other thought occurring, but there is no you. If there is, find and show me. Prove me wrong, I beg of you with all the compassion that is here.

    There is no one dreaming anything. It is all just happening, and that is where the universe becomes spontaneous and also instantaneous all in one go. There is not something acting upon anything, when the I is revealed in light it disappears. Silly how the most base assumption could even possibly be questioned to be false, but it is.

    That is the Gateless Gate my friend. There is no gate.

  4. Davidya says:

    Hi again.

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts. What you describe is a valid perspective of the path. But it is one point on the journey, not the end. In spite of what many have said.

    When we are young, we identify with our sensory experiences, then wants, then mind, and so forth, eventually coming to identify with the “I thought”. The personal self. But there is also a cosmic Self, what has been called pure consciousness, transcendent Being, and so forth. Some people lose the “I” idea or ego sense before discovering the cosmic Self – as you describe. Some discover the cosmic and have both the I sense and the cosmic Self for a bit. And some simply shift directly from a me to Self. In other words, there are many ways people might come to this.

    How can there be an experience without a conscious experiencer? We might see the mechanics of sense perception and see it all as just the body experiencing. But what is noticing this? Who has noticed these changes?

    They do not lead to a dead end at all. The lead to a discovery of the deeper reality. It’s true there doesn’t have to be an “I”, but there has to be an experiencer, consciousness to be aware. Before experience, there is just experiencer. And it is the impulse of the experiencer that creates the experience in the first place. Without consciousness aware of its own nature, there is no world. It is contained in That. This is called Vedanta, the understanding that dawns from Unity consciousness.

    Be careful not to get too caught in concepts about what is or an experience of some stage of the path. Life is a journey, not a destination. 😉

    PS- there is another stage where the world is a dream too. But that is also just a stepping stone. Then its all found real again, but a different real…

  5. zenkitties says:

    Hey davidya,

    thank you for the explanation however, whos thoughts? Show me whos thoughts are being conveyed? There is no control regardless of whether they are labeled by a “my thoughts”

    What I’m experiencing has been different then all that you talk about. there is a loss of self because there never was a self, its just a recognition that there was nothing ever there. That doesn’t necessarily mean the ego fades, and it shouldn’t have to if it doesn’t want to. The body still lives its apparent life with a girlfriend, a family, and friends.

    This may not be was Nisargardatta refers to as Supreme Reality, and I have been through states where “this is all a dream” and “this is real”, however this reality is the reality, in which is real and tangible and is not clouded because there is no personal to filter it.

    What says there has to be an experiencer. There absolutely doesn’t have to be one, just like what tells the waves to be the wave of an ocean. They just happen. What tells the thought to be a thought inside the brain, what makes this simile different, or separate?

    All the other stuff is just states, even cosmic consciousness. IF it can be labeled it is a state regardless of what it is. What this is, cannot be touched by a word. The experiencing doesn’t need an experiencer to happen, there is no cause-effect relationship. If everything is happening in a spontaneous effort, there is no time for there to be someone or something experiencing, if there was, point him out. Anything you can point to is just going to be a thought masquerading as a presence, which is delusion.

    I always enjoyed your posts matey. Thank you for the opportunity. I use to be liberatedself, but I found that this is very contradictory to the seekers path, if they are looking for truth, that name would get them away from it. 😛 Cheers!

  6. Davidya says:

    Hi ZK
    I suspect we may have an issue with terminology here. We’re not using the words quite the same way. It sounds like you’ve had a major deepening which is a beautiful thing. And I may be misunderstanding from whence you speak as my own journey is different. I can only speak from my understanding.

    As far as the question of who’s thoughts, there is no simple answer. And what seems true for someone at a given point will vary for another. But after you detach yourself from “my thoughts”, the experience will deepen and you’ll find the impulse to a thought varies. Some may arise from the body and some from the play of the field of action. Some from shared impressions or the environment. When the awareness is clear at finer levels, we may also notice impulses from the laws of nature and from the divine. People have names for these like intuition, finest intellect, music of the spheres, the cosmic hum, Veda, the song of light, etc.

    All I’m trying to say is that any sense of nothing indicates the what has been has ended but what is underlying has not yet been fully seen. At the deepest levels, “nothing” is found to be a fullness/ totality/ wholeness beyond comprehension.

    If there is no experiencer, there is no experience. It’s very simple. This may not be you’re experience, but you will find it all happens in consciousness. ie: experiencer comes before experience. One can experience the detail of how awareness emerges from itself and creates within itself the world we know. And we are That.

    From the Bhagavad Gita, “Curving back on myself, I create again and again.” (IX.8)

    Going into the details, like where the waves come from may not matter to you. But for some like myself, I’m ever curious about the process. So I continue to go deeper into it, hence the name of this blog.

    If you have the impression that what you experience is the reality, it can get in the way of seeing a deeper and more profound reality. Or even simply a fuller picture of the reality you’re now aware of. Sat is good, but what of Sat Chit Ananda.

    As for Cosmic Consciousness, a state, yes. But even deeper, consciousness has no states. It becomes an apparent stage on a journey to a fuller reflection of itself.

    Just as you have stepped past a previous reality, you will step past the one you’re in now. This is the nature of the path itself. You can only speak from where you are of course. What is true for you now. But stay open to deeper possibility. That’s all.

  7. zenkitties says:

    Hey Davidya,

    thank you for replying and keeping the dialogue going. Its always nice to share.. =]

    In terms of thoughts, and as to who is creating, if we can even say creating because they seem to be there regardless of whether this “self” imposes that ol, “I am having this thought” onto it or not. Nothing is having thoughts, thoughts are merely just happening just like waves are just happening in an ocean. The imposition of an I or a Self only causes the World to be created in front of Reality like a veil. So not only is Reality not seen, the filter of “my reality” or “my state” is now over Truth or Reality like an onion has layers.

    “If there is no experiencer, there is no experience”

    If this was true, then what is that moment in which the body wakes and the moment right before it falls out of wakefulness. That is one instance where that statement is not true. Also the moments in which the mind seems to be in silence to do something it cannot explain. It is not necessary for there to be an experiencer to the experience. In fact the experiencer is part of the experience as well! It is inside the movie as the analogy you used for this. the experiencer is nothing more than an idea created by the false sense of self.

    In terms of impression, there is no one to have an impression, because there is no one there, there is just impressions happening which if I were claiming to be something I’m not then yes this would be true. But I do not claim some identity, because there is no one home. The personality and the typing and transmitting of words is there, but what’s typing or who, this is none. There is no doer, that is only a thought as well, only an illusion. Everything else seems to just be happening as its happening which is why its better to say, things happen for the best, if they didn’t they wouldn’t be happening at this moment. 😛

    The seeing, sees no other reality besides Reality itself; this may be a state, and can only get “deeper” which I understand where you’re coming from and receptivity is there if the state gets deeper. The ego is not dissolved, but whether there is a want for the dissolve or not doesn’t really matter. I quite enjoy it and don’t think the body could live a functional life without it, so why get rid of something like that?! 🙂

    “From the Bhagavad Gita, “Curving back on myself, I create again and again.” (IX.8)”

    Wherever this is coming from sounds pre-realization, who speaks that, arjuna?

    Our two distinct methods may be off from one another, but for those that don’t do the whole nisargardatta maharaj, eastern philosophy language may not get where your method comes from. those states you speak of might do better if explained in a short word or two. I use to read all that stuff, and every eastern type teacher would explain what satori, sat chit ananda, etc. meant so it could atleast be understood by the intellectual mind. If a reader can’t understand what their reading based on wordage, what good does it do to further his journey.

    Blessings Davidya

  8. Davidya says:

    Hi ZK

    Well, we can say waves are just happening in the ocean, or we can research why waves are happening. The movement does have a source. As i mentioned before, I find such things interesting. But they may not be important to others.

    I agree that thoughts come from nothing. But that nothing happens to be everything. (laughs)

    There’s a key detail I’ve found. What you know depends on how you are looking. We could talk in endless circles but until we’re on the same page, we would not reach any agreement. Not because either of us is wrong. Simply because we are looking from different places.

    There is a difference between what I mean by an I or jiva sense or me and a Self or Atman. Big S Self is universal Self. The allness we realize ourselves to be. The sense of separation and other does indeed create a veil masking reality. The world itself is not the veil but rather how it is being seen. It is not the reality it seems to be. I agree with the rest of that paragraph.

    That moment when the body wakes up or falls asleep, it shifts into the “gap” or transcendental reality for a moment. A kind of neutral gear. Scientific research is finding there is a momentary point of samadhi there, masked by our identification with a little me. At that point, the statement is actually even more true. The individual ego in lost during sleep but that which holds all experience remains. The universal Self is eternal. We don’t disappear but return from sleep in the morning.

    The mind cannot explain it because it is beyond mind. This becomes very clear when the witness or observer value gets established from repeated samadhi experience. We become ever awake within, even in deep sleep. And we can watch the transitions into and out of sleep each day. There’s a reason it’s called Self Realization – it is realization of one’s higher Self. That ends the sense of a little me.

    The experiencer is part of the experience when it is identified with the objects of experience. When it is the witness, as above, it is independent of the contents of experience. It remains.

    These ideas may not be true to your experience now. But they are a deeper value than what you describe.

    Another word for impressions is memory. If you had no impressions or habits, you would not be able to write your blog, talk, or walk. You may have heard of the Akashic Records. These are shared impressions. At an even deeper level, there is Smriti. What we might call God’s memory. This is the foundation of Veda or ultimate knowledge on which all of the Vedic literature is based. In fact it’s the basis for much of Western thought as well, including our number system, the compass, the days of the week, time zones, and much more. Another big subject.

    Again, this idea that there is nothing there to experience or have impressions etc. is a TRANSITORY experience. I’m sure you can point to well known teachers who agree with you. But it’s not the highest truth. When clarity increases, you’ll find that nothing is everything. That emptiness is fullness. That empty space is full of life.

    The States of Consciousness article I often link to is useful for putting different teachings into perspective. If you have a framework, then they all make sense as coming from certain points on the journey. From a higher perspective, consciousness has no states. But until you get there, they sure seem to.

    Some people experience an “end” to the ego. Some people experience it expanding to become universal. This is the same thing experienced different ways. The person does not end. But who we perceive ourselves to be shifts from an individual sense of me to a cosmic sense of Being that acts through us. This is why some call it the Self or Atman.

    It is Krisna who said it. He is considered the most evolved of all avatars. In this case, the “I” is God speaking. “Curving back on myself, I create again and again.” describes how awareness curves back on itself to become self aware. It is from this that all things arise. I’ve detailed this in other posts. It is the ultimate in abstraction but the source of everything.

    This is not experienced until after the Unity consciousness shift, where the perspective is deep enough that we can see the dynamics of awareness aware of awareness aware of itself. It is because awareness curves back on itself at every point that this is possible to experience, one point experiencing another.

    I can appreciate that some articles on this blog may not make sense. That’s why it has the name. I often speak to a fairly advanced audience. This article is a good example. The edge is not apparent until the finest values if the relative are perceived. The domain of bliss, of universal mind. If you look in places like Key Posts (on the right), you’ll find explanations for a number of concepts I use here. I try to link to relevant explanations in the posts as well. In the case of this post, there wasn’t anything similar. I apologize if this was too vague or lacking explanation. I had only a few minutes at the time to write it. I simply found it a useful point for those who share my journey.

    Blessings and thanks for sharing your thoughts.

  9. zenkitties says:

    Hey Davidya,

    There is no advance or beginner writing, there is just preferential way of transmission and receiving. I can agree that your writing gears for a specific crowd of seeker that has more of an intellectual mind. Hell I use to be like that until Zen happened and then that dropped away. 😛

    Some points are agreeable, like the,
    “What you know depends on how you are looking. We could talk in endless circles but until we’re on the same page, we would not reach any agreement. Not because either of us is wrong. Simply because we are looking from different places.”

    Yes, this is seen in respect to what you describe as “little me” with its perspectives, however that is only a bundle of concepts, beliefs, ideas anyway so of course the flavor is going to always be different, agreed. However I am not this thing, its acknowledged that its there and very real, it does not define what actually is aside from the fact that its within all that is.

    “Another word for impressions is memory. If you had no impressions or habits, you would not be able to write your blog, talk, or walk.”

    This is a classic assumption that one may make, as this has to do with the body and how it acts in the world. Writing, blogging, talking, and walking happen, they just are not done by you, the body is not you nor are the thoughts. The control only seems to come from the attachment of this self idea, that is “doing this, writing, blogging, talking, etc.” but none of this is done by a you, because there is no you for it to be done, yet it is done. This is what Lao Tzu talks about in Tao Te Ching. It is not necessary for a “you” to be done, for the body to be an active participant in the world. Conditioning exists, I agree, there is no denying that conditioning doesn’t exists; in fact it very much exists.

    “You may have heard of the Akashic Records. These are shared impressions. At an even deeper level, there is Smriti. What we might call God’s memory. This is the foundation of Veda or ultimate knowledge on which all of the Vedic literature is based. In fact it’s the basis for much of Western thought as well, including our number system, the compass, the days of the week, time zones, and much more. Another big subject.”

    Again, only a state in which is achievable I’m sure however, I’ve never experienced the state to say it exists, have you, and if so, what have you done to get there. I actually have a book on akashic records. It would be interesting to see however, this is still all within what actually is, still part of the “Grand Experience” to put it lightly.

    “I often speak to a fairly advanced audience. This article is a good example. The edge is not apparent until the finest values if the relative are perceived. The domain of bliss, of universal mind.”

    that’s your delusion, this is all intellectual dribble mate. Have you even reached the other side or is this all just stuff you’ve heard and read from others? There are no problems with reading this stuff, its very “informative” to the scholar, but it says nothing of actual Reality, the Truth. If anything this gets the seeker away from seeing truth, because its so loaded full of expectation, the seeker, cannot be clear sighted.

    Not until you can see that there is no you, is when you see there is truly only the I. However, saying this clouds things a bit for the seeker as well because saying there is no you and then saying there is only you, confuses which is why I don’t go into detail about all of that stuff, because that’s not what a seeker needs to hear.

    This information is good for selling books, but not for showing people what enlightenment really is, sorry mate, but maybe you’ve stagnated and feel your in some state, that you are not. We aren’t talking states here, we’re talking about seeing Truth, actual reality outside of the egos many fantasies that are evident in your writing.

  10. Davidya says:

    Well, if you’re convinced you’re right, then I must be wrong. That doesn’t lead to much dialogue.

    As I’ve stated, this is a blog of my journey. If I’m quoting others, I say so. I take a conceptual approach as I find it more productive than making statements about a me.

    Personally, I find answers like “it just happens” to be more about faith than understanding. They tell you nothing about how to progress.

    If you were to browse the site, you’ll see I talk extensively about the process and how that which contains all is discovered, as well as its relationship with our experiences.

    The finest relative, the edge, is where everything becomes. One has to be well established in That for the edge to be seen fully. Hardly a delusion when it’s the primary subject of hundreds of sages and physicists.

    As long as you are saying not this, not this, you have not seen That fully. It’s very simple. For That is inclusive of everything.

    And if you want to raise the flag of truth, you’d better understand it better. Is what is true for you now the same as it was 3 years ago? Do you really think your truth will be the same in 3 more years?

    Not everyone is interested in my approach. But some find it very valuable, so I continue.

    Enjoy your journey.

  11. zenkitties says:

    “Well, if you’re convinced you’re right, then I must be wrong. That doesn’t lead to much dialogue.”

    Its not about rightness or wrongness, this conditioned mind is just as conditioned as that one that seems to be having the dialogues. There is no me to wave this “I’m right flag anymore”

    “Personally, I find answers like “it just happens” to be more about faith than understanding. They tell you nothing about how to progress.”

    Understandable that you have that thought but have you looked to see if that really is about faith or whether its true or not. Its nice and all to say well this is what I think but until you put it into practice to see if you exist or not, then what good do lofty ideas do you?

    “The finest relative, the edge, is where everything becomes. One has to be well established in That for the edge to be seen fully. Hardly a delusion when it’s the primary subject of hundreds of sages and physicists.”

    If you have to bring about other “sages” and “physicists” to back up something thats being defended, how does that give credit to nothing more than maya? Does not maya work the threshold in which a concept should stay shrouded in the veil that it works through? Most sages see what they see because they see that they are not. You cannot see without seeing what is not, so neti neti is going to be there always at the same time that all that there is, is going to be there, they aren’t opposites, they are the same thing. Distinction implies separation and how can you say that all is one if you separate and define things. Its the thought that separates, when no thought through clear sight is there, is there not that Truth which you and I speak of?

    Understanding happens, it has nothing to do with the intellectual mind, if it did have to do with the intellectual mind then hell, anyone could just work it out, but its not something you can just force out of “someones will” mate.

    “And if you want to raise the flag of truth, you’d better understand it better. Is what is true for you now the same as it was 3 years ago? Do you really think your truth will be the same in 3 more years?”

    The fact that there is no “me” or there is no “you” will always be there, its the source of everything, which is why sages and gurus talk of silence so much, inquiring about where this me is. The answer seems to be in the silence, because that is it. That is literally it.

    Cmon Davidya, the play must go on. 😉 I would rather be giving you the attention you deserve and to make steadfast your own resolve. I agree, for specific tools in states this is a very informative blog. I would never discount that fact, it comes from your genuine experience and no doubt fruitful research. Just don’t forget from time to time to empty your cup though as I will do the same.

  12. Davidya says:

    Hi ZK
    Sorry, but we continue to talk in circles. I don’t find such dialogue valuable.

    My basic point is that I understand what you’re saying. But don’t think this is the highest truth. There is more, fuller, deeper. That’s all.

    When you argue by saying there is no me and it’s all maya, that’s a neo-advaitist cop-out. Maya does NOT mean illusion, though many people say so. It means to build. Illusion is only one of it’s forms. And beyond maya, it comes to be seen differently, as none other than That.
    http://davidya.ca/2008/08/15/innate-vs-illusion/

    The community is full of misleading and incomplete understanding. That’s what needs to be corrected. That’s why I go deeper, to talk of the fuller picture, beyond Self realization.

  13. zenkitties says:

    who’s the one arguing? point me to him. Show me to him. What kind of label is neo-advaita? even maya and illusion are within the silence, that’s apparent, they are only thoughts bound together beautiful to make a specific tapestry in the collage of life.

    But honestly, who are you referring to? We can call him both to the witness stand, but will he ever show up, this me you keep addressing? If you can, show me where he is, what is he?

  14. Davidya says:

    You illustrate my point exactly.

    It’s like this – there is some apparent loss of a me and detachment. To that is added a dose of eastern understanding, but out of context. That’s mixed in with with western self-justifying sensibilities.

    The result – there is no one here to be responsible and it’s all an illusion so it doesn’t matter anyway.

    This is perhaps an exaggeration, but excusing yourself because there is no me or saying it’s just maya are crap answers. The first system of Indian Philosophy is Nyaya, logic. One considers the validity and consequences of ones line of thinking.

    There is no one here doing and nothing is being done. But things continue to happen. Oh, thats just maya. There is no cause. Nothing is really happening.

    Sorry, but that’s circular logic that is self-justifying and narcissistic. It’s actually worse than some of the self-serving success teachings because its presented as “the Truth”, glossses over what doesn’t fit, and absolves the person of any real responsibility.

    I guarantee that if you took your statements to any decent Zen master, they’d whack you upside the head.

    As long as you are not open to other views and discount anyone suggesting a different outlook, you’ll find yourself stuck in one of the backwaters of the journey. You cannot learn if you will not hear.

    Object all you want and then deny anyone is there to object. Very handy. But no prizes will be won.

  15. Davidya says:

    Perhaps it would be useful to relate a story. A friend of mine calls the place you’re in the bullshit state. He found himself in this beautiful new place, much simpler and free of all the burdens of the past that the me carried. Very easy to see the “truth” of every situation.

    But once he transcended it, he realized he was missing most of the picture. After a few such shifts, you get used to “reality de jour”. When you’re in an open, progressive surrender, the evolution gets very fast.

    But as long as you sit there thinking the meless me has the answer, you get in the way of it.

    Stay open and prepare to let it go.

  16. zenkitties says:

    “This is perhaps an exaggeration, but excusing yourself because there is no me or saying it’s just maya are crap answers. The first system of Indian Philosophy is Nyaya, logic. One considers the validity and consequences of ones line of thinking.

    There is no one here doing and nothing is being done. But things continue to happen. Oh, thats just maya. There is no cause. Nothing is really happening.”

    I understand where you might have the assumption that is happening however, things are happening, and they aren’t illusion. That includes responsibility to action, thoughts that are happening, and the reception of such thoughts, and how they react to one another. Those aren’t illusion, all I’m seeing is that there is no seer, that doesn’t mean that the personality and body don’t react to the world that it lives in and takes responsibility for it’s action. Everything is still going on; all I’m saying is there isn’t this “me” or “you” there like what was once believed aside from the thought of those concepts.

    There is no direct pointing to a false “identity” but there are still things being done, very much so. It’s the you that’s the illusion. Even saying that isn’t right though, because even though I can say there is no you. You and I must have some miscommunication as to what you may think I mean. All of those things that you mention in the previous post are there, I use to think the whole world was illusion and “I” or this witness was the only reality, but it seems to be backwards, all of those things are reality and this “me” is the illusion.

    But please tell me what the experience should be and we can let truth decide if it stands on its own. There is always the possibility this stage may be a bullshit stage, but really, every stage is a bullshit stage until you reach was maharaj refers to as supreme reality.

    I’m still with you davidya, if there is something to be revealed then I’m all for having it be shown. =]

    Best Regards.

  17. Davidya says:

    Hi ZK

    I was more speaking to the neo-advaitic position. Your POV seems most similar to that. The trick is that growth is not a linear tidy thing, so while you may share some aspects with that, you seem to be some sort of blend. Different people with different practices will of course exhibit a different path than I may have seen.

    You also seem to assume that my use of common language indicates I’m stuck in a me. I can use more precise language but I found communication was lost in the process. Between my assumptions of roughly where you’re at and your assumptions of where I’m at, we’ve not connected very well.

    I agree there is no “me” and “you”, but there is a Self, be it cosmic or absolute that replaces this. A more universal experiencer. If this is not your experience, theres not much more I can say to that but to again suggest you stay open to the possibility.

    This is critical because if we can stay out of the way, (there is always some residual me habits of mind) evolution shifts into a very fast automatic mode. I’ve spoken of this in other posts.

    It’s not that the experience should be this or that. You are clearly on a different approach than I. The important thing is we don’t hold on to this or that experience as “the truth” as there is always a higher, fuller version.

    And yes, there is a supreme reality but it is so vast and full that we come to it in a number of ways before we even get a sense of it’s scope.

    I simply want to see you have the best opportunity for that exploration.

  18. zenkitties says:

    Hey Davidya,

    Now we are on the same page:

    “You also seem to assume that my use of common language indicates I’m stuck in a me. I can use more precise language but I found communication was lost in the process. Between my assumptions of roughly where you’re at and your assumptions of where I’m at, we’ve not connected very well.

    I agree there is no “me” and “you”, but there is a Self, be it cosmic or absolute that replaces this. A more universal experiencer. If this is not your experience, theres not much more I can say to that but to again suggest you stay open to the possibility.

    This is critical because if we can stay out of the way, (there is always some residual me habits of mind) evolution shifts into a very fast automatic mode. I’ve spoken of this in other posts.”

    There are residual me habits aren’t there? I know there are still some on this side for sure.

    Osho says it best when he said, “The Buddha will be misunderstood.”

    My experience and your experience are the same, and seeing of this occurring comes very easy now, however the reason why i say there is no you is because there is nothing to be found when searching for it… however its agreed that there is something there even in the nothing. Not many things, but just one thing, whatever it might be.

    I think the self you are referring to is the one and only absolute, not the me or ego, which comes from a lot of Buddhist and eastern philosophies.

    The Cup should always be emptied again and again, until the thing that fills it is empty itself.

  19. Davidya says:

    For me, there is no small me but there is certainly a Self. And yes, by that I mean That, tat sat, absolute. Because of that I don’t see a nothing but rather an everything. That encloses all that is. Rather than there being nothing & the world there is one fullness that includes the world.

    I would agree with the last sentence, except I would substitute empty with fullness. I did once see it as emptiness but no longer.

  20. zenkitties says:

    empty and fullness, one in the same my friend.

    blessings to you davidya. 🙂

    -kitties (many of them!)

  21. Pingback: The Bad Ego « In 2 Deep

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *