Humans, along with other animals, live in a life and death cycle. We humans have jobs and responsibilities that are highly distracting. When couples have kids, oh boy, that's a lot of work. We see all sort of advice for people to take a minute and relax. Or go to meditation class to decompress. Our stress is a byproduct of what we want in life, and that is to succeed. It is the balance that suits the individual that is important. One size will not fit all.
I tried to point out the difference between finding balance, and growth and depth. Certainly finding balance for stress with calm is important. But there is also changing the entire paradigm or basis of living itself. Your original complaint was about how there are those who see God in the sunset, but if you're too distracted you can't, as somehow showing there is not God in the sunset, only the experience of leisure.
Seeing God in the sunset is not just relaxing and finding calm. It's seeing the Transcendent. Now you may argue that that is not important, that only finding a balance to manage or cope with stress is. And I might argue that there is more to life than just coping like that, as important as that is. But my point still stands, that the calm mind is the doorway to seeing the Divine itself, which inspires us to more than just coping skills.
I fail to see how in your mind this negates the validity of seeing God, that it requires the mind to be quite. Can you explain?
What God are you referring to? How can anyone prove something not known to exist DOESN'T exist? Why assume any God exists?
I think I've explained my use of God many times, haven't I? God is the word people use to describe the nature of Ultimate Reality, or the Absolute. That it takes the form of a deity figure in some religious mythologies, does not negate the fact that it is a symbolic pointer to the Transcendent, or the Ineffible. That's just the way the human mind tries to reach beyond its concrete-literal modes of conceptualizations, into the abstract, the subtle, and the causal domains of consciousness itself.
There's a bit to unpack in that.
Do you think you understand the "real reality" and that it isn't your "thought world"?
Absolutely yes. That is why I came up with the term "thought world" to describe the difference. Hinduism uses the term Illusion, or Maya to describe the difference.
Couldn't a person convince themselves that their "thought world" is actually the "real reality" and deceive the self about it?
Actually, "thought world" is my way of talking about how we mistake and decieve ourselves that our ideas about reality are what real reality actually is. So yes, people are convinced of that as their nomally, day to day condition and state of being in the world.
The difference is, they don't recognize it as such. Once you recognize it as such, they you can see the illusiory nature of it. That is where I am coming from in how I talk about these things. I recognize the illsory nature of our ideas about reality, being reality itself.
Can I lose sight of seeing that difference and get swept up back into thought-world itself? Certainly, yes. That's why a mediation practice is important to gaining an objective "Witness" state to be able to oberse the nature and patterns of your own thought and the processes. The more or longer you've done that, you cultivate that as the normal state. "I have thoughts, but I am not my thoughts". That's the Witness state.
When we find ourselves more in the state, the less we identify with our thoughts about ourselves and reality, with what is reality itself. The more we do this, the more present we are, the more aware we become, the more Beauty we see and experience. So, yes, the quieted mind is key to see what IS, versus what we think with our mind is real reality.
So what is the test in reality that you use to discern the two?
Practice. Mediation. Experience. Cultivating awareness. Becoming an astute aware observer of your own mind and knowing the difference. But if you've never experienced it, then start with meditation.
Why say truth is "Truth"? Isn't the ordinary word "truth" sufficient? Capitalizing it means what if not some sort of manipulation of the basic meaning?
No. Truth has many, many layers of meaning. Not simply facts. For instance, I'm reading a book right now by Bart Ehrman on Forgery in the New Testament books. I saved this quote from two days ago as I read it:
"My point is that fiction, even historical fiction, can in some sense convey “truth” even if it is something that “didn’t happen.” Truth is more than simply correct information. That does not mean, however, that there is no such thing as falsehood. Quite the contrary, there are plenty of kinds of falsehood: incorrect information, flat-out deception, stories that convey messages that we do not accept as “true” based on our understanding of the world."
This is something I've been saying for quite some time. But when I use Truth with a capital T, I am speaking not of propositional truths, but the nature of Truth itself. It is difficult to put that into words, but it essentially means Illumination, clarity of mind and intent, nothing hidden, Reality as it IS, without judgement, without categories and divisions, without words.
The metaphor that comes to mind is "I AM". Not "I am this, or I am that." It's
Neti Neti, which is "
to negate all objects of consciousness, including thoughts and the mind, and to realize the non-dual awareness of reality." That Truth, is the nondual.
Enlightenment takes no effort.
It is a matter of leisure because we humans live the rat race. You cite awareness, but being aware that you are overwhelmed with life is vastly different than being aware of being calm and having a quiet moment.
I cite Awareness with a capital A, meaning Enlightenment. Enlightenment is not a quiet moment, it is Silence itself. It is not even a state, such as being calm. It is a condition of being.
No. Experientially. Not conceptually. They are experiencing subtle states of consciousness, which manifests in forms familiar to the person experiencing them. It is a direct experience, which the mind provides symbolic representations of it to the experiencer. These forms experienced at the subtle level are Archetypes of the Self, or the Atman, or "God".
The "faces" are optional, but are taight to be essential.
Why do you say they are taught to be essential? I don't follow.
So many humans get lost in the illusions and concepts, and all the meanings that are attached to them.
Yes indeed. Fingers pointing at the moon are all too often mistaken as the moon itself. Atheists make this mistake as much as Christians do.
That's more busy minds that are lost in mental theater.
Lost in mental theater is exactly what I mean by thought world. Most humans are mistaking thoughts about reality as reality itself. They assume what they see and think represents the truth of reality itself.
Symbols aren't as important as the thing they represent.
Are you now agreeing with me?
