Consider This



Consider this.

From the point of view of the individual self there are apparently two principles in manifestation. There is individual consciousness (or attention, the witness of objects), and there is everything else (or the possible objects of that consciousness).

You exist as consciousness, and as consciousness you experience many kinds of objects (or relations and states of consciousness). You tend merely to experience (rather than to consider and transcend) those objects, relations, and states, and so you develop a sense of identification with some, a desire for some others, and a revulsion toward certain others.

This complex of identification, desire and aversion is a summary of your conventional existence. And in the midst of all that you are afraid, bewildered, and constantly moved to achieve some kind of experience or knowledge that will enable you to feel utterly released, free and happy.

In fact you never achieve ultimate experience, knowledge, release, freedom, or happiness. And so your existence is a constant search for these, while you are otherwise bound by fear, bewilderment , self possession, desire, and aversion.

There is a perfect alternative to this bondage and seeking. It is not a matter of the egoic attainment of any object of knowledge, or state of psycho-physical fulfilment or release. Rather, it is a matter of entering into an alternative view of experience. Instead of merely experiencing (and so developing the qualities of identification, desire, aversion, fear, bewilderment, and the search for knowledge, release, freedom, fulfilment, and happiness), inspect and consider your own condition and from that point of view examine and consider all your experience.

If you inspect and consider your own experience, rather than merely submit to experience, it should become clear that you are conscious, and all of the objects or varieties of experience appear to you only as a play upon (or modification of) consciousness. Experience ( or the modification and limitation of consciousness) is not the dominant factor of your existence. Consciousness is the dominant and always prior factor, but you tend always (by virtue of a mechanical involvement with experience) to be submitted to and controlled by experience. Because of this mechanical involvement with experience, you constantly forget and abandon your basic position and you suffer the disturbances I have already described.

The basic qualification for the most direct consideration of existence is the capacity to stand as stably free attention (able to constantly inspect and consider the conditions of existence rather than merely to be controlled by experience). On the basis of that free attention, you can directly inspect and consider your actual condition in relation to all experience. If this is done, it is obvious that you are simply consciousness (whatever that is ultimately). You are always already established in that standpoint. You always already exist as that very consciousness, rather than as the presumption of identification with body-mind, which presumption is a convention of the body-mind, or a sense of identity that is superimposed on consciousness subsequent to the mechanical arising of experience. If you inspect and consider experience in every moment from the native standpoint of consciousness, it is evident that whatever is arising is always to (or, really, within) consciousness and as an apparent modification of consciousness. Your original or native position is consciousness, and if consciousness will consider experience from the point of view of consciousness, rather than first submit itself to be controlled by experience and known only subsequently and from the point of view of experience, then consciousness is already established in its own natural or native standpoint, directly and freely aware that it is being confronted and modified or played upon in the evident form of various kinds of objects or superimpositions. By abiding continually in this native standpoint relative to experience, you become more and more profoundly aware of and as consciousness itself (rather than more and more mechanically aware of the objects, experiences and states of conditional identity that are superimposed on consciousness in the spontaneous drama of its own modification). This profound, natural, and native abiding in and as consciousness itself is the final or most basic means for Realising the Liberating Truth of existence.
And then you will be happy and free from suffering since you no longer identify yourself with the phenomena which are occuring. Suffering is no longer 'mine' it is just suffering.

When someone has been under severe trauma, it is not uncommon for the mind to enter into a depersonalised state in which manic sensations (for instance burning) are still felt, but are no longer identified with, and therefore have no negative effect on the psyche and emotions.

It is true that we try to avoid suffering and whether we are conscious of it our not, we build up tolerances to such suffering. We lose our awareness of these sensations in order to stand them. We desensitise ourselves.

If instead of desensitising ourselves to negativities (painkillers are a good conscious example of this), we remain equanimous and simply see that the sensations are not ours; and heighten this sense of deattachment, we will be able to handle even the most horric pain, emotionally, physically without the clear drawbacks of desensitisation and a host of others (getting addicted to painkillers and other drugs, eating to avoid dealing with emotional issues, anything you can think of.) :D

This is not some way out idea, it stands at the core of Buddhism.

You exist as consciousness, and as consciousness you experience many kinds of objects (or relations and states of consciousness). You tend merely to experience (rather than to consider and transcend) those objects, relations, and states, and so you develop a sense of identification with some, a desire for some others, and a revulsion toward certain others.

From Louis .....
Wow! So that's what Buddhism is all about ?
I don't think I quite got that from one reading, but it
sounds like a general description of the human mind.
I perceive my mind as consisting of two sides - the
rational side ( the intellect which REASONS ) and the non-
rational side ( the emotions which FEEL ). The emotions
can be sub-divided into ATTRACTION ( desire ) and
AVERSION ( revulsion ).
The emotions are ALWAYS for or against something -
never neutral. As are people in whom the emotional side
is dominant.
But the intellect is always NEUTRAL. Since my intellect
is my dominant side, I prefer to remain neutral.
And that is the spirit in which I read your comments -
from a position of impartial curiosity .
I haven't decided yet whether I agree or disagree ....
It is not even about working it out with your mind, for the process in itself will limit you. It is a multi sensory state. It just is what it is. Almost imagine you are watching your life play out as a movie, except you can decide the outcome and at the same time watch the outcome.

Now imagine yourself watching yourself, you are the person in the cinema watching the people, watch the movie. You decide which movie is playing that day and you can walk in and out of the room chosing whether you become lost in the movie or just watch things unfold.

It is about trusting, letting go and and the same time realising that you can alter the direction of anything and everything. It can start with a thought, but in reality it is so much more than that.

More than your physical body can feel, more than what your eye can see and your brain can translate. IT is sooo much more than that. But it can start with a thought, a shift in perception, a step back from the experience. A New Earth by Eckhart Tolle is great at breaking it down into something very simple.
AC out:p
Louis says:
"the intellect is always NEUTRAL"
I'd say, au contraire. The problem of the intellect has its roots from its too close relationships with emotions (I wanted to say 'feelings' but don't wanna change your terms).
Anyway, I think Ken Wilber has worked this theme out very well :)
We first live by merely submitting to experience.

If we are wise, we inspect and consider our own experience.

Then, after much inspection and consideration,

we return to merely submitting to experience.
I agree with the part about releasing the need to create identity. I would extend that to the process of transference inherent in supposing an existence for the "self" beyond physical existence. What self?

Who is the "self" that observes the self.
I am aware of myself, yet what is it which is aware of that?
Mooji calls it the witness.