The question was asked of Ramana Maharshi 'what is wisdom-insight?' He answered.
"Remaining quiet is what is called wisdom-insight. To remain quiet is to resolve the mind in the Self. Telepathy, knowing past, present and future happenings and clairvoyance do not constitute wisdom-insight

What is the relation between desirelessness and wisdom?
"The two are not diferent; they are the same. Desirelessness is refraining from driving the mind toward any object. Wisdom means the appearance of no object. In other words, not seeking what is other than the Self is deteatchment or desirelessness. Not leaving the self is wisdom."

Hi Mat,

Thanks for your post. It resonates with me, and I am replying so that I can discuss another exploration of wisdom that was brought up in the etymology thread by Stigweard. That thread is a wonderful place to explore the etymologies of different words, so I thought it might be better to discuss here, especially since I am doing so in light of your post.

Here is Stigweard's post:



Thank you for your exploration of the etymology of Wisdom. I had not heard that Wis meant Way. Here I thought it was something special about Daoism that the word for the deepest essence was the same as the word for way.

What I would like to further explore is the notion of seeing.

The question arises: what is seeing?

That question can be taken a lot of ways, but I mean it in a literal sense, as in, there are at least two options for what is seeing, so which is it? It is a gross simplification, but considering the question in this way does bring something out.

The first option is that we, as we commonly think of ourselves, are seeing. That is seeing from identification with thought (and even sensations, but we can leave that behind for the moment). I gather that this is the Tonal in the Toltec view (I could easily be wrong.. please correct me if I am). A second option is seeing from the heart. This is the birth of true knowing.

We all have some sense for what it is to know from the heart. It is a knowing that does not need a thought to stir in order for what is known to be known. Thoughts can be stirring, but the heart knowing just goes on and on. We can all remember a time when we convinced ourselves to do something, despite a feeling that it might not be right, and then, when what we convinced ourselves of turns out all wrong, we say "I knew it! I knew it all along!"

The thing is that we tend to live our lives in our heads so much, that heart knowing begins to seem like something that we are looking AT, instead of being what IS looking.

When you mention "the direct, instant flow of knowledge between the seer and the greater universe", this evokes something like heart knowing. It is also true that from a certain perspective, the eyes direct the intent.

What I want to bring out is that there is a deeper intent that leaves the eyes behind. In a way, the eyes tend to act as the guide rail for the Tonal, or the limited self. They are a mechanism by which the Tonal denies the greater whole. They take a shred of wisdom, and try to meet the world with it. This is not a failing in the eyes themselves, but in the way that they are used--- to know. The eyes aren't meant to know. They are meant to see, and so they don't do the job of knowing so well.

In this way, they reflect the state of the mind. The mind is not meant to know, it is meant to think. It is an entry point, an orifice of the heart. When it tries to know it doesn't do a very good job of it, and we forget that we have this tremendous thing called a heart to know with.

It is only recently that I have begun to see this clearly, and I do not know how I would have taken these words, if I did not have the experience which informs them. But I can share how I saw things before.

I felt that I had had some very deep mystical experiences/insights. I could read a given spiritual text and basically see it as describing my experience, though imperfectly, since words always fall short. In fact, those experiences were true and deep, but the way I ended up taking them was neither. My mind did what it does best, and cut the experiences that surround realization into pieces. They became a new source of knowledge. This is not true knowledge, since it is in reference to the past, even though it is from experience. True knowledge is deeper than experience.

What I did with this knowledge was to essentially jump ahead of myself. I thought it was wisdom. I thought that I knew the way to truth. I could figure out what people were going to say. I could see where they were going wrong. I could see where I was going wrong. I knew it all. I knew that to let go of the old knowledge was the highest joy, and the simplest good. But why wasn't I really actualizing it? Why were these just moments, even ever deepening moments?

It seems now that my main issue was that I was identifying wisdom with a direction.

It seems obvious. I mean, wisdom comes from "path" right? Dao means "way"? I had assumed that meant a direction. Maybe it does, but it isn't a direction that the mind can know. The best thing a mind can do is to lead itself to stop. Not to think about stopping, but to stop, and defer in humility ("Maybe i don't know? Is it possible that something I have never known might arise?") to the heart, so that the heart, which was always patiently waiting and enjoying, can begin to make itself known-- to itself.

I think this is what Ramana Maharshi was referring to in the quotes that Mat posted above.

Seeing in my view is closer to your second option: seeing from the heart.

I will admit that words and descriptions are inadequate in order to transmit the full truth of seeing but I will give it my best shot based on both my experience and my acquired theoretic study.

The statement, "direct, instant flow of knowledge between the seer and the greater universe," is a literal explanation in my understanding. I have heard that in the Taoist tradition seeing has been coined the ‘Eye of Tao’.

Possibly a good analogy is a telephone connection. Most people, due to the calcification of their consciousness though social conditioning, have a lot of ‘static’ in their connection to life. But if we can remove the static we have a clear, uninterrupted flow of information from the source.



I made no implication that the faculty of the eyes is ‘knowing’ but rather that they direct intent. It is incorrect to believe that ‘seeing’ in terms of ‘knowingness’ is solely the domain of the eyes.

Interesting but not surprising that both the Toltec and the Taoist associate the lower Dan Tien area with a more profound consciousness



It could be perhaps that ‘true knowledge’ is in fact derived from experiencing each moment to the fullest and not just partially as is often the case. And perhaps wisdom/insight comes from being fully in the moment, at one with the ‘way’, and knowing which way things will go and acting accordingly. Is this not what the I Ching is teaching us?

It seems that insight can happen when the thought train, the discriminating and comparing mind, rests. Insight seems to come from beyond the every day mind - it's precious, sacred perhaps. I recently read something by a Sioux author from the turn of the 20th century named Ohiyesa (Charles Eastman was his 'white' name). He eloquently describes the sacred nature of silence to the Sioux. I imagine Ramana was referring more to inner silence. Ohiyesa refers more to outer silence but I think they arise mutually. Ohiyesa refers to religion as being the everyday state of reverence for that which is and it appears that there is no greater way to honor it than with silence.... so why can't I shut up!?


Very nice topic for inquiry Mat.

bing-bada-boom!
Nice post.

Stigweard,

I just realized that I used "Toltec" where I meant "Tonal" a couple times in my post. I edited that. Sorry if that caused any misunderstanding.

...


I don't know what the I Ching is teaching us. I always kind've felt like it was laughing at me.

You seem to be describing the result. I actually don't think that there is a result. There are just changes. They aren't important unless we meet the Dao. Even then, they are not important-- at least not in relation to the Dao, from which they all come.

What is the way to the Dao? What is the way to the way? Funny question that one.

Do you think you know?

I sure don't. This is the beginning of wisdom.

It sems that some of the recent discussion topics have been by virtue of the subject, nearly impossible to discuss Really stretching the limits of words.

Master Hsuan Hua said "to have vision and yet be without views is happiness indeed"
I think that Steve's quote points to this too

Once i heard someone ask John De Ruiter how to return to the truth. He told them "You used to have the eyes of a little boy. Let them come back" It reminds me of Stigweards' metaphore

Maybe this is one of the reasons why people love babies so much..........their innocence and lack of static.

And................I don't know how to say it........but i'm feeling a great non-specific love(?) or something through my being. Words seem inadequate, but I just also want to express gratitude to everyone for sharing............we don't meet face to face, but the exchange still seems to occur on some level through this forum.

So, can i please say: blessings to everyone (in every place, non-place, every direction, with a body, without a body) may all have peace.

Thanks. _/\_

Self and others - the nitty gritty

Sri Ramana:
"To the sage, there are no others. But what is the highest benefit that can be conferred on 'others' as we call them? It is happiness. Happiness is born of peace. Peace can reign only when there is no disrturbance by thought. As there is no mind, the sage cannot be aware of others. But the mere fact of his Self-Realization is itself enough to make all others peaceful and happy."

Perfection of Wisdom Sutra in 25,000 Lines:
Here a Bodhisattva gives a gift, and he does not apprehend a self, nor a reipient, nor a gift; also no reward of his giving. He surrenders that gift to all beings, but he apprehends neither beings nor self. He dedicates that gift to supreme enlightenment, but he does not apprehend any enlightenment. This is called the supra-mundane perfection of giving."

i take Sri Ramana's use of the term Self with a capital 'S' to equate with the Mind as in "Mind is void in essence, all things it embraces and contains" - (the song of Mahamudra)

Indeed.

We can talk about the road leading to infinity and the road leading back from infinity (i.e. the 'result' so to speak). In my experience this is how it works. We have cycles where we enter a merging with the oneness and then we cycle back out again.

This is what shamans do, they journey into the otherworld for their people and then they come back to communicate what they have experienced, traditionally through song, dance, art, etc. ... in our case here it is the words we post here at TaoBums.

In my own cultivation there are phases when I am profoundly connected; cycles where all my life circumstances support my spiritual progression; cycles where my consciousness is more subtle, more sublime. Then I have cycles where I am heavily involved in my own controlled folly.

I find the art is to be mindful of the cycles and not fight them. When my life is mundane I allow it to be mundane when it is more spiritually focused I allow it to be so without attachment.



How do you meet the Dao? To try and do so creates seperation between you and Dao.

I know the details of my path that has brought me to my particular vantage point overlooking the infinite void. I articulate that as susinctly and as clearly as I can so that I can help others to their own particular path of insight/wisdom/power, and also so that I can get the mirroring response from the good folk here for my own relflection ... much like a bat finds its way in the dark.

How do you go to somewhere when you are already there?



That makes so much sense -re babies and young children.

I feel what you're saying about the community, Mat. Thanks for expressing that.
Oh, and I love the Namaste _/\_
I hope you don't mind if I share that with you!




He also uses the term heart similarly - perhaps referring to the center of being the Heart of all, rather than the organ in our chest that pumps blood.

There is nothing wrong with what you are doing.

I am merely pointing to a another way. You may or may not be interested.

I am pointing to the dissolution of the distinction between spiritual and mundane.

It is true that there is a cycle between open and closed. If we have been closed for a long time, open seems very freeing. You mentioned it in an another thread. A to B, B to A. Or B to C ala drew hempel... not sure where you were going with that, but you showed some insight when you pointed to the transition as the gate to freedom. This is what I am pointing toward. What is the transition? What is the fulcrum? Does it ever go away?

True spirituality is not about open or closed. It is a shift in identity from the thing that feels open or closed, to the source of life. To look at the source of life, to know it from experience, is different from being it. Ultimately, we can't not be it. THAT IS NOT USEFUL TO KNOW.

The question is, how do we feel? How do our body and emotions respond? Is it as if we are separate, or is it from this deeper identity? It can be hard to recognize, but that is where honesty comes in-- integrity.

We can talk about the ultimate all day long, and get nowhere. Where is the edge, for us? Where can we feel it in our entire being. I can't tell you where that is. I am just making suggestions.

Once it makes itself known, is it necessary to leave that edge? Does that edge have qualities, such as open or closed, such that it does not exist in one state or the other?

Xuesheng mentioned it in another post, that answers do us no good (unless they destroy a previously assumed answer). It is the questions that are really valuable. Why do we jump to provide our answers? Most importantly, why do we jump to provide our answers to ourselves?

This is a valuable question, though no one has to, or needs to ask it.

Enjoying your posts Todd. Makes me miss hanging out with you, it seems like forever. Just wanted to say, perhaps it is useful to know we can't not be It, at least to the degree that this concept humiliates effort and stuns the mind to stop, revealing Silence if only for a moment.

Best,
Sean

What does spiritually focused mean. Isn't it the idea that certain things are spiritual
and others not or various degrees of spirituality.
Spiritual people are better than non spiritual people
There is nothing in life that is mundane if we are fully present in the moment with whatever we
are doing or where ever we are.
The idea of spirituality makes for seperation - new age religion.
Just be who you are where you are- really into whatever you are doing and you will be connected.
It's a 24/7 kind of thing.
How do you get in that space? Surrender, relax, allow enjoyment to creep in.

This is a very long post for me

Hi Todd,

Thank you for this opportunity to express myself better. Sorry that I was not able to clarify my intent.

Your initial request was for my understanding of what ‘seeing’ was. My response was that it was “a direct, instant flow of knowledge between the seer and the greater universe”, and that I agreed that it was closer to your term ‘heart seeing’.

Very similar to dao zhen’s wonderful post Discourse on Taoist Internal Alchemy

Naturally Heart Enlightenment takes shape.

~ Inner organs and bowels become clear before your inner-vision.

~ Outside features of a person are visible from the inside.

~ Commune with spirit. Anything that may happen in the future, you shall know.

~ View many different region and realms.

~ Hear things far off naturally.

~ Heavenly Divination shall arise, and one may know all things.

~ Commune with all hearts. Knowing all things within ones heart.

You then said that “You seem to be describing the result. I actually don't think that there is a result. There are just changes. They aren't important unless we meet the Dao. Even then, they are not important-- at least not in relation to the Dao, from which they all come.”

My response to your post obviously failed to transmit what I was alluding to. My apologies for making a distinction between the spiritual and mundane, t’was an obviously poor example for what I was trying to say.

Allow me to try again…

I will reference back to this post A Toltec View of Self

An experience that takes us out of ordinary awareness and into non-ordinary awareness will involve a ‘cause’ (i.e. whatever practice or technique that caused the shift) and the ‘effect or result’ (i.e. the new state of consciousness). When we return to our ordinary awareness again there will be a natural inclination to describe or explain both the cause and effect so that a] we can reproduce the process, b] we can gain knowledge and understanding, and c] so we can communicate our experience to other people. This explanation will unerringly be based on the reference point of one’s previous view of the world.

So in relation to your initial question of “What is seeing?” … Yes I am describing a ‘result’ based on my personal experience and the reference point of my previous research.

I don't disagree with this. You are describing exactly what I am describing. I merely suggest that this viewpoint is incomplete, and creates a sense of separation between the spiritual and the mundane.

The incompleteness lies in believing that the apparent cause is the actual cause. It is an easy mistake to make, and one that I have made countless times. It is amazing how hard this lesson seems to be to learn.

If we don't learn the lesson, though, then we remain identified with the thing that goes into non-ordinary awareness and back into ordinary awareness. Before both of those states is basic awareness. Basic awareness does not change. If we do not give attention to what does not change, and if it does not take over our life, then we continue to be tossed about by the comings and goings.

If this doesn't bother you, thats fine.

It is just something that you can look into if you want to.

Miss ya too.

We're just playing word games, but I'm gonna create a difference between knowing that we can't not be it, and exploring that we can't not be it.

Knowing is something that the mind does when it wants to get something. It is in reference to the past, when this very thing seemed to help. We remember that we realized that we can't not be it, and nothing needs to be done but to enjoy. We then think that this realization is what caused us to rest and to enjoy. We try to recreate it. It becomes a form of knowledge.

The deceptive part here is that this knowledge actually seems to work, to some extent. We can point it out to others, and they seem to get a kick out of it if they are in the right mood. We point it out to ourselves, and experience similar results. What ends up happening, though, is the return continually diminishes. Both the depth and the duration of the experiences called up by such knowledge decrease.

This is because the knowledge is formed and wielded by the grasping mind. It actually strengthens itself by wielding the tool that it thinks will diminish itself. It wants to diminish itself, because it remembers that there were a lot of groovy feelings associated with that, and maybe its not feeling so good at the moment.

The other option is exploration. Exploration is not based upon memory, or at least it goes beyond memory. It goes beyond the known. The explore something we must let go of all preconceived ideas, of all mind-knowings actually. This can get a little difficult to do when we have seasoned ourselves so thoroughly in spiritual experiences and teachings. Just as soon as we start out in any direction, we are like, "Hey! I've seen this before. I just do this, and that, and I'll end up here!" Or else, we are like "Nahhh I've been down that path, and it isn't what I need right now. The way to truth is obviously over there." There is a good side to this, because eventually our only option is give up that way of thinking, even if only for a few moments.

Eventually, we give up looking to the mind, to past knowledge, to guide us, and we get back to the wondrous life of an explorer of this.

Sorry Todd it seems you have missed my point entirely and gone off on your own tangent. Your insistence that "I am making a mistake" and that "you know it and I don't" is rather irksome (my own attachment to having people understand me I'm sorry) when you haven't even bothered to explore the implications of what I am suggesting.

My example of the spiritual and mundane was a poor one I admit ... and yes I am totally in accord with you that they should not be considered seperately at all. Again apologies for a poor use of terminology.

However, my direct experience reveals that there are indeed significantly differing perceptions and views of the world that can be achieved. These 'points of perception' are very much a bandwidth available to us and once a new 'frequency' is attuned then a completely different perception of the world is assembled.

In saying this however these differing views or perceptions are in fact merely facets of the one perception and that our predeliction is to integrate these frequencies into one. And yes I agree it is the awareness having those perceptions that is the true source.

You are disagreeing with my finger pointing to the moon. Chop my finger off and see the moon.

We might just have differing approaches.

Right now I am finding it fruitful to place my attention on awareness, to rest in my own being, and let the changes wash over me. I follow some changes, or many changes, but there is increasing confidence in the awareness. I am noticing that the changes have their own pace, that I would not like to change. When I do want to change it, it causes me suffering, and hinders the changes.

I make no claim to depth, especially in the assembly of completely different perceptions of the world. I merely wanted to share what I have been finding fruitful.

I apologize if it has caused you consternation. I also apologize if my denseness prevents me from appreciating the pearls you are presenting.

Stig - As an impartial observer, I can see Todd is challenging something in you... maybe you could just allow it to happen? it's at least worth a go. Be challenged and defeated, be challenged and win...

Todd, maybe let yourself be completely wrong - and then completely right. it feels like (to me) that you might be thinking that you're kind of in the middle, neither wrong nor right, but I'm noticing something else going on under that (!?)

Wisdom and seeing clearly... We tend to have preferences. Which extend to the senses. The senses pick up what we prefer for them to pick up... it's like the ignore function on this forum - we have this ignore function in place for almost everything that is available to our senses. We ignore everything that is not familiar and doesn't fit in with whatever we already 'have'.

Not only that, but we have a mechanism that labels things - this mechanism is there for the purpose of recognising familiar things and making the mysterious become familiar... If we're bombarded with something that is not of preference, we use this mechanism... lets say you meditate and you notice that void... notice it several times and you have a name for it, and then it becomes a 'bit', a 'thing' - not experience but some piece you're already familiar with, something you can think about, talk about, base arguments around etc...

Normal seeing is based on recognising what is familiar, Wisdom insight is seeing only the unfamiliar... Wisdom insight involves using the senses that are unencumbered by preferences - This means all the senses, open and focused - on nothing in particular, but everything that is available (and Everything is available!). With the senses open in this way and unified together it opens one up to deep intuition. Even though this state of attainment is very rare these days, it's not 'Wisdom insight' just yet...



I'm sending you my warmest, kindest regards - Imagine it as a hug that melts through the surface to who You really are.

Todd, reading your post, it speaks directly to my experience. Playing with "there is nothing I can do" the I likes that little samadhi buzz, how could I not be tempted? But like you say, the high diminishes, often followed by a scrambling for a new way to feel the vastness. This year in Mississippi beer has been working ok, what's the difference between samadhi and drunkenness? "What never changes" drives this exploration deeper, albeit dryly in times. This isn't what I signed up for, haaha, we are just playing with words, like you say. I feel like I know what you are pointing at, but I can already see my self grasping the future connotation of exploration, you know?. Another way to postpone the inevitable.

Best,
Sean

You are very right and I was to the best of my ability trying to follow exactly this process, allowing Todd's perception to erode some of my fixations. You may have noticed that I have a certain amount of attachment to speaking clearly and being understood. More self-importance to resolve obviously



Thank you for your point of view, I am not sure whether you meant to do it but it very much mirrors what I was trying to communicate.





Sobriety

Freeform,

I like your way of describing a road to wisdom-insight. Not much to hold onto there. One can go through the senses, or beyond the senses... either way, basic awareness is living this life, and it is in touch with so much more than we can imagine. I guess we pick our poison to let it in, to let it catch on to its own inexhaustible mystery.

About being wrong... You give some good advice. That advice follows itself, and I find myself in wonder. The natural movement of wonder seems to be expression. This expression passes through conditioning that remains. It is through allowing this expression, and letting it go, that the expression becomes clearer. I have found that realizations without some form of expression die quickly.

This is not to say that the form of expression I am engaged in is the best for me right now. I am still learning to crawl. I learn by being completely wrong, and then by staying in what that reveals. I cannot force the wrongness, and I cannot prevent the movement to "rightness". I place my attention on the increasing movement of truth into the foreground, with all of the messiness that that entails.

Its a pretty wacky ride. I've got a lot to (un)learn though.

Here's a cool chapter from the Taoteching (61).. not sure what anyone will get out of it though:

The great state is a watershed
the confluence of the world
the female of the world
through stillness the female conquers the male
in order to be still
she needs to be lower
the great state that is lower
govers the small state
the small state that is lower
is governed by the great state
some lower themselves to govern
some lower themselves to be governed
the great state's only desire
is to unite and lead others
the small state's only desire
is to join and serve others
for both to achieve their desire
the greater needs to be lower

I will completely agree with what you are saying Todd and confirm the same experience in my life.

One of my early mentors told me that the path of unconditional love is:

Allowing
Excepting
Loving
Embracing

We have a tendency to fight against the reality of things that seem 'unsatisfactory' to us. This internal struggle often manifests as being offended.

For example if someone cuts us off in traffic we often get offended and upset because we 'can't believe' that someone has just done this to us. Not only is this reaction a complete waste of energy but it can also cause an accident to happen because the emotional response will either delay an appropriate reaction or create an inappropriate reaction. I'm sure we all can think of many examples of where we have reacted similarly.

When I encounter an energy blockage within my own energy system an initial reaction may be to try and 'fix it'; to try and change it. But that energy blockage is merely part of my mind that has enmeshed itself so by trying to change it I am applying part of my mind against another and only creating more internal tension. Which is why the instruction is to simply be 'aware' of the situation, breathe into the area naturally and allow the subtle change to manifest of its own accord.

On another level ... I have absolutely no idea what it would be like to have the full quotient of light that is possible within the human experience (my definition of elightenment). My conditioned mind can only concieve within the limits of my world view. If I attempted to achieve enlightenment according to what my rational mind depicted I would only be chasing my own tail so to speak. I can only let go, relax, and allow this awesome mystery called life to continually surprise and delight me on my journey.