...(whoever they are) have both good days and bad days, and about the only difference in their response to life than folks who have never searched for or found any deeper truth than the consensual trance is a lack of self-referential reflection and a lack of expectations.
A person who has seen through most of the common thought-created illusions may still exhibit resistance, irritation, or even anger in certain situations, and that those kinds of responses are not necessarily generated by thoughts. It reminds me of the story that Gangaji told about Papaji. Papaji once told his advanced students that a new student had come to him with a problem. It seems that the fellow lived above a motorcycle shop and the loud noises were interrupting his ability to meditate. Papaji asked his advanced students what the fellow should do. One student suggested focusing awareness on the loud sounds and use the sounds as a "sound" meditation. Another student suggested that the fellow focus more strongly on the sense of "I am." After many other suggestions of a similar nature, Papaji said, "I told the guy to find somewhere else to live." Ha ha.
When a person starts down the path of non-duality, there is usually a lot of efforting. Sometimes there is an effort to still the mind, do ATA, become mindful, or become non-reactive to various situations, but when it is seen that the do-er is fictional, there is a kind of internal relaxation and willingness to allow (disappear into) "what is" as it manifests however it manifests. It is almost impossible to explain what this lack of doership looks like other than by using the *___________* examples to point to actual manifestations.
At the 2012 SIG retreat Jan Frazier had some interesting comments about the difference between feelings that arise spontaneously from the body and those that arise as a result of thoughts, and for anybody interested, I can recommend watching the video of her explanation.
There are times when a body/mind becomes so detached that s/he becomes utterly impervious to all outside influences by other people, but this is usually an intermittent state rather than a permanent state. If, when considering this state of affairs, we say that there is a do-er, that is an error. If we say that there is not a do-er, that is also an error. If we say that there is both a do-er and not a do-er at the same time, we are pointing more closely to the truth, but it is still an error. The truth is *_________________* (looking at what the symbolization is pointing to without intellectualizing it).
People often develop techniques for reducing the effect of anger, irritation, etc. Thich Nhat Hahn was once giving an anti-war talk at a public university during the Vietnam War. A person in the audience asked him a question that was full of hatred and animosity. Even though TNH was a Zen Master the fellow's words caused a deep and instantaneous body response. He therefore employed his own technique for staying calm. He forced himself to remain silent and took several deep breaths before responding to the questioner in a way that would defuse the situation.
Like TNH, you may have developed an approach that keeps emotional responses, when triggered, from growing out of control. My approach is to either sit in silence, follow the breath, or go for a long walk while attending what can be seen or heard. In my experience about the only people capable of triggering a strong emotional response in people who are highly present are lovers and close family members. Eckhart Tolle once said that if people want to test their enlightenment, they should go spend a week with their parents! Ha ha.
Some people are primarily thinkers and are not easily riled up by anything. Other people are primarily feelers, and those folks can often fly off the handle a lot faster and more easily. For example, I suspect that the Buddha was a thinker whereas Jesus was a feeler. It's hard to imagine the Buddha getting angry enough to turn over the tables of some money-changers. Ha ha.
A person who has seen through most of the common thought-created illusions may still exhibit resistance, irritation, or even anger in certain situations, and that those kinds of responses are not necessarily generated by thoughts. It reminds me of the story that Gangaji told about Papaji. Papaji once told his advanced students that a new student had come to him with a problem. It seems that the fellow lived above a motorcycle shop and the loud noises were interrupting his ability to meditate. Papaji asked his advanced students what the fellow should do. One student suggested focusing awareness on the loud sounds and use the sounds as a "sound" meditation. Another student suggested that the fellow focus more strongly on the sense of "I am." After many other suggestions of a similar nature, Papaji said, "I told the guy to find somewhere else to live." Ha ha.
When a person starts down the path of non-duality, there is usually a lot of efforting. Sometimes there is an effort to still the mind, do ATA, become mindful, or become non-reactive to various situations, but when it is seen that the do-er is fictional, there is a kind of internal relaxation and willingness to allow (disappear into) "what is" as it manifests however it manifests. It is almost impossible to explain what this lack of doership looks like other than by using the *___________* examples to point to actual manifestations.
At the 2012 SIG retreat Jan Frazier had some interesting comments about the difference between feelings that arise spontaneously from the body and those that arise as a result of thoughts, and for anybody interested, I can recommend watching the video of her explanation.
There are times when a body/mind becomes so detached that s/he becomes utterly impervious to all outside influences by other people, but this is usually an intermittent state rather than a permanent state. If, when considering this state of affairs, we say that there is a do-er, that is an error. If we say that there is not a do-er, that is also an error. If we say that there is both a do-er and not a do-er at the same time, we are pointing more closely to the truth, but it is still an error. The truth is *_________________* (looking at what the symbolization is pointing to without intellectualizing it).
People often develop techniques for reducing the effect of anger, irritation, etc. Thich Nhat Hahn was once giving an anti-war talk at a public university during the Vietnam War. A person in the audience asked him a question that was full of hatred and animosity. Even though TNH was a Zen Master the fellow's words caused a deep and instantaneous body response. He therefore employed his own technique for staying calm. He forced himself to remain silent and took several deep breaths before responding to the questioner in a way that would defuse the situation.
Like TNH, you may have developed an approach that keeps emotional responses, when triggered, from growing out of control. My approach is to either sit in silence, follow the breath, or go for a long walk while attending what can be seen or heard. In my experience about the only people capable of triggering a strong emotional response in people who are highly present are lovers and close family members. Eckhart Tolle once said that if people want to test their enlightenment, they should go spend a week with their parents! Ha ha.
Some people are primarily thinkers and are not easily riled up by anything. Other people are primarily feelers, and those folks can often fly off the handle a lot faster and more easily. For example, I suspect that the Buddha was a thinker whereas Jesus was a feeler. It's hard to imagine the Buddha getting angry enough to turn over the tables of some money-changers. Ha ha.
