Write Something That Is True... Spiritual Autolysis Challenge

[Emerald]

So, I am looking for ideas to deconstruct in Spiritual Autolysis. So, my challenge for this is to try to write something that is true. Here is an example of something that I think is true that needs to be deconstructed:

"The only things that exist are sights, sounds, smells, tastes, sensations, and thoughts happening in the present moment within the field of awareness. Everything else is the content of a thought."

[Leo Gura]

What is truth?

Try deconstructing that!

Also try, What is existence vs non-existence?

[99th_monkey]

^^ good one leo. 

are we talking like regular world crap to legitimately throw away. 

where are you at in terms of "the process"

 

[Ken Lecoq]

Do you want answers deconstructing those "true" statements ?

You can't explain the deconstruction of what you hold as true with words... I mean, you could with truths like "the earth is round", but you couldn't with very advanced statements like those. 

For example... 

"All the existant colors are hold within The spectrum of colors"... That's seems to be true, for sure, but if you want to deconstruct it you can't explain it with words. 

The only way to deconstruct those truths would be through meditation. 

Very interesting anyway, those statements or questions could be great objets of meditation. Thanks for creating this topic@Emerald Wilkins

You are going very far @Leo Gura , Thanks a lot  I'm gonna meditate on those, and do self inquiry asking that ^^

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Ken Lecoq

[Leo Gura]

These kinds of questions are basically the foundation of philosophy.

 

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

What is truth?

Try deconstructing that!

Also try, What is existence vs non-existence?

Thanks.  

[Emerald]

17 minutes ago, 99th_monkey said:

^^ good one leo. 

are we talking like regular world crap to legitimately throw away. 

where are you at in terms of "the process"

 

I think I've gotten to a point where I have what's true boiled down to what I'm actually experiencing in the present. I'm aware that all else is a belief. But if you have a regular world one, I can work with that too. Once I get them, I will deconstruct them until they are true.

[99th_monkey]

well, whats the point then?

[Guest]

I'm not sure what particular stage you are are to be honest, or what stage I am at in comparison, but here's my two cents based upon what I understand..
THe senses themselves are just a means for which the body to experience the world. In fact, the senses themselves are the body. Yet, you are not the body. Your truth does not lie in the body and this separation that the senses/body allude to.
In the concept of dhukka, it's not that senses themselves are bad, but rather attachment to senses is bad. Attachment to senses translates into attachment to this physical world, and what stems from that is unhappiness and "immorality" (due to lack of understnading) towards others. Thus attaching to the senses and this very egocentric existence itself is dhukka. The senses themselves are impermanent, unsatisfactory and hold no real value.
In a sense (geddit?!), attachment to the senses is attachment to thought.
There is the unchanging and the changing. To cling to the changing is suffering.

Sorry if this just sounds LIke I'm quoting the Pali Canon, there are no other words to describe it..

So do the senses "exist"?
My personal answer to Leo's question is not something that I want to voice, if at all, or maybe I haven't completely found it yet, but my guidelines for answering it thus far have been:
Depends on your definition of exist. Relate this to the attachment of the senses and see what answers you come up with. Relate all of this to the deconstruction of the senses too..

 

Edited February 28, 2016 by tryingforfreedom

[Emerald]

13 minutes ago, Ken Lecoq said:

Do you want answers deconstructing those "true" statements ?

You can't explain the deconstruction of what you hold as true with words... I mean, you could with truths like "the earth is round", but you couldn't with very advanced statements like those. 

For example... 

"All the existant colors are hold within The spectrum of colors"... That's seems to be true, for sure, but if you want to deconstruct it you can't explain it with words. 

The only way to deconstruct those truths would be through meditation. 

Very interesting anyway, those statements or questions could be great objets of meditation. Thanks for creating this topic@Emerald Wilkins

You are going very far @Leo Gura , Thanks a lot  I'm gonna meditate on those, and do self inquiry asking that ^^

 

Spiritual Autolysis is a method of inquiry created by Jed McKenna, who is enlightened and wrote about this process in his books. It is writing down a sentence you think is true and deconstructing every aspect of it until it is actually true. So, it's like the meditative self-inquiry practice only it's more intellect-driven and on paper.

So, if I were going to deconstruct your sentence...

"All the existant colors are held within the spectrum of colors"

Here are the questions I would ask:

Q: Do colors exist? A: They appear to. There are various shades and hues.

Q: What are colors? A: They appear as hues and shades that fill in flat shapes within the field of visual awareness. They are two dimensional even though I think of them as three dimensional.

Q: Is there a spectrum of colors for them to be "in"? A: Maybe not. I see no spectrum of colors. This could be a framework. The only colors that I know are "real" are the ones that appear in my field of awareness right now in the present moment. So, there is no spectrum of colors to be seen. So, the spectrum of colors is another thought story.

Q: What is "in"? A: Can a color be in something? No. colors appear as they are.

Q: Can anything be "in" something? A: Not sure. Let's check.

Q: Can a sight be in a sight? A: No. Sight is a single flat plane of shapes imbued with colors.

Q: Can a sound be in a sound? A: No. All sounds combine together to make one sound.

Q: Can a feeling be in a feeling? A: I don't know. I sense depth... so maybe.

So, after this deconstruction I can write the sentence again, omitting the false parts.

"All existent colors are."

Since "are" implies existence, we can omit the word "existent."

So...

"All colors are."

Then I look to see if I can deconstruct it further. i.e. What does "are" mean? What is existence? etc.

So, this is the basic process, and you keep deconstructing the sentence until you've explored all possible assumptions and beliefs that are being unconsciously held and communicated.

 

 

[Ken Lecoq]

Thanks a lot for your detailed reply @Emerald Wilkins

That's a great method to question our "truths". You convinced me to read Jed McKenna's books ^^ 

Edited February 28, 2016 by Ken Lecoq

[Guest]

Just a few thoughts...

Colors are just as real to you and me when we experience it in the senses, and how it enters our eyes, but what about how our brains interpret it?
When they test people for color blindness, how do they truly know that we are seeing the same colors, and its not just our brains that have worked out that this "color" is called "red"?
Does a color definitely appear the same to you as it does to someone else?

What is it to be blind? What is missing and what remains?
What is it to be deaf and blind? What is missing and what remains?

 

[Emerald]

Just now, Ken Lecoq said:

Thanks a lot for your detailed reply @Emerald Wilkins

That's a great method to question our "truths". You convinced me to read Jed McKenna books ^^ 

I hear his books are great, but can be a bit discouraging because of his nihilistic take on enlightenment. It doesn't sound good to the rational mind.

I didn't know of his work until I started talking with people here on the forum. So, I haven't read anything from him yet. I learned about Spiritual Autolysis by looking up the process online the other day and I already had a huge breakthrough about what a perception is and is not. I also, now follow his forum, where he allows people to create a thread to ask him questions regarding their progress toward enlightenment. Make sure to read the rules first though, if you should decide to join the forum.

Here is the link: http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/index.php

Thanks  

 

[Emerald]

46 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

These kinds of questions are basically the foundation of philosophy.

 

That makes sense. I only took one philosophy class, when I was in college but most of our reading material was based on these types of existential questions. I would say that this process is the diametric opposite though. Instead of trying to find what's true and create a framework of knowledge like philosophy does, you're trying to find what isn't true and trying to deconstruct your existing framework.

[Leo Gura]

3 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

I would say that this process is the diametric opposite though. Instead of trying to find what's true and create a framework of knowledge like philosophy does, you're trying to find what isn't true and trying to deconstruct your existing framework.

Proper philosophy is exactly that. It's not a sense of frameworks, but a deep questioning into the truth of things. Proper philosophy converges with enlightenment. Of course most people get lost along the way.

[Leo Gura]

51 minutes ago, Emerald Wilkins said:

I think I've gotten to a point where I have what's true boiled down to what I'm actually experiencing in the present. I'm aware that all else is a belief. But if you have a regular world one, I can work with that too. Once I get them, I will deconstruct them until they are true.

Experience is true in the moment, but it's also ever-changing.

Ask yourself what was true before you were born.

What is Absolutely True and never-changing across all time?

Believe it or not, there is such a "thing." And it's in your awareness right now.

[Emerald]

10 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Proper philosophy is exactly that. It's not a sense of frameworks, but a deep questioning into the truth of things. Proper philosophy converges with enlightenment. Of course most people get lost along the way.

That makes sense.

8 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Ask yourself what was true before you were born.

What is Absolutely True and never-changing across all time?

Believe it or not, there is such a "thing." And it's in your awareness right now.

This is where I'm not quite open enough to see things clearly. I have recently started thinking in terms of 'if it doesn't happen in the present moment, it's only the content of a thought.' In a sense, this opens me up to my present experience and I can sense the content of my perceptions very clearly now. But I'm starting to make it a rule, and I don't think that's going to be fruitful.

So, what was true before I was born? Based on my "rule," nothing of course. But how can I experience the truth if I have to look for it in the content of my thoughts? Do you have any other leading questions? Or do you recommend I use it sort of like a Zen Koan and just sit on it until an insight comes?

Edited February 28, 2016 by Emerald Wilkins

[Emerald]

57 minutes ago, 99th_monkey said:

well, whats the point then?

The reason why I do it is to empty my cup of preconceived notions and assumptions that I may not be aware of yet. I'm trying to make myself receptive and open for a potential breakthrough of enlightenment.

[Emerald]

43 minutes ago, tryingforfreedom said:

I'm not sure what particular stage you are are to be honest, or what stage I am at in comparison, but here's my two cents based upon what I understand..
THe senses themselves are just a means for which the body to experience the world. In fact, the senses themselves are the body. Yet, you are not the body. Your truth does not lie in the body and this separation that the senses/body allude to.
In the concept of dhukka, it's not that senses themselves are bad, but rather attachment to senses is bad. Attachment to senses translates into attachment to this physical world, and what stems from that is unhappiness and "immorality" (due to lack of understnading) towards others. Thus attaching to the senses and this very egocentric existence itself is dhukka. The senses themselves are impermanent, unsatisfactory and hold no real value.
In a sense (geddit?!), attachment to the senses is attachment to thought.
There is the unchanging and the changing. To cling to the changing is suffering.

Sorry if this just sounds LIke I'm quoting the Pali Canon, there are no other words to describe it..

So do the senses "exist"?
My personal answer to Leo's question is not something that I want to voice, if at all, or maybe I haven't completely found it yet, but my guidelines for answering it thus far have been:
Depends on your definition of exist. Relate this to the attachment of the senses and see what answers you come up with. Relate all of this to the deconstruction of the senses too..

 

I just recently had an insight about perceptions as not being perceived, but morseo as things themselves. So, there is not necessarily some mechanism or organ doing the sensing of a perception. But maybe the thing that I think of as a sound, isn't being received by an ear, but it exists as a thing inside of awareness itself. It's just a sound floating around inside of awareness.

But I will definitely deconstruct my idea of what "exists" means. That one is probably full of preconceived notions.

[Emerald]

34 minutes ago, tryingforfreedom said:

Just a few thoughts...

Colors are just as real to you and me when we experience it in the senses, and how it enters our eyes, but what about how our brains interpret it?
When they test people for color blindness, how do they truly know that we are seeing the same colors, and its not just our brains that have worked out that this "color" is called "red"?
Does a color definitely appear the same to you as it does to someone else?

What is it to be blind? What is missing and what remains?
What is it to be deaf and blind? What is missing and what remains?

 

Thank you. These are great questions.