The question has been put:

What does it mean to surrender and how does this relate to transformation?

Is there a way to go into this question that is grounded in our experience?

One thinks one is the doer. There can be the discovery that one is not the doer. That may be what is involved in surrender. One is not the doer of that act of surrender.

Peter Kesting wrote:
One thinks one is the doer. There can be the discovery that one is not the doer. That may be what is involved in surrender. One is not the doer of that act of surrender.

Hello Peter :-)
Well I am interested in what you say here..
One is not the doer after a point maybe..Maybe be "me" has a part to play which it, usually , never does ?
In what I have lived, bearing in mind that being define in here is not the attitude to honestly have, it seems to me that surrendering means a bit like you say that the doer have seen it has not to be the ....doer ....under some circumstances, in some fields,it can be some very limits reached by this so called self which can know that...I say so called self as still for me, this self is not all define, and to be selfish may not be as bad as we think, it could very well be "something " else which would be A or THE problem...

After all if I am selfish I deal with "me" only is not it...? this does not imply ,yet, to use others..so I do not yet invade the all galaxy for profit, which man will do of course.

May be we are not even selfish at all? but just loonies..just questioning...

Dan.

This post was last updated by Daniel Dan (account deleted) Mon, 05 Mar 2012.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
What does it mean to surrender and how does this relate to transformation?
Is there a way to go into this question that is grounded in our experience?

"I am a winner and fully capable of controlling/transforming my life. If I fail, then I double my efforts or try to win with a different approach."

With the above kind of success oriented attitude about life/living in operation, why would one listen about 'surrender' in the first place?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Peter Kesting wrote:
One thinks one is the doer. There can be the discovery that one is not the doer.

There can only be the discovery of observing/seeing the nature, strength and total range of activities of 'doer'. To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion.

Peter Kesting wrote:
That may be what is involved in surrender. One is not the doer of that act of surrender.

This is beyond the real understanding of 'doer', isn't it?

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Daniel Dan wrote:
May be we are not even selfish at all? but just loonies..just questioning...

A pertinent question seeing the fact that our combined behaviour/effort towards 'doing good' has put the welfare of self of total mankind in danger!

FLOW WITH LIFE!

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:

Daniel Dan wrote:
May be we are not even selfish at all? but just loonies..just questioning...
Sudhir: A pertinent question seeing the fact that our combined behaviour/effort towards 'doing good' has put the welfare of self of total mankind in danger!

Hello Sudhir, yes !
it has been a while since I question man's so called selfishness being our problem...as I kind of think we are not even selfish but it would be something else in the brain which bugs, anyway it is more from weird feelings than anything else..no proof, no theory ....

Still the feeling we are just mainly loonies or simply idiots no one excluded including the so called top of the range,is very strong...:-)....

I really do like any type abnormal people ....I was declared that, when they sacked me from the compulsory army...as when you do not like killing you are not a good man.... :)

Having said that no one is forced to be an idiot...:-)

Thanks Sudhir..

Dan.

Dan.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

One thinks one is the doer. There can be the discovery that one is not the doer.

Sudhir wrote: There can only be the discovery of observing/seeing the nature, strength and total range of activities of 'doer'. To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion.

Sudhir, This is something that was seen. Not a conclusion. If I am caught in illusion here, also no doer in that.

If you will allow, you said:

"There can only be the discovery of observing/seeing the nature, strength and total range of activities of 'doer'". How do you come to know that? Isn't that "only" a conclusion that is limiting?

Please see that I am only asking in a gentle way. We are just two friends.

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Mon, 05 Mar 2012.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
Peter Kesting wrote:

That may be what is involved in surrender. One is not the doer of that act of surrender.
This is beyond the real understanding of 'doer', isn't it?

Yes sir. Ultimately everything is beyond understanding.

Peter

Thank you all for the above. I wonder if it is possible to start from real life and from things that are common to us. For example:

I am late for a meeting and stuck in traffic. There is nothing I can do but I am pushing, pushing, one foot on the brake and the other on the accelerator and quickly the tension builds up in my body. I am in my thought. I am thinking, "Why don't they move up." and so on. So, I am that tension.

Then I notice my whole posture and find it irrational. I am no longer solely in my thought and in my tension, I am also seeing it. part of me has gone beyond it. My attention is not trapped in it. I have energy to attend to the incorrect thoughts and find a correct thought, something rational. I have energy to attend to the emotional state. Let go of the emotion. I have energy to attend to the bodily tension and release it.

In doing so, I have surrendered the very state of mind I was trapped in and that state has been transformed. It may arise again as it is my habit, so I will watch it.

So, I am asking myself, is it factual that only that which mind has gone beyond can be surrendered?

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Mon, 05 Mar 2012.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
What does it mean to surrender and how does this relate to transformation? Is there a way to go into this question that is grounded in our experience?

Where is the question coming from? Why do I ask this question when I'm happy, content with my life, comfortable with what-is? I swim laps and eat delicious food and travel and enjoy my family. What do I care about surrendering and transforming? Why do I spend so much time in this forum talking about such things when I'm so happy and content? Damn, I'm really fucked up, but that's okay cuz as long as we can have these vapid, stupid, meaningless exchanges, we can...I don't know, what the fuck are we doing here, anyway?

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I have energy to attend to the incorrect thoughts and find a correct thought, something rational. I have energy to attend to the emotional state. Let go of the emotion. I have energy to attend to the bodily tension and release it.

Oh glory!

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
So, I am asking myself, is it factual that only that which mind has gone beyond can be surrendered?

One can surrender what one has in one's own consciousness(mind),otherwise not.Is it another way of asking ,can one keep one's mind free of occupation?By keeping mind unoccupied to whom does one surrender to?

nothing

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion

Hi Sudhir,

I have a question: could you define 'illusion' for me?

T

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion.

illusory conclusion.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peter Kesting wrote:
That may be what is involved in surrender.

The gods sacrificed to the sacrifice with the sacrifice. These became the first ritual laws.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
I wonder if it is possible to start from real life (...). For example

Hi Peng, I find this thing you wrote extraordinarily important. Unless we actually see the stuff K wrote (and spoke) about in everyday life, then it's useless. If it is something that remains merely in the realm of theory, spoken word or stuck on a bookshelf at home, then it's ashes to ashes.

T

B Teulada wrote:
Unless we actually see the stuff K wrote (and spoke) about in everyday life, then it's useless.

The undying syllable of the song is the final abode where all the gods have taken their seat. What can one who does not know this do with the song? Only those who know it sit together here.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

Peter Kesting wrote:
One thinks one is the doer. There can be the discovery that one is not the doer.

The one who is compelled as his own nature wills goes away and comes back; the immortal came from the same womb as the mortal. The two constantly moves in opposite directions; when people percieve the one, they do not perceive the other.
gb

We are watching, not waiting, not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. JK

lidlo lady wrote:
I don't know, what the fuck are we doing here, anyway?

Asking you back LL .... but you never reply...

T

lidlo lady wrote:
I don't know, what the fuck are we doing here, anyway?

I don't know either Lidloji...it seems (to me) that the 'tribe' still requires that 'we' wear a sociability mask.

You are , of course, right to point out that this phenomenon of 'surrender and/or transformation' is of no appeal/interest to a person who is happy with things as they are.

Being 'real'/honest is thunder sometimes, sir.

One day I'll remember to forget (Bob Dylan)

This post was last updated by Katy 9 (account deleted) Tue, 06 Mar 2012.

Daniel Dan wrote:
I really do like any type abnormal people

And so do I...

Daniel Dan wrote:
Having said that no one is forced to be an idiot...:-)

:)

My neighbour was talking to me the other day about 'idiotic compassion'.

This post was last updated by Katy 9 (account deleted) Tue, 06 Mar 2012.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
With the above kind of success oriented attitude about life/living in operation, why would one listen about 'surrender' in the first place?

S/he would not be receptive to this, Dr. Sudhir.

lidlo lady wrote:
Where is the question coming from?

The question (here) arose from the discussion under the heading : 'Original Thought/Freedom of Speech', sir.

This post was last updated by Katy 9 (account deleted) Tue, 06 Mar 2012.

Dr.sudhir sharma wrote:
There can only be the discovery of observing/seeing the nature, strength and total range of activities of 'doer'. To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion.

ganesan balachandran wrote:
illusory conclusion.

Ganesan is correct here. When Dr Sharma says, "To conclude beyond this is to invite illusion" he might have better written "to conclude is to invite illusion."

To conclude means to reach the end, does it not? Dr Sharma has reached his conclusion and says we dare not go beyond it.

He had made the statement, "There can only be the discovery of observing/seeing the nature, strength and total activities of the 'doer.' This was set against Peter's statement that "there can be the discovery that one is not the doer." Basically he was saying two things. 1) That Peter's statement invites illusion. And 2) That one cannot discover that one is not the 'doer.'

Any end point we reach, anytime we throw up a sign saying, "here and no further" we have arrived at a conclusion. And the idea that it is now concluded is illusory.

Again, Dr Sharma might better have written, "There can be the discovery of the 'doer'," rather than, "There can only be the discovery of the 'doer'."

He cannot conclude that what he has not discovered cannot be discovered.

This post was last updated by Peng Shu Tse (account deleted) Tue, 06 Mar 2012.

B Teulada wrote:
Asking you back LL .... but you never reply...

seems to be 'indulging my self-pity.'

Katy 9 wrote:
You are , of course, right to point out that this phenomenon of 'surrender and/or transformation' is of no appeal/interest to a person who is happy with things as they are.

Probably true, Katy, but are there such people here?

Katy 9 wrote:
I don't know either Lidloji...it seems (to me) that the 'tribe' still requires that 'we' wear a sociability mask.

Are you wearing such a mask, Katy? Are you a member of a "'tribe?'"

kamarajugadda Mallik ArjunaRao wrote:
One can surrender what one has in one's own consciousness(mind),otherwise not.Is it another way of asking ,can one keep one's mind free of occupation?By keeping mind unoccupied to whom does one surrender to?

Yes, the content of consciousness may be surrendered. I am saying that as long as that content, whatever it is, holds value, it will not be surrendered. You cannot surrender that which you still value. You are only suppressing it, not surrendering it. And if you have understood the content and it has lost all value, then surrender is no longer suppression or sacrifice, but a natural organic process of elimination., similar t what happens with the digestion of the goodness in food and the elimination of the valueless.

Surely it cannot be a question of keeping the mind 'free of occupation.' The mind is not free of occupation. The mind is occupied. Before keeping it free it has to first be free. And it is not. The question is, how does the occupied mind face itself? Not, how should it, but how does it. How is it facing itself right now, this moment? Is it facing itself at all? You will have just observed that the moment that question is asked, the mind has to face itself to inquire.

If the mind is not constantly asking itself how it is facing itself, attention will always drift back out. This is the perplexing problem we face. Can mind maintain a state or proprioception while dealing with the 'external?'

Because, like every other organ, the mind needs to digest and eliminate, but, in distinction to every other organ, the mind cannot do this automatically. It is not part of the autonomic nervous system. It needs to understand itself at its own particular level of functioning, in order (if ever) to go beyond that functioning.

Katy 9 wrote:
The question (here) arose from the discussion under the heading : 'Original Thought/Freedom of Speech', sir.

Thank you, Katy.

The question arises as important in my mind because the words 'surrender' and 'transformation' are very loaded, and usually very loaded with mystique and illusion.

What I would like here is bring it down to the level of experience.

Surrender is not something that happens at the end of a long journey. It is happening every day, inside one, but we do not observe it or understand its significance. It is like every other everyday thing, of extraordinary significance, once observed and understood.

Peng Shu Tse wrote:
The question is, how does the occupied mind face itself? Not, how should it, but how does it?

True.Can mind stay without a movement?Stay still!

nothing