|
Post by lolly on Dec 23, 2017 9:49:33 GMT -5
Oh peaceful expance is pretty common too, but when it's like like, whoosh, that, like falling, can bring a strong grasping as well. I do find it strange that meditator doesn't realise that reactivity is what stops 'the flow'. I go deep sometimes -- deep enough to lose touch with all sensation but ambient noise and any breeze (and those are faint) -- and it depends on alot of factors. One time I stood up from a bench outside, walked to my car, and was so disoriented I backed into another car, demolition derby style. It was like 40 feet away and the only other car in a big 'ole lot. And I feel that feeling of falling sometimes, it's just that for me it's all very gentle and gradual. Not that there aren't discontinuities sometimes, but that those discontinuities don't ever cause me to react to them. Like I said, by the time I'd started meditating the reactive pattern of thought and emotion that would have generated the fear you're alluding to had been shattered. So you know how reacting stops things? (not for you particularly, but as a general rule.) The other confusing thing is how reaction is shattered - but still reactive.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 23, 2017 10:23:23 GMT -5
I go deep sometimes -- deep enough to lose touch with all sensation but ambient noise and any breeze (and those are faint) -- and it depends on alot of factors. One time I stood up from a bench outside, walked to my car, and was so disoriented I backed into another car, demolition derby style. It was like 40 feet away and the only other car in a big 'ole lot. And I feel that feeling of falling sometimes, it's just that for me it's all very gentle and gradual. Not that there aren't discontinuities sometimes, but that those discontinuities don't ever cause me to react to them. Like I said, by the time I'd started meditating the reactive pattern of thought and emotion that would have generated the fear you're alluding to had been shattered. So you know how reacting stops things? (not for you particularly, but as a general rule.) The other confusing thing is how reaction is shattered - but still reactive. In terms of meditation I'll have it stop some times because of discomfort and if you want to call that reaction, that's fine, but by the same token I've been in sustained flow hundreds of times out on a tennis court or up on a ski slope. Plenty of reactivity, no break in the flow.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Dec 23, 2017 16:41:08 GMT -5
Unexpected grace? In this case, it's like suddenly remembering with vivid clarity something you didn't know you had forgotten. Direct contact? It can be poorly compared to entering the cold atlantic waters off a new england beach in summer - at first the experience is a shock to the system, but after a while one becomes more and more acclimated to it, and soon swims, plays and frolics within it with natural ease. thanks a lot for this explanation.very clear now You're welcome. :-)
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Dec 23, 2017 17:21:35 GMT -5
So you know how reacting stops things? (not for you particularly, but as a general rule.) The other confusing thing is how reaction is shattered - but still reactive. In terms of meditation I'll have it stop some times because of discomfort and if you want to call that reaction, that's fine, but by the same token I've been in sustained flow hundreds of times out on a tennis court or up on a ski slope. Plenty of reactivity, no break in the flow. Yes, that is not you stopping meditation, but meditation stopping due to reactivity. Reactivity is, by definition, stopping things ('the flow'). In the meditation the discomfort comes up, but that does not disrupt the meditation; adverse reaction to it does.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 24, 2017 2:42:17 GMT -5
In terms of meditation I'll have it stop some times because of discomfort and if you want to call that reaction, that's fine, but by the same token I've been in sustained flow hundreds of times out on a tennis court or up on a ski slope. Plenty of reactivity, no break in the flow.Yes, that is not you stopping meditation, but meditation stopping due to reactivity. sure. Reactivity is, by definition, stopping things ('the flow'). In the meditation the discomfort comes up, but that does not disrupt the meditation; adverse reaction to it does. Rather than giving you the word for Christmas we'll just have to agree to disagree, but I will point out that the ball is in your court.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 26, 2017 9:57:48 GMT -5
Sometimes darts are best just avoided .. hey no need to apologize, I appreciate your engagement on the topic. Stoic detachment can give a peep more than just a problem with their nerves, although my guess is that for most, the stress of the suppression involved will eventually take it's toll somewhere, somewhen. But it makes for effective soldiers, nanny's, salespeeps, managers, customer service reps (especially phone reps) and can be quite key to success in the art of romantic seduction. It's kind of you to say. Yep, and I'm sure you'll agree that genuine detachment is commonly underestimated, and often mistakenly confused with apathy. Sat seemed convinced that advaita and buddhism were ultimately pointing to the same thing, but I never really saw it that way. At least not with his and pretty much every other AV proponent I've seen here on the forum's interpretation. It's said that the Buddha cut his teeth on the vedic and brahmanical stuff - being the prevalent theosophy of the age, but eventually came to see it as incomplete. An event which was the catalyst for his coming to rest beneath the bodhi tree and vowing not to move until he came to know the Truth or died. It's apparent to me there are some fairly major differences between Self-'doctrine' (as generally expounded) and the middle way teaching. For example, dependant origination is basically a comprehensive and detailed exposition of the process by which sentient beings arise and fall in a cyclical fashion, so in perpetuity, prior to liberation. Basically the tathagata deconstructed what the brahmana taught as atman in the upanisads, which imho, mostly seems to just lead to the opposite extreme to the more commonplace self-identification. It expresses subtlely as Self-identification (although disclaimed) with tinges of attikavada (i.e. affirmationism - posits an unchanging Self as a subject) & natthikavada i.e. (nihilism - denies moral responsibility). To be clear that's not what the Buddha taught, and actively cautioned against such views, realising them to be subtle mind anchors inhibiting more profound insight, and ultimately, true liberation. In fairness to sat I'm obliged to point out that he argued vehemently against that second tinge. Dukkha, as entropy is good, although it's said that, as a rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again, for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that. It's certainly true that the riverbank analogy only works so far, and whilst in a certain context we can talk in terms of a person making observation, as you put it, ultimately the expression in its entirety is a process of observation, as the d/s exp demonstrates. In fact the only reason we can use the 'person observing' context, is because the path expression - in its entirety- takes, is a sort of feedback loop, so we talk in that 'person context' as observation being a sort of sense (sensory) derivative. But that's only ever half the equation, it's a limited view that breaks down under sustained scrutiny, as you know. We have to talk about how the observer is the observed, but really that is just, the arise and fall of observation as - the path expression takes. Also known as 'perception is creation'. Yes, but it is possible to use a thorn to remove a thorn, and end up with no thorns. Really that's simply the path liberation takes. And in the broadest sense that after the fact observation is still 'proto-thorny', hehe. Still becoming, still founded upon ignorance, and still subject to dukkha. "Genuine detachment" is a phase I can rezz with, but to be honest I don't see how could be mistaken for apathy, because in my mind it would involve an intense engagement with life. Certainly "engaged detachment" can seem like an oxymoron, but even the Stoics would understand the underlying subtle distinction. What you wrote about the vedics and brahmans inspired me to google the % of the Indian population that's currently Buddhist. It's an interesting point about the buddha's arc, one that's hard to overlook. My reading on these subjects is relatively thin but obviously there was a conception of the notion of awakening before the Buddha and also before the Vedics or else each of them wouldn't have had a conception of the notion to begin with. Shankara came along over a millenia after the Buddha and from my casual reading it seems that at that point there was a higher % of Buddhists in India. So we have this historical picture of the culture that revolves around awakening changing over time, and this can be understood further in terms of the Buddha's life. He started out with suffering deliberately hidden from him and then went through a period where he deliberately sought it out to learn about it, and the story is one of extreme polarities: from a Prince whose skin touched only silk and satin to a man starving and completely naked, alone and homeless. Is it really any surprise that he spoke about the middle way? Is the middle way, the only way? You see, I did understand what Satch meant by how the two theologies eventually point in the same direction: eventually if one pursues a path of negation, they might come to a point of realization where "I am none of this" has the exact same non-conceptual meaning of "I am all of this". From what I can tell of people who've written on the topic of observing the observer, following that pointer can go in one of two ways. This seems common to all pointers. Either they engage a process of inquiry based on the suggestion, or it can turn into a meditative mind game. Of course there's as many potential shades in between these polarities as there are people who encounter the notion. I can't disagree with your conclusion about the process of becoming either pre or post realization, but the difference is that the individual engaging the process after realization doesn't mistake it for what it isn't. This topic has the potential to be a source of controversy and confusion for people prone to overthinking, because really, it's quite possible for a person to live a very fulfilled, virtuous life and attain a very high level of relative material wisdom and remain unrealized. Conversely, realization can happen for human beings way down at the base of Maslow's triangle, regardless of intellect or capacity for meaningful personal relationships.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Dec 26, 2017 15:32:33 GMT -5
"Genuine detachment" is a phase I can rezz with, but to be honest I don't see how could be mistaken for apathy, because in my mind it would involve an intense engagement with life. Certainly "engaged detachment" can seem like an oxymoron, but even the Stoics would understand the underlying subtle distinction. I'm convinced it often is, and feel it's worth taking the opportunity to point out detachment is not the sum of achieved indifferences. (Obviously not for your benefit). Yeah I'd imagine these notions have been going on since time immemorial. As far as Buddhists are concerned, the highest Buddha's don't come along very often, but there was one before Gautama, around 100, 000 years ago called Dīpankara. Buddha classed both as extreme views, both as wrong views, and that both merely serve as a platform for future becoming, and therefore are not conducive to true liberation (which conversely is the basis of 'wrong' btw). What's required is some sort of middle way, hehe Agreed. It's true enough that post realisation, the localised mind/body expression arises absent a certain level of delusion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 28, 2017 14:49:16 GMT -5
It's kind of you to say. Yep, and I'm sure you'll agree that genuine detachment is commonly underestimated, and often mistakenly confused with apathy. Sat seemed convinced that advaita and buddhism were ultimately pointing to the same thing, but I never really saw it that way. At least not with his and pretty much every other AV proponent I've seen here on the forum's interpretation. It's said that the Buddha cut his teeth on the vedic and brahmanical stuff - being the prevalent theosophy of the age, but eventually came to see it as incomplete. An event which was the catalyst for his coming to rest beneath the bodhi tree and vowing not to move until he came to know the Truth or died. It's apparent to me there are some fairly major differences between Self-'doctrine' (as generally expounded) and the middle way teaching. For example, dependant origination is basically a comprehensive and detailed exposition of the process by which sentient beings arise and fall in a cyclical fashion, so in perpetuity, prior to liberation. Basically the tathagata deconstructed what the brahmana taught as atman in the upanisads, which imho, mostly seems to just lead to the opposite extreme to the more commonplace self-identification. It expresses subtlely as Self-identification (although disclaimed) with tinges of attikavada (i.e. affirmationism - posits an unchanging Self as a subject) & natthikavada i.e. (nihilism - denies moral responsibility). To be clear that's not what the Buddha taught, and actively cautioned against such views, realising them to be subtle mind anchors inhibiting more profound insight, and ultimately, true liberation. In fairness to sat I'm obliged to point out that he argued vehemently against that second tinge. Dukkha, as entropy is good, although it's said that, as a rule of thumb: as soon as you think you've found the single best translation for the word, think again, for no matter how you describe dukkha, it's always deeper, subtler, and more unsatisfactory than that. It's certainly true that the riverbank analogy only works so far, and whilst in a certain context we can talk in terms of a person making observation, as you put it, ultimately the expression in its entirety is a process of observation, as the d/s exp demonstrates. In fact the only reason we can use the 'person observing' context, is because the path expression - in its entirety- takes, is a sort of feedback loop, so we talk in that 'person context' as observation being a sort of sense (sensory) derivative. But that's only ever half the equation, it's a limited view that breaks down under sustained scrutiny, as you know. We have to talk about how the observer is the observed, but really that is just, the arise and fall of observation as - the path expression takes. Also known as 'perception is creation'. Yes, but it is possible to use a thorn to remove a thorn, and end up with no thorns. Really that's simply the path liberation takes. And in the broadest sense that after the fact observation is still 'proto-thorny', hehe. Still becoming, still founded upon ignorance, and still subject to dukkha. "Genuine detachment" is a phase I can rezz with, but to be honest I don't see how could be mistaken for apathy, because in my mind it would involve an intense engagement with life. Certainly "engaged detachment" can seem like an oxymoron, but even the Stoics would understand the underlying subtle distinction. What you wrote about the vedics and brahmans inspired me to google the % of the Indian population that's currently Buddhist. It's an interesting point about the buddha's arc, one that's hard to overlook. My reading on these subjects is relatively thin but obviously there was a conception of the notion of awakening before the Buddha and also before the Vedics or else each of them wouldn't have had a conception of the notion to begin with. Shankara came along over a millenia after the Buddha and from my casual reading it seems that at that point there was a higher % of Buddhists in India. So we have this historical picture of the culture that revolves around awakening changing over time, and this can be understood further in terms of the Buddha's life. He started out with suffering deliberately hidden from him and then went through a period where he deliberately sought it out to learn about it, and the story is one of extreme polarities: from a Prince whose skin touched only silk and satin to a man starving and completely naked, alone and homeless. Is it really any surprise that he spoke about the middle way? Is the middle way, the only way? You see, I did understand what Satch meant by how the two theologies eventually point in the same direction: eventually if one pursues a path of negation, they might come to a point of realization where "I am none of this" has the exact same non-conceptual meaning of "I am all of this". From what I can tell of people who've written on the topic of observing the observer, following that pointer can go in one of two ways. This seems common to all pointers. Either they engage a process of inquiry based on the suggestion, or it can turn into a meditative mind game. Of course there's as many potential shades in between these polarities as there are people who encounter the notion. I can't disagree with your conclusion about the process of becoming either pre or post realization, but the difference is that the individual engaging the process after realization doesn't mistake it for what it isn't. This topic has the potential to be a source of controversy and confusion for people prone to overthinking, because really, it's quite possible for a person to live a very fulfilled, virtuous life and attain a very high level of relative material wisdom and remain unrealized. Conversely, realization can happen for human beings way down at the base of Maslow's triangle, regardless of intellect or capacity for meaningful personal relationships. I'd say Buddha streamlined the whole process. I think he could-have spoken very authoritatively metaphysically, but chose not-to. He left the superfluous out-of what he taught. He cut-to-the-chase and only spoke to what was necessary for Liberation. There-is a [marvelous] structure to All-That-Is. The question is, does one have to understand the structure to become free? I'd say Buddha's answer was obviously, no. (It's incorrect to say Buddha had no interest in metaphysical questions, or did not himself understand-more-than-he said, concerning the nature of the Universe. I would say he merely did not consider it advantageous or obligatory, for Liberation, that is, for teaching The-Way-To Liberation). The most interesting "~metaphysical~" question (as well as physics question) is the nature of entropy. If I were in my 20's again, that would be a central life pursuit. So I like very much the relating that Dukkha is (increasing) entropy. Seeing that All-Is-One doesn't resolve the question of entropy. Physics tells us that the (material) Universe must have begun in its most ordered state, because, on the whole, entropy is always increasing. Without energy (as a kind-of informing-ordering- work), added, everything tends to become more disordered. That combines traditional thermodynamic (Boltzmann's statistical) entropy with Shannon's information entropy, they are directly related (the equations are even very similar). One could say the very purpose of Life, is to combat increasing entropy. That's why (a nondual) All-Is-One is not the final statement. To be-able-to-say All-Is-One, entropy has to be overcome (that is, Life has to prevail over non-Life-increasing-entropy-" winning", that would be true-apathy). {Franklin Merrell-Wolff (Pathways Through To Space and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object) called for him what was a very positive state, high indifference, so words can be deceiving}.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 29, 2017 2:20:43 GMT -5
"Genuine detachment" is a phase I can rezz with, but to be honest I don't see how could be mistaken for apathy, because in my mind it would involve an intense engagement with life. Certainly "engaged detachment" can seem like an oxymoron, but even the Stoics would understand the underlying subtle distinction. What you wrote about the vedics and brahmans inspired me to google the % of the Indian population that's currently Buddhist. It's an interesting point about the buddha's arc, one that's hard to overlook. My reading on these subjects is relatively thin but obviously there was a conception of the notion of awakening before the Buddha and also before the Vedics or else each of them wouldn't have had a conception of the notion to begin with. Shankara came along over a millenia after the Buddha and from my casual reading it seems that at that point there was a higher % of Buddhists in India. So we have this historical picture of the culture that revolves around awakening changing over time, and this can be understood further in terms of the Buddha's life. He started out with suffering deliberately hidden from him and then went through a period where he deliberately sought it out to learn about it, and the story is one of extreme polarities: from a Prince whose skin touched only silk and satin to a man starving and completely naked, alone and homeless. Is it really any surprise that he spoke about the middle way? Is the middle way, the only way? You see, I did understand what Satch meant by how the two theologies eventually point in the same direction: eventually if one pursues a path of negation, they might come to a point of realization where "I am none of this" has the exact same non-conceptual meaning of "I am all of this". From what I can tell of people who've written on the topic of observing the observer, following that pointer can go in one of two ways. This seems common to all pointers. Either they engage a process of inquiry based on the suggestion, or it can turn into a meditative mind game. Of course there's as many potential shades in between these polarities as there are people who encounter the notion. I can't disagree with your conclusion about the process of becoming either pre or post realization, but the difference is that the individual engaging the process after realization doesn't mistake it for what it isn't. This topic has the potential to be a source of controversy and confusion for people prone to overthinking, because really, it's quite possible for a person to live a very fulfilled, virtuous life and attain a very high level of relative material wisdom and remain unrealized. Conversely, realization can happen for human beings way down at the base of Maslow's triangle, regardless of intellect or capacity for meaningful personal relationships. I'd say Buddha streamlined the whole process. I think he could-have spoken very authoritatively metaphysically, but chose not-to. He left the superfluous out-of what he taught. He cut-to-the-chase and only spoke to what was necessary for Liberation. There-is a [marvelous] structure to All-That-Is. The question is, does one have to understand the structure to become free? I'd say Buddha's answer was obviously, no. (It's incorrect to say Buddha had no interest in metaphysical questions, or did not himself understand-more-than-he said, concerning the nature of the Universe. I would say he merely did not consider it advantageous or obligatory, for Liberation, that is, for teaching The-Way-To Liberation). The most interesting "~metaphysical~" question (as well as physics question) is the nature of entropy. If I were in my 20's again, that would be a central life pursuit. So I like very much the relating that Dukkha is (increasing) entropy. Seeing that All-Is-One doesn't resolve the question of entropy. Physics tells us that the (material) Universe must have begun in its most ordered state, because, on the whole, entropy is always increasing. Without energy (as a kind-of informing-ordering- work), added, everything tends to become more disordered. That combines traditional thermodynamic (Boltzmann's statistical) entropy with Shannon's information entropy, they are directly related (the equations are even very similar). One could say the very purpose of Life, is to combat increasing entropy. That's why (a nondual) All-Is-One is not the final statement. To be-able-to-say All-Is-One, entropy has to be overcome (that is, Life has to prevail over non-Life-increasing-entropy-" winning", that would be true-apathy). {Franklin Merrell-Wolff (Pathways Through To Space and The Philosophy of Consciousness Without An Object) called for him what was a very positive state, high indifference, so words can be deceiving}. And yet, entropy is the engine that powers life. Consciousness is the totality of one movement relative to another .. the "10,000 movements", but of course, that's a gross misunderestimation of that number. In terms of the Universe as information, entropy is the outermost movement, toward disorder. Various movements alternating between order and disorder nest within it in patterns reminiscent of fractals. Planetary and satellite formation on up through the formation of galaxies, powered by gravity and nuclear fusion, are one of the most obvious examples of those patterns. As the evolution of life on Earth demonstrates, the inner movements toward order tend toward greater complexity expressed in terms of information content. None of that evolution happens without the arrow of time. Without an energy gradient, there is no process of metabolism to sustain life. So how is it that entropy is some sort of obstacle or enemy to overcome? Might as well gouge your own eyes out. Didn't the Buddha once say something like, "the world is on fire"?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Dec 29, 2017 6:06:08 GMT -5
The idea of entropy is based upon the idea of time, thingness, relationships, separation, causation, points of observation, direction, etc. The mind loves to gnaw on ideas like this, but if all such ideas are seen for what they are, and dropped, then what?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 29, 2017 6:32:42 GMT -5
The idea of entropy is based upon the idea of time, thingness, relationships, separation, causation, points of observation, direction, etc. The mind loves to gnaw on ideas like this, but if all such ideas are seen for what they are, and dropped, then what? A possibility, though not the only possibility, is that one is presented with an opportunity in terms of self-inquiry. The opportunity to discern that nothing that evolves is the answer to the inquiry.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 7:21:10 GMT -5
The idea of entropy is based upon the idea of time, thingness, relationships, separation, causation, points of observation, direction, etc. The mind loves to gnaw on ideas like this, but if all such ideas are seen for what they are, and dropped, then what? A possibility, though not the only possibility, is that one is presented with an opportunity in terms of self-inquiry. The opportunity to discern that nothing that evolves is the answer to the inquiry. pretty sure he wasn't asking for more ideas there
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 29, 2017 8:26:02 GMT -5
A possibility, though not the only possibility, is that one is presented with an opportunity in terms of self-inquiry. The opportunity to discern that nothing that evolves is the answer to the inquiry. pretty sure he wasn't asking for more ideas there Yeah. Don't care. Describing "then what" after the fact over the internet's gonna' involve words.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 29, 2017 8:38:53 GMT -5
"Genuine detachment" is a phase I can rezz with, but to be honest I don't see how could be mistaken for apathy, because in my mind it would involve an intense engagement with life. Certainly "engaged detachment" can seem like an oxymoron, but even the Stoics would understand the underlying subtle distinction. I'm convinced it often is, and feel it's worth taking the opportunity to point out detachment is not the sum of achieved indifferences. (Obviously not for your benefit). Yeah I'd imagine these notions have been going on since time immemorial. As far as Buddhists are concerned, the highest Buddha's don't come along very often, but there was one before Gautama, around 100, 000 years ago called Dīpankara. Buddha classed both as extreme views, both as wrong views, and that both merely serve as a platform for future becoming, and therefore are not conducive to true liberation (which conversely is the basis of 'wrong' btw). What's required is some sort of middle way, hehe Agreed. It's true enough that post realisation, the localised mind/body expression arises absent a certain level of delusion. ok, I see your point about who mistakes genuine detachment for apathy, sure. I agree those views are extreme, as you mentioned earlier in the week, it's thorns to dig out thorns. Like Niz said, question whether or not you are the body and then throw the idea away once it's done its job. Do I get any credibility points in the Brown Bear department for what I wrote to the 'pilgrim? Now, you've mentioned reincarnation a few times over the past few days, and you alluded to it here. Someone else brought up the idea to me today and I happened to look up the meaning of the 'Dead's " Bertha", so I'm getting hints I should respond to that interest. Would you like me to respond to it with an open ended perspective on the topic?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2017 8:51:26 GMT -5
pretty sure he wasn't asking for more ideas there Yeah. Don't care. Describing "then what" after the fact over the internet's gonna' involve words. I don't think its a words issue. I think its a episteme/gnosis issue. And I don't think its a "then what" question either.
|
|