|
Post by laughter on Sept 19, 2014 19:12:44 GMT -5
I legitimately have no idea what you're telling me, Tzu. Sounds like: nuts's not happening the way we're used to it happening, so we second guess the legit happening of the things and the whosawhatsits because we don't recognize the thingamajigs for what they are. Then we flopablopadop around looking in the usual nutsonashingles to see what the thingamajigs resemble, 'cause their ain't no way to describe the full-heart beam-slash of the master sword without just doin' it to it. I'm 100% positive my version is clearer. *cough* all you need to do now is repeat the same thing about four thousand more times...
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 26, 2014 8:23:04 GMT -5
What I noticed when checking for that "elevator down" sensation during meditation can be described by a similar experience relevant to sleeping and dreaming. The noticing of it was very much like what happens when I'm about to drift off to sleep and then suddenly, a thought will arise that brings back the onset of wakefulness. If you've ever noticed, there is a state in between wakefulness and initial sleep when the mind is active that involves a free association into the sort of nonsensical thoughts that form the basis of dreams. When the mind is quiet, there is no such perceptible activity, and the interval between closing the eyes and falling asleep isn't really discernable, but after the fact, seems much much shorter. An example of such a drift-off stream might be that the last coherent thought is of a one of my cats .. that are like tribbles, that are like cotton balls, hmmm ... there's a cotton ball with a face that's stirring around in my medicine cabinet ... Now this could lead to a dream, or, a thought might occur ... "d@mn! I forgot that I have a vet appt tomorrow!", and that point, wakefulness returns. This is something that is a common theme involving meditation: it is where tension and relaxation meet in a dance of opposites. Bode Miller once described his downhill runs in similar terms -- that in the doing, he is both absolutely relaxed and yet on infinite alert. It is the alert attention that both leads to the state where the bottom drops out and that can arrest it as it happens. Personally, I was never looking for this before, so of the dozens of times on the bench when it seemed to me after I got up based on physical and mental state that the meditation was deep, I can't say what happened in terms of that -- but there was never a time when the sense of the breeze or the sound of the insects went away completely. From previous cycles of integrating information into the practice, I expect that I'll encounter this sort of interruption a number of times until this thought about the happening is Mu.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 13, 2014 0:51:51 GMT -5
meditation is what you do when you find yourself constantly-thinking and decide to change your current apprciation of life, and so watch thought and allow your mind to unwind, so that you can come back into your 'peace of mind' spot and possibly go even further into what appears like No-mind, 'cept mind is all around you and you're Bathing in it. Meditation is what we do to unwind the coil-spring that at times becomes unsprung all by itself in a rush, or slowly, gradual like, when you, the Observor watches your natural breathing cycle slowly changing, right before your faultless minds-eye. Meditation is Good for Doing Nothing! ;D I could relate to this poem of sorts by acewall. I wanted to post a tip or two about mindfulness / meditation and knew there were a lot of threads already in existence to build upon. I'm not sure where the main tip I wanted to share came from - possibly from an on-line article about watching the breath: When one is trying to inhale in a 'spontaneous' fashion, one can often sorta force when they inhale, so to keep that from happening, we observe our breathing as though we are a cat watching to see if / when the mouse comes out of his hiding place. So, instead of 'deciding' when to begin inhaling again, we're watching, in expectation of when it will happen, letting our body be the 'boss'. I discovered that after a couple days of taking this advice, I was breathing much, much deeper and waiting for the inhales were much longer and more relaxed. It was a pleasant surprise.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 3, 2016 11:23:19 GMT -5
This excerpt from Iron Cow reminded me of ZD's distinction between nirvikalpa ("absolute") samadhi and a CC ("cosmic consciousness") experience, and as meditation is suggested as correlative to each, I thought this a good thread to place it in. Low also makes a distinction between these experiences and "awakening", which on the forum is referred to most commonly as "realization". It also brought to mind some of the dialog that's been had over the past year differentiating between mantra-based meditation and what I understand to be zazen, and between meditation in general, and prayer. The bolding is mine. "In terms of religious experience, the Bhakti path, or the way of divine loves, leads to enlightenment, and the Jnana path, or the way of knowing, leads to samadhi. The word enlightenment has been used somewhat indiscriminately in the West, which has tended to obscure the differences that it is important to perceive -- the difference between samadhi and enlightenment, and the difference between these two and awakening. The way of the Christian mystic, the way of divine love, is towards and encounter with the Other: a union as an act of love. It is a way along which it is assumed that God and man are of fundamentally different essence. Unity is acheived thorugh the grace of God. It is by His grace that the unbridgeable is bridged, and it was in the birth, life and death of Christ that this bridge was made known to man. Enlightenment takes the form of an encounter, and this encounter is the encounter with a presence which is interpreted as the presence of God, or Christ, or or the divine, but which is also oneself at the same time. 'The Father and I are one.' This encounter with the divine presence is often seen as an intense light:" (Albert Low, para's 35, 36 from Chapter 5 of "The Iron Cow of Zen", "The Center as Other")
He spends the next page and a half giving examples of this kind of experience, and then continues: "Enlightenment is the fruit of divine love: of yielding, even though momentarily, to the unknown center present but not specific. But with the way of Knowing there is no encounter with the Other, but instead a merging in samadhi. The word samadhi has for its roots sam and adhi. Sam means to combine, to mix or mingle. Adhi is smewhat more difficult to translate in that it means a pledge towards or a commitment; it also means conception (as when a woman conceives). It is an active term, whereas sam is a more reconciling term. Sam is an aspect of me-as-center and adhi is an aspect of me-as-periphery. Samadhi may be looked upon as a passive/active condition. 'How vast is the heaven of boundless samadhi!' There is no exalted state of the loving encounter with the Other: there is not the brilliance of the sun, but instead the serenity of the moon. 'How bright and transparent the moonlight of wisdom." There is coonless in the place of the heat of enlightenment. However, it is still an intensely active state, as the word samadhi implies. There is a light, a diffuse light, just as when the moon is full overhead, and therefore just out of sight. There is also vast darkness. The sun of enlightenment also shines out of darkness, but this darkness is a kind of opaqueness. With samadhi the darkness is transparent, vast, unobstructed. In enlightenment it is as though the two centers joined in an ecstatic dance without movement. In samadhi it is as though the two peripheries merge, something like the 'figure' and 'ground' both being simultaneously ground." (Albert Low, para's 44-47 from Chapter 5 of "The Iron Cow of Zen", "The Center as Other")
This is also relevant as it gets into the differences between the two approaches that Low uses to motivate his presentation about the two different types of experience:
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 4, 2016 11:17:59 GMT -5
This excerpt from Iron Cow reminded me of ZD's distinction between nirvikalpa ("absolute") samadhi and a CC ("cosmic consciousness") experience, and as meditation is suggested as correlative to each, I thought this a good thread to place it in. Low also makes a distinction between these experiences and "awakening", which on the forum is referred to most commonly as "realization". It also brought to mind some of the dialog that's been had over the past year differentiating between mantra-based meditation and what I understand to be zazen, and between meditation in general, and prayer. The bolding is mine. "In terms of religious experience, the Bhakti path, or the way of divine loves, leads to enlightenment, and the Jnana path, or the way of knowing, leads to samadhi. The word enlightenment has been used somewhat indiscriminately in the West, which has tended to obscure the differences that it is important to perceive -- the difference between samadhi and enlightenment, and the difference between these two and awakening. The way of the Christian mystic, the way of divine love, is towards and encounter with the Other: a union as an act of love. It is a way along which it is assumed that God and man are of fundamentally different essence. Unity is acheived thorugh the grace of God. It is by His grace that the unbridgeable is bridged, and it was in the birth, life and death of Christ that this bridge was made known to man. Enlightenment takes the form of an encounter, and this encounter is the encounter with a presence which is interpreted as the presence of God, or Christ, or or the divine, but which is also oneself at the same time. 'The Father and I are one.' This encounter with the divine presence is often seen as an intense light:" (Albert Low, para's 35, 36 from Chapter 5 of "The Iron Cow of Zen", "The Center as Other")
He spends the next page and a half giving examples of this kind of experience, and then continues: "Enlightenment is the fruit of divine love: of yielding, even though momentarily, to the unknown center present but not specific. But with the way of Knowing there is no encounter with the Other, but instead a merging in samadhi. The word samadhi has for its roots sam and adhi. Sam means to combine, to mix or mingle. Adhi is smewhat more difficult to translate in that it means a pledge towards or a commitment; it also means conception (as when a woman conceives). It is an active term, whereas sam is a more reconciling term. Sam is an aspect of me-as-center and adhi is an aspect of me-as-periphery. Samadhi may be looked upon as a passive/active condition. 'How vast is the heaven of boundless samadhi!' There is no exalted state of the loving encounter with the Other: there is not the brilliance of the sun, but instead the serenity of the moon. 'How bright and transparent the moonlight of wisdom." There is coonless in the place of the heat of enlightenment. However, it is still an intensely active state, as the word samadhi implies. There is a light, a diffuse light, just as when the moon is full overhead, and therefore just out of sight. There is also vast darkness. The sun of enlightenment also shines out of darkness, but this darkness is a kind of opaqueness. With samadhi the darkness is transparent, vast, unobstructed. In enlightenment it is as though the two centers joined in an ecstatic dance without movement. In samadhi it is as though the two peripheries merge, something like the 'figure' and 'ground' both being simultaneously ground." (Albert Low, para's 44-47 from Chapter 5 of "The Iron Cow of Zen", "The Center as Other")
This is also relevant as it gets into the differences between the two approaches that Low uses to motivate his presentation about the two different types of experience: I don't know if Low has helped or hindered the discussion regarding the meaning of these words that are commonly used by mystics and meditators. Only someone who is familiar with the direct experiences or realizations to which these words point will have a framework of reference for what he's discussing. He is claiming that the word "enlightenment" points to the perception of the Infinite by and through a human being. It is an awakening experience that results in one (and usually more) realizations. Primarily, there is a realization that the cosmos is not what one has been conditioned to imagine. During this kind of event, selfhood is absent, and the Infinite somehow perceives Itself directly. People who have this kind of cosmic consciousness experience afterwards claim that it occurred through grace and they are humbled by it. Zen calls this sort of thing "seeing into one's true nature." There is overwhelming awe because the mind cannot comprehend the vastness of what is perceived nor the aliveness of it. It is truly mind boggling, and it has two major aspects. One aspect is the realization that all previous ideas about the nature of reality were false--that the cosmos is NOT a place of separate things and events interacting in ways that were previously imagined. Those conditioned ideas simply fall away because they are seen to be fundamentally untrue. The other aspect is the direct apprehension of something that is unimaginable--an absolutely unified field of being. This is certainly one kind of waking up from the dream of the consensus trance. However, most people who have these kinds of experiences afterwards think that the experiences happened to the person who they IMAGINE themselves to be. IOW, the illusion of conventional selfhood is NOT dispelled by the experience. They know that during the experience they weren't there (as separate entities), but afterwards, their old sense of identity almost always returns. They then pursue attempts to get back what they imagine "they," as individuals, lost. They feel as if they inhabited the Kingdom of God for a few moments, but then fell back to earth. Although Self-realization has not been attained, they at least know that the living truth is vast beyond comprehension, and they have a burning desire to return to a state of oneness with THAT--something that they now know is possible. Self-realization or THIS-realization, by contrast, is NOT an experience. It is a sudden seeing that the conventional sense of selfhood is an illusion. This is what many people call "enlightenment" and what Zen people call "satori." If a cosmic-consciousness experience is one kind of enlightenment, then SR/TR is a different kind of enlightenment, and it is lasting rather than transient. In most cases a CC experience does NOT free a body/mind from the spiritual search, but in almost all cases SR/TR results in lasting freedom and peace of mind. Clearly, a person who has had a CC experience is more enlightened about the nature of reality than someone who has not had such an experience, but a person who has attained SR/TR is more deeply enlightened than someone who has ONLY had a CC experience. SR/TR is not the end of the path, however, because there is no end to what can be discovered (and internalized), but it is the fundamental realization that frees a human being from the sense of having a conventional identity as a person. Most people who attain SR/TR realize that there is both a relative and an absolute perspective, but also realize that both the relative and the absolute are subsumed in pure being. After attaining SR/TR, people who are worthy of being called "sages" leave all ideas of attainment behind and abide free from attachments to ideation. Their lives are what might be called "a flow of being." I suspect that 99% of the people who experience nirvikalpa samadhi encounter that state as a result of meditation. FWIW, I've never heard of an adult who fell into that state accidentally, although some children have apparently experienced it. It is a deeply peaceful state of pure awareness without thought or perception, but I doubt that people who do not place a special value upon it, or do not have a strong meditative practice, will attempt to regularly enter that state. Probably the primary values of experiencing that state include (1) the realization that pure awareness without thought or perception is possible (2) the realization that pure awareness is primary to all else (3) the realization that sustained unity consciousness is possible, and (4) the realization that such deep states of psychological unity can lead to sustained states of waking unity consciousness during everyday life. It ought to be noted, however, that many people attain SR/TR who never experience NS. It is probably only valued in spiritual traditions, such as Zen, that emphasize a strong meditative practice. Finally, just a note on zazen. The word "zazen" is used in a general sense to describe any form of sitting meditation (mantra recitation, breath awareness, breath counting, pure listening, etc), but Zen people use the word specifically to refer to the practice of shika taza. Shikan taza is the practice of extreme alert attentiveness without any specific focus. It's equivalent to sitting in a dark forest at night surrounded by potentially dangerous animals and staying in a heightened sense of alertness. It is a difficult, if not impossible, activity for beginning meditators.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Mar 4, 2016 11:35:23 GMT -5
sweet interchange fellas
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 4, 2016 11:51:07 GMT -5
Hey ZD - just letting you know that I'm going to share your capsule with another forum.
That was really well done.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 5, 2016 7:46:04 GMT -5
As the mind unwraps itself the body completes. The sound of surrender is keen, taught, and yet it draws you. As the silence deepens, it intensifies, but not in volume. Who is remembering to breathe? Leave it here, there's no other place for it. Every now and then, out of nowhere, memory stirs. Having no purchase, it may echo, it may reverberate, but in the fading, nowhere intensifies. Every now and then, from anywhere, a crack, a tick, a rev, a buzz, the world sings. But this is not the time for melody. The lyric of this tune is still. For me this is a gentle following. I hear of elevator rides where the cable snaps. Sounds like fun.
Stay, don't go yet.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 6, 2016 9:21:26 GMT -5
I don't know if Low has helped or hindered the discussion regarding the meaning of these words that are commonly used by mystics and meditators. You've mentioned in passing a possible third book. I'm confident in speaking for well over a majority of the past and current members of the forum on this. It would be a welcomed and significant cultural contribution. Personally, I've found the Japanese terminology to be the most well-formed, with kensho corresponding to your CC and Al's "enlightenment", and satori corresponding to his "awakening" and your TR. Not all the sources on the topic are as clear as you and he are on the distinction between the experiences associated with each of kensho and satori, on one hand, and the realization which doesn't come and go, on the other. Samadhi is perhaps the most significant of the triad in that it's the one that's available to anyone with the willingness to just do it. What I'd say from my own experiences and from learning the minds of others on this topic is that if there's an interest in it, to be open-minded as to what samadhi is and how to go about it, in that the instructions of peeps who've been there and done it already can be invaluable. If a peep is ever going to compare notes with others about it then that openness to listening and learning is more than just valuable, it's also indispensable.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 6, 2016 16:00:42 GMT -5
I don't know if Low has helped or hindered the discussion regarding the meaning of these words that are commonly used by mystics and meditators. You've mentioned in passing a possible third book. I'm confident in speaking for well over a majority of the past and current members of the forum on this. It would be a welcomed and significant cultural contribution. Personally, I've found the Japanese terminology to be the most well-formed, with kensho corresponding to your CC and Al's "enlightenment", and satori corresponding to his "awakening" and your TR. Not all the sources on the topic are as clear as you and he are on the distinction between the experiences associated with each of kensho and satori, on one hand, and the realization which doesn't come and go, on the other. Samadhi is perhaps the most significant of the triad in that it's the one that's available to anyone with the willingness to just do it. What I'd say from my own experiences and from learning the minds of others on this topic is that if there's an interest in it, to be open-minded as to what samadhi is and how to go about it, in that the instructions of peeps who've been there and done it already can be invaluable. If a peep is ever going to compare notes with others about it then that openness to listening and learning is more than just valuable, it's also indispensable. Laughter: if I can ever get finished with this last house construction project, maybe I'll do some more writing. I obviously have no idea what will happen next. ha ha. Yes, the only reason that I consider the concept of samadhi somewhat important is because of what it points to and implies. If it is pointed out to them, most people realize that there are periods of time when they get "lost" in some kind of activity. This is what some of us call "a unity-conscious state of mind." The most superficial examples of this are when people get lost in a movie or a football game. A slightly deeper state of Samadhi is what Zen people call "relative samadhi" or "everyday samadhi." Maybe someone gets into doing housework so deeply that reflection stops, or perhaps an artist creates a sculpture or a painting and becomes happily absorbed by the activity. Self reflection and roofbrain chatter stop for a while, and we might say that the person is in a state of UNselfconscious flow. During their happy state of absorption they don't know that they're happy because they don't think about it. Their housework or artwork is equivalent to how little children play--unencumbered by reflective self-centered thought. A deeper form of samadhi is what athletes call "being in the zone," and those states of unity consciousness are often recognized as profound after they come to an end. There is a mystical quality to them that is kind of mind-blowing. Looking back, people often feel as if some higher power took over during the activity and that time stood still for a while. A tennis player once said of this state, "I disappeared but the game continued without me." Athletes often say that they played far beyond their usual capability, and mountain climbers often say that they were mystified by what they saw and felt the body doing in "their" absence. Another deep state of samadhi is what Zen calls "Absolute Samadhi," and it is what Advaita sages call "nirvikalpa Samadhi." During that state there is pure awareness but no world, no thoughts, no perception. Ramana considered sahaja samadhi as the deepest state of unity because it is not transient, and because it can only occur after SR/TR. It is a flow of being, but there are no bells or whistles associated with it. It is everyday life lived without attachment to ideation and without the sense that there is a separate person doing anything. It is summed up by the phrase "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." Flowers bloom in the Spring, and leaves fall in the Fall. A sage does whatever needs to be done, and afterwards does the next thing that needs to be done. Life is lived like a leaf wafted about on the wind. If someone objects to the distinction of samadhi as a pointer to unity-conscious states of mind, that's perfect, too. Some people will find it helpful and informative, and some won't. For those who get interested in the issue, a question may sooner or later arise, "How is it possible to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" Or, "How can the usual sense of selfhood (which prevents the free flow of being) come to an end?" Or, "How is it possible to become enlightened?" All of these questions are pointing to the same thing--total freedom from the spiritual search.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 6, 2016 21:00:21 GMT -5
if I can ever get finished with this last house construction project, maybe I'll do some more writing. I obviously have no idea what will happen next. ha ha. Yes, the only reason that I consider the concept of samadhi somewhat important is because of what it points to and implies. If it is pointed out to them, most people realize that there are periods of time when they get "lost" in some kind of activity. This is what some of us call "a unity-conscious state of mind." The most superficial examples of this are when people get lost in a movie or a football game. A slightly deeper state of Samadhi is what Zen people call "relative samadhi" or "everyday samadhi." Maybe someone gets into doing housework so deeply that reflection stops, or perhaps an artist creates a sculpture or a painting and becomes happily absorbed by the activity. Self reflection and roofbrain chatter stop for a while, and we might say that the person is in a state of UNselfconscious flow. During their happy state of absorption they don't know that they're happy because they don't think about it. Their housework or artwork is equivalent to how little children play--unencumbered by reflective self-centered thought. A deeper form of samadhi is what athletes call "being in the zone," and those states of unity consciousness are often recognized as profound after they come to an end. There is a mystical quality to them that is kind of mind-blowing. Looking back, people often feel as if some higher power took over during the activity and that time stood still for a while. A tennis player once said of this state, "I disappeared but the game continued without me." Athletes often say that they played far beyond their usual capability, and mountain climbers often say that they were mystified by what they saw and felt the body doing in "their" absence. Another deep state of samadhi is what Zen calls "Absolute Samadhi," and it is what Advaita sages call "nirvikalpa Samadhi." During that state there is pure awareness but no world, no thoughts, no perception. Ramana considered sahaja samadhi as the deepest state of unity because it is not transient, and because it can only occur after SR/TR. It is a flow of being, but there are no bells or whistles associated with it. It is everyday life lived without attachment to ideation and without the sense that there is a separate person doing anything. It is summed up by the phrase "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." Flowers bloom in the Spring, and leaves fall in the Fall. A sage does whatever needs to be done, and afterwards does the next thing that needs to be done. Life is lived like a leaf wafted about on the wind. If someone objects to the distinction of samadhi as a pointer to unity-conscious states of mind, that's perfect, too. Some people will find it helpful and informative, and some won't. For those who get interested in the issue, a question may sooner or later arise, "How is it possible to stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" Or, "How can the usual sense of selfhood (which prevents the free flow of being) come to an end?" Or, "How is it possible to become enlightened?" All of these questions are pointing to the same thing-- total freedom from the spiritual search. Total freedom from the spiritual search doesn't mean it must be abandoned, it is the understanding that the spiritual search is not essential or even necessary for clarity.. Genuine curiosity: Nice, but neither difficult nor impossible for beginners.. just drop them in a dark forest at night..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 7, 2016 8:33:56 GMT -5
Tzu: I fully agree that anyone placed in a dark dangerous jungle at night would have no problem remaining highly alert, but most beginning meditators do not encounter such a situation. They find it difficult to maintain such a state of non-reflective high alertness while sitting on a cushion in a safe comfortable environment. I remember when I first tried the shikan taza form of meditation, and it was far more difficult than any other form of meditation I tried at that time. It took me about 4 years of ATA and breath awareness practices before I could do shikan taza for more than a few moments at a time. I had a hyperactive mind (that's an understatement) when I first started meditating, and it took a while before it quieted down sufficiently to enable this kind of concentrated attentiveness. Other people's mileage may vary.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 7, 2016 11:50:22 GMT -5
Finally, just a note on zazen. The word "zazen" is used in a general sense to describe any form of sitting meditation (mantra recitation, breath awareness, breath counting, pure listening, etc), but Zen people use the word specifically to refer to the practice of shika taza. Shikan taza is the practice of extreme alert attentiveness without any specific focus. It's equivalent to sitting in a dark forest at night surrounded by potentially dangerous animals and staying in a heightened sense of alertness. It is a difficult, if not impossible, activity for beginning meditators. This is what Albert Low calls, "Arousing the mind without resting it on anything". He says it's easy to arouse the mind. It said it's easy for the mind not to rest on anything. But difficult to have both simultaneously, to arouse the mind without resting it on anything. He mentions this rather often in his books, specifically in The Iron Cow of Zen, pages 198,199 edit, added: "The Japanese word shikan-taza can be translated as "just sitting". Some teachers of Zen prescribe this practice for anyone. However, shikan-taza is pure contemplation and is, for those who have not spent a number of years practicing, far too difficult. Most people who think they are practicing shikan-taza are sitting in a state which they are simply aware of their own reflected consciousness. Even though this consciousness may be reflected by nothing in particular, nevertheless such practice is by and large a useless kind of exercise and can have no value. Contemplation is without a center and is therefore not concentration (defined earlier, note sdp), although it has all the intensity of concentration. It has no thought and so is not meditation (also defined earlier, note sdp), although it has all the flexibility and ease of meditation. Clear attention, simple awareness without reflection, is knowing without a subject who knows, nor object that is known. As such it is "an aroused mind that rests on nothing". What must be emphasized, however, is that this aroused mind is only present in glimpses or flashes, not as a constant state. A French writer on Zen Buddhism [The Supreme Doctrine, also named Zen and the Psychology of Transformation, the most accessible translation in The Life of Zen in the West translation by Graham Rooth] Hubert Benoit refers to it as an "inner glance". (note sdp, Charlotte Joko Beck said she learned more from Benoit's book than from any teacher. Also note that Albert Low translated another work by Benoit, Let Go! Theory & Practice of Detachment According to Zen, 1954, 1962, 1973 [the Low translation], 1977 reprint). ...Described in words, such a state seems remote and difficult to attain--perhaps even inaccessible. The difficult arises in the first place because what is being described is so intimate, so ever present, that it is constantly overlooked; in the second place, true contemplation is upstream of all thoughts, ideas and words, and can be alluded to only at best'. ...pages 52,53, An Invitation to Practice Zen, Albert Low, 1989
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 7, 2016 13:57:45 GMT -5
At the back of The World A Gateway, Commentaries on the Mumonkan, 1995, Albert Low gives an account of his awakening, I wanted to share part. About twenty pages of the account leads up to the following, Low is talking with his Roshi, he is asking about what had happened the previous hours. Roshi asked some questions about the koan Mu. ....first question didn't make sense. ...he asked another question. he tried a third time, and I felt a restlessness stir in me. I stood up and walked away from him. The question suddenly went deep and an eruption, a volcano, roared up from the hara, I yelled at the top of my voice, "This is Mu! Mu! Mu! Mu!" and danced and jigged and jumped up and down, pounded the floor with my fists, and flung myself on the ground. I was yelling and laughing. "This is Mu! Lovely Mu! By God, this is Mu! This is Mu! This is Mu! Mu! Mu!" The paroxysm spent itself at last and my teacher, as compassionate as ever, said, "Yes, indeed, you have seen into Mu." pages 304, 305 ..... ..... Low comments further: "After leaving the Roshi....I was exhausted but could not sleep so great was my joy. .....A veritable explosion had occurred, but debris remains. Old habits, mind states, reactions are there. Irritations, anxiety, ambitions. But they have lost their grip. Old enemies rise up, crumble, and turn to dust, and that tyrant the old dead king is broken, he need be fed no longer. It is as though something that was formerly tightly anchored is now adrift. .....like a sick man who has passed the crisis, he is getting well, he knows he is getting well, but he is still weak, and much work is yet necessary. The practice has also changed. It has become deep and smooth, it is no longer something apart". pg 305
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 7, 2016 20:45:58 GMT -5
Beware of such accounts of mystical experiences. They are interesting and exciting and wrongly give the reader something to aspire to and look forward to in their own practice. Everyone likes out of the ordinary experiences, but what he was describing is not self realization, which is very quiet and very ordinary. He clearly wasn't finished as he says so himself.
|
|