|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:17:34 GMT -5
There were some conversations about practices and how they are ultimately flawed in that they're often aimed at improving the 'self'. Sometimes they are, but that's not the only reason. Any practice that encourages a split mind, like trying to control thoughts, is inherently flawed and self deceptive. They also may reinforce, not only the notion of a separate self, but also the volition of that separate self. Practices also imply a future goal, denying the actuality that what is being sought is that which is seeking. This immediacy is tangential to that goal oriented process. The premise seems to be that we need to make ourselves relatively happy before we can be in a position to see that the goal isn't happiness but 'no-self'. The justification for this statement is a vague idea that an unhappy person cannot be "the life of no-self". What does that even mean? I thought that it was common knowledge that great suffering is the most common precursor to self realization. I see no advantage in becoming a happy person first. On the contrary, setting aside for now the fact that the 'happy person' goal cannot be accomplished in any stable way, happiness removes the motivation to look and to see and to surrender. However, I do see an advantage in mental stability and clarity. This essentially means becoming conscious. To the extent that any practice can help bring that about, I'm all for it.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:20:01 GMT -5
Sorry Charlotte/Quinn, but Realization and TPTPAU are unconditional. Who realizes, Reefs? What is it that gets realized? What point are you trying to make?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:26:26 GMT -5
There were some conversations about practices and how they are ultimately flawed in that they're often aimed at improving the 'self'. I've been sitting with that awhile - something seemed off to me, even though I see some wisdom in it. Then I re-read something and it's directly related. I'm passing it on: from "Everyday Zen" by Charlotte Joko Beck "We are always trying to move our lives from unhappiness to happiness. Or we might say that we wish to move from a life of struggle to a life of joy. But these are not the same: moving from unhappiness to happiness is not the same as moving from struggle to joy. Some therapies seek to move us from an unhappy self to a happy self. But Zen practice (and perhaps a few other disciplines or therapies) can help us to move from an unhappy self to no-self, which is joy... For the vast majority of us, however, practice has to proceed in an orderly fashion, in a relentless dissolution of self. And the first step we must take is to move from unhappiness to happiness. Why? Because there is absolutely no way in which an unhappy person - a person disturbed by herself or himself, by others, by situations - can be the life of no-self... ...we must have some degree of relative happiness and stability to engage in serious practice. Then we can attempt the next stage: an intelligent, persistent filtering of the various characteristics of mind and body through zazen. We begin to see our patterns: we begin to see our desires, our needs, our ego drives, and we begin to realize that these patterns, these desires, these addictions are what we call the self. As our practice continues and we begin to understand the emptiness and impermanence of these patterns, we find we can abandon them. We don't have to try to abandon them, they just slowly wither away... We learn in our guts, not just in our brains, that a life of joy is not in seeking happiness, but in experiencing and simply being the circumstances of our life as they are; not in fulfilling the needs of life; not in avoiding pain, but in being pain when it is necessary to do so. To large an order? Too hard? On the contrary, it is the easy way." You do realize that in order to offer any disagreement one has to literally step up as a killjoy? For me, sitting meditation is something that appears to have happened after the fact, but that's just one more B.S. story. While I support, applaud, understand and value the process that Charlotte describes, the the state of being isn't something that need be cultivated. This places what one is beyond the reach of the unhappy. This sets up an elite. This makes simply being a sort of accomplishment.It also implies that happiness leads to surrender and struggle does not.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:28:55 GMT -5
Now don't get fresh with me! Heehee. Until this magical unconditional Realization thingy, there must be something that gets realized. Mind? The sense of self? Certainly not life, certainly not awareness. And don't dismiss this with the using-logic-dismissal. Why must there be something that get's realized?
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 31, 2013 13:30:45 GMT -5
I do, if simply being is considered a practice. Definitions are rather fuzzy around here, though, and I, myself, don't consider it a practice. Do you consider the opposite of beingness to be 'lost in mind'? If that's an ok definition...then how does one not be lost in mind? No, actually - how do you keep from becoming lost in mind? Of course, I can only speak from my own experience, but once one gets in touch with What One is, and realizes that What One is is What IS, then being is not lost. Being 'lost in mind', as it has been called, to me is only something that can happen to those who've never been in touch with What They are (like my devout Roman Catholic friends, who insist that they know 'the truth', and argue strongly the details of that truth). I don't consider anyone here being 'lost in mind', because I've read enough of everyone who has posted here to consider all as having gotten in touch with their being, at some point, else they wouldn't likely be here (Q might be an exception to that, though). As far as how one 'lost in mind' finds freedom, for me, such involves a sort of death of the self--surrender, etc.--in order to get in touch with What One is. How that happens may or may not include a practice, as others here have suggested.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:34:51 GMT -5
You do realize that in order to offer any disagreement one has to literally step up as a killjoy? Killjoy away. Of course it does. Only if you attach a sense of self to it. No one is locked into unhappiness, so it's never out of reach to gain some peace and equanimity (or happiness). All she's saying is that in order to see what's going on in mind, and realize the nature of self, one can't be mired in unhappiness. Akin to learning how to walk before you take on a marathon.That would be true if realizing the self were a personal accomplishment.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 31, 2013 13:37:04 GMT -5
Do you have a practice, B? Just BE. F*ckin' A!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:39:35 GMT -5
I do, if simply being is considered a practice. Definitions are rather fuzzy around here, though, and I, myself, don't consider it a practice. Do you consider the opposite of beingness to be 'lost in mind'? If that's an ok definition...then how does one not be lost in mind? No, actually - how do you keep from becoming lost in mind? Mind asks how mind can avoid being lost in mind. I suggest mind will have to see through that mind game, and then see through all mind games.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Dec 31, 2013 13:51:20 GMT -5
... well you see I'd much rather not, but Charlotte's wrapped her ideas in the word. Well here we'll just have to agree to disagree because what I'm referring to as being is the ultimate commonality, what might be said to be at our root, at our core. It's always there, and even for the most unhappy among us, always right under our very noses. Only if you attach a sense of self to it. Uh ... yeah, I'm not the one who suggested that ... Charlotte's words set that context, not mine. No one is locked into unhappiness, so it's never out of reach to gain some peace and equanimity (or happiness). All she's saying is that in order to see what's going on in mind, and realize the nature of self, one can't be mired in unhappiness. Akin to learning how to walk before you take on a marathon. I support, applaud, understand and value the process that Charlotte describes ... but I disagree with the assertion that one must first become happy in order to, as she has said "move from an unhappy self to no-self". All roads lead to Rome but there's many more than one. What person is ever truly happy? How can happiness be anything permanent? Yes, if one actually could become a happy self, the job would be done. Mission accomplished. To hell with 'no-self'. One would be in Andrewism 5th dimension bliss.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 31, 2013 13:56:44 GMT -5
There were some conversations about practices and how they are ultimately flawed in that they're often aimed at improving the 'self'. Sometimes they are, but that's not the only reason. Any practice that encourages a split mind, like trying to control thoughts, is inherently flawed and self deceptive. They also may reinforce, not only the notion of a separate self, but also the volition of that separate self. Practices also imply a future goal, denying the actuality that what is being sought is that which is seeking. This immediacy is tangential to that goal oriented process. Very clear. Thank you. Is that a redundant question or are you really asking? I thought it was common knowledge that this can happen, but is actually very rare. What may be more common is deep suffering can crack things open so that there is a glimmer that all is not as it seems. What is most common is suicide, addiction and misery. Yes, although mental stability is usually absent in deep suffering.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 31, 2013 14:04:16 GMT -5
Who realizes, Reefs? What is it that gets realized? What point are you trying to make? The point is this: This is a write-up about meditation quieting mind so that one is able to see what this self business is all about. The context is individual, personal, and speaking to someone where they are. The response, "Realization is unconditional" is speaking outside of that context. It would be like me saying, "Would you like half my apple?" and you saying "It's all one." Heh heh.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 31, 2013 14:06:11 GMT -5
It also implies that happiness leads to surrender and struggle does not. If that's what you read, you missed the point. I don't think that's implied at all.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 31, 2013 14:16:56 GMT -5
Do you consider the opposite of beingness to be 'lost in mind'? If that's an ok definition...then how does one not be lost in mind? No, actually - how do you keep from becoming lost in mind? Mind asks how mind can avoid being lost in mind. I suggest mind will have to see through that mind game, and then see through all mind games. I was asking B about his personal and unique view of beingness. If there are any games going on, it would be for B to see (or not) before you go about dismissing the inquiry.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Dec 31, 2013 14:19:03 GMT -5
Mind asks how mind can avoid being lost in mind. I suggest mind will have to see through that mind game, and then see through all mind games. I was asking B about his personal and unique view of beingness. If there are any games going on, it would be for B to see (or not) before you go about dismissing the inquiry. Oh, and btw, I don't consider anything the opposite of beingness. It's sorta ... well, all there is. Kinda like that consciousness stuff.
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Dec 31, 2013 14:23:01 GMT -5
I was asking B about his personal and unique view of beingness. If there are any games going on, it would be for B to see (or not) before you go about dismissing the inquiry. Oh, and btw, I don't consider anything the opposite of beingness. It's sorta ... well, all there is. Kinda like that consciousness stuff. Oh. Terminology is a bear - heh heh. That's what I'd refer to as awareness. Beingness to me is more like a natural human state, without all the (as ZD put it) blah blah blah.
|
|