|
Post by tzujanli on May 1, 2014 5:59:52 GMT -5
Brain is the hardware, the machinery.. mind is the software, organizing information into useful data.. 'you' are the programmer that refines the software to remove anomalies that distort the input/information/sensing, the programmer whose software/mind is its portal to its existence.. awareness is the sensing array.. do you see this that I see about me alive is Nature in all its glory, machinery needs attention. Yes.. alive is an organic happening.. machinery is analogy.. mind does need attention, though, it has a tendency toward imagining its imaginings to to be what is happening..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 6:47:12 GMT -5
do you see this that I see about me alive is Nature in all its glory, machinery needs attention. Yes.. alive is an organic happening.. machinery is analogy.. mind does need attention, though, it has a tendency toward imagining its imaginings to to be what is happening.. Attachment to thought is belief. Allowing the mind to run free it returns to rest in Self. Mind is thought reality. No thought, no mind to speak of. Ripe fruit is sweetest.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 6:56:38 GMT -5
What is non-duality? zero mind and the embodiment of common sense.
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 1, 2014 7:05:15 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. Yeah Something I never got around to talking about, was during that period where I was doing the practices that allow one to bring awareness into sleep, some odd progressions happened sometimes....there were not only periods where the mind/body was asleep while a sense of omnipresence remained...there were also these kind of in between periods, where the body was fully asleep, but the mind was still active, now thats a very odd sensation btw....the body actually changes quite a bit while its sleeping, different physical processes occur. In any case, mind seems to cover more territory than we typically define it to....if mind can be present while the body is actually sleeping, I mean really sleeping, then some aspect of mind can be active during deep sleep and Samadhi....maybe its a part of the autonomic system, you know, how the nervous system keeps things like the heart running, and smooth muscle contractions in the intestines etc...with no conscious input needed. Just passing another car on the highway takes a pretty huge amount of computational engagement, but we do it on autopilot...so there is probably a lot that happens in that intersection between the physical brain and the ephemeral action of mind. hmmm...***Realization Alert***....it may be that the whole purpose of the mind being tied to a brain in this incarnation is to create a mechanism for 'continuation' of a particular pattern of a lifetime. The brain is a mechanism created in omnipresence to continue a pattern or a trajectory of mind when its been quiescent....something like that....I can see it clearly but it may take a few tries to spit this out conceptually The brain is designed to keep a pattern going for a bit, but its also flexible, what neuroscientists call neuro plasticity, so it can keep patterns going, but not so rigidly that it a complete prison. This allows for a kind of loose order to omni-presence's self exploration, and allows 'themes' and scenarios of creation to be explored more deeply and richly. This also explains why functions in the brain like nuero peptides and nuero peptide receptors whose sole function seems to be to create habits is so prevalent in the brain. But then, why does the mind ever need to be quiescent or dormant as in deep sleep at all? Why build that into the system? Surely it's not a design flaw... Maybe its part of a built in two way feed back loop, wherein those still silent periods of deep sleep set at such a regular intervals is the means by which omnipresence is informed by these billions of little "human lifetime" semi-autopilot patterns, and Samadhi is a flow in the opposite direction, wherein omnipresence in-forms this little life scenario mind/brain/pattern continuation doohickey via a kind of deep self awareness. Okay Topology, please feel to weigh in here on this one, we are kinda touching up against some of the stuff you are working on your PHd for... Brain as a mechanism with a limited shelf life that is designed to keep a loose and general pattern of mind in a mode of continuation within a more spacious or less spacious set of parameters for long enough for this particular life scenario to be adequately explored. Empty, Since you are appealing to my formal education, I cannot comment on the topic at hand with any authority. My PhD is in computer science, not neuro science. I can weigh in with the authority of formal education on mathematics, logic, computation, formal languages, and intelligence. Everything past what you label as a "realization", I'm not going to touch with a ten foot pole. Its more of a speculation over processes you clearly do not understand (neither do I). But on the subject of passing a car.... its amazing what what mathematical networks can do. The brain has enough neural matter to have a specialized neural network per task learned. But I don't claim to know anything detailed about how the brain is actually organized.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 1, 2014 8:01:56 GMT -5
Zazen is both a means to an end, as well as an end in itself. Like ATA-MT and other meditative practices, for many people it cuts through the dualistic perspective, allows one to see into one's true nature, helps one understand what is imaginary versus what is not imaginary, frees one from deeply held beliefs and ideas, shifts one's primary focus to what is happening NOW--to being present--, and it may ultimately lead to Self-realization.Zazen can take the form of breath counting, watching the breath, following the breath, being the breath, looking with or without focus, listening with or without focus, contemplating a koan, etc. After sufficient practice and a reasonable amount of mental silence has been attained, many adepts are told about shikan taza, which is considered the purest form of zazen. Shikan taza is the activity of sitting in a state of highly-alert attention with no focus at all. There are dozens of other purposes that someone might pursue zazen, including deep relaxation, finding the solution to a problem that is not obvious to the intellect, silence for its own sake, silence for the sake of balancing out a day of frenetic mental activity, etc. Zazen has been compared to the "clear button" on a calculator, and samadhi has been compared to the "off" button. It can also act to stimulate creativity. Yes, it's the idea in the mind that it may ultimately lead to Self-realization that I don't understand. Steve Hagen asks "Can we with sheer and simple honesty, look at this little festering idea in our minds". What does he mean by festering idea and is this something that you have already dealt with in your own mind ZD? This "festering idea" is what lies at the core of the spiritual search. There are many other ideas that may collapse on this path, but the festering idea of "me" is usually the last one to go. The seeker's basic question is, "How can I get enlightened?" or "How can I attain unity with God?" or "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" The basic answer is, "Who you THINK you are can't." The reason you can't is because the "you" that is seeking anything is imaginary. It is a figment of imagination. I call it "a thought structure." Asking "How can I get ______________?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" It can never happen except in imagination. Seeing through this basic illusion is what we call "Self-realization," and for many people this is what ends the spiritual search. The seeker realizes that s/he is not a little person inside a body; s/he is the entire cosmos--"what is," itself. The seeker realizes that s/he is already unified with God, and has always been unified with God. Or, the seeker realizes that there was no person who sometimes experienced unity-conscious states of mind and sometimes didn't. In general, the seeker realizes that the seeker was not what was imagined to be the seeker. The seeker realizes that the REAL seeker was the cosmos, itself, manifesting as a particular body mind. How does this realization occur? Well, there are various theories about this. My own theory is that by becoming internally silent and contemplating the issue, or by constantly shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," the self-referential neural pathway is bypassed, eventually atrophies from dis-use, and eventually collapses. However it occurs, the collapse, when it is noticed, is noticed at a particular moment. One moment it feels as if "you" are a person seeking something, and in the next moment it is seen that who you THOUGHT you were has vanished, and only "what is" remains. We say that some teachers "meet the dreamer in the dream," and other teachers "refuse to meet the dreamer in the dream." A teacher who meets the dreamer in the dream generally suggests that there is something the seeker can do to become free of the illusion of selfhood, such as, being still, looking within, doing self inquiry, and pursuing various meditative strategies for interrupting the usual patterns of self-referential thinking. A teacher who refuses the meet the dreamer in the dream, such as Tony Parsons, says, "There is absolutely nothing "you" can do." Each approach seems to be effective with some people. The first approach seems to wind down the habit of self-referential thinking until realization occurs, and the second approach seems to cut through the issue directly. As an aside, I have often wondered what happens afterwards to people who suddenly see through the illusion versus those who see through the illusion after several years of inquiry or practice. IOW, I've wondered if they become free of the mind's shenanigans to the same extent as people who gradually change to a no-mind way of interacting with the world. In light of these comments, consider your question about doing zazen for no purpose versus a purpose. The usual pitfall of all meditative practices, and the reason so many teachers don't like the word "practice" is because it implies that there is someone practicing something to get something, and there isn't. In fact, the act of "checking on one's progress" via a meditative practice, is a pernicious habit that defeats the purposeless purpose of the practice. This is why teachers who meet the dreamer in the dream caution dreamers NOT to check on their progress or even entertain the idea of progress. This is because they know that there is no one who travels from here to there and that the entire idea of a path to realization is an oxymoron. The seeker and the sought for both collapse when it is realized that who one IS needs nothing, and is already complete. As for this body/mind, it was one of those body/minds that had a "hard-core" sense of selfhood. It felt as if there was a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body--a little guy inside the head pulling levers and making things happen. ha ha--just like the little alien in the guy's head in the movie "Men in Black." That illusion collapsed in 1999, and inside and outside ceased to be separate. Becoming free of the illusion of who the body/mind THOUGHT it was ended the spiritual search, and led to an ordinary life free from the compulsion of incessant searching.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 8:22:03 GMT -5
If you know that fundamentally there is nothing to seek you have settled your affairs.
rinzai
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2014 9:51:39 GMT -5
FWIW, awareness as a pointer caught my attention during hyperminding away the old models a few times in the form of stopping the show, and the conceptual structure of mind/consciousness as movement seemed useful for informing mind. I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. that's 'cause it's two ... just like a paradox, which is always the best conclusion the mind can buy with the coin of reasoning: two truths!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 1, 2014 9:53:57 GMT -5
So is it hunting season, or not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 11:10:00 GMT -5
You might be on to something. I think it has a lot to do with not believing in volition or choice. Then how are you getting yourself to not do anything? The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 1, 2014 11:36:54 GMT -5
Then how are you getting yourself to not do anything? The same way I'm getting myself to post this reply. Good response!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 11:38:29 GMT -5
Yes, it's the idea in the mind that it may ultimately lead to Self-realization that I don't understand. Steve Hagen asks "Can we with sheer and simple honesty, look at this little festering idea in our minds". What does he mean by festering idea and is this something that you have already dealt with in your own mind ZD? This "festering idea" is what lies at the core of the spiritual search. There are many other ideas that may collapse on this path, but the festering idea of "me" is usually the last one to go. The seeker's basic question is, "How can I get enlightened?" or "How can I attain unity with God?" or "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" The basic answer is, "Who you THINK you are can't." The reason you can't is because the "you" that is seeking anything is imaginary. It is a figment of imagination. I call it "a thought structure." Asking "How can I get ______________?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" It can never happen except in imagination. Seeing through this basic illusion is what we call "Self-realization," and for many people this is what ends the spiritual search. The seeker realizes that s/he is not a little person inside a body; s/he is the entire cosmos--"what is," itself. The seeker realizes that s/he is already unified with God, and has always been unified with God. Or, the seeker realizes that there was no person who sometimes experienced unity-conscious states of mind and sometimes didn't. In general, the seeker realizes that the seeker was not what was imagined to be the seeker. The seeker realizes that the REAL seeker was the cosmos, itself, manifesting as a particular body mind. How does this realization occur? Well, there are various theories about this. My own theory is that by becoming internally silent and contemplating the issue, or by constantly shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," the self-referential neural pathway is bypassed, eventually atrophies from dis-use, and eventually collapses. However it occurs, the collapse, when it is noticed, is noticed at a particular moment. One moment it feels as if "you" are a person seeking something, and in the next moment it is seen that who you THOUGHT you were has vanished, and only "what is" remains. We say that some teachers "meet the dreamer in the dream," and other teachers "refuse to meet the dreamer in the dream." A teacher who meets the dreamer in the dream generally suggests that there is something the seeker can do to become free of the illusion of selfhood, such as, being still, looking within, doing self inquiry, and pursuing various meditative strategies for interrupting the usual patterns of self-referential thinking. A teacher who refuses the meet the dreamer in the dream, such as Tony Parsons, says, "There is absolutely nothing "you" can do." Each approach seems to be effective with some people. The first approach seems to wind down the habit of self-referential thinking until realization occurs, and the second approach seems to cut through the issue directly. As an aside, I have often wondered what happens afterwards to people who suddenly see through the illusion versus those who see through the illusion after several years of inquiry or practice. IOW, I've wondered if they become free of the mind's shenanigans to the same extent as people who gradually change to a no-mind way of interacting with the world. In light of these comments, consider your question about doing zazen for no purpose versus a purpose. The usual pitfall of all meditative practices, and the reason so many teachers don't like the word "practice" is because it implies that there is someone practicing something to get something, and there isn't. In fact, the act of "checking on one's progress" via a meditative practice, is a pernicious habit that defeats the purposeless purpose of the practice. This is why teachers who meet the dreamer in the dream caution dreamers NOT to check on their progress or even entertain the idea of progress. This is because they know that there is no one who travels from here to there and that the entire idea of a path to realization is an oxymoron. The seeker and the sought for both collapse when it is realized that who one IS needs nothing, and is already complete. As for this body/mind, it was one of those body/minds that had a "hard-core" sense of selfhood. It felt as if there was a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body--a little guy inside the head pulling levers and making things happen. ha ha--just like the little alien in the guy's head in the movie "Men in Black." That illusion collapsed in 1999, and inside and outside ceased to be separate. Becoming free of the illusion of who the body/mind THOUGHT it was ended the spiritual search, and led to an ordinary life free from the compulsion of incessant searching. That's very clear, thank-you. I still don't understand how an illusion chooses to practice zazen. I keep thinking of a mirage for example. The oasis doesn't choose to grow mango's or banana's. It makes more sense to me to say that zazen practice happend and then as an after thought the mind says 'I chose to practice zazen'. I guess I'm wondering that even though the illusion of separate self has collapsed, if the after thoughts of the mind as a chooser still arise for you?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on May 1, 2014 11:56:29 GMT -5
I don't have a problem with either awareness or consciousness as a pointer, but I have a new problem with the idea of empty awareness perpetually present and consciousness coming and going in that awareness. It doesn't actually seem to be WIBIGO. Yeah Something I never got around to talking about, was during that period where I was doing the practices that allow one to bring awareness into sleep, some odd progressions happened sometimes....there were not only periods where the mind/body was asleep while a sense of omnipresence remained...there were also these kind of in between periods, where the body was fully asleep, but the mind was still active, now thats a very odd sensation btw....the body actually changes quite a bit while its sleeping, different physical processes occur. In any case, mind seems to cover more territory than we typically define it to....if mind can be present while the body is actually sleeping, I mean really sleeping, then some aspect of mind can be active during deep sleep and Samadhi....maybe its a part of the autonomic system, you know, how the nervous system keeps things like the heart running, and smooth muscle contractions in the intestines etc...with no conscious input needed. Just passing another car on the highway takes a pretty huge amount of computational engagement, but we do it on autopilot...so there is probably a lot that happens in that intersection between the physical brain and the ephemeral action of mind. hmmm...***Realization Alert***....it may be that the whole purpose of the mind being tied to a brain in this incarnation is to create a mechanism for 'continuation' of a particular pattern of a lifetime. The brain is a mechanism created in omnipresence to continue a pattern or a trajectory of mind when its been quiescent....something like that....I can see it clearly but it may take a few tries to spit this out conceptually The brain is designed to keep a pattern going for a bit, but its also flexible, what neuroscientists call neuro plasticity, so it can keep patterns going, but not so rigidly that it a complete prison. This allows for a kind of loose order to omni-presence's self exploration, and allows 'themes' and scenarios of creation to be explored more deeply and richly. This also explains why functions in the brain like nuero peptides and nuero peptide receptors whose sole function seems to be to create habits is so prevalent in the brain. But then, why does the mind ever need to be quiescent or dormant as in deep sleep at all? Why build that into the system? Surely it's not a design flaw... Maybe its part of a built in two way feed back loop, wherein those still silent periods of deep sleep set at such a regular intervals is the means by which omnipresence is informed by these billions of little "human lifetime" semi-autopilot patterns, and Samadhi is a flow in the opposite direction, wherein omnipresence in-forms this little life scenario mind/brain/pattern continuation doohickey via a kind of deep self awareness. Okay Topology, please feel to weigh in here on this one, we are kinda touching up against some of the stuff you are working on your PHd for... Brain as a mechanism with a limited shelf life that is designed to keep a loose and general pattern of mind in a mode of continuation within a more spacious or less spacious set of parameters for long enough for this particular life scenario to be adequately explored. I see brain as 'dream stuff'; an expression of consciousness rather than a tool to help consciousness function as it does, so I talk about consciousness interacting with it's own dreamscape, and nothing else involved. Consciousness as the source, and everything else as a movement of consciousness. Consciousness interacting with it's own movement. If a desire arises to express some function, then it is simply expressed. Continuity is maintained, or a 'deep sleep' break is taken from the intensity and struggle of the experience, or fun mind states are formed, or whatever.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 1, 2014 12:36:44 GMT -5
Yeah Something I never got around to talking about, was during that period where I was doing the practices that allow one to bring awareness into sleep, some odd progressions happened sometimes....there were not only periods where the mind/body was asleep while a sense of omnipresence remained...there were also these kind of in between periods, where the body was fully asleep, but the mind was still active, now thats a very odd sensation btw....the body actually changes quite a bit while its sleeping, different physical processes occur. In any case, mind seems to cover more territory than we typically define it to....if mind can be present while the body is actually sleeping, I mean really sleeping, then some aspect of mind can be active during deep sleep and Samadhi....maybe its a part of the autonomic system, you know, how the nervous system keeps things like the heart running, and smooth muscle contractions in the intestines etc...with no conscious input needed. Just passing another car on the highway takes a pretty huge amount of computational engagement, but we do it on autopilot...so there is probably a lot that happens in that intersection between the physical brain and the ephemeral action of mind. hmmm...***Realization Alert***....it may be that the whole purpose of the mind being tied to a brain in this incarnation is to create a mechanism for 'continuation' of a particular pattern of a lifetime. The brain is a mechanism created in omnipresence to continue a pattern or a trajectory of mind when its been quiescent....something like that....I can see it clearly but it may take a few tries to spit this out conceptually The brain is designed to keep a pattern going for a bit, but its also flexible, what neuroscientists call neuro plasticity, so it can keep patterns going, but not so rigidly that it a complete prison. This allows for a kind of loose order to omni-presence's self exploration, and allows 'themes' and scenarios of creation to be explored more deeply and richly. This also explains why functions in the brain like nuero peptides and nuero peptide receptors whose sole function seems to be to create habits is so prevalent in the brain. But then, why does the mind ever need to be quiescent or dormant as in deep sleep at all? Why build that into the system? Surely it's not a design flaw... Maybe its part of a built in two way feed back loop, wherein those still silent periods of deep sleep set at such a regular intervals is the means by which omnipresence is informed by these billions of little "human lifetime" semi-autopilot patterns, and Samadhi is a flow in the opposite direction, wherein omnipresence in-forms this little life scenario mind/brain/pattern continuation doohickey via a kind of deep self awareness. Okay Topology, please feel to weigh in here on this one, we are kinda touching up against some of the stuff you are working on your PHd for... Brain as a mechanism with a limited shelf life that is designed to keep a loose and general pattern of mind in a mode of continuation within a more spacious or less spacious set of parameters for long enough for this particular life scenario to be adequately explored. I see brain as 'dream stuff'; an expression of consciousness rather than a tool to help consciousness function as it does, so I talk about consciousness interacting with it's own dreamscape, and nothing else involved. Consciousness as the source, and everything else as a movement of consciousness. Consciousness interacting with it's own movement. If a desire arises to express some function, then it is simply expressed. Continuity is maintained, or a 'deep sleep' break is taken from the intensity and struggle of the experience, or fun mind states are formed, or whatever. I've been trying to wrap my head around some of Metzinger's ideas about this. His point, AIUI, is that basically what consciousness is, is virtual reality. Mind is the VR landscape, everything in it. The experience of this VR is consciousness. This VR is created to help navigate and survive in the world, which is fundamentally just energy waves. So 'the brain' is just energy waves too like this keyboard. They are represented in the VR as distinct objects which helps with surviving, etc. The big controversial point (not a big deal here) is that ego is also unreal, just another thingy created in VR to help with different things, but it's not really there, not even as energy waves. It's one neuroscience/philosophy of mind theory. But I've probably butchered it.
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 1, 2014 14:34:18 GMT -5
This "festering idea" is what lies at the core of the spiritual search. There are many other ideas that may collapse on this path, but the festering idea of "me" is usually the last one to go. The seeker's basic question is, "How can I get enlightened?" or "How can I attain unity with God?" or "How can I stay in a unity-conscious state of mind all the time?" The basic answer is, "Who you THINK you are can't." The reason you can't is because the "you" that is seeking anything is imaginary. It is a figment of imagination. I call it "a thought structure." Asking "How can I get ______________?" is like asking, "How can an imaginary person climb Mt. Everest?" It can never happen except in imagination. Seeing through this basic illusion is what we call "Self-realization," and for many people this is what ends the spiritual search. The seeker realizes that s/he is not a little person inside a body; s/he is the entire cosmos--"what is," itself. The seeker realizes that s/he is already unified with God, and has always been unified with God. Or, the seeker realizes that there was no person who sometimes experienced unity-conscious states of mind and sometimes didn't. In general, the seeker realizes that the seeker was not what was imagined to be the seeker. The seeker realizes that the REAL seeker was the cosmos, itself, manifesting as a particular body mind. How does this realization occur? Well, there are various theories about this. My own theory is that by becoming internally silent and contemplating the issue, or by constantly shifting attention away from thoughts to "what is," the self-referential neural pathway is bypassed, eventually atrophies from dis-use, and eventually collapses. However it occurs, the collapse, when it is noticed, is noticed at a particular moment. One moment it feels as if "you" are a person seeking something, and in the next moment it is seen that who you THOUGHT you were has vanished, and only "what is" remains. We say that some teachers "meet the dreamer in the dream," and other teachers "refuse to meet the dreamer in the dream." A teacher who meets the dreamer in the dream generally suggests that there is something the seeker can do to become free of the illusion of selfhood, such as, being still, looking within, doing self inquiry, and pursuing various meditative strategies for interrupting the usual patterns of self-referential thinking. A teacher who refuses the meet the dreamer in the dream, such as Tony Parsons, says, "There is absolutely nothing "you" can do." Each approach seems to be effective with some people. The first approach seems to wind down the habit of self-referential thinking until realization occurs, and the second approach seems to cut through the issue directly. As an aside, I have often wondered what happens afterwards to people who suddenly see through the illusion versus those who see through the illusion after several years of inquiry or practice. IOW, I've wondered if they become free of the mind's shenanigans to the same extent as people who gradually change to a no-mind way of interacting with the world. In light of these comments, consider your question about doing zazen for no purpose versus a purpose. The usual pitfall of all meditative practices, and the reason so many teachers don't like the word "practice" is because it implies that there is someone practicing something to get something, and there isn't. In fact, the act of "checking on one's progress" via a meditative practice, is a pernicious habit that defeats the purposeless purpose of the practice. This is why teachers who meet the dreamer in the dream caution dreamers NOT to check on their progress or even entertain the idea of progress. This is because they know that there is no one who travels from here to there and that the entire idea of a path to realization is an oxymoron. The seeker and the sought for both collapse when it is realized that who one IS needs nothing, and is already complete. As for this body/mind, it was one of those body/minds that had a "hard-core" sense of selfhood. It felt as if there was a little person inside the body looking at a world outside the body--a little guy inside the head pulling levers and making things happen. ha ha--just like the little alien in the guy's head in the movie "Men in Black." That illusion collapsed in 1999, and inside and outside ceased to be separate. Becoming free of the illusion of who the body/mind THOUGHT it was ended the spiritual search, and led to an ordinary life free from the compulsion of incessant searching. That's very clear, thank-you. I still don't understand how an illusion chooses to practice zazen. I keep thinking of a mirage for example. The oasis doesn't choose to grow mango's or banana's. It makes more sense to me to say that zazen practice happend and then as an after thought the mind says 'I chose to practice zazen'. I guess I'm wondering that even though the illusion of separate self has collapsed, if the after thoughts of the mind as a chooser still arise for you? The same way an addict chooses to shoot up with some heroine. After realization there is a different perspective on what "choice" is and whether or not there is free will. Linguistically we'll still use the word choice as a product of a decision procedure, weighing options, balancing tensions, optimizing goals, etc. etc. That's what most people think is free will and exercising choice. But if you look closely at the process, its really not directed by you anyway. You can watch it all happen on its own. I "chose" to write this post. What that means was that something in this body-mind triggered with the sensation of something to contribute and other aspect of the body mind may have had to reschedule tasks to accommodate the emerging impulse. Its more convenient to go with the fallacious statement saying I chose to write the post than to be 100% accurate with linguistic description. (It also makes the other meat sacks look at you funny if you try to talk differently than they do.) If you were to really go through all your language and concept usage and completely weed out anything that suggested having active responsibility and causation, then you would be forced into a completely passive voice and passive relationship. Life doesn't want to be passive. If the use of language and having the proper characterization is something you're adamant about, that might be a place to look for attachment and identification with the mind.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 1, 2014 16:41:03 GMT -5
That's very clear, thank-you. I still don't understand how an illusion chooses to practice zazen. I keep thinking of a mirage for example. The oasis doesn't choose to grow mango's or banana's. It makes more sense to me to say that zazen practice happend and then as an after thought the mind says 'I chose to practice zazen'. I guess I'm wondering that even though the illusion of separate self has collapsed, if the after thoughts of the mind as a chooser still arise for you? The same way an addict chooses to shoot up with some heroine. After realization there is a different perspective on what "choice" is and whether or not there is free will. Linguistically we'll still use the word choice as a product of a decision procedure, weighing options, balancing tensions, optimizing goals, etc. etc. That's what most people think is free will and exercising choice. But if you look closely at the process, its really not directed by you anyway. You can watch it all happen on its own. I "chose" to write this post. What that means was that something in this body-mind triggered with the sensation of something to contribute and other aspect of the body mind may have had to reschedule tasks to accommodate the emerging impulse. Its more convenient to go with the fallacious statement saying I chose to write the post than to be 100% accurate with linguistic description. (It also makes the other meat sacks look at you funny if you try to talk differently than they do.) If you were to really go through all your language and concept usage and completely weed out anything that suggested having active responsibility and causation, then you would be forced into a completely passive voice and passive relationship. Life doesn't want to be passive. If the use of language and having the proper characterization is something you're adamant about, that might be a place to look for attachment and identification with the mind. Top's explanation is correct. I still use the word "I," loosely, but to be more precise I would have to use the words "this body/mind" regarding whatever the body/mind happens to do. Just because there is no hard-core identification with "a little guy in the head pulling levers," a "me," or with the idea of volition, "what is" does what it does. What I AM is "what is," and "what is" does zazen. What DOESN'T do zazen is what is imagined to be a volitional entity limited in time and space. In 1999 I realized that I am this entire unbounded unified process we call "reality" temporarily manifesting and seeing itself through the eyes of a particular organism. Do thoughts of a chooser still arise in the mind? Sure, but like the use of the word "I" it is more a convention of language for purposes of communication than anything else. If an ordinary person should ask me, "Who are you?" I would answer, "Bob." If a sage or Zen Master should ask me, "Who are you?" I would either cover her mouth with my hand, or answer, "I am the one who just asked the question."
|
|