|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 9, 2014 13:45:52 GMT -5
"One day a man of the people said to Zen Master Ikkyu: 'Master, will you please write for me some maxims of the highest wisdom?' Ikkyu immediately took his brush and wrote the word 'Attention'. 'Is that all?' asked the man. 'Will you not add something more?' Ikkyu then wrote twice running: 'Attention, Attention'. 'Well', remarked the man rather irritably, 'I really don't see much depth or subtlety in what you have just written.' Then Ikkyu wrote the same word three times running, 'Attention, Attention, Attention.' Half angered, the man demanded: 'What does the word 'Attention' mean anyway?' And Ikkyu answered gently: 'Attention means Attention.' from The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau
What is this all about? All this is not about conceptual understanding. For most of us our sense of self is what we think, feel and do. There are two ways to live. One way is the way of ordinary life, living through ego, which means living through abstract thought reinforced by emotions and actions. This thread is about pointing to another way of being. Some of you have posted about the tyranny of thinking that will just not stop. You have to be persistent, in the right way.
B Alan Wallace has written an excellent book, The Attention Revolution (2006). He tells you directly that it is about meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, but he makes it very accessible. It's mostly about shamatha, but he says that shamatha is common to many types of meditation, not just Tibetan. "We may believe in free will, but we can hardly be called "free" if we can't direct our own attention. .... In the context of shamatha, mindfulness refers to attending continuously to a familiar object, without forgetfulness or distraction. ...The first stage is called directed attention. The sign of having reached this stage is simply being able to place your mind on your chosen object of meditation for even a second or two. ....Only when we try to direct the attention to a single object for minutes on end does it really become apparent how turbulent and fragmented our attention is". (pages 13,14)
One object of attention is the breath. The key to the description above is "without forgetfulness or distraction". Try it (now or when you finish the OP). How long did it take for a thought to intrude? Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Think of a thought as a horse that wanders by. The key is not to get on the horse and ride off. When you notice a thought has arisen, go back to attention on the breath. That's it. ........On page 15 Wallace notes that in a few weeks of intense practice he could sustain attention for half an hour. Later he notes he could sustain attention for four hours.
But now one might ask, why? Why practice this sustaining of attention? You can tie this to living consciously or unconsciously. We take the practice into life. You have to try this for a while before you come to recognize the value of practice. By a while, I don't mean a few days, probably months. What's simple, is not easy. You have to get a taste of the state this kind of practice will eventually bring versus our ordinary state of mind which is thoughts continually running amuck, dragging you this way and that. If you keep practicing, you will eventually come to value one state over the other. You can come to recognize and know when you are more conscious. When you are functioning on autopilot, you are more unconscious. And you will not know this, that you have been relatively unconscious, until.......well......you'll have to come to understand, the difference.
In Everyday Zen Charlotte Joko Beck says: "All practice aims to increase our ability to be attentive, not just in zazen but in every moment of our life. As we sit we grasp that our conceptual thought process is fantasy; and the more we grasp this the more our ability to pay attention to reality increases". (page 32)
......................
This is what is meant by interior spiritual practice. It has been called not-doing, because it doesn't involve what we normally think of as doing. It is not thinking, not feeling, not acting. "Attention means attention". You may be familiar with the meaning herein, what the words point to, or not. But the question is, how much time is spent in one state or the other? How much time living consciously versus how much time on autopilot. How much time awake versus how much time asleep.
sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2014 15:47:03 GMT -5
"One day a man of the people said to Zen Master Ikkyu: 'Master, will you please write for me some maxims of the highest wisdom?' Ikkyu immediately took his brush and wrote the word 'Attention'. 'Is that all?' asked the man. 'Will you not add something more?' Ikkyu then wrote twice running: 'Attention, Attention'. 'Well', remarked the man rather irritably, 'I really don't see much depth or subtlety in what you have just written.' Then Ikkyu wrote the same word three times running, 'Attention, Attention, Attention.' Half angered, the man demanded: 'What does the word 'Attention' mean anyway?' And Ikkyu answered gently: 'Attention means Attention.' from The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau Great quote 'pilgrim. All this is not about conceptual understanding. But practice results in change, and doesn't conceptual understanding change over time as well? ... and as the prescriptions to practice are ideas, the orientation to those ideas changes along with the transformation that comes with attention. Everyone could tell a tale of practice. Where they are now, how they started, what got them started, what techniques they picked up, changed and dropped along the way. The goals that they had at one time or even the goals that they have now perhaps. Every story would be unique, although the commonalities might be informative, one to another. No story would be wrong. In the broadest possible sense, life, is practice.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 10, 2014 6:24:24 GMT -5
...................... This is what is meant by interior spiritual practice. It has been called not-doing, because it doesn't involve what we normally think of as doing. It is not thinking, not feeling, not acting. "Attention means attention". You may be familiar with the meaning herein, what the words point to, or not. But the question is, how much time is spent in one state or the other? How much time living consciously versus how much time on autopilot. How much time awake versus how much time asleep. sdp Intention for attention.. alert without bias or expectation, genuinely curious about the process happening.. Two brothers, Chen Taiji lineage heirs, whose famous uncle was their teacher were see to often test their skills on each other.. the younger stronger much more disciplined brother trained diligently, four hours a day he trained physically, he read the classics, practiced the arts, and QiGong (Chi Kung), and.. he ridiculed his older brother's aloofness, his lack of discipline, and his inclination for long walks in nature, but.. for all of that the younger brother could not defeat his older brother when they tested their skills.. one day the younger brother hid in the tall grass, laying in wait to ambush his older brother and finally win a contest.. as the older brother passed, the younger attacked and was soundly thrashed with ease.. confused, he lamented, ' i train 8 hours a day, i'm younger and stronger, and you just wander about aimlessly and seldom train, why can't i defeat you.. the older brother said, you aren't paying attention, i never stop training..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 10, 2014 8:28:36 GMT -5
"One day a man of the people said to Zen Master Ikkyu: 'Master, will you please write for me some maxims of the highest wisdom?' Ikkyu immediately took his brush and wrote the word 'Attention'. 'Is that all?' asked the man. 'Will you not add something more?' Ikkyu then wrote twice running: 'Attention, Attention'. 'Well', remarked the man rather irritably, 'I really don't see much depth or subtlety in what you have just written.' Then Ikkyu wrote the same word three times running, 'Attention, Attention, Attention.' Half angered, the man demanded: 'What does the word 'Attention' mean anyway?' And Ikkyu answered gently: 'Attention means Attention.' from The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau What is this all about? All this is not about conceptual understanding. For most of us our sense of self is what we think, feel and do. There are two ways to live. One way is the way of ordinary life, living through ego, which means living through abstract thought reinforced by emotions and actions. This thread is about pointing to another way of being. Some of you have posted about the tyranny of thinking that will just not stop. You have to be persistent, in the right way. B Alan Wallace has written an excellent book, The Attention Revolution (2006). He tells you directly that it is about meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, but he makes it very accessible. It's mostly about shamatha, but he says that shamatha is common to many types of meditation, not just Tibetan. "We may believe in free will, but we can hardly be called "free" if we can't direct our own attention. .... In the context of shamatha, mindfulness refers to attending continuously to a familiar object, without forgetfulness or distraction. ...The first stage is called directed attention. The sign of having reached this stage is simply being able to place your mind on your chosen object of meditation for even a second or two. ....Only when we try to direct the attention to a single object for minutes on end does it really become apparent how turbulent and fragmented our attention is". (pages 13,14) One object of attention is the breath. The key to the description above is " without forgetfulness or distraction". Try it (now or when you finish the OP). How long did it take for a thought to intrude? Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Think of a thought as a horse that wanders by. The key is not to get on the horse and ride off. When you notice a thought has arisen, go back to attention on the breath. That's it. ........On page 15 Wallace notes that in a few weeks of intense practice he could sustain attention for half an hour. Later he notes he could sustain attention for four hours. But now one might ask, why? Why practice this sustaining of attention? You can tie this to living consciously or unconsciously. We take the practice into life. You have to try this for a while before you come to recognize the value of practice. By a while, I don't mean a few days, probably months. What's simple, is not easy. You have to get a taste of the state this kind of practice will eventually bring versus our ordinary state of mind which is thoughts continually running amuck, dragging you this way and that. If you keep practicing, you will eventually come to value one state over the other. You can come to recognize and know when you are more conscious. When you are functioning on autopilot, you are more unconscious. And you will not know this, that you have been relatively unconscious, until.......well......you'll have to come to understand, the difference. In Everyday Zen Charlotte Joko Beck says: "All practice aims to increase our ability to be attentive, not just in zazen but in every moment of our life. As we sit we grasp that our conceptual thought process is fantasy; and the more we grasp this the more our ability to pay attention to reality increases". (page 32) ...................... This is what is meant by interior spiritual practice. It has been called not-doing, because it doesn't involve what we normally think of as doing. It is not thinking, not feeling, not acting. "Attention means attention". You may be familiar with the meaning herein, what the words point to, or not. But the question is, how much time is spent in one state or the other? How much time living consciously versus how much time on autopilot. How much time awake versus how much time asleep. sdp Wallace's comment that after a few weeks of intense practice, he could sustain attention for half an hour struck me as pretty funny. It took me YEARS of practice before I could do that. Ha ha. It takes some people a lot longer to get out of their heads than others. FWIW, this practice thing is usually misunderstood. As long as there is a "someone" who is practicing and trying to stay conscious or be present, the fundamental issue will remain unrealized. The ultimate "goal" is NOT to become conscious or remain present; it is to become free from the idea that there is a "someone" who needs to be conscious or present. In fact, there is not. There is no person doing anything; that is the illusion. Practice simply increases the likelihood that the illusion will be seen through. Most serious practitioners spend a lot of time checking on the state of "their" practice and watching the activity of "their" mind, but as long as there is a "someone" checking on things, real freedom will not be realized. When the "someone" who is trying to stay conscious disappears, then it will no longer matter whether the body/mind is psychologically present or deeply engaged in thought. Directed attention is a good first step, but at some point it must be asked, "Who, or What, is directing the attention?" and "Who, or What, is trying to get free?" In saying this, I'm not denigrating the value of practicing various forms of non-conceptual awareness. That's because when the body/mind becomes substantially free from the tyranny of thought, it becomes more and more likely that the ONLY actor on the stage will discover Itself and all of the imaginary actors will be seen as imaginary. The takeaway? Practice non-conceptual awareness/ATA/breath awareness/attention, etc with as much diligence as possible, but always bear in mind the question, "Who is doing this?"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 10, 2014 9:48:47 GMT -5
"One day a man of the people said to Zen Master Ikkyu: 'Master, will you please write for me some maxims of the highest wisdom?' Ikkyu immediately took his brush and wrote the word 'Attention'. 'Is that all?' asked the man. 'Will you not add something more?' Ikkyu then wrote twice running: 'Attention, Attention'. 'Well', remarked the man rather irritably, 'I really don't see much depth or subtlety in what you have just written.' Then Ikkyu wrote the same word three times running, 'Attention, Attention, Attention.' Half angered, the man demanded: 'What does the word 'Attention' mean anyway?' And Ikkyu answered gently: 'Attention means Attention.' from The Three Pillars of Zen by Philip Kapleau What is this all about? All this is not about conceptual understanding. For most of us our sense of self is what we think, feel and do. There are two ways to live. One way is the way of ordinary life, living through ego, which means living through abstract thought reinforced by emotions and actions. This thread is about pointing to another way of being. Some of you have posted about the tyranny of thinking that will just not stop. You have to be persistent, in the right way. B Alan Wallace has written an excellent book, The Attention Revolution (2006). He tells you directly that it is about meditation in Tibetan Buddhism, but he makes it very accessible. It's mostly about shamatha, but he says that shamatha is common to many types of meditation, not just Tibetan. "We may believe in free will, but we can hardly be called "free" if we can't direct our own attention. .... In the context of shamatha, mindfulness refers to attending continuously to a familiar object, without forgetfulness or distraction. ...The first stage is called directed attention. The sign of having reached this stage is simply being able to place your mind on your chosen object of meditation for even a second or two. ....Only when we try to direct the attention to a single object for minutes on end does it really become apparent how turbulent and fragmented our attention is". (pages 13,14) One object of attention is the breath. The key to the description above is " without forgetfulness or distraction". Try it (now or when you finish the OP). How long did it take for a thought to intrude? Don't worry, it happens to everyone. Think of a thought as a horse that wanders by. The key is not to get on the horse and ride off. When you notice a thought has arisen, go back to attention on the breath. That's it. ........On page 15 Wallace notes that in a few weeks of intense practice he could sustain attention for half an hour. Later he notes he could sustain attention for four hours. But now one might ask, why? Why practice this sustaining of attention? You can tie this to living consciously or unconsciously. We take the practice into life. You have to try this for a while before you come to recognize the value of practice. By a while, I don't mean a few days, probably months. What's simple, is not easy. You have to get a taste of the state this kind of practice will eventually bring versus our ordinary state of mind which is thoughts continually running amuck, dragging you this way and that. If you keep practicing, you will eventually come to value one state over the other. You can come to recognize and know when you are more conscious. When you are functioning on autopilot, you are more unconscious. And you will not know this, that you have been relatively unconscious, until.......well......you'll have to come to understand, the difference. In Everyday Zen Charlotte Joko Beck says: "All practice aims to increase our ability to be attentive, not just in zazen but in every moment of our life. As we sit we grasp that our conceptual thought process is fantasy; and the more we grasp this the more our ability to pay attention to reality increases". (page 32) ...................... This is what is meant by interior spiritual practice. It has been called not-doing, because it doesn't involve what we normally think of as doing. It is not thinking, not feeling, not acting. "Attention means attention". You may be familiar with the meaning herein, what the words point to, or not. But the question is, how much time is spent in one state or the other? How much time living consciously versus how much time on autopilot. How much time awake versus how much time asleep. sdp Wallace's comment that after a few weeks of intense practice, he could sustain attention for half an hour struck me as pretty funny. It took me YEARS of practice before I could do that. Ha ha. It takes some people a lot longer to get out of their heads than others. FWIW, this practice thing is usually misunderstood. As long as there is a "someone" who is practicing and trying to stay conscious or be present, the fundamental issue will remain unrealized. The ultimate "goal" is NOT to become conscious or remain present; it is to become free from the idea that there is a "someone" who needs to be conscious or present. In fact, there is not. There is no person doing anything; that is the illusion. Practice simply increases the likelihood that the illusion will be seen through. Most serious practitioners spend a lot of time checking on the state of "their" practice and watching the activity of "their" mind, but as long as there is a "someone" checking on things, real freedom will not be realized. When the "someone" who is trying to stay conscious disappears, then it will no longer matter whether the body/mind is psychologically present or deeply engaged in thought. Directed attention is a good first step, but at some point it must be asked, "Who, or What, is directing the attention?" and "Who, or What, is trying to get free?" In saying this, I'm not denigrating the value of practicing various forms of non-conceptual awareness. That's because when the body/mind becomes substantially free from the tyranny of thought, it becomes more and more likely that the ONLY actor on the stage will discover Itself and all of the imaginary actors will be seen as imaginary. The takeaway? Practice non-conceptual awareness/ATA/breath awareness/attention, etc with a much diligence as possible, but always bear in mind the question, "Who is doing this?" Hey zd......I highlighted the parts of my posts that directly relate to your main points. I didn't label specifically, results, or take the space to label more specifically *what we take ourselves to be*. When we are functioning through autopilot, that means ego, automatic tape-looping thoughts, "thoughts continually running amuck", as you say, self-referential thinking. That's our normal state, who/what we take ourselves to be. Then I propose another state, reference the underlined. I'm proposing a "door", one side is ego, self-referential thinking, the other side, absence of thinking, period, but that also means absence of ego and all that entails. There is no ego on the other side of the door. It is only slightly curious that you did not understand that that's what I was pointing to, and that every individual will "have to come to understand, the difference", and value one state over the other. All I can say is anybody who wishes to, that anybody who doesn't already live in this state (and that seems to me to be only zd, here, as nobody else here is unflappable, and is a kind of self-test to anyone else), can try this. You can either try it, or not. And as to who is doing this?, that question evaporates........when on the other side of the door, as ego isn't there. sdp
|
|
|
Post by silver on Nov 10, 2014 10:56:22 GMT -5
Wallace's comment that after a few weeks of intense practice, he could sustain attention for half an hour struck me as pretty funny. It took me YEARS of practice before I could do that. Ha ha. It takes some people a lot longer to get out of their heads than others. FWIW, this practice thing is usually misunderstood. As long as there is a "someone" who is practicing and trying to stay conscious or be present, the fundamental issue will remain unrealized. The ultimate "goal" is NOT to become conscious or remain present; it is to become free from the idea that there is a "someone" who needs to be conscious or present. In fact, there is not. There is no person doing anything; that is the illusion. Practice simply increases the likelihood that the illusion will be seen through. Most serious practitioners spend a lot of time checking on the state of "their" practice and watching the activity of "their" mind, but as long as there is a "someone" checking on things, real freedom will not be realized. When the "someone" who is trying to stay conscious disappears, then it will no longer matter whether the body/mind is psychologically present or deeply engaged in thought. Directed attention is a good first step, but at some point it must be asked, "Who, or What, is directing the attention?" and "Who, or What, is trying to get free?" In saying this, I'm not denigrating the value of practicing various forms of non-conceptual awareness. That's because when the body/mind becomes substantially free from the tyranny of thought, it becomes more and more likely that the ONLY actor on the stage will discover Itself and all of the imaginary actors will be seen as imaginary. The takeaway? Practice non-conceptual awareness/ATA/breath awareness/attention, etc with a much diligence as possible, but always bear in mind the question, "Who is doing this?" Hey zd......I highlighted the parts of my posts that directly relate to your main points. I didn't label specifically, results, or take the space to label more specifically *what we take ourselves to be*. When we are functioning through autopilot, that means ego, automatic tape-looping thoughts, "thoughts continually running amuck", as you say, self-referential thinking. That's our normal state, who/what we take ourselves to be. Then I propose another state, reference the underlined. I'm proposing a "door", one side is ego, self-referential thinking, the other side, absence of thinking, period, but that also means absence of ego and all that entails. There is no ego on the other side of the door. It is only slightly curious that you did not understand that that's what I was pointing to, and that every individual will "have to come to understand, the difference", and value one state over the other. All I can say is anybody who wishes to, that anybody who doesn't already live in this state (and that seems to me to be only zd, here, as nobody else here is unflappable, and is a kind of self-test to anyone else), can try this. You can either try it, or not.
And as to who is doing this?, that question evaporates........when on the other side of the door, as ego isn't there.sdp I can appreciate this response.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 10, 2014 11:37:56 GMT -5
The takeaway? Practice non-conceptual awareness/ATA/breath awareness/attention, etc with a much diligence as possible, but always bear in mind the question, "Who is doing this?" Adyashanti more or less recommends the same approach (see his The Basics). A mindfulness consisting basically of radical acceptance combined with an everpresent 'who or what am I.' I've found that practicing effortless meditation ( :Dwhenever I put those last three words together it makes me silently chuckle) in combination with the who/what am I? question to be excellent too. Effortless meditation and mindfulness with radical acceptance are different than ATA-MT though. I've found ATA-MT to be the goto during the day, at any random moment, whereas those two others are better suited to consistent spans of time. Effortless!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 10, 2014 13:06:04 GMT -5
SDP: Sorry if it came off differently, but I wasn't trying to specifically knock anything in your post. In fact, I often make many of the same points. I was simply adding to those points.
It's true that there's no personal self (in the usual sense) on the other side of the door, but there is something there that is not a thing. Some people have called it "One's True Self," Ramana called it "the Self," and other people have called it "THAT," but when It is found, there is a kind of surprising "aha" moment, and it is then realized what the search was all about, and who/what the REAL searcher was and is.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 10, 2014 13:30:06 GMT -5
(** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 11, 2014 6:21:14 GMT -5
SDP: Sorry if it came off differently, but I wasn't trying to specifically knock anything in your post. In fact, I often make many of the same points. I was simply adding to those points. It's true that there's no personal self (in the usual sense) on the other side of the door, but there is something there that is not a thing. Some people have called it "One's True Self," Ramana called it "the Self," and other people have called it "THAT," but when It is found, there is a kind of surprising "aha" moment, and it is then realized what the search was all about, and who/what the REAL searcher was and is. The real searcher, since 'real' seems to add value to a statement, the real searcher is both essence and its individuated manifestation.. without being 'apart from' its wholeness there's nothing to search for, except.. as the wholeness searches for 'what it is' to know its own existence, it becomes the searcher by individuating itself into you/me/we/us/them/Life.. who, in turn, search for their wholeness.. Life is an exploration of what it is to 'be', it is an exploration of possibilities and potential.. and, it requires BOTH Parts AND Whole..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 11, 2014 7:30:05 GMT -5
SDP: Sorry if it came off differently, but I wasn't trying to specifically knock anything in your post. In fact, I often make many of the same points. I was simply adding to those points. It's true that there's no personal self (in the usual sense) on the other side of the door, but there is something there that is not a thing. Some people have called it "One's True Self," Ramana called it "the Self," and other people have called it "THAT," but when It is found, there is a kind of surprising "aha" moment, and it is then realized what the search was all about, and who/what the REAL searcher was and is. The real searcher, since 'real' seems to add value to a statement, the real searcher is both essence and its individuated manifestation.. without being 'apart from' its wholeness there's nothing to search for, except.. as the wholeness searches for 'what it is' to know its own existence, it becomes the searcher by individuating itself into you/me/we/us/them/Life.. who, in turn, search for their wholeness.. Yes, if the individuated perspective knew that it was already whole, and that separation is an illusion generated by thought, there would obviously be no need to search for anything. Equally obvious is the fact that most people do NOT know this. Hence, the search. What's found if the search is successful? Outside my window the clouds have a reddish glow as the first rays of morning sunlight brighten the sky.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 11, 2014 21:22:01 GMT -5
The real searcher, since 'real' seems to add value to a statement, the real searcher is both essence and its individuated manifestation.. without being 'apart from' its wholeness there's nothing to search for, except.. as the wholeness searches for 'what it is' to know its own existence, it becomes the searcher by individuating itself into you/me/we/us/them/Life.. who, in turn, search for their wholeness.. Yes, if the individuated perspective knew that it was already whole, and that separation is an illusion generated by thought, there would obviously be no need to search for anything. Equally obvious is the fact that most people do NOT know this. Hence, the search. What's found if the search is successful? Outside my window the clouds have a reddish glow as the first rays of morning sunlight brighten the sky. Separation is not an illusion, it's actually happening, now.. thought generates a reference/filing system for categorizing memories of experiences, 'separation' describes an experience and is filed/referenced accordingly.. the claim that "separation is an illusion" has no experiencable traits that are self-evident, no traits that are not dependent on the mind's idea about why there might not be separation.. Separation is one aspect of what is happening, wholeness is another.. regardless of how it is described, there are aspects of individuated existence sovereign/unique to the experiencer's unique perspective of existence.. the diversity of that sovereignty is the vehicle through which wholeness experiences its self-awareness, and that same sovereign/separation of unity is the vehicle through which 'you' are seeing the sunrise through 'your' window, and the same sunrise is seen through the eyes of someone else.. it is the interaction of those parts that reveal more the whole happening, more clarity.. The individuated manifestation of the whole knows that it is whole, too.. what it seeks is clarity in the experience of existing, excellence in the relationship of whole seeking part and part seeking whole.. each seeking the other and creating the Cosmos in the process.. ask yourself: who is asking the question, and notice that only 'you' are..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 12, 2014 9:36:42 GMT -5
Yes, if the individuated perspective knew that it was already whole, and that separation is an illusion generated by thought, there would obviously be no need to search for anything. Equally obvious is the fact that most people do NOT know this. Hence, the search. What's found if the search is successful? Outside my window the clouds have a reddish glow as the first rays of morning sunlight brighten the sky. Separation is not an illusion, it's actually happening, now.. thought generates a reference/filing system for categorizing memories of experiences, 'separation' describes an experience and is filed/referenced accordingly.. the claim that "separation is an illusion" has no experiencable traits that are self-evident, no traits that are not dependent on the mind's idea about why there might not be separation.. Separation is one aspect of what is happening, wholeness is another.. regardless of how it is described, there are aspects of individuated existence sovereign/unique to the experiencer's unique perspective of existence.. the diversity of that sovereignty is the vehicle through which wholeness experiences its self-awareness, and that same sovereign/separation of unity is the vehicle through which 'you' are seeing the sunrise through 'your' window, and the same sunrise is seen through the eyes of someone else.. it is the interaction of those parts that reveal more the whole happening, more clarity.. The individuated manifestation of the whole knows that it is whole, too.. what it seeks is clarity in the experience of existing, excellence in the relationship of whole seeking part and part seeking whole.. each seeking the other and creating the Cosmos in the process.. ask yourself: who is asking the question, and notice that only 'you' are.. This is actually quite profound, and is really the crux of my disagreements with E and zd (and others). I don't doubt anyone's experience, I only say there may be further explanation or different explanation. And we have already discussed (in the past on other threads) the purpose of all this, the Cosmos going back 13.7 billion years, 100 billion stars in 100 billion galaxies, the formation of evolving life, and then the formation of consciousness, you and me, from a nondual standpoint, all this is an illusion. Nonduality has no explanation. I will try to put succinctly Tzu's point. If the illusion is seen through, if self is seen to be an illusion, for such a one, don't they still find their way home every day. Why not both? Oneness and individuality.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 12, 2014 10:03:16 GMT -5
Separation is not an illusion, it's actually happening, now.. thought generates a reference/filing system for categorizing memories of experiences, 'separation' describes an experience and is filed/referenced accordingly.. the claim that "separation is an illusion" has no experiencable traits that are self-evident, no traits that are not dependent on the mind's idea about why there might not be separation.. Separation is one aspect of what is happening, wholeness is another.. regardless of how it is described, there are aspects of individuated existence sovereign/unique to the experiencer's unique perspective of existence.. the diversity of that sovereignty is the vehicle through which wholeness experiences its self-awareness, and that same sovereign/separation of unity is the vehicle through which 'you' are seeing the sunrise through 'your' window, and the same sunrise is seen through the eyes of someone else.. it is the interaction of those parts that reveal more the whole happening, more clarity.. The individuated manifestation of the whole knows that it is whole, too.. what it seeks is clarity in the experience of existing, excellence in the relationship of whole seeking part and part seeking whole.. each seeking the other and creating the Cosmos in the process.. ask yourself: who is asking the question, and notice that only 'you' are.. This is actually quite profound, and is really the crux of my disagreements with E and zd (and others). I don't doubt anyone's experience, I only say there may be further explanation or different explanation. And we have already discussed (in the past on other threads) the purpose of all this, the Cosmos going back 13.7 billion years, 100 billion stars in 100 billion galaxies, the formation of evolving life, and then the formation of consciousness, you and me, from a nondual standpoint, all this is an illusion. Nonduality has no explanation. I will try to put succinctly Tzu's point. If the illusion is seen through, if self is seen to be an illusion, for such a one, don't they still find their way home every day. Why not both? Oneness and individuality. What if the Cosmos were one big holodeck?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 12, 2014 10:52:07 GMT -5
Separation is not an illusion, it's actually happening, now.. thought generates a reference/filing system for categorizing memories of experiences, 'separation' describes an experience and is filed/referenced accordingly.. the claim that "separation is an illusion" has no experiencable traits that are self-evident, no traits that are not dependent on the mind's idea about why there might not be separation.. Separation is one aspect of what is happening, wholeness is another.. regardless of how it is described, there are aspects of individuated existence sovereign/unique to the experiencer's unique perspective of existence.. the diversity of that sovereignty is the vehicle through which wholeness experiences its self-awareness, and that same sovereign/separation of unity is the vehicle through which 'you' are seeing the sunrise through 'your' window, and the same sunrise is seen through the eyes of someone else.. it is the interaction of those parts that reveal more the whole happening, more clarity.. The individuated manifestation of the whole knows that it is whole, too.. what it seeks is clarity in the experience of existing, excellence in the relationship of whole seeking part and part seeking whole.. each seeking the other and creating the Cosmos in the process.. ask yourself: who is asking the question, and notice that only 'you' are.. This is actually quite profound, and is really the crux of my disagreements with E and zd (and others). I don't doubt anyone's experience, I only say there may be further explanation or different explanation. And we have already discussed (in the past on other threads) the purpose of all this, the Cosmos going back 13.7 billion years, 100 billion stars in 100 billion galaxies, the formation of evolving life, and then the formation of consciousness, you and me, from a nondual standpoint, all this is an illusion. Nonduality has no explanation. I will try to put succinctly Tzu's point. If the illusion is seen through, if self is seen to be an illusion, for such a one, don't they still find their way home every day. Why not both? Oneness and individuality. Yes, that is the case, but because 99% of people only see one half of the issue (that is a mountain), on this forum most of us, including E and myself, usually emphasize the other half (that is not a mountain). Virtually everyone in the world sees separateness and individuality, and believes that that is the whole story. A few people (more and more each day) have CC experiences or realizations that reveal the unity behind the appearance/cognitive illusion of separateness. However, sages point beyond either of these two perspectives (unity or separateness) because the truth cannot be captured using words. They can only point to what Jesus called "the living truth." For the beginning seeker mountains are mountains. After a CC experience or deep realization, the seeker discovers the unity that underlies appearances. At that point mountains are NOT mountains because there is no separation anywhere, and this can be directly experienced and realized. This insight, alone, can be life-changing. The seeker then sometimes becomes attached to emptiness/unity/oneness, etc. and that's the whole point of the cigarette-man koan. Quite often the seeker lives for several days or weeks in a blissed-out altered state, but sooner or later s/he comes back to "normal." Also, quite commonly, the seeker who has experienced oneness wants to regain that state of oneness after it appears to be lost, not realizing that s/he is ALWAYS in a state of oneness no matter what is happening and no matter what one thinks about his/her past experiences. This is because the seeker still imagines that s/he is a person who has had an experience or realization. S/he has not yet realized that his/her REAL self is the cosmos. IOW, the seeker doesn't yet FEEL unified with the cosmos or doesn't yet UNDERSTAND what's going on. With further seeking come additional realizations, and with luck the realization occurs that can be summarized as "Oh! I am the entire cosmos momentarily manifesting as a human being named 'John/Jane Doe.' The thought structure that supported a sense of John Doe-ness collapses, and the body/mind finally sees and understands what's going on. At this point mountains once again become mountains, and there is freedom from both the idea of oneness or the idea of separateness. This realization, which Zen people call "satori," ends the spiritual search for most people. However, further deepening is possible, and there is no end to what we might call "the path of Self-discovery." The seeker who goes far enough becomes free of the mind and what we might call "hard-core self-referentiality," and his/her psychological state cannot then be imagined; it can only be lived and experienced directly. This is why all sages say, "Go see for yourself; no one can give this to you." All a sage can do is repeat, "Attention, attention, attention; look, notice, contemplate, ATA, meditate, be. The cosmos is not what you think it is." The cosmos cannot be understood with the intellect, but if one goes far enough, that ceases to be important. One becomes psychologically at one with "what is," and allows the mind to function freely. It is like discovering that God has taken care of everything, and all one has to do is live life however it happens to unfold. One realizes that s/he has always been here and will always be here, and that there is nowhere else but here. This is what Jesus meant when he said, "I am before Abraham was." One loses all fear of death because it is seen and known that who one IS is infinite. The human body is like a rental car, but the driver of every rental car is the same One. The Hindu myth about life being a form of hide and seek played by God is as good a myth as any for pointing to kinda sorta what's going on. So, to summarize, unity and separateness are two sides of the same coin, but sages point to how life can be lived free from either perspective and free from all of the other ideas that dominate most people's thinking. Some of us, like E. and myself, primarily write about oneness because that's the side of the coin most people are unfamiliar with. Tzu writes about separateness because he appears to think that people need to be saved from the oneness perspective--ha ha. The truth is beyond either perspective, but it can only be lived.
|
|