|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2014 15:17:56 GMT -5
That's good then, relatively speaking. I guess I'm such a literal type, this talk is often alarming to me 'cuz I don't quite know what's going on -- plus, it's pretty much impossible for me to even imagine dying in a psychological sense. Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Thanks for the explanation...I smile because I'm thinking 'I knew that!' I think a big lot of the trouble for me, grasping these ideas is having them explained in a relaxed atmosphere.
|
|
|
Post by figgles on Dec 6, 2014 16:23:17 GMT -5
Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Thanks for the explanation...I smile because I'm thinking 'I knew that!' I think a big lot of the trouble for me, grasping these ideas is having them explained in a relaxed atmosphere.
Yeah no doubt, and ZD in particular has a way of invoking that...a relaxed atmosphere kind of surrounds & follows him, I'd say....and as he shows above, he's real good at simplifying things. What I often have a beef with where non-duality is concerned are the Fancy (and thereby, often outright confusing) phrases and terms that often get tossed about like "there is no person, you psychologically die every day, the one who seeks enlightenment does not become enlightened," yada, yada..I'm sure you could add to the list... When really, if it could just be explained in the very clear way ZD has described it above, (the description about getting lost in an activity, is a good example) the mystery for many would be removed and thus, the light bulb would go on, as it just did there for you. It almost seems as though flowery language is favored by some for the very purpose of lending a greater sense of mystery..almost as though they want those who are seeking self realization to see it as being something unattainable and far beyond their present understanding.....like a way to preserve the 'specialness' and to reinforce the idea that seeing through identity is a rare and difficult thing.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 6, 2014 16:28:07 GMT -5
Thanks for the explanation...I smile because I'm thinking 'I knew that!' I think a big lot of the trouble for me, grasping these ideas is having them explained in a relaxed atmosphere.
Yeah no doubt, and ZD in particular has a way of invoking that...a relaxed atmosphere kind of surrounds & follows him, I'd say....and as he shows above, he's real good at simplifying things. What I often have a beef with where non-duality is concerned are the Fancy (and thereby, often outright confusing) phrases and terms that often get tossed about like "there is no person, you psychologically die every day, the one who seeks enlightenment does not become enlightened," yada, yada..I'm sure you could add to the list... When really, if it could just be explained in the very clear way ZD has described it above, (the description about getting lost in an activity, is a good example) the mystery for many would be removed and thus, the light bulb would go on, as it just did there for you. It almost seems as though flowery language is favored by some for the very purpose of lending a greater sense of mystery..almost as though they want those who are seeking self realization to see it as being something unattainable and far beyond their present understanding.....like a way to preserve the 'specialness' and to reinforce the idea that seeing through identity is a rare and difficult thing. I quite agree. It's like, all they have to do is reverse what was said a moment ago, and it starts the magical mystery tour all over again, and I guess it's a sort of job security type thingy.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 6, 2014 17:43:07 GMT -5
No. During satsang people will occasionally say to a non-dual teacher, "I'm ready to die," but they either mean (1) do whatever you need to do to help me get rid of my sense of separateness, or (2) I want the truth so badly that I'm ready to die for enlightenment. I've never heard anyone say this that meant it literally; they are always using the term "die" in a psychological sense. That's good then, relatively speaking. I guess I'm such a literal type, this talk is often alarming to me 'cuz I don't quite know what's going on -- plus, it's pretty much impossible for me to even imagine dying in a psychological sense.silver.......this pretty-much what Buddhism is about.....at least that is what it has come to be about............you will run into that if you haven't yet...........
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 6, 2014 23:12:37 GMT -5
As Reefs said, what he's actually after is his own annihilation. First of all, if you have a hypothesis that the seeker never has a clue what he's actually after, and you also have a hypothesis that the seeker is actually after his own annihilation, these two hypotheses could both be valid, but obviously just saying these words does nothing in itself to prove their validity, therefore since we're on a discussion forum involving the written word I was saying that I didn't comprehend the reasoning Reefs had previously taken the time to elaborated about it. Secondl of all, I've been deliberately after my own annihilation for many years, and I've known that I was. The seeker is a figment of the mind. The entire search is a mind game. Truth is beyond mind/intellect. In this case if I could presume to offer you a piece of advice, I would recommend a lobotomy. ( disclaimer: Transcix cannot be held liable for any brain damage that may occur.) The difference between saying that the mind cannot fully grasp everything and that the mind cannot grasp anything at all.. well yikes.. What I've said here becomes all self-evident at realization. The logic I presented was just to help you sort out your mental chaos a bit, not to make you see. You cannot see from your current position (i.e. from inside the intellect). Your mental stunts are meaningless. As is your spiritual resume. As is your suffering.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 0:34:53 GMT -5
That's good then, relatively speaking. I guess I'm such a literal type, this talk is often alarming to me 'cuz I don't quite know what's going on -- plus, it's pretty much impossible for me to even imagine dying in a psychological sense. Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience..
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 7, 2014 0:54:43 GMT -5
That's good then, relatively speaking. I guess I'm such a literal type, this talk is often alarming to me 'cuz I don't quite know what's going on -- plus, it's pretty much impossible for me to even imagine dying in a psychological sense.silver.......this pretty-much what Buddhism is about.....at least that is what it has come to be about............you will run into that if you haven't yet........... As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2014 1:31:45 GMT -5
silver.......this pretty-much what Buddhism is about..... at least that is what it has come to be about............you will run into that if you haven't yet........... As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on. Hey silver...your doing fine. It's good you have picked up on that. Notice I said, "at least that is what it has come to be about". Buddha didn't say there was no self. He said that self is formed from a combination of things coming together, and therefore isn't permanent. That has gotten twisted over the years into: Buddha said there is no self. The same thing happened in Christianity. Judaism didn't really say much about life after death or a soul. A permanent soul got introduced into Christianity by mixing it with Greek philosophy. You really have to look at what Jesus taught through Jewish eyes. So really, Buddhism and Christianity are not too far apart, at least at the base. Christians don't really understand what Jesus taught. He actually knew it was going to turn out the way it did however, showing this by saying, "When the son of man returns, will he find faith on the earth"? Jesus, not in so many words, said, you neither have a soul nor don't have a soul. What Judaism meant by spirit, in relation to man, was breath, ordinary life. Just saying truth gets distorted over time. Psychological dying is mostly about getting rid of the stuff in us that makes us nasty people, mostly negative emotions, hate, envy, jealousy, pride, vanity, etc... That's why Buddha was high on compassion. .........But first we have to row a little boat........... Confusion is a good thing.......it's makes you come to your own understanding......
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2014 1:44:28 GMT -5
Silver: you psychologically die every day, but you don't realize it. Anytime you get involved in an activity and are not reflecting about a "me" the "me" isn't there. There is a body/mind involved in some activity, but there is no sense of a separate person involved in the activity. During the activity you and the cosmos are psychologically one. It is only when you reflect ABOUT yourself, as a person separate from the action, that the idea of a "me" arises. If you turned attention away from thoughts ABOUT yourself to the activity of life and what can be seen or heard, life would continue without a "you." If you did this for an extended period of time, at a certain point you might realize that your past sense of self identity was a thought-created illusion. This is what non-duality teachers are pointing towards. Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they..........
|
|
|
Post by silver on Dec 7, 2014 2:38:23 GMT -5
As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on. Hey silver...your doing fine. It's good you have picked up on that. Notice I said, "at least that is what it has come to be about". Buddha didn't say there was no self. He said that self is formed from a combination of things coming together, and therefore isn't permanent. That has gotten twisted over the years into: Buddha said there is no self. The same thing happened in Christianity. Judaism didn't really say much about life after death or a soul. A permanent soul got introduced into Christianity by mixing it with Greek philosophy. You really have to look at what Jesus taught through Jewish eyes. So really, Buddhism and Christianity are not too far apart, at least at the base. Christians don't really understand what Jesus taught. He actually knew it was going to turn out the way it did however, showing this by saying, "When the son of man returns, will he find faith on the earth"? Jesus, not in so many words, said, you neither have a soul nor don't have a soul. What Judaism meant by spirit, in relation to man, was breath, ordinary life. Just saying truth gets distorted over time. Psychological dying is mostly about getting rid of the stuff in us that makes us nasty people, mostly negative emotions, hate, envy, jealousy, pride, vanity, etc... That's why Buddha was high on compassion. .........But first we have to row a little boat........... Confusion is a good thing.......it's makes you come to your own understanding...... Yes, I remember the part where he talks about compounded things or something like that - near the beginning of the book. And I'm about 3/4ths of the way through the book, and the couple of chapters I read this evening are practically identical to some of the things I remember being taught in Sunday school. That's good to hear (confusion being a good thing) - there's plenty of it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 7, 2014 4:22:46 GMT -5
As I'm continuing to read the book that I've become so excited about, Old Path White Clouds (OPWC) by Hanh, and participation in the Buddhist forum, I've observed that perhaps this psychological 'dying' thing is a bit of a misinterpretation of what the Buddha and others back then was trying to explain and impart. Or maybe your brief response isn't really enough to understand your point of view on it. It's confusing to be reading everybody's posts here due to the confusing jargon and nerve-jangling that goes on. Hey silver...your doing fine. It's good you have picked up on that. Notice I said, "at least that is what it has come to be about". Buddha didn't say there was no self. He said that self is formed from a combination of things coming together, and therefore isn't permanent. That has gotten twisted over the years into: Buddha said there is no self. The same thing happened in Christianity. Judaism didn't really say much about life after death or a soul. A permanent soul got introduced into Christianity by mixing it with Greek philosophy. You really have to look at what Jesus taught through Jewish eyes. So really, Buddhism and Christianity are not too far apart, at least at the base. Christians don't really understand what Jesus taught. He actually knew it was going to turn out the way it did however, showing this by saying, "When the son of man returns, will he find faith on the earth"? Jesus, not in so many words, said, you neither have a soul nor don't have a soul. What Judaism meant by spirit, in relation to man, was breath, ordinary life. Just saying truth gets distorted over time. Psychological dying is mostly about getting rid of the stuff in us that makes us nasty people, mostly negative emotions, hate, envy, jealousy, pride, vanity, etc... That's why Buddha was high on compassion. .........But first we have to row a little boat........... Confusion is a good thing.......it's makes you come to your own understanding......What?
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 7:27:36 GMT -5
Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Dec 7, 2014 10:19:54 GMT -5
Hi ZD: You are the author of books, yes?.. your books are the result of the effort of a unique individuated existence identified as ZD, yes?.. when you are making public appearances the audience expects the person that influenced their choice to attend, yes?.. the happening is influenced by the force exerted by every individuated manifestation, this is not illusion, the 'self' affects its existence.. The campaign opposing self is also the result of the self's seeking and and the self's identifiable unique existence.. self doesn't go away because attention is focused on an activity any more than the sun goes away when you're not thinking about it.. The self/no-self model is its own rabbit-hole of mirrors.. the happening happens whether the experiencer believes in self or not, attending to the actual happening has no reference for self/no-self ideological contests.. understanding the self's relationship with the happening neutralizes the self/no-self model's inherent conflicts.. i don't understand the inspiration to invoke the self/no-self model/conflict, when the actuality is sufficient for all purposes.. self/no-self is extraneous to the experience.. Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... This is why the concept of no-self is like a psychological operation to make the masses more servile/controllable/lifeless... to more easily accept injustice and do nothing about it So the psy-op of "life is suffering" became imbedded and self created ... the masses have accepted the program and go about fulfilling it... to the pleasure of their programmers. Robots have no-self/accept all things, easy to program..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2014 11:43:40 GMT -5
Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... This is why the concept of no-self is like a psychological operation to make the masses more servile/controllable/lifeless... to more easily accept injustice and do nothing about it So the psy-op of "life is suffering" became imbedded and self created ... the masses have accepted the program and go about fulfilling it... to the pleasure of their programmers. Robots have no-self/accept all things, easy to program.. Tzu, Bernadette Roberts was a Catholic nun. She didn't know anything about non-duality or Buddhism. She traveled the Christian mystical path, many years. She ended the nun thinghy and got married, but continued her spiritual journey. She spent many years in what's generally known as mystical union. And then one day she realized the absence of self for a while. Eventually she realized self-reflexive thought was completely absent, and it never came back. This was an exceptionally difficult way to live for her. It was sort of like having a stroke and having to learn to do stuff over again. She didn't know what had happened. She had studied the Christian mystical literature but didn't recall ever having come across something like this. So she studied more, everything she could find. She thought maybe she found traces of her experience in Meister Eckhart, but none in St. John of the Cross or St. Theresa of Avila. So it was only then that she looked into Eastern religions. She found this idea of loss of self, but she concluded this idea of non-duality was incorrect. She is still alive today and lives in California, she teaches twice a year for a week or so. She still maintains that the idea of non-duality is incorrect. I have read, years ago, in addition to the book mentioned, The Path to No-Self and What Is Self? She has also had privately published some other writings, some of which I have read. She also did a DVD years ago but I have never looked at it. Saying all that to say she is not a non-dual teacher. Her name is probably still here on ST's, as a teacher, but she has stated for the record she doesn't agree with non-dualism. What Is Self? is a very deep book on the nature of the self. I read it slowly over several years. If she had lived several hundred years ago, the Catholic Church would have burned her at the stake. She considers this loss of self an eventual part of the spiritual journey. She considers that God did it and that she didn't have much to do with the loss of self. ...... The first book came out of her writings as she was going through the experience, she essentially journaled her experience. She figured later that if she hadn't written it down she would have forgotten the process.......and maybe that's why it isn't in the literature, others just didn't write it down.. I'm just saying it's an undeniable fact if you read the book The Experience of No-Self, loss of self is possible........
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Dec 7, 2014 12:13:41 GMT -5
Tzu, I would suggest you read The Experience of No-Self by Bernadette Roberts or Collision With the Infinite by Suzanne Segal and then you would understand how it really is possible to experience the loss of self. zd is not blowing smoke up our......and it will become obvious that neither were they.......... Keep in mind that i've been where the nonduality/no-self advocates are, and i didn't get attached to that understanding/realization.. Is that why you are always conflating difference with separation and oneness with interconnectedness?
|
|