|
Post by laughter on Oct 27, 2018 23:34:46 GMT -5
From how I've come to understand mushin, I've found that it can be a matter of degree and can relate it to lots of different types of experiences, mostly work and play. I got promoted from dishwasher to cook when I was a 23 year-old college student 'cause of how impressed the chef was with his floor every morning. If you feel like sharing, I'd be curious to know what usually precipitates it for you, although I can only relate to the shaking part in experiences that really shouldn't be shared either on an open forum like this, or really, much anywhere else but between two consenting adults. I've looked to the Zen culture descriptions of kensho over the years to help explain for me what happened after I read Tolle, and I've found quite a bit there, but am acutely aware of how that culture is essentially self-contained, so that projecting what I think my experience has been onto it is something I have to take with a grain of salt. This is interesting how your Soto crew discouraged talk of it, and is concordant with the casual reading I've done on the two different variants. The fact that Low includes Haikun in the title of his book about kensho seems to me to reinforce the distinction, as the interwebs report that we was a Rinzai revivalist. Mushin can happen anywhere doing anything. It's happened when cleaning out my birds' cages. It has happened at my gym. What I'm doing has flow to it maybe because the mind isn't interfering. Every step just happens. I am very relaxed even while exerting myself. It has happened in meditation and carried over for the rest of the day. The first ti me it happened it lasted three days. I get very quiet. Everyone notices it. As I've said everyone asks me if I'm angry and I tell them no. I feel if I try to explain what is happening it will stop. I can clue my wife in by saying "I'm centered." And she'll stop pestering me. My wife says my speech is slower and my voice deepens.When I start to come out of it, it feels like another person, that is not me. The other day I was in that state watching TV. What I was watching seemed funny. My wife asked if I didn't find it funny. I told her I did. Then she asked me why I wasn't laughing. I don't know. It was almost as if there was no need to laugh. I'm not blissed out or happy pappy, but I can say life never feels better, everything is smooth and effortless. The other weird thing is when I watch TV and the wife isn't around, if some part of a show is too intense, I change the channel. While in mushin I don't. I'm sure it's fairly common. I think the trigger is usually observing the mind. The phrase "being aware of being aware" comes to mind. I kind of slide into that state every once in a while being aware of being aware. Mind's goal now is to try to figure out how to make it permanent. I can read this in one of two possible ways: (1) You might be putting some sort of psychological distance between yourself and the question, in that you've decided it's just a product of mind that should be ignored. (2) You've recognized that there's no answering the question with thought or emotion, but you're still interested in answering it .. just, in some other way. As always, feel free to exercise the right to remain silent!
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 2, 2018 9:31:12 GMT -5
If you have a concept of reality, then you also have a concept of yourself, because there's no way to have one without the other. The OP took for granted the pointer of the absence of identity, and these ideas provide some motivation. Any sense of identity based on what changes is bound to result in anxiety, and that, in the form of existential dread, is what drives what is for most people an unconscious search for answers. Any sense of identity based on what is pointed to by the idea of changelessness is a self-deception.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 1, 2019 4:06:12 GMT -5
Q: Is there no end to self-discovery? Niz: As there is no beginning, there is no end. But what I have discovered by the grace of my Guru is: I am nothing that can be pointed at. I am neither a 'this' nor a 'that'. This holds absolutely. para's 28, 29 of dialog #58 "Perfection, Destiny of All" in I AM THAT
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 11, 2019 5:42:50 GMT -5
How not to think
UG: Thinking is unnecessary except to communicate with somebody. Why do I have to communicate with myself all the time? What for? "I am happy," "I am unhappy," "I am miserable," "That is a microphone," "This is a man," "He is something" -- you see, why are we doing it? Everybody is talking to himself -- only, when he begins to talk aloud you put him in the mental hospital. Q: I think you are suggesting -- and I agree with you -- that it is a very tiresome thing to do. It is wearing us out, so naturally we seek methods to end it. UG: It is wearing you out, and all methods that we use are adding more and more to that, unfortunately. All techniques and systems are adding to that. There is nothing you can do to end thinking. Q: Alright then, how did you do it? UG: "How not to think?" is your question. Do you know what that question implies? You want some way, some method, some system, some technique -- and you still continue to think. Q: I don't want to think. If this question is wrong, perhaps you could suggest a better question. UG: I am not sure that you do not want to think. You see, you have to come to a point where you say to yourself "I am fed up with this kind of thing!" Nobody can push you there. Q: So either you can do it, or you can't do it? UG: Even then you'll find that you can't do it. Thought is there when there is a demand for it. When there is no demand for it you don't know whether it is there or not. I am not concerned whether it is there or not. But when there is a need for it, when there is a demand for it, it is there to guide you and to help you communicate with someone. What decides that demand is not here; it is out there. The situation demands its use; it is not self- initiated. For some of us, fear and desire centered on the false sense of identity lead to a constant stream of thought. It's quite possible to go through life mostly unconscious of it. Tolle starts Now with the simple point: "You are not Your Mind". What he meant by "mind" was that pattern of thought and emotion that generates the unnecessary thought. When this distinction is realized, non-conceptually, the volume of thought can suddenly pop like a balloon and then the stream slows, and the felt sense of sudden clarity is completely unmistakable and impossible to ignore. And it's not just thought in any dry, arid, intellectual sense, but instead, the entire substrate of mood, all the proto-emotions and other movements of mind that are constantly stirring underneath the conscious forefront of our awareness. If one gets adept enough at watching thought, you can come to understand how the formation of the initial interest that eventually gives rise to the beginning of a thought or an emotion are linked to this subconscious process of mood. Sekida called it "mood", as well.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 6:25:51 GMT -5
How not to think
UG: Thinking is unnecessary except to communicate with somebody. Why do I have to communicate with myself all the time? What for? "I am happy," "I am unhappy," "I am miserable," "That is a microphone," "This is a man," "He is something" -- you see, why are we doing it? Everybody is talking to himself -- only, when he begins to talk aloud you put him in the mental hospital. Q: I think you are suggesting -- and I agree with you -- that it is a very tiresome thing to do. It is wearing us out, so naturally we seek methods to end it. UG: It is wearing you out, and all methods that we use are adding more and more to that, unfortunately. All techniques and systems are adding to that. There is nothing you can do to end thinking. Q: Alright then, how did you do it? UG: "How not to think?" is your question. Do you know what that question implies? You want some way, some method, some system, some technique -- and you still continue to think. Q: I don't want to think. If this question is wrong, perhaps you could suggest a better question. UG: I am not sure that you do not want to think. You see, you have to come to a point where you say to yourself "I am fed up with this kind of thing!" Nobody can push you there. Q: So either you can do it, or you can't do it? UG: Even then you'll find that you can't do it. Thought is there when there is a demand for it. When there is no demand for it you don't know whether it is there or not. I am not concerned whether it is there or not. But when there is a need for it, when there is a demand for it, it is there to guide you and to help you communicate with someone. What decides that demand is not here; it is out there. The situation demands its use; it is not self- initiated. For some of us, fear and desire centered on the false sense of identity lead to a constant stream of thought. It's quite possible to go through life mostly unconscious of it. Tolle starts Now with the simple point: "You are not Your Mind". What he meant by "mind" was that pattern of thought and emotion that generates the unnecessary thought. When this distinction is realized, non-conceptually, the volume of thought can suddenly pop like a balloon and then the stream slows, and the felt sense of sudden clarity is completely unmistakable and impossible to ignore. And it's not just thought in any dry, arid, intellectual sense, but instead, the entire substrate of mood, all the proto-emotions and other movements of mind that are constantly stirring underneath the conscious forefront of our awareness. If one gets adept enough at watching thought, you can come to understand how the formation of the initial interest that eventually gives rise to the beginning of a thought or an emotion are linked to this subconscious process of mood. Sekida called it "mood", as well. The dialog seems to be happening on two levels. The question reminds me of ZD's problem of how to stop the constant chatter in the head, this non-stop commentary track. It seems to eat up a lot of energy. The other level is about stopping thought per se and here UG is right, of course, that's not necessary and no method required. But to stop the commentary track, there are methods. ZD's ATA is one such method.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 7:00:42 GMT -5
For some of us, fear and desire centered on the false sense of identity lead to a constant stream of thought. It's quite possible to go through life mostly unconscious of it. Tolle starts Now with the simple point: "You are not Your Mind". What he meant by "mind" was that pattern of thought and emotion that generates the unnecessary thought. When this distinction is realized, non-conceptually, the volume of thought can suddenly pop like a balloon and then the stream slows, and the felt sense of sudden clarity is completely unmistakable and impossible to ignore. And it's not just thought in any dry, arid, intellectual sense, but instead, the entire substrate of mood, all the proto-emotions and other movements of mind that are constantly stirring underneath the conscious forefront of our awareness. If one gets adept enough at watching thought, you can come to understand how the formation of the initial interest that eventually gives rise to the beginning of a thought or an emotion are linked to this subconscious process of mood. Sekida called it "mood", as well. The dialog seems to be happening on two levels. The question reminds me of ZD's problem of how to stop the constant chatter in the head, this non-stop commentary track. It seems to eat up a lot of energy. The other level is about stopping thought per se and here UG is right, of course, that's not necessary and no method required. But to stop the commentary track, there are methods. ZD's ATA is one such method. Yes, I'm always amused when a ND teacher says that stopping the commentary track is impossible. Of course, the one who shifts to direct perception and internal silence is not the one who's usually imagined as the shifter, but no matter. Becoming silent, and being able to return to silence at any time, can definitely happen. Shikan taza and other meditative methods often lead to the same thing. People are different. One ND teacher I know likes to tell people that his internal dialogue never slowed down, but he still discovered what he wanted to know despite an active mind. In his case contemplation and inquiry, alone, seems to have done the trick. A recent book has been published in which the writer states, "Anyone who says that his sense of 'me' disappeared is full of BS." This, too, is fairly amusing considering all of the ND teachers I've met who claim that that exact event happened at a particular point in time. I've theorized that the sense/structure of selfhood is different with different people, and those with a "hard-core" sense of selfhood (extremely strong sense of self identity) are probably the ones whose "me" vanishes. All of these issues simply point to the differences between human beings. One size does not fit all.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 8:21:51 GMT -5
A recent book has been published in which the writer states, "Anyone who says that his sense of 'me' disappeared is full of BS." . He's absolutely right. It's total BS! it may happen temporarily in the midst of a big shift, but that's not the awakened state which includes the sense of self.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 9:31:18 GMT -5
A recent book has been published in which the writer states, "Anyone who says that his sense of 'me' disappeared is full of BS." . He's absolutely right. It's total BS! it may happen temporarily in the midst of a big shift, but that's not the awakened state which includes the sense of self. As I noted, people are different. What's true for one human may not be so for another. As Niz stated in the above quote, "I am nothing that can be pointed to. I am not a this or a that."
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 9:39:56 GMT -5
He's absolutely right. It's total BS! it may happen temporarily in the midst of a big shift, but that's not the awakened state which includes the sense of self. As I noted, people are different. What's true for one human may not be so for another. As Niz stated in the above quote, "I am nothing that can be pointed to. I am not a this or a that." Yes, Niz is correct. There is no entity that can be called a self. Buddhism is also clear about it with the doctrine of no self (anatta) which means you will not find an entity that is a self wherever you look. However that's quite different to saying there is no sense of self, which cannot be.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 11, 2019 9:55:08 GMT -5
As I noted, people are different. What's true for one human may not be so for another. As Niz stated in the above quote, "I am nothing that can be pointed to. I am not a this or a that." Yes, Niz is correct. There is no entity that can be called a self. Buddhism is also clear about it with the doctrine of no self (anatta) which means you will not find an entity that is a self wherever you look. However that's quite different to saying there is no sense of self, which cannot be. I suppose it depends upon how silent the mind is, and whether there is any degree of psychological reflexion. The ordinary sense of self, for most people, comes and goes throughout the day depending upon self-referential intellection. The sense of selfhood disappears in nirvikalpa samadhi, and it can also be absent during daily activities; it all depends upon whether the mind is quiescent or self-referentially "looks back." The disappearance of "me," to which many sages refer, is probably dependent upon their usual referent for the tangibility of that sense and whether there was a strong delineation between the sense of "inside" and "outside." Those who discover that their prior sense of "me" has totally vanished all describe that event occurring at a specific moment in time. Afterwards, they all describe a great sense of freedom that resulted from realizing the non-existence of the "me." The body continues, but the past sense of "me" does not return.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 10:05:12 GMT -5
Yes, Niz is correct. There is no entity that can be called a self. Buddhism is also clear about it with the doctrine of no self (anatta) which means you will not find an entity that is a self wherever you look. However that's quite different to saying there is no sense of self, which cannot be. I suppose it depends upon how silent the mind is, and whether there is any degree of psychological reflexion. The ordinary sense of self, for most people, comes and goes throughout the day depending upon self-referential intellection. The sense of selfhood disappears in nirvikalpa samadhi, and it can also be absent during daily activities; it all depends upon whether the mind is quiescent or self-referentially "looks back." The disappearance of "me," to which many sages refer, is probably dependent upon their usual referent for the tangibility of that sense and whether there was a strong delineation between the sense of "inside" and "outside." Those who discover that their prior sense of "me" has totally vanished all describe that event occurring at a specific moment in time. Afterwards, they all describe a great sense of freedom that resulted from realizing the non-existence of the "me." The body continues, but the past sense of "me" does not return. I've never heard a sage say that there is a disappearance of me. Non attachment and non identification with me, yes certainly, but not disappearance because you would be unable to live in the body without it. Ramana for instance said that ego, which goes hand-in-hand with a sense of self, is not destroyed after realization, but that it is diminished and resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope. The great sense of freedom you speak about is felt by the ego because in fact it is the ego which becomes enlightened, not awareness which is already and always has been enlightened. You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 10:31:14 GMT -5
I've never heard a sage say that there is a disappearance of me. Non attachment and non identification with me, yes certainly, but not disappearance because you would be unable to live in the body without it. Ramana for instance said that ego, which goes hand-in-hand with a sense of self, is not destroyed after realization, but that it is diminished and resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope. The great sense of freedom you speak about is felt by the ego because in fact it is the ego which becomes enlightened, not awareness which is already and always has been enlightened. You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say. I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Sept 11, 2019 10:39:21 GMT -5
I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here. Well just because Niz didn't say it. He didn't say a lot of things. I would say the ego assumes the cosmic value. It is the ego that says I am awake like the Buddha did on the road when he was asked who he was. It's funny you mention UG because he didn't function very well in society. I agree that thoughts appear very much on demand. The wastage and repetition of thinking goes.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 11, 2019 11:04:48 GMT -5
I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here. Well just because Niz didn't say it. He didn't say a lot of things. I would say the ego assumes the cosmic value. It is the ego that says I am awake like the Buddha did on the road when he was asked who he was. It's funny you mention UG because he didn't function very well in society. I agree that thoughts appear very much on demand. The wastage and repetition of thinking goes. Yes, UG basically lived like a bum. That's why I never really found his model of enlightenment particularly appealing.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 11, 2019 14:15:53 GMT -5
I've never heard a sage say that there is a disappearance of me. Non attachment and non identification with me, yes certainly, but not disappearance because you would be unable to live in the body without it. Ramana for instance said that ego, which goes hand-in-hand with a sense of self, is not destroyed after realization, but that it is diminished and resembles the skeleton of a burnt rope. The great sense of freedom you speak about is felt by the ego because in fact it is the ego which becomes enlightened, not awareness which is already and always has been enlightened. You cannot remove the personal from awakening no matter what some nondualist teachers say. I'd say you don't need a me to live in the body. However, you need a me in order to function properly in society. As UG said about thinking, thoughts are there when there's a demand for it. Similarly, the me is there when there's a demand for it. And I've never heard a sage say that the ego becomes enlightened. I'm also pretty certain that Niz would disagree with you here. zd if you see this I would like you to comment on both Reefs post and that of satch (in light of your saying that no self exists and never existed).
|
|