|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 1, 2015 9:33:35 GMT -5
"the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth EFFORT in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." "How long should one PRACTICE? Until the mind attains effortlessly its natural state of freedom from concepts, that is till the sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ exists no longer." "The firm conviction that there is neither bondage nor liberation is the supreme purpose of all EFFORTS. As this purpose of seeing boldly, through direct experience, that bondage and liberation do not exist, cannot be achieved except with the aid of the aforesaid PRACTICES, these EFFORTS are useful." "Due to sleep and due to thoughts the mind always loses its sharpness, its foolishness increases, and it goes to ruin. Awakening this mind with EFFORT, and without allowing it to wander, establish it in the state of Self. Persevere in this EFFORT by fixing the mind again and again in its natural state." "If, by some great penance, that rarity, a human body is obtained, with its ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and yet, owing to attachment to insentient things, EFFORT is not made to attain the immutable state of liberation, which is one’s own true state, then indeed one is a fool committing suicide. What greater fool is there than one who does not seek his own good?" "Therefore, those who are wise themselves make every EFFORT to remove the bondage of individual existence and obtain liberation, just as they would to get rid of some disease." "Make every EFFORT to root out this error and holding fast to the knowledge of reality as the absolute Brahman, destroy the mind and obtain supreme peace." "He who seeks liberation must examine his mind by his own EFFORTS and once the mind is purified by such introspection liberation is obtained and appears obvious and natural." "a man must make every EFFORT to see with the eye of realization and with the mind in a state of perfect peace to see his own Self as Brahman, as the truth of non-duality shining as the Self of the whole universe." But you finally get to effortless part. "Jnana is the annihilation of the mind in which it is made to assume the form of the Self through the constant practice of dhyana or enquiry (vichara). The extinction of the mind is the state in which there is a CESSATION OF ALL EFFORTS." Hi guys, sorry, this is going back a bit now, but .... reading through, the highlighted line caught my attention as it appears to delve into an area I haven't seen talked about much in the conversations about non-dualism I've followed, but it is an area of interest which I find myself contemplating from time to time. And as I'm not well versed in nd texts, I wonder if anyone can advise me whether Ramana himself, or Nis, or indeed any of the prominent or reasonably well regarded non-duality teachers, spoke in any more detail about this particular issue. Really, I'm only asking as a matter of expediency and so it's an open question as I understand a number of the regular posters here are quite well versed in the specific writings and dialogues I am enquiring about.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2015 8:00:15 GMT -5
"the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth EFFORT in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." "How long should one PRACTICE? Until the mind attains effortlessly its natural state of freedom from concepts, that is till the sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ exists no longer." "The firm conviction that there is neither bondage nor liberation is the supreme purpose of all EFFORTS. As this purpose of seeing boldly, through direct experience, that bondage and liberation do not exist, cannot be achieved except with the aid of the aforesaid PRACTICES, these EFFORTS are useful." "Due to sleep and due to thoughts the mind always loses its sharpness, its foolishness increases, and it goes to ruin. Awakening this mind with EFFORT, and without allowing it to wander, establish it in the state of Self. Persevere in this EFFORT by fixing the mind again and again in its natural state." "If, by some great penance, that rarity, a human body is obtained, with its ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and yet, owing to attachment to insentient things, EFFORT is not made to attain the immutable state of liberation, which is one’s own true state, then indeed one is a fool committing suicide. What greater fool is there than one who does not seek his own good?" "Therefore, those who are wise themselves make every EFFORT to remove the bondage of individual existence and obtain liberation, just as they would to get rid of some disease." "Make every EFFORT to root out this error and holding fast to the knowledge of reality as the absolute Brahman, destroy the mind and obtain supreme peace." "He who seeks liberation must examine his mind by his own EFFORTS and once the mind is purified by such introspection liberation is obtained and appears obvious and natural." "a man must make every EFFORT to see with the eye of realization and with the mind in a state of perfect peace to see his own Self as Brahman, as the truth of non-duality shining as the Self of the whole universe." But you finally get to effortless part. "Jnana is the annihilation of the mind in which it is made to assume the form of the Self through the constant practice of dhyana or enquiry (vichara). The extinction of the mind is the state in which there is a CESSATION OF ALL EFFORTS." Hi guys, sorry, this is going back a bit now, but .... reading through, the highlighted line caught my attention as it appears to delve into an area I haven't seen talked about much in the conversations about non-dualism I've followed, but it is an area of interest which I find myself contemplating from time to time. And as I'm not well versed in nd texts, I wonder if anyone can advise me whether Ramana himself, or Nis, or indeed any of the prominent or reasonably well regarded non-duality teachers, spoke in any more detail about this particular issue. Really, I'm only asking as a matter of expediency and so it's an open question as I understand a number of the regular posters here are quite well versed in the specific writings and dialogues I am enquiring about. That line is a bit of a mystery to me so if you could state a question in your own terms perhaps I can help you with Niz. Are you asking what Niz had to say about the human body?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 3, 2015 10:50:58 GMT -5
Hi guys, sorry, this is going back a bit now, but .... reading through, the highlighted line caught my attention as it appears to delve into an area I haven't seen talked about much in the conversations about non-dualism I've followed, but it is an area of interest which I find myself contemplating from time to time. And as I'm not well versed in nd texts, I wonder if anyone can advise me whether Ramana himself, or Nis, or indeed any of the prominent or reasonably well regarded non-duality teachers, spoke in any more detail about this particular issue. Really, I'm only asking as a matter of expediency and so it's an open question as I understand a number of the regular posters here are quite well versed in the specific writings and dialogues I am enquiring about. That line is a bit of a mystery to me so if you could state a question in your own terms perhaps I can help you with Niz. Are you asking what Niz had to say about the human body? Yeah, it's all a bit of a mystery to me too, so please bare with me. Ok, firstly I enjoy following the nd discussions and take a lot from them, however, like some of the other posters, I intuitively sense a limitation or incompleteness with the teachings (or set of pointers) albeit, for the most part that's not too much of an issue. In fact I've seen mention this is generally accepted, alongside talk of other places to go to 'fill the gaps' etc. A-H springs to mind here. So in short, like some of the other guys here, in my own mind I'm exploring the boundaries, if you like. When I read that particular line, those boundaries were highlighted. It conjured certain notions that I'd consider as being more akin to some of the Buddhist teachings I have an interest in (although it really has to be said, as yet, no great insight or understanding of). To clarify, the teachings I'm referring to are kamma & rebirth and by extension - samsara. Which then leads to further notions about nibbana (nirvana) and ultimately paranibbana (total unbinding). Frankly, these are some of the most advanced teachings in Buddhism and I'm still piecing together the basics, with a view to really getting properly stuck into this stuff further down the line, so I'm cautious about trying to run before I can walk and getting too far into this, hence why my query was mostly about 'intel gathering', at this stage. Also I suspect I might be right in saying the notions I'm talking about there aren't generally hot topics in nd circles and that for the most part what is being focussed on might be referred to as 'the core realisation', which again is fine, but figured there might not be too much interest in all this. But that particular line seemed to 'bridge' the two doctrines, if you like, and being touched upon by a highly regarded nd expositor, my curious nature was apt to wonder if there was any more detailed material to get my hands on. Thought I'd try the lazy route first. Anyway, hopefully that gives an idea as to why at this stage it's quite difficult for me to even formulate a pertinent question about exactly what what I'm getting at. Basically it's ideas straddling two (possibly non-complimentary traditions) which in my mind are still fairly abstract and half- baked, hehe. And regarding your question about what niz had to say about the body, I doubt that's so much where I was coming from with my initial query, (although if you reckon otherwise based on what I've said I'd be interested). Funnily enough though, I was considering along these lines last night and eventually I'll get around to trying to make proper sense of the Buddhist perspective that the mind/body is merely an aggregation of the senses. A universal body if you like, however, transient in nature and ultimately of no great consequence. Actually some of my (somewhat abstract) ideas about this area fall in line with E's perception/creation thingy ... along with an inexplicable uniformity in the cosmic background radiation map! Thanks for your reply laffy.
|
|
|
Post by runstill on Jun 3, 2015 12:34:50 GMT -5
"the jiva, which is in bondage through mental identification with the body, etc., should put forth EFFORT in the form of reflection on the Self in a gradual and sustained manner; and when thus the mind gets destroyed, the jiva would become the Self." "How long should one PRACTICE? Until the mind attains effortlessly its natural state of freedom from concepts, that is till the sense of ‘I’ and ‘mine’ exists no longer." "The firm conviction that there is neither bondage nor liberation is the supreme purpose of all EFFORTS. As this purpose of seeing boldly, through direct experience, that bondage and liberation do not exist, cannot be achieved except with the aid of the aforesaid PRACTICES, these EFFORTS are useful." "Due to sleep and due to thoughts the mind always loses its sharpness, its foolishness increases, and it goes to ruin. Awakening this mind with EFFORT, and without allowing it to wander, establish it in the state of Self. Persevere in this EFFORT by fixing the mind again and again in its natural state." "If, by some great penance, that rarity, a human body is obtained, with its ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures, and yet, owing to attachment to insentient things, EFFORT is not made to attain the immutable state of liberation, which is one’s own true state, then indeed one is a fool committing suicide. What greater fool is there than one who does not seek his own good?"[/i] "Therefore, those who are wise themselves make every EFFORT to remove the bondage of individual existence and obtain liberation, just as they would to get rid of some disease." "Make every EFFORT to root out this error and holding fast to the knowledge of reality as the absolute Brahman, destroy the mind and obtain supreme peace." "He who seeks liberation must examine his mind by his own EFFORTS and once the mind is purified by such introspection liberation is obtained and appears obvious and natural." "a man must make every EFFORT to see with the eye of realization and with the mind in a state of perfect peace to see his own Self as Brahman, as the truth of non-duality shining as the Self of the whole universe." But you finally get to effortless part. "Jnana is the annihilation of the mind in which it is made to assume the form of the Self through the constant practice of dhyana or enquiry (vichara). The extinction of the mind is the state in which there is a CESSATION OF ALL EFFORTS."[/quote] Hi guys, sorry, this is going back a bit now, but .... reading through, the highlighted line caught my attention as it appears to delve into an area I haven't seen talked about much in the conversations about non-dualism I've followed, but it is an area of interest which I find myself contemplating from time to time. And as I'm not well versed in nd texts, I wonder if anyone can advise me whether Ramana himself, or Nis, or indeed any of the prominent or reasonably well regarded non-duality teachers, spoke in any more detail about this particular issue. Really, I'm only asking as a matter of expediency and so it's an open question as I understand a number of the regular posters here are quite well versed in the specific writings and dialogues I am enquiring about. [/quote] If by some great grace that rarity, a human ego is obtained with the ability to understand the meaning of the scriptures but due to its attachment to insentient things, EFFORT is not made to understand its true nature, it is a fool. ( FIXED)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 3, 2015 17:30:40 GMT -5
That line is a bit of a mystery to me so if you could state a question in your own terms perhaps I can help you with Niz. Are you asking what Niz had to say about the human body? Yeah, it's all a bit of a mystery to me too, so please bare with me. Ok, firstly I enjoy following the nd discussions and take a lot from them, however, like some of the other posters, I intuitively sense a limitation or incompleteness with the teachings (or set of pointers) albeit, for the most part that's not too much of an issue. In fact I've seen mention this is generally accepted, alongside talk of other places to go to 'fill the gaps' etc. A-H springs to mind here. So in short, like some of the other guys here, in my own mind I'm exploring the boundaries, if you like. When I read that particular line, those boundaries were highlighted. It conjured certain notions that I'd consider as being more akin to some of the Buddhist teachings I have an interest in (although it really has to be said, as yet, no great insight or understanding of). To clarify, the teachings I'm referring to are kamma & rebirth and by extension - samsara. Which then leads to further notions about nibbana (nirvana) and ultimately paranibbana (total unbinding). Frankly, these are some of the most advanced teachings in Buddhism and I'm still piecing together the basics, with a view to really getting properly stuck into this stuff further down the line, so I'm cautious about trying to run before I can walk and getting too far into this, hence why my query was mostly about 'intel gathering', at this stage. Also I suspect I might be right in saying the notions I'm talking about there aren't generally hot topics in nd circles and that for the most part what is being focussed on might be referred to as 'the core realisation', which again is fine, but figured there might not be too much interest in all this. But that particular line seemed to 'bridge' the two doctrines, if you like, and being touched upon by a highly regarded nd expositor, my curious nature was apt to wonder if there was any more detailed material to get my hands on. Thought I'd try the lazy route first. Anyway, hopefully that gives an idea as to why at this stage it's quite difficult for me to even formulate a pertinent question about exactly what what I'm getting at. Basically it's ideas straddling two (possibly non-complimentary traditions) which in my mind are still fairly abstract and half- baked, hehe. And regarding your question about what niz had to say about the body, I doubt that's so much where I was coming from with my initial query, (although if you reckon otherwise based on what I've said I'd be interested). Funnily enough though, I was considering along these lines last night and eventually I'll get around to trying to make proper sense of the Buddhist perspective that the mind/body is merely an aggregation of the senses. A universal body if you like, however, transient in nature and ultimately of no great consequence. Actually some of my (somewhat abstract) ideas about this area fall in line with E's perception/creation thingy ... along with an inexplicable uniformity in the cosmic background radiation map! Thanks for your reply laffy. Sure, sure, from what I can tell of kamma it's a rich subject with quite a bit of depth. Niz wasn't silent about actions and the orientation of the individual to what comes and goes in life, but his emphasis was most definitely on the transcendent rather than the secular. As far as the body is concerned, I don't know much about Buddhist teachings, but are you sure that they dismiss it as merely an aggregation? What I've read from Niz, Tolle and Aydya (which isn't really all that much in the scheme of things compared to some other peeps you can find on the interwebs) there is a common theme with two different elemental strains running through it. One strain is as you say, to recognize the ephemeral nature of all form in general, which does of course have implications for the way that we think and feel about the body. The other strain, however, emphasizes the fact that the body is a sort of link, via the senses, to the rest of the Universe. It is described in this vein as a portal, and plays a major role in meditation. The focus on quieting the mind in practice can be viewed, in a complimentary fashion, as getting in touch with the messages that the body can relate to us when the mind gets out of the way. My personal metaphorical take on rebirth is informed by the ideas of the conservation of energy and the abstraction of Fourier series. The nonduallies say "I was never born": (para's 9-12, chap 56 of "I AM THAT", "Consciousness Arising, World Arises") Questioner: Yet, you must believe in having lived before. Niz: The scriptures say so, but I know nothing about it. I know myself as I am; as I appeared or will appear is not within my experience. It is not that I do not remember. In fact there is nothing to remember. Reincarnation implies a reincarnating self. There is no such thing. The bundle of memories and hopes, called the 'I', imagines itself existing everlastingly and creates time to accommodate its false eternity: To be, I need no past or future. All experience is born of imagination; I do not imagine, so no birth or death happens to me. Only those who think themselves born can think themselves re-born. You are accusing me of having been born -- I plead not guilty! All exists in awareness and awareness neither dies nor is reborn. It is the changeless reality itself. All the universe of experience is born with the body and dies with the body; it has its beginning and end in awareness, but awareness knows no beginning, nor end. If you think it out carefully and brood over it for a long time, you will come to see the light of awareness in all its clarity and the world will fade out of your vision. It is like looking at a burning incense stick, you see the stick and the smoke first; when you notice the fiery point, you realise that it has the power to consume mountains of sticks and fill the universe with smoke. Timelessly the self actualises itself, without exhausting its infinite possibilities. In the incense stick simile the stick is the body and the smoke is the mind. As long as the mind is busy with its contortions, it does not perceive its own source. The Guru comes and turns your attention to the spark within. By its very nature the mind is outward turned; it always tends to seek for the source of things among the things themselves; to be told to look for the source within, is, in a way, the beginning of a new life. Awareness takes the place of consciousness; in consciousness there is the 'I', who is conscious while awareness is undivided; awareness is aware of itself. The 'I am' is a thought, while awareness is not a thought, there is no 'I am aware' in awareness. Consciousness is an attribute while awareness is not; one can be aware of being conscious, but not conscious of awareness. God is the totality of consciousness, but awareness is beyond all -- being as well as not-being.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 5, 2015 8:31:15 GMT -5
On reflection I would have worded some of my previous post a little differently, for example, I since considered 'discourses' might be a better phrase than 'doctrine' with regard to nd, but you took my post in the spirit it was intended. Sure, sure, from what I can tell of kamma it's a rich subject with quite a bit of depth. Niz wasn't silent about actions and the orientation of the individual to what comes and goes in life, but his emphasis was most definitely on the transcendent rather than the secular. You picked my fave source for Buddhist discourse! I agree kamma is a deep subject, no doubt about that . Imo kamma really needs to be considered in conjunction with a number of other teachings, perhaps first & foremost, anatta (not-self), similar to nd's no-self. In fact, Buddhism is generally described as a set of teachings that ideally need to be considered in conjunction with, or in relation to each other, (before ultimately abandoned). Maybe it's just worth saying that when push comes to shove, Buddha say's kamma is intent. And this is one reason why I reckon a degree of dispensation should be given to what I shall call 'a process of volitioning'. I understand this to be a bit of a contentious subject on the forum, and perhaps in response to a widespread and prevailing undercurrent of unconscious reification of 'the person'. That's why anatta is important. Anyway, kamma seems to be the Buddhist 'mainstay' pertaining to the nature of conditioning. And just to clarify, my initial query was based with more emphasis on the transcendent, at least I think so anyway, hehe. I'd hesitate to use the phrase dismiss, but, yeah, I've seen it said in a number of quarters that the Buddha taught, ultimately the body is merely an aggregation of the senses, albeit a complex one. (Understatement). Actually I kinda see it as in keeping with what you say below about, "recognizing the ephemeral nature of all form in general" and that it ties in with the teaching of emptiness. It should be said, however, this is undoubtedly subject to translation and interpretation of the suttas and likely isn't universally accepted, especially considering a 'religion' as diverse as Buddhism these days. And eventually it'd all come down to direct seeing where it has the leave the words anyway , to which I'm sure you can relate. When I read the highlighted part what tends to spring to mind is maya - 'the great cosmic witch' so it's not a strain I'm hugely keen on. Although I understand it could be viewed as being just one of a number of ways of talking about certain things and very much relate to what you follow on to say. Yes, this is where it gets interesting, I can relate to those ideas but really can't say much more than that. Rebirth like kamma is a subject rich in depth, and really they need to be considered interdependently and again, in conjunction with anatta as well as samsara. I suspect the teaching is pointing to something substantially broader, or more abstract in nature than a reincarnating self (which would really be a notion stemming from ongoing egioc identification) and I think that's part of what I'm attempting to get at. I tend to conceive rebirth as pertaining to the nature of the arising of 'the current experience' (something I suspect I tend to envisage somewhat more abstractly than is usual), and the way in which it arises momentarily, as well as perhaps those more conventional ideas. The fabled 'they', will sometimes talk of Buddha remembering previous lives, however, I'm fairly confident it doesn't merely refer to some sort of linear progression of mind/bodies (again, notions most likely stemming from identification). Rather it will more likely be along the lines of something 'epistemic'. Perhaps depending on perspective, rebirth could be conceived of in terms of linearity, but also as being somewhat 'pseudo radial' in nature. In fact, that's where samsara comes in which deals with the nature of cycling . The 'formula' I tend to use when trying to picture samsara in action, is chaos theory (variable aperiodic system dynamics nonlinear), it's essential component being 'feedback'. Essentially chaos theory describes, a pattern that never exactly repeats itself, and a good way to visualise chaos theory in action is the cycle of weather patterns and the way the system feeds back into itself. The idea can be extended to notions about the entire cosmos and importantly, even the metaphysical. Chaos theory is also the crux of the mendlebrot equation. And imo these ideas lend themselves, somewhat analogously, to certain areas of interest in my ongoing quest for WIBIGO. But really at this stage I'm just trying to portray a counter image in the hope of giving you a better idea where I'm coming from and aren't looking to get too far into all this. Hopefully that doesn't come of as too standoffish, but as I say I consider my stance to be a matter of prudence more than anything. For the most part, I'm happy with, 'the awareness that is aware of itself' (as I think adaya put it) as a pointer to the fundamental of the deathless, and conversely I tend to envisage consciousness more in terms of the essential of that which is transient in nature, or the conditioned, ergo 'conscious-awareness'. So awareness 'descends' to consciousness which gives rise to sense- perception/creation, which is the essential of the aggregate which is the mind/body etc, etc. It's a good piece actually which I view as compatible with the ideas I'm interested in developing. Was Ramana the one with the cow?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 5, 2015 12:14:52 GMT -5
On reflection I would have worded some of my previous post a little differently, for example, I since considered 'discourses' might be a better phrase than 'doctrine' with regard to nd, but you took my post in the spirit it was intended. Sure, sure, from what I can tell of kamma it's a rich subject with quite a bit of depth. Niz wasn't silent about actions and the orientation of the individual to what comes and goes in life, but his emphasis was most definitely on the transcendent rather than the secular. You picked my fave source for Buddhist discourse! I agree kamma is a deep subject, no doubt about that . Imo kamma really needs to be considered in conjunction with a number of other teachings, perhaps first & foremost, anatta (not-self), similar to nd's no-self. In fact, Buddhism is generally described as a set of teachings that ideally need to be considered in conjunction with, or in relation to each other, (before ultimately abandoned). Maybe it's just worth saying that when push comes to shove, Buddha say's kamma is intent. And this is one reason why I reckon a degree of dispensation should be given to what I shall call 'a process of volitioning'. I understand this to be a bit of a contentious subject on the forum, and perhaps in response to a widespread and prevailing undercurrent of unconscious reification of 'the person'. That's why anatta is important. Anyway, kamma seems to be the Buddhist 'mainstay' pertaining to the nature of conditioning. And just to clarify, my initial query was based with more emphasis on the transcendent, at least I think so anyway, hehe. Ah, yes, well, I have a simple way to relate annatta and kamma by way of a pointing/prescription -- not to say that you need this, but just that it's the best way I have offhand to relate my understanding of how they fit together. If we think of volition as the ownership of intent, and observe the content of the mind and actions of the body in motion during the normal course of any given day, we can discern what makes choices. This is a suspension of the natural way of thinking ourselves as a separate, self-directed entity in the world. What it reveals is that this way of thinking (of ourselves as separate and separately-self-directed) is not only unnecessary, but essentially, a hindrance. The classic example of this is your breath -- do you need to choose to inhale and exhale? What happens if you do that? This isn't an advice to abandon the act of planning to the life of a leaf in the wind. The choices that are made do matter. Actions have consequences. What can happen with this sort of practice over time, however, is less resistance, different choices, and different consequences. The mind will sometimes label these as better or worse, but the absence of resistance isn't really a relative value judgment. Discerning that absence, however, isn't simple, can sometimes be confusing, and ultimately, is never certain, as there are often times when we must accept that there is a conflict to work through and resolve. I'd hesitate to use the phrase dismiss, but, yeah, I've seen it said in a number of quarters that the Buddha taught, ultimately the body is merely an aggregation of the senses, albeit a complex one. (Understatement). Actually I kinda see it as in keeping with what you say below about, "recognizing the ephemeral nature of all form in general" and that it ties in with the teaching of emptiness. It should be said, however, this is undoubtedly subject to translation and interpretation of the suttas and likely isn't universally accepted, especially considering a 'religion' as diverse as Buddhism these days. And eventually it'd all come down to direct seeing where it has the leave the words anyway , to which I'm sure you can relate. Yes I can definitely relate to that and I'm pretty sure I understand exactly what you mean by this. When I read the highlighted part what tends to spring to mind is maya - 'the great cosmic witch' so it's not a strain I'm hugely keen on. Although I understand it could be viewed as being just one of a number of ways of talking about certain things and very much relate to what you follow on to say. Yes, this is where it gets interesting, I can relate to those ideas but really can't say much more than that. Rebirth like kamma is a subject rich in depth, and really they need to be considered interdependently and again, in conjunction with anatta as well as samsara. I suspect the teaching is pointing to something substantially broader, or more abstract in nature than a reincarnating self (which would really be a notion stemming from ongoing egioc identification) and I think that's part of what I'm attempting to get at. I tend to conceive rebirth as pertaining to the nature of the arising of 'the current experience' (something I suspect I tend to envisage somewhat more abstractly than is usual), and the way in which it arises momentarily, as well as perhaps those more conventional ideas. The fabled 'they', will sometimes talk of Buddha remembering previous lives, however, I'm fairly confident it doesn't merely refer to some sort of linear progression of mind/bodies (again, notions most likely stemming from identification). Rather it will more likely be along the lines of something 'epistemic'. Perhaps depending on perspective, rebirth could be conceived of in terms of linearity, but also as being somewhat 'pseudo radial' in nature. In fact, that's where samsara comes in which deals with the nature of cycling . The 'formula' I tend to use when trying to picture samsara in action, is chaos theory (variable aperiodic system dynamics nonlinear), it's essential component being 'feedback'. Essentially chaos theory describes, a pattern that never exactly repeats itself, and a good way to visualise chaos theory in action is the cycle of weather patterns and the way the system feeds back into itself. The idea can be extended to notions about the entire cosmos and importantly, even the metaphysical. Chaos theory is also the crux of the mendlebrot equation. And imo these ideas lend themselves, somewhat analogously, to certain areas of interest in my ongoing quest for WIBIGO. But really at this stage I'm just trying to portray a counter image in the hope of giving you a better idea where I'm coming from and aren't looking to get too far into all this. Hopefully that doesn't come of as too standoffish, but as I say I consider my stance to be a matter of prudence more than anything. I'm familiar with fractals and I've worked with feedback as an engineer over the years but I'm only acquainted in passing and qualitatively with chaos theory. It seems like an interesting field. To call the world that of the "10,000 things" is a bit of an understatement, but in terms of it, there is this profound and marvelous complexity that is of a truly endless depth, and this depth is of course a sort of clue for the mind, in and of itself, of the nature of both the mind and that world. We can simply stop and look around and ask, how many objects can we name in our current field of perception? How long would it take us to make such a list? Think of this challenge in terms of the problem of determining the length of a coastline. In practice, the advice is to quiesce the mind, as what it is that is sought can't be found there. Some take this as a dismissal of or denigration of mind, but the fact is that if one considers the products of the collective efforts of multiple minds, and the order that these achieve on this endless depth of the 10 trillion things, it's really quite a different story. The power of the mind, although ultimately limited, is such that it can quite effectively obscure what is ever outside of it's reach, and this is the purpose of stilling it, in order to deflect that power to obscure. For instance, I can give a succinct arithmetic metaphor for realization. I first read it in a book by Goswammi and from what I can tell he likely first encountered it from Hofstadter. It's really cool, but a perfect example of an intellectual model of something the mind alone can never lay a glove on. In this, I take the idea of rebirth to be, ultimately, a similar phenomena of the mind making meaning of the patterns of appearances that it encounters. These meanings are always indirect shadows, but some of them can be very powerful. For the most part, I'm happy with, 'the awareness that is aware of itself' (as I think adaya put it) as a pointer to the fundamental of the deathless, and conversely I tend to envisage consciousness more in terms of the essential of that which is transient in nature, or the conditioned, ergo 'conscious-awareness'. So awareness 'descends' to consciousness which gives rise to sense- perception/creation, which is the essential of the aggregate which is the mind/body etc, etc. It's a good piece actually which I view as compatible with the ideas I'm interested in developing. Was Ramana the one with the cow? yeah that's him: His primary teaching can be named with a two-word phrase and described with one or two simple sentences, and it's one that suffuses and underlies any effective practice. Are you familiar with it? "Awareness descending" strikes me as a sort of trick of the mind, in that it associates what changes with changelessness by the factor of relationship, but what moves, only ever moves relative to whatever else moves, and has no center, no substance and no firm ground. What is eternal, however, never makes an appearance. Another metaphor that can be similarly misused by the thinker is that of the stage or the screen. What is, isn't a "what" at all, and is you, within you in a sublime and infinite silence, and yet also painted all around you in the brightest and loudest of colors.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 6, 2015 8:34:20 GMT -5
Ah, yes, well, I have a simple way to relate annatta and kamma by way of a pointing/prescription -- not to say that you need this, but just that it's the best way I have offhand to relate my understanding of how they fit together. If we think of volition as the ownership of intent, and observe the content of the mind and actions of the body in motion during the normal course of any given day, we can discern what makes choices. This is a suspension of the natural way of thinking ourselves as a separate, self-directed entity in the world. What it reveals is that this way of thinking (of ourselves as separate and separately-self-directed) is not only unnecessary, but essentially, a hindrance. The classic example of this is your breath -- do you need to choose to inhale and exhale? What happens if you do that? This isn't an advice to abandon the act of planning to the life of a leaf in the wind. The choices that are made do matter. Actions have consequences. What can happen with this sort of practice over time, however, is less resistance, different choices, and different consequences. The mind will sometimes label these as better or worse, but the absence of resistance isn't really a relative value judgment. Discerning that absence, however, isn't simple, can sometimes be confusing, and ultimately, is never certain, as there are often times when we must accept that there is a conflict to work through and resolve. Ok, I'd say we're both happy the idea, although choosing happens there is no chooser, per se, in the absence of 'self'-identification. And the breathing example is fine, obviously for the most part it happens unconsciously and is useful enough, hehe. It can also serve as a helpful indication of the depth to which conditioning ultimately runs. However, the sort of volitioning I'm specifically interested in concerns more a connection between, 'conscious intentional action' versus 'non-doing'. It's tricky to talk about because in truth I'm still ironing it all out, also I'm trying to avoid sounding like I'm proposing some sort of 'split-mind' inaction, seemingly oft promoted. Rather I'm trying to get at, a level of in inaction which comes about quite naturally, essentially, though noticing. Resulting in clear seeing. So, becoming conscious is kinda prerequisite. It's probably better if I can come back to that part but, Maybe it could be considered in terms of part of the process of 'the burning out' of kamma (intent), coz as far as kamma is concerned, the 'ideal' is, kamma resulting in the end of kamma. So, intent leading to the end of intent, analogous to, using a thorn to remove a thorn. And it's relevent because the end of kamma , by extension, means an end to the round of rebirth (samsara) which is subject to dukkha (suffering). Actually dukkha is the only example of a phrase I would tend to revert to another language for. Rather than the normal western conception of the word suffering, (which I understand some nd advocates reserve as merely a psychological component), the term dukkha refers to a state ranging between the two extremes - an exceedingly subtle yet prevailing undercurrent of dissatisfaction (due to the nature of, and further, effectively being intrinsic to, the realm of the phenomenal) ... to ... suffering (as it is generally conceived of in the west). For what it's worth, I'm addressing a disparity which arises from subtle differences between eastern and western culture, and the latter's propensity to focus on individualism, which results in the general western conception of suffering being an imperfect translation of what dukkha actually points to. In the last two paragraphs I'm effectively talking about the first noble truth. Anyway, the point of talking about all this is to set the stage to go on to mention how the 'extinguishing' of all kamma results in nibbana and ultimately parinibbana, which is the area, at least in my mind, along with what I alluded to when talking about the nature of dukkha, that starts to push at those perceived potential boundaries in non-dualism I've talked about previously. So these are some important bananas!, insofar as, it's the true end of suffering. I understand this might all sound at bit 'woo' for some discerning palettes but to be clear, currently, my primary interest is merely a comprehensive deconstruction of WIBIGO. Cool. Well, I'm no mathematician, that's for sure, but have you ever heard of Grahams number. I think I'm right in saying it's still officially the largest number. Picture it as being as large to a googleplex as a googleplex is to the number ten but in fact much larger than that. It's a finite number but is so large no-one knows how many digits it has, what number it starts with, or even if there are more ones than zero's. It takes a lengthy calculation just to reveal the last number, which incidentally is seven. It can't be fully comprehended. If I can share, in the UK we have this test called the eleven plus which the kids sit (aged ten) to see if they're smart enough to qualify for grammar school. My dad, ever the optimist was keen for me to pass the test, so he got in all these prep study books. (He was a banker so pretty good at math) I can't really remember any of the specific puzzles, but were along the lines of, if Jane travels this many miles .... and Mary travels that many miles, and so on and so forth, that sorta thing. Anyway I used to ask questions to try to get to the bottom of the principles, on and on I went, until it got to the stage where I was saying, "but why does 1 + 1 = 2?" And at that point poor ol' dad threw his hand up in the air in exasperation and said, " son! If you can't just take anything at face value you're in for a tough life!!" I knew he was right then as I know he was right now. I totally relate to where your coming from there and understand well the limitation of mind. Really, my interest in abstract principles is limited to any practical application they might offer, (in terms of analogy I spose). Believe it or not, what I am working toward is simplification and my position, rather than about doing more, ultimately, is about non-doing - but to an extent far greater (or lesser, hehe) than is generally given credit for. And maybe a couple of other things. (Btw, I don't know if it's clear but for the most part I reckon we're singing off the same hymn sheet). Yeah, he's a good lookin fella! I don't know, is it 'I am' or 'not two'? I thought I am was niz, I'm honestly not sure, please tell. I'm happy to discard the word descend, I didn't like it when I wrote it. I'd be very interested in your opinion on this article if you fancy having a flick thru. link
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 6, 2015 11:53:30 GMT -5
Hey L,
In retrospect I've decided I'm doing a purdy lousy job of not getting too far into stuff I'm still working to make sense of, ideally with a view to being able to relate simply. So if you don't mind, I'm thinking it's better to leave it until I've had a bit of a sort out and am able to better express some of those ideas. Really it was just that what Ramana said peaked my interest as it seemed to delve into an area I don't often see come up in the nd discussions here, and wondered if there was any more reading material along those lines. It has been useful to get some of my thoughts down though, and I do appreciate the opportunity. In the meantime I might dive in from time to time.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 6, 2015 13:51:58 GMT -5
Cool. Well, I'm no mathematician, that's for sure, but have you ever heard of Grahams number. I think I'm right in saying it's still officially the largest number. Picture it as being as large to a googleplex as a googleplex is to the number ten but in fact much larger than that. It's a finite number but is so large no-one knows how many digits it has, what number it starts with, or even if there are more ones than zero's. It takes a lengthy calculation just to reveal the last number, which incidentally is seven. It can't be fully comprehended. If I can share, in the UK we have this test called the eleven plus which the kids sit (aged ten) to see if they're smart enough to qualify for grammar school. My dad, ever the optimist was keen for me to pass the test, so he got in all these prep study books. (He was a banker so pretty good at math) I can't really remember any of the specific puzzles, but were along the lines of, if Jane travels this many miles .... and Mary travels that many miles, and so on and so forth, that sorta thing. Anyway I used to ask questions to try to get to the bottom of the principles, on and on I went, until it got to the stage where I was saying, "but why does 1 + 1 = 2?" And at that point poor ol' dad threw his hand up in the air in exasperation and said, " son! If you can't just take anything at face value you're in for a tough life!!" I knew he was right then as I know he was right now. I totally relate to where your coming from there and understand well the limitation of mind. Really, my interest in abstract principles is limited to any practical application they might offer, (in terms of analogy I spose). Believe it or not, what I am working toward is simplification and my position, rather than about doing more, ultimately, is about non-doing - but to an extent far greater (or lesser, hehe) than is generally given credit for. And maybe a couple of other things. (Btw, I don't know if it's clear but for the most part I reckon we're singing off the same hymn sheet). Loud and clear. For peeps like us that have had, at one point or another, an intellectual bent, the flurry of ideas that is the votex to the drain of logitation can sound noisy! Ah, yes, well, I have a simple way to relate annatta and kamma by way of a pointing/prescription -- not to say that you need this, but just that it's the best way I have offhand to relate my understanding of how they fit together. If we think of volition as the ownership of intent, and observe the content of the mind and actions of the body in motion during the normal course of any given day, we can discern what makes choices. This is a suspension of the natural way of thinking ourselves as a separate, self-directed entity in the world. What it reveals is that this way of thinking (of ourselves as separate and separately-self-directed) is not only unnecessary, but essentially, a hindrance. The classic example of this is your breath -- do you need to choose to inhale and exhale? What happens if you do that? This isn't an advice to abandon the act of planning to the life of a leaf in the wind. The choices that are made do matter. Actions have consequences. What can happen with this sort of practice over time, however, is less resistance, different choices, and different consequences. The mind will sometimes label these as better or worse, but the absence of resistance isn't really a relative value judgment. Discerning that absence, however, isn't simple, can sometimes be confusing, and ultimately, is never certain, as there are often times when we must accept that there is a conflict to work through and resolve. Ok, I'd say we're both happy the idea, although choosing happens there is no chooser, per se, in the absence of 'self'-identification. And the breathing example is fine, obviously for the most part it happens unconsciously and is useful enough, hehe. It can also serve as a helpful indication of the depth to which conditioning ultimately runs. However, the sort of volitioning I'm specifically interested in concerns more a connection between, 'conscious intentional action' versus 'non-doing'. It's tricky to talk about because in truth I'm still ironing it all out, also I'm trying to avoid sounding like I'm proposing some sort of 'split-mind' inaction, seemingly oft promoted. Rather I'm trying to get at, a level of in inaction which comes about quite naturally, essentially, though noticing. Resulting in clear seeing. So, becoming conscious is kinda prerequisite. It's probably better if I can come back to that part but, Maybe it could be considered in terms of part of the process of 'the burning out' of kamma (intent), coz as far as kamma is concerned, the 'ideal' is, kamma resulting in the end of kamma. So, intent leading to the end of intent, analogous to, using a thorn to remove a thorn. And it's relevent because the end of kamma , by extension, means an end to the round of rebirth (samsara) which is subject to dukkha (suffering). Actually dukkha is the only example of a phrase I would tend to revert to another language for. Rather than the normal western conception of the word suffering, (which I understand some nd advocates reserve as merely a psychological component), the term dukkha refers to a state ranging between the two extremes - an exceedingly subtle yet prevailing undercurrent of dissatisfaction (due to the nature of, and further, effectively being intrinsic to, the realm of the phenomenal) ... to ... suffering (as it is generally conceived of in the west). For what it's worth, I'm addressing a disparity which arises from subtle differences between eastern and western culture, and the latter's propensity to focus on individualism, which results in the general western conception of suffering being an imperfect translation of what dukkha actually points to. In the last two paragraphs I'm effectively talking about the first noble truth. Anyway, the point of talking about all this is to set the stage to go on to mention how the 'extinguishing' of all kamma results in nibbana and ultimately parinibbana, which is the area, at least in my mind, along with what I alluded to when talking about the nature of dukkha, that starts to push at those perceived potential boundaries in non-dualism I've talked about previously. So these are some important bananas!, insofar as, it's the true end of suffering. I understand this might all sound at bit 'woo' for some discerning palettes but to be clear, currently, my primary interest is merely a comprehensive deconstruction of WIBIGO. Interesting read. It can sound woo-woo, yes, but really, it's pointing to the here and now. Something the monkey mind often finds mundane and uninteresting. Yeah, he's a good lookin fella! I don't know, is it 'I am' or 'not two'? I thought I am was niz, I'm honestly not sure, please tell. I'm happy to discard the word descend, I didn't like it when I wrote it. I'd be very interested in your opinion on this article if you fancy having a flick thru. linkRM is truly a compelling figure, isn't he? His two word method is self-inquiry, and in summary, the question is, to what does the question arise? This can be incorporated into practice to devastating effect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 6, 2015 13:56:48 GMT -5
Hey L, In retrospect I've decided I'm doing a purdy lousy job of not getting too far into stuff I'm still working to make sense of, ideally with a view to being able to relate simply. So if you don't mind, I'm thinking it's better to leave it until I've had a bit of a sort out and am able to better express some of those ideas. Really it was just that what Ramana said peaked my interest as it seemed to delve into an area I don't often see come up in the nd discussions here, and wondered if there was any more reading material along those lines. It has been useful to get some of my thoughts down though, and I do appreciate the opportunity. In the meantime I might dive in from time to time. Hey 'ros, no pressure man ... I won't make anything of it either way if you go silent for awhile. Yeah, I do know how intense these dialogs can be. As far as the link to Bodhi's article is concerned, I'm reminded of something a guy I met in Ithaca said during our conversation: In Advaita-Vendata, "all is Self", while to the Bhuddist, there is no self. What we both agreed on is the fact that these conceptual structures are both pointing in exactly the same direction, which is to say, everywhere and nowhere.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 6, 2015 17:14:54 GMT -5
Interesting read. It can sound woo-woo, yes, but really, it's pointing to the here and now. Something the monkey mind often finds mundane and uninteresting. Right. And it's not really woo if you distinguish between the supranatural and the supramundane, the latter being my main area of focus. And you're right, the monkey mind will have no interest in that, that's for sure, but will often be fascinated by the supranatural. In fairness though there is a connection. Indeedy. I just googled the cow story but it seems the part of particular interest came up in a recounting by Osho, - I don't know if he's a non-dualie. He might be a maniac. Reading that again and considering that other line that interested me I shall have a further look into Maharshi.. Ah ok, thanks for clarifying that. Yes self-inquiry is important. I notice the SR will always say self- inquiry, whilst the seeker tends to write about self- enquiry and that's quite telling. Worth noting.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 6, 2015 17:22:59 GMT -5
Hey 'ros, no pressure man ... I won't make anything of it either way if you go silent for awhile. Yeah, I do know how intense these dialogs can be. Hehe, it sounds like you already did! Thanks for checking it out, and for the link, it was good to read. In all truthfulness I'm not so keen on Self, as like some of the other guys I feel it's ripe for a bit of 3rd mountain identity poker. Although I'm not saying for sure that's what's going on in any particular cases. Sometimes I read stuff that makes me think it might be and then other times I read something that makes it clear it's at least recognised that's not what's being intended. I understand it as a useful way of pointing away from the usual mind/body identified position and that's fine. However, I work on the basis, if it starts along the lines of, 'what you are is ...' then ultimately it's based on ongoing delusion. Also, I understand anatta translates directly to not- self and it's been said, if Buddha intended no-self he would have said na-atta which would be the direct translation from Pali of that particular phrase. In my understanding it's a very subtle teaching which is not intended to land on a definitive conclusion that the monkey mind can really grasp but similar to the 'pointing away' described above, also being part of a larger body of teachings (dharma) designed to bring about a specific 'goal' - the end of rebirth, ergo dukkha. Imo a more accurate interpretation of anatta would be, no inherently existing and abiding self. Having said all that, it's still part of what I'm working on and may ultimately turn out to be a dwad. I certainly notice that even highly regarded dharma exponents refer to no-self, although that could well just be for the sake of relatabilty for the layman. Ok, there I go again! Yes, and for the most part it may just be coming down to the quality of the pointers. That's what I'm trying to get to the bottom of actually. (Worth mentioning that' s something slightly different to pointer licking btw).
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 6, 2015 17:36:30 GMT -5
Right, I'm withdrawing again now. There's too much other interesting stuff to read around here to bother with all this writing!, hehe
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 7, 2015 18:18:12 GMT -5
Right, I'm withdrawing again now. There's too much other interesting stuff to read around here to bother with all this writing!, hehe (** muttley snicker **)
|
|