|
Post by laughter on Mar 24, 2021 19:42:21 GMT -5
I've acknowledged your explanation, but simply disagreed with it. And I don't expect you to believe me. As a matter of fact, I'd urge you not to, but to continue with your inquiry, and find out the existential truth of the matter for yourself. The end of the existential seeking has nothing to do with belief, one way or another, and anyone whose sense of identity is based on a belief or system of belief is living in a castle made of sand. I tried to be nice. and hey, I didn't find anything you wrote otherwise. As for me, you see, I can prove that I "tried to be nice" (perhaps it escaped you). That's not to insist or even to suggest that you're wrong on the notion of identity the question of purpose is an inquiry that's rife with opportunity. If you're satisfied with the basis for your current inquiry, that's great
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 24, 2021 20:07:47 GMT -5
and hey, I didn't find anything you wrote otherwise. As for me, you see, I can prove that I "tried to be nice" (perhaps it escaped you). That's not to insist or even to suggest that you're wrong on the notion of identity the question of purpose is an inquiry that's rife with opportunity. If you're satisfied with the basis for your current inquiry, that's great Your niceties were condescending, so not-nice.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 24, 2021 22:43:22 GMT -5
and hey, I didn't find anything you wrote otherwise. As for me, you see, I can prove that I "tried to be nice" (perhaps it escaped you). Your niceties were condescending, so not-nice. There's an alternative perspective on the dialog available to you where we're simply co-equals that agree to disagree.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 25, 2021 1:47:46 GMT -5
I guess that was a bridge too far. Would you expand on this? It was a playful way to answer the question while at the same time turning it around and sending it back to the questioner. Rinzai was once giving a dharma talk about "the True Man of No Status who flies in and out through the openings of the face." A monk in the audience asked, "Who is this True Man of No Status?" Rinzai jumped down from the high seat, grabbed the monk, and shouted, "Speak! Speak!" The monk was paralyzed and could not respond, so Rinzai thrust him away and said, "This True of Man of No Status is a piece of dung" and walked out of the hall. Someone once asked Nisargadatta, "Who are you, fundamentally?" Nisargadatta replied, "I am that which asked the question." Same way of responding but not as humorous. In the simplest sense, we are always talking to ourselves because there is only one thingless thing here. The SVP is totally imaginary, but what we are is NOT imaginary and even talks to itself!
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 25, 2021 14:34:10 GMT -5
Would you expand on this? It was a playful way to answer the question while at the same time turning it around and sending it back to the questioner. Rinzai was once giving a dharma talk about "the True Man of No Status who flies in and out through the openings of the face." A monk in the audience asked, "Who is this True Man of No Status?" Rinzai jumped down from the high seat, grabbed the monk, and shouted, "Speak! Speak!" The monk was paralyzed and could not respond, so Rinzai thrust him away and said, "This True of Man of No Status is a piece of dung" and walked out of the hall. Someone once asked Nisargadatta, "Who are you, fundamentally?" Nisargadatta replied, "I am that which asked the question." Same way of responding but not as humorous. In the simplest sense, we are always talking to ourselves because there is only one thingless thing here. The SVP is totally imaginary, but what we are is NOT imaginary and even talks to itself! I see. We seem to see, at some point, the same piece of reality, but we interpret it differently. The "thingless thing" I see as the reality my subconscious creates, and my conscious observe while awake (not sleeping). It is true that everything in that reality is my subconscious creation, but I wouldn't call it "thingless thing", as I don't call my (conventionally speaking) dream, nor its elements. Regarding the examples you mentioned, and in general, I'd say that if one is unwilling to do their best to answer in a way to be understood by the questioner, then they should keep quite, because otherwise their reply is insulting.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 25, 2021 15:03:35 GMT -5
It was a playful way to answer the question while at the same time turning it around and sending it back to the questioner. Rinzai was once giving a dharma talk about "the True Man of No Status who flies in and out through the openings of the face." A monk in the audience asked, "Who is this True Man of No Status?" Rinzai jumped down from the high seat, grabbed the monk, and shouted, "Speak! Speak!" The monk was paralyzed and could not respond, so Rinzai thrust him away and said, "This True of Man of No Status is a piece of dung" and walked out of the hall. Someone once asked Nisargadatta, "Who are you, fundamentally?" Nisargadatta replied, "I am that which asked the question." Same way of responding but not as humorous. In the simplest sense, we are always talking to ourselves because there is only one thingless thing here. The SVP is totally imaginary, but what we are is NOT imaginary and even talks to itself! I see. We seem to see, at some point, the same piece of reality, but we interpret it differently. The "thingless thing" I see as the reality my subconscious creates, and my conscious observe while awake (not sleeping). It is true that everything in that reality is my subconscious creation, but I wouldn't call it "thingless thing", as I don't call my (conventionally speaking) dream, nor its elements. Regarding the examples you mentioned, and in general, I'd say that if one is unwilling to do their best to answer in a way to be understood by the questioner, then they should keep quite, because otherwise their reply is insulting. Yes, it can be considered insulting, but it can also be considered a form of deep play. This form of play is common in the Zen tradition, and the funnier and more ironic it is the better. If I answered your question straight, and without being playful, I would respond with something like "What I am is without limit or boundaries and cannot be imagined. What I am is beyond birth or death and includes the entire field of all being, seen or unseen. I use the word 'THIS' to point to it."
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Mar 25, 2021 15:35:50 GMT -5
I see. We seem to see, at some point, the same piece of reality, but we interpret it differently. The "thingless thing" I see as the reality my subconscious creates, and my conscious observe while awake (not sleeping). It is true that everything in that reality is my subconscious creation, but I wouldn't call it "thingless thing", as I don't call my (conventionally speaking) dream, nor its elements. Regarding the examples you mentioned, and in general, I'd say that if one is unwilling to do their best to answer in a way to be understood by the questioner, then they should keep quite, because otherwise their reply is insulting. Yes, it can be considered insulting, but it can also be considered a form of deep play. This form of play is common in the Zen tradition, and the funnier and more ironic it is the better. If I answered your question straight, and without being playful, I would respond with something like "What I am is without limit or boundaries and cannot be imagined. What I am is beyond birth or death and includes the entire field of all being, seen or unseen. I use the word 'THIS' to point to it." Although I would appreciate much more that kind of response, I would appreciate even more being pointed toward finding it out for myself, and expressing (as a guru) his acknowledgement that this is what he believes to be the truth now, in this moment, but that he leaves room for the fact that he may be wrong, at least in some respects. By the way, it is obvious that you're experienced in dealing with doubters and nay-sayers; good table manners
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 25, 2021 16:05:34 GMT -5
Yes, it can be considered insulting, but it can also be considered a form of deep play. This form of play is common in the Zen tradition, and the funnier and more ironic it is the better. If I answered your question straight, and without being playful, I would respond with something like "What I am is without limit or boundaries and cannot be imagined. What I am is beyond birth or death and includes the entire field of all being, seen or unseen. I use the word 'THIS' to point to it." Although I would appreciate much more that kind of response, I would appreciate even more being pointed toward finding it out for myself, and expressing (as a guru) his acknowledgement that this is what he believes to be the truth now, in this moment, but that he leaves room for the fact that he may be wrong, at least in some respects. By the way, it is obvious that you're experienced in dealing with doubters and nay-sayers; good table manners Fortunately or otherwise, big realizations leave no room for doubt whatsoever about what is seen. Afterwards, small realizations may refine aspects of one's understanding, but they never negate the essence of what was seen. Direct seeing is non-conceptual and is beyond ideas and beliefs, so it is not like a eureka moment in the scientific realm through which an existing theory is replaced with another theory that has a broader application. It is like a eureka moment in the sense of "Ah ha! Now I see this in a new and completely different way." When the illusion of selfhood collapses, for example, it becomes unquestionably obvious that there was never a personal volitional entity in any sense, so the truth of what was seen is unassailable. The past sense of selfhood is then seen as a story, or set of thoughts, or conceptual construct utterly unrelated to what one actually is. Tonight there will be a zoom meeting during which 4 people who have seen through the personal selfhood illusion will give their best advice to people who are interested in seeing through that illusion. I have no idea what the others will say, but my advice can be condensed into: 1. Question all of your ideas 2. Contemplate what you want to know 3. Shift attention away from thoughts to beyond the mind (ATA-T, shikan taza, staying with the sense of I am, etc) 4. Do solo silent retreats focusing upon any or all of the above activities 5. Spend some time alone in nature I had one significant realization that I can remember prior to the time I began meditating. After I began meditating, realizations began to occur, and their occurrence seemed to be strongly correlated with internal silence, choiceless awareness, a not-knowing state of mind created by intense curiosity, and the shifting of attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. I once wrote a list of those realizations, and saw that there were five or six big ones that were revolutionary and dozens of small ones that simply added some additional clarity. There doesn't seem to be any end to Self-realizations ("In my Father's house are many mansions"), but the spiritual search usually comes to an end when the Big Picture is seen in sufficient clarity to end all existential questions. If other good advice is given during this zoom session, I'll make some notes and post that advice here.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 7:41:56 GMT -5
one, two. There is a third alternative, can be in the midst of one, but very difficult to do. Can be in the midst of two, relatively easier. The third can-stand-alone, with-nothing-else. sdp only interested in the third, being- conscious. The third is something that not-now-is. It isn't, until it is. one, easy, ordinary. two, not so easy, but possible. third, never-just-happens. third, the only thing that matters, it is not-being-totally-absorbed into whatever is being done. It is never just digging a ditch, never just-doing anything. third is almost impossible, almost. When the third occurs, nothing else means anything, except for it to reoccur. Self remembering or as others might describe it "being aware of being aware?" Glad you're back. Yes, precisely, the state itself is more important than what it's called. But if there are no words used to describe the something else, no what it's called, then the mind-body maybe hasn't experienced it. Maybe a better name, but a name is just a name, remembering-who-you-were-before-you-were-born. (It's not ego-remembering, it's ego-'forgetting'). But misunderstandings are inevitable. But it's no an ephemeral something, it's something you can sink your teeth into. (Most of that is not for you, zazeniac, it's for almost anybody else who might read). Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 7:49:15 GMT -5
I am the (an) idiot (wind). good for you. idiots get to go first. did you get the shot yet? I get a booster every year, just in case I need it, which is inevitable. (And I got my second COVID shot, too, Thursday 3-25-21).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:06:33 GMT -5
Putting conditioning into perspective of the biggest picture doesn't make it irrelevant. It's the same with suffering. People really are suffering. Seeing how the root of that is an illusion doesn't make it go away for anyone but the one who realizes this, and it doesn't make the suffering of other's unimportant. If anything, it allows a different sort of re-conditioning, toward being able to understand and tolerate the pain people act out. To be clear and honest, I can't claim to be "free of all vassana's". I don't dismiss this as a possible potential for others, but the distinction between that and the realization is quite clear to me. I associate compassion and empathy with silence, beauty. This is why "love your enemies, do good to those who harm you" is the most useful pointer, the biggest wrench that can be thrown into my mental chainsaw. I've been studying a little about Tolstoy, his later years after his coming to understand the real essence of the teaching of Jesus. Seems he was a big influence on Gandhi. He came to believe "resist not evil" with force of any kind, was central to the teaching of Jesus. It's easier for me to love a stranger, than my sister. I'm finally looking into that... She's the grain of sand in my oyster. ....still, after 69 years... ...
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:32:14 GMT -5
I associate compassion and empathy with silence, beauty. This is why "love your enemies, do good to those who harm you" is the most useful pointer, the biggest wrench that can be thrown into my mental chainsaw. I believe that that tenet is a misinterpretation of the warning that the opposite emotions (anger, hate) are bad for us, because our emotions create / attract into our physical lives situations that will cause more of the same emotions (in this case: more anger, more hate). Nobody can love their enemies, nor those that harm them. That was possible, after long torture in Orwell's "1984": I'm reading and responding in order (IOW, haven't read zazen's response). Oh, I verily disagree. You must be a young lady. Research the Civil Rights movement of the '50's and '60's and Martin Luther King Jr. His model was Gandhi (and watch that film if you've never seen it. A scene seared in my memory. A Hindu comes to Gandhi asking how he can be forgiven for the violence he has perpetrated on Muslims. Gandhi told him, adopt a Muslim child than has been orphaned, and you must raise him as a Muslim). Love is primarily an action. Did the black protestors like to get the s**t beat out of them? No. How did they possibly not retaliate? They came to understand the power of love your enemies. I didn't know until recently, the great John Lewis the day he was beaten and arrested at the day of the Edmund Pettus Bridge crossing, the march, had a copy of Thomas Merton's autobiography The Seven Story Mountain in his backpack he intended to read in jail that night. His backpack was lost. Resist not evil is a forge, a literal forge. Negative emotions almost inevitably lead to violence, but they can be transformed, forged. So one has to start earlier, forge negative emotions before they they turn to violence. Love your enemies is a command, an action. The action has to come before the emotion can come.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:34:25 GMT -5
I believe that that tenet is a misinterpretation of the warning that the opposite emotions (anger, hate) are bad for us, because our emotions create / attract into our physical lives situations that will cause more of the same emotions (in this case: more anger, more hate). Nobody can love their enemies, nor those that harm them. That was possible, after long torture in Orwell's "1984": No, that's really what Jesus meant. Literally. Love those who despise, hate and seek to injure you. There's this guy, Father Joe, and he likes to emphasize - by repeating it, and verbally underlining it - just how radical this idea was. And still is. There's also an evil frog that used to come around here and get everyone all riled up telling them that noone was really ever to blame for anything because they didn't have any free will. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:35:45 GMT -5
That was an attempt to a joke. I didn't know either of the meanings of the word "reefer". yes, I've started to notice all the levity. As for Mary Jane, it's also (occasionally) our moderator's nickname. Perhaps you're belying your (relative) youth. Yep.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 28, 2021 8:39:32 GMT -5
what if that inner guide in your head was actually just mind putting on the sage cap Yea, you have to keep backing up to what AW called the which of which there is no whicher.
|
|