|
Post by zendancer on Aug 9, 2017 11:57:22 GMT -5
Agitation happens when you fart in public and no amount of "enlightenment" will stop it. That's an interesting claim, but is it true? If the question following that claim is asked as a koan, the answer will be obvious to anyone familiar with koans.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2017 13:01:12 GMT -5
I have a parrot that loves me to pet his head, occasionally he turns around and chomps my finger bloody. Would an enlightened finger not be bit? Would an enlightened master not scream in agony? Is that the natural state? I scream and cuss at him, and he laughs. Who's enlightened? Oh forgot. There is no finger. There is no parrot. Please. Too much Kwai Chai Kane.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 11, 2017 14:50:45 GMT -5
I have a parrot that loves me to pet his head, occasionally he turns around and chomps my finger bloody. Would an enlightened finger not be bit? Would an enlightened master not scream in agony? Is that the natural state? I scream and cuss at him, and he laughs. Who's enlightened? Oh forgot. There is no finger. There is no parrot. Please. Too much Kwai Chai Kane. The reason that I questioned the claim regarding "agitation" is that the word "enlightenment" can point to many different states of mind. During and after a deep CC experience, psychological agitation is often totally absent, and nothing can disturb one's equanimity. Various events that would ordinarily cause agitation, embarrassment, fear, or other similar responses are like water off a duck's back. They simply have no effect at all. Usually, this state of mind is transient, and only lasts for a few hours or a few days, but a few people have reported that it lasted for years. Yes, a sage's finger would be bit by an angry parrot, and a sage might yell if in pain, but there is a huge range of possible responses as far as psychological agitation is concerned. The natural state is a state of flow, but psychological agitation is not a certainty; it's only a possibility. One of the reasons that I discuss TNS is that it's ordinary everyday life lived without the usual self-referential patterns of thought that keep so many people lost in the concensus trance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2017 12:34:51 GMT -5
Isn't the natural state just "what is" and some times "what is" doesn't flow at all. Doesn't this talk of flow and bliss and other sweetnesses just set up expectations and illusions about the natural state? I'm not sure there is anything that is not the natural state. To me it's all about acceptance and surrender to my humanness, frailty and frequent stupidity. When I was younger I always hoped to curb it. Now I just accept it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 13, 2017 13:20:33 GMT -5
Isn't the natural state just "what is" and some times "what is" doesn't flow at all. Doesn't this talk of flow and bliss and other sweetnesses just set up expectations and illusions about the natural state? I'm not sure there is anything that is not the natural state. To me it's all about acceptance and surrender to my humanness, frailty and frequent stupidity. When I was younger I always hoped to curb it. Now I just accept it. Well, I didn't use the terms "bliss" or "sweetness" or any other adjectives suggesting bells or whistles on purpose. I used the word "flow" because many people on the forum understand that flow is a form of samadhi (psychological oneness with whatever is happening). Everyone experiences flow/samadhi from time to time, but it's almost always transient. Even nirvikalpa samadhi is transient. Ramana said that NS is the deepest samadhi, but he said that SS is the highest samadhi. This statement puzzled me for many months after I read it, but then a poster on this site provided another quote from Ramana that suggested more clearly what he was pointing to. Why would Ramana call SS the "highest" samadhi? I realized that Ramana's SS was equivalent to what some Zen Masters have described as "ordinary everyday life" following SR, and what some people on this site have called TNS. Sure, in one sense everything is TNS, but I think Ramana and various Zen Masters are pointing to something a bit different. I think they're pointing to a continuing state of flow that can result from penetrating the illusion of selfhood at a sufficiently deep level. The main thing that prevents what we might equivalently call "everyday samadhi" is self-referential thinking, and this is why Zen Masters also emphasize mushin, or no-mind. I agree that there's no escape from being human, but little children and sages live in a different psychological state of mind than most adults, and I suspect that Ramana was pointing to that state of mind when he called SS the highest form of samadhi. Why highest? Because it isn't transient.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 14, 2017 8:27:03 GMT -5
Isn't the natural state just "what is" and some times "what is" doesn't flow at all. Doesn't this talk of flow and bliss and other sweetnesses just set up expectations and illusions about the natural state? I'm not sure there is anything that is not the natural state. To me it's all about acceptance and surrender to my humanness, frailty and frequent stupidity. When I was younger I always hoped to curb it. Now I just accept it. Well, I didn't use the terms "bliss" or "sweetness" or any other adjectives suggesting bells or whistles on purpose. I used the word "flow" because many people on the forum understand that flow is a form of samadhi (psychological oneness with whatever is happening). Everyone experiences flow/samadhi from time to time, but it's almost always transient. Even nirvikalpa samadhi is transient. Ramana said that NS is the deepest samadhi, but he said that SS is the highest samadhi. This statement puzzled me for many months after I read it, but then a poster on this site provided another quote from Ramana that suggested more clearly what he was pointing to. Why would Ramana call SS the "highest" samadhi? I realized that Ramana's SS was equivalent to what some Zen Masters have described as "ordinary everyday life" following SR, and what some people on this site have called TNS. Sure, in one sense everything is TNS, but I think Ramana and various Zen Masters are pointing to something a bit different. I think they're pointing to a continuing state of flow that can result from penetrating the illusion of selfhood at a sufficiently deep level. The main thing that prevents what we might equivalently call "everyday samadhi" is self-referential thinking, and this is why Zen Masters also emphasize mushin, or no-mind. I agree that there's no escape from being human, but little children and sages live in a different psychological state of mind than most adults, and I suspect that Ramana was pointing to that state of mind when he called SS the highest form of samadhi. Why highest? Because it isn't transient. As it relates to referencing this post, what's the difference between a sage and a little child?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 14, 2017 8:33:09 GMT -5
Isn't the natural state just "what is" and some times "what is" doesn't flow at all. Doesn't this talk of flow and bliss and other sweetnesses just set up expectations and illusions about the natural state? I'm not sure there is anything that is not the natural state. To me it's all about acceptance and surrender to my humanness, frailty and frequent stupidity. When I was younger I always hoped to curb it. Now I just accept it. Ego-functioning is not the natural state, that's pretty-much the definition of ego. Following ZD, mushin is no-ego (not that there is no mind [there is "brain" processing going on], but there are no distorting influences of ego getting in the way, the filters are lowered, the veil is raised).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 14, 2017 10:23:17 GMT -5
Well, I didn't use the terms "bliss" or "sweetness" or any other adjectives suggesting bells or whistles on purpose. I used the word "flow" because many people on the forum understand that flow is a form of samadhi (psychological oneness with whatever is happening). Everyone experiences flow/samadhi from time to time, but it's almost always transient. Even nirvikalpa samadhi is transient. Ramana said that NS is the deepest samadhi, but he said that SS is the highest samadhi. This statement puzzled me for many months after I read it, but then a poster on this site provided another quote from Ramana that suggested more clearly what he was pointing to. Why would Ramana call SS the "highest" samadhi? I realized that Ramana's SS was equivalent to what some Zen Masters have described as "ordinary everyday life" following SR, and what some people on this site have called TNS. Sure, in one sense everything is TNS, but I think Ramana and various Zen Masters are pointing to something a bit different. I think they're pointing to a continuing state of flow that can result from penetrating the illusion of selfhood at a sufficiently deep level. The main thing that prevents what we might equivalently call "everyday samadhi" is self-referential thinking, and this is why Zen Masters also emphasize mushin, or no-mind. I agree that there's no escape from being human, but little children and sages live in a different psychological state of mind than most adults, and I suspect that Ramana was pointing to that state of mind when he called SS the highest form of samadhi. Why highest? Because it isn't transient. As it relates to referencing this post, what's the difference between a sage and a little child? A little child does not yet have a fully developed intellect, so it isn't troubled by self-referential thoughts and all of the other kinds of thoughts that keep adults dazed, confused, and lost in the concensus trance. A little child naturally lives in the present moment, and never thinks about the past or future. A little child does not judge, compare, reflect, etc, but instead, interacts with the world directly through its senses. As it grows up and is conditioned to think about the world like adults, a child loses its psychological unity with "what is," and begins spending more and more of its time thinking about the world rather than interacting with it directly. A sage has a fully developed intellect, but is free from the domination of the intellect. A sage primarily lives in the present moment and directly interacts with whatever is happening. A sage thinks, but is free from attachment to thoughts, ideas, and beliefs. Perhaps most significantly, a sage does not imagine that s/he is an entity separate from "what is."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 14, 2017 10:42:14 GMT -5
Isn't the natural state just "what is" and some times "what is" doesn't flow at all. Doesn't this talk of flow and bliss and other sweetnesses just set up expectations and illusions about the natural state? I'm not sure there is anything that is not the natural state. To me it's all about acceptance and surrender to my humanness, frailty and frequent stupidity. When I was younger I always hoped to curb it. Now I just accept it. Hey maniac, nice to see your recent incarnation guy. The way I understand it, "the natural state" is first and foremost a differentiation between the state of living that most peeps commonly live out and what's possible after self-realization. This issue of bliss is of course one that's been a frequent topic of past dialogs here, and the one that gave us the "perpetugasm". To me, simply and starkly put, the distinction between the natural state and the common state is that both might involve pain at times, but that the common state involves suffering, while the natural state doesn't. Some peeps like to read into that distinction between pain and suffering. They read in the conclusion that suffering is all mind made and that all one has to do is to stop wanting or desiring or resisting or rejecting what arises, and that all it takes is to question the truth of one's thoughts and recognize that all sensation and objects and relationships are "dream stuff". But, practically speaking, it's simply not that simple, because the question of suffering is wrapped up inextricably with the question of what it is that we are. So while some of those suggestions about reorienting towards what comes and goes might be revealing, the way I see it is that what gets revealed at any given time is quite specific to the person looking, where they are, where they've been, and how they're looking. Most of the bliss-bunnies and their advocates here over the ears seem to me to have been preaching and teaching what it is they wanted to learn. That doesn't mean that positive experiences should be dismissed, or that the natural state can't be accurately described in terms of a sort of underlying lightness, or ephemerality to life as it's happening. But any of these descriptions are at best pointers wrapped around an existential mystery further shrouded by a veil of subjectivity. I'd suspect a message that the natural state is free of pain or that the suffering peeps feel is unreal, though the nature of suffering is a valid challenge to anyone with enough strength to face it. One rife with opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 9:43:00 GMT -5
Brings back Bible memories:"the least among you is the greatest." Suspect Ramana's use of terms like "highest" is a prop, a stepping stone. Notions of heiarchy and lower, higher seem bizarre to me, but I'm quite dense. Laughter uses his words deftly. I can't argue. "Bliss-bunnies." We're all programmed that way. I see that. Try to fight it and fail or fool yourself, a whole lot of that happens. I come here hoping for bliss and also hoping to avoid pain. I see that too. It provokes laughter. You have to laugh.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 15, 2017 11:06:56 GMT -5
I take back everything. Zendancer, laughter et al are right. There are "useful" distinctions that aren't true, but can help point in the direction of truth. No more argument from me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 15, 2017 12:56:29 GMT -5
Brings back Bible memories:"the least among you is the greatest. " Suspect Ramana's use of terms like "highest" is a prop, a stepping stone. Notions of heiarchy and lower, higher seem bizarre to me, but I'm quite dense. Laughter uses his words deftly. I can't argue. "Bliss-bunnies." We're all programmed that way. I see that. Try to fight it and fail or fool yourself, a whole lot of that happens. I come here hoping for bliss and also hoping to avoid pain. I see that too. It provokes laughter. You have to laugh. Yes, "higher", "true", "pure", "right" all contain mind hooks. You know what drew you to the zazen. You know what you found in silence. The mind plays tricks with these dichotomies, but they all are used just point to that simplicity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 17, 2017 20:26:49 GMT -5
🤔
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 18, 2017 6:19:19 GMT -5
(** muttley snicker **)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 23, 2017 10:08:59 GMT -5
Now when I said there are "useful" distinctions. I should have added the caveat that they are only useful in specific contexts. Taken as universal truths these same distinctions can be dangerous. Couldn't let laughter have the last word.
|
|