Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 8:15:27 GMT -5
I thought this quote was relevant to the claims and counter-claims of Realization. It speaks for itself. It is from "Be As You Are," which in my view is an amazing document, almost as if Jesus could have been interviewed and his words recorded. Every page is awe-inspiring. I mention Jesus only because this is how the door toward looking inward first opened for me. I knew there was a huge disconnect between some of what Jesus was purported to say and how Christians behaved. Q: Is a jnani capable of or likely to commit sins? A: An ajnani sees someone as a jnani and identifies him with the body. Because he does not know the Self and mistakes his body for the Self, he extends the same mistake to the state of the jnani. The jnani is therefore considered to be the physical frame. Again since the ajnani, though he is not the doer, imagines himself to be the doer and considers the actions of the body his own, he thinks the jnani to be similarly acting when the body is active. But the jnani himself knows the truth and is not confounded. The state of a jnani cannot be determined by the ajnani and therefore the question troubles only the ajnani and never arises for the jnani. If he is a doer he must determine the nature of the actions. The Self cannot be the doer. Find out who is the doer and the Self is revealed. Q: So it amounts to this. To see a jnani is not to understand him. You see the jnani’s body and not his jnana. One must therefore be a jnani to know a jnani. A: The jnani sees no one as an ajnani. All are only jnanis in his sight. In the ignorant state one superimposes one’s ignorance on a jnani and mistakes him for a doer. In the state of jnana, the jnani sees nothing separate from the Self. The Self is all shining and only pure jnana. So there is no ajnana in his sight. There is an illustration for this kind of illusion or superimposition. Two friends went to sleep side by side. One of them dreamt that both of them had gone on a long journey and that they had had strange experiences. On waking up he recapitulated them and asked his friend if it was not so. The other one simply ridiculed him saying that it was only his dream and could not affect the other. So it is with the ajnani who superimposes his illusory ideas on others. Q: You have said that the jnani can be and is active, and deals with men and things. I have no doubt about it now. But you say at the same time that he sees no differences; to him all is one, he is always in the consciousness. If so, how does he deal with differences, with men, with things which are surely different? A: He sees these differences as but appearances, he sees them as not separate from the true, the real, with which he is one. Q: The jnani seems to be more accurate in his expressions, he appreciates the differences better than the ordinary man. If sugar is sweet and wormwood is bitter to me, he too seems to realize it so. In fact, all forms, all sounds, all tastes, etc., are the same to him as they are to others. If so, how can it be said that these are mere appearances? Do they not form part of his life-experience? A: I have said that equality is the true sign of jnana. The very term equality implies the existence of differences. It is a unity that the jnani perceives in all differences, which I call equality. Equality does not mean ignorance of distinctions. When you have the realization you can see that these differences are very superficial, that they are not at all substantial or permanent, and what is essential in all these appearances is the one truth, the real. That I call unity. You referred to sound, taste, form, smell, etc. True the jnani appreciates the distinctions, but he always perceives and experiences the one reality in all of them. That is why he has no preferences. Whether he moves about, or talks, or acts, it is all the one reality in which he acts or moves or talks. He has nothing apart from the one supreme truth. Q: They say that the jnani conducts himself with absolute equality towards all? A: Yes. Friendship, kindness, happiness and such other bhavas [attitudes] become natural to them. Affection towards the good, kindness towards the helpless, happiness in doing good deeds, forgiveness towards the wicked, all such things are natural characteristics of the jnani (Patanjali, Yoga Sutras, 1:37). You ask about jnanis: they are the same in any state or condition, as they know the reality, the truth. In their daily routine of taking food, moving about and all the rest, they, the jnanis, act only for others. Not a single action is done for themselves. I have already told you many times that just as there are people whose profession is to mourn for a fee, so also the jnanis do things for the sake of others with detachment, without themselves being affected by them. The jnani weeps with the weeping, laughs with the laughing, plays with the playful, sings with those who sing, keeping time to the song. What does he lose? His presence is like a pure, transparent mirror. It reflects the image exactly as it is. But the jnani, who is only a mirror, is unaffected by actions. How can a mirror, or the stand on which it is mounted, be affected by the reflections? Nothing affects them as they are mere supports. On the other hand, the actors in the world – the doers of all acts, the ajnanis – must decide for themselves what song and what action is for the welfare of the world, what is in accordance with the sastras, and what is practicable. Bumped for SDP.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 8:29:32 GMT -5
Sifting: What was the sequence of events in your case that led to freedom, and how would you describe what happened? Were there multiple realizations along the way, or was there just one huge insight? Would you say that you were driven more by curiosity or suffering? Was there a point in time when you apprehended the Infinite, or did that coincide with SR? Would you describe life post SR as one of effortless flow (sahaja samadhi)? To make a long story short, it started with existential depression in my teens. Learned about Vedanta then through my guru at the time, and a kind of basic understanding of the search. About 20 years of psychological struggle to figure out why my mind wasn't able to focus on the search properly, and yes, progressively clearer and clearer understandings of the search along the way. For example, I encountered Ramana Maharshi about 15 years ago, and knew he was profound, but then when I came back 10 years later, had a much deeper understanding. Driven by both curiosity and suffering -- perhaps curiosity at suffering would be the best way to describe it. One could say that there were many realizations of psychological value along the way, and it was also notable the first time practicing Maharshi's method of self-inquiry and getting deliberately to a stage of what I call the spacious mind -- perhaps that's what you call apprehending the Infinite, I'm not sure. It's really simply the Truth, but it was a temporary experience. Revisiting that state over and over was part of a one-year-long end-phase which led to an alternation of self-inquiry and surrender and finally a point when, frustrated by the constant seeming "falling away" from the spacious mind no matter what I did, the empty character of mind suddenly became clear and the bottom was touched. That's what I'd call "The Realization." I'd describe life post-SR as -- indescribable. As in: like nothing at all, like being absent. You're not a zombie after all.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on May 19, 2019 10:18:39 GMT -5
To make a long story short, it started with existential depression in my teens. Learned about Vedanta then through my guru at the time, and a kind of basic understanding of the search. About 20 years of psychological struggle to figure out why my mind wasn't able to focus on the search properly, and yes, progressively clearer and clearer understandings of the search along the way. For example, I encountered Ramana Maharshi about 15 years ago, and knew he was profound, but then when I came back 10 years later, had a much deeper understanding. Driven by both curiosity and suffering -- perhaps curiosity at suffering would be the best way to describe it. One could say that there were many realizations of psychological value along the way, and it was also notable the first time practicing Maharshi's method of self-inquiry and getting deliberately to a stage of what I call the spacious mind -- perhaps that's what you call apprehending the Infinite, I'm not sure. It's really simply the Truth, but it was a temporary experience. Revisiting that state over and over was part of a one-year-long end-phase which led to an alternation of self-inquiry and surrender and finally a point when, frustrated by the constant seeming "falling away" from the spacious mind no matter what I did, the empty character of mind suddenly became clear and the bottom was touched. That's what I'd call "The Realization." I'd describe life post-SR as -- indescribable. As in: like nothing at all, like being absent. Thanks. That's a fascinating path. My search was driven purely by curiosity-- an intuitive certainty that conventional explanations of reality were somehow flawed, which generated a need to understand what's going on in some fundamental way that would "make better sense." I had dozens of unresolved existential questions, but 20 years of thinking and reading didn't help at all. Due to business-related stress at the age of 40, I started a simple meditation exercise in order to get some peace of mind. Within two weeks I had a minor realization--that meditation was a different way of interacting with the world that made me see new things that had previously gone unnoticed. This led me to increase the time I spent in meditation. My next realization was that I had been living in my head for many years, and had failed to physically look at the world. I had been living on autopilot, so to speak, and was amazed to discover that there were still animals, birds, and insects in the world. Haha! Five months after starting to meditate I was up to three hours per day, and then began falling into deep states of nirvikalpa samadhi while sitting. After 3 nights of several hours in NS, I went to work and at mid-morning the ringing of a telephone caused my perception of reality to disintegrate. As soon as my personal identity vanished, and the world came alive, I encountered what I call "the Infinite" or "the Absolute"--an incomprehnsibly vast aware unified intelligent field of being, or Living Presence--which was perfect in every way and manifested pure love. That which was experienced is impossible to describe, but it was self evident that THAT was what lay behind all manifestations. It was obvious that THAT is what looks out of every set of eyes, and that THAT is what the universe appears within. There was no doubt that if the present universe disappeared entirely, THAT would still be here. Many realizations resulted from that seeing, and many past thinking patterns were replaced with new thinking patterns. I was amazed to hear myself explain things to people about which I had never previously had any idea. All fear of death had disappeared because I then viewed the body as something like an unimportant and temporary rental car. As a result of that cosmic consciousness event, I discovered that 7 of my many existential questions had been resolved. After I remembered my name, and sort of came back to normal, life was not the same. My past sense of selfhood had receded into the background, and I lived in the present moment in a state of flow. It literally felt like I was living in a heaven on earth, and all I cared about was helping other people. Three days later the old sense of selfhood gradually came back into the foreground, and the sense of being one-with reality dissipated. I subsequently concluded that my temporary enlightened state of mind had been triggered by meditation, and I assumed that all of my other existential questions could sooner or later be resolved by becoming silent and looking within. During the next 15 years I had two more big realizations and many minor insights which answered all of my remaining questions, and led to a stong focus upon whatever was happening in the present moment. I finally understood everything that I had ever wanted to understand, but one new question arose. During those 15 years of intense meditation I had had many experiences of what I called "unity conscousness" in which selfhood disappeared, but the "me" always sooner or later returned. My final question was, "How is it possible to remain in a unity-consciousness state of mind permanently?" I knew that I didn't feel free in the same way that I had felt following the CC experience 15 years earlier, but I didn't know why. I felt emotionally blocked in some odd way. AAR, I went on another week-long solo hiking retreat in the mountains (which I did several times each year), during which I did my usual direct perception practice. On the fifth day I had a deeply emotional experience of gratitude that left me feeling empty, and shortly afterwards, I looked "within" and was astonished that there was neither a "within" nor a "me." The sense of being a separate entity had totally vanished--the "little guy in the head" had disappeared without a trace. It instantly became obvious that there had never been a "me" and that the past sense of "me" had been some sort of thought structure, or story, or intellectual identification that had collapsed. In the absence of a "me" the body looked around, saw that the physical world was still present, and then realized that "what is"--ordinary reality, which included what had been seen 15 years earlier--was the only thingless thing that had ever existed. It became obvious that the entire search for truth had been undertaken by THAT, and that THAT was the only reality. There had never been a "me" that could ever have become enlightened. That ended the spiritual search, and resulted in freedom and a sense of equanimity. From that point onwards life felt like it flowed smoothly without obstruction no matter what was happening. I have no idea whether what I call "the Infinite" is what Ramana called "the Self" (or what Buddhists call "Buddha nature" or what Taoists call "Tao" or what Christians call "God" or what Hindus call "Brahman"), but that's what I assume. I simply know that what I call "the Infinite" is whole, incomprehensible, and deeply mysterious. Interesting story! Where in all this was the Zen training?
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on May 19, 2019 10:27:15 GMT -5
So why are we not calling this moment SR and anything previous just a glimpse? Isn't this the moment you mark when identification with the personal doer ceases definitively, the moment of "crossed that critical threshold" clarity? Interesting. I'd put it a little differently... I'd say there are no ultimate drivers and there never were. Indeed the very concept of ultimate drivers is ultimately false. Even what seems to be existential struggle is nothing other than the movement of bliss. How does that accord with what you're saying? Is it different? The lack of specific kinds of motivations generally does accord what happens after, but it is not absolutely critical to it, because motivations cannot ultimately be traced or stated. What matters for my conception is that the Background has been noticed in a way that now it is clear that it can never be unnoticed, and that the very idea that it could ever have been unnoticed seems impossible to understand. Agreed. I do think the mind becomes progressively quieter "post"-SR, and this is a mode of increasing conventional bliss... but that process goes on and on... In terms of which moment is the "SR moment", it's ultimately not that interesting to me -- and I've thought quite a bit about it during the course of the dialogs here in the past 5 years, for what should be obvious reasons. Like you described for yourself, I went through a period (of about a few months) of really intense existential seeking, at the end, founded on conscious self-inquiry, and that period was influenced by R.M. As I describe with this poem-like metaphor, Evocative! Hrm... interesting. I wonder if it's not so much about existential vs. non-existential as that whatever negative emotion might exist, the period between the time it is recognized and the time it is seen as a reflection of Self is very small. But certainly there is some authority that draws these kinds of distinctions. For example, there seems to be some evidence for a line of thought in Vedanta between "egoic desire" and "non-egoic desire," the latter including, say, the simple act of eating, whereas the former would be more about, I suppose, a kind of craving-attachment to circumstances surrounding the eating, the taste/presentation of the food, etc. That's not how RM seemed to think, at least he didn't speak that way much, but others may have. My own inclination is to say that every thought is egoic to some degree, but perhaps some thoughts are "more thickly" egoic than others... There is another line of thought I'm playing with: the idea that when the mind is inward turned and the world disappears, the action that then results in that "state" -- action of which the mind takes no notice, in a sense, of which perhaps it even has no memory -- might alone be considered "non-egoic." This could be the "wayless way" of acting. Just a line of speculation. Yeah, that makes sense.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on May 19, 2019 10:27:43 GMT -5
To make a long story short, it started with existential depression in my teens. Learned about Vedanta then through my guru at the time, and a kind of basic understanding of the search. About 20 years of psychological struggle to figure out why my mind wasn't able to focus on the search properly, and yes, progressively clearer and clearer understandings of the search along the way. For example, I encountered Ramana Maharshi about 15 years ago, and knew he was profound, but then when I came back 10 years later, had a much deeper understanding. Driven by both curiosity and suffering -- perhaps curiosity at suffering would be the best way to describe it. One could say that there were many realizations of psychological value along the way, and it was also notable the first time practicing Maharshi's method of self-inquiry and getting deliberately to a stage of what I call the spacious mind -- perhaps that's what you call apprehending the Infinite, I'm not sure. It's really simply the Truth, but it was a temporary experience. Revisiting that state over and over was part of a one-year-long end-phase which led to an alternation of self-inquiry and surrender and finally a point when, frustrated by the constant seeming "falling away" from the spacious mind no matter what I did, the empty character of mind suddenly became clear and the bottom was touched. That's what I'd call "The Realization." I'd describe life post-SR as -- indescribable. As in: like nothing at all, like being absent. You're not a zombie after all. Maybe I'm just very good at faking it...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2019 11:02:38 GMT -5
Thanks. That's a fascinating path. My search was driven purely by curiosity-- an intuitive certainty that conventional explanations of reality were somehow flawed, which generated a need to understand what's going on in some fundamental way that would "make better sense." I had dozens of unresolved existential questions, but 20 years of thinking and reading didn't help at all. Due to business-related stress at the age of 40, I started a simple meditation exercise in order to get some peace of mind. Within two weeks I had a minor realization--that meditation was a different way of interacting with the world that made me see new things that had previously gone unnoticed. This led me to increase the time I spent in meditation. My next realization was that I had been living in my head for many years, and had failed to physically look at the world. I had been living on autopilot, so to speak, and was amazed to discover that there were still animals, birds, and insects in the world. Haha! Five months after starting to meditate I was up to three hours per day, and then began falling into deep states of nirvikalpa samadhi while sitting. After 3 nights of several hours in NS, I went to work and at mid-morning the ringing of a telephone caused my perception of reality to disintegrate. As soon as my personal identity vanished, and the world came alive, I encountered what I call "the Infinite" or "the Absolute"--an incomprehnsibly vast aware unified intelligent field of being, or Living Presence--which was perfect in every way and manifested pure love. That which was experienced is impossible to describe, but it was self evident that THAT was what lay behind all manifestations. It was obvious that THAT is what looks out of every set of eyes, and that THAT is what the universe appears within. There was no doubt that if the present universe disappeared entirely, THAT would still be here. Many realizations resulted from that seeing, and many past thinking patterns were replaced with new thinking patterns. I was amazed to hear myself explain things to people about which I had never previously had any idea. All fear of death had disappeared because I then viewed the body as something like an unimportant and temporary rental car. As a result of that cosmic consciousness event, I discovered that 7 of my many existential questions had been resolved. After I remembered my name, and sort of came back to normal, life was not the same. My past sense of selfhood had receded into the background, and I lived in the present moment in a state of flow. It literally felt like I was living in a heaven on earth, and all I cared about was helping other people. Three days later the old sense of selfhood gradually came back into the foreground, and the sense of being one-with reality dissipated. I subsequently concluded that my temporary enlightened state of mind had been triggered by meditation, and I assumed that all of my other existential questions could sooner or later be resolved by becoming silent and looking within. During the next 15 years I had two more big realizations and many minor insights which answered all of my remaining questions, and led to a stong focus upon whatever was happening in the present moment. I finally understood everything that I had ever wanted to understand, but one new question arose. During those 15 years of intense meditation I had had many experiences of what I called "unity conscousness" in which selfhood disappeared, but the "me" always sooner or later returned. My final question was, "How is it possible to remain in a unity-consciousness state of mind permanently?" I knew that I didn't feel free in the same way that I had felt following the CC experience 15 years earlier, but I didn't know why. I felt emotionally blocked in some odd way. AAR, I went on another week-long solo hiking retreat in the mountains (which I did several times each year), during which I did my usual direct perception practice. On the fifth day I had a deeply emotional experience of gratitude that left me feeling empty, and shortly afterwards, I looked "within" and was astonished that there was neither a "within" nor a "me." The sense of being a separate entity had totally vanished--the "little guy in the head" had disappeared without a trace. It instantly became obvious that there had never been a "me" and that the past sense of "me" had been some sort of thought structure, or story, or intellectual identification that had collapsed. In the absence of a "me" the body looked around, saw that the physical world was still present, and then realized that "what is"--ordinary reality, which included what had been seen 15 years earlier--was the only thingless thing that had ever existed. It became obvious that the entire search for truth had been undertaken by THAT, and that THAT was the only reality. There had never been a "me" that could ever have become enlightened. That ended the spiritual search, and resulted in freedom and a sense of equanimity. From that point onwards life felt like it flowed smoothly without obstruction no matter what was happening. I have no idea whether what I call "the Infinite" is what Ramana called "the Self" (or what Buddhists call "Buddha nature" or what Taoists call "Tao" or what Christians call "God" or what Hindus call "Brahman"), but that's what I assume. I simply know that what I call "the Infinite" is whole, incomprehensible, and deeply mysterious. Interesting story! Where in all this was the Zen training? I had read Zen stories for about 9 years before stress led to meditation, but none of those books ever mentioned meditation, which is pretty humorous. After starting to meditate, falling into NS, and having a kensho event/experience/realization, I couldn't find anyone who knew anything about non-duality, so I searched for a Zen group, found one located a few hours away from my home, and started going there for silent weekend retreats, interviews, koan contemplation, etc. I stayed involved with that group for about 13 years until I discovered Advaita teachers and lost interest in the more rigid Zen approach. Advaita retreats were fun and games compared to Zen retreats. They were lots more lively, social, relatively rule-free, and far less painful.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2019 11:12:49 GMT -5
Sifting: I was totally shocked when I first heard an Advaita teacher claim that you couldn't practice your way to being what you already are, but that claim had the intuitive ring of truth to it, and I eventually understood what that claim was pointing to. As a long-time Zen student, I was fairly attached to the idea that practice was necessary, so it was a shock to hear that idea attacked. Fortunately, by the time I encountered that claim, I had begun to see practice more as a way to become silent, and silence and inquiry had begun to seem like the most significant precipitators of realizations.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 13:44:29 GMT -5
In the Soto Zen tradition discussion is avoided, but in the Rinzai tradition it's not. Yes. I never discussed the reasoning with sensei or any of the priests, but it was definitely discouraged. I remember the first words I heard when I walked into the temple. A very stern and tough looking priest in his black robes said: "Takes off your shoes, put them in a cubby hole. Then have a seat on a cushion facing the wall." When I protested slightly because I hadn't had any instruction, he gave me an angry look and said:"Go sit down, face the wall and don't bother anyone." I knew not to push the dialog further and sat down. The instruction came later before the start gong. And they always came every time we sat. I surmise the reasoning has to do with the creative nature of mind. If you hear a description of enlightenment, mind will try to recreate it and convince you that it is the real thing. I suspect that happens more often than we realize. How many are fooled? This is why Adya's teacher brushed off his recounting of a kensho experience and asked him how he was getting along with his kids, I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 19, 2019 14:34:04 GMT -5
It's not what I'd consider a casual read -- not too hard to understand but it does take some concentration. But anyone who's ever meditated to a deep-quiet mind will be able to relate if they make the effort. Just be honest and admit that it is a rather boring book. well, ok, right up until the part where he writes about the mountain/rivers metaphor .. which I read a few months after the Great STD Full Circle Debate of '14. I was like .. " yeeeessssssss! I was right! she was wrong!!" .. I swears I thought I was reading my own forum post ...
The stuff on nen's is pretty cool, and he wrote an almost offhand observation about how kensho is the objective of zazen and how it has certain parallel's to hypnosis -- which if you think about ZD's metaphor of the "consensus trance", has some pretty deep water. The reason it get's boring and pedantic at times was because of his objective of trying to translate Zen into a framework attractive to the Western scientific paradigm. But I'd say it's still a must-read for any American who has a fascination with Zen.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on May 19, 2019 14:44:54 GMT -5
Sifting: I was totally shocked when I first heard an Advaita teacher claim that you couldn't practice your way to being what you already are, but that claim had the intuitive ring of truth to it, and I eventually understood what that claim was pointing to. As a long-time Zen student, I was fairly attached to the idea that practice was necessary, so it was a shock to hear that idea attacked. Fortunately, by the time I encountered that claim, I had begun to see practice more as a way to become silent, and silence and inquiry had begun to seem like the most significant precipitators of realizations. Isn’t there a zen story about a master who sees his student who’s been meditating for years, and, in front of him, starts to try to polish a brick? The monk sees this and gets enlightened.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 19, 2019 15:14:24 GMT -5
Sifting: I was totally shocked when I first heard an Advaita teacher claim that you couldn't practice your way to being what you already are, but that claim had the intuitive ring of truth to it, and I eventually understood what that claim was pointing to. As a long-time Zen student, I was fairly attached to the idea that practice was necessary, so it was a shock to hear that idea attacked. Fortunately, by the time I encountered that claim, I had begun to see practice more as a way to become silent, and silence and inquiry had begun to seem like the most significant precipitators of realizations. Isn’t there a zen story about a master who sees his student who’s been meditating for years, and, in front of him, starts to try to polish a brick? The monk sees this and gets enlightened. Yes, but you left out the best part. When the monk tells the master there never was a brick, the master bonks him in the head with it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 19, 2019 15:22:22 GMT -5
So, it's definitely possible to differentiate between negative motions that are ultimately existential in nature, from those that aren't, especially if one gets adept at certain methods of meditation. Hrm... interesting. I wonder if it's not so much about existential vs. non-existential as that whatever negative emotion might exist, the period between the time it is recognized and the time it is seen as a reflection of Self is very small. heh heh, well, I see two sides to that particular coin. On one hand, it's undeniable that there's this phenomenon of how the world leaves no trace on me, and I leave no trace on the world, regardless of the nature of the interaction, and that, compared to how it used to be, it's like some sort of magic trick. But then again, to say that all negative emotion fades quick because it's noticed as it's happening is like claiming some sort of 6 second rule for an enlightened floorburger. I can tell, for instance, that I would definitely grieve at certain losses that were to happen to me if they happened right now. It's not so much about the duration of the negative emotion -- although that's certainly an outward appearance that happens (that they tend to be shorter), nor is it about the intensity -- although, that too is a factor that can be observed. It's more about the orientation .. or rather .. the lack of any "thing" to orientate. All emotion is relative to the appearance of the divide of inner/outer. It's not like the body/mind doesn't react based on that appearance, but to mistake the outward appearance of the reaction for the inward fact of illusion is to go the wrong way down a one-way street. In terms of appearances, I think what can be said is that post-SR the injuries aren't internalized and carried forward, which is, of course, simply a translation of certain ideas about not creating karma into a Western psychological paradigm. But any such statements involve an unavoidable existential context mix, so none of them -- like say, the enlightened floorburger rule -- are either always true in every instance or ultimately intellectually defensible. But certainly there is some authority that draws these kinds of distinctions. For example, there seems to be some evidence for a line of thought in Vedanta between "egoic desire" and "non-egoic desire," the latter including, say, the simple act of eating, whereas the former would be more about, I suppose, a kind of craving-attachment to circumstances surrounding the eating, the taste/presentation of the food, etc. That's not how RM seemed to think, at least he didn't speak that way much, but others may have. My own inclination is to say that every thought is egoic to some degree, but perhaps some thoughts are "more thickly" egoic than others... There is another line of thought I'm playing with: the idea that when the mind is inward turned and the world disappears, the action that then results in that "state" -- action of which the mind takes no notice, in a sense, of which perhaps it even has no memory -- might alone be considered "non-egoic." This could be the "wayless way" of acting. Just a line of speculation. You can turn this inside out as well. Specifically, if you're skiing or hiking or building some physical thing or coding you can completely lose yourself in the action. In that case, the mind is turned outward and the self (not Self) disappears, leaving only "the World". If you're interested in relating this to ancient authority (I've never followed that interest), my guess is that you'd look to "Tantric" sources.
"Desire" is a funny mind-hook of a notion that also involves an unavoidable existential context mix. For anyone wandering around the paths of Mt. 2nd it can be an invaluable koan, and certainly there are centuries of well-meaning but misguided caterpillar culture recommending abnegation. This isn't to say that they don't have a point: the noisy mind that gets quieted by means of apparent personal control has still become more relatively quiet, despite the sin of the duality involved. And given the recent rapid advances in Western material culture within our lifetimes, it's a point that seems to be quite salient with regard to many Joe C.T.'s of today, and even if there's no genuine truth-seeking involved, a little moderation might do us all some collective relative social good. But, conversely, just that much of a tougher sell.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 19, 2019 19:29:19 GMT -5
Sifting: I was totally shocked when I first heard an Advaita teacher claim that you couldn't practice your way to being what you already are, but that claim had the intuitive ring of truth to it, and I eventually understood what that claim was pointing to. As a long-time Zen student, I was fairly attached to the idea that practice was necessary, so it was a shock to hear that idea attacked. Fortunately, by the time I encountered that claim, I had begun to see practice more as a way to become silent, and silence and inquiry had begun to seem like the most significant precipitators of realizations. Isn’t there a zen story about a master who sees his student who’s been meditating for years, and, in front of him, starts to try to polish a brick? The monk sees this and gets enlightened. Yep. The ZM asks the monk why he's practicing so hard, and the monk says, "I'm practicing to become a Buddha." The ZM then picks up a brick and starts polishing it. The monk asks the ZM why he's polishing the brick, and the master says, "So that it will turn into a precious diamond (or something like that)." The monk then says, "Master, you can polish that brick for eternity, but it's never going to turn into a diamond." The ZM then looks at the monk and says, "That's correct, and in the same way you'll never practice your way to becoming a Buddha." That's when the monk has a big insight.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 7:03:07 GMT -5
Sifting: I was totally shocked when I first heard an Advaita teacher claim that you couldn't practice your way to being what you already are, but that claim had the intuitive ring of truth to it, and I eventually understood what that claim was pointing to. As a long-time Zen student, I was fairly attached to the idea that practice was necessary, so it was a shock to hear that idea attacked. Fortunately, by the time I encountered that claim, I had begun to see practice more as a way to become silent, and silence and inquiry had begun to seem like the most significant precipitators of realizations. Advaita is more of an industry now than anything else and though occasionally some gems are discovered in the tailings, it is rare. I have to say that Ramana was one of a kind.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 20, 2019 7:05:51 GMT -5
Isn’t there a zen story about a master who sees his student who’s been meditating for years, and, in front of him, starts to try to polish a brick? The monk sees this and gets enlightened. Yep. The ZM asks the monk why he's practicing so hard, and the monk says, "I'm practicing to become a Buddha." The ZM then picks up a brick and starts polishing it. The monk asks the ZM why he's polishing the brick, and the master says, "So that it will turn into a precious diamond (or something like that)." The monk then says, "Master, you can polish that brick for eternity, but it's never going to turn into a diamond." The ZM then looks at the monk and says, "That's correct, and in the same way you'll never practice your way to becoming a Buddha." That's when the monk has a big insight. Obviously a Rinzai ZM. You've heard of the great Zen story about the tortoise and the hare?
|
|