|
Post by zendancer on May 29, 2019 7:26:04 GMT -5
Just sitting I think is not just sitting. This article gets a little closer to it (not just sitting). www.lionsroar.com/going-nowhere/Be, Here, Now (the first instructions to Richard Alpert AKA Ram Das (AKA Baba Ram Das) {and book of the same name} is a good way to put it (not just sitting). So I would also say ATA-T is not enough either. There is no Be, Here, Now in ATA-T, there is Now, but no Here (Here is not here, but There). The Here part is/= Awareness, of awareness (or Attention on attention). There is a "reflexive" awareness (which is not related to reflexive thinking). Just to be accurate, there is neither here nor now in ATA-T; there's just awareness of "what is" without distinction or reflection. This means that there's also no awareness of awareness because that requires a reflecting action of mind. "Just sitting" is often considered synonymous with "shikan taza," or "empty alert attention with no focus." In this sense ATA-T is exactly the same thing, but without being confined to sitting. I suppose we could call it "just being"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2019 9:13:53 GMT -5
Just sitting I think is not just sitting. This article gets a little closer to it (not just sitting). www.lionsroar.com/going-nowhere/Be, Here, Now (the first instructions to Richard Alpert AKA Ram Das (AKA Baba Ram Das) {and book of the same name} is a good way to put it (not just sitting). So I would also say ATA-T is not enough either. There is no Be, Here, Now in ATA-T, there is Now, but no Here (Here is not here, but There). The Here part is/= Awareness, of awareness (or Attention on attention). There is a "reflexive" awareness (which is not related to reflexive thinking). Just to be accurate, there is neither here nor now in ATA-T; there's just awareness of "what is" without distinction or reflection. This means that there's also no awareness of awareness because that requires a reflecting action of mind. "Just sitting" is often considered synonymous with "shikan taza," or "empty alert attention with no focus." In this sense ATA-T is exactly the same thing, but without being confined to sitting. I suppose we could call it "just being" No, it doesn't. Awareness supersedes operating-mind. (But I understand why you disagree with this. See signature below).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 30, 2019 9:16:18 GMT -5
Are you talking about wei wuwei (爲無爲)? I've heard of him, but never read anything he wrote. I've read hardly any books on Zen. I've read Merton's book solely because I have his desire to extract it from its Buddhist context. This was sensei's instruction, an excommunicated Soto bishop. I was talking about the Taoist concept of wei wuwei (action without acting), not the guy with the pen name Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)! Gray wrote an excellent book "The Open Secret" which is some sort of synthesis of Taoism, (Zen)Buddhism and Advaita. The book is more of a highly abstract/theoretical nature though, so probably not to your liking.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 30, 2019 10:16:54 GMT -5
I've heard of him, but never read anything he wrote. I've read hardly any books on Zen. I've read Merton's book solely because I have his desire to extract it from its Buddhist context. This was sensei's instruction, an excommunicated Soto bishop. I was talking about the Taoist concept of wei wu wei (action without acting), not the guy with the pen name Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)! Gray wrote an excellent book "The Open Secret" which is some sort of synthesis of Taoism, (Zen)Buddhism and Advaita. The book is more of a highly abstract/theoretical nature though, so probably not to your liking. www.learnreligions.com/wu-wei-the-action-of-non-action-3183209
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 30, 2019 12:47:49 GMT -5
Would quite like to read Byron Katie's new book. Not enough to actually read it, but still, there is a vague interest. This quote from the book just popped up on facebook which I liked: ''To lose your false identity is to gain everything. In the world of no self and no other, there is no suffering, no decay, no death, no falseness. It’s a world of pure beauty.'' I guess I'll just wait for more quotes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 7:18:54 GMT -5
I've heard of him, but never read anything he wrote. I've read hardly any books on Zen. I've read Merton's book solely because I have his desire to extract it from its Buddhist context. This was sensei's instruction, an excommunicated Soto bishop. I was talking about the Taoist concept of wei wuwei (action without acting), not the guy with the pen name Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)! Gray wrote an excellent book "The Open Secret" which is some sort of synthesis of Taoism, (Zen)Buddhism and Advaita. The book is more of a highly abstract/theoretical nature though, so probably not to your liking. I'll take a look at it, thanks. I like abstract theory as fodder for the wood shredder in my head, as something separate from practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 7:20:36 GMT -5
I was talking about the Taoist concept of wei wu wei (action without acting), not the guy with the pen name Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)! Gray wrote an excellent book "The Open Secret" which is some sort of synthesis of Taoism, (Zen)Buddhism and Advaita. The book is more of a highly abstract/theoretical nature though, so probably not to your liking. www.learnreligions.com/wu-wei-the-action-of-non-action-3183209Thanks.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2019 9:09:36 GMT -5
I was talking about the Taoist concept of wei wuwei (action without acting), not the guy with the pen name Wei Wu Wei (Terence Gray)! Gray wrote an excellent book "The Open Secret" which is some sort of synthesis of Taoism, (Zen)Buddhism and Advaita. The book is more of a highly abstract/theoretical nature though, so probably not to your liking. I'll take a look at it, thanks. I like abstract theory as fodder for the wood shredder in my head, as something separate from practice. In that case, I'll recommend reading it. It will help you understand the perpetual discussions on this forum a lot better and gives you the necessary vocabulary. Here are two quotes from the book (which may sound familiar):
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2019 9:44:53 GMT -5
I'll take a look at it, thanks. I like abstract theory as fodder for the wood shredder in my head, as something separate from practice. In that case, I'll recommend reading it. It will help you understand the perpetual discussions on this forum a lot better and gives you the necessary vocabulary. Here are two quotes from the book (which may sound familiar): Yes. I quite agree. The only problem with this approach is the danger that mind will appropriate and exercise an imaginary version of wuwei, much like many on the forum who imagine they are realized and parrot a conceptual version of it ad nauseum.. As to understanding the discussions here. Not much to be gained from that. It's like trying to understand traffic noise. My wife was complaining about the escrow process today--we're buying a house inland, too many animals to evacuate during hurricanes. She was ranting about the paperwork and inefficiencies. I reminded her that the problem wasn't escrow, but her head, her expectations. She snapped at me. "Your trying to control my thoughts," she growled. "No I said, I'm having enough of a problem dealing with the noise in my head to have to also deal with the noise from your head." She didn't like that. As to suffering, it ended for me when I surrendered/accepted grief and pain. They are as prevalent and fitting as joy and pleasure.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2019 12:48:52 GMT -5
In that case, I'll recommend reading it. It will help you understand the perpetual discussions on this forum a lot better and gives you the necessary vocabulary. Here are two quotes from the book (which may sound familiar): Yes. I quite agree. The only problem with this approach is the danger that mind will appropriate and exercise an imaginary version of wuwei, much like many on the forum who imagine they are realized and parrot a conceptual version of it ad nauseum.. As to understanding the discussions here. Not much to be gained from that. It's like trying to understand traffic noise. My wife was complaining about the escrow process today--we're buying a house inland, too many animals to evacuate during hurricanes. She was ranting about the paperwork and inefficiencies. I reminded her that the problem wasn't escrow, but her head, her expectations. She snapped at me. "Your trying to control my thoughts," she growled. "No I said, I'm having enough of a problem dealing with the noise in my head to have to also deal with the noise from your head." She didn't like that. As to suffering, it ended for me when I surrendered/accepted grief and pain. They are as prevalent and fitting as joy and pleasure. When I get overwhelmed with anything (and this was true for my job as an electrician, but then my boss was always my safety net) I just do the next thing. Basically, you can only do the next thing so it doesn't do any good to worry about doing something before you get to the "crossroads" of doing. And by then it's usually obvious what needs to be done next, so wringing one's hands is superfluous. (I also learned something very valuable along the way, never complain about wife's feelings (or anybody for that matter), always allow her to feel what she is feeling, and acknowledge it. This is a cardinal rule).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2019 13:02:35 GMT -5
Yeah its plain silly isn't it? E is just expressing a deeply ingrained belief system. It must be so difficult for him being a person when he has to continually remind himself that he's not supposed to be a person. Maybe that's why he needs a spiritual forum because he can do that here but in real life he's forced to be a person. I don't think I've ever said I'm not a person. What's the difference between a person and a self?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 1, 2019 4:26:09 GMT -5
Yes. I quite agree. The only problem with this approach is the danger that mind will appropriate and exercise an imaginary version of wuwei, much like many on the forum who imagine they are realized and parrot a conceptual version of it ad nauseum.. Yes, that's why that kind of information is not directed at (the false) self.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2019 10:58:48 GMT -5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ So, just trying to understand (you/your position) better, the conditioning (that which gives the basis of self, even an illusory self) of a "person"-mind-body, it is irrelevant to think of it as ~located~ in a particular mind-body?, that the conditioning is merely the Whole acting?Further, is that how you view other people? You don't see a "person" there, you see the Cosmos operating? The intellect naturally makes distinctions, so with or without conditioning, I think babies instinctively begin to make distinctions which are reinforced by the people with whom they interact. Parents immediately begin to point to themselves and say, "mama" or "dada," and they call their child by a name. The child rather immediately identifies its parents and itself as separate and distinct, even though there's no reflective/reflective thought (if you get what I mean) about that matter. They look at the world and quickly associate name and form with what they see. Selfhood is surely the most powerful distinction they make, and they identify themselves as a body with a name and various likes and dislikes. Ego gradually crystallizes as this process continues. A story and a personal history develops that is believed to be the truth, and the imagined entity is distinguished as an aspect of reality--a separate thing living in a world of separate things. This is all an illusion created by the intellect. The organism is always one-with reality, and there is no real separation. The path from believing in the meta-reality created by the intellect to discovering the living truth can be direct or rather convoluted. Each organism is unique. With luck (or grace, depending upon one's outlook) an organism sees through the illusory ideas to which it was attached, and discovers the relationship of thought to what is actual, and the limitations of thought. The Zen circle (one way of describing the path) involves penetrating the basic illusion, entering an possible area of woo-woo miracles, etc, but eventually ending up free of the intellect and living a life that is substantially free of reflection and very much down to earth, quite ordinary, yet also dynamically interactive. It is as if the subconscious mind takes over, and there's no longer dependence upon, or attachment to, intellectual reflection. A sage goes about his/her business without thinking about things like real, unreal, existent, non-existent, etc. Life just flows along, and the sage accepts whatever shows up and responds however seems most appropriate. Again, its as if the subconscious is running everything, and thinking is not required. Realization that results in SS makes it obvious that all of life has always been like this. If someone should ask, "What is running the subconscious?" s/he would be best advised to contemplate that question until it is understood what's going on. Do I see people as people and interact with them in a normal way? Of course. Do I understand that that which sees is the only thing that sees, thinks, or does anything else? Absolutely. There is only THIS, and THIS is what does everything. Here I think you danced around my main question (the bold). I agree FAIAP that there is no SVP. I have not really ever gone into why I agree with that, except to state that what we consider SVP is Imaginary I, imaginary quite literal. {(Other than FAIAP, there is a seed of possibility for true individuality, that's just to clearly state my position, but I think we can never find common ground on that question)}. In a recent post you finally explicitly agree that conditioning is, and is functional, that is, operates as well as the Whole operating. That (admission) is a gigantic leap forward. But I think we need to distinguish between psychological conditioning (the origination of the idea of a SVP) and conditioning as a shortcut in the learning process (learning store in the neural structure as "one you learn to ride a bicycle you never forget"). Psychological conditioning is the culprit in creating internal stress and conflict, as well as conflict between people (which lopezcabellero describes so well). Conditioning as ordinary learning not a problem, is really a necessity. But conditioning as the psychological (SVP) self is the majority of problems on the planet. So "riding a bicycle" as subconscious brain processing, no problem. Greed, envy, selfishness, etc. as subconscious brain processing as the psychological conditioned self, problem. The point? The conditioned psychological self constricts the mind-body to a very narrow field of operation which actually blocks the mind-body from fully participating in the movement of the Whole. You have never admitted this, you have always maintained that it's the Whole that's operating through/as a mind-body. In the recent post you have said yes, it's both conditioning and the Whole, and no contradiction. That's a big step in the right direction. The main issue is where you have always previously ~drawn the line~ concerning what's imaginary. (Yes, the self (SVP) is imaginary, versus no, the conditioning is not imaginary). Comments welcome.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2019 11:18:32 GMT -5
This is why I wanted you to read and comment on the lolly post. How can you say anyone has unresolved psychological issues? You maintain over and over in posting with me that there isn't a self operating, that the Whole is operating. Your very post shows what I've been trying to get you to acknowledge. But you maintain over and over that what we thought of as a self, was illusory. How can an illusory not-self have psychological issues? Now, believe me, I'm happy to hear you post like this, but don't you see the discrepancy? Not at all. First, sometimes people claim that they've attained SR, when, clearly, they haven't. Second, and more importantly, whether or not SR is ever attained has nothing to do with whether or not everything moves as one. Most people, in fact, have a sense of self-identity and a sense of personal volitional selfhood, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that idea is an illusion or has any basis in fact. Considering the incredible amount of conditioning that goes into supporting and maintaining the illusion of selfhood, it's rather amazing that any organism ever wakes up. The issue is not whether or not there is an organism, but whether the organism has any actual boundaries separating it from the entire field of reality and whether the organism is inhabited by or directed by an entity inside the organism. Simply put, there is no separation, and there is no "little guy/gal inside the head" pulling levers. I call the illusion "a structure of thought;" someone else might call it "part of the play of consciousness." Again, the question is where the line is drawn concerning what's illusory. You are saying the conditioning is not illusory but the self that we base upon the non-illusory conditioning, is illusory. But you don't consider the conditioning itself, a problem. I do. As long as the conditioning exists, it's operational. I find it quite faulty to say, Oh, everything is OK because what was considered the SVP has been seen through, it doesn't exist, it's imaginary. I find it not-OK for the (psychological) conditioning to still-exist and still be operational in the midst of, but the SVP is imaginary. For me to not-see a problem here, is imagination at work. Another way to put it is to say one is not free and cannot be truly free until the vasanas are cleared away.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 29, 2019 13:30:28 GMT -5
Not at all. First, sometimes people claim that they've attained SR, when, clearly, they haven't. Second, and more importantly, whether or not SR is ever attained has nothing to do with whether or not everything moves as one. Most people, in fact, have a sense of self-identity and a sense of personal volitional selfhood, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not that idea is an illusion or has any basis in fact. Considering the incredible amount of conditioning that goes into supporting and maintaining the illusion of selfhood, it's rather amazing that any organism ever wakes up. The issue is not whether or not there is an organism, but whether the organism has any actual boundaries separating it from the entire field of reality and whether the organism is inhabited by or directed by an entity inside the organism. Simply put, there is no separation, and there is no "little guy/gal inside the head" pulling levers. I call the illusion "a structure of thought;" someone else might call it "part of the play of consciousness." Again, the question is where the line is drawn concerning what's illusory. You are saying the conditioning is not illusory but the self that we base upon the non-illusory conditioning, is illusory. But you don't consider the conditioning itself, a problem. I do. As long as the conditioning exists, it's operational. I find it quite faulty to say, Oh, everything is OK because what was considered the SVP has been seen through, it doesn't exist, it's imaginary. I find it not-OK for the (psychological) conditioning to still-exist and still be operational in the midst of, but the SVP is imaginary. For me to not-see a problem here, is imagination at work. Another way to put it is to say one is not free and cannot be truly free until the vasanas are cleared away. I don't think I've ever denied that there are mind/body organisms that get conditioned (except in particular discussions where a different existential issue is involved), but there are no SVP's that get conditioned. If I understand your question in light of this, then from my POV there is no "psychological self" that ever gets conditioned because the idea of a psychological self and an SVP are both imaginary. Sure, John Doe imagines that he's John Doe, an SVP who walks around and does stuff. His cultural conditioning reinforces this idea so strongly that he rarely has any doubts about it. If, however, he happens to read The Power of Now or meets a sage and subsequently starts shifting his attention away from his thoughts, sooner or later he may realize that who he thought he was was an illusion and that there is only THIS. Mythologically speaking, Enigma's statement that "God falls into his own dream" (and sometimes wakes up from that dream) sums up the situation rather well.
|
|