Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 9:26:19 GMT -5
According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. Yes, but it helps to remember that there are two Zen traditions. Adya was in the tradition that typically refuses to acknowledge or even talk about kensho. The other tradition, as well as many Advaita traditions, acknowledge kensho and celebrate it because it can be a breakthrough that usually results in significant realizations. In Rinzai Zen terminology kensho is an event wherein there is "seeing into one's true nature." Using E.'s terminology, kensho is a realization that reveals what is NOT so--that reality is NOT what one imagined it was. The most common realizations that result from kensho include (1) "what is" is infinite, and (2) "what is" is a unified whole. Yes and he moved on from that tradition and started his own. I have no qualms with that or rinzai.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2019 10:15:08 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. To me, mind and ego do exist (that's why we talk about it), but they don't exist in their own right. There's no need to touch this. It has to be seen for what it is. That's all. That will make all the difference. According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. To use thought to declare there is no thought (or ego to declare there is no ego) is as absurd as obliterating something that never existed.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 12, 2019 10:28:33 GMT -5
According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. To use thought to declare there is no thought (or ego to declare there is no ego) is as absurd as obliterating something that never existed. Yes. Ramana says if you look for mind, you won't find it and that mind can't get rid of mind.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Aug 12, 2019 10:37:57 GMT -5
To use thought to declare there is no thought (or ego to declare there is no ego) is as absurd as obliterating something that never existed. Yes. Ramana says if you look for mind, you won't find it and that mind can't get rid of mind. But Ramana never said there were no thoughts.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 12, 2019 11:02:49 GMT -5
That's not what I'm saying. To me, mind and ego do exist (that's why we talk about it), but they don't exist in their own right. There's no need to touch this. It has to be seen for what it is. That's all. That will make all the difference. According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. Well, before you can make some sense from comparing what teacher A and teacher B are saying, you first must have a reference for what they are talking about. And if you don't, you have no choice but to take everything literally and then come to strange conclusions. But if you do, you can allow yourself and others a lot more latitude in terms of vocabulary. The reaction of the sensei seems a bit too scripted. A bit of acknowledgement wouldn't have hurt.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 12, 2019 11:15:12 GMT -5
According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. Yes, but it helps to remember that there are two Zen traditions. Adya was in the tradition that typically refuses to acknowledge or even talk about kensho. The other tradition, as well as many Advaita traditions, acknowledge kensho and celebrate it because it can be a breakthrough that usually results in significant realizations. In Rinzai Zen terminology kensho is an event wherein there is "seeing into one's true nature." Using E.'s terminology, kensho is a realization that reveals what is NOT so--that reality is NOT what one imagined it was. The most common realizations that result from kensho include (1) "what is" is infinite, and (2) "what is" is a unified whole. Makes me wonder if the sensei actually had a reference for what Adya had realized. We'll probably never know if the sensei was just in denial or just blindly following a script or just plain mean.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 12, 2019 13:35:28 GMT -5
Yes, but it helps to remember that there are two Zen traditions. Adya was in the tradition that typically refuses to acknowledge or even talk about kensho. The other tradition, as well as many Advaita traditions, acknowledge kensho and celebrate it because it can be a breakthrough that usually results in significant realizations. In Rinzai Zen terminology kensho is an event wherein there is "seeing into one's true nature." Using E.'s terminology, kensho is a realization that reveals what is NOT so--that reality is NOT what one imagined it was. The most common realizations that result from kensho include (1) "what is" is infinite, and (2) "what is" is a unified whole. Makes me wonder if the sensei actually had a reference for what Adya had realized. We'll probably never know if the sensei was just in denial or just blindly following a script or just plain mean. Yes. The same thing happened to me when I contacted the LA Zen Center after a kensho. I was simply seeking a context for what had happened, and wondering what to do next, but the head teacher who wrote back to me refused to acknowledge it, and said something similar to Adya's teacher. I later learned that each of the two major Zen traditions respond to this sort of thing in diametrically opposed ways. I also later learned that Advaita teachers respond much more like Rinzai Zen teachers than Soto teachers. Eventually I came to understand why each tradition developed the way it did, but by that time it no longer mattered. I've had people write to me who have had big kensho experiences, and my response is to say, in essence, "You've very lucky to have had such a deep insight into your true nature, but don't get attached to it. There's lots more to see, and there are many other important realizations that will broaden your understanding." IOW I offer acknowledgment, support, and encouragement, and present a context for all of the unusual stuff that may happen. I then explain some of the major pitfalls and point in the general direction that sooner or later will result in non-abidance in mind.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 13, 2019 5:08:19 GMT -5
All, I moved all off topic posts. Off topic discussion continues here. R
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 13, 2019 8:27:30 GMT -5
According to Ramana, there is no mind. You're saying in the subject/object context there is. I see these kinds of statements and debates as "concessions" to the intellect. Typically, I avoid them. To me, it's not about what you think or say, but how you live. This is why when Adyashanti was telling his sensei about his kensho experience, she asked him how he's getting along with his children. Well, before you can make some sense from comparing what teacher A and teacher B are saying, you first must have a reference for what they are talking about. And if you don't, you have no choice but to take everything literally and then come to strange conclusions. But if you do, you can allow yourself and others a lot more latitude in terms of vocabulary. The reaction of the sensei seems a bit too scripted. A bit of acknowledgement wouldn't have hurt. I've stated time and again that this applies to me only. I have no interest in disparaging kensho or adya. Note that in my reply to zd's post, I say as much. I have no interest in comparing paths either. I have respect for Advaitins and Rinzai folk. I poke fun at them in gest as they do me.
|
|