|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 10:47:25 GMT -5
Yes, the nuance and subtlety of meditation is a mirror of the myriad possible depth of human experience, but even that isn't enough to capture and convey the doing of it. There are no bounds, there is no limit, there is only, what is. There is a richness to the texture of life that is quite literally, priceless. The presence, in getting present, is spacious, vast, and majestic, and the insight into it can't help but drop one to their knees. So, it seems to me that the third truth might be the most controversial -- even more so than the question of how to approach the meditation -- because the human experience is such a big tent. Can suffering ever really and permanently end? There's no intellectual case that can be made that it can, and any emotional involvement on the question is bound to deny that possibility. But while it's intellectually indefensible, there definitely is the possibility of a binary event, an on/off switch, and this is what's commonly referred to on this forum as "self-realization". Now, the particulars of what ends, that's difficult to gain consensus on, even between people who agree and express genuine insight on these topics of suffering, realization and experience. The question of whether or not the event of self-realization is like any other conventional event subject to causation is existential: "how does it happen? why does it happen?". As with any existential question, the low-hanging fruit is to point out what is obviously and clearly not so. If it were possible to condition a human being into self-realization by fine-tuning them like a race car, then after all these thousands of years, we likely would have figured that out, because self-realization is a topic that most people who come to understand it to any depth, and who are adult enough to admit that it's something they haven't encountered, inevitably get very interested in. though by the same token you also can't condition a person to be a cook, footballer or artist etc...you can make what seems to be the right moves, but there's no guarantee. In the UK, there' a lot of youngsters with a lot of football talent and a lot of dedication, but ultimately,it has to be written in the stars. What's that word...perhaps...'serendipity' is required. There's no making sense of the event of self-realization. It's certainly possible to come to understand the human being as a machine in intricate detail, and it's easy to see how the existential truth can be obscured by falsity. But this is a one-way street. There is no user's guide that can reveal that truth.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 9, 2019 10:57:04 GMT -5
I'm just loving the internal authority of you guys, but if you look at the text from Dhammacakkappavattana Sutta, there isn't a lot of wriggle room regarding interpretation. I do appreciate that it's great fun getting into a spirituality forum and making anything mean what you want it to mean. I get that. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of suffering: birth is suffering, aging is suffering, illness is suffering, death is suffering; union with what is displeasing is suffering; separation from what is pleasing is suffering; not to get what one wants is suffering; in brief, the five aggregates subject to clinging are suffering. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the origin of suffering: it is this craving [taṇhā, "thirst"] which leads to re-becoming, accompanied by delight and lust, seeking delight here and there; that is, craving for sensual pleasures, craving for becoming, craving for disbecoming. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the cessation of suffering: it is the remainderless fading away and cessation of that same craving, the giving up and relinquishing of it, freedom from it, non-reliance on it. Now this, bhikkhus, is the noble truth of the way leading to the cessation of suffering: it is this noble eightfold path; that is, right view, right intention, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration. People interpret ancient scriptures in many different ways, and the fact that there are hundreds of different Christian denominations, each with a slightly different set of ideas about what Jesus taught, is extremely good evidence that people often interpret the very same words in different ways. I often like to ask people, "If there were no holy books, or teachers/preachers/sages, could the truth be discovered?" The answer is clearly yes, but that doesn't mean that it would be likely or that it would be easy. As you know, the truth is not contained in any set of words. All that words can do is point to the truth. This is why Ling Chao reportedly chose to use the Buddhist sutras as a chair, which horrified the villagers because they considered it a desecration of such "holy" books. At one time I had ten different translations of the Tao Te Ching, and all of them were slightly different, and all of them implied slightly different things. All that one can do is read holy scriptures and see if what they're pointing to corresponds to one's own experiences and realizations. FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 9, 2019 11:17:11 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point. Geez! If we cannot agree on what is the basic nature of suffering and what causes suffering then I don't know what we can agree on. I blame non-duality and I am beginning to come to the conclusion that discussion of non-duality should be banned! It causes people like laughter to say silly things like birth and death is a rumor. Very nondooly.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 11:35:06 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point. Geez! If we cannot agree on what is the the basic nature of suffering and what causes suffering then I don't know what we can agree on. I blame non-duality and I am beginning to come to the conclusion that discussion of non-duality should be banned! It causes people like laughter to say silly things like birth and death is a rumor. Very nondooly. Did diaper guy say this or is it fake? "Birth and death pertain only to the body. They are superimposed on the Self, giving rise to the delusion that birth and death relate to the Self." "Never trust a quote from the internet". Abraham Lincoln
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 9, 2019 12:20:01 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point. Geez! If we cannot agree on what is the the basic nature of suffering and what causes suffering then I don't know what we can agree on. I blame non-duality and I am beginning to come to the conclusion that discussion of non-duality should be banned! It causes people like laughter to say silly things like birth and death is a rumor. Very nondooly. Laughter is saying that the false identification with a "me" is the root cause of suffering, and I agree with that. The "me" is at the center of all desire and all suffering that comes from desire. As for the second point, anyone who apprehends the Infinite knows without any doubt whatsoever that the way people think about birth and death is erroneous. One glimpse it all it takes to see that what we are is not born and does not die.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 9, 2019 12:30:07 GMT -5
Geez! If we cannot agree on what is the the basic nature of suffering and what causes suffering then I don't know what we can agree on. I blame non-duality and I am beginning to come to the conclusion that discussion of non-duality should be banned! It causes people like laughter to say silly things like birth and death is a rumor. Very nondooly. Laughter is saying that the false identification with a "me" is the root cause of suffering, and I agree with that. The "me" is at the center of all desire and all suffering that comes from desire. As for the second point, anyone who apprehends the Infinite knows without any doubt whatsoever that the way people think about birth and death is erroneous. One glimpse it all it takes to see that what we are is not born and does not die. That's true from one perspective and it depends on who is saying it and who you are saying it to, as Ramana would no doubt agree. And you are picking an interpretation from a very small part of vedanta. Nondual advaita is just one of many teachings.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 9, 2019 12:31:00 GMT -5
though by the same token you also can't condition a person to be a cook, footballer or artist etc...you can make what seems to be the right moves, but there's no guarantee. In the UK, there' a lot of youngsters with a lot of football talent and a lot of dedication, but ultimately,it has to be written in the stars. What's that word...perhaps...'serendipity' is required. There's no making sense of the event of self-realization. It's certainly possible to come to understand the human being as a machine in intricate detail, and it's easy to see how the existential truth can be obscured by falsity. But this is a one-way street. There is no user's guide that can reveal that truth. Agree, but even guides to becoming a footballer or chef are limited the same way, aren't they? No guide can reveal the truth of how to become a footballer
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 12:43:03 GMT -5
Laughter is saying that the false identification with a "me" is the root cause of suffering, and I agree with that. The "me" is at the center of all desire and all suffering that comes from desire. As for the second point, anyone who apprehends the Infinite knows without any doubt whatsoever that the way people think about birth and death is erroneous. One glimpse it all it takes to see that what we are is not born and does not die. That's true from one perspective and it depends on who is saying it and who you are saying it to, as Ramana would no doubt agree. And you are picking an interpretation from a very small part of vedanta. Nondual advaita is just one of many teachings. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 12:44:55 GMT -5
There's no making sense of the event of self-realization. It's certainly possible to come to understand the human being as a machine in intricate detail, and it's easy to see how the existential truth can be obscured by falsity. But this is a one-way street. There is no user's guide that can reveal that truth. Agree, but even guides to becoming a footballer or chef are limited the same way, aren't they? No guide can reveal the truth of how to become a footballer But if the talent is there, and the prospect is coached and applies hard work, they can increase the probability that they make the team. In contrast, SR requires no talent. What is realized is a commonality between every human being that is already the case. And, it's not random. Nor is it predetermined.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2019 13:01:15 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm sure that you, yourself, feel a fair amount of internal authority based on your own experiences and realizations just like the rest of us do. Laughter and I are just saying that getting attached to specific sets of words and specific interpretations of those words is less important than finding the truth for oneself. I think that there's a general concensus here about ND even if there are minor disagreements about certain specific issues. I've never been particularly interested in Buddhist scriptures, so I was just agreeing with Laughter's broader point. Geez! If we cannot agree on what is the the basic nature of suffering and what causes suffering then I don't know what we can agree on. I blame non-duality and I am beginning to come to the conclusion that discussion of non-duality should be banned! It causes people like laughter to say silly things like birth and death is a rumor. Very nondooly. Current posts are speaking to the crux of the human condition. OTOH NDist are saying there is no self, there never has been a self. OToH most Buddhists, yes, affirm Anatta, but most Buddhists also affirm that a something reincarnates. It has been a long tradition in Tibetan Buddhism that when the Dalai Lama dies, he virtually immediately reincarnates and there is a search to find him. A Tulka is a Buddhist monk that has been recognized as a reincarnation of a previous monk (so The Dalai Lama is a Tulka). Meaning, there is in some sense a something that passes from life to life. That's what all this karma business is all about. So I can see how sca can say all this ND discussion should be banned. I say that conditioning is the basis of the false sense of self, so as long as (psychological) conditioning exists, a self in some sense exists. If the mind-brain-body has certain proclivities, which result from conditioning, then a self in some sense still exists. And so then if the vasanas are not eliminated, you can cry from one end of the earth to the other there is no self, but those vasanas will result in another incarnation. The Bardos explain all this. The Bardo exists now. At death everyone goes through the Bardo. One goes through the death of the false psychological self. But then it's too late, cravings demand another incarnation. Does "Tom", "D!ck" or "Harry" reincarnate? No, they die in the Bardo, but a something reincarnates. So one little piece of the truth can't be claimed as the whole truth. And there is such a thing as conceptual ND, (which sca is probably referring to).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 9, 2019 13:02:21 GMT -5
There's no making sense of the event of self-realization. It's certainly possible to come to understand the human being as a machine in intricate detail, and it's easy to see how the existential truth can be obscured by falsity. But this is a one-way street. There is no user's guide that can reveal that truth. Agree, but even guides to becoming a footballer or chef are limited the same way, aren't they? No guide can reveal the truth of how to become a footballer Yes, this is the Chuang Tzu story of the Woodwright.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 9, 2019 13:18:45 GMT -5
I say that conditioning is the basis of the false sense of self, so as long as (psychological) conditioning exists, a self in some sense exists. If the mind-brain-body has certain proclivities, which result from conditioning, then a self in some sense still exists. And so then if the vasanas are not eliminated, you can cry from one end of the earth to the other there is no self, but those vasanas will result in another incarnation. ----------- So one little piece of the truth can't be claimed as the whole truth. And there is such a thing as conceptual ND, (which sca is probably referring to). BINGO!
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 9, 2019 13:27:29 GMT -5
Agree, but even guides to becoming a footballer or chef are limited the same way, aren't they? No guide can reveal the truth of how to become a footballer But if the talent is there, and the prospect is coached and applies hard work, they can increase the probability that they make the team. In contrast, SR requires no talent. What is realized is a commonality between every human being that is already the case. And, it's not random. Nor is it predetermined. Well, I think the difference is that in the case of football, we can reasonably guess at what could help, but it's not entirely impossible that someone could leap out of bed one day having never played football, and be a genius footballer. Life is unpredictable like that. In the case of SR, we can also recommend inquiry or meditation, but we all know that it sometimes (quite often) doesn't happen like that. It just means we don't understand or can't see all that's going on beneath the surface. Similar to the rare case of someone that is suddenly a football genius, it's not that it's random or miraculous, it's just that we don't understand it and can't see what happened.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 13:51:12 GMT -5
But if the talent is there, and the prospect is coached and applies hard work, they can increase the probability that they make the team. In contrast, SR requires no talent. What is realized is a commonality between every human being that is already the case. And, it's not random. Nor is it predetermined. Well, I think the difference is that in the case of football, we can reasonably guess at what could help, but it's not entirely impossible that someone could leap out of bed one day having never played football, and be a genius footballer. Life is unpredictable like that. In the case of SR, we can also recommend inquiry or meditation, but we all know that it sometimes (quite often) doesn't happen like that. It just means we don't understand or can't see all that's going on beneath the surface. Similar to the rare case of someone that is suddenly a football genius, it's not that it's random or miraculous, it's just that we don't understand it and can't see what happened. We can understand what obscures realization, in fine and exquisite detail. But there is nothing to understand about any supposed cause of realization. There is nothing yet to be discovered about it in any sort of scientific terms. The event of realization isn't mechanical, it's not the result of a machine. Life is unpredictable, yes, and I like the TAT/Rose metaphor of meditating and pursuing inquiry in order to become "accident prone". But it's only a metaphor, and every metaphor has it's limits.
Certainly, we can give people who are interested in self-realization something similar to a user's manual, and one of the first directions (if I were to write it), would be to drop any and all conceptualization about yourself or reality, including the ingrained and subtle reliance of your mind on the notion of causality, generally. It's just that there are no guarantees about outcome, and that's an understatement as to the nature of the mystery.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 9, 2019 14:44:22 GMT -5
Well, I think the difference is that in the case of football, we can reasonably guess at what could help, but it's not entirely impossible that someone could leap out of bed one day having never played football, and be a genius footballer. Life is unpredictable like that. In the case of SR, we can also recommend inquiry or meditation, but we all know that it sometimes (quite often) doesn't happen like that. It just means we don't understand or can't see all that's going on beneath the surface. Similar to the rare case of someone that is suddenly a football genius, it's not that it's random or miraculous, it's just that we don't understand it and can't see what happened. We can understand what obscures realization, in fine and exquisite detail. But there is nothing to understand about any supposed cause of realization. There is nothing yet to be discovered about it in any sort of scientific terms. The event of realization isn't mechanical, it's not the result of a machine. Life is unpredictable, yes, and I like the TAT/Rose metaphor of meditating and pursuing inquiry in order to become "accident prone". But it's only a metaphor, and every metaphor has it's limits.
Certainly, we can give people who are interested in self-realization something similar to a user's manual, and one of the first directions (if I were to write it), would be to drop any and all conceptualization about yourself or reality, including the ingrained and subtle reliance of your mind on the notion of causality, generally. It's just that there are no guarantees about outcome, and that's an understatement as to the nature of the mystery. yes agree, I just don't see it as different to examples I've given, as you explained well there....we are not machines. I think there is stuff we could still learn about what's going on in relation to 'the happening'...for example, it would be interesting to learn more about unconscious mind processes, but still, no matter how much we learn, every individual is unique and so there are still limits as to how the learning can be applied. In a sense, we can lead the horse to the water, but if it doesn't want to drink, then that's the way it goes. I don't want to bicker about it, I basically agree with you, so thanks for the brief conversation.
|
|