|
Post by laughter on Jul 9, 2019 19:49:32 GMT -5
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. Thanks for the kind word andy, and hey, it's ok if we don't see it exactly the same. And don't mind me .. you know how it is, every now and then I just gotta' go all non-dual fundy.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 9, 2019 20:26:54 GMT -5
The 2NT is 'suffering has a cause' by any account of Buddhism, and there is a great deal of elaboration on that in the literature. though Buddha cited 'craving' as the cause of suffering, it shouldn't be taken so simply as if 'that's the answer'. The main principle of Buddhist ways is to see for yourself, and mindful meditation, insight meditation, vipashna, just roses by other names is 'the way' expressed by the 4thNT, but meditation is a pretty tricky subject to cover as well, as it involves deep subtlety and great nuance. Isn't craving an urgency of the mind, that wants what isn't right now, to be right now? Yes, basically, and where there's craving there is also aversion, and aversion to x is also craving for y, so the word 'Tanha' in pali refers to the dynamic between aversion and desire rather than just the craving side of that coin. When the Buddha says the cessation of 'craving' is the cessation of causing suffering, he is also referring to the volition, which in turn arises from the ignorance. But the causal paradigm is not a linear one as usually think of it in the Western mind; it's referred to as a 'dependent origin' rather than a chain of events. The teachings say not only is cessation of craving the cessation of suffering, but one need witness the whole construct of dependent origination and in the moment of such understanding one is also liberated from being a subject of contingency. This also means that the popular notion that we are necessarily compelled by conditioning is 'wrong view'. The Buddhist philosophy only says that current circumstances arise from volitions of the past, and not that the volition is 'caused'. Indead, kamma law id unique in that the 'cause' is not also an effect, and your volition is not conditional on circumstance. Meditation is to 'stop and look' and by 'stop' is mean't the cessation of 'doings', which is the cessation of volition, which is the cessation of aversion/desire, the cessation of generating kamma. The cessation of the 'cause'.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2019 8:34:11 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. Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 10, 2019 9:51:20 GMT -5
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. Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment. Several points: 1. I agree that what we call enlightenment is an illumination of the intellect. 2. Apprehending the Infinite instantly reveals that the Infinite cannot be comprehended by the intellect, and therefore it is immediately realized/understood that the intellect can only deal in cartoons and is limited to that cartoon-made meta-realistic world. 3. IOW, the intellect can understand its inability to understand the Infinite, and can thereby accept the limit of its understanding and non-understanding. 4. Although most people on the ND path probably think a great deal about the relationship of the intellect to the Infinite and go through abstract thought to some extent, some people do not (Ramana, Paul Morgan-Somers, etc). This suggests to me that the younger one is, and the less attached to thought one is, the more likely it is that one may wake up without having to process much thought. Ramana and Paul S-M were both 16 when they discovered the Infinite, and both of them remained psychologically at-one with "what is" from that point forward. This sort of thing isn't common, but it suggests to me that people who are older and more attached to thoughts may have to spend more time in silence in order to see through various thought-created illusions and attain a state of non-abidance. Each human is unique, and therefore some people wake up without any effort at all, and some people spend thirty years meditating and pursuing all kinds of related practices before awakening occurs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2019 9:53:43 GMT -5
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. Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment. I like the first paragraph, so true. The second seems to contradict itself.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2019 9:53:47 GMT -5
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. Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment. I can definitely relate to finding the end of the road of intellect with intellect by personal experience, although I can intuit how this might be unnecessary, and have read expressions on these forums to that effect. Certainly, if someone was interested in engaging me on the topic and had an intellectual model of reality, I'd likely meet them where they were in order to try to point them out of it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2019 9:57:07 GMT -5
Isn't craving an urgency of the mind, that wants what isn't right now, to be right now? Yes, basically, and where there's craving there is also aversion, and aversion to x is also craving for y, so the word 'Tanha' in pali refers to the dynamic between aversion and desire rather than just the craving side of that coin. When the Buddha says the cessation of 'craving' is the cessation of causing suffering, he is also referring to the volition, which in turn arises from the ignorance. But the causal paradigm is not a linear one as usually think of it in the Western mind; it's referred to as a 'dependent origin' rather than a chain of events. The teachings say not only is cessation of craving the cessation of suffering, but one need witness the whole construct of dependent origination and in the moment of such understanding one is also liberated from being a subject of contingency. This also means that the popular notion that we are necessarily compelled by conditioning is 'wrong view'. The Buddhist philosophy only says that current circumstances arise from volitions of the past, and not that the volition is 'caused'. Indead, kamma law id unique in that the 'cause' is not also an effect, and your volition is not conditional on circumstance. Meditation is to 'stop and look' and by 'stop' is mean't the cessation of 'doings', which is the cessation of volition, which is the cessation of aversion/desire, the cessation of generating kamma. The cessation of the 'cause'.
Interesting read lolz, thanks for taking the time to write it.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2019 10:22:31 GMT -5
4. Although most people on the ND path probably think a great deal about the relationship of the intellect to the Infinite and go through abstract thought to some extent, some people do not (Ramana, Paul Morgan-Somers, etc). This suggests to me that the younger one is, and the less attached to thought one is, the more likely it is that one may wake up without having to process much thought. Ramana and Paul S-M were both 16 when they discovered the Infinite, and both of them remained psychologically at-one with "what is" from that point forward. This sort of thing isn't common, but it suggests to me that people who are older and more attached to thoughts may have to spend more time in silence in order to see through various thought-created illusions and attain a state of non-abidance. Each human is unique, and therefore some people wake up without any effort at all, and some people spend thirty years meditating and pursuing all kinds of related practices before awakening occurs. I think the best explanation for these kinds of insta-enlightenments at young ages is that the work has been done in previous lives. Actually, Ramana said just this: he said that he had done his scriptural studies in previous lives. That's certainly how the Buddha regarded himself as well -- enlightenment is a multi-life quest. If it is said to exist at all, that makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2019 10:23:16 GMT -5
Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment. I like the first paragraph, so true. The second seems to contradict itself. It's because the pure intellect is like the pure ego, the pure I, etc. It's one of those terms that straddles its own negation or opposite...
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2019 10:26:06 GMT -5
Hrm, that's interesting. I think people have to go through abstract thought to some extent (or even a large extent) and then realize, through abstract thought, the limits of abstract thought. The beyond-the-conceptual only has significance when the conceptual has been sufficiently explored. It's interesting. In Vedanta, enlightenment, if it is said to exist (which of course in the final analysis it does not), is said to be an illumination of the intellect -- it is light of the pure intellect. Pure discernment. I can definitely relate to finding the end of the road of intellect with intellect by personal experience, although I can intuit how this might be unnecessary, and have read expressions on these forums to that effect. Certainly, if someone was interested in engaging me on the topic and had an intellectual model of reality, I'd likely meet them where they were in order to try to point them out of it. Yeah, absolutely. But if someone were coming to spirituality out of a thirst for truth or out of disappointment with the mundane world, I think some kind of intellectual framework or big picture of the search can be immensely helpful... typically the useful bits are not about the universe but about our own consciousness or phenomenology, but it can't help but all be related, I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2019 11:02:41 GMT -5
I can definitely relate to finding the end of the road of intellect with intellect by personal experience, although I can intuit how this might be unnecessary, and have read expressions on these forums to that effect. Certainly, if someone was interested in engaging me on the topic and had an intellectual model of reality, I'd likely meet them where they were in order to try to point them out of it. Yeah, absolutely. But if someone were coming to spirituality out of a thirst for truth or out of disappointment with the mundane world, I think some kind of intellectual framework or big picture of the search can be immensely helpful... typically the useful bits are not about the universe but about our own consciousness or phenomenology, but it can't help but all be related, I suspect. Something like this? .. "Consciousness is the limitless singular, interconnected and indivisible movement of thought and form happening against/within, and arising from the eternal and unchanging backdrop of Awareness that you really are".
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Jul 10, 2019 11:06:59 GMT -5
Yeah, absolutely. But if someone were coming to spirituality out of a thirst for truth or out of disappointment with the mundane world, I think some kind of intellectual framework or big picture of the search can be immensely helpful... typically the useful bits are not about the universe but about our own consciousness or phenomenology, but it can't help but all be related, I suspect. Something like this? .. "Consciousness is the limitless singular, interconnected and indivisible movement of thought and form happening against/within, and arising from the eternal and unchanging backdrop of Awareness that you really are". Something like that, yeah
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 10, 2019 11:16:08 GMT -5
Something like this? .. "Consciousness is the limitless singular, interconnected and indivisible movement of thought and form happening against/within, and arising from the eternal and unchanging backdrop of Awareness that you really are". Something like that, yeah
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 10, 2019 21:18:28 GMT -5
Yes, basically, and where there's craving there is also aversion, and aversion to x is also craving for y, so the word 'Tanha' in pali refers to the dynamic between aversion and desire rather than just the craving side of that coin. When the Buddha says the cessation of 'craving' is the cessation of causing suffering, he is also referring to the volition, which in turn arises from the ignorance. But the causal paradigm is not a linear one as usually think of it in the Western mind; it's referred to as a 'dependent origin' rather than a chain of events. The teachings say not only is cessation of craving the cessation of suffering, but one need witness the whole construct of dependent origination and in the moment of such understanding one is also liberated from being a subject of contingency. This also means that the popular notion that we are necessarily compelled by conditioning is 'wrong view'. The Buddhist philosophy only says that current circumstances arise from volitions of the past, and not that the volition is 'caused'. Indead, kamma law id unique in that the 'cause' is not also an effect, and your volition is not conditional on circumstance. Meditation is to 'stop and look' and by 'stop' is mean't the cessation of 'doings', which is the cessation of volition, which is the cessation of aversion/desire, the cessation of generating kamma. The cessation of the 'cause'.
Interesting read lolz, thanks for taking the time to write it. I think the primary lesson in meditation training is suffering is caused. The 1stNT is completely evident in oneself, it is true I suffer. The 2ndNT isn't so apparent because people don;t know what causes it. It seems as if circumstance causes suffering, but if that were true there would be no cessation thereof let alone a 'way'. The 3rd and 4th NT's would be untrue!
The main lesson of the 2ndNT is, you cause your suffering. Because it isn't true that you are a subject of contingency, you actually generate it like a masochist - then perpetrate it like a sadist. It's a bit of shock to the pride to realise you are responsible for all that, and it isn't just 'something that happens'. The clinker here is, it's not about what you can do the rectify the dilemma, but noticing what you do do to create it in the first place, and furthermore, stop doing that! But as JC put it, "They know not what they do". The ignorance in Buddhism refers to an incomplete awareness, which is called a 'gross mind'. Reactivity keeps the mind agitated and dull, so the basic trick is stop reacting. It's not easy because we're conditioned to reacting adversely to discomfort and crave pleasure, and that might be a survival mechanism, but it's not really us. There is a way of watching even in quite intense discomfort and remaining unperturbed. The senses might go nuts and the brain may fire like crazy, but you can just be there without any contingent response, as the 'uncaused', so the speak, merely aware of it all - but for most of us, if not all, we reach a limitation and the extreme of the experience begins to overwhelm equanimity as we react and unsettle that subtle balance of the mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 11, 2019 5:49:44 GMT -5
Interesting read lolz, thanks for taking the time to write it. I think the primary lesson in meditation training is suffering is caused. The 1stNT is completely evident in oneself, it is true I suffer. The 2ndNT isn't so apparent because people don;t know what causes it. It seems as if circumstance causes suffering, but if that were true there would be no cessation thereof let alone a 'way'. The 3rd and 4th NT's would be untrue! The main lesson of the 2ndNT is, you cause your suffering. Because it isn't true that you are a subject of contingency, you actually generate it like a masochist - then perpetrate it like a sadist. It's a bit of shock to the pride to realise you are responsible for all that, and it isn't just 'something that happens'. The clinker here is, it's not about what you can do the rectify the dilemma, but noticing what you do do to create it in the first place, and furthermore, stop doing that! But as JC put it, "They know not what they do". The ignorance in Buddhism refers to an incomplete awareness, which is called a 'gross mind'. Reactivity keeps the mind agitated and dull, so the basic trick is stop reacting. It's not easy because we're conditioned to reacting adversely to discomfort and crave pleasure, and that might be a survival mechanism, but it's not really us. There is a way of watching even in quite intense discomfort and remaining unperturbed. The senses might go nuts and the brain may fire like crazy, but you can just be there without any contingent response, as the 'uncaused', so the speak, merely aware of it all - but for most of us, if not all, we reach a limitation and the extreme of the experience begins to overwhelm equanimity as we react and unsettle that subtle balance of the mind.
And the meditation can happen 16/7 with eyes open while while walking and talking. For that I have to thank the Zen culture - Hakuin by way of Albert Low. And during this meditation, an "inner eye" can be maintained with the intent to answer the question "who (or what) is it that reacts?" .. or, put another way .. "what is the source of the reaction?". For that I have to thank Ramana Maharshi and Niz.
|
|