|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 9:41:29 GMT -5
I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion of a progressive path, but does it? Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable, then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable? It's an interesting question. The illusion of cause/effect simply means nothing in creation causes something else in creation to happen. It's the consequence of creation being a dream of Consciousness. All causes and all effects come directly from the source of creation. All else is only the experience of those causes and effects unfolding. The illusion of practice is not made unacceptable by this, as that would imply that something else should be done to cause another outcome. It's merely being pointed out that it is illusion, and the illusion can be seen for what it is. Yes, there is a progressive path, but there is no-one on that path, just the experience of a person moving toward a goal. The realization of this is actually the goal itself. The path may indeed lead to the goal, and one is not discouraged from following whatever path, but following the path is not the cause of arriving at a particular destination. It's just the way creation is unfolding.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 10:04:58 GMT -5
Yes, I'm on board with what both Andrew and Laughter wrote. So, is there a path to SR? Well, yes and no, depending upon how you think about it. At the end of my book I stated, "There is no path and no one who could follow one." When the illusion of being a SVP is seen through, THIS, in the form of a particular human, realizes what's going on. It's like the line in "Catcher in the Rye" where the kid, or his sister (I can't remember which) says, "I saw that it was God pouring God into God" (referring to seeing someone pour milk into a glass.) I like that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 10:06:28 GMT -5
I am in the camp of those who maintain that cause and efect are illusion. In my estimation time is illusory, a construct of mind. This became forming as conjecture when I first encountered time dilation studying relativity. Then while listening to several advaitins it solidified into a belief. This apparently dispels the notion of a progressive path, but does it? Narrow thinking can lead one to such a conclusion. But if the illusion of plowing a garden and planting a seed to harvest a tomato plant is acceptable, then why is the illusion of preparing the way for a more probable outcome by meditation and other practices not acceptable? It's an interesting question. The illusion of cause/effect simply means nothing in creation causes something else in creation to happen. It's the consequence of creation being a dream of Consciousness. All causes and all effects come directly from the source of creation. All else is only the experience of those causes and effects unfolding. The illusion of practice is not made unacceptable by this, as that would imply that something else should be done to cause another outcome. It's merely being pointed out that it is illusion, and the illusion can be seen for what it is. Yes, there is a progressive path, but there is no-one on that path, just the experience of a person moving toward a goal. The realization of this is actually the goal itself. The path may indeed lead to the goal, and one is not discouraged from following whatever path, but following the path is not the cause of arriving at a particular destination. It's just the way creation is unfolding. I bow to the master. Welcome back.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 10:09:38 GMT -5
There is awareness of the self unrealised and the awareness of the self realised . So there is something that happens from being unrealised to being realised . I have no problem saying there is a path between both states of awareness . In regards to there being a cause or not that brings about awareness of realisation one would have to know the bigger picture that relates to all moments that led up to such a point . The fact that most don’t remember what they had to eat 5 years ago to this very day gives me the understanding that one can’t say with any surety that there was no cause that led to the realisation . How can they when they don’t know the full story behind the scenes ..This is why some masters suggest that the work / effort has already been applied in another lifetime if their realization seems spontaneous in this lifetime without any effort or practice of any kind . Realization doesn’t occur on a lottery type of system butt you have to be in it to win it lol . The 'full story' isn't found in the events of creation but rather in source of those events.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 10:17:34 GMT -5
What is interesting to this mind is how one can write convincingly to negate cause and effect and not see the contradiction inherent in that endeavor and why it doesn't give one pause. In the realm of the mind there is cause and effect. In the realm prior to mind and conceptualisation there is only what's happening. So don't negate cause and effect in the realm of mind and things, and don't believe in cause and effect in the realm of God. The cause of mind is where you will find all causes.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 10:25:27 GMT -5
That can happen, yes, but the intellect has no place in trying to interpret the pointing, and ain't invited to the party. The signs that it's crashed it are hyperminding and spinning, especially around the topic of paradox. The Rinzai maniacs contemplate all those crazy koans and say that they have to be answered by breathing them and meditating on them by sitting in silence .. with no thinking about them allowed. They seem to be onto something. Don't encourage that insanity. Paradoxes are interesting thought killers. The mind has nowhere to go. This is why the intellect despises them. The mind loves paradox. I watch peeps going to great lengths to meet up with a paradox, often conflating it with irony. As you say, they are interesting to mind, and seem to offer a kind of final answer beyond which one need not go. On to the next problem!
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 10:28:28 GMT -5
Don't encourage that insanity. Paradoxes are interesting thought killers. The mind has nowhere to go. This is why the intellect despises them. For the one who has never thought, thought is recommended. For the one to whom thought has become a trap, no-thought is recommended. All those who have never thought, please raise your hand......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 10:32:01 GMT -5
For the one who has never thought, thought is recommended. For the one to whom thought has become a trap, no-thought is recommended. All those who have never thought, please raise your hand...... Noone has ever thought.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 11, 2019 12:39:39 GMT -5
For the one who has never thought, thought is recommended. For the one to whom thought has become a trap, no-thought is recommended. All those who have never thought, please raise your hand...... So you still think that there is someone thinking those thoughts do you? Back to nonduality 101 for you then.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 11, 2019 13:56:13 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. 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). The next Dalai Lama may not reincarnate in Tibet.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 11, 2019 14:24:15 GMT -5
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. In my interpretation of the Buddhist thing, reactivity is associated with 'me, mine, my, I' which is not real in itself, but a collection of dependently arising aggregates which we identify with. It's just that link between reaction, volition and ignorance are elements of dependent origins, and there are no turtles under it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 11, 2019 15:48:27 GMT -5
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. In my interpretation of the Buddhist thing, reactivity is associated with 'me, mine, my, I' which is not real in itself, but a collection of dependently arising aggregates which we identify with. It's just that link between reaction, volition and ignorance are elements of dependent origins, and there are no turtles under it. And I have to admit to the sacrilege of finding dependent origination a rather intellectually satisfying bridge between realization and the informing of mind when I first encountered it, and the more I read about it, the deeper that satisfaction grows. This, of course, proves that I'm not enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 11, 2019 18:34:43 GMT -5
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). The next Dalai Lama may not reincarnate in Tibet. He has said he's he's probably going to retire (not reincarnate).
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 11, 2019 20:15:07 GMT -5
The next Dalai Lama may not reincarnate in Tibet. He has said he's he's probably going to retire (not reincarnate). He also said in an interview recently that the next Dalai Lama could be a woman, and if so, it would be important that she be an attractive woman.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 11, 2019 20:49:54 GMT -5
The illusion of cause/effect simply means nothing in creation causes something else in creation to happen. It's the consequence of creation being a dream of Consciousness. All causes and all effects come directly from the source of creation. All else is only the experience of those causes and effects unfolding. The illusion of practice is not made unacceptable by this, as that would imply that something else should be done to cause another outcome. It's merely being pointed out that it is illusion, and the illusion can be seen for what it is. Yes, there is a progressive path, but there is no-one on that path, just the experience of a person moving toward a goal. The realization of this is actually the goal itself. The path may indeed lead to the goal, and one is not discouraged from following whatever path, but following the path is not the cause of arriving at a particular destination. It's just the way creation is unfolding. I bow to the master. Welcome back. Thank you, my friend.
|
|