|
Post by lolly on Jul 11, 2019 21:39:50 GMT -5
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. Yeah, it's a pretty cool philosophy or cosmology, a nice way of thinking about it all because the implications get more and more subtle. I think that's the important part of Buddhism: that it doesn't give answers, but is nuanced in meaning while the 'truth' is recognisable as insight, which is also a path from the gross to the subtle rather that a path comprised of places and times. My meditation training was to be presently aware with 'this' 'as it is', seeking nothing else, and uncovering the subtle aspects of what first seems to be a gross experience. In that perception of the subtle requires close attention, it is quite different to trying to pay attention to an object - I mean, there is no object as such within the phenomena of constant change - so if we say 'observe the breath' for example, it is really the conscious attention of changing sensation, and the idea is feel the most subtle aspect of said sensation as you can. As the mind hones in on the tiny details of the feeling, it becomes sharper and more acute, thus capable of perceiving yet subtler aspects of 'what is'. The habits of craving pleasure and being adverse to discomfort still try to overwhelm that quiet observance, but this becomes starkly apparent to you and because you are the one aware, you are not the one reacting, and because you are not reacting, there is no reaction. However, the tendency runs deep down into the very subtle levels of the mind body which the mind is not yet capable of perceiving, so one continues to feel out ever subtler levels of what can be felt, which brings conscious awareness 'all the way through' in a purifying process as the mind body opens up and releases its held 'sankara' which were created by volitions/strong reactions of the past, and these then arise in conscious awareness sans the reactive tendency and dissolve away. In this way, kamma/volition ceases to create/cause sankara, and the old stored up sankara continue to expire. It's like you stop putting wood on the fire and the old wood burns away. Eventually all the sankara pass away and one is empty as the void itself, but there is difficulty in that process concerning the ability to maintain equanimity of the mind.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 11, 2019 22:12:41 GMT -5
so if we say 'observe the breath' for example, it is really the conscious attention of changing sensation, and the idea is feel the most subtle aspect of said sensation as you can. As the mind hones in on the tiny details of the feeling, it becomes sharper and more acute, thus capable of perceiving yet subtler aspects of 'what is'. Go further. Beyond the most subtle until it disappears entirely and then what remains? This is the tantra of the fading away of phenomena, like the fading of a thunderclap. I recently attended a session where someone was using Tibetan singing bowls. Everyone was interested in the sound of the bowls and the vibrations associated with them but I asked the question, what about the fading away of the sound of the bowl. What then? It wasn't really being considered. I said when you listen to the sound of the bowl you are aware of the sound and as the sound fades away you are still aware of the fading away of the sound and when the sound gets to its most subtle level your awareness of that is exactly the same as it always was no matter what the intensity of the sound. Now the sound completely disappears What remains? The same awareness. This is the entire basis of the Vijnana bhairava tantra the contemplation of the fading away of phenomena. and it can be directly related to the third noble truth. "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 12, 2019 7:13:24 GMT -5
so if we say 'observe the breath' for example, it is really the conscious attention of changing sensation, and the idea is feel the most subtle aspect of said sensation as you can. As the mind hones in on the tiny details of the feeling, it becomes sharper and more acute, thus capable of perceiving yet subtler aspects of 'what is'. Go further. Beyond the most subtle until it disappears entirely and then what remains? This is the tantra of the fading away of phenomena, like the fading of a thunderclap. I recently attended a session where someone was using Tibetan singing bowls. Everyone was interested in the sound of the bowls and the vibrations associated with them but I asked the question, what about the fading away of the sound of the bowl. What then? It wasn't really being considered. I said when you listen to the sound of the bowl you are aware of the sound and as the sound fades away you are still aware of the fading away of the sound and when the sound gets to its most subtle level your awareness of that is exactly the same as it always was no matter what the intensity of the sound. Now the sound completely disappears What remains? The same awareness. This is the entire basis of the Vijnana bhairava tantra the contemplation of the fading away of phenomena. and it can be directly related to the third noble truth. "And this, monks, is the noble truth of the cessation of stress: the remainderless fading & cessation, renunciation, relinquishment, release, & letting go of that very craving. I didn't train in a tantra tradition, so I'm unfamiliar with their ways. I trained in mindfulness according to the Satipatthana. In theory the four mindful objects: body, feeling, mind and mental content, are mentioned separately as categories, but in practice they are interwoven. For example, should one practice breath awareness, the contents of mind, chatter, reactivity, and the general plethora of 'distraction' becomes starkly apparent to the one who intends only to feel the air coming in/going out. Hence one cannot meditate on body without also noticing the contents of mind, and in this way, the meditation works across the scope of the four mindful foundations at the same time.
The meditation is to experience what already is, just as it is, without craving any special sort of spiritual experience. Indeed, the meditation is defined in the satipatthana as 'ardent with awareness and constant thorough understanding of impermanence having removed craving and aversion towards the world'.
People come to meditate expecting the sorts of special experiences told of in popular spiritual literature, but actually, they experience mostly pain. They react adversely to the onset of discomfort while strongly desiring a special experience, and their minds become highly agitated as a result.
That's more the true story of meditation isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 12, 2019 10:31:59 GMT -5
That's more the true story of meditation isn't it? That's not my story. My story of meditation is one of bliss and peace and abiding in non-dual awareness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 12, 2019 10:41:55 GMT -5
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. Yeah, it's a pretty cool philosophy or cosmology, a nice way of thinking about it all because the implications get more and more subtle. I think that's the important part of Buddhism: that it doesn't give answers, but is nuanced in meaning while the 'truth' is recognisable as insight, which is also a path from the gross to the subtle rather that a path comprised of places and times. My meditation training was to be presently aware with 'this' 'as it is', seeking nothing else, and uncovering the subtle aspects of what first seems to be a gross experience. In that perception of the subtle requires close attention, it is quite different to trying to pay attention to an object - I mean, there is no object as such within the phenomena of constant change - so if we say 'observe the breath' for example, it is really the conscious attention of changing sensation, and the idea is feel the most subtle aspect of said sensation as you can. As the mind hones in on the tiny details of the feeling, it becomes sharper and more acute, thus capable of perceiving yet subtler aspects of 'what is'. The habits of craving pleasure and being adverse to discomfort still try to overwhelm that quiet observance, but this becomes starkly apparent to you and because you are the one aware, you are not the one reacting, and because you are not reacting, there is no reaction. However, the tendency runs deep down into the very subtle levels of the mind body which the mind is not yet capable of perceiving, so one continues to feel out ever subtler levels of what can be felt, which brings conscious awareness 'all the way through' in a purifying process as the mind body opens up and releases its held 'sankara' which were created by volitions/strong reactions of the past, and these then arise in conscious awareness sans the reactive tendency and dissolve away. In this way, kamma/volition ceases to create/cause sankara, and the old stored up sankara continue to expire. It's like you stop putting wood on the fire and the old wood burns away. Eventually all the sankara pass away and one is empty as the void itself, but there is difficulty in that process concerning the ability to maintain equanimity of the mind. There's a poetic edge to writing like this, and my guess is that it wasn't even your intent. One might find a sort of familiarity in the stillness when they start meditating, depending on the other experiences in their life. "Tantra" seems to me most succinctly described as losing oneself in the experience of life as it happens. Even the pursuit of pleasure can lead to this, but in the arrival of that state, and in it's aftermath, if one is conscious of the flow of their body and the content of their mind, the ephemeral nature of any and all experience becomes quite clear, and to great depth. The matter of equanimity is going to vary quite a bit depending on the individual. There are as many scenarios as there are or ever will be people, and certainly, the default-mind-mode for folks in industrialized societies is going to be noisy .. but even some of these are lucky enough to have lived lives of relative harmony with their surroundings and the people in those surroundings. My guess is that they're less likely to get interested in meditation, although they might be drawn to other aspects of spirituality. Another possibility is that the emotional suppression of someone who's attained a typical sort of stoic self-mastery can be destabilized by the insight-process you describe. Those are just two different extremes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 11:08:41 GMT -5
The next Dalai Lama may not reincarnate in Tibet. He has said he's he's probably going to retire (not reincarnate). Do you think it's up to him?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 11:11:17 GMT -5
That's more the true story of meditation isn't it? That's not my story. My story of meditation is one of bliss and peace and abiding in non-dual awareness. Are you omitting the 20 years of mind control for a reason?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 12, 2019 12:38:45 GMT -5
That's not my story. My story of meditation is one of bliss and peace and abiding in non-dual awareness. Are you omitting the 20 years of mind control for a reason? 30
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 12, 2019 15:09:35 GMT -5
He has said he's he's probably going to retire (not reincarnate). Do you think it's up to him? Certainly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 12, 2019 17:17:21 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 12, 2019 23:07:22 GMT -5
That's more the true story of meditation isn't it? That's not my story. My story of meditation is one of bliss and peace and abiding in non-dual awareness. I think you tell the good bits, but not the full story.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 12, 2019 23:16:59 GMT -5
That's not my story. My story of meditation is one of bliss and peace and abiding in non-dual awareness. I think you tell the good bits, but not the full story. I'm very glad you said that. Whatever you read in scripture, whether from the Vedic or Buddhist traditions, you have to pick out the good bits and discard the rest by testing what is self verifiable. Sri Ramakrishna once said that all scripture is a mixture of sugar and sand and that you have to pick out the sugar and discard the sand.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 12, 2019 23:42:14 GMT -5
Yeah, it's a pretty cool philosophy or cosmology, a nice way of thinking about it all because the implications get more and more subtle. I think that's the important part of Buddhism: that it doesn't give answers, but is nuanced in meaning while the 'truth' is recognisable as insight, which is also a path from the gross to the subtle rather that a path comprised of places and times. My meditation training was to be presently aware with 'this' 'as it is', seeking nothing else, and uncovering the subtle aspects of what first seems to be a gross experience. In that perception of the subtle requires close attention, it is quite different to trying to pay attention to an object - I mean, there is no object as such within the phenomena of constant change - so if we say 'observe the breath' for example, it is really the conscious attention of changing sensation, and the idea is feel the most subtle aspect of said sensation as you can. As the mind hones in on the tiny details of the feeling, it becomes sharper and more acute, thus capable of perceiving yet subtler aspects of 'what is'. The habits of craving pleasure and being adverse to discomfort still try to overwhelm that quiet observance, but this becomes starkly apparent to you and because you are the one aware, you are not the one reacting, and because you are not reacting, there is no reaction. However, the tendency runs deep down into the very subtle levels of the mind body which the mind is not yet capable of perceiving, so one continues to feel out ever subtler levels of what can be felt, which brings conscious awareness 'all the way through' in a purifying process as the mind body opens up and releases its held 'sankara' which were created by volitions/strong reactions of the past, and these then arise in conscious awareness sans the reactive tendency and dissolve away. In this way, kamma/volition ceases to create/cause sankara, and the old stored up sankara continue to expire. It's like you stop putting wood on the fire and the old wood burns away. Eventually all the sankara pass away and one is empty as the void itself, but there is difficulty in that process concerning the ability to maintain equanimity of the mind. There's a poetic edge to writing like this, and my guess is that it wasn't even your intent. One might find a sort of familiarity in the stillness when they start meditating, depending on the other experiences in their life. "Tantra" seems to me most succinctly described as losing oneself in the experience of life as it happens. Even the pursuit of pleasure can lead to this, but in the arrival of that state, and in it's aftermath, if one is conscious of the flow of their body and the content of their mind, the ephemeral nature of any and all experience becomes quite clear, and to great depth. The matter of equanimity is going to vary quite a bit depending on the individual. There are as many scenarios as there are or ever will be people, and certainly, the default-mind-mode for folks in industrialized societies is going to be noisy .. but even some of these are lucky enough to have lived lives of relative harmony with their surroundings and the people in those surroundings. My guess is that they're less likely to get interested in meditation, although they might be drawn to other aspects of spirituality. Another possibility is that the emotional suppression of someone who's attained a typical sort of stoic self-mastery can be destabilized by the insight-process you describe. Those are just two different extremes. I don't think the pursuit of pleasure is going to take anyone far because the truth is pleasure and discomfort, and the degree to which one craves the former equals the degree to which they're adverse to the latter. The reactive mind is unstable, and it often does take craving and aversion to the extremes of hatred and greed, which no doubt generate untold suffering.
Of course we're human beings so we will go out to do pleasurable things, but life is more like training, we do do things that are hard and uncomfortable to be benefited, and we are not always doing things for pleasure at all. For example, people climb Everest, but not because it's pleasurable.
The way I was trained was to keep an even keel - when in discomfort not be perturbed, and when in pleasure, just enjoy it while it lasts. Since the truth is discomfort and pleasure is always passing one becomes disenchanted by all that and more interested in what isn't passing, does not arise nor pass away.
Most people I have asked about what they came to the ashram for the meditation retreat tell me it's because of something traumatic, an uncertainty, being lost and so forth. No one tells me its because they are happy and content, teehee. Meditation is for miserable people, right? Really. People who wish they were not so goddam miserable and want a way to alleviate their suffering. The already know the 1stNT. That's why they are here. They want to find out the 3rd and 4thNT's, but they really don't want to find out about the 2ND...
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 13, 2019 1:02:47 GMT -5
I think you tell the good bits, but not the full story. I'm very glad you said that. Whatever you read in scripture, whether from the Vedic or Buddhist traditions, you have to pick out the good bits and discard the rest by testing what is self verifiable. Sri Ramakrishna once said that all scripture is a mixture of sugar and sand and that you have to pick out the sugar and discard the sand. It is mostly said to put aside the teachings that don't ring true for you at this time. My teachers explained to me how the Buddhist teaching is supposed to be delivered by way the following parable:
There was a caring mother who made a special rice pudding for her child, but the child was crying, "it has black stones in it" and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained that is is not black stones. It is ground cardamon and it gives the pudding a delicious taste. But the child kept crying, 'Black stones black stones' and wouldn't eat it. The mother then removed all the visible crushed cardamon seeds just to appease the child. The child was happy enough and ate the now 'stoneless' pudding. After the child grew older, he came to understand what cardamon is and no longer saw it as stones in his pudding. He now understood cardamon was a necessary ingredient of a delicious kheer.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Jul 13, 2019 1:13:38 GMT -5
I'm very glad you said that. Whatever you read in scripture, whether from the Vedic or Buddhist traditions, you have to pick out the good bits and discard the rest by testing what is self verifiable. Sri Ramakrishna once said that all scripture is a mixture of sugar and sand and that you have to pick out the sugar and discard the sand. It is mostly said to put aside the teachings that don't ring true for you at this time. My teachers explained to me how the Buddhist teaching is supposed to be delivered by way the following parable:
There was a caring mother who made a special rice pudding for her child, but the child was crying, "it has black stones in it" and wouldn't eat it. The mother explained that is is not black stones. It is ground cardamon and it gives the pudding a delicious taste. But the child kept crying, 'Black stones black stones' and wouldn't eat it. The mother then removed all the visible crushed cardamon seeds just to appease the child. The child was happy enough and ate the now 'stoneless' pudding. After the child grew older, he came to understand what cardamon is and no longer saw it as stones in his pudding. He now understood cardamon was a necessary ingredient of a delicious kheer.
When the whole country is flooded, the reservoir becomes superfluous. So, to the illumined seer, the Vedas are all superfluous” (Bhagavad Gita 2:46)
|
|