|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2011 18:12:28 GMT -5
So maybe there won't be a contextual dinner tonight? ;D Okay, okay, that's pretty funny, and I give it an "8" on the off the cuff comedic scale. ;D However, had you stayed in character for a bit longer, and said, "Looks like no contextual soup for you, ernie," I would have given it a "10"!! ;D Dang! Well, that's what practice is for. Maybe next time. ;D
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 20, 2011 19:00:35 GMT -5
I recently discovered the miracle of pleasure that is Boba Tea LOL....holy crap that stuffs good...screw nirvana, give me Boba Tea LOL....although, Boba Tea and 77 virgins might be nice ;D Hahahahahahahahahahahaha!! And 77 virgins. Classic.
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 20, 2011 19:09:41 GMT -5
Hey Zen take a stab at my questions about projections and actual above here when you get a chance. I'd like to hear your take on that. Also Ace, if you are reading I'd love your take too. Just to see if it's different where the water spins backwards. Mmmm, the Starbucks green tea is filling my taste buds with that oh so familiar, wonderful taste. Although it needs another scoop of stevia. Hahaha. Bonzai!!!! 1HC: Your question about projection is actually a pretty good koan. However, if someone answers that question for you, it won't have any power. If you find the answer yourself, it will eliminate a particular pattern of thought and might even have a strong side effect. You already know the answer to the question, but you may have to contemplate it for a while in order to resolve it. Please dig into that one. Hahaha. I was asking the questions rhetorically. I was more wanting to hear how you would explain that concept to someone. You often have words that seem to explain stuff with more clarity than my words obviously do. Hahaha. Maybe I do need to dig.........only I forgot my shovel. Can I borrow yours?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 20, 2011 19:27:23 GMT -5
The movement of mind likes to perpetuate itself with more movement, from one extreme to the other...its hard for Minding to get the idea of effortless practice...it likes to say either no "practice at all is good, or intense practice with lots of effort and struggle is good, but these are extremes, the mind likes extremes...the trueth is in the middle....effortless practice is good." Yes, effortless practice. (AKA noticing) What you describe is noticing. To the extent that it appeared to be an effort within a technique and that there was some sort of self that surrendered itself, this is a story that mind wrote about noticing. Yeah. The idea that ego can be surrendered or that ego can die is a funny idea. How can something that never existed be surrendered or die? I never really related to the word "ego," as if it were something that people needed to get rid of. Who would be the one getting rid of it? To me, the word "ego" referred to the "felt sense of separateness," a sense artificially created by incessant thought. This is why I usually refer to self realization as an insight that occurs when certain ingrained structures of thought collapse. One simply sees that selfhood in its entirety is an elaborate hoax created by the intellect. My understanding of "experience," "realization," and "flow" is based upon different things that have happened in the life of this body/mind. "An experience" appears to be something that has a beginning and an end and a finite duration, as in "My wedding was quite an experience." A realization happens instantly and does not involve time. Perhaps one is looking at one of those optical illusion images, such as the two faces/vase image. One sees only the face until there is a sudden shift in perception and the two vases pop into view. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is exactly like that. Instantaneously it becomes concretely clear that no separate entity ever existed in any sense. By contrast, "flow" and "non-abidance" are much harder to talk about. Helen Courtois's description is probably the best I have ever read. What she describes in her book is what life feels like when mind is no longer dominant. A person becomes one-with the activity of life, rather than being an outside observer. Life flows effortlessly from one activity to another, but no activity is experienced as separate from any other. This is how little children interact with the world; they live in a perpetual Now. Helen's "enlightenment" (if we want to use that word) was not really an experience or a realization, as I understand the words. As she puts it, she was "plunged into a numinous openness which obliterated all fixed distinctions." She thus became absorbed in Presence and remained so absorbed for many years. During those years mind was not dominant and there was only a seamless flow of life without significant reflection. Rather than living life, she was lived. It helps to remember that Helen's quest was to somehow experience life whole, all at once, from the inside rather than the outside, and the universe certainly found what it was looking for with that particular body/mind! As G. Spencer Brown once stated, "The universe may best be defined as 'response to request.'" Someone might look at Helen's contemplation of the actual, which seemingly led to her plunge into Presence, as something that required effort, but there was no doer behind the activity and therefore there was no choice. Her life was simply the effortless unfolding of pure isness. Who she was is who we are.
|
|
|
Post by acewall on Sept 20, 2011 19:33:03 GMT -5
Clapper! Re... "Also Ace, if you are reading I'd love your take too." ASK your wife would it be OK to bring another man in on your relationship. I think it is YOU she wants.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 20, 2011 20:48:17 GMT -5
The movement of mind likes to perpetuate itself with more movement, from one extreme to the other...its hard for Minding to get the idea of effortless practice...it likes to say either no "practice at all is good, or intense practice with lots of effort and struggle is good, but these are extremes, the mind likes extremes...the trueth is in the middle....effortless practice is good." Yes, effortless practice. (AKA noticing) What you describe is noticing. To the extent that it appeared to be an effort within a technique and that there was some sort of self that surrendered itself, this is a story that mind wrote about noticing. Yeah. The idea that ego can be surrendered or that ego can die is a funny idea. How can something that never existed be surrendered or die? I never really related to the word "ego," as if it were something that people needed to get rid of. Who would be the one getting rid of it? To me, the word "ego" referred to the "felt sense of separateness," a sense artificially created by incessant thought. This is why I usually refer to self realization as an insight that occurs when certain ingrained structures of thought collapse. One simply sees that selfhood in its entirety is an elaborate hoax created by the intellect. My understanding of "experience," "realization," and "flow" is based upon different things that have happened in the life of this body/mind. "An experience" appears to be something that has a beginning and an end and a finite duration, as in "My wedding was quite an experience." A realization happens instantly and does not involve time. Perhaps one is looking at one of those optical illusion images, such as the two faces/vase image. One sees only the face until there is a sudden shift in perception and the two vases pop into view. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is exactly like that. Instantaneously it becomes concretely clear that no separate entity ever existed in any sense. By contrast, "flow" and "non-abidance" are much harder to talk about. Helen Courtois's description is probably the best I have ever read. What she describes in her book is what life feels like when mind is no longer dominant. A person becomes one-with the activity of life, rather than being an outside observer. Life flows effortlessly from one activity to another, but no activity is experienced as separate from any other. This is how little children interact with the world; they live in a perpetual Now. Helen's "enlightenment" (if we want to use that word) was not really an experience or a realization, as I understand the words. As she puts it, she was "plunged into a numinous openness which obliterated all fixed distinctions." She thus became absorbed in Presence and remained so absorbed for many years. During those years mind was not dominant and there was only a seamless flow of life without significant reflection. Rather than living life, she was lived. It helps to remember that Helen's quest was to somehow experience life whole, all at once, from the inside rather than the outside, and the universe certainly found what it was looking for with that particular body/mind! As G. Spencer Brown once stated, "The universe may best be defined as 'response to request.'" Someone might look at Helen's contemplation of the actual, which seemingly led to her plunge into Presence, as something that required effort, but there was no doer behind the activity and therefore there was no choice. Her life was simply the effortless unfolding of pure isness. Who she was is who we are. MU .
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 20, 2011 21:13:09 GMT -5
Yeah. The idea that ego can be surrendered or that ego can die is a funny idea. How can something that never existed be surrendered or die? I never really related to the word "ego," as if it were something that people needed to get rid of. Who would be the one getting rid of it? To me, the word "ego" referred to the "felt sense of separateness," a sense artificially created by incessant thought. This is why I usually refer to self realization as an insight that occurs when certain ingrained structures of thought collapse. One simply sees that selfhood in its entirety is an elaborate hoax created by the intellect. My understanding of "experience," "realization," and "flow" is based upon different things that have happened in the life of this body/mind. "An experience" appears to be something that has a beginning and an end and a finite duration, as in "My wedding was quite an experience." A realization happens instantly and does not involve time. Perhaps one is looking at one of those optical illusion images, such as the two faces/vase image. One sees only the face until there is a sudden shift in perception and the two vases pop into view. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood is exactly like that. Instantaneously it becomes concretely clear that no separate entity ever existed in any sense. By contrast, "flow" and "non-abidance" are much harder to talk about. Helen Courtois's description is probably the best I have ever read. What she describes in her book is what life feels like when mind is no longer dominant. A person becomes one-with the activity of life, rather than being an outside observer. Life flows effortlessly from one activity to another, but no activity is experienced as separate from any other. This is how little children interact with the world; they live in a perpetual Now. Helen's "enlightenment" (if we want to use that word) was not really an experience or a realization, as I understand the words. As she puts it, she was "plunged into a numinous openness which obliterated all fixed distinctions." She thus became absorbed in Presence and remained so absorbed for many years. During those years mind was not dominant and there was only a seamless flow of life without significant reflection. Rather than living life, she was lived. It helps to remember that Helen's quest was to somehow experience life whole, all at once, from the inside rather than the outside, and the universe certainly found what it was looking for with that particular body/mind! As G. Spencer Brown once stated, "The universe may best be defined as 'response to request.'" Someone might look at Helen's contemplation of the actual, which seemingly led to her plunge into Presence, as something that required effort, but there was no doer behind the activity and therefore there was no choice. Her life was simply the effortless unfolding of pure isness. Who she was is who we are. MU . Precisely!
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 20, 2011 21:13:52 GMT -5
..and then in a group that was largely attached to the idea that an enlightened person wouldn't say he was enlightened I said I was not only enlightened but ultimately enlightened I think the line between a projection and actual is much closer than most think. Without taking the absolutist's view here of all is a projection, in regular life it's not as easy to discern as some folks pretend. For example. At night, if my wife is busy doing stuff around the house, I will often times sit down and play video games for a few hours. Some nights she will walk through the room and look at me and I get the sense that she wants me to stop playing. Is that a projection by me? Maybe? Sometimes I ask her if she wants me to quit and she says yes, other times she says no. And even other times she drops the "I don't care baby". Ugh!! That's the worst. Hahaha. I guess my point is this, regardless of how many posts you have read before, how can you truly know what the group's actual definition of anything is without it being a projection by yourself? Just as I can never know for 100% if my wife is actually wanting me to stop playing or if shes actually content with me playing. And you can take that a step further in saying even after you ask someone a question and get a response, how do you know you aren't projecting what you want upon them, influencing their words to give you the projected (wanted) response? I.E. Police interragators who intimidate people into confessing to things they didn't do. Food for nibblin'........ Clapper! "Also Ace, if you are reading I'd love your take too." Re... ASK your wife would it be OK to bring another man in on your relationship. I think it is YOU she wants. I think the only thing that be more entertaining than reading this post, is if I got to hear Acewall say it in a newzealand accent LOL... Did you get ace's response onehandCLAPPER?
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2011 21:23:07 GMT -5
"To me, the word "ego" referred to the "felt sense of separateness," a sense artificially created by incessant thought. This is why I usually refer to self realization as an insight that occurs when certain ingrained structures of thought collapse. One simply sees that selfhood in its entirety is an elaborate hoax created by the intellect."
I like that as it avoids the reifying and objectifying of ego as a critter that we go to war with or which can surrender. There may be the apparent willingness to surrender,but surrender can't actually happen. If it did, there would still be a surrendered ego thingy running around, which might actually be the case with some peeps.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 20, 2011 21:24:56 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 20, 2011 21:35:24 GMT -5
Joshu asked Nansen: `What is the path?'
Nansen said: `Everyday life is the path.'
Joshu asked: `Can it be studied?'
Nansen said: `If you try to study, you will be far away from it.'
Joshu asked: `If I do not study, how can I know it is the path?'
Nansen said: `The path does not belong to the perception world, neither does it belong to the nonperception world. Cognition is a delusion and noncognition is senseless. If you want to reach the true path beyond doubt, place yourself in the same freedom as sky. You name it neither good nor not-good.'
At these words Joshu was enlightened.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 20, 2011 21:39:01 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2011 21:41:44 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Sept 20, 2011 21:56:06 GMT -5
Clapper! Re... "Also Ace, if you are reading I'd love your take too." ASK your wife would it be OK to bring another man in on your relationship. I think it is YOU she wants. Offthewall!!! I think you and Zen misunderstood what "your take" was meant by me. I wasn't asking for a solution to my questions as they were asked rhetorically. I was more looking for your thoughts on the whole projection vs reality thing. How you would explain how the two are indistinguishable and yet in the world of form sometimes said to be clearly different. My wife already gets another man in our relationship every day as I "die" every night and wake a new! Hahaha. And I only get jealous every fifth or sixth week of the month about it. Clap on-----clap off----clap out!
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 20, 2011 22:21:20 GMT -5
The monk didn't ask Joshu, "Does a dog have the Bhddha nature?" That was mistakenly transcribed by a monk who was hard of hearing. Here's what really happened. A monk was walking down this path past some cows when he asked himself "Does a dog have the Buddha nature?" The cow went, "moo!" And that was that.
|
|