|
Post by acewall on Sept 20, 2011 22:42:59 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!!! 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! Next-time she goes to see Her Doctor about your ongoing Clap-issue (5-6 weeks apart) take your 'one on the side' along too and get Her treated. You may get two for the price of One.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2011 22:47:10 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. Well, that explains it, then. I also heard about a monk who was studdying some old translations, and found an error. He ran to his fellow monks and said "It was supposed to say celeb rate!"
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 21, 2011 0:50:05 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. LOL...be careful kluas....playing with matches might burn up your favorite toys LOL.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2011 6:41:14 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. Enigma, you bad boy. Be nice. Otherwise someone might mistake you for a Republican or a Democrat.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2011 10:01:23 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. Well, that explains it, then. I also heard about a monk who was studdying some old translations, and found an error. He ran to his fellow monks and said "It was supposed to say celeb rate!" Ha ha. I had to drink a cup of coffee before I woke up enough to get it.
|
|
|
Post by klaus on Sept 21, 2011 18:39:08 GMT -5
enigma,
It's amazing how translation changes everything, isn't it?
tat,
Poof!
zen,
So the secret to ata is having a cup of coffee. Thanks!
|
|
enda
New Member
Posts: 17
|
Post by enda on Sept 21, 2011 18:48:05 GMT -5
Enlightenment can happen spontaniously, or by clearing the rust from the heart as the Sufi say....for me, I very conciously went inward inward inward by observing the observer of the observer ad infinatum...I looked inside and saw that there was really nothing but an observer in there, then I kept looking and looking to see where the observer came from, what was the source of this observing, eventually I got to a place inside where there was only a still silent witness, I watched conciously how that witness manifested my identity and my enviornment by "selecting" what it would witness...but then i kept in the pure witnessing to see where it came from and came to a kind of dead end...pure I amness/awareness that i could not get past or beyond, but my curiosity was so intense that it was not enough, I knew there must be something at its root but could not observe anything deeper...Finally it occured to me that I had to let go of the observer, the the still witnesser that was at the center of my individual self would need to be let go...so even though I was scared, I let it go and with it the self was no more... So for me it wasn't spontanious....it was through practice, and then surrender... I guess the reason I am a proponent of proper practices is that: 1. Practices were useful to me in this and as a result of my personal experience I recomend them, and... 2. If everyone and everything has the budha nature, and it does, everyone can uncover it and move beyond the self, if this could only happen spontaniously or by accident this implies that god, or the stillness, or whatever word you want to use, is somehow selecting a "special chosen few" to be enlightened in a special chosen time in their life cycles...to me enlightenment is the most ordinary thing in the world, and is available to everyone that wants to uncover what is there already...and practices that are appropriete to you can help in this...practices that produce mental or psychological states that add to your mental movement may not be appropriete for you, practices that uncover and undo what is there can be appropriete and useful, for each person there are techniques that help and techniques that don't help...no one size fits all.... 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. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or enlightened enough to participate in these discussions, but this post only seems to confirm my observations in my previous post. I was pretty clear, from Nisargadatta, Richard Rose etc, and, I thought, from ZD and Enigma, that there is no "either or" scenario, that the very idea of a process makes no sense. Even my limited, intellectual, grasp realises that a process can only move one towards more and more subtle ideas of self, but this does not bring you any closer. How can it? How can you be closer to or further from what is? The whole logic around your paragraph referring to "special chosen few" seems contrary to what I understand ZD and Enigma to be saying. "Few"? what few? what many? Is the requirement that enlightenment is achieveable(by some) through effort based on a need for "justice"? I have a friend who rejects the conclusions implied in the exchanges on this board specifically because he cannot process the idea that his over 20 years struggle cannot result in achieving what he seeks, that the postman or the milkman is as likely as he is realise it. Our regular discussions actually ceased over this. Practices can greatly improve the quality of this life experience, absolutely, providing one can avoid the trap of pursuing practices and processes that only reinforce underlying aspects of personality.
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 21, 2011 20:05:47 GMT -5
Enlightenment can happen spontaniously, or by clearing the rust from the heart as the Sufi say....for me, I very conciously went inward inward inward by observing the observer of the observer ad infinatum...I looked inside and saw that there was really nothing but an observer in there, then I kept looking and looking to see where the observer came from, what was the source of this observing, eventually I got to a place inside where there was only a still silent witness, I watched conciously how that witness manifested my identity and my enviornment by "selecting" what it would witness...but then i kept in the pure witnessing to see where it came from and came to a kind of dead end...pure I amness/awareness that i could not get past or beyond, but my curiosity was so intense that it was not enough, I knew there must be something at its root but could not observe anything deeper...Finally it occured to me that I had to let go of the observer, the the still witnesser that was at the center of my individual self would need to be let go...so even though I was scared, I let it go and with it the self was no more... So for me it wasn't spontanious....it was through practice, and then surrender... I guess the reason I am a proponent of proper practices is that: 1. Practices were useful to me in this and as a result of my personal experience I recomend them, and... 2. If everyone and everything has the budha nature, and it does, everyone can uncover it and move beyond the self, if this could only happen spontaniously or by accident this implies that god, or the stillness, or whatever word you want to use, is somehow selecting a "special chosen few" to be enlightened in a special chosen time in their life cycles...to me enlightenment is the most ordinary thing in the world, and is available to everyone that wants to uncover what is there already...and practices that are appropriete to you can help in this...practices that produce mental or psychological states that add to your mental movement may not be appropriete for you, practices that uncover and undo what is there can be appropriete and useful, for each person there are techniques that help and techniques that don't help...no one size fits all.... 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. Maybe I'm not smart enough, or enlightened enough to participate in these discussions, but this post only seems to confirm my observations in my previous post. I was pretty clear, from Nisargadatta, Richard Rose etc, and, I thought, from ZD and Enigma, that there is no "either or" scenario, that the very idea of a process makes no sense. Even my limited, intellectual, grasp realises that a process can only move one towards more and more subtle ideas of self, but this does not bring you any closer. How can it? How can you be closer to or further from what is? The whole logic around your paragraph referring to "special chosen few" seems contrary to what I understand ZD and Enigma to be saying. "Few"? what few? what many? Is the requirement that enlightenment is achieveable(by some) through effort based on a need for "justice"? I have a friend who rejects the conclusions implied in the exchanges on this board specifically because he cannot process the idea that his over 20 years struggle cannot result in achieving what he seeks, that the postman or the milkman is as likely as he is realise it. Our regular discussions actually ceased over this. Practices can greatly improve the quality of this life experience, absolutely, providing one can avoid the trap of pursuing practices and processes that only reinforce underlying aspects of personality. There are practices and there are practices LOL...hard to lump everything into the useless or counterproductive basket...don't know much about Richard rose but ramana and Niz both prescribed very clear practices....there are basically two types of spiritual practices...those that reshape you in a way that prepares you to be successful in the second kind of techniques, for example 1. techniques that increase attentiveness, concentration, capacity for surrender, or the power of the imagination. And 2. Techniques or practices that undo you completely....the first kinds of practices certainly fall in the basket you described, they do have a time and a place of usefulness though, but as a preperation for undoing the self. Certainly most of western yoga and western Zen fall under the descripters you used above, but there are many practices that do not...ramana' s two practices that he recomended and the meditation practice that Niz vehemently said must be done clearly do not fall in the same basket as practices that simply improve quality of life but that promote more and more subtle ideas of self LOL.....here's the thing...practices are for doing, not for talking LOL...and there are practice that do as you say, and there are practices that undo too.... Go and earnestly try this practice and tell me if it builds more subtle ideas of self LOL: Imagine the unimaginable....try it, but try it earnestly, not just one cursory attempt LOL....sit and try to imagine something unimaginable for as long as you can as often as you can...but bare in mind, when i say practice it earnestly I mean do it like a child earnestly plays a game.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 21, 2011 20:32:58 GMT -5
Hey Tat, I imagined nothing But I enjoyed the experience of nothing better Good technique Peace
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 21, 2011 20:42:01 GMT -5
Hey Tat, I imagined nothing But I enjoyed the experience of nothing better Good technique Peace The mind likes to move LOL...so in most cases you can only hold onto the imagining of the unimaginable for a few moments before the mind moves LOL...but with more practice you remain in the imagining of the unimaginable for longer and longer and simultaniously move more deeply into it LOL...if you can be in that imagining of the unimaginable for even a few minutes without the mind moving to something else you move from imagining no thing to the experience of no thing LOL...Becuase the imaginER falls away LOL ...for most people even one minute, 60 seconds is enough for the imaginer to fall away....thanks for playing with this little toy TRF ;D
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2011 20:59:41 GMT -5
It's a practice for stopping the thoughts momentarily, and an experience of a mind state is had momentarily, and then what?.................. Is mind undone?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 21, 2011 21:01:53 GMT -5
It's a practice for stopping the thoughts momentarily, and an experience of a mind state is had momentarily, and then what?.................. Is mind undone? Read the reply I made to TRF more closely Enigma.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 21, 2011 21:06:50 GMT -5
I read it again. Strangely, I heard the same thing. I'm saying the experience is a mind state. I'm asking you what the significance is of this mind state.
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Sept 21, 2011 21:25:33 GMT -5
I read it again. Strangely, I heard the same thing. I'm saying the experience is a mind state. I'm asking you what the significance is of this mind state. If what you mean by a mind state as being somewhat like knowledge of 'something' you may have a point. But what is the experience or knowledge of 'nothing'? The significance of any experience is our mere presence, nothing else. The content of any experience is simply an external manifestation of that central Presence. What would be the external manifestation of 'nothing'?
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 21, 2011 21:48:15 GMT -5
I read it again. Strangely, I heard the same thing. I'm saying the experience is a mind state. I'm asking you what the significance is of this mind state. LOL...you are consistant enigma ;D But I respectively decline to enter your straw man dialogue LOL...you said it was a technique for a mind state, not me LOL...and then you wanted me to comment on the signifigance of this mind state that you propose (without ever doing the technique) is the result of the technique LOL....this is an example of why techniques are for doing not for talking LOL. This technique, if moved deeply enough into, doesn't create a mind state, the mind is not a thing that can be in a state anyway lol...the mind is a movement, a happening...if you stop the happening the happening is no more LOL, in this case if you stop the mind there is no mind, only I amness, or unmoving awareness, but if you can stay in the technique deeply enough, for long enough, even the I amness stops being and you can be in non being stillness...beyond mind happening, beyond I amness being. The mind notices, this technique is not about the movement that is mind, its about stopping the movement, and stopping the being LOL.
|
|