|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2013 10:40:24 GMT -5
Greetings.. The world of the sciaphobic groundhog knows perpetual winter. Yes.. seeing themselves for what they are, holistic parts of a dynamic whole, there is the phobic reaction to deny that realization in favor of a belief that absolves the observer of any 'personal' responsibility for its perceptions of undesirable conditions related to that 'Whole'.. Be well.. It also works as a metaphor for a metaphor ... the mind inflamed on encounter with the liars paradox. Such a mind turns pointers away from the conceptual into endless loops of conceptual recursion. (I claim the role of Harry Mudd and would cast TGHOB formerly known as Reefs as Spock ... hire an agent to cast the rest!) |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 31, 2013 10:48:57 GMT -5
When John and Jane are experienced as objects (others) I agree with you. However John and Jane as subjects are capable of losing the story they tell about themselves and in losing that story they also lose the personal self-identification as John or Jane. What John and Jane discover about who they are in the absence of what they think and conceive about themselves is the subject matter of discussion on this forum. John and Jane as objects (others) is not really being talked about or argued against. The focus is on how the subject relates to and understands itself. There is a phenomenon where personal identity is lost but consciousness remains intact and the body and mind do their thing without direction or mitigation by the self-conception. In this the object John is heard to be testifying about the absence of the subject John. Top: Yes, I agree with what you've written here, but I also agree with Tzu in the sense that imagination is also part of reality and even identification with a self-identity is no other than THIS doing what THIS does. I think Tzu is saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong about this) that the "big I" and the "little I" are one and the same. Practically speaking, I still answer to the name of "Bob," but I no longer think that there is a separate entity, named "Bob," who is separate from the truth. I AM the truth being Bob!The other difference that you and others might comment upon is the sense of being a "human doing" rather than a "human being." IOW, when the search for truth comes to an end, life is more like a flow of activity(s) rather than a reflective/contemplative/focused search. With nothing to search for, other interests come to the foreground and replace the past interest in searching. The most important interest after the search ends is helping other people see through the same illusions that were once so blinding to oneself. I have met lots of people whose search came to an end, and every single one of them consider helping other searchers as their highest interest. Clearly, THAT is what THIS likes to do. *smiles* I am interested in hearing whether the other Bob agrees with what you've said or disagrees. There seems to be a communication barrier between he and I as he is either not getting what I'm saying or I'm not getting what he's saying. I agree, the content of our imagination (including thoughts about who we think we are) are an impermanent part of reality. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 31, 2013 10:56:29 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes.. seeing themselves for what they are, holistic parts of a dynamic whole, there is the phobic reaction to deny that realization in favor of a belief that absolves the observer of any 'personal' responsibility for its perceptions of undesirable conditions related to that 'Whole'.. Be well.. It also works as a metaphor for a metaphor ... the mind inflamed on encounter with the liars paradox. Such a mind turns pointers away from the conceptual into endless loops of conceptual recursion. (I claim the role of Harry Mudd and would cast TGHOB formerly known as Reefs as Spock ... hire an agent to cast the rest!) I think I'm just right for the one with smoke coming out of their ears! |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 31, 2013 11:14:16 GMT -5
Greetings.. When John and Jane are experienced as objects (others) I agree with you. However John and Jane as subjects are capable of losing the story they tell about themselves and in losing that story they also lose the personal self-identification as John or Jane. What John and Jane discover about who they are in the absence of what they think and conceive about themselves is the subject matter of discussion on this forum. John and Jane as objects (others) is not really being talked about or argued against. The focus is on how the subject relates to and understands itself. There is a phenomenon where personal identity is lost but consciousness remains intact and the body and mind do their thing without direction or mitigation by the self-conception. In this the object John is heard to be testifying about the absence of the subject John. Top: Yes, I agree with what you've written here, but I also agree with Tzu in the sense that imagination is also part of reality and even identification with a self-identity is no other than THIS doing what THIS does. I think Tzu is saying (he can correct me if I'm wrong about this) that the "big I" and the "little I" are one and the same. Practically speaking, I still answer to the name of "Bob," but I no longer think that there is a separate entity, named "Bob," who is separate from the truth. I AM the truth being Bob! The other difference that you and others might comment upon is the sense of being a "human doing" rather than a "human being." IOW, when the search for truth comes to an end, life is more like a flow of activity(s) rather than a reflective/contemplative/focused search. With nothing to search for, other interests come to the foreground and replace the past interest in searching. The most important interest after the search ends is helping other people see through the same illusions that were once so blinding to oneself. I have met lots of people whose search came to an end, and every single one of them consider helping other searchers as their highest interest. Clearly, THAT is what THIS likes to do. *smiles* Hi ZD: <smiles> There is a separate entity named Bob, it is the same 'This', that 'is'.. i really don't think much about the "big I" and the "little I" model, i notice that a shift in where my attention 'is' changes the perspective of who's seeing what.. the separate entity named Bob is not separate from 'that which IS', the ocean and the snowflake are both 'water'.. yes, after realizing 'what is actually happening', there is an unsolicited spontaneous compassion/passion for helping others find their own way to their own realization.. it seems like we get lost in trying to help people find their way to somebody else's way of realization.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2013 17:16:46 GMT -5
Hi  No worries. Thanx for taking the time to write and apologies for the moment that you saw it had vanished.Wren: I'll try again. I saw the Wiki definition a long time ago, but never posted anything because I assumed that Zen Buddhists would be uninterested in comments by a non-Buddhist. I agree with the basic definition of "kensho" as a "seeing into one's true nature." Hakuin, a famous ZM, described all kinds of kensho experiences from small subtle ones to huge mind-boggling cosmic consciousness ones. The main point is that kensho is an EXPERIENCE. Any time the bottom drops out of one's mind, selfhood vanishes, and clarity ensues that's a kensho-type experience. Sooner or later those kinds of experiences come to an end and one returns to ordinary life. Many Zen people, as noted by Wiki, equate kensho and satori, but I do not. I consider satori something quite different--a realization that ends the spiritual search. That realization is the sudden (timeless) seeing through the illusion of the searcher so completely that it changes one's understanding about what's going on. The search ends because it is seen that the imagined searcher was not the real searcher. The operant searcher is realized to have been Reality, Itself, and the illusion of a "John" or "Jane" having been the searcher collapses. This realization changes everything. Life continues, but there is no longer a person at the center of what appears to be happening. The body/mind, universe, and awareness continue as before, but it is empty of personhood. After this realization, any previous self-identity like "John" or "Jane" is seen in a new light, as an abstract thought structure that was so ingrained in the organism that is was continually overlooked. The most interesting question is, "What happens after this realization occurs?" Well, life continues just as before, but without the illusion that there is a separate entity at the center of it. The body/mind goes about its business doing whatever needs to be done, and knows that the real actor is the totality of "what is." The body/mind lives without knowing what will happen next, and is comfortable with that not-knowing way of life. Zen Masters emphasize the importance of continuing zazen after satori because they think that formal zazen, such as shikan taza, is what led to their freedom from the consensus trance. A few of them seem to realize that it is attentiveness to "what is" that freed them from the mind's domination, but only a few. Is it necessary to remain attentive after satori? Probably. People who stop being attentive to "what is" often fall back into a mind-centered way of life, and the old sense of selfhood sometimes re-emerges. Gangaji doesn't like the idea of "practice", but she has often said, "Vigilance is necessary." I think what she means by that is what I'm pointing to. Most adults spend 99.9% of their time attending thoughts, and they stay lost in the concensus trance. If one becomes free of the trance, probably some minimal amount of time needs to be spent attending "what is" in order to keep the mind from regaining dominance. FWIW, I've never read anything specific about this issue, so this is just speculation. When I reflect upon the "Ten Ox-Herding Pictures" of Zen, it seems to me that what I'm calling "satori" is represented by the eighth picture. This means that there are two further stages of development/integration/understanding that Zen Masters point to.  Thank you |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2013 17:25:05 GMT -5
I heard tell that the guy in the last pic's supposed to have a bottle o' hooch in his left hand ...
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 31, 2013 17:44:08 GMT -5
Greetings..
I had asked about the "Ten Ox-Herding Pictures" when i first heard of them many years ago.. the teacher handed me a pencil and paper.. he said, "i can only give you the tools".. of course, i was soon to learn of the attachments formed around the 'pointers', but that first lesson found its way home..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on May 31, 2013 18:00:18 GMT -5
 Classic. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2013 23:15:04 GMT -5
yeah, that proboards avatar editor is amazing!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 3:23:45 GMT -5
I heard tell that the guy in the last pic's supposed to have a bottle o' hooch in his left hand ...  |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 1, 2013 5:49:46 GMT -5
Hi Maxprophet,
Reading your initial post I am reminded of the explanation given by Niz. He talks about memory surviving what's regarded as our death here. If there are desires contained therein connected with life, they incarnate again. The implications of that for the question you pose is that we each have a different starting point reflecting the variations in the memory we bring with us which affects how we see and interact with the world.
Awareness is regarded as common to all but is individually textured through the lens of the above 'conditioning' making our experience and evolution, in terms of our memorized desires and coping mechanisms, unique.
amit
|
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 1, 2013 6:11:18 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hi Maxprophet, Reading your initial post I am reminded of the explanation given by Niz. He talks about memory surviving what's regarded as our death here. If there are desires contained therein connected with life, they incarnate again. The implications of that for the question you pose is that we each have a different starting point reflecting the variations in the memory we bring with us which affects how we see and interact with the world. Awareness is regarded as common to all but is individually textured through the lens of the above 'conditioning' making our experience and evolution, in terms of our memorized desires and coping mechanisms, unique. amit Anything is possible.. we are capable of experiencing complete clarity and stillness, in the same way we are capable of manipulating our experience to fit what conditioning and beliefs influence that choice, and.. we are capable of letting go of attachments and experiencing what 'is', karma is only karma because of the attachment to its described cause and effect, we/us/Life are not bound to that understanding.. Be well.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 10:09:46 GMT -5
This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell You keep asking the question and keep concluding it doesn't matter. Why not just go wacky and admit that it seems to matter right now? From my perspective, you're confronting the same sort of trap that Tzu and Figs have been working from in that nothing can be found but ideas, and so they are either dismissed as equal to all other ideas (Figs), or confused with direct experience and called 'what is'. The way out of that trap is tangential. That is, the whole deally has to be looked at in an entirely different way. Instead of asking, is it true that there is one awareness, and if so, do I prove it with some kind of still mind direct experience or logic, find out why the question even arises in the first place. You want to know what you are because you've always had an idea about that, and you want a new idea. That original idea was probly 'I am a person with certain qualities, a body and mind, blah, blah'. Where did that idea come from and how do you know THAT is true? If you never had that idea, would you need an awareness idea to escape it? It's true, I do feel uncomfortably aligned with Tzu. Although I don't see still mind as relevant, it can be useful in the sense that quieting the noise makes it a little easier to notice the noticing. But that's all there is. And the noticing happens despite what is happening with the mind. All this other stuff is just more theory with no proof. If there's some cosmic download of knowledge that some get, like Moses got with his tablets, I'll believe it when I see it. Because I don't see it as possible to make authoritative statements on what happens after the body dies, or what happens to be looking through other people's eyes, this just becomes the end of the road. I'm open to the possibility, of course. I'm just reporting and will revise if things change. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 1, 2013 10:19:41 GMT -5
This is still a fresh question in my head. It's just that I feel a little more experiential understanding of the foundation of the question. The conclusion of whether option 1 is the case or option 2 is the case, is still up in the air, for me. Is the conclusion one arrives at with this something that is believed or something that is realized (maybe I'm misusing that term?)? IOW, I can imagine a unity experience being just that: an experience, a temporary state. Who's to say 'abiding nondual awareness' is anything other than just a temporal experience? Couldn't this be something that just comes and goes with death. Ultimately, certainty of either seems to be based on belief to me. More importantly, why does this matter? That's probably the more fruitful question. Probably my ego just trying to prove something again. Maybe poke little holes in what I see as belief bubbles held by nonbeliefbubblebelaboringbuddhas. Actually it doesn't really matter. This is the same conclusion I always arrive at. ohwell Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. The experience makes it obvious that reality is a seamless unity and that the universe is centered at every point. That which sees is the only thing that sees because it is the only thing here. Obviously what's being pointed to is not a thing because it has no boundaries, but we can use the word "thing" to point to that thingless thing. The body retains the memory of the experience, and there is never any doubt about the unity that was experienced. It is not held as a belief in the mind because it is a direct experience, and is directly known through the body. Does it matter? Well, it eliminates the usual fear of death because it is seen that the unified field of all being is never born and never dies; it is infinite, and all life forms are simply momentary manifestations of that infiniteness. Humans do not worry about their condition before birth, and one glimpse of the infinite takes away all worry about their condition after death. It is not so much that the infinite is seen as it is an experience of being one-with the infinite or being lost in the infinite because all boundaries are absent during the experience. This kind of experience (without an experiencer) is somewhat different than realizations in which various assumptions/ideas/beliefs are seen to be false. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood, for example, is a realization rather than an experience. When it is seen that selfhood is a fictitious idea, only, what then remains? The body/mind, universe, and awareness. Life continues, but there is no longer the idea or belief that there is a separate person at the center of what's happening. The idea that there is a separate person is one I don't see. The belief that there is a separate person is one I do not see either, and am willing to accept as an unconscious belief. I certainly see the 'effects' of the belief in play. If someone calls my name, I respond. I sign checks with my name. When percieving criticism in my direction I sometimes respond in a defensive mode. I do not worry about my condition before birth because it is so moot it never even rises to the level of recognition. I feel the same way about death. I wonder about people I love after I die, but as for me, my job will be easy. I understand being without boundaries in one sense -- the experience right now -- but, in theory, it makes little sense to me. I can not comment on death because it is a boundary that is only imagined. One reason this question keeps coming up is because I don't see how any living being can comment on what happens after death without some special cosmic knowledge download. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Jun 1, 2013 10:25:26 GMT -5
Greetings.. Oneness is a direct experience. When it occurs, "you" are not there. The experience makes it obvious that reality is a seamless unity and that the universe is centered at every point. That which sees is the only thing that sees because it is the only thing here. Obviously what's being pointed to is not a thing because it has no boundaries, but we can use the word "thing" to point to that thingless thing. The body retains the memory of the experience, and there is never any doubt about the unity that was experienced. It is not held as a belief in the mind because it is a direct experience, and is directly known through the body. Does it matter? Well, it eliminates the usual fear of death because it is seen that the unified field of all being is never born and never dies; it is infinite, and all life forms are simply momentary manifestations of that infiniteness. Humans do not worry about their condition before birth, and one glimpse of the infinite takes away all worry about their condition after death. It is not so much that the infinite is seen as it is an experience of being one-with the infinite or being lost in the infinite because all boundaries are absent during the experience. This kind of experience (without an experiencer) is somewhat different than realizations in which various assumptions/ideas/beliefs are seen to be false. Seeing through the illusion of selfhood, for example, is a realization rather than an experience. When it is seen that selfhood is a fictitious idea, only, what then remains? The body/mind, universe, and awareness. Life continues, but there is no longer the idea or belief that there is a separate person at the center of what's happening. The idea that there is a separate person is one I don't see. The belief that there is a separate person is one I do not see either, and am willing to accept as an unconscious belief. I certainly see the 'effects' of the belief in play. If someone calls my name, I respond. I sign checks with my name. When percieving criticism in my direction I sometimes respond in a defensive mode. I do not worry about my condition before birth because it is so moot it never even rises to the level of recognition. I feel the same way about death. I wonder about people I love after I die, but as for me, my job will be easy. I understand being without boundaries in one sense -- the experience right now -- but, in theory, it makes little sense to me. I can not comment on death because it is a boundary that is only imagined. One reason this question keeps coming up is because I don't see how any living being can comment on what happens after death without some special cosmic knowledge download. Nice.. it's kinda simple, directly present, and absent the need for beliefs.. it's what is happening, now.. Be well.. |
|
