|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2013 22:51:53 GMT -5
Greetings.. Isn't that precisely what non-abidance in mind is? You 'are' mind, 'mind' is you.. there is no separation from mind, and so there is only the understanding of mind's relationship with isness.. the Spiritual Theater of 'no mind' is very different from the advantage of 'empty mind'/still mind.. 'non-abidance' is a story that needs explaining, and so it suffers from its own ambiguity.. who/what is it that abides? who/what is it, that 'knows' of this concept of 'abidance'? Still mind empty mind.. active mind full mind.. find balance.. Be well.. I didn't say anything about no-mind. I'd say non-abidance in mind and still mind mean the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 7, 2013 22:56:05 GMT -5
Isn't that precisely what non-abidance in mind is? No. One way to surely plunge back into the dominance of mind is to run from it, deny it, try to ignore it, pretend it's not there. The only thing I could do from here is to describe experience, which I've done before a few different times, and while the words won't convey it they're all that I got if I want to try to convey it. The word was 'avoid'. Seems to me like not abiding in mind is a lot like avoiding abiding in mind. (Though my word lawyers are attending church service tonight)
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 7, 2013 23:03:07 GMT -5
Isn't that precisely what non-abidance in mind is? No. One way to surely plunge back into the dominance of mind is to run from it, deny it, try to ignore it, pretend it's not there. The only thing I could do from here is to describe experience, which I've done before a few different times, and while the words won't convey it they're all that I got if I want to try to convey it. Maybe you've been taking this thing too seriously all along.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 8, 2013 0:24:28 GMT -5
No. One way to surely plunge back into the dominance of mind is to run from it, deny it, try to ignore it, pretend it's not there. The only thing I could do from here is to describe experience, which I've done before a few different times, and while the words won't convey it they're all that I got if I want to try to convey it. The word was 'avoid'. Seems to me like not abiding in mind is a lot like avoiding abiding in mind. (Though my word lawyers are attending church service tonight) Does it seem that way to you? Well it seems to me that you're just playing with words.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 8, 2013 1:22:24 GMT -5
Yes, that's the step of mind being informed by the realization, which may take some time because belief structures can be pretty convoluted and mind does not consciously process the realization. It's not uncommon to have one of them thar profound realizations, and ultimately go back to accepting what mind believes about it all. This is possible because the realization is non-conceptual, and is not mind's realization. This potential failure to inform mind is why I talk about the sovereignty of that realization. As crazy as it is, mind can still deny the self evident nature of that realization and go back to concepts as usual, in the same way that it can deny existence in the face of the obvious fact of one's existence. Yea. I think it speaks to that sort of cognitive dissonance that many people experience where there's a great degree of clarity while simultaneously a mind unwilling to fully let go of it's nonsense and "catch up" with what's been seen. People talk about living two lives or living in two worlds. To me, it's a pointer directly to the dynamic nature of spirituality and life in general. Such that it's never solely about one thing and not another. The entire package with all the nuances that make up experience must be addressed in a way that one comes out of hiding in all areas of their life. The academic questioning process of deconstruction and other more introspective means of discovering oneself must eventually give away into a life that unfolds from realization of ones already existing freedom or else the sovereignty of that seeing has already been handed to mind and replaced with doubt and fear.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2013 1:47:28 GMT -5
Yea. I think it speaks to that sort of cognitive dissonance that many people experience where there's a great degree of clarity while simultaneously a mind unwilling to fully let go of it's nonsense and "catch up" with what's been seen. People talk about living two lives or living in two worlds. To me, it's a pointer directly to the dynamic nature of spirituality and life in general. Such that it's never solely about one thing and not another. The entire package with all the nuances that make up experience must be addressed in a way that one comes out of hiding in all areas of their life. The academic questioning process of deconstruction and other more introspective means of discovering oneself must eventually give away into a life that unfolds from realization of ones already existing freedom or else the sovereignty of that seeing has already been handed to mind and replaced with doubt and fear. [/quote] Dear Dude/Dudette, The 'clarity' most are presenting here is the clarity of a psychologist. Which is okay when talking about forum dynamics and analyzing the games that are played here. But that kind of 'clarity' approach is soon exposed as a more subtle type of confusion when talking about non-duality matters should happen. That's why we have 99% talk about style and only 1% talk about content here at best. Psychological clarity is never interested in dropping the stories altogether. It's only interested in reshuffling the deck to continue the identity poker on another, more subtle level. So that's where deconstructing beliefs and questioning is recommended. The goal is basically to live according to the best concept possible. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Apr 8, 2013 2:20:20 GMT -5
I don't know what 'non-trying clarity' is, nor do I know what 'youthful clarity' is. What it sounds like is that the term 'clarity' has been kidnapped and forced into a box at gunpoint. Take your gaze off the sign post and look to what it points..... To be blunt, i don't believe you because I see the mind labeling machine operating in auto mode, which is inevitable,and that's why some clarity about those labels is necessary. Can one see the truth from within delusion, resulting in the delusion falling away? This seems to suppose there is something to see beyond the falsity of beliefs. What is this thing you recognize "which all our words try to point to"? The water sure is nice..... [ I dunno. Seems irrelevant to the conversation, really. I didn't see the boundries to the pool you had drawn for us when answering your questions. My cat and I just had a relevant conversation..... She said "______________" to me and I said "__________" in response...... Descriptive words for that conversation would be empty, silent, stillness. Like the sound of one hand clapping. Maybe your mind could use a few more of those kind of relevant conversations as to give it a rest from all the work its doing?
|
|
|
Post by onehandclapping on Apr 8, 2013 3:32:44 GMT -5
So, the issue here is really not about whether or not belief structures collapse, which they clearly do in many cases, but rather how does this actually happen? Does it happen strictly because attention is removed from those thoughts and so they are no longer continually reinforced, or is there something else that happens and which is required in order for those structures to collapse? This is really the question i was getting to with OHC because I detected that the notion of clarity was never being applied to mind, which says that illusions never have to be seen through so as to remove confusion from mind, but simply not thought about long enough for them to go away. It's hard to jump in the pool when you are already in....
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 8, 2013 4:30:01 GMT -5
"Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." - Thich Nhat Hanh I have never said i believe there is a self.
yet somewhere else you stated : Yep, the continuation of observing my self, things in life and non dualists continues to convince me that individual selves exit. I have yet to hear an arguement for non dualism that makes sense to me.
So I get that you've never stated you believe there is a self (my bad for not being specific enough in my question, should have said "seem to believe"), but from the quote above are you are convinced that one exists? For you, what is the difference between the two? I cannot explore if i am tied down with beliefs, i cannot see clearly if my sight is clouded with beliefs. Aint that the truth! Beliefs totally get in the way. My sig quote speaks of self restoration and mastery, i see no reference to self not existing. There are no references to buddhist teachings in my sig, there is just one thought by a person who is a buddhist. My finding is that when a well known Buddhist teacher defines a Buddhist term, which is what he is doing when he states "Mindfulness refers to..", he's explaining a Buddhist concept, ie teaching. Sounds like your experience is different though. For you, what characterises Mr Nhat Hanh's statement as a thought rather than a teaching? I am not a buddhist, i am not restricted or controlled by the beliefs of any philosophy or religion. Not quite there myself, still finding beliefs around the place I have profoundly benefited from eastern philosophy, but not the teachings of no self or all is illusion. Sounds good, I think I've even heard the Dalai Lama say to take what resonates and leave the rest for another day. If you're sick, there is no point denying the medicine because you don't like the shop its from. (That's as good an analogy as I can come up with tonight ) I am an observer and listener of Buddha, not a buddhist. Anatta (no-self) is a teaching of the Buddha, not a Buddhist teaching per se. Not like say Catholics that have teachings not attributable to Jesus (can't think of any at the moment, but i know it ). But then how to know what's a teaching of the Buddha vs a Buddhist teaching? I choose to do what eastern philosophy teaches, observe and reason for myself. If you don't believe no-self, or at least treat it as a working hypothesis, are there other components of eastern philosophy that you either disagree with or don't believe or are not convinced of? If another has a different interpretation of the sig or of eastern teachings, then they do. Exactly. They've got what they've got.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 8, 2013 5:28:34 GMT -5
Greetings.. "Mindfulness refers to keeping one's consciousness alive to the present reality. It is the miracle by which we master and restore ourselves." - Thich Nhat Hanh I have never said i believe there is a self.
yet somewhere else you stated : Yep, the continuation of observing my self, things in life and non dualists continues to convince me that individual selves exit. I have yet to hear an arguement for non dualism that makes sense to me.
So I get that you've never stated you believe there is a self (my bad for not being specific enough in my question, should have said "seem to believe"), but from the quote above are you are convinced that one exists? For you, what is the difference between the two? I cannot explore if i am tied down with beliefs, i cannot see clearly if my sight is clouded with beliefs. Aint that the truth! Beliefs totally get in the way. My sig quote speaks of self restoration and mastery, i see no reference to self not existing. There are no references to buddhist teachings in my sig, there is just one thought by a person who is a buddhist. My finding is that when a well known Buddhist teacher defines a Buddhist term, which is what he is doing when he states "Mindfulness refers to..", he's explaining a Buddhist concept, ie teaching. Sounds like your experience is different though. For you, what characterises Mr Nhat Hanh's statement as a thought rather than a teaching? I am not a buddhist, i am not restricted or controlled by the beliefs of any philosophy or religion. Not quite there myself, still finding beliefs around the place I have profoundly benefited from eastern philosophy, but not the teachings of no self or all is illusion. Sounds good, I think I've even heard the Dalai Lama say to take what resonates and leave the rest for another day. If you're sick, there is no point denying the medicine because you don't like the shop its from. (That's as good an analogy as I can come up with tonight ) I am an observer and listener of Buddha, not a buddhist. Anatta (no-self) is a teaching of the Buddha, not a Buddhist teaching per se. Not like say Catholics that have teachings not attributable to Jesus (can't think of any at the moment, but i know it ). But then how to know what's a teaching of the Buddha vs a Buddhist teaching? I choose to do what eastern philosophy teaches, observe and reason for myself. If you don't believe no-self, or at least treat it as a working hypothesis, are there other components of eastern philosophy that you either disagree with or don't believe or are not convinced of? If another has a different interpretation of the sig or of eastern teachings, then they do. Exactly. They've got what they've got. Thanks for a clear exchange of understandings.. Related to self, i can observe that this body-mind-vehicle produces a unique effect on the interconnected experiences of existence.. that "unique effect" is related to the unique perspective, unique history, unique choices, and unique mind-scape of that individual body-mind-vehicle.. the common term for the unique perspective and unique effect of the individual body-mind-vehicle is 'self'.. this self-awareness condition consistently reveals the actuality of its existence, even as some selfs insist that 'self' doesn't exist.. i am not attached to a belief in 'self', i am willing to let that go, but i am bound by sincerity and honesty to report what i experience.. I understand that the menu is not the meal, that the description is not 'that' which it describes.. and, having attained that understanding, i can have discussions with much more clarity than without such understanding.. it seems that the advocates of 'no self' are attached to the understanding that the word/concept 'self' is not the actuality it references, and.. this attachment keeps those attached stuck at a transformative juncture in their existence, but without the benefit of the complete transformation.. once realized that the term 'self' is a reference to self-aware and self-evident conditions of existence, it is possible to have productive discussions that do not require continual affirmations of the understanding that "the menu is not the meal".. Before the transformation, "chop wood, carry water".. after the transformation, 'build fire, make tea/coffee'.. in other words, don't get attached to the 'understanding'.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Apr 8, 2013 5:43:44 GMT -5
floor is open for anyone who wants to stab at the message. Thanks for opening things up I'd better hop to it before someone else jumps in but,. enough delays, better cut to the chase 1. Poor froggy can't go anywhere, he's trapped. 2. By the time the poor froggy is in that state, there'll be no more or croaking, swimming, or any other more lively expressions of froggy-ness - froggy is stuck in that state (as per point 1), and there is little chance of returning to his/her former glory. 3. Getting stuck on first appearances (ewww) can prevent further investigation (so the fly comes in here and poop goes out there! Incredible!) 3.5 And something about how by the time you get down to the guts, you can lose track of where it was you started. or sumfin...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 8, 2013 11:10:31 GMT -5
Whoops. Accidentally hit a button and posted some stuff prematurely. Will edit and repost.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2013 11:22:55 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, What's the point in posting such disgusting pictures? Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize The picture was disgusting? Dear Dude/Dudette, Well, it's not a pleasant look and wouldn't be a good wallpaper. The message you might want to convey could be: 1) dissecting 2) looking within 3) self-inquiry Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2013 11:38:15 GMT -5
The picture was disgusting? Dear Dude/Dudette, Well, it's not a pleasant look and wouldn't be a good wallpaper. The message you might want to convey could be: 1) dissecting 2) looking within 3) self-inquiry Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize 4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting...
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 8, 2013 11:46:46 GMT -5
Dear Dude/Dudette, Well, it's not a pleasant look and wouldn't be a good wallpaper. The message you might want to convey could be: 1) dissecting 2) looking within 3) self-inquiry Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize 4) Shining the light on the someone who judges things to be disgusting... Dear Dude/Dudette, Rather unlikely for someone asleep at the wheel to have that kind of foresight. Sincerely, The Great Blue Hole Of Belize
|
|