|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 19, 2021 10:58:11 GMT -5
Roy, could you briefly describe what you mean by not focusing on sensations? I think we all get not focusing on thoughts. That is simple to explain. But in the absence of thought, there is only this energetic aliveness going on. Sights, sounds, sensations in the body. These are all what you mean by sensations, yes? If you mean that recognition of awareness as the effortlessly present cognizance, and the "taking up home" there while disregarding thoughts or sensations, then I feel I understand. It's quite a subtle shift in a way, if one wants to call it that. I generally view that as "witness consciousness" or this sort of thing, where one is able to recognize one's presence/identity as the subjectivity. I'd love you to clarify. Your question brought to mind this exchange with RM which I always found quite interesting. Q: Is there no dehatma buddhi [I-am-the-body idea] for the jnani? If, for instance, Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no sensation? A: There is the sensation and there is also the dehatma buddhi. The latter is common to both jnani and ajnani with this difference, that the ajnani thinks only the body is myself, whereas the jnani knows all is of the Self, or all this is Brahman. If there be pain let it be. It is also part of the Self. The Self is poorna [perfect]. After transcending dehatma buddhi one becomes a jnani. In the absence of that idea there cannot be either kartritva [doership] or karta [doer]. So a jnani has no karma [that is, a jnani performs no actions]. That is his experience. Otherwise he is not a jnani. However the ajnani identifies the jnani with his body, which the jnani does not do. That's a great quote! Thanks for posting it. Yes, after a human has seen through the illusion of separateness, it is directly known that (1) there's only SELF, and (2) SELF temporarily manifests via particular human forms. This is why Zen points to ordinary everyday life coupled with non-abidance in mind as "The Way." A sage knows that s/he is both the ocean and the wave at the same time. It is extremely "down-to-earth" and not at all esoteric. The issue is not so much thoughts as the clinging to thoughts that keeps one psychologically imprisoned in the consensus paradigm. Various realizations reveal what is NOT true and thereby result in freedom from attachment to various commonly-held ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 19, 2021 13:45:55 GMT -5
Your question brought to mind this exchange with RM which I always found quite interesting. Q: Is there no dehatma buddhi [ I-am-the-body idea] for the jnani? If, for instance, Sri Bhagavan is bitten by an insect, is there no sensation? A: There is the sensation and there is also the dehatma buddhi. The latter is common to both jnani and ajnani with this difference, that the ajnani thinks only the body is myself, whereas the jnani knows all is of the Self, or all this is Brahman. If there be pain let it be. It is also part of the Self. The Self is poorna [perfect]. [actually it means: whole, entire, complete] After transcending dehatma buddhi one becomes a jnani. In the absence of that idea there cannot be either kartritva [doership] or karta [doer]. So a jnani has no karma [that is, a jnani performs no actions]. That is his experience. Otherwise he is not a jnani. However the ajnani identifies the jnani with his body, which the jnani does not do. That's a great quote! Thanks for posting it. Yes, after a human has seen through the illusion of separateness, it is directly known that (1) there's only SELF, and (2) SELF temporarily manifests via particular human forms. This is why Zen points to ordinary everyday life coupled with non-abidance in mind as "The Way." A sage knows that s/he is both the ocean and the wave at the same time. It is extremely "down-to-earth" and not at all esoteric. The issue is not so much thoughts as the clinging to thoughts that keeps one psychologically imprisoned in the consensus paradigm. Various realizations reveal what is NOT true and thereby result in freedom from attachment to various commonly-held ideas.
purna doesn't seem to mean perfect
www.wisdomlib.org/definition/purna#sanskritPūrṇa (पूर्ण).—p. p. [pur-kta ni°] 1) Filled, filled with, full of; opt. in comp; तं तथा कृपयाविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम् (taṃ tathā kṛpayāviṣṭamaśrupūrṇākulekṣaṇam) Bg.2.1; so शोक°, जल° (śoka°, jala°) &c. 2) Whole, full, entire, complete; पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते (pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate) Īśop.1; अपूर्णमेकेन शतक्रतूपमः (apūrṇamekena śatakratūpamaḥ) R.3.38. 3) Fulfilled, accomplished. 4) Ended, completed. 5) Past, elapsed. 6) Satisfied, contented. 7) Full-sounding, sonorous. 8) Strong, powerful. 9) Selfish, or self-indulgent.
zendancer - To me, your interpretation / comment shows what you believe, which isn't what the quote says. We read the same translation of the quote, and understand different things. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 19, 2021 13:55:38 GMT -5
That's a great quote! Thanks for posting it. Yes, after a human has seen through the illusion of separateness, it is directly known that (1) there's only SELF, and (2) SELF temporarily manifests via particular human forms. This is why Zen points to ordinary everyday life coupled with non-abidance in mind as "The Way." A sage knows that s/he is both the ocean and the wave at the same time. It is extremely "down-to-earth" and not at all esoteric. The issue is not so much thoughts as the clinging to thoughts that keeps one psychologically imprisoned in the consensus paradigm. Various realizations reveal what is NOT true and thereby result in freedom from attachment to various commonly-held ideas.
purna doesn't seem to mean perfect
www.wisdomlib.org/definition/purna#sanskritPūrṇa (पूर्ण).—p. p. [pur-kta ni°] 1) Filled, filled with, full of; opt. in comp; तं तथा कृपयाविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम् (taṃ tathā kṛpayāviṣṭamaśrupūrṇākulekṣaṇam) Bg.2.1; so शोक°, जल° (śoka°, jala°) &c. 2) Whole, full, entire, complete; पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते (pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate) Īśop.1; अपूर्णमेकेन शतक्रतूपमः (apūrṇamekena śatakratūpamaḥ) R.3.38. 3) Fulfilled, accomplished. 4) Ended, completed. 5) Past, elapsed. 6) Satisfied, contented. 7) Full-sounding, sonorous. 8) Strong, powerful. 9) Selfish, or self-indulgent.
zendancer - To me, your interpretation / comment shows what you believe, which isn't what the quote says. We read the same translation of the quote, and understand different things. "Whole, entire, complete" sounds just as good to me.  It's just a pointer. Hopefully folks will look at what's being pointed to rather than the finger that's doing the pointing. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 19, 2021 15:30:14 GMT -5
purna doesn't seem to mean perfect
www.wisdomlib.org/definition/purna#sanskritPūrṇa (पूर्ण).—p. p. [pur-kta ni°] 1) Filled, filled with, full of; opt. in comp; तं तथा कृपयाविष्टमश्रुपूर्णाकुलेक्षणम् (taṃ tathā kṛpayāviṣṭamaśrupūrṇākulekṣaṇam) Bg.2.1; so शोक°, जल° (śoka°, jala°) &c. 2) Whole, full, entire, complete; पूर्णमदः पूर्णमिदं पूर्णात् पूर्णमुदच्यते (pūrṇamadaḥ pūrṇamidaṃ pūrṇāt pūrṇamudacyate) Īśop.1; अपूर्णमेकेन शतक्रतूपमः (apūrṇamekena śatakratūpamaḥ) R.3.38. 3) Fulfilled, accomplished. 4) Ended, completed. 5) Past, elapsed. 6) Satisfied, contented. 7) Full-sounding, sonorous. 8) Strong, powerful. 9) Selfish, or self-indulgent.
zendancer - To me, your interpretation / comment shows what you believe, which isn't what the quote says. We read the same translation of the quote, and understand different things. "Whole, entire, complete" sounds just as good to me. It's just a pointer. Hopefully folks will look at what's being pointed to rather than the finger that's doing the pointing. Words matter. Several people here use the word "perfect" to characterize the self, and in the quote above it seems a misinterpretation. Something whole may not be perfect. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 19, 2021 16:28:39 GMT -5
"Whole, entire, complete" sounds just as good to me. It's just a pointer. Hopefully folks will look at what's being pointed to rather than the finger that's doing the pointing. Words matter. Several people here use the word "perfect" to characterize the self, and in the quote above it seems a misinterpretation. Something whole may not be perfect. Don't get attached to any words. Find what lies beyond words and ideas.  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 19, 2021 17:07:11 GMT -5
Words matter. Several people here use the word "perfect" to characterize the self, and in the quote above it seems a misinterpretation. Something whole may not be perfect. Don't get attached to any words. Find what lies beyond words and ideas. Your reply is parallel to what I wrote: they never meet. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 19, 2021 17:29:24 GMT -5
"Whole, entire, complete" sounds just as good to me. It's just a pointer. Hopefully folks will look at what's being pointed to rather than the finger that's doing the pointing. Words matter. Several people here use the word "perfect" to characterize the self, and in the quote above it seems a misinterpretation. Something whole may not be perfect. LMAO! The translator is David Godman. The notion that the Self is perfect, pristine "as is" pervades advaita and nonduality literature. But if you have an issue with Godman's translation of the original Tamil, take it up with him. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 19, 2021 18:42:52 GMT -5
Words matter. Several people here use the word "perfect" to characterize the self, and in the quote above it seems a misinterpretation. Something whole may not be perfect. LMAO! The translator is David Godman. The notion that the Self is perfect, pristine "as is" pervades advaita and nonduality literature. But if you have an issue with Godman's translation of the original Tamil, take it up with him. I have no issue with those, as I don't care for any dogma, I just believe that they're misinterpretations. That translator might call himself God-Man, but as everyone of us, he understands in the limits of his beliefs, and distorts sometimes unintentionally, other times intentionally. As zendancer showed in his reply to that quote, one reads whatever one expects. As a solution, he recommends to go beyond words. That's a sure way to misinterpret somebody's intended message when you have strong beliefs. Using less words and / or more ambiguous ones to convey your opinion is even more likely to cause errors. But who's counting? |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 19, 2021 21:45:53 GMT -5
LMAO! The translator is David Godman. The notion that the Self is perfect, pristine "as is" pervades advaita and nonduality literature. But if you have an issue with Godman's translation of the original Tamil, take it up with him. I have no issue with those, as I don't care for any dogma, I just believe that they're misinterpretations. That translator might call himself God-Man, but as everyone of us, he understands in the limits of his beliefs, and distorts sometimes unintentionally, other times intentionally. As zendancer showed in his reply to that quote, one reads whatever one expects. As a solution, he recommends to go beyond words. That's a sure way to misinterpret somebody's intended message when you have strong beliefs. Using less words and / or more ambiguous ones to convey your opinion is even more likely to cause errors. But who's counting? Hail Mary full of grace. Dude you got me praying. What can anyone say to that? Got no response. I'm flabbergasted, befuddled, pixilated and confounded. I concede. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2021 6:49:23 GMT -5
Don't get attached to any words. Find what lies beyond words and ideas. Your reply is parallel to what I wrote: they never meet. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2021 1:02:17 GMT -5
By sitting longer-periods of zazen
one can slip into a moment (before mind),
whereby ‘insight’ can reveal
‘what is about to happen.’
Unless one understands the process of surrender,
‘moments before mind’ are put-off
with an air of expectation,
That which keeps one locked-in Jail.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 21, 2021 6:44:30 GMT -5
LMAO! The translator is David Godman. The notion that the Self is perfect, pristine "as is" pervades advaita and nonduality literature. But if you have an issue with Godman's translation of the original Tamil, take it up with him. I have no issue with those, as I don't care for any dogma, I just believe that they're misinterpretations. That translator might call himself God-Man, but as everyone of us, he understands in the limits of his beliefs, and distorts sometimes unintentionally, other times intentionally. As zendancer showed in his reply to that quote, one reads whatever one expects. As a solution, he recommends to go beyond words. That's a sure way to misinterpret somebody's intended message when you have strong beliefs. Using less words and / or more ambiguous ones to convey your opinion is even more likely to cause errors. But who's counting? If there's no direct experiential reference for what's being pointed to, there won't be any understanding at all. In this particular case either the word "perfect" or "whole" will be clearly understood by anyone who has had a deep kensho even though it will simultaneously be understood that no words can ever adequately capture what was seen. It has nothing to do with beliefs or interpretations. From the perspective of someone who has NOT seen into the true nature of what one IS the words will make no sense. Further, this has nothing to do with traditional ideas, beliefs, or opinions about "God." In fact, any human who sees deeply into his/her own true nature will smile at the superficiality and utter inadequacy of the word "God" as a placeholder for THAT. Just saying.... Also, it's worth noting that sages never tell people what to believe. Their essential message is always, "Don't take my word for anything; go see for yourself so that you'll have a reference for what's being discussed or pointed to." |
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 24, 2021 12:04:27 GMT -5
Semantics. Attention inward on/as Self (not on thoughts or sensations) is the state of peace and perfect contentment. I would say it is not even a state within "normal" human consciousness. Roy, could you briefly describe what you mean by not focusing on sensations? I think we all get not focusing on thoughts. That is simple to explain. But in the absence of thought, there is only this energetic aliveness going on. Sights, sounds, sensations in the body. These are all what you mean by sensations, yes? If you mean that recognition of awareness as the effortlessly present cognizance, and the "taking up home" there while disregarding thoughts or sensations, then I feel I understand. It's quite a subtle shift in a way, if one wants to call it that. I generally view that as "witness consciousness" or this sort of thing, where one is able to recognize one's presence/identity as the subjectivity. I'd love you to clarify. This is the crux of the matter. Nonduality, Zen, and pretty much all religious/spiritual systems of thought, do not recognize THIS physical realm to be illusion/a simulation. These "Spirituality Light" systems don't have definite answers about suffering because the transcendence of suffering IS THE END OF THE WORLD. ALL experience (even sitting in the forest) is Samsara/illusion/fundamentally unsubstantial. The source of all suffering is the inability to recognize this. Zen does not recognize this. I spent 10 years as a "Buddhist" and sat with two Zen priests. They didn't get it. It's because they don't recognize the world as being a simulation. Unintermittent Self-Awareness places the physical realm in the periphery of consciousness. There are sensations, but they do not affect Self, in the same way that a nightmare suddenly loses all of it's fear when one becomes lucid in the dream or when a scene in a movie loses it's ability to illicit emotion when one reminds oneself that it's just a movie. One may choose not to react to watching a character in a movie lose a finger. As difficult as it is to grasp, one can choose not to react to the body (character; your name here) losing a finger. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 24, 2021 13:00:51 GMT -5
Roy, could you briefly describe what you mean by not focusing on sensations? I think we all get not focusing on thoughts. That is simple to explain. But in the absence of thought, there is only this energetic aliveness going on. Sights, sounds, sensations in the body. These are all what you mean by sensations, yes? If you mean that recognition of awareness as the effortlessly present cognizance, and the "taking up home" there while disregarding thoughts or sensations, then I feel I understand. It's quite a subtle shift in a way, if one wants to call it that. I generally view that as "witness consciousness" or this sort of thing, where one is able to recognize one's presence/identity as the subjectivity. I'd love you to clarify. This is the crux of the matter. Nonduality, Zen, and pretty much all religious/spiritual systems of thought, do not recognize THIS physical realm to be illusion/a simulation. These "Spirituality Light" systems don't have definite answers about suffering because the transcendence of suffering IS THE END OF THE WORLD. ALL experience (even sitting in the forest) is Samsara/illusion/fundamentally unsubstantial. The source of all suffering is the inability to recognize this. Zen does not recognize this. I spent 10 years as a "Buddhist" and sat with two Zen priests. They didn't get it. It's because they don't recognize the world as being a simulation. Unintermittent Self-Awareness places the physical realm in the periphery of consciousness. There are sensations, but they do not affect Self, in the same way that a nightmare suddenly loses all of it's fear when one becomes lucid in the dream or when a scene in a movie loses it's ability to illicit emotion when one reminds oneself that it's just a movie. One may choose not to react to watching a character in a movie lose a finger. As difficult as it is to grasp, one can choose not to react to the body (character; your name here) losing a finger. Would you say the same thing about your pecker? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 24, 2021 20:01:57 GMT -5
This is the crux of the matter. Nonduality, Zen, and pretty much all religious/spiritual systems of thought, do not recognize THIS physical realm to be illusion/a simulation. These "Spirituality Light" systems don't have definite answers about suffering because the transcendence of suffering IS THE END OF THE WORLD. ALL experience (even sitting in the forest) is Samsara/illusion/fundamentally unsubstantial. The source of all suffering is the inability to recognize this. Zen does not recognize this. I spent 10 years as a "Buddhist" and sat with two Zen priests. They didn't get it. It's because they don't recognize the world as being a simulation. Unintermittent Self-Awareness places the physical realm in the periphery of consciousness. There are sensations, but they do not affect Self, in the same way that a nightmare suddenly loses all of it's fear when one becomes lucid in the dream or when a scene in a movie loses it's ability to illicit emotion when one reminds oneself that it's just a movie. One may choose not to react to watching a character in a movie lose a finger. As difficult as it is to grasp, one can choose not to react to the body (character; your name here) losing a finger. Would you say the same thing about your pecker? ... or an eye? |
|
