|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2013 18:08:03 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I understand what you mean by 'still mind' there is no question as to birth or death or intervals or time. Questioning the certainty of such are as you say pretend play. There is no stillness in the mind that is judging now versus then.That is a self-evident observation, devoid of judgment.. "now versus then" may be debatable pointers, but they are pointing to a self-evident actuality.. Be well.. Self evident doesn't mean using your conceptual understanding as evidence for your beliefs. Still your mind and notice that past and future are ideas that you believe have a more funda mental reality.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 3, 2013 18:21:12 GMT -5
In what I take you take still mind to refer to, "now" is one word too many, and "then" is two too many. Change is what is self-evident and anything beyond that involves an abstraction. Useful abstractions, interesting abstractions, heck, there are even some abstractions that have the potential to clarify ... but they're all just abstractions. Just wanted to register agreement maxy ... Hmmmm. The way I understand what's being referred by the words "still mind" is pure awareness without cognition/distinction. From the perspective of pure awareness not even change is self evident, and this is why many advaita teachers say that a deep teaching is, "Nothing is happening." Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions vanish utterly when the mind is quiescent. Zen's "absolute samadhi" and advaita's "nirvikalpa samadhi" are states of pure awareness with no content. They can't be described other than to say they are states of pure awareness. In the same way, when the mind does not imagine what the eyes see, no movement or content of any kind is distinguished. There is awareness, but it is not an awareness of something (some thing). Perhaps the phrase "still mind" is being used in some other way, but that's what I would use that phrase to point to. Yes, I would too. Tzu uses it differently, and in so doing he doesn't see how much minding is involved in what he calls still mind. He observes the content of mind with what he calls a still mind, and mistakes conceptual understanding for self evident realization.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 3, 2013 22:32:48 GMT -5
Greetings.. In what I take you take still mind to refer to, "now" is one word too many, and "then" is two too many. Change is what is self-evident and anything beyond that involves an abstraction. Useful abstractions, interesting abstractions, heck, there are even some abstractions that have the potential to clarify ... but they're all just abstractions. Just wanted to register agreement maxy ... Hmmmm. The way I understand what's being referred by the words "still mind" is pure awareness without cognition/distinction. From the perspective of pure awareness not even change is self evident, and this is why many advaita teachers say that a deep teaching is, "Nothing is happening." Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions vanish utterly when the mind is quiescent. Zen's "absolute samadhi" and advaita's "nirvikalpa samadhi" are states of pure awareness with no content. They can't be described other than to say they are states of pure awareness. In the same way, when the mind does not imagine what the eyes see, no movement or content of any kind is distinguished. There is awareness, but it is not an awareness of something (some thing). Perhaps the phrase "still mind" is being used in some other way, but that's what I would use that phrase to point to. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. belief-systems and religions use word-play to create the illusion of superiority, of having understanding superior to those not approved into their system of beliefs.. The phrase 'still mind' is fairly self-explanatory, until it is forced into a belief system, Zen, Advaita, Oneness, etc.. the 'still' mind is not 'actively' thinking.. shifting that fairly simple understanding to imply an ambiguous meaning like "pure awareness with no content", is a leap of faith employed by most belief-systems/religions, it shapes simplicity into a believer's preferred mental structure.. So, again we approach the threshold of clarity.. will it be based on special uses of words and meanings assigned to special belief systems?... or, is there the sincerity to let that go and just look, and just keep looking.. without the obstacles of creating new meanings for common understandings?.. is there the simple sincerity to let go of beliefs and word-play, and have simple discussions with commonly understood meanings?.. or, will the attachments to words/meanings unique to the beliefs serve the conflict they create.. common people understand common language and common meanings, to deviate from that simplicity employs the mind's thinking and believing processes.. " Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions" do not vanish when the mind is quiescent/still, they become clear and are understood completely without reference to words/pointers.. in the complete understanding is complete release, no doubt as to what was 'pointed to'.. and that may seem like a vanishing act to some, liberation to others as freedom from the known.. when there is liberation from the ideas of Zen, Advaita, Oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, awareness, pure, truth, etc.. there is the the looking and the seeing with genuine curiosity, unbiased by those 'beliefs'.. how wondrous and awe-inspiring it would be to have discussions where people felt secure enough to openly and honestly discuss what they 'see', rather than insisting that the discussions conform to their beliefs 'about' what they see.. almost all discussions in this forum deteriorate into conflicts about which beliefs will govern how what is actually seen/experienced will be presented and why.. there is precious little open honest discussion at the level a common uninitiated or novice seeker could follow.. the level of 'thinking' necessary to understand the usual discussion format here far exceeds simplicity or clarity.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 3:06:25 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmmm. The way I understand what's being referred by the words "still mind" is pure awareness without cognition/distinction. From the perspective of pure awareness not even change is self evident, and this is why many advaita teachers say that a deep teaching is, "Nothing is happening." Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions vanish utterly when the mind is quiescent. Zen's "absolute samadhi" and advaita's "nirvikalpa samadhi" are states of pure awareness with no content. They can't be described other than to say they are states of pure awareness. In the same way, when the mind does not imagine what the eyes see, no movement or content of any kind is distinguished. There is awareness, but it is not an awareness of something (some thing). Perhaps the phrase "still mind" is being used in some other way, but that's what I would use that phrase to point to. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. belief-systems and religions use word-play to create the illusion of superiority, of having understanding superior to those not approved into their system of beliefs.. The phrase 'still mind' is fairly self-explanatory, until it is forced into a belief system, Zen, Advaita, Oneness, etc.. the 'still' mind is not 'actively' thinking.. shifting that fairly simple understanding to imply an ambiguous meaning like "pure awareness with no content", is a leap of faith employed by most belief-systems/religions, it shapes simplicity into a believer's preferred mental structure..
So, again we approach the threshold of clarity.. will it be based on special uses of words and meanings assigned to special belief systems?... or, is there the sincerity to let that go and just look, and just keep looking.. without the obstacles of creating new meanings for common understandings?.. is there the simple sincerity to let go of beliefs and word-play, and have simple discussions with commonly understood meanings?.. or, will the attachments to words/meanings unique to the beliefs serve the conflict they create.. common people understand common language and common meanings, to deviate from that simplicity employs the mind's thinking and believing processes.. "Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions" do not vanish when the mind is quiescent/still, they become clear and are understood completely without reference to words/pointers.. in the complete understanding is complete release, no doubt as to what was 'pointed to'.. and that may seem like a vanishing act to some, liberation to others as freedom from the known.. when there is liberation from the ideas of Zen, Advaita, Oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, awareness, pure, truth, etc.. there is the the looking and the seeing with genuine curiosity, unbiased by those 'beliefs'.. how wondrous and awe-inspiring it would be to have discussions where people felt secure enough to openly and honestly discuss what they 'see', rather than insisting that the discussions conform to their beliefs 'about' what they see.. almost all discussions in this forum deteriorate into conflicts about which beliefs will govern how what is actually seen/experienced will be presented and why.. there is precious little open honest discussion at the level a common uninitiated or novice seeker could follow.. the level of 'thinking' necessary to understand the usual discussion format here far exceeds simplicity or clarity.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Sept 4, 2013 7:22:37 GMT -5
Greetings.. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. You seem to be saying that 'still mind' is a condition where there's clarity about the contents of mind. That seems really useful, if it can be accomplished. But it's sort of like having the baby mind the candy store. And here's an example of it. In my mind, I haven't seen anyone here act superior or propose that anyone accept a system of beliefs - I feel quite clear about that. In your mind, that's all happening and you feel quite clear about it. Hummmm. Language is imprecise, and language about existential questions is even more so. The only way around that is to ask what someone means instead of attacking them for their usage. There are tons of honest open discussions. But I'd have to agree with you about the level. Don't know what can be done about that or even if something needs to be done about it. Or could be.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2013 7:42:07 GMT -5
Greetings.. Are you certain there's no interval/duration between birth and now? are you certain the growth and development of your body/mind vehicle occurred without an interval/duration between birth and now? the still mind observes this and realizes now is not then, that it cannot eat last month's meals.. Be well.. The still mind doesn't observe any of that stuff. Yup yup.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 4, 2013 7:45:31 GMT -5
Hmmmm. The way I understand what's being referred by the words "still mind" is pure awareness without cognition/distinction. From the perspective of pure awareness not even change is self evident, and this is why many advaita teachers say that a deep teaching is, "Nothing is happening." Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions vanish utterly when the mind is quiescent. Zen's "absolute samadhi" and advaita's "nirvikalpa samadhi" are states of pure awareness with no content. They can't be described other than to say they are states of pure awareness. In the same way, when the mind does not imagine what the eyes see, no movement or content of any kind is distinguished. There is awareness, but it is not an awareness of something (some thing). Perhaps the phrase "still mind" is being used in some other way, but that's what I would use that phrase to point to. Yes, I would too. Tzu uses it differently, and in so doing he doesn't see how much minding is involved in what he calls still mind. He observes the content of mind with what he calls a still mind, and mistakes conceptual understanding for self evident realization. That's my conclusion also. If we could just find a way to TOTALLY still his mind for about ten seconds, he would understand what we're pointing to. *sigh*
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 4, 2013 9:19:05 GMT -5
Greetings.. Yes, I would too. Tzu uses it differently, and in so doing he doesn't see how much minding is involved in what he calls still mind. He observes the content of mind with what he calls a still mind, and mistakes conceptual understanding for self evident realization. That's my conclusion also. If we could just find a way to TOTALLY still his mind for about ten seconds, he would understand what we're pointing to. *sigh* <sigh> If i could get you to still your mind for the same 10 seconds, to actually 'let it all go'.. there would be no Zen, no Advaita, no conflict.. with the most compassionate intention possible, i say to you, you and some others here are attached to and fixated with the 'pointing', demonstrating no evidence of having realized/experienced what it is you think you're pointing to.. it is as if you are mimicking those who 'pointed' before you, a lineage of 'pointing' without having had the actual experience/realization.. like mapmakers, faithfully reproducing the map based on one explorer's report, without realizing the map is not the land and that the original explorer's journey is not their journey.. When the experience/realization/liberation happens, beliefs and attachments fall away.. there is no Zen, no Advaita, no Buddhism or Taoism.. you forever step off the path into a pathless land, and you make your way without attachment to 'this or that', you discover authenticity.. Be well..
|
|
|
Post by ???????? ???????????? on Sept 4, 2013 9:31:31 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 11:17:03 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before. Yeah there seems to be a clamoring at the top of the spiritual mountain as to who can still the mind and what is seen from that imagined clarity...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 11:59:21 GMT -5
Greetings.. As I understand what you mean by 'still mind' there is no question as to birth or death or intervals or time. Questioning the certainty of such are as you say pretend play. There is no stillness in the mind that is judging now versus then.That is a self-evident observation, devoid of judgment.. "now versus then" may be debatable pointers, but they are pointing to a self-evident actuality.. Be well.. I don't really know what a "self-evident actuality" means when you use it this way. My guess is that it is one of those things you are referring to when you say "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." I'm not experiencing what I am hearing you saying. My understanding of still mind is that it's like the space between thoughts. And "time" is a concept, and hence dependent on thought. Are you saying that the experience of motion, of stuff happening, is the basis for what is referred to when the concept of time is used? I don't have a problem with that. The issue seems to be whether the experience of motion is compatible with still mind or not. My understanding is that mental activity is required for motion to be perceived, and thus is not representative of still mind. Still mind is absent any demarcations, including contrast between moments. Thus no time.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 12:10:56 GMT -5
Greetings.. Hmmmm. The way I understand what's being referred by the words "still mind" is pure awareness without cognition/distinction. From the perspective of pure awareness not even change is self evident, and this is why many advaita teachers say that a deep teaching is, "Nothing is happening." Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions vanish utterly when the mind is quiescent. Zen's "absolute samadhi" and advaita's "nirvikalpa samadhi" are states of pure awareness with no content. They can't be described other than to say they are states of pure awareness. In the same way, when the mind does not imagine what the eyes see, no movement or content of any kind is distinguished. There is awareness, but it is not an awareness of something (some thing). Perhaps the phrase "still mind" is being used in some other way, but that's what I would use that phrase to point to. The phrase 'still mind' is too much, but it's what best explains the condition for clarity.. 'pure awareness' is ambiguous, look at the wiki definition for awareness, a common person's understanding, and the difference used in beliefs like Advaita or your explanation of Zen.. it becomes apparent that the when we can stop the conceptualizing 'about' what this or that 'is', when we can stop thinking that 'thinking' about samadhi, or oneness, or non-duality, or duality, or pure awareness, or any of the mind-play that results in conflicts of 'beliefiness', when we can just look and see, and have the direct honesty to talk about what is 'seen' rather than 'imaginings' and 'beliefs about' what is seen, there is the chance we will liberate ourselves from this idea-feat.. 'Pure awareness with no content' has no meaning and points away from clarity.. the function of awareness is as a vehicle for information/content, rather than a romanticized attribute of zen and advaita's misunderstandings of mind and Life and of what is actually happening.. as a vehicle for information/content, awareness informs the experiencer of the experience whether internal or external.. belief-systems and religions use word-play to create the illusion of superiority, of having understanding superior to those not approved into their system of beliefs.. The phrase 'still mind' is fairly self-explanatory, until it is forced into a belief system, Zen, Advaita, Oneness, etc.. the 'still' mind is not 'actively' thinking.. shifting that fairly simple understanding to imply an ambiguous meaning like "pure awareness with no content", is a leap of faith employed by most belief-systems/religions, it shapes simplicity into a believer's preferred mental structure.. So, again we approach the threshold of clarity.. will it be based on special uses of words and meanings assigned to special belief systems?... or, is there the sincerity to let that go and just look, and just keep looking.. without the obstacles of creating new meanings for common understandings?.. is there the simple sincerity to let go of beliefs and word-play, and have simple discussions with commonly understood meanings?.. or, will the attachments to words/meanings unique to the beliefs serve the conflict they create.. common people understand common language and common meanings, to deviate from that simplicity employs the mind's thinking and believing processes.. " Time, space, causality, selfhood, thingness, change, and all other distinctions" do not vanish when the mind is quiescent/still, they become clear and are understood completely without reference to words/pointers.. in the complete understanding is complete release, no doubt as to what was 'pointed to'.. and that may seem like a vanishing act to some, liberation to others as freedom from the known.. when there is liberation from the ideas of Zen, Advaita, Oneness, non-duality, duality, separation, awareness, pure, truth, etc.. there is the the looking and the seeing with genuine curiosity, unbiased by those 'beliefs'.. how wondrous and awe-inspiring it would be to have discussions where people felt secure enough to openly and honestly discuss what they 'see', rather than insisting that the discussions conform to their beliefs 'about' what they see.. almost all discussions in this forum deteriorate into conflicts about which beliefs will govern how what is actually seen/experienced will be presented and why.. there is precious little open honest discussion at the level a common uninitiated or novice seeker could follow.. the level of 'thinking' necessary to understand the usual discussion format here far exceeds simplicity or clarity.. Be well.. When I read what you write I hear a lot of frustration. Here are the words of your invitation: "Nothing i say is true because i say it, it becomes true when you experience it as such." Yet when some people do not experience what you say, you chalk it up to them being blinded by beliefs. Why not give the benefit of the doubt to those who do not experience what you say and just put it aside as a misunderstanding or a completely different experience? Note, I am not suggesting your experience is wrong, or that your articulation of what you experience could be better. I am just saying that what you say you experience may not be shared. It's okay. It doesn't necessarily mean that those who are not sharing it are ignorant or blinded either.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 12:14:48 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before. In this discussion I'm constantly referring to the qualia model in my own head. Where is time in the qualia model? Right there in patterning right? 'Still mind' would suggest minimal patterning going on.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 12:15:10 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before. Yeah there seems to be a clamoring at the top of the spiritual mountain as to who can still the mind and what is seen from that imagined clarity... Seems to me that one voice claims to shout from the top of the mountain while the other is smiling silently with his back toward it as he walks away.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 4, 2013 12:22:33 GMT -5
Tzu is right. All they want is play guru on an internet forum and have some folks tell them how awesome they are. When people like me point out to them their numerous inconsistencies then they totally refuse to even acknowledge it as a question, instead they keep repeating the same old refuted and worn out story that we've heard millions of times before. In this discussion I'm constantly referring to the qualia model in my own head. Where is time in the qualia model? Right there in patterning right? 'Still mind' would suggest minimal patterning going on.
|
|