Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 29, 2014 13:30:51 GMT -5
The Great Zen Master Katsuki Sekida discusses what he describes as the 3 Nen, or layers of cognition. For short hand sake, in this post, I'll use the word Nen as Katsuki does, meaning 'type of cognition', or appearances in awareness.
For the purpose used here, Cognition is the appearance of an experience, and the process by which it is transformed, reduced, elaborated, stored, recovered, and used.
There is a 4th Nen, which Katsuki calls the One Eon Nen....this is the boundless formless cognition that is the base of the other 3. Often referred to as Samadhi.
1. The first type of nen or cognition is the most prominent type of cognition with very young children, or in states like non-thinking ATA, or in a kind of internally still and silent Awareness of Awareness, or for a period after leaving an Absolute or Formless Samadhi state.
The first type of cognition, or 1st nen is a kind of naked cognition of form or action, there is no defining, no mental 'describing' or narrative, only pure simple perception, or cognition of form, movement, or some attribute related to sensory perception.
For example: You see a tree, but don't define it as a tree, or grey and green etc...you are just looking, percieving, there is just the pure observation without mental narrative. The first nen can be of something external, like a tree, or internal, like your own mind movements or awareness.
2. The second nen or type of cognition, is when we have a thought about the first nen. Its when we define it, for example, we see a tree, and define it as a tree. We call it something, we recognize it conceptually, and/or create a conceptualization or inner dialogue of what it is.
For example, we see a tree, define it as a tree, and maybe even mentally define its attributes. Tzu writes very much here in this second nen or cognition, wherein he kinda robotically describes the actual attributes of a phenomena with no self referentiality....when asked to describe an experience or his perception, it sounds lifeless and cold, because it is typically just a description of phenomena devoid of any self referentiality that would give it a sense of connection and life.
The first nen is simple observing absent definition and naming or any of those types of mental processes, the 2nd nen typically occurs almost immediately after the initial observation in the first nen, where the initial observation is now mentally 'described', but there is in this nen no self referencing action of mind.
3. The 3rd nen builds on the first two that have already occurred. The 1st cognition occurs and there is a simple observation, the 2nd nen occurs when there is a thought referencing the observation, but in the 3rd nen, there is added a self referencing layer of thought that links a reference to self to the 2nd nen.
You might say that for most people, the 3rd nen is the ongoing mental narrative about self that is constantly 'fed' and informed by the first two nen....it is this nen that most people spend most of their time absorbed in. We see a tree (1st nen), define the tree (2nd nen), then have a self referential thought stream related to the 2nd nen, or layer of cognition (3rd nen), for example, we think, "I think that tree is beautiful, I really enjoy it, I hope no one cuts it down" etc...
We are constantly experiencing stimuli (1st nen) that we think about and create a reference thought for (2nd nen) that then feeds into an ongoing narrative relating the constant stream of 2nd nen to self (3rd nen).
The most common progression on cognitions, or nen, looks kinda like this for most people in everyday life situations
1-2-3
......|
1-2-3
......|
1-2-3
......|
1-2-3
While ATA and Awareness of Awareness etc looks more like this:
1
|
1
|
1
|
1
Then there is the EON NEN, or the boundless, timeless, formless cognition...this is what happens in Deep Samadhi.
My personal experience is this:
The Zen or meditation practitioner is spending a lifetime going back and forth from states where only one progression of nen is occurring for periods of time.
For example, in deep successful Zazen, one is in a state where Only the eon nen is occurring (Samadhi). Then immediately after Formless Samadhi meditation session, there is a period where the world is only cognized in the 1st nen....no defining, and no self referencing, only pure seeing of the world of form and action.
After some time, the 2nd nen makes its appearance overlaying the shifting 1st nen observations of form and action.
And then some time later, the self referential 3rd nen makes its appearance, and the ongoing narrative resumes.
This 'cycle' happens over and over as often as the meditator meditates into a state of Formless Samadhi, or Eon Nen.
But with each successive 'trip' through the nens so to speak, there is increased clarity and expansion of consciousness to a greater or lessor degree.
From the periods of deep formless samadhi, a kind of lucidity and clarity begins to pervade your 1st nen observations. This lucidity and clarity makes the 1st nen very attractive, so you will find many people who have spent a short or medium amount of time in deep formless samadhi highly enjoying and recommending things like ATA or similar, which is a state of keeping a kind of exclusive attention on the now very lucid and alive 1st nen. A kensho experience is likely in there somewhere, when a kind of boiling point, or critical masslessness is reached. In this stage, the reason that the 1st nen is so illuminated and lucid, is because one is essentially bringing the clarity and lucidity of the formless pure cognition of our essential nature cognized in deep formless samadhi into the 1st nen cognition of form and action.
The result of bringing this lucid clarity into 1st nen cognitions, is a kind of building clarity, wherein one eventually sees the real nature of form and action.
However, one should continue with their samadhi inducing practice, because with more samadhi the eon nen will begin to inform more than just the 1st nen with lucidity and clarity, the 2nd nen will be informed by it too over time, and then eventually, the self referential 3rd nen will be informed by it, pervaded by it.
With enough lucidity and clarity brought into the 3rd nen, born from those periods of formless boundless cognition in your essential nature, the 3rd nen is illuminated, and eventually one cognizes the true nature of 'self'.
This is still only a step along the process of your continual blossoming and expansion so to speak.
Even when the nature of self is illuminated in a kensho or satori, it will take time for that to fully inform your essence of being.
And even then, one should continue with regular returns to the eon nen, to the formless boundless cognition of deep Samadhi, because it will continue to expand and illuminate the lucidity and clarity and consciousness of the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd layers of cognition as they occur. Though, most often, when the self referential 3rd nen has been fully illuminated in a satori situation, one typically looses some interest in that which constitutes the appearance of self, and the habitual self referencing action of mind tends to fall away, as does the continuous habitual occurrence of the 2nd nen.
These nen still occur, but not habitually so, and they are seen clearly for what they are. Transient appearances in one's boundless eternal nature.
A more direct, less removed, more vibrant and alive experience of life ensues.
Zendancer may have some useful information to add regarding the Zen view of nen, or layers of cognition ;-)
|
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 3, 2014 16:30:11 GMT -5
This is exactly it however I subscribe to none of your terminology haha.. why quote masters?.. and why say that a 'higher' more fundamental state informs a 'lower' more conventional state?.. INFORMS.. the wisdom is not kept secret in the experience, it's not something that can only happen spontaneously you can ponder and contemplate these things with your own intellect, in any 'state'..
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 17:05:12 GMT -5
Why not quote masters? Alot of what we might write might seem original to us and some of it might be the result of genuine creativity but the fact is that the ground for the creation was prepared by what came before. The contextual boundary to any conversation is arbitrary. What is the implication of that fact? I'd say it's actually much more healthy and sane to recognize and acknowledge our influences rather than to deny that they happened. |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 3, 2014 17:47:56 GMT -5
Would those masters want us to quote them?.. If it is an adage then it's an adage.. If in YOUR sentence you're using a quote of a 'MASTER' then it better not be to back up your sentence because your sentence stands strictly on its own no matter who said it.. if you EVER quot something from a master and do so TO ANY EXTENT because it's a master who said it and that will give your own statement credibility, then stop right there.
Are you your OWN master?
YES AND NO
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 18:11:34 GMT -5
Would those masters want us to quote them?.. If it is an adage then it's an adage.. If in YOUR sentence you're using a quote of a 'MASTER' then it better not be to back up your sentence because your sentence stands strictly on its own no matter who said it.. if you EVER quot something from a master and do so TO ANY EXTENT because it's a master who said it and that will give your own statement credibility, then stop right there. Are you your OWN master? YES AND NO Do you own your words? If so, are they still yours after you've spoken or written them? Ain't none 'o their bidness whether I quote'm or not.  Even less so what the use of them is.  |
|
|
|
Post by Transcix on May 3, 2014 18:50:01 GMT -5
I own my words in the sense that I take responsibility for them. The responsibility thereafter is a matter of another topic, if my words create things then how these things affect me or others in terms of moral imperative or justification.
Do I own my words? Yes, because my words are as much a part of myself as anything else. Do I own myself fundamentally? Obviously that implies an owned and an owner.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 19:56:56 GMT -5
I own my words in the sense that I take responsibility for them. The responsibility thereafter is a matter of another topic, if my words create things then how these things affect me or others in terms of moral imperative or justification. Do I own my words? Yes, because my words are as much a part of myself as anything else. Do I own myself fundamentally? Obviously that implies an owned and an owner. These words. Are now. Mine. The owner can chase them but he'll have to run faster than the wind to effect apprehension, and his ability to extend his reach comes with an expiration date.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 3, 2014 20:00:23 GMT -5
This is exactly it however I subscribe to none of your terminology haha.. why quote masters?.. and why say that a 'higher' more fundamental state informs a 'lower' more conventional state?.. INFORMS.. the wisdom is not kept secret in the experience, it's not something that can only happen spontaneously you can ponder and contemplate these things with your own intellect, in any 'state'.. It has been my experience, that once the experiencer realizes or experiences the actuality of an experience referenced by a quote, it doesn't occur to that experiencer to use the words of others to explain or describe what is known through their unique perspective.. it is the inclusion of another unique perspective that adds to the mosaic that is more comprehensive than any single perspective.. passing around used beliefs, as if they were better than authentic descriptions of the experiencer's happening, diminishes the collective clarity.. it adds placeholders where authentic accounts of direct experience would expand the collective awareness by virtue of the experiencer's included perspective.. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 3, 2014 20:12:14 GMT -5
This is exactly it however I subscribe to none of your terminology haha.. why quote masters?.. and why say that a 'higher' more fundamental state informs a 'lower' more conventional state?.. INFORMS.. the wisdom is not kept secret in the experience, it's not something that can only happen spontaneously you can ponder and contemplate these things with your own intellect, in any 'state'.. It has been my experience, that once the experiencer realizes or experiences the actuality of an experience referenced by a quote, it doesn't occur to that experiencer to use the words of others to explain or describe what is known through their unique perspective.. it is the inclusion of another unique perspective that adds to the mosaic that is more comprehensive than any single perspective.. passing around used beliefs, as if they were better than authentic descriptions of the experiencer's happening, diminishes the collective clarity.. it adds placeholders where authentic accounts of direct experience would expand the collective awareness by virtue of the experiencer's included perspective.. And no lover shall ever read his mistress a Rumi poem ever again... If someone has said something more elegantly and more profoundly than you ever could, I don't see it as inauthentic to quote them and attribute the quote. Why put any paintings on display once you can paint by numbers? Art is art, shared and appreciated by any who has a taste for it. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on May 3, 2014 20:16:39 GMT -5
...both valid viewpoints -- different sort of contexts. (Tzu & Top)
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 3, 2014 20:17:07 GMT -5
Would those masters want us to quote them?.. If it is an adage then it's an adage.. If in YOUR sentence you're using a quote of a 'MASTER' then it better not be to back up your sentence because your sentence stands strictly on its own no matter who said it.. if you EVER quot something from a master and do so TO ANY EXTENT because it's a master who said it and that will give your own statement credibility, then stop right there. Are you your OWN master? YES AND NO The physicist Richard Feynman told the story of once when he was a boy he was with his father out in the woods. He pointed and told his father, there's a Mockingbird. His father then told him that he knew nothing about the bird by merely knowing its name. From then on no matter what he studied he focused on understanding it more than naming it. He said he later learned the necessity of names, as one cannot communicate with another without them. We all have the same basic physiological structure. We can use the maps of others when they have explored new territory, no need to "reinvent the wheel" if it's not necessary. But we must be careful not to mistake the map for the territory. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 3, 2014 20:26:45 GMT -5
...both valid viewpoints -- different sort of contexts. (Tzu & Top) Art is in every context. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on May 3, 2014 20:35:21 GMT -5
Would those masters want us to quote them?.. If it is an adage then it's an adage.. If in YOUR sentence you're using a quote of a 'MASTER' then it better not be to back up your sentence because your sentence stands strictly on its own no matter who said it.. if you EVER quot something from a master and do so TO ANY EXTENT because it's a master who said it and that will give your own statement credibility, then stop right there. Are you your OWN master? YES AND NO The physicist Richard Feynman told the story of once when he was a boy he was with his father out in the woods. He pointed and told his father, there's a Mockingbird. His father then told him that he knew nothing about the bird by merely knowing its name. From then on no matter what he studied he focused on understanding it more than naming it. He said he later learned the necessity of names, as one cannot communicate with another without them. We all have the same basic physiological structure. We can use the maps of others when they have explored new territory, no need to "reinvent the wheel" if it's not necessary. But we must be careful not to mistake the map for the territory.sdp That's all one can do without their own direct experience. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on May 3, 2014 21:17:05 GMT -5
...both valid viewpoints -- different sort of contexts. (Tzu & Top) Art is in every context. Art rests on a thread of common understanding, as one man's 'art' is another man's trash.. finding the authenticity to to meet on a field of neutral expression, offers escape from the rebuke of bruised egos.. 'Art' is in the eye of the beholder... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 3, 2014 21:32:10 GMT -5
 The contextual boundary of every conversation is arbitrary. What this means is that the appearance of fragmentation and isolation of dialog is a deceptive chimera. Back through the mists of time, any and every conversation can be traced, and the threads that link the conversants all eventually intersect. To declare ones words to be original in the face of this state of affairs is an amusing farce of arrogance. |
|
