|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 13:20:37 GMT -5
I don't deny that there is an experience that can be labeled effort. Like choosing, deciding. I think you're saying that labeling something volition is an abstraction, a TMT activity of labeling of labels, theorizing and philosophising. Makes sense to me. When I say arbitrary I'm using it in the way that one might say 'that's the river' -- it ain't actually the same river from moment to moment. Some time previously it wasn't even there, some time in the future it won't be there either. Also, the river isn't just something in isolation. The experience labeled as effort has been artificially removed from a stream of manifestation, stuff happening, to be labeled something on it's own. I'm thinking dependent origination. "...everything arises in dependence upon multiple causes and conditions; nothing exists as a singular, independent entity." Ok. But in that sense, every word we use is arbitrary. Clear communication becomes impossible (which probably explains the length of the effort conversation - heh heh). There is effort at first in sitting down to meditate. It's a handy dandy word to describe what feels like swimming upstream against the currents of conditioned behaviors (mostly the behavior of turning away from uncomfortable feelings, but also the tantrum of "I'm not doing anything!"). In my experience, meditation practice has, on its own, transformed into a spontaneous effortless happening. But it began with effort, as does anything that tries to move against conditioning. What if not everyone who meditates has uncomfortable feelings to turn away from? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 13:23:00 GMT -5
It wouldn't surprise me if the murderous fanatic suffered and wanted to be free of it. I don't put limits on the unlimited. What I limit is the person, which is literally an expression of limitation. God isn't out there creating miracles for you. I wasn't speaking of the person but as God experiencing unlimited experiences for God. Experience, by nature, embodies limitation. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 13:27:26 GMT -5
By definition, experience is the experience of limitation. Is there a limit on the number of individuated expressions that I should know about? The TMT answer to the TMT question is: well yes, in fact, there is. You don't have to reference the number of enumerations of perspective to see what it means that experience embodies limitation, just examine the nature of experience itself. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 13:41:07 GMT -5
Here are some interesting dialogues with Bankei ( 1622-1693): Anyone who tries to become enlightened thereby falls out of the Buddha-mind and into secondary matters. You are Buddhas to begin with. There's no way for you to become Buddhas now for the first time. Within this original mind, there isn't even a trace of illusion. When you clench your fists and run about, for example, that's the Unborn. If you harbor the least notion to become better than you are or the slightest inclination to seek something, you turn your back on the unborn. Advaita??  .. (** muttley snicker **) |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Aug 12, 2014 14:46:28 GMT -5
Is there a limit on the number of individuated expressions that I should know about? The TMT answer to the TMT question is: well yes, in fact, there is. You don't have to reference the number of enumerations of perspective to see what it means that experience embodies limitation, just examine the nature of experience itself. I wasn't very clear but the point I was trying to make is who is to say under what circumstance or set of rules an individualized expression will or will not find Itself? I suggest that there are no rules or limitations in this regard. The Bhagavad Gita 13:24 tells us that there are three approaches to Self-Realization. We make a mistake if we think that everyone should follow the same path and in the same way that we do. What is good for the goose may not apply to the gander at all. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 12, 2014 15:40:49 GMT -5
huh? I'd put them in the same ballpark. Both discussions of dependent origination and volition are philosophizing. No problem either. Just abstraction, which can be fun and helpful. 'Effort' and 'fork' on the other hand seem to be less abstract. " ? looks are deceptive, but distinctions are real ?" There's not one word that doesn't embody an abstraction and in the final analysis, the degree of removal from what is abstracted isn't important, one way or the other. The prescriptions all point away from all abstraction. This post is directly related to several posts on page 14. With a few exceptions, any teaching has to originally come through the thinking-abstracting ego, knowledge in general of a different possible state. But this doesn't mean that there is any effort that ego can make whereby Bankei's unborn is shown, manifests. The ground of attention and awareness is the unborn, not ego. A baby is born with attention and awareness functioning, this shows the ground is there from the beginning. So awareness and attention are beyond being able to be conditioned. Ego arises as memories are created in the neural network of the brain. To the extent that ego manifests as abstractions of thought and feelings, ego is an abstraction and this is why in an earlier quote Anthony Damiani said that the source of ego is "the living dead". We experience attention and awareness every day, if they are beyond conditioning, why don't we experience freedom? The dead abstractions that constitute ego continually funnel attention and awareness, filter them through the narrow contents, capture and imprison, them. So Bankei and ZD and E are right, the unborn is already there, fully there, there is nothing ego can do bring the unborn. So, in a sense, ego is ~here~ and the unborn is ~there~. What can be done? How does one move from ~here~ to ~there~? E says nothing can be done. ZD says that most realized beings have done a lot of practice, but the practice is not what led to realization and he's not sure spiritual practice is necessary. Everywhere I have ever mentioned spiritual practice I was talking and am talking about working with attention and awareness, I usually say inner spiritual practice. So can ego make a conscious effort? By definition, no, ego continually holds captive our attention and awareness. So there isn't a way out because the way is already out. So the way is to separate out attention and awareness via various means such as ATAMT. This is called a conscious effort because it isn't ego that is making the effort. From E's POV is isn't effort at all. I think ZD is on the fence. Quinn says that at least in the beginning, it is an effort. I can let my attention be captured by the empty associative chain of thoughts, daydreaming, when I am standing in line in the grocery store, IOW, I can be a zombie, then, or I can be present by being aware of myself standing in line, become more conscious by taking back my attention from the associative chain of thoughts. Does this usually require thinking and remembering to make this effort (meaning ego can participate)? In the beginning, yes. Does this mean ego can make the actual effort? Never. The way out, is already out, but effort is necessary, conscious effort, effort from what's already out. Ego will always take the path of least resistance, ego will never move outside itself, to me that's what effortlessness means. So yes, there is a means from ~here~ to ~there~, working directly with one's attention and awareness. My attention can be passive and therefore captured by ego or my attention can be active. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 12, 2014 16:55:21 GMT -5
There are secular versions of witnessing ... it's just a rose by another name.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2014 17:10:42 GMT -5
I wasn't speaking of the person but as God experiencing unlimited experiences for God. Experience, by nature, embodies limitation. Zacklie, and as such, all experiences are at best reflections of that which is self evident and not of mind. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 12, 2014 17:55:55 GMT -5
Ok. But in that sense, every word we use is arbitrary. Clear communication becomes impossible (which probably explains the length of the effort conversation - heh heh). There is effort at first in sitting down to meditate. It's a handy dandy word to describe what feels like swimming upstream against the currents of conditioned behaviors (mostly the behavior of turning away from uncomfortable feelings, but also the tantrum of "I'm not doing anything!"). In my experience, meditation practice has, on its own, transformed into a spontaneous effortless happening. But it began with effort, as does anything that tries to move against conditioning. What if not everyone who meditates has uncomfortable feelings to turn away from? Not sure what you're asking. You mean from the get-go? And this person is not lost in thought, they're just hanging out very still (mentally)? That'd be cool.  |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 12, 2014 18:04:51 GMT -5
Wait...nothing moves against conditioning? It sounds like you just said a practice like this is new conditioning moving against old conditioning.But anyway, let's say I become conditioned to bark when food is offered me and then I'm introduced to the concept (new conditioning) that barking is unnecessary and I can stop. So for awhile, I have to effortfully remind myself not to bark and eventually the behavior drops away. Yes, conditioning and conditioning (and effort), but the net effect is a return to non-conditioning. I think what he's saying is that you're conditioned to "move against conditioned behaviors" (if you do), so really the meditating is more conditioning. Yeah, I agreed meditating is more conditioning. He said "nothing moves against conditioning" - it's an appearance because it's conditioning and conditioning. I don't buy that, I think it's mixing contexts. If we're talking about conditioning, we're talking from within the story. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 12, 2014 18:22:37 GMT -5
Here are some interesting dialogues with Bankei (1622-1693): A farmer: I was born with a very short temper, so I find it difficult to remain in the Unborn. Bankei: Since the unborn Buddha-mind is something you and everyone else is born with, there's no way you can go about attaining it now for the first time. Just attend to your farmwork and have no other thoughts. That's the working of the unborn mind. You can swing your hoe while you're angry, too, for that matter. But in that case, since anger is an evil that links you to hell, your work becomes hard and onerous. When you hoe with a mind unclouded by anger and such things, the work is easy and pleasant. Layman: There's no letup to the thoughts that come into my mind. I find it impossible to stay in the Unborn. Bankei: Although you arrived in the world with nothing but the unborn Buddha-mind, you fell into your present deluded ways as you were growing up, by watching and listening to other people in their delusion. You picked all this up gradually, over a long period of time, habituating your mind to it, until now your deluded mind has taken over completely and works its delusion unchecked. But none of your deluded thoughts was inborn. They weren't there from the start. They cease to exist in a mind that's affirming the Unborn......If you just let illusory thoughts come and go, and don't put them to work or try to avoid them, then one day you'll find that they've vanished completely into the unborn mind. Monk: I have great difficulty subduing all the desires and deluded thoughts from my mind. Bankei: The idea to subdue deluded thoughts is a deluded thought itself. Leave all such thoughts behind. Part of a Bankei talk: ....when you look at things, you're able to see and distinguish them all at once. And as you are doing that, if a bird sings or a bell tolls, or other noises occur, you hear and recognize each of them too, even though you haven't given rise to a single thought to do so. Everything in your life, from morning until night, proceeds in this same way, without your having to depend upon thought or reflection. But most people are unaware of that; they think everything is a result of their deliberation and discrimination. That's a great mistake. Anyone who tries to become enlightened thereby falls out of the Buddha-mind and into secondary matters. You are Buddhas to begin with. There's no way for you to become Buddhas now for the first time. Within this original mind, there isn't even a trace of illusion. When you clench your fists and run about, for example, that's the Unborn. If you harbor the least notion to become better than you are or the slightest inclination to seek something, you turn your back on the unborn.Yeah...I was nodding, nodding, nodding (agreeing this is all nicely put) until the very last highlighted in blue. Ah, I'm sure we've been through this territory before and yet, I still don't get it! By 'becoming better', improving, or seeking, we are in the process of maintenance of our lives and our surroundings (our individual kingdoms), and to a degree, I do 'get it' -- but I'd like to ask you for some examples so I for sure know what you mean. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2014 18:35:02 GMT -5
" ? looks are deceptive, but distinctions are real ?" There's not one word that doesn't embody an abstraction and in the final analysis, the degree of removal from what is abstracted isn't important, one way or the other. The prescriptions all point away from all abstraction. This post is directly related to several posts on page 14. With a few exceptions, any teaching has to originally come through the thinking-abstracting ego, knowledge in general of a different possible state. But this doesn't mean that there is any effort that ego can make whereby Bankei's unborn is shown, manifests. The ground of attention and awareness is the unborn, not ego. A baby is born with attention and awareness functioning, this shows the ground is there from the beginning. So awareness and attention are beyond being able to be conditioned. Ego arises as memories are created in the neural network of the brain. To the extent that ego manifests as abstractions of thought and feelings, ego is an abstraction and this is why in an earlier quote Anthony Damiani said that the source of ego is "the living dead". We experience attention and awareness every day, if they are beyond conditioning, why don't we experience freedom? The dead abstractions that constitute ego continually funnel attention and awareness, filter them through the narrow contents, capture and imprison, them. So Bankei and ZD and E are right, the unborn is already there, fully there, there is nothing ego can do bring the unborn. So, in a sense, ego is ~here~ and the unborn is ~there~. What can be done? How does one move from ~here~ to ~there~? E says nothing can be done. ZD says that most realized beings have done a lot of practice, but the practice is not what led to realization and he's not sure spiritual practice is necessary. Everywhere I have ever mentioned spiritual practice I was talking and am talking about working with attention and awareness, I usually say inner spiritual practice. So can ego make a conscious effort? By definition, no, ego continually holds captive our attention and awareness. So there isn't a way out because the way is already out. So the way is to separate out attention and awareness via various means such as ATAMT. This is called a conscious effort because it isn't ego that is making the effort. From E's POV is isn't effort at all. I think ZD is on the fence. Quinn says that at least in the beginning, it is an effort. I can let my attention be captured by the empty associative chain of thoughts, daydreaming, when I am standing in line in the grocery store, IOW, I can be a zombie, then, or I can be present by being aware of myself standing in line, become more conscious by taking back my attention from the associative chain of thoughts. Does this usually require thinking and remembering to make this effort (meaning ego can participate)? In the beginning, yes. Does this mean ego can make the actual effort? Never. The way out, is already out, but effort is necessary, conscious effort, effort from what's already out. Ego will always take the path of least resistance, ego will never move outside itself, to me that's what effortlessness means. So yes, there is a means from ~here~ to ~there~, working directly with one's attention and awareness. My attention can be passive and therefore captured by ego or my attention can be active. sdp To be clear, what I called effortless was realization itself. The question about whether or not effort is required to get to a place where realization can effortlessly happen, is complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 12, 2014 18:43:06 GMT -5
I think what he's saying is that you're conditioned to "move against conditioned behaviors" (if you do), so really the meditating is more conditioning. Yeah, I agreed meditating is more conditioning. He said "nothing moves against conditioning" - it's an appearance because it's conditioning and conditioning. I don't buy that, I think it's mixing contexts. If we're talking about conditioning, we're talking from within the story. I don't quite follow that, so I'll leave yous guys to discuss it. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Aug 12, 2014 18:51:42 GMT -5
To be clear, what I called effortless was realization itself. The question about whether or not effort is required to get to a place where realization can effortlessly happen, is complicated.This is what I thought we were talking about! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 12, 2014 20:26:49 GMT -5
To be clear, what I called effortless was realization itself. The question about whether or not effort is required to get to a place where realization can effortlessly happen, is complicated.This is what I thought we were talking about! Yea........it's an enigma....... sdp |
|
