|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 10, 2016 9:17:07 GMT -5
There are a million different paths to the truth--mantra recitation, inquiry, ATA-T, shikan taza, questioning the validity of one's thoughts, contemplation of existential questions (koans), etc. I suspect that most people on this path pursue many different forms of meditation or inquiry before settling on a particular approach that they resonate most strongly with.
As Quinn notes, almost all paths involve an exploration of mind and how it functions. All meditators immediately encounter what is called "monkey mind"--thoughts jumping around uncontrollably--, and discover that they have been "living in their heads." As insights occur, previously unconscious conditioned thought processes become progressively brought into the light of consciousness and seen for what they are and what they do. One discovers that in the past one unconsciously responded to an illusory meta-reality cognitively generated by the intellect rather than responding to what is always here and now--THIS.
As one "progresses" on the pathless path, one begins to leave both the past and future behind and become attentive to what is NOW. This involves a fundamental shift away from intellectual reflection to direct seeing and direct interaction with "what is."
The path does not involve killing the mind/intellect as much as it involves giving less and less attention to the mind until it assumes its rightful function as a servant rather than as a master. The path ultimately leads to freedom from the dominance of mind.
The most fundamental realizations that occur on the path are (1) the realization that all separateness is an illusion, and that the cosmos is an incomprehensibly-intelligent, infinite, unified, living, whole, and (2) the realization that personal selfhood is a cognitively-generated fiction.
Jesus said, "I and my Father are One." Kabir said, "Behold, but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." The Buddha said, "In all the universe there is only One." Niz said, "I am THAT." Anyone who finds what these people found will have discovered the most important thing that can ever be discovered. The ultimate goal of all seekers, whether they know it or not, is to find THAT.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 9:34:51 GMT -5
In essence, reactivity is the impurity, though that's overly simplistic. It's just that a person can quite easily notice their reactive nature, and it is practical to speak of identifiable things. I think the Buddhist discourse describes it quite well by saying this reactions (craving/aversion) create a mark or an impression on the mind (called a 'sankara'), which in Tolle's terminology, collectively construct 'the pain body'. I'm mixing metaphors there, but you can tell, the reaction is to sensation, implying it comes after the experience itself, an therefore is chronologically productive, which implies movement through time, which implies karma. Simply put, the entity 'me' which has duration is the illusion endemic to reactivity, and every blind reaction serves to affirm this self oriented entity. When reaction ceases, this entity is not gone, as it were, it just stops being constructed and the old psychic energy which forms it burns off. This can be felt through in body as its tensions and aches and pains dissolve and melt away. This pleasure of 'dissolving' (I'll call it) usually results in some clingy desire reactivity, and that whole issue of 'wanting more' then also affirms the ego. Any person beginning meditation can start to see this habitual reaction in their first 5 minutes, but because most meditation teaching incorporate some sort of volitional element such as counting breath, mantra, visualisations or whatever, the person, begins to use these sorts of distractions purposely, which is what they are doing anyway in day to day life unconsciously. The cessation occurs because you become consciously aware of what you have been doing. It's like, 'wow, now I see what I've been doing all this time'. This we refer to as 'insight', to realise this cause of unrest, which is self generated, that we know as misery. Of course, once realised, it can't occur unnoticed anymore, so you stop doing it. Who would knowingly create their own misery? The process of sitting isn't altogether pleasant, and within a short time discomfort or an itch or a bead of sweat will come up, and the meditator gets 'distracted'. This is really reaction occurring. They lose the peace of mind, call it 'distracting', and blame it on the sensation, but in fact, that person is generating their own unrest, but they don't know it is not the itch that is distraction, but their reaction to it. Such sensations are of marginal interest as curiosities to me, like, 'this is intense', and because I have no reaction, I don't mind if it is there or not there, I am not distracted or disturbed. It soon goes away as something else arises. This is a mild feeling, so it's easy peasy, but there are more extreme sensations, and at some stage reactivity starts to become very pronounced and it won't let up just because you notice it, and a kind of egomania is experienced as deeper distress - the person reached their limitation and loses the balance of mind - so we see the link between the physical phenomena and the psychological dilemma, and that is good insight. Still, since this is realised, that person became aware, and the balance of mind thereby becomes a little more stable. By being more stable it can endure more extremes without being disturbed, and the meditator becomes aware on a yet deeper level. The emotional dimension is playing out simultaneously, as it is behind the sensational manifestation. One starts to learn how to be in peace while severe emotional storms blow all around them in the mind. They cannot affect you anymore, you no longer react, and the psychic energy that has maintained that trauma all this time is no longer given, the issue passes finally, and is resolved completely and forever! This frees things up. The emotional content is resolved, so the (manifestation in the) body loosens up, and the previously solid, hard, painful things become subtle and dynamic - but that's not the purpose. This usually brings up the other side of the balance coin which deals in issues not of aversion, but clinging and desire. To get past this issue of wanting it to last and wanting more is a doozy... but I think if we understand the fundamental nature of our awareness as this pure equanimity, we can be at least somewhat conscious of more subtle craven reactions and not fall into abject lust for some sorts of 'special experiences'. If the attention is to balance, presence or whatever you like to call it, and not to the experiential pursuit, you get a thing, like E' man mentions, 'it's not an experience'. Ok, thanks - an unfolding process of stabilizing into equanimity. I see a lot of value in the 'sensation' approach. My inquiry process was more mind-centered. I can come to the same realization (that I generate my own unrest), but through a logical or common-sense route, by noticing that the same experience brings one person pain while another is neutral about it, so the experience itself cannot be the culprit. What this mind-centered inquiry misses, though, is the entanglement of emotions and thoughts and the effect they have on each other (body/mind). A stuck place. The mind might get it while the body's still in the dark ages. So one way of looking at Awareness is as pure equanimity, while another way is as pure emptiness. One asks for balance and the other for 'nakedness'. Both are a stripping away, though. I don't know what to say about awareness, so whatever description is good enough. The way I went through it was into the mind at first, but then I came back to look through the body, and that's how I learned about the whole lifeform from the depth of awareness right through to the physical expression. I have seen a number of people who go deep in the mind, but are still pretty unstable on the physical level because they lose awareness of body, rather than bring awareness to it. To me, self awareness isn't some "I Am" mystic thing, it's just being aware of what's going on with my own mind/body all the time. Sometimes I lose it and become disrtacted by the world of noise and appearances ad lose awareness if my own self, which is when I get sucked in to the trivialities, but I realise before long, and I correct myself by understanding that losing awareness of yourself, and by 'yourself' I only mean the body/mind sensation, means you don't what you're actually responding to, which is not the appearing world per se, but the sensation of its production. When I come back to answering directly to an from by own body feeling, that's when I'm tuned in to what's actually going on. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 10:01:06 GMT -5
There are a million different paths to the truth--mantra recitation, inquiry, ATA-T, shikan taza, questioning the validity of one's thoughts, contemplation of existential questions (koans), etc. I suspect that most people on this path pursue many different forms of meditation or inquiry before settling on a particular approach that they resonate most strongly with. As Quinn notes, almost all paths involve an exploration of mind and how it functions. All meditators immediately encounter what is called "monkey mind"--thoughts jumping around uncontrollably--, and discover that they have been "living in their heads." As insights occur, previously unconscious conditioned thought processes become progressively brought into the light of consciousness and seen for what they are and what they do. One discovers that in the past one unconsciously responded to an illusory meta-reality cognitively generated by the intellect rather than responding to what is always here and now--THIS. As one "progresses" on the pathless path, one begins to leave both the past and future behind and become attentive to what is NOW. This involves a fundamental shift away from intellectual reflection to direct seeing and direct interaction with "what is." The path does not involve killing the mind/intellect as much as it involves giving less and less attention to the mind until it assumes its rightful function as a servant rather than as a master. The path ultimately leads to freedom from the dominance of mind. The most fundamental realizations that occur on the path are (1) the realization that all separateness is an illusion, and that the cosmos is an incomprehensibly-intelligent, infinite, unified, living, whole, and (2) the realization that personal selfhood is a cognitively-generated fiction. Jesus said, "I and my Father are One." Kabir said, "Behold, but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." The Buddha said, "In all the universe there is only One." Niz said, "I am THAT." Anyone who finds what these people found will have discovered the most important thing that can ever be discovered. The ultimate goal of all seekers, whether they know it or not, is to find THAT. I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitioal 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. |
|
|
|
Post by quinn on Oct 10, 2016 10:21:14 GMT -5
There are a million different paths to the truth--mantra recitation, inquiry, ATA-T, shikan taza, questioning the validity of one's thoughts, contemplation of existential questions (koans), etc. I suspect that most people on this path pursue many different forms of meditation or inquiry before settling on a particular approach that they resonate most strongly with. As Quinn notes, almost all paths involve an exploration of mind and how it functions. All meditators immediately encounter what is called "monkey mind"--thoughts jumping around uncontrollably--, and discover that they have been "living in their heads." As insights occur, previously unconscious conditioned thought processes become progressively brought into the light of consciousness and seen for what they are and what they do. One discovers that in the past one unconsciously responded to an illusory meta-reality cognitively generated by the intellect rather than responding to what is always here and now--THIS. As one "progresses" on the pathless path, one begins to leave both the past and future behind and become attentive to what is NOW. This involves a fundamental shift away from intellectual reflection to direct seeing and direct interaction with "what is." The path does not involve killing the mind/intellect as much as it involves giving less and less attention to the mind until it assumes its rightful function as a servant rather than as a master. The path ultimately leads to freedom from the dominance of mind. The most fundamental realizations that occur on the path are (1) the realization that all separateness is an illusion, and that the cosmos is an incomprehensibly-intelligent, infinite, unified, living, whole, and (2) the realization that personal selfhood is a cognitively-generated fiction. Jesus said, "I and my Father are One." Kabir said, "Behold, but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." The Buddha said, "In all the universe there is only One." Niz said, "I am THAT." Anyone who finds what these people found will have discovered the most important thing that can ever be discovered. The ultimate goal of all seekers, whether they know it or not, is to find THAT. I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitioal 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter. 'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 10:43:20 GMT -5
I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitioal 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter. 'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. A person can notice what is as soon as they start looking, and they can't start to look at 'what is' until they stop making it 'as they want it to be'. It's easy to experiment by just noticing 'what is' spontaneously arising in the mind, and then start a mantra or visualising, upon which you find you can longer be conscious of the spontaneously occurring mind , as 'it is'. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 10, 2016 11:47:24 GMT -5
I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitioal 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter. 'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Perhaps I should have written that all of these methods "can" lead to the truth. However, I stated it without inserting the word "can" because I know of specific individuals who were successful in their search for truth following all of the different paths I mentioned. This doesn't mean that a particular path that "worked" for one person will work for another person, or that a particular path will inexorably lead to the truth because that is clearly not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are lots of different practices and approaches, and it doesn't make sense to get hung up on any particular approach as being the only "correct" approach. Many Zen Masters have awakened using the practice of shikan taza. Many Tibetan Buddhist masters have awakened using mantra recitation. Ramana woke up using self inquiry. Niz woke up by remaining in the sense of "I am." ATA-T (noticing "what is") led to freedom for this body/mind. Byron Katie questioned the validity of her thoughts and found freedom. Furthermore, some people wake up spontaneously "right out of the blue" as though struck by lightning even though they never consciously pursued any kind of path. Gary Weber's advice to seekers can be summed up as, "Try a lot of different practices and find out which ones you resonate with," and that advice makes sense to me. Volition usually continues to be imagined until after SR occurs. A person thinks, "I am doing thus and so because I think it will lead me to enlightenment or Self-realization." Upon SR, however, the imagined seeker who was imagined to have been exerting volition is realized to have been an illusion, so the body/mind no longer imagines itself as a personal entity who had ever done anything or ever chose to do anything. Something bigger is then seen as the only real actor on the stage. This is why sages (who may have practiced some form of meditation for many years) often say upon awakening, "I never did anything." What they mean is that who they previously THOUGHT they were never did anything. The "little self" simply disappears as an actor. This allows the body/mind to relax and be at peace with "what is." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 10, 2016 12:59:56 GMT -5
I understand what you are describing as inquiry but it's not at all what Ramana meant. It's worth making what I think is an important point. In Nam Yar (tamil for Who am I) Ramana described inquiry as going to the source and he put it within the context of a question and answer format. He said that when a thought arises it arises to whom? The answer must be that it arises to me. That then poses the question who am I? There is no answer except to return to the source of the thought. Now this has been widely misunderstood to the extent that many take this question, who am I, and subject it to the kind of analysis you speak of here. I don't know if you appreciate the difference, perhaps you can clarify, but what Ramana meant was that by determining a thought arises and then asking who am I, it was not meant to be actually phrased as a question and thought about mentally but he put it like that to demonstrate in the best way he thought it could be articulated that this question who am I was a turning back to awareness. THAT IS ALL. He had to describe this turning back so he did it in the form of an unanswerable question which creates a gap of silence. But because who am I can also be interepreted as something conceptual this is where the confusion can creep in. Yes, I agree confusion can creep in and people can spend a lifetime mired in the kind of inquiry I described. Or it can facilitate uncovering enough space to move into the deeper inquiry Ramana refers to. Either is possible, which is why it's good to have a clear teacher. The flip side is that when mind is still dominant, the unanswerable question of Who Am I? can be usurped by it and get answered. Mind can create whole universes, it's quite easy for it to create the illusion of 'emptiness' or 'enlightenment'. For me, it was very important to realize the nature of thoughts before sitting down to the type of inquiry Ramana describes. Not just intellectually, but completely and thoroughly. That's when a true silence is accessible. To quote Max, "your mileage may vary". quinn moves to head of class.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 13:26:26 GMT -5
There are a million different paths to the truth--mantra recitation, inquiry, ATA-T, shikan taza, questioning the validity of one's thoughts, contemplation of existential questions (koans), etc. I suspect that most people on this path pursue many different forms of meditation or inquiry before settling on a particular approach that they resonate most strongly with. As Quinn notes, almost all paths involve an exploration of mind and how it functions. All meditators immediately encounter what is called "monkey mind"--thoughts jumping around uncontrollably--, and discover that they have been "living in their heads." As insights occur, previously unconscious conditioned thought processes become progressively brought into the light of consciousness and seen for what they are and what they do. One discovers that in the past one unconsciously responded to an illusory meta-reality cognitively generated by the intellect rather than responding to what is always here and now--THIS. As one "progresses" on the pathless path, one begins to leave both the past and future behind and become attentive to what is NOW. This involves a fundamental shift away from intellectual reflection to direct seeing and direct interaction with "what is." The path does not involve killing the mind/intellect as much as it involves giving less and less attention to the mind until it assumes its rightful function as a servant rather than as a master. The path ultimately leads to freedom from the dominance of mind. The most fundamental realizations that occur on the path are (1) the realization that all separateness is an illusion, and that the cosmos is an incomprehensibly-intelligent, infinite, unified, living, whole, and (2) the realization that personal selfhood is a cognitively-generated fiction. Jesus said, "I and my Father are One." Kabir said, "Behold, but One in all things; it is the second that leads you astray." The Buddha said, "In all the universe there is only One." Niz said, "I am THAT." Anyone who finds what these people found will have discovered the most important thing that can ever be discovered. The ultimate goal of all seekers, whether they know it or not, is to find THAT. I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitional 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. Is this volition that is 'making something happen', ever actually 'making something happen'? If we're talking about the intrinsic joy of happenings aligning and coming together beautifully.. flowing into one another spontaneously and seamlessly.. then it will be proven time and time again.. that volition never does as good a job as the lightest of knowing that is non-volition at its' most integral. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 14:01:00 GMT -5
I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter. 'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Perhaps I should have written that all of these methods "can" lead to the truth. However, I stated it without inserting the word "can" because I know of specific individuals who were successful in their search for truth following all of the different paths I mentioned. This doesn't mean that a particular path that "worked" for one person will work for another person, or that a particular path will inexorably lead to the truth because that is clearly not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are lots of different practices and approaches, and it doesn't make sense to get hung up on any particular approach as being the only "correct" approach. Many Zen Masters have awakened using the practice of shikan taza. Many Tibetan Buddhist masters have awakened using mantra recitation. Ramana woke up using self inquiry. Niz woke up by remaining in the sense of "I am." ATA-T (noticing "what is") led to freedom for this body/mind. Byron Katie questioned the validity of her thoughts and found freedom. Furthermore, some people wake up spontaneously "right out of the blue" as though struck by lightning even though they never consciously pursued any kind of path. Gary Weber's advice to seekers can be summed up as, "Try a lot of different practices and find out which ones you resonate with," and that advice makes sense to me. Volition usually continues to be imagined until after SR occurs. A person thinks, "I am doing thus and so because I think it will lead me to enlightenment or Self-realization." Upon SR, however, the imagined seeker who was imagined to have been exerting volition is realized to have been an illusion, so the body/mind no longer imagines itself as a personal entity who had ever done anything or ever chose to do anything. Something bigger is then seen as the only real actor on the stage. This is why sages (who may have practiced some form of meditation for many years) often say upon awakening, "I never did anything." What they mean is that who they previously THOUGHT they were never did anything. The "little self" simply disappears as an actor. This allows the body/mind to relax and be at peace with "what is." Pilgrims please read the last paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 10, 2016 15:38:19 GMT -5
Perhaps I should have written that all of these methods "can" lead to the truth. However, I stated it without inserting the word "can" because I know of specific individuals who were successful in their search for truth following all of the different paths I mentioned. This doesn't mean that a particular path that "worked" for one person will work for another person, or that a particular path will inexorably lead to the truth because that is clearly not the case. I was simply pointing out that there are lots of different practices and approaches, and it doesn't make sense to get hung up on any particular approach as being the only "correct" approach. Many Zen Masters have awakened using the practice of shikan taza. Many Tibetan Buddhist masters have awakened using mantra recitation. Ramana woke up using self inquiry. Niz woke up by remaining in the sense of "I am." ATA-T (noticing "what is") led to freedom for this body/mind. Byron Katie questioned the validity of her thoughts and found freedom. Furthermore, some people wake up spontaneously "right out of the blue" as though struck by lightning even though they never consciously pursued any kind of path. Gary Weber's advice to seekers can be summed up as, "Try a lot of different practices and find out which ones you resonate with," and that advice makes sense to me. Volition usually continues to be imagined until after SR occurs. A person thinks, "I am doing thus and so because I think it will lead me to enlightenment or Self-realization." Upon SR, however, the imagined seeker who was imagined to have been exerting volition is realized to have been an illusion, so the body/mind no longer imagines itself as a personal entity who had ever done anything or ever chose to do anything. Something bigger is then seen as the only real actor on the stage. This is why sages (who may have practiced some form of meditation for many years) often say upon awakening, "I never did anything." What they mean is that who they previously THOUGHT they were never did anything. The "little self" simply disappears as an actor. This allows the body/mind to relax and be at peace with "what is." Pilgrims please read the last paragraph. I agree with the last paragraph. The little self is never the actor. The little self is nothing but an obstruction. But being an obstruction does not mean little self is nothing. An obstruction is sonething. Volition is what overcomes the obstruction, but it doesn't come from little self. (Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 10, 2016 18:25:42 GMT -5
Pilgrims please read the last paragraph. I agree with the last paragraph. The little self is never the actor. The little self is nothing but an obstruction. But being an obstruction does not mean little self is nothing. An obstruction is sonething. Volition is what overcomes the obstruction, but it doesn't come from little self. (Bearing in mind, speaking from my POV, not ZD's). I agree that what we call "volition" does not come from little self because little self is wholly imaginary. I conceive of little self as a thought structure because it is solely composed of thoughts. As Adya says, "The ego is impossible to find because it does not exist. Its only existence is in our thoughts about it." If there is no thinking, personal selfhood vanishes, and when the thought structure or patterns of thought related to selfhood collapse, SR is the result. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 19:58:49 GMT -5
I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitional 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. Is this volition that is 'making something happen', ever actually 'making something happen'? If we're talking about the intrinsic joy of happenings aligning and coming together beautifully.. flowing into one another spontaneously and seamlessly.. then it will be proven time and time again.. that volition never does as good a job as the lightest of knowing that is non-volition at its' most integral. "Volition" : You notice what is and then you start doing. Eg, you notice your mindstream (which has no mantra in it) and then you imagine a mantra, visualisation, counting whatever. Example, you notice your breath, and then, you start to control it. There are clear similiarities between volition and reaction. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 10, 2016 22:32:41 GMT -5
I don't agree that all these 'methods' lead to truth. I fact, I claim they have to cease because one can not look at 'what is' while making it 'as they want it to be'. The 'golden key' is cessation of volition, and I define volition as 'making something happen' as opposed to non-volitioal 'noticing what is'. I'm not the only cat who makes this claim either. My guess is all the big name teachers would have said it. I'm sure it's central Buddha's teaching, at least. I don't think there's anything else apart from that, cessation of volition is cessation of reaction, is equanimity of the mind, is the way. I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter.
'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 10, 2016 23:31:37 GMT -5
I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter.
'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. It is true that something like a bodily sensation can be noticed spontaneously without volition. It's more likely it will be noticed if it becomes dominant. If you are walking and sprain your ankle you will certainly notice the excruciating pain. You don't require volition. But if you turn noticing into a practice then in order to sustain the noticing there will certainly have to be an intention to do so. I call that volition. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 10, 2016 23:37:17 GMT -5
I didn't read what ZD wrote as "all of these methods lead to truth". I read it as these methods can lead to freedom from the dominance of mind. And people will tend to gravitate to the ones that resonate with them. I'd add here that that may not be the one that leads to truth, per se, but will tend to lead where the person's intention wants to go. Which can be an entirely different matter.
'Noticing what is' is what happens after mind is no longer dominant. Seems to me a common experience to "notice what is" intermittently while mind is still dominant. I mean by 'what is', noticing the 'dominance' of mind, if that's indeed the case. It might be realised like "wow, I never noticed my thoughts dominate me so much". That's what I refer to as an 'insight', becoming conscious of what previously went by unknown. |
|
