|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 25, 2017 13:35:11 GMT -5
Coming into alignment would be letting whatever arises, arise, and pass, without spinning it further with resistance/nonacceptance. So flow would be a state of equanimity. I'm seeing the buddhist gradualist approach of developing equanimity (also other 'abodes' -- compassion, sympathetic joy, loving kindness) as being similar to this alignment thingy. SR would be equivalent to Nirvana, a realization of no-self, cessation of dukkha (existential suffering). May or may not happen (perhaps gradualist approach creates conditions/ripens fruit/ for "accident" to happen). And I can imagine how -- post-Nirvana/SR --equanimity, etc. would be much easier to develop without a v-ger type of distraction/fuel. What am I missing here? What we call a flow is a subtle experience of movement without any solidity, and this isn't the condition we call equanimity. 'Equanimity' refers to a state of pure awareness, and all that means being consciously aware without any reactivity - such as resistance, which you mention. That means, even when the experience is hard and solid replete with lumps blocking everything up, the person observes - 'this is the truth of the experience, as it is, as I experience it' - without accepting it, rejecting it, allowing it, resisting it. The mere, banal noticing of the experience is all that it is. The development of equanimity in itself, as an intention raised from the desire for it, is impossible, for said desire is antithetical to equanimity. Rather if such desire should arise, one is conscious of it, and the nature of its objects. In essence, that which we call 'ego' is none other than a ball of reactivity, and self awareness in this regard is precisely setting the gaze on the ego. When the reactivity/activity comes to cessation, that's regarded as no-self. We often see people make claims of enlightenment, but then we see them behave in quite a reactive way, so we can tell they haven't really come to complete dissolution, and as long as these volitions continue a being will continue the rebirth cycle - as reactivity is the psychic energy which perpetuates an 'ego in time'. Upon the cessation of volition, time ceases. Of course the mind will now raise up in desire and want to know how to make the volition stop, but this arising is the volition, so one is conscious of such arisings, and the 'ego' simply can not slip by unawares. Yea I don't think of equanimity as something to be developed either, per se. It's a byproduct of letting stuff arise and pass away, which only comes from the perspective of awareness (rather than the perspective of being involved, or.) For example, instead of reacting from a place of irritation, just being aware of how the irritation is manifest in the body. Just sitting with it, so to speak, and letting the life of it come and go. I'd categorize that 'letting ... come and go' as a doing. Practiceable. And if I get you, that requires volition. ZD also referred to that too. Basically, it's on the seekers side of the fence. I'm tempted to guess that, post-SR/Nirvana, this whole thing is moot, as irritation doesn't really even arise. But then again I think of the humble Ramana having a fit over errant kitchen practices, or Niz putting an eye out with a sharply aimed searing beedie (word has it that he tallied his eyeball strikes on bedroom closet door), or the iconic angry buddha faces. In other words, there seem to be examples of irritation, howsoever transient and momentary, arising and passing even among the almost always equanimous.
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Jul 25, 2017 13:45:46 GMT -5
Coming into alignment would be letting whatever arises, arise, and pass, without spinning it further with resistance/nonacceptance. So flow would be a state of equanimity. I'm seeing the buddhist gradualist approach of developing equanimity (also other 'abodes' -- compassion, sympathetic joy, loving kindness) as being similar to this alignment thingy. SR would be equivalent to Nirvana, a realization of no-self, cessation of dukkha (existential suffering). May or may not happen (perhaps gradualist approach creates conditions/ripens fruit/ for "accident" to happen). And I can imagine how -- post-Nirvana/SR --equanimity, etc. would be much easier to develop without a v-ger type of distraction/fuel. What am I missing here? That seems likely with a few caveats. When a person practices something--being present, loving kindness, acceptance of what is, being silent, etc.--, s/he usually does so under the assumption that s/he is a person volitionally doing something in order to attain something. SR dispels that illusion. One sees, non-conceptually, that the conventional sense of personhood--"me"-- is an imaginary thought structure. S/he then realizes that that which sees, hears, feels, thinks, etc. is the entire process of reality--the Infinite-- manifesting through a particular body/mind. As far as I know, this is the only event that can lead to lasting equanimity. IOW, I don't think that lasting equanimity can be developed; it simply happens as a result of seeing the big picture. There can be transient equanimity prior to SR, but as long as one believes that s/he is a volitional entity, permanent equanimity is probably not possible. ITSW, many people have experienced flow as a transient experience, but a permanent state of flow seems to be dependent upon SR. Another factor that may play a part in this is the degree of one's internal silence, but that's a subject for a future discussion. My understanding of the eightfold path, for example, is that it is a practice where one of the byproducts is equanimity (along with the other 'sublime abodes'). That's how it has seemed to work for me. Just a continual practice of bringing attention back to breath (or whatever other set of sensations dujour), leads to an appreciation of impermanence. Oh yea, stuff just comes and goes. All stuff. And so that perspective permeates the rest of life, not just sitting practice. But it's not like equanimity is directly practiced. And I get what you're saying re transient vs. lasting equanimity. I'm guessing also that equanimity is on a spectrum and is a characteristic more inherent for certain personality types. In other words, my foray into mindfulness/ATA-T strengthened an already existing aspect of a personality I was pretty much born with (judging from my siblings).
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 25, 2017 14:57:53 GMT -5
What we call a flow is a subtle experience of movement without any solidity, and this isn't the condition we call equanimity. 'Equanimity' refers to a state of pure awareness, and all that means being consciously aware without any reactivity - such as resistance, which you mention. That means, even when the experience is hard and solid replete with lumps blocking everything up, the person observes - 'this is the truth of the experience, as it is, as I experience it' - without accepting it, rejecting it, allowing it, resisting it. The mere, banal noticing of the experience is all that it is. The development of equanimity in itself, as an intention raised from the desire for it, is impossible, for said desire is antithetical to equanimity. Rather if such desire should arise, one is conscious of it, and the nature of its objects. In essence, that which we call 'ego' is none other than a ball of reactivity, and self awareness in this regard is precisely setting the gaze on the ego. When the reactivity/activity comes to cessation, that's regarded as no-self. We often see people make claims of enlightenment, but then we see them behave in quite a reactive way, so we can tell they haven't really come to complete dissolution, and as long as these volitions continue a being will continue the rebirth cycle - as reactivity is the psychic energy which perpetuates an 'ego in time'. Upon the cessation of volition, time ceases. Of course the mind will now raise up in desire and want to know how to make the volition stop, but this arising is the volition, so one is conscious of such arisings, and the 'ego' simply can not slip by unawares. Yea I don't think of equanimity as something to be developed either, per se. It's a byproduct of letting stuff arise and pass away, which only comes from the perspective of awareness (rather than the perspective of being involved, or.) For example, instead of reacting from a place of irritation, just being aware of how the irritation is manifest in the body. Just sitting with it, so to speak, and letting the life of it come and go. I'd categorize that 'letting ... come and go' as a doing. Practiceable. And if I get you, that requires volition. ZD also referred to that too. Basically, it's on the seekers side of the fence. I'm tempted to guess that, post-SR/Nirvana, this whole thing is moot, as irritation doesn't really even arise. But then again I think of the humble Ramana having a fit over errant kitchen practices, or Niz putting an eye out with a sharply aimed searing beedie (word has it that he tallied his eyeball strikes on bedroom closet door), or the iconic angry buddha faces. In other words, there seem to be examples of irritation, howsoever transient and momentary, arising and passing even among the almost always equanimous. Actually, irritation, frustration, and anger can still arise, but they are short-lived and do not affect the underlying equanimity or sense of flow. Post SR, everything is much like before, but one has seen the big picture, and one does not forget what was seen. The body/mind lives in the NOW, and responds to whatever is happening however it responds. Everything in the past is forgotten in the flow of the moment, but upon reflection one knows that Source is the source of whatever is happening.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 26, 2017 10:25:26 GMT -5
That seems likely with a few caveats. When a person practices something--being present, loving kindness, acceptance of what is, being silent, etc.--, s/he usually does so under the assumption that s/he is a person volitionally doing something in order to attain something. SR dispels that illusion. One sees, non-conceptually, that the conventional sense of personhood--"me"-- is an imaginary thought structure. S/he then realizes that that which sees, hears, feels, thinks, etc. is the entire process of reality--the Infinite-- manifesting through a particular body/mind. As far as I know, this is the only event that can lead to lasting equanimity. IOW, I don't think that lasting equanimity can be developed; it simply happens as a result of seeing the big picture. There can be transient equanimity prior to SR, but as long as one believes that s/he is a volitional entity, permanent equanimity is probably not possible. ITSW, many people have experienced flow as a transient experience, but a permanent state of flow seems to be dependent upon SR. Another factor that may play a part in this is the degree of one's internal silence, but that's a subject for a future discussion. My understanding of the eightfold path, for example, is that it is a practice where one of the byproducts is equanimity (along with the other 'sublime abodes'). That's how it has seemed to work for me. Just a continual practice of bringing attention back to breath (or whatever other set of sensations dujour), leads to an appreciation of impermanence. Oh yea, stuff just comes and goes. All stuff. And so that perspective permeates the rest of life, not just sitting practice. But it's not like equanimity is directly practiced. And I get what you're saying re transient vs. lasting equanimity. I'm guessing also that equanimity is on a spectrum and is a characteristic more inherent for certain personality types. In other words, my foray into mindfulness/ATA-T strengthened an already existing aspect of a personality I was pretty much born with (judging from my siblings). Yes, and I think that would be true for anyone who regularly practices some form of mindfulness. As I've noted in the past, meditative exercises reduced the stress that I felt sure was being caused by the internal dialogue. Of course, they also led to realizations and increased understanding as time went by. After one realizes that Source is the source of everything, the concept of "Source" only arises as a result of a forum like this or a conversation with someone interested in finding the truth. Concepts, in general, diminish in importance, and are understood as provisional--necessary for communication and useful within various contexts. IOW, there isn't a great deal of reflection about existential issues during everyday life because one stays primarily focused on whatever is happening in the moment. At my second Zen retreat, about 32 years ago, the dharma teacher in charge of the retreat talked to the attendees about spending a day putting up roof rafters (he was a carpenter) and only reflecting about his work or conceptually judging it at the end of the day. He said something like, "The day was timeless, and I was surprised when I realized that it was time to quit and go home." Without being explicit he was pointing to the kind of samadhi that we've discussed on the forum, and he was implying that living in the flow of life, without reflection, was a "better" way of life than living in one's head. At the end of his talk, someone in the audience asked him, "Is that the point of Zen--getting so lost in one's work that one remains oblivious to the world?" Haha! That was a great question, but the teacher responded by changing the subject somewhat and discussing something else. it was obvious to me, and probably some other people who were there, that he didn't know how to answer the question. The student had actually posed an informal koan about everyday life, but because of the way it was phrased, the teacher didn't catch it. I never forgot that exchange, and I often wondered how the teacher should have responded. One day about a year ago I was driving along when I remembered that dialogue, and it suddenly occurred to me what the teacher should have said.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 26, 2017 17:32:55 GMT -5
My understanding of the eightfold path, for example, is that it is a practice where one of the byproducts is equanimity (along with the other 'sublime abodes'). That's how it has seemed to work for me. Just a continual practice of bringing attention back to breath (or whatever other set of sensations dujour), leads to an appreciation of impermanence. Oh yea, stuff just comes and goes. All stuff. And so that perspective permeates the rest of life, not just sitting practice. But it's not like equanimity is directly practiced. And I get what you're saying re transient vs. lasting equanimity. I'm guessing also that equanimity is on a spectrum and is a characteristic more inherent for certain personality types. In other words, my foray into mindfulness/ATA-T strengthened an already existing aspect of a personality I was pretty much born with (judging from my siblings). Yes, and I think that would be true for anyone who regularly practices some form of mindfulness. As I've noted in the past, meditative exercises reduced the stress that I felt sure was being caused by the internal dialogue. Of course, they also led to realizations and increased understanding as time went by. After one realizes that Source is the source of everything, the concept of "Source" only arises as a result of a forum like this or a conversation with someone interested in finding the truth. Concepts, in general, diminish in importance, and are understood as provisional--necessary for communication and useful within various contexts. IOW, there isn't a great deal of reflection about existential issues during everyday life because one stays primarily focused on whatever is happening in the moment. At my second Zen retreat, about 32 years ago, the dharma teacher in charge of the retreat talked to the attendees about spending a day putting up roof rafters (he was a carpenter) and only reflecting about his work or conceptually judging it at the end of the day. He said something like, "The day was timeless, and I was surprised when I realized that it was time to quit and go home." Without being explicit he was pointing to the kind of samadhi that we've discussed on the forum, and he was implying that living in the flow of life, without reflection, was a "better" way of life than living in one's head. At the end of his talk, someone in the audience asked him, "Is that the point of Zen--getting so lost in one's work that one remains oblivious to the world?" Haha! That was a great question, but the teacher responded by changing the subject somewhat and discussing something else. it was obvious to me, and probably some other people who were there, that he didn't know how to answer the question. The student had actually posed an informal koan about everyday life, but because of the way it was phrased, the teacher didn't catch it. I never forgot that exchange, and I often wondered how the teacher should have responded. One day about a year ago I was driving along when I remembered that dialogue, and it suddenly occurred to me what the teacher should have said. I'm not interested in unconscious flow. It seems the flow discussed here is an absence of self-reference, that is, no internal dialogue. I can agree with that. However, the Zen carpenter seemed to have been in a kind of unconscious flow state. For this kind of state it seems one has to have virtually perfected a skill to such an extent that the mind-body's muscle memory can perform the act (whatever it is, an NBA superstar "in the zone", a bricklayer, a sheet-rock hanger, a bowler, a hiker, a runner, etc., etc., etc.) without the interference of abstract thinking, like after having learned to drive a straight-drive, hands and feet just know what to do, and most simply I guess, just walking. I'm interested in a conscious flow state, where a carpenter would be aware of every nail driven, every board measured without the "golden rule playing in the head", measure twice, cut once. Time likewise flows very quickly, that is, one is not "watching the clock, as in "time flies fast when you're having fun". There is an interesting experiment one can make. A cool place to do it is at a labyrinth, but you can do it anywhere, in your house even. Take one or two or three minutes to start. Decide not to step unless you are completely aware of the movements the body is making. See how far you get. Keep awareness present, no internal dialogue necessary, this is a kind of self-awareness (~~~~-awareness), not self-referential thinking. IMO that's how the Zen carpenter could have answered (hopefully he has learned this by now). Thinking (abstract thinking) and awareness, vastly different, almost infinitely different, two entirely different ~scales~ let's say. (And, BTW, a good teacher is vulnerable, not concerned with seeming foolish or not knowing an answer. But some questions are avoided to make the student work for the answer. But I trust in this case you had the correct assessment).
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 26, 2017 20:57:09 GMT -5
What we call a flow is a subtle experience of movement without any solidity, and this isn't the condition we call equanimity. 'Equanimity' refers to a state of pure awareness, and all that means being consciously aware without any reactivity - such as resistance, which you mention. That means, even when the experience is hard and solid replete with lumps blocking everything up, the person observes - 'this is the truth of the experience, as it is, as I experience it' - without accepting it, rejecting it, allowing it, resisting it. The mere, banal noticing of the experience is all that it is. The development of equanimity in itself, as an intention raised from the desire for it, is impossible, for said desire is antithetical to equanimity. Rather if such desire should arise, one is conscious of it, and the nature of its objects. In essence, that which we call 'ego' is none other than a ball of reactivity, and self awareness in this regard is precisely setting the gaze on the ego. When the reactivity/activity comes to cessation, that's regarded as no-self. We often see people make claims of enlightenment, but then we see them behave in quite a reactive way, so we can tell they haven't really come to complete dissolution, and as long as these volitions continue a being will continue the rebirth cycle - as reactivity is the psychic energy which perpetuates an 'ego in time'. Upon the cessation of volition, time ceases. Of course the mind will now raise up in desire and want to know how to make the volition stop, but this arising is the volition, so one is conscious of such arisings, and the 'ego' simply can not slip by unawares. Yea I don't think of equanimity as something to be developed either, per se. It's a byproduct of letting stuff arise and pass away, which only comes from the perspective of awareness (rather than the perspective of being involved, or.) For example, instead of reacting from a place of irritation, just being aware of how the irritation is manifest in the body. Just sitting with it, so to speak, and letting the life of it come and go. I'd categorize that 'letting ... come and go' as a doing. Practiceable. And if I get you, that requires volition. ZD also referred to that too. Basically, it's on the seekers side of the fence. I'm tempted to guess that, post-SR/Nirvana, this whole thing is moot, as irritation doesn't really even arise. But then again I think of the humble Ramana having a fit over errant kitchen practices, or Niz putting an eye out with a sharply aimed searing beedie (word has it that he tallied his eyeball strikes on bedroom closet door), or the iconic angry buddha faces. In other words, there seem to be examples of irritation, howsoever transient and momentary, arising and passing even among the almost always equanimous. Yes, it is practicable, but more along the lines of being conscious of reactive doings, and ceasing to to that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 27, 2017 5:54:30 GMT -5
Yes, and I think that would be true for anyone who regularly practices some form of mindfulness. As I've noted in the past, meditative exercises reduced the stress that I felt sure was being caused by the internal dialogue. Of course, they also led to realizations and increased understanding as time went by. After one realizes that Source is the source of everything, the concept of "Source" only arises as a result of a forum like this or a conversation with someone interested in finding the truth. Concepts, in general, diminish in importance, and are understood as provisional--necessary for communication and useful within various contexts. IOW, there isn't a great deal of reflection about existential issues during everyday life because one stays primarily focused on whatever is happening in the moment. At my second Zen retreat, about 32 years ago, the dharma teacher in charge of the retreat talked to the attendees about spending a day putting up roof rafters (he was a carpenter) and only reflecting about his work or conceptually judging it at the end of the day. He said something like, "The day was timeless, and I was surprised when I realized that it was time to quit and go home." Without being explicit he was pointing to the kind of samadhi that we've discussed on the forum, and he was implying that living in the flow of life, without reflection, was a "better" way of life than living in one's head. At the end of his talk, someone in the audience asked him, "Is that the point of Zen--getting so lost in one's work that one remains oblivious to the world?" Haha! That was a great question, but the teacher responded by changing the subject somewhat and discussing something else. it was obvious to me, and probably some other people who were there, that he didn't know how to answer the question. The student had actually posed an informal koan about everyday life, but because of the way it was phrased, the teacher didn't catch it. I never forgot that exchange, and I often wondered how the teacher should have responded. One day about a year ago I was driving along when I remembered that dialogue, and it suddenly occurred to me what the teacher should have said. I'm not interested in unconscious flow. It seems the flow discussed here is an absence of self-reference, that is, no internal dialogue. I can agree with that. However, the Zen carpenter seemed to have been in a kind of unconscious flow state. For this kind of state it seems one has to have virtually perfected a skill to such an extent that the mind-body's muscle memory can perform the act (whatever it is, an NBA superstar "in the zone", a bricklayer, a sheet-rock hanger, a bowler, a hiker, a runner, etc., etc., etc.) without the interference of abstract thinking, like after having learned to drive a straight-drive, hands and feet just know what to do, and most simply I guess, just walking. I'm interested in a conscious flow state, where a carpenter would be aware of every nail driven, every board measured without the "golden rule playing in the head", measure twice, cut once. Time likewise flows very quickly, that is, one is not "watching the clock, as in "time flies fast when you're having fun". There is an interesting experiment one can make. A cool place to do it is at a labyrinth, but you can do it anywhere, in your house even. Take one or two or three minutes to start. Decide not to step unless you are completely aware of the movements the body is making. See how far you get. Keep awareness present, no internal dialogue necessary, this is a kind of self-awareness (____-awareness), not self-referential thinking. IMO that's how the Zen carpenter could have answered (hopefully he has learned this by now). Thinking (abstract thinking) and awareness, vastly different, almost infinitely different, two entirely different ~scales~ let's say. (And, BTW, a good teacher is vulnerable, not concerned with seeming foolish or not knowing an answer. But some questions are avoided to make the student work for the answer. But I trust in this case you had the correct assessment). Any programmer who's done a focused multi-hour marathon moving seamlessly between dozens of source files in a design/edit/test loop, as the code just seems to create itself, can relate to what the carpenter described. The experiences are different in that the physical movement involved in manual labor exercises the body, while the sedentary nature of the desk work leads to a different state. But the point is that this type of samadhi isn't dependent on abstract thought. There is a version of work flow that centers on abstract thought free of self-reference. And the products of it are ultimately just as palpable as any truss. Your old line of work is an excellent example of a middle ground between the carpenter and the programmer/analyst. We're at 180 degrees between one another on your use of the term conscious/unconscious. In my experience, the absence of self-reference isn't aptly associated with "unconsciousness". Rather, the opposite is true. States free of self-reference, with motion in the world, are grand opportunities to become conscious of the movements of mind as they happen, but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening. Self-reference centered on the senses forms the basis for a cognitive illusion of being a person in the world, other than that world, which, in turn, forms the basis for the consensus material trance. It's a very strange comment on the mystery of human life that some folks understand and accept this notion, but that understanding and acceptance isn't enough to free them from the illusion.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 27, 2017 6:03:28 GMT -5
My understanding of the eightfold path, for example, is that it is a practice where one of the byproducts is equanimity (along with the other 'sublime abodes'). That's how it has seemed to work for me. Just a continual practice of bringing attention back to breath (or whatever other set of sensations dujour), leads to an appreciation of impermanence. Oh yea, stuff just comes and goes. All stuff. And so that perspective permeates the rest of life, not just sitting practice. But it's not like equanimity is directly practiced. And I get what you're saying re transient vs. lasting equanimity. I'm guessing also that equanimity is on a spectrum and is a characteristic more inherent for certain personality types. In other words, my foray into mindfulness/ATA-T strengthened an already existing aspect of a personality I was pretty much born with (judging from my siblings). Yes, and I think that would be true for anyone who regularly practices some form of mindfulness. As I've noted in the past, meditative exercises reduced the stress that I felt sure was being caused by the internal dialogue. Of course, they also led to realizations and increased understanding as time went by. After one realizes that Source is the source of everything, the concept of "Source" only arises as a result of a forum like this or a conversation with someone interested in finding the truth. Concepts, in general, diminish in importance, and are understood as provisional--necessary for communication and useful within various contexts. IOW, there isn't a great deal of reflection about existential issues during everyday life because one stays primarily focused on whatever is happening in the moment. At my second Zen retreat, about 32 years ago, the dharma teacher in charge of the retreat talked to the attendees about spending a day putting up roof rafters (he was a carpenter) and only reflecting about his work or conceptually judging it at the end of the day. He said something like, "The day was timeless, and I was surprised when I realized that it was time to quit and go home." Without being explicit he was pointing to the kind of samadhi that we've discussed on the forum, and he was implying that living in the flow of life, without reflection, was a "better" way of life than living in one's head. At the end of his talk, someone in the audience asked him, "Is that the point of Zen--getting so lost in one's work that one remains oblivious to the world?" Haha! That was a great question, but the teacher responded by changing the subject somewhat and discussing something else. it was obvious to me, and probably some other people who were there, that he didn't know how to answer the question. The student had actually posed an informal koan about everyday life, but because of the way it was phrased, the teacher didn't catch it. I never forgot that exchange, and I often wondered how the teacher should have responded. One day about a year ago I was driving along when I remembered that dialogue, and it suddenly occurred to me what the teacher should have said. Yesterday at the lake the water was cold because it's gotten down to the high 40's at night up here this week. Sue went in first and called out about it. So I built a fire on the beach so she could get dry.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2017 8:17:31 GMT -5
I'm not interested in unconscious flow. It seems the flow discussed here is an absence of self-reference, that is, no internal dialogue. I can agree with that. However, the Zen carpenter seemed to have been in a kind of unconscious flow state. For this kind of state it seems one has to have virtually perfected a skill to such an extent that the mind-body's muscle memory can perform the act (whatever it is, an NBA superstar "in the zone", a bricklayer, a sheet-rock hanger, a bowler, a hiker, a runner, etc., etc., etc.) without the interference of abstract thinking, like after having learned to drive a straight-drive, hands and feet just know what to do, and most simply I guess, just walking. I'm interested in a conscious flow state, where a carpenter would be aware of every nail driven, every board measured without the "golden rule playing in the head", measure twice, cut once. Time likewise flows very quickly, that is, one is not "watching the clock, as in "time flies fast when you're having fun". There is an interesting experiment one can make. A cool place to do it is at a labyrinth, but you can do it anywhere, in your house even. Take one or two or three minutes to start. Decide not to step unless you are completely aware of the movements the body is making. See how far you get. Keep awareness present, no internal dialogue necessary, this is a kind of self-awareness (~~~~-awareness), not self-referential thinking. IMO that's how the Zen carpenter could have answered (hopefully he has learned this by now). Thinking (abstract thinking) and awareness, vastly different, almost infinitely different, two entirely different ~scales~ let's say. (And, BTW, a good teacher is vulnerable, not concerned with seeming foolish or not knowing an answer. But some questions are avoided to make the student work for the answer. But I trust in this case you had the correct assessment). Any programmer who's done a focused multi-hour marathon moving seamlessly between dozens of source files in a design/edit/test loop, as the code just seems to create itself, can relate to what the carpenter described. The experiences are different in that the physical movement involved in manual labor exercises the body, while the sedentary nature of the desk work leads to a different state. But the point is that this type of samadhi isn't dependent on abstract thought. There is a version of work flow that centers on abstract thought free of self-reference. And the products of it are ultimately just as palpable as any truss. Your old line of work is an excellent example of a middle ground between the carpenter and the programmer/analyst. We're at 180 degrees between one another on your use of the term conscious/unconscious. In my experience, the absence of self-reference isn't aptly associated with "unconsciousness". Rather, the opposite is true. States free of self-reference, with motion in the world, are grand opportunities to become conscious of the movements of mind as they happen, but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening. Self-reference centered on the senses forms the basis for a cognitive illusion of being a person in the world, other than that world, which, in turn, forms the basis for the consensus material trance. It's a very strange comment on the mystery of human life that some folks understand and accept this notion, but that understanding and acceptance isn't enough to free them from the illusion. Beginning of second paragraph, I was speaking to ZD's post, the Zen carpenter, the description given. Will come back to this. OK, back. I changed my designation ____-awareness to ~~~~-awareness so as not to confuse it with ZD's non-language. ~~~~ is a specific word, but I don't wish to use it. It's been the subject of numerous posts and even threads, by me. (It's not really a koan, more of a "puzzle" that you have to experience to get, so I don't wish to be explicit. Oh well, it is a kind of koan). Saying that (or not-saying), I keep forgetting the word conscious as used here is the ordinary use of the word, whereas ~we~ use it, as a given, in the sense of self-aware or self-conscious (and more specifically self-remembering). And this always includes ~~~~-awareness. Now, can the eye see itself? No, it is that by which we see. Can small s self see itself? No. So what is it that can see the small s self? ~We~ would say, consciousness. So what do we call this consciousness that can see small s self? ~We~ call it self-remembering (or self-awareness or self-consciousness). So what is "unconsciousness"? "unconsciousness" is our ordinary state of the small s self, that which we move through the world, the small s self which (virtually) by definition cannot be aware of itself. So one can be conscious all day long, without this something present which can be aware of the small s self. So self-remembering has the connotation of something else present besides the small s self. As far as I can tell, it has also been called here, awareness of awareness, I have no problem with that. "but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening" may be relevant here. I don't know if all that puts us closer than 180 degrees apart. If one is operating solely from the small s self, that is a kind of unconsciousness. OK, now, what's the relationship to self-referential thinking and the small s self? self-referential-thinking is small s self internal dialoguing about/with itself. But if there is no internal dialogue does that mean there is no small s self? I say absolutely not (necessarily). Now, the NDist say that in SR the self is seen through, seen to be an illusion. Does even that do away with the small s self? All I can say is it seems not to in most cases. It seems in most cases the conditioning remains, and if the conditioning remains, then in what sense can it be said that the small s self no longer is? And if it still is, then what's the point? IOW, what ~ good~ is SR if the small s self remains and is the tail wagging the dog? So I'd say as long as the conditioning remains, no self-referential thinking is a tiny "~sacrifice~". Now, if there is ~something else~ present, along with the absence of self-referential thinking, now then, that's a whole other ball game. This something else was the point of my post. "grand opportunities" are different from the actualization of a "grand" opportunity. So, anyway, your reply did not really speak to the point of my post. Have you ever lost your keys, mislaid your keys? Sure you have, everybody has. How did you find them? OK, one way is to just keep looking and keep looking, you check all your pockets, check where you usually place your keys, a lots of ect.-ering. I've done this, but if this is exhausted without result then what do you do? I've found to be very effective, try to retrace my actions from the last time I know I had my keys. First, what is at the root of misplacing the keys? Try this on for size. You were acting "unconsciously" when you came into the house, you were being unconscious. So, retrace. OK, I unlocked the door. ?? Oh yes! I dropped the keys in the grocery bag knowing I would remember doing so, but then I sat that bag on the kitchen counter, knowing that stuff was not a priority in being put away. I didn't MAKE a memory, I just assumed I would remember. But if you had acted consciously, or more-consciously, the memory would have been made in the process. A key point in relation to the Zen carpenter, when one is more-conscious (not acting within the realm merely of the small s self) this being more-conscious necessarily as a byproduct, forms memories, accessible memories. In school we call this study, we try to create an artificial situation so as to be able to remember stuff. But if the Zen carpenter had been in a ~ conscious~ flow, he could have answered the question easily, Oh no my friend, quite the contrary! One is not oblivious to the world, you take-in more of the world! It's an expansive state, not a contracting state. dot...dot...dot...
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 27, 2017 10:01:02 GMT -5
I'm not interested in unconscious flow. It seems the flow discussed here is an absence of self-reference, that is, no internal dialogue. I can agree with that. However, the Zen carpenter seemed to have been in a kind of unconscious flow state. For this kind of state it seems one has to have virtually perfected a skill to such an extent that the mind-body's muscle memory can perform the act (whatever it is, an NBA superstar "in the zone", a bricklayer, a sheet-rock hanger, a bowler, a hiker, a runner, etc., etc., etc.) without the interference of abstract thinking, like after having learned to drive a straight-drive, hands and feet just know what to do, and most simply I guess, just walking. I'm interested in a conscious flow state, where a carpenter would be aware of every nail driven, every board measured without the "golden rule playing in the head", measure twice, cut once. Time likewise flows very quickly, that is, one is not "watching the clock, as in "time flies fast when you're having fun". There is an interesting experiment one can make. A cool place to do it is at a labyrinth, but you can do it anywhere, in your house even. Take one or two or three minutes to start. Decide not to step unless you are completely aware of the movements the body is making. See how far you get. Keep awareness present, no internal dialogue necessary, this is a kind of self-awareness (____-awareness), not self-referential thinking. IMO that's how the Zen carpenter could have answered (hopefully he has learned this by now). Thinking (abstract thinking) and awareness, vastly different, almost infinitely different, two entirely different ~scales~ let's say. (And, BTW, a good teacher is vulnerable, not concerned with seeming foolish or not knowing an answer. But some questions are avoided to make the student work for the answer. But I trust in this case you had the correct assessment). Any programmer who's done a focused multi-hour marathon moving seamlessly between dozens of source files in a design/edit/test loop, as the code just seems to create itself, can relate to what the carpenter described. The experiences are different in that the physical movement involved in manual labor exercises the body, while the sedentary nature of the desk work leads to a different state. But the point is that this type of samadhi isn't dependent on abstract thought. There is a version of work flow that centers on abstract thought free of self-reference. And the products of it are ultimately just as palpable as any truss. Your old line of work is an excellent example of a middle ground between the carpenter and the programmer/analyst. We're at 180 degrees between one another on your use of the term conscious/unconscious. In my experience, the absence of self-reference isn't aptly associated with "unconsciousness". Rather, the opposite is true. States free of self-reference, with motion in the world, are grand opportunities to become conscious of the movements of mind as they happen, but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening. Self-reference centered on the senses forms the basis for a cognitive illusion of being a person in the world, other than that world, which, in turn, forms the basis for the consensus material trance. It's a very strange comment on the mystery of human life that some folks understand and accept this notion, but that understanding and acceptance isn't enough to free them from the illusion. Exactly. The questioner asked his question because he imagined that he wouldn't be there in such a state of samadhi/flow, and he was 100% correct. He, as he imagined himself, would NOT be there, and the idea of his "me" disappearing was frightening to him. This is why the spiritual path is sometimes described as dying before one dies; the imaginary "me" must be seen as imaginary and left behind. The issue, of course, is that what's here acting in the world is NOT a personal self. As you point out, Source, which is the real actor, is always conscious of what's going on. Source writes code, goes to the grocery store, talks with friends, and seeks the truth of its own being if that truth has not yet been non-conceptually apprehended.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 27, 2017 15:47:14 GMT -5
Any programmer who's done a focused multi-hour marathon moving seamlessly between dozens of source files in a design/edit/test loop, as the code just seems to create itself, can relate to what the carpenter described. The experiences are different in that the physical movement involved in manual labor exercises the body, while the sedentary nature of the desk work leads to a different state. But the point is that this type of samadhi isn't dependent on abstract thought. There is a version of work flow that centers on abstract thought free of self-reference. And the products of it are ultimately just as palpable as any truss. Your old line of work is an excellent example of a middle ground between the carpenter and the programmer/analyst. We're at 180 degrees between one another on your use of the term conscious/unconscious. In my experience, the absence of self-reference isn't aptly associated with "unconsciousness". Rather, the opposite is true. States free of self-reference, with motion in the world, are grand opportunities to become conscious of the movements of mind as they happen, but only if one is interested in that sort of witnessing as it's happening. Self-reference centered on the senses forms the basis for a cognitive illusion of being a person in the world, other than that world, which, in turn, forms the basis for the consensus material trance. It's a very strange comment on the mystery of human life that some folks understand and accept this notion, but that understanding and acceptance isn't enough to free them from the illusion. Exactly. The questioner asked his question because he imagined that he wouldn't be there in such a state of samadhi/flow, and he was 100% correct. He, as he imagined himself, would NOT be there, and the idea of his "me" disappearing was frightening to him. This is why the spiritual path is sometimes described as dying before one dies; the imaginary "me" must be seen as imaginary and left behind. The issue, of course, is that what's here acting in the world is NOT a personal self. As you point out, Source, which is the real actor, is always conscious of what's going on. Source writes code, goes to the grocery store, talks with friends, and seeks the truth of its own being if that truth has not yet been non-conceptually apprehended. I'm going to pose a few questions, and after these past few years I've got a pretty good idea what the answer is likely to be. But someone might eventually ask them anyway, so, why wait! "If everything I do is Source doing it's thing, doesn't that mean that I'm God?" "Does this mean that it doesn't matter what I decide to do because I was going to decide to do it anyway?" "What's the point of making an effort or thinking through an important decision? Should I just through up my hands and stop trying to make any decisions of my own?"
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 27, 2017 17:33:43 GMT -5
Exactly. The questioner asked his question because he imagined that he wouldn't be there in such a state of samadhi/flow, and he was 100% correct. He, as he imagined himself, would NOT be there, and the idea of his "me" disappearing was frightening to him. This is why the spiritual path is sometimes described as dying before one dies; the imaginary "me" must be seen as imaginary and left behind. The issue, of course, is that what's here acting in the world is NOT a personal self. As you point out, Source, which is the real actor, is always conscious of what's going on. Source writes code, goes to the grocery store, talks with friends, and seeks the truth of its own being if that truth has not yet been non-conceptually apprehended. I'm going to pose a few questions, and after these past few years I've got a pretty good idea what the answer is likely to be. But someone might eventually ask them anyway, so, why wait! "If everything I do is Source doing it's thing, doesn't that mean that I'm God?" "Does this mean that it doesn't matter what I decide to do because I was going to decide to do it anyway?" "What's the point of making an effort or thinking through an important decision? Should I just through up my hands and stop trying to make any decisions of my own?" No (let's hope not). No. No.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 27, 2017 17:41:26 GMT -5
Exactly. The questioner asked his question because he imagined that he wouldn't be there in such a state of samadhi/flow, and he was 100% correct. He, as he imagined himself, would NOT be there, and the idea of his "me" disappearing was frightening to him. This is why the spiritual path is sometimes described as dying before one dies; the imaginary "me" must be seen as imaginary and left behind. The issue, of course, is that what's here acting in the world is NOT a personal self. As you point out, Source, which is the real actor, is always conscious of what's going on. Source writes code, goes to the grocery store, talks with friends, and seeks the truth of its own being if that truth has not yet been non-conceptually apprehended. I'm going to pose a few questions, and after these past few years I've got a pretty good idea what the answer is likely to be. But someone might eventually ask them anyway, so, why wait! "If everything I do is Source doing it's thing, doesn't that mean that I'm God?" "Does this mean that it doesn't matter what I decide to do because I was going to decide to do it anyway?" "What's the point of making an effort or thinking through an important decision? Should I just through up my hands and stop trying to make any decisions of my own?" 1. Is a molecule of water in the ocean the entire ocean? The molecule is one-with the ocean, and there is no dividing line between them, but it would be a bit presumptive of the molecule to claim that it's anything more than a molecule. The problem is one of boundaries; if there is no boundary, no distinction of any kind can be made that will not be false to itself. 2. There is only now. What matters is what matters. Make a decision or don't make a decision. Speculation remains speculation. 3. Anyone who doesn't see through this issue clearly, might want to do the volition experiment (Sit in a chair and make no effort to either get up or stay seated. Watch what happens.) As the saying goes, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." People used to ask Papaji, "What will happen if I do x?" Papaji would respond, "Wait and see."
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 3, 2017 8:33:25 GMT -5
I'm going to pose a few questions, and after these past few years I've got a pretty good idea what the answer is likely to be. But someone might eventually ask them anyway, so, why wait! "If everything I do is Source doing it's thing, doesn't that mean that I'm God?" "Does this mean that it doesn't matter what I decide to do because I was going to decide to do it anyway?" "What's the point of making an effort or thinking through an important decision? Should I just through up my hands and stop trying to make any decisions of my own?" 1. Is a molecule of water in the ocean the entire ocean? The molecule is one-with the ocean, and there is no dividing line between them, but it would be a bit presumptive of the molecule to claim that it's anything more than a molecule. The problem is one of boundaries; if there is no boundary, no distinction of any kind can be made that will not be false to itself. 2. There is only now. What matters is what matters. Make a decision or don't make a decision. Speculation remains speculation. 3. Anyone who doesn't see through this issue clearly, might want to do the volition experiment (Sit in a chair and make no effort to either get up or stay seated. Watch what happens.) As the saying goes, "The sage does nothing, but everything gets done." People used to ask Papaji, "What will happen if I do x?" Papaji would respond, "Wait and see." Hi ZD In that first bit I would add that presumptive or not, God is boundless and infinate in every aspect and part, so even the molecule has the infinate nature of God. All that God is, is in the Molecule just as it is simultaneously in all of existence. so if one truly takes away the imagined boundaries from the boundless infinate, then it is equally presumptuous for the molecule to say that it is NOT the totality of God.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Aug 3, 2017 8:41:48 GMT -5
This natural state can be directly related to the discussions about "alignment"/"purification". Alignment is about a material manifestation of inner-peace. This inner-peace is what I take ZD to refer to most often with the term "equanimity". While alignment can happen either before or after SR, the natural state describes what happens post-SR. Since alignment is a relative quality of an individual, there is no absolute statement that can be made about it. This flies in the face of thousands of years of culture that describe the enlightened individual as saint-like. But it is possible to identify tendencies. This is just simple empiricism -- what are some commonalities between individuals that are widely recognized as having realized the existential truth? While the natural state is ultimately independent of alignment, the clarity with regard to appearances after SR lends a certain natural gravity toward alignment. Events that used to cause suffering will still cause substantial pain, but that pain is no longer internalized. This means that the effect of pain in the present loses it's hold over the future. Also, the suffering of others isn't ignored. In fact, the natural state is one in which the patterns of denial that would normally obscure noticing the suffering of others have no center on which to grasp. But in the natural state, the suffering of others doesn't result in suffering of our own. Compassion can flow freely, with no risk to love. So while alignment is conditional, and dependent on the conditions the individual finds themselves in and a part of at the moment of SR, the clarity of the natural state reveals those conditions for what they are in the movement of life that follows. But how that happens for any one "SR peep" will never play out exactly the same way twice. If you want a clue as to whether a given speaker/writer is SR based on your evaluation of their alignment, it's best to compare what they do and how they react over time going forward, rather than apply your subjective bias to what you feel about them as you first encounter them. As always, the absolute is a constant source of the unexpected. If you're honest with yourself that you have yet something left to realize, it's best to first check your personal opinions of other peeps at the door. The alternative is to let your mind deceive you into mistaking the truth for a lie, and vice-versa. I agree with this although I have to confess that I don't really understand or relate to the alignment/purification thingy. I'm open-minded about it, but it just doesn't have much meaning for me. If I learned tomorrow that the body has a terminal illness, I don't think that it would bother me in the least, but I wouldn't think that the illness was caused by a lack of alignment. I do recognize that certain people have what are obviously psycho-somatic repetitive illnesses, but it's hard for me to believe that Ramana's cancer was caused by a lack of alignment. Cancer seems to be a disease associated with aging, certain specific environmental factors, and obesity. I once heard a doctor state that if we live long enough, almost everyone will get some form of cancer. Our genes are programmed with a biolgical timer called telomeres. they are kind of like a chain of links, and each time a cell divides a 'link' of tye telomere chain falls off...when there are no more telomeres there is no more cell division, or cell replacement, this is the cause of the physical deteriorization associated with aging. interestingly, there are therapies available that can halt the breaking of the telomere chains and thereby slow aging, however, all such therapies are also highly cancerous lol Nature balances itself 😂😂😂
|
|