|
Post by zendancer on Mar 6, 2018 17:22:02 GMT -5
I agree, but my "nonsense" comment was directed at the rigid idea that a formal daily meditation practice is necessary--something most serious Zen students promulgate as a fundamental aspect of Zen. Sure, I just wanted to drill down a little deeper on the idea. Couldn't we say that a Zen student who is meditating is doing exactly "what they are supposed to be doing", as they're doing it? Now, I want to plead guilty ahead of time to the morph here of dropping "as part of a required daily practice" from the scenario. Absolutely! Similarly, the guy who spent 30 minutes telling us about the "perfect" position of the hands during zazen was also doing what he had to do even though it struck me as rather silly. It reminds me of a health fad among English nobility during the last century which advised chewing each bite of food something like twenty times before swallowing. Hinayana Zen Buddhists still do some stuff like that. One of the last Zen retreats I attended had about fifteen participants, all of whom were more than 50 years old, and all of whom were there because they wanted to be. Yet, the ZM leading the retreat would periodically shout very loudly, "Silence!" if anyone made any sort of sound, or "Don't move!" if anyone slightly adjusted their sitting position. His periodic shouts were far more disturbing than any slight movements or sounds that anyone else was making, and it struck me as rather idiotic. I knew that he had been trained in a militaristic Japanese Zen tradition, so his Gestapo-like attitude was understandable, but a bit absurd considering the context of what was advertised as a "silent" retreat. LOL
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 6, 2018 17:41:33 GMT -5
D.T. Suzuki comes to mind (Below is excerpt from fractalenlightenment.com/34882/spirituality/satori-the-zen-concept-of-enlightenment-and-self-realisation)But, typically, at least how I've heard,vstudents of Zen are veered away from "discussion" as they will likely move back into trying to "bring it down to the rational/conceptual/self-referential level of mind. Characteristics of SatoriAlthough Satori is beyond intellectual and logical analysis and no set argument or explanation can tell what true Satori is like, there are a few basic characteristics which might help in better understanding certain principles of Satori. D.T. Suzuki said that Satori is defined by irrationality. It does not have any intellectual reasoning or conclusion to it. This concept transcends the barrier of logic. Moving further, Satori comes with an intuitive insight. That is to say, there is a metaphysical aspect to it, which allows us to be more intuitive. Without this characteristic, Satori looses its meaning. Furthermore, Suzuki states that Satori is both ‘authoritative’ in nature and is an ‘affirmation’, which means that no matter what logic we desire to give to override Satori, we can never hope to supersede Satori with logic. “Satori is thus a form of perception, an inner perception, which takes place in the most interior part of consciousness.”4 An affirmation is like a declaration of truth and usually used in a positive connotation. A ‘Sense of the beyond’ is yet another pivotal characteristic of Satori. When we are performing Satori, we feel we are longer encased in our body, we are up and beyond, where we transcend the so-called real and witness the surreal, is what this characteristic all about. Impersonal Tone, a feeling of exaltation, and momentariness are few other integral features, spoken of by Suzuki. The experience is Satori is not personal, i.e. the ego ceases to exist and that is why it becomes universal. This freedom from the bondages of mundane thinking, brings about a feeling of elation. Lastly, but most importantly the momentary nature of Satori defines it to the core. It is abrupt, may last for a few moments or minutes or hours or days and vanish. “if it is not abrupt and momentary, it is not Satori”, says Suzuki. I read Suzuki's books in my early seeker days with great interest. But he is a scholar and he doesn't seem to speak from first hand experience. What he describes there, that's not what we call SR, actually not even a deep CC. Most likely it's one of the deeper samadhi states. So I'm a little surprised to see this kind of confusion in the Zen literature when it comes to SR. In one of his books DT Suzuki describes his own experience of Satori, I don't recall which book. But I recall he was walking outside, he suddenly saw that all things were one. He goes into it with several sentences but I don't recall anything else specifically, I do recall he mentioned the surrounding trees. I think it was one of his last books, although that may be an incorrect recollection. I recall that it didn't seem to be a profound experience (my recollection of his report). I seem to recall he was rather young, but that also might be an error. His walking outside (I think it was at a Zen monastery), trees. ...
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 6, 2018 18:13:32 GMT -5
the ZM leading the retreat would periodically shout very loudly, "Silence!" if anyone made any sort of sound, or "Don't move!" if anyone slightly adjusted their sitting position. His periodic shouts were far more disturbing than any slight movements or sounds that anyone else was making, and it struck me as rather idiotic. It may have been his idea of a way to teach self observation. Lots of peeps are unconscious to their own body movements and ticks, etc. Becoming aware of each and every motion, burp and squirm, especially in meditation, can become like ATA. Maybe he was giving a gift :-)
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 6, 2018 18:56:25 GMT -5
the ZM leading the retreat would periodically shout very loudly, "Silence!" if anyone made any sort of sound, or "Don't move!" if anyone slightly adjusted their sitting position. His periodic shouts were far more disturbing than any slight movements or sounds that anyone else was making, and it struck me as rather idiotic. It may have been his idea of a way to teach self observation. Lots of peeps are unconscious to their own body movements and ticks, etc. Becoming aware of each and every motion, burp and squirm, especially in meditation, can become like ATA. Maybe he was giving a gift :-) In this case that wasn't the case. I knew the fellow well, and he had told me about his early training, so I was familiar with his conditioning. When I attend non-militaristic retreats in advaita-style traditions, I always laughingly tell the participants how lucky they are to be attending a relaxed retreat format compared to Zen.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 6, 2018 19:25:40 GMT -5
It may have been his idea of a way to teach self observation. Lots of peeps are unconscious to their own body movements and ticks, etc. Becoming aware of each and every motion, burp and squirm, especially in meditation, can become like ATA. Maybe he was giving a gift :-) In this case that wasn't the case. I knew the fellow well, and he had told me about his early training, so I was familiar with his conditioning. When I attend non-militaristic retreats in advaita-style traditions, I always laughingly tell the participants how lucky they are to be attending a relaxed retreat format compared to Zen. OK, fair enough. I always felt the same way about the bowing, kneeling, standing, sitting, blessing oneself in the sign of the cross, etc, in the catholic church, until I was old enough to run from it and not look back :-)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 7:55:47 GMT -5
Sure, I just wanted to drill down a little deeper on the idea. Couldn't we say that a Zen student who is meditating is doing exactly "what they are supposed to be doing", as they're doing it? Now, I want to plead guilty ahead of time to the morph here of dropping "as part of a required daily practice" from the scenario. Absolutely! Similarly, the guy who spent 30 minutes telling us about the "perfect" position of the hands during zazen was also doing what he had to do even though it struck me as rather silly. It reminds me of a health fad among English nobility during the last century which advised chewing each bite of food something like twenty times before swallowing. Hinayana Zen Buddhists still do some stuff like that. One of the last Zen retreats I attended had about fifteen participants, all of whom were more than 50 years old, and all of whom were there because they wanted to be. Yet, the ZM leading the retreat would periodically shout very loudly, "Silence!" if anyone made any sort of sound, or "Don't move!" if anyone slightly adjusted their sitting position. His periodic shouts were far more disturbing than any slight movements or sounds that anyone else was making, and it struck me as rather idiotic. I knew that he had been trained in a militaristic Japanese Zen tradition, so his Gestapo-like attitude was understandable, but a bit absurd considering the context of what was advertised as a "silent" retreat. LOL Oh man .. .. I might've just .. cracked up.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 7:57:45 GMT -5
In this case that wasn't the case. I knew the fellow well, and he had told me about his early training, so I was familiar with his conditioning. When I attend non-militaristic retreats in advaita-style traditions, I always laughingly tell the participants how lucky they are to be attending a relaxed retreat format compared to Zen. OK, fair enough. I always felt the same way about the bowing, kneeling, standing, sitting, blessing oneself in the sign of the cross, etc, in the catholic church, until I was old enough to run from it and not look back :-) " .. ♪ lamb, of God ♫ .. ♫ you take away the sins of the world ♪ .."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 7:59:53 GMT -5
"There is no baby monkey, there is no cage, and there is no wire mother with a bottle. There is only the always present unlimited and constantly moving vastness of space time appearing in ever changing impermanent waves of ephemeral form. There is no sad face, suffering is only an illusion created by your mind. " Does this mean Mr. Brown Bear acknowledges there are other minds and other perceivers? "My. Look. What a beautiful tree. "
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 7, 2018 8:18:48 GMT -5
OK, fair enough. I always felt the same way about the bowing, kneeling, standing, sitting, blessing oneself in the sign of the cross, etc, in the catholic church, until I was old enough to run from it and not look back :-) " .. ♪ lamb, of God ♫ .. ♫ you take away the sins of the world ♪ .." but it was not before I spent my seventeenth summer in Belize on a mission with one priest, and one young nun, who wore bright red lipstick, but that's another story :-)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 7, 2018 10:08:27 GMT -5
" .. ♪ lamb, of God ♫ .. ♫ you take away the sins of the world ♪ .." but it was not before I spent my seventeenth summer in Belize on a mission with one priest, and one young nun, who wore bright red lipstick, but that's another story :-) " .. ♪ blessed is He, who comes in the name of the LORD! ♫ .. ♫ Hosa-aa-na! Hosana in the highest ♪ .. ♪ Hosa-aa-na! Hosana in the highhhhh-est ♫"
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 11:30:15 GMT -5
I still think it's about the 'self-awareness' happening on a level prior to the appearance of collectivity (or individualtion). Anyway, I just wanted to mention how I watched a cool Attenborough documentary a few weeks back called Empire of the Ants which detailed how the ants are evolving. Diffeerent colonies of the same species that previously just annihilated each other on contact are starting to form communities, forming a super-colony. It kinda mirrors the history of man, and the complexity of their behaviour both individually and collectively is fascinating stuff. The individual colonies have long been thought of as a super-organism, so a bit like those forrests of trees that look individual but are connected by one root system beneath the surface, and I think it's the same with the ants, except the beneath the surface there doesn't refer to the ground. And more expansively, its easy enough to see how it could be applied to life in it's entirety, when we consider 'moving as One'.Worth a watch if anyones bored. Since you mentioned the word organism, just think about it in terms of a human body. There you have individual cells functioning on their own. And then you have organs that these cells form. And these organs also function on their own. And then you have the human body itself which is made up of these organs. And then you have the human body that is functioning on its own... See what I'm saying? You can draw the lines wherever you want. It doesn't really matter. The fact remains, everything is conscious, alive and intelligent. Doesn't matter if the context is electrons or galaxies. I see how it's possible to see subatomic particles as alive in some way because they are active expressions of Consciousness, though it pretty much assassinates the term 'alive'. But the terms 'conscious' and 'intelligent' clearly don't apply to electrons. A rock is not conscious and intelligent as we define those terms.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 7, 2018 12:05:37 GMT -5
Since you mentioned the word organism, just think about it in terms of a human body. There you have individual cells functioning on their own. And then you have organs that these cells form. And these organs also function on their own. And then you have the human body itself which is made up of these organs. And then you have the human body that is functioning on its own... See what I'm saying? You can draw the lines wherever you want. It doesn't really matter. The fact remains, everything is conscious, alive and intelligent. Doesn't matter if the context is electrons or galaxies. Yeah I completely agree, and could relate to the Seth position on electrons, (although like Andrew, perhaps more the sentiment than the precise wording in that instance). But the wording wasn't particularly important there, just the acknowledgment that it's the way the Intelligence moves at the level of 'proto-expression', if that makes any sense, and ultimately as One. The aliveness is already there. Aliveness is inherent in creation as it's happening in Consciousness, but when we talk about alive, intelligent, conscious, we're talking about particular expressions in creation. Is a rock alive, intelligent, conscious?
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 7, 2018 12:37:50 GMT -5
but it was not before I spent my seventeenth summer in Belize on a mission with one priest, and one young nun, who wore bright red lipstick, but that's another story :-) " .. ♪ blessed is He, who comes in the name of the LORD! ♫ .. ♫ Hosa-aa-na! Hosana in the highest ♪ .. ♪ Hosa-aa-na! Hosana in the highhhhh-est ♫"
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Mar 7, 2018 14:36:04 GMT -5
Yeah I completely agree, and could relate to the Seth position on electrons, (although like Andrew, perhaps more the sentiment than the precise wording in that instance). But the wording wasn't particularly important there, just the acknowledgment that it's the way the Intelligence moves at the level of 'proto-expression', if that makes any sense, and ultimately as One. The aliveness is already there. Aliveness is inherent in creation as it's happening in Consciousness, but when we talk about alive, intelligent, conscious, we're talking about particular expressions in creation. Is a rock alive, intelligent, conscious? No, in that context a rock isn't alive, intelligent, conscious. I do think those particular adjectives can be a bit tricky though as they bridge contexts.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Mar 7, 2018 16:52:57 GMT -5
Since you mentioned the word organism, just think about it in terms of a human body. There you have individual cells functioning on their own. And then you have organs that these cells form. And these organs also function on their own. And then you have the human body itself which is made up of these organs. And then you have the human body that is functioning on its own... See what I'm saying? You can draw the lines wherever you want. It doesn't really matter. The fact remains, everything is conscious, alive and intelligent. Doesn't matter if the context is electrons or galaxies. I see how it's possible to see subatomic particles as alive in some way because they are active expressions of Consciousness, though it pretty much assassinates the term 'alive'. But the terms 'conscious' and 'intelligent' clearly don't apply to electrons. A rock is not conscious and intelligent as we define those terms. But again, I think that's the precise point at which contexts are being mixed. When we say a rock isn't conscious, intelligent, alive....we mean it in the same way that we mean an AI bot isn't conscious, intelligent, alive. It's a valid distinction to make, and a valid conversation. But the broader context is that all things have a consciousness, intelligence, aliveness....whether it is an electron, a rock, or a human. Hence Intelligence is intelligent, Consciousness is conscious, Awareness is aware, Aliveness is alive. See, in your perspective, if a rock/paperclip has no consciousness but a human does, then the reason has to be physical/biological structure, and then we are problematically associating consciousness directly with biology. Talking in the small context I don't have a problem with this, but it has to be situated within the broader context in which it is known that all things have consciousness. This then resolves the issue of associating consciousness with biology (in the small context). - again, this is why I have said the question of whether something has consciousness is only ever a question to be asked in the small context, which isn't the spiritually relevant one.
|
|