|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2019 12:16:31 GMT -5
I was simply making fun of Shankara's response, which sounds clever but is also sorta silly---an illusory person is climbing an illusory tree to escape an illusory elephant. There's a much funnier and much more direct Zen response that explicates the issue precisely, but i'll leave that for others to discover. No words are necessary for that kind of response. I don't see the two views as contradictory, yours and Shankara's. The contradiction between action and thought only seems so. If you remove mind from the equation, it doesn't matter, adrenaline flows, heart rate increases, pupils dilate and feet move really really fast in this illusion or reality, take your pick. I submit the illusionary feet move even faster when there is no doer, the so called doer just gets in the way and asks trippy questions. Shankara merely postulates that the mechanism which poses such a dichotomy is flawed, suspect, illusory. The intent of both approches is the same. I would say Zen offers a slightly blunter instrument to remove the obstacle. I don't know the context of Shankara's humorous reply to the elephant question, so the exact meaning and intent of his words are a bit hard to discern. Because of my background in the Rinzai tradition of Zen, the wordiness of his reply seems capable of misleading the questioner. I prefer the direct approach of Zen, which cuts through all the verbiage and eliminates the need for interpretation. The actual goal of Zen is to become free from the dominance of mind, so action becomes unhindered by reflective thought. The Nike commercial slogan is pure Zen--"Just do it!" I was recently at a retreat during which an attendee expressed chagrin and/or regret at having NOT done something many years ago that might have prevented or at least ameliorated what he viewed as a present problem. I explained that it's impossible to make a mistake, so his second-guessing himself about past action or non-action was adding to worries that could be totally eliminated by letting go of all thoughts about the matter. I asked him, "At that time in the past were you doing the best you could based upon what you knew at that time?" He agreed. I told him that the idea of having made a mistake in the past that might have some bearing upon the present is just an idea and involves an infinite number of unknown variables. The resolution of various Zen koans illustrates how thinking can be highly deceptive, and also illustrates that thinking is usually unnecessary and often counterproductive. We are always doing exactly what we must be doing whether reflective thought is involved of not, but in the absence of reflective thought, things get much much simpler.  |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 20, 2019 12:55:09 GMT -5
I don't know the context of Shankara's humorous reply to the elephant question, so the exact meaning and intent of his words are a bit hard to discern. Because of my background in the Rinzai tradition of Zen, the wordiness of his reply seems capable of misleading the questioner. I prefer the direct approach of Zen, which cuts through all the verbiage and eliminates the need for interpretation. You're putting forward Zen as a response to one single comment about illusion by Shankara as if that represented his entire teaching. Shankara is often called the father of Advaita Vedanta (Nonduality) which is as direct as one can get and there is no essential difference between it and Zen in its purest form. There are many statements from Zen which could be taken in isolation as being representative of the entirery of Zen and that wouldn't be the whole story either. There is nothing closer to Advaita than Zen. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2019 15:25:28 GMT -5
I don't know the context of Shankara's humorous reply to the elephant question, so the exact meaning and intent of his words are a bit hard to discern. Because of my background in the Rinzai tradition of Zen, the wordiness of his reply seems capable of misleading the questioner. I prefer the direct approach of Zen, which cuts through all the verbiage and eliminates the need for interpretation. You're putting forward Zen as a response to one single comment about illusion by Shankara as if that represented his entire teaching. Shankara is often called the father of Advaita Vedanta (Nonduality) which is as direct as one can get and there is no essential difference between it and Zen in its purest form. There are many statements from Zen which could be taken in isolation as being representative of the entirery of Zen and that wouldn't be the whole story either. There is nothing closer to Advaita than Zen. FWIW I didn't say, nor imply, that Shankara's reply about the elephant involved or represented anything other than his reply about the elephant. I was merely pointing out to those who are interested in this sort of thing that there's another way to deal with those kinds of questions that is more direct (because it doesn't rely on words). I agree that Zen and Advaita are both pointing, ultimately, to the same state of mind--sahaja samadhi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 20, 2019 17:20:16 GMT -5
You're putting forward Zen as a response to one single comment about illusion by Shankara as if that represented his entire teaching. Shankara is often called the father of Advaita Vedanta (Nonduality) which is as direct as one can get and there is no essential difference between it and Zen in its purest form. There are many statements from Zen which could be taken in isolation as being representative of the entirery of Zen and that wouldn't be the whole story either. There is nothing closer to Advaita than Zen. FWIW I didn't say, nor imply, that Shankara's reply about the elephant involved or represented anything other than his reply about the elephant. I was merely pointing out to those who are interested in this sort of thing that there's another way to deal with those kinds of questions that is more direct (because it doesn't rely on words). I agree that Zen and Advaita are both pointing, ultimately, to the same state of mind--sahaja samadhi. "He still remained the unchanging witness." Yes. Same end, sahaja. I agree the approaches are different. As they are in Rinzai and Soto. From where I sit, facing the wall, the correct way to meditate, there is no mind to care if Shankara's elephant is illusory or which direction to face while meditating. Is this dharma combat? Does the winner or the loser buy the beer? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 20, 2019 19:44:55 GMT -5
Yes. I see what you are saying. This relative reality are adjuncts, but if they are merely that, why do you avoid charging elephants? If avoiding the charging elephant is also just an adjunct, a false overlay induced by maya, are you really avoiding the elephant or does it just seem so? This is beautiful. Yes, Shankara was asked by his devotees why he ran away from the charging elephant if it was just an illusion and he replied that the running was also an illusion as was the tree he hid in. But even so, he still remained as the unchanging witness. There is no satisfying resolution for the mind in this. It's not a problem for mind unless you take Shankara's answer to be meaningful and try to make sense out of it. Experience is engaged out of interest regardless of whether you call it maya or illusion or a dream or reality. The reason you avoid charging elephants is the same reason you avoid jabbing a stick in your eye; it hurts. There's no need to turn it into something mysterious or transcendent. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 20, 2019 20:38:52 GMT -5
Yes, Shankara was asked by his devotees why he ran away from the charging elephant if it was just an illusion and he replied that the running was also an illusion as was the tree he hid in. But even so, he still remained as the unchanging witness. There is no satisfying resolution for the mind in this. It's not a problem for mind unless you take Shankara's answer to be meaningful and try to make sense out of it. Experience is engaged out of interest regardless of whether you call it maya or illusion or a dream or reality. The reason you avoid charging elephants is the same reason you avoid jabbing a stick in your eye; it hurts. There's no need to turn it into something mysterious or transcendent. it's not a problem for mind precisely because it is transcendent , but not mysterious. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 21, 2019 11:25:57 GMT -5
It's not a problem for mind unless you take Shankara's answer to be meaningful and try to make sense out of it. Experience is engaged out of interest regardless of whether you call it maya or illusion or a dream or reality. The reason you avoid charging elephants is the same reason you avoid jabbing a stick in your eye; it hurts. There's no need to turn it into something mysterious or transcendent. it's not a problem for mind precisely because it is transcendent , but not mysterious. "There is no satisfying resolution for the mind in this" means it is a problem for mind. It has already been established that you see it that way. What we are discussing is why. To that end, I suggest you choose to believe Shankara's words over your experience. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 21, 2019 21:00:19 GMT -5
it's not a problem for mind precisely because it is transcendent , but not mysterious. "There is no satisfying resolution for the mind in this" means it is a problem for mind. It has already been established that you see it that way. What we are discussing is why. To that end, I suggest you choose to believe Shankara's words over your experience. What I mean is, there is no satisfactory solution for the mind and it doesn't matter. Who cares? So there is no problem. That is my experience. Does it seem to you that it's a problem just because it's a topic of discussion? |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 21, 2019 21:55:55 GMT -5
"There is no satisfying resolution for the mind in this" means it is a problem for mind. It has already been established that you see it that way. What we are discussing is why. To that end, I suggest you choose to believe Shankara's words over your experience. What I mean is, there is no satisfactory solution for the mind and it doesn't matter. Who cares? So there is no problem. That is my experience. Does it seem to you that it's a problem just because it's a topic of discussion? It does matter if the mind has not completely, utterly, and absolutely failed to find an “answer” it cannot doubt, and the subsequent potential for release. Otherwise, the mind is still at the helm, perhaps even very willing to downplay true awakening and becoming used to wearing a thorn in its side. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 21, 2019 21:57:45 GMT -5
There are times when life is viewing a epic unfolding from a safe distance. Then there are times, like when Hurricane Dorian came menacing, that this epic grabs me by the balls and pulls me in. There was no way to view it from a safe distance. Surrender then was the only avenue to peace. Is this what Niz meant when he said "seeing that I am no-thing is wisdom, seeing that I am everything is love; between these two my life moves." He is saying that there is both unity within diversity and diversity within unity. In the realized state it is sahaja (or spontaneous flow) between unchanging and changing but with no real difference between them. The meaning of wisdom is the springing forth of spontaneous right action from silence. In the perception of phenomena the divine pervades all experience as well as being absolute silence. The entire cycle of movement is contained in the first word of Rig Veda which is AGNI. If you verbalise the word, A to G (aaaaaaaag) is goes from infinity to a point of singularity. Then from N to I (nnnneeeeee) is from point to infinity. 🔥 |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 21, 2019 21:58:52 GMT -5
What I mean is, there is no satisfactory solution for the mind and it doesn't matter. Who cares? So there is no problem. That is my experience. Does it seem to you that it's a problem just because it's a topic of discussion? It does matter if the mind has not completely, utterly, and absolutely failed to find an “answer” it cannot doubt, and the subsequent potential for release. Otherwise, the mind is still at the helm, perhaps even very willing to downplay true awakening and becoming used to wearing a thorn in its side. Yes that's true if the mind is seeking answers. But when there is peace of mind all these questions just fall away. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Nov 21, 2019 22:11:30 GMT -5
It does matter if the mind has not completely, utterly, and absolutely failed to find an “answer” it cannot doubt, and the subsequent potential for release. Otherwise, the mind is still at the helm, perhaps even very willing to downplay true awakening and becoming used to wearing a thorn in its side. Yes that's true if the mind is seeking answers. But when there is peace of mind all these questions just fall away. The mind is for seeking answers and can only be at some relative peace. The itch inevitably comes, memory castes its spell, and the rope can sure start to like a snake again. Actual Peace is being conscious all such sensations, thoughts, and beliefs are arising in/as Consciousness. As such, yes, the questions naturally fall away. |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 21, 2019 22:14:58 GMT -5
Yes that's true if the mind is seeking answers. But when there is peace of mind all these questions just fall away. The mind is for seeking answers and can only be at some relative peace. The itch inevitably comes, memory castes its spell, and the rope can sure start to like a snake again. Actual Peace is being conscious all such sensations, thoughts, and beliefs are arising in/as Consciousness. As such, yes, the questions naturally fall away. You cannot unlearn the fact that the snake is really a rope, so once that is seen, even if the rope appears like a snake again, you won't be scared of snakes. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 22, 2019 1:28:44 GMT -5
Yes that's true if the mind is seeking answers. But when there is peace of mind all these questions just fall away. The mind is for seeking answers and can only be at some relative peace. The itch inevitably comes, memory castes its spell, and the rope can sure start to like a snake again. Actual Peace is being conscious all such sensations, thoughts, and beliefs are arising in/as Consciousness. As such, yes, the questions naturally fall away. Some might read an effort into that. This falling away can be a process over time, and might blur the lines between the point of realization and the informing of mind that follows. Personally, I'm fine with that blurring, because while the existential truth is simplicity incarnate, the mind is never nothing, if not nuanced.  |
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Nov 22, 2019 3:03:42 GMT -5
The mind is for seeking answers and can only be at some relative peace. The itch inevitably comes, memory castes its spell, and the rope can sure start to like a snake again. Actual Peace is being conscious all such sensations, thoughts, and beliefs are arising in/as Consciousness. As such, yes, the questions naturally fall away. Some might read an effort into that. This falling away can be a process over time, and might blur the lines between the point of realization and the informing of mind that follows. Personally, I'm fine with that blurring, because while the existential truth is simplicity incarnate, the mind is never nothing, if not nuanced. Blurring of the lines between the point of realization and the informing of mind that follows as a possible hindrance is a false dichotomy. There is no such blurry hinterland, although I can understand why someone would think that because moments of clarity can create a projected imagining in the mind of what ultimate clarity looks like. But when the mind fully dissolves into awareness so too will the blurry nuances. It's like trying to get to sleep. You feel half in half out, but suddenly nod off without warning. All your concerns vanish in a flash. |
|
