Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 12:36:30 GMT -5
I'm new to this kind of argumentation, and for now I don't see its "practicality", which might be a shunned concept here (?), but "good men" means nothing, does it? Everybody is "good man" in his system, and there is no credible absolute reference. For example, to me "activist" is a four letter word / person. My credo is "always do what you think is right" From some nondual perspectives, there is no separate person so noone making decisions. It is always Oneness masquerading as the appearance of a separate person. If this resonates, there is also noone to become enlightened, as the apparent person is already Oneness so cannot become what already is, and the search ends. This does not have to be realized for the same reason, because it is already Oneness not realizing! The mind picks up this idea that there is no one making decisions.. and thinks that there really is no one making decisions. To say that 'no one is making decisions', just means that the ordinary mind that differentiates wasn't involved in the decision making.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 20, 2020 14:52:16 GMT -5
I understand that you refer to a "virtue" that is an absolute something, that everybody has an innate capacity to perceive that absolute, but the perception is distorted by mind conditioning, the limited intellect, and emotions. Could you give an example of such an absolute "virtue"? Nothing in this physical universe seems to fit that concept. Sorry for not being clearerer. I can't give you an example of an absolute virtue, as it manifests situationally, in the moment. There's a Zen story/joke that goes like this. A Zen master, a priest, a nihilist, a rabbi and a scientist walk into a bar. It's empty except for a thug and a diminutive woman just old enough to be there, and he's beating on her and tugging at her purse. The rabbi starts yelling "Shame! Shame!", the nihilist sits down at the bar and wonders where the bartender is, the priest starts saying a prayer of forgiveness, the Zen master knocks the thug on his a$s, as the scientist pulls out her smart phone and dials 911. The story is to demonstrate the difference between action that's filtered through the conditioned, thinking/emotional mind and ... not. We can discern that the notion of human virtue is woven into the fabric of the story, as a premise, but perhaps it might help illustrate how this notion of virtuous immediate action might apply to more morally ambiguous situations. But the illustration here is only an appeal to intuition, as the efficacy it dissolves by any analysis. While I have to use intellect to set-things up, it's not useful beyond that. The first thought that came to my mind while reading that story is that each one of the characters lives in their own reality, and those realities, although created from the same blueprint, are different. Besides the resulting difference in perception, there is also the difference in emotional, intellectual, and intuitional makeup of each character. I believe that all consciousness we can experience in this physical reality is graded on a scale: instinct, emotion, intellect, intuition. Man mostly mastered his instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop an intellect, and his intuition is just germinating. Until man masters his emotions it has to come here over and over.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 20, 2020 16:05:32 GMT -5
I'm new to this kind of argumentation, and for now I don't see its "practicality", which might be a shunned concept here (?), but "good men" means nothing, does it? Everybody is "good man" in his system, and there is no credible absolute reference. For example, to me "activist" is a four letter word / person. My credo is "always do what you think is right" From some nondual perspectives, there is no separate person so noone making decisions. It is always Oneness masquerading as the appearance of a separate person. If this resonates, there is also noone to become enlightened, as the apparent person is already Oneness so cannot become what already is, and the search ends. This does not have to be realized for the same reason, because it is already Oneness not realizing! I believe I understand what you're saying, but to me it is less important what I am if I don't know I am. Enlightenment is when I know what / who I am, beyond doubt. Also, even if all is part of an One, acknowledging that doesn't mean that the reverse process of individualization is irrelevant. A cell being part of its organ's oneness, and further part of the body's oneness, and so on, doesn't negate its individuality and purpose, in my opinion. The same at the thought level, entity level, gestalt level, plane level, to infinitude.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 20, 2020 17:14:41 GMT -5
Sorry for not being clearerer. I can't give you an example of an absolute virtue, as it manifests situationally, in the moment. There's a Zen story/joke that goes like this. A Zen master, a priest, a nihilist, a rabbi and a scientist walk into a bar. It's empty except for a thug and a diminutive woman just old enough to be there, and he's beating on her and tugging at her purse. The rabbi starts yelling "Shame! Shame!", the nihilist sits down at the bar and wonders where the bartender is, the priest starts saying a prayer of forgiveness, the Zen master knocks the thug on his a$s, as the scientist pulls out her smart phone and dials 911. The story is to demonstrate the difference between action that's filtered through the conditioned, thinking/emotional mind and ... not. We can discern that the notion of human virtue is woven into the fabric of the story, as a premise, but perhaps it might help illustrate how this notion of virtuous immediate action might apply to more morally ambiguous situations. But the illustration here is only an appeal to intuition, as the efficacy it dissolves by any analysis. While I have to use intellect to set-things up, it's not useful beyond that. The first thought that came to my mind while reading that story is that each one of the characters lives in their own reality, and those realities, although created from the same blueprint, are different. Besides the resulting difference in perception, there is also the difference in emotional, intellectual, and intuitional makeup of each character. I believe that all consciousness we can experience in this physical reality is graded on a scale: instinct, emotion, intellect, intuition. Man mostly mastered his instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop an intellect, and his intuition is just germinating. Until man masters his emotions it has to come here over and over. Actually, the story is used to illustrate that all of the people in the story live in a meta-reality created by cognition except for the ZM. S/he is the only human who is not constrained or motivated by reflective thought. She sees and acts. The other people think before they either act or don't act. The way I first heard the story was like this: a priest, a theologian, and a ZM were walking by a bar in which a guy with a machine gun was standing in the doorway mowing down patrons. The priest started praying for the murderer and his victims, the theologian began thinking about what should be done considering all of the possible moral ramifications of various actions, but the ZM simply grabbed a knife and cut off the murderers head. The ZM did not think anything; s/he simply saw and responded in a state of no-mind. There are dozens of stories like this used to illuminate various ideas about morality. Another one involves a sage who sees a deer run by. A hunter with a gun appears and asks, "Which way did the deer go?" The sage points in a false direction, and the hunter runs off in that direction. The issue deals with the idea of truth telling, lies, and ideas about good versus the good.. At the local university where I live the honors students got interested in what's called "radical honesty." The idea was to always tell the truth no matter what. Many of us found the idea of living like that highly amusing. I can assure everyone that if my wife asks me, "How do I look?" the answer will always be, "Wonderful!"
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 20, 2020 17:37:40 GMT -5
The first thought that came to my mind while reading that story is that each one of the characters lives in their own reality, and those realities, although created from the same blueprint, are different. Besides the resulting difference in perception, there is also the difference in emotional, intellectual, and intuitional makeup of each character. I believe that all consciousness we can experience in this physical reality is graded on a scale: instinct, emotion, intellect, intuition. Man mostly mastered his instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop an intellect, and his intuition is just germinating. Until man masters his emotions it has to come here over and over. Actually, the story is used to illustrate that all of the people in the story live in a meta-reality created by cognition except for the ZM. S/he is the only human who is not constrained or motivated by reflective thought. She sees and acts. The other people think before they either act or don't act. The way I first heard the story was like this: a priest, a theologian, and a ZM were walking by a bar in which a guy with a machine gun was standing in the doorway mowing down patrons. The priest started praying for the murderer and his victims, the theologian began thinking about what should be done considering all of the possible moral ramifications of various actions, but the ZM simply grabbed a knife and cut off the murderers head. The ZM did not think anything; s/he simply saw and responded in a state of no-mind. There are dozens of stories like this used to illuminate various ideas about morality. Another one involves a sage who sees a deer run by. A hunter with a gun appears and asks, "Which way did the deer go?" The sage points in a false direction, and the hunter runs off in that direction. The issue deals with the idea of truth telling, lies, and ideas about good versus the good.. At the local university where I live the honors students got interested in what's called "radical honesty." The idea was to always tell the truth no matter what. Many of us found the idea of living like that highly amusing. I can assure everyone that if my wife asks me, "How do I look?" the answer will always be, "Wonderful!" Interesting ... I find "radical honesty" objectionable, probably form all points of view I can think of. It would be ideal to react intuitively to everything (like the fabled ZM), but man isn't there. If he were, he wouldn't be here on Earth, now.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 20, 2020 19:22:27 GMT -5
Actually, the story is used to illustrate that all of the people in the story live in a meta-reality created by cognition except for the ZM. S/he is the only human who is not constrained or motivated by reflective thought. She sees and acts. The other people think before they either act or don't act. The way I first heard the story was like this: a priest, a theologian, and a ZM were walking by a bar in which a guy with a machine gun was standing in the doorway mowing down patrons. The priest started praying for the murderer and his victims, the theologian began thinking about what should be done considering all of the possible moral ramifications of various actions, but the ZM simply grabbed a knife and cut off the murderers head. The ZM did not think anything; s/he simply saw and responded in a state of no-mind. There are dozens of stories like this used to illuminate various ideas about morality. Another one involves a sage who sees a deer run by. A hunter with a gun appears and asks, "Which way did the deer go?" The sage points in a false direction, and the hunter runs off in that direction. The issue deals with the idea of truth telling, lies, and ideas about good versus the good.. At the local university where I live the honors students got interested in what's called "radical honesty." The idea was to always tell the truth no matter what. Many of us found the idea of living like that highly amusing. I can assure everyone that if my wife asks me, "How do I look?" the answer will always be, "Wonderful!" Interesting ... I find "radical honesty" objectionable, probably form all points of view I can think of. It would be ideal to react intuitively to everything (like the fabled ZM), but man isn't there. If he were, he wouldn't be here on Earth, now.Can man still be man if he isn't in Earth?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 20, 2020 21:33:21 GMT -5
Sorry for not being clearerer. I can't give you an example of an absolute virtue, as it manifests situationally, in the moment. There's a Zen story/joke that goes like this. A Zen master, a priest, a nihilist, a rabbi and a scientist walk into a bar. It's empty except for a thug and a diminutive woman just old enough to be there, and he's beating on her and tugging at her purse. The rabbi starts yelling "Shame! Shame!", the nihilist sits down at the bar and wonders where the bartender is, the priest starts saying a prayer of forgiveness, the Zen master knocks the thug on his a$s, as the scientist pulls out her smart phone and dials 911. The story is to demonstrate the difference between action that's filtered through the conditioned, thinking/emotional mind and ... not. We can discern that the notion of human virtue is woven into the fabric of the story, as a premise, but perhaps it might help illustrate how this notion of virtuous immediate action might apply to more morally ambiguous situations. But the illustration here is only an appeal to intuition, as the efficacy it dissolves by any analysis. While I have to use intellect to set-things up, it's not useful beyond that. The first thought that came to my mind while reading that story is that each one of the characters lives in their own reality, and those realities, although created from the same blueprint, are different. Besides the resulting difference in perception, there is also the difference in emotional, intellectual, and intuitional makeup of each character. I believe that all consciousness we can experience in this physical reality is graded on a scale: instinct, emotion, intellect, intuition. Man mostly mastered his instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop an intellect, and his intuition is just germinating. Until man masters his emotions it has to come here over and over. Yes, this strikes me as another way to think of what I meant by action filtered through the conditioned mind, and otherwise. In deference to ZD's time and experience with the Zen culture, I'll disclose that this version was my own embellishment, from memory. Now, without validating any notion of some sort of objective reality, the primary point about conditioning I was making is that some of it is quite involved, as a matter of depth and complexity. Political activism, is, as I think you alluded to, one example of that sort of conditioning. This can be mitigated by deliberately cultivating a quiescent state of body/mind - what I take to be the essence of Zen. In terms of the way we're now using the word intuition, the point of such cultivation is to allow intuition to express more freely without encumbrance of that conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 20, 2020 21:36:58 GMT -5
if my wife asks me, "How do I look?" the answer will always be, "Wonderful!" (** muttley snicker **)
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jun 21, 2020 2:50:41 GMT -5
From some nondual perspectives, there is no separate person so noone making decisions. It is always Oneness masquerading as the appearance of a separate person. If this resonates, there is also noone to become enlightened, as the apparent person is already Oneness so cannot become what already is, and the search ends. This does not have to be realized for the same reason, because it is already Oneness not realizing! I believe I understand what you're saying, but to me it is less important what I am if I don't know I am. Enlightenment is when I know what / who I am, beyond doubt. Also, even if all is part of an One, acknowledging that doesn't mean that the reverse process of individualization is irrelevant. A cell being part of its organ's oneness, and further part of the body's oneness, and so on, doesn't negate its individuality and purpose, in my opinion. The same at the thought level, entity level, gestalt level, plane level, to infinitude. Something that is hidden may come along that contradicts what one believes is known beyond doubt so not a very secure basis for ones foundation. Accepting that knowing beyond doubt is insecure, one may still resonate with a solution to the spiritual search, without it having to be known beyond doubt.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 21, 2020 3:35:46 GMT -5
Actually, the story is used to illustrate that all of the people in the story live in a meta-reality created by cognition except for the ZM. S/he is the only human who is not constrained or motivated by reflective thought. She sees and acts. The other people think before they either act or don't act. The way I first heard the story was like this: a priest, a theologian, and a ZM were walking by a bar in which a guy with a machine gun was standing in the doorway mowing down patrons. The priest started praying for the murderer and his victims, the theologian began thinking about what should be done considering all of the possible moral ramifications of various actions, but the ZM simply grabbed a knife and cut off the murderers head. The ZM did not think anything; s/he simply saw and responded in a state of no-mind. There are dozens of stories like this used to illuminate various ideas about morality. Another one involves a sage who sees a deer run by. A hunter with a gun appears and asks, "Which way did the deer go?" The sage points in a false direction, and the hunter runs off in that direction. The issue deals with the idea of truth telling, lies, and ideas about good versus the good.. At the local university where I live the honors students got interested in what's called "radical honesty." The idea was to always tell the truth no matter what. Many of us found the idea of living like that highly amusing. I can assure everyone that if my wife asks me, "How do I look?" the answer will always be, "Wonderful!" It would be ideal to react intuitively to everything (like the fabled ZM), but man isn't there. If he were, he wouldn't be here on Earth, now. Zen uses the term "monkey mind" to describe the way many peoples' minds incessantly jump from idea to idea (like a monkey in a tree jumping from limb to limb), but thinking is an unnecessary habit that can be broken by regularly shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, or felt (direct sensory perception). As the mind grows increasingly silent, it can be seen that the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately without any internal commentary--without reflection, fantasization, ideas about causality/intention/motivation, and without self-referential thoughts. Most people assume that who/what they are is some sort of separate entity that controls what the body does by means of thought-directed action, but this is an illusion. There is no "me" at the center of whatever is happening who is exercising volition. Fortunately, as the mind grows increasingly silent (or becomes totally silent), this fact can become obvious. ZM's and other sages who have seen through the illusion of selfhood are as human as anyone else, but their functioning is spontaneous because reflective thinking is no longer a dominant factor in their lives. That which sees and acts can be discovered and known, but not through the intellect.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 21, 2020 12:21:41 GMT -5
I believe I understand what you're saying, but to me it is less important what I am if I don't know I am. Enlightenment is when I know what / who I am, beyond doubt. Also, even if all is part of an One, acknowledging that doesn't mean that the reverse process of individualization is irrelevant. A cell being part of its organ's oneness, and further part of the body's oneness, and so on, doesn't negate its individuality and purpose, in my opinion. The same at the thought level, entity level, gestalt level, plane level, to infinitude. Something that is hidden may come along that contradicts what one believes is known beyond doubt so not a very secure basis for ones foundation. Accepting that knowing beyond doubt is insecure, one may still resonate with a solution to the spiritual search, without it having to be known beyond doubt. I think that the purpose of knowing is in using that knowledge in this moment firstly, even when it is for a longer term, or higher, goal. From this perspective, it is more important to know what to do now than to know how things are then you decide what to do now (which our current intellect might prevent from effectively rationalizing anyway). What you're saying seems to be that you're "holding your breath" for eventually knowing something that has no immediate utility, in the sense that it doesn't tell you what to do now. There might also be my difficulty in following the discussions on this forum both because I am not familiar with the system of beliefs you guys subscribe too, and because you use a vague language, that seems to refer to profound things that don't admit any challenge. Sure, it is your right to do it.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jun 21, 2020 14:22:29 GMT -5
It would be ideal to react intuitively to everything (like the fabled ZM), but man isn't there. If he were, he wouldn't be here on Earth, now. Zen uses the term "monkey mind" to describe the way many peoples' minds incessantly jump from idea to idea (like a monkey in a tree jumping from limb to limb), but thinking is an unnecessary habit that can be broken by regularly shifting attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, or felt (direct sensory perception). As the mind grows increasingly silent, it can be seen that the body continues to function intelligently and appropriately without any internal commentary--without reflection, fantasization, ideas about causality/intention/motivation, and without self-referential thoughts. Most people assume that who/what they are is some sort of separate entity that controls what the body does by means of thought-directed action, but this is an illusion. There is no "me" at the center of whatever is happening who is exercising volition. Fortunately, as the mind grows increasingly silent (or becomes totally silent), this fact can become obvious. ZM's and other sages who have seen through the illusion of selfhood are as human as anyone else, but their functioning is spontaneous because reflective thinking is no longer a dominant factor in their lives. That which sees and acts can be discovered and known, but not through the intellect. Beyond the idea of "monkey mind", in my experience, there is an optimum level of trance (a multidimensional level, not linear only) for every activity, physical, mental, here, inwards, ... The way I practice it, is to firstly get into a light trance, then ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum trance for the specific activity I intend to perform. The whole process takes a few seconds, rarely half a minute. Regarding what I am, I believe I am a point of awareness that can change its focus in a conscious universe. In this stage, its primary focus is my whole self, that includes an inner self, a subconscious, and a conscious (the alive, awake me). I won't detail it further. What you call "spontaneous functioning" I call intuitive functioning, when you know without rationalizing, "just know". I see intuition as the next stage of development of the whole self, after its developing an intellect, and mastering emotions. I consider this to be the goal of man's development. Anyway, I share what I believe with no intention of convincing others, or arguing its validity.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2020 21:26:57 GMT -5
If the concern is the end of the search and Nonduality resonantes as the solution, after the resonance there may indeed be, and usually is a struggle about how the terrible abuse that is apparent, can be Oneness manifest. This often includes issues like good men doing nothing. Apart from this, at least with the folk I know, the other considerations you mention do not come up. Suffering is the main issue to be incorporated as Oneness manifest. Once this is done, there is consolidation of the resonance. This has always been the outcome of the process of consolidation as the resonance appears to be the head in the Tiger's mouth. No escape. It seems that this event does not prevent folk being activists in various causes. It is accepted that Oneness is suffering manifest, and both abuser and abused, without necessarily ending ones concern which is of course also seen as Oneness manifest. Its not about making sense of why Oneness is both sides of all issues, but simply seeing and accepting that Oneness as all. It's an amusing tautology that I can't see my own blind spots, and I only note that to be clear that I don't assume otherwise in writing what comes next. That said, there is no political cause that isn't, to some degree and structure, a form of mass hypnosis, and another insight about how form manifests is that when one takes up arms, one inevitably becomes what one is fighting against. So, what the OP evokes for me is a line of advice that I wish I could give to anyone interested in the politics of these interesting times. It's advice that's quite antithetical to any direct search for the existential truth, but, nontheless, I think timely: If you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. How does one gain control of their emotions?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 21, 2020 21:37:18 GMT -5
Sorry for not being clearerer. I can't give you an example of an absolute virtue, as it manifests situationally, in the moment. There's a Zen story/joke that goes like this. A Zen master, a priest, a nihilist, a rabbi and a scientist walk into a bar. It's empty except for a thug and a diminutive woman just old enough to be there, and he's beating on her and tugging at her purse. The rabbi starts yelling "Shame! Shame!", the nihilist sits down at the bar and wonders where the bartender is, the priest starts saying a prayer of forgiveness, the Zen master knocks the thug on his a$s, as the scientist pulls out her smart phone and dials 911. The story is to demonstrate the difference between action that's filtered through the conditioned, thinking/emotional mind and ... not. We can discern that the notion of human virtue is woven into the fabric of the story, as a premise, but perhaps it might help illustrate how this notion of virtuous immediate action might apply to more morally ambiguous situations. But the illustration here is only an appeal to intuition, as the efficacy it dissolves by any analysis. While I have to use intellect to set-things up, it's not useful beyond that. The first thought that came to my mind while reading that story is that each one of the characters lives in their own reality, and those realities, although created from the same blueprint, are different. Besides the resulting difference in perception, there is also the difference in emotional, intellectual, and intuitional makeup of each character. I believe that all consciousness we can experience in this physical reality is graded on a scale: instinct, emotion, intellect, intuition. Man mostly mastered his instincts, is dominated by emotions, started to develop an intellect, and his intuition is just germinating. Until man masters his emotions it has to come here over and over.How does one master their emotions?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 21, 2020 23:08:23 GMT -5
It's an amusing tautology that I can't see my own blind spots, and I only note that to be clear that I don't assume otherwise in writing what comes next. That said, there is no political cause that isn't, to some degree and structure, a form of mass hypnosis, and another insight about how form manifests is that when one takes up arms, one inevitably becomes what one is fighting against. So, what the OP evokes for me is a line of advice that I wish I could give to anyone interested in the politics of these interesting times. It's advice that's quite antithetical to any direct search for the existential truth, but, nontheless, I think timely: If you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will. How does one gain control of their emotions? In existential, spiritual terms, one never really does, as they're not the source of them. In fact, if they're interested in the existential truth, they should give that up. In practical terms, one self-observes, prioritizes where and how they want to direct their attention and energy, and sometimes even self-analyzes events and thoughts to gain relative insight into why and when they emote what they do. The events that you wrote about in the OP would result in far less suffering if the people deeply involved in them would consider: if you don't gain control of your own emotions, someone else, most surely will.
|
|