|
|
Post by Reefs on May 27, 2021 11:12:22 GMT -5
A child enjoys washing dishes when he's watched the parent doing them and is taught how to do them. They enjoy washing them the first few times. Then they hate it when it becomes one of their chores. Yes, chores usually means you have an end result in mind and just go thru the motions to get to that result so that you can check it off your list. And that's usually hard work and intrinsically not rewarding and therefore requires a great deal of motivation to even get started. But when the end result becomes irrelevant and the activity itself becomes the main focus, then it is easy and fun and requires no motivation at all, because engaging in the activity itself is what is intrinsically so rewarding, so that the activity is sought for the activity itself, not for the end result the activity may produce. It's the difference between doing and non-doing.
I had such a difference in experience with my wife. We used to go swimming together every day. My wife went swimming mainly to burn calories and to relax only as a side effect. I mainly went swimming to relax and burning calories only as a side effect. So she usually wouldn't last 30 minutes in the beginning before she was too tired to go on. She would push thru at times to check off some imaginary calories number in her mind, but long story short, she spent less and less time in the pool after a while because the experience of the activity itself wasn't really rewarding. I had usually the exact opposite experience, because I didn't care about calories. I thought if I wanted to lose weight I would just change my diet and that would take care of it relatively quickly (which it did) so I wouldn't have to turn swimming into hard work. So my main focus in the pool was more on improving my technique in terms of efficiency, trying something new, which made it a mostly playful and very relaxing experience because the activity itself was already so rewarding. And I usually go there around sunset. So there's the magic of a natural spectacle of light to enjoy on top of that. And actually, at times I did count laps because I wanted to see if I could swim nonstop one nautical mile, just for fun. But the counting quickly started spoiling the fun, I realized.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 27, 2021 14:55:56 GMT -5
A child enjoys washing dishes when he's watched the parent doing them and is taught how to do them. They enjoy washing them the first few times. Then they hate it when it becomes one of their chores. Yes, chores usually means you have an end result in mind and just go thru the motions to get to that result so that you can check it off your list. And that's usually hard work and intrinsically not rewarding and therefore requires a great deal of motivation to even get started. But when the end result becomes irrelevant and the activity itself becomes the main focus, then it is easy and fun and requires no motivation at all, because engaging in the activity itself is what is intrinsically so rewarding, so that the activity is sought for the activity itself, not for the end result the activity may produce. It's the difference between doing and non-doing.
I had such a difference in experience with my wife. We used to go swimming together every day. My wife went swimming mainly to burn calories and to relax only as a side effect. I mainly went swimming to relax and burning calories only as a side effect. So she usually wouldn't last 30 minutes in the beginning before she was too tired to go on. She would push thru at times to check off some imaginary calories number in her mind, but long story short, she spent less and less time in the pool after a while because the experience of the activity itself wasn't really rewarding. I had usually the exact opposite experience, because I didn't care about calories. I thought if I wanted to lose weight I would just change my diet and that would take care of it relatively quickly (which it did) so I wouldn't have to turn swimming into hard work. So my main focus in the pool was more on improving my technique in terms of efficiency, trying something new, which made it a mostly playful and very relaxing experience because the activity itself was already so rewarding. And I usually go there around sunset. So there's the magic of a natural spectacle of light to enjoy on top of that. And actually, at times I did count laps because I wanted to see if I could swim nonstop one nautical mile, just for fun. But the counting quickly started spoiling the fun, I realized. Exactly. That's a good example of flow. When we become one-with whatever activity is happening, there's no reflectivity, no second-guessing, no judging, no comparing, no thinking about alternative activities, no thoughts about the past or future, etc. We're happy without any idea about being happy. It's the simple joy of being. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 27, 2021 21:37:08 GMT -5
A child enjoys washing dishes when he's watched the parent doing them and is taught how to do them. They enjoy washing them the first few times. Then they hate it when it becomes one of their chores. Yes, chores usually means you have an end result in mind and just go thru the motions to get to that result so that you can check it off your list. And that's usually hard work and intrinsically not rewarding and therefore requires a great deal of motivation to even get started. But when the end result becomes irrelevant and the activity itself becomes the main focus, then it is easy and fun and requires no motivation at all, because engaging in the activity itself is what is intrinsically so rewarding, so that the activity is sought for the activity itself, not for the end result the activity may produce. It's the difference between doing and non-doing.
I had such a difference in experience with my wife. We used to go swimming together every day. My wife went swimming mainly to burn calories and to relax only as a side effect. I mainly went swimming to relax and burning calories only as a side effect. So she usually wouldn't last 30 minutes in the beginning before she was too tired to go on. She would push thru at times to check off some imaginary calories number in her mind, but long story short, she spent less and less time in the pool after a while because the experience of the activity itself wasn't really rewarding. I had usually the exact opposite experience, because I didn't care about calories. I thought if I wanted to lose weight I would just change my diet and that would take care of it relatively quickly (which it did) so I wouldn't have to turn swimming into hard work. So my main focus in the pool was more on improving my technique in terms of efficiency, trying something new, which made it a mostly playful and very relaxing experience because the activity itself was already so rewarding. And I usually go there around sunset. So there's the magic of a natural spectacle of light to enjoy on top of that. And actually, at times I did count laps because I wanted to see if I could swim nonstop one nautical mile, just for fun. But the counting quickly started spoiling the fun, I realized. Sounds like you're having fun. I find this is a hard thing to do for some. It should be the 11th commandment. "Thou shalt have fun, as much of it as yee can bear." |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 28, 2021 5:24:11 GMT -5
Yes, chores usually means you have an end result in mind and just go thru the motions to get to that result so that you can check it off your list. And that's usually hard work and intrinsically not rewarding and therefore requires a great deal of motivation to even get started. But when the end result becomes irrelevant and the activity itself becomes the main focus, then it is easy and fun and requires no motivation at all, because engaging in the activity itself is what is intrinsically so rewarding, so that the activity is sought for the activity itself, not for the end result the activity may produce. It's the difference between doing and non-doing.
I had such a difference in experience with my wife. We used to go swimming together every day. My wife went swimming mainly to burn calories and to relax only as a side effect. I mainly went swimming to relax and burning calories only as a side effect. So she usually wouldn't last 30 minutes in the beginning before she was too tired to go on. She would push thru at times to check off some imaginary calories number in her mind, but long story short, she spent less and less time in the pool after a while because the experience of the activity itself wasn't really rewarding. I had usually the exact opposite experience, because I didn't care about calories. I thought if I wanted to lose weight I would just change my diet and that would take care of it relatively quickly (which it did) so I wouldn't have to turn swimming into hard work. So my main focus in the pool was more on improving my technique in terms of efficiency, trying something new, which made it a mostly playful and very relaxing experience because the activity itself was already so rewarding. And I usually go there around sunset. So there's the magic of a natural spectacle of light to enjoy on top of that. And actually, at times I did count laps because I wanted to see if I could swim nonstop one nautical mile, just for fun. But the counting quickly started spoiling the fun, I realized. Sounds like you're having fun. I find this is a hard thing to do for some. It should be the 11th commandment. "Thou shalt have fun, as much of it as yee can bear." I agree, but it's much more likely for this to be the case if a child grows up in a stable happy home with supportive parents. Until the age of about 20 I lived like Peter Pan. I had lots of interests, and I just did whatever seemed like the most fun at any time. At age 20, however, I began spending more and more time reflecting about existential issues and thinking about thinking, and soon lost my way. I had no idea what changed, but I began wondering what my purpose in life was as I started focusing more about the future rather than whatever was happening in the present moment. Entering the military got me out of my head (because my work kept me too busy to reflect), and after exiting the military I again returned to being Peter Pan. By the age of 40 the internal dialogue grew incessant, reflective thoughts soon led to job burnout, and Peter pan disappeared. Meditation and Zen retreats, however, helped lead the way home and gave me back my true direction. Looking back it's now obvious what happened along the way, and why certain periods of time were so problematic compared to others. The other day I read an article about the difference between happy people and unhappy people. The bottom line? Happy people live in the present moment and don't worry about the future or about what other people think. They're optimistic and they trust themselves regarding what they choose to do. There were other characteristics, but staying present and refusing to think negatively were biggies. Fun wasn't specifically mentioned, but it seemed obvious that happy people find almost everything they do to be loads of fun. I work in construction, and people are often amazed that I find different kinds of hard physical work lots of fun. They sometimes ask questions like, "Why do you work so hard at your age?" I reply, "I never work; when what you do is fun, it's more like play." |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 28, 2021 7:27:32 GMT -5
Sounds like you're having fun. I find this is a hard thing to do for some. It should be the 11th commandment. "Thou shalt have fun, as much of it as yee can bear." I agree, but it's much more likely for this to be the case if a child grows up in a stable happy home with supportive parents. Until the age of about 20 I lived like Peter Pan. I had lots of interests, and I just did whatever seemed like the most fun at any time. At age 20, however, I began spending more and more time reflecting about existential issues and thinking about thinking, and soon lost my way. I had no idea what changed, but I began wondering what my purpose in life was as I started focusing more about the future rather than whatever was happening in the present moment. Entering the military got me out of my head (because my work kept me too busy to reflect), and after exiting the military I again returned to being Peter Pan. By the age of 40 the internal dialogue grew incessant, reflective thoughts soon led to job burnout, and Peter pan disappeared. Meditation and Zen retreats, however, helped lead the way home and gave me back my true direction. Looking back it's now obvious what happened along the way, and why certain periods of time were so problematic compared to others. The other day I read an article about the difference between happy people and unhappy people. The bottom line? Happy people live in the present moment and don't worry about the future or about what other people think. They're optimistic and they trust themselves regarding what they choose to do. There were other characteristics, but staying present and refusing to think negatively were biggies. Fun wasn't specifically mentioned, but it seemed obvious that happy people find almost everything they do to be loads of fun. I work in construction, and people are often amazed that I find different kinds of hard physical work lots of fun. They sometimes ask questions like, "Why do you work so hard at your age?" I reply, "I never work; when what you do is fun, it's more like play." In some cultures people sing while they work. Yes, turning work into play is genius. You should market that idea. I saw sifty's vid the other day about self-enquiry and other tasks. I tried to hold the I-sense while playing a game of chess. I was able to do that so. The game seemed to play in the background, but when I got to the critical stages when winning or losing became paramount, the ego took over. It reminded me of Reefs when he started counting laps. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 28, 2021 8:00:29 GMT -5
I agree, but it's much more likely for this to be the case if a child grows up in a stable happy home with supportive parents. Until the age of about 20 I lived like Peter Pan. I had lots of interests, and I just did whatever seemed like the most fun at any time. At age 20, however, I began spending more and more time reflecting about existential issues and thinking about thinking, and soon lost my way. I had no idea what changed, but I began wondering what my purpose in life was as I started focusing more about the future rather than whatever was happening in the present moment. Entering the military got me out of my head (because my work kept me too busy to reflect), and after exiting the military I again returned to being Peter Pan. By the age of 40 the internal dialogue grew incessant, reflective thoughts soon led to job burnout, and Peter pan disappeared. Meditation and Zen retreats, however, helped lead the way home and gave me back my true direction. Looking back it's now obvious what happened along the way, and why certain periods of time were so problematic compared to others. The other day I read an article about the difference between happy people and unhappy people. The bottom line? Happy people live in the present moment and don't worry about the future or about what other people think. They're optimistic and they trust themselves regarding what they choose to do. There were other characteristics, but staying present and refusing to think negatively were biggies. Fun wasn't specifically mentioned, but it seemed obvious that happy people find almost everything they do to be loads of fun. I work in construction, and people are often amazed that I find different kinds of hard physical work lots of fun. They sometimes ask questions like, "Why do you work so hard at your age?" I reply, "I never work; when what you do is fun, it's more like play." In some cultures people sing while they work. Yes, turning work into play is genius. You should market that idea. I saw sifty's vid the other day about self-enquiry and other tasks. I tried to hold the I-sense while playing a game of chess. I was able to do that so. The game seemed to play in the background, but when I got to the critical stages when winning or losing became paramount, the ego took over. It reminded me of Reefs when he started counting laps. As a contractor, I hire lots of different subcontractors. Many people in the industry decry the fact that immigrant workers have replaced some of the prior-existing subs, but the attitudinal difference can be striking. Twelve Hispanics came to roof a house I'm currently building. The crew included two women, and each person had a specific task that s/he performed. The day was incredibly hot, but the entire crew was obviously having fun and socializing while installing the shingles. They were joking and laughing and yet the amount of work they did was amazing. By the end of the day the entire house with 25 valleys and ridges and 200 feet of flashing against walls (a complex hip roof with multiple roof planes) was roofed. I spent time watching them to see if they were nailing the shingles adequately, and, if anything, they were shooting even more nails than necessary. They finished the job just as it became too dark to see. In the past it would sometimes take a long time to get a house roofed. A crew would come and work for a half day, leave, and return off and on over a period of a week to three weeks before the job was finished, and the attitude of the workers was terrible. Happy workers with a good attitude are a lot more fun to have on a project than unhappy ones. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 28, 2021 8:23:25 GMT -5
Chapter 4 reminds me of two different things in the Bible. One is using the scale of the physical world to hint to the listener as to the absence of limitation. The Christians relate this to the power and glory of God, but they use the same device nevertheless. There is an obvious secular parallel as well.
The other thing I'm reminded of is "take your reward in heaven, rather than here, on Earth". This applies in two ways. One is a sort of inside-out of the description of how the Bodhisttava is to give gifts: the Christian is advised that prayer for the sake of being seen as pious is corrupt.
The other way this applies is to the giving of charity, which is the more directly related to the "take your reward" quote.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 28, 2021 11:13:44 GMT -5
I agree, but it's much more likely for this to be the case if a child grows up in a stable happy home with supportive parents. Until the age of about 20 I lived like Peter Pan. I had lots of interests, and I just did whatever seemed like the most fun at any time. At age 20, however, I began spending more and more time reflecting about existential issues and thinking about thinking, and soon lost my way. I had no idea what changed, but I began wondering what my purpose in life was as I started focusing more about the future rather than whatever was happening in the present moment. Entering the military got me out of my head (because my work kept me too busy to reflect), and after exiting the military I again returned to being Peter Pan. By the age of 40 the internal dialogue grew incessant, reflective thoughts soon led to job burnout, and Peter pan disappeared. Meditation and Zen retreats, however, helped lead the way home and gave me back my true direction. Looking back it's now obvious what happened along the way, and why certain periods of time were so problematic compared to others. The other day I read an article about the difference between happy people and unhappy people. The bottom line? Happy people live in the present moment and don't worry about the future or about what other people think. They're optimistic and they trust themselves regarding what they choose to do. There were other characteristics, but staying present and refusing to think negatively were biggies. Fun wasn't specifically mentioned, but it seemed obvious that happy people find almost everything they do to be loads of fun. I work in construction, and people are often amazed that I find different kinds of hard physical work lots of fun. They sometimes ask questions like, "Why do you work so hard at your age?" I reply, "I never work; when what you do is fun, it's more like play." In some cultures people sing while they work. Yes, turning work into play is genius. You should market that idea. I saw sifty's vid the other day about self-enquiry and other tasks. I tried to hold the I-sense while playing a game of chess. I was able to do that so. The game seemed to play in the background, but when I got to the critical stages when winning or losing became paramount, the ego took over. It reminded me of Reefs when he started counting laps. That's why I don't/can't play. The sensation of ego creeping in is uncomfortable for me, so it's just not worth it. There aren't many games I would play, because there comes a point when ego comes in and I don't like the feeling of it. I can play the card game 'Uno' with my kids without discomfort. I'm not a believer that ANY activity can happen without ego for some people. Chess will always trigger my ego, that's just the way I'm wired, it's my conditioning. I was raised very competitively. I've noted some activities engender ego and demand ego more than others, if there is a sort of 'conquest' or 'domination' involved in the activity, ego is more likely to get involved. Some jobs engender ego (there are a couple of very obvious ones!) Though it's probably very good practice to engage in these activities in the way you did...sort of 'hold ego at bay' from a witnessing position. I can enjoy watching other people engage with intense activities. I enjoyed the Queen's Gambit. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 28, 2021 11:23:03 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 5********************************************************************* Sanskrit (Conze):The Lord continued: 'What do you think, Subhuti, can the Tathagata be seen by the possession of his marks?' Subhuti replied: 'No indeed, O Lord. The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.' And why? What has been taught by the Tathagata as the possession of marks, that is truly a no-possession of no-marks.' The Lord said: 'Wherever there is possession of marks, there is fraud, wherever there is no-possession of no-marks there is no fraud. Hence the Tathagata is to be seen from no marks as marks.' Sanskrit (Harrison): "What do you think, Subhūti, can a Realized One be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features?" "A Realized One cannot be seen by virtue of the possession of distinctive features. Why is that? The very thing which the Realized One has preached as the possession of distinctive features lacks any possession of distinctive features." "Subhūti, as long as there is any distinctive feature there is falsehood, and as long as there is no distinctive feature there is no falsehood. Accordingly it is by virtue of the featurelessness of his distinctive features that a Realized One can be seen." Tibetan (Roach): Now Subhuti, what do you think? Should we consider someone to be One Thus Gone, just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body? And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conquering One, we should not. We should not consider anyone One Thus Gone just because they possess the totally exquisite marks that we find on a Buddha's body. And why not? Because when the One Thus Gone himself described the totally exquisite marks on a Buddha's body, he stated at the same time that they were impossible. Chinese (TNH): “What do you think, Subhuti? Is it possible to grasp the Tathagata by means of bodily signs?” “No, World-Honored One. When the Tathagata speaks of bodily signs, there are no signs being talked about.” The Buddha said to Subhuti, “In a place where there is something that can be distinguished by signs, in that place there is deception. If you can see the signless nature of signs, then you can see the Tathagata.” ********************************************************************* If we take ‘signs’ to be what Alan Watts calls ‘symbols’, i.e. signs = symbols = concepts, then this is basically the whole seeker dilemma in a nutshell. One has to see beyond the conceptual in order to realize THIS. Commentary from TNH: This is what A-H call 'seeing the world thru the eyes of Source'. And it is also what AW means by the veil of thoughts, the symbol vs. the real. The one who sees a rose and only a rose doesn’t actually see but is lost in imagination. But why do they have to explain it in such an abstract and complicated way? I am starting to feel sorry for those who had to study these sutras on their own without someone explaining to them what is said there in plain English. Buddhists really like to make things seem more complex and mysterious than they actually are. I am also not (yet) seeing how Harrison’s translation is in any way more accurate or superior to the other translations. Conze’s translations at times seem unintelligible. That surprised me a little. The Tibetan translation seems to be taking great liberties. So far Thich’s translation seems the best, especially in combination with his comments. Nevertheless, whatever translation we may choose, it all seems a bit too wordy and unnecessarily complicated to me. If we compare that to let’s say Laozi, even with classical Chinese being extremely vague, it still has more precision and especially more economy of words than these Buddhist texts. I am honestly a bit disappointed in that regard. I really expected something better.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on May 29, 2021 2:22:28 GMT -5
If we take ‘signs’ to be what Alan Watts calls ‘symbols’, i.e. signs = symbols = concepts, then this is basically the whole seeker dilemma in a nutshell. One has to see beyond the conceptual in order to realize THIS.  ".. you don't even see THIS!" (** smacks table .. flicks lit beedi at the seeker and flips table over on the way out ... **) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 29, 2021 9:23:53 GMT -5
In some cultures people sing while they work. Yes, turning work into play is genius. You should market that idea. I saw sifty's vid the other day about self-enquiry and other tasks. I tried to hold the I-sense while playing a game of chess. I was able to do that so. The game seemed to play in the background, but when I got to the critical stages when winning or losing became paramount, the ego took over. It reminded me of Reefs when he started counting laps. As a contractor, I hire lots of different subcontractors. Many people in the industry decry the fact that immigrant workers have replaced some of the prior-existing subs, but the attitudinal difference can be striking. Twelve Hispanics came to roof a house I'm currently building. The crew included two women, and each person had a specific task that s/he performed. The day was incredibly hot, but the entire crew was obviously having fun and socializing while installing the shingles. They were joking and laughing and yet the amount of work they did was amazing. By the end of the day the entire house with 25 valleys and ridges and 200 feet of flashing against walls (a complex hip roof with multiple roof planes) was roofed. I spent time watching them to see if they were nailing the shingles adequately, and, if anything, they were shooting even more nails than necessary. They finished the job just as it became too dark to see. In the past it would sometimes take a long time to get a house roofed. A crew would come and work for a half day, leave, and return off and on over a period of a week to three weeks before the job was finished, and the attitude of the workers was terrible. Happy workers with a good attitude are a lot more fun to have on a project than unhappy ones. The last job I did as an electrician, we wired two apartment buildings. Our company was a small company, we did mostly custom homes. We had never done apartments before. Through a chain of events connected to the economic crash 2008, the builder I worked for most of the time for many years had taken a job as a superintendent for a large company. As we needed the work and as my boss had a relationship with the superintendent for many years, we got the job of wiring two buildings, 3 story, 33 units each building. My boss asked me to oversee the operation, I didn't want to as this was something new and different, and I would be retiring from electrical work in about 4 months anyway. But he talked me into it. I started marking off and prepping up the first building, I knew it was an impossible task, too big for our company. While I was still doing houses the sheetrock man told me about a big Mexican crew who wired jobs big and small, he gave me the contact information of the main guy. He knew about the apartment buildings because he was going to do the sheetrock. I told my boss about the Mexican crew and gave him the contact information. But there was a problem, the Mexican crew didn't have an electrical contractors license. So our boss (who was also the company owner) began discussions with the Mexican crew. In the meantime I kept prepping the apartments. I had learned over the years not to be overwhelmed by the size of a job, just begin and work day by day. By the time I got the first building prepped (basically with a helper and a guy we hired through a temp agency) the boss had come to an agreement with the Mexican crew. They basically worked under our bosses electrical license, he decided he didn't have a problem with that. I had to drill out only for the wires feeding from the main panels to the individual panels in each apartment, the Mexican crew drilled all the other holes. I was there prepping up the second building when the Mexican crew started wiring the first building. They were amazing. Everybody had a certain job and everybody knew exactly what to do. There were about 15 people on the crew, several women included. For years when our company got behind we did what we called the super crew. Everybody with the company working, we could do a 2,500-3,000 sq ft house in half a day, either a rough in or a trim out. Saturdays we worked full blast, all out, we knew we were there until we were done. The boss always acknowledged he knew we couldn't work like that every day, that super crew days were special. I tell you that to tell you the Mexican crew worked all the time like we worked on super crew Saturday, everybody quick and fast. They were paid by the job, not by the hour, and of course they all knew that. In prepping all the boxes had been nailed up, so all they had to do was pull wire and make joints (in boxes twist the right wires together). They finished in a week. It would have taken our company forever to do. It was the same atmosphere zd talked about, they were serious but they had fun working. Their teamwork was amazing, their skill was amazing, it was really a joy to watch them. The head electrician was superbly intelligent, spoke English very well, was exceptionally friendly. By my last day the second building was completely wired and I was hoping to have it ready for inspection. I was finishing up caulking holes, didn't get done, one more day would do it, probably half a day. I'm sure zd knows all about caulking holes, new construction is air tight these days, as much as possible energy efficient. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2021 10:25:48 GMT -5
As a contractor, I hire lots of different subcontractors. Many people in the industry decry the fact that immigrant workers have replaced some of the prior-existing subs, but the attitudinal difference can be striking. Twelve Hispanics came to roof a house I'm currently building. [...] [...] While I was still doing houses the sheetrock man told me about a big Mexican crew who wired jobs big and small, he gave me the contact information of the main guy. [...] Maybe too many good ones left Mexico. I was in that country for a while and I got electric shocks from various things, like a refrigerator (if walking in bare feet) and the water stream in a shower. I think it's because they didn't ground the circuits. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2021 10:55:34 GMT -5
Reading some of this, I see it's obvious that I've developed an unhealthy relationship with money. I've been noticing this in recent weeks and maybe slowly changing to "let go" more. Penny pinching for months only to lose a ***-load in a stupid stock market move helps make that point.
Maybe there are few software things I would continue to "tinker" with, even without the money-reward hope. Progress would be very slow though.
Other stuff I would surely quit. I might miss the social contact of working on a team sometimes, but the products are pretty much just worthless tech stuff - eg, websites with advertisements or user tracking, and low quality or dishonest product, which I don't really have the power to fix.
I'm back in the USA and working on getting a vehicle, which is apparently required here. Once I can move around I plan to spend some time in natural areas doing nothing. I'm from the east but starting in Nevada, so I can explore some stuff I've never seen before.
When you do things you dislike for money it makes it harder to spend it. It gums up the flow. Hard to cough up the 5 figures for a decent vehicle. Ug.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 29, 2021 16:59:36 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 5********************************************************************* ... But why do they have to explain it in such an abstract and complicated way? I am starting to feel sorry for those who had to study these sutras on their own without someone explaining to them what is said there in plain English. Buddhists really like to make things seem more complex and mysterious than they actually are. I am also not (yet) seeing how Harrison’s translation is in any way more accurate or superior to the other translations. Conze’s translations at times seem unintelligible. That surprised me a little. The Tibetan translation seems to be taking great liberties. So far Thich’s translation seems the best, especially in combination with his comments. Nevertheless, whatever translation we may choose, it all seems a bit too wordy and unnecessarily complicated to me. If we compare that to let’s say Laozi, even with classical Chinese being extremely vague, it still has more precision and especially more economy of words than these Buddhist texts. I am honestly a bit disappointed in that regard. I really expected something better.
The way I see these, there probably wasn't / isn't a better way of dealing with such ineffable knowledge. The original source, the Buddha accessed some knowledge in a symbolical form, that he interpreted (or it was interpreted for him by his inner guidance). He had the choice to share that information as he got it, or to interpret it, which inherently would've added some distortions, even if for the simple reason that communication through language implies distortions. That information was received, and passed on by people who inherently further distorted it through their own comprehension, memorization, use of language. Further, any translation made choices that highly reflected the translator's understanding of the content, besides his proficiency with the languages involved. Consequently, probably the best way of passing such knowledge was to do it in symbolical way. This is why, a translation that is faithful to the original wording (even if awkward and less intelligible) is probably a better source for the earnest seeker. Commentaries and rewording are okay as long as the reader is aware of the differences from the original, and looks at them from that perspective. The translator should make those differences very clear. I believe that these texts are to be approached not like an instruction manual, but more like pointers for the seeker to access the true message embedded in the symbolism. Depending on one's preference, that has to be done in an altered state of consciousness, be it mediation, incubated dreaming, trance, ... (I would avoid dietary ways). These texts shouldn't be used as dogmas. As far as I understand, this kind of ineffable knowledge is associative, and not sequential. You can't build the picture by placing one small clear 'tile of knowledge' next to the others, but you have to start from a fuzzy, larger picture to which you iteratively add more clarity, more detail. This reminds of the picture formats jpeg (progressive vs. baseline), and png (interlaced vs. not-interlaced).  |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on May 30, 2021 19:15:24 GMT -5
********************************************************************* The Diamond Sutra
Chapter 4
********************************************************************* Sanskrit (Conze):When he gives gifts he should not be supported by sight objects, nor by sounds, smells, tastes, touchables, or mind-objects; or, Subhuti, the Bodhisattva, the great being should give gifts in such a way that he is not supported by the notion of a sign. And why? Because the heap of merit of that Bodhi-being, who unsupported gives a gift, is not easy to measure.
“What do you think, Subhuti, is the extent of space in the East easy to measure?” Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord asked: In like manner, is it easy to measure the extent of space in the South, West or North, downwards, upwards, in the intermediate directions, in all the ten directions all round? Subhuti replied: No indeed, O Lord. The Lord said: Even so the heap of merit of that Bodhibeing who unsupported gives a gift is not easy to measure. That is why, Subhuti, those who have set out in the Bodhisattva-vehicle, should give gifts without being supported by the notion of a sign. Sanskrit (Harrison): “However, a bodhisattva should not give a gift while fixing on an object, Subhuti. He should not give a gift while fixing on anything. He should not give a gift while fixing on physical forms. He should not give a gift while fixing on sounds, smells, tastes or objects of touch or on dharmas. For this is the way, Subhuti, a bodhisattva should give a gift, so that he does not fix on the idea of the distinctive features (of any object). Why is that? Subhuti, it is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit, Subhuti, of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation.
What do you think, Subhuti, is it easy to take the measure of space in the east?” Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” “Similarly, is it easy to take the measure of space in the south, west, north, nadir, zenith, all the intermediate directions and any direction besides them, in the ten directions?”Subhuti said, “Indeed not, Lord.” The Lord said, “Quite so, Subhuti. Quite so, Subhuti. It is not easy to take the measure of the quantity of merit of the bodhisattva who gives a gift without fixation. However, this is the way a bodhisattva should give a gift, Subhuti, as an instance of the meritorious activity which consists in giving. Tibetan (Roach): And I say, o Subhuti, that a bodhisattva performs the act of giving without staying in things. They perform the act of giving without staying in any object at all. They perform the act of giving without staying in things that you see. They perform the act of giving without staying in sounds, and without staying in smells, or tastes, or things that you touch, or in objects of the thought. O Subhuti, bodhisattvas perform the act of giving without conceiving of any thing in any way as a sign. That is how they give. Why is it so? Think, o Subhuti, of the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying. This merit, o Subhuti, is not something that you could easily ever measure. O Subhuti, what do you think? Would it be easy to measure the space to the east of us? And Subhuti respectfully replied, O Conqueror, it would not. The Conqueror said, And just so, would it be easy to measure the space in any of the main directions to the south of us, or to the west of us, or to the north of us, or above us, or below us, or in any of the other directions from us? Would it be easy to measure the space to any of the ten directions from where we now stand? And Subhuti respectfully replied, Conqueror, it would not. Then the Conqueror said: And just so, Subhuti, it would be no easy thing to measure the mountains of merit collected by any bodhisattva who performs the act of giving without staying. Chinese (TNH): “Moreover, Subhuti, when a bodhisattva practices generosity, he does not rely on any object—that is to say he does not rely on any form, sound, smell, taste, tactile object, or dharma—to practice generosity.” “That, Subhuti, is the spirit in which a bodhisattva should practice generosity, not relying on signs. Why? If a bodhisattva practices generosity without relying on signs, the happiness that results cannot be conceived of or measured.
Subhuti, do you think that the space in the Eastern Quarter can be measured?” “No, World-Honored One.” “Subhuti, can space in the Western, Southern, and Northern Quarters, above and below be measured?” “No, World-Honored One.” “Subhuti, if a bodhisattva does not rely on any concept when practicing generosity, then the happiness that results from that virtuous act is as great as space. It cannot be measured. Subhuti, the bodhisattvas should let their minds dwell in the teachings I have just given.” ********************************************************************* Sounds like karma yoga to me. Commentary from TNH: There is a first sentence that isn't included in the above quotes: 《link》: अपि तु खलु पुनः सुभुते न बोधिसत्त्वेन वस्तुप्रतिष्ठितेन दानं दातव्यम्, न क्वचित्प्रतिष्ठितेन दानं दातव्यम्। 《IAST》: api tu khalu punaḥ subhute na bodhisattvena vastu-pratiṣṭhitena dānaṃ dātavyam, na kvacit-pratiṣṭhitena dānaṃ dātavyam| 《Müller》 'And again, O Subhûti, a gift should not be given by a Bodhisattva, while he believes in objects; a gift should not be given by him, while he believes in anything; a gift should not be given by him, 《Colgate》 "Moreover, Subhuti, a bodhisattva who shares with others should free themselves. 《Conze》 Moreover, Subhuti, a Bodhisattva who gives a gift should not be supported by a thing, nor should he be supported anywhere.With the explanation: vastu-pratiṣṭhitena: 執著實物、住於事
vastu: n. s. nominative vastu, any really existing or abiding substance or essence, thing, object, article substance, thing, as a fact 實體物(漢譯己類或事，是指有形的事物); f. becoming light, dawning, morning 凌晨
pratiṣṭhitena: m. f. n. s. pp. instrumental pratiṣṭhita, standing, stationed, placed, situated in or on (locative case or compound) 住, 住立, 依, 依住, 依託, 堅固, 安住, 安立, 所依住;Looking up those words in a more detailed (French version) dictionary: वस्तु vastu_1 [vas_1-tu] n. biens, richesses | chose ; matière, substance | phil. réalité concrète ; fait | (au fig.) propriété, nature, caractère | gram. sens propre (opp. alaṅkāra sens figuré) | ce dont il est question ; thème ; sujet ; affaire ; contenu factuel | lit. intrigue d'un récit ; scenario ; composition musicale | substance, essence. link प्रतिष्ठित pratiṣṭhita [pp. pratiṣṭhā_1] a. m. n. f. pratiṣṭhitā situé, placé, posé ; établi, fondé ; fixé, ferme, prouvé. linkSo this may be a reference to the philosophical concept of " concrete reality". Just calling it a "thing" or "object" can actually be misleading, which emphasizes the difficulty of translating, and passing on a message you don't understand. Surely, I could be the one who misunderstood here. There is also the difference between the gift not being part of a "concrete reality", or the Bodhisattva not believing in a "concrete reality". I believe to be the former. The rest of the quote should clarify more the message, but as you mentioned elsewhere, that isn't really the case. I'm sure that many that contributed to the transmission of this ancient sutra, as well as some translators, didn't understand and misinterpreted parts of it. This doesn't diminish too much the value and importance of the message we can read now, nor the contribution of those people; it just tells us that we have to find out the intended message, and not to get tripped by distortions. |
|
