|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 10, 2021 6:13:29 GMT -5
An important point, and one thing I've always respected the Buddhist traditions for. Even though anatta (which to be fair is sometimes translated as not-self rather than no-self) is one of the philosophical lynch pins of Buddhism, you rarely find teachings that outright deny the path and the one to walk it. Much like the analogy of a chariot that, when taken apart, leaves no chariot "essence" to be found anywhere, we are similarly nothing and yet a wonderful reference point for this localized bit of appearance going on right now. Agree that the "world is an illusion" thing always meant "not what it seems" rather than "not existant in any way". I think anatta is literally translated as no self, but it takes on not-self or no-self depending on context. For example in regards to the skhandas there are aggregates of mind/matter which have no underelying entity, in which case anatta is used to mean no-self. In the same vein, any of said aggregates are regarded as not-self. Thus anatta has contextual connotations. My understanding is slightly different. Namely that an-atta quite literally translates to not-self, and that if the Buddha had meant no-self he would easily have used the term na-atta which quite literally translates to no-self. So, in Pali, an =not, na = no, and atta = self. Therefore prefix 'an' combined with 'atta' literally translates to not-self. It's crafted to point away from the consensus trance position [of an inherently existing and abiding self], yet without affording a platform for mind to settle upon, or negating the 'experientially apparent person and their respective woes'. In that respect it's a third mountain perspective phrase. It's true that anatta (not-self) is generally employed in relation to the khandas - the aggregates that pertain to a living being (which would make sense, right), and that contextually this not-self principle can be extended to all phenomena in an almost neti-neti sense. However in the context of phenomena at large, (i.e. perceived phenomena other than the khandas), there's perhaps more of a shift to talk in terms of sunnata (emptiness). Really anatta and sunnata (not-self and emptiness) are different flavours of the same pointer - signifying, 'devoid of any essence', and thus are used quasi-interchangeably. But for me sunnata is better utilised more broadly.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 10, 2021 8:32:33 GMT -5
The point is that realization alone is not enough. It has to carry over into day to day real life experience, you need to feel it in your bones. When this doesn't happen, then you've got a case of 'mind-enlightenment' where the witness mode is still the personal perspective instead of the impersonal perspective. So it's an artificial witness mode, a split-mind. And a split-mind case is actually easy to spot in non-duality. It usually goes like this: People from time to time become aware of the fact that they are still very much stuck in minding. And when they realize this and how it throws them out of the NOW/alignment, instead of just stopping, they start explaining it away as "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here" in order to get back into alignment and by doing that essentially just continue with more minding. Putting things into perspective may indeed result in a temporary feeling of relief, but if it's only skin deep, the next thing that catches their full attention again will let them forget their realization again and off they go again until they catch themselves again and tell themselves (again!) "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here"... You won't hear that from someone who actually experiences peace of mind and lives in flow. They are either fully involved in what they are doing, i.e. one with what they are doing, so that even when their minds function at peak capacity it will be just flow of thinking. Or they are at rest and in a genuine witness mode. It's all the natural state. And they don't need to talk themselves into this state of being, because it's their natural state. And they usually don't vilify ego either, because to them it's an obvious nonissue. The truth they've realized is so utterly self-evident that it doesn't require regular mental reinforcement. That is true clarity and true ease of being. And if people would just understand that what they are looking for is actually something utterly familiar, something everyone already has a reference for, the young and naive factor, then, maybe, they might be less inclined to get into such artificial witness mode mind games. Honestly of the better written distinctions between half-baked and genuine awakening I've come across. Very well stated!
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 10, 2021 11:05:35 GMT -5
What I'm saying minus the flippant remark is that speculation about the nature of reality, whether it's real, existent, a dream is irrelevant to living. It doesn't matter because you never behave as if it is none other than real. You scream if you stub your toe. You love your children. You brush your teeth. You get on this web site and argue with others as if they were not imaginary. If you truly believed that they were imaginary, you'd be foolish to do so. So to me the distinction you make between imaginary versus non-existent is not meaningful. To me both positions, that there is an imagined world versus no world are irrelevant. People who behave as if the world is either imaginary or non-existent get locked away or noogied. You made this point earlier. What's important is how we interact with creation. Whether there's a gap between ourselves and the world. And not so much conceptually, but in how we deal with it, every day, every moment. Zd keeps mentioning "flow." Folks mention a child like attitude. It's true, as much as I dislike the analogy. There is a freshness and intimacy even in the most mundane of tasks. There is an indescribable beauty even in the of horrors. It is quite the opposite of denial or detachment. Though detachment can be a useful first step. But folks seem to get stuck there. As to we having these talks, for me, it's an interest in the personalities, an affection. There are very interesting characters in this story. Some of which, you've removed. For the sake of the greater good, you'd argue. I enjoyed them all. But anyways, I've said more than I wanted. I'll back off and let the speculation continue. Yes, exactly. It's essentially the case against all kinds of extreme idealism, like solipsism and some (mis)interpretations of Buddhism. The distinction I am making is essentially between a mirage and a Tyler Durden. Some people want to give the body-mind (or SVP) a Tyler Durden status while I would give it a mirage status. Right. The point is that realization alone is not enough. It has to carry over into day to day real life experience, you need to feel it in your bones. When this doesn't happen, then you've got a case of 'mind-enlightenment' where the witness mode is still the personal perspective instead of the impersonal perspective. So it's an artificial witness mode, a split-mind. And a split-mind case is actually easy to spot in non-duality. It usually goes like this: People from time to time become aware of the fact that they are still very much stuck in minding. And when they realize this and how it throws them out of the NOW/alignment, instead of just stopping, they start explaining it away as "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here" in order to get back into alignment and by doing that essentially just continue with more minding. Putting things into perspective may indeed result in a temporary feeling of relief, but if it's only skin deep, the next thing that catches their full attention again will let them forget their realization again and off they go again until they catch themselves again and tell themselves (again!) "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here"... You won't hear that from someone who actually experiences peace of mind and lives in flow. They are either fully involved in what they are doing, i.e. one with what they are doing, so that even when their minds function at peak capacity it will be just flow of thinking. Or they are at rest and in a genuine witness mode. It's all the natural state. And they don't need to talk themselves into this state of being, because it's their natural state. And they usually don't vilify ego either, because to them it's an obvious nonissue. The truth they've realized is so utterly self-evident that it doesn't require regular mental reinforcement. That is true clarity and true ease of being. And if people would just understand that what they are looking for is actually something utterly familiar, something everyone already has a reference for, the young and naive factor, then, maybe, they might be less inclined to get into such artificial witness mode mind games. Yes. Feeling oneness "in your bones" is the key. As long as there's a psychological sense of separation from "what is"--from whatever is happening--, there's more to realize and internalize. What we call "a split mind" is a symptom of feeling separate. Thinking, "I'm inside and the world is outside" is the same sort of thing. In the natural state there's no inside versus outside; there's just THIS, manifesting however it manifests.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 10, 2021 12:53:36 GMT -5
What I'm saying minus the flippant remark is that speculation about the nature of reality, whether it's real, existent, a dream is irrelevant to living. It doesn't matter because you never behave as if it is none other than real. You scream if you stub your toe. You love your children. You brush your teeth. You get on this web site and argue with others as if they were not imaginary. If you truly believed that they were imaginary, you'd be foolish to do so. So to me the distinction you make between imaginary versus non-existent is not meaningful. To me both positions, that there is an imagined world versus no world are irrelevant. People who behave as if the world is either imaginary or non-existent get locked away or noogied. You made this point earlier. What's important is how we interact with creation. Whether there's a gap between ourselves and the world. And not so much conceptually, but in how we deal with it, every day, every moment. Zd keeps mentioning "flow." Folks mention a child like attitude. It's true, as much as I dislike the analogy. There is a freshness and intimacy even in the most mundane of tasks. There is an indescribable beauty even in the of horrors. It is quite the opposite of denial or detachment. Though detachment can be a useful first step. But folks seem to get stuck there. As to we having these talks, for me, it's an interest in the personalities, an affection. There are very interesting characters in this story. Some of which, you've removed. For the sake of the greater good, you'd argue. I enjoyed them all. But anyways, I've said more than I wanted. I'll back off and let the speculation continue. O.k. Caesar. I aspire to be imperious. Getting the knack.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 10, 2021 19:25:00 GMT -5
O.k. Caesar. I aspire to be imperious. Getting the knack. There's a few notions that almost everyone's familiar with, but that have proven out to me to be very deep water from listening to others. "finger-moon/menu-meal" and "beginner's mind", for instance. All this talk about how people are supposedly supposed to think and feel and act after "enlightenment" reminded me of the Jesus coin parable. What you wrote about treating the world as real evoked it for me as well. And I'm not saying these realizations don't have an effect on life. Of course they do. But anything we say beyond that involves conditioning, and conditions - the Roman side of the coin.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 11, 2021 0:58:05 GMT -5
I think anatta is literally translated as no self, but it takes on not-self or no-self depending on context. For example in regards to the skhandas there are aggregates of mind/matter which have no underelying entity, in which case anatta is used to mean no-self. In the same vein, any of said aggregates are regarded as not-self. Thus anatta has contextual connotations. My understanding is slightly different. Namely that an-atta quite literally translates to not-self, and that if the Buddha had meant no-self he would easily have used the term na-atta which quite literally translates to no-self. So, in Pali, an =not, na = no, and atta = self. Therefore prefix 'an' combined with 'atta' literally translates to not-self. It's crafted to point away from the consensus trance position [of an inherently existing and abiding self], yet without affording a platform for mind to settle upon, or negating the 'experientially apparent person and their respective woes'. In that respect it's a third mountain perspective phrase. It's true that anatta (not-self) is generally employed in relation to the khandas - the aggregates that pertain to a living being (which would make sense, right), and that contextually this not-self principle can be extended to all phenomena in an almost neti-neti sense. However in the context of phenomena at large, (i.e. perceived phenomena other than the khandas), there's perhaps more of a shift to talk in terms of sunnata (emptiness). Really anatta and sunnata (not-self and emptiness) are different flavours of the same pointer - signifying, 'devoid of any essence', and thus are used quasi-interchangeably. But for me sunnata is better utilised more broadly. Nice. Yep, there is not-self in terms of khanda are not-me and have no central entity, and a no-self in terms of there being no entity central to 'dependent origins'. More generally speaking, the words used shift meanings depending on their context and don;t really have a certain specific meaning (which is true of pretty much all words) so I just accept that not-self as well as no-self are intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, and somewhere in between, like 'non-self'. Totally love your explanation there.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jun 11, 2021 1:04:34 GMT -5
I aspire to be imperious. Getting the knack. There's a few notions that almost everyone's familiar with, but that have proven out to me to be very deep water from listening to others. "finger-moon/menu-meal" and "beginner's mind", for instance. All this talk about how people are supposedly supposed to think and feel and act after "enlightenment" reminded me of the Jesus coin parable. What you wrote about treating the world as real evoked it for me as well. And I'm not saying these realizations don't have an effect on life. Of course they do. But anything we say beyond that involves conditioning, and conditions - the Roman side of the coin. If you think about it, real, unreal are secondary notions ascribed to the actuality of experience, and 'this is what it's like' is entirely subjective, but also doubtless.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 11, 2021 5:43:36 GMT -5
My understanding is slightly different. Namely that an-atta quite literally translates to not-self, and that if the Buddha had meant no-self he would easily have used the term na-atta which quite literally translates to no-self. So, in Pali, an =not, na = no, and atta = self. Therefore prefix 'an' combined with 'atta' literally translates to not-self. It's crafted to point away from the consensus trance position [of an inherently existing and abiding self], yet without affording a platform for mind to settle upon, or negating the 'experientially apparent person and their respective woes'. In that respect it's a third mountain perspective phrase. It's true that anatta (not-self) is generally employed in relation to the khandas - the aggregates that pertain to a living being (which would make sense, right), and that contextually this not-self principle can be extended to all phenomena in an almost neti-neti sense. However in the context of phenomena at large, (i.e. perceived phenomena other than the khandas), there's perhaps more of a shift to talk in terms of sunnata (emptiness). Really anatta and sunnata (not-self and emptiness) are different flavours of the same pointer - signifying, 'devoid of any essence', and thus are used quasi-interchangeably. But for me sunnata is better utilised more broadly. Nice. Yep, there is not-self in terms of khanda are not-me and have no central entity, and a no-self in terms of there being no entity central to 'dependent origins'. More generally speaking, the words used shift meanings depending on their context and don;t really have a certain specific meaning (which is true of pretty much all words) so I just accept that not-self as well as no-self are intrinsic to Buddhist philosophy, and somewhere in between, like 'non-self'. Totally love your explanation there. It can be (and as you say, often is) used contextually like that, but I'm always mindful of the fact that no-self has the potential to become problematic quite quickly. Insofar as it just opens me up to getting *thwacked* by a zen stick or somat, hehe
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 11, 2021 6:25:36 GMT -5
I aspire to be imperious. Getting the knack. There's a few notions that almost everyone's familiar with, but that have proven out to me to be very deep water from listening to others. "finger-moon/menu-meal" and "beginner's mind", for instance. All this talk about how people are supposedly supposed to think and feel and act after "enlightenment" reminded me of the Jesus coin parable. What you wrote about treating the world as real evoked it for me as well. And I'm not saying these realizations don't have an effect on life. Of course they do. But anything we say beyond that involves conditioning, and conditions - the Roman side of the coin. It's like a yoga teacher telling me she had no ego, then I pointed out that plainly I had less than her. Some things are obvious as an inflamed zit on your nose. If you're telling me you're at peace while spitting on me, I'm not likely to believe you. Anyways if recognizing the obvious is a product of my conditioning then it serves me well. Not a point to be belabored. Ultimately it's not the claiming party whose freedom is at stake. But yes the show "Kung Fu" did inform my take on enlightenment. Few here can snatch the pebble from my hand and I'm certainly not free.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 11, 2021 8:15:31 GMT -5
There's a few notions that almost everyone's familiar with, but that have proven out to me to be very deep water from listening to others. "finger-moon/menu-meal" and "beginner's mind", for instance. All this talk about how people are supposedly supposed to think and feel and act after "enlightenment" reminded me of the Jesus coin parable. What you wrote about treating the world as real evoked it for me as well. And I'm not saying these realizations don't have an effect on life. Of course they do. But anything we say beyond that involves conditioning, and conditions - the Roman side of the coin. If you think about it, real, unreal are secondary notions ascribed to the actuality of experience, and 'this is what it's like' is entirely subjective, but also doubtless. Right. So, we can't deny that something is happening. A natural form of the existential question follows: "what is that?? ". Now, I can't speak for anyone else other than myself, but the questioning can end, although it doesn't end on an answer with any direct expression other than perhaps through a form of poetry, and even that is hardly direct, and always personal and subjective - if true. The way that I'd put it, the answer doesn't come from the happening. The answer isn't found in anything that comes, or goes. So, some people will point toward that answer by calling everything that comes and goes an illusion. It depends on what they mean, exactly, just like when someone points toward it by saying that there is only One. I prefer to limit my use of the word illusion to apply only to what can be denied. That there is something happening, is undeniable.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 11, 2021 8:18:49 GMT -5
There's a few notions that almost everyone's familiar with, but that have proven out to me to be very deep water from listening to others. "finger-moon/menu-meal" and "beginner's mind", for instance. All this talk about how people are supposedly supposed to think and feel and act after "enlightenment" reminded me of the Jesus coin parable. What you wrote about treating the world as real evoked it for me as well. And I'm not saying these realizations don't have an effect on life. Of course they do. But anything we say beyond that involves conditioning, and conditions - the Roman side of the coin. It's like a yoga teacher telling me she had no ego, then I pointed out that plainly I had less than her. Some things are obvious as an inflamed zit on your nose. If you're telling me you're at peace while spitting on me, I'm not likely to believe you. Anyways if recognizing the obvious is a product of my conditioning then it serves me well. Not a point to be belabored. Ultimately it's not the claiming party whose freedom is at stake. But yes the show "Kung Fu" did inform my take on enlightenment. Few here can snatch the pebble from my hand and I'm certainly not free. While I have little doubt you were correct, in that moment. Competitive egolessness. Aces!
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 11, 2021 8:46:39 GMT -5
The point is that realization alone is not enough. It has to carry over into day to day real life experience, you need to feel it in your bones. When this doesn't happen, then you've got a case of 'mind-enlightenment' where the witness mode is still the personal perspective instead of the impersonal perspective. So it's an artificial witness mode, a split-mind. And a split-mind case is actually easy to spot in non-duality. It usually goes like this: People from time to time become aware of the fact that they are still very much stuck in minding. And when they realize this and how it throws them out of the NOW/alignment, instead of just stopping, they start explaining it away as "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here" in order to get back into alignment and by doing that essentially just continue with more minding. Putting things into perspective may indeed result in a temporary feeling of relief, but if it's only skin deep, the next thing that catches their full attention again will let them forget their realization again and off they go again until they catch themselves again and tell themselves (again!) "ah, it's all just mind/ego doing its thing again, nothing to see here"... You won't hear that from someone who actually experiences peace of mind and lives in flow. They are either fully involved in what they are doing, i.e. one with what they are doing, so that even when their minds function at peak capacity it will be just flow of thinking. Or they are at rest and in a genuine witness mode. It's all the natural state. And they don't need to talk themselves into this state of being, because it's their natural state. And they usually don't vilify ego either, because to them it's an obvious nonissue. The truth they've realized is so utterly self-evident that it doesn't require regular mental reinforcement. That is true clarity and true ease of being. And if people would just understand that what they are looking for is actually something utterly familiar, something everyone already has a reference for, the young and naive factor, then, maybe, they might be less inclined to get into such artificial witness mode mind games. Honestly of the better written distinctions between half-baked and genuine awakening I've come across. Very well stated! Yes, Xiao. Reef's take is excellent. I couldn't find it in this thread to like it so I'm piling on your comment. And it's quite familiar. Like he's holding up a mirror to me.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 20, 2021 9:15:06 GMT -5
A few more quotes I enjoy on this topic of the thought-free state:
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 22, 2021 10:15:49 GMT -5
When do thoughts arise? Getting ready to clean the bird cages and prepare their food daily feels heavy and dull. Mind starts having debates about politics, physics, Reality to entertain and avoid the heaviness.
Mind assuages pain, sickness, fear, boredom with stories. Not a bad thing. It glosses over the unpleasant. Much like a mother soothing a child in difficult times with "everything will be okay."
Perhaps that's what starts it.
How to undo this? Or should this be undone?
Perhaps it's enough to notice. Or a start of something.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 23, 2021 2:11:15 GMT -5
When do thoughts arise? Getting ready to clean the bird cages and prepare their food daily feels heavy and dull. Mind starts having debates about politics, physics, Reality to entertain and avoid the heaviness. Mind assuages pain, sickness, fear, boredom with stories. Not a bad thing. It glosses over the unpleasant. Much like a mother soothing a child in difficult times with "everything will be okay." Perhaps that's what starts it. How to undo this? Or should this be undone? Perhaps it's enough to notice. Or a start of something. That usually happens when you do something with only the end result in mind. And that's a sure recipe to miss out on life and then wonder how you've spend the last 10 years. There's a movie about this, Click (2006). Worth watching.
|
|