|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2021 15:59:01 GMT -5
Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I decline to translate dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara. Indeed. The condition that initiates desire is the ignorance of the true nature of Reality/Self. We all desire to be free of suffering. When suffering is transcended there is no more desire because you will have found what you were looking for. Most people I've ever met take pain as a fact of life and it would never occur to them to be "free of suffering". True enough that there's a pull from the existential truth that will happen subconsciously for anyone who never gets interested in it. But a "desire to be free of suffering" .. well, Niz said something along the lines that this is the "most noble of desires", but, it's also a potentially endless source of dialog.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 25, 2021 16:02:59 GMT -5
Roy: The Buddha taught that desire is the source of all suffering, and that desire is caused by attachment. ... Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I refrain from translating dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara. The way I see it, suffering isn't caused by ignorance, but by stupidity, which is ignorance manifested. Ignorance is a level of evolvement. Stupidity is how you think, how you act. Ignorance causes reincarnation. Stupidity perpetuates ignorance. You can't get out of reincarnation by realizing that you're ignorant; not even by not acting stupidly. You have to transcend your ignorance, meaning you have to learn (whatever needs to be leaned, to train yourself), and that can't happen by looking at a finger, or seeing somebody picking up a flower. You don't need to suffer in order to learn. But you need not to act stupidly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 25, 2021 16:12:21 GMT -5
So any Spiritual teaching/system of thought that does not place the illusionary nature of experience (thoughts/the non-physical realm, and sensations/the physical realm) as paramount, is not a comprehensive model/understanding. The new, most pertinent and effective metaphor is that of a computer simulation. The singular source of suffering is the inability to see that all experience is fundamentally unsubstantial and unfulfilling. All desire arises from the search for Self/Reality. We desire to be liberated from this Divine game/simulation because that is the singular purpose to all of THIS. One will not transcend desire until unintermittent Self-Awareness/Reality is realized. There are not four truths, there is but a singular fundamental Truth. That is that all experience is fundamentally as empty and unsubstantial as a video game or a movie. There's nothing "wrong" with being "present" in this physical realm (not thinking but focused on sensations rather than Mauna/Self). The physical realm is more stable and "real" than the digital realm human consciousness is about to transition into, but complete liberation/winning of the game results in no manifestation/relative existence. When you are in this state, do you sense/feel anything that you might call "Love"?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 25, 2021 18:11:14 GMT -5
Zen resulted when Buddhism went to China. Zen = Buddhism + Taoism. The cultural self (the conditioned self) mediates everything that enters the organism. So it filters and distorts everything. So seeing what is, is impossible (We see what we are, not what is. The Talmud). When the conditioned self is operating, looking at life is looking into a mirror. So Zen is all about seeing what is, seeing without the distorting filter of self. Seeing without the shadow of abstractions. Suffering is a result of the cultural self desiring stuff, it's almost the definition of the cultural self/small s self. There isn't a ceasing of desire as long as the cultural self is operating. If you want other than what you now have, you're just digging the hole of self deeper. The cultural/small s self operates from compulsion. From what I've read the people who live and perpetuate the Zen tradition place it's origins during the Buddha's life some 1000 years earlier in India. They list a line of patriarchs that include Bodiharma, the guy who is remembered for introducing Buddhism to China, and stretches all the way back to the flower sermon. That's correct. Zen perhaps mythologized the event, but the flower sermon was an example of what they like to call "mind to mind transmission." No words at all. The Buddha held up a lotus blossom, but said nothing. Mahakasyapa smiled in understanding, and the Buddha supposedly saw him smile and said something like, "Yes, Mahakasyapa understands this." Whether this really happened in this way, who knows, but it makes a good story. The Zen tradition later began to use several koans based upon this event: 1. What did Mahakasyapa understand? 2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa understood? 3. What was transmitted at that time?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 25, 2021 18:15:36 GMT -5
Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I decline to translate dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara. Indeed. The condition that initiates desire is the ignorance of the true nature of Reality/Self. We all desire to be free of suffering. When suffering is transcended there is no more desire because you will have found what you were looking for. Agreed. Although many people search for the truth in order to become free from suffering, curiosity, alone, can lead to same ultimate realization. People seem to fall into two general groups--those who desire an escape from suffering and those that are driven solely by curiosity about the true nature of reality.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 25, 2021 18:20:13 GMT -5
Roy: The Buddha taught that desire is the source of all suffering, and that desire is caused by attachment. Attachment is the need to control or direct life to make things happen as one wishes. There is a way to become free from attachment and attain non-abidance in the mind. He taught meditation as a temporary means to an end, but his full teaching involves much more than that, and includes things like the 4 noble truths, the eightfold path, etc. He implied that techniques, practices, etc can be left behind after freedom is attained. I'm not a Buddhist, so I'm no expert on all of the subtleties involved in his teachings, but the Buddhist canon is something like ten times longer than the Bible, and many of his discourses are profound. Zen is a Buddhist sect that probably developed as a response to the over-intellectualization of Buddhism by later followers of the teachings. Zen people basically bypass the intellect and go for direct seeing into the nature of what we are. They're primarily interested in what we might call "big mind"--the intelligence that is infinite--, and the realization that humans are THAT. The unborn, or Buddha Mind, or Big Mind, is what Ramana called "the Self." Zen has no beliefs and is NOT an interpretation of the Buddha's teachings. Zen is only interested in pointing to what the Buddha discovered, so that anyone can discover what Gautama discovered. What is seen when seeing "what is?" It is impossible to state what is seen because anything stated is dualistic and "what is" is non-dual. One either sees and understands or one does not. I like to explain what's going on something like this: what we actually are is infinite, unified, whole, and incomprehensible to the intellect. What we are can only be realized to be what we are by what we are, because there is no "other." No person ever attains enlightenment because there is no person separate from Self/Source/THAT. Self runs the entire show. It is what pumps blood, moves nerve impulses, adjusts hormone levels, adjusts oxygen/carbon dioxide levels, grows teeth, hair, bones, and flesh, and moves every atom in the universe. It evolved humans to have an intellect, which is like a personal computer hooked to a graphics generator. The intellect allows humans to look at "what is" and imagine "what is" as the 10,000 things. All thingness, or separateness, is imaginary, including the idea that the one who sees things is a thing. Seeing through the illusion of separateness is what the path of non-duality is all about. When that illusion is seen through, Self realizes Itself. Any human who sees through the illusion of separateness becomes detached from that idea and lives much like a small child while retaining full adult intellectual capability. Many of us call that "the Natural State" and it is what Ramana referred to as "sahaja samadhi," although he also used a slightly more accurate phrase that I've momentarily forgotten. Really the teaching starts one back from that. The Buddhist position is that ultimately ignorance (avijja) is the root of all dukkha, as that is which underpins even the desire/aversion dichotomy. So, it is upon 'not knowing', or 'not seeing' (i.e. ignorance) that such circumstance arises. Naturally enough I suppose, in the course of events. Note, I refrain from translating dukkha to suffering (as generally defined on the forum) …. Because dukkha is synonymous with samsara. Understood, but the question was about Zen, and Zen traces it's beginning to the flower sermon that Laughter mentioned. Other Buddhist teachers point further back in time than that.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Aug 26, 2021 7:34:28 GMT -5
So any Spiritual teaching/system of thought that does not place the illusionary nature of experience (thoughts/the non-physical realm, and sensations/the physical realm) as paramount, is not a comprehensive model/understanding. The new, most pertinent and effective metaphor is that of a computer simulation. The singular source of suffering is the inability to see that all experience is fundamentally unsubstantial and unfulfilling. All desire arises from the search for Self/Reality. We desire to be liberated from this Divine game/simulation because that is the singular purpose to all of THIS. One will not transcend desire until unintermittent Self-Awareness/Reality is realized. There are not four truths, there is but a singular fundamental Truth. That is that all experience is fundamentally as empty and unsubstantial as a video game or a movie. There's nothing "wrong" with being "present" in this physical realm (not thinking but focused on sensations rather than Mauna/Self). The physical realm is more stable and "real" than the digital realm human consciousness is about to transition into, but complete liberation/winning of the game results in no manifestation/relative existence. When you are in this state, do you sense/feel anything that you might call "Love"? I never use the word "love". Too much emotional connotation. To me it's more like complete acceptance, which could be called "love". Also deep peace. Just plain ol' happiness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 26, 2021 18:27:11 GMT -5
From what I've read the people who live and perpetuate the Zen tradition place it's origins during the Buddha's life some 1000 years earlier in India. They list a line of patriarchs that include Bodiharma, the guy who is remembered for introducing Buddhism to China, and stretches all the way back to the flower sermon. That's correct. Zen perhaps mythologized the event, but the flower sermon was an example of what they like to call "mind to mind transmission." No words at all. The Buddha held up a lotus blossom, but said nothing. Mahakasyapa smiled in understanding, and the Buddha supposedly saw him smile and said something like, "Yes, Mahakasyapa understands this." Whether this really happened in this way, who knows, but it makes a good story. The Zen tradition later began to use several koans based upon this event: 1. What did Mahakasyapa understand? 2. How did the Buddha know that Mahakasyapa understood? 3. What was transmitted at that time? The beautiful simplicity of the story stands on it's own merits, even if it didn't happen exactly the way it's remembered now. Mind can wander: it likely happened, at some point, to some pair of someone's, somewhere. The invitation it offers is there even if it wasn't the Buddha who held up the flower. And if it was him, wow, versatile guy!
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2021 7:05:31 GMT -5
I'm sorry roydrop, but this is what your most important message sounds like:
I asked earlier, on what basis do you (absolutely) know what you think you know? In my view everything we know comes through and is filtered by the conditioned self. The technology is just not available, and will not be available even in 2 decades, for what you are saying will occur.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Aug 27, 2021 10:09:08 GMT -5
I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that Roy's experiences and message are based partially on the fact that he has had quite a few salvia trips. There's often a sense of being spoken to, of being relayed a very important message, that is at the heart of many, many drug experiences and mystical experiences as well. Terrence McKenna reported similar things from his experiences with mushrooms over the years.
This is not a critique of any of that though, and I take a strongly libertarian stance in the sense that I would never tell anyone else what they could put in their body, but it does make one question if repeated experiences in that field don't condition one's thoughts as much as anything else.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 27, 2021 11:02:28 GMT -5
I'm sorry roydrop, but this is what your most important message sounds like: I asked earlier, on what basis do you (absolutely) know what you think you know? In my view everything we know comes through and is filtered by the conditioned self. The technology is just not available, and will not be available even in 2 decades, for what you are saying will occur. I look at it in a slightly different way. If one has seen through the illusion of selfhood and discovered what Bankei called "the Unborn," then what Roy claims will happen will be seen as utterly inconsequential. I have no idea what will happen 5 seconds from now, but I trust that regardless of what happens the Unborn/Self/Source, temporarily manifesting via this character, will respond appropriately. Self/Unborn/Source unfolds however it unfolds and remains unaffected.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 27, 2021 14:34:47 GMT -5
Extinction sounds pretty final. Whatever it is that remains (it sounds like our consciousness will be transferred to a computer) he says will be in hell. I completely don't understand. ...And...I completely would not want to be immortal (or even close) in a computer (not that he said that).
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 27, 2021 16:53:44 GMT -5
Extinction sounds pretty final. Whatever it is that remains (it sounds like our consciousness will be transferred to a computer) he says will be in hell. I completely don't understand. ...And...I completely would not want to be immortal (or even close) in a computer (not that he said that). The way I see it, if my world gets extinct, not everybody's gets too. Time and space are inoculated limiting beliefs to help us practice and learn conscious reality creation. Time slows down creation, allowing adjustments as needed. Space confines the effects of creation to a small proximity, minimizing the effects of our blunders. As we get more proficient, and understand more, we can expand the limitations of the time and space.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 27, 2021 20:53:16 GMT -5
I'm sorry roydrop, but this is what your most important message sounds like: I asked earlier, on what basis do you (absolutely) know what you think you know? In my view everything we know comes through and is filtered by the conditioned self. The technology is just not available, and will not be available even in 2 decades, for what you are saying will occur. I look at it in a slightly different way. If one has seen through the illusion of selfhood and discovered what Bankei called "the Unborn," then what Roy claims will happen will be seen as utterly inconsequential. I have no idea what will happen 5 seconds from now, but I trust that regardless of what happens the Unborn/Self/Source, temporarily manifesting via this character, will respond appropriately. Self/Unborn/Source unfolds however it unfolds and remains unaffected. Fear motivates people. Extinction cant happen as history shows; civilisation recreates from the many pockets of survivors scattered about the globe. We are entrapped here for whatever time it takes for human-consciousness to purify itself via introspection.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Aug 27, 2021 22:51:05 GMT -5
I look at it in a slightly different way. If one has seen through the illusion of selfhood and discovered what Bankei called "the Unborn," then what Roy claims will happen will be seen as utterly inconsequential. I have no idea what will happen 5 seconds from now, but I trust that regardless of what happens the Unborn/Self/Source, temporarily manifesting via this character, will respond appropriately. Self/Unborn/Source unfolds however it unfolds and remains unaffected. Fear motivates people. Extinction cant happen as history shows; civilisation recreates from the many pockets of survivors scattered about the globe. We are entrapped here for whatever time it takes for human-consciousness to purify itself via introspection. I'm quite certain history shows the opposite. Thousands of species of animals have gone extinct over past millennia, and there's no reason to think that humans are immune to that. Many of these instances were thought to be climate related, and if the earth's temperature increases enough there won't be a place on the globe that is inhabitable for humans.
|
|