|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:14:53 GMT -5
My experience is that sometimes there seems to be some level of control, and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any. I'm generally happier when it seems like there is some control, but the 'no control' phase is fine too. There's usually an adjustment as I enter a 'no control' phase, which can be a little bumpy as my conditioning adjusts. For example, I trade forex online sometimes, and when the 'no control' phase comes, it becomes impossible. In this phase, there is a lot of 'quiet observation' happening, but I can't say that I am controlling it. It's just happening. This phase can last a couple of days or longer, and I would describe it as like being in a 'void'. Any attempt to control is futile. And then the sense of 'some level of control' returns and I can function a bit more like a normal human being! Just to be clear, there is never any control of thinking, feeling or doing. The control is whether to observe thinking, feeling, doing. But what you say is very significant. That, too, is an illusion, but it certainly seems to be true until there's a breakthrough realization.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 21, 2021 9:19:19 GMT -5
That is a TOTAL misunderstanding of what's being pointed to. I have never claimed no personal responsibility for whatever the body does. In fact, the truth is just the opposite of that. OK, then we are not as far apart as I thought we were. Then I can't connect no SVP with personal responsibility. Correct. No SVP cannot be connected with personal responsibility because that attempt at connection is trying to be made and understood logically/intellectually, and it can't be. What's being pointed to is beyond the mind.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 21, 2021 9:25:13 GMT -5
This seems pretty personal for someone who claims not to be a person. Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. It's a bit more complicated. Clearly zd, you and I act as if there are people to interact with regardless of what we believe or claim to know. You write posts here to share your views with other people not Self.. You claim ownership of personal property and personal space etc. Zd gave away all his belongings until he realized it was frightening to those he loved and cared about. Now I don't know about you, but I feel guilty if I forget to feed my dog, but would feel no guilt if I forgot to feed my imaginary dog. That was meant to be insulting, btw. But don't be. It wasn't me. It was Self. See how weird this becomes when it's about attempting to correctly describe reality. That's why I TRY to avoid this type of discussion. Spira says it often. Attempting to describe reality always falls short. He calls it "concessions to the intellect." Some times they are useful if not completely true. Other times not so much. I'm not sure about this context. Are we trying to convince sdp to abandon his practice? Or steer others from adopting it? I'm not sure. If I were more sensitive I'd probably feel slighted about practicing. But it wouldn't be me. It would be Self. Trying to be humorous now.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 9:39:08 GMT -5
Yea, I was waiting for that. I read you saying, there is no self-referential thinking, as in, there is never self-referential thinking. There is a lot of self-referential thinking (it pops up automatically, the meaning of mechanical, that word you don't like), and the point you made right after that I've been making here for 12 years. Many years ago I said to enigma (a public post), I exist only when I'm practicing. He couldn't understand that in the least. Yes, most of the time I mis-take myself for the small s self. I sometimes remember to remind myself not to say I to that-(self-referential)-thinking. It makes a difference, for us, this is the meaning of sleep. Part of the time, I practice, and then-know that I am my true self, and that's the only time I truly exist. This is the same as the practice of Niz staying in the I Am (staying in Being), that is, trying to for the 3 years, practicing for 3 years. When I first read Niz I understood this. But then Niz made a permanent shift to Being-only (and I'm fairly confident this shift was to the very subtle body spoken of in the 3 bodies of Buddhism videos. Niz did travel the traditional Advaita Vedanta path). I haven't. But I know I haven't. I consider this a mistake zd made, his ~realization~ that it wasn't important, wasn't necessary to be ~all-the-time~ in the state he had attained. But that's his choice, everything he is stands on that choice. We are all responsible for our own journey. All this is in a nutshell my problem with ND, to seem rather than to be. Of course, just my view, means nothing. Right, so, you see, there is actually sub-conscious self-reference in what you called "the present moment, now, with no self-referential thinking". Quieting the foreground doesn't reach it, and the effort required to quiet the foreground is the clue. You are actually always your true self, it's just that there is this overlay of a false self on top of that. This overlay is, in relative terms, a matter of degree. Quieting the foreground leads you to a lesser matter of degree of that falsity. Quieting the foreground is a fine means to an end, but what does it tell you that it still takes effort after all these years? Do you remember what satch used to quote Ramana Maharshi saying about the thief pretending to be a cop? It's possible for any trace of even that sub-conscious sense of self-reference to suspend, and in that hovering, it all becomes clear. This is fairly accurate, yes, true self is always there, covered over. Take the Natural State to be a field, it's the field of being that includes the Natural State. Culture is an unnatural field, culture basically consists of abstractions of all types (including plans/blueprints and maps). In the Natural Field-State there is no abstract language of any type, this is indicated by Zen. So the subconscious Gordian Knot is formed as the little child is immersed in society (mostly family at first), and the false sense of self/small s self/cultural self is formed and covers over our true self, just as you describe. The false self and the true self are frequencies. It's possible for attention (and awareness) to be tuned back to the originating Natural-State-Field. Yes, if the cultural self/small s self is operational and continually takes one's attention (and this isn't too hard to see, sometimes only after the fact), the journey is not over. On how this occurs, we differ. But I think we all agree that culture is beneficial, so we aren't still living in caves.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 9:41:01 GMT -5
Okay, thank you for explaining! This is where we part ways, then. I think the faculty of awareness or attention has a big role to play (if not the role) in a lot of what gets described as awakening, but as I see it any intention to control ones attention arises spontaneously out of nowhere, and thus the whole phenomenological experience plays out without any controller or doer. Yes. And think how much needless psychological effort is expended in trying to control one's attention. Sure, as long as there is the sense of volitional doership, this efforting will continue and seem justifiable, but after the illusion of the SVP is penetrated, one's past efforting will no longer be seen as efforting. One of the reasons we call SS "the natural state" is that all sense of efforting ceases, and life becomes a kind of flow. Easy. Simple. Uncomplicated. Relaxed. I'm not interested in easy, simple, uncomplicated, relaxed or happiness.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 9:45:43 GMT -5
Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. It's a bit more complicated. Clearly zd, you and I act as if there are people to interact with regardless of what we believe or claim to know. You write posts here to share your views with other people not Self.. You claim ownership of personal property and personal space etc. Zd gave away all his belongings until he realized it was frightening to those he loved and cared about. Now I don't know about you, but I feel guilty if I forget to feed my dog, but would feel no guilt if I forgot to feed my imaginary dog. That was meant to be insulting, btw. But don't be. It wasn't me. It was Self. See how weird this becomes when it's about attempting to correctly describe reality. That's why I TRY to avoid this type of discussion. Spira says it often. Attempting to describe reality always falls short. He calls it "concessions to the intellect." Some times they are useful if not completely true. Other times not so much. I'm not sure about this context. Are we trying to convince sdp to abandon his practice? Or steer others from adopting it? I'm not sure. If I were more sensitive I'd probably feel slighted about practicing. But it wouldn't be me. It would be Self. Trying to be humorous now. Yes, it's a bit more complicated. Thanks zazeniac for a breath of sanity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2021 11:06:27 GMT -5
Yes. And think how much needless psychological effort is expended in trying to control one's attention. Sure, as long as there is the sense of volitional doership, this efforting will continue and seem justifiable, but after the illusion of the SVP is penetrated, one's past efforting will no longer be seen as efforting. One of the reasons we call SS "the natural state" is that all sense of efforting ceases, and life becomes a kind of flow. Easy. Simple. Uncomplicated. Relaxed. I'm not interested in easy, simple, uncomplicated, relaxed or happiness. That's quite an admission.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 11:09:55 GMT -5
Does ZD actually claim to not be a person? Correct me if I'm wrong but this seems like a straw man. Surely he would say that THIS manifests as people, trees, animals, and all of the other 10,000 things, but it's the only actor on stage. The distinction is that there is no doer other than that which is doing everything. I resonate with all of that but I can still call myself a person. I just know that none of this is my doing and nothing ever could be "my" doing because it all happens effortlessly, even moments of confusion. It's a bit more complicated. Clearly zd, you and I act as if there are people to interact with regardless of what we believe or claim to know. You write posts here to share your views with other people not Self.. You claim ownership of personal property and personal space etc. Zd gave away all his belongings until he realized it was frightening to those he loved and cared about. Now I don't know about you, but I feel guilty if I forget to feed my dog, but would feel no guilt if I forgot to feed my imaginary dog. That was meant to be insulting, btw. But don't be. It wasn't me. It was Self. See how weird this becomes when it's about attempting to correctly describe reality. That's why I TRY to avoid this type of discussion. Spira says it often. Attempting to describe reality always falls short. He calls it "concessions to the intellect." Some times they are useful if not completely true. Other times not so much. I'm not sure about this context. Are we trying to convince sdp to abandon his practice? Or steer others from adopting it? I'm not sure. If I were more sensitive I'd probably feel slighted about practicing. But it wouldn't be me. It would be Self. Trying to be humorous now. I admire your efforts but you're going to need to try a lot harder to be insulting! I don't really subscribe to any sort of denial of "apparent reality" or whatever concept you might think I believe in. I wouldn't for a minute deny the reality of this appearance, or even the notion of individuals or any of that. I am not also trying to convince anyone to give up a practice. I am surprised that some people still believe there is a locus of control or a doer within experience. I see this as simply untrue, but if you see things otherwise then what are you going to do? Just magically see things my way or I yours? We cannot understand things that we don't understand. We can't simply decide to understand them, anymore than you could decide not to understand something you do understand, like two plus two. Whatever reality is, is doing itself without any permission needed from a so-called I. That's about it for me, along with the recognition that what this is is completely ineffable (hence the appreciation of Roy's teaching and ZD's ATA).
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 21, 2021 12:25:00 GMT -5
Right, so, you see, there is actually sub-conscious self-reference in what you called "the present moment, now, with no self-referential thinking". Quieting the foreground doesn't reach it, and the effort required to quiet the foreground is the clue. You are actually always your true self, it's just that there is this overlay of a false self on top of that. This overlay is, in relative terms, a matter of degree. Quieting the foreground leads you to a lesser matter of degree of that falsity. Quieting the foreground is a fine means to an end, but what does it tell you that it still takes effort after all these years? Do you remember what satch used to quote Ramana Maharshi saying about the thief pretending to be a cop? It's possible for any trace of even that sub-conscious sense of self-reference to suspend, and in that hovering, it all becomes clear. This is fairly accurate, yes, true self is always there, covered over. Take the Natural State to be a field, it's the field of being that includes the Natural State. Culture is an unnatural field, culture basically consists of abstractions of all types (including plans/blueprints and maps). In the Natural Field-State there is no abstract language of any type, this is indicated by Zen. So the subconscious Gordian Knot is formed as the little child is immersed in society (mostly family at first), and the false sense of self/small s self/cultural self is formed and covers over our true self, just as you describe. The false self and the true self are frequencies. It's possible for attention (and awareness) to be tuned back to the originating Natural-State-Field. Yes, if the cultural self/small s self is operational and continually takes one's attention (and this isn't too hard to see, sometimes only after the fact), the journey is not over. On how this occurs, we differ. But I think we all agree that culture is beneficial, so we aren't still living in caves. Do you remember what satch used to quote Ramana Maharshi saying about the thief pretending to be a cop?
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 21, 2021 12:28:22 GMT -5
zd would affirm this as correct. Also correct, he claims no personal responsibility for his actions. For my post to be correct it needs to add separate volitional to person. ...But it still sounds pretty personal. Do you believe you have some control over how you behave in any given moment? Yes. What's more, the more conscious I'm being, the greater the measure of control I have. The way I see it, all that just means that the movie(s) which came to mind were subject to conditioning, that the scenario is kammic in nature. Obviously in that instant not every movie ever made is going to come to mind, and most likely the movie(s) that did come to mind were either personally impactful, or had come up in some recent experience. Due to the nature of 'the conditioned' arbitrariness is a fallacy. In the scenario, most likely a small handful of loosely formed memories/impressions associated with movies would come to mind and briefly be considered before a choice would be settled upon as to which one was offered. That choice would be kammic in nature, meaning it would both be influenced by cumulative previous action/experience and potentially serve as influence for future action/experience. That is to say the choice made would follow interest and that interest would be being reinforced at that moment. Or not as the case may be.
None of this negates choice or the notion of personal responsibility.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Sept 21, 2021 13:10:10 GMT -5
It's a bit more complicated. Clearly zd, you and I act as if there are people to interact with regardless of what we believe or claim to know. You write posts here to share your views with other people not Self.. You claim ownership of personal property and personal space etc. Zd gave away all his belongings until he realized it was frightening to those he loved and cared about. Now I don't know about you, but I feel guilty if I forget to feed my dog, but would feel no guilt if I forgot to feed my imaginary dog. That was meant to be insulting, btw. But don't be. It wasn't me. It was Self. See how weird this becomes when it's about attempting to correctly describe reality. That's why I TRY to avoid this type of discussion. Spira says it often. Attempting to describe reality always falls short. He calls it "concessions to the intellect." Some times they are useful if not completely true. Other times not so much. I'm not sure about this context. Are we trying to convince sdp to abandon his practice? Or steer others from adopting it? I'm not sure. If I were more sensitive I'd probably feel slighted about practicing. But it wouldn't be me. It would be Self. Trying to be humorous now. I admire your efforts but you're going to need to try a lot harder to be insulting! I don't really subscribe to any sort of denial of "apparent reality" or whatever concept you might think I believe in. I wouldn't for a minute deny the reality of this appearance, or even the notion of individuals or any of that. I am not also trying to convince anyone to give up a practice. I am surprised that some people still believe there is a locus of control or a doer within experience. I see this as simply untrue, but if you see things otherwise then what are you going to do? Just magically see things my way or I yours? We cannot understand things that we don't understand. We can't simply decide to understand them, anymore than you could decide not to understand something you do understand, like two plus two. Whatever reality is, is doing itself without any permission needed from a so-called I. That's about it for me, along with the recognition that what this is is completely ineffable (hence the appreciation of Roy's teaching and ZD's ATA). Well. I'll give it another shot. Just kidding. This is where it gets interesting. So imagine that Xiao had an affliction. He created this imaginary world made out of paper cutouts and refused to interact with real humans. His paper world became the real world. Now Xiao's parents concerned about their child's delusion took him to see the illustrious Dr. Zendancer. Now the great doctor after many sessions cured Xiao's delusion or at least Xiao claimed he realized that the socalled beings he interacted with were just paper cutouts. But Xiao was still talking to these cutouts, inviting them to the dinner table, dancing with them, romancing them. I know this seems very familiar to you. There's the insult, sorry. I couldn't stop myself. Here's the question should Xiao's parent and the esteemed doctor be concerned? See I agree that we are not what we seem, but saying other than reality is not two is a venture into beliefs, unless it's a teaching prop, IMHO.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Sept 21, 2021 13:39:01 GMT -5
I admire your efforts but you're going to need to try a lot harder to be insulting! I don't really subscribe to any sort of denial of "apparent reality" or whatever concept you might think I believe in. I wouldn't for a minute deny the reality of this appearance, or even the notion of individuals or any of that. I am not also trying to convince anyone to give up a practice. I am surprised that some people still believe there is a locus of control or a doer within experience. I see this as simply untrue, but if you see things otherwise then what are you going to do? Just magically see things my way or I yours? We cannot understand things that we don't understand. We can't simply decide to understand them, anymore than you could decide not to understand something you do understand, like two plus two. Whatever reality is, is doing itself without any permission needed from a so-called I. That's about it for me, along with the recognition that what this is is completely ineffable (hence the appreciation of Roy's teaching and ZD's ATA). Well. I'll give it another shot. Just kidding. This is where it gets interesting. So imagine that Xiao had an affliction. He created this imaginary world made out of paper cutouts and refused to interact with real humans. His paper world became the real world. Now Xiao's parents concerned about their child's delusion took him to see the illustrious Dr. Zendancer. Now the great doctor after many sessions cured Xiao's delusion or at least Xiao claimed he realized that the socalled beings he interacted with were just paper cutouts. But Xiao was still talking to these cutouts, inviting them to the dinner table, dancing with them, romancing them. I know this seems very familiar to you. There's the insult, sorry. I couldn't stop myself. Here's the question should Xiao's parent and the esteemed doctor be concerned? See I agree that we are not what we seem, but saying other than reality is not two is a venture into beliefs, unless it's a teaching prop, IMHO. I think Xiao's parents should get a second opinion.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2021 15:38:12 GMT -5
This is fairly accurate, yes, true self is always there, covered over. Take the Natural State to be a field, it's the field of being that includes the Natural State. Culture is an unnatural field, culture basically consists of abstractions of all types (including plans/blueprints and maps). In the Natural Field-State there is no abstract language of any type, this is indicated by Zen. So the subconscious Gordian Knot is formed as the little child is immersed in society (mostly family at first), and the false sense of self/small s self/cultural self is formed and covers over our true self, just as you describe. The false self and the true self are frequencies. It's possible for attention (and awareness) to be tuned back to the originating Natural-State-Field. Yes, if the cultural self/small s self is operational and continually takes one's attention (and this isn't too hard to see, sometimes only after the fact), the journey is not over. On how this occurs, we differ. But I think we all agree that culture is beneficial, so we aren't still living in caves. Do you remember what satch used to quote Ramana Maharshi saying about the thief pretending to be a cop? Attention and awareness arise out of the Natural-State-Field. Mind is not trying to kill mind.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 21, 2021 17:06:12 GMT -5
All that I experience is what my senses tell me, filtered by my beliefs, in each state of consciousness I am: awake, dreaming, hypnotized, sleeping, dead, a combination, ... Whatever conclusions and ideas I get can't be verified beyond the sensory inputs specific to that state, and compared to whatever is stored and can be accessed in my subconscious. If that makes everything one, or not it is a matter of convention.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Sept 21, 2021 19:37:48 GMT -5
Do you believe you have some control over how you behave in any given moment? Yes. What's more, the more conscious I'm being, the greater the measure of control I have. The way I see it, all that just means that the movie(s) which came to mind were subject to conditioning, that the scenario is kammic in nature. Obviously in that instant not every movie ever made is going to come to mind, and most likely the movie(s) that did come to mind were either personally impactful, or had come up in some recent experience. Due to the nature of 'the conditioned' arbitrariness is a fallacy. In the scenario, most likely a small handful of loosely formed memories/impressions associated with movies would come to mind and briefly be considered before a choice would be settled upon as to which one was offered. That choice would be kammic in nature, meaning it would both be influenced by cumulative previous action/experience and potentially serve as influence for future action/experience. That is to say the choice made would follow interest and that interest would be being reinforced at that moment. Or not as the case may be.
None of this negates choice or the notion of personal responsibility.
Naturally I see it differently, but thanks for explaining it in such detail as it really helps hone in on where the difference is. The Buddhist monk Thanissaro Bhikku has given very similar descriptions of the Buddha's teaching on karma: namely, that our present actions are conditioned by the past but not fully - otherwise the Buddha would've been teaching determinism. I see no evidence for this freedom in the present moment that supposedly exists outside of conditioning, but I understand the nuances of the position well enough as it used to be something I believed. Back in the day when I was more of a Theravada Buddhist I would've definitely agreed with your explanation down to the Pali "spelling" of karma but over the years watching the moment of decision take place led to a shift in understanding. The bolded sections are contradictory in my experience, as the consideration of choices, and the subsequent choosing are all happenings that go on without any individual being able to influence that process.
|
|