|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 19, 2022 23:11:44 GMT -5
In Buddhist ontology rationality is important, but they have 3 aspects to 'knowing'. 1) You hear the 'teaching' and simply know what is said 2) You analyse to see if it's reasonable, rational, logical, makes sense, rings true and has no glaring contradictions etc. 3) If it seems rational, you follow through and investigate meditatively to find out for yourself the way in which it is true. The reason is, instead of being the kinda fool that can be led down the garden path, your rational mind gives you the self-determination to discern, and thereby find motivatation led by your own intellectual understanding rather than following along with hope in blind faith. But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'. No, that's why ~I~ say there's two aspects to one's being, the false sense of self (which indeed can't do anything) and the true individuation, essence, our true self. Essence is our direct link to what's actual. Real practice touches what's actual, what's not imaginary. So real practice is in a real sense from the inside (to) out. It's like a chrysalis that has to unfold from the inside. All we can do is attend to what's occurring (or be aware of what's occurring), but ~we~ can do that. That's what I gave up trying to show on the Give or Take thread. (I just haven't gotten back there yet). When something, or some person, takes your attention, that's the doing nothing part, that's nonvolition. That's all operation from the false sense of self, even if one thinks otherwise. And this (subject, the Give) is why Dogen said enlightenment is practice and practice is enlightenment.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 20, 2022 2:09:29 GMT -5
In Buddhist ontology rationality is important, but they have 3 aspects to 'knowing'. 1) You hear the 'teaching' and simply know what is said 2) You analyse to see if it's reasonable, rational, logical, makes sense, rings true and has no glaring contradictions etc. 3) If it seems rational, you follow through and investigate meditatively to find out for yourself the way in which it is true. The reason is, instead of being the kinda fool that can be led down the garden path, your rational mind gives you the self-determination to discern, and thereby find motivatation led by your own intellectual understanding rather than following along with hope in blind faith. But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'. To me that sounds like typical non-duality rhetoric, but ND teachers have methods that require relentless, persistent returning of attention. The Ramana method applies that to self-inquiry, whereas although the Buddha method certainly entails that, it is also geared for the purpose of purification.
The formally noted purpose is. "The purification of beings, overcoming sorrow and lamentation, extinguishing suffering and grief, walking the path of truth and realising nirvana" . Hence one investigates the entire framework of mind and matter via the mindful objects formally cited as body, sensation, mind and mental content. Since 'body' and 'mind' are abstract references to feeling and thought, 'the objects' can be reduced to these two.
Mind can continue to reference such things as focus, attention, concentration, sensitivity and the balance, stability or equanimity of the mind; while body can reference generalities like being born, aging, dying, decay of dead bodies, sickness and etc
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2022 2:10:49 GMT -5
But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'. No, that's why ~I~ say there's two aspects to one's being, the false sense of self (which indeed can't do anything) and the true individuation, essence, our true self. Essence is our direct link to what's actual. Real practice touches what's actual, what's not imaginary. So real practice is in a real sense from the inside (to) out. It's like a chrysalis that has to unfold from the inside. All we can do is attend to what's occurring (or be aware of what's occurring), but ~we~ can do that. That's what I gave up trying to show on the Give or Take thread. (I just haven't gotten back there yet). When something, or some person, takes your attention, that's the doing nothing part, that's nonvolition. That's all operation from the false sense of self, even if one thinks otherwise. And this (subject, the Give) is why Dogen said enlightenment is practice and practice is enlightenment. What Dogen did was essentially assassinating the term 'practice'. What's actual is here and now, always. So, how do you get to where you already are? What skills do you need? How hard do you have to try? How many years is the unfolding going to take? Where do you have to place your attention to not miss it?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2022 2:34:52 GMT -5
But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'. To me that sounds like typical non-duality rhetoric, but ND teachers have methods that require relentless, persistent returning of attention. The Ramana method applies that to self-inquiry, whereas although the Buddha method certainly entails that, it is also geared for the purpose of purification. The formally noted purpose is. "The purification of beings, overcoming sorrow and lamentation, extinguishing suffering and grief, walking the path of truth and realising nirvana". Hence one investigates the entire framework of mind and matter via the mindful objects formally cited as body, sensation, mind and mental content. Since 'body' and 'mind' are abstract references to feeling and thought, 'the objects' can be reduced to these two.
Mind can continue to reference such things as focus, attention, concentration, sensitivity and the balance, stability or equanimity of the mind; while body can reference generalities like being born, aging, dying, decay of dead bodies, sickness and etc You only need to understand these two points: 1) The Infinite is all there is. (aka "There is only what you are") 2) Seeing into your true nature happens when the Infinite recognizes the Infinite as the Infinite. (aka "seeing with the eyes of Source") Now, how would practice fit in here? Where could practice lend a helping hand? And where could not doing any practice mess it all up? If you understand this koan, you've got it.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 20, 2022 3:31:51 GMT -5
To me that sounds like typical non-duality rhetoric, but ND teachers have methods that require relentless, persistent returning of attention. The Ramana method applies that to self-inquiry, whereas although the Buddha method certainly entails that, it is also geared for the purpose of purification. The formally noted purpose is. "The purification of beings, overcoming sorrow and lamentation, extinguishing suffering and grief, walking the path of truth and realising nirvana". Hence one investigates the entire framework of mind and matter via the mindful objects formally cited as body, sensation, mind and mental content. Since 'body' and 'mind' are abstract references to feeling and thought, 'the objects' can be reduced to these two.
Mind can continue to reference such things as focus, attention, concentration, sensitivity and the balance, stability or equanimity of the mind; while body can reference generalities like being born, aging, dying, decay of dead bodies, sickness and etc You only need to understand these two points: 1) The Infinite is all there is. (aka "There is only what you are") 2) Seeing into your true nature happens when the Infinite recognizes the Infinite as the Infinite. (aka "seeing with the eyes of Source") Now, how would practice fit in here? Where could practice lend a helping hand? And where could not doing any practice mess it all up? If you understand this koan, you've got it.
I'm not going outdo infinite as the infinite, and anything I say after that will seem insignificant.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2022 9:31:24 GMT -5
You only need to understand these two points: 1) The Infinite is all there is. (aka "There is only what you are") 2) Seeing into your true nature happens when the Infinite recognizes the Infinite as the Infinite. (aka "seeing with the eyes of Source") Now, how would practice fit in here? Where could practice lend a helping hand? And where could not doing any practice mess it all up? If you understand this koan, you've got it. I'm not going outdo infinite as the infinite, and anything I say after that will seem insignificant.
You are right, more traditionally minded non-duality teachers address the seeker and give the seeker something to do, something to chew on so that they don't go insane. Zen does that too. But the fact remains, the seeker plays no role in SR. Which means the seeker cannot make SR happen - that's the bad news. But the flip side of this is that the seeker cannot prevent SR from happening either - that's the good news. Which pulls the rug from under any kind of practice based enlightenment teaching. So while the seeker may think he's getting somewhere with self-inquiry, solving koans or neti-neti games, becomes more calm and clear-minded, in retrospect, post-SR, this is clearly seen as just killing time and still a form of self-help. A seeker mind left to itself can be a very destructive force. The seeker mind needs guidance and objectives or else it may burn the house down. Teachers that are worth their salt understand this and throw the seeker mind a bone. This is where neo-advaita makes a mistake, IMO, by not addressing the seeker mind. The result then very often is mentally and psychologically very unbalanced individuals. That's why traditionally the seeker is taught how to calm the mind, i.e. alignment, before the teacher introduces any truth pointers. If the truth pointers are introduced right away to someone with an overactive monkey mind, a body-mind out of balance, it may only increase the suffering by encouraging spiritual bypassing. So practice can help you with alignment, but it cannot help you with SR. And while alignment can help you live a good life free from mental, emotional and physical suffering, it won't resolve your existential questions. Only SR does that. And while SR will put an end to your existential suffering, it won't help you pay your rent, heal your body or fix your relationships. Only alignment can do that. Apparently some sages know about alignment, some others don't. And if the context is SR, then it doesn't matter. But if the context is living your full potential, then it does matter.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 20, 2022 10:20:10 GMT -5
I don't know what self realisation is specifically. There are a few things that no one makes happen, but I don't know which is which. My general saying is self realistaion is just you as you are now. However, there is a process that people stop from happening, which is nothing wrong, and there are good reasons to do that, but I think if you regard meditation as a purification or healing or even an alignment process, you start to understand how by not interfering with desire, aversion, clinging, pursuing, avoiding, resisting and all that, things will start to unwind themselves. However we all have some limitation beyond which we start to lose the plot, so one still has to stablise the equanimity so they don't become overwhelmed by the more intense aspects of the process.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2022 12:39:30 GMT -5
I'm not going outdo infinite as the infinite, and anything I say after that will seem insignificant.
You are right, more traditionally minded non-duality teachers address the seeker and give the seeker something to do, something to chew on so that they don't go insane. Zen does that too. But the fact remains, the seeker plays no role in SR. Which means the seeker cannot make SR happen - that's the bad news. But the flip side of this is that the seeker cannot prevent SR from happening either - that's the good news. Which pulls the rug from under any kind of practice based enlightenment teaching. So while the seeker may think he's getting somewhere with self-inquiry, solving koans or neti-neti games, becomes more calm and clear-minded, in retrospect, post-SR, this is clearly seen as just killing time and still a form of self-help. A seeker mind left to itself can be a very destructive force. The seeker mind needs guidance and objectives or else it may burn the house down. Teachers that are worth their salt understand this and throw the seeker mind a bone. This is where neo-advaita makes a mistake, IMO, by not addressing the seeker mind. The result then very often is mentally and psychologically very unbalanced individuals. That's why traditionally the seeker is taught how to calm the mind, i.e. alignment, before the teacher introduces any truth pointers. If the truth pointers are introduced right away to someone with an overactive monkey mind, a body-mind out of balance, it may only increase the suffering by encouraging spiritual bypassing. So practice can help you with alignment, but it cannot help you with SR. And while alignment can help you live a good life free from mental, emotional and physical suffering, it won't resolve your existential questions. Only SR does that. And while SR will put an end to your existential suffering, it won't help you pay your rent, heal your body or fix your relationships. Only alignment can do that. Apparently some sages know about alignment, some others don't. And if the context is SR, then it doesn't matter. But if the context is living your full potential, then it does matter. That's a lot of words. I don't doubt anyone's experience or nonexperience or realizations or even SR. The words are a grid of explanation. It seems someone came up with an explanation for the words, realization informs the mind. But what if there is another explanation for CC or Kensho or SR? What if the grid is distorted? What if the grid of explanation is partly-minding? What if the mind has not accurately been informed? Not explaining CC or Kensho or SR, but those in relation to mind and the dual world. Surely you admit there is a relationship? Because ~you~ are not NOW what ~you~ were at the moment of let's just say SR. You don't deny that? And can you deny that the words (above) are not ~what you were~ at the moment of SR? So in some sense your present knowledge/gnosis is not THAT gnosis. Isn't your present viewpoint derivative? Isn't your present POV a construct? Isn't your present POV an abstraction? So you are willing to base your whole life, your whole future, on the relationship of the abstraction to ~what you were~ at the moment of SR? Those are not questions I have to answer. Your life is your answer to what you have written (above and elsewhere). But you do bear a responsibility, to others, for your words, too. I don't have to answer to your POV, ~I~ have to answer to ~my~ POV. I can't but accept each of us to be accountable to our points of view. I don't know that we will ever overlap. You (and several others here) have derived a ~map~ after the fact. I had a map previous to my experiences. That doesn't negate my own experience. I almost hesitate to add the following, in 45 years I have never encountered any experience by others, written or otherwise, any nonexperience by others, any realizations likewise, including CC or SR, that cannot be clearly placed within or on my map (and with fuller explanation). I would like to say more, but I've already said more (for 13 years). But I would appreciate honest answers, not, you just don't understand. Any of my questions can be honestly answered, and I can discern if they are honestly answered, or not. And probably no answer would be the most telling answer.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2022 12:48:31 GMT -5
No, that's why ~I~ say there's two aspects to one's being, the false sense of self (which indeed can't do anything) and the true individuation, essence, our true self. Essence is our direct link to what's actual. Real practice touches what's actual, what's not imaginary. So real practice is in a real sense from the inside (to) out. It's like a chrysalis that has to unfold from the inside. All we can do is attend to what's occurring (or be aware of what's occurring), but ~we~ can do that. That's what I gave up trying to show on the Give or Take thread. (I just haven't gotten back there yet). When something, or some person, takes your attention, that's the doing nothing part, that's nonvolition. That's all operation from the false sense of self, even if one thinks otherwise. And this (subject, the Give) is why Dogen said enlightenment is practice and practice is enlightenment. What Dogen did was essentially assassinating the term 'practice'. What's actual is here and now, always. So, how do you get to where you already are? What skills do you need? How hard do you have to try? How many years is the unfolding going to take? Where do you have to place your attention to not miss it? Yes, but the cultural self doesn't exist here and now, it only exists as past memory, or as future imaginary. So the cultural self is an obstruction. The cultural self is the problem. And how is it that most people function most of the time? Most people most of the time function through the imaginary construct. (I replied more fully above).
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 20, 2022 21:13:27 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them?
** shakes head sadly **
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 21, 2022 1:41:08 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them?** shakes head sadly ** Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2022 2:37:14 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true.
1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true
If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 21, 2022 9:54:45 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true. 1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense. I understood what you mean. But this is the philosopher's approach. It actually does sound more like Stoicism than Buddhism to me. And with that approach you'll never leave the confines of the intellect. Because everything that is beyond the intellect's grasp is by definition un-reasonable. But what do Tolle and Niz tell you? The truth lies beyond the intellect, beyond (or prior to) mind, Niz even goes so far as to say prior to consciousness. Does that sound reasonable? Hardly. It's un-thinkable. ZD likes to say that the truth cannot be imagined. These teachers sometimes give very good conceptual frameworks or maps. But the map is not the territory. The word 'honey' cannot give you the actual taste of honey. So whatever they offer is not it, no matter how much sense it makes, no matter how unassailable their logic. Whatever they offer is only a pointer, an invitation to find out for yourself, not an invitation to memorize or analyze their words. What they are pointing to lies beyond the sphere of the intellect and memory. What they are pointing to is the living truth. The intellect cannot deal with the living (actual), only with what is dead (conceptual). So even if you should stumble upon on the truth, mind has no way of recognizing it and will discard it as unreasonable and meaningless. But what is the meaning of a flower anyway? There is no answer to that question. The question itself is already absurd. The purpose of life is life. What everyone really wants is this experience of being fully alive in the here and now. Not some kind of truth or rules to live by. Your approach may work in modern everyday life, but it fails with existential questions. But these existential questions have to be resolved before you can truly have peace of mind. There's a saying, that in order to realize God you have to become God. Ramakrishna used the analogy of an elephant breaking into a little hut and thereby destroying it. That's what SR is like. What does the Daodejing say? That which is hard and rigid belongs to the realm of the dead, that which is soft and flexible belongs to the realm of the living. Similarly, what belongs to the realm of the intellect, is dead. What lies beyond or prior to the realm of the intellect, is alive. And so what you can find via the intellect is truth as an abstraction, a concept. The living truth, however, can only be found prior to the intellect. Which means logic and reason can't help you there. At best, logic and reason can lead to the realization that logic and reason don't work and so they sorta drop you off at the gateless gate. But logic and reason can't get you thru the gateless gate.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 21, 2022 10:01:04 GMT -5
One thinks his logic is the gold standard for truth. The other thinks his personal maps are. And both don't want to be told that that's not it. Obviously they only want to accept the answers they want to hear. But those are the wrong answers. Now what am I supposed to tell them? ** shakes head sadly ** You didn't answer any of my questions. Most are very simply answerable. When I came here I decided not to talk about experiences or practices. I've kept to that for the most part. All we have here are words. To make an effective map somebody had to have been to the territory in the first place. Of course maps are not the gold standard, I've never said they are. Any map in and of itself is useless. The telling wasn't for me, it was for you. I've always and only said attention and awareness are all that really matter.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 21, 2022 10:19:20 GMT -5
Well, logic and reason is one faculty we need to discern between consistency and contradiction, and what is vacuous and what contains meaning. For example, "I am That" or "The Power of Now" has a great deal of content, so one can't reasonably dismiss that as vacuous platitude. By my analysis at least, it adds up, seems consistent, has no glaring contradictions and rings true. Hence, it is at least worthwhile looking into it to find out the way in which it is true. 1) read PoN (e.g.) and know what Tolle said
2) assess if it's at least reasonable
3) if it seems reasonable, find out for yourself the way in which it is true If in the second aspect you find something stupid, incomprehensible, contradictory or seemingly unlikely, push it to the side. In the meantime just accept the sensible majority might be true. Maybe later with a bit of insight, the stuff on the side might start fitting in. You'll be like - ah, I see what it means now. Otherwise, don't accept it. After all, it might just be a bit of nonsense. 1. I understood what you mean. But this is the philosopher's approach. It actually does sound more like Stoicism than Buddhism to me. And with that approach you'll never leave the confines of the intellect. 2. Because everything that is beyond the intellect's grasp is by definition un-reasonable. But what do Tolle and Niz tell you? The truth lies beyond the intellect, beyond (or prior to) mind, Niz even goes so far as to say prior to consciousness. Does that sound reasonable? 3. ZD likes to say that the truth cannot be imagined.4. These teachers sometimes give very good conceptual frameworks or maps. But the map is not the territory. The word 'honey' cannot give you the actual taste of honey. So whatever they offer is not it, no matter how much sense it makes, no matter how unassailable their logic. Whatever they offer is only a pointer, an invitation to find out for yourself, not an invitation to memorize or analyze their words.5. What they are pointing to lies beyond the sphere of the intellect and memory. What they are pointing to is the living truth. The intellect cannot deal with the living (actual), 6. only with what is dead (conceptual). So even if you should stumble upon on the truth, mind has no way of recognizing it and will discard it as unreasonable and meaningless. But what is the meaning of a flower anyway? There is no answer to that question. The question itself is already absurd. The purpose of life is life. What everyone really wants is this experience of being fully alive in the here and now. Not some kind of truth or rules to live by. Your approach may work in modern everyday life, but it fails with existential questions. But these existential questions have to be resolved before you can truly have peace of mind. There's a saying, that in order to realize God you have to become God. Ramakrishna used the analogy of an elephant breaking into a little hut and thereby destroying it. That's what SR is like. What does the Daodejing say? That which is hard and rigid belongs to the realm of the dead, that which is soft and flexible belongs to the realm of the living. Similarly, what belongs to the realm of the intellect, is dead. What lies beyond or prior to the realm of the intellect, is alive. And so what you can find via the intellect is truth as an abstraction, a concept. The living truth, however, can only be found prior to the intellect. Which means logic and reason can't help you there. At best, logic and reason can lead to the realization that logic and reason don't work and so they sorta drop you off at the gateless gate. But logic and reason can t get you thru the gateless gate. 1) step 3
2) yes it sounds reasonable to me
3) also reasonable
4) it's precisely analysing their words (step 2), hence we get a sense that they say something valid prior taking to step 3. otherwise we just read nis and tolle as in step 1
5) hence step 3
6) I can cover all your points within the 3 step ontology. It's just you have discarded steps 1 and 2.
|
|