|
Post by lolly on Sept 26, 2022 21:26:00 GMT -5
It's like you intend to watch the sunset without any wish to do anything about it, but English has no words to say that so I say there is 'intention', but there is no 'volition'. Same in ATA, you intend to 'just observe', but reactivity comes in and you find yourself 'making it as you you want it to be'. Initially there can be some reactivity, as in frustration that the mind keeps jabbering, but by repeatedly shifting attention away from the jabbering to simple observation, the reactivity ceases because it's accepted that (1) the mind is in the habit of jabbering, and (2) it becomes obvious that persistence will be necessary to break the habit of incessant jabbering. Eventually the jabbering ceases for longer and longer periods of time until there is pure awareness of "what is" without the naming, commenting, jabbering, or any kind of reactivity. In no case that I can think of is there any attempt to "make it as you want it to be," but maybe other people experiences are different in this regard. Jabbering in itself is not problematic - you just notice you've drifted off and resume meditation. Frustration is problematic because it's reactive 'want it to be'. The meditator notices mind wandering and react adversely to that fact. They want it not to be that way (avesrion) and want it to be quiet instead (craving). If there is reaction there's 'want it to be'.
Hence we don't have to worry about wandering off every minute or anything like that, but we need to recognise the reactive tendency and 'stop doing that'. Trouble is, you can't do it (not-do it) willfully because that's the complex of aversion to aversions, craving for cravings, aversion to cravings and even craving for aversions. This implies meditation has another layer of nuance. I say something like it's not willful, but willing.
Yep, frustration, impatience, boredom and so on... If you look into any reactive mentality you'll see the 'want it to be (not be)' is right there with it.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 27, 2022 9:29:59 GMT -5
Initially there can be some reactivity, as in frustration that the mind keeps jabbering, but by repeatedly shifting attention away from the jabbering to simple observation, the reactivity ceases because it's accepted that (1) the mind is in the habit of jabbering, and (2) it becomes obvious that persistence will be necessary to break the habit of incessant jabbering. Eventually the jabbering ceases for longer and longer periods of time until there is pure awareness of "what is" without the naming, commenting, jabbering, or any kind of reactivity. In no case that I can think of is there any attempt to "make it as you want it to be," but maybe other people experiences are different in this regard. Jabbering in itself is not problematic - you just notice you've drifted off and resume meditation. Frustration is problematic because it's reactive 'want it to be'. The meditator notices mind wandering and react adversely to that fact. They want it not to be that way (avesrion) and want it to be quiet instead (craving). If there is reaction there's 'want it to be'.
Hence we don't have to worry about wandering off every minute or anything like that, but we need to recognise the reactive tendency and 'stop doing that'. Trouble is, you can't do it (not-do it) willfully because that's the complex of aversion to aversions, craving for cravings, aversion to cravings and even craving for aversions. This implies meditation has another layer of nuance. I say something like it's not willful, but willing.
Yep, frustration, impatience, boredom and so on... If you look into any reactive mentality you'll see the 'want it to be (not be)' is right there with it.
Fortunately, it's possible to discover what lies beyond all of this, but not by a "me."
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2022 21:19:58 GMT -5
Everything you say about self-consistency with respect to the Buddhist process you've described is valid, but it's valid in the context of the person in the world. Realization of nonduality has no reasonable self-consistency. Now, both the person and the world can benefit from your process, but the flip side of the coin is that the resulting self-consistent set of beliefs can form the center of a sense of identity. The realization reveals any and all sense of objectified, limited identity to be false. Some of the Zen koans seem to me to have come down to us through that culture precisely because they expose the one contemplating to the absence of any and all reason, much less consistency. I understand that one of the steps in the eightfold path is to seek refuge in the sangha. heh heh, I don't think those Zen guys are offering much existential shelter. To anyone. I don't get the argument because realisation pertains to step 3 in the model whereas consistency pertains to step 2. Of course what you are saying is true because step 2 alone can't possibly glean insight. I personally haven't gelled with the Zens or any other Buddhist school for that matter, because I look up their meditation stuff and it's all about counting breaths and so forth. One zen guy named Young comes fairly close but there's always an 'addition' to the real-lived-experience. He claims you should say 'feel' to yourself, thus generating volition, where I say stop doing that and just observe. You wouldn't believe how hard it is to get people to just stop and look (because when you stop the ego is 'starved out').
Meh, koans make no sense.
Refuge is a Zen thing and across the Buddhist spectrum (everything's a spectrum now), but refuge pertains to trust. Trust implies morality and so and so forth... so I guess if you make sure you are trustworthy you at least play your part.
In terms of the three steps and realization, I'd say that two different notions apply. The first is that "step 3" is a realization. ZD sometimes refers to the distinction between "gnosis" and "knowing/understanding". That's the distinction between 2 and 3. But my point about self-consistency had to do with the realization of nonduality, or, as ZD, reefs, enigma and a few others such as shadowplay (sorry if I've left anyone out) would say, self realization. The second notion is that 1-2-3 is, as you've put it yourself, self-consistent. Some realizations short of SR will be self-consistent with such a 1-2-3 process, and thereby consistent with an evolving world view. Others won't, such as the realization as to the nature of boundaries, which to me seems to inevitably involve a major experiential component to it. But regardless, SR is the end of any sort of self-consistent, reasonable, cognizable world view. My thoughts on Buddhism and Zen are the perspectives of an outsider commenting, so I'll leave that there where it is. It's not all completely back at step 2, but I've never set foot in a temple.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2022 21:31:34 GMT -5
Jabbering in itself is not problematic - you just notice you've drifted off and resume meditation. Frustration is problematic because it's reactive 'want it to be'. The meditator notices mind wandering and react adversely to that fact. They want it not to be that way (avesrion) and want it to be quiet instead (craving). If there is reaction there's 'want it to be'.
Hence we don't have to worry about wandering off every minute or anything like that, but we need to recognise the reactive tendency and 'stop doing that'. Trouble is, you can't do it (not-do it) willfully because that's the complex of aversion to aversions, craving for cravings, aversion to cravings and even craving for aversions. This implies meditation has another layer of nuance. I say something like it's not willful, but willing.
Yep, frustration, impatience, boredom and so on... If you look into any reactive mentality you'll see the 'want it to be (not be)' is right there with it.
Fortunately, it's possible to discover what lies beyond all of this, but not by a "me." ha! ha! there's no frog hangin' round to call evil when he says stuff like this no more it's frustrating!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 21, 2023 9:14:21 GMT -5
"In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness — alive. Even stones are conscious and alive." - Niz the Maharaj Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 21, 2023 14:37:53 GMT -5
"In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness — alive. Even stones are conscious and alive." - Niz the Maharaj Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying OK Gopal master of the scriptures, what do you do with this?: Jesus told the Pharisees, If I made the people shut up, the very stones would cry out. But don't trust anybody is a good rule. You have to find out for yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2023 4:14:12 GMT -5
"In reality there is only consciousness. All life is conscious, all consciousness — alive. Even stones are conscious and alive." - Niz the Maharaj Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 22, 2023 8:44:26 GMT -5
Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Why does Gopal need to be told this 200 or 300 times (not you personally, lots of people here)?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2023 9:00:08 GMT -5
I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Why does Gopal need to be told this 200 or 300 times (not you personally, lots of people here)? Because he has been asking for it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2023 13:57:06 GMT -5
Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know .
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 22, 2023 13:58:11 GMT -5
Don't trust him Reefs, he is lying OK Gopal master of the scriptures, what do you do with this?: Jesus told the Pharisees, If I made the people shut up, the very stones would cry out. But don't trust anybody is a good rule. You have to find out for yourself. He is talking something else not related to what we have been discussing here.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 22, 2023 14:13:10 GMT -5
I don't need to trust him nor should you. He's just stating the obvious. The question then is, why isn't it obvious to you, too? Because you know consciousness only as a concept, but not directly.
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . 'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Apr 22, 2023 15:04:18 GMT -5
Even after all these years you still have been living in a speculation is a painful thing. Rock appears and appearance can't be conscious. You are conscious not what appears to you. And from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know . 'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right. This is an interesting conversation. As I understand these ... The rock that I perceive is a virtual rock created by my subconscious. So, in itself that rock is an "appearance", it doesn't objectively exist. The appearance I perceive isn't identical to any other perceiver's appearance of that rock. On the other hand, what my subconscious creates is based on its connections (potentially) to all the consciousnesses that exist (although some connections weight more than others, function of my personality's state of consciousness and focus). The rock in itself isn't a gestalt of consciousness. It doesn't have an identity. It is a grouping of "more elementary" gestalts and units of consciousness. Those are conscious, even self-conscious, but surely in a different way than a human is self-consciousness, as gestalt of consciousness. The rock doesn't have an appearance of itself. When Gopal says "from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know.", I guess that he means that that I is his conscious I, the perceiver of appearances created by his associated subconscious, interconnected at non-physical level, that may choose for whatever reason to create an appearance of "you", that may or may not have a corresponding "you" as a gestalt of consciousness associated with an identity. It could just be an appearance. Even Gopal himself doesn't objectively exist, as he perceives only an appearance of himself, created by his subconscious. But he knows that he is / has an identity.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 22, 2023 15:19:42 GMT -5
'Appearance' is a metaphor, and what we experience as a 'rock' isn't actually an appearance. One can still argue that a rock isn't conscious, all I'm saying is that the basis for your argument here isn't right. This is an interesting conversation. As I understand these ... The rock that I perceive is a virtual rock created by my subconscious. So, in itself that rock is an "appearance", it doesn't objectively exist. The appearance I perceive isn't identical to any other perceiver's appearance of that rock. On the other hand, what my subconscious creates is based on its connections (potentially) to all the consciousnesses that exist (although some connections weight more than others, function of my personality's state of consciousness and focus). The rock in itself isn't a gestalt of consciousness. It doesn't have an identity. It is a grouping of "more elementary" gestalts and units of consciousness. Those are conscious, even self-conscious, but surely in a different way than a human is self-consciousness, as gestalt of consciousness. The rock doesn't have an appearance of itself.
When Gopal says "from my view point, you appear to be conscious but I have no way to know.", I guess that he means that that I is his conscious I, the perceiver of appearances created by his associated subconscious, interconnected at non-physical level, that may choose for whatever reason to create an appearance of "you", that may or may not have a corresponding "you" as a gestalt of consciousness associated with an identity. It could just be an appearance. Even Gopal himself doesn't objectively exist, as he perceives only an appearance of himself, created by his subconscious. But he knows that he is / has an identity. My view is also that the rock doesn't 'objectively exist', but to say it IS an appearance, is to say that it objectively exists as an appearance lol...so it's 'out of the frying pan and into the fire' so to speak. So I consider the word 'appearance' (or 'virtual reality') to be a metaphor, or an indicator. It's a way of conveying that it's NOT objectively existing, but it's also not meant to say what it 'is'. I like the highlighted, I wouldn't express it that way, but I've learned how to interpret your language to some extent...enough here to 'grok' it and resonate with it. (I don't think Gopal believes in interconnection, but maybe be will clarify).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 22, 2023 17:50:44 GMT -5
Why does Gopal need to be told this 200 or 300 times (not you personally, lots of people here)? Because he has been asking for it. I don't know what that means.
|
|