|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 3, 2023 22:26:04 GMT -5
You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. should discover that there is a "me", but not in the way you think there is ..., and you aren't required to meditate. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 3, 2023 23:53:22 GMT -5
... Prayer Nature Grief Meditation Church service Depression Solitude etc. ... All those induce states of higher suggestibility, which are propitious for implanting / adopting beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jul 4, 2023 2:24:17 GMT -5
You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. should discover that there is a "me", but not in the way you think there is ..., and you aren't required to meditate. Now, that would definitely qualify as inner practice. But as there is no longer a distinction between inner and outer in such knowledge... |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 2:42:17 GMT -5
You should discover that there is a "me", but not in the way you think there is ..., and you aren't required to meditate. Now, that would definitely qualify as inner practice. But as there is no longer a distinction between inner and outer in such knowledge... But he already said you are not required to practice. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 4:08:56 GMT -5
I didn't know where to put this but as this is a thread about practice I guess this is as good a place as any. It's a really cool talk by a Japanese Zen master I happened to stumble across. I wouldn't say there are any ideas that anyone here will be unfamiliar with but it's presented with such clarity. Better than listening to some rambling Western non-duality teacher. It gets right to the point.
|
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 4, 2023 4:33:22 GMT -5
What this phrase points to a correlation between meditative activities and realizations. I've pointed this out before, but a British website in the past asked people to send in their accounts of major spiritual experiences (they didn't differentiate between experiences and realizations in the way that we do, but it doesn't really matter). They asked those people to report on what they were doing immediately prior to whatever happened or their psychological condition. The number one reported condition was abject despair. Tolle would be one well-known example of this as well as people like Satyam Nadeem. Obviously a sage can't tell people to feel abject despair if they don't already feel that, so that would be a ridiculous pointer. However, the next three most reported activities were: meditation, being alone in nature, and reading spiritual literature. I sometimes laughingly tell people if they want to increase their odds, they should meditate alone in nature with an inspiring spiritual book.  In the newly-published book "The Varieties of Spiritual Experience," by Yaden and Newberg, which is an update of William James' classic book, "The Varieties of Religious Experience," chapter six is titled "Origins, Triggers of spiritual experience." The triggers for spiritual experiences that those scientists have listed include: Prayer Nature Grief Meditation Church service Depression Solidtude etc. Although none of these things might be considered causal, it seems obvious that they are certainly correlated, and all but one individual I know who has attained SR meditated or contemplated what they wanted to know on a regular basis. Until SR occurs, it will seem as if there is a "me" choosing to meditate, and perhaps even making a big effort to do so, but afterwards this will be seen to have been nothing more than a huge cognitive illusion predicated upon the idea of being a SVP. You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. Is the you some other than [or distinct from] the me, … of which "there is no". Because if the You is impersonal, then it is implied that the Impersonal needs the delusion of me in order to initiate the practice ... which would seem odd as by your own measure it all just happens anyway (or not as the case may be). And also that the buddha supposedly still meditated even after enlightenment |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 4:43:23 GMT -5
You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. Is the you some other than [or distinct from] the me, … of which "there is no". Because if the You is impersonal, then it is implied that the Impersonal needs the delusion of me in order to initiate the practice ... which would seem odd as by your own measure it all just happens anyway (or not as the case may be). And also that the buddha supposedly still meditated even after enlightenment What makes you think You are impersonal? After Enlightenment Buddha was meditation. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 4, 2023 5:02:04 GMT -5
Is the you some other than [or distinct from] the me, … of which "there is no". Because if the You is impersonal, then it is implied that the Impersonal needs the delusion of me in order to initiate the practice ... which would seem odd as by your own measure it all just happens anyway (or not as the case may be). And also that the buddha supposedly still meditated even after enlightenment After Enlightenment Buddha was meditation. I don't think that. I routinely advocate against the use of pronouns with the Impersonal. I was just trying to better understand where you were coming from. I was trying to understand what you meant by the 'you' that has to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 5:11:03 GMT -5
What makes you think You are impersonal? After Enlightenment Buddha was meditation. I don't think that. I routinely advocate against the use of pronouns with the Impersonal. I was just trying to better understand where you were coming from. I was trying to understand what you meant by the 'you' that has to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke? I'm speaking of the egoic individual personality. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 4, 2023 5:29:39 GMT -5
I don't think that. I routinely advocate against the use of pronouns with the Impersonal. I was just trying to better understand where you were coming from. I was trying to understand what you meant by the 'you' that has to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke? I'm speaking of the egoic individual personality. Okay, thanks. Out of curiosity, is that distinct from the me of which "there is no".
I don't want to end up just parsing words, but am trying to understand where you were coming from with that original post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 5:38:02 GMT -5
I'm speaking of the egoic individual personality. Okay, thanks. Out of curiosity, is that distinct from the me of which "there is no".
I don't want to end up just parsing words, but am trying to understand where you were coming from with that original post.
The ego that has the intention to meditate and go back to silence by transcending mind disappears in that silence, yet you remain. Don't try and understand it. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jul 4, 2023 5:41:00 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. Out of curiosity, is that distinct from the me of which "there is no".
I don't want to end up just parsing words, but am trying to understand where you were coming from with that original post.
The ego that has the intention to meditate and go back to silence by transcending mind disappears in that silence, yet you remain. Don't try and understand it. I can understand it pretty well. I was working with, 'the way I see it, the very intent is synonymous with the implied you/me'. So along similar lines. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 6:19:12 GMT -5
What this phrase points to a correlation between meditative activities and realizations. I've pointed this out before, but a British website in the past asked people to send in their accounts of major spiritual experiences (they didn't differentiate between experiences and realizations in the way that we do, but it doesn't really matter). They asked those people to report on what they were doing immediately prior to whatever happened or their psychological condition. The number one reported condition was abject despair. Tolle would be one well-known example of this as well as people like Satyam Nadeem. Obviously a sage can't tell people to feel abject despair if they don't already feel that, so that would be a ridiculous pointer. However, the next three most reported activities were: meditation, being alone in nature, and reading spiritual literature. I sometimes laughingly tell people if they want to increase their odds, they should meditate alone in nature with an inspiring spiritual book. In the newly-published book "The Varieties of Spiritual Experience," by Yaden and Newberg, which is an update of William James' classic book, "The Varieties of Religious Experience," chapter six is titled "Origins, Triggers of spiritual experience." The triggers for spiritual experiences that those scientists have listed include: Prayer Nature Grief Meditation Church service Depression Solidtude etc. Although none of these things might be considered causal, it seems obvious that they are certainly correlated, and all but one individual I know who has attained SR meditated or contemplated what they wanted to know on a regular basis. Until SR occurs, it will seem as if there is a "me" choosing to meditate, and perhaps even making a big effort to do so, but afterwards this will be seen to have been nothing more than a huge cognitive illusion predicated upon the idea of being a SVP. You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. Exactly, and you don't even get the joke until you discover that the joke is on "you!" |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 6:45:17 GMT -5
You have to be prepared to go along with the cosmic joke that a me is required to meditate, only to discover from the meditation practice itself that there is no me. Is the you some other than [or distinct from] the me, … of which "there is no". Because if the You is impersonal, then it is implied that the Impersonal needs the delusion of me in order to initiate the practice ... which would seem odd as by your own measure it all just happens anyway (or not as the case may be). And also that the buddha supposedly still meditated even after enlightenment In this sense the "you" and the "me" and "THIS" are all the same unified infinite field of being. They're just words that are used for pointing. Someone in a ND zoom meeting asked why ND teachers still use the word "I" when referring to themselves if there's no longer a sense of a personal "me" at the center of their perception of what's happening. In fact, some of them don't. They will often use the phrase "this character" or "this mind/body organism" because those phrases more accurately capture a sense of how they think about themselves. Nevertheless, in most cases it's simply easier and more fluid to say "I" or "me" when talking to people. If it's realized/understood that simply looking at the world in silence is the same psychological activity as sitting on a cushion staring at a candle flame or watching the breath, then a sage continues to meditate after SR because that's his/her predominate activity. The reason that long-time formal meditators continue formally meditating after SR is that that's become a way of life. A common question that seekers ask sages is, "Do you still meditate?" Many sages respond to that question by saying, "My whole life is meditation." What they're pointing to is that on an everyday basis they interact with reality just like little children--directly while being focused on whatever is happening in the present moment. They no longer "live in their heads" and endlessly ruminate about a "me" at the center of what's happening. They're free, and they know that they're free to be what they are--a momentary manifestation of the Infinite doing whatever is being done. They know that when the body dies what they are will not die because it was never born. It's almost impossible to convey what life is like when there's no desire, no worries, no regrets, no resentments, no expectations, no judgments, no thoughts about how other people should act or how the world should be, etc to someone who doesn't live like that. The body and personality remain, but it's known that there's no "little guy/gal in the head" directing, controlling, or choosing anything. One simply watches life unfold however it unfolds. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2023 6:51:29 GMT -5
Okay, thanks. Out of curiosity, is that distinct from the me of which "there is no".
I don't want to end up just parsing words, but am trying to understand where you were coming from with that original post.
The ego that has the intention to meditate and go back to silence by transcending mind disappears in that silence, yet you remain. Don't try and understand it. Is practice easy? Is the beginning of practice easy? No, everybody experiences not-easy. Thoughts arise, why is that a problem? They take your attention in a normal ego-operating process, that's the job of ego. You have an itch, your attention goes into the itch. You get a sore muscle, attention gone. So the ego is an obstruction, it isn't what's practicing. Ever seen a horse broken? There are two different ways, one is called gentling the horse, it takes a lot of time, patience. The other way, you just get on the horse and ride it until it gives up, submits to the rider. In alchemy it is said you have to have a little gold to make gold. satch said Buddha is meditation, after Enlightenment. The little bit of gold is the desire to practice from what I say is the ~side~ of essence, True Self. So there is this struggle, practice or don't practice. It's a struggle between True Self and ego-self. All ego can do is yield, ego can't practice IMO. Ego is like the wild unbroken horse who eventually yields. Now, does True Self always "win", does practice always win? No, ego is very crafty, almost like AI, which isn't conscious. And what Chogyam Trungpa Rinpoche calls spiritual materialism can occur, ego can pretend to be a spiritual seeker. So when ZD says there never was this little man in the head, I agree, Gurdjieff said we don't have our own I, thinking we have our own I and considering we are one I, is called Imaginary I. The little man in the head is just a series of connections in the brain as memory, masquerading as a singular self. So, this whole process can be understood. |
|
