|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2023 7:12:17 GMT -5
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. I'd say the ego can realize something is wrong, the spiritual search is trying to figure out what's wrong. Edit: ZD pointed out this is incorrect, I agree. It should just read, there is a realization something is wrong. Most people just want to psychologically repair the ego-problem, this is the way of most modern psychology (but not all. Victor Frankl had already begun his Logotherapy before he was put in a Nazi concentration camp. He survived because the Nazis couldn't break his will to maintain a positive attitude. Robert Assagioli and his Psychosynthesis is the most spiritual psychology I've ever encountered. The book so-named and his The Act of Will are most excellent. Karen Horney understands this whole process to some extent. Donald Winnicott also understood what was going on to some extent). So deep within but covered over by the cultural self is who we actually are, and this is where intent comes-from, and the wish to practice, and practice itself. This doesn't mean in any sense the repair of ego, which is beyond repair. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 8:02:01 GMT -5
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. [/quote ]I'd say the ego can realize something is wrong, the spiritual search is trying to figure out what's wrong. Most people just want to psychologically repair the ego-problem, this is the way of most modern psychology (but not all. Victor Frankl had already begun his Logotherapy before he was put in a Nazi concentration camp. He survived because the Nazis couldn't break his will to maintain a positive attitude. Robert Assagioli and his Psychosynthesis is the most spiritual psychology I've ever encountered. The book so-named and his The Act of Will are most excellent. Karen Horney understands this whole process to some extent. Donald Winnicott also understood what was going on to some extent). So deep within but covered over by the cultural self is who we actually are, and this is where intent comes-from, and the wish to practice, and practice itself. This doesn't mean in any sense the repair of ego, which is beyond repair. It isn't the ego that realizes anything because the ego is an idea about a fictional entity. We use that word conventionally to refer to a self-centered orientation that is common to most adults. That which does everything is the entire field of reality manifesting through a particular individual. It can't be any other way because all humans are culturally conditioned to imagine that there is a separate volitional "me" looking at an external world composed of separate things. That which sees, hears, feels, thinks, and realizes anything is the unified field of being that we call "reality." So, yes, the intuitive suspicion that the concensus paradigm is flawed in some way, and the intention to find out what's going on at a more fundamental level, and the intention to meditate or not meditate, arises from the same place that everything else arises--from THIS. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 8:04:03 GMT -5
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. If you don't think practice is easy then don't try. Then you will discover how easy it is. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2023 8:09:03 GMT -5
ZD wrote: It isn't the ego that realizes anything because the ego is an idea about a fictional entity. We use that word conventionally to refer to a self-centered orientation that is common to most adults. That which does everything is the entire field of reality manifesting through a particular individual. It can't be any other way because all humans are culturally conditioned to imagine that there is a separate volitional "me" looking at an external world composed of separate things. That which sees, hears, feels, thinks, and realizes anything is the unified field of being that we call "reality."
So, yes, the intuitive suspicion that the concensus paradigm is flawed in some way, and the intention to find out what's going on at a more fundamental level, and the intention to meditate or not meditate, arises from the same place that everything else arises--from THIS.
sdp wrote: OK, I agree. It should be put, there is a realization something is wrong. I will correct it. This post stands as a record.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2023 8:12:22 GMT -5
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. If you don't think practice is easy then don't try. Then you will discover how easy it is. So you have always practiced as you wanted to without interruption? I don't believe it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 8:15:48 GMT -5
If you don't think practice is easy then don't try. Then you will discover how easy it is. So you have always practiced as you wanted to without interruption? I don't believe it. Firstly practice shouldn't be about wanting something and secondly, so what if you are interrupted? Be interrupted. It's okay. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 8:16:10 GMT -5
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. If you don't think practice is easy then don't try. Then you will discover how easy it is. Yes. Ironically, some people enjoy formal meditation and some hate it. That's one reason that I enjoy telling people that there are many alternative forms of meditation that can lead to the same basic realization. People who hate to formally sit and meditate can experiment and find an informal approach that appeals to them. As soon as this character realized that all answers to the questions that I was asking were "within," I became highly motivated to meditate, so I went on silent meditation retreats with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and other groups as well as solo hiking retreats in wilderness areas. The desire to understand what's going on was such a strong motivator that I even placed little signs in my office and truck that said, "What are you doing? Are you thinking or looking?" and other similar statements or questions as reminders to shift attention away from thoughts in an effort to break the habit of incessantly ruminating. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 8:20:40 GMT -5
If you don't think practice is easy then don't try. Then you will discover how easy it is. Yes. Ironically, some people enjoy formal meditation and some hate it. That's one reason that I enjoy telling people that there are many alternative forms of meditation that can lead to the same basic realization. People who hate to formally sit and meditate can experiment and find an informal approach that appeals to them. A soon as this character realized that all answers to the questions that I was asking were "within," I became highly motivated to meditate, so I went on silent meditation retreats with Christians, Buddhists, Hindus, and other groups as well as solo hiking retreats in wilderness areas. The desire to understand what's going on was such a strong motivator that I even placed little signs in my office and truck that said, "What are you doing? Are you thinking or looking?" and other similar statements or questions as reminders to shift attention away from thoughts in an effort to break the habit of incessantly ruminating. Those who hate it are usually those who think it requires effort so they are fighting with themselves. Who can blame them. Who wants that? Why do you need to fight with interruptions of the mind. If the mind didn't have a natural intendency to quieten down to its most quiet state then this kind of practice would be impossible. So let the mind do what it wants to do. How do you take a dive off a diving board. You just assume the correct position and let gravity do the rest. Splash! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 8:23:04 GMT -5
You are the ZEN DANCER. I would really like to know what you think of that video I posted.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 8:23:20 GMT -5
So you have always practiced as you wanted to without interruption? I don't believe it. Firstly practice shouldn't be about wanting something and secondly, so what if you are interrupted? Be interrupted. It's okay. Exactly! I often hear people say, "But I don't have time to meditate." What a joke. These same people will watch TV for four hours each day, and do all kinds of other unnecessary stuff, and their statement is usually just an excuse or rationalization for why they don't want to meditate. And yet, that's also perfectly so. Some people will be interested in what silence can lead to, and others not so much. As a small business owner, I was a busy boy for many years, but I still had time for meditative activities because I could see how important it was. Other people won't feel that it's important at all, and that, too, is perfectly okay. Each human is a unique expression of THIS. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 8:23:57 GMT -5
You are the ZEN DANCER. I would really like to know what you think of that video I posted. I forgot about that. I'll go back and watch it. Thanks for reminding me. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 4, 2023 8:25:12 GMT -5
You are the ZEN DANCER. I would really like to know what you think of that video I posted. I forgot about that. I'll go back and watch it. Thanks for reminding me. I had you in mind when I posted it. You don't have to watch all of it. I'm just interested in what you think about his approach at pointing to what is. I'm curious if that was your approach to Zen. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 9:15:51 GMT -5
You are the ZEN DANCER. I would really like to know what you think of that video I posted. I forgot about that. I'll go back and watch it. Thanks for reminding me. 48 minutes into the video and it's clear as a bell. I'll watch the rest when I return from an errand. Thanks for posting this. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 4, 2023 9:42:20 GMT -5
I forgot about that. I'll go back and watch it. Thanks for reminding me. I had you in mind when I posted it. You don't have to watch all of it. I'm just interested in what you think about his approach at pointing to what is. I'm curious if that was your approach to Zen. My approach was somewhat different, but it led to the same kind of understanding and insights. Because I had spent 20 years thinking about all kinds of existential questions without finding any answers, I had no interest in more thinking. I started meditating solely because I was experiencing some business-related stress caused by incessant worries and thoughts about customers, employees, money, and ten thousand other things. I had begun to suspect that mind-talk was adding to my stress, but didn't realize that it was the source of ALL of my stress. haha! I picked up a new Zen book that claimed a simple breath-counting exercise could increase one's peace of mind, and I had no peace of mind, so I started the exercise out of desperation, so to speak. I had no idea what it might lead to. After about two weeks or less of doing the exercise one hour each day at lunchtime, something odd happened that aroused my curiosity. I then added a second meditative activity that I now call ATA-T. I walked down a country road after work and attempted to look at the world without labeling or thinking about what I was looking at. Within two days I had a big realization-that I had spent the last 20 years living in my head. Memories from childhood began to return, and that made me realize that the magically-alive world I remembered from childhood hadn't gone anywhere. It was still here, but I had left it by going into the mind. That realization increased my curiosity even more, and I added a third hour of formal meditation at night to my regimen. The three hours per day of these activities continued for about five months until one night I sat down to meditate and fell into nirvikalpa samadhi. I didn't know what it was, but I knew that it was a non-dual state of mind in which everything disappeared and only pure awareness remained. It was highly blissful. That happened three nights in a row, and on the morning of the fourth day I went to work and at mid-morning I had a mind-boggling CC that answered about 7 of my existential questions and catapulted "me" into a totally different reality that was alive, intimate, and present. It was the same state that Tolle describes after his vortex thing occurred. Three days later, as I began thinking incessantly about what had happened, that extraordinary way of being began to dissipate and it felt like I had been kicked out of paradise and returned to the dead flat world that most adults consider "normal." Afterwards, I just wanted to get back to paradise and I assumed that with sufficient mental silence I might be able to return. The short story is that I spent the next 15 years meditating and going on silent retreats, and during that time there were numerous realizations and various unusual experiences. By 1999 I had no more questions, but I didn't yet feel free in the same way as after the CC, and I had no idea why. This led to a new existential question based upon what had happened during the previous 15 years. I knew that during that period of time there had been many times when the sense of selfhood had totally disappeared (during the CC, during NS, and during periods of time when I would fall "into the zone" while hiking in the mountains or pursuing various activities). I had started referring to those periods of no-self as periods of "unity consciousness." IOW, I recognized that there had been an oscillation between the sense of selfhood and no-self, but after every period of no-self, selfhood always seemed to return. That summer I want on a solo hiking retreat and that was my underlying question--"How is it possible to remain in a state of unity consciousness all the time?" After four days of hiking, I was overcome by a deep sense of gratitude and became very emotional. Afterwards, I had a strange sense that something was missing. Several hours later I happened to look "within" and was astonished to discover that there was no longer either a "within" or a sense of "me." It then became immediately obvious that there had never been a "me" in any sense, and it also became obvious that what I had seen 15 years earlier--the Infinite--was the doer of everything. That ended the spiritual search, and then there was understanding and a sense of freedom and contentment that has never changed. The answer to my final question turned out to be, "All there ever was was unity consciousness, but it had never been realized." There had never been a "me" that sometimes disappeared and then reappeared. The whole thing had been an illusion, and "I" was the butt of that cosmic joke. As the Zen Master in the video states so well in slightly different words, "Living in a not-knowing state of mind is quite wonderful."  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 4, 2023 12:55:04 GMT -5
I watched the video in full, Jisho is very good (but it's kind of like watching paint dry [  ] ). Two things stuck out. It is impossible to think of the way it is now. That's very good, clear, accurate. Another is I think a mistranslation. This is curious too, in translating you have to trust the translator, obviously. "Life only exists when we think life". I'm pretty sure he didn't say that, it would contradict everything else he said. He didn't use the word think here. I'm going to go back and listen to that again. He answered the questions very well. Edit: I listened to the part in question about six times, went back some and forward some for a fuller context. It's at minute 1:30:00. I think I understand what he was saying, or what got left out in translation. Going back to the sentence just previous, and previous to that he was describing life as like learning to ride a bicycle. "In terms about the best way to live life, life only exists when we think life". What he meant. In terms about the best way to live life, meaning, in time as from A to B to C, past to present to future, that kind of life only exists when we think life. This part added for clarification. Comments welcome. Otherwise, he was very clear. Oh, another edit: There is something else that's obvious to sdp, I was waiting for him to mention, he had several easy opportunities. It's the basis for continuity, there is a basis for continuity. He didn't say. |
|
] ). Two things stuck out. It is impossible to think of the way it is now. That's very good, clear, accurate. Another is I think a mistranslation. This is curious too, in translating you have to trust the translator, obviously. "Life only exists when we think life". I'm pretty sure he didn't say that, it would contradict everything else he said. He didn't use the word think here. I'm going to go back and listen to that again. He answered the questions very well.