|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 2, 2023 17:44:50 GMT -5
Yes (although I haven't taken time to read the walls), I can relate directly to that. Tolle makes two suggestions in Now. In the first, he predicts that the reader might start to chuckle at the antics of mind, and that was certainly my experience, even to the point of marveling at the nonsense. In the second, he comments that likely on upwards of 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual. Check. This can't be unseen, and in the resulting space, what remains is far more visible. Conditioning changes over time, in a natural process of emptiness, deepening. It's a different process from cycling through different phases and either improving or degrading. It's also different from the natural process of aging and decay, which is happening, in tandem, anyway.  Beyond that, I'm suspect of any notion of "purification" because of the implicit notions of shame, improvement and moral stricture. And not because I've ever given a flying fuck about what anyone thinks I should do, but because of all the incredible waste in terms of twisted minds and the emotional wreckage of others I've witnessed and encountered in my life. People who mistreat themselves and everyone around them because of self-esteem issues. It's a disaster. It's a criticism of Christianity which I certainly understand, and would never try to argue anyone out of or apologize for. And yet it's Christianity that gave the world the idea that every human being has their own intrinsic value. The working-class melting pot aphorism I grew up with was "ya' gotta' take the good wit' the bad". I think they reversed the sense of it for the sake verbal rhythm. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 21:30:34 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. This is for satch also. On the Yogacara thread Tagawa Shun'ei makes the point there is a something that presents continuity, from yesterday to today. He even says this something is fictitious. But he doesn't say it doesn't exist. There is undeniably a something, or you and satch couldn't keep a dialogue going with those here. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and satch and ZD and others here, say the self is illusory. But I will say all day every day for a million years, that that self exists as information in your own particular brain. Now, Tagawa also says the very nature of this something, is that it has the capability of distorting everything, it's very nature IS distortion. Our only ~hope~ is that the distortions are not absolutely irrevocably distorting, everyone has available buddha-nature. If you guys no longer suffer, all I can do is accept you are being honest that you never suffer. But sdp doesn't trust sdp, the distorting factors. Now, Tagawa doesn't describe precisely my path, but it's close enough to be able to communicate truth, with others. Basically, it does not compute for sdp how Reefs or satch or others ~wears-the-persona-of-a-person~, and can say ATST there isn't a self-person present. I just don't buy this idea of contexts. I'd rather have truth that is true in any and all contexts. And I don't buy this business of, Oh, once you are SR, it will all make sense. IOW, I can't honestly say who is deluded, You (plural) or sdp. And sdp sort of has some skin in the game. These words are just rolling out, but from years of trying to consider your views. I have to follow my path, no amount of words you throw at me can alter it. This is probably biased, but zazeniac and ouroboros and lolly and andrew and sharon (and I'm sure there are others) have more integrity than all of you put together. Self-delusion is one of the attributes Tagawa Shun'ei discusses. Get that? Understand, that? Why it just might be a problem? What are ~you~, telling me there is no ~you~? I've been fishing (the bait hides the hook), I've been scammed (never bigly). Scam is the word of the day. I'd rather not ever be scammed, again, concerning anything. ...This probably does it for me for today...for now anyway... You already know that what I'm talking about is true because you are continually putting that knowledge to use in your daily life every time you say something like, I shouldn't have done that or I should have done this or I was going to do that but I have changed my mind, I'm going to do this. Right there is the recognition that there is this unmovable observing impersonal I that is aware of something that is changing called mind. The I seems to be separate and aloof from what you want to change which is mind while at the same time they are no different because there is only one. We can talk about impersonal and personal as if there are two but in reality there is only one. But you want to keep improving the personal until you get there and you will never run out of teachings to help you to do that because your experience is that the unchanging I, the real I which is the eternal witness is entangled with the experience of being a changing personality with a mind through the changing I which is egoity. Spiritual practice along the lines of meditation, self inquiry etc is to do one thing and one thing only and that is to disentangle the real unchanging I from the changing I using discrimination, (Veveka) by disentangling personal egoity from the impersonal so only the impersonal or pure awareness remains. When that becomes established it is impossible not to conclude that this is the essence of your real nature and since it is unchanging and transcends time and space you cannot avoid the conclusion which is expressed through the personal that you are not the doer and are not capable of doing anything to further your knowledge of what you are because you already know what you are. As long as the impersonal and personal remain entangled you are on a never-ending journey of improvement and as such karma will certainly step up and provide you with a new vehicle to carry on with that exploration. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 2, 2023 21:38:32 GMT -5
Yes (although I haven't taken time to read the walls), I can relate directly to that. Tolle makes two suggestions in Now. In the first, he predicts that the reader might start to chuckle at the antics of mind, and that was certainly my experience, even to the point of marveling at the nonsense. In the second, he comments that likely on upwards of 90% of human thought is negative, repetitive and ineffectual. Check. This can't be unseen, and in the resulting space, what remains is far more visible. Conditioning changes over time, in a natural process of emptiness, deepening. It's a different process from cycling through different phases and either improving or degrading. It's also different from the natural process of aging and decay, which is happening, in tandem, anyway. Beyond that, I'm suspect of any notion of "purification" because of the implicit notions of shame, improvement and moral stricture. And not because I've ever given a flying fuck about what anyone thinks I should do, but because of all the incredible waste in terms of twisted minds and the emotional wreckage of others I've witnessed and encountered in my life. People who mistreat themselves and everyone around them because of self-esteem issues. It's a disaster. It's a criticism of Christianity which I certainly understand, and would never try to argue anyone out of or apologize for. And yet it's Christianity that gave the world the idea that every human being has their own intrinsic value. And that human being with their own intrinsic value which is Individuality is required to know that: I and the Father are one” (John 10:30) Shiva as the absolute is continually losing itself in ignorance as Shakti so that it can re-discover it's transcendent nature. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 2, 2023 23:53:19 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Can you explain how a personal premise is problematic and why an impersonal one makes better sense?
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 2, 2023 23:54:12 GMT -5
This is for satch also. On the Yogacara thread Tagawa Shun'ei makes the point there is a something that presents continuity, from yesterday to today. He even says this something is fictitious. But he doesn't say it doesn't exist. There is undeniably a something, or you and satch couldn't keep a dialogue going with those here. The question is, what is the nature of that something. You and satch and ZD and others here, say the self is illusory. But I will say all day every day for a million years, that that self exists as information in your own particular brain. Now, Tagawa also says the very nature of this something, is that it has the capability of distorting everything, it's very nature IS distortion. Our only ~hope~ is that the distortions are not absolutely irrevocably distorting, everyone has available buddha-nature. If you guys no longer suffer, all I can do is accept you are being honest that you never suffer. But sdp doesn't trust sdp, the distorting factors. Now, Tagawa doesn't describe precisely my path, but it's close enough to be able to communicate truth, with others. Basically, it does not compute for sdp how Reefs or satch or others ~wears-the-persona-of-a-person~, and can say ATST there isn't a self-person present. I just don't buy this idea of contexts. I'd rather have truth that is true in any and all contexts. And I don't buy this business of, Oh, once you are SR, it will all make sense. IOW, I can't honestly say who is deluded, You (plural) or sdp. And sdp sort of has some skin in the game. These words are just rolling out, but from years of trying to consider your views. I have to follow my path, no amount of words you throw at me can alter it. This is probably biased, but zazeniac and ouroboros and lolly and andrew and sharon (and I'm sure there are others) have more integrity than all of you put together. Self-delusion is one of the attributes Tagawa Shun'ei discusses. Get that? Understand, that? Why it just might be a problem? What are ~you~, telling me there is no ~you~? I've been fishing (the bait hides the hook), I've been scammed (never bigly). Scam is the word of the day. I'd rather not ever be scammed, again, concerning anything. ...This probably does it for me for today...for now anyway... You already know that what I'm talking about is true because you are continually putting that knowledge to use in your daily life every time you say something like, I shouldn't have done that or I should have done this or I was going to do that but I have changed my mind, I'm going to do this. Right there is the recognition that there is this unmovable observing impersonal I that is aware of something that is changing called mind. The I seems to be separate and aloof from what you want to change which is mind while at the same time they are no different because there is only one. We can talk about impersonal and personal as if there are two but in reality there is only one. But you want to keep improving the personal until you get there and you will never run out of teachings to help you to do that because your experience is that the unchanging I, the real I which is the eternal witness is entangled with the experience of being a changing personality with a mind through the changing I which is egoity. Spiritual practice along the lines of meditation, self inquiry etc is to do one thing and one thing only and that is to disentangle the real unchanging I from the changing I using discrimination, (Veveka) by disentangling personal egoity from the impersonal so only the impersonal or pure awareness remains. When that becomes established it is impossible not to conclude that this is the essence of your real nature and since it is unchanging and transcends time and space you cannot avoid the conclusion which is expressed through the personal that you are not the doer and are not capable of doing anything to further your knowledge of what you are because you already know what you are. As long as the impersonal and personal remain entangled you are on a never-ending journey of improvement and as such karma will certainly step up and provide you with a new vehicle to carry on with that exploration. First, I don't blame you for misunderstanding my position, it's unusual. Second, this, what you give, isn't my position. You have Buddhism, there is no permanent self in any sense, anatta, there is no beginning and no permanent Ground. You have Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta, there is a Ground, there is a permanent self, Atman, which derives from the Ground, Brahma. Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul, we only have a soul in embryo. Reincarnation was/is not a direct part of the teaching. We have to assume only this life, we know this life, there are no guarantees of anything further. So, we are born as essence. Essence is the seed, essence is the embryo. Essence is what we are born with or born as. Essence is our True Self. As a baby is born, it grows and develops, energy is taken in directly and feeds essence. Picture a clean white sheet of paper. Via attention and awareness, a baby collects data from the world. Now, picture a line drawn on that white sheet of paper for every bit of data collected and stored in memory, in the neural structure, the connections between neurons. A baby and a young child lives through their True Self. This is called essence being active. By about age six, sometimes later, personality is formed, and the young child begins to live through thoughts, learned emotions, mostly negative emotions copied from people (we are not born with negative emotions), and imprints of negative bodily actions, I don't believe in hitting children, otherwise known as spanking. Picture hundreds of thousands of lines drawn on the white paper, it's no longer white, you can't even see the white. But the white is still there, underneath all the marks. The child's sense of identity shifts from essence to the false self, the stored data. This is called essence becoming passive and the false imaginary self becoming active. The false imaginary self takes all the energy, so essence ceases to grow. So our True Self is still there, underneath, clean, pure, white. I say all that to say, so you are wrong, sdp does not believe in any entanglement of false self/cultural self and True Self. True Self is just covered over. Correct interior spiritual practice is about once again living through one's essence, it's about reversing the process whereby personality, the false self-cultural self was formed. You see, once personality-false self-cultural self is formed, it takes all our attention and awareness. This is what identification is, it's a technical term. So correct interior spiritual practice is about living through one's awareness and or attention. It's just that simple. So practice can only come from the living ~side~, not the recordings side. The recordings side can't do anything, except react. Different circumstances pull up different recordings. Now, I've said all just-this at least 100 times on ST's, here. I have told ZD at least 25 times, I agree with you up to here. I do, actually do. The 'self', the 'ego', the persona, the cultural self, IS imaginary. It's just a collection of memories. Gurdjieff called it recordings on rolls. This, in 1912, was Edison's phonograph. It was a wax tube, and turned, with a needle applied, it recorded sounds. And then you could play it back with a needle. So Gurdjieff called the tube, a roll. Now, just transfer all those marks on the paper to-be anything mechanically stored. Recordings became vinyl, then magnetic tape, then CD, then MP3, now streaming. The 'self' is just a set of recordings, hundreds of thousands of bits. Yes, they will probably eventually be able to make a copy from the neural structure of the brain, and put it in a computer. But will it be a living thing? No. So the imaginary you, is imaginary, it just consists of stored data. That's why Gurdjieff called it a machine. The false self can only react to people, places, things and events, it can never initiate action. It's basically garbage in, garbage out. So the practices are about recovering that living essence, living through essence, our True Self. Reversing the process essence is once again active and the persona-false self-cultural self becomes passive. I've searched high and low and everywhere, there is no other teaching like this. So I understand when you think I'm about disentangling one from the other. Now, this is just about as brief as I could be, to be clear. Maybe tomorrow I will post on the Macrocosm Microcosm thread a quote about acquiring our own I. Gurdjieff said as we are, we do not have our own I, all we have as a sense of self is this imaginary self, the stored data. But under the right circumstances, essence can begin to grow again. So this is why I've told ZD many times, I agree with you, up to here. Absolutely correct. But the beyond here, is acquiring a soul. Beyond here is the possibility of having one's own I, Real I. But there are no guarantees. "A man is unable to say what he himself really is" is accurate. essence is the possibility of true individuation, but only a possibility. Can you see how much of this corresponds to your view? I can put your view within my 'framework', but you can't put sdp within your 'framework'. I've said that also many times, here. And too, some people have more essence still peeking through, more of the white paper showing between the marks. Everyone is different. Purification is about erasing the marks. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 0:12:06 GMT -5
I couldn't help but notice that talking to our karma-practice-chameleons is a bit like talking to our solipsists - the logic is fine and usually flawless, but the basic premise to which the logic is applied to is, unfortunately, false. That's all I wanted to point out. Because if you start with a flawed premise, it can only get wronger and not righter the more logic you apply, no matter how flawless your logic. And so what has been proposed here is all hopelessly flawed and donkey-backwards, even though it can be backed up by personal experience, scriptures and logic. This is mainly because the issue is approached exclusively from the personal perspective, not the impersonal perspective. People here, with their strong focus on how to get 'there', don't seem to realize that there's no 'there' there, that there is no actual difference between missing TPTPAU by a mile or missing it by a hair. You either passed thru the gateless gate or you didn't. The personal perspective remains the personal perspective and is not the impersonal perspective, no matter how pure or polished. And only from the impersonal perspective can this karma and practice topic be put to rest. From the personal perspective it will forever remain speculation, a mind game. Even the logic seems flawed to me .. how to square purification with interdependent origination? But that is jut the mind, gaming, after all. I had a similar thought to yours here today. More importantly than the logic - and satch raised this as one of his original interests here years ago - I see this as related to a very old dichotomy. There aren't many Buddhists left in India, and Advaita flipped the duck/bunny of " no self" to " only self". So Ramana's inquiry is "who am I?". As ultimately, there is no inner, and no outer, this is just the flip side of "what is that?". So "ATA-T" is just a flip-side, mirror image of Ramana's "who am I?" or Niz's "refuse all thoughts but 'I AM'". Only difference being the vector of attention, either "inward", or "outward". From the personal perspective, this is the dichotomy of subjective/objective. Focusing "inward", with "who am I?" can lead a person into solipsism (whether they want to see it that way or not). Focusing "outwward", with "what is that?", can lead a person into nihilism. Two sides, same coin. But I also think it's important to recognize the value of a silent, still (quiescent, but open and pliant) mind, regardless of how one gets there. And while human social systems are a disaster, asking people to treat one another decently really doesn't seem like asking all that much, to me. So I'm not totally anti "purification", albeit I have my misgivings and objections about using the notion. It's a nuanced subject with a simple principle: if you can leave everything to be 'as it is', purification is what happens. The rest of the topic is an elaboration on that principle - mostly, why we can't meet that ideal.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 2:39:21 GMT -5
You already know that what I'm talking about is true because you are continually putting that knowledge to use in your daily life every time you say something like, I shouldn't have done that or I should have done this or I was going to do that but I have changed my mind, I'm going to do this. Right there is the recognition that there is this unmovable observing impersonal I that is aware of something that is changing called mind. The I seems to be separate and aloof from what you want to change which is mind while at the same time they are no different because there is only one. We can talk about impersonal and personal as if there are two but in reality there is only one. But you want to keep improving the personal until you get there and you will never run out of teachings to help you to do that because your experience is that the unchanging I, the real I which is the eternal witness is entangled with the experience of being a changing personality with a mind through the changing I which is egoity. Spiritual practice along the lines of meditation, self inquiry etc is to do one thing and one thing only and that is to disentangle the real unchanging I from the changing I using discrimination, (Veveka) by disentangling personal egoity from the impersonal so only the impersonal or pure awareness remains. When that becomes established it is impossible not to conclude that this is the essence of your real nature and since it is unchanging and transcends time and space you cannot avoid the conclusion which is expressed through the personal that you are not the doer and are not capable of doing anything to further your knowledge of what you are because you already know what you are. As long as the impersonal and personal remain entangled you are on a never-ending journey of improvement and as such karma will certainly step up and provide you with a new vehicle to carry on with that exploration. First, I don't blame you for misunderstanding my position, it's unusual. Second, this, what you give, isn't my position. You have Buddhism, there is no permanent self in any sense, anatta, there is no beginning and no permanent Ground. You have Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta, there is a Ground, there is a permanent self, Atman, which derives from the Ground, Brahma. Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul, we only have a soul in embryo. Reincarnation was/is not a direct part of the teaching. We have to assume only this life, we know this life, there are no guarantees of anything further. So, we are born as essence. Essence is the seed, essence is the embryo. Essence is what we are born with or born as. Essence is our True Self. As a baby is born, it grows and develops, energy is taken in directly and feeds essence. Picture a clean white sheet of paper. Via attention and awareness, a baby collects data from the world. Now, picture a line drawn on that white sheet of paper for every bit of data collected and stored in memory, in the neural structure, the connections between neurons. A baby and a young child lives through their True Self. This is called essence being active. By about age six, sometimes later, personality is formed, and the young child begins to live through thoughts, learned emotions, mostly negative emotions copied from people (we are not born with negative emotions), and imprints of negative bodily actions, I don't believe in hitting children, otherwise known as spanking. Picture hundreds of thousands of lines drawn on the white paper, it's no longer white, you can't even see the white. But the white is still there, underneath all the marks. The child's sense of identity shifts from essence to the false self, the stored data. This is called essence becoming passive and the false imaginary self becoming active. The false imaginary self takes all the energy, so essence ceases to grow. So our True Self is still there, underneath, clean, pure, white. I say all that to say, so you are wrong, sdp does not believe in any entanglement of false self/cultural self and True Self. True Self is just covered over. Correct interior spiritual practice is about once again living through one's essence, it's about reversing the process whereby personality, the false self-cultural self was formed. You see, once personality-false self-cultural self is formed, it takes all our attention and awareness. This is what identification is, it's a technical term. So correct interior spiritual practice is about living through one's awareness and or attention. It's just that simple. So practice can only come from the living ~side~, not the recordings side. The recordings side can't do anything, except react. Different circumstances pull up different recordings. Now, I've said all just-this at least 100 times on ST's, here. I have told ZD at least 25 times, I agree with you up to here. I do, actually do. The 'self', the 'ego', the persona, the cultural self, IS imaginary. It's just a collection of memories. Gurdjieff called it recordings on rolls. This, in 1912, was Edison's phonograph. It was a wax tube, and turned, with a needle applied, it recorded sounds. And then you could play it back with a needle. So Gurdjieff called the tube, a roll. Now, just transfer all those marks on the paper to-be anything mechanically stored. Recordings became vinyl, then magnetic tape, then CD, then MP3, now streaming. The 'self' is just a set of recordings, hundreds of thousands of bits. Yes, they will probably eventually be able to make a copy from the neural structure of the brain, and put it in a computer. But will it be a living thing? No. So the imaginary you, is imaginary, it just consists of stored data. That's why Gurdjieff called it a machine. The false self can only react to people, places, things and events, it can never initiate action. It's basically garbage in, garbage out. So the practices are about recovering that living essence, living through essence, our True Self. Reversing the process essence is once again active and the persona-false self-cultural self becomes passive. I've searched high and low and everywhere, there is no other teaching like this. So I understand when you think I'm about disentangling one from the other. Now, this is just about as brief as I could be, to be clear. Maybe tomorrow I will post on the Macrocosm Microcosm thread a quote about acquiring our own I. Gurdjieff said as we are, we do not have our own I, all we have as a sense of self is this imaginary self, the stored data. But under the right circumstances, essence can begin to grow again. So this is why I've told ZD many times, I agree with you, up to here. Absolutely correct. But the beyond here, is acquiring a soul. Beyond here is the possibility of having one's own I, Real I. But there are no guarantees. "A man is unable to say what he himself really is" is accurate. essence is the possibility of true individuation, but only a possibility. Can you see how much of this corresponds to your view? I can put your view within my 'framework', but you can't put sdp within your 'framework'. I've said that also many times, here. And too, some people have more essence still peeking through, more of the white paper showing between the marks. Everyone is different. Purification is about erasing the marks. To be honest it's really difficult to unpack what your point is here. It doesn't help that in a fundamental way you have made a wrong comparison between Buddhism and Vedanta. There is no permanent self in Vedanta just like Buddhism. You are not comparing self with self but self with (S)elf. There is personal self and Transcendent Self. In terms of personal self there is no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. self as personal egoity is impermanent in both traditions. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 3:25:17 GMT -5
There is a Pali Canon text that explains how self-theories only lead to distress. I forget which one, but I think it's the one in which Buddha stays silent when asked a question. TBH, I can't even remember what the question was... but I think it was about self or no-self. However, since anatta is core to Buddhist philosophy, I'll post my favorite article (which I have posted at least a dozen times before) www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htmIt's better than all the other articles I've seen on the subject. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 3, 2023 5:46:36 GMT -5
1) Transmuting is a good word actually. 2) The Buddha said that if he were to promote one thing in particular toward enlightenment it would be mindfulness above all else. Ultimately I think it probably is enough, but that doesn’t mean to say there isn't necessarily more to it all than passive witnessing. In terms of the way that the pathless path would play out in the face of that. They talk quite a lot about the generation of positive, or uplifting energy too for example. As it being requisite. The negative tends to give way to the positive quite naturally through clarity but that's all pretty nuanced in the great scheme of things. 3) You can see what I said to laffy about this and although there's more I could say about it I'm disinclined to get too far into it right now for a number of reasons, chief of which is I'm all talked out for the moment. But perhaps more importantly, mind will inevitably make a bit of a dogs dinner of it, both in terms of my trying to express it and your trying to interpret that. In Buddhism it's actually classified as one of the imponderables, and it's suggested that engaging in this line of enquiry invariably leads to the disquiet of mind. They say it's simply not possible to know 'the sphere of a Buddha' where that state of being has not been directly apprehended. Obviously that doesn't stop us trying though and I strongly suspect there is discourse about this which is not readily available in the public domain for various reasons. What I will say is that I see it as possible to glean some insight into it through certain techniques and of course the newagers attempt to address this sort of thing in their ontology, although it's a particularly unrefined vision. The alternative is that the refined version will be extremely pointy. And I mean pointier than the pointer sisters wearing particularly pointy pairs of winkle pickers! .... Try saying that five times quickly. Anyway, I won't pretend to be entirely clear on it either, but contend it is largely irrelevant to the situation I laid out at the start of the thread, in terms of value. And so ideally that's where the focus should be. The rest would take care of itself over time, however that unfolds. Okay cool. I'm happy to take a chance on my mind making a dog's dinner of it lol. Where I come from, the releasing of all suffering must inevitably be reflected/expressed in the world around them. It's why I resonate (from the little bit that I know if it) with the idea of 'Bodhisattva'. I cannot see a homeless person and say that there's no suffering within me. I don't always give to homeless folks, sometimes it doesn't feel like 'right action', but I can't pretend that I walk by without a pang. And that's just one example. Animal suffering can trigger me even more. I can relate to all that. No I don't think we can control what arises. Although to my mind, due to the nature of kamma that isn't entirely random … and that is to say that, contrary to popular opinion there is some responsibility borne for our current predicament, whatever that may be, even though ultimately there is non-one per se to bear it. In any event it's transmuted in the now, which is what it means to say that, that is where the point of power is. You're right that otoh judgement should ideally be left to G-d, which incidentally is a poetic way of describing kamma in action, but that otoh value judgment tends to happen quite naturally anyway as part n parcel of the expression of life. As to that being part of the problem, I don't necessarily think value judgement is all bad, on the contrary. And doubtlessly the more pure, i.e.the more present, the more spontaneously 'good' any action will be. Right, (although to be clear I consider that some way down the line in terms of successive rebirths for everyone here and that 'formless bliss' will almost certainly currently be misconscieved from the current vantage point).
But "where your heart" lies is a noble enough sentiment, and realistic goal, and it's auspicious that you're conscious of it. And the good news is that, that very desire will result in renewed becoming/rebirth both momentarily and more broadly speaking after the death of the current individuated expression in due course. So you don't need to concerning yourself too much with 'formless bliss' anytime soon. I don't mean that at all sarcastically, in case it comes across that way (fwiw I put myself in a similar category). I would just suggest to perhaps be aware that an interest in the bodhisattva ideal could easily be tinged with measure of avoidance too. I mean literally just to be aware ….. of that potential. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 3, 2023 5:58:33 GMT -5
P.S Have you read ''The After Life Of Billy Fingers''? It's not a deep book that takes concentration, but I found it absorbing. The truth is I don't remember the last time I read a book, and I wasn't familiar with that title but just perused the synopsis. Interesting and most assuredly death is not the end. It's just where winter transitions into spring. That death is no end is one of the few things I'm supremely confident about and one day I might get around to waxing lyrical about some 'between life' memories I think I might have. Although don't expect a lot, hehe. Anyway, I'll definitely put that book on my list for the next time I travel (which is when I tend to read, if ever). I like that it doesn't sound too strenuous.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 3, 2023 7:17:18 GMT -5
There is a Pali Canon text that explains how self-theories only lead to distress. I forget which one, but I think it's the one in which Buddha stays silent when asked a question. TBH, I can't even remember what the question was... but I think it was about self or no-self. However, since anatta is core to Buddhist philosophy, I'll post my favorite article (which I have posted at least a dozen times before) www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htmIt's better than all the other articles I've seen on the subject. The single sentence fifth paragraph from the end states: "Well, there is nothing to be reborn." The remaining four paragraphs then go on to completely contradict that statement. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 3, 2023 7:28:59 GMT -5
There is a Pali Canon text that explains how self-theories only lead to distress. I forget which one, but I think it's the one in which Buddha stays silent when asked a question. TBH, I can't even remember what the question was... but I think it was about self or no-self. However, since anatta is core to Buddhist philosophy, I'll post my favorite article (which I have posted at least a dozen times before) www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htmIt's better than all the other articles I've seen on the subject. It really is a most excellent article. Folks will routinely dismiss kamma on wotnot on the grounds of their misconceiving rebirth as reincarnation, and the obvious misconceptions involved with the latter. But there's some real intriciacies invloved with these topics, which the article highlights especially well, and which don't stand up to minds oft propensity to come at them like a 14lb sledgehammer! Those intricacies shouldn't be confused with TMT. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Aug 3, 2023 7:34:40 GMT -5
There is a Pali Canon text that explains how self-theories only lead to distress. I forget which one, but I think it's the one in which Buddha stays silent when asked a question. TBH, I can't even remember what the question was... but I think it was about self or no-self. However, since anatta is core to Buddhist philosophy, I'll post my favorite article (which I have posted at least a dozen times before) www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htmIt's better than all the other articles I've seen on the subject. The single sentence fifth paragraph from the end states: "Well, there is nothing to be reborn." The remaining four paragraphs then go on to completely contradict that statement. Imo, that line really just points to the 'suchness' of the whole situation, and the subsequent paragrpahs don't contradict that. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 3, 2023 7:40:32 GMT -5
There is a Pali Canon text that explains how self-theories only lead to distress. I forget which one, but I think it's the one in which Buddha stays silent when asked a question. TBH, I can't even remember what the question was... but I think it was about self or no-self. However, since anatta is core to Buddhist philosophy, I'll post my favorite article (which I have posted at least a dozen times before) www.buddhanet.net/nutshell09.htmIt's better than all the other articles I've seen on the subject. The single sentence fifth paragraph from the end states: "Well, there is nothing to be reborn." The remaining four paragraphs then go on to completely contradict that statement. I don't see it. The final paragraphs say rebirth happens moment to moment without a permanent entity enduring it, and the same principle applies to reincarnation. It says the personality is accepted in an empirical sense, but isn't real in the ultimate sense. It then says it is the 'kammic force' that binds the elements of the individual together (which follows the Buddhist perspective the construct of aggregates doesn't constitute a perpetual identity or self). I think the last terms like 'beginningless past' are completely vacuous, and I don't think the binding of aggregates is the Buddhist version of a soul, but I can't see how the conclusion is contradictory. It seems completely consistent, actually.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 3, 2023 7:41:02 GMT -5
First, I don't blame you for misunderstanding my position, it's unusual. Second, this, what you give, isn't my position. You have Buddhism, there is no permanent self in any sense, anatta, there is no beginning and no permanent Ground. You have Hinduism/Advaita Vedanta, there is a Ground, there is a permanent self, Atman, which derives from the Ground, Brahma. Gurdjieff taught that we are not born with a soul, we only have a soul in embryo. Reincarnation was/is not a direct part of the teaching. We have to assume only this life, we know this life, there are no guarantees of anything further. So, we are born as essence. Essence is the seed, essence is the embryo. Essence is what we are born with or born as. Essence is our True Self. As a baby is born, it grows and develops, energy is taken in directly and feeds essence. Picture a clean white sheet of paper. Via attention and awareness, a baby collects data from the world. Now, picture a line drawn on that white sheet of paper for every bit of data collected and stored in memory, in the neural structure, the connections between neurons. A baby and a young child lives through their True Self. This is called essence being active. By about age six, sometimes later, personality is formed, and the young child begins to live through thoughts, learned emotions, mostly negative emotions copied from people (we are not born with negative emotions), and imprints of negative bodily actions, I don't believe in hitting children, otherwise known as spanking. Picture hundreds of thousands of lines drawn on the white paper, it's no longer white, you can't even see the white. But the white is still there, underneath all the marks. The child's sense of identity shifts from essence to the false self, the stored data. This is called essence becoming passive and the false imaginary self becoming active. The false imaginary self takes all the energy, so essence ceases to grow. So our True Self is still there, underneath, clean, pure, white. I say all that to say, so you are wrong, sdp does not believe in any entanglement of false self/cultural self and True Self. True Self is just covered over. Correct interior spiritual practice is about once again living through one's essence, it's about reversing the process whereby personality, the false self-cultural self was formed. You see, once personality-false self-cultural self is formed, it takes all our attention and awareness. This is what identification is, it's a technical term. So correct interior spiritual practice is about living through one's awareness and or attention. It's just that simple. So practice can only come from the living ~side~, not the recordings side. The recordings side can't do anything, except react. Different circumstances pull up different recordings. Now, I've said all just-this at least 100 times on ST's, here. I have told ZD at least 25 times, I agree with you up to here. I do, actually do. The 'self', the 'ego', the persona, the cultural self, IS imaginary. It's just a collection of memories. Gurdjieff called it recordings on rolls. This, in 1912, was Edison's phonograph. It was a wax tube, and turned, with a needle applied, it recorded sounds. And then you could play it back with a needle. So Gurdjieff called the tube, a roll. Now, just transfer all those marks on the paper to-be anything mechanically stored. Recordings became vinyl, then magnetic tape, then CD, then MP3, now streaming. The 'self' is just a set of recordings, hundreds of thousands of bits. Yes, they will probably eventually be able to make a copy from the neural structure of the brain, and put it in a computer. But will it be a living thing? No. So the imaginary you, is imaginary, it just consists of stored data. That's why Gurdjieff called it a machine. The false self can only react to people, places, things and events, it can never initiate action. It's basically garbage in, garbage out. So the practices are about recovering that living essence, living through essence, our True Self. Reversing the process essence is once again active and the persona-false self-cultural self becomes passive. I've searched high and low and everywhere, there is no other teaching like this. So I understand when you think I'm about disentangling one from the other. Now, this is just about as brief as I could be, to be clear. Maybe tomorrow I will post on the Macrocosm Microcosm thread a quote about acquiring our own I. Gurdjieff said as we are, we do not have our own I, all we have as a sense of self is this imaginary self, the stored data. But under the right circumstances, essence can begin to grow again. So this is why I've told ZD many times, I agree with you, up to here. Absolutely correct. But the beyond here, is acquiring a soul. Beyond here is the possibility of having one's own I, Real I. But there are no guarantees. "A man is unable to say what he himself really is" is accurate. essence is the possibility of true individuation, but only a possibility. Can you see how much of this corresponds to your view? I can put your view within my 'framework', but you can't put sdp within your 'framework'. I've said that also many times, here. And too, some people have more essence still peeking through, more of the white paper showing between the marks. Everyone is different. Purification is about erasing the marks. To be honest it's really difficult to unpack what your point is here. It doesn't help that in a fundamental way you have made a wrong comparison between Buddhism and Vedanta. There is no permanent self in Vedanta just like Buddhism. You are not comparing self with self but self with (S)elf. There is personal self and Transcendent Self. In terms of personal self there is no difference between Buddhism and Vedanta. self as personal egoity is impermanent in both traditions. The point about Buddhism and Vedanta is superfluous, doesn't matter if I'm right or wrong about that as far as my view is concerned. Simply, Gurdjieff said and wrote we have the possibility of being a volitional person-individuality, but not separate in any sense. When the possibility is actualized, he called this having our own I. This is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness, essence can-grow-into Real I. And the means is volition, volition on the side of essence (via voluntary attention and awareness), not on the side of the imaginary self, obviously (as described above, the imaginary self can't do anything). This, is the return path back to Source. Involution is the movement of energy away/out-from Source, ~seeded as essence~, evolution is the return of energy back to Source, with ~ interest~, what returns is a hundredfold ~*return-on-investment*~, in the words of Jesus. [I really should stop there, but enter here Gurdjieff's ~wacky~ cosmology. He said that if essence doesn't develop, then it goes to feed the Moon, the energy of essence goes to feed the Moon. It takes a lot to eventually understand he is correct. {Beelzebub's Tales to His Grandson is basically all about the consequences of increasing entropy, although that word is never used. Gurdjieff calls entropy in Beelzebub's Tales, the Merciless Heropass, Heropass meaning time. So undeveloped essence going to feed the Moon, means entropy is increased, overall, but to a purpose}. Also will add here, Gurdjieff said involution and evolution are like two different rivers, two different flows is actually what he meant. And he said it is possible for any particular person, man or woman, to be able to pass from the flow of involution to the flow of evolution, from one river to the other, this again is the meaning of the evolution of consciousness. Also adding, using the language of the cosmology, Gurdjieff said our essence comes from the stars, that's why I'm stardustpilgrim. So the return path is from Earth, to the planetary world, then-to the Sun, and then-to the Milky Way, the outer cosmology represents [inner invisible] higher dimensions. Beelzebub's Tales is highly allegorical, and describes all this. Yes, Gurdjieff was that intelligent, to create such a meaningful truthful mythology]. |
|
