|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2023 21:05:14 GMT -5
Doesn't really make all that much sense that a wish happens to us at random. On the whole people wish for very similar things, because everyone wants to be happy, whereas no one wants to suffer. The philosophical problem here, as I see it, is not understanding that 'will', the exertion of volition, stems from the aversion and craving dynamic to create an urge to 'make it as I want it to be' (as opposed to 'as it is'). Both entail intent but there's a big difference between being willful and being willing. This might sound strange, but being willing can take single minded intent and strong determination, just like being willful can, which is why we don't intuitively recognise them as different things (one is the absence of the other). However, the nature of the effort is completely different in that the former is trying to and the latter is not doing that. The experiment is, as intended, just stop and 'know' what the current experience is actually like. Soon enough you realise you forgot and drifted away, so you resume where you left off. First, there is an underlying motive to know what's actually happening, so you stop and look. You don't exert will to make it other than it is since you only want to 'know' what it's like. Only wanting to know implies being free of aversion and desire (which is wanting it to be other than it is), and therefore the absence of the urge to exert volition upon the world. If you can see that, then you see how you never intended to drift off, you never intended to notice you have drifted off, and once you realise you have, you're automatically back in reality without so much as intending it. At that point you can be aware of that cycle occurring over and over again... but you remain present for it.
However, if you really want to know what it's like, there is intent to examine more closely, cognise more nuance, savour the finer detail. This is more or less an automatic function of the mind. Consistent attention enables the mind to break down the object, divide it into its subtler components and create a deeper more immersive experience. IOW, a stable mind becomes more sensitive.
Hence, the remaining intent is still to remain present, to not drift away, to enable the mind to become more sensitive and the experience 'more subtler'. That's not to say when you drift away it's bad. It doesn't even matter. You find when you realise thoughts swept you away, you resume attentiveness with no subtlety lost. If you think it's bad to lose yourself, that aversion elicits volition, agitates the mind, and you lose it.
Hence, if you can get to that point where you can just be aware of fading in and out... it's a good place to be... because even though, yes, mind wanders unconsciously, it can't perturb you.
We still tend to find that lost wandering eventually escalates into a reactive condition... and the physical experience is not altogether pleasant... which is why keeping an even keel can take singular intent and determination. Why? Because we want to be happy; not suffer. That's why the wish isn't a random brain fart that happens. It has a fundamental origin which is the same for everyone.
The primary difference is only between pure intent such as the metta wish 'may all beings be happy', and impure intent elicited by aversion and craving.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 7, 2023 21:16:11 GMT -5
I think when you touch the void, the universe seems to be an illusion in the sense that it never really happened.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 7, 2023 21:44:51 GMT -5
I think when you touch the void, the universe seems to be an illusion in the sense that it never really happened. Can relate, nice example. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 8, 2023 0:07:52 GMT -5
As I see it: ' belief causes emotion, causes expectation, causes reality'. "Limitation" applies to belief. "Illusion" applies to reality (perception / experience). To change reality, you have to change a precursor. The more basic the precursor the more definitive the change. If you don't change / remove / replace the belief, but act down the chain, the limiting belief will manifest again, in the same or a different manner. To me, "illusion" sounds pejorative, and misplaces the responsibility and the attention of the observer / experiencer. For example, as I understand it, there is no objective physical reality (there is no physical reality that exists independently, as a reference), and I wouldn't call the physical reality that I perceive / experience an "illusion", but "my subjective physical reality". This is why to say that we misidentify the real as false / illusory, and viceversa, and that getting "realized" is to identify real as real and false as false, doesn't sound right to me. This experience in the physical that we have isn't false nor illusory; it is that we don't understand it for what it is, and to fix it isn't a matter of wanting, or of a thunderbolt illumination, but can be only the result of growth that translates into a more differentiated understanding, a clearer "image" of reality. A first grader can't suddenly understand second grade material, and even less graduation level material. Yes, the word 'illusion' can be interpreted as pejorative or demeaning. There was a fella here for several years called TzuJanLi, who did not like that word at all (Hey Bob!). Tenka isn't a big fan of it either (right Tenka?) I'm okay with it in certain contexts, I think it can be a useful concept. It's not really meant to be used to describe 'the way things are', it's meant to be used as a way of inviting folks to question some of their beliefs, and to challenge their default unquestioned state of perception/experience. For example, many folks believe the world exists as part of an objective reality i.e that the world/the universe exists 'objectively' in a 'field' of time and space. And this belief informs their state of perception/experience. So someone might counter that by saying that 'objects are an illusion' or 'time is an illusion'. It's perhaps a lazy way of countering it, but personally, I think it can be useful at times...I could probably explain why if you were interested.  Surely, please explain! If I believe something exists, but it doesn't, then it is an illusion. If it exists, but it is different than what / how I believe to be, then it isn't an illusion. Time and space exist, but they aren't what some people believe to be. The physical universe exists, but it isn't what some people believe to be. For example "oneness": in my opinion "oneness" is a nonsense. Still, I wouldn't call it illusion, as it isn't based on false observation, but on self-hypnosis, intentional or not. Same about "all-that-is" in the way people use it. Those are descriptors which are elevated to a concept status that they don't deserve. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 8, 2023 1:51:47 GMT -5
I think when you touch the void, the universe seems to be an illusion in the sense that it never really happened.  nice! |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Nov 9, 2023 22:45:10 GMT -5
Yes, the word 'illusion' can be interpreted as pejorative or demeaning. There was a fella here for several years called TzuJanLi, who did not like that word at all (Hey Bob!). Tenka isn't a big fan of it either (right Tenka?) I'm okay with it in certain contexts, I think it can be a useful concept. It's not really meant to be used to describe 'the way things are', it's meant to be used as a way of inviting folks to question some of their beliefs, and to challenge their default unquestioned state of perception/experience. For example, many folks believe the world exists as part of an objective reality i.e that the world/the universe exists 'objectively' in a 'field' of time and space. And this belief informs their state of perception/experience. So someone might counter that by saying that 'objects are an illusion' or 'time is an illusion'. It's perhaps a lazy way of countering it, but personally, I think it can be useful at times...I could probably explain why if you were interested. If I believe something exists, but it doesn't, then it is an illusion.
If it exists, but it is different than what / how I believe to be, then it isn't an illusion.
Time and space exist, but they aren't what some people believe to be.
The physical universe exists, but it isn't what some people believe to be.
For example "oneness": in my opinion "oneness" is a nonsense. Still, I wouldn't call it illusion, as it isn't based on false observation, but on self-hypnosis, intentional or not. Same about "all-that-is" in the way people use it. Those are descriptors which are elevated to a concept status that they don't deserve. In a nutshell, many folks would agree that a spiritual insight or realization is accompanied by a perceptual shift, and in this shift, it is as if something is 'seen through'. In some instances, it can seem as if something has 'fallen away'. And so the word 'illusion' fits the bill to describe the nature of this experience. In another sense, it can also be said that something new is 'revealed' in this shift, something that was always the case, but hadn't been previously noticed. So in that sense too, the word 'illusion' fits the bill. I agree with the bolded, and in my mind at least, it sort of fits with what I said there. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2023 23:34:24 GMT -5
Sounds like someone is appropriating Nietzsche's work on masters and slaves. I didn't get Nietzsche for a longtime, but Foucault twisted 'the will to power' into 'the will to knowledge' which really only explained the operations of Nietzsche's principles. Quick video. It's pretty succinct actually and explains the external paradigm in terms of internal conflict. Since the mind is a slave unto itself, there is a parallel between society as a relationship between identities and how, when internalised, the individual is fractured into both the disciplinarian and the punished, and how that internal quandry is exerted upon the 'master' or the free man. I like Nietzsche's take because not only does he picture the slave as a split, conflicted personality, he points out its manifestation, mainly in religion, but we can infer it from modern things such BLM, rainbow flags et.al. and so on. I'm actually a moralist, but I see Nietzsche's point that morality is the heart of slavery.
The limits of the metaphor are very clear in material terms. Can there ever be a mastermind that's completely free of the fear of loss? And of course, the more you have, the more you have to lose. As far as slaves go, it's almost inevitable that some of them will be dog-waggers, because the institution of slavery leads to a dependence, of the master on the slave, so, inevitably, an interdependence. Sekida in Zen Training devotes some writing to the idea of "self-mastery". But there is a context to this : that the "self" and the "master" are not-two. Any attempt at "self-mastery" absent this context is a maze of a bunny-warren. Nothing but confusion. And the potential for self-deception along these lines is quite clear. One might think that they're aware of the bed of straw that they're lying in, that they know very well the divide isn't real, but they might be dreaming, instead. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 10, 2023 3:44:49 GMT -5
Sounds like someone is appropriating Nietzsche's work on masters and slaves. I didn't get Nietzsche for a longtime, but Foucault twisted 'the will to power' into 'the will to knowledge' which really only explained the operations of Nietzsche's principles. Quick video. It's pretty succinct actually and explains the external paradigm in terms of internal conflict. Since the mind is a slave unto itself, there is a parallel between society as a relationship between identities and how, when internalised, the individual is fractured into both the disciplinarian and the punished, and how that internal quandry is exerted upon the 'master' or the free man. I like Nietzsche's take because not only does he picture the slave as a split, conflicted personality, he points out its manifestation, mainly in religion, but we can infer it from modern things such BLM, rainbow flags et.al. and so on. I'm actually a moralist, but I see Nietzsche's point that morality is the heart of slavery.
The limits of the metaphor are very clear in material terms. Can there ever be a mastermind that's completely free of the fear of loss? And of course, the more you have, the more you have to lose. As far as slaves go, it's almost inevitable that some of them will be dog-waggers, because the institution of slavery leads to a dependence, of the master on the slave, so, inevitably, an interdependence. Sekida in Zen Training devotes some writing to the idea of "self-mastery". But there is a context to this : that the "self" and the "master" are not-two. Any attempt at "self-mastery" absent this context is a maze of a bunny-warren. Nothing but confusion. And the potential for self-deception along these lines is quite clear. One might think that they're aware of the bed of straw that they're lying in, that they know very well the divide isn't real, but they might be dreaming, instead. Agreed.
I think Nietzsche overlooked Hegelian dialectics where the process of synthesis (thesis, antithesis, synthesis - synthesis becomes the thesis, which generates the antithesis - repeat) doesn't really lead toward idealised utopia or even continual improvement, which is what everyone thinks Hegel said. Hegel wasn't thinking in linear terms like from/to. He said there's a process of synthesis that progresses without origin and destination. It is not a means of progress that leads to utopia, perfection or even refinement per-se, but the creation of itself is within the whole.
In Nietzsche's master/slave story, Master and Slave are antithetical, a synthesis results, becomes the thesis, repeat. But since Nietzsche took a linear path, he envisioned progress destined for the ubermensch, who is 'Beyond Good and Evil', and therefore free (to create his own moral values). Rather, the synthesis of antithetical good and evil is not progress toward the inevitable ubermensch Beyond. The Ubermensch is not created as the outcome, but exists with the whole. Figuratively speaking, he is the sublime quality of greatness intrinsic to the dialectic itself.
Anyway, I'm going left of field... but you see how the philosophical discourse itself is sublimated by the dialectic rather than derived from it. It's productive only of its own sublimity. Marx, like most philosophers, took this in a linear context, which really means he didn't get it at all. I was taught the same thing, but I listened to a lecture by Julian de Medeiros and realised I'd been wrong all this time.
Quick video. Hilarious.
|
|
Surely, please explain!
nice!