|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 5, 2024 6:59:22 GMT -5
This, is the significant part. But nice overall. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Question, you can answer, or not, no problem. What is the most significant ~part~/aspect which constitutes lolly? When you consider the depths of lolly, what is lolly? I'm the one who is aware. A lot of my dialogue comes back around to, what would ZD say or how would ZD answer, reply? (And how could sdp reply, back?) I could probably trace back 90% of the way he writes to either Alan Watts or ZM Seung Sahn. I'd guess ZD would not be happy with your answer. But it is what it is. There is always something behind every answer. And then something behind that. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Aug 5, 2024 7:28:27 GMT -5
Some folks say you can practice while thinking. I have my suspicions about those folks, unpleasant ones. Though thinking definitely plays a role. A prompt to get back to now. In SI it's "who's thinking?" In what I read of Dzogchen, it's acknowledging the distraction. Why I'm doubtful about thinking and practice is the expression "lost in thought." What is lost? Reality? Unadulterated reality is what I say. Enquiry involves thinking, while other practices like zazen may/may not. Would you say that filtering through all the causes and effects, looking for what is missing, or trying to find a conclusive answer is practice or a method for exhausting the mind, possibly making it prone?  Dudes are strange. How I came to be interested in ND. I had a friend, another zazen practitioner, who told me about Tolle's book, that it had prompted her to give up zazen. I scoffed. Her enthusiasm and excitement reminded me of the incessant "new" initiatives in the corporate world meant to "change" the culture. I have a ten page list of them. In the last one, before I retired, I got in trouble because as it was related to openness and honesty, I told my boss that in 12 months there'd be a different initiative to replace the one we were discussing. The same is true for Tolle or trends like his. Nothing's changed in the world. It's the same old world. Not that I needed it to change to begin with. It seemed perfectly fine to me.
I feel that the whole SR movement is pretty much a mind adventure. It's obvious to me because the folks in it, the ones I've encountered here and elsewhere are no different than me, struggling, confused, slightly pixilated, petty, begrudging, and giving, loving, generous, kind, beautiful. Even the ones claiming to be self-realized.
The weird thing about the work I do, the practice, is that the more I think about a goal, the more trouble I get into. Why I tend to avoid this place. I'm purely interested in the process, that's the ticket, just sitting(a metaphor for many types of practice), there is no outcome in mind. If there is an outcome in mind, go back to the present: fetch wood, carry water. There is no outcome, no goal. This is it, now, the present, stay there. The rest is nonsense. Practice is the only form of enlightenment to be had. That's it. You won't like it, but that you're nemesis. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2024 7:52:27 GMT -5
I'm the one who is aware. A lot of my dialogue comes back around to, what would ZD say or how would ZD answer, reply? (And how could sdp reply, back?) I could probably trace back 90% of the way he writes to either Alan Watts or ZM Seung Sahn. I'd guess ZD would not be happy with your answer. But it is what it is. There is always something behind every answer. And then something behind that. I think of much of what ZD writes as a sort of inadvertent nondual poetry. Comparatively speaking, I find it quite unique. You're welcome to try to prove the contrary.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2024 8:11:01 GMT -5
Enquiry involves thinking, while other practices like zazen may/may not. Would you say that filtering through all the causes and effects, looking for what is missing, or trying to find a conclusive answer is practice or a method for exhausting the mind, possibly making it prone? Dudes are strange. How I came to be interested in ND. I had a friend, another zazen practitioner, who told me about Tolle's book, that it had prompted her to give up zazen. I scoffed. Her enthusiasm and excitement reminded me of the incessant "new" initiatives in the corporate world meant to "change" the culture. I have a ten page list of them. In the last one, before I retired, I got in trouble because as it was related to openness and honesty, I told my boss that in 12 months there'd be a different initiative to replace the one we were discussing. The same is true for Tolle or trends like his. Nothing's changed in the world. It's the same old world. Not that I needed it to change to begin with. It seemed perfectly fine to me. I feel that the whole SR movement is pretty much a mind adventure. It's obvious to me because the folks in it, the ones I've encountered here and elsewhere are no different than me, struggling, confused, slightly pixilated, petty, begrudging, and giving, loving, generous, kind, beautiful. Even the ones claiming to be self-realized.
The weird thing about the work I do, the practice, is that the more I think about a goal, the more trouble I get into. Why I tend to avoid this place. I'm purely interested in the process, that's the ticket, just sitting(a metaphor for many types of practice), there is no outcome in mind. If there is an outcome in mind, go back to the present: fetch wood, carry water. There is no outcome, no goal. This is it, now, the present, stay there. The rest is nonsense. Practice is the only form of enlightenment to be had. That's it. You won't like it, but that you're nemesis. Peace.
I can see your point here about the ever-shifting ingredients on offer at the bottomless, all-you can-eat, Cosmic Word Salad Bar. And it is amusing.  But I also perceive a different perspective on it, related, ironically, to something the 'pilgrim has shared about Gurdi' a few times before. The Gurdi' notion goes something like (if I remember correctly, and this is my paraphrase): "the teaching cannot be transmitted culturally. It will be re-invented and re-emerge in the cultural moment, expressed in the words and symbols, and by messengers that are best suited for that moment". Seems to me a re-expression of an idea of Zen (especially Rinzai) as a sort of "anti-culture". Another facet of this perspective is how nonduality is hidden in plain sight in Christianity ("the Body of Christ"), especially in the ritual of the transubstantiation and taking of the Eucharist. It was also quite loud and proud in some of the pop music of the '60's and '70's. Remember that line in Magic Bus? " ♪ .. I want it I waant it I waaaaant it .... ♫" ..  . So yeah. The existential truth, is found, in Silence, but, humanity, will never be silent about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 5, 2024 9:55:11 GMT -5
Dudes are strange. How I came to be interested in ND. I had a friend, another zazen practitioner, who told me about Tolle's book, that it had prompted her to give up zazen. I scoffed. Her enthusiasm and excitement reminded me of the incessant "new" initiatives in the corporate world meant to "change" the culture. I have a ten page list of them. In the last one, before I retired, I got in trouble because as it was related to openness and honesty, I told my boss that in 12 months there'd be a different initiative to replace the one we were discussing. The same is true for Tolle or trends like his. Nothing's changed in the world. It's the same old world. Not that I needed it to change to begin with. It seemed perfectly fine to me. I feel that the whole SR movement is pretty much a mind adventure. It's obvious to me because the folks in it, the ones I've encountered here and elsewhere are no different than me, struggling, confused, slightly pixilated, petty, begrudging, and giving, loving, generous, kind, beautiful. Even the ones claiming to be self-realized.
The weird thing about the work I do, the practice, is that the more I think about a goal, the more trouble I get into. Why I tend to avoid this place. I'm purely interested in the process, that's the ticket, just sitting(a metaphor for many types of practice), there is no outcome in mind. If there is an outcome in mind, go back to the present: fetch wood, carry water. There is no outcome, no goal. This is it, now, the present, stay there. The rest is nonsense. Practice is the only form of enlightenment to be had. That's it. You won't like it, but that you're nemesis. Peace.
I can see your point here about the ever-shifting ingredients on offer at the bottomless, all-you can-eat, Cosmic Word Salad Bar. And it is amusing. But I also perceive a different perspective on it, related, ironically, to something the 'pilgrim has shared about Gurdi' a few times before. The Gurdi' notion goes something like (if I remember correctly, and this is my paraphrase): "the teaching cannot be transmitted culturally. It will be re-invented and re-emerge in the cultural moment, expressed in the words and symbols, and by messengers that are best suited for that moment". Seems to me a re-expression of an idea of Zen (especially Rinzai) as a sort of "anti-culture". Another facet of this perspective is how nonduality is hidden in plain sight in Christianity ("the Body of Christ"), especially in the ritual of the transubstantiation and taking of the Eucharist. It was also quite loud and proud in some of the pop music of the '60's and '70's. Remember that line in Magic Bus? " ♪ .. I want it I waant it I waaaaant it .... ♫" .. . So yeah. The existential truth, is found, in Silence, but, humanity, will never be silent about it. Accurate. When the teaching is conceptualized, it becomes like a game of Chinese whispers, telephone. The only way to keep the teaching straight, is through working with attention. The practices are given verbally, only. These are called conscious influences, C influences. Ordinary life influences are called A influences. C influences can only ever be C influences, but when C influences mix with A influences, they inevitably become corrupted, when even results are conceptualized. Then B influences are formed. Religions are B influences (among other writings, and some art). C influences are the same as they were thousands of years ago, "transmission outside the scriptures". I will give one example. There is the Gurdjieff Foundation in NY, NY, and in Paris. There are multitudes of branches in the US and elsewhere. That's absolutely contrary to what Gurdjieff taught, and contrary to your example. But then, there is an outer teaching, and an inner teaching. Jesus put it this way, the letter kills, the Spirit gives life. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 5, 2024 10:01:44 GMT -5
Simple breath awareness is fine. You feel it, and 'this is reality as it is'. You realise you became distracted and remember, the actuality is here and now. It's better than being distracted all the time. That’s also a form of practice. However, no practice will ultimately lead you anywhere. There’s always a possibility that, while engaging in the practice, you might realize its futility. The claim that practice is futile is nonsensical, but you are just as you are now and it isn't a 'different thing', so even though we can say there is 'a final goal', I am right here, right now (as Fat Boy Slim would say). |
|
|
|
Practice
Aug 5, 2024 10:22:07 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 5, 2024 10:22:07 GMT -5
That’s also a form of practice. However, no practice will ultimately lead you anywhere. There’s always a possibility that, while engaging in the practice, you might realize its futility. The claim that practice is futile is nonsensical, but you are just as you are now and it isn't a 'different thing', so even though we can say there is 'a final goal', I am right here, right now (as Fat Boy Slim would say). All this is central to ZD's view. The individual-body is a movement of and only of the Whole. I've pressed him on this multiple times. So for ZD there isn't a 'person' in any sense, so it's meaningless to say the individual practices. Even ATA-T, is the Whole doing ATA-T, in an individual-body. So in a very real sense, there is no individual, not just no SVP. Of course, for sdp this is quite absurd. Correct, the self-avatar is illusory, but the individual-body is not illusory. The 'software' is illusory, the 'hardware' is not. The snake is illusory, the rope is not. So EVERYTHING depends upon what this distinction IS. ZD has thrown out the (Christ) baby [or Buddha-Nature-baby] with the bathwater. IOW, how do I not know ZD has constructed a conceptual framework out of his experience and realizations? Maybe his words are merely an interpretation. Maybe modern ND Neo-advaita is a constructual model. Maybe modern ND is merely a conceptual grid. Maybe there is a common meme-contagion. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 5, 2024 11:58:41 GMT -5
The claim that practice is futile is nonsensical, but you are just as you are now and it isn't a 'different thing', so even though we can say there is 'a final goal', I am right here, right now (as Fat Boy Slim would say). All this is central to ZD's view. The individual-body is a movement of and only of the Whole. I've pressed him on this multiple times. So for ZD there isn't a 'person' in any sense, so it's meaningless to say the individual practices. Even ATA-T, is the Whole doing ATA-T, in an individual-body. So in a very real sense, there is no individual, not just no SVP. Of course, for sdp this is quite absurd. Correct, the self-avatar is illusory, but the individual-body is not illusory. The 'software' is illusory, the 'hardware' is not. The snake is illusory, the rope is not. So EVERYTHING depends upon what this distinction IS. ZD has thrown out the (Christ) baby [or Buddha-Nature-baby] with the bathwater. IOW, how do I not know ZD has constructed a conceptual framework out of his experience and realizations? Maybe his words are merely an interpretation. Maybe modern ND Neo-advaita is a constructual model. Maybe modern ND is merely a conceptual grid. Maybe there is a common meme-contagion. Remember what RM said, "After you throw out all that changes as unreal, you eventually discover the Self (THIS) which does not change. At that time one realizes that everything that was considered unreal is part of the underlying unity." That may not be an exact quote, but it's close. A sage feels one with "what is." Most adults feel that they are separate from "what is." There's a big difference. |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Aug 5, 2024 14:14:57 GMT -5
A lot of my dialogue comes back around to, what would ZD say or how would ZD answer, reply? (And how could sdp reply, back?) I could probably trace back 90% of the way he writes to either Alan Watts or ZM Seung Sahn. I'd guess ZD would not be happy with your answer. But it is what it is. There is always something behind every answer. And then something behind that. I think of much of what ZD writes as a sort of inadvertent nondual poetry. Comparatively speaking, I find it quite unique. You're welcome to try to prove the contrary. He seems to have made it his lifes work. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 5, 2024 17:52:26 GMT -5
All this is central to ZD's view. The individual-body is a movement of and only of the Whole. I've pressed him on this multiple times. So for ZD there isn't a 'person' in any sense, so it's meaningless to say the individual practices. Even ATA-T, is the Whole doing ATA-T, in an individual-body. So in a very real sense, there is no individual, not just no SVP. Of course, for sdp this is quite absurd. Correct, the self-avatar is illusory, but the individual-body is not illusory. The 'software' is illusory, the 'hardware' is not. The snake is illusory, the rope is not. So EVERYTHING depends upon what this distinction IS. ZD has thrown out the (Christ) baby [or Buddha-Nature-baby] with the bathwater. IOW, how do I not know ZD has constructed a conceptual framework out of his experience and realizations? Maybe his words are merely an interpretation. Maybe modern ND Neo-advaita is a constructual model. Maybe modern ND is merely a conceptual grid. Maybe there is a common meme-contagion. Remember what RM said, " After you throw out all that changes as unreal, you eventually discover the Self (THIS) which does not change. At that time one realizes that everything that was considered unreal is part of the underlying unity." That may not be an exact quote, but it's close. A sage feels one with "what is." Most adults feel that they are separate from "what is." There's a big difference. So all that changes, is illusory. And what was considered unreal (that which is illusory), is part of the underlying unity. Yes? No? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2024 19:42:01 GMT -5
. Maybe modern ND Neo-advaita is a constructual model. Maybe modern ND is merely a conceptual grid. Yes, "modern ND is merely a conceptual grid". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 5, 2024 19:43:10 GMT -5
I think of much of what ZD writes as a sort of inadvertent nondual poetry. Comparatively speaking, I find it quite unique. You're welcome to try to prove the contrary. He seems to have made it his lifes work.  |
|
|
|
Practice
Aug 5, 2024 22:37:25 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Gopal on Aug 5, 2024 22:37:25 GMT -5
That’s also a form of practice. However, no practice will ultimately lead you anywhere. There’s always a possibility that, while engaging in the practice, you might realize its futility. The claim that practice is futile is nonsensical, but you are just as you are now and it isn't a 'different thing', so even though we can say there is 'a final goal', I am right here, right now (as Fat Boy Slim would say). Experience is defined accordingly. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Aug 5, 2024 23:29:26 GMT -5
The claim that practice is futile is nonsensical, but you are just as you are now and it isn't a 'different thing', so even though we can say there is 'a final goal', I am right here, right now (as Fat Boy Slim would say). All this is central to ZD's view. The individual-body is a movement of and only of the Whole. I've pressed him on this multiple times. So for ZD there isn't a 'person' in any sense, so it's meaningless to say the individual practices. Even ATA-T, is the Whole doing ATA-T, in an individual-body. So in a very real sense, there is no individual, not just no SVP. Of course, for sdp this is quite absurd. Correct, the self-avatar is illusory, but the individual-body is not illusory. The 'software' is illusory, the 'hardware' is not. The snake is illusory, the rope is not. So EVERYTHING depends upon what this distinction IS. ZD has thrown out the (Christ) baby [or Buddha-Nature-baby] with the bathwater. IOW, how do I not know ZD has constructed a conceptual framework out of his experience and realizations? Maybe his words are merely an interpretation. Maybe modern ND Neo-advaita is a constructual model. Maybe modern ND is merely a conceptual grid. Maybe there is a common meme-contagion. when they say there's no individual and there is only the whole, I think it gets off the track of individuated consciousness, and obviously, people have their own unique experience, so we can the say the whole has individuated experiences, but essentially, that which is doesn't experience anything at all. This may seem like a very radical thing to say, but what's really radical is 'I am' is no different to the common presence I refer to as me, the one who is aware. Ironically, I'm the same as the one who doesn't know it is, yet I know I am.
The individual is a unique being in the sense that it is formed as a summation of everything in my past, and I can 'get to know myself' similarly to how I get to know other people. Since this santana is a product of the entire experiece, I can't do anything to make it 'other that it is'. I simply am this way.
What I think most people miss is, change is inevitable, and even though it seems like you 'make it happen' or it 'happens to you', if you leave everything to be 'as it is', it changes as and you just move along with the flow. Naturally you change personally according to ongoing experience, and thus it's the 'same person' changing over time, but that person is the sum of the things, and has no enduring or fixed substance. There's just the presence of aware, which is utterly nondescript, but we all know it. It's just that many people think there is 'something other than this' when 'this is the way it is'
The human condition is to perpetually trying to become someone ideal, and avoid being someone lacking. Most of us live between hatred and craving and attempt to make things 'as I want them to be', because if you do not do that, the one you think is you is not controlled and left to fate. Panic stations! You have no idea who you are, but it isn't any different from this, just as you are now.
The mind is already questioning, What is it?, to know, but one can realise something with certainty, like, 'Of course', yet have no idea what it is, and even though people say 'self realised' no one actually knows 'what I am'. One master said I have one foot here and one foot there, but the ultimate doesn't even know it is, and we have no idea how and why this experience is 'the way it is', but there is a tremendous outpouring and the way is pure so you love everything and express that metta in every aspect of your own personal life.
No I don't even remember what I just said, so I'll leave it at that.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Aug 5, 2024 23:45:13 GMT -5
vasanas == beliefsramana-maharshi.weebly.com/vasanas.html- #2 July, 1936
Cohen: Should all vasanas (mental habits) be completely overcome before Self-Realisation takes place, or may some remain for Self-Realisation to destroy?
Bhagavan: Vasanas which do not obstruct Self-Realisation remain. In Yoga Vasishtha two classes of vasanas are distinguished: those of enjoyment and those of bondage. The former remain even after Mukti is attained, but the latter are destroyed by it.
Attachment is the cause of binding vasanas, but enjoyment without attachment does not bind and continues even in Sahaja.
- Excerpt from Talk 385
Vasanas are of four kinds:
(1) Pure (Suddha)
(2) Impure (Malina)
(3) Mixed (Madhya)
(4) Good (Sat)
according as the Jnanis are:
(1) The Supreme (varishta)
(2) The Best (variya)
(3) Better (vara)
(4) Good (vit)
Their fruits are reaped in three ways: (1) of our own will (swechha), (2) by others’ will (parechha) and (3) involuntarily (anichha). These have been Jnanis like Gautama, Vyasa, Suka and Janaka./li]
- Talks with Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi
Talk 13
Devotee: What are the obstacles which hinder realisation of the Self?
Maharshi: They are habits of mind (vasanas).
Talk 28
D.: Distractions result from inherited tendencies. Can they be cast off too?
M.: Yes. Many have done so. Believe it! They did so because they believed they could. Vasanas (predispositions) can be obliterated. It is done by concentration on that which is free from vasanas, and yet is their core.
D.: How long is the practice to continue?
M.: Till success is achieved and until yoga-liberation becomes permanent. Success begets success. If one distraction is conquered the next is conquered and so on, until all are finally conquered. The process is like reducing an enemy’s fort by slaying its man-power — one by one, as each issues out.
D.: What is the goal of this process?
M.: Realising the Real.
|
|
.