|
|
Post by sharon on Oct 25, 2024 1:41:55 GMT -5
There is nothing to learn from it, and it depicts the Buddha as a heartless manipulative guru, which probably isn't accurate. lol when I read the story, my brow furrowed a bit, and I had the thought that he might as well have saved her time and energy and just said....'Look. Everybody dies, now pi$s off.' It's not the best Buddha story I agree. Yeah man, cuz spiritual men have to tell grieving mothers to pi$$ off, it’s like a right of passage, I heard.  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Oct 25, 2024 4:58:02 GMT -5
There is nothing to learn from it, and it depicts the Buddha as a heartless manipulative guru, which probably isn't accurate. Words don't teach, only life experience does. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 5:04:36 GMT -5
lol when I read the story, my brow furrowed a bit, and I had the thought that he might as well have saved her time and energy and just said....'Look. Everybody dies, now pi$s off.' It's not the best Buddha story I agree. Yeah man, cuz spiritual men have to tell grieving mothers to pi$$ off, it’s like a right of passage, I heard. lol exactly....seems like that's pretty much what Buddha did in the story, he just went a long way round in doing it....'No, I'm not going to take the time to talk to you myself about death, I'm going to send you away on a ridiculous mission to learn that.....everyone dies!'' But, it's a story, and who knows how factual it is. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 5:07:12 GMT -5
There is nothing to learn from it, and it depicts the Buddha as a heartless manipulative guru, which probably isn't accurate. Fair point. It does seem a little cruel to send a grieving mother on a wild goose chase just to ‘wake’ her up. Perhaps it was the transparency of grief and loss that was the aspect through which Awakening happened, rather than the recognition that no family is without Death. Something along these lines seems more plausible to me. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 25, 2024 8:18:35 GMT -5
Knowledge about the world really only comes from experience. ..but it was knowledge of Spirit that he was transmitting. The lady wanted her son back. Buddha taught her first hand the 4 Nobel Truths, death touches everyone. That's about the manifest universe. Buddha would object to your word Spirit. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 25, 2024 8:22:17 GMT -5
lol when I read the story, my brow furrowed a bit, and I had the thought that he might as well have saved her time and energy and just said....'Look. Everybody dies, now pi$s off.' It's not the best Buddha story I agree. Yeah man, cuz spiritual men have to tell grieving mothers to pi$$ off, it’s like a right of passage, I heard. It was a story about the Buddha of Oz. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 11:07:37 GMT -5
..but it was knowledge of Spirit that he was transmitting. The lady wanted her son back. Buddha taught her first hand the 4 Nobel Truths, death touches everyone. That's about the manifest universe. Buddha would object to your word Spirit. But....do you not think she already knew that? Seems like kids know that truth. Which is why she specifically wanted a super magic Buddha to bring him back. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 25, 2024 13:52:36 GMT -5
This is mostly for tenka. I think maybe I've finally found a way to frame the question. I have no problem with, we are not what we think we are, but what does it actually mean that the self is imaginary? You've heard the expression, if it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. Except this doesn't work in discussing self. This morning I boiled it down to this. The so-called self has certain attributes. I have a history, I remember a few things pre-school, more things as I grow older. I might like music, or sports, or art. I might be shy, an introvert, or outgoing. I might like school, I might hate school. I might decide to go to college, be a doctor or lawyer. I might decide to be a soldier. A slight few have the skills and drive to be a pro athlete. Some go into the trades, become an electrician or plumber or carpenter or builder. Some get married, have kids. You pay your bills, go shopping, go on vacation. Don't all these things indicate a self in the middle of the doing? A self doing? tenka doesn't understand how self is imaginary, what we think of as self. Please don't tell me all these doings and attributes don't exist. All the quacking and waddling and appearing, exists. Yes? No? But do all the attributes and doings constitute a self? They constitute an imaginary self. So what's imaginary about the imaginary self? But all the doings and attributes don't add up to the existence of a self. This is not so easy to see. It's like a magic trick. I have no problem with any of that. The world exists, the world is the basis of the body, which exists. The imaginary self comes-to-be as the mind-body experiences the world, and forms memories from the experience. The memories exist as connections between the neurons in the brain. So the imaginary self exists as copies of stuff, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. The imaginary self, is imaginary, because it just consists of copies. Something else is the leading cutting edge, into experience of the world, and it's always new, newly new, now. This is what Zen understands, the cutting edge of the newly new now. The newly new is only new, now. The imaginary self consists of only-copies, memories. The imaginary self is like a reflection in a mirror. Memory is necessary to be functional in-the-world, but memory does not constitute True Self, which is always and only newly new, now. Any Zen story or any Zen koan, is about newly new now, being present to now. The so-called self, the imaginary self, is NEVER newly new, it's always merely a copy, or a reflection. A reflection narrows down 3D and 4D, to 2D. Yes? No? But here I depart with some of the others here. Is there anything ~behind~ all the doings and attributes? ~What~ is behind the imaginary self? The prominent view here is that the so-called self is the movement of All That Is. The doings, are, the attributes exist, but they merely conjure the appearance of self, it's an imaginary self. But there is an in-between, a between between All That Is and the attributes and doings. The principle is from the Law of 3, the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. This means levels, exist. The Tao Te Ching says One became two, two became three, and the three became the ten thousand things. So Lao Tzu understood the Law of 3. But it means that the middle doesn't exist, now. The middle only exists as potential. To actualize means to actualize potential, it means it doesn't exist now, and not necessarily ever. The True Self doesn't exist, now, it exists as the possible-middle. So it exists for some people, not for others. It comes-into-being through conscious efforts and letting suffering just be, and observing it. The True Self comes-into-being, germinates, via always and everywhere living in and as the newly new. Maybe practice is not the best word to use, but Dogen put it this way: "Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice". Why is it put that way? Because you are reverse engineering, the result. So there isn't just duality, all the manifest world has as its basis, the trinity, or a series of triads. And as as above so below, self arises from the same Law of 3. Thanks for thinking of me Pilgrim regarding this thread. As most peeps know, these type of questions never get resolved for many a reason with hardcore non dualists. For starters there are many different understandings of what self and imaginary refers too. Perhaps this needs addressing first? I mean for myself I can imagine a pink elephant juggling fire sticks butt it doesn't mean that God or myself can conjure one up. I raise a warm smile when I used to pull the Frog up on this aspect of imagination as if I would sometime soon meet one just because I could somehow 'supposedly' manifest one up somehow. I used to say to him, I am still waiting for one to swing by It still hasn't turned up E  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 25, 2024 14:05:07 GMT -5
This is mostly for tenka. I think maybe I've finally found a way to frame the question. I have no problem with, we are not what we think we are, but what does it actually mean that the self is imaginary? You've heard the expression, if it quacks like a duck, if it waddles like a duck, if it looks like a duck, it's a duck. Except this doesn't work in discussing self. This morning I boiled it down to this. The so-called self has certain attributes. I have a history, I remember a few things pre-school, more things as I grow older. I might like music, or sports, or art. I might be shy, an introvert, or outgoing. I might like school, I might hate school. I might decide to go to college, be a doctor or lawyer. I might decide to be a soldier. A slight few have the skills and drive to be a pro athlete. Some go into the trades, become an electrician or plumber or carpenter or builder. Some get married, have kids. You pay your bills, go shopping, go on vacation. Don't all these things indicate a self in the middle of the doing? A self doing? tenka doesn't understand how self is imaginary, what we think of as self. Please don't tell me all these doings and attributes don't exist. All the quacking and waddling and appearing, exists. Yes? No? But do all the attributes and doings constitute a self? They constitute an imaginary self. So what's imaginary about the imaginary self? But all the doings and attributes don't add up to the existence of a self. This is not so easy to see. It's like a magic trick. I have no problem with any of that. The world exists, the world is the basis of the body, which exists. The imaginary self comes-to-be as the mind-body experiences the world, and forms memories from the experience. The memories exist as connections between the neurons in the brain. So the imaginary self exists as copies of stuff, and copies of copies, and copies of copies of copies. The imaginary self, is imaginary, because it just consists of copies. Something else is the leading cutting edge, into experience of the world, and it's always new, newly new, now. This is what Zen understands, the cutting edge of the newly new now. The newly new is only new, now. The imaginary self consists of only-copies, memories. The imaginary self is like a reflection in a mirror. Memory is necessary to be functional in-the-world, but memory does not constitute True Self, which is always and only newly new, now. Any Zen story or any Zen koan, is about newly new now, being present to now. The so-called self, the imaginary self, is NEVER newly new, it's always merely a copy, or a reflection. A reflection narrows down 3D and 4D, to 2D. Yes? No? But here I depart with some of the others here. Is there anything ~behind~ all the doings and attributes? ~What~ is behind the imaginary self? The prominent view here is that the so-called self is the movement of All That Is. The doings, are, the attributes exist, but they merely conjure the appearance of self, it's an imaginary self. But there is an in-between, a between between All That Is and the attributes and doings. The principle is from the Law of 3, the higher blends with the lower to actualize the middle. This means levels, exist. The Tao Te Ching says One became two, two became three, and the three became the ten thousand things. So Lao Tzu understood the Law of 3. But it means that the middle doesn't exist, now. The middle only exists as potential. To actualize means to actualize potential, it means it doesn't exist now, and not necessarily ever. The True Self doesn't exist, now, it exists as the possible-middle. So it exists for some people, not for others. It comes-into-being through conscious efforts and letting suffering just be, and observing it. The True Self comes-into-being, germinates, via always and everywhere living in and as the newly new. Maybe practice is not the best word to use, but Dogen put it this way: "Practice is enlightenment, enlightenment is practice". Why is it put that way? Because you are reverse engineering, the result. So there isn't just duality, all the manifest world has as its basis, the trinity, or a series of triads. And as as above so below, self arises from the same Law of 3. That was good. It really got me thinking for a few minutes. So I don't disagree but I'm also gonna offer an alternative way of seeing it. And that is, that there are only ever imaginary selves (as long as there is experience), but that these imaginary selves 'exist' (or are 'imagined') at different ('imagined') levels of consciousness. So it's not that we discover a true self, it's that we continually upgrade to a higher (or more expanded) imaginary self. And with that said, I'm also really okay for one of the non-dualists to pull that apart and point to foundational 'Reality' instead (no levels) And let's see what Tenka says too (might have to wait a few days) Howdy Partner  Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self. Do you get me? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 25, 2024 14:50:43 GMT -5
That was good. It really got me thinking for a few minutes. So I don't disagree but I'm also gonna offer an alternative way of seeing it. And that is, that there are only ever imaginary selves (as long as there is experience), but that these imaginary selves 'exist' (or are 'imagined') at different ('imagined') levels of consciousness. So it's not that we discover a true self, it's that we continually upgrade to a higher (or more expanded) imaginary self. And with that said, I'm also really okay for one of the non-dualists to pull that apart and point to foundational 'Reality' instead (no levels) And let's see what Tenka says too (might have to wait a few days) Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self.
Do you get me? I wouldn't say serial killers are born serial killers. They were treated harshly by some adult, and started out killing animals. So they were conditioned in-to killing. This conditioning is the false self. See the difference? Same with people with split personality disorder. They were treated very harshly as kids, beaten, so the self was divided off so that one self didn't bare all the pain. The conditioning caused the splits, the false selves. Hitler was also treated very harshly as a kid. We see how that turned out, he screwed up the whole world. We are all born with a unique individuality, a not-screwed up individuality. Life circumstances forms the false self. I've taken the extreme case. Some, in the Middle East, are raised from birth to hate Jews. It's a kind of cultural conditioning. Babies turned into terrorists. We've seen results of that this whole last year. Then Israel's reaction to defend itself (to a very great extent, one man), caused a big swing in the pendulum, an out of proportion reaction to obliterate Hamas. The one man also has a false self, which always distorts reality. Just one other example we can all relate to. About half of all Americans are overweight, I don't know the exact number. A great percentage are obese. The body has a natural intelligence to know how much to eat and when to stop eating. But for one reason or another, through the way kid-people are treated, many overeat. It becomes a habit, a lot of it for emotional reasons. The result is also a kind of cultural conditioning. We come to (unconsciously) love a certain reaction in the body. A great deal of it is from one neurotransmitter, dopamine, The Molecule of More, the cause of many different types of addictions. This article just popped up, most probably an algorithm. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 25, 2024 20:55:51 GMT -5
Yeah man, cuz spiritual men have to tell grieving mothers to pi$$ off, it’s like a right of passage, I heard. lol exactly....seems like that's pretty much what Buddha did in the story, he just went a long way round in doing it....'No, I'm not going to take the time to talk to you myself about death, I'm going to send you away on a ridiculous mission to learn that.....everyone dies!''
But, it's a story, and who knows how factual it is. I don't think that was the lesson. It was a lesson in being overwhelmed with grief. The woman was beside herself, lamenting 'my' loss, my child, and could not overcome it, so she went door to door and found everyone had lost a mother, brother, child and so on, so instead of her mind being all, me, my, mine and I, she saw a burden shared is a burden lightened. She understood everyone felt like her, and she's not exceptionally special. Her inward woe transforms to outward, mutual compassion.
When my parents died, the siblings had different ways of processing the loss, where loss means mostly that life will be very different from now on, and all the relational dynamics will change, and what used to be the 'way of things' will no longer be that way. I personally didn't find that so hard, and was at first shocked because the passing was very sudden, but I quickly accepted that this is the rest of my life now, and I adapted by making a couple of life-long dedications like an honourary garden and offering free services to an art gallery mum was involved in.
Others were more into making permanent what has now gone, like having a locket with ashes in it, for example, but my ceremony is to cast the ashes where a location becomes a site where memories lay, and to be honest, I barely felt any grief, and was surprised how I sort of just took it in stride.
In so saying, I think that is because my grief was not about now, at this time, but was more like, this is the whole of the future, and my acceptance was not to process and move past, but to find ways to honour their lives. My siblings' meaningful rituals are over with the funeral and the keeping of a few trinkets, whereas mine are ongoing. Because mine are ongoing, I don't have a loss as such, but still have a different kind of relationship through the gardens, which I have found deepened my connection with 'the other side. I 'live between worlds' much more than I did before.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 21:35:34 GMT -5
That was good. It really got me thinking for a few minutes. So I don't disagree but I'm also gonna offer an alternative way of seeing it. And that is, that there are only ever imaginary selves (as long as there is experience), but that these imaginary selves 'exist' (or are 'imagined') at different ('imagined') levels of consciousness. So it's not that we discover a true self, it's that we continually upgrade to a higher (or more expanded) imaginary self. And with that said, I'm also really okay for one of the non-dualists to pull that apart and point to foundational 'Reality' instead (no levels) And let's see what Tenka says too (might have to wait a few days) Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self. Do you get me? Howdy! I get ya. I'll get back to ya. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 21:45:36 GMT -5
lol exactly....seems like that's pretty much what Buddha did in the story, he just went a long way round in doing it....'No, I'm not going to take the time to talk to you myself about death, I'm going to send you away on a ridiculous mission to learn that.....everyone dies!''
But, it's a story, and who knows how factual it is. I don't think that was the lesson. It was a lesson in being overwhelmed with grief. The woman was beside herself, lamenting 'my' loss, my child, and could not overcome it, so she went door to door and found everyone had lost a mother, brother, child and so on, so instead of her mind being all, me, my, mine and I, she saw a burden shared is a burden lightened. She understood everyone felt like her, and she's not exceptionally special. Her inward woe transforms to outward, mutual compassion.
When my parents died, the siblings had different ways of processing the loss, where loss means mostly that life will be very different from now on, and all the relational dynamics will change, and what used to be the 'way of things' will no longer be that way. I personally didn't find that so hard, and was at first shocked because the passing was very sudden, but I quickly accepted that this is the rest of my life now, and I adapted by making a couple of life-long dedications like an honourary garden and offering free services to an art gallery mum was involved in. Others were more into making permanent what has now gone, like having a locket with ashes in it, for example, but my ceremony is to cast the ashes where a location becomes a site where memories lay, and to be honest, I barely felt any grief, and was surprised how I sort of just took it in stride. In so saying, I think that is because my grief was not about now, at this time, but was more like, this is the whole of the future, and my acceptance was not to process and move past, but to find ways to honour their lives. My siblings' meaningful rituals are over with the funeral and the keeping of a few trinkets, whereas mine are ongoing. Because mine are ongoing, I don't have a loss as such, but still have a different kind of relationship through the gardens, which I have found deepened my connection with 'the other side. I 'live between worlds' much more than I did before.
Ah interesting interpretation, yes cool, that could be a good useful learning. Perhaps similar to Sharon's interpretation too. My grief at my parents passing was also somewhat muted, it more came in waves over a period of years. Occasionally a sense of sadness will still arise, but it's more an intense appreciative sadness now than a sense of loss. But in truth, I've experienced more intense loss at the passing of beloved guinea pigs (!) than I did my parents, which I find interesting. Though I also consider it possible that the passing of those pets helped me process grief related to parents that I had suppressed on some level. I recall that I began to dislike the saying 'life goes on'. It's a popular saying where I come from, and I don't think it's very accurate. I don't think we actually 'move on', as such, from the loss of a loved one. It's more like we integrate the change (which you expressed excellently in the bolded), and our experience of our loved one changes. For example, I really only ever think of them these days with love, whereas when they were alive....well....feelings were variable lol. I don't consider that a 'moving on', it's just a change in my inner experience of them. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 25, 2024 21:50:26 GMT -5
Howdy Partner Are you speaking like an American yet? We have to perhaps understand what it is that we are that can imagine anything. We could say that the swan imagines it's a duck butt it's still a duck regardless. So imagination in someway doesn't reflect the truth of the matter. Again to repeat the repeated it's a package deal. One isn't just a duck, one doesn't just imagine one is a duck if one knows they are a duck through a knowing that they are not also. When there is self realisation, does one still imagine they are a duck? Does one entertain an imaginary perspective of self? Why would there be an imaginary self at all? There would just be self.
Do you get me? I wouldn't say serial killers are born serial killers. They were treated harshly by some adult, and started out killing animals. So they were conditioned in-to killing. This conditioning is the false self. See the difference? Same with people with split personality disorder. They were treated very harshly as kids, beaten, so the self was divided off so that one self didn't bare all the pain. The conditioning caused the splits, the false selves. Hitler was also treated very harshly as a kid. We see how that turned out, he screwed up the whole world. We are all born with a unique individuality, a not-screwed up individuality. Life circumstances forms the false self. I've taken the extreme case. Some, in the Middle East, are raised from birth to hate Jews. It's a kind of cultural conditioning. Babies turned into terrorists. We've seen results of that this whole last year. Then Israel's reaction to defend itself (to a very great extent, one man), caused a big swing in the pendulum, an out of proportion reaction to obliterate Hamas. The one man also has a false self, which always distorts reality. Just one other example we can all relate to. About half of all Americans are overweight, I don't know the exact number. A great percentage are obese. The body has a natural intelligence to know how much to eat and when to stop eating. But for one reason or another, through the way kid-people are treated, many overeat. It becomes a habit, a lot of it for emotional reasons. The result is also a kind of cultural conditioning. We come to (unconsciously) love a certain reaction in the body. A great deal of it is from one neurotransmitter, dopamine, The Molecule of More, the cause of many different types of addictions. This article just popped up, most probably an algorithm. I think there are genetic propensities too. I'd guess someone like, say...Ted Bundy....probably had an in-built significant propensity to be a psychopath, but as you rightly say, conditioning plays a tremendous role too. It's hard...perhaps impossible....to say just how big it is, but it's obviously big. And we also know these days that conditioning, in turn, can affect genes. Though I don't know much about this (epigenetics I think it's called). |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Oct 26, 2024 0:36:51 GMT -5
I don't think that was the lesson. It was a lesson in being overwhelmed with grief. The woman was beside herself, lamenting 'my' loss, my child, and could not overcome it, so she went door to door and found everyone had lost a mother, brother, child and so on, so instead of her mind being all, me, my, mine and I, she saw a burden shared is a burden lightened. She understood everyone felt like her, and she's not exceptionally special. Her inward woe transforms to outward, mutual compassion.
When my parents died, the siblings had different ways of processing the loss, where loss means mostly that life will be very different from now on, and all the relational dynamics will change, and what used to be the 'way of things' will no longer be that way. I personally didn't find that so hard, and was at first shocked because the passing was very sudden, but I quickly accepted that this is the rest of my life now, and I adapted by making a couple of life-long dedications like an honourary garden and offering free services to an art gallery mum was involved in. Others were more into making permanent what has now gone, like having a locket with ashes in it, for example, but my ceremony is to cast the ashes where a location becomes a site where memories lay, and to be honest, I barely felt any grief, and was surprised how I sort of just took it in stride. In so saying, I think that is because my grief was not about now, at this time, but was more like, this is the whole of the future, and my acceptance was not to process and move past, but to find ways to honour their lives. My siblings' meaningful rituals are over with the funeral and the keeping of a few trinkets, whereas mine are ongoing. Because mine are ongoing, I don't have a loss as such, but still have a different kind of relationship through the gardens, which I have found deepened my connection with 'the other side. I 'live between worlds' much more than I did before.
Ah interesting interpretation, yes cool, that could be a good useful learning. Perhaps similar to Sharon's interpretation too. My grief at my parents passing was also somewhat muted, it more came in waves over a period of years. Occasionally a sense of sadness will still arise, but it's more an intense appreciative sadness now than a sense of loss. But in truth, I've experienced more intense loss at the passing of beloved guinea pigs (!) than I did my parents, which I find interesting. Though I also consider it possible that the passing of those pets helped me process grief related to parents that I had suppressed on some level. I recall that I began to dislike the saying 'life goes on'. It's a popular saying where I come from, and I don't think it's very accurate. I don't think we actually 'move on', as such, from the loss of a loved one. It's more like we integrate the change (which you expressed excellently in the bolded), and our experience of our loved one changes. For example, I really only ever think of them these days with love, whereas when they were alive....well....feelings were variable lol. I don't consider that a 'moving on', it's just a change in my inner experience of them. I would like to have 'Life Goes On' engraved on my tombstone to mean the shedding of the mortal coil is not where life ends for me, and to signal to others that I believe in the continuation of living, be that in heaven or reincarnation or another idea. However, I think people are 'all about me' and would take it to mean life goes on for them.
You're right about 'moving on', and the reason I think my grief wasn't particularly remarkable, is it isn't something I 'get over' and move on from. It's always going to be an aspect of my life - I also like that aspect - so it's just more diluted in time.
|
|
