14 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesterThat's ok. divegeester. No pretending.
I'm just being honest and frank; it means nothing to me. That is not to say it has no meaning to you or others, but collectively it makes no sense – delivers no cognitive traction. Pretending it does is just lying to oneself.
"..delivers no cognitive traction" Yes, I would agree, in the end that is where we are left, with this ultimate meanings stuff...no cognitive traction. Which is where meditation begins, a principal means of opening awareness (beyond cognition) for the Buddhist follower.
I was wondering if you ever meditate, out of interest?
14 Oct 12
Originally posted by TaomanWell I do pray (although not often) and I often enjoy times of solitary contemplation. Not sure if those activities are classified as meditation.
That's ok. divegeester. No pretending.
"..delivers no cognitive traction" Yes, I would agree, in the end that is where we are left, with this ultimate meanings stuff...no cognitive traction. Which is where meditation begins, a principal means of opening awareness (beyond cognition) for the Buddhist follower.
I was wondering if you ever meditate, out of interest?
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by TaomanI'd rather speak to God and go directly to the source.
That's ok. divegeester. No pretending.
"..delivers no cognitive traction" Yes, I would agree, in the end that is where we are left, with this ultimate meanings stuff...no cognitive traction. Which is where meditation begins, a principal means of opening awareness (beyond cognition) for the Buddhist follower.
I was wondering if you ever meditate, out of interest?
None of this "the sound of one hand clapping" stuff, which is all this is.
Now if you speak of meditation as a way to "open the channel" and prepare to receive an answer from God, then practices such as self-hypnosis and sensual deprivation chambers have value. But ultimate meanings? Not likely to be found from within.
Originally posted by Suzianne"But ultimate meanings? Not likely to be found from within."
I'd rather speak to God and go directly to the source.
None of this "the sound of one hand clapping" stuff, which is all this is.
Now if you speak of meditation as a way to "open the channel" and prepare to receive an answer from God, then practices such as self-hypnosis and sensual deprivation chambers have value. But ultimate meanings? Not likely to be found from within.
If none of it is within, then where are you? You close the door from the inside and lock it, then state all the meaning is outside. Meanwhile sitting quietly waiting in the corner of your locked room, while you press hard against the door is that which you seek most of all.
Not only within, but right now, and here. Your erroneous statements themselves are adornments of the precious gem to which I refer.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by Taoman+1 for this.
"But ultimate meanings? Not likely to be found from within."
If none of it is within, then where are you? You close the door from the inside and lock it, then state all the meaning is outside. Meanwhile sitting quietly waiting in the corner of your locked room, while you press hard against the door is that which you seek most of all.
Not only within, ...[text shortened]... ere. Your erroneous statements themselves are adornments of the precious gem to which I refer.
The nature of reality can't be found by looking inside yourself (metaphorically speaking).
However this doesn't mean that nothing can be found by looking in.
The laws of logic and pretty much the entirety of mathematics which do not rely on the
nature of reality to function can indeed only be found inside.
There is no such thing as a perfect mathematical circle whose radius is exactly pi times the
diameter in reality, however the properties of such things can be explored and discovered in
the mind.
Any approach that says that all truth/meaning is only found externally or internally is going
to be inferior to one that recognises that the answer is both.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by divegeesterMeditation can be approached in different ways. Sometimes it is a form of relaxed but maintained focus on an object, perhaps yoru breathing or an external object. This enables a form of mindfulness.
Well I do pray (although not often) and I often enjoy times of solitary contemplation. Not sure if those activities are classified as meditation.
Sometimes it is just sitting quietly contemplating.
I cannot prove, but have an understanding that when I bring centered awareness to others, and problems being experienced it benefits. Meditation before retiring to bed often clarifies, and confused issues and emotions appear (sometimes almost dramatically) more resolved in the morning and a way through emerges. Doesn't have to be particularly Buddhist in nature.
Zazen in Zen is "just sitting", observing, without engaging, the movements of the mind until they settle down. Expanded awareness arises from this activity.
All are valuable.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by googlefudge"Any approach that says that all truth/meaning is only found externally or internally is going to be inferior to one that recognises that the answer is both."
+1 for this.
The nature of reality can't be found by looking inside yourself (metaphorically speaking).
However this doesn't mean that nothing can be found by looking in.
The laws of logic and pretty much the entirety of mathematics which do not rely on the
nature of reality to function can indeed only be found inside.
There is no such thin ...[text shortened]... rnally or internally is going
to be inferior to one that recognises that the answer is both.
I agree. Thanks for the clarification. An analogy is physical light itself. At the deepest quantum level it is seen to be both particle and wave, the difference being on which way one approaches it.
Both are what light "is".
The circle analogy is most apt too. A circle is there for all to see, perfect, complete and manifested, but the ratio of the radius to the circumference - that which constitutes the creation of the circle - remains ultimately undefinable and of the mind. This applies to the smallest or the largest circle possible.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by TaomanEdit: “Discriminating purity and defilements - is this not a constant asking of questions?”
Greetings EB.
Discriminating purity and defilements - is this not a constant asking of questions?
From another I also look too:
"In the ultimate definitive analysis
just as golden chains and hempen ropes are equally blinding,
so the sacred and the profane do both enslave us;
and just as white and black clouds are equally enshrouding,
so virtue a ...[text shortened]... ea"?
I consider my questions to EB carefully, for I value his answers.
Thank you.
Greetings, Taoman!
Methinks that “discriminating purity and defilements” is not merely a constant asking of questions but a constant conflict (that can take countless forms) between clear light/ od’ gsal, and the mind that embraces solely one of the Two Truths; however, the so called “purity” arises beyond the cultivation of the Two Truths and therefore it arises beyond any constant asking of questions (thus it arises when “Sitting quietly doing nothing”. On the other hand, since the questions are one of the most severe forms of entrapment into the limited mind, there are differ other ways of demolishing this attitude within the various schools of the tradition according to one’s level, ie context and koans, gankyil, suttas etc.).
Edit: “"In… …moral conditioning."
from "Longchempa's Treasury of Natural Perfection"”
He is talking about emptiness and he says that there is no ultimate reality between the experiential duality of apprehender and apprehended. To hold the opposite, he says, it is not the Middle Way and hence “virtue and vice alike veil gnosis” (gnosis is Two Truths; and releasing from moral conditioning is Nagarjuna’s product as it is mentioned at mulamadhyamakakarika: “Whatever is dependently arisen does not arise, does not cease, is not permanent, does not extinct, does not come, does not go and it is neither one thing nor different things&rdquo😉.
Edit: “Is "acting without acting" always perfect, or never perfect, EB?”
All of this, is the mind. So, first do realise the nature of the mind. When one’s faults are exposed, it is the mind; when one is praised, it is the mind; whether whatever kind of duality, it is the mind; thus, since all these are equal in being the mind, whatever defects arise in your mind wherein self is perceived wherein there is no self, crush them and break free. Defilements are concealed non-established defects within one’s Cave of Blue Dragon, and this cave is itself not established because it lacks of inherent existence too. If cultivated, these unestablished defects sever the life of liberation;
Edit: “Is silence better than confused shouting, or are they the same? Always or sometimes?”
It is enough to disentangle the limited mind (that does not see Two Truths and thus beyond, that is) of entrapment into the limitless realm of liberation. When od’ gsal inwards, silence; when od’ gsal outwards, skilful means; when clarity, clarity under all circumstances; when confusion, no enlightenment (no focus on a specific point of attention, that is). When no enlightenment, confusion;
Edit: “Or is it "No questions - No answers - Have another cup of tea"?”
“No questions - No answers - Have another cup of tea” is just another skilful means under specific circumstances; if one ignores the context, one cannot pass the barriers;
Edit: “I consider my questions to EB carefully, for I value his answers.”
I consider my answers to Taoman carefully, for I value his questions. Thus I have heard: “First get to know the appearance of cause and effect in 84.000 things, then break free from the extreme views. In there, Tao.”
Namaste
😵
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by black beetleThese words are as sparkling fresh water, to clear the blurry eyes. Thank you again, kind EB.
Edit: “Discriminating purity and defilements - is this not a constant asking of questions?”
Greetings, Taoman!
Methinks that “discriminating purity and defilements” is not merely a constant asking of questions but a constant conflict (that can take countless forms) between clear light/ od’ gsal, and the mind that embraces solely one of the Two Truth ...[text shortened]... in 84.000 things, then break free from the extreme views. In there, Tao.”
Namaste
😵
I vacillate between the Two Truths when I am addressing those of the Two Truths. I cannot go further, and it frustrates, which is a clinging in me. (I just now recognize that it is not any "I" that "brings about" the clear light ultimately). Yet I cannot see silence as helpful for them, in most cases and in this context. Alone, it is different.
The words I find in Longchempa (and expressed differently in Nagarjuna) on any goal seeking -mental, moral or otherwise - as still being trapped in duality have been most rich and yet I think I yet miss something that you are pointing too. I will reflect on your words.
All is "unestablished". This word resonates with light, a light to show the way in the Blue Dragon's Cave.
Namaste.
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by TaomanEdit: “I vacillate between the Two Truths when I am addressing those of the Two Truths. I cannot go further, and it frustrates, which is a clinging in me. (I just now recognize that it is not any "I" that "brings about" the clear light ultimately). Yet I cannot see silence as helpful for them, in most cases and in this context. Alone, it is different.”
These words are as sparkling fresh water, to clear the blurry eyes. Thank you again, kind EB.
I vacillate between the Two Truths when I am addressing those of the Two Truths. I cannot go further, and it frustrates, which is a clinging in me. (I just now recognize that it is not any "I" that "brings about" the clear light ultimately). Yet I cannot see silen ...[text shortened]... word resonates with light, a light to show the way in the Blue Dragon's Cave.
Namaste.
Two Truths is not a “This and That” condition, is not a “Yin and Yang” condition, is not approached the Aristotlean way. Two Truths become obvious when you apply the catuskoti (that is, to imply a self when a self is non-existent, it is not tenable) and when you use Two Sights.
To “go further” (gategateparagateparasamgatebodhisatva) you need context, persistence, training, meditation, conceptual and non-conceptual awareness pointing towards the emerging avoidance of the dualism and thus pointing towards the overcoming of the pole of the Two Truths, ie pointing towards the overcoming of the extremes). During this process Two Truths is at first neither Two Truths, then neither One, then neither both Two and One, and then no neither Two and One (“…in the beginning mountains, then no mountains, at last mountains again&rdquo😉.
So Two Truths is a tool developed by the mind alone; one gets to know what is it exactly and thus one does not “carry it along”, instead one simply evaluates whatever has to be evaluated whenever something has to be evaluated (for example, the down to the ground Elder Brothers are talking about a funny mental situation, in which “one hangs around on the mountains carrying a boat on his back” etc). After this procedure, no clinging. And the practitioner breaks free.
Being free, at last Void/ Mu! This silence is not helpful to the one that is not aware of it, instead it is used, amongst else, as a tool so that the practitioner (exhausted due to the fact that he is unable to find an intellectual way out, ie as is the case with the koans) is pressed to cultivate Two Truths by means of pure conduct. However this specific (at the same time both conceptual and non-conceptual awareness) silence is valued in the tradition, for it enables satori.
After satori, thanks to constant love and compassion, practice, full awareness and meditation, the attention of the expanded mind is permanently locked at that point (Tao/ Middle Way/ Void), hence enlightenment. Alone or not, it is just the same.
Namaste
😵
15 Oct 12
Originally posted by black beetleThank you EB. Much to contemplate.
Edit: “I vacillate between the Two Truths when I am addressing those of the Two Truths. I cannot go further, and it frustrates, which is a clinging in me. (I just now recognize that it is not any "I" that "brings about" the clear light ultimately). Yet I cannot see silence as helpful for them, in most cases and in this context. Alone, it is different.” ...[text shortened]... o/ Middle Way/ Void), hence enlightenment. Alone or not, it is just the same.
Namaste
😵
While there is the obvious View that is the same, the means and description of the two approaches to the view appear with differences. From both sides Dzogchen and Chan(Zen) Buddhism I hear deep conviction.
Nevertheless that is not the core. Mind, as EB continues to remind, is the core, or the locus of action/nonaction. and of release. Both involve stillness and receptivity, one very much more structured and formal than the other. One is process-oriented, the other presence-oriented. Both flanked by banners of great merit.
Where is the door for the common (Western) man, no monk-likeness about most, whatsoever?
16 Oct 12
1 edit
Originally posted by Maxwell SmartThere! Your keen awareness...scanning...thoughts! Now scan and think without awareness.
Just scanned this thread...I am now keenly aware that I have wasted the last few minutes, and will never get them back...
Time is a mind-born concept. If your mind was so easily wasted with thought, you would have none by now. Yet it, as you say, remains "keenly aware".
Marvellous!
Anyway these discussions you have wandered into, are likely in a different room to your usual. No big deal. Would you mind terribly closing the door if you are leaving, its getting a tad chilly. You are welcome anytime.