If total freedom is to be able to pursuit and indulge yourself in all the desires you have, then you need to redefine the word total. Total freedom can only be governed by the person in possesion of it.
All your decisions.
All your actions.
All your thoughts.
They must be governed by you.
If your desires and the circumstances around you are in control of your actions, thoughts and decisions then you, in essence, are not totally free.
By detaching yourself completely from your desires and influences of your physical surrounding, you can achieve total freedom. Then, you choose what you want to do at this very moment in time (be it making love, eating, climbing or any other thing you find fullfilling and worthwhile).
This, of course, is an impossibility in a world where so many things depends on what you do; where everything is controlled by money and your limitations to do exactly what you want to do.
I want to fly. I want to soar way up in the skies and feel the warmth of the sun on my face and the fresh air filling my lungs. This of course is not an option unless: 1) I grow wings, or 2) I have the time and money to afford the training and material needed to go hang gliding. None of which is possible at this point in my life. Thus, I cannot be totally free even if I do manage to detach myself from my desires and go choosing to hang glide. Only in my dreams can I achieve the total freedom I desire.
'''
Oh, and in poetry. Yes. Poetry is the total escape from this world wherein my essence can find moments of total freedom. Aaaah, poetry. Beautiful is it, and powerful.
...
Detach!!! I got work to do. Bye now.
Originally posted by stockenCan you want something you don't desire?
By detaching yourself completely from your desires and influences of your physical surrounding, you can achieve total freedom. Then, you choose what you want to do at this very moment in time (be it making love, eating, climbing or any other thing you find fullfilling and worthwhile).
Originally posted by PalynkaI'm bored of this. Don't you get it? Maybe this will help.
Can you want something you don't desire?
Question: We all have dreams or ideals. Desires seem to come in at least two kinds. Some are low class, like "I want that cheesecake." Others are high class, such as, "I want to see peace in this world," or "I want to see my family flourish." Is there any difference between these?
Zen Master Wu Bong: We talk about desire, and we talk about aspiration. They are a little different. How can we help this world? Every morning at the Zen Center we recite the Four Great Vows. The first vow says, "Sentient beings are numberless, we vow to save them all." We call that an aspiration, or a great vow. On the other hand, desire means wanting something for me. You said, for example, "my family will thrive." That is my family. Why only my family?
That is desire mind. But, "May all families thrive" is an aspiration. Not only for human families: tree families, dog families, cat families . . . any kind of family. That has no "I, my, me."
If one says, "This enlightenment business sounds good; I want enlightenment," that is desire mind. This mind doesn't even understand enlightenment, so why does it want it? But, if one says, "I don't understand my true self; what am I?", then this question takes away desire mind. So, if you cultivate desire, then desire will grow. If you cultivate great question, then desire disappears.
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThat's an artificial distinction, at least as it pertains to what Palynka was referring to. Why would a person deconstruct/detach himself? Because he wishes/wants/desires it. That's not a "may all families have peace" aspiration; it's a personal desire.
I'm bored of this. Don't you get it? Maybe this will help.
Question: We all have dreams or ideals. Desires seem to come in at least two kinds. Some are low class, like "I want that cheesecake." Others are high class, such as, "I want to see peace in this world," or "I want to see my family flourish." Is there any difference between these?
Zen Ma ...[text shortened]... desire will grow. If you cultivate great question, then desire disappears.
"I don't understand my true self; what am I?"
If you don't have an idea of what you are, how can you say you don't understand your true self? And when you say "I don't understand my true self" what does the "I" refer to? And what does "true self[sic]" mean? Does that mean that when you look in the mirror while shaving you're looking at a false self? That the person in the mirror is not you in some form?
Why does a person ask this question? Because he desires to know what he is.
Originally posted by lucifershammerWhat sort of question is that?
If you don't have an idea of what you are, how can you say you don't understand your true self?
"I" is a word. Do you suppose that you consist of words?
The question I'm asking is a question without words.
The aspiration to transcend ego can hardly be said to be a personal desire. What does the ego have to gain from it?
But enough! I'm done with this...
Today is grocery shopping, so I’ve only got a few minutes; but I’ve read through the latest posts, and it strikes me that there is a problem of definitions. For example, yesterday LH made a correction to one of my statements by substituting “being” for “existence.” I made a facetious remark, but then realized that it might be taken seriously and withdrew it—“being” was fine for me in that context because it really didn’t change the point I was making; if being is a more correct term, I’m happy to use it.
It seems to me that Wu Bong was in a sense defining his terms in the statements quoted by BdN. If those distinguishing definitions are useful to you, use them. If not, change them. Another example: My distinction between “illusion” and “delusion” is not a strictly “dictionary” distinction, simply one that I find helpful in translating differing notions about maya
Regarding desire: I tend to use that word as synonymous with “want” and “preference.” Sometimes in the Buddhist literature, I think there is a distinction between “detachment” and “non-attachment.” I don’t know if that distinction is important or helpful. If I have a desire for caviar for lunch, how attached am I to that desire? How much emotional reaction occurs (how much “anguish” ) if my desire is thwarted by circumstance (I find that I can only afford corned-beef hash)? If I am not in any way “identified” (another word sometimes used) with that particular desire, then why would my body/mind suffer anguish (or disappointment—I’m using anguish to cover all degrees of the feeling)? If I suffer anguish because my desire is thwarted, then I am attached. If I am not attached, then I can easily say, “Oh well, corned-beef hash is okay. Can I get eggs with that?”
Perhaps another way of looking at it is, “How ‘stuck’ do I become in my desires? Do I somehow feel a compulsion to pursue them, even if that pursuit distracts me from other wonderful possibilities in my life?” Sometimes that ‘stuckness’ can become an addiction (noting that addiction may be physiological at root). I know an alcoholic who, through AA, has not had a drink in 20+ years. The physical craving has never completely disappeared, but he has learned to become “detached” from it. Through practicing that particular methodology (the 12-steps), he has also learned to view things with a more general non-attachment, and seldom suffers anguish even under adverse circumstances—the word he would use is probably “serenity.”
A method I sometimes use, when I find myself getting caught up in what I call the “soap opera” is to simply say to myself, “Step out.” The image is of a batter holding up his hand and stepping back out of the batter’s box. Sometimes I have to do it more than once. For example, someone that is dear to me is currently going through a very difficult time in life—a lot of anguish and turmoil. I am the one “safe” person he can share with. But if I lose my “center” so to speak, if I get caught up in the emotional “soap opera,” I am likely just to expand the circle of anguish—and that is what he will get from me. So I say to myself “step out.” Then I can offer him a “safe-harbor” of calm. My words to him may be no more or less wise or helpful, but they will not be tainted with my own inner turmoil. Maybe he needs a little humor to slip him for a moment out of his own anguish; I am better able to do that if my voice is not choked with anger or fear at the suffering of my friend and the “injustice” of it.
Just one more note: being unattached from emotions does not mean being in a kind of state of emotionless sterility. It means being able to recognize whether or not this particular emotion is helpful (e.g., spending days worrying over the tax bill, which will come whether I worry about it or not; and be what it is whether I worry about it or not; and I will either have enough money to pay it or not regardless of my attachment to that “desire” ). With sufficient “detachment,” I can choose something other than worry, or simply keep refocusing my attention away from the tax bill toward more helpful or enjoyable things, such as going out on a date with my wife.
I do this all the time. In recent months, I have fallen out of practice (like many with my cultural conditioning, I have a certain “addiction” to the soap opera; after all, people watch soap operas because they are an accurate caricature of how people live out their lives). (Stephen Batchelor: “Sometimes the most difficult thing to remember is to remember to remember.” ) Practice increases skill. Dharma is practice. Vigilance (mindfulness) is part of the practice.
This all sounds so dry. Here is a meditation practice that Alan Watts said a Zen master told him was the best meditation practice. Laugh. Just start laughing, for no reason; if you need a reason, think of something funny. Keep laughing, say, for 10 minutes. Sustain the laughter. It might not be as difficult as you think. Your body will like it. 🙂
EDIT: Hear me laughing as I get ready to go to the grocery store....
Originally posted by Bosse de NageThe question I'm asking is a question without words.
What sort of question is that?
"I" is a word. Do you suppose that you consist of words?
The question I'm asking is a question without words.
The aspiration to transcend ego can hardly be said to be a personal desire. What does the ego have to gain from it?
But enough! I'm done with this...
Perhaps we could say: “Being precedes talking?” Even our own inner mind-talk? Or: “The territory is prior to the map?”
Some questions can only be answered by being. Until you are able to demonstrate that answer, the Zen master will simply throw your words back at you (as lucifershammer wonderfully did for me yesterday), or give you a good whack on the head!
But words too can be an expression of being (Seung Sahn roshi conducted teisho with students via the mail). So—how do you answer the question? (Ah, but I’m not a roshi!)
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI suppose "meditation" may conjure up an image of someone sitting on his ass for hours doing nothing, but you can meditate no matter what you're doing.
Hard to explain. It's just something I've been doing for a long time...noticing what's going on in my head, so thoughts don't get the better of me. Trying to see clearly. I suppose "meditation" may conjure up an image of someone sitting on his ass for hours doing nothing, but you can meditate no matter what you're doing.
There's a book on Zen & arc ...[text shortened]... ou are asking about freedom of movement...To survive in the void you need a space suit.
I now think of “meditation” as simply taking the time to abide, relaxed and at ease, in the original condition of mind, before all the “makings.” Bodhidharma called that original condition of mind “vast emptiness;” I just call it “clear.”
If you want to abide anywhere, why not abide in the original condition of your mind? Then you can “go forth” and “return” as you wish—just don’t get lost in the tangles and forget your way back! “Meditation” is a way of remembering “home.” (Getting whacked over the head in a debate can be a reminder too!)
Methods—such as koans—are simply ways of awakening to, or remembering, and deepening your familiarity with the original “territory.” When you’re “home,” you don’t need them. When you can just abide in the original condition of your mind, there is no need for “deconstruction.”
To survive in the void you need a space suit.
For some reason, this reminds me of a Zen koan that goes to the heart of the discussion here—in Zen terms, emptiness and form:
Once upon a time, a man kept a goose in a large bottle. The goose was free to leave and return to the bottle as he wished. By and by, the goose grew too large and got stuck inside the bottle. The man did not wish to break the bottle, nor did he wish to injure the goose. How will you get the goose out of the bottle?
Originally posted by vistesdI chose the term in deference to the Western philosophical current I think most amenable to Zen: Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, and all the other leaping deconstructionists who were so critical of essentialism.
When you can just abide in the original condition of your mind, there is no need for “deconstruction.”
Originally posted by Bosse de NageI've always liked the term. For me, right now, it just implied too much focus on the very things that demand focus to construct them, if that makes sense to you.
I chose the term in deference to the Western philosophical current I think most amenable to Zen: Derrida, Foucault, Barthes, and all the other leaping deconstructionists who were so critical of essentialism.
Read your vacation message: I hope all are doing well, if slowly. Many blessings your way...
“Dostoevsky once wrote ‘If God did not exist, everything would be permitted’; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. [Commentary added by LemonJello: please note, however, that existentialism does not necessarily imply atheism.] Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend u right.I suppose that Sartre quote makes sense to me. I don't know what "essence" is. Moral values are something that each person has to define for himself; however, I have defined morality for myself, and I have no problem applying my definition to others. I am a utilitarian and I think utilitarianistic ideas underlie most peoples' ideas of morality. It's well known that humans have some sort of predetermined nature; thats why we're humans and not cats or Martians a la War of the Worlds. What men "ought" to be depends on what any individual thinks. There is no magic "ought" that is independent of some being's opinion.
I am sure there are many, many dissenting opinions, and I hope to hear some of them.[/b]
Whether or not something will be permitted depends on what people will permit of themselves or others. If there's a God, then he can permit people or deny permission to people, but that's simply God or people forcing others to obey them because these beings have the power to do so.
Indeed, if absolute moral values do not exist, then you must be prepared to entertain the notion of a perfectly possible world in which, eg., The Holocaust would be just fine and dandy, or in which murder, rape, and genocide would all be morally permissible.
That world did and does exist. The Holocaust was perfectly fine and dandy...to Hitler. It was not to me or to many others. Whether something is moral or not depends on whose definition of 'morality' you're going by. Your statement above somehow still implies that there would be some sort of absolute morality, but that it would be a morality that found the Holocaust a good thing. That is different from the idea that there is no absolute morality independent of peoples' opinions or definitions.
Of course, if God does not exist, God cannot tell people they are not permitted to do anything. However other people still can; and one's conscience can encourage one not to do certain things.
...man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.
Utilitarianism is the set of principles I rely upon. I don't need "God" to give me internal security. I am surprised anyone can find such security through their belief in some dominant being who orders people around and threatens them and who they cannot safely rebel against without horrific punishment in consequence.
He discovers forthwith, that he is without excuse. For if indeed existence precedes essence, one will never be able to explain one's actions in reference to a given and specific human nature; in other words there is no determinism - man is free, man is freedom.
Excuse? What do I need excuses for? I can definitely explain my actions in reference to the physical world around me and my status as a human being; these things tremendously influence my actions. The nonexistance of God does not rule out determinism. However I still don't understand what "existence precedes essence" is supposed to mean.