Re: Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo
halfawake
Robert
Subject: Re: Kapleau's Koo-Koo-Ka-Choo (was Re: Ralph where's Waldo Emerson)
Date: Wed, 28 Oct 2009 08:48:46 -0400
From: herbzet <her...@gmail.com>
Reply-To: her...@cox.net
Organization: [ Your Message Here ! ]
Newsgroups:
alt.buddha.short.fat.guy,talk.religion.buddhism,alt.zen,alt.philosophy.zen
Sorry it took so long to get back to this; things got a bit out of
hand, and I just kept pushing it back. Didn't forget about it. Did
more than a week really slip by? Tsk, tsk, tsk. Bad herbzet, bad.
halfawake wrote:
> >>>>OTOH, if you want more direct and immediate results, you have to
define
> >>>>a level of observation that is non-delusional to start with. The
only
> >>>>one I know of is "awareness only," that is, keep examining the
fact of
> >>>>being aware rather than insentient, and restrict all investigation to
> >>>>that.
> >>>
> >>>Fine. You want to examine your awareness? Start emptying it of
objects:
> >>>see what manifests.
> >>
> >>don't have to empty it to examine it. just examine the facticity
of it,
> >>independent of what arises. there's always a meta-level. so start
with
> >>the fact of awareness and see how much you can learn about that.
> >
> > Not sure what you're talking about. I'm aware that I'm aware. I'm
aware
> > that I'm aware that I'm aware. I suppose that this could be taken, in
> > principle, to an unlimited number of levels, but truthfully, it
gets fuzzy
> > after a couple of iterations.
> >
> > Not sure what you're talking about, really.
>
> it seems funny to me that this is confusing. I am not talking about
> infinite levels of awareness of awareness, just one.
That was an attempt to understand what you meant by "there's always a
meta-level". Apparently, what I wrote is not what you meant. Well,
that's progress of a sort.
> Just being aware
> of awareness instead of taking it for granted.
Certainly that's a starting point. I've read that certain people
actually make it to teenager or young adulthood without happening
to notice that they are aware beings. They're quite startled to
realize that they have awareness of things -- their attention had
just never been drawn to that fact.
> It could be summarized
> by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
1) With regard to removing the X:
I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
"I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
in all these different cases.
It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
to be directly aware of my awareness.
(Perhaps this is what you meant by "there's always a meta-level"?)
Although I sometimes wonder -- and perhaps some would say -- that this
apparently self-reflexive awareness is illusory: that awareness can't
directly perceive itself in this way; what is being contemplated is
the memory of being aware just previously.
That is, when I am aware of, say, X, and then I direct my attention
to my awareness of X, or to the general feature of being aware of
any X,Y or Z, what is occuring is the that the object of awareness
is being shifted to the memory of being aware of X, or to the memory
of being aware of things X,Y,Z etc. in general.
Thus it would only _seem_ that I am at once both aware of X and
aware of being aware of X -- that is, it would only seem that one
can simultaneously be aware and be aware of being aware.
This is a relatively subtle point, and I don't know how important
it really is. In general I'm content to believe that my awareness
posseses the capacity to be somewhat self-reflective, so that I can
turn my attention to it, and be aware of my being aware. Good enough
for government work, one might say.
2) With regard to removing the "I":
Certainly there are many points in life when we're not particularly
aware of ourselves -- when caught up in an exciting movie, for example,
we might be watching entirely unselfconsciously, unconscious of self,
aware only of the story unfolding onscreen. Or similarly when reading
a very engaging book, or when we're wrapped up in any of many attention-
engaging activities.
Personally, when I direct my attention to my awareness (thus "being aware
of being aware") I am generally aware of myself being aware; that is, I
am not unselfconsciously aware of being aware. Turning my attention
thusly inwards, I am quite aware of it being "my" awareness.
Perhaps with some strong concentration on the the object of awareness
(the awareness itself) one could more-or-less be aware of the awareness
only, i.e., unselfconsciously, with no consciousness of the awareness as
being one's own.
I've never really tried this excercise -- is this something you have
are able to accomplish?
Perhaps you mean by "removing both the 'I' and the 'X'" just that
we can come to perceive the fact of our awareness, that awareness
being distinct from both its bearer and its object.
> But even with the "I" and the "X" still hanging around, one can wonder
> at the fact that awareness of X can take place, where X is any object of
> awareness at all,
Wonder indeed; it *is* a rather startling fact that it should exist at all.
Perhaps you meant something more, or different, here? By "wonder" you
perhaps mean a more active inquisitiveness into the nature of the
awareness directly apperceived?
> such that the X becomes transparent [in that it is
> arbitrary and can be replaced by any other object X,]
Um, ok, though that seems an unusual way of putting it.
> and the awareness of X becomes more obvious.
Yes.
> My contention is that we are *not* aware of being aware, that we take it
> for granted and know it only conceptually, as a fact, not an experience.
Hm, this could be similar to what I was saying above about being aware
of the memory of being aware, perhaps with "concept" substituted for
"memory".
Would you care to expand upon that remark?
(Note: need to talk more about emptying the awareness of objects,
as previously mentioned.)
--
hz
halfawake
I was thinking of the possibility of a next-level view, rather than a
continuing stepping back. Perhaps if I had said "the" meta-level it
would have been more clear.
>
> > Just being aware
> > of awareness instead of taking it for granted.
>
> Certainly that's a starting point. I've read that certain people
> actually make it to teenager or young adulthood without happening
> to notice that they are aware beings. They're quite startled to
> realize that they have awareness of things -- their attention had
> just never been drawn to that fact.
I think most awareness of awareness is intellectual, although that in
itself can become a serious contemplation if obsessive enough.
>
> > It could be summarized
> > by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
>
> 1) With regard to removing the X:
>
> I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
> "I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
> of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
> in all these different cases.
>
> It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
> to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
> to be directly aware of my awareness.
>
> (Perhaps this is what you meant by "there's always a meta-level"?)
Being aware most directly with the awareness, or even the "fact" of
awareness
>
> Although I sometimes wonder -- and perhaps some would say -- that this
> apparently self-reflexive awareness is illusory: that awareness can't
> directly perceive itself in this way; what is being contemplated is
> the memory of being aware just previously.
That's possible, even if so, the toggling action of going from object of
awareness to awareness [of object] is a profound shift that allows one
to at least contemplate the fact of awareness more directly.
In addition I have a sense of continuing the return of attention to
awareness itself, even the "fact" of awareness which would more of a
contemplative rather than directly perceptual action, to create a kind
of feedback loop, wherein even though the brain delays the immediate
perception through its processing time-lag, the moments coming into the
flow of experience [even though delayed] will wind up creating a
continuous experience of the nature of awareness, from the point of view
of the awareness that is available from the personal standpoint. This
wash, if it replaces the perceptual focus on objects for a period of
time, will create a shift in identity from self/other to identity as
awareness itself, which may possibly define enlightenment.
There is something about an extended period of time observing awareness
itself that causes transformation, whatever the mode.
The above reflects my sense of two important techniques in Ch'an/zen:
Hui-Neng's idea of turning attention away from the ordinary functioning
of the mind to directly discern the "essence of mind," which I take to
be a more specific indication of the role and nature of awareness in the
act of mental/perceptual functioning of sentient beings; and the
Japanese technique of "eko hensho," which is defined as taking the light
of awareness and turning it away from the perception of objects to shine
back on its own source.
apz contributor takuji seiji gave me an interesting analogy for eko
hensho. First he used the image of a donkey looking at its reflection
in a well. I would take this to represent development of mindfulness or
focused awareness. Then he expressed eko hensho as taking the
standpoint of the reflection looking back at the donkey.
>
> That is, when I am aware of, say, X, and then I direct my attention
> to my awareness of X, or to the general feature of being aware of
> any X,Y or Z, what is occuring is the that the object of awareness
> is being shifted to the memory of being aware of X, or to the memory
> of being aware of things X,Y,Z etc. in general.
>
> Thus it would only _seem_ that I am at once both aware of X and
> aware of being aware of X -- that is, it would only seem that one
> can simultaneously be aware and be aware of being aware.
In the feedback loop, or stream of attention created by continuing to
return the attention to awareness itself, this sense of only viewing
memories is overcome by continued memory-experience of the same base of
awareness. If one watches a delayed live tv feed and continues to watch
it, one is seeing everything a second later, but can still track the
pattern of the nature of those being viewed on the screen. While we are
stuck with sensory awareness and its limitations, we can see through it
to understand the nature of that which is viewed, if attention is
focused continually enough. Even a glimpse of the nature of awareness
qua awareness awakens the mind to its source nature.
>
> This is a relatively subtle point, and I don't know how important
> it really is. In general I'm content to believe that my awareness
> posseses the capacity to be somewhat self-reflective, so that I can
> turn my attention to it, and be aware of my being aware. Good enough
> for government work, one might say.
Maybe. Might be worth looking into more.
>
> 2) With regard to removing the "I":
>
> Certainly there are many points in life when we're not particularly
> aware of ourselves -- when caught up in an exciting movie, for example,
> we might be watching entirely unselfconsciously, unconscious of self,
> aware only of the story unfolding onscreen. Or similarly when reading
> a very engaging book, or when we're wrapped up in any of many attention-
> engaging activities.
>
> Personally, when I direct my attention to my awareness (thus "being aware
> of being aware") I am generally aware of myself being aware; that is, I
> am not unselfconsciously aware of being aware. Turning my attention
> thusly inwards, I am quite aware of it being "my" awareness.
I don't think that unselfconsciousness is necessary to investigate
directly the nature of awareness. If one focuses on awareness as base
experience of experiencing, to put it another convoluted way, the "I"
sense is also included as part of the "object-side" of that experience,
and needn't be eradicated to be contextualized as part of the mix,
rather than the awareness itself. One may have the "I-thought" "I am
aware," but if one focuses on the awareness, the "I" can be bracketed
out or peripheralized, so that you get (I am) aware, with "awareness"
lit up and (I am) out of the spotlight.
>
> Perhaps with some strong concentration on the the object of awareness
> (the awareness itself) one could more-or-less be aware of the awareness
> only, i.e., unselfconsciously, with no consciousness of the awareness as
> being one's own.
I think one could even highlight the ordinary object of awareness, such
as the computer screen [or, which I think is another example of the same
thing: Bodhidharma's wall - why stare at a wall for 9 years, or was it
7?] with the continued understanding that one was "aware" of the
computer screen or wall. If attention is directed to the "being aware
of" instead of focusing on the object as the main show, the object
itself is revealed as an occasion to keep being reminded of the fact
that one is aware of it. This constant feedback that by being aware of
the computer screen one must in fact be aware can be highlighted until
the computer screen, or the wall, becomes peripheralized and the fact of
being aware of it becomes highlighted. Again one gets aware of [the
computer screen] and the awareness gets in the spotlight while the
computer screen falls into the shadows. The object becomes a kind of
mirror that keeps reflecting the fact of awareness back to you, if you
stick with it. I think that is the standpoint of the reflection of the
donkey in the well looking back at the donkey, rather than the other way
around. You are not looking at the screen, but the screen is reflecting
your looking awareness back to you every moment that you "look" with
that intention. This again has an element of contemplation or directed
attention rather than simple, dumb perception, but I think in this case
it is necessary to achieve the focus on the awareness reflection and not
let the awareness have its light absorbed by the object.
>
> I've never really tried this excercise -- is this something you have
> are able to accomplish?
Most of the time I'm too lazy to do anything much, and I content myself
with almost continual acknowledgment of the peripheral underlying
presence of awareness in all acts of perception and cognition. It's a
big activity but one I can do without much effort. One of these days
I'll get my act together and do some decent meditation again.
>
> Perhaps you mean by "removing both the 'I' and the 'X'" just that
> we can come to perceive the fact of our awareness, that awareness
> being distinct from both its bearer and its object.
That's right! You wind up with the I and the object still lurking
around, but bracketed like Husserl liked to do, so that the awareness
gets the spotlight and over time you get the continuous feedback and
reinforcement of the continual fact of awareness in your sentient
existence as the underlying base for all existence [insofar as being a
sentient being is concerned; rocks don't need to worry about this for
their existence,] which in my homemade bracketing would look like:
(I am) **aware{ness}** [of X.]
>
> > But even with the "I" and the "X" still hanging around, one can wonder
> > at the fact that awareness of X can take place, where X is any object of
> > awareness at all,
>
> Wonder indeed; it *is* a rather startling fact that it should exist at all.
I think that just contemplating that startling fact, if one is awake
enough at least to be startled by it, [many are not,] is enough to start
the ball rolling, if you hang out with it and keep returning to it.
It's a contemplation which I believe can turn into a direct perceptual
experience [although even if that is not true it can have the equivalent
effect of awakening to the base facticity of awareness.]
>
> Perhaps you meant something more, or different, here? By "wonder" you
> perhaps mean a more active inquisitiveness into the nature of the
> awareness directly apperceived?
I think that turning contemplation into a more factual apperception,
such that one at least perceives the
tathata/suchness/thusness/quiddity/whatever of the awareness and its
nature as underlying facilitating quality of all experience, if not the
awareness itself directly [we're not sure if we can do that yet] would
be a solid enough perception to awaken the mind to the nature of
experience. Maybe that's how it works; maybe its something even more
direct.
>
> > such that the X becomes transparent [in that it is
> > arbitrary and can be replaced by any other object X,]
>
> Um, ok, though that seems an unusual way of putting it.
Yeah, well, above I'm calling it spotlighting the awareness and putting
the I and object in periphery or shadow. Same thing.
>
> > and the awareness of X becomes more obvious.
>
> Yes.
>
> > My contention is that we are *not* aware of being aware, that we take it
> > for granted and know it only conceptually, as a fact, not an experience.
>
> Hm, this could be similar to what I was saying above about being aware
> of the memory of being aware, perhaps with "concept" substituted for
> "memory".
They may be related, but even while experiencing a memory disguised as a
perception, if one did not conceptualize it into an undisclosed mental
object one would keep awake to the awareness involved in perceiving the
memory. Live awareness is there at all times. One can "realize" it
even if one can't perceive it directly; but I'm not sure how that works.
I'm pretty sure that it does though with the right intent of attention.
>
> Would you care to expand upon that remark?
I hope I did above and throughout.
>
> (Note: need to talk more about emptying the awareness of objects,
> as previously mentioned.)
I'm more a fan of discerning than emptying, since I think emptying is an
artificial activity imposed on a functional transparency that doesn't
really have any content, but I'm open to suggestion. :)
Best,
Robert
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
herbzet
Ah! Okay.
> > > Just being aware of awareness instead of taking it for granted.
> >
> > Certainly that's a starting point. I've read that certain people
> > actually make it to teenager or young adulthood without happening
> > to notice that they are aware beings. They're quite startled to
> > realize that they have awareness of things -- their attention had
> > just never been drawn to that fact.
>
> I think most awareness of awareness is intellectual, although that in
> itself can become a serious contemplation if obsessive enough.
Odd -- I think of "awareness of awareness" as an easy example of
the lately forbidden "direct perception", although we have determined
(below) that this "direct awareness of awareness" might be illusory.
(I am overloading the term "perception" here, as I think we ought
to agree to only call "perception" what issues from the senses
(subdividing *that* into the raw sensory data vs. what the brain
assembles out of the data). "Direct perception" (if we can't find
another term) would mean: without the mediation of the senses.)
Certainly we say of known facts that we are aware of them: "I am
aware, sir, that George Washington was the first President." And
likewise we can say "I am aware of the fact that I am endowed with
awareness".
Now this is perhaps a slightly different sense of the word "aware"
that is better to avoid here, as it just seems like a synonym for
"know".
The known fact that we are endowed with awareness can be, as you
say, the object of serious contemplation, in the same fashion that
other facts may be the object of serious contemplation.
> > > It could be summarized
> > > by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
> >
> > 1) With regard to removing the X:
> >
> > I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
> > "I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
> > of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
> > in all these different cases.
> >
> > It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
> > to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
> > to be directly aware of my awareness.
> >
> > (Perhaps this is what you meant by "there's always a meta-level"?)
>
> Being aware most directly with the awareness, or even the "fact" of
> awareness
You rephrase my "directly aware of my awareness" to "being aware most
directly with the awareness" -- I'm not sure what distinction you're
intending to connote, especially by "with" instead of "of".
Perhaps you are, rather, elucidating "there's always a meta-level" --
which renders "or even the 'fact' of awareness" problematic for me.
Oh, dear -- this is getting convoluted.
> > Although I sometimes wonder -- and perhaps some would say -- that this
> > apparently self-reflexive awareness is illusory: that awareness can't
> > directly perceive itself in this way; what is being contemplated is
> > the memory of being aware just previously.
>
> That's possible, even if so, the toggling action of going from object of
> awareness to awareness [of object] is a profound shift that allows one
> to at least contemplate the fact of awareness more directly.
Ok, good -- I like "toggling".
> In addition I have a sense of continuing the return of attention to
> awareness itself, even the "fact" of awareness which would more of a
> contemplative rather than directly perceptual action,
Ok.
> to create a kind
> of feedback loop, wherein even though the brain delays the immediate
> perception through its processing time-lag, the moments coming into the
> flow of experience [even though delayed] will wind up creating a
> continuous experience of the nature of awareness, from the point of view
> of the awareness that is available from the personal standpoint. This
> wash, if it replaces the perceptual focus on objects for a period of
> time, will create a shift in identity from self/other to identity as
> awareness itself, which may possibly define enlightenment.
Well, perhaps. Continuing:
> There is something about an extended period of time observing awareness
> itself that causes transformation, whatever the mode.
Hm, it sounds like you have some experience of this.
Of course, it may be true also that prolonged observation/contemplation
of various suitable objects might cause transformations of one sort or
another.
> The above reflects my sense of two important techniques in Ch'an/zen:
> Hui-Neng's idea of turning attention away from the ordinary functioning
> of the mind to directly discern the "essence of mind," which I take to
> be a more specific indication of the role and nature of awareness in the
> act of mental/perceptual functioning of sentient beings;
What leads you to interpret "essence of mind" as "awareness"? Not that
I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to how you arrived at that.
> and the
> Japanese technique of "eko hensho," which is defined as taking the light
> of awareness and turning it away from the perception of objects to shine
> back on its own source.
I didn't know the term "eko hensho" but a quick google agrees with
your definition. I think we ought to note that what is sought is
the *source* of awareness (as I read it).
I think it is worth mentioning at this point that we lose this
supposedly constant awareness on a regular basis: each night
when we go to sleep. Whither does it go, from whence does it
come?
> apz contributor takuji seiji gave me an interesting analogy for eko
> hensho. First he used the image of a donkey looking at its reflection
> in a well. I would take this to represent development of mindfulness or
> focused awareness. Then he expressed eko hensho as taking the
> standpoint of the reflection looking back at the donkey.
Hm. Takuji says to me: Step back!
:-)
> > That is, when I am aware of, say, X, and then I direct my attention
> > to my awareness of X, or to the general feature of being aware of
> > any X,Y or Z, what is occuring is the that the object of awareness
> > is being shifted to the memory of being aware of X, or to the memory
> > of being aware of things X,Y,Z etc. in general.
> >
> > Thus it would only _seem_ that I am at once both aware of X and
> > aware of being aware of X -- that is, it would only seem that one
> > can simultaneously be aware and be aware of being aware.
>
> In the feedback loop, or stream of attention created by continuing to
> return the attention to awareness itself, this sense of only viewing
> memories is overcome by continued memory-experience of the same base of
> awareness. If one watches a delayed live tv feed and continues to watch
> it, one is seeing everything a second later, but can still track the
> pattern of the nature of those being viewed on the screen. While we are
> stuck with sensory awareness and its limitations, we can see through it
> to understand the nature of that which is viewed, if attention is
> focused continually enough.
Ok.
> Even a glimpse of the nature of awareness
> qua awareness awakens the mind to its source nature.
This may be so; what makes you say that?
> > This is a relatively subtle point, and I don't know how important
> > it really is. In general I'm content to believe that my awareness
> > posseses the capacity to be somewhat self-reflective, so that I can
> > turn my attention to it, and be aware of my being aware. Good enough
> > for government work, one might say.
>
> Maybe. Might be worth looking into more.
Certainly for me; are you talking about me or you?
> > 2) With regard to removing the "I":
> >
> > Certainly there are many points in life when we're not particularly
> > aware of ourselves -- when caught up in an exciting movie, for example,
> > we might be watching entirely unselfconsciously, unconscious of self,
> > aware only of the story unfolding onscreen. Or similarly when reading
> > a very engaging book, or when we're wrapped up in any of many attention-
> > engaging activities.
> >
> > Personally, when I direct my attention to my awareness (thus "being aware
> > of being aware") I am generally aware of myself being aware; that is, I
> > am not unselfconsciously aware of being aware. Turning my attention
> > thusly inwards, I am quite aware of it being "my" awareness.
>
> I don't think that unselfconsciousness is necessary to investigate
> directly the nature of awareness. If one focuses on awareness as base
> experience of experiencing, to put it another convoluted way, the "I"
> sense is also included as part of the "object-side" of that experience,
> and needn't be eradicated to be contextualized as part of the mix,
> rather than the awareness itself. One may have the "I-thought" "I am
> aware," but if one focuses on the awareness, the "I" can be bracketed
> out or peripheralized, so that you get (I am) aware, with "awareness"
> lit up and (I am) out of the spotlight.
Ok.
Ok, I get you, I think, more or less.
It sounds to me like the whole exercise might be summed up briefly as
(for the purpose of) being mindful of one's awareness.
Does that seem a reasonably accurate bumper sticker summation?
> > I've never really tried this excercise -- is this something you have
> > are able to accomplish?
>
> Most of the time I'm too lazy to do anything much, and I content myself
> with almost continual acknowledgment of the peripheral underlying
> presence of awareness in all acts of perception and cognition. It's a
> big activity but one I can do without much effort. One of these days
> I'll get my act together and do some decent meditation again.
>
> >
> > Perhaps you mean by "removing both the 'I' and the 'X'" just that
> > we can come to perceive the fact of our awareness, that awareness
> > being distinct from both its bearer and its object.
>
> That's right! You wind up with the I and the object still lurking
> around, but bracketed like Husserl liked to do, so that the awareness
> gets the spotlight and over time you get the continuous feedback and
> reinforcement of the continual fact of awareness in your sentient
> existence as the underlying base for all existence [insofar as being a
> sentient being is concerned; rocks don't need to worry about this for
> their existence,] which in my homemade bracketing would look like:
>
> (I am) **aware{ness}** [of X.]
'kay.
> > > But even with the "I" and the "X" still hanging around, one can wonder
> > > at the fact that awareness of X can take place, where X is any object of
> > > awareness at all,
> >
> > Wonder indeed; it *is* a rather startling fact that it should exist at all.
>
> I think that just contemplating that startling fact, if one is awake
> enough at least to be startled by it, [many are not,] is enough to start
> the ball rolling, if you hang out with it and keep returning to it.
> It's a contemplation which I believe can turn into a direct perceptual
> experience [although even if that is not true it can have the equivalent
> effect of awakening to the base facticity of awareness.]
>
> >
> > Perhaps you meant something more, or different, here? By "wonder" you
> > perhaps mean a more active inquisitiveness into the nature of the
> > awareness directly apperceived?
>
> I think that turning contemplation into a more factual apperception,
> such that one at least perceives the
> tathata/suchness/thusness/quiddity/whatever of the awareness and its
> nature as underlying facilitating quality of all experience, if not the
> awareness itself directly [we're not sure if we can do that yet] would
> be a solid enough perception to awaken the mind to the nature of
> experience. Maybe that's how it works; maybe its something even more
> direct.
Ok -- we shall see, perhaps.
> > > such that the X becomes transparent [in that it is
> > > arbitrary and can be replaced by any other object X,]
> >
> > Um, ok, though that seems an unusual way of putting it.
>
> Yeah, well, above I'm calling it spotlighting the awareness and putting
> the I and object in periphery or shadow. Same thing.
Ok, got it.
> > > and the awareness of X becomes more obvious.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > My contention is that we are *not* aware of being aware, that we take it
> > > for granted and know it only conceptually, as a fact, not an experience.
> >
> > Hm, this could be similar to what I was saying above about being aware
> > of the memory of being aware, perhaps with "concept" substituted for
> > "memory".
>
> They may be related, but even while experiencing a memory disguised as a
> perception, if one did not conceptualize it into an undisclosed mental
> object one would keep awake to the awareness involved in perceiving the
> memory. Live awareness is there at all times. One can "realize" it
> even if one can't perceive it directly; but I'm not sure how that works.
> I'm pretty sure that it does though with the right intent of attention.
Ok.
> > Would you care to expand upon that remark?
>
> I hope I did above and throughout.
Ok, I think so.
> > (Note: need to talk more about emptying the awareness of objects,
> > as previously mentioned.)
>
> I'm more a fan of discerning than emptying, since I think emptying is an
> artificial activity imposed on a functional transparency that doesn't
> really have any content, but I'm open to suggestion. :)
[Er, "functional transparency" that "doesn't have any content" is
rather obscure to me (as is, btw, "undisclosed" mental object).
But that's just by-the-way, I think.]
Summing up: It seems that you have arrived at awareness as a
fundamental property of the mind; you go so far as to
speculate/intuit that:
a) contemplation of awareness may "create a shift in identity from
self/other to identity as awareness itself" which:
b) "may possibly define enlightenment".
c) Awareness may be Hui-Neng's "essence of mind".
d) Even a glimpse of the nature of awareness qua
awareness awakens the mind to its source nature.
e) Awareness is "the underlying base for all existence"
and so on.
Although you have yet to summon up the resources to engage in
heavy duty contemplation of awareness, you have a fairly constant
practice of keeping touch with your awareness, of being consistently
(more or less) mindful of your awareness in your daily life.
In Jen's terminology, you "dwell with" your awareness, lightly but
with a fair amount of consistency. You intend to get around to some
heavy duty "dwelling with" in future.
Very well then. My thoughts:
First of all, the act of attention strongly and persistently focused
on any one of a number of suitable objects -- a candle flame, a mantra,
an internally visualized mandala, a koan, awareness, the sense of self,
the grace of God as it rains down on the just and the unjust -- is, in
itself, capable of bringing about transformation.
Two: For most people, at any waking moment, their awareness is full
of a tapestry of objects; the attention flickers from one object to
another: external objects, thoughts, feelings, memories -- a constant
flux. Importantly, there is a background *mood*; the object in the
foreground of awareness is posed against the background tapestry
of objects of awareness, which fade off into the semi-conscious and
unconscious tapestry of objects less at hand to awareness -- this
is the background *mood*, another object of attention, that fills
up the spaces in the background of awareness, so to speak.
Now, by taking your practice, in theory if not in actuality at this
time, as the contemplation of awareness, or of the bare fact of
awareness, feels to me (pace point number one above) to be something
of being in irons, or of being anchored in shallow water. Instead of
attending to awareness, I think that by systematically *emptying* the
awareness of the host of objects which naturally occupy it, getting down
to the bare awareness of awareness itself (so we're back at the same
point anyway), and then disposing of that too; and in particular
disposing of the background *mood*, which is to say, disposing of
the set of objects not occupying the foreground of awareness, disposing
of everything that arises or manifests in awareness, however subtle,
until there is is at last truly no objects of awareness at all (including
awareness of awareness), which is to say, being aware of nothing ... I feel
this is a far more dynamic practice, more likely to yield results without
spending years contemplating the blank wall of awareness (or whatever), and
totally in accordance with the Buddha's teaching of practicing the jhanas
as a means to awakening.
See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
awareness of nothing at all.
It seems to me that this is a powerful method of studying the
faculty of awareness, and of the source of that awareness, though
this practice is necessarily indirect, i.e., less direct than directing
one's attention to awareness, or the fact of awareness, itself.
--
hz
When one gets to the top of the mountain, keep climbing!
-- zen saying --
DharmaTroll
I'd like to suggest that there is no 'thing' called 'awareness' at
all. And eyes cannot look back at themselves, nor can teeth bite
themselves. When I look at my experience, there is a 'black hole',
rather than a 'source'. That is, I would consider "awareness of
awareness' to be a reflexive thought, rather than the action of being
aware. I wonder, Robert, if you are simply being aware of a thought
about being aware. Or maybe you are simply describing the first jhana
in an alternate fashion.
A NASA rocket scientist who lives up the street from me has an
interesting theory along these lines. He thinks that when we evolved
and developed language, the most primitive feedback loop, probably in
the reptile part of our brains, is the reflexive loop "I am". And that
this is the basis for all thoughts, which become more sophisticated.
He suggests that it's funny that mystics get hung up on the loop "I
am" and take it for enlightenment, when really it's just the most
basic software program in us, the minimum level of sentience.
Anyway, at times when I seem to be most 'aware', the 'focus' of
awareness jumps around faster than I can possibly sub-vocalize it.
That is, it seems to jump from a sound, to a physical sensation, to a
visual sensation, at a rate of dozens of sense impressions a second,
like the way your television screen is being constantly refreshed
pixel by pixel one at a time but faster than you can perceive it. But
talk of a 'source' sounds like you're trying to posit a self, or
worse, some kind of Transcendental Woo-Woo again...
--DharmaTroll
"A great truth is a truth whose opposite is also a truth."
-Thomas Mann
Julian
^@%>---*=#**
"DharmaTroll" <dharm...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:5f16600e-d8cc-4332...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment. I'd call it narcissism.
even funnier that you don't find
enlightenment narcissistic. do you
think krishna was egoless with
6000 wives? he dwelled at the
enlightened level of that narcissistic
core of the ego divine.
>I'd like to suggest that there is no 'thing' called 'awareness' at
>all.
and at un-all. but, mine's just a suggestion too.
>And eyes cannot look back at themselves,
you've never seen a mirror?
>nor can teeth bite
>themselves.
never had reason to
grind your teeth?
> When I look at my experience,
are we looking at that slippery biased
thing called memory to make assumptions
as to where that stacks up today?
> there is a 'black hole',
>rather than a 'source'.
there can be anything that you can imagine.
imagination is limitless and anything
imagined can be created.
>That is, I would consider "awareness of
>awareness' to be a reflexive thought,
awareness mirrors itself.
it's a cheap parlor trick.
>rather than the action of being
>aware.
this could be a slippery egoic divide and conquer
syndrome negotiation by looking at awareness
in the dual manner of noun-ness and verb-ness
simultaneously and giving it what may not actually
be its true relationship to itself.
> I wonder,
heh
brian mitchell
<intruder alert>
>First of all, the act of attention strongly and persistently focused
>on any one of a number of suitable objects -- a candle flame, a mantra,
>an internally visualized mandala, a koan, awareness, the sense of self,
>the grace of God as it rains down on the just and the unjust -- is, in
>itself, capable of bringing about transformation.
From what to what?
>Two: For most people, at any waking moment, their awareness is full
>of a tapestry of objects; the attention flickers from one object to
>another: external objects, thoughts, feelings, memories -- a constant
>flux. Importantly, there is a background *mood*; the object in the
>foreground of awareness is posed against the background tapestry
>of objects of awareness, which fade off into the semi-conscious and
>unconscious tapestry of objects less at hand to awareness -- this
>is the background *mood*, another object of attention, that fills
>up the spaces in the background of awareness, so to speak.
I think it might be necessary to distinguish between the flickering
focus of consciousness, which is reactive --it is pulled, from actual
attention.
Also, I think there's a hierarchy involved in these tapestries in that
the background mood is largely directing which and in what way
foreground objects are perceived.
>Now, by taking your practice, in theory if not in actuality at this
>time, as the contemplation of awareness, or of the bare fact of
>awareness, feels to me (pace point number one above) to be something
>of being in irons, or of being anchored in shallow water. Instead of
>attending to awareness, I think that by systematically *emptying* the
>awareness of the host of objects which naturally occupy it, getting down
>to the bare awareness of awareness itself (so we're back at the same
>point anyway), and then disposing of that too; and in particular
>disposing of the background *mood*, which is to say, disposing of
>the set of objects not occupying the foreground of awareness, disposing
>of everything that arises or manifests in awareness, however subtle,
>until there is is at last truly no objects of awareness at all (including
>awareness of awareness), which is to say, being aware of nothing ... I feel
>this is a far more dynamic practice, more likely to yield results without
>spending years contemplating the blank wall of awareness (or whatever), and
>totally in accordance with the Buddha's teaching of practicing the jhanas
>as a means to awakening.
How is this emptying or disposal-of accomplished in practice? Not
saying it can't be.
>See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
>
>These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
>I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
>particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
>the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
>to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
>reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
>even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
>awareness of nothing at all.
Is awareness of nothing at all a desired goal? How would that differ
from total anaesthesia? Or just being dead?
herbzet
brian mitchell wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
>
> <intruder alert>
>
> >First of all, the act of attention strongly and persistently focused
> >on any one of a number of suitable objects -- a candle flame, a mantra,
> >an internally visualized mandala, a koan, awareness, the sense of self,
> >the grace of God as it rains down on the just and the unjust -- is, in
> >itself, capable of bringing about transformation.
>
> From what to what?
Among other possibililities: from fetters to liberation.
> >Two: For most people, at any waking moment, their awareness is full
> >of a tapestry of objects; the attention flickers from one object to
> >another: external objects, thoughts, feelings, memories -- a constant
> >flux. Importantly, there is a background *mood*; the object in the
> >foreground of awareness is posed against the background tapestry
> >of objects of awareness, which fade off into the semi-conscious and
> >unconscious tapestry of objects less at hand to awareness -- this
> >is the background *mood*, another object of attention, that fills
> >up the spaces in the background of awareness, so to speak.
>
> I think it might be necessary to distinguish between the flickering
> focus of consciousness, which is reactive --it is pulled, from actual
> attention.
I'm all for good definitions which help to distinguish salient differences.
You are correct in noting the reactive focus, which is pulled from
object to object. However, the focus of attention is not entirely
reactive, in two ways: One, we have some control over what we do
focus on, like we have some control over our breathing. We can
willfully turn our attention from one thing to another. This does
not in itself stop reactive focusing, but occurs alongside of it.
Two, we have a certain amount of control over what we don't react
to. Small stimuli will be automatically screened out, the more so
as our attention is more strongly engaged with something of interest.
The ability to screen out stimuli can be cultivated so that it is,
again like breathing, somewhat under conscious control.
The cultivation of concentration is just this control of what will be
attended to. Some yogins, and others, can take this to quite fantastic
levels.
You wish to distinguish reactive focus from what you call "actual"
attention. I'm all for a clear distinction, if you can articulate
one.
Also here, we have a number of terms that are somewhat interchangeable
in ordinary speech, to which we could give differnent technical
meanings: awareness, attention, focus, consciousness, probably
a few others. So we have a number of terms we can assign to
a number of different mental faculties. I'm for this, if it
can be done in a useful way.
> Also, I think there's a hierarchy involved in these tapestries in that
> the background mood is largely directing which and in what way
> foreground objects are perceived.
Good point. There is a lot of feedback back and forth between fore-
ground awareness and background mood, and between attention that is
consciously directed and attention that is directed from "the unconscious",
which phenomenologically, appears as being directed from "outside".
I would hate to have to track down in detail all the reinforcing and
suppressing feedback going on in any ten seconds of consciousness!
As you say, our varying moods will condition what stimuli we will attend
to, and how they will be perceived.
Conversely, we do have some conscious control over our mood, though
ordinarily, not that much. Maybe because we just don't bother much
with exercising that faculty of control? Perhaps we sort of overlook
that, preferring to apply our efforts to dealing with whatever is
presented in the foreground of awareness.
> >Now, by taking your practice, in theory if not in actuality at this
> >time, as the contemplation of awareness, or of the bare fact of
> >awareness, feels to me (pace point number one above) to be something
> >of being in irons, or of being anchored in shallow water. Instead of
> >attending to awareness, I think that by systematically *emptying* the
> >awareness of the host of objects which naturally occupy it, getting down
> >to the bare awareness of awareness itself (so we're back at the same
> >point anyway), and then disposing of that too; and in particular
> >disposing of the background *mood*, which is to say, disposing of
> >the set of objects not occupying the foreground of awareness, disposing
> >of everything that arises or manifests in awareness, however subtle,
> >until there is is at last truly no objects of awareness at all (including
> >awareness of awareness), which is to say, being aware of nothing ... I feel
> >this is a far more dynamic practice, more likely to yield results without
> >spending years contemplating the blank wall of awareness (or whatever), and
> >totally in accordance with the Buddha's teaching of practicing the jhanas
> >as a means to awakening.
>
> How is this emptying or disposal-of accomplished in practice? Not
> saying it can't be.
First of all, we do this all the time in a relatively undisciplined
way. You say, "Listen to the ticking of the clock" and I do that,
but then I turn my attention back to the magazine article I'm
reading. The ticking of the clock is pushed out of awareness,
and I can do this consciously and with intent.
This is the primary trick -- one removes things from awareness
by willfully attending to other things. Hopefully, the number
of things residing in conscious awareness is not fixed, and by
some cleverness, we can reduce their number. In practice, by
attending strongly to one thing, a host of other things can
be pushed out of the conscious awareness.
What I'm describing here is not really anything mystical,
it's just concentration -- it's what concentration means:
willfully not paying attention to things, excluding them
from awareness. We do it all the time, though not usually
carrying it to extremes.
> >See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
> >
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
> >
> >These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
> >I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
> >particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
> >the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
> >to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
> >reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
> >even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
> >awareness of nothing at all.
>
> Is awareness of nothing at all a desired goal?
One desired goal is to see from whence and how awareness
arises, what is the nature and ground of awareness, if any.
Is this not an engaging question? Perhaps for some more
than others.
I do not say that this is the only way of going about answering
the question either, just that one way of going about it is
to remove all the objects of awareness, throwing the awareness
that's left, if any, into high relief. If by removing its objects
awareness also vanishes, then it's vanishing-and-arising can be
discerned. Perhaps. :-)
> How would that differ from total anaesthesia? Or just being dead?
Just btw, the fact that we can be deprived of awareness by anaesthesia,
or by being punched, or just by going to sleep, argues somewhat against
Robert's feeling that awareness is sort of the irreducible and perhaps
eternal foundation of mind. It's true, though, that with no conscious
awareness, it doesn't seem that there is any conscious mind, either!
People ask what is the point of emptying awareness, as if experiencing
"nothingness" was my interest. No, the questions being investigated
are like "What is the nature of awareness" or "What is the nature of
self", etc. One way of pursuing these questions is by kenosis, by self-
emptying, by removing what is removeable, and seeing what, if anything,
there is that remains and is thus an irreducible and necessary feature
of our experienced existence.
> >It seems to me that this is a powerful method of studying the
> >faculty of awareness, and of the source of that awareness, though
> >this practice is necessarily indirect, i.e., less direct than directing
> >one's attention to awareness, or the fact of awareness, itself.
--
hz
herbzet
herbzet wrote:
> Among other possibililities:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Sorry, that wasn't even close.
Senility obviously setting in.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f16600e-d8cc-4332...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment. I'd call it narcissism.
>
> even funnier that you don't find
> enlightenment narcissistic.
Not at all. Enlightenment is the non-arising of craving, aversion, and
delusion; and since craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
aversion, enlightenment would entail less narcissism and more genuine
interconnection with the real world.
> >And eyes cannot look back at themselves,
>
> you've never seen a mirror?
Yeah, but I only saw a reflection, not my own eyes directly.
> >nor can teeth bitethemselves.
>
> never had reason to grind your teeth?
Yeah, when readin' your posts. Heh.
--DharmaTroll
^@%>---*=#**
On Oct 31, 6:38 am, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5f16600e-d8cc-4332...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> >Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment. I'd call it narcissism.
>
> even funnier that you don't find
> enlightenment narcissistic.
>Not at all. Enlightenment is the non-arising of craving, aversion, and
>delusion; and since craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
>aversion, enlightenment would entail less narcissism and more genuine
>interconnection with the real world.
nope
DharmaTroll
> "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a776c091-2911-45be...@f20g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 31, 6:38 am, "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > "DharmaTroll" <dharmatr...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:5f16600e-d8cc-4332...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >Funny, I wouldn't call that enlightenment. I'd call it narcissism.
>
> > even funnier that you don't find
> > enlightenment narcissistic.
> >Not at all. Enlightenment is the non-arising of craving, aversion, and
> >delusion; and since craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
> >aversion, enlightenment would entail less narcissism and more genuine
> >interconnection with the real world.
>
> nope
Yep. Enlightenment is the non-arising of craving, aversion, and
delusion; and since craving tends to be narcissistic, as well as
aversion, enlightenment would entail less narcissism and more genuine
interconnection with the real world.
--DharmaTroll
^@%>---*=#**
nope
zenworm
DharmaTroll wrote:
"When I look at my experience, there is a 'black hole',
rather than a 'source'."
zenworm asks:
when you look at the 'black hole' without thinking
what happens?
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
DharmaTroll
The point of the term 'black hole' is that it can't be looked at,
whether you think or not. It is a 'blind spot' behind the eyes.
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
Cool! Thank's for the link, Julian.
I became a fan of D.E. Harding's "On Having No Head" when I read an
excerpt of his book when I was 18 in Daniel Dennett & Doug
Hofstadter's anthology _The Mind's I_. As I recall, the passage from
D.E. Harding was the first chapter in the book, and I remember
thinking how cool the perspective was when I read it. The exercises at
this site are great.
--DharmaTroll
"It took me no time at all to notice that this nothing, this hole,
where a head should have been, was no ordinary vacancy, no mere
nothing. On the contrary, it was very much occupied. It was a vast
emptiness vastly filled, a nothing that found room for everything --
room for grass, trees, shadowy distant hills, and far above them snow-
peaks like a row of angular clouds riding the blue sky. I had lost a
head and gained a world."
-D.E. Harding
zenworm
reaching out a hand to find something
feeling around on the floor...
running a hand across the carpet to the wall...
reaching around the furniture...
coming up empty handed
thinking: "Damn! I know there is something here!"
the receptive is bigger than the transmissive
the transmissive does not find the receptive until the
receptive receives it
when talk is abstract confusion arises because
boundaries are contrived without experience
trading one hand for the other is translational
not transformative transmission (grasping)
cannot take hold of Immensity
a drop does not hold the ocean
two drops discussing differences
will they discover what they are?
is this too abstract?
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
> > >Now, by taking your practice, in theory if not in actuality at this
> > >time, as the contemplation of awareness, or of the bare fact of
> > >awareness, feels to me (pace point number one above) to be something
> > >of being in irons, or of being anchored in shallow water. Instead of
> > >attending to awareness, I think that by systematically *emptying* the
> > >awareness of the host of objects which naturally occupy it, getting down
> > >to the bare awareness of awareness itself (so we're back at the same
> > >point anyway), and then disposing of that too; and in particular
> > >disposing of the background *mood*, which is to say, disposing of
> > >the set of objects not occupying the foreground of awareness, disposing
> > >of everything that arises or manifests in awareness, however subtle,
> > >until there is is at last truly no objects of awareness at all (including
> > >awareness of awareness), which is to say, being aware of nothing ... I feel
> > >this is a far more dynamic practice, more likely to yield results without
> > >spending years contemplating the blank wall of awareness (or whatever), and
> > >totally in accordance with the Buddha's teaching of practicing the jhanas
> > >as a means to awakening.
>
> > How is this emptying or disposal-of accomplished in practice? Not
> > saying it can't be.
>
> First of all, we do this all the time in a relatively undisciplined
> way. You say, "Listen to the ticking of the clock" and I do that,
> but then I turn my attention back to the magazine article I'm
> reading. The ticking of the clock is pushed out of awareness,
> and I can do this consciously and with intent.
reticular activator?
brian mitchell
>reaching out a hand to find something
>feeling around on the floor...
>running a hand across the carpet to the wall...
>reaching around the furniture...
>coming up empty handed
>thinking: "Damn! I know there is something here!"
>
>the receptive is bigger than the transmissive
>the transmissive does not find the receptive until the
>receptive receives it
>
>when talk is abstract confusion arises because
>boundaries are contrived without experience
>
>trading one hand for the other is translational
>not transformative transmission (grasping)
>cannot take hold of Immensity
>
>a drop does not hold the ocean
>two drops discussing differences
>will they discover what they are?
>
>is this too abstract?
Somewhat.
What do "the transmissive" and "the receptive" refer to in the context
of this discussion (about attention)?
And could you tell me why people who believe themselves to be
enlightened all start talking like David Carradine out of "Kung Fu"?
PS: It has been said that at the moment of self-realization the ocean
does indeed merge with the drop.
brian mitchell
>You wish to distinguish reactive focus from what you call "actual"
>attention. I'm all for a clear distinction, if you can articulate
>one.
I don't know about clear. I just note in myself that consciousness can
be very active, scanning and logging and comparing, without ever quite
being *with* anything. Against that I have the image of the infant
gaze, unblinking and deeply absorbent. You speak about controlled
attention (concentration) as being exclusive; I'd characterise the
full attention I have in mind as being inclusive, and very still. So
there seems to be 'attention with gain' (reactive focus) and
'attention without gain.' But whether these are differences of kind
or of degree, I couldn't say.
>Also here, we have a number of terms that are somewhat interchangeable
>in ordinary speech, to which we could give differnent technical
>meanings: awareness, attention, focus, consciousness, probably
>a few others. So we have a number of terms we can assign to
>a number of different mental faculties. I'm for this, if it
>can be done in a useful way.
Yes. The problem would be in getting international agreement. After
Copenhagen?
>People ask what is the point of emptying awareness, as if experiencing
>"nothingness" was my interest. No, the questions being investigated
>are like "What is the nature of awareness" or "What is the nature of
>self", etc. One way of pursuing these questions is by kenosis, by self-
>emptying, by removing what is removeable, and seeing what, if anything,
>there is that remains and is thus an irreducible and necessary feature
>of our experienced existence.
I wouldn't want you to think I'm being critical of this proposal. In
fact, I'd like to hear more about your own experience with it.
zenworm
yes look was a poor word choice 'see' would be better.
somehow you are aware of 'black hole'
that 'seeing' is used to 'see' [it]
Does Trollpa believe in 'can't'?
zenworm
> zenworm wrote:
> >reaching out a hand to find something
> >feeling around on the floor...
> >running a hand across the carpet to the wall...
> >reaching around the furniture...
> >coming up empty handed
> >thinking: "Damn! I know there is something here!"
>
> >the receptive is bigger than the transmissive
> >the transmissive does not find the receptive until the
> >receptive receives it
>
> >when talk is abstract confusion arises because
> >boundaries are contrived without experience
>
> >trading one hand for the other is translational
> >not transformative transmission (grasping)
> >cannot take hold of Immensity
>
> >a drop does not hold the ocean
> >two drops discussing differences
> >will they discover what they are?
>
> >is this too abstract?
>
> >Somewhat.
Brian asked:
What do "the transmissive" and "the receptive" refer
to in the context of this discussion (about attention)?
Perhaps a metaphorical model would help.
SONAR
Active ping - 'Transmissive' a specific 'point of origin'
(self)actively transmitting a powerful signal. (tactical)
The attention is on the specific bounce back information expected as
it returns. For the purposes of active all
other signal and even indirect bouncing of the active
signal are not used. It is a very direct actively interactive
process. ping - return - ping - return etc.
attention on the return is highly filtered only the most
direct easiest to interpret part of the signal is used.
The listening bandwidth is all used in a very narrowly
applied way. this is like the mind. The doer must do.
Very active, very powerful, very useful for focused
applications like targeting assessment and
survival/threat evaluation. immediate and intense and
enabling a localized focus of heightened attention.
The egoic trick of taking ownership of this intense
localization and maintaining an element of fear is the
way ego keeps people in a distorted version of this
active mode of attention. It is of course very
stressful and energy intensive so people are
constantly bouncing between intensity and collapse.
(suffering? dukkha?)
Receptive listening - 'Receptive'. No intentional
signal is transmitted. All output reduced to as little
as possible. (strategical) Listening arrays are strung
out for miles. Silent running to enhance and facilitate
as much nuance in listening as possible. The ideal is
no self generated output/noise of any kind. All
attention bandwidth completely devoted to passive
listening. Attention is not locally focused but opened
as broad as possible. All reflecting, bouncing,
distortions and origins are received as an wholistic
ambiance tapestry of awareness, nothing is rejected.
Sensitivity is turned all the way up and filtration is
nonexistent or very subtle and very specific and
intentional. This is like the heart accepting the
vulnerability of being open to everything. Absolutely
immediate, spontaneous, and without localized
focus or origin. Object are not dependent on an
originating signal and lose their projected individual
(signal bounce label identities) and become a
singular tapestry. Without the focus on point of
origin and return, point of origin loses emotional
intensity, Attention is decentralized, receiving
without a drive to a specific objective
(effortlessness). At a certain point the dissolution
of the ownership dependency on the point of origin
(ego) reaches a tipping point where it can not
re-establish itself in exclusion of the awareness of
the receptive wholistic ambiance as the bandwidth
(neural structure) has been established for
receptivity and the emotionally invested distracting
egoic structures are dissolved. (imperturbable serenity)
With this metaphor we can tie in the thread about
cessation of metal fermentation with regards to
consciousness as the dependency between the
ownership arising from the point of origin in
signaling for bounce-back from the owned
definitions of objectified appearances of form
cause the dependent arising of self consciousness
out of that self-same ownership. This points out
the wisdom of realizing the ownership of the
objectification of 'objects' is seen through before
the emotional energizing is dropped. This is a
good reason for translational exercises wherein
content is exchanged for content. Translational
exercise does not change egoic structure but it
can help greatly with seeing through the
ownership of objectification. Like a form letter.
The egoic structure of the 'form' is not directly
dependent on the objects of the 'content' of the letter.
The swapping of content can help reveal the form
has not changed which in turn reveals the assumed
dependency (needful grasping) of particular objects
is delusional.
We can also tie in the brain thread and understand
that the miraculous machinery of the brain actually
grows structure for what we focus on (bring attention
to) so bandwidth actually increases as practice
(attention) continues. The bandwidth capacity of the
brain with regards to any particular behavior actually
increases due to neurons in that stimulated area of
the brain growing faster.
There was also some mention of watching the process
of thinking - experiencing - thinking - experiencing this
parallels the active sonar metaphor of ping - return -
ping - return
Of course people can and do experience both
metaphorical modes simultaneously with a learned and
ingrained habit of grasping dependency (active mode).
This is why choice of where the attention is focused
is important. Bringing the attention to experiencing the
here and now breaks the egoic futuristic grasping.
welcome to Moment
Brian asked:
"And could you tell me why people who
believe themselves to be enlightened all start
talking like David Carradine out of "Kung Fu"?"
Daoism is all about receptivity and there was
a lot of cool Dao philosophy dramatically rendered
in that show.
The Tao Teh Ching has many
paradoxical elements in it including the famous
first line:
"Tao can be talked about, but not the Eternal Tao."
Shambhala 2006 edition trans by C. H. Wu
(translations vary greatly)
People who believe are not awake.
Belief is one of the names of the emotional investment
into the egoic structure of ownership of objectification.
Playing with and expressing paradoxes may be a way
people work with words and exchange content in a
translational way to highlight/reveal ownership.
If you ask for clarification
and things do not get clearer
be skeptical.
recklessly wordy
is this helpful?
Brian wrote:
"PS: It has been said that at the moment of self-realization
the ocean does indeed merge with the drop."
in this Moment of no-self
no drop is ever separate
drop
wave
ocean
not separate
not-two
DharmaTroll
But there's nothing to see. There is no 'it' to see. Just as you don't
see cameras when you are watching a movie.
--DharmTroll
zenworm
this is an great metaphor!
not the movie
not the audience
not the theatre
not the screen
find the director!
herbzet
zenworm wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > Conversely, we do have some conscious control over our mood, though
> > ordinarily, not that much. Maybe because we just don't bother much
> > with exercising that faculty of control? Perhaps we sort of overlook
> > that, preferring to apply our efforts to dealing with whatever is
> > presented in the foreground of awareness.
>
> reaching out a hand to find something
> feeling around on the floor...
> running a hand across the carpet to the wall...
> reaching around the furniture...
> coming up empty handed
> thinking: "Damn! I know there is something here!"
So far, so good.
> the receptive is bigger than the transmissive
> the transmissive does not find the receptive until the
> receptive receives it
Whut?
> when talk is abstract confusion arises because
> boundaries are contrived without experience
When talk is abstract confusion may arise for
various reasons, one of which may be because
boundaries are contrived without experience.
So?
> trading one hand for the other is translational
> not transformative transmission (grasping)
> cannot take hold of Immensity
Whut?
> a drop does not hold the ocean
> two drops discussing differences
> will they discover what they are?
Whut?
> is this too abstract?
Maybe that's the problem, maybe not.
--
zenworm
> zenworm wrote:
> > herbzet wrote:
> > > Conversely, we do have some conscious control over our mood, though
> > > ordinarily, not that much. Maybe because we just don't bother much
> > > with exercising that faculty of control? Perhaps we sort of overlook
> > > that, preferring to apply our efforts to dealing with whatever is
> > > presented in the foreground of awareness.
>
> > reaching out a hand to find something
> > feeling around on the floor...
> > running a hand across the carpet to the wall...
> > reaching around the furniture...
> > coming up empty handed
> > thinking: "Damn! I know there is something here!"
>
> So far, so good.
>
> > the receptive is bigger than the transmissive
> > the transmissive does not find the receptive until the
> > receptive receives it
>
> Whut?
thinking there was (in the example above) no
'finding' because what was sought was not found
is projection. Many things were found (floor carpet
furniture walls) and the absence of the thing sought.
ZN :D
absolute permanent perfection overflowing without action
> > when talk is abstract confusion arises because
> > boundaries are contrived without experience
>
> When talk is abstract confusion may arise for
> various reasons, one of which may be because
> boundaries are contrived without experience.
>
> So?
>
> > Trading one hand for the other is translational
> > not transformative.
> > Transmission (grasping) cannot take hold of Immensity.
herbzet
brian mitchell wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
>
> >You wish to distinguish reactive focus from what you call "actual"
> >attention. I'm all for a clear distinction, if you can articulate
> >one.
>
> I don't know about clear. I just note in myself that consciousness can
> be very active, scanning and logging and comparing, without ever quite
> being *with* anything. Against that I have the image of the infant
> gaze, unblinking and deeply absorbent.
Yes, good image. We don't normally have an infant's effortless
absorption.
(I like to ask people, do you remember the rug you used to crawl on?
It used to be a very big part of the world.)
> You speak about controlled
> attention (concentration) as being exclusive; I'd characterise the
> full attention I have in mind as being inclusive, and very still.
Hence by my definition, that wouldn't be a state of concentration!
It seems that you are talking at once about two things: the scope
of attention (exclusive vs. inclusive) and the kinetics(?) of attention
(being very still vs. jumping from object to object (e.g., making one
background object after another the foreground object, or having one's
attention "grabbed" by a new stimulus.)).
Probably we're talking, at least in part, about the distinction
between mindfulness and concentration. The seventh and eighth
parts of the Eightfold path distinguish between right mindfulness
and right concentration as (complementary) means to the ending of
of desire (tanha), and hence suffering (dukka).
> So
> there seems to be 'attention with gain' (reactive focus) and
> 'attention without gain.' But whether these are differences of kind
> or of degree, I couldn't say.
I'm not sure what you mean by "gain" (my first image was electronic
gain, like the gain of an amplifier).
You appear to want to distinguish "reactive focus", in which our attention
jumps (or is pulled) from object to object, from some other sort of attention;
perhaps a steady attention on one, or many, or all objects present in awareness.
> >Also here, we have a number of terms that are somewhat interchangeable
> >in ordinary speech, to which we could give differnent technical
> >meanings: awareness, attention, focus, consciousness, probably
> >a few others. So we have a number of terms we can assign to
> >a number of different mental faculties. I'm for this, if it
> >can be done in a useful way.
>
> Yes. The problem would be in getting international agreement. After
> Copenhagen?
Yeah, heh-heh. At least we can make some stabs in that direction,
talking here amongst ourselves.
Let us not forget, though, our vast international and always highly
theoretical audience, which looks to us for guidance in these darkling
and esoteric matters.
Terminology can always easily be swapped for alternative terminolgy.
There isn't anyone working in symbolic logic, for example, who doesn't
routinely switch notations when talking to different audiences. That's
much easier than one might imagine (though you'd really think they'd have
settled on a standard notation by now).
> >People ask what is the point of emptying awareness, as if experiencing
> >"nothingness" was my interest. No, the questions being investigated
> >are like "What is the nature of awareness" or "What is the nature of
> >self", etc. One way of pursuing these questions is by kenosis, by self-
> >emptying, by removing what is removeable, and seeing what, if anything,
> >there is that remains and is thus an irreducible and necessary feature
> >of our experienced existence.
>
> I wouldn't want you to think I'm being critical of this proposal. In
> fact, I'd like to hear more about your own experience with it.
It was just a technique I stumbled on one day -- remove from awareness what
is removeable, leaving what is irremovable, if such there be. Would that
not be of interest? Push it to the end, you're likely to get a surprise.
--
hz
"When you get to the top of the mountain, keep climbing!"
-- zen saying --
-
halfawake
Hm...we'll have to coordinate on this, terminologically if not
philosophically. I think of "direct perception" as something that is
perceived with the senses, without intervening conceptualization,
subdividing conceptualization into two classes: that which is necessary
for processing of the act of perception itself; and any other concepts
that are unnecessary to perception itself but are added on, ie,
interpretive conceptualization. My definitions here are rough and
unexamined, and are probably too complicated to clean up, but they give
a sense of what I am aiming for.
However, in looking at your terms and mine, I am struck by a gap in my
understanding - which is that I haven't really examined the vehicle of
"awareness of awareness," ie, "direct perception of awareness." It
seems to me that "awareness of awareness" occurs within, through and
around the act of perception of some object, though it itself is not the
object that the perception is ostensibly perceiving. Awareness is the
root function of perception and makes perception possible, and there is
never, except for so far undisclosed circumstances, in which perception
does not take place, with only the object or objects varying. So
awareness is revealed to a witnessing apperception of some kind [still
being rough about it] when perception takes place and awareness is
discerned as the awake function of the perception and its root facilitator.
And that leads to the question: can awareness be perceived more
directly than this through awareness itself, independent of the senses,
the question you seem to be asking, and one worth contemplating. If the
mind is inherently awake, and awareness is its root quality, then it
would be alive all the time, and by turning towards its own root
awakeness the witnessing attention of the mind can directly observe its
own awareness without ever leaving the mind to encounter an outside object.
> Certainly we say of known facts that we are aware of them: "I am
> aware, sir, that George Washington was the first President." And
> likewise we can say "I am aware of the fact that I am endowed with
> awareness".
>
> Now this is perhaps a slightly different sense of the word "aware"
> that is better to avoid here, as it just seems like a synonym for
> "know".
Except for the fact that on the meta-level, one can perceive the
awareness that is at the root of "knowing" just as fruitfully as
observing the awareness that is at the root of perception. The
functions may be different, but the root awareness is the same.
>
> The known fact that we are endowed with awareness can be, as you
> say, the object of serious contemplation, in the same fashion that
> other facts may be the object of serious contemplation.
It's my suspicion that contemplating this particular fact can lead to a
direct understanding of the nature of all perceptual-mental functioning
as the offspring of awareness and perhaps lead to a more direct
perception of awareness, whereas other facts do not necessarily have the
same kinds of experiential referents. One could say that the awareness
of the fact of awareness is a "living fact" as opposed to a dead one, as
it lives right next door to the awareness itself, and is itself the
offspring of that same awareness; therefore the awareness of this fact
is surrounded on both sides by the awareness itself that it is
referencing. This is not true with the awareness of the existence of an
armadillo in New Mexico, and even if it was, the armadillo if directly
perceived would have no special relationship to the awareness that was
perceiving its existence, whereas the fact of awareness does have a
special relationship to awareness itself, being in intimate and
immediate conjunction with it.
>
>
>
>>> > It could be summarized
>>> > by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
>>>
>>>1) With regard to removing the X:
>>>
>>>I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
>>>"I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
>>>of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
>>>in all these different cases.
>>>
>>>It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
>>>to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
>>>to be directly aware of my awareness.
>>>
>>>(Perhaps this is what you meant by "there's always a meta-level"?)
>>
>>Being aware most directly with the awareness, or even the "fact" of
>>awareness
>
>
> You rephrase my "directly aware of my awareness" to "being aware most
> directly with the awareness" -- I'm not sure what distinction you're
> intending to connote, especially by "with" instead of "of".
I need to see the rest of my sentence there to see what I meant by that.
My suspicion is that it was the beginning of a sentence where the
"with" referred to the awareness that IS aware, rather than the
awareness that is the object of THAT awareness..... [rrr rrr rr rrrrr]
>
> Perhaps you are, rather, elucidating "there's always a meta-level" --
> which renders "or even the 'fact' of awareness" problematic for me.
in any case, "even the fact of awareness" is a tangential declension to
the lesser form of awareness of awareness, knowing it as a fact rather
than a "perception" or "direct awareness," whatever we decide on there...
>
> Oh, dear -- this is getting convoluted.
yup! :)
>
>
>
>>>Although I sometimes wonder -- and perhaps some would say -- that this
>>>apparently self-reflexive awareness is illusory: that awareness can't
>>>directly perceive itself in this way; what is being contemplated is
>>>the memory of being aware just previously.
>>
>>That's possible, even if so, the toggling action of going from object of
>>awareness to awareness [of object] is a profound shift that allows one
>>to at least contemplate the fact of awareness more directly.
>
>
> Ok, good -- I like "toggling".
I thought you might like that.
>
>
>>In addition I have a sense of continuing the return of attention to
>>awareness itself, even the "fact" of awareness which would more of a
>>contemplative rather than directly perceptual action,
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>to create a kind
>>of feedback loop, wherein even though the brain delays the immediate
>>perception through its processing time-lag, the moments coming into the
>>flow of experience [even though delayed] will wind up creating a
>>continuous experience of the nature of awareness, from the point of view
>>of the awareness that is available from the personal standpoint. This
>>wash, if it replaces the perceptual focus on objects for a period of
>>time, will create a shift in identity from self/other to identity as
>>awareness itself, which may possibly define enlightenment.
>
>
> Well, perhaps. Continuing:
>
>
>
>>There is something about an extended period of time observing awareness
>>itself that causes transformation, whatever the mode.
>
>
> Hm, it sounds like you have some experience of this.
I would have to go into a pretty rich extrapolation of this statement to
sort out what I know about this from what I think I know and what has
been supported by other related experiences that are not direct
awareness of awareness; so will save this for another thread, since it
is already so complicated. Perhaps somewhere as a sub-commentary we can
have an exchange of experiences that support or don't support this
contention.
>
> Of course, it may be true also that prolonged observation/contemplation
> of various suitable objects might cause transformations of one sort or
> another.
That's definitely true also. I'm restricting myself to the subject of
"awareness of awareness" because a/ it may be the most direct vehicle
for realization, and b/ it happens to be the method of awakening that we
are talking about, so not to muddy the waters more than they already are...
>
>
>>The above reflects my sense of two important techniques in Ch'an/zen:
>>Hui-Neng's idea of turning attention away from the ordinary functioning
>>of the mind to directly discern the "essence of mind," which I take to
>>be a more specific indication of the role and nature of awareness in the
>>act of mental/perceptual functioning of sentient beings;
>
>
> What leads you to interpret "essence of mind" as "awareness"? Not that
> I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to how you arrived at that.
It's an extrapolation of both usage and context, and I'm not 100% sure
that it would be acceptable without further specification, as he may
have a more specialized definition than that. I don't think he ever
defines the term directly but only through usage and context. I'm
interested in what the original Chinese/[Sanskrit if derived] term may
be, now that you bring it up.
>
>
>>and the
>>Japanese technique of "eko hensho," which is defined as taking the light
>>of awareness and turning it away from the perception of objects to shine
>>back on its own source.
>
>
> I didn't know the term "eko hensho" but a quick google agrees with
> your definition. I think we ought to note that what is sought is
> the *source* of awareness (as I read it).
I take it that this zen position, all zen more or less emanating from
Hui Neng, would be in accord with "essence of mind" as the source of
awareness. I also take it that the "source of awareness" would be
awareness itself and not something other than awareness, but just
awareness in its most pure source-form or source-point. I think it's
pretty clear from various commentaries/comments in the Ch'an/zen
tradition, that awareness itself is the source of awareness, but an
awareness unmuddied by errant name-and-form divisions of experience.
>
> I think it is worth mentioning at this point that we lose this
> supposedly constant awareness on a regular basis: each night
> when we go to sleep. Whither does it go, from whence does it
> come?
I don't think we ever lose awareness; we lose awareness of awareness
when we stop keeping track of it, whether awake or asleep. Ordinary
sleep/dreaming is similar to ordinary waking/experiencing in that one is
attentive to the object of awareness and not the awareness itself.j
In deep dreamless sleep, similar to enlightenment but not the same
thing, awareness has nothing or no-division/no-experience as its object,
but I would contend that the awareness is still continuous, just that
there is nothing to remember in such a case.
If one were to achieve deep experience-free waking state, one would be
in the content-free version of pure mind or pure awareness. That is a
root awareness experience, but does not preclude an experience of
awareness that is direct but accompanied by awareness of the awareness
in a waking state.
>
>
>>apz contributor takuji seiji gave me an interesting analogy for eko
>>hensho. First he used the image of a donkey looking at its reflection
>>in a well. I would take this to represent development of mindfulness or
>>focused awareness. Then he expressed eko hensho as taking the
>>standpoint of the reflection looking back at the donkey.
>
>
> Hm. Takuji says to me: Step back!
Not sure if it's in the same context or not. I have no problem with
"step back." Not sure what it means out of context though. I like it
in its own right though...
>
> :-)
>
>
>>>That is, when I am aware of, say, X, and then I direct my attention
>>>to my awareness of X, or to the general feature of being aware of
>>>any X,Y or Z, what is occuring is the that the object of awareness
>>>is being shifted to the memory of being aware of X, or to the memory
>>>of being aware of things X,Y,Z etc. in general.
>>>
>>>Thus it would only _seem_ that I am at once both aware of X and
>>>aware of being aware of X -- that is, it would only seem that one
>>>can simultaneously be aware and be aware of being aware.
>>
>>In the feedback loop, or stream of attention created by continuing to
>>return the attention to awareness itself, this sense of only viewing
>>memories is overcome by continued memory-experience of the same base of
>>awareness. If one watches a delayed live tv feed and continues to watch
>>it, one is seeing everything a second later, but can still track the
>>pattern of the nature of those being viewed on the screen. While we are
>>stuck with sensory awareness and its limitations, we can see through it
>>to understand the nature of that which is viewed, if attention is
>>focused continually enough.
>
>
> Ok.
>
>
>>Even a glimpse of the nature of awareness
>>qua awareness awakens the mind to its source nature.
>
>
> This may be so; what makes you say that?
I've had a glimpse or two, but may be brazen in drawing too strong a
conclusion...
>
>
>>>This is a relatively subtle point, and I don't know how important
>>>it really is. In general I'm content to believe that my awareness
>>>posseses the capacity to be somewhat self-reflective, so that I can
>>>turn my attention to it, and be aware of my being aware. Good enough
>>>for government work, one might say.
>>
>>Maybe. Might be worth looking into more.
>
>
> Certainly for me; are you talking about me or you?
Both.
I'm glad, because I almost don't get myself part of the time here...
I'm sticking with it by a thread attached to a razor being carried by a
water buffalo towards an oncoming train...
>
> It sounds to me like the whole exercise might be summed up briefly as
> (for the purpose of) being mindful of one's awareness.
Well I think the method can probably be summed up that way.
>
> Does that seem a reasonably accurate bumper sticker summation?
I think so. I only hesitate in case some of the detailed analysis leads
to something more specific - not sure at the moment...
hope so...
I can paraphrase this by saying that thoughts/objects of awareness are
not really objects, but only ways in which awareness appears to take
forms. Trying to "empty" them as if they were substantial is like
trying to empty the water out of a canoe on a movie screen - there's
really only the image of water, so the activity can't really be done,
only "made believe" to be done. I think emptying thoughts is the same
sort of mistaken activity, since thought does not really have any
substance. If one sees that awareness is being turned into objects of
awareness, like clouds taking various seeming forms, one can simply
relax the awareness and the forms disappear. Emptying seems like it
might create a windmill to fight against and strengthen the convolution
while fighting to lessen it.
>
> But that's just by-the-way, I think.]
>
> Summing up: It seems that you have arrived at awareness as a
> fundamental property of the mind; you go so far as to
> speculate/intuit that:
>
> a) contemplation of awareness may "create a shift in identity from
> self/other to identity as awareness itself" which:
>
> b) "may possibly define enlightenment".
>
> c) Awareness may be Hui-Neng's "essence of mind".
>
> d) Even a glimpse of the nature of awareness qua
> awareness awakens the mind to its source nature.
>
> e) Awareness is "the underlying base for all existence"
>
> and so on.
yup, good summary.
>
> Although you have yet to summon up the resources to engage in
> heavy duty contemplation of awareness, you have a fairly constant
> practice of keeping touch with your awareness, of being consistently
> (more or less) mindful of your awareness in your daily life.
yup.
>
> In Jen's terminology, you "dwell with" your awareness, lightly but
> with a fair amount of consistency. You intend to get around to some
> heavy duty "dwelling with" in future.
yup.
>
> Very well then. My thoughts:
>
> First of all, the act of attention strongly and persistently focused
> on any one of a number of suitable objects -- a candle flame, a mantra,
> an internally visualized mandala, a koan, awareness, the sense of self,
> the grace of God as it rains down on the just and the unjust -- is, in
> itself, capable of bringing about transformation.
possibly so; I would distinguish on basis of temperament, mental type,
emotional type, etc., what would be a suitable object for a particular
aspirant. St. John of the Cross probably found pure awareness or
something close to it through his love of God, whereas he might have
found 'not much' by contemplating awareness itself.
On the other hand, if I were to seek "Union with God" my associations
with that idea would probably provide unnecessary obstacles to my
contemplation, whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
pure and attracts my attention.
I have some problems with this. I think that awareness of awareness is
more direct than either emptying or trying to go for "nothing." The
path of jhanas is one of hyper-focused attention on the subtlety of the
inner mind, leading to a freedom from external objects and a very subtly
tuned awareness. It is congruous with awareness of awareness but may
not necessarily lead to the same thing, so I hesitate to throw these
together without more specific analysis. Awareness of awareness may be
the path of mindfulness/insight, as opposed to the path of awareness of
nothing as the path of jhana/internality; but this is a glib stab at it.
I think the process of emptying and arriving at nothing as an object is
a fine path, but is a lot more work and may not give you the perception
of the nature of mind that awareness of awareness does. to me A of A is
a direct path of realization under any conditions; whereas A of N is a
rigorous and difficult path that may not give awakening unless one gets
to the very end. I prefer A of A for that and some other reasons.
Might be worth imagining the end-point and comparing A of A as opposed
to A of N and what those two experiences would accomplish.
>
> See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
>
> These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
> I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
> particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
> the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
> to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
> reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
> even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
> awareness of nothing at all.
>
> It seems to me that this is a powerful method of studying the
> faculty of awareness, and of the source of that awareness, though
> this practice is necessarily indirect, i.e., less direct than directing
> one's attention to awareness, or the fact of awareness, itself.
Well, I would be interested in comparing them. I am open to A of N,
though I think A of A is most likely more possible, more immediate, more
natural, more actual, and more fruitful. I think A of N is a special
condition, whereas A of A is direct realization of that which is most
natural and normally unnoticed - a direct path to realization now if
practiced. Let's compare and see.
halfawake
You may be too stuck in concept to look at this, but try just for fun
seeing that in all the jumpings-around when you are noticing awareness
as a function, that the awareness is always the function in all those
jumpings-around. I am not positing a "still" awareness that is hanging
around in the sky or anything. But if something is a continuous
function see what happens if you maintain attention on the function
itself instead of the objects. That focus, I believe, if maintained,
leads to awakening to the nature of mind, ie enlightenment.
herbzet
halfawake wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > halfawake wrote:
Ok -- I'll go along with this as "unconditioned perception", which is
limited to the hardwired processing of the raw data.
I actually think this is pretty unlikely to happen normally -- our
psychological "set" is pretty much bound to affect perception.
Even with infants, it seems that some psychological bias has been
pushed forward into the hardwiring itself -- like the phenonmenon of
infants being more responsive to faces than to other visual objects.
(Presumably, this is not learned behavior, though it may still be
an inborn "software" matter, rather than "hardwired". Sometimes
the distinction between hardware and software is fuzzy, as in
ROM (read-only memory) chips.)
I'll accept this as a terminological category: "unconditioned perception"
as a sub-category of "perception".
How's that sound to you?
I'd like to reserve "direct perception" as meaning "perceived without
mediation of the senses" (example: "awareness of awareness"), although
I'd like to get rid of "direct perception" as a term althogether, or
give it a strictly defined meaning, as I think "perception" should be
limited to things perceived *with* the mediation of the senses.
For example, if I clairvoyantly read the letter sealed in the envelope,
one might say that this is a percept that is received "directly", i.e.,
without use of the senses.
> and any other concepts
> that are unnecessary to perception itself but are added on, ie,
> interpretive conceptualization. My definitions here are rough and
> unexamined, and are probably too complicated to clean up, but they give
> a sense of what I am aiming for.
We could call that "conditioned perception", thus exhausting the category
of perception into conditioned and unconditioned perception.
This leaves the problem of what verb to use for "perceiving" things
without the senses -- like a tree in a dream, or in an hallucination,
or in memory; or for un-physical objects like "awareness" or "anger",
or for a bunch of things I probably haven't thought of.
I suggest "apperception", as this term already has several uses, some
of which are consonant with this suggestion: see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception
Thus, perception would be a sub-category of apperception.
> However, in looking at your terms and mine, I am struck by a gap in my
> understanding - which is that I haven't really examined the vehicle of
> "awareness of awareness," ie, "direct perception of awareness." It
> seems to me that "awareness of awareness" occurs within, through and
> around the act of perception of some object, though it itself is not the
> object that the perception is ostensibly perceiving. Awareness is the
> root function of perception and makes perception possible,
Probably, a psychologist could make a case for occurances of perception
without awareness -- but ignoring that:
> and there is
> never, except for so far undisclosed circumstances, in which perception
> does not take place,
dreams, visions (hallucinations), thoughts, emotions, memories ...
of course you are here using "perception" much more broadly than
I want to allow.
> with only the object or objects varying. So
> awareness is revealed to a witnessing apperception of some kind [still
> being rough about it] when perception takes place and awareness is
> discerned as the awake function of the perception and its root facilitator.
>
> And that leads to the question: can awareness be perceived more
> directly than this through awareness itself, independent of the senses,
> the question you seem to be asking, and one worth contemplating. If the
> mind is inherently awake, and awareness is its root quality, then it
> would be alive all the time, and by turning towards its own root
> awakeness the witnessing attention of the mind can directly observe its
> own awareness without ever leaving the mind to encounter an outside object.
Well, there are two cases here: I am ok with taking my ordinary everday
awareness of awareness as being just what it seems -- and that awareness
is thus trivially somewhat reflexive. I agree that the situation might
be more subtly due to my _memory_ of being aware of X,Y,Z, or due to a
_concept_ of "awareness" that I have formed and mis-take for a true
(ap)perception. It just seems, in an un-examined way, that I am aware
of my awareness, when my attention is directed to it. If that's something
of an illusion, a hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye sort of trick, then I'm
not seeing that it matters practically at this point, although I concede
it might ultimately prove to be a significant distinction. But for now
I'm content to say that I am aware of my awareness.
The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
to be done?
I think this is pretty much exactly what Hui-Neng and all
the other masters are talking about, when they talk about
directing the mind inwardly and coming to apprehend the
fundamental nature of mind.
What can one say about that? I can only say that in the
suggestion that one seek the "source" of mind, or awareness,
or whatever, there is a hint of how to conceptually deal with
the apparent objection of "the eye cannot see the eye" sort of
thing. The physical eye cannot turn around and view itself,
but the physical eye can, in theory, be physically turned to
view its own optic nerve (that would require some surgery, or
a bad accident) and oberve also the neural substrate in which
the optic nerve bundle is rooted, which is in fact what assembles
the "seeing" out of the electrical impulses sent by the eye's
receptors down the optic chiasm.
Thus the eye can, somewhat indirectly, observe the "source" of its
own "seeing".
Perhaps in this analogy, there is a hint of how the mind can come
to be aware of its source, or aware of the source of its awareness.
> > Certainly we say of known facts that we are aware of them: "I am
> > aware, sir, that George Washington was the first President." And
> > likewise we can say "I am aware of the fact that I am endowed with
> > awareness".
> >
> > Now this is perhaps a slightly different sense of the word "aware"
> > that is better to avoid here, as it just seems like a synonym for
> > "know".
>
> Except for the fact that on the meta-level, one can perceive the
> awareness that is at the root of "knowing" just as fruitfully as
> observing the awareness that is at the root of perception. The
> functions may be different, but the root awareness is the same.
Ok, good -- though this removes awareness from being strictly
attached only to perception-by-the-senses. Which we already
knew, I think.
> > The known fact that we are endowed with awareness can be, as you
> > say, the object of serious contemplation, in the same fashion that
> > other facts may be the object of serious contemplation.
>
> It's my suspicion that contemplating this particular fact can lead to a
> direct understanding of the nature of all perceptual-mental functioning
> as the offspring of awareness and perhaps lead to a more direct
> perception of awareness, whereas other facts do not necessarily have the
> same kinds of experiential referents. One could say that the awareness
> of the fact of awareness is a "living fact" as opposed to a dead one, as
> it lives right next door to the awareness itself, and is itself the
> offspring of that same awareness; therefore the awareness of this fact
> is surrounded on both sides by the awareness itself that it is
> referencing. This is not true with the awareness of the existence of an
> armadillo in New Mexico, and even if it was, the armadillo if directly
> perceived would have no special relationship to the awareness that was
> perceiving its existence, whereas the fact of awareness does have a
> special relationship to awareness itself, being in intimate and
> immediate conjunction with it.
All true -- though the contemplation of various other things is
a traditional meditational technique. Not to be a nay-sayer
(because I don't see anything objectionable in what you say) but
I don't happen to recall anyone ever specifically singling out
awareness (or the fact of awareness) as an object of meditation.
This may be an innovation on your part!
> >>> > It could be summarized
> >>> > by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
> >>>
> >>>1) With regard to removing the X:
> >>>
> >>>I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
> >>>"I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
> >>>of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
> >>>in all these different cases.
> >>>
> >>>It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
> >>>to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
> >>>to be directly aware of my awareness.
[Confusing stuff snipped, perhaps to reappear in a parallel post]
Need to say more about being aware of the "I" in being aware of awareness
-- another post perhaps.
> >>>Although I sometimes wonder -- and perhaps some would say -- that this
> >>>apparently self-reflexive awareness is illusory: that awareness can't
> >>>directly perceive itself in this way; what is being contemplated is
> >>>the memory of being aware just previously.
> >>
> >>That's possible, even if so, the toggling action of going from object of
> >>awareness to awareness [of object] is a profound shift that allows one
> >>to at least contemplate the fact of awareness more directly.
> >
> > Ok, good -- I like "toggling".
>
> I thought you might like that.
:-)
> >>In addition I have a sense of continuing the return of attention to
> >>awareness itself, even the "fact" of awareness which would more of a
> >>contemplative rather than directly perceptual action,
> >
> > Ok.
> >
> >>to create a kind
> >>of feedback loop, wherein even though the brain delays the immediate
> >>perception through its processing time-lag, the moments coming into the
> >>flow of experience [even though delayed] will wind up creating a
> >>continuous experience of the nature of awareness, from the point of view
> >>of the awareness that is available from the personal standpoint. This
> >>wash, if it replaces the perceptual focus on objects for a period of
> >>time, will create a shift in identity from self/other to identity as
> >>awareness itself, which may possibly define enlightenment.
> >
> > Well, perhaps. Continuing:
> >
> >>There is something about an extended period of time observing awareness
> >>itself that causes transformation, whatever the mode.
> >
> > Hm, it sounds like you have some experience of this.
>
> I would have to go into a pretty rich extrapolation of this statement to
> sort out what I know about this from what I think I know and what has
> been supported by other related experiences that are not direct
> awareness of awareness; so will save this for another thread, since it
> is already so complicated. Perhaps somewhere as a sub-commentary we can
> have an exchange of experiences that support or don't support this
> contention.
Well, that would be interesting, but I have no contribution to make
here. What I know about awareness doesn't come from direct contemplation
of it, but indirectly, from otherwise *using* my awareness.
> > Of course, it may be true also that prolonged observation/contemplation
> > of various suitable objects might cause transformations of one sort or
> > another.
>
> That's definitely true also. I'm restricting myself to the subject of
> "awareness of awareness" because a/ it may be the most direct vehicle
> for realization, and b/ it happens to be the method of awakening that we
> are talking about, so not to muddy the waters more than they already are...
Ok.
> >>The above reflects my sense of two important techniques in Ch'an/zen:
> >>Hui-Neng's idea of turning attention away from the ordinary functioning
> >>of the mind to directly discern the "essence of mind," which I take to
> >>be a more specific indication of the role and nature of awareness in the
> >>act of mental/perceptual functioning of sentient beings;
> >
> > What leads you to interpret "essence of mind" as "awareness"? Not that
> > I agree or disagree, I'm just curious as to how you arrived at that.
>
> It's an extrapolation of both usage and context, and I'm not 100% sure
> that it would be acceptable without further specification, as he may
> have a more specialized definition than that. I don't think he ever
> defines the term directly but only through usage and context. I'm
> interested in what the original Chinese/[Sanskrit if derived] term may
> be, now that you bring it up.
Ok, certainly worth looking into further.
> >>and the
> >>Japanese technique of "eko hensho," which is defined as taking the light
> >>of awareness and turning it away from the perception of objects to shine
> >>back on its own source.
> >
> >
> > I didn't know the term "eko hensho" but a quick google agrees with
> > your definition. I think we ought to note that what is sought is
> > the *source* of awareness (as I read it).
>
> I take it that this zen position, all zen more or less emanating from
> Hui Neng, would be in accord with "essence of mind" as the source of
> awareness.
Sure, that seems pretty likely.
> I also take it that the "source of awareness" would be
> awareness itself and not something other than awareness, but just
> awareness in its most pure source-form or source-point. I think it's
> pretty clear from various commentaries/comments in the Ch'an/zen
> tradition, that awareness itself is the source of awareness,
Well, this is new to me, though I'm not much of a scholar on the
zen writings. I wonder whether or not you're tending to read in
you're preferred interpretation. Not that I have anything particular
against awareness-as-essence-of-mind -- it seems as likely as anything
else, though you'd think someone might have mentioned that simple
equation by this time.
> but an
> awareness unmuddied by errant name-and-form divisions of experience.
Well, that sounds more reasonable -- an awareness with which we
are normally /totally unfamiliar/! It might as well be an entirely
novel faculty of mind!
Which might help explain why no one's just come out and identified
awareness as the root source and essence of mind (afaik!).
> > I think it is worth mentioning at this point that we lose this
> > supposedly constant awareness on a regular basis: each night
> > when we go to sleep. Whither does it go, from whence does it
> > come?
>
> I don't think we ever lose awareness; we lose awareness of awareness
> when we stop keeping track of it, whether awake or asleep.
Well, I think you're kind of brutal with the language here. When
I sleep, I'm pretty dead ... lights out. I hardly even dream much.
> Ordinary
> sleep/dreaming is similar to ordinary waking/experiencing in that one is
> attentive to the object of awareness and not the awareness itself.
>
> In deep dreamless sleep, similar to enlightenment but not the same
> thing, awareness has nothing or no-division/no-experience as its object,
> but I would contend that the awareness is still continuous, just that
> there is nothing to remember in such a case.
Well, that's a theory, I guess.
> If one were to achieve deep experience-free waking state, one would be
> in the content-free version of pure mind or pure awareness. That is a
> root awareness experience,
You realize you're describing my proposed empty-your-awareness suggestion?
> but does not preclude an experience of
> awareness that is direct but accompanied by awareness of the awareness
> in a waking state.
Nope, guess not. That either, or both, waking states exist at all has
not been shown, at this point.
Again I make the somewhat deflating suggestion that catching a
glimpse of the nature of any X qua X may awaken the mind to its
source nature -- or at least, that the mind must be dragged along
into a fundamental state in order to view the true nature of any X
qua X.
Blake, doors of perception, infinite, Huxley, mescaline, etc.
Heh, hang on bub.
> > It sounds to me like the whole exercise might be summed up briefly as
> > (for the purpose of) being mindful of one's awareness.
>
> Well I think the method can probably be summed up that way.
>
> >
> > Does that seem a reasonably accurate bumper sticker summation?
>
> I think so. I only hesitate in case some of the detailed analysis leads
> to something more specific - not sure at the moment...
Ok.
I see what you're saying.
It is consonant with your idea that awareness is the fundamental
substrate of mind -- every other feature of mind is just a
manifestation, an extrusion, a convolution of the fundamental
awareness.
Still, even within this paradigm, one may read "emptying" as
"stilling" or "relaxing" or some such. One can "empty" i.e.
still the roiled surface of awareness, item by item.
Yeah.
> On the other hand, if I were to seek "Union with God" my associations
> with that idea would probably provide unnecessary obstacles to my
> contemplation,
Or, importantly, provide substance to your meditation, as you examine
those associations minutely and penetratingly.
IOW, if Robert seeks to achieve "union with God", the substance
of his meditiation might be, or include, the examination of
precisely what meaning "union with God" might hold -- for Robert.
> whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
> pure and attracts my attention.
Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
that you're aware of contemplating? It has some qualities,
does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
is it not?
What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
Yes, I have acknowledged that it is more direct.
> The
> path of jhanas is one of hyper-focused attention on the subtlety of the
> inner mind,
Yes.
> leading to a freedom from external objects and a very subtly
> tuned awareness. It is congruous with awareness of awareness but may
> not necessarily lead to the same thing, so I hesitate to throw these
> together without more specific analysis.
Ok.
> Awareness of awareness may be
> the path of mindfulness/insight, as opposed to the path of awareness of
> nothing as the path of jhana/internality; but this is a glib stab at it.
a) I've heard people here talk about mindfulness, as attending to what's
present, and I've heard people talk about samatha (calming) practices
like attending to the breath, or whatever. I've heard nothing, that
I recall, about the "insight" part of insight meditation, so I'm not
sure how that applies here. (This was a good excuse to bring that up.)
b) The path of "awareness of nothing" -- <sigh>. I'm just saying, empty
your awareness of objects as far as possible -- see what is left, or
what manifests -- call it what you will. The exercise is very revealing,
even if not carried all the way through to what would appear to be the
logical conclusion, if that is even possible -- I leave it to the reader
to explore the situation for him/herself. It doesn't cost anything --
not even a lot of time, once one snaps to the trick of ignoring the
ticking of the clock, or whatever else presents itself to awareness.
> I think the process of emptying and arriving at nothing as an object is
> a fine path, but is a lot more work and may not give you the perception
> of the nature of mind that awareness of awareness does.
You have no idea where that path leads, though you could find out in an
evening. You choose not to bother. You're talking through your hat.
On the other hand, you could spend twenty years dwelling with the
awareness of awareness. Good luck.
> to me A of A is
> a direct path of realization under any conditions; whereas A of N is a
> rigorous and difficult path that may not give awakening unless one gets
> to the very end. I prefer A of A for that and some other reasons.
Whatever.
> Might be worth imagining the end-point and comparing A of A as opposed
> to A of N and what those two experiences would accomplish.
Imagine what you like.
> > See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
> >
> > http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
> >
> > These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
> > I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
> > particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
> > the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
> > to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
> > reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
> > even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
> > awareness of nothing at all.
> >
> > It seems to me that this is a powerful method of studying the
> > faculty of awareness, and of the source of that awareness, though
> > this practice is necessarily indirect, i.e., less direct than directing
> > one's attention to awareness, or the fact of awareness, itself.
>
> Well, I would be interested in comparing them. I am open to A of N,
> though I think A of A is most likely more possible, more immediate, more
> natural, more actual, and more fruitful. I think A of N is a special
> condition, whereas A of A is direct realization
I just said, quoted immediately above, that "this practice is necessarily
indirect, i.e., less direct that directing one's attention to awareness,
or the fact of awareness, itself."
> of that which is most
> natural and normally unnoticed - a direct path to realization now if
> practiced. Let's compare and see.
Don't forget it's more organic, wholesome, recycle-able, and so much nicer.
Sheesh.
--
hz
halfawake
Sounds good to me.
>
> I'd like to reserve "direct perception" as meaning "perceived without
> mediation of the senses" (example: "awareness of awareness"), although
> I'd like to get rid of "direct perception" as a term althogether, or
> give it a strictly defined meaning, as I think "perception" should be
> limited to things perceived *with* the mediation of the senses.
Yeah, well you can call it apperception or cognitive perception, or
whatever. It matches I think what Buddha meant when he considered
"mind" the 6th sense organ. But there is a difference between "looking"
at a mental object and just having one. One can conceptualize with no
awareness that there is an experiencing of the concept or
thought-stream, but when one observes the process of conceptualizing or
thinking, one sees that it is an act of perception too, albeit "inner"
perception. So I think there is a further distinction in terms of a
mental activity or object and the means by which one experiences it.
This is normally not exactly talked about. So direct perception might
be unmediated perception even of a mental object and might have less to
do with whether the object is internal or external. Awareness of
awareness on the other hand might be the only perceptual act that has no
mediation to the extent it takes place.
>
> For example, if I clairvoyantly read the letter sealed in the envelope,
> one might say that this is a percept that is received "directly", i.e.,
> without use of the senses.
I'm not sure if this even takes place. If one receives something
clairvoyantly it's still being experienced through the equipment, no? I
wonder if the visual cortex is activated when one reviews mental
imagery. Bet it is.
>
>
>>and any other concepts
>>that are unnecessary to perception itself but are added on, ie,
>>interpretive conceptualization. My definitions here are rough and
>>unexamined, and are probably too complicated to clean up, but they give
>>a sense of what I am aiming for.
>
>
> We could call that "conditioned perception", thus exhausting the category
> of perception into conditioned and unconditioned perception.
That sounds like a workable crude set.
>
> This leaves the problem of what verb to use for "perceiving" things
> without the senses -- like a tree in a dream, or in an hallucination,
> or in memory; or for un-physical objects like "awareness" or "anger",
> or for a bunch of things I probably haven't thought of.
I think it needs to be examined to see whether only the sense organ has
been displaced but not the internal sensing apparatus, thus making it
less direct again...
>
> I suggest "apperception", as this term already has several uses, some
> of which are consonant with this suggestion: see
I like apperception.
"...nothing other than what I call transcendental apperception..."
-Kant
Hope we don't turn into Kantians along the way...
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception
>
> Thus, perception would be a sub-category of apperception.
It would...?
I guess I better read that thing...
>
>
>>However, in looking at your terms and mine, I am struck by a gap in my
>>understanding - which is that I haven't really examined the vehicle of
>>"awareness of awareness," ie, "direct perception of awareness." It
>>seems to me that "awareness of awareness" occurs within, through and
>>around the act of perception of some object, though it itself is not the
>>object that the perception is ostensibly perceiving. Awareness is the
>>root function of perception and makes perception possible,
>
>
> Probably, a psychologist could make a case for occurances of perception
> without awareness -- but ignoring that:
>
>
>>and there is
>>never, except for so far undisclosed circumstances, in which perception
>>does not take place,
>
>
> dreams, visions (hallucinations), thoughts, emotions, memories ...
> of course you are here using "perception" much more broadly than
> I want to allow.
I see. Hm. More work to do on terminology.
>
>>with only the object or objects varying. So
>>awareness is revealed to a witnessing apperception of some kind [still
>>being rough about it] when perception takes place and awareness is
>>discerned as the awake function of the perception and its root facilitator.
>>
>>And that leads to the question: can awareness be perceived more
>>directly than this through awareness itself, independent of the senses,
>>the question you seem to be asking, and one worth contemplating. If the
>>mind is inherently awake, and awareness is its root quality, then it
>>would be alive all the time, and by turning towards its own root
>>awakeness the witnessing attention of the mind can directly observe its
>>own awareness without ever leaving the mind to encounter an outside object.
>
>
> Well, there are two cases here: I am ok with taking my ordinary everday
> awareness of awareness as being just what it seems -- and that awareness
> is thus trivially somewhat reflexive.
okay.
I agree that the situation might
> be more subtly due to my _memory_ of being aware of X,Y,Z, or due to a
> _concept_ of "awareness" that I have formed and mis-take for a true
> (ap)perception. It just seems, in an un-examined way, that I am aware
> of my awareness, when my attention is directed to it.
me too. and I maintain a peripheral version of this almost all the time.
If that's something
> of an illusion, a hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye sort of trick, then I'm
> not seeing that it matters practically at this point, although I concede
> it might ultimately prove to be a significant distinction. But for now
> I'm content to say that I am aware of my awareness.
or that you can be when reminded of it....?
>
> The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
> words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
> observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
> what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
same thing I'm sure.
>
> The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
> to be done?
I have faith based on a preponderence of reports of those in positions
of authority and high practice in the history of Buddhism that this is
both possible and does happen more frequently than once a century.
And my own kensho-like experiences suggest also that this is a reality
close at hand but hard to grasp on demand. I assume that with more
concerted practice of the right kind it would become much easier to invoke.
>
> I think this is pretty much exactly what Hui-Neng and all
> the other masters are talking about, when they talk about
> directing the mind inwardly and coming to apprehend the
> fundamental nature of mind.
Yes, I agree. It would be a concentrated, undistracted experience of
the nature of awareness itself with enough immersion to become fully
customary for the mind. The effect this has on the mind is something I
have not experienced, because I haven't had the duration which I think
is necessary to transform the mind beyond merely having an awakening
experience.
the zen version of Samadhi is aimed at this, and the jhanas too,
although zen seems to reject jhana as a form of passive suppresion of
defilements that masks and sedates the problem of delusion. And yet
samadhi of the yogic kind would be similar to jhana. As far as samadhi
- the inward concentrated state - goes for zen:
"Samatha means �stopping� or �calming� and is used in the sense that the
waves of the ocean are stopped or calmed when the sea becomes placid.
What is stopped and calmed in the method or process of samatha are the
delusions of the waves of dualistic thinking and differentiation in the
ocean of the Alayavijnana, i.e. one�s own nature or mind. Samadhi may be
appropriately translated as �absorption� or �concentration� in the sense
that waves are absorbed or concentrated and is a total or complete
occupation of mind without the disturbance of oppositions or dualistic
thinking. The state of mind called samadhi is the absorption or
concentration of mind that ocures when the waves of dualistic thinking
have been stopped or calmed, i.e., in samatha."
-Gregory Wonderwheel
>
> What can one say about that? I can only say that in the
> suggestion that one seek the "source" of mind, or awareness,
> or whatever, there is a hint of how to conceptually deal with
> the apparent objection of "the eye cannot see the eye" sort of
> thing. The physical eye cannot turn around and view itself,
> but the physical eye can, in theory, be physically turned to
> view its own optic nerve (that would require some surgery, or
> a bad accident) and oberve also the neural substrate in which
> the optic nerve bundle is rooted, which is in fact what assembles
> the "seeing" out of the electrical impulses sent by the eye's
> receptors down the optic chiasm.
>
> Thus the eye can, somewhat indirectly, observe the "source" of its
> own "seeing".
And I would suggest in an even more improbably procedure, but perhaps
one that could be done in a more than metaphoric way, that the eye might
be able to turn its visual intention around to sense/feel/follow the
pathway back to the optic nerve and the optic processor, or, with a
slightly different intention, the eye might be able to neurally sense
[since it is connected by powerful nerve pathways to its source] the
connection coming "forward" to reach the eye, collect data, pull it
back, etc. If one were to focus on visual cohesion as a mind-function
rather than a seeing-function, this sense of 'source' might become
available.
Could one trace the optic nerve back to the mind through the eye turning
its intention inward? There is a zen exercise of "hearing hearing"
instead of hearing sound. Take attention off the sound, pay attention to
the hearing. What do you hear?
Hearing hearing is another, more local version of being aware of
awareness. If you 'hear hearing' what you hear is nothing. Hearing
isn't a sound, but it is an awareness, a direct source of being aware
through a specific mode, one that is more directly accessible than
'mind' which lurks somewhere one level back.
>
> Perhaps in this analogy, there is a hint of how the mind can come
> to be aware of its source, or aware of the source of its awareness.
you bet, and I think it's more than a hint.
>
>
>>>Certainly we say of known facts that we are aware of them: "I am
>>>aware, sir, that George Washington was the first President." And
>>>likewise we can say "I am aware of the fact that I am endowed with
>>>awareness".
>>>
>>>Now this is perhaps a slightly different sense of the word "aware"
>>>that is better to avoid here, as it just seems like a synonym for
>>>"know".
>>
>>Except for the fact that on the meta-level, one can perceive the
>>awareness that is at the root of "knowing" just as fruitfully as
>>observing the awareness that is at the root of perception. The
>>functions may be different, but the root awareness is the same.
>
>
> Ok, good -- though this removes awareness from being strictly
> attached only to perception-by-the-senses. Which we already
> knew, I think.
I think that's right although haven't taken time to inspect it for
possible snares.
>
>
>>>The known fact that we are endowed with awareness can be, as you
>>>say, the object of serious contemplation, in the same fashion that
>>>other facts may be the object of serious contemplation.
>>
>>It's my suspicion that contemplating this particular fact can lead to a
>>direct understanding of the nature of all perceptual-mental functioning
>>as the offspring of awareness and perhaps lead to a more direct
>>perception of awareness, whereas other facts do not necessarily have the
>>same kinds of experiential referents. One could say that the awareness
>>of the fact of awareness is a "living fact" as opposed to a dead one, as
>>it lives right next door to the awareness itself, and is itself the
>>offspring of that same awareness; therefore the awareness of this fact
>>is surrounded on both sides by the awareness itself that it is
>>referencing. This is not true with the awareness of the existence of an
>>armadillo in New Mexico, and even if it was, the armadillo if directly
>>perceived would have no special relationship to the awareness that was
>>perceiving its existence, whereas the fact of awareness does have a
>>special relationship to awareness itself, being in intimate and
>>immediate conjunction with it.
>
>
> All true -- though the contemplation of various other things is
> a traditional meditational technique.
Sure, there are many techniques but they may not all be on the same
level of directness. We should distinguish the purpose and efficacy of
the different types of meditation objects, not just accept them all as
implicitly the same in value.
Not to be a nay-sayer
> (because I don't see anything objectionable in what you say) but
> I don't happen to recall anyone ever specifically singling out
> awareness (or the fact of awareness) as an object of meditation.
> This may be an innovation on your part!
Not sure if it is different than original mind/pure
mind/Buddha-mind/essence of mind/primordial mind/empty mind/pure
awareness, etc.
I think that realization of awareness, or of mind as pure awareness,
rather than the content of mind, is a common formulation in Mahayana,
but perhaps "awareness of awareness" is more unusual, but it does exist:
"Mindful awareness entails more than sensing present experience as it
generates an awareness of awareness and attention to intention. These
fundamental aspects of mindfulness can be seen as forms of
meta-cognition that are known to involve activity in the middle
prefrontal regions, including the medial prefrontal and anterior
cingulate areas. Studies of mindful awareness reveal anterior cingulate
activation consistent with this executive monitoring during mindfulness
of the breath (Cahn and Polick, 2006). Of note also are the preliminary
findings of superior temporal activation as well, consistent with neural
mapping of states of intention that may involve circuitry related to the
mirror neurons and insula (Carr et al., 2003) The possible activity and
strengthening of circuits of the middle prefrontal regions during
mindfulness practice, Brodman's area 9 and 10, is supported by the
findings that aspects of this region are thicker in those with decades
of mindfulness meditation practice (Lazar et al., 2005). As the authors
point out, Lazar and colleagues' study also revealed right-lateralized
increased thickness in more posterior regions associated with intero-
and exteroception: the insula, somatosensory cortex and parietal
regions. Here we see the supportive data suggesting that mindfulness
practice is not just about being aware of sensory experience in the
moment but also involves executive and metacognitive prefrontal
functions as well."
From: Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2566758/
More interesting stuff:
http://www.sbinstitute.com/Study%20Group/SBI%20Study%20Group%20Oct%203%20notes.htm
"This practice of shamatha meditation is based on Alan�s teaching
suggesting the balancing of �earth and sky.� This offers the full
spectrum of shamatha practice from the most basic full body awareness to
the most advanced practice of awareness of awareness, or shamatha
without a sign."
>>>>>>It could be summarized
>>>>>>by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
>>>>>
>>>>>1) With regard to removing the X:
>>>>>
>>>>>I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
>>>>>"I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
>>>>>of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
>>>>>in all these different cases.
>>>>>
>>>>>It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
>>>>>to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
>>>>>to be directly aware of my awareness.
>
>
> [Confusing stuff snipped, perhaps to reappear in a parallel post]
>
> Need to say more about being aware of the "I" in being aware of awareness
> -- another post perhaps.
maybe so - start it up....?
That's only one step removed. Why not take a closer look? ;-)
Maybe, but what else is there beyond awareness that is still sentient
that could be more primary? Can you think of any candidates?
Not that I have anything particular
> against awareness-as-essence-of-mind -- it seems as likely as anything
> else, though you'd think someone might have mentioned that simple
> equation by this time.
Yeah, that's why I want the original chinese word in direct translation
maybe by a non-Buddhist, as well as a sanskrit term if Hui Neng was
using one.
>
>
>>but an
>>awareness unmuddied by errant name-and-form divisions of experience.
>
>
> Well, that sounds more reasonable -- an awareness with which we
> are normally /totally unfamiliar/! It might as well be an entirely
> novel faculty of mind!
>
> Which might help explain why no one's just come out and identified
> awareness as the root source and essence of mind (afaik!).
maybe; it is pretty confusing to sort out as we can see...
>
>
>>>I think it is worth mentioning at this point that we lose this
>>>supposedly constant awareness on a regular basis: each night
>>>when we go to sleep. Whither does it go, from whence does it
>>>come?
>>
>>I don't think we ever lose awareness; we lose awareness of awareness
>>when we stop keeping track of it, whether awake or asleep.
>
>
> Well, I think you're kind of brutal with the language here. When
> I sleep, I'm pretty dead ... lights out. I hardly even dream much.
I don't think it is probable that you have access to this; what you
remember is necessrily incomplete.
>
>
>>Ordinary
>>sleep/dreaming is similar to ordinary waking/experiencing in that one is
>>attentive to the object of awareness and not the awareness itself.
>>
>>In deep dreamless sleep, similar to enlightenment but not the same
>>thing, awareness has nothing or no-division/no-experience as its object,
>>but I would contend that the awareness is still continuous, just that
>>there is nothing to remember in such a case.
>
>
> Well, that's a theory, I guess.
yup
>
>
>>If one were to achieve deep experience-free waking state, one would be
>>in the content-free version of pure mind or pure awareness. That is a
>>root awareness experience,
>
>
> You realize you're describing my proposed empty-your-awareness suggestion?
right, mentioning it certainly as one possibility
>
>
>>but does not preclude an experience of
>>awareness that is direct but accompanied by awareness of the awareness
>>in a waking state.
>
>
> Nope, guess not. That either, or both, waking states exist at all has
> not been shown, at this point.
maybe not.
I hear you.
yeah, you may have my belief system there...
maybe so.
>
> IOW, if Robert seeks to achieve "union with God", the substance
> of his meditiation might be, or include, the examination of
> precisely what meaning "union with God" might hold -- for Robert.
actually, I'm pretty comfortable translating between traditions and
their languages. I don't personally see a really big difference in the
experiences I've had dancing with a Turkish sufi Master and going into a
state of enlightened awareness listening to a lecture by a Hasidic
master or the palpable joy experienced in a group of young born-again
Christians standing on the chairs and waving their arms who were clearly
experiencing and transmitting the holy spirit. But at the end of the
day I go back to a practice that expresses in natural terms for me.
Maybe you are right that adopting a foreign system would bring up more
worthwhile challenges, but I'm not up for a battle of that kind; no
longer have the energy. I'd rather just "look" in the simplest way possible.
>
>
>>whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
>>pure and attracts my attention.
>
>
> Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
> Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
how about non-o-lithic? :) it's a transparency.
>
> Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
> rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
> likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
> hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
that is true. one has to keep returning to the basic shock of awareness
itself to refresh the actuality of it and make sure an image hasn't
taken over, at least one would think preliminarily.
>
> Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
> void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
> predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
what you can say about it is that it is aware, awake and empty, and that
it is untouched and unchanged by the content that appears to arise
within or through it. Those properties are with reference to that which
has properties; in itself it is merely transparently aware. What else
could awareness be?
> Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
> that you're aware of contemplating?
Yes, awareness. Now for someone who is attracted to 'nothing' as an
object, I find it amusing that you are so quick to fill empty awareness
with this and that. I don't think it has anything to it except that it
is awake. What qualities does a still body of water have? It reflects,
it is transparent, it is still, it is empty, it is clear. Similar to
awareness itself.
It has some qualities,
> does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
> say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
> is it not?
It terms of comparison and observation, yes. When contemplating it
closely, all that may disappear in just being awake. That's
enlightenment, isn't it? Awake with nothing added.
>
> What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
A very awake nothing. Fish swim in the water; do they change the nature
of the water?
It's a slightly complicated topic, since it seems to be able to include
raw "aha" type insight that arises from seeing the nature of observed
experients directly, as well as the result of contemplation of truth or
principles that leads to deeper understanding of the nature of reality.
But the "aha" type arises directly form mindful observation, when the
obstacles and concepts to direct realization of the nature of the object
get out of the way and one sees it "in itself," [tathata - its suchness]
for a moment. Not much different than the Catholic experience of
epiphany I think. [see Joyce's Dubliners, esp. The Dead.]
>
> b) The path of "awareness of nothing" -- <sigh>. I'm just saying, empty
> your awareness of objects as far as possible -- see what is left, or
> what manifests -- call it what you will. The exercise is very revealing,
> even if not carried all the way through to what would appear to be the
> logical conclusion, if that is even possible -- I leave it to the reader
> to explore the situation for him/herself. It doesn't cost anything --
> not even a lot of time, once one snaps to the trick of ignoring the
> ticking of the clock, or whatever else presents itself to awareness.
I will pursue this below when I see your comments on my discussion of this.
>
>
>>I think the process of emptying and arriving at nothing as an object is
>>a fine path, but is a lot more work and may not give you the perception
>>of the nature of mind that awareness of awareness does.
>
>
> You have no idea where that path leads, though you could find out in an
> evening. You choose not to bother. You're talking through your hat.
I wouldn't presume that.
>
> On the other hand, you could spend twenty years dwelling with the
> awareness of awareness. Good luck.
I wouldn't presume that either.
>
>
>> to me A of A is
>>a direct path of realization under any conditions; whereas A of N is a
>>rigorous and difficult path that may not give awakening unless one gets
>>to the very end. I prefer A of A for that and some other reasons.
>
>
> Whatever.
Not sure what you're so jaded about. Instead of pursuing this you seem
to be content to be unhappy with my preference. Why?
>
>
>>Might be worth imagining the end-point and comparing A of A as opposed
>>to A of N and what those two experiences would accomplish.
>
>
> Imagine what you like.
Hm. Attitude alert. What's up?
>
>
>>>See for comparison, my post "Cafeteria Zen" from a year ago:
>>>
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.zen/msg/c3fca621b42bc3ad
>>>
>>>These are my thoughts on the subject of awareness. The practice
>>>I am suggesting with regard to awareness is by no means easy,
>>>particularly in its latter stages -- but it is, particularly in
>>>the very final stages, as one approaches the omega point so
>>>to speak, that one is, compensatingly perhaps, likely also to
>>>reap a great deal of insight into one's mind, into one's self,
>>>even if one does not attain at once to the final point of
>>>awareness of nothing at all.
>>>
>>>It seems to me that this is a powerful method of studying the
>>>faculty of awareness, and of the source of that awareness, though
>>>this practice is necessarily indirect, i.e., less direct than directing
>>>one's attention to awareness, or the fact of awareness, itself.
>>
>>Well, I would be interested in comparing them. I am open to A of N,
>>though I think A of A is most likely more possible, more immediate, more
>>natural, more actual, and more fruitful. I think A of N is a special
>>condition, whereas A of A is direct realization
>
>
> I just said, quoted immediately above, that "this practice is necessarily
> indirect, i.e., less direct that directing one's attention to awareness,
> or the fact of awareness, itself."
So then why do you like it so much? Why not be more direct and pursue
awareness itself? I don't understand your attachment to this; you
haven't explained why it is more desireable or more relevatory, nor why
A of A seems more difficult or less desireable, so I don't understand
your objection nor your negative reaction. It seems like you have
pursued this whole conversation re. A of A only to toss it away at the
end and say you prefer A of N and then pout that I prefer A of A.
Really, I don't get this at all. Perhaps you can explain a bit more
positively, rather than just say "whatever" as you did above. What is
up with you on this? This seemed to be a very fruitful and detailed
discussion and now you want to segway over to something else, or else
drop it.
>
>
>>of that which is most
>>natural and normally unnoticed - a direct path to realization now if
>>practiced. Let's compare and see.
>
>
> Don't forget it's more organic, wholesome, recycle-able, and so much nicer.
>
> Sheesh.
What is your problem anyway, Herb? Is this your way of avoiding
something that works, or what? I never said I would not consider A of
N. Let me know when you get over your inexplicable tantrum so we can
talk intelligently again.
Until then, be well, and may one foot follow the other wherever you go!
Appledog
>
> (Presumably, this is not learned behavior, though it may still be
> an inborn "software" matter, rather than "hardwired". Sometimes
> the distinction between hardware and software is fuzzy, as in
> ROM (read-only memory) chips.)
Oh, so you want a computer analogy? I'll oblige.
I assume you're familar with the Chinese Room. Are you also familar
with why it is flawed?
> For example, if I clairvoyantly read the letter sealed in the envelope,
> one might say that this is a percept that is received "directly", i.e.,
> without use of the senses.
(unless of course clairvoyance is a sense, which it must be if you
perceive anything at all with it...)
> The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
> words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
> observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
> what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
>
> The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
> to be done?
it's a lot like a modern CPU. There's, say, a code segment, a data
segment. There's an execute bit for the code segment. So forth.
> I think this is pretty much exactly what Hui-Neng and all
> the other masters are talking about, when they talk about
> directing the mind inwardly and coming to apprehend the
> fundamental nature of mind.
It's a lot like a modern CPU, which isn't aware of what a code segment
is, REALLY. Ok let's put it this way. It EXECUTES the code. It MOVES
the data. It does not create it's own code. THAT is the difference. It
does not create it's own data.
> What can one say about that? I can only say that in the
> suggestion that one seek the "source" of mind, or awareness,
> or whatever, there is a hint of how to conceptually deal with
> the apparent objection of "the eye cannot see the eye" sort of
> thing.
That is exactly the source of the problem. If the eye cannot see the
eye - if we accept this as a truth - if - then there must be a reason
WHY the eye cannot see the eye. And, if this particular reason be
examined without preference, it may be seen - maybe - that it is
nothing. That is, that the reason is actually preference. Capiche? If
you want to know, you know. If you don't want to know, not only do you
not know, you don't know why you don't know. YOU REALLY DON'T KNOW!
So if you want to know, you know - even if there is nothing there.
This is a huge problem.
> The physical eye cannot turn around and view itself,
BZZZT.
You are DEAD wrong.
not only are you wrong, one day you will be DEAD. You have no clue. If
you beg me to be your teacher, I promise I'll consider the offer.
> but the physical eye can, in theory, be physically turned to
> view its own optic nerve (that would require some surgery, or
> a bad accident) and oberve also the neural substrate in which
> the optic nerve bundle is rooted, which is in fact what assembles
> the "seeing" out of the electrical impulses sent by the eye's
> receptors down the optic chiasm.
SO IN OTHER WORDS THERE IS NO PHYSICAL OR LOGICAL OR REALITY-BASED
ANALOGY FOR WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. YOU'RE JUST MAKING SHIT UP AND
SPECULATING. WAKE UP HERBIEDOG.
> Thus the eye can, somewhat indirectly, observe the "source" of its
> own "seeing".
HIRAKI. COMPREHEND.
> Perhaps in this analogy, there is a hint of how the mind can come
> to be aware of its source, or aware of the source of its awareness.
Only because the mind is what it is.
Of course it cannot be aware of it's own whole self in the sense an
outside observer with a larger memory and processing capacity could be
aware of the firing state of every neuron, etc.
You know, I could teach you a lot, if you weren't such a fucking
asshole.
-
herbzet
Awright!
> > I'd like to reserve "direct perception" as meaning "perceived without
> > mediation of the senses" (example: "awareness of awareness"), although
> > I'd like to get rid of "direct perception" as a term althogether, or
> > give it a strictly defined meaning, as I think "perception" should be
> > limited to things perceived *with* the mediation of the senses.
>
> Yeah, well you can call it apperception or cognitive perception, or
> whatever.
Sure -- I guess it might also depend on *what* is being "directly
perceived" -- e.g., we might not want to call our "direct perception"
of an emotion "cognitive perception" since cognition is not primarily
imvolved.
> It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha meant when he considered
> "mind" the 6th sense organ.
Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will make sense to
an ordinary Western sensibility, rather than to someone who has
already assimilated a buddhist analysis.
So we may be at slight cross-purposes here.
> But there is a difference between "looking"
> at a mental object and just having one.
Ok.
> One can conceptualize with no
> awareness that there is an experiencing of the concept or
> thought-stream, but when one observes the process of conceptualizing or
> thinking, one sees that it is an act of perception too, albeit "inner"
> perception.
I get what you mean (though you are wreaking havoc with my desire
that we limit "perception" to apperception via the senses.)
It's like I say "Imagine a tree" and you say "Ok, I'm imagining a tree"
and I say "Ok! You're perceiving a tree!" Well, no, that's not what
people mean by "perception" in western culture, even if Buddha classifies
that as "perception-by-the-mind".
Again, we may be somewhat at cross-purposes here.
> So I think there is a further distinction in terms of a
> mental activity or object and the means by which one experiences it.
> This is normally not exactly talked about. So direct perception might
> be unmediated perception even of a mental object and might have less to
> do with whether the object is internal or external. Awareness of
> awareness on the other hand might be the only perceptual act that has no
> mediation to the extent it takes place.
Well, for the moment, I'm just going to let the phrase "direct perception"
rest in abeyance.
> > For example, if I clairvoyantly read the letter sealed in the envelope,
> > one might say that this is a percept that is received "directly", i.e.,
> > without use of the senses.
>
> I'm not sure if this even takes place.
Yes, it was meant to be an implausible hypothetical example.
> If one receives something
> clairvoyantly it's still being experienced through the equipment, no?
Well, no one has a clue about that.
I will point out that (presumed) examples of clairvoyance are specifically
termed *extra*-sensory perception -- at least it is not "sensory" in any
agreed-upon understanding of the term.
> I
> wonder if the visual cortex is activated when one reviews mental
> imagery. Bet it is.
Oh, probably. I'm not going to call "imagining a tree" "perceiving
a tree" on that basis. I want to be able to have a dialog that can
be understood by non-buddhists.
> >>and any other concepts
> >>that are unnecessary to perception itself but are added on, ie,
> >>interpretive conceptualization. My definitions here are rough and
> >>unexamined, and are probably too complicated to clean up, but they give
> >>a sense of what I am aiming for.
> >
> > We could call that "conditioned perception", thus exhausting the category
> > of perception into conditioned and unconditioned perception.
>
> That sounds like a workable crude set.
Well, alright then.
> > This leaves the problem of what verb to use for "perceiving" things
> > without the senses -- like a tree in a dream, or in an hallucination,
> > or in memory; or for un-physical objects like "awareness" or "anger",
> > or for a bunch of things I probably haven't thought of.
>
> I think it needs to be examined to see whether only the sense organ has
> been displaced but not the internal sensing apparatus, thus making it
> less direct again...
I just want to drop, as far as possible, "direct" or "indirect" perception.
Didn't we just agree to "perception", via the senses, as "conditioned" and
"unconditioned"?
Can we just agree that hallucinating a fire-breathing dragon is not
perceiving anything, even if the visual cortex and limbic system are
firing off madly?
> > I suggest "apperception", as this term already has several uses, some
> > of which are consonant with this suggestion: see
>
> I like apperception.
>
> "...nothing other than what I call transcendental apperception..."
> -Kant
>
> Hope we don't turn into Kantians along the way...
No one seems to like poor old Kant these days.
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception
> >
> > Thus, perception would be a sub-category of apperception.
>
> It would...?
To clarify:
What I'm suggesting is that the category of "Apperceptions"
be divided between stuff that involves the sense organs (that
we call "Perception"), and stuff-that-does-not-involve-the-sense-
organs (that we have no distinguishing term for yet). We can
call any object in either category an "apperception". Thus,
any percept (via the senses) is an apperception, anything else
(like an imagining, a memory, a hallucination, a dream object,
etc.) is also an apperception, and can be referred to as an
apperception, rather than as a perception or percept.
> I guess I better read that thing...
The article gives:
a) "Apperception" in psychology, which seems to be what
we have agreed to call "conditioned perception"
b) Some recondite Kantian definition.
c) "Apperception" in epistomology, which seems to be a label
for what I have just called "stuff-that-does-not-involve-
the-sense-organs-for-which-we-have-as-yet-no-distinguishing-term".
I would be amenable to adopting meaning (c) for "apperception",
rather than my slightly-different proposal just above.
Yes -- you practice mindfulness of awareness.
> > If that's something
> > of an illusion, a hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye sort of trick, then I'm
> > not seeing that it matters practically at this point, although I concede
> > it might ultimately prove to be a significant distinction. But for now
> > I'm content to say that I am aware of my awareness.
>
> or that you can be when reminded of it....?
Right, just so.
> > The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
> > words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
> > observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
> > what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
>
> same thing I'm sure.
>
> >
> > The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
> > to be done?
>
> I have faith based on a preponderence of reports of those in positions
> of authority and high practice in the history of Buddhism that this is
> both possible and does happen more frequently than once a century.
Ok, agreed. Much more than once a century. Probably every time
someone has a good thoroughgoing satori -- at least that often,
would be my guess.
> And my own kensho-like experiences suggest also that this is a reality
> close at hand but hard to grasp on demand. I assume that with more
> concerted practice of the right kind it would become much easier to invoke.
Probably so.
> > I think this is pretty much exactly what Hui-Neng and all
> > the other masters are talking about, when they talk about
> > directing the mind inwardly and coming to apprehend the
> > fundamental nature of mind.
>
> Yes, I agree. It would be a concentrated, undistracted experience of
> the nature of awareness itself with enough immersion to become fully
> customary for the mind. The effect this has on the mind is something I
> have not experienced, because I haven't had the duration which I think
> is necessary to transform the mind beyond merely having an awakening
> experience.
>
> the zen version of Samadhi is aimed at this, and the jhanas too,
> although zen seems to reject jhana as a form of passive suppresion of
> defilements that masks and sedates the problem of delusion.
Which is odd, because "zen" ("chan") derives from "dhyana", which is
Sanskrit for "jhana" (Pali) (according to the wiki article "Dhyana").
Personally, I have little doubt that someone contemplating a koan
with such single-mindedness as to be on the cusp of awakening is
is in a state that would reasonably fall under the description
of "jhana" or "samadhi".
> And yet
> samadhi of the yogic kind would be similar to jhana. As far as samadhi
> - the inward concentrated state - goes for zen:
>
> "Samatha means �stopping� or �calming� and is used in the sense that the
> waves of the ocean are stopped or calmed when the sea becomes placid.
> What is stopped and calmed in the method or process of samatha are the
> delusions of the waves of dualistic thinking and differentiation in the
> ocean of the Alayavijnana, i.e. one�s own nature or mind. Samadhi may be
> appropriately translated as �absorption� or �concentration� in the sense
Yes -- in any case, such analogies, even taken as nothing more than
analogies, might spark off some productive activity in the mind of
the hearer.
The point here is: the "source" of something (like mind, or awareness,
or whatever) might (or might not) be somewhat different from the thing
in question.
So one should suspend preconceptions and inquire with a unbiased mind.
> >>>Certainly we say of known facts that we are aware of them: "I am
> >>>aware, sir, that George Washington was the first President." And
> >>>likewise we can say "I am aware of the fact that I am endowed with
> >>>awareness".
> >>>
> >>>Now this is perhaps a slightly different sense of the word "aware"
> >>>that is better to avoid here, as it just seems like a synonym for
> >>>"know".
> >>
> >>Except for the fact that on the meta-level, one can perceive the
> >>awareness that is at the root of "knowing" just as fruitfully as
> >>observing the awareness that is at the root of perception. The
> >>functions may be different, but the root awareness is the same.
> >
> > Ok, good -- though this removes awareness from being strictly
> > attached only to perception-by-the-senses. Which we already
> > knew, I think.
>
> I think that's right although haven't taken time to inspect it for
> possible snares.
Ok.
> >>>The known fact that we are endowed with awareness can be, as you
> >>>say, the object of serious contemplation, in the same fashion that
> >>>other facts may be the object of serious contemplation.
> >>
> >>It's my suspicion that contemplating this particular fact can lead to a
> >>direct understanding of the nature of all perceptual-mental functioning
> >>as the offspring of awareness and perhaps lead to a more direct
> >>perception of awareness, whereas other facts do not necessarily have the
> >>same kinds of experiential referents. One could say that the awareness
> >>of the fact of awareness is a "living fact" as opposed to a dead one, as
> >>it lives right next door to the awareness itself, and is itself the
> >>offspring of that same awareness; therefore the awareness of this fact
> >>is surrounded on both sides by the awareness itself that it is
> >>referencing. This is not true with the awareness of the existence of an
> >>armadillo in New Mexico, and even if it was, the armadillo if directly
> >>perceived would have no special relationship to the awareness that was
> >>perceiving its existence, whereas the fact of awareness does have a
> >>special relationship to awareness itself, being in intimate and
> >>immediate conjunction with it.
> >
> >
> > All true -- though the contemplation of various other things is
> > a traditional meditational technique.
>
> Sure, there are many techniques but they may not all be on the same
> level of directness. We should distinguish the purpose and efficacy of
> the different types of meditation objects, not just accept them all as
> implicitly the same in value.
My own opinion is that anything that produces some good solid
one-pointedness of mind puts you a hairsbreadth away from some
serious kensho/satori.
I don't think it matters if you arrive via a Cadillac or a dump
truck, as long as you get there.
Yikes! Some serious science!
> More interesting stuff:
> http://www.sbinstitute.com/Study%20Group/SBI%20Study%20Group%20Oct%203%20notes.htm
>
> "This practice of shamatha meditation is based on Alan�s teaching
> suggesting the balancing of �earth and sky.� This offers the full
> spectrum of shamatha practice from the most basic full body awareness to
> the most advanced practice of awareness of awareness, or shamatha
> without a sign."
Well, I guess you're not the only one, then!
> >>>>>>It could be summarized
> >>>>>>by saying "I am aware of X" and then removing both the "I" and the "X."
> >>>>>
> >>>>>1) With regard to removing the X:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>I find it easy, and assume it is easy for others, to be aware that
> >>>>>"I am aware of X", and to note that I am variously aware also of Y,
> >>>>>of Z, and so on, and to note the common feature of "me being aware"
> >>>>>in all these different cases.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>It then seems that I can abstract away the X,Y,Z's and direct my attention
> >>>>>to the general feature of "me being aware" in itself -- that is, I seem
> >>>>>to be directly aware of my awareness.
> >
> >
> > [Confusing stuff snipped, perhaps to reappear in a parallel post]
[...]
Just appears like a blank wall to me. Dead end. Nothing to do but
stare at it.
Also, for me, motivation is lacking. For me, "awareness" is not
saturated with the significance you ascribe to it.
For me, in contemplating the blank wall of awareness, it seems
intuitively evident that the thing to do, as I have mentioned
on several occasions, in several ways, is to throw it away.
Apparently, that's not a suggestion that you find palatable.
Suppose that awareness is really the essence of mind. Suppose
that it isn't. What difference does it make? The idea is to
realize essence of mind -- convictions about it are not particularly
helpful, beyond perhaps supplying some motivation -- in the end,
such conceptions must be abandoned, anyway.
I understand that one wishes to be cautious -- one does not
wish to go careening down any old path that is suggested.
That would likely be a big waste of time and energy, and
could involve some distinct risk to one's mental stability/integrity.
Understood.
> > Not that I have anything particular
> > against awareness-as-essence-of-mind -- it seems as likely as anything
> > else, though you'd think someone might have mentioned that simple
> > equation by this time.
>
> Yeah, that's why I want the original chinese word in direct translation
> maybe by a non-Buddhist, as well as a sanskrit term if Hui Neng was
> using one.
>
> >>but an
> >>awareness unmuddied by errant name-and-form divisions of experience.
> >
> > Well, that sounds more reasonable -- an awareness with which we
> > are normally /totally unfamiliar/! It might as well be an entirely
> > novel faculty of mind!
> >
> > Which might help explain why no one's just come out and identified
> > awareness as the root source and essence of mind (afaik!).
>
> maybe; it is pretty confusing to sort out as we can see...
True. :-)
[...]
> >>On the other hand, if I were to seek "Union with God" my associations
> >>with that idea would probably provide unnecessary obstacles to my
> >>contemplation,
> >
> >
> > Or, importantly, provide substance to your meditation, as you examine
> > those associations minutely and penetratingly.
>
> maybe so.
>
> >
> > IOW, if Robert seeks to achieve "union with God", the substance
> > of his meditiation might be, or include, the examination of
> > precisely what meaning "union with God" might hold -- for Robert.
>
> actually, I'm pretty comfortable translating between traditions and
> their languages. I don't personally see a really big difference in the
> experiences I've had dancing with a Turkish sufi Master and going into a
> state of enlightened awareness listening to a lecture by a Hasidic
> master or the palpable joy experienced in a group of young born-again
> Christians standing on the chairs and waving their arms who were clearly
> experiencing and transmitting the holy spirit. But at the end of the
> day I go back to a practice that expresses in natural terms for me.
> Maybe you are right that adopting a foreign system would bring up more
> worthwhile challenges, but I'm not up for a battle of that kind; no
> longer have the energy. I'd rather just "look" in the simplest way possible.
You know, suddenly I think I "see" what you're saying.
What you want to do is "just 'look' in the simplest way possible."
If you could summon up such simplicity, then maybe you'd have a shot.
Profound simplicity -- not so easy. You have to let go of a lot -- is
that not so?
> >>whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
> >>pure and attracts my attention.
> >
> >
> > Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
> > Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
>
> how about non-o-lithic? :)
Yuk, yuk.
> it's a transparency.
I see -- it only manifests through its objects, you're saying.
> > Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
> > rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
> > likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
> > hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
>
> that is true. one has to keep returning to the basic shock of awareness
> itself to refresh the actuality of it and make sure an image hasn't
> taken over, at least one would think preliminarily.
>
> >
> > Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
> > void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
> > predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
>
> what you can say about it is that it is aware, awake and empty, and that
> it is untouched and unchanged by the content that appears to arise
> within or through it. Those properties are with reference to that which
> has properties; in itself it is merely transparently aware. What else
> could awareness be?
I see: it is a neutral witnessing, you're saying.
> > Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
> > that you're aware of contemplating?
>
> Yes, awareness. Now for someone who is attracted to 'nothing' as an
> object,
This is inaccurate, but that may be due to my own inaccuracy in
expressing myself. But to continue:
> I find it amusing that you are so quick to fill empty awareness
> with this and that. I don't think it has anything to it except that it
> is awake. What qualities does a still body of water have? It reflects,
> it is transparent, it is still, it is empty, it is clear. Similar to
> awareness itself.
>
> It has some qualities,
> > does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
> > say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
> > is it not?
>
> It terms of comparison and observation, yes. When contemplating it
> closely, all that may disappear in just being awake. That's
> enlightenment, isn't it?
That's a conception on your part. Not saying you're wrong or right.
> Awake with nothing added.
>
> > What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
>
> A very awake nothing. Fish swim in the water; do they change the nature
> of the water?
According to you, the fish are a manifestation, a convolution of the water.
So, when there are no fish? That is enlightenment?
When there *are* fish? That is also enlightenment?
Fish? No fish?
--
hz
Appledog
>
> > > I'd like to reserve "direct perception" as meaning "perceived without
> > > mediation of the senses" (example: "awareness of awareness"), although
> > > I'd like to get rid of "direct perception" as a term althogether, or
> > > give it a strictly defined meaning, as I think "perception" should be
> > > limited to things perceived *with* the mediation of the senses.
>
> > Yeah, well you can call it apperception or cognitive perception, or
> > whatever.
>
> Sure -- I guess it might also depend on *what* is being "directly
> perceived" -- e.g., we might not want to call our "direct perception"
> of an emotion "cognitive perception" since cognition is not primarily
> imvolved.
The human mind is incapable of determining if what it is experiencing
is coming from the sense organs, the dream machine, or a cattle prod
inserted into the brain.
> > It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha meant when he considered
> > "mind" the 6th sense organ.
>
> Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will make sense to
> an ordinary Western sensibility, rather than to someone who has
> already assimilated a buddhist analysis.
>
> So we may be at slight cross-purposes here.
First you're completely unqualified. Second you've already rejected
two such treatments I have given to *you*.
The more I've been looking at this - and this is verified by crossover
knowledge from several other disciplines - there is no acceptable
"western analogy". The main problem is that secondary word meanings
pollute the mind-pattern which is being transmitted and this blocks
transmission of the spirit of meaning. The differences can be striking
even with a relatively good translation. Westerners for the most part
end up confused. Look at robert. No offense but his stated goal is to
figure out the essence of human awareness. Can we get any more fish in
water please? It's almost like that "Why male models?" scene in
Zoolander. Really.
> > One can conceptualize with no
> > awareness that there is an experiencing of the concept or
> > thought-stream, but when one observes the process of conceptualizing or
> > thinking, one sees that it is an act of perception too, albeit "inner"
> > perception.
>
> I get what you mean (though you are wreaking havoc with my desire
> that we limit "perception" to apperception via the senses.)
I touched on this a few days ago. This is an important step, but then
you have to be able to make changes to what you're seeing. This was
one of the final steps in meditation theory but they didn't get much
farther than that. I'm willing to bet that buddha did though. I do
think he ended up a failure, unable to really transmit what he
learned. In a sense he might not have even realized what he knew
himself. Since then, partiarchs have been hit and miss. And so it
goes.
> It's like I say "Imagine a tree" and you say "Ok, I'm imagining a tree"
> and I say "Ok! You're perceiving a tree!" Well, no, that's not what
> people mean by "perception" in western culture, even if Buddha classifies
> that as "perception-by-the-mind".
>
> Again, we may be somewhat at cross-purposes here.
Is the point that you are percieving something ala observing it, or
that you are not perceiving it but creating it yourself? There is
suddenly the image of a tree on some level, so you may have created
it, but you are also percieving it in the sense you are aware of it.
Tell me - is it a good tree or a bad tree? IS it happy or sad?
Why or why not?
Can these qualities be ascribed to the tree at will?
How does it feel to ascribe such qualities?
Is the image you result in still a tree?
How does the new tree feel different from the old tree?
These are important questions, but I think you will reject them.
I won't tell you why - at least not right now.
> Can we just agree that hallucinating a fire-breathing dragon is not
> perceiving anything, even if the visual cortex and limbic system are
> firing off madly?
My how you both run in circles like little puppy dogs. Listen. Go open
the fridge. Take 30 seconds, take a good look. Now come back. Answer
yourself a question: What's in the fridge?
Ok - you list off some stuff. But how do you KNOW? You KNOW, but how
do you REMEMBER? What do you "perceive"?
First of all, we only have our five senses. People who claim
extraordinary perception don't do it through a sense organ. They do it
by claiming to "just know". That's the same thing. It is as if I asked
you "what is in MY fridge" and you just knew, the same way you knew
about what was in your own fridge. How else is the information going
to get there?
Now, imagine a tree. How did it get there? Where is the tree,
precisely?
Again, go through the routine. Now go back. Imagine my fridge. Just do
it. Go ahead, tell me three things which are in my fridge, type them
out now, if you're not so fucking stupid and stuck up you think this
is beneath you.
Now please describe this fridge you see. Please describe the room it's
in. Are you aware of the house? The land around it? The people and
country it's in? What precisely do you know?
Question: Can you draw a line from your fridge to my fridge? You
better think twice. There's a barrier you have to cross. I spoke about
this last year but you were a fucking dick to me so I dropped it.
Actually heron stone gave me some respect but I still let it just
drop, since I didn't think you were worth it. But your ideas here are
making me change my mind. Depends if you can control your potty mouth
this time I guess.
> What I'm suggesting is that the category of "Apperceptions"
> be divided between stuff that involves the sense organs (that
> we call "Perception"), and stuff-that-does-not-involve-the-sense-
> organs (that we have no distinguishing term for yet). We can
> call any object in either category an "apperception". Thus,
> any percept (via the senses) is an apperception, anything else
> (like an imagining, a memory, a hallucination, a dream object,
> etc.) is also an apperception, and can be referred to as an
> apperception, rather than as a perception or percept.
Fine, run with that. You're definitely on to something, I will say
that much.
> Yes -- you practice mindfulness of awareness.
Does that help you draw a line between the fridges?
Do you know what this all means? You should think about it.
> > > The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
> > > words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
> > > observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
> > > what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
>
> > same thing I'm sure.
This was the most important part of the post and you two failed to
expand on it.
> > > The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
> > > to be done?
>
> > I have faith based on a preponderence of reports of those in positions
> > of authority and high practice in the history of Buddhism that this is
> > both possible and does happen more frequently than once a century.
>
> Ok, agreed. Much more than once a century. Probably every time
> someone has a good thoroughgoing satori -- at least that often,
> would be my guess.
No one said how it was done yet, though. Do you know?
Would you like me to tell you how?
> > And my own kensho-like experiences suggest also that this is a reality
> > close at hand but hard to grasp on demand. I assume that with more
> > concerted practice of the right kind it would become much easier to invoke.
>
> Probably so.
There are a few things. First, effort. You need to put some work into
it, when you do it. Don't do it half-heartedly. You also need to be
consistent. Do it all the time. No one will teach you this but you
need to figure it out. There are some stories about masters who
figured it out. These were the great masters. But these stories are
hidden. Then we ask again, what is it that needs to be done. If you
know and you don't do it, that is what really pisses zen masters off.
We'd rather let you rot in fucking hell than tell you what to do and
see you die needlessly without having accomplished anything. Go die
like a worm for all I care. You're worthless to me.
> > the zen version of Samadhi is aimed at this, and the jhanas too,
> > although zen seems to reject jhana as a form of passive suppresion of
> > defilements that masks and sedates the problem of delusion.
>
> Which is odd, because "zen" ("chan") derives from "dhyana", which is
> Sanskrit for "jhana" (Pali) (according to the wiki article "Dhyana").
>
> Personally, I have little doubt that someone contemplating a koan
> with such single-mindedness as to be on the cusp of awakening is
> is in a state that would reasonably fall under the description
> of "jhana" or "samadhi".
When beginners first wake up the shock of it may knock them out of it,
but with repeated practice they can hold on longer and longer. Some of
the keys are in not fighting it. Then finally you learn how to ask the
koan while you're in such a state and then you can get an answer to
it. Fucked up troglodytes such as yourself would never be able to hold
on long enough to get the answer - let alone get a kensho in the first
place. The shock would kill you as it killed Darth Vader.
> Yes -- in any case, such analogies, even taken as nothing more than
> analogies, might spark off some productive activity in the mind of
> the hearer.
>
> The point here is: the "source" of something (like mind, or awareness,
> or whatever) might (or might not) be somewhat different from the thing
> in question.
>
> So one should suspend preconceptions and inquire with a unbiased mind.
So what? You can't do it now, you can't do it. It's obvious, isn't it?
The only way for YOU to figure it out is to apologize to me and pay me
money to teach you.
Until then keep going with your academic discussions of hearing and
perceptions of the senses. I'm sure you'll figure it out, some life.
Hey, if I did, then anyone can.
> > > Well, that would be interesting, but I have no contribution to make
> > > here. What I know about awareness doesn't come from direct contemplation
> > > of it, but indirectly, from otherwise *using* my awareness.
>
> > That's only one step removed. Why not take a closer look? ;-)
>
> Just appears like a blank wall to me. Dead end. Nothing to do but
> stare at it.
Some fractals "grow" when more iterations are performed to "render"
them.
I think you need to stop rendering and start looking.
> Also, for me, motivation is lacking. For me, "awareness" is not
> saturated with the significance you ascribe to it.
Most of this is just academic discussion. I mean, you're right, it's
possible, but that doesn't mean it is important. There are other goals
and understandings more important and in a sense deeper. This sort of
knowledge is mainly useful if you plan on using it later on. But if
you don't even know why you want/need to know it, then you're probably
not going to figure it out.
> For me, in contemplating the blank wall of awareness, it seems
> intuitively evident that the thing to do, as I have mentioned
> on several occasions, in several ways, is to throw it away.
> Apparently, that's not a suggestion that you find palatable.
You're right. I'll tell you what's on the other side of that wall. A
garden. And that garden is surrounded by walls. Do you know what's in
the garden? A bunch of plants. That's it. There are some plants and
trees and flowers. Not much else. It's pretty big, but it's also
pretty boring. Go look at it if you want. Then come back there's more
interesting things to do out here. It's really all the same. It's not
interesting over there.
> > Maybe, but what else is there beyond awareness that is still sentient
> > that could be more primary? Can you think of any candidates?
>
> Suppose that awareness is really the essence of mind. Suppose
> that it isn't. What difference does it make? The idea is to
> realize essence of mind -- convictions about it are not particularly
> helpful, beyond perhaps supplying some motivation -- in the end,
> such conceptions must be abandoned, anyway.
>
> I understand that one wishes to be cautious -- one does not
> wish to go careening down any old path that is suggested.
> That would likely be a big waste of time and energy, and
> could involve some distinct risk to one's mental stability/integrity.
>
> Understood.
You already can do all of what you describe, but your essence of mind
has already made some decisions for you. Let's say for an academic
example you decide to take conscious control of your heart beating. Do
you now kill yourself just because you can? You see, you already CAN
take such control, but you don't because you have already decided not
to kill yourself. Breathing is a little different because of the size
of the lungs, and their function in the motion of the body (thats
giving a lot away, but what the hell ehh?)
Go ahead. Will yourself to stop breathing. If that's what you really
wanted you would have done it by now. Don't be a fool. Why do you want
to know these things? Merely because they're interesting to you? Whats
your purpose? Someone like you with a disgusting little potty mouth
doesn't deserve to know such things. Why should anyone teach you?
> > > Which might help explain why no one's just come out and identified
> > > awareness as the root source and essence of mind (afaik!).
>
> > maybe; it is pretty confusing to sort out as we can see...
>
> True. :-)
No, it's untrue. I for one have mentioned what is and what is not the
root source quite a few times, as have a few others. What IS true is
that YOU are confused. Which brings us back to you begging my
forgiveness and giving me money, which you are unlikely to ever do.
Therefore, you will remain trapped in your ridiculous, cramped non-
accepting mental state and you will be unable to gain what you seek.
-
Tang Huyen
herbzet wrote:
> halfawake:
>
> > It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
> > meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
> > organ.
>
> Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
> make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
> than to someone who has already assimilated a
> buddhist analysis.
>
> So we may be at slight cross-purposes here.
Gilles-Gaston Granger, Formes op�rations objets,
Paris: Vrin, 1994, 34: "forme et contenu ne
sauraient �tre ant�rieurs � une repr�sentation
symbolique du v�cu. Un v�cu dans lequel rien ne
fonctionnerait comme signe manifesterait-il
cependant une opposition spontan�e de forme �
contenu? Non, car cette opposition, malgr� les
connotations physiques de sa formulation
m�taphorique, qui sugg�re une s�parabilit�
mat�rielle et pour ainsi dire m�chanique, est une
opposition de sens, c'est-�-dire de fonction dans
un univers symbolique. Elle ne peut �tre effective
qu'au b�n�fice d'un acte de pens�e -- ou si l'on
veut de langage -- par le moyen duquel l'un de
ses termes renvoie � l'autre, soit que la forme
devienne signe du contenu, soit que le contenu
signifie la forme. [snip]
Une exp�rience qui serait totalement asymbolique
n'aurait aucun moyen de dissocier des formes. Il
est vrai que la fiction d'une telle exp�rience n'est
sans doute qu'une hyperbole philosophique, mais
il nous semble qu'on peut cependant concevoir, ou
imaginer, une vis�e du sensible qui nous y enferme
et exclut toute expression, en m�me temps qu'elle
ferait dispara�tre toute opposition d'un contenu et
d'une forme."
Ibidem, 333: "Or, la pure naturalit�, le degr� z�ro
de cet investissement humain, c'est l'absence
suppos�e parfaite de toute signification dans l'objet:
concept limite, bien entendu, car la rar�faction
progressive des significations dans un univers
correspond pr�cis�ment � une r�gression de la
pr�sence humaine. Un monde d'objets sans
signification, un monde o� rien ne parle � l'homme,
est assur�ment inimaginable."
This unimaginable universe where nothing speaks
to man, where human presence regresses to zero
zip zilch, where human investment is nil, is
experienced in a totally non-symbolic manner: pure
naturality, with no meaning, no sign, no symbol, but
everything is already fully its own expression, in full
perfection, with nothing hidden and nothing to be
expressed that is not already there, up front. (A sign
or symbol refers to something other than it, so this
state where there is no sign and symbol does not
refer to anything outside of itself but is already
ultimate in its raw factuality). It's not even a
tautology, because it simply does not talk. It is just
presence and openness, and nothing added on top of
that.
"What would the talker (ho leg�n) have to do, if
things had to appear already by themselves (eis
phanoito �d� di� auta) and have no need for talk?"
Aristotle, Poetics, 19, 1456b7.
Giovanni Ferretti, Ontologie et th�ologie chez Kant.
Relire Kant apr�s Heidegger et L�vinas, Paris: Cerf,
2001, 78, n. 1: "la ph�nom�nologie contemporaine
n'entend en aucune fa�on retomber dans un pr�tendu
'r�alisme na�f' qui souteindrait que nous puissions
avoir un connaissance directe de la chose m�me sans
tenir compte des diff�rents proc�s interpr�tatifs qui
impliquent que ce que nous connaissons soit pour
nous plus un 'ph�nom�ne' qu'un donn� 'objectif'. La
ph�nom�nologie veut plut�t, d'une part, commencer �
philosopher en �liminant tout pr�suppos� et, d'autre
part, d�gager par des analyses ph�nom�nologiques
appropri�es, les diff�rents niveaux de notre
connaissance jusqu'� d�voiler l'origine m�me des
pr�suppos�s dualistes � l'�uvre dans notre
connaissance. Il est possible, selon la ph�nom�nologie,
� partir de ce qui se montre et de cette seule
monstration, de jeter un regard critique sur la
distinction entre 'ph�nom�ne' et 'chose en soi', dont
notre conna�tre naturel et scientifique est impr�gn�,
sans qu'il soit n�cessaire de consid�rer cette distinction
comme �tant pr�suppos�e dans le langage
'apparence-ph�nom�ne'."
Ferretti's book is in Italian and here I quote from the
French translation. What shows and this sole showing,
the non-symbolic, non-cultural showing, which does
not represent anything and does not mediate anything,
is not represented by anything and is not mediated by
anything, makes no reference to anything and does
not point to anything, is sufficient to itself and
compleat in itself, is its own end (Selbstzweck), in
utter isolation, would be the objective counterpart to
an experience that is purely subjective and strictly
sentimental, except that the latter does not try to fit
the former into any box. So, in brief, an experience
that is not boxed into any box. Of course such
objective side can well be a pure feeling, devoid of
anything objective ... But precisely, such a state does
not care if it has an objective side or not ... Truth has
no truth, otherwise it would not be truth ... In eternity
all is eternity, in grace all is grace ... That is the grace
of it all ...
Tang Huyen
DharmaTroll
wrote:
>
> Giovanni Ferretti, Ontologie et théologie chez Kant.
> Relire Kant après Heidegger et Lévinas, Paris: Cerf,
> 2001, 78, n. 1: "la phénoménologie contemporaine
> n'entend en aucune façon retomber dans un prétendu
> 'réalisme naïf' qui souteindrait que nous puissions
> avoir un connaissance directe de la chose même sans
> tenir compte des différents procès interprétatifs qui
> impliquent que ce que nous connaissons soit pour
> phénoménologie veut plutôt, d'une part, commencer à
> philosopher en éliminant tout présupposé et, d'autre
> part, dégager par des analyses phénoménologiques
> appropriées, les différents niveaux de notre
> connaissance jusqu'à dévoiler l'origine même des
> présupposés dualistes à l'œuvre dans notre
> connaissance. Il est possible, selon la phénoménologie,
> à partir de ce qui se montre et de cette seule
> monstration, de jeter un regard critique sur la
> notre connaître naturel et scientifique est imprégné,
> sans qu'il soit nécessaire de considérer cette distinction
> comme étant présupposée dans le langage
> 'apparence-phénomène'."
>
> Ferretti's book is in Italian and here I quote from the
> French translation.
Heh. I think that should be your epitaph, Tang: "Ferretti's book is
in Italian and here I quote from the French translation."
--DharmaTroll
zenworm
> > halfawake:
>
> > > It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
> > > meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
> > > organ.
>
> > Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
> > make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
> > than to someone who has already assimilated a
> > buddhist analysis.
>
> > So we may be at slight cross-purposes here.
>
> Paris: Vrin, 1994, 34: "forme et contenu ne
> symbolique du vécu. Un vécu dans lequel rien ne
> fonctionnerait comme signe manifesterait-il
> cependant une opposition spontanée de forme à
> contenu? Non, car cette opposition, malgré les
> connotations physiques de sa formulation
> matérielle et pour ainsi dire méchanique, est une
> opposition de sens, c'est-à-dire de fonction dans
> un univers symbolique. Elle ne peut être effective
> qu'au bénéfice d'un acte de pensée -- ou si l'on
> veut de langage -- par le moyen duquel l'un de
> devienne signe du contenu, soit que le contenu
> signifie la forme. [snip]
>
> n'aurait aucun moyen de dissocier des formes. Il
> sans doute qu'une hyperbole philosophique, mais
> il nous semble qu'on peut cependant concevoir, ou
> et exclut toute expression, en même temps qu'elle
> ferait disparaître toute opposition d'un contenu et
> d'une forme."
>
> Ibidem, 333: "Or, la pure naturalité, le degré zéro
> de cet investissement humain, c'est l'absence
> concept limite, bien entendu, car la raréfaction
> progressive des significations dans un univers
> présence humaine. Un monde d'objets sans
> signification, un monde où rien ne parle à l'homme,
> est assurément inimaginable."
>
> This unimaginable universe where nothing speaks
> to man, where human presence regresses to zero
> zip zilch, where human investment is nil, is
> experienced in a totally non-symbolic manner: pure
> naturality, with no meaning, no sign, no symbol, but
> everything is already fully its own expression, in full
> perfection, with nothing hidden and nothing to be
> expressed that is not already there, up front. (A sign
> or symbol refers to something other than it, so this
> state where there is no sign and symbol does not
> refer to anything outside of itself but is already
> ultimate in its raw factuality). It's not even a
> tautology, because it simply does not talk. It is just
> presence and openness, and nothing added on top of
> that.
>
> things had to appear already by themselves (eis
> Aristotle, Poetics, 19, 1456b7.
>
> Giovanni Ferretti, Ontologie et théologie chez Kant.
> Relire Kant après Heidegger et Lévinas, Paris: Cerf,
> 2001, 78, n. 1: "la phénoménologie contemporaine
> n'entend en aucune façon retomber dans un prétendu
> 'réalisme naïf' qui souteindrait que nous puissions
> avoir un connaissance directe de la chose même sans
> impliquent que ce que nous connaissons soit pour
> phénoménologie veut plutôt, d'une part, commencer à
> philosopher en éliminant tout présupposé et, d'autre
> part, dégager par des analyses phénoménologiques
> appropriées, les différents niveaux de notre
> connaissance jusqu'à dévoiler l'origine même des
> connaissance. Il est possible, selon la phénoménologie,
> à partir de ce qui se montre et de cette seule
> monstration, de jeter un regard critique sur la
> notre connaître naturel et scientifique est imprégné,
> sans qu'il soit nécessaire de considérer cette distinction
> comme étant présupposée dans le langage
>
> Ferretti's book is in Italian and here I quote from the
> French translation. What shows and this sole showing,
> the non-symbolic, non-cultural showing, which does
> not represent anything and does not mediate anything,
> is not represented by anything and is not mediated by
> anything, makes no reference to anything and does
> not point to anything, is sufficient to itself and
> compleat in itself, is its own end (Selbstzweck), in
> utter isolation, would be the objective counterpart to
> an experience that is purely subjective and strictly
> sentimental, except that the latter does not try to fit
> the former into any box. So, in brief, an experience
> that is not boxed into any box. Of course such
> objective side can well be a pure feeling, devoid of
> anything objective ... But precisely, such a state does
> not care if it has an objective side or not ... Truth has
> no truth, otherwise it would not be truth ... In eternity
> all is eternity, in grace all is grace ... That is the grace
> of it all ...
>
> Tang Huyen
diabolical box ;D
in Moment all is Moment
gratitude
Tang Huyen
zenworm wrote:
> diabolical box ;D
>
> in Moment all is Moment
>
> gratitude
<<diabolical box>>, indeed, as those
who try to think it out all the way are
going to go mad. God doesn't like to
be thought-up, just received in utter
devotion and rapt attention, without
any reference.
Tang Huyen
zenworm
From the pulpit of Eisegesis
pushing a booklist of required reading
for the university of Reality
inciting fermentation of Intellect
through vainglorious Mentation
spending Moment polishing Tiles
not comprehending structure
Content transient is God?
liaM
>
> herbzet wrote:
>
>> halfawake:
>>
>>> It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
>>> meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
>>> organ.
Gautama was wrong in this.
Sex is the 6th sense organ,
think about it, vastly different from touch in its scope
and effects.
>> Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
>> make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
>> than to someone who has already assimilated a
>> buddhist analysis.
You're asking for the moon but it can be done,
it has been done in different ways, for example
by stress induced brain washing,
which was how Werner Ehrhart's EST seminars
got hundreds of people "to get" what
the sound sounds like of one hand clapping.
No one can say that these hundred of folks
did or didn't get it, since consciousness
is a non transmissible condition. (Buddhist
iconography represents as the field of buddhas
stretching in all dimensions of space)
Another, equally Western approach, was
scientific, beginning with the experiments
by cognitive psychologists in the '60s
which proved that there is no such thing as a
perception that is not a thought. A blind
person can see the color red if he thinks
hard enough (c) 2009 liaM.
Science, thereby, gives a basis which leads
straight to the Buddha's 5 aggregates,
and should bring a normally receptive and
creative student to intellectual Nibbana
as a matter of time, inspiration and logic.
But science is a deluder, and it causes
as many problems as it solves. It seems
we cannot live without it. In fact
6.5 billions of folk depend on it to
survive the next 50 years. That is antithetical
to the Buddha's ultimate conclusion :
pyramids, even they, appear and vanish.
Where science falters, philosophy conquers
and it doesn't have to test hundreds of volonteers
to do so. Philosophy had already arrived to the
notion that perception is already a thought.
We see what we think we see. But philosophy had
asked why, and had come to the conclusion that
thinking always involves our acts. We don't think
about things. We think about acts directed at
things. In other words, whatever we do, thinking
is always intentional.
So far so good. But what about science?
Is science fraught with intentions? When
Hawkins and Gamow look for the universe's
beginning, what is it they are doing?
Did Newton and Einstein want to conquer the
universe? I'm afraid so.
The two foremost XXth century philosophers
tackled this catch 22 double bind conundrum,
Wittgenstein using his wit, coming up with
his own brand of zen, and Edmund Husserl,
by asking questions such as "what is is it
we do when we think about things that do not
exist".
These approaches provide vocabularies
by which we in the west have bootstrapped
ourselves like the buddha to views on
reality unbounded by caves or bodhi trees.
Phenomenology, science, zen or esalen mahamudra
training can provide the boot. The strap,
however, depends entirely on you.
>>
>> So we may be at slight cross-purposes here.
>
> Gilles-Gaston Granger, Formes op�rations objets,
> Paris: Vrin, 1994, 34: "forme et contenu ne
> sauraient �tre ant�rieurs � une repr�sentation
> symbolique du v�cu. Un v�cu dans lequel rien ne
> fonctionnerait comme signe manifesterait-il
> cependant une opposition spontan�e de forme �
> contenu? Non, car cette opposition, malgr� les
> connotations physiques de sa formulation
> m�taphorique, qui sugg�re une s�parabilit�
> mat�rielle et pour ainsi dire m�chanique, est une
> opposition de sens, c'est-�-dire de fonction dans
> un univers symbolique. Elle ne peut �tre effective
> qu'au b�n�fice d'un acte de pens�e -- ou si l'on
> veut de langage -- par le moyen duquel l'un de
> ses termes renvoie � l'autre, soit que la forme
> devienne signe du contenu, soit que le contenu
> signifie la forme. [snip]
>
> Une exp�rience qui serait totalement asymbolique
> n'aurait aucun moyen de dissocier des formes. Il
> est vrai que la fiction d'une telle exp�rience n'est
> sans doute qu'une hyperbole philosophique, mais
> il nous semble qu'on peut cependant concevoir, ou
> imaginer, une vis�e du sensible qui nous y enferme
> et exclut toute expression, en m�me temps qu'elle
> ferait dispara�tre toute opposition d'un contenu et
> d'une forme."
>
> Ibidem, 333: "Or, la pure naturalit�, le degr� z�ro
> de cet investissement humain, c'est l'absence
> suppos�e parfaite de toute signification dans l'objet:
> concept limite, bien entendu, car la rar�faction
> progressive des significations dans un univers
> correspond pr�cis�ment � une r�gression de la
> pr�sence humaine. Un monde d'objets sans
> signification, un monde o� rien ne parle � l'homme,
> est assur�ment inimaginable."
>
> This unimaginable universe where nothing speaks
> to man, where human presence regresses to zero
> zip zilch, where human investment is nil, is
> experienced in a totally non-symbolic manner: pure
> naturality, with no meaning, no sign, no symbol, but
> everything is already fully its own expression, in full
> perfection, with nothing hidden and nothing to be
> expressed that is not already there, up front. (A sign
> or symbol refers to something other than it, so this
> state where there is no sign and symbol does not
> refer to anything outside of itself but is already
> ultimate in its raw factuality). It's not even a
> tautology, because it simply does not talk. It is just
> presence and openness, and nothing added on top of
> that.
>
> "What would the talker (ho leg�n) have to do, if
> things had to appear already by themselves (eis
> phanoito �d� di� auta) and have no need for talk?"
> Aristotle, Poetics, 19, 1456b7.
>
> Giovanni Ferretti, Ontologie et th�ologie chez Kant.
> Relire Kant apr�s Heidegger et L�vinas, Paris: Cerf,
> 2001, 78, n. 1: "la ph�nom�nologie contemporaine
> n'entend en aucune fa�on retomber dans un pr�tendu
> 'r�alisme na�f' qui souteindrait que nous puissions
> avoir un connaissance directe de la chose m�me sans
> tenir compte des diff�rents proc�s interpr�tatifs qui
> impliquent que ce que nous connaissons soit pour
> nous plus un 'ph�nom�ne' qu'un donn� 'objectif'. La
> ph�nom�nologie veut plut�t, d'une part, commencer �
> philosopher en �liminant tout pr�suppos� et, d'autre
> part, d�gager par des analyses ph�nom�nologiques
> appropri�es, les diff�rents niveaux de notre
> connaissance jusqu'� d�voiler l'origine m�me des
> pr�suppos�s dualistes � l'�uvre dans notre
> connaissance. Il est possible, selon la ph�nom�nologie,
> � partir de ce qui se montre et de cette seule
> monstration, de jeter un regard critique sur la
> distinction entre 'ph�nom�ne' et 'chose en soi', dont
> notre conna�tre naturel et scientifique est impr�gn�,
> sans qu'il soit n�cessaire de consid�rer cette distinction
> comme �tant pr�suppos�e dans le langage
> 'apparence-ph�nom�ne'."
DharmaTroll
Now if only we can get Bill Shatner to read that to drumbeats!
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
> Tang Huyen a écrit :
>
>
>
> > herbzet wrote:
>
> >> halfawake:
>
> >>> It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
> >>> meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
> >>> organ.
>
> Gautama was wrong in this.
>
> Sex is the 6th sense organ,
> think about it, vastly different from touch in its scope
> and effects.
>
> >> Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
> >> make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
> >> than to someone who has already assimilated a
> >> buddhist analysis.
>
> You're asking for the moon but it can be done,
> it has been done in different ways, for example
> by stress induced brain washing,
> which was how Werner Ehrhart's EST seminars
> got hundreds of people "to get" what
> the sound sounds like of one hand clapping.
>
> No one can say that these hundred of folks
> did or didn't get it, since consciousness
> is a non transmissible condition.
I can say a lot about what they got or didn't get. I took EST training
in college (it had already been renamed to the "Landmark Forum"). I
even wrote a term paper on it for a sociology class. It was not only
stress-induced brain-washing, but driven by intense peer-pressure.
People end up "getting it" as Kapleau "got it" after a couple of
weekends of intense stress, and in the end, if you smiled and talked
the talk in the right way, you got praised and recognized, and then
they hit you up for more money and try to get you to enroll all your
friends and family. At the last day of the EST training, when they
pressure you to give them more money for ongoing seminars, I talked
the talk and figured I'd get my cut and take a piece of the action and
panhandled, talking all the EST-talk and emulating their cultish
smiles and so forth. I got all four pockets filled with 5, 10, and 20
dollar bills in an hour or so and ended up with hundreds of dollars
from estholes who were oogling in ecstatic bliss from "getting it". I
ended up getting my money back with interest because, um, I "got it".
Oh, and I got an A on my paper about the experience.
--DharmaTroll
"If you could really accept that you weren't ok, you could stop
proving you were ok. If you could stop proving that you were ok, you
could get that it was ok not to be ok. If you could get that it was ok
not to be ok, you could get that you were ok the way you are. You're
ok, get it?"
-Werner Erhard
halfawake
well, you are perceiving an image, but not a dragon.
you don't want to call that perception, so suggest a distinguishing term
that makes it clear - apprehending? which is a more general term....
>
>
>>>I suggest "apperception", as this term already has several uses, some
>>>of which are consonant with this suggestion: see
>>
>>I like apperception.
>>
>>"...nothing other than what I call transcendental apperception..."
>> -Kant
>>
>>Hope we don't turn into Kantians along the way...
>
>
> No one seems to like poor old Kant these days.
well he was a bit stiff and polarized.
>
>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apperception
>>>
>>>Thus, perception would be a sub-category of apperception.
>>
>>It would...?
>
>
> To clarify:
>
> What I'm suggesting is that the category of "Apperceptions"
> be divided between stuff that involves the sense organs (that
> we call "Perception"), and stuff-that-does-not-involve-the-sense-
> organs (that we have no distinguishing term for yet). We can
> call any object in either category an "apperception". Thus,
> any percept (via the senses) is an apperception, anything else
> (like an imagining, a memory, a hallucination, a dream object,
> etc.) is also an apperception, and can be referred to as an
> apperception, rather than as a perception or percept.
>
>
>>I guess I better read that thing...
>
>
> The article gives:
>
> a) "Apperception" in psychology, which seems to be what
> we have agreed to call "conditioned perception"
>
> b) Some recondite Kantian definition.
>
> c) "Apperception" in epistomology, which seems to be a label
> for what I have just called "stuff-that-does-not-involve-
> the-sense-organs-for-which-we-have-as-yet-no-distinguishing-term".
>
> I would be amenable to adopting meaning (c) for "apperception",
> rather than my slightly-different proposal just above.
okay
yup, guess that is a good way of putting it.
>
>
>>>If that's something
>>>of an illusion, a hand-is-quicker-than-the-eye sort of trick, then I'm
>>>not seeing that it matters practically at this point, although I concede
>>>it might ultimately prove to be a significant distinction. But for now
>>>I'm content to say that I am aware of my awareness.
>>
>>or that you can be when reminded of it....?
>
>
> Right, just so.
>
>
>>>The other case is the more profound situation, of the mind, in your
>>>words, "turning towards its own root awakeness" and thus directly
>>>observing its own awareness. This is of much greater import, perhaps
>>>what is meant by the phrase "turning around in the seat of conscousness".
>>
>>same thing I'm sure.
>>
>>
>>>The question here becomes: is that possible, and if so, how is that
>>>to be done?
>>
>>I have faith based on a preponderence of reports of those in positions
>>of authority and high practice in the history of Buddhism that this is
>>both possible and does happen more frequently than once a century.
>
>
> Ok, agreed. Much more than once a century. Probably every time
> someone has a good thoroughgoing satori -- at least that often,
> would be my guess.
that would be synonymous.
>
>
>>And my own kensho-like experiences suggest also that this is a reality
>>close at hand but hard to grasp on demand. I assume that with more
>>concerted practice of the right kind it would become much easier to invoke.
>
>
> Probably so.
>
>
>>>I think this is pretty much exactly what Hui-Neng and all
>>>the other masters are talking about, when they talk about
>>>directing the mind inwardly and coming to apprehend the
>>>fundamental nature of mind.
>>
>>Yes, I agree. It would be a concentrated, undistracted experience of
>>the nature of awareness itself with enough immersion to become fully
>>customary for the mind. The effect this has on the mind is something I
>>have not experienced, because I haven't had the duration which I think
>>is necessary to transform the mind beyond merely having an awakening
>>experience.
>>
>>the zen version of Samadhi is aimed at this, and the jhanas too,
>>although zen seems to reject jhana as a form of passive suppresion of
>>defilements that masks and sedates the problem of delusion.
>
>
> Which is odd, because "zen" ("chan") derives from "dhyana", which is
> Sanskrit for "jhana" (Pali) (according to the wiki article "Dhyana").
>
> Personally, I have little doubt that someone contemplating a koan
> with such single-mindedness as to be on the cusp of awakening is
> is in a state that would reasonably fall under the description
> of "jhana" or "samadhi".
maybe in a general way. yet Hakuin railed against jhana/samadhi
practice as it is practiced in Theravada, saying folks were merely
supressing defilements and making themselves stupified through trances.
>
>
>>And yet
>>samadhi of the yogic kind would be similar to jhana. As far as samadhi
>>- the inward concentrated state - goes for zen:
>>
>>"Samatha means �stopping� or �calming� and is used in the sense that the
>>waves of the ocean are stopped or calmed when the sea becomes placid.
>>What is stopped and calmed in the method or process of samatha are the
>>delusions of the waves of dualistic thinking and differentiation in the
>>ocean of the Alayavijnana, i.e. one�s own nature or mind. Samadhi may be
>>appropriately translated as �absorption� or �concentration� in the sense
in most cases, yes.
>
> So one should suspend preconceptions and inquire with a unbiased mind.
never a bad idea.
that's fine. just a question of whether it does or not, and how quickly
or effortfully.
I don't assume that all objects are the same.
yup
>
>
>>More interesting stuff:
>>http://www.sbinstitute.com/Study%20Group/SBI%20Study%20Group%20Oct%203%20notes.htm
>>
>>"This practice of shamatha meditation is based on Alan�s teaching
>>suggesting the balancing of �earth and sky.� This offers the full
>>spectrum of shamatha practice from the most basic full body awareness to
>>the most advanced practice of awareness of awareness, or shamatha
>>without a sign."
>
>
> Well, I guess you're not the only one, then!
apparently not. I think it's a "Buddhist" thing....
Hm....awareness does not appear blank to me. Is 'nothing' less blank?
How so?
>
> Also, for me, motivation is lacking. For me, "awareness" is not
> saturated with the significance you ascribe to it.
okay - I don't see why this is, but I can understand it.
>
> For me, in contemplating the blank wall of awareness, it seems
> intuitively evident that the thing to do, as I have mentioned
> on several occasions, in several ways, is to throw it away.
> Apparently, that's not a suggestion that you find palatable.
I don't find it unpalatable. I don't understand the purpose of it, and
you don't seem able to explain it. Throwing away awareness would wind
you up with "nothing" again, which seems to attract you, but I don't
understand what throwing away awareness means. It seems the equivalent
to me of saying "throw away your leg." How would you go about it, and why?
how can you realize it if you don't know what it is?
well at the very least, you'd have to give up the presumption that
there's something else to do that is necessary, and you'd have to be
able to drop a lot as things arose, or else just look at them as well.
>
>
>
>>>>whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
>>>>pure and attracts my attention.
>>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
>>>Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
>>
>>how about non-o-lithic? :)
>
>
> Yuk, yuk.
>
>
>>it's a transparency.
>
>
> I see -- it only manifests through its objects, you're saying.
well, it's only clearly visible through its object, like water being
disturbed by fish.
>
>
>>>Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
>>>rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
>>>likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
>>>hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
>>
>>that is true. one has to keep returning to the basic shock of awareness
>>itself to refresh the actuality of it and make sure an image hasn't
>>taken over, at least one would think preliminarily.
>>
>>
>>>Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
>>>void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
>>>predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
>>
>>what you can say about it is that it is aware, awake and empty, and that
>>it is untouched and unchanged by the content that appears to arise
>>within or through it. Those properties are with reference to that which
>>has properties; in itself it is merely transparently aware. What else
>>could awareness be?
>
>
> I see: it is a neutral witnessing, you're saying.
I think that's pretty good, although I'm not sure it is always in
'watching' mode.
>
>
>>>Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
>>>that you're aware of contemplating?
>>
>>Yes, awareness. Now for someone who is attracted to 'nothing' as an
>>object,
>
>
> This is inaccurate, but that may be due to my own inaccuracy in
> expressing myself. But to continue:
>
>
>>I find it amusing that you are so quick to fill empty awareness
>>with this and that. I don't think it has anything to it except that it
>>is awake. What qualities does a still body of water have? It reflects,
>>it is transparent, it is still, it is empty, it is clear. Similar to
>>awareness itself.
>>
>> It has some qualities,
>>
>>>does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
>>>say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
>>>is it not?
>>
>>It terms of comparison and observation, yes. When contemplating it
>>closely, all that may disappear in just being awake. That's
>>enlightenment, isn't it?
>
>
> That's a conception on your part. Not saying you're wrong or right.
maybe.
>
>
>
>>Awake with nothing added.
>>
>>
>>>What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
>>
>>A very awake nothing. Fish swim in the water; do they change the nature
>>of the water?
>
>
> According to you, the fish are a manifestation, a convolution of the water.
not sure if I'm saying that, but I would not say that about fish...
>
> So, when there are no fish? That is enlightenment?
in the analogy, maybe.
>
> When there *are* fish? That is also enlightenment?
Only if one sees that the fish are no-fish.
>
> Fish? No fish?
exactly.
robert
zenworm
The funny thing is
people who read it
think it is about someone 'else'.
liaM
> I can say a lot about what they got or didn't get. I took EST training
> in college (it had already been renamed to the "Landmark Forum"). I
> even wrote a term paper on it for a sociology class. It was not only
> stress-induced brain-washing, but driven by intense peer-pressure.
> People end up "getting it" as Kapleau "got it" after a couple of
> weekends of intense stress, and in the end, if you smiled and talked
> the talk in the right way, you got praised and recognized, and then
> they hit you up for more money and try to get you to enroll all your
> friends and family. At the last day of the EST training, when they
> pressure you to give them more money for ongoing seminars, I talked
> the talk and figured I'd get my cut and take a piece of the action and
> panhandled, talking all the EST-talk and emulating their cultish
> smiles and so forth. I got all four pockets filled with 5, 10, and 20
> dollar bills in an hour or so and ended up with hundreds of dollars
> from estholes who were oogling in ecstatic bliss from "getting it". I
> ended up getting my money back with interest because, um, I "got it".
> Oh, and I got an A on my paper about the experience.
>
> --DharmaTroll
Nice !
The EST training is I believe a spinoff from Scientology.
Scientology itself was an amalgam of buddhist principles, Pavlovian
training, and good old american business acumen. You "got it".
You made a profit !
But you didn't "get" the full monty. Pavlov missed in your case.
Maybe it's your endocrine system. Hardly a jolt from the adrenaline
or reward from the endorphins.
Who's to envy? you who got the cash or the Estholes who got the kick?
DharmaTroll
I don't seem to have the 'believer' gene or the 'dogma' gene.
Or maybe I just think critically.
> Who's to envy? you who got the cash or the Estholes who got the kick?
Heh.
I'm amazed at how smart people are so easily zapped by religion. Or
make such uncritical interpretations about their own experiences and
then refuse to examine their interpretations and insist that they have
a pipeline to God (whether we're talking Robert or others on this list
or the estholes). An article I read last week has some insights on
this, on which smart people are so easily deluded by their
interpretations:
<<Unlike many critics of IQ testing, Stanovich and other researchers
into rational thinking are not trying to redefine intelligence, which
they are happy to characterise as those mental abilities that can be
measured by IQ tests. Rather, they are trying to focus attention on
cognitive faculties that go beyond intelligence - what they describe
as the essential tools of rational thinking. These, they claim, are
just as important as intelligence to judgment and decision-making. "IQ
is only part of what it means to be smart," says Evans.
As an illustration of how rational-thinking ability differs from
intelligence, consider this puzzle: if it takes five machines 5
minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to
make 100 widgets? Most people instinctively jump to the wrong answer
that "feels" right - 100 - even if they later amend it. When Shane
Frederick at the Yale School of Management in New Haven, Connecticut,
put this and two similarly counter-intuitive questions to about 3400
students at various colleges and universities in the US - Harvard and
Princeton among them - only 17 per cent got all three right (see "Test
your thinking"). A third of the students failed to give any correct
answers (Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol 19, p 25).
We encounter problems like these in various guises every day. Without
careful reasoning we often get them wrong, probably because our brains
use two different systems to process information (see New Scientist,
30 August 2008, p 34). One is intuitive and spontaneous; the other is
deliberative and reasoned. Intuitive processing can serve us well in
some areas - choosing a potential partner, for example, or in
situations where you've had a lot of experience. It can trip us up in
others, though, such as when we overvalue our own egocentric
perspective. Deliberative processing, on the other hand, is key to
conscious problem-solving and can help us override our intuitive
tendencies if they look like leading us astray.
The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at
assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of
working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them
when the situation demands. This is a crucial distinction: as Daniel
Kahneman at Princeton University puts it, intelligence is about brain
power whereas rational thinking is about control. "Some people who are
intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical
thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions," explains
Evans. "Other people will check out their gut feeling and reason it
through and make sure they have a justification for what they're
doing.">>
--DharmaTroll
liaM
> Heh.
Bye for now.
Keynes
wrote:
>
>I'm amazed at how smart people are so easily zapped by religion. Or
>make such uncritical interpretations about their own experiences and
>then refuse to examine their interpretations and insist that they have
>a pipeline to God (whether we're talking Robert or others on this list
>or the estholes). An article I read last week has some insights on
>this, on which smart people are so easily deluded by their
>interpretations:
But not you, of course.
Others may be mistaken.
But not you.
>As an illustration of how rational-thinking ability differs from
>intelligence, consider this puzzle: if it takes five machines 5
>minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to
>make 100 widgets? Most people instinctively jump to the wrong answer
>that "feels" right - 100 - even if they later amend it. When Shane
>Frederick at the Yale School of Management in New Haven, Connecticut,
>put this and two similarly counter-intuitive questions to about 3400
>students at various colleges and universities in the US - Harvard and
>Princeton among them - only 17 per cent got all three right (see "Test
>your thinking"). A third of the students failed to give any correct
>answers (Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol 19, p 25).
That question would fit nicely into any IQ test.
There's nothing different about it. Why do you
think there is? Is it just that you always take the
written word uncritically at face value? That seems
to be the case, since you adore all the conflicting
articles and philosophies that you recommend to
others. You resemble an uncritical trash bin.
>We encounter problems like these in various guises every day. Without
>careful reasoning we often get them wrong, probably because our brains
>use two different systems to process information (see New Scientist,
>30 August 2008, p 34). One is intuitive and spontaneous; the other is
>deliberative and reasoned.
Intuition comes first, reasoning after.
Some don't bother with the second one.
Nutters like you mainly.
>Intuitive processing can serve us well in
>some areas - choosing a potential partner,
Pheromones do that sort of thinking for us,
and we don't even suspect who's doing the
thinking. We imagine that it's all on account
of our gigantic powers of reason. Haw.
>for example, or in
>situations where you've had a lot of experience. It can trip us up in
>others, though, such as when we overvalue our own egocentric
>perspective.
For God's sake, don't you ever do that!
Then you'd be the Nutter of all nutters.
>Deliberative processing, on the other hand, is key to
>conscious problem-solving and can help us override our intuitive
>tendencies if they look like leading us astray.
The gap between intuition and reason is fuzzy
to say the least. You seem to have a deep emotional
attachment to your own opinions, and lose your mind
regularly in conversation. Nutsy, but always reasonably
a nutcake in the reasonable holiday tradition. (We must
not suffer a witch to live.)
>The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at
>assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of
>working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them
>when the situation demands. This is a crucial distinction: as Daniel
>Kahneman at Princeton University puts it, intelligence is about brain
>power whereas rational thinking is about control. "Some people who are
>intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical
>thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions," explains
>Evans. "Other people will check out their gut feeling and reason it
>through and make sure they have a justification for what they're
>doing.">>
Others just throw astrology, pyramid power, crystals,
saints, acupuncture, aroma therapy, phrenology, and
all the other garbage in their heads in all directions in
a 'reasonable' defense against any suspected 'nutters'.
Who's really all that full of shit? (As we used to say,
"If I want any shit out of you, I'll just squeeze your head.")
DharmaTroll
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 04:04:44 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I'm amazed at how smart people are so easily zapped by religion. Or
> >make such uncritical interpretations about their own experiences and
> >then refuse to examine their interpretations and insist that they have
> >a pipeline to God (whether we're talking Robert or others on this list
> >or the estholes). An article I read last week has some insights on
> >this, on which smart people are so easily deluded by their
> >interpretations:
>
> But not you, of course.
> Others may be mistaken.
> But not you.
Wrong again, Nutter-Dude. I am mistaken a lot of the time. But unlike
you and your fellow tin-foil-hatters, I know I'm deluded. That's how I
grow and learn, as opposed to your frozen, 'timeless' state.
> >As an illustration of how rational-thinking ability differs from
> >intelligence, consider this puzzle: if it takes five machines 5
> >minutes to make five widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to
> >make 100 widgets? Most people instinctively jump to the wrong answer
> >that "feels" right - 100 - even if they later amend it. When Shane
> >Frederick at the Yale School of Management in New Haven, Connecticut,
> >put this and two similarly counter-intuitive questions to about 3400
> >students at various colleges and universities in the US - Harvard and
> >Princeton among them - only 17 per cent got all three right (see "Test
> >your thinking"). A third of the students failed to give any correct
> >answers (Journal of Economic Perspectives, vol 19, p 25).
>
> That question would fit nicely into any IQ test.
> There's nothing different about it. Why do you
> think there is?
It's different because it takes reflection. Whereas you insult
critical thinking and reasoning and only follow your intuitions,
conditioned by your dogma and beliefs, your intelligence is co-opted
like a prostitute to serve your dogma, Keynes. We critical thinkers
stop and aren't driven by our intuitions, though they are a good place
to start, while you start with the premise that your intuitions are
"direct experience" to some "Ultimate Truth" and then bend everything
to fit that starting premise. That's why I always kick your Non-
Dualist butt in the end.
Is it just that you always take the
> written word uncritically at face value? That seems
> to be the case, since you adore all the conflicting
> articles and philosophies that you recommend to
> others. You resemble an uncritical trash bin.
I resemble a library, which is to you a trash bin, I suppose, and I am
fine with a plurality of philosophies to ponder and compare and
contrast; I prefer it to your certainty in your blind faith in the One
Non-Dual Ultimate Truth.
That's what defines us, Keynes: me, champion of diversity, in all its
glorious contradictions and plurality, like a jazz artist; you,
champion of Non-Dualism, burning the libraries with their conflicting
philosophies and having everyone united in Non-Dual Undifferentiated
Oneness, all marching in synch to the same drummer and wearing the
same swastikas on their arms.
> >We encounter problems like these in various guises every day. Without
> >careful reasoning we often get them wrong, probably because our brains
> >use two different systems to process information (see New Scientist,
> >30 August 2008, p 34). One is intuitive and spontaneous; the other is
> >deliberative and reasoned.
>
> Intuition comes first, reasoning after.
> Some don't bother with the second one.
> Nutters like me mainly.
Yeah, I know: rationality is 'deluded' because it is 'dualistic' as
you like to repeat endlessly.
> >Intuitive processing can serve us well in
> >some areas - choosing a potential partner,
>
> Pheromones do that sort of thinking for us,
> and we don't even suspect who's doing the
> thinking. We imagine that it's all on account
> of our gigantic powers of reason. Haw.
That's true of you who poo-poo reasoning. For those of us who think
critically, pheromones are a starting point, but rather than being
manipulated by them we use them to manipulate others. Feeling a strong
intuitive urge, rather than believing it, the wise Trollpa can say
"aha, that's probably the same urge that Keynes is feeling and calling
"direct experience of Undifferentiated Reality", and so I can
anticipate his reactions and trip him up." That's what makes me a good
poker player.
> >for example, or in
> >situations where you've had a lot of experience. It can trip us up in
> >others, though, such as when we overvalue our own egocentric
> >perspective.
>
> For God's sake, don't you ever do that!
> Then you'd be the Nutter of all nutters.
Yes, you've given me such a good example of that pitfall!
> >Deliberative processing, on the other hand, is key to
> >conscious problem-solving and can help us override our intuitive
> >tendencies if they look like leading us astray.
>
> The gap between intuition and reason is fuzzy
> to say the least.
Yes it is in some ways, but not others. Reason is always willing to
let go if the data don't fit the intuition.
> You seem to have a deep emotional
> attachment to your own opinions, and lose your mind
> regularly in conversation.
That's a projection again, Keynes. I'm the one with no attachment to
my opinions, you claimed above, when you said my collection was a
"trash bin". So you mean, that, as the anti-rational nutter you are
proud of being:
> I seem to have a deep emotional
> attachment to my own opinions, and lose my mind
> regularly in conversation, babbling about Non-Dualism, etc.
Yes, you do. Probably just pheromones.
> Nutsy, but always reasonably
> a nutcake in the reasonable holiday tradition.
> (We must not suffer a witch to live.)
Nah, you're a nutter all four seasons of the year, Keynes.
> >The problem with IQ tests is that while they are effective at
> >assessing our deliberative skills, which involve reason and the use of
> >working memory, they are unable to assess our inclination to use them
> >when the situation demands. This is a crucial distinction: as Daniel
> >Kahneman at Princeton University puts it, intelligence is about brain
> >power whereas rational thinking is about control. "Some people who are
> >intellectually able do not bother to engage very much in analytical
> >thinking and are inclined to rely on their intuitions," explains
> >Evans. "Other people will check out their gut feeling and reason it
> >through and make sure they have a justification for what they're
> >doing.">>
>
> Others just throw astrology, pyramid power, crystals,
> saints, acupuncture, aroma therapy, phrenology, and
> all the other garbage in their heads in all directions
And it's precisely because you fill your head with such stuff, while
denying that brains are conscious and that cats and trees exist, that
I call you the list nutter.
> Who's really all that full of shit? (As we used to say,
> "If I want any shit out of you, I'll just squeeze your head.")
Heh. My eighth-grade teacher, Mr. Law, used to say that to us all the
time, except he was less vulgar and used the word 'crap'.
--DharmaTroll
"Fear is the main source of superstition, and one of the main sources
of cruelty. To conquer fear is the beginning of wisdom."
-Bertrand Russell
Keynes
wrote:
>It's different because it takes reflection. Whereas you insult
>critical thinking and reasoning and only follow your intuitions,
>conditioned by your dogma and beliefs, your intelligence is co-opted
>like a prostitute to serve your dogma, Keynes. We critical thinkers
>stop and aren't driven by our intuitions, though they are a good place
>to start, while you start with the premise that your intuitions are
>"direct experience" to some "Ultimate Truth" and then bend everything
>to fit that starting premise. That's why I always kick your Non-
>Dualist butt in the end.
I assume you also cheat at cards...
herbzet
liaM wrote:
> Tang Huyen a �crit :
> > herbzet wrote:
> >> halfawake:
> >>
> >>> It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
> >>> meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
> >>> organ.
>
> Gautama was wrong in this.
>
> Sex is the 6th sense organ,
> think about it, vastly different from touch in its scope
> and effects.
>
> >> Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
> >> make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
> >> than to someone who has already assimilated a
> >> buddhist analysis.
>
> You're asking for the moon but it can be done,
> it has been done in different ways, for example
> by stress induced brain washing,
Oh, puh-lease.
I don't want to call "imagining a tree" "perceiving a tree", ok?
Will you and Tang just back off with your hyper-abstruse obscurantism?
Can we just call a spade a spade, huh?
--
hz
herbzet
So, it seems that DT is a thief, too. What a surprise.
I guess he'll say they "had it coming." That'll be a big
surprise too.
--
hz
DharmaTroll
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 14:11:15 -0800 (PST), DharmaTroll <dharmatr...@my-deja.com>
No, I don't cheat at anything -- I don't need to cheat -- unless you
consider using number theory and critical thinking as cheating...
--DharmaTroll
DharmaTroll
No, I'm not a thief -- I only took what was freely given to me. Unless
you consider using critical thinking and number theory to be stealing
or cheating...
--DharmaTroll
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 16, 11:37 pm, Keynes <Key...@earthlinkspam.net> wrote:
I was thinking about your snipping, fluffing, dodging,
weaseling, straw men, ad hominems, fallacies, and forgeries.
Your criticial thinking has yet to show itself.
(But maybe I'm being too critical? Nope.)
Keynes
wrote:
>On Nov 17, 12:05 am, herbzet <herb...@gmail.com> wrote:
You have a theory of numbers?
Let me count the ways...
liaM
>
>
> liaM wrote:
>> Tang Huyen a écrit :
You wanted western. I gave western. Eastern had gautama to make it
"simple". Western came late and was crude and inherited a forest of
philosophical thought to dig at and only a shovel, as it were, to do the
job. You got the spade from me. Now you get the shaft.
Julian
It lacks the gravitas of Terrain Amendment Utensil.
herbzet
Or "Tool, manual, entrenching".
--
hz
herbzet
DharmaTroll wrote:
> No, I'm not a thief -- I only took what was freely given to me.
Right -- that's what all the con men say.
> Unless
> you consider using critical thinking and number theory to be stealing
> or cheating...
Really -- you used number theory to talk money out of the EST-er's pockets
and into your own?
Do tell.
--
hz
liaM
>
> So, it seems that DT is a thief, too. What a surprise.
>
> I guess he'll say they "had it coming." That'll be a big
> surprise too.
>
> --
> hz
Babble.. babble... Play your awful games.
Lee Rudolph
Awareness is kings full of aces.
Aces and eights, on the other hand...
Lee Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
herbzet
halfawake wrote:
> herbzet wrote:
> > halfawake wrote:
> >> herbzet wrote:
> >>> halfawake wrote:
> > I just want to drop, as far as possible, "direct" or "indirect" perception.
> > Didn't we just agree to "perception", via the senses, as "conditioned" and
> > "unconditioned"?
> >
> > Can we just agree that hallucinating a fire-breathing dragon is not
> > perceiving anything, even if the visual cortex and limbic system are
> > firing off madly?
>
> well, you are perceiving an image, but not a dragon.
> you don't want to call that perception, so suggest a distinguishing term
> that makes it clear - apprehending? which is a more general term....
Fine, I'll buy that -- more below.
Ok -- let's provisionally call various contents of awareness/conscious
mind "apprehensions": perepts, memories, thoughts, concepts, hallucinations,
dreams, imaginings, emotions, etc. etc.
This will subdivide into perception (which further divides into conditioned
and unconditioned perception) and apperception -- apperception being those
things which are not apprehended via the sense organs (as in (c) above).
Is that (provisionally) agreeable to you, or do you see some reason why
it would complicate rather than simplify the discussion?
> >>>>However, in looking at your terms and mine, I am struck by a gap in my
> >>>>understanding - which is that I haven't really examined the vehicle of
> >>>>"awareness of awareness," ie, "direct perception of awareness." It
> >>>>seems to me that "awareness of awareness" occurs within, through and
> >>>>around the act of perception of some object, though it itself is not the
> >>>>object that the perception is ostensibly perceiving. Awareness is the
> >>>>root function of perception and makes perception possible,
> >>>
> >>>Probably, a psychologist could make a case for occurances of perception
> >>>without awareness -- but ignoring that:
> >>>
> >>>>and there is
> >>>>never, except for so far undisclosed circumstances, in which perception
> >>>>does not take place,
> >>>
> >>>dreams, visions (hallucinations), thoughts, emotions, memories ...
> >>>of course you are here using "perception" much more broadly than
> >>>I want to allow.
> >>
> >>I see. Hm. More work to do on terminology.
Just substitute "apprehension" for "perception" -- I guess.
And thus "directly observ[ing] its own awareness without ever leaving
the mind to encounter an outside object." Yes.
Well, I have no brief for or against Hakuin, nor for or against Theravada.
I would agree that stupifying oneself through "trances" sounds like a bad
idea.
I would also say that I don't think it necessary to attain a state
of spiritual perfection before one can experience awakening. As
you quoted Werner Erhard as saying, one can be a master practicing,
rather than practicing to be a master.
So, although I don't know what "suppressing defilements" is supposed
to entail, I don't think that one has to be a perfect human, utterly
free of defilements, to awaken (though I also think that an insight
into /how defilements arise/ is part of the awakening package).
A moment of pure undefiled simplicity ought to be sufficient to get
things rolling. One can clean up the mess afterwards, and much more
efficiently, being able to see much more clearly what's what.
It is commonplace to read of people spending years perfecting their
insight, /after/ having had satori and receiving transmission.
[...]
Well, probably not. And some practices will be more efficacious for
some than for others, or for the same person at different stages of
their journey.
> >>"This practice of shamatha meditation is based on Alan�s teaching
> >>suggesting the balancing of �earth and sky.� This offers the full
> >>spectrum of shamatha practice from the most basic full body awareness to
> >>the most advanced practice of awareness of awareness, or shamatha
> >>without a sign."
> >
> > Well, I guess you're not the only one, then!
>
> apparently not. I think it's a "Buddhist" thing....
Well, it's something that had escaped my notice, though admittedly
I'm far from a scholar of zen literature, or of buddhism in general.
"Nothing" is as blank as it gets.
I haven't suggested, btw, contemplating "nothing" as a object.
I *have* suggested emptying the awareness of objects, so far as possible.
> > Also, for me, motivation is lacking. For me, "awareness" is not
> > saturated with the significance you ascribe to it.
>
> okay - I don't see why this is, but I can understand it.
Although I find it astounding that some matter should be endowed
with consciousness, that was not the motivating question for me.
The motivating question was "Who/what am I?" To put it slightly
differently, the question for me is, "What is this, that is aware?".
Whenever my attention is directed to my awareness (whether directed
by myself or by others) there is, first, the small victory of becoming
aware of my awareness: "Aha! I am aware of awareness". But then I ask,
"What is this that is aware?" and there's the immediate apperception,
"It's me, herbiedog, that is aware!" And another brief moment of
victory, as I contemplate me being aware.
But then I realize "What is this that is aware of me, herbiedog, being
aware?" And the answer comes back, "It's me, herbiedog, that is aware
of this."
And again. And again.
Each time I step back to view the viewer, it's the same thing. Talk
about meta-levels! It, the me, just clones itself, bifurcates into
see-er and seen. Each time I direct attention back to that which is
aware of the see-er, the answer is always the same -- it is I that
hold that awareness.
Each time I /alienate/ myself from my self, by turning my attention
to it, by making my self an /object/ of awareness (as one might
/alienate/ onself from, say, one's wristwatch, by asking, "Have
you ever really looked at your watch -- I mean, really *looked*
at it?"), my self effortlessly responds by cloning itself into
see-er and seen, and no harm is done, and nothing is really
gained, either, besides the knowledge that turning my attention
to my self just results in a trifling bifurcation of self into
see-er and seen.
For me, the question is, "What is this, that is aware?" For you,
the question is, "What is this awareness?".
My answer to either question is the same: Drop it, throw it away
-- and thus, to find out in what it is rooted.
Then, on to the next thing that presents itself. ;-)
> > For me, in contemplating the blank wall of awareness, it seems
> > intuitively evident that the thing to do, as I have mentioned
> > on several occasions, in several ways, is to throw it away.
> > Apparently, that's not a suggestion that you find palatable.
>
> I don't find it unpalatable. I don't understand the purpose of it, and
> you don't seem able to explain it. Throwing away awareness would wind
> you up with "nothing" again, which seems to attract you, but I don't
> understand what throwing away awareness means. It seems the equivalent
> to me of saying "throw away your leg." How would you go about it,
Empty it, item by item -- starting with the ticking of the clock.
> and why?
To find out what there is that cannot be dropped or thrown away.
If there be any such thing.
I might answer, how can you know what it is if you haven't realized it?
But the better answer is just that you don't need to know in advance
what it is in order to realize it. It's doubtful that it *can* be known
in advance. It's just as much fun, anyway, if it comes as a BIG-ASS SHOCK.
You know, like it did with Kapleau.
Yes!
> and you'd have to be
> able to drop a lot as things arose, or else just look at them as well.
I think so. I think that the one (dropping things) reinforces the
other ("just" looking). Maybe vice versa, too.
In saying this, does one mean that things must be permanently dropped,
or just that we need to drop them for one thoroughly pure moment?
I think that if the latter is not sufficient, then it would certainly
be a very significant step in the right direction -- no?
> >>>>whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
> >>>>pure and attracts my attention.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
> >>>Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
> >>
> >>how about non-o-lithic? :)
> >
> > Yuk, yuk.
> >
> >>it's a transparency.
> >
> > I see -- it only manifests through its objects, you're saying.
>
> well, it's only clearly visible through its object, like water being
> disturbed by fish.
Ok. Though here we're at the question, again, of whether it has
apprehendable properties at all, although I think we're in agreement
that the *concept* of awareness that we may form and (possibly) mistake
for awareness itself, probably *does* have some apprehensible properties.
> >>>Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
> >>>rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
> >>>likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
> >>>hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
> >>
> >>that is true. one has to keep returning to the basic shock of awareness
> >>itself to refresh the actuality of it and make sure an image hasn't
> >>taken over, at least one would think preliminarily.
Yes, that seems likely.
> >>>Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
> >>>void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
> >>>predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
> >>
> >>what you can say about it is that it is aware, awake and empty, and that
> >>it is untouched and unchanged by the content that appears to arise
> >>within or through it. Those properties are with reference to that which
> >>has properties; in itself it is merely transparently aware. What else
> >>could awareness be?
> >
> > I see: it is a neutral witnessing, you're saying.
>
> I think that's pretty good, although I'm not sure it is always in
> 'watching' mode.
Yes?? What do you mean?
> >>>Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
> >>>that you're aware of contemplating?
> >>
> >>Yes, awareness. Now for someone who is attracted to 'nothing' as an
> >>object,
> >
> > This is inaccurate, but that may be due to my own inaccuracy in
> > expressing myself. But to continue:
> >
> >>I find it amusing that you are so quick to fill empty awareness
> >>with this and that. I don't think it has anything to it except that it
> >>is awake. What qualities does a still body of water have? It reflects,
> >>it is transparent, it is still, it is empty, it is clear. Similar to
> >>awareness itself.
> >>
> >>>It has some qualities,
> >>>does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
> >>>say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
> >>>is it not?
> >>
> >>It terms of comparison and observation, yes. When contemplating it
> >>closely, all that may disappear in just being awake. That's
> >>enlightenment, isn't it?
> >
> > That's a conception on your part. Not saying you're wrong or right.
>
> maybe.
No, you're definitely forming a conception about what enlightenment
consists of. But so what? Who, pre-enlightenment, does not cherish
*some* idea of what enlightenment is all about? And who says you're
wrong, anyway?
> >>Awake with nothing added.
> >>
> >>>What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
> >>
> >>A very awake nothing. Fish swim in the water; do they change the nature
> >>of the water?
> >
> > According to you, the fish are a manifestation, a convolution of the water.
>
> not sure if I'm saying that, but I would not say that about fish...
I was speaking on a figurative level, of course.
> > So, when there are no fish? That is enlightenment?
>
> in the analogy, maybe.
>
> > When there *are* fish? That is also enlightenment?
>
> Only if one sees that the fish are no-fish.
Heh! :-)
> > Fish? No fish?
>
> exactly.
Wayel -- alraht theyen!
--
hz
Keynes
wrote:
>herbzet <her...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>
>>
>>liaM wrote:
>>> Tang Huyen a écrit :
Tell it to Gabriel.
halfawake
> On Nov 15, 8:35 pm, liaM <cud...@mindless.com> wrote:
>
>>Tang Huyen a �crit :
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>herbzet wrote:
>>
>>>>halfawake:
>>
>>>>>It [direct perception] matches I think what Buddha
>>>>>meant when he considered "mind" the 6th sense
>>>>>organ.
>>
>>Gautama was wrong in this.
>>
>>Sex is the 6th sense organ,
>>think about it, vastly different from touch in its scope
>>and effects.
>>
>>
>>>>Perhaps so. I'm looking for a terminology that will
>>>>make sense to an ordinary Western sensibility, rather
>>>>than to someone who has already assimilated a
>>>>buddhist analysis.
>>
>>You're asking for the moon but it can be done,
>>it has been done in different ways, for example
>>by stress induced brain washing,
>>which was how Werner Ehrhart's EST seminars
>>got hundreds of people "to get" what
>>the sound sounds like of one hand clapping.
>>
>>No one can say that these hundred of folks
>>did or didn't get it, since consciousness
>>is a non transmissible condition.
>
>
> I can say a lot about what they got or didn't get. I took EST training
> in college (it had already been renamed to the "Landmark Forum").
Just noting, having done both, that the latter was quite a bit different
than the former. It wasn't just "renamed."
I
> even wrote a term paper on it for a sociology class. It was not only
> stress-induced brain-washing, but driven by intense peer-pressure.
> People end up "getting it" as Kapleau "got it" after a couple of
> weekends of intense stress, and in the end, if you smiled and talked
> the talk in the right way, you got praised and recognized, and then
> they hit you up for more money and try to get you to enroll all your
> friends and family.
Yeah, well, if you were more sensitive to "woo woo" you would have
gotten that there really was something to get and that it wasn't just
high starch and high stress, but never mind.
At the last day of the EST training, when they
> pressure you to give them more money for ongoing seminars, I talked
> the talk and figured I'd get my cut and take a piece of the action and
> panhandled, talking all the EST-talk and emulating their cultish
> smiles and so forth. I got all four pockets filled with 5, 10, and 20
> dollar bills in an hour or so and ended up with hundreds of dollars
> from estholes who were oogling in ecstatic bliss from "getting it". I
> ended up getting my money back with interest because, um, I "got it".
> Oh, and I got an A on my paper about the experience.
What?? Nobody collects money at these things. What are you talking
about? People don't get paid for "enrolling" anyone. Are you making
this up?
>
> --DharmaTroll
>
> "If you could really accept that you weren't ok, you could stop
> proving you were ok. If you could stop proving that you were ok, you
> could get that it was ok not to be ok. If you could get that it was ok
> not to be ok, you could get that you were ok the way you are. You're
> ok, get it?"
> -Werner Erhard
Hey, I'm the one who quotes Werner around here. Cut it out.
Robert
= = = = = = ==
halfawake
>>
>> I can say a lot about what they got or didn't get. I took EST training
>> in college (it had already been renamed to the "Landmark Forum"). I
>> even wrote a term paper on it for a sociology class. It was not only
>> stress-induced brain-washing, but driven by intense peer-pressure.
>> People end up "getting it" as Kapleau "got it" after a couple of
>> weekends of intense stress, and in the end, if you smiled and talked
>> the talk in the right way, you got praised and recognized, and then
>> they hit you up for more money and try to get you to enroll all your
>> friends and family. At the last day of the EST training, when they
>> pressure you to give them more money for ongoing seminars, I talked
>> the talk and figured I'd get my cut and take a piece of the action and
>> panhandled, talking all the EST-talk and emulating their cultish
>> smiles and so forth. I got all four pockets filled with 5, 10, and 20
>> dollar bills in an hour or so and ended up with hundreds of dollars
>> from estholes who were oogling in ecstatic bliss from "getting it". I
>> ended up getting my money back with interest because, um, I "got it".
>> Oh, and I got an A on my paper about the experience.
>>
>> --DharmaTroll
>
>
>
> Nice !
>
> The EST training is I believe a spinoff from Scientology.
believe away.... Part of the info came from Dianetics, yes. Erhard
also had an enlightenment experience after spending some time with
Muktananda.
> Scientology itself was an amalgam of buddhist principles, Pavlovian
> training, and good old american business acumen. You "got it".
> You made a profit !
>
> But you didn't "get" the full monty. Pavlov missed in your case.
> Maybe it's your endocrine system. Hardly a jolt from the adrenaline
> or reward from the endorphins.
>
> Who's to envy? you who got the cash or the Estholes who got the kick?
I still don't get this. People did not get paid *anything* for
recruiting enrolees for est. Are you two on drugs?
I took est once and the forum twice, as well as seminars and the
advanced course, years ago, and no money ever changed hands. There was
no $$$ reward for enrolling people at all. Were either of you ever
actually there?
liaM
> I still don't get this.
No surprise.
The half that's asleep blocks the view for the half that's awake.
halfawake
I'm still wondering if someone will tell me what the hell routine that
was in the first place; I was involved in those programs for a few years
and no money ever changed hands. This was in NY, a major center, and no
one got paid for enrolling anyone. Again: did you make this up, or
what the f* are you talking about? People supposedly enrolled people in
order to empower their own understanding of the work, not for any cash
bonus.
Robert
- - - - - - - -
liaM
DT stood at the exit, his hand extended, asking people for $$.
Perhaps he gave them a spiel about needing the cash for future events.
As you should be able to extrapolate from his self-assured and
presumptuous displays on alt.zen, it was a con.
As he himself admits, he had disdain for the training and thought
himself superior to the people taking the seminar with him.
He will forever be an ASURA.
DharmaTroll
> DharmaTroll wrote:
> >>You're asking for the moon but it can be done,
> >>it has been done in different ways, for example
> >>by stress induced brain washing,
> >>which was how Werner Ehrhart's EST seminars
> >>got hundreds of people "to get" what
> >>the sound sounds like of one hand clapping.
>
> >>No one can say that these hundred of folks
> >>did or didn't get it, since consciousness
> >>is a non transmissible condition.
>
> > I can say a lot about what they got or didn't get. I took EST training
> > in college (it had already been renamed to the "Landmark Forum").
>
> Just noting, having done both, that the latter was quite a bit different
> than the former. It wasn't just "renamed."
Well, they got a bit gentler, and got a bit farther away from the
mother-cult Scientology, but it was still a high-pressure brainwashing
cult.
> > I
> > even wrote a term paper on it for a sociology class. It was not only
> > stress-induced brain-washing, but driven by intense peer-pressure.
> > People end up "getting it" as Kapleau "got it" after a couple of
> > weekends of intense stress, and in the end, if you smiled and talked
> > the talk in the right way, you got praised and recognized, and then
> > they hit you up for more money and try to get you to enroll all your
> > friends and family.
>
> Yeah, well, if you were more sensitive to "woo woo" you would have
> gotten that there really was something to get and that it wasn't just
> high starch and high stress, but never mind.
Bullshit, Robert. My next-door neighbor and good friend joined the EST
cult. He abandoned all of his friends except those he could get to do
the 'Forum', and then he quit grad school, and just went around
converting people and calling anyone who disagreed with EST an
'asshole'. The one benefit was that the estholes all screwed each
other like rabbits, so he ended up fucking several women who were big
in est and they kept cheering each other on to do more seminars and so
forth.
I got all there was to get, Robert. It has good effects. When people
start whining and crying, the leader yelled at them and called them
assholes, and told them they were full of shit and that this was just
a 'story'. And he was right. I mean, the Marines' boot camp serves the
same function, except that they produce macho killing machines,
whereas EST just produces salespeople who go around like Amway trying
to sell EST to all their friends.
These guys are driven by money, and it's all about signing up and
spending more money to be called and asshole. And anyone who disagreed
and didn't conform was insulted and shunned by everyone. People told
me, "I just learned to talk the talk or else I'd be yelled at." It's
not even woo-woo, Robert, it's plain old peer pressure.
> > At the last day of the EST training, when they
> > pressure you to give them more money for ongoing seminars, I talked
> > the talk and figured I'd get my cut and take a piece of the action and
> > panhandled, talking all the EST-talk and emulating their cultish
> > smiles and so forth. I got all four pockets filled with 5, 10, and 20
> > dollar bills in an hour or so and ended up with hundreds of dollars
> > from estholes who were oogling in ecstatic bliss from "getting it". I
> > ended up getting my money back with interest because, um, I "got it".
> > Oh, and I got an A on my paper about the experience.
>
> What?? Nobody collects money at these things. What are you talking
> about? People don't get paid for "enrolling" anyone. Are you making
> this up?
No. Of course nobody is paid, except for the cult leaders. But you are
brutally pressured to spend more money. My actions weren't pre-
meditated. The leader asked me on the last night, if I'd signed up for
another seminar yet, and I said no, and he yelled at me and called me
an asshole, and then said to his minions, "you make sure Tom doesn't
leave without signing up for a seminar". (I was undercover as mild-
mannered Tom, a human I play in the world when I'm not being a
superhero). I figured, if these bastards are squeezing tons of money
from everyone, then I'm going to get a piece of the action. So I
smiled, and I babbled in esthole talk to all the rich assholes dumping
hundreds of dollars away, "I am the commitment to sign up for this
seminar tonight" and I babbled about my "breakthrough" with the same
smiles the volunteer estholes had, and I emulated the phrases and
voice intonation contour of the est leaders, and I told them I was
short the money and was a poor college student. I pressured them just
as the leader had, and they forked over the cash as fast as I asked
for it. I put them into a bind, where not giving me cash would lead to
some heavy cognitive dissonance. For a few bucks, they could feel that
they were committed, and part of something bigger, and good
Samaritans; if they didn't, they'd feel like assholes that were caught
in their self-made stories who didn't have the commitment. So I simply
sold them good ego feelings for a mere $5 or $10 bucks. Much better
deal than the cult was offering them!
> > "If you could really accept that you weren't ok, you could stop
> > proving you were ok. If you could stop proving that you were ok, you
> > could get that it was ok not to be ok. If you could get that it was ok
> > not to be ok, you could get that you were ok the way you are. You're
> > ok, get it?"
> > -Werner Erhard
>
> Hey, I'm the one who quotes Werner around here. Cut it out.
>
> Robert
I also did another one of the Scientology spinoffs. Erhard was a
huckster who was on of Hubbard's top disciples, and he thought if he
split and stole the formula, he could start his own psychotherapy
cult, and two of the others in Hubbard's top inner scientology circle
also created their own cult. Harvey Jackins created "re-evaluation
counseling" or RC, and I went through their initiation course as well.
They were a definite improvement on EST, as they never call you an
asshole, and they are a lot more therapeutic, and unlike EST they
offer a huge pro-rated discount to poor folks. But they have a lot of
problems of their own, most notably they are intensely homophobic and
they retain the Scientology disdain for medication, telling depressed
people not to take prozac and so forth, which can be really harmful
(you've seen the actor/nutter Tom Cruize preach against meds on Oprah,
etc., I assume). I'd recommend RC over EST/Forum though, as I did see
a lot of people really benefit from RC. It's also still a screwy
Scientology spinoff cult like Landmark/EST; nonetheless, RC is more
therapy-oriented and less money-oriented and with no name-calling or
in-your-face scolding at all. A third of Hubbard's henchman started
their own psychotherapy cult, called 'Lifespring' as I recall, but I
never tried out that one in college. Two were enough for me.
On Nov 18, 2:22 am, halfawake <epstein...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> liaM wrote:
>
> > Nice !
>
> > The EST training is I believe a spinoff from Scientology.
>
> believe away.... Part of the info came from Dianetics, yes. Erhard
> also had an enlightenment experience after spending some time with
> Muktananda.
Utter bullshit, Robert. You're especially full of deva-dung today!
This con artist Erhard, who worked for another brilliant con artist,
L. Ron Hubbard, creates a money-making cult, and yeah, he spent time
with the guru Muktananda, but this is exactly why the woo-woo talk is
so troublesome, because now you want to claim that a con artist is
Enlightened. What's next, Robbie, gonna defend the rapist Adi Da too?
In our "Forum", instead of being locked in for 6 hours and not
allowed bathroom breaks as in EST, the leader, who looked like a GQ
model and talked at us with a stand-up comedy routine as many
preachers do, said "Werner Erhard has distilled all the wisdom of the
ages." Then he told us that Erhard had distilled the wisdom of Martin
Heidegger, which interested me, except that the watered-down
Heideggerian stuff wasn't really what Heidegger wrote, which I knew
because I'd studied him, and was probably the only one their that had.
As for Mookie, the leader said that "In two weekends you can learn
everything that people who meditate in the Himalayas for decades know"
and explained how Erhard distilled all the eastern wisdom from talking
to Mookie.
And you say Erhard had an "Enlightenment experience." Enlightened my
ass, he's a clever huckster who put together a psychotherapy cult that
has made tons of bucks, just as his master did with, Hubbard's
Scientology.
You're talking about a cult leader who would take hundreds of dollars
from folks, lock them in a room for hours and yell continually at
them, the famous phrase of his being, "You asshole: you caused it!".
See, I really like Kapleau in contrast, as he's a genuine spiritual
guy and Dharma practitioner who came back to the states and helped to
bring the Dharma to the West. Erhard is a businessman who was a
henchman in the most lucrative woo-woo cult of all time, and broke off
in bad terms, from what I've heard, and tried to steal Hubbard's idea
and be the Evil Overlord of his own cult, and then used to claim that
his old Scientology buddies were out to get him and that he feared for
his life. And you claim this guy is enlightened, and when I see and
document people losing their friends to a cult, giving their money
endlessly, calling people on the phone relentlessly, and so forth, you
dare to say "you don't get it Trollpa because you have a problem with
woo-woo." No, I'm intelligent and critical thinker, Robert, and the
old "if you didn't become a glazed-eyed blind believer, then obviously
you are closed-minded" story ain't gonna cut it this time. You can't
yin and yang your way out of this one, pal! Not this time. Not only
did I get it, Robert, but I got it well enough to emulate the EST
leader and get my money back and manipulate folks just as he had.
And they really pressure you to get new recruits, and friends of my
neighbor Michael who got me interested who had gone to an intro
meeting got harassing phone calls at all hours, sometimes late at
night, for months. Now some folks do benefit from this -- if they
didn't have some sort of success, they wouldn't make the bucks. But
again, it's like army or marines' boot camp -- a lot of folks needed
to be told that they were full of shit and lost in their stories. They
break these people down and then give them a new story to cling to.
But like heroin, you need a constant fix, and need to keep giving them
money, and keep up the hype -- or you'll slip back into your
depression or whatever again. It's a great con game. Too bad the folks
that were helped didn't get real therapy, in which they'd also have
improved, but without all the cult trimmings, and in a professional
context.
> I took est once and the forum twice, as well as seminars and the
> advanced course, years ago, and no money ever changed hands
> There was no $$$ reward for enrolling people at all.
> Were either of you ever actually there?
>
> Robert
As I said, only the leaders make the money. The cult members all
volunteer. I asked one pretty volunteer, whom I took out to lunch, why
she smiled in such a glazed-eyed way. It looked like she and the
others had been drugged or something. She said, "we're taught as
volunteers to constantly smile, and to always, make the leader appear
unconditionally right, no matter what." That's fascinating, that not
only do they not get paid, but the volunteers who recruit people are
coached to make the leader "always unconditionally right". Amazing how
brainwashed these folks were.
Well, Robert, maybe this explains your hissy fits, eh? I wish I could
morph into Tang for a moment, and make up a long, morose bio of Robbie
and how he was emotionally and psychically scarred by his cult
experience in est and how he still has Erhard's cult programming in
him and on and on. That would be a lot of fun.
But boy, Robert, you really bring up a great example for me: once you
start on the road claiming that Kapleau, a legitimate Zen practitioner
who became an instrumental teacher and wrote good books, had a magic
woo-woo moment, then it's a slippery slope down to claiming that L Ron
Hubbard's top henchman, who broke off and started his own money-making
psychotherapy cult, had an "Enlightenment experience" because he hung
out with Mookie the guru when he was gathering info to create his EST
training. You know he tried with other Eastern gurus, and a couple of
prominent ones turned him down before he got Mookie's help. Maybe he
gave a big donation to Mookie for his blessings, eh?
--DharmaTroll
[Rather than give you another esthole quote, here's a timeline you may
enjoy.]
1971 Werner Erhard, top scientology henchman, has 'breakthrough' while
driving across Golden Gate Bridge about forming his own version of
Scientology; founds est (Erhard Seminars Training).
1973 Erhard drives a black Mercedes with the vanity plate "SO WUT."
1975 Est claims to have trained 65,000 people; Erhard dreams of
training 40 million.
1975 John Denver releases "Looking for Space," about his est
enlightenment. Later, he asks other est grads to stop sneaking
backstage.
1976 Ex-Yippie Jerry Rubin recounts Erhard's spiel: "He listened to
people's miseries...laughed in their faces and screamed, 'YOU ASSHOLE,
YOU CAUSED IT!'"
1977 Woody Allen encounters a defensive est acolyte in Annie Hall.
1979 Mork & Mindy features David Letterman playing a guru named
Ellsworth, founder of erk (Ellsworth Revitalization Konditioning).
1985 Est changes its name to the Forum.
1988 Fight Club author Chuck Palahniuk attends the Forum; later
credits it with his "big epiphany moment."
1989 Nicolas Cage buys Erhard's palatial San Francisco pad, which once
boasted a soundproof room, an elaborate security system, and a bedroom
painted black.
1991 Erhard goes into exile. Landmark buys est's "technology" and
reportedly promises to pay Erhard a licensing fee for 18 years.
1993 While in Moscow, Erhard appears on Larry King Live; rants that
the Scientologists are out to get him.
2002 Six Feet Under's Ruth Fisher tries the Plan, "one of those '70s
self-discovery clubs that yell at you and don't let you go to the
bathroom for 12 hours."
2006 Erhard breaks media silence in Transformation: The Life and
Legacy of Werner Erhard, a film coproduced by his lawyer.
2007 Erhard unveils new management philosophy coauthored with a
Harvard Business School professor and the CEO of Landmark's consulting
arm. Message: "Integrity is the pathway to trust."
2009 Landmark claims to have trained more than 1 million people.
Hollywood Lee
> You're talking about a cult leader who would take hundreds of dollars
> from folks, lock them in a room for hours and yell continually at
> them, the famous phrase of his being, "You asshole: you caused it!".
I was shopping in an IKEA store in Detroit for 2 hours. That was as
close to a cult experience as I want.
Déjà Flu
After feeding Africa with Amerian corn,
I won't even ask about the cost of shipping...
But I have a great new book/movie title: "Pyramid Scheme"
I'm betting the Egyptians will love it.
DharmaTroll
Here's a great song for you about IKEA sung by JoCo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZE9y_AiYfKk
halfawake
> Ok -- let's provisionally call various contents of awareness/conscious
> mind "apprehensions": perepts, memories, thoughts, concepts, hallucinations,
> dreams, imaginings, emotions, etc. etc.
>
> This will subdivide into perception (which further divides into conditioned
> and unconditioned perception) and apperception -- apperception being those
> things which are not apprehended via the sense organs (as in (c) above).
>
> Is that (provisionally) agreeable to you, or do you see some reason why
> it would complicate rather than simplify the discussion?
No, I think that sounds good. Good to get a clear set of categories to
start with.
>>>>>dreams, visions (hallucinations), thoughts, emotions, memories ...
>>>>>of course you are here using "perception" much more broadly than
>>>>>I want to allow.
>>>>
>>>>I see. Hm. More work to do on terminology.
>
>
> Just substitute "apprehension" for "perception" -- I guess.
okay.
Yes.
Backtracking here, as this is covered above, but I wanted to make sure
that becoming aware of awareness in the act of perception, or as a
"peripheral awareness" of awareness within the ongoing activity of
everyday life, are included in the list of modes of awareness(awareness.)
that's the theory. in zen it's called "the stink of enlightenment,"
when someone is first awakened and it destabilizes the personality and
one runs around like a fool acting profoundly enlightened.
not sure if the Werner version is real enlightenment or what the hell it
is, even though having experienced it myself to whatever extent, but
people do get some kind of hit of liberation and man do they ever act
foolish for a while when they are unsuppressed from former self-based
inhibitions.
>
> It is commonplace to read of people spending years perfecting their
> insight, /after/ having had satori and receiving transmission.
yeah, and they even talk about levels of enlightenment if you get into
the talmudic interior of ch'an/zen culture. not to mention [though I
never get tired of it] the 12 years Hui Neng spent in the woods after
his deep awakening, and the fact that Chao Chou waited til he was in his
80s to start teaching.
I didn't really remember where I got that formulation from, whether I
made it up myself or got it from one of the 873 spiritual disciplines
I've studied from anywhere from 5 minutes to 20 years, but apparently,
it's from Buddhist meditation, if not also elsewhere.
On the other hand, "nothing" is not a thing, and neither is awareness.
If awareness is the ultimate empty experience, then nothing is that
emptiness portrayed as a quantity. They are not separate realities,
just different aspects of the same. You talk about throwing awareness
away, but without awareness, the lack of anything [nothing] is not
percieved, and is meaningless. Awareness of awareness [without object]
and awareness of nothing are actually the same experience. So rather
than separating our efforts, maybe we should see how they work when
their forces are combined.
>
> I haven't suggested, btw, contemplating "nothing" as a object.
>
> I *have* suggested emptying the awareness of objects, so far as possible.
I guess my approach to that is to place all objects in the periphery by
increasing the focus on the quality of awareness itself. Once the
transition is complete from contents of consciousness to the reality of
awareness, all objects become incidental or transparent.
Well if you try that, I'll try throwing awareness away and see what happens.
>
>
>>>Also, for me, motivation is lacking. For me, "awareness" is not
>>>saturated with the significance you ascribe to it.
>>
>>okay - I don't see why this is, but I can understand it.
>
>
> Although I find it astounding that some matter should be endowed
> with consciousness, that was not the motivating question for me.
>
> The motivating question was "Who/what am I?" To put it slightly
> differently, the question for me is, "What is this, that is aware?".
That question would point me towards being aware of that which is aware,
which is either awareness itself, or some entity that "has" the
awareness. If the latter, you're in trouble with the Buddhists and
headed for the Atman of Hinduism.
Even if you go to Atman, the ultimate experience of Atman is empty of
everything but awareness, at least that's my understanding; thus it too
reduces to awareness.
Anyway, if you want to take the source-point of experience ["Who/what am
I?"] and experience what it is, the same exercise pertains: turning
awareness back towards its source to perceive [or apperceive] it
directly. In that case, we would agree that whatever it is, it is the
object of awareness to answer that question. But if it is a "thing," an
"opacity," then you are stuck with an entity or self at the endpoint of
experience, and in a sense are back where you started, so hopefully it
is a quality or the experience of experience itself, rather than
something opaque [see Sartre's On The Transcendence of the Ego for a
nice description of this as pertains to the positing of a Self-entity.]
>
> Whenever my attention is directed to my awareness (whether directed
> by myself or by others) there is, first, the small victory of becoming
> aware of my awareness: "Aha! I am aware of awareness". But then I ask,
> "What is this that is aware?" and there's the immediate apperception,
> "It's me, herbiedog, that is aware!" And another brief moment of
> victory, as I contemplate me being aware.
>
> But then I realize "What is this that is aware of me, herbiedog, being
> aware?" And the answer comes back, "It's me, herbiedog, that is aware
> of this."
>
> And again. And again.
That infinite regress is caused by the assumption that the "herbiedog
realization" is the discovery of an actual entity, rather than a
construct within the consciousness that is apprehending it; at least
that's how I'd look at it. The discovery of no-self is the discovery
that the self-thought does not represent an actuality and that the
familiar feelings and associations that seem to make the herbiedog real
are just arising phenomena within the field of consciousness.
It's a cold sort of realization, and Buddhism is not for everyone. The
Hindu Atman where the self empties out into a much larger, spiritual
self-reality, is much warmer.
To be honest, I like to keep one foot warm in the Hindu Hot Springs of
the Inner Self, while enjoying the cold reality of no-self to the extent
I do. Awareness of awareness is also not particularly comforting. It
is totally transparent - not much to hang your hat on.
>
> Each time I step back to view the viewer, it's the same thing. Talk
> about meta-levels! It, the me, just clones itself, bifurcates into
> see-er and seen. Each time I direct attention back to that which is
> aware of the see-er, the answer is always the same -- it is I that
> hold that awareness.
that's the answer, according to Buddhism, that we are programmed for,
and that keeps us in delusion for countless lifetimes. It has to be
seen through in order to release it, otherwise it will keep springing
back.
>
> Each time I /alienate/ myself from my self, by turning my attention
> to it, by making my self an /object/ of awareness (as one might
> /alienate/ onself from, say, one's wristwatch, by asking, "Have
> you ever really looked at your watch -- I mean, really *looked*
> at it?"), my self effortlessly responds by cloning itself into
> see-er and seen, and no harm is done, and nothing is really
> gained, either, besides the knowledge that turning my attention
> to my self just results in a trifling bifurcation of self into
> see-er and seen.
>
> For me, the question is, "What is this, that is aware?" For you,
> the question is, "What is this awareness?".
My question has the advantage of not assuming a "who" or a "what," but
you can get the same answer by struggling with "Who or what is this that
is aware?" It's a classic zen koan, and also the method of enquiry, as
it is called, of the Advaita master Ramana Maharshi, who has a lot to
say about using this method. Everytime you ask "Who am I?" you look
within to the source of experience to answer the question, and each time
you see that the small "I" is just an object in consciousness. Trace
back the "I-feeling" to its source, and one can reach full realization.
All these methods are tough and take a lot of repeated concentration.
>
> My answer to either question is the same: Drop it, throw it away
> -- and thus, to find out in what it is rooted.
>
> Then, on to the next thing that presents itself. ;-)
Well you can certainly drop all the answers to the question, in order to
get to the next level of awareness or understanding. It's a classic
advaita method, called "neti neti." For every answer to the question of
identity you say "not this, not this" and throw it away. Then go on to
the next item. So it is a proven method, just like "awareness of
awareness" and eko hensho, "turning the light of the mind back towards
its source to realize the nature of the source."
Neti neti requires a lot of discipline to keep throwing everything away
until you have an ultimate breakthrough into the direct perception of
the same source-point of consciousness/experience/awareness.
>
>
>>>For me, in contemplating the blank wall of awareness, it seems
>>>intuitively evident that the thing to do, as I have mentioned
>>>on several occasions, in several ways, is to throw it away.
>>>Apparently, that's not a suggestion that you find palatable.
>>
>>I don't find it unpalatable. I don't understand the purpose of it, and
>>you don't seem able to explain it. Throwing away awareness would wind
>>you up with "nothing" again, which seems to attract you, but I don't
>>understand what throwing away awareness means. It seems the equivalent
>>to me of saying "throw away your leg." How would you go about it,
>
>
> Empty it, item by item -- starting with the ticking of the clock.
>
>
>>and why?
>
>
> To find out what there is that cannot be dropped or thrown away.
>
> If there be any such thing.
Well you are starting with awareness, which seems to me to be the only
item that can't be thrown away. Left without it, you wouldn't be able
to continue the exercise. You'd be.... well actually you'd not-be.
Insentience = death.
But I'm not saying it's a bad exercise, if it proves that it can't be
thrown away, or that even after being thrown away it is still there, or
it breaks through the images of awareness to the reality of it.
also true; but one can go from menu to dish; if one doesn't have
something to start with that is tough. on the other hand, the image can
also get in the way of the actuality; so sometimes not-knowing may be
better.
>
> But the better answer is just that you don't need to know in advance
> what it is in order to realize it. It's doubtful that it *can* be known
> in advance. It's just as much fun, anyway, if it comes as a BIG-ASS SHOCK.
>
> You know, like it did with Kapleau.
yeah, well, he had an awful lot of information beforehand; it wasn't random.
>
>
>>>I understand that one wishes to be cautious -- one does not
>>>wish to go careening down any old path that is suggested.
>>>That would likely be a big waste of time and energy, and
>>>could involve some distinct risk to one's mental stability/integrity.
>>>
>>>Understood.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>Not that I have anything particular
>>>>>against awareness-as-essence-of-mind -- it seems as likely as anything
>>>>>else, though you'd think someone might have mentioned that simple
>>>>>equation by this time.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, that's why I want the original chinese word in direct translation
>>>>maybe by a non-Buddhist, as well as a sanskrit term if Hui Neng was
>>>>using one.
Anyway, seems like the Buddhists have noticed this before, given our
recent research...
What does it mean to drop something as it arises? To remove it from
attention? If that is the case, then it would only be for the moment,
because that is where the attention is active. There is no "permanent"
removal for an object of mind, since it is not a real object, as you
demonstrated by the stubborn return of your self-concept when you tried
to go beyond it.
>
>
>>>>>>whereas awareness as an object seems very intellectually
>>>>>>pure and attracts my attention.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Perhaps if it were less pure, there would be more to attend to.
>>>>>Still, perhaps it is less monolithic than it appears at first.
>>>>
>>>>how about non-o-lithic? :)
>>>
>>>Yuk, yuk.
>>>
>>>
>>>>it's a transparency.
>>>
>>>I see -- it only manifests through its objects, you're saying.
>>
>>well, it's only clearly visible through its object, like water being
>>disturbed by fish.
>
>
> Ok. Though here we're at the question, again, of whether it has
> apprehendable properties at all, although I think we're in agreement
> that the *concept* of awareness that we may form and (possibly) mistake
> for awareness itself, probably *does* have some apprehensible properties.
I think beyond the concept the only thing that is apprehendable about
awareness is the fact that it is aware. There are some associated
noticings that go along with it, from our point of view, such as
formless, transparent, etc., but those are really negatives in relation
to concept of form, object, etc.....
>
>
>>>>>Particularly if you take it as an examination of an inferred fact
>>>>>rather than as an examination of a direct "percept", then it's
>>>>>likely that there will be detected, upon examination, some
>>>>>hair, perhaps very fine, on what is being contemplated.
>>>>
>>>>that is true. one has to keep returning to the basic shock of awareness
>>>>itself to refresh the actuality of it and make sure an image hasn't
>>>>taken over, at least one would think preliminarily.
>
>
> Yes, that seems likely.
>
>
>>>>>Surely, awareness is not entirely empty of character, entirely
>>>>>void of distinguishing features, having nothing that can be
>>>>>predicated of it, as has traditionally been said about God.
>>>>
>>>>what you can say about it is that it is aware, awake and empty, and that
>>>>it is untouched and unchanged by the content that appears to arise
>>>>within or through it. Those properties are with reference to that which
>>>>has properties; in itself it is merely transparently aware. What else
>>>>could awareness be?
>>>
>>>I see: it is a neutral witnessing, you're saying.
>>
>>I think that's pretty good, although I'm not sure it is always in
>>'watching' mode.
>
>
> Yes?? What do you mean?
Witnessing seems to suggest that it is attentive to a specific object or
arising of objects; I don't think it has to "care" to be aware. In
other words, the most neutral mode of awareness may be "total
peripherality," where everything is included but nothing is worthy of
central focus. In that mode, there are no ripples on the pond, though
the clarity of the water may reveal the presence of the rocks and moss,
and a passerby may even see himself reflected in the water.
>
>
>>>>>Surely when you contemplate awareness, there is a something
>>>>>that you're aware of contemplating?
>>>>
>>>>Yes, awareness. Now for someone who is attracted to 'nothing' as an
>>>>object,
>>>
>>>This is inaccurate, but that may be due to my own inaccuracy in
>>>expressing myself. But to continue:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I find it amusing that you are so quick to fill empty awareness
>>>>with this and that. I don't think it has anything to it except that it
>>>>is awake. What qualities does a still body of water have? It reflects,
>>>>it is transparent, it is still, it is empty, it is clear. Similar to
>>>>awareness itself.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>It has some qualities,
>>>>>does it not, even if they resist verbalization? Even to
>>>>>say that it is pellucidly clear is to ascribe some attribute,
>>>>>is it not?
>>>>
>>>>It terms of comparison and observation, yes. When contemplating it
>>>>closely, all that may disappear in just being awake. That's
>>>>enlightenment, isn't it?
>>>
>>>That's a conception on your part. Not saying you're wrong or right.
>>
>>maybe.
>
>
> No, you're definitely forming a conception about what enlightenment
> consists of. But so what? Who, pre-enlightenment, does not cherish
> *some* idea of what enlightenment is all about? And who says you're
> wrong, anyway?
And who says I'm pre-enlightened? I may be partly pre- and partly
post-; hence my name: fallen from half-baked grace.
>
>
>>>>Awake with nothing added.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>What is this, that you are contemplating, anyway?
>>>>
>>>>A very awake nothing. Fish swim in the water; do they change the nature
>>>>of the water?
>>>
>>>According to you, the fish are a manifestation, a convolution of the water.
>>
>>not sure if I'm saying that, but I would not say that about fish...
>
I'm gonna have a hard time tracing back that metaphor, but it's just as
well....
Robert
herbzet
DharmaTroll wrote:
> You're talking about a cult leader who would take hundreds of dollars
> from folks, lock them in a room for hours and yell continually at
> them, the famous phrase of his being, "You asshole: you caused it!".
That certainly justifies ripping off the people who attended the seminar
with you. Obviously, the schmucks were begging for it.
--
hz
liaM
Pigsmyfly.
Do you think Timid Tom actually came out of Hard Wern-Er's
blsting tunnel with pckets stuffed with 5 and 10 dollar bills ?
Hollywood Lee
> herbzet wrote:
>> My answer to either question is the same: Drop it, throw it away
>> -- and thus, to find out in what it is rooted.
>>
>> Then, on to the next thing that presents itself. ;-)
>
> Well you can certainly drop all the answers to the question, in order to
> get to the next level of awareness or understanding. It's a classic
> advaita method, called "neti neti." For every answer to the question of
> identity you say "not this, not this" and throw it away. Then go on to
> the next item. So it is a proven method, just like "awareness of
> awareness" and eko hensho, "turning the light of the mind back towards
> its source to realize the nature of the source."
>
> Neti neti requires a lot of discipline to keep throwing everything away
> until you have an ultimate breakthrough into the direct perception of
> the same source-point of consciousness/experience/awareness.
It would seem that the neti neti approach could end with several
conclusions. The advaita result of "an ultimate breakthrough into the
direct perception of the same source-point of
consciousness/experience/awareness." I assume from my fleeting exposure
to Hindu thought that this is some sort of negative affirmation of
realization of the Divine, where words are not just inadequate but
deceptive in their description. But the underlying assumption, it
seems, is that there is a foundational Divine, however defined.
If you set aside that underlying assumption, however, does the practice
take you somewhere else?
Tang Huyen
liaM wrote:
> herbzet:
>
> > DharmaTroll:
>
> >> You're talking about a cult leader who would
> >> take hundreds of dollars from folks, lock them
> >> in a room for hours and yell continually at
> >> them, the famous phrase of his being, "You
> >> asshole: you caused it!".
>
> > That certainly justifies ripping off the people
> > who attended the seminar with you. Obviously,
> > the schmucks were begging for it.
>
> Pigsmyfly.
>
> Do you think Timid Tom actually came out of
> Hard Wern-Er's blsting tunnel with pckets stuffed
> with 5 and 10 dollar bills ?
To all appearance, DharmaTroll is writhing
in agony in front of the God that he carries in
his head and that he revolts against. Such
God screams to him constantly, from within
his head: "You asshole: you caused it!".
Obviously, the schmuck (DharmaTroll) is
begging for it, in closed circle. He locks
himself up in his head (it is a closed-head
injury) with such God just a have a close
encounter with a spook that he carries in his
head (sorry for the tautology).
EST serves as mere camouflage.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:he8vfr$p6t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
just to jersey but a bus
ticket can do that.
DharmaTroll
wrote:
> liaM wrote:
> > herbzet:
>
> > > DharmaTroll:
>
> > >> You're talking about a cult leader who would
> > >> take hundreds of dollars from folks, lock them
> > >> in a room for hours and yell continually at
> > >> them, the famous phrase of his being, "You
> > >> asshole: you caused it!".
>
> > > That certainly justifies ripping off the people
> > > who attended the seminar with you. Obviously,
> > > the schmucks were begging for it.
>
> > Pigsmyfly.
>
> > Do you think Timid Tom actually came out of
> > Hard Wern-Er's blsting tunnel with pckets stuffed
> > with 5 and 10 dollar bills ?
Yes, I did, with several hundred dollars. I went out of my way to not
be timid and put on a big plastic smile and babble about my
"breakthrough" and my "declaration" and that "I am the commitment"; I
made sure to use every buzz-word that we had been taught, and it
worked, and worked better than I would have expected.
And no, the schmucks weren't begging for it, silly. I was the one who
was begging for it, and the schmucks were generous enough to share it
to me. I wasn't ripping them off: it was freely given to me.
> To all appearance, DharmaTroll is writhing
> in agony in front of the God that he carries in
> his head and that he revolts against. Such
> God screams to him constantly, from within
> his head: "You asshole: you caused it!".
Tang, you just are obsessed with your Christianist theme. And no, I
don't carry a God inside my head. I carry a brain.
> Obviously, the schmuck (DharmaTroll) is
> begging for it, in closed circle. He locks
> himself up in his head (it is a closed-head
> injury) with such God just a have a close
> encounter with a spook that he carries in his
> head (sorry for the tautology).
Sounds like you're talking about Satanism, actually. If Fu and I were
Satanists, worshiping Satan, drinking goats' blood, sacrificing
virgins, or whatever satanists do (I'm just going by what I see in the
movies), then you could rightly say "really DharmaTroll (and Fu) are
Christianists, but don't know it, because by worshiping Satan, the
antagonist made by Christianists and not existing outside of
Christianity, they are affirming the Church's mythology and thus are
promoting Christianity and playing into the hands of the Pope." That
would actually make sense, if Fu and I were indeed Satanists. And I
think that's the point you are making. But, um, we're not Satanists,
Tang. Well, I can't speak for Fu, but I'm not.
In this case, my getting initiated into and debunking a cult and
writing a term paper on it in college has nothing to do with 'God',
Tang. It has to do with my more general bone to pick with all blind
clinging to belief systems of any kind. Roman Catholicism just happens
to be the the vampire cult that I was brainwashed with as a kid. It
could have been Hinduism or Theosophy or Islam. Now really, Tang, stop
all this useless mentation and chunking and bagging, and read my post
on consciousness and minds and bodies, and add some cool ideas or re-
translate the suttas better than the versions used or whatever. Put
those savant abilities to some good use. What is it with the God
stuff? I liked it better when you were obsessed with calling me Jigme
instead. At least that was a compliment. Not that claiming I have a
god in my head isn't a compliment of sorts, I suppose. At least it
would be, were I a Hinduist.
> EST serves as mere camouflage.
Yeah, camouflage for the upcoming alien invasion, Tang. Those est
leaders all have 'pods' in their bedrooms, you know. And when Werner
Erhard went into hiding for years, claiming that the Scientologists
were out to get him, he really means that he displeased his alien
masters, who had promised him rule over Australia after the invasion
was complete...
--DharmaTroll
"My sources are unreliable, but their information is fascinating."
-Ashleigh Brilliant
liaM
Alas.. EST is no camouflage for an ASURA.
EST, like Scientology, and like other sectarian social
diseases such as neo-conservatism in the USA,
are part and parcel of the world of the ASURA.
And remember, DT is stuck. He is an ASURA demon type.
Proof?
Think back. DT boasts of conning EST holes,
which is exactly what EST does. DT is the perfect
"demon child". He has no choice. His destiny is writ
in boasts, bluster, and froth.
Keynes
wrote:
>Tang, you just are obsessed with your Christianist theme. And no, I
>don't carry a God inside my head. I carry a brain.
>
>In this case, my getting initiated into and debunking a cult and
>writing a term paper on it in college has nothing to do with 'God',
>Tang. It has to do with my more general bone to pick with all blind
>clinging to belief systems of any kind.
Another appearance by the Amazing Fire Breathing, Foot Swallower.
"I smote them all again with my gigantic dick. (I'm just too cool.)"
-- DramaTroll, the World's Favorite Clown and Balloon Sculptor
Lee Rudolph
>"Hollywood Lee" <hollyw...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:he8vfr$p6t$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
...
>> It would seem that the neti neti approach could end with several
>> conclusions. The advaita result of "an ultimate breakthrough into the
>> direct perception of the same source-point of
>> consciousness/experience/awareness." I assume from my fleeting exposure to
>> Hindu thought that this is some sort of negative affirmation of
>> realization of the Divine, where words are not just inadequate but
>> deceptive in their description. But the underlying assumption, it seems,
>> is that there is a foundational Divine, however defined.
>>
>> If you set aside that underlying assumption, however, does the practice
>> take you somewhere else?
>
>just to jersey but a bus
>ticket can do that.
Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike, they've all gone to look for
advaita.
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> "^@%>---*=#**" <yom...@hotmail.com> writes:
>
> >"Hollywood Lee"
>
> >> It would seem that the neti neti approach could
> >> end with several conclusions. The advaita result
> >> of "an ultimate breakthrough into the direct
> >> perception of the same source-point of
> >> consciousness/experience/awareness." I assume
> >> from my fleeting exposure to Hindu thought that
> >> this is some sort of negative affirmation of
> >> realization of the Divine, where words are not
> >> just inadequate but deceptive in their description.
> >> But the underlying assumption, it seems, is that
> >> there is a foundational Divine, however defined.
> >>
> >> If you set aside that underlying assumption,
> >> however, does the practice take you somewhere
> >> else?
>
> >just to jersey but a bus
> >ticket can do that.
>
> Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike,
> they've all gone to look for advaita.
So advaita is the thingie at the end of the tunnel?
Have green cars any advantage?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
Not when confronted by a red truck.
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> Tang Huyen:
>
> >Lee Rudolph:
>
> >> "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >> >just to jersey but a bus
> >> >ticket can do that.
>
> >> Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike,
> >> they've all gone to look for advaita.
>
> >So advaita is the thingie at the end of the tunnel?
> >Have green cars any advantage?
>
> Not when confronted by a red truck.
Blaring their sirens in silence, and
ondulating silence, right? To emulate
Saint Gabriel's horns, right?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>
>> Tang Huyen:
>>
>> >Lee Rudolph:
>>
>> >> "^@%>---*=#**":
>>
>> >> >just to jersey but a bus
>> >> >ticket can do that.
>>
>> >> Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike,
>> >> they've all gone to look for advaita.
>>
>> >So advaita is the thingie at the end of the tunnel?
>> >Have green cars any advantage?
>>
>> Not when confronted by a red truck.
>
>Blaring their sirens in silence, and
>ondulating silence, right?
Odysseus, having had his sailors stop their ears with
beeswax and tie him to the mast, learned--by direct
knowledge, the fruit of his own senses--that the Sirens
were silent. But to spare his sailors disappointment,
and (perhaps; only perhaps) to burnish his own reputation,
he ever afterwards averred that, yes, the Sirens' song was
most attractive...though he had heard better in his time.
(an extract from the Eisgetical Odyssey)
>To emulate
>Saint Gabriel's horns, right?
And when he opened the seventh cage, there followed a
silence in heaven about the space of four minutes and
three and thirty seconds.
(The Revelation of Saint John)
Lee Rudolph
^@%>---*=#**
"Lee Rudolph" <lrud...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:he9kpp$s56$3...@reader1.panix.com...
they should have checked
their rear view mirrors
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> "Lee Rudolph"
>
> > "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >>just to jersey but a bus
> >>ticket can do that.
>
> > Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike,
> > they've all gone to look for advaita.
>
> they should have checked
> their rear view mirrors
So their rearview mirrors are
the melting pot, to melt them
back to Oneness?
Tang Huyen
Tang Huyen
Hollywood Lee wrote:
> It would seem that the neti neti approach could
> end with several conclusions. The advaita result
> of "an ultimate breakthrough into the direct
> perception of the same source-point of
> consciousness/experience/awareness." I assume
> from my fleeting exposure to Hindu thought that
> this is some sort of negative affirmation of
> realization of the Divine, where words are not
> just inadequate but deceptive in their description.
> But the underlying assumption, it seems, is that
> there is a foundational Divine, however defined.
>
> If you set aside that underlying assumption,
> however, does the practice take you somewhere
> else?
You, of all people, should ask. You quoted the
scripture on Dependent Arisal, and as I pointed
out, the "ceasing" sequence is to all appearance
nihilistic, because in it, consciousness ceases,
name-and-form ceases, contact ceases, feeling
ceases, and the mass of suffering ceases. If all
that stuff ceases first and then suffering ceases,
is there anything left to feel the cessation of
suffering? And if nothing is left, what good is
the ceasing of suffering?
You have yet to answer that question. Now
show us your hallowed rationalism.
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
"Tang Huyen" <tanghuyen{delete}@gmail.com[remove]> wrote in message
news:nbWdnbcztuQJ6ZXW...@supernews.com...
the first step is to attempt to relinquish
being a slave to ego, those emotional
tendencies, and dwell at the level of
raw isness. later, even isness can be
seen to be the completely useless
pursuit that it is.
Lee Rudolph
>
>"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
>
>> "Lee Rudolph"
>>
>> > "^@%>---*=#**":
>>
>> >>just to jersey but a bus
>> >>ticket can do that.
>>
>> > Counting the cars on the New Jersey turnpike,
>> > they've all gone to look for advaita.
>>
>> they should have checked
>> their rear view mirrors
Rear view: mere arse.
>So their rearview mirrors are
>the melting pot, to melt them
>back to Oneness?
There are many ways to reach the Fields of the Blessed,
and few by which to return; nor is looking backwards
recommended, either on that ascent or on one's flight
from the Cities of the Plain (if Lot's wife has lost
her savior, wherewith shall she be melted? _lachrymae
Christi_?). Before Hades extended his entirely un-
Sodomitical hospitality to Persephone, the Siren sisters
were her playmates: afterwards, they were given wings,
and songs, and sent to search for her--yet she was nowhere
they could go: _facilis descensus advaita_ is all very
well, but if your wings are held together with wax, you
may want to stay out of Hell's Kitchen, wherein is
included (close enough) the egress from the Jersey
tunnel.
Or maybe it's all the other way around.
I have to go downstairs to cook supper.
Br'er Rudolph
Lee Rudolph
>the first step is to attempt to relinquish
>being a slave to ego, those emotional
>tendencies, and dwell at the level of
>raw isness. later, even isness can be
>seen to be the completely useless
>pursuit that it is.
Mind your own isness.
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph wrote:
> "^@%>---*=#**":
>
> >the first step is to attempt to relinquish
> >being a slave to ego, those emotional
> >tendencies, and dwell at the level of
> >raw isness. later, even isness can be
> >seen to be the completely useless
> >pursuit that it is.
>
> Mind your own isness.
I don't use the "is" and "isness" terminology,
but so far as I get their meaning (strictly from
use), "isness" is not personal and you cannot
have your "isness". Any such is universal,
and if you in any way orient yourself to it, it
is strictly a universal intention, in a strictly
universal intention. So by the time you mess
with it, you have to some degree relinquished
your personal viewpoint already and are
assaulting the gates of the heaven of
Impersonality. Question is, are they the pearly
gates guarded by Saint Peter? And if anybody
enters them, is there somebody who enters
them? And if nobody enters them, why must
Saint Peter guard them?
Tang Huyen
^@%>---*=#**
there's no isness like show isness
like no isness i know.....
^@%>---*=#**
the pearly gates are just another way
of saying that veil which exists between
ego and isness, if you will.
when the ignorance of ego is relinquished,
not by a "who" but just as an occurring
process, isness can recognize itself, in
a manner of speaking, and its depth and
intensity is no longer clouded by that process
that was abiding as ego.
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> the pearly gates are just another way
> of saying that veil which exists between
> ego and isness, if you will.
>
> when the ignorance of ego is relinquished,
> not by a "who" but just as an occurring
> process, isness can recognize itself, in
> a manner of speaking, and its depth and
> intensity is no longer clouded by that process
> that was abiding as ego.
This is where hair-splitters like Keynes
and Brian Mitchell trip up in a priori
analysis.
<<the ignorance of ego is relinquished,
not by a "who" but just as an occurring
process>>
So, for ego to be relinquished, ego has
to be ... relinquished first, not by a "who"
(aka ego) but just as an occurring
process, presumably shorn of ego. So we
have a tautology: for ego to be eased out
of the way, ego ... has to be eased out of
the way, but not by itself, because if ego
eases itself out of the way, it is still ego
doing the work, therefore ego is still around.
So ego has to be eased out of the way, by
something not itself, rather just as an
occurring process, therefore before ego is
eased out of the way, it is already eased
out of the way, otherwise the process
cannot even begin. So the contradiction
can only be solved by ... God, right?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
>
>Lee Rudolph wrote:
>
>> "^@%>---*=#**":
>>
>> >the first step is to attempt to relinquish
>> >being a slave to ego, those emotional
>> >tendencies, and dwell at the level of
>> >raw isness. later, even isness can be
>> >seen to be the completely useless
>> >pursuit that it is.
>>
>> Mind your own isness.
>
>I don't use the "is" and "isness" terminology,
>but so far as I get their meaning (strictly from
>use), "isness" is not personal and you cannot
>have your "isness".
Ah. So my admonition would have been better
put as "None of your isness!", then.
>Any such is universal,
>and if you in any way orient yourself to it, it
>is strictly a universal intention, in a strictly
>universal intention. So by the time you mess
>with it, you have to some degree relinquished
>your personal viewpoint already and are
>assaulting the gates of the heaven of
>Impersonality. Question is, are they the pearly
>gates guarded by Saint Peter? And if anybody
>enters them, is there somebody who enters
>them? And if nobody enters them, why must
>Saint Peter guard them?
The gates aren't pearly, they're jade, and their guard is the little
man in the boat--homologous to Peter-of-purported-sanctity, but not
identical.
Lee Rudolph
Tang Huyen
"^@%>---*=#**" wrote:
> "Lee Rudolph"
>
> > "^@%>---*=#**":
> >
> >>the first step is to attempt to relinquish
> >>being a slave to ego, those emotional
> >>tendencies, and dwell at the level of
> >>raw isness. later, even isness can be
> >>seen to be the completely useless
> >>pursuit that it is.
>
> > Mind your own isness.
>
> there's no isness like show isness
> like no isness i know.....
Is no-show isness a contender?
Or is it condemned a priori and
in absentia?
Tang Huyen
Lee Rudolph
no show
knowshow
Lee Rudolph