|
My experience after 10 years of pretty intense practice is that meditation resolves into a state of conscious sleep, like a cat sitting in the sun Pretty much what a lot of teachers describe, but in less grandiose/metaphysical terms This is pretty disappointing tbh B-) Was wondering what your experience was, do you think it's all overhyped, etc Thanks ✌️
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2018 23:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
One of the reasons I’ve really grown to enjoy Dogen is that his writing accords so fully with my experience of zazen, and spiritual practice in general; but it’s a very different kettle of fish from what you’re describing. The effects of the practice will vary with the practice itself, and there are obviously many types of meditative and contemplative practice. Apart from zazen, I’ve done quite a few over the years tratak japa (various types / traditions) ajapa japa yantra and other similar contemplative prayer kinhin and other forms of walking meditation vipassana yoga dhyana (the yoga tradition tends to aim at one pointedness); asana, too can be a moving meditation etc. Far from exhaustive: no charnel meditations, for example. But I wouldn’t put any of these in a waking sleep category. Still, the cardinal rule in these matters, from my perspective, is to trust your own experience rather than the assurances of others, and although it’s somewhat strange to say, since the sense in which it’s goal oriented is significantly different from the normal sense, if it’s not working for you, you should probably pursue some other vehicle for insight, meaning, peace of mind or whatever other result you were looking for. Best of luck to you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 00:31
|
|
|
Thanks for your reply :-) Guess what I’m trying to say is, I think Freud was actually more or less right when he described nondual awareness etc as basically a regression to the infant state of consciousness, prior to a subject/object distinction. Meditation as the destructuring of the adult mind. In my experience, it's chill, sure, but we idealize the gently caress out of it. There's nothing supernatural, metaphysically spectacular, etc. Even the whole mystique of “it’s just your ordinary awareness” -- Right, it really is :-P I think it becomes obvious just looking at someone like Ramana Maharshi etc that they're basically just chilling like a dog. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not really salvation or anything, unless you really want to insist that it is. And sure, you can say it's It and really go deep with it, but it doesn't lead anywhere except to feelz deeper. Relax, and it resolves into chilling like a dog. There are even teachers like Robert Saltzman who basically say, yeah, it's just your natural awareness, that's it -- But even there, there's this fetishizing of it. And it's that fetishizing (or the fetishizing of not fetishizing it) that leads to all this quasi-religious hype about “enlightenment” or whatever. Think Alan Watts implicit attitude was the best, his laugh, etc... But even he drank himself to death. Not to get too dark, but I think that's enough to demonstrate that "enlightenment" is not at all what it might seem. What do you think? Mighty Crouton fucked around with this message at 01:24 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
If it makes you feel any better, and whether it does will likely depend on your outlook and tradition, Dogen himself wrestled for an extended period with a question similar to yours: if Buddha nature is omnipresent, why do we need to practice? Do we discover anything more than we would if we brewed some coffe and sat down and read the New York Times Sunday Edition for a few hours or maybe hiked a local trail? If there is something is it some sort of ephemeral trance state? And if not that, how does it add to ordinary experience? Dogen’s answers extend into many volumes. For my own part, I’d suggest that part of the promise of the practice as a whole is that it can add some degree of insight, penetrating, precise, alert and grounded, into our real, actual lives; how transitory and screened are our experiences; their nature as both particular and universal at the same time, inextricably bound by dependent origination, constantly changing; the very absence of the sort of immutable metaphysical architecture that Plato envisaged, and so on. And that that insight might be reinforced by and reinforce a perspective that perhaps narrows the range of suffering by evoking compassion and helping to reduce unskillful attachment, among other things. For a much lengthier and far more articulate discussion of these sorts of points, I might recommend Okumura’s recently published book on the Mountains and Waters Sutra, and also How to Cook Your Life, by Dogen with commentary by Uchiyama. Ultimately, though, it will either bring something to you beyond infantile awareness / just chilling or it won’t. You shouldn’t take my word for it, or Dogen’s, or anyone else’s. And I guess I would also add that if you can find or have found happiness or contentment in a simpler way, then perhaps there is really no far shore for you to reach, whether through this or any other path.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 02:46
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:Thanks for your reply :-) It doesn't sound particularly familiar to me? It's somewhat difficult to discuss, so it's not a fault or anything, but the meditation you're describing doesn't seem like the meditation I am familiar with. Freud's observance of meditation as a regression to the infant state is, for example, not really well supported by research. Not his fault, he didn't get much time with serious meditators, and he did have a general agenda against religious or spiritual experiences overall, this being one of the principle reasons for Jung's break with him. Describing "meditation" as an activity is exactly not consistent with the higher levels of meditation, at least within Tibetan Buddhism, where the highest forms of meditation are non-meditation, maintaining the state of "ordinary mind" (itself a rather tricky concept, not a translation error, but rather something that even original language Tibetan instructions elaborate on the meaning of as it is deceptive) during one's daily activity. Fundamentally, meditation is about habituating the mind into other ways of thinking. It is a form of training. But the activity itself is not the important part. The sitting, the meditating, the "chilling like a dog" is part of the training, it's a method of training and habituation, but not the goal. By most accounts, the experience of meditative attainment should at the very least be transpersonal in nature. If the experience can be likened to "chilling like a dog," it's not it - not because the meditative attainment has some kind of holy, divine, or sacred attribute, but because "chilling like a dog" is itself an idea steeped deeply within duality - it requires a subject to be doing something like something else, it deeply implies the experience is dualistic in nature. The attainment, even the recognition, the "brief glimpse" of thing that is being pursued, that one is trying to receive through the pointing out instructions and the meditations that serve to bring the experience about, isn't really something that can be described conceptually. It's difficult to even compare it one thing to another, and in fact one of the main cautions for people learning to meditate is about enjoying an experience too much, or pursuing a particular experience, or thinking "ah, I've got it, that was it, that's enlightenment." Such an experience should be so substantially life-altering that one does not leave it going "aha, I had the experience now, and it wasn't all that." That's not to say such experiences are common or that such experiences come from all forms of meditation. Indeed, it's fairly rare. But such experiences do happen. It is perhaps a bit risky to say that because the plain language says "it's your ordinary awareness" and because it appears outwardly to be "chilling like a dog" (and I would disagree, many of the enlightened individuals I've met do not seem to be doing that at all), that all meditative experiences are like that. The simple fact that we can't penetrate the experiences of others but have to see for ourselves calls it into question. I think we could have an interesting discussion about the idea of meditation as a regressive state, Ken Wilber has certainly brought the idea up before with his pre/trans fallacy, though Wilber's kind of off on his own with his holarchic model and I don't tend to agree with a lot of his writing. So at the end of the day, I think the best I can offer is that my experiences of meditation and meditators don't seem to resemble yours too closely, if that's what you take away from it. As to the virtue of chilling like a dog and this whole concept of enlightenment - the goal is to escape from suffering. If the secret to escaping from suffering and being happy is to chill like a dog, then that's fantastic. But that comes with the flipside: if you're not liberated from suffering, if you find yourself still having worries, and you're not in a state of non-attached happiness, then it's important to evaluate whether that chilling like a dog is working. Most of those I know who might be regarded as enlightened are far more busy without tiring than they are relaxed and unengaged. If anything, they are entirely engaged, and appear outwardly to be in a perpetual state of flow more than a state of disengaged chilling.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 02:55
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:Describing "meditation" as an activity is exactly not consistent with the higher levels of meditation, at least within Tibetan Buddhism, where the highest forms of meditation are non-meditation, maintaining the state of "ordinary mind" (itself a rather tricky concept, not a translation error, but rather something that even original language Tibetan instructions elaborate on the meaning of as it is deceptive) during one's daily activity. A bit surprised and intrigued by the focus on ordinary mind within a Tibetan tradition, though Vajrayana as a whole is largely unfamiliar to me. As it happens, there’s a Nyingma temple not far from me; think I’ll have to stop by. Thanks also for the thoughtful and insightful post.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:A bit surprised and intrigued by the focus on ordinary mind within a Tibetan tradition, though Vajrayana as a whole is largely unfamiliar to me. As it happens, there’s a Nyingma temple not far from me; think I’ll have to stop by. Likewise I'm rather unfamiliar with it from outside the Vajrayana tradition, so it is entirely possible that the terms are used differently in some way. Not to say don't stop by though! The Nyingmapa will have some slightly different terms than the ones I might use, as they are predominantly Dzogchen and so have a slightly different body of terms. I believe they'll call "ordinary mind" "rigpa" and "luminosity" will be translated as "clear light" generally. That distinction comes from the Mahamudra/Dzogchen distinction, which both come from two distinct disseminations of Buddhism into Tibet. And likewise thank you for bringing up an interesting topic. I think it's inherent in all of this that we have to wonder if what we might be experiencing is the same as what others are. Qualia runs deep in the whole thing.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 04:45
|
|
|
Thanks for your replies. Don't necessarily want to make this about me, but just a quick background so you know where I’m coming from: Did mushrooms when I was 17, experienced the oneness, pursued meditation very seriously thereafter, had more very powerful psychedelic experiences, went even deeper into meditation, etc, all over the course of about 10 years. It went through all the ordinary stages, resolved after many years into just being being, resolution into “pure consciousness”, rest in nondual emptiness, nonduality, etc etc. I kind of hate these terms, but they're the ones we use, rather than “chilling like a dog”, etc. Anyway, as far as I’ve read, if you're really obsessed with it, like I was, this is not too unusual a timeline -- See Adi Da, who may be kind of a shithead but who was a great writer on the subject, as Ken Wilber’s said. In my experience, it's the fetishization of these states of consciousness, the regarding of them as The Great Thing, that lends a metaphysical gloss to the whole enterprise... It either deludes people into thinking something implicitly “supernatural” is going on, or the fetishization itself becomes a kind of substitute religion. In the end, Alan Watts has said, it’s the awareness of a baby. You just dissolve, just are, and there's nothing more to it. Feels good man, but it's not some kind of metaphysical salvation. (Again, the man knew nondual awareness etc, as far as we all can tell, and drank himself to death. What's going on there?) You say it's supposed to be “transpersonal", and while I've had mirage-like experiences suggesting that, in the end, as far as I can tell, there’s nothing supernatural going on here. What it feels like is -- Just the reconfiguration of brain physiology. Feels like the whole subject-object distinction is just this neurally based knot, and the practice of meditation loosens it until it's totally relaxed, dissolves, and at that point, you are one with what you see, existence and phenomenological nothingness are coexistent, etc. You can capitalize “nothingness”, but it is what it is. I say this not to make another dumb religion of neuroscience, but just to say: nondual awareness etc seems to be based in the natural world, the world of physiology, etc. And the implications of that are: it's not something metaphysically Special. And sure, you can basically Chill, have no thoughts, rest as pure consciousness, nothingness, and in that sense be wholly at peace, like a baby in the womb, but why call it “Enlightenment” or whatever? Even when you have people taking a deflationary approach, like Bodhidharma describing Nirvana as "Vast emptiness... Nothing sacred", it gets taken it to mean something so Special it actually transcends Specialness. There's this whole quasi-religious culture that surrounds it that I think is basically unjustified. We don't even necessarily believe it's supernatural -- But it's like the cultural momentum of believing, in the ways we regard “It”, talk about “It”, carries on. I guess I'd just prefer it if people were more honest about that. Of course, maybe I'm just speaking to my own shadow here -- I really wanted a religious reality, and did not get it. In fact, now that I think about it, I probably am, hah... Tdlr: As far as I can tell, there’s nothing supernatural about nondual awareness, but we more or less continue to regard it as if there is. 🌈 Mighty Crouton fucked around with this message at 06:58 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 05:18
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:In the end, Alan Watts has said, it’s the awareness of a baby. You just dissolve, just are, and there's nothing more to it. Feels good man, but it's not some kind of metaphysical salvation. (Again, the man knew nondual awareness etc, as far as we all can tell, and drank himself to death. What's going on there?) I at least think I understand where you're coming from. I didn't know that Alan Watts drank himself to death, but that does not surprise me. He was clever and openly liked to laugh and to make others laugh, but he had a certain disregard for why life might have to be taken seriously, which made him both likable and suspect to me. I remember him saying in passing how technology was on track to eliminating poverty, so people had better start preparing for what we'll all do once all are fed and sheltered. That strikes me as increasingly wishful thinking now. I've talked about this in the Christianity thread, that it's only becoming more clear to me that non-dual awareness is not enough for the human, especially in the age of global catastrophe and omnicidal weapons. Bodhicitta is essential awakening, the realization that one always has one role left to attempt in this show of a world, that of the bodhisattva.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 07:13
|
|
|
I've found it persistently weird how there's like this strain in Western Buddhist thought which is basically "all this Buddhism stuff isn't real anyway; and we don't mean in the sense that nothing is objectively real, we mean it's all a song and dance and you have to find your own path, right?" And then of course you have the strain which is just neurology studies. Of course I might just be salty because of the relative paucity of Mahayana material I've been able to lay my hands on 
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 13:09
|
|
|
Nessus posted:I've found it persistently weird how there's like this strain in Western Buddhist thought which is basically "all this Buddhism stuff isn't real anyway; and we don't mean in the sense that nothing is objectively real, we mean it's all a song and dance and you have to find your own path, right?" And then of course you have the strain which is just neurology studies. Same here. On one hand I'm really happy to see a larger push for the normalization of meditation in the USA, but then on the other I feel like it is getting kinda weird in how doing a lot of meditation is somehow the end result to push for and not just a part of a larger whole. Having a more Theravada'n bent myself I find myself much more frequently looking at my life and contemplating my actions with regard to the eight-fold path, than worrying if I've meditated enough this week. To me practicing is all about being skillful, compassionate, and equanimous in my day to day activities, and while meditation helps strengthen those attributes it is not the end goal for me.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 14:24
|
|
|
Is it more a phenomenon of popular culture (books / articles promoting MSBR) than Buddhist thought, though? At least in Zen, the temples I've practiced in and those I'm familiar with are deeply steeped in a specifically (and fully) Zen tradition; and even Japanese cultural trappings are very strong. There was a Tibetan Buddhist temple where I used to live, and like the one that's near me currently, the impression at least, without having practiced there, is certainly one consistent with a very traditional approach. I haven't been to IMS / Spirit Rock or Shambala centers. The former are clearly quite a bit more westernized, but at least from the Goldstein / Kornfield etc. podcasts and books their approach seems holistic.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 16:07
|
|
|
Nude Hoxha Cameo posted:Is it more a phenomenon of popular culture (books / articles promoting MSBR) than Buddhist thought, though? At least in Zen, the temples I've practiced in and those I'm familiar with are deeply steeped in a specifically (and fully) Zen tradition; and even Japanese cultural trappings are very strong. There was a Tibetan Buddhist temple where I used to live, and like the one that's near me currently, the impression at least, without having practiced there, is certainly one consistent with a very traditional approach. I haven't been to IMS / Spirit Rock or Shambala centers. The former are clearly quite a bit more westernized, but at least from the Goldstein / Kornfield etc. podcasts and books their approach seems holistic. I can see where I wasn't very clear in my post. My personal practice got a good kickstart from IMS style teaching, so they definitely aren't the problem that I'm alluding to. Likewise, though I've never personally been exposed to American Zen/Tibetan/Shambala, from everything I've seen they are all the full monty. It's more the "headspace app", "Meditation for Warriors", "anything talked about on weekend AM news" that seems to be very high on the meditation hype and not so much on the rest of it. Even my boy Dan Harris, who I think is doing really good work with his 10% happier stuff treads a bit to lightly on the holistic approach. At least more recently he has started to speak a bit more about actually being Buddhist and not just about meditation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 18:14
|
|
|
Buddhist meditation begins with training the mind to concentrate, eventually reaching states of comprehensive awareness and compassion that are nothing like the consciousness of an animal. This concentration is generally developed prior to the first taste of nirvana. Someone far along the path will be harmless to others, even under extreme conditions like torture and imprisonment. Practitioners who appear quiescent may be doing good in ways that aren't directly visible. I believe Ramana Maharshi talked about absorbing negative karma from his students, for example. With respect, although you may have experienced states of deep concentrative stillness or bliss with a transpersonal or apparently nondual character, these may not have been the irreversible Buddhist insight (kensho, satori, stream-entry, etc.) characterized by a decisive breakthrough to the selflessness of phenomena. Non-self applies to all states including those that are deeply quiescent, blissful, transpersonal, and so on. Awakening is the realization that no state or experience can be ultimately satisfactory. This discovery liberates the apparent mind from looking for a self in experience. quote:Then, Bodhisattva Lion of Thundering Voice asked Manjusri, "Virtuous One, since you achieved the Realization of the Nonarising of Dharmas, you have never harbored a notion [in your mind] of attaining supreme enlightenment. Why do you now urge others to progress toward enlightenment?" Chapter 10: The Prediction of Manjusri's Attainment of Buddhahood, p. 164 Sutra 15, Taisho 310, pp. 336-350. Translated into Chinese by Siksananda
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 18:48
|
|
|
SpaceCadetBob posted:I can see where I wasn't very clear in my post. My personal practice got a good kickstart from IMS style teaching, so they definitely aren't the problem that I'm alluding to. Likewise, though I've never personally been exposed to American Zen/Tibetan/Shambala, from everything I've seen they are all the full monty. It's more the "headspace app", "Meditation for Warriors", "anything talked about on weekend AM news" that seems to be very high on the meditation hype and not so much on the rest of it. Even my boy Dan Harris, who I think is doing really good work with his 10% happier stuff treads a bit to lightly on the holistic approach. At least more recently he has started to speak a bit more about actually being Buddhist and not just about meditation.  It's easy to convince someone to try a stress-reduction and relaxation technique, it's harder to convince them to adopt a different worldview. I've noticed that in several of my friends who were raised Christian and turned away from it, spirituality and philosophy are sore spots. Some of them feel pretty strongly that "if there are a thousand philosophies and religions that all say that they're right, then that means they're all moot and I should just trust my own intuition." I think for someone in that mindset, it's a lot easier to accept "sitting quietly can help you unwind" than "sitting quietly can help you witness the inherent nonself of conditioned phenomena"
|
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 19:16
|
|
|
One of the best resources on Mahayana I've come across is Paul Williams Mahayana Buddhism the Doctrinal Foundations and here is a link to the second edition http://www.ahandfulofleaves.org/documents/Mahayana%20Buddhism_Williams.pdf For more critical approaches and articles Gregory Schopen has some good stuff on early mahayana. Yiggy fucked around with this message at 22:05 on Jun 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 25, 2018 22:01
|
|
|
Cephas posted:
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 13:02
|
|
|
If you at some point think "I've reached the third Jhana and it's actually [ ... ], not at all like what those old Buddhists describe it as", consider that what you've experienced may not actually be the third Jhana. Same for any other Buddhist concept, and doubly so if you haven't studied Buddhist teaching very deeply.
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 13:10
|
|
|
Fundamentally what I’m saying is, I don't think there's anything “supernatural” going on with non-dual awareness or “awakening” or whatever term we want to use to denote that. And that should pretty dramatically alter the way in which we regard it (the “holy hush”, etc etc). Does anyone have any strong evidence that there is? I’ve looked into this for a long time, inside and out, and I just haven't seen it. Trust me, I’d much rather believe that there's something else going on than not 🌈
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 15:40
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:Fundamentally what I’m saying is, I don't think there's anything “supernatural” going on with non-dual awareness or “awakening” or whatever term we want to use to denote that. And that should pretty dramatically alter the way in which we regard it (the “holy hush”, etc etc). What qualities would an experience have to possess in order for you to consider it supernatural? Are these qualities the same as those that would make an experience deserve to be treated with a sense of reverence, or different ones?
|
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 16:28
|
|
|
I mean, yes? Okay? The idea that something "supernatural" was happening would be entirely dependent on the idea that the "natural" goings-on of day to day material existence are "actual" or "real" and that there's another class of actual or real existence that is greater than or even more real. I am not a realized, enlightened being, but that doesn't seem logically consistent at all with what I understand to be the best descriptions available. The "holy hush" regarding mystical experiences is not because they are "too sacred to share," but because they are, by their very nature, impossible to relay or communicate. "The Tao that can be named is not the eternal Tao" and all that. The conceptual understanding that comes from conceptual explanations are by their very nature deficient, if nothing else because they lack the qualia of the mystical experience. Just as we can't communicate what it is "like" to see the color red, we cannot communicate what it is "like" to have a peak experience, to have a meditative realization, or so on. Reluctance to speak of such things isn't because of some kind of "pearls before swine" sacredness, but because it's a fruitless and ultimately misleading endeavor. The "ordinary mind" isn't, because the "ordinary mind" is a kind of experience that defies conceptual explanation. It can only be understood experentially. Now, the trick to that is, of course, that it's impossible to know if "my" peak experience, enlightenment, non-dual awareness, or whatever matches "your" peak experience or so on. But that doesn't really matter, because if you attain that state of non-dual awareness or enlightenment or ordinary mind or so on, it seems as if you know, based on the reports of those who claim to have done. Is it supernatural? Not really, what does that even mean? There are certainly reports, historical and contemporary, of supernatural experiences by mystics or others, across cultures and so on, but that doesn't mean that all mystical experiences are supernatural. Beyond that, even if they are, so what? The experience is what the experience is, right? A person has an experience, they ascribe it meaning, they draw from it. In cases of "enlightenment" or non-dual awareness or so on, they are fundamentally and permanently changed, in a way not unlike astronauts experiencing the overview effect, although, reportedly, much more so. That these experiences are real can only be disputed if we are to try to claim the ability to assert an objective knowledge of the actual nature of other people's experiences, the ability to say, "actually, what you experienced is just..." and that ability, more than any kind of mystical experience, would be truly supernatural. So, at the end of the day, the experience of the material world, the natural world, as "actual" and the experience of the supernatural as "supernatural" or "not actual" or so on is profoundly dualistic, just right off the bat. The reports, modern and contemporary, of individuals achieving realization are that it is a fundamentally life-altering, permanently worldview changing event. That's what makes these experiences satisfy the "transformational" element of transpersonal experience. Whether we say "oh, that experience is purely neurogenic and nothing special" or we say "oh gosh their consciousness has merged with the universe and recognized its non-dual nature" or whatever doesn't really matter. What matters are the individual's own experience, how it has transformed them, what it means to them, and what it means to others when they direct us on how to experience that thing, if that's a thing we want. Inasmuch as the experience purports to bring an end to suffering, and that's a goal some people seek, it's worth approaching, and the approach is not benefited by trying to claim that people don't actually know what their experience was. I don't think any enlightened being has ever been troubled by being told "oh, it's all in your mind." Because, well, yes. That's something of the point. In any case, tl;dr: I think that the "holy hush" and so on is less about the sacredness and more about the fact that it's supposedly a profound and transformative experience which cannot be communicated conceptually and thus can't be discussed at all really. fake edit: This is the difference between Tibetan Buddhism's "outer, inner, and secret" distinction, incidentally, where the outer meaning is the observed meaning on its face, the inner meaning is the psychospiritual narrative that is communicated through initiation and so on by the guru, and the secret meaning is the one that can't be communicated at all, but has to be personally experienced, to which the guru can only point and guide the practitioner but which the practitioner must discover for him or herself. Nothing about "tantra is too sacred to taint with mundane explanation" and everything to do with "no really, any conventional explanation is by nature deficient, you've got to experience it for yourself." Paramemetic fucked around with this message at 17:11 on Jun 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 17:06
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton, if I’m reading your posts correctly: 1. You view Buddhism in general as involving: a. The claim that there is the possibility of an awakening / satori etc. b. The claim that that experience is or involves non dual awareness c. Such awareness being or fetishized as being supernatural; or metaphysical in a sense recognizable in the Western tradition (e.g., Christian, Platonic, Aristotelian etc.) d. The claim that the achievement of such awareness, without more, excludes the possibility of further suffering and is, accordingly, salvific standing alone 2. You view Alan Watts (and there may be other examples): a. As a Buddhist and representative of Buddhists b. As having had the sort of experience described above (the same type of experience referred to in Buddhism as awakening / satori etc.) c. As having suffered, such that point 1.d must be incorrect 3. You view yourself: a. As having had the sort of experience described above (the same type of experience referred to in Buddhism as awakening / satori etc.) b. As being able to discern (and having discerned) the absence of supernatural or metaphysical elements in that experience, meaning that point 1.c above must be incorrect Much could be said about these points, and I suspect people would take issue with many of the points in 1 and 2, with the responses varying depending on the relevant school, but without addressing all of this or getting into historical or doctrinal weeds, it may be helpful for your to consider that (i) 1 a and b are complicated and perspectives may differ by tradition: there are various dhyanas, and there are nirvana and stages of liberation (which may also involve or require or otherwise be bound up with personal development), as one example and (ii) 1 d is likely to be viewed as incorrect, depending on the particulars of the realization, unless the claim is that one has experienced full nirvana (is an arhant) or has achieved Buddhahood: Buddhism encompasses much more than merely meditation or its effects and among other things, skillful action (e.g., having compassion, following precepts, paramitas, the eightfold path, etc.) is typically seen as an essential element to liberation and the reduction of suffering (one’s own or that of others). If you are still looking to pursue this sort of path (a reduction of suffering as opposed to a quest for the transcendental), my suggestion would be to dig deeply within one or more Buddhist traditions, working with a local monastery or center rather than on your own. There’s been quite a lot of thought around how to live in a skillful way, the things that can hinder that sort of effort and the stages of practice and realization that can further it, and with that under your belt you may have a better sense of where you’re situated and what (if anything) might be missing or to come. Others in the thread are far more knowledgeable and articulate, and I defer to them entirely, so this is offered for what it's worth, which undoubtedly is: not much, unfortunately. eta: A link that may also be helpful, given the discussion: https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.063.than.html etaa: VVVVV I really think it would be helpful for you to read the above link. Here, let me excerpt a bit quote:have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then, as Ven. Malunkyaputta was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life." Red Dad Redemption fucked around with this message at 04:36 on Jun 27, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jun 26, 2018 21:57
|
|
|
Thanks for your thoughtful replies, goons. I'm wondering, do you guys basically practice Buddhism without the "supernaturalism" (using that term broadly)? I'm sympathetic to the view that, really, experience is reality, It is what It is, etc. But I just feel like, if we grant that "Enlightenment" or whatever we want to call it is purely a phenomenon of the "natural" world, we can subject both the phenomenon and the culture of it, the practice of it, the individual psychologies of the people involved, to a kind of Nietzschean skepticism... And I don't think it would hold up too well :-( Wallace Stevens explored the gently caress out of this "experience is reality" philosophy, and I think on a human level, it gets complicated... I'm not sure how much a "phenomenology-only" Buddhism would satisfy. (Beyond one just pulling the plug on the mind...) A few poems of his, if you want to read them: From Notes Towards a Supreme Fiction: VII What am I to believe? If the angel in his cloud, Serenely gazing at the violent abyss, Plucks on his strings to pluck abysmal glory, Leaps downward through evening’s revelations, and On his spredden wings, needs nothing but deep space, Forgets the gold centre, the golden destiny, Grows warm in the motionless motion of his flight, Am I that imagine this angel less satisfied? Are the wings his, the lapis-haunted air? Is it he or is it I that experience this? Is it I then that keep saying there is an hour Filled with expressible bliss, in which I have No need, am happy, forget need’s golden hand, Am satisfied without solacing majesty, And if there is an hour there is a day, There is a month, a year, there is a time In which majesty is a mirror of the self: I have not but I am and as I am, I am. These external regions, what do we fill them with Except reflections, the escapades of death, Cinderella fulfilling herself beneath the roof? _ The Plain Sense of Things After the leaves have fallen, we return To a plain sense of things. It is as if We had come to an end of the imagination, Inanimate in an inert savoir. It is difficult even to choose the adjective For this blank cold, this sadness without cause. The great structure has become a minor house. No turban walks across the lessened floors. The greenhouse never so badly needed paint. The chimney is fifty years old and slants to one side. A fantastic effort has failed, a repetition In a repetitiousness of men and flies. Yet the absence of the imagination had Itself to be imagined. The great pond, The plain sense of it, without reflections, leaves, Mud, water like dirty glass, expressing silence Of a sort, silence of a rat come out to see, The great pond and its waste of the lilies, all this Had to be imagined as an inevitable knowledge, Required, as a necessity requires. __ Final Soliloquy of the Interior Paramour Light the first light of evening, as in a room In which we rest and, for small reason, think The world imagined is the ultimate good. This is, therefore, the intensest rendezvous. It is in that thought that we collect ourselves, Out of all the indifferences, into one thing: Within a single thing, a single shawl Wrapped tightly round us, since we are poor, a warmth, A light, a power, the miraculous influence. Here, now, we forget each other and ourselves. We feel the obscurity of an order, a whole, A knowledge, that which arranged the rendezvous. Within its vital boundary, in the mind. We say God and the imagination are one... How high that highest candle lights the dark. Out of this same light, out of the central mind, We make a dwelling in the evening air, In which being there together is enough. Anyway, would love to hear what you guys think.
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 03:59
|
|
|
all i know is after i die i'll be reborn in amida's pure land due to amida's grace and after that do the hard work of becoming a buddha, at which point i will be able to travel between realms freely, see everyone's karma, read minds, and fly
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 04:11
|
|
|
Senju Kannon posted:all i know is after i die i'll be reborn in amida's pure land due to amida's grace and after that do the hard work of becoming a buddha, at which point i will be able to travel between realms freely, see everyone's karma, read minds, and fly  i'll just chop wood and carry water
|
|
#
?
Jun 27, 2018 18:11
|
|
|
I found a nice wikipedia Article: List of games the Buddha would not play ... what games would the Buddha play?
|
|
#
?
Jul 1, 2018 12:16
|
|
|
Mighty Crouton posted:Thanks for your thoughtful replies, goons. pidan posted:I found a nice wikipedia Article:
|
|
#
?
Jul 2, 2018 01:16
|
|
|
What is "negligence" in this context? Re: supernaturalism, I am also a tiny baby, but the possibility of other samsaric beings and realms is kind of interesting and in the end doesn't mean much to our observances anyway. Denying them or their possibility feels like I wouldn't be sincerely embracing the faith, but instead making up something new. That's maybe not terrible but it doesn't feel right to me, either. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 04:28
|
|
|
Paramemetic posted:I mean, yes? Okay? The idea that something "supernatural" was happening would be entirely dependent on the idea that the "natural" goings-on of day to day material existence are "actual" or "real" and that there's another class of actual or real existence that is greater than or even more real. I just wanted to say I really appreciate this post. It really succinctly draws attention to a lot of interesting concepts around understanding *whatever* from any standpoint. So thanks 
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 04:49
|
|
|
pidan posted:I found a nice wikipedia Article: Cribbage seems, pardon the terminology, kosher
|
|
#
?
Jul 7, 2018 05:01
|
|
|
Here's something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'm sure it's been touched on in the thread somewhere but I haven't read through it fully in a while. Buddhism denies the existence of an eternal soul, so how does is this reconciled with reincarnation? I understand the concept of changing forms when your current body dies, but if there's no soul then doesn't your body just become spread out as it is broken down/eaten/changed into other parts of the universe? I've heard the metaphor of the river, where the river you see is always the same river yet it changes from moment to moment, but that doesn't make sense if the river is also the grass and the sky and the rocks and the trees around it, because then everything is just everything. If my body dies, and my consciousness is either ended or broken up into a million fragments, some of which end up as living creatures or minerals or anything else, then how exactly can I be reincarnated into one new form? Aren't I all of those those?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:17
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:If my body dies, and my consciousness is either ended or broken up into a million fragments, some of which end up as living creatures or minerals or anything else, then how exactly can I be reincarnated into one new form? Aren't I all of those those? From the Buddhism that I've picked up, you'd be encouraged to further identify with being "all of those things," as you put it. To illustrate what's meant by impermanence, non-duality and interbeing, Thich Nhat Hanh suggests looking at a cloud. When exactly did it stop being water vapors and become a cloud? When will it stop being a cloud and become water? When will the water stop being water and become your body? Meditating like this is to encourage you to see everything as one inalienable thing, constantly evolving through cause-and-effect, and that this is happening everywhere and to everything, including to your body, your consciousness, the clouds, and the entire cosmos. And then it's further advised to use this meditation to deepen both your compassion and your understanding, as this is the best way for the human to live.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2018 22:37
|
|
|
Yorkshire Pudding posted:Here's something I've been thinking about for a while, and I'm sure it's been touched on in the thread somewhere but I haven't read through it fully in a while. e: Like to elaborate now that I'm home and on a real terminal. I want to preface this by saying that it is my own understanding based on my early exploration of Buddhist theology and philosophy and probably laden with errors and heresies. What matters is that you practice, as best and as much as you can, and if you need to write the rest of this off as some weirdo, go for it. I believe that the Buddhist assertion is that an eternal, individual soul in the sense of an absolute "you" who will last eternally, does not exist. This excludes that concept of "the soul," but it is not an absolute negation of anything that could be taken for "a soul" in casual speech, or an assertion that only objectively-observable physical phenomena exist. While there is, for practical purposes, a "you," there is not a "you" in an absolute sense; "you" are the product of dependent origination and cannot ultimately be defined. However, my understanding is that Shakyamuni spoke to at least some extent about his own previous lives. I assume the Buddha wasn't making GBS threads us, and he also repeatedly said things to the effect of "I'm here to teach you liberation, not metaphysics." If his previous incarnations weren't important, they would not have come up. So, taking him at his word, it seems that reincarnation of some meaningful portion of the person is passed on, and that this is probably something beyond the strictly physical (genetics) or material-metaphorical (memories, memetics) that we in the West presently conceive of. It seems more plausible to me that this is a limitation in the culture and worldview of the present time, than a fundamental error on the part of Shakyamuni's teachings. Nessus fucked around with this message at 11:07 on Jul 26, 2018 |
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 09:46
|
|
|
Buddhism, except in very exceptional circumstances, does not believe in reincarnation, but uses the similar-but-distinct term "rebirth." In reincarnation, the assertion is that an essential self, soul, or spirit (the Atman, I believe, in the contemporary Vedic religions) is placed into a new physical vessel - that this body is a vessel and is temporarily animated by that soul. The Buddhist conception does not have a similar concept. One of the principle ideas in Buddhism is that of anatman - no-self or no-soul. In the Buddhist conception, the idea of an independent and essential self is rejected. There is such a thing as a consciousness, but that consciousness arises interdependently based on causes and conditions, as any other phenomena. It cannot be said to be eternal or distinct or independent because internal experiences are based on external circumstances. Our experience of ourselves as independent, other, and distinct-from phenomena is a dualistic illusion. "Self" and "other" are imputations, rather than inherently existing things - arbitrary divisions without a basis in reality. So, when we die, this thing we call "self" is destroyed - it's gone. All composited things, including our consciousness, are impermanent. But we knew that already! This thing we call our consciousness now has no basis in the world - we cannot point to it. Forced, most people will identify their "self" as their stream of consciousness, their mental voice. But surely this changes based on circumstances, and is subject to external influences. If something can change, it cannot be said to be permanent. However, when we die, we create causes for rebirth based on how the cycle works. There is a lot of nuance in certain conceptions (the Tibetan concept of bardos and the dissolution of the winds leading to different experiences as the consciousness journeys towards annihilation and recreation), but generally speaking, our consciousness, while we are alive, is interdependently shaped by our sense organs. The sense object comes into contact with the sense organ, from this contact sensation arises, from this sensation phenomena arises, from phenomena the mental identification of phenomena arises. When we die, this process ceases, and that thing we call consciousness takes on a fundamentally different structure. When a new being is born, it is not "us." In the Buddhist conception, "we" die, and that's it. We're gone. When Paramemetic posts his last post, never again can Paramemetic post. Even in another 15 years, when the causes and conditions created by Paramemetic have fruited into a new poster, that poster will not be me - it will not have had the same experiences, it will not have had the same conditions, read the same shitposts, and so on. So it is a different poster - based on me. The reborn consciousness is shaped by causes and conditions and it's not distinct from our present consciousness because those distinctions of consciousness, "my" consciousness and "your" consciousness, are arbitrary divisions to begin with. Instead, the new consciousness is separate but based on the old consciousness. The allegory with which I'm most familiar is that of a candle flame being passed from one candle to the next. When we use one candle to light another, is the fire the same? It's something like that - this consciousness leads to that consciousness, but they are not the same consciousness. They're tangibly similar and causally related, but not identical. I mentioned rare exceptions, and I wanted to address that quickly: certain beings, bodhisattvas and Buddhas, do something like reincarnation but not really the same as. When, for example, the Dalai Lama passes, that mindstream emanates a new consciousness by will which serves a specific purpose, based on the aspiration of bodhisattvas to not enter into the Dharmakaya state (the "truth body" of Buddhas where consciousness-distinctions are not differentiated, the primordial state of all Buddhas and the actual nature of mind free from conceptual elaboration), we call this the "same being." It's not, it's rather coming from a similar source, but in that case sometimes the term "reincarnation" is used, and correctly, but without the same meaning behind it. Here, the physical body of the reincarnated master is an incarnation of a different being (an emanation of a bodhisattva) and that emanation is happening again. Thus it's not that HH the 14th Dalai Lama is the "same person" as HH the 13th Dalai Lama, but that he's an incarnation/embodiment of the same higher-order being (the bodhisattva Avalokitesvara).
|
|
#
?
Jul 26, 2018 13:26
|
|
|
This is a great thread! I'm grateful for all the informative posts. I was wondering, how much does Buddhism overlap with the modern belief in simulation theory? In Buddhist thought, isn't reality an illusion? Like the movie The Matrix is clearly inspired by a lot of this kind of thought, like Plato's Allegory of the Cave, and Gnosticism, and Buddhism too? So like we're all NPC's in a big video game and Buddha would teach us to escape suffering by letting go of our attachments, and then we are free from Rebirth, which in this analogy mean we cease to respawn? I'm sorry if this Matrix/video game analogy sounds dumb or adolescent. I just would like to hear from some people who have read a lot of Buddhist stuff about whether living in a simulation is consistent or compatible with the Buddhist worldview. Is simulation theory a helpful stepping stone toward understanding Buddhism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 06:53
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:This is a great thread! I'm grateful for all the informative posts. First, I am not educated in these matters and no one should listen to me about anything. A simulation would require a basis in something, i.e. a machine, or system or whatever. At least according to a Mahayana / Madyamika view, this isn't the best analogy because Samsara itself is without a basis, it is entirely empty without any self-nature. Causation and even time itself only appear to exist because of our perspectives, and lack any real nature at all. Samsara is more our own ignorant projections on these empty phenomena which we impart labels or judgements on. These imputations cause the three poisons (Ignorance, Aversion and Desire), from which leads all other sufferings. I suppose you can use the simulation as a way of understanding the empty nature of reality, but it really gives the idea of some sort of architect to the simulation. That's not the case in Buddhist cosmology, even Brahma (the being at the tip-top of Samsara) didn't actually create the universe, and is certainly not immortal or omnipotent. Interestingly though to your concept, I am remembering Words of My Perfect Teacher which basically a primer for beginner Buddhists from the Nyingma tradition of Tibetan Buddhism. When taking us through a tour of Samsara the author, Patrul Rinpoche makes reference to Pretas and various other unfortunate beings. Because of their karma, Pretas perceive water as fire, and various other wholesome things as great suffering. Other beings exist in "Peripheral Hells" where they may exist in the belly of a fish while being tormented by continually being digested and thrown up again or something. I suppose he's talking about the possibility of an entirely different perceived reality depending on ones own situation informed by karma, which could be understood as being a kind of simulation, no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 21:47
|
|
|
A simple way to think of things; are you the same person you were 10 years ago? Last year? Last week? Yesterday? No. You change. You learn, you adapt. Things you can't control happen and affect how you interact with the world. What you think of as "you" only exists in a given moment. It changes constantly. What you can see as "you" is therefore impermanent. If the soul exists them it will of course change as well. Some unchanging core that is "you" can't possibly exist in any permanent state and nothing you create can last forever.
|
|
#
?
Jul 27, 2018 22:30
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:
The Buddhist community which mocks the good-faith inquirer is not the true Buddhist community. I would encourage you to expect compassion from those whom you're asking spiritual questions, because if you ask a spiritual teacher and he or she responds in a way that insinuates that you're dumb or adolescent, this a big red flag that you're dealing with a false teacher.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 00:11
|
|
|
Escape Addict posted:This is a great thread! I'm grateful for all the informative posts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 11:57 |
|
|
to quote two teachers in my tradition: “everything changes”; and “everything you encounter is your life” so from our perspective, no, it wouldn’t be about waking up to a different reality, but rather waking up, deeply, to the reality we’re actually in
|
|
#
?
Jul 28, 2018 00:50
|
|