Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 5, 2015 - 11:06am PT
|
Ed, let me take this one in chunks:
You said: Your very existence is not dependent on you.
I say, you are looking at "you" as a thing. And what "exists" to you is the physical body. This is workable and an essential POV in our world, but ultimately there is no "you" save as a function of memory and coding.
Ed said: Much of your early education is not dependent on you. It is very possible that the way you think is something you inherited, and possibly even your very strong attachment to the ideas that you hold.
Again, Ed, you are looking at "you" in terms of content and conditioning and thinking. What Mike and I and others have been driving at is that the "you" you speak of is actual only in the sense of awareness and presence, which observes the "you," and the thinking, and the inherited impulses and so forth. But until you have an experience of wittnessing what you have mentioined, observing and "you" and education and all of your evolved content and impulses will be seen as self-same.
Ed said: All could be something that depends on "not you".
What you mean of course, is that through reductionism, when we get down to the most basic stuff, that stuff sources "us," and that "we" are dependent on that stuff which is "not us." Except when you keep reducing down, we get to - not stuff - but that which has no physical extent. No-thing. No-thing and "mind" are identical. They source brain and all the stuff.
JL
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Lovegasoline: What happened after the retreat? How did your practice unfold?
Well, other than the predictable week or two of walking on air and feeling as though I was living in a bubble separate from the rest of civilization, what I remember afterwards was the emergence of really liking all my students—discovering a deep sense of compassion about them. The importance of the content I taught receded into the background, and I just relished being in their presence, even when I was disappointed by them or their performances. (The Tin Man found a heart.)
Additionally, my orientations to doing and achieving started to wane. That characteristic now appears to have shown up full-force. Oftentimes I feel rudderless—and care less and less about it. Directions do show up for me, but they feel like slotting into a groove with a perceivable “click.” It feels like a grand conspiracy to me. I notice that everything is taking care of itself. Me, too.
“Purpose” in sitting has all but disappeared, but I sit for 35 minutes most days simply for the peace and quiet. Three or four years ago, “tingles” showed up when sitting in complete darkness.
If there are schools I have felt an resonance with, they would be Kasmir Shaivism, The Tao, Dzogchen, Mahamudra, Zen, and Bon. Everything is “radiant presence,” at all times—but the hooks of phenomenality are still strong. (This is a very realistic dream I’m in.) I forget.
Your writing and quoting are interesting to me. Thanks.
I haven't followed the thread since its inception so I'm unaware of the definition(s) and quality(s) of 'things'?
Er, we’ve not been very diligent about keeping track of those. It might be unfair of me, but I’d say that 60% of the gang here thinks “things” are material and empirical and experimentally reproducible, while 20% or so think that “definitions” and “qualities” of ‘things’ can’t be finally pinned down. Hence, arises conversations about “no-thingness,” which only exasperates the other folks. The other 20% of the gang are lurkers who mix-in when they think they have something clever to say.
There used to be an adage that could be applied here: “Never teach a pig to fly: (i) it is a waste of time, and (ii) it only pisses off the pig.”
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Love gasoline:
I hate to sound like a thread cop, but why don't you, instead of the interminable copy and paste ,just tell us what you yourself think---in your own summarily concise words. Thereby you can happily supply links to the voluminous stuff as a ready reference, or perhaps an occasional quote.
This thread is a ragged wagon train on a journey to the promised land--- we don't need to stop every mile or so to remove a bunch of logs from the wilderness path.
Besides , there are Indians lurking on a distant ridge.
|
|
MH2
Boulder climber
Andy Cairns
|
|
I like the way Lovegasoline's posting style reminds me of Gobee's. May be a match for BLUEBLOCR, too.
|
|
Ward Trotter
Trad climber
|
|
Don't worry as my posting to this thread is a passing fancy and I'll be gone in no time. Best to just ignore my posts and engage with the other posters in the thread ... and the thread may very well settle back to the way you wish for it to unfold. There appear to be a few fans out there, or at the very minimum vocally polite and tolerant posters. In the interim, and until a bunch more people tell to cease and desist, I'll continue.
Having said that, at this precise moment in time, I likely do not have the degree of faith that you do in concision, given the topic at hand and the multifarious orientation of the participants. Why do you place your faith in concision? If you can get a clearer more comprehensive and explication of these points of view expressed in more condensed (and more entertaining!) manner, more power to you.
Its really not a matter of anything more than A)common courtesy B)a polite demand for less cut and paste on behalf of more creative authenticity. Its not about me personally wanting this or any thread to be a certain thing, other than a reasonably decent place to argue, exchange,and learn: a "Socratic pendulum".
Endless cuts and pastes are hindrances to a properly lubricated exchange of ideas.It would be like several people engaged in a lively face to face discussion and someone comes along to join that discussion by pulling a book out his hip pocket and begin droning on-- reciting text for the next half hour.
This type of thing displays a certain awkward social and intellectual tone-deafness that is often easily corrected by stopping ,taking a look around you, and at the proper time formulate your own thoughts on a given subject.
This might be a bit of wisdom you can take with you.Or not.
But try to avoid being a boor. I personally try all the time, with widely reported mixed results. But I try.
Furthermore there is no amount of boorishness that cannot be improved by a little concision.
|
|
jgill
Boulder climber
The high prairie of southern Colorado
|
|
I agree, the cut & paste stuff has gotten out of hand, to the extent I don't read it anymore. Writings here should be succinct.
Except when you keep reducing down, we get to - not stuff - but that which has no physical extent. No-thing. No-thing and "mind" are identical
And this too shall pass . . .
What happens to "raw awareness" when we die?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
oh, Largo... you are getting so twisted...
when you meditate, I assume it is "you."
If it isn't "you" then I'm not sure what you're talking about at all.
If it is "you," then you didn't come to your practice entirely by yourself. As you have regaled us with stories of your studies with various masters, etc... your practice comes as a part of your learning, your guided experience, by a teacher and a guide.
And you acknowledge that, though you don't seem to acknowledge that your practice is something that comes to you both from "you" and from your teachers ("not you"). In my practice of meditation I find that having different teachers helps tremendously, each can help identify and overcome, and explain to some extent, the meditation practice, techniques, and all that. Having a single teacher, or having no teacher, would probably not be very effective.
At the same time, my meditation practice becomes a part of the larger group of people involved, not entirely just me...
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
never herd it put quite like this,
You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.
To be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are — at least in certain crucial mental respects.
But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.
So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do
ED
firstly, what we DO today is of the hope transpired from yesterday's practicing. IE, a RedSox pitcher works-out 8hrs a day with the hopes of be called up tomorrow to show his nut. knuckleball. Sure you can say most of the top rung pitchers are middle-aged white guys. But is it really genetics that took'em there? i'm guessing genetics doesn't even play a 50% role!?
Then, obliviously i can't be ultimately responsible for the way i are. 6-2, blond, and hazel-eyed. Or responsible for how many times my pumping heart beats. But aren't i like, 99% responsible to the environment, ultimately? What i feed from, and what i feed back into society. i like the A's, no one else in my family does. i hate Boston, cept when they beat NY:)
Are you denying that i am ultimately responsible for how much love i will distribute tomorrow?
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
Are you denying that i am ultimately responsible for how much love i will distribute tomorrow?
yes, since you are not ultimately responsible for how you came to distributing that love... many other factors beyond "you" are involved in how "you" come to that in your life.
It's not just about you...
...because it is not just about you, you are not ultimately responsible.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
you are not ultimately responsible.
By being born in this material world already proves that you failed your ultimate responsibility and misused your independent free will.
Thus you are now in the prison house with very limited freedom.
Every living entity is ultimately responsible for the actions of their own independent free will ......
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Lovegas:
I think anyone can take a solipsistic and nihilistic stand without fully succumbing to a narrative or a plot. I think you can do that with a little bit of training and a lot of intellectual honesty. (What other finding can one come to?)
Ward:
I should be the first to support your call for one’s own thoughts and feelings as they understand them because the quality of the reports would indicate what they really knew. I made that complaint to HFCS, Gobee, and others almost regularly. (But what Lovegas posts is sooooo relevant and interesting!) :-)
In principle, I’m on your side. One cannot say what things are, but expression counts as indications of experience. It helps to separate doctrine from understanding. (Perhaps choice of cut-and-paste does so, too.)
Ed: . . . you are not ultimately responsible for how you came to distributing that love . . . .
Responsibility seems to be a totally irrelevant and wrong filter to apply here. Love just doesn’t seem to be in that category. It just seems to be so strangely put like that. I don’t get you. Seems very narrowly applied.
So, I’ll ask: what do you think constitutes responsibility? What do you think your are responsible for?
Me? I am responsible to a vision of authenticity, of honesty, of transparency. Right or wrong, dumb or stupid, naive or cynical. . . . everything will end up at the same place given enough iterations.
I am enjoying the conversations. It’s like we’ve broken the two-camp barrier. That makes for a richer conversation, IMO. Perhaps we can tease out some commonalities away from doctrine.
|
|
High Fructose Corn Spirit
Gym climber
|
|
A brief history of consciousness in philosophy...
Published: 25 February 2015
http://www.the-tls.co.uk/tls/public/article1523413.ece
Ignoramus et ignorabimus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ignoramus_et_ignorabimus
Galen Strawson is the son of Sir Peter Strawson.
.....
"we know that people can maintain an unshakable faith in any proposition, however absurd, when they are sustained by a community of like-minded believers." -Daniel Kahneman
"At the root of the muddle lies an inability to overcome the Very Large Mistake..."
The mistake is to think we know enough about the nature of physical reality to have any good reason to think that consciousness can’t be physical.
"It seems to be stamped so deeply in us, by our everyday experience of matter as lumpen stuff, that not even appreciation of the extraordinary facts of current physics can weaken its hold. To see through it is a truly revolutionary experience." G. Strawman
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
^^^^^^^^
Nice, but the author only starts in the 1640s.
I think if he’s willing to use more of an open mind (and eschew a bias he’s gotten from his formal education), one could go back to at least 3000 B.C., if you’re willing to accept that history exists.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Some teachings are no teaching, others are short teachings, and some are very long (as Lovegas has shown us).
Tilopa was a Siddha, a Yogi, and the teacher of a long line of Masters that led to one of the schools of Tibetan Buddhism, of which there have been more than a few.
Tilopa gave his student Naropa six words of advice before leaving to take the dharma to Tibet. (It takes more than 6 words to express the advice in English. Each word in Tibetan presents a negative statement as a verb.)
"Do not recall [let go of what’s happened];
Do not imagine [let go of what could happen];
Do not think [let go of what’s happening now];
Do not examine [quit trying to figure things out];
Do not control [quit trying to make things happen];
Rest, relax, right now."
You can see why there would be such a great disparity between folks who believe in Science and perhaps those who do not give it superordinate precedence.
All of these apparent dilemmas and paradoxes that continue to be found unendingly are pointers and intrinsically interesting educationally—even if one is a scientist. We are all following, stumbling, discovering our way to fuller understanding. I can’t believe there is an end to it ever. If there is an infinity that’s worth considering, it is that one. No end point in understanding. It would appear to be daunting and maybe even scary. We cannot help but live in complete ambiguity, it seems to me.
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
So now, it’s not only evolution but neuroscience that explains everything?
|
|
MikeL
Social climber
Seattle, WA
|
|
Some are born great, some achieve greatness, and some have greatness thrust upon them.
(William Shakespeare)
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Mar 7, 2015 - 07:54pm PT
|
What happens to "raw awareness" when we die?
Perhaps much the same thing that happens to gravity when the rock slid stops.
And Ed, I can understand your desire to grab onto an "I" that is solid and there and has a history and is a reference point to our discussions. This "I" is of course provisional and is totally required to make our way in the world. But there is no fixed "I," but rather you might picture a trellis with an "I" in each gap. Which ever one has the most valance at a given time is piloting your ship and we take it as "I."
But somewhere in you meditation practice you will be sitting there and your sense of "I" will dissolve and all there will be is presence. There is no "I" watching. There is only watching.
That's as close as I can get to describing it in short form. It boils down to losing your attachment to the idea that all phenomena is produced or sourced by some thing else, prior to, external to
you, that "you" emerged from some stuff or process in which you evolved to your present, cohesive form. That belief does not simply vanish in a day.
JL
|
|
Tvash
climber
Seattle
|
|
Gravity is an apropos analogy, since we don't know what that is, either.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!