If this site provides value to you and your practice, please consider donating a small amount to help with the hosting fees.
Welcome, Guest
Username: Password: Remember me
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2

TOPIC: emotions arising out of division/ego or not

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 05:52 #17526

My not knowing what is what is actually a welcome thing as I see a pattern of thinking that I know something and then express it and expressing it leads to it then becoming rarified in some way and encroaches on the cause and effect process that led to that supposed 'knowing' by becoming a cause itself for fabricating a 'way' things are in some way.

Today I read this quote below and it hit home that I still miss quite a lot of that reifying tendency, the tendency of adding weight to objects. A 'weightless object'? Haha there I go again. Something to again reify hehe. I fabricate my path, its progress and obstacles.

Edited x 2

BEGINNING of quote: To open the door so that you can really see inside yourself isn't easy, but it's something you can train yourself to do. If you have the mindfulness enabling you to read yourself and understand yourself, that cuts through a lot of the issues right there. Craving will have a hard time forming. In whatever guise it arises, you'll get to read it, to know it, to extinguish it, to let it go.

When you get to do these things, it doesn't mean that you "get" anything, for actually once the mind is empty, that means it doesn't gain anything at all. But to put it into words for those who haven't experienced it: In what ways is emptiness empty? Does it mean that everything disappears or is annihilated? Actually, you should know that emptiness doesn't mean that the mind is annihilated. All that's annihilated is clinging and attachment. What you have to do is to see what emptiness is like as it actually appears and then not latch onto it. The nature of this emptiness is that it's deathless within you — this emptiness of self — and yet the mind can still function, know, and read itself. Just don't label it or latch onto it, that's all.

There are many levels to emptiness, many types, but if it's this or that type, then it's not genuine emptiness, for it contains the intention trying to know what type of emptiness it is, what features it has. This is something you have to look into deeply if you really want to know. If it's superficial emptiness — the emptiness of the still mind, free from thought-formations about its objects or free from the external sense of self — that's not genuine emptiness. Genuine emptiness lies deep, not on the level of mere stillness or concentration. The emptiness of the void is something very profound.

But because of the things we've studied and heard, we tend to label the emptiness of the still mind as the void — and so we label things wrongly in that emptiness... Actually it's just ordinary stillness. We have to look more deeply in. No matter what you've encountered that you've heard about before, don't get excited. Don't label it as this or that level of attainment. Otherwise you'll spoil everything. You reach the level where you should be able to keep your awareness steady, but once you label things, it stops right there — or else goes all out of control.

This labeling is attachment in action. It's something very subtle, very refined. Whatever appears, it latches on. So you simply have to let the mind be empty without labeling it as anything, for the emptiness that lets go of preoccupations or is free from the influence of thought-formations is something you have to look further into. Don't label it as this or that level, for to measure and compare things in this way blocks everything — and in particular, knowledge of how the mind changes.

So to start out, simply watch these things, simply be aware. If you get excited, it ruins everything. Instead of seeing things clear through, you don't. You stop there and don't go any further. For this reason, when you train the mind or contemplate the mind to the point of gaining clear realizations every now and then, regard them as simply things to observe.
_________________________________________________
excerpt from:

Reading the Mind by Upasika Kee Nanayon
translated from the Thai by Thanissaro Bhikkhu © 1995

©1995 Khao Suan Luang Dhamma Community.
The text of this page ("Reading the Mind", by Khao Suan Luang Dhamma Community) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. To view a copy of the license, visit creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/. Documents linked from this page may be subject to other restrictions. Transcribed from a file provided by the translator. Last revised for Access to Insight on 2 December 2013.
Last Edit: 21 Dec 2013 05:57 by Nikolai Stephen Halay.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jake St. Onge, Ona Kiser, Kacchapa, Sadalsuud

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 06:01 #17527

Ona Kiser wrote:
Nikolai's last sentence may be worth paying attention to: "Hm, hard to describe." :D

What I get when I read that paragraph of Nikolai's I would rephrase this way, though my rephrasing of it might not be what he meant: that there is a difference between [seeing the jogger + conceptualizing the jogger +reacting to the jogger] and [just seeing the jogger] (albeit writing it down already turns it into [seeing the jogger + conceptualizing the jogger]). That "experience" - that is, reality, just is, in a sort of very simple, primary, pre-conceptual way. Our ability to function does not require the level of conceptualization that we imagine it does. That is, one can put together the Ikea table without thinking about it in a discursive, narrative way - the body/mind can read the directions and perform the actions without any sense of agency or "self" being involved, in a sort of automatic way. Going back to our favorite jogger, perception of the jogger does not require a sense of relationship to her - neither conceived of as illusory, nor conceived of as having some special significance, nor even named (often when we see a person the follow-on is a slew of concepts about what kind of person that is, how they are dressed, what social status they have, whether or not we like their haircut, etc etc - in other words, the perception of something immediately becomes a story).

I don't take his use of the word "cessation" in this context to refer to a lack of consciousness, but to the cessation (eta: ie, "ceasing") of this kind of mental activity in which things are perceived in reference to myself, or perceived as things to which I have a relationship, or things to which I have reactions. In other words, moving from a sort of raw primary experience to a conceptual level of interpretation and reaction.

But that might not be what he means, either.
and when I thought I knew something, ona describes what I meant well.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 07:14 #17530

Nikolai Stephen Halay wrote:
I hereby unclaim or let go of any knowing what is what . In the very little time since posting whatever I posted and what has been quoted in this thread, I have had a complete blank replace what I previously ruminated about. Which is good cos labelling whatever is always going to disagree with someone else's labeling of whatever even with one's own past labeling. I hereby designate my opinion redundant.

I just don't know what is possible experientially.

Nick

Funny. I was going to add to this thread or the flow one there really isn't much point in getting too excited about explaining things, because it's seemed that every time I thought I really had an understanding of something, later it turned out to be not what I thought. Someone joked that they asked Ken Wilbur about something he wrote, and he said "No, no, that was Ken Wilbur version 2.0, I'm now on Ken Wilbur version 7.0, so it's all changed." or something like that.
The administrator has disabled public write access.

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 11:43 #17536

To those here with deep familiarity with the official maps/descriptions/stages-- IS there a recognized "state" of recognizing that "authority" is the the booby prize in this lifelong art of practice? (Aside from the Dzogchen "old man basking in the sun" nod.)

-- not a rhetorical question, btw; I wonder and if I ever knew, I've forgotten.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Chris Marti, Jake St. Onge, shargrol

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 14:59 #17540

Kate, that was what I was getting at by suggesting practice instead of talk. It was a genuine suggestion. At some point authority and opinion mean nothing. It is, yes, fun to talk and compare and discuss and argue, but nothing really matters in this realm but what we can see for ourselves. Assuming that's what you meant, anyway.
Last Edit: 21 Dec 2013 15:52 by Chris Marti. Reason: grammar
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 16:57 #17542

In terms of maps, the language tends to be more "attainment" and "conquerer"... but the description of fetters speaks to booby prizes. The last fetters dropped by the arahat are:

material-rebirth lust
immaterial-rebirth lust
conceit
restlessness
ignorance

The "conceit" fetter is probably the closest thing to the "authority is a booby prize".
Last Edit: 21 Dec 2013 16:58 by shargrol.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Kate Gowen

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 21 Dec 2013 18:09 #17543

shargrol wrote:
In terms of maps, the language tends to be more "attainment" and "conquerer"... but the description of fetters speaks to booby prizes. The last fetters dropped by the arahat are:

material-rebirth lust
immaterial-rebirth lust
conceit
restlessness
ignorance

The "conceit" fetter is probably the closest thing to the "authority is a booby prize".

Interesting that it comes so late in the game! But it seems to accurately describe the quandary of there being so many dys-integrated teachers in recent times. Probably in 'olden' times, too-- but I haven't found those stories, myself.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: shargrol, Tina

emotions arising out of division/ego or not 22 Dec 2013 11:29 #17554

I hold these thing lightly. Here's what I was told be Kenneth Folk upon telling my stream entry story (before I knew what it was):

Hi Chris,

You are describing, very clearly, magga-phala (path and fruition) as detailed in Theravada Buddhism. More accurately, you are describing phala (fruition), as magga (the Path moment) is a one-time event. Congratulations! This means that you are, at the very least, a sotapanna (stream-winner). This is a hugely significant marker of progress in the Theravada system. It is said that a stream-winner will be reborn a maximum of seven more times, after which time he or she will enter nibbana for the final time and not re-emerge. Tradition also has it that you can never again be reborn in the “lower” realms, meaning you can only be reborn as a human or a god. Actually, there are all kinds of really colorful and interesting (and amusing) things that you supposedly can and cannot do now, and I think you’ll get a big kick out of the Wikipedia article on sotapannas:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sot%C4%81panna

Kenneth

So according to the Pali canon as quoted in Wikipedia as of that event I was supposedly unable anymore to experience:

Envy
Jealousy
Hypocrisy
Fraud
Denigration
Domineering

Rebirth
A Sotāpanna will be safe from falling into the states of misery (they will not be born as an animal, ghost, or hell being). Their lust, hatred and delusion will not be strong enough to cause rebirth in the lower realms. A Sotāpanna will have to be reborn at most only seven more times in the human or heavenly worlds before attaining nibbana.[10] It is not necessary for a Sotāpanna to be reborn seven more times before attaining nibbana, as an ardent practitioner may progress to the higher stages in the same life in which he/she reaches the Sotāpanna level by making an aspiration and persistent effort to reach the final goal of nibbāna.[11]

Five worst wrong actions

Sotāpanna is not capable of committing five worst wrong actions:[citation needed]
Murdering one's own mother.
Murdering one's own father.
Murdering an Arahant.
Maliciously injuring the Buddha to the point of drawing blood.
Deliberately creating a schism in the monastic community.

I guess it's true - I have not murdered my mother, my father or an arahant ;-)
Last Edit: 22 Dec 2013 11:29 by Chris Marti.
The administrator has disabled public write access.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Jackson, Kate Gowen
  • Page:
  • 1
  • 2
Time to create page: 0.227 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum