Believe Nothing

I have started this thread because Florian and I were getting off topic in the Your definition of Enlightenment thread. kennethfolkdharma.wetpaint.com/thread/37...ightenment?offset=20

Florian; -
Here's my current working definition:

Enlightenment (a present participle): the opposite of "fooling myself".

Participles are *verb* forms. That's part of the definition.

It's a working definition, a "view" as in the proverbial Buddhist "thicket of views" sense. It works (it's a working definition after all) by reminding me that as long as I'm making assumptions such as this, that means I'm still in the thicket.

Cheers,
Florian

Florian:-

"Likewise, in the vastness of what is possible in the mind, there are surely many kinds of states, experiences, ways of being etc. that share many properties with many facets of what one thinks of as "enlightenment" without actually being the "real thing". To the extent that our definitions and notions are imprecise in this way, there is a greater risk of confusion and miscommunication."Hi Brian,

Good point.

Is enlightenment a concept to be held, a position to be taken and acted from, an object of our experience (as subjects of it)? is it, in other words, a thing?

My current working definition sidesteps these issues somewhat by framing it in temporal terms, process or activity. Unchecked, this will turn into a static concept as well, hence the nature of the activity I chose as a definition: vigilance against this tendency of "turning it into another thing".

Cheers,
Florian

Gary :-

"@tomotvos: Some of the answers here are (sorry) a little too poetic for my practical brain.
"I would like to note a variation on this sentiment. That being some of the answers here are (sorry) a little too poetic and practical for my brain.

And what if the universe, despite all of our attempts thus far, does in no conform to the way we think? In fact isn't it likely we have essentially trod the current path over and over. Maybe a radical shift is needed, and this radical shift can take hold by disregarding all concepts with regards to "Enlightment". I just have no confidence in doing what I have done for so long will suddenly bring results.

Gary :-

"Yeah, that's the spirit of what I was trying to convey. "Keep moving", "don't jump to conclusions" and so on.
"Keep moving; or stay sill?
Have conclusions or what will be will be?

What about we do all this stuff we have always done, is just a play in conditioning. Like being an actor in a play, continually changing the script but we are always in the play. I am sensing we need to be radical, believe NOTHING, do not believe ANYTHING and therefore form no conclusions. Everything in this play has the ego there, now the ego can play the game of not believing, he feels crazy but it might be a way out of the play.

Florian:-

Hi Gary,

Yeah, that's the spirit of what I was trying to convey. "Keep moving", "don't jump to conclusions" and so on. Challenge any concept (or other bit of experience for that matter) that presents itself as true: demand the evidence. Then challence that. If anything can hold up to this, it's a good candidate - but chances are, nothing will hold up. I can live with that, but not with the knowledge of deliberately letting me fool myself over this.

"I'm losing confidence that doing what I've been doing will bring results - well, that pisses me off! I'll have answers! Let them come and explain themselves, all these practices and concepts."

Admittedly, that's as practical and poetic as it gets.

Cheers,
Florian

Florian:-

Hi Gary,

Noticing the play going on, and the script in my hands which I'm reading from, is quite something, quite a big step. That step, that "willing suspension of belief" in all the unquestioned conventions, well, it's a step, i.e. motion and direction. Jumping to conclusions about that (changing the script to accomodate this step) would prevent the next step, and end the motion.

As far as I can discern it, the step following that is to figure out the audience of the play. I'm playing this role for - whom? My family, friends, online acquaintances... I play, they react (by playing their roles). I see my role only through their eyes (since I know that I'm role-playing, the question is really, "am I convincing"? Am I fooling them well enough?). "I want to be a good family man and father because I want my wife and daughter to see me as a good family man and father". That's just plain twisted, so how come it's twisted, who's looking at who here? and so on.

After that, there will be another step, and another -

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian

My experimentation to not believe what the mind presents is an attempt to break out of the mind. The process objectifies the thoughts or mind, so it is problably Kenneths 2nd gear practice. It is easy to do because we know what the mind presents is always relative. To believe or not believe there is really no difference, so the idea is to keep the mind as an object and no get invloved in the process of judging by just not believing anything the mind presents ( a pseudo judgment because the ego has already had the decision made for it) .

So getting involved in the detail of figuring out the audience as you have suggested, seems a bit off target. Am I understanding what you have said correctly?

Hi Gary,

Good idea to move here from the other thread.

It seems I've expressed myself clumsily, and not using the technical terms of 3-speed transmission. I wasn't trying to suggest a "let's spend lots of time engaging with *content*" thing there, but I can certainly see how it would look like that, now that you point it out.

What happened was that I was speaking within the metaphor of "being in a play, reading from a script", which you used to illustrate objectifying of mental stuff.

So, in more sober terms: I'm spending an awful lot of time and effort projecting just this identity for all to see. Once that is objectified, that's a step. Next step, again, as far as *I* can see it from my seat in here, is to objectify the motivation for keeping up with this activity. It seems, to me, at the moment, that I'm doing it because I like watching the image I hold up reflected in the shiny eyes of my fellow human beings. Quite literally. So, in terms of objectifying stuff, it's about objectifying this particular preference.

Also, I'm only slowly beginning to grasp what Kenneth's 3-speed transmission thing is all about. I've had this little "oh, *thats* what he means" thing a few days ago, when I wrote how I understood it as a generalization of Sathipatthana. When writing about my understanding of enlightenment, I wasn't specifically alluding to the 3-speed transmission model, though. "Not fooling (deluding) myself (my self)" is the point of all three speeds, as I understand them.

Cheers,
Florian

Hi Florian,
Thanks for the clarification. With your answer I realize my question was somewhat abrupt, I did not intend this.
Putting it in terms of "objectifying the preference" made it clear for me (for the moment at least, I am a big fan of Kenneths home page).