You got upset at what Sam was saying because you value what maestro said for your own reasons, yet Sam's criticisms had nothing to do with the reasons you value maestro's notion.
Yes, and it never occurred to you that I understood why Sam made the criticisms he made, but they still had the emotional effect of annoying the heck out of me. You may easily argue that I should not let Sam or others get to me this way, but saying that I lack contextual comprehension was an illogical conclusion on your part.
-
Last edited by Shahrazad on Thu Mar 27, 2008 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Dan Rowden wrote:I'm not saying it can't. That part of what Sam is arguing I don't agree with. I'm am simply saying it isn't enlightenment
So you are saying that if observation and logic makes the mind realize that the notion of a self is an imaginary construct, this realization is still not enlightenment. Then what is enlightenment?
That understanding has to be fully actualized. If the method you're talking about is still functioning at any level then that hasn't happened. It's not the efficiency of dealing with false constructs arising that makes enlightenment what it is, is the very absence of them arising at all - the absence of their source. If your approach brings that about, then, yes, enlightenment is there.
Even the realization that the self is nonexistent, is not sufficient to end suffering. Suffering still arises due to the phenomenon I described in my first post. How do you suggest that the realization that the self is nonexistent finishes all suffering.
I noticed you said that in enlightenment there are no perturbations of the mind. But even if you feel hot and move to a cooler place there is a perturbation of the mind, if you feel hungry and go to eat something there is a perturbation right there. So is an enlightened being's mind not perturbed by hunger, by hot by cold. Seriously is sucide the only way to enlightenment?
By "perturbations" I don't mean just any movements. I mean disturbances. Any movement of mind that involves ego is a perturbation as I'm expressing it. In enlightenment such movements don't arise.
No, that's just mind/body functioning; it doesn't require an ego. It's preferable to eat because your body deems it so. Can you conceive of any false thought construct that is arising in that scenario?
Enlightenment is not about having no feelings! It is about the relationship you have with feelings. Do you only want certain feelings and not others? Or do you take all feelings and deal with them with equanimity?
Enlightenment is not about having no feelings! It is about the relationship you have with feelings. Do you only want certain feelings and not others? Or do you take all feelings and deal with them with equanimity?
Well that is my stance. Dan on the other hand says that feeling should not arise at all.
Enlightenment is not about having no feelings! It is about the relationship you have with feelings. Do you only want certain feelings and not others? Or do you take all feelings and deal with them with equanimity?
Well that is my stance. Dan on the other hand says that feeling should not arise at all.
Dan Rowden wrote:What disturbance? Hunger is only disturbing to an ego. To anyone else it's just another sensation.
Even if you have no food for 20 days it would be just another sensation to you. No disturbance, complete enjoyment of the sensation.
I don't know why you're bringing enjoyment into the equation. There would be neither enjoyment or disturbance, there'd just be the sensation. And, of course, if you didn't have food for 20 days you wouldn't be in a situation of feeling much of anything.
Dan Rowden wrote:I don't know why you're bringing enjoyment into the equation. There would be neither enjoyment or disturbance, there'd just be the sensation
You mean your mind would remain completely lucid until it loses consciousness.
What has that got to do with feelings such as hunger? I explicitly stated what bad mind states are. Bodily sensations are not included unless they are generated by said mind states. Things like hunger or the need to fart clearly don't.
"Enlightenment isn't the supersonic ability to cut off bad mind states at the pass - it is the absence of their arising."
to mean that you think enlightenment entails that the sensation of say fear not arise. Now I think what you are saying is that the sensation can arise but it not trigger the dysfunctional thought patterns? Is that correct?
"Enlightenment isn't the supersonic ability to cut off bad mind states at the pass - it is the absence of their arising."
to mean that you think enlightenment entails that the sensation of say fear not arise. Now I think what you are saying is that the sensation can arise but it not trigger the dysfunctional thought patterns? Is that correct?
Fear is an emotion that would not arise. What we call fear is the effect of false thought patterns. There would be certain physiological responses that would happen in certain circumstances - say a physical threat from which you need to escape - but such responses wouldn't trigger the emotion of fear because it necessitates a self that can experience loss.
Another example of this would be physical pain. An enlightened person obviously still experiences it, but unlike other people, he does not experience the stuff that usually goes with it, such as emotions like fear, resentment, angst, anger etc.
It seems we are in agreement. You define the emotion as a full blown feedback cycle of feeling-dysfunctional thought-feeling in action.
However according to my experience the realization of no self is not enough to stop the cycle. This cycle needs to be tackled and the thinking mind (which realizes no self) is not upto the task (due to its speed). I propose a way to break this loop in real time thus eventually weakening both the connection and the dysfunctional thought over time as any neural circuitry breaks by disuse.
The notion of no self can also be discovered through logic and the scientific method and there is a general consensus among philosophers of the mind and neuroscientists that there is no self. It is not enough to end sufffering though, there is required something like the observing process, to end the suffering in real time.
If by technique you mean a step by step algorithm, I have given no such thing.
All I am doing is describing coherently how the simple method of observation and logic can lead to the end of suffering. And sharing my experiences while using this method.
And Samadhi, You strike me as favoring a mystical version of enlightenment.
I am demystifying it and putting in squarely in the mundane realm. I am also proposing that a method can take everyone towards it. I also believe it does not require extraordinary ability.
People can have a knee-jerk reaction to words as 'method' or 'technique' as if it's just another algorithm or flight manual. Really, deep down all we're doing are following methods and executing tricks - to trick and become tricked. Mental habits are nothing but tricks that perhaps once were used to be a way to deal with something and then sort of kept hanging around, most often because it's being chained in some way forcing it to stay put. Much energy can be spend on keeping this situation in place.
Buddhists love to talk about the Way, the Eightfold Path and so on but they're all just describing 'method' in a roundabout way. Many routes might take one into the right direction but when it comes to it, it seems there's only one narrow path that winds its way to realization.
Wise - Way - Method. Think about how they basically describe the same going ons and see how there's nothing else; one is always caught up in them one way or another. Perhaps one could say that the most important trick to learn is to change at the right time into the right direction. In other words to be adaptable, spontaneous and aware of where one is going.
Maestro appears to me as indeed describing in simple mundane manner an ancient, undisputed method to clear the way.
