What Insights Have You Experienced?

[ardy]

We have been sharing insights the whole time, in this thread and the others. It's strange that you propose that we must not have anything to offer, unless you mean by your terms only.

It remains that this thread has a dirty feeling to it, and your agenda seems questionable at best.

It's actually looking more and more like you don't have anything to offer.

Russell - I am amazed that you need this but here it is:

As you go into yourself on ANY spiritual path certain things happen. They are not always the same but they are always there. All I am asking is what happened to you! as you went down this path.

If you never went down the path there is no need to contribute. This stuff is not for everyone.

Now as I stated there are many things that can happen but some I have experienced have been:

-Fundamental changes in attitude and outlook.
-Approaches to others.
-Visions that offer a vastly different view of the world.
-Understandings that you held dear of yourself falling away and being replaced with more fundamental and stronger ones.
- A different way of dealing with anger and love.
- Prajna arising in you without you looking for it.
- An inability to discriminate.
- A view of the interconnectedness of everything.
- The rise and fall of life on the planet as a holistic entity.

There are a thousand other things that can surprise sometimes. See a conversation between Cahoot and myself regarding a change he experienced following meditation. His physical eyesight changed for a while.

I agree this thread has become dirty but ask yourself 'who is responsible?'.

The question was simple, all you and DvR had to do was ignore it if you had nothing to offer - but no, you wanted to dismantle it and question its fundamental state. It's what you two enjoy. I find that you and DvR are both very adept at criticising and taking things to pieces. Neither of you seem to be able to create or build anything by using your imaginations or your experiences.

You should stick to what you know.

[Russell Parr]

I think there's a bit of a discrepancy between our ideas of what "going down the path" entails. This is another reason this "sharing of experiences" seems like it would be missing the point. Simply describing the experience that accompanies the insights can make it seem like there's not a lot of differences in our paths, so eventually we'd have to break things down in order to see if we're really talking about the same thing. The devil is in the details, as they say.

If a supposed sage refused to describe his enlightenment in detail, and opted only to express his experiences, then I would certainly have my doubts.

That said, I don't mind expanding a bit on my experiences based on your list:

-Fundamental changes in attitude and outlook.
-Approaches to others.
-Visions that offer a vastly different view of the world.
-Understandings that you held dear of yourself falling away and being replaced with more fundamental and stronger ones.
- A different way of dealing with anger and love.
- Prajna arising in you without you looking for it.
- An inability to discriminate.
- A view of the interconnectedness of everything.
- The rise and fall of life on the planet as a holistic entity.

I check yes with the 1st, 4th, 5th, and 8th.

I don't know what you mean by the 2nd or 9th.

The 3rd, visions, sounds like a mystical experience that is more or less a distraction to the true path, rather than an important part of it.

The 6th, Prajna arising without effort, I would call habitual Prajna. This would come about by practicing and meditating on the perfect intellectual understanding of Reality every day, consistently, until it becomes second nature, an effortless part of one's thought processes. This is an occasional experience of mine, one that I am still improving on. I wonder, though, how much you think logic plays a role here.

And the 7th, an inability to discriminate, would be a huge detriment to Enlightenment. Discrimination is one of the core functions of consciousness, and without it, there would be a stunting in mental ability. Instead, those on the true path would gain the ability to discriminate correctly. In fact, according to wikipedia, one of the translations of Prajna is "discriminating knowledge."

But I would guess that, regarding an inability to discriminate, you are referring to something involving the bliss of a mystical experience. Again, this doesn't sound like a true advancement on the path, but rather a sideshow that is more likely to distract one from the path, than it is to provide insight. A mystical experience that isn't just a learning experience can easily become a dangerous attachment.

The question was simple, all you and DvR had to do was ignore it if you had nothing to offer - but no, you wanted to dismantle it and question its fundamental state. It's what you two enjoy. I find that you and DvR are both very adept at criticising and taking things to pieces. Neither of you seem to be able to create or build anything by using your imaginations or your experiences.

Enlightenment is less about creating or building, and more about a dismantling of the illusions of conscious experience, a shedding away of delusional thoughts, in order to experience Ultimate Reality directly. It seems most likely to me that those who refuse to break everything down into pieces are doing so to safeguard attachments, in a vain attempt to preserve some part of their ego.

In other words, Enlightenment is about dismantling the ego in order to become one with Eternal Creation.

[ardy]

Russell: agree with some of what you say.

Loss of discrimination. What happened to me was that I was unable to tell the difference between a good person and an evil one. Every human appeared the same to me and that did a lot of damage to what I did for a living.

Rise and fall of life on this planet. I was about 40 and up to my ears in work when I looked around to think about some part I was writing and saw a imaginary, living depiction of life on the planet. Coming into being, growing to full maturity then falling away and dying, only to be replaced by the next one who grew, matured and died. This went on for what seemed some time and left me with a comfortable feeling about my place on this planet.

Approaches to others. This had a major impact on me. I found that I was both more empathetic and less considerate of others. There seemed to be a distance (coolness) between myself and others whilst at the same time I knew I was exactly the same as them. I found that people in trouble/pain seemed to stand out and I could help whilst only dealing with what was in front of me ie not looking for people in pain!

Visions that offer a vastly different view of the world. After meditating everyday for about 3 years and in deep samadhi, I saw a black box in front of me. My first reaction was 'another stupid picture to take me out of meditation'. Then I had to have a look and inside was everything, the stars, the sun, the earth, everyone and everything in the universe and I was a part of it and engulfed by it. The human race was a small insignificant part of this play. The silence and blackness was all encompassing and it sucked me in. The peace and tranquility living in this universe is without description.

Your statement: "Enlightenment is less about creating or building" I totally agree with. You get dismantled and rebuilt with little control from you. Then if you are brave enough to continue, the grace may fall on you - enlightenment.

I would suggest that looking at the details is an end statement, a full stop when dealing with the universe. Still it may deal with you anyway - you would not be the first. Nobody knows how this works.

The insights are no more than road signs pointing nowhere. But they are interesting in their own right.

[Russell Parr]

Loss of discrimination. What happened to me was that I was unable to tell the difference between a good person and an evil one. Every human appeared the same to me and that did a lot of damage to what I did for a living.

This lack of discrimination seems more dangerous than useful. I'd think we'd want to know, as well as we could, what makes a good person and an evil person. Sure, we can see that we are all basically the same, through the principle of causation for instance, but "evil" and "good" are caused none-the-less. A pure mind is able to distinguish between the two with ease.

Rise and fall of life on this planet. I was about 40 and up to my ears in work when I looked around to think about some part I was writing and saw a imaginary, living depiction of life on the planet. Coming into being, growing to full maturity then falling away and dying, only to be replaced by the next one who grew, matured and died. This went on for what seemed some time and left me with a comfortable feeling about my place on this planet.

Visions that offer a vastly different view of the world. After meditating everyday for about 3 years and in deep samadhi, I saw a black box in front of me. My first reaction was 'another stupid picture to take me out of meditation'. Then I had to have a look and inside was everything, the stars, the sun, the earth, everyone and everything in the universe and I was a part of it and engulfed by it. The human race was a small insignificant part of this play. The silence and blackness was all encompassing and it sucked me in. The peace and tranquility living in this universe is without description.

I grouped these two together because they are both visions, as far as I can see. I think that visions like these are useful in the short-term only, otherwise we might make the mistake of thinking them as more real or substantial than the rest of our experiences. They can teach us that the world as it appears is much more fleeting than it seems, just as fleeting as visions in fact, and it is this lesson that should stick with us.

Approaches to others. This had a major impact on me. I found that I was both more empathetic and less considerate of others. There seemed to be a distance (coolness) between myself and others whilst at the same time I knew I was exactly the same as them. I found that people in trouble/pain seemed to stand out and I could help whilst only dealing with what was in front of me ie not looking for people in pain!

Becoming an individual is definitely part of the path. The more one has instilled wisdom, the more one can be at peace with Reality even amongst the pain and suffering of others.

Your statement: "Enlightenment is less about creating or building" I totally agree with. You get dismantled and rebuilt with little control from you. Then if you are brave enough to continue, the grace may fall on you - enlightenment.

The further you continue, the less control you realize. The more we let go of "self" as the dominant concept, the closer we are to "giving ourselves to God."

I would suggest that looking at the details is an end statement, a full stop when dealing with the universe. Still it may deal with you anyway - you would not be the first. Nobody knows how this works.

The details are important because they can be the difference between advancement and stagnation. if the mind isn't fine tuned, through and through, on thoughts of the Infinite, then subtle delusional habits can lead to a grossly distorted representation of enlightenment.

[ardy]

Russell: You stated

"The details are important because they can be the difference between advancement and stagnation. if the mind isn't fine tuned, through and through, on thoughts of the Infinite, then subtle delusional habits can lead to a grossly distorted representation of enlightenment."

The details are taken care of without your interference. There is no advancement, stagnation or reversals, the universe is essentially empty and so are you.

You cannot have a fine tuned mind about something that has no form or substance. All our views about enlightenment are grossly distorted.

Puts on tin hat and waits for Russell and DvR to decend!!!!!

[Cahoot]

You can be thick as a brick and still break through.

ardy, could you expand on this?

[Russell Parr]

The details are taken care of without your interference. There is no advancement, stagnation or reversals, the universe is essentially empty and so are you.

Well sure, everything is taken care of by the universe, but we still experience advancement, stagnation, and reversals anyway. The unenlightened do, at least.

You cannot have a fine tuned mind about something that has no form or substance.

The wise mind is fine tuned in the ability of sifting through the illusions in order to understand formlessness.

All our views about enlightenment are grossly distorted.

Won't you at least admit that you think you know more than I do? This 'speaking for all of us' seems like some sort of fake humility.

Puts on tin hat and waits for Russell and DvR to decend!!!!!

Here to lay some righteous logic unto your ass!

[Pam Seeback]

ardy: I would suggest that looking at the details is an end statement, a full stop when dealing with the universe. Still it may deal with you anyway - you would not be the first. Nobody knows how this works.

Russell: The details are important because they can be the difference between advancement and stagnation. if the mind isn't fine tuned, through and through, on thoughts of the Infinite, then subtle delusional habits can lead to a grossly distorted representation of enlightenment.

ardy, while it is true that nobody knows how IT works, it is also true that we do know how consciousness, a part of IT works, that is, by making distinctions. To be enlightened (also a distinction made by consciousness) therefore is to be aware of the two truths: 1. What we can't know - The Totality and 2. What we can know - how consciousness functions within The Totality and to live of this wisdom of the two truths of knowing.

How this fits into your visions (and to visions I have had and to visions everyone has had) is that they are examples of consciousness trying to grasp the ungraspable, something that eventually is realized to be a exercise in futility (the coming of wisdom or prajna). This futile grasping of the ungraspable is the concept of self, the housebuilder of which the Buddha spoke, the deluded belief that one's consciousness is the center of The Totality rather than being an aspect or part of The Totality.

Russell, if you concur with with what I said to ardy above then any thoughts (distinctions) one makes of The Totality ultimately have nothing to do with The Totality, they are but support mechanisms for consciousness until it is broken of the habit of apply distinctions where distinctions, in truth, cannot go.

[Russell Parr]

ardy, while it is true that nobody knows how IT works, it is also true that we do know how consciousness, a part of IT works, that is, by making distinctions. To be enlightened (also a distinction made by consciousness) therefore is to be aware of the two truths: 1. What we can't know - The Totality and 2. What we can know - how consciousness functions within The Totality and to live of this wisdom of the two truths of knowing.

Actually, we do know how IT works.. by way of causality. The Totality can be known.. we know that it is infinite, and that it is not a thing, for instance.

How this fits into your visions (and to visions I have had and to visions everyone has had) is that they are examples of consciousness trying to grasp the ungraspable, something that eventually is realized to be a exercise in futility (the coming of wisdom or prajna). This futile grasping of the ungraspable is the concept of self, the housebuilder of which the Buddha spoke, the deluded belief that one's consciousness is the center of The Totality rather than being an aspect or part of The Totality.

Yes, grasping at the ungraspable is a symptom of egotism. The belief that something can have inherent existence begins with the belief in an inherently existing self. Visions can offer a glimpse into, or give a clue about, the truth of non-inherent existence, but should ultimately be rejected as an appearance that is equally illusory as any other appearance.

Russell, if you concur with with what I said to ardy above then any thoughts (distinctions) one makes of The Totality ultimately have nothing to do with The Totality, they are but support mechanisms for consciousness until it is broken of the habit of apply distinctions where distinctions, in truth, cannot go.

While I do concur, it's important to note that distinctions will always exist where consciousness exists, even if existence is ultimately illusory.

[ardy]

You can be thick as a brick and still break through.

ardy, could you expand on this?

HI Cahoot lovely to hear from you.

I heard an enlightenment story in the mid 90's from the philosophy instructor we had.

Amongst a Japanese Monastery's monks was one so thick that he could not understand most of what was being taught. So they gave him menial jobs and basic education. In one class the head monk made a statement about enlightenment and this monk misunderstood a word spoken in the statement for shoe (In Japanese the two words sound similar) and thought you needed a shoe to become enlightened.

Sometime later he was running down a hill and his shoe flew off and came down on his head and he laughed and laughed and said that 'it was true a shoe was all that was needed'. He became enlightened and received Inka.

My view is, if we all have buddha nature intrinsically why not the thick as well as a genius like Hui Neng and Dogen?

[ardy]

ardy: I would suggest that looking at the details is an end statement, a full stop when dealing with the universe. Still it may deal with you anyway - you would not be the first. Nobody knows how this works.

Russell: The details are important because they can be the difference between advancement and stagnation. if the mind isn't fine tuned, through and through, on thoughts of the Infinite, then subtle delusional habits can lead to a grossly distorted representation of enlightenment.

ardy, while it is true that nobody knows how IT works, it is also true that we do know how consciousness, a part of IT works, that is, by making distinctions. To be enlightened (also a distinction made by consciousness) therefore is to be aware of the two truths: 1. What we can't know - The Totality and 2. What we can know - how consciousness functions within The Totality and to live of this wisdom of the two truths of knowing.

How this fits into your visions (and to visions I have had and to visions everyone has had) is that they are examples of consciousness trying to grasp the ungraspable, something that eventually is realized to be a exercise in futility (the coming of wisdom or prajna). This futile grasping of the ungraspable is the concept of self, the housebuilder of which the Buddha spoke, the deluded belief that one's consciousness is the center of The Totality rather than being an aspect or part of The Totality.
[/size]
Russell, if you concur with with what I said to ardy above then any thoughts (distinctions) one makes of The Totality ultimately have nothing to do with The Totality, they are but support mechanisms for consciousness until it is broken of the habit of apply distinctions where distinctions, in truth, cannot go.

A very well posited post and has said in a few words what has taken me pages. The bolding (by me) is to point out that not only was it the 'housebuilder' that was affected it could have been a pointer to the middle way.

Regarding our knowledge of consciousness, I had my faith in that broken in the late 90's and early 00's. How can we have faith in our knowledge of something that is ephemeral and cannot be relied upon. As you would know, our awareness is changing very fast under the influence of meditation, and to hold onto the shirt-tails of our consciousness as it undergoes changes in our ideation and well as the fundamental beliefs we hold dear is life changing.

Very well said "any thoughts (distinctions) one makes of The Totality ultimately have nothing to do with The Totality, they are but support mechanisms for consciousness until it is broken of the habit of apply distinctions where distinctions, in truth, cannot go"

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:
ardy, while it is true that nobody knows how IT works, it is also true that we do know how consciousness, a part of IT works, that is, by making distinctions. To be enlightened (also a distinction made by consciousness) therefore is to be aware of the two truths: 1. What we can't know - The Totality and 2. What we can know - how consciousness functions within The Totality and to live of this wisdom of the two truths of knowing.

Russell wrote: Actually, we do know how IT works.. by way of causality. The Totality can be known.. we know that it is infinite, and that it is not a thing, for instance.

Every concept you mentioned is a logical intuition/understanding about how IT works, it is not a KNOWING (in the sense of being IT "as it works"). The purpose of philosophical logic is to gradually dismantle the ego by gradually removing all attachments to form. You often use the concept "formless" and as perfect as this word is to suggest the nature of IT, ultimately, even this most subtle and elegant concept is an attachment is it not? (Albeit a necessary one). I read somewhere that of all the attachments a man clings to, the most difficult ones to shed are those he calls "spiritual" or "philosophic."

As an aside, but related to our discussion, you said in an earlier post: "Enlightenment is about dismantling the ego in order to become one with Eternal Creation." I suggest that a more accurate way to say this is: "Enlightenment is about using logic to dismantle the ego in order to realize one is and always has been, one with Eternal Creation."

[ardy]

movingalways wrote:
ardy, while it is true that nobody knows how IT works, it is also true that we do know how consciousness, a part of IT works, that is, by making distinctions. To be enlightened (also a distinction made by consciousness) therefore is to be aware of the two truths: 1. What we can't know - The Totality and 2. What we can know - how consciousness functions within The Totality and to live of this wisdom of the two truths of knowing.

Russell wrote: Actually, we do know how IT works.. by way of causality. The Totality can be known.. we know that it is infinite, and that it is not a thing, for instance.

Every concept you mentioned is a logical intuition/understanding about how IT works, it is not a KNOWING (in the sense of being IT "as it works"). The purpose of philosophical logic is to gradually dismantle the ego by gradually removing all attachments to form. You often use the concept "formless" and as perfect as this word is to suggest the nature of IT, ultimately, even this most subtle and elegant concept is an attachment is it not? (Albeit a necessary one). I read somewhere that of all the attachments a man clings to, the most difficult ones to shed are those he calls "spiritual" or "philosophic."

As an aside, but related to our discussion, you said in an earlier post: "Enlightenment is about dismantling the ego in order to become one with Eternal Creation." I suggest that a more accurate way to say this is: "Enlightenment is about using logic to dismantle the ego in order to realize one is and always has been, one with Eternal Creation."

Aha! Pam this is where we diverge. Never thought it would happen. My belief is that the ego gets dismantled as a by-product of meditation. Everything the ego leans on is slowly pulled out from under it.

From the start the ego loves meditation as it loves anything new, as soon as it realises that you mean to put it back in its box, by denying it the free run it has enjoyed, it starts to hate meditation and tries to stop you. It brings up lovely or not so lovely images, 'what are you sitting here for?', critical things the ego suggests you MUST DO NOW, or what we used to describe as files.

The important loss to the ego is the identification of yourself, that the ego has built up over years. It puts on a serious fight to stop that. Slowly it is put back in its box but it still howls for release.

This kind of discipline I never identified with philosophical logic. In fact instead of examining philosophy I was unravelling my philosophical views. For instance "I think, therefore I am" Descartes famous statement. After meditation once it dawned on me that this guy did not know what he was talking about. In fact I thought it should be 'I don't think, therefore I am'.

[Cahoot]

You can be thick as a brick and still break through.

ardy, could you expand on this?

HI Cahoot lovely to hear from you.

I heard an enlightenment story in the mid 90's from the philosophy instructor we had.

Amongst a Japanese Monastery's monks was one so thick that he could not understand most of what was being taught. So they gave him menial jobs and basic education. In one class the head monk made a statement about enlightenment and this monk misunderstood a word spoken in the statement for shoe (In Japanese the two words sound similar) and thought you needed a shoe to become enlightened.

Sometime later he was running down a hill and his shoe flew off and came down on his head and he laughed and laughed and said that 'it was true a shoe was all that was needed'. He became enlightened and received Inka.

My view is, if we all have buddha nature intrinsically why not the thick as well as a genius like Hui Neng and Dogen?

Hey Ardy. This is a topic that I have not considered for a long time.

If it has form, then it is logical. The logic is there to be discovered.

Intrinsic Buddha nature. Hmm. A tidy logical contemplation from this concept is: How does intrinsic Buddha nature reconcile with the lack of intrinsic nature called emptiness?

My view of your view is, like reality, intrinsic Buddha nature perpetually manifests.

Thickness … good description. Thickness is the curtain that obscures perpetual awareness of this perpetual manifestation.

Certain conditions are required in order to perceive Buddha nature as it perpetually manifests in all forms. And logically, under the proper combination of conditions, anything can take form.

Even married bachelors and round squares.

Ignorance of those proper conditions does not negate this logical truth.

What this means is, any illogical potentiality can exist as form given the proper conditions. What seems illogical is often incomplete understanding of conditions. That man has not discovered the proper conditions for an illogical potentiality to manifest, or cannot conceive of the proper conditions for an illogical potentiality to manifest, is nothing more than a commentary on the limitations of man’s perception and knowledge of conditions.

For example, a large object made of metal and weighing hundreds of tons, floating and flying in the air, has always existed within infinite potentiality, without beginning or ending. However, because objects fall, any manifestation of this potentiality would be illogical, and thus could not happen. Throw a rock off a cliff and it will fall.

But because knowledge of conditions has expanded, we know that the illogical potentiality of a heavy object suspended in the air and not falling that exists within infinite potentiality, can also exist as manifested form.

In other words, what is called illogical potentiality is simply a limited understanding of conditions required to manifest the potential.

Siddhartha Gautama had a high human capacity. He was a prince of a man but even he had to struggle with the thickness of his ignorance.

The illogical potentiality of a thick one breaking through? Sure, enlightenment can happen, given the proper conditions.

[Pam Seeback]

movingalways wrote:I suggest that a more accurate way to say this is: "Enlightenment is about using logic to dismantle the ego in order to realize one is and always has been, one with Eternal Creation."

ardy wrote: Aha! Pam this is where we diverge. Never thought it would happen. My belief is that the ego gets dismantled as a by-product of meditation. Everything the ego leans on is slowly pulled out from under it....

...The important loss to the ego is the identification of yourself, that the ego has built up over years. It puts on a serious fight to stop that. Slowly it is put back in its box but it still howls for release.

This kind of discipline I never identified with philosophical logic. In fact instead of examining philosophy I was unravelling my philosophical views. For instance "I think, therefore I am" Descartes famous statement. After meditation once it dawned on me that this guy did not know what he was talking about. In fact I thought it should be 'I don't think, therefore I am'.

First of all, divergence makes distinctions-go-round, I'm enjoying the ride, how about you? :-) Second, I question your use of the word "belief" when speaking of the role meditation plays in the dismantling of the ego. A belief to me, suggests uncertainty: either meditation actually dismantles the ego or it doesn't, one can't be a little bit pregnant. :-)

The type of logic I am referring to is not the examination of philosophy (I call this type of mental activity "mental masturbation"), rather, it is the principle by which consciousness is brought back to the original "flash" insight of the illusory nature of distinctions, in other words, back to resting in emptiness/being Awake.

I know of no one who was born resting in emptiness 24/7, the Buddha himself had to go through the process of questioning/doubting everything and what is the process of questioning/doubting but the application of logic? When one gets down to the nitty gritty of meditation, it is only practiced because one is not Awake to the delusion/ignorance of distinction-making 24/7. Perhaps this is not so for you, but when I hear Zen koans, I am intuitively aware of the "fiery software of logic" running in the background.

There is a saying in the bible: “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”

OR

We do philosophy (as we are doing now) until philosophy is done.

[Russell Parr]

Every concept you mentioned is a logical intuition/understanding about how IT works, it is not a KNOWING (in the sense of being IT "as it works"). The purpose of philosophical logic is to gradually dismantle the ego by gradually removing all attachments to form. You often use the concept "formless" and as perfect as this word is to suggest the nature of IT, ultimately, even this most subtle and elegant concept is an attachment is it not? (Albeit a necessary one).

Does the sage not have knowledge of these things? Just because a sage is unattached to form doesn't mean he doesn't utilize form, for he is still a conscious being. Just because you become unattached to your ability to drive a car, or make a sandwich, it doesn't follow that you cease doing and using these things.

The sage, unattached to the logic and reason that was used to reach his Enlightenment, still uses and possesses logic and reason. The only difference is that it is no longer used as a self-remedy. Thus the sage can be said to be logical and reasonable, or simply wise.

I read somewhere that of all the attachments a man clings to, the most difficult ones to shed are those he calls "spiritual" or "philosophic."

Even more so than love or wealth? I find that quite hard to believe!

[Pam Seeback]

Russell: Does the sage not have knowledge of these things? Just because a sage is unattached to form doesn't mean he doesn't utilize form, for he is still a conscious being. Just because you become unattached to your ability to drive a car, or make a sandwich, it doesn't follow that you cease doing and using these things.

I wasn't suggesting that a sage doesn't utilize form (make distinctions) what I was suggesting is that the sage understands that distinctions are not absolute, that they are always and ever illusions of consciousness. The realization of which transforms the sage's consciousness.

The sage, unattached to the logic and reason that was used to reach his Enlightenment, still uses and possesses logic and reason. The only difference is that it is no longer used as a self-remedy. Thus the sage can be said to be logical and reasonable, or simply wise.

By a "self-remedy" are you referring to the use of logic to end the ignorance of belief in having or being a self?

[Russell Parr]

I wasn't suggesting that a sage doesn't utilize form (make distinctions) what I was suggesting is that the sage understands that distinctions are not absolute, that they are always and ever illusions of consciousness. The realization of which transforms the sage's consciousness.

Agreed. I just want to make it clear that Enlightenment doesn't render philosophy useless.

By a "self-remedy" are you referring to the use of logic to end the ignorance of belief in having or being a self?

Yes, but not only that, but also to the end of clinging, so that logic and concepts of self (or in general) merely flow through you, not being held onto.

[ardy]

Hey Ardy. This is a topic that I have not considered for a long time.

If it has form, then it is logical. The logic is there to be discovered.

Intrinsic Buddha nature. Hmm. A tidy logical contemplation from this concept is: How does intrinsic Buddha nature reconcile with the lack of intrinsic nature called emptiness?

My view of your view is, like reality, intrinsic Buddha nature perpetually manifests.

Cahoot: Verbal errors always tie us up. Emptiness and buddha-nature within us all (note the lack of intrinsic?) has no reconciliation as they are both the same as I see it. It is too obscure to attempt to put words where no words work. Having had a few glimpses of Buddha nature all attempts at defining any difference between emptiness and buddha-nature left me grasping at nothing.

Certain conditions are required in order to perceive Buddha nature as it perpetually manifests in all forms. And logically, under the proper combination of conditions, anything can take form.

Ignorance of those proper conditions does not negate this logical truth.

What this means is, any illogical potentiality can exist as form given the proper conditions. What seems illogical is often incomplete understanding of conditions. That man has not discovered the proper conditions for an illogical potentiality to manifest, or cannot conceive of the proper conditions for an illogical potentiality to manifest, is nothing more than a commentary on the limitations of man’s perception and knowledge of conditions.

For example, a large object made of metal and weighing hundreds of tons, floating and flying in the air, has always existed within infinite potentiality, without beginning or ending. However, because objects fall, any manifestation of this potentiality would be illogical, and thus could not happen. Throw a rock off a cliff and it will fall.

But because knowledge of conditions has expanded, we know that the illogical potentiality of a heavy object suspended in the air and not falling that exists within infinite potentiality, can also exist as manifested form.

In other words, what is called illogical potentiality is simply a limited understanding of conditions required to manifest the potential.

Siddhartha Gautama had a high human capacity. He was a prince of a man but even he had to struggle with the thickness of his ignorance.

The illogical potentiality of a thick one breaking through? Sure, enlightenment can happen, given the proper conditions.

All you state seems axiomatic to me. Humans continue to break through 'impossible' barriers ie 'no human can stand the force of driving more than 30 mph', 'We will never get a man on the moon (popular in my youth), ' the desktop computer has no future (IBM)'. And so it goes, our limits are not defined, yet many continue to preach that we have them.

Who would have dreamt only 150 years ago that a lump of metal would be flying around the world carrying us from one side of the globe to the other? Or that a lump of metal would hang without falling in space. Yet people are continually defining what the future holds for us.

So where do we go from here? Is the conundrum of enlightenment worth human endeavour to discover? I would have thought so. The Western world has spent over a trillion dollars on global warming yet after 25 years of effort we have little to show for it.

Maybe a few million $$ to study the most perplexing thing in the world might be worth it.

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The question was simple, all you and DvR had to do was ignore it if you had nothing to offer - but no, you wanted to dismantle it and question its fundamental state. It's what you two enjoy. I find that you and DvR are both very adept at criticizing and taking things to pieces. Neither of you seem to be able to create or build anything by using your imaginations or your experiences.

Ardy, I think you are mistaken in how you are interpreting the criticism which I initially offered in this thread. I talked about how at this forum every thread aims to discuss "insights" being "experienced" and to be able to talk about it using clear, individual, honest language.

You started here with the question of how much experience others here have had on the road to finding oneself. It seems to me like a completely mistaken and conflicting question, so I had to speak up. And you are suggesting now something like "leave me alone and wallow in my conflict and ignorance, don't dismantle, don't question, who needs dismantling and questioning anyway -- it's all mind and I'm after something bigger and I just call it experience and the multiple descriptions of those"? Or that's how I read it anyway.

Well, you're free to do so but this is a forum where the nature of reality is being discussed. Discussion is so much more than the exchange of experiences or blogging as some diary. So in that spirit I challenge not the experiences but the whole notion of asking about "experiences having had on the road of finding one self". Because you are implying already so much with that question!

Perhaps you didn't grasp yet that the rather subtle criticism was going for the fundamental you were putting forward, perhaps without fully realizing that you did. And what you mean with "not being able to build anything by using your imaginations or your experiences" remains very mysterious but I think it's just blowing smoke, it means nothing and you can't demonstrate one iota of this 'building" yourself as of yet. As I wrote before this whole forum is an open invitation to demonstrate the ability to build upon imagination and experiences, demonstrating it with insight, language, structure and reason. Because that's a property of language and this is a place of language, symbols and interconnected meanings. Dreaming of higher states you can do in your own bed, thank you.

But I did appreciate your posted story on the enlightenment shoe. Here's another one I found useful, but you have to realize this are just stories on causality. Even some form of enlightenment would remain caused and could very well be caused at that moment by the simplest of events or even a mistaken translation. What counts however is all that went before that, impossible to describe but a path one is always on if so inclined. Interesting here is the notion that explaining profound truths could have the opposite effect if the mind of the listener is still full of itself while not realizing that is the case. This is why it's better to burn the books and crucify your heroes first! They are the greatest and most seductive deceivers you'll have to face.

• Sadly Kyogen left master Lingyou, and took on the self-appointed job of grave-keeper. One day, when he was sweeping the ground, a stone struck a bamboo. Kyogen stood speechless, forgetting himself for a while. Then, suddenly, bursting into loud laughter, he became enlightened. Returning to the hut, Kyogen performed the ceremony of purification, offered incense, paid homage to his teacher, and with the deepest sense of gratitude said: "Great master, thank you! Your kindness to me is greater even then that of my parents. If you had explained the profound causes to me when I demanded you to give me clear answers, I would never have reached where I stand today".
  
  Kyogens's verse on this occasion runs:
  
  One stroke and all is gone,
  No need of stratagem or cure;
  Each and every action
  Manifests the ancient way.
  My spirit is never downcast.
  I leave no tracks behind,
  Enlightenment is beyond speech.
  Beyond gesture;
  Those who are emancipated
  Call it the unsurpassed.

[Cahoot]

So where do we go from here? Is the conundrum of enlightenment worth human endeavour to discover? I would have thought so. The Western world has spent over a trillion dollars on global warming yet after 25 years of effort we have little to show for it.

Maybe a few million $$ to study the most perplexing thing in the world might be worth it.

If present trends continue, I think there’s a high probability that with advances in AI, human delusion and self-deception will become more convenient, entrenched, and difficult to breakthrough.

With advances in AI and robots, humans will be able to buy a machine friend or mate (filled with manufacturer-installed easter eggs and back doors) and program in the desired qualities, so that the purchased companion becomes … whoever one wants it to be, which will be a reflection of one’s own mind, a clever recorder.

Also, when the sum total of one’s memories, speech patterns, and characteristic thought patterns can be digitally preserved and downloaded into a human replicant, people will be able to reanimate those who have died … and then co-exist with the machine that looks and sounds just like Mom, Dad, a friend or the ideal mate, in those weird conditions. Just close your eyes and it becomes more believable.

The developing minds of children will become emotionally attached to nannies that are purchased or leased from state approved third-party providers, and these nannies will be configured by “experts” to shape the developing minds of the children.

To call the new device a “machine” will likely become a PC slur, since calling nanny, or wife, or friend a machine will challenge the delusion so eagerly embraced.

As in Huxley’s Brave New World, sex with humans will be viewed as something primitive, barbaric, distasteful. Crude. For the third world.

To perpetuate the race, seminal storage capabilities within the robots will preserve and distribute according to an agenda other than chaotic and unpredictable Luv.

The robot will be recording your existence, a record that will be extracted during firmware updates for review by experts, and perhaps for your own review in order to self-improve. By then folks will be conditioned to a lack of privacy and willing, perhaps eager to trade that non-existent privacy for the opportunity to live with a walking, talking mirror of delusions.

But some will still experience death of attachment to delusion, before death of form.

[Pam Seeback]

I wasn't suggesting that a sage doesn't utilize form (make distinctions) what I was suggesting is that the sage understands that distinctions are not absolute, that they are always and ever illusions of consciousness. The realization of which transforms the sage's consciousness.

Agreed. I just want to make it clear that Enlightenment doesn't render philosophy useless.

By a "self-remedy" are you referring to the use of logic to end the ignorance of belief in having or being a self?

Yes, but not only that, but also to the end of clinging, so that logic and concepts of self (or in general) merely flow through you, not being held onto.

Well said! And I would add that not clinging to distinctions (the flowing through) applies not only to logic and reason but to one's emotional consciousness as well.

[ardy]

So where do we go from here? Is the conundrum of enlightenment worth human endeavour to discover? I would have thought so. The Western world has spent over a trillion dollars on global warming yet after 25 years of effort we have little to show for it.

Maybe a few million $$ to study the most perplexing thing in the world might be worth it.

If present trends continue, I think there’s a high probability that with advances in AI, human delusion and self-deception will become more convenient, entrenched, and difficult to breakthrough.

With advances in AI and robots, humans will be able to buy a machine friend or mate (filled with manufacturer-installed easter eggs and back doors) and program in the desired qualities, so that the purchased companion becomes … whoever one wants it to be, which will be a reflection of one’s own mind, a clever recorder.

Also, when the sum total of one’s memories, speech patterns, and characteristic thought patterns can be digitally preserved and downloaded into a human replicant, people will be able to reanimate those who have died … and then co-exist with the machine that looks and sounds just like Mom, Dad, a friend or the ideal mate, in those weird conditions. Just close your eyes and it becomes more believable.

The developing minds of children will become emotionally attached to nannies that are purchased or leased from state approved third-party providers, and these nannies will be configured by “experts” to shape the developing minds of the children.

To call the new device a “machine” will likely become a PC slur, since calling nanny, or wife, or friend a machine will challenge the delusion so eagerly embraced.

As in Huxley’s Brave New World, sex with humans will be viewed as something primitive, barbaric, distasteful. Crude. For the third world.

To perpetuate the race, seminal storage capabilities within the robots will preserve and distribute according to an agenda other than chaotic and unpredictable Luv.

The robot will be recording your existence, a record that will be extracted during firmware updates for review by experts, and perhaps for your own review in order to self-improve. By then folks will be conditioned to a lack of privacy and willing, perhaps eager to trade that non-existent privacy for the opportunity to live with a walking, talking mirror of delusions.

But some will still experience death of attachment to delusion, before death of form.

I listened to a fascinating discussion with a psychologist on our government ABC radio a couple of years ago. He was indignant about the state of his own profession where they seem to think that every human condition can be fixed by analysis or by drugs.

I can't remember the exact number but the number in millions of children on 'Ritalin', but it was huge in the USA. He thought it was taking away the distinctions of children and turning them into compliant, non-complaining automatons. He stated that this was funding a growth in psychiatry and not just on children. If you have a gambling problem, a drinking problem, sex obsession, feel you are being bullied at work, want to improve your IQ - there are unsubstantiated claims of drugs to deal with all of these things.

Maybe this is the foundation stones of your concerns. The moving away from our dna and natural life to a controlled existence.

[ardy]

DvR -

What counts however is all that went before that, impossible to describe but a path one is always on if so inclined. Interesting here is the notion that explaining profound truths could have the opposite effect if the mind of the listener is still full of itself while not realizing that is the case. This is why it's better to burn the books and crucify your heroes first! They are the greatest and most seductive deceivers you'll have to face.

Sadly Kyogen left master Lingyou, and took on the self-appointed job of grave-keeper. One day, when he was sweeping the ground, a stone struck a bamboo. Kyogen stood speechless, forgetting himself for a while. Then, suddenly, bursting into loud laughter, he became enlightened. Returning to the hut, Kyogen performed the ceremony of purification, offered incense, paid homage to his teacher, and with the deepest sense of gratitude said: "Great master, thank you! Your kindness to me is greater even then that of my parents. If you had explained the profound causes to me when I demanded you to give me clear answers, I would never have reached where I stand today".

Kyogens's verse on this occasion runs:

One stroke and all is gone,
No need of stratagem or cure;
Each and every action
Manifests the ancient way.
My spirit is never downcast.
I leave no tracks behind,
Enlightenment is beyond speech.
Beyond gesture;
Those who are emancipated
Call it the unsurpassed.

I understand what you are trying to say that talking about the reality of enlightenment can stand in your way and I agree. BUT! I have stated here many times there is nothing anyone can say about that state as it is ineffable. Kyogen's striking the empty bamboo opened his mind to the great issue that is within emptiness. Striking your head against a rock may have the same effect.

"If you meet the buddha on the road strike him down" is a well known Zen saying as is the burning of a statue of Buddha to stay warm. All that is saying is that the games the ego can play have no end and it can conjure up anything you desire or are fearful of.

So I assume that the dichotomy of your path is your ability to talk about everything in an analytical way , countered, yet supported somehow, by making no statements about your attainments from your practice or any agreement on the efficaciousness of your methods.

I wish you well but I do not think you or Kevin Solway have opened a new road. If you had you would not be so aggressive in that practice and you would have something to say about it that is not hidden in 1000 posts.

I'll end this post with Kyogen:
"One stroke and all is gone,
No need of stratagem or cure"

DvR would add, subject to analysing that one stroke from a thousand sides, comparing it to other thoughts on break throughs, examining it from a philosophically logical approach, checking the bamboo to ensure it is genuine, finding the exact note the bamboo put out, what size the stone was and what speed it was travelling at when it struck, until it disappears.

[ardy]

movingalways wrote:I suggest that a more accurate way to say this is: "Enlightenment is about using logic to dismantle the ego in order to realize one is and always has been, one with Eternal Creation."

ardy wrote: Aha! Pam this is where we diverge. Never thought it would happen. My belief is that the ego gets dismantled as a by-product of meditation. Everything the ego leans on is slowly pulled out from under it....

...The important loss to the ego is the identification of yourself, that the ego has built up over years. It puts on a serious fight to stop that. Slowly it is put back in its box but it still howls for release.

This kind of discipline I never identified with philosophical logic. In fact instead of examining philosophy I was unravelling my philosophical views. For instance "I think, therefore I am" Descartes famous statement. After meditation once it dawned on me that this guy did not know what he was talking about. In fact I thought it should be 'I don't think, therefore I am'.

First of all, divergence makes distinctions-go-round, I'm enjoying the ride, how about you? :-) Second, I question your use of the word "belief" when speaking of the role meditation plays in the dismantling of the ego. A belief to me, suggests uncertainty: either meditation actually dismantles the ego or it doesn't, one can't be a little bit pregnant. :-)

The type of logic I am referring to is not the examination of philosophy (I call this type of mental activity "mental masturbation"), rather, it is the principle by which consciousness is brought back to the original "flash" insight of the illusory nature of distinctions, in other words, back to resting in emptiness/being Awake.

I know of no one who was born resting in emptiness 24/7, the Buddha himself had to go through the process of questioning/doubting everything and what is the process of questioning/doubting but the application of logic? When one gets down to the nitty gritty of meditation, it is only practiced because one is not Awake to the delusion/ignorance of distinction-making 24/7. Perhaps this is not so for you, but when I hear Zen koans, I am intuitively aware of the "fiery software of logic" running in the background.

There is a saying in the bible: “But the word of the LORD was unto them precept upon precept, precept upon precept; line upon line, line upon line; here a little, and there a little; that they might go, and fall backward, and be broken, and snared, and taken.”

OR

We do philosophy (as we are doing now) until philosophy is done.

I am chastened Pam. The use of 'belief' showed the holes in my own cloak.

I need to say something about Koans as I have avoided them like a plague. I have a friend who runs a zen school here, he is constantly (twice in a year!) on my case about starting with 'Mu'. Now his reason for this is that koans are answered by non-logic and it is only when your logic breaks down that an acceptable answer to it can be intuitively seen . In his working life he was a professor of engineering and found the practice of koans very difficult when he started as his attachment to logic was very strong. I think that the use of koans might be beneficial to several posters here. That is my BELIEF!

The mental masturbation you mention is a very strong pull (if you excuse the pun!).

I too am enjoying the discussions with you and others on this thread, but it may run out with only a few of us brave enough to state our experiences. That is enough don't you think?