SteveS55

6 hours ago, JosephM said:

Re-read this thread and found it very interesting for musing.. While most words i use will not be an accurate representation of what i have come to postulate, it seems to me that the brain is merely a transmitter and receiver and while we speak of it as the mind and with a physical location of the body because of science and its experiments, i see the brain as merely a chemical transmitter and receiver. The 'Mind' i see as being without locality and while not totally accurate 'outside the body'. Each brain in a sense evolved to an identity based on its on-going ability to tune to certain frequencies or a range of frequencies or bouncing around between these ranges. It seems to me one could look at these tuned ranges on a continuum with words to describe consciousness as a range such as anger, apathy, fear, desire, courage, neutrality, willingness, acceptance, reason, love , joy, peace,  etc. Not that any is necessarily higher or better but possibly one could say different or perhaps more evolved.  

It seems to me we can be compared similar to a programmed computer but in my experience it is The Mind which is common to all where the source of all the programming comes from and from which all possibilities are created that inherently over the concept of time draw us toward that source and the range that promotes life rather than the those  that lead to destruction of life. That source seems to me has all knowledge since the beginning of time. In short, the brain which most refer to as the mind i find is the only separation between us. In essence, If i had the same chemical make-up and programming which is modified by your exact experiences and its exact myriad of factors that define you, i would be you.

Just resurrecting an older thread for discussion,

Joseph

I have a suspicion "mind"is very much like "self"....non-existent.  Just a bit of my own musing!

Steve

Agreed,Paul.  As you say, it's a small matter to have generated such discussion.

Steve

It's kind of a head scratcher, for sure Paul.   But, I suppose there has to be a first and I'm sure there have been others who didn't bother to share what they had realized.  The Buddha was apparently the only one willing and able at that time and place to teach a system he thought would lead to awakening. 

I am told that for one to commit to the Buddhist path, it is necessary to find a qualified teacher, or guru.  The Western understanding of that term may not be quite correct, since it means more like something along the lines of a spiritual friend or companion.  

It has something to do with connecting to a particular lineage which was generally an oral tradition carried on from one generation  to another within that lineage.  In any case it has been the tradition for centuries.

At some point the student will be ready for the "pointing out instructions" from the guru, or master.  I believe that is the main reason for a teacher.  It isn't some sort of mommy/daddy relationship where the student projects all of their neurotic needs onto the teacher.

As for "enlightenment" whatever that might be, I don't think there are any guarantees one way or the other. 

Steve

"not a fat and happy Californian with the time and money for books."  I object, Burl.  I'm a Californian and I'm neither fat nor happy!

Steve

Looks like Milarepa's cave!

Nice job on the site, Joseph.  I like it...not as busy looking...a bit more sedate I think.  It's a thankless job but we are all appreciative!

Steve

Thanks for posting the essay, Tariki. It was a bit dense but I was able to slog through it retaining a portion of it. I kind of don't think Mahayana Christology is going to catch on anytime soon....too much doctrinal water under the bridge by now. And, thinking about that, it's a shame that we tie things up in such knots that it just becomes too much trouble to unwind them or start over.

The quote is contained in Sermon #87, Burl, although it may be a different number in some texts. Rather than take it completely out of context, I'm including a few more paragraphs from that Sermon below:

"While I yet stood in my first cause, I had no God and was my own cause: then I wanted nothing and desired nothing, for I was bare being and the knower of myself in the enjoyment of truth. Then I wanted myself and wanted no other thing: what I wanted I was and what I was I wanted, and thus I was free of God and all things.

But when I left my free will behind and received my created being, then I had a God. For before there were creatures, God was not 'God': He was That which He was. But when creatures came into existence and received their created being, then God was not 'God' in Himself - He was 'God' in creatures.

Now we say that God, inasmuch as He is 'God', is not the supreme goal of creatures, for the same lofty status is possessed by the least of creatures in God. And if it were the case that a fly had reason and could intellectually plumb the eternal abysm of God's being out of which it came, we would have to say that God with all that makes Him 'God' would be unable to fulfill and satisfy that fly!

Therefore let us pray to God that we may be free of God that we may gain the truth and enjoy it eternally, there where the highest angel, the fly and the soul are equal, there where I stood and wanted what I was, and was what I wanted."

Steve

 

 

 

"There are many teachings or disciplines in Buddhism and a variety of methods, but they are geared to solving life problems temporarily and permanently because they deal with the mind and go beyond its relative thinking patterns. Many Christians have become Christian Buddhist and better Christians because of these practices and many Buddhist have become Buddhist Christians."

I have often puzzled over this, Soma. My own experience of this is rather anecdotal, because I only know of a few people who actually have "swapped" one for the other, or shared traditions. Thomas Merton comes to mind, as well as Alan Watts. I happen to be another (Christian to Buddhist), but I have no real credibility.

The only thing I can come up with is that Christianity and Buddhism both share a contemplative tradition, and doctrinal differences are of little concern. Both are experiential, which is somewhat suspect to a lot of Christians. But, beyond the experiential, or perhaps fulfilling the experiential is the non-conceptual - an understanding, intuition or realization of the way things are without the possibility or even the necessity for verbal/written expression. This is why I believe "practice" in all of its manifestations among both traditions is of such importance.

Just rambling a bit!

Steve

I think many people end up deleting "God" from their minds, if not their vocabulary, Paul. Some of the great Christian mystics ended up befuddled from trying to comprehend what "God" even meant so they just gave up trying. At some point the concept must, for many people, just be abandoned! "Pray to God that you may be free of 'God'"- Meister Eckhart.

I liked what fatherman had to say about this. Every now and then it’s probably good to blow out the carburetor (assuming anyone remembers what that is!) and continue the journey.

We all want to have things the way we want to have them, and the forum is no different. It’s too much of this and not enough of that, that person is arrogant, annoying, preachy, snarky or whatever.

It is a smallish, slightly odd group of fat frogs on this lily pad for sure! But, you kind of have to love them anyway!

Steve

FYI.....Jordan's hang time was clocked at .93 seconds compared to the average of .53. I don't think it's an illusion if it can be objectively measured. Personally I think basketball is the most beautiful of sports, and Michael Jordan was probably the best (no offense to Kobe Bryant fans). Actually, Pele is a close second!

I agree,Soma. No sense in arguing about peoples' beliefs, which are generally set in stone. It's probably best not to get too excited about the good things and not too upset about the bad things. Enjoy the ride or not as one sees fit.

Below are some thought on this subject by Alan Watts. I like his ideas and agree with him in that as long as there is a belief in an independent “I”, or “self”, there can be no real understanding of eternity as the present moment. Without the belief in subject-object-action, the question becomes irrelevant. We are essentially blocked from the eternal and subject to rebirth by attachment to a “self” that has no inherent existence to begin with. It is a trick of the mind!

“When you are dying and coming to life in each moment, would-be scientific predictions about what will happen after death are of little consequence. The whole glory of it is that we do not know. Ideas of survival and annihilation are alike based on the past, on memories of waking and sleeping, and, in their different ways, the notions of everlasting continuity and everlasting nothingness are without meaning... For there is no joy in continuity, in the perpetual. We desire it only because the present is empty... We do not really want continuity, but rather a present experience of total happiness. The thought of wanting such an experience to go on and on is the result of being self-conscious in the experience, and thus incompletely aware of it.

So long as there is the feeling of an "I" having this experience, the moment is not all. Eternal life is realized when the last trace of difference between "I" and "now" has vanished -- when there is just the "now" and nothing else. By contrast, hell or "everlasting damnation" is not the everlastingness of time going on forever, but of the unbroken circle, the continuity and frustration of going round and round in pursuit of something which can never be attained. Hell is the fatuity, the everlasting impossibility, of self-love, self-consciousness, and self-possession. It is trying to see one's own eyes, hear one's own ears, and kiss one's own lips.” Alan Watts – The Wisdom of Insecurity

Hi Tom,

And by the way, welcome to the forum. When I was going to Catholic high school, I remember being taught a little evolutionary theory. The Church didn't seem to have a problem with it. I think your idea is similar to theistic evolutionism. Not unusual, just no scientific proof for it.

Steve

I agree that most of us are sorely lacking in love, kindness and compassion, Soma. And I'm no different. But every now and then (not often) I run into someone who seems to embody those qualities. And I just wonder where it comes from.

Steve

I don’t particularly like the term “spiritual progress”. It is a bit vague to me, and if approached as a “goal” to achieve “spiritual progress”, I think it can lead to dare I say, “Spiritual Materialism”, and a lack of authenticity.

I know people who don’t abide by any particular “spiritual” program, but do seem to exhibit those qualities that Burl enumerated. Their “outer” virtues (for lack of a better word) seem to correspond to an inner peace and confidence as well as gratitude. For some, this may just be natural, uncontrived maturity. Who knows how and why these things manifest? Perhaps it is our natural state when our minds are not obscured by mental chatter and emotional turmoil.

So, perhaps the “inner” is manifested in the “outer”, or perhaps there is no difference whatsoever! Just my paltry 2 cents.

I think Pema Chodron's statements are very informing, Tariki. I agree that the practice of Buddhism is not about destroying anything, but "cutting through" illusion to see the real nature of things.And, I think this does require a real interest in the process, without judgment or condemnation. In the end, there is nothing to change anyway. Surrender might be a better word.

Joseph, I agree that "who we are" often comes down to a continuity of the story line of our thoughts, beliefs and experiences. We identify with this story line and it becomes us. Who would we be without it? I've often found it interesting that we like stories and movies so much. There is always continuity and character development involved. It must say something about how we operate.

I don't think anyone is suggesting destroying the ego, Rom. That effort would be useless. My question is about exactly what you expressed above - who or what is the "who"? The "ego" is just a process,of identification and solidification of our belief in existence, or rather, our fear that we don't exist! And the "witness" or "watcher", as Campbell suggests, is also a process. There doesn't seem to be any substance to any of it. They are both illusory.

He's referring to "materialism" in the sense of ego attachment, Rom, as if "spirituality" is a "real" thing which can be possessed, which of course, it is not.

I do not generally recommend books. What might seem interesting and helpful, even profound, to one, could be incredibly boring and inane to someone else. We are all at very different stages of interest and understanding. Still, this book, "Cutting through Spiritual Materialism" by Chogyam Trungpa is one of the best Ive read in years. Actually, I purchased the audio book, so I didnt have to go through the agony of actually reading!

His definition of Spiritual Materialism is as follows:

"Walking the spiritual path properly is a very subtle process; it is not something to jump into naively. There are numerous sidetracks which lead to a distorted, ego-centered version of spirituality; we can deceive ourselves into thinking we are developing spiritually when instead we are strengthening our egocentricity through spiritual techniques. This fundamental distortion may be referred to as spiritual materialism."

It seems that ego is the culprit as he goes on to say:

"Our vast collections of knowledge and experience are just part of egos display, part of the grandiose quality of ego. We display them to the world and, in so doing, reassure ourselves that we exist, safe and secure, as spiritual people."

This is a book about the Buddhist path, so those from a Christian perspective will probably find it wanting. But, if you have some interest in Buddhism, this takes the reader through the entire Buddhist path encompassing all of the "yanas". The "yanas" are the Hinayana (narrow path), Mahayana (great vehicle) and Vajrayana (tantric path).

It is considered to be a gradual path, starting with the Hinayana, where one develops meditative discipline, then on to the Mahayana, the path of great compassion and wisdom. This is the path of the Bodhisattva, a being who literally gives up any notion of personal enlightenment for the benefit of all sentient beings. The Bodhisattva Vow is actually a promise to bring all others to liberation and enlightenment ahead of themselves. The final path is Vajrayana, or the tantric path. It would be a mistake, however, to consider these yanas separate in any sense. One necessarily leads to another. It is all one path, which doesnt actually exist (except as a concept) in any case.

One of the more interesting descriptions in this book has to do with Trungpa's understanding of emptiness, a very often misunderstood concept in Buddhism. He explains that emptiness is form without any mental preconceptions. I suppose this is where the statement "form is emptiness and emptiness is form" comes from. So, phenomena "as it is", or its"suchness" is phenomena empty of any preconceived notions, labels, constructs, concepts, etc. But, since emptiness is also a concept, the ego may take hold of it and try to possess it. For this reason, we eventually must see form as just form and emptiness as merely empty. Well, no one said it was easy!

My understanding is that a person of average intelligence, who is emotionally healthy and stable, could traverse the yanas in two to three years, with daily study and practice, assuming they had a qualified teacher.

All and all a very good read if you are into this kind of thing, or if you are headed in that direction.

You are not alone, Tariki, it's just that nothing can be said about these verses, nor should there be anything to say.

To what shall I compare this life of ours?

Even before I can say

it is like a lightning flash or a dewdrop

it is no more.

- Sengai

We are everywhere!