Originally posted by miz'd: ...xnflasbrnvl;tjsrbaslvkasjQ23OV-
really not very enlightening for any of us.
It may not look enlightening to you, but enter a zen-like trance and become as one with Om, and the message is clear: "light is like a piece of cheese, except quicker". Very profound miz'd.
huh? you're the one going on (at length) about the power of 'now'...
well thats what we all do all the time. how could i be anywhere else but 'now' :i'm writing this message to you 'now' aren't i? however i'd go so far as to say that without memories, references etc 'now' means absolutely nothing. if i didn't have in mind the content of the thread and was just in the 'nowness' of hitting a keyboard this is what you'd get....
xnflasbrnvl;tjsrbaslvkasjQ23OV-
really not very enlightening for any of us.
If you’d care to notice, I have made continued reference to the importance of directly experiencing what I’m talking about and sustained effort – had you attempted this you would be able to see that the practice of meditation does not render you a gibbering fool with no recollection of anything outside of the present. It’s not a practice to forget everything you’ve learnt – rather it’s a practice which gives you the ability to release the tight grip we all seem to have on thought cycles which cause suffering either to ourselves or to others. Unless you are prepared to actually ‘practice’ and have a go at this then I’m afraid any conclusion or judgment you make on what I’ve said will remain totally off the mark.
On the other hand, if you are 100% content with your life the way it is, there’s nothing you’d like to change about it and you are calm and at peace and have no suffering and have no mental hang-ups on anything then you are indeed fortunate and obviously wouldn’t be at all interested in anything I have to say – but what satisfaction to you get by trying to rubbish my method of finding peace and joy? That’s just unkind.
I myself freqently transmute my suffering with the aid of a hefty belt of scotch.
Well that method works too of course … and the by products can be fun … but the after effects are major fly in the ointment aren’t they? Wouldn’t you prefer it if you could find a way to do this without the ill after effects? And what if there’s no scotch to hand? Wouldn’t it be far more fulfilling to have the ability to ‘transmute your suffering’ without the aid of any external source? To be totally self sufficient in regulating your mood barometer?
I myself freqently transmute my suffering with the aid of a hefty belt of scotch.
Well that method works too of course … and the by products can be fun … but the after effects are major fly in the ointment aren’t they? Wouldn’t you prefer it if you could find a way to do this without the ill after effects? And what if there’s no scotch to hand? Wouldn’t it be far more fulfilling to have the ability to ‘transmute your suffering’ without the aid of any external source? To be totally self sufficient in regulating your mood barometer?
Indeed it would, and I can offer no arument to the contrary!
Originally posted by NowPower: If you’d care to notice, I have made continued reference to the importance of directly experiencing what I’m talking about and sustained effort –
FYI i have read every word of your lengthy postings. you did promise an 'experiment' a while back, though it doesn't seem to have materialised. are you now saying you will not debate the concepts you are raising at all?
quote:
On the other hand, if you are 100% content with your life the way it is, there’s nothing you’d like to change about it and you are calm and at peace and have no suffering and have no mental hang-ups on anything then you are indeed fortunate and obviously wouldn’t be at all interested in anything I have to say –
my point is you wouldn't be human if you didn't have some measure of these things in your life. but please, don't worry about me... you might be better directing your attention towards your tendancy to lapse into schoolmarmish lecturing or clumsy seduction rather than engaging with points raised for discussion.
quote:
but what satisfaction to you get by trying to rubbish my method of finding peace and joy? That’s just unkind.
please indicate where i have 'rubbished' your 'method'. you haven't described any 'method'. i raised points for discussion arising from your posts. either repond to them or just let me know if you are floundering hopelessly.
[QUOTE] FYI i have read every word of your lengthy postings. you did promise an 'experiment' a while back, though it doesn't seem to have materialised.
As far as I am aware nobody has expressed any interest in conducting an experiment – I was happy to drop the whole thing seeing as my presence here seemed to be inviting responses which are not conducive to a balanced discussion – the only reason I returned was that there were a couple of questions directed to me which I felt able to answer.
quote:
are you now saying you will not debate the concepts you are raising at all?
How have you arrived at that conclusion? I’m not unwilling to debate, but I am unable to demonstrate any of the ‘concepts’ I have raised with people who really have no desire to practice. You can take a horse to water blah blah blah
quote:
my point is you wouldn't be human if you didn't have some measure of these things in your life.
Agreed – we all suffer. Its part and parcel of being human. Some suffer more than others, some, i.e. me, seek ways to understand the nature of suffering and thus transcend it. That’s all this is about at the end of the day.
quote:
but please, don't worry about me... you might be better directing your attention towards your tendancy to lapse into schoolmarmish lecturing or clumsy seduction rather than engaging with points raised for discussion.
I can only thank you for drawing my attention to the negative way my posts may be perceived. I’ll give that some thought and try to correct it. In the meantime, I’d be grateful if you would point out which parts of my posts in future you find particularly irksome.
quote:
please indicate where i have 'rubbished' your 'method'.
“i saw a documentary once about a man who had lost the capacity to make any new memories. he constantly lived in the 'now'. if his wife left the room he would forget he was married and greet her as a stranger when she came back in.
curiously, he didn't seem to have a particularly rich or fulfilling life despite being entirely unencumbered by the past or the future.”
Obviously tone isn’t apparent on forum posts … but I really don’t see how that was supposed to be a point for discussion?
quote:
you haven't described any 'method'.
Erm …. I’m sorry I really thought I had, and am beginning to feel like if I post any more about my ‘method’ I’d likely bore you all to death.
quote:
I raised points for discussion arising from your posts. either repond to them or just let me know if you are floundering hopelessly.
Perhaps in a similar way to you not being able to discern my attempts at describing my ‘method’, I can’t seem to find any definite points you’d like me to respond to – although I’d stop short of saying I’m ‘floundering hopelessly’.
are you now saying you will not debate the concepts you are raising at all?
How have you arrived at that conclusion?
well, i asked you how your version of a 'now' moment was any different from an ordinary 'now' moment and you seemed to be saying your version of 'now' can only be understood through experience.
i think your postings are quite confusing. on the one hand you say "ultimate reality is direct awareness of what 'is' right now", yet on the other hand you seem agree with me that 'what 'is' right now' has little meaning devoid of history and context (eg the emptiness of the life of the man with no memories) - but you still seem to be saying that i have it all wrong about what 'now' means/is all about....
quote:
I can only thank you for drawing my attention to the negative way my posts may be perceived. I’ll give that some thought and try to correct it. In the meantime, I’d be grateful if you would point out which parts of my posts in future you find particularly irksome.
frankly i don't care about how you post just as long as you stop telling me off for taking the time and trouble to actually try and engage with your ideas....
quote:
Perhaps in a similar way to you not being able to discern my attempts at describing my ‘method’, I can’t seem to find any definite points you’d like me to respond to – although I’d stop short of saying I’m ‘floundering hopelessly’.
well, to me a 'method' is a means of acheiving an outcome, whereas what you seem to do is tell us what the outcome should be, although even that (this particular experience of 'now') appears to be difficult to define - all i know is that you seem to think we all have it all wrong.
what i'm asking you to respond to is how the 'now' moment you describe actually differs from my 'now' moment.
well, i asked you how your version of a 'now' moment was any different from an ordinary 'now' moment and you seemed to be saying your version of 'now' can only be understood through experience.
Yes - in the same way that if you explain to someone who has never seen a river what a river actually is, they still only have half an understanding of it - if they were to dip their hand into river, however, and actually feel the flow of water and the movement and energy in the currents, they'd realize that their academic understanding was entirely 2-dimensional. The practise of meditation is the only way one can follow the Buddhist path - the process of intellectualising and conceptualising removes the very core of the teaching. The 'now' moment I'm talking about doesn't differ between any of us - its just that we (and i'm aware the use of that word will irritate but i don't know how else to put this) usually don't quieten down enough to actually feel the present moment as it actually is without our own agenda acting as a filter. The thoughts and labels we bind ourselves to are always there. Following the Buddhist path is about learning to free yourself from the bondage of 'ego' - and that can only be done through practise.
quote:
i think your postings are quite confusing. on the one hand you say "ultimate reality is direct awareness of what 'is' right now", yet on the other hand you seem agree with me that 'what 'is' right now' has little meaning devoid of history and context (eg the emptiness of the life of the man with no memories) - but you still seem to be saying that i have it all wrong about what 'now' means/is all about....
I'm sorry they're confusing - it is really hard to articulate this accurately. One of the key teachings of the Buddha was 'The Middle Way'. Half way between self-indulgence (identifying with the self and grasping for pleasurable things and running away from non-pleasurable things) and self-mortification. Its about realizing (as in - making real through sustained practise) the fact that the 'self' is not all there is to reality whilst simultaneously inhabiting a 'self' - its about non-attachment to either self or any perceived 'thing' 'out there'. But non-attachment is not as simple as it sounds - the best analogy i've ever come across is this: Let's say your house is burning down - not a good situation to be in. A buddha (awakened one) would take the approach of not being attached to the house, the things in it, or the memories of it, etc (that doesn't mean the memories aren't there - it just means there is no mental attachment to them). By not being attached to the burning house, the buddha does not *suffer* from loss. Not being attached is not the same thing as being detached. The subtle diffrence is of great importance - if someone was detached they would not care about the burning house and probably would do nothing to save the house from burning. A buddha might give his all to put out the fire and save the house. But, and this is a big important but... if the house burns down the Buddhist will not suffer the loss like a typical non-Buddhist. Unlike a detached person, buddha's do get involved in the events of life. A detached person on the other hand would not care about the house and would not get involved in trying to save it, they don't care. For a buddhist detachment is also an incorrect approach because it is the opposite extreme of attachment. Attaching and detachment are both seen as extremes and BOTH inevitably result in suffering. Buddhism is about ending suffering - which is achieved through The Middle Way.
quote:
well, to me a 'method' is a means of acheiving an outcome, whereas what you seem to do is tell us what the outcome should be, although even that (this particular experience of 'now') appears to be difficult to define - all i know is that you seem to think we all have it all wrong.
This 'particular experience of now' is actually extremely difficult to cultivate to an extent of maintaining control of our awareness (although i hate the word 'control' because awareness, in the Buddhist sense, requires the letting go of the concept of control - which is ultimately something we can never have). Calm and insight are the twin 'goals' of meditation. Through observing thoughts and practising while in formal seated meditation as well as in daily life it becomes easier to maintain this level of calm contentment which comes with non-attachment no matter what we're faced with. Its a personal path that cannot be understood by reading about it - it actually has to be followed. to take a quote from the bible, 'seek and ye shall find' - you actually have to do the seeking before you can find. But it takes sustained effort - if it was easy we'd all be able to do a little meditation session, experience this pure contentment in observing the world as one and then say we're enlightened. But i've been practising for a long time now and, as i'm sure you can tell, i'm not enlightened. i fear i still have a LOT of unconditioning to undergo - but i do feel i've now got to a point where i can recognise when i'm suffering for no other reason than me creating silly models of problems or scenarios in my head and believing them to be real - and in recognising it, i can laugh at the insanity of it and return simply to 'what actually is'. Enlightenment is when you stop having to catch yourself.
quote:
what i'm asking you to respond to is how the 'now' moment you describe actually differs from my 'now' moment.
It doesn't differ - the way in which it is perceived differs. Lets say the 'self' we all have that exists in terms of time and space, me and you, this and that - the 'self' that refers all our experience to 'me' is like coloured lens to look through. If you can take away the lens (self), the view remains the same, but it has a different, clearer quality.
That's about as good as i can do i'm afraid in trying to formulate all this - i hope that's a little better
Originally posted by NowPower: The 'now' moment I'm talking about doesn't differ between any of us - its just that we (and i'm aware the use of that word will irritate but i don't know how else to put this) usually don't quieten down enough to actually feel the present moment as it actually is without our own agenda acting as a filter.
ok, so what it appears to me you are saying is:
the buddist 'now' moment can only be experienced through meditation...it is no different to any other 'now' moment except that usually we aren't 'quiet' enough to notice it.
so, the next questions are: how do you know people aren't 'quiet' enough? why can this 'quiet' only be acheived through buddist meditation and not through (for example) simply sitting and relaxing, or any other form of meditation, or simply a psychological awareness of what is 'ego' and what is not?
what is qualitatively or quantitavely different between a 'now' moment buddist style and any other style?
quote:
'The Middle Way'. Half way between self-indulgence (identifying with the self and grasping for pleasurable things and running away from non-pleasurable things) and self-mortification
so where is the 'now' moment in this? it seems to have been relegated as not that important after all. what you describe here is what psychotherapists would call 'ego strength' that is having a realistic understanding of yourself in and in relation to the world - as opposed to egoism, which is being self absorbed and imagining you can control the world.
quote:
A buddha (awakened one) would take the approach of not being attached to the house, the things in it, or the memories of it, etc (that doesn't mean the memories aren't there - it just means there is no mental attachment to them). By not being attached to the burning house, the buddha does not *suffer* from loss. Not being attached is not the same thing as being detached. The subtle diffrence is of great importance - if someone was detached they would not care about the burning house and probably would do nothing to save the house from burning. A buddha might give his all to put out the fire and save the house. But, and this is a big important but... if the house burns down the Buddhist will not suffer the loss like a typical non-Buddhist.
well, i'd like to know what this state of not being attached and not being detached is supposed to look like. it sounds to me like the person you describe *is* attached (they bother to try and save the house/things) but once they cannot, they become *detached* - hey ho, gone now, never mind. loss is suffering, and so it should be. what is good about not suffering from loss when you lose something that is significant to you? personally i think most people would go through a *process* in an event like this, of initially feeling great loss, then in time accepting that loss and moving on, but perhaps not forgetting. that seems to me to be innately human - not something to be avoided, or 'overcome'. put 'child' in place of house, how could one not *suffer* from loss, and more to the point, why would one want not to?
quote:
but i do feel i've now got to a point where i can recognise when i'm suffering for no other reason than me creating silly models of problems or scenarios in my head and believing them to be real [QUOTE] with due respect, i think that can be acheived through a moderate amount of insight. it doesn't require meditation, or doctrine.
[quote]That's about as good as i can do i'm afraid in trying to formulate all this - i hope that's a little better
well, thanks for trying. really, you are describing a set of beliefs to us but it isn't possible for you to demonstrate anything distinctive about them, or anything that cannot be created/explained in another way. my question is, what can buddism offer that a healthy psychological profile and the capacity to do relaxation exercises cant?
Physicist David Bohm has formulated a holistic concept of the universe, rejecting the idea of fundamental particles but instead suggesting that each particle contains every other particle, just as each part of a hologram contains the entire image. Similarly, he suggested that each moment in time may contain every other moment:
Does he have any experimental support for this, or is it just a wee flight he was having?
When David Bohm died in 1991 he was working on making some testable predictions for his theory, but when it comes to these kinds of theories, which are perhaps closer to philosophy than science, there isn't yet any hard experimental eveidence for any of them. There's no evidence for string theory, nor for M-brane theory, though a lot of work is being done on them. String theory I believe, after a lot of criticism, has finally come up with some predictions that could potentially be tested, but it's taken a lot of people doing a lot of work for the past 20 or 30 years to get to that point, and actually testing the predictions is still some way off.
When Einstein came up with his theories of relativity there was no evidence for them. They fit the available facts, but so did a number of other theories. It wasn't until 1919, 4 years after the General Theory was published, that it was tested. That was during a solar eclipse, and Einstein's theory predicted that the observed position of Mercury would be slightly different to its position as predicted by classical physics. When he was shown to be right, and to a very high degree of accuracy, he was asked how he could have been so sure his theory was right, when there was no evidence for it, to which he replied (more or less): Mine was the best solution to the problem. If God hadn't chosen my theory then I would pity God.
It's similar now with these theories of everything. They are often looked at aesthetically and judged according to how elegantly and how completely they describe reality as we currently know it.
When you are fully inhabiting the present moment in zazen or seated meditation, if it is done correctly then a deep sense of all-encompassing peace surrounds you and you see the world as one, your heart is filled with loving-kindness and compassion for all. If most people were ‘quiet enough’ to experience this now moment which is only available through freeing your mind from thought then there would be no war, no murder, there would be no arguments, no ill-will, no anger, no frustration – I think it is fairly clear to everyone that the world as we know it is full of these things. That’s how I know that most people aren’t ‘quiet enough’. If everyone experienced this ‘now’ moment or ‘no-self’ or whatever you want to call it then we would see the true meaning of peace on earth.
quote:
why can this 'quiet' only be acheived through buddist meditation and not through (for example) simply sitting and relaxing, or any other form of meditation, or simply a psychological awareness of what is 'ego' and what is not?
Buddhism is not about labels. In fact the heart of the teaching is to cease identifying with labels – meditation is the means, calm and insight is the end. I can only speak from my own experience but when practicing visualising forms of meditation I’ve found that the process of visualising detracts from the experience, sitting and relaxing doesn’t necessarily lead you to free yourself from thoughts – quite the opposite from my experience, just sitting and relaxing leaves you to drift into daydream. Deep concentration is needed for meditation. An awareness of what is ‘ego’ and what is not can only be achieved through meditation – if you conceptualise it, it is the ego that is doing the conceptualising – awareness is the important word here. Meditation is about pure, alert awareness of ‘what is’ – as soon as you engage the mind and say to yourself “this is ego and this is not ego” then you have entered the world of duality again. The meditation doesn’t have to be Buddhist – all religions in fact point to what the Buddha pointed to – but as the core teaching cannot be conceptualised there is a vast array of metaphors to illustrate the point – but none can be ‘got’ unless you see this truth for yourself. I was just looking on the other thread about Adam and Eve and the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil. The message in that is very Buddhist – in Buddhism there is no duality of good and evil. Everything is one – as soon as we enter the world of duality, of me and you, us and them, we, in effect, die. Ego-concept can only exist in the world of duality – that is the root cause of all our suffering. If we don’t subscribe to duality or good and evil then eternal life can be seen for what it is. The Buddha was constantly reiterating that he teaches only one thing – that is suffering, the cause of suffering and the cessation of suffering. It is a path to be followed which proves itself along the journey – it is not something that can be intellectually understood completely – it has to be experienced.
quote:
what is qualitatively or quantitavely different between a 'now' moment buddist style and any other style?
I’m guessing you don’t want to hear any more about my personal experiences with this but here are a few links to scientific studies which show the material effect on the brain after many hours of meditation. There is lots more documented evidence of such experiments if you are so inclined to look for it.
so where is the 'now' moment in this? it seems to have been relegated as not that important after all. what you describe here is what psychotherapists would call 'ego strength' that is having a realistic understanding of yourself in and in relation to the world - as opposed to egoism, which is being self absorbed and imagining you can control the world.
No – non-attachment can only be realized if you are fully alert and tuned into the present moment without the filter of ‘ego’ or ‘self’. This ‘ego-strength’ you talk about sounds to me like there is still a very dominant ‘self’ in play. Egoism is an extreme but ‘having a realistic understanding of yourself in relation to the world’ still includes the ‘self’ which flavours all our experiences and influences our behaviour. Meditation and training lead you to see the illusion of ‘self’ – you no longer act according to your feelings of ‘me’ and ‘mine’. Suffering is only felt, or indeed inflicted on something else, if you are identifying with ‘me’ and ‘mine’.
quote:
it sounds to me like the person you describe *is* attached (they bother to try and save the house/things) but once they cannot, they become *detached* - hey ho, gone now, never mind. loss is suffering, and so it should be. what is good about not suffering from loss when you lose something that is significant to you? personally i think most people would go through a *process* in an event like this, of initially feeling great loss, then in time accepting that loss and moving on, but perhaps not forgetting. that seems to me to be innately human - not something to be avoided, or 'overcome'. put 'child' in place of house, how could one not *suffer* from loss, and more to the point, why would one want not to?
Yes what you say I’d agree with to a certain extent with one small caveat however. ‘Feeling’ is what comes before our thought reaction. Pure feeling in itself is not suffering – but this can only be known to be true through determined practice. To feel loss is of course sorrowful – but to ‘suffer’ loss requires a thinking element, a resistance which causes friction and thus ‘pain’. The Buddhist training is not to eliminate thinking but decrease the unnecessary thinking that causes us pain – to concentrate the mind on feeling/perceiving rather than analysing/thinking. Feeling the loss of a possession or even a child is sorrow, Buddhists can obviously feel sorrow, but the ‘suffering’ is the result of the thought resistance, the creation of subject/object duality. Buddhism isn’t merely about liberating your own self from suffering – the heart of the Buddhist teaching is compassion, in following the path one ceases to inflict harm on others which is so easy to do when caught up in ego – we are constantly seeing the world through the eyes of ‘me’ so we unnecessarily put up a defence. As soon as somebody/thing causes our ego to be bruised we go on the attack. This is how wars are waged. Wholesale disarmament has to occur in each individuals heart before it can happen on a wordwide scale. If one person follows this path it will have an effect on every sentient being they encounter and the ripple effect will have an effect on the rest of the world. The idea is to alleviate the suffering of ALL sentient beings – and by following the path you are doing so out of a love for all beings.
quote:
my question is, what can buddism offer that a healthy psychological profile and the capacity to do relaxation exercises cant?
It offers total 24/7 liberation from suffering, understanding of ‘the way things are’, relinquishment of our ultimate fear of death, realizing a feeling of ‘one-ness’ with the world, access to a blissful state of love and joy whatever the external situation.
Originally posted by NowPower: It offers total 24/7 liberation from suffering, understanding of ‘the way things are’, relinquishment of our ultimate fear of death, realizing a feeling of ‘one-ness’ with the world, access to a blissful state of love and joy whatever the external situation.
hey I have all this!! does this mean I'm buddhist?
Originally posted by NowPower: the heart of the Buddhist teaching is compassion, in following the path one ceases to inflict harm on others which is so easy to do when caught up in ego
Loathe as I am to get dragged into this one,
“I have no systematized ideas. I transcend reason and act completely upon intuition”
hey I have all this!! does this mean I'm buddhist?
Well thats just great! Anyone can label themselves a Buddhist however (over 3 million people do) - but it takes dedicated practice. Its easy to be complacent and before you know it BANG you find yourself right back in the centre of another ego storm without even noticing how you fell back into the sleep of 'me-protection' or the hurt you might have inflicted on others or yourself. What following the path is about, IMHO, is training your mind not to drift into harmful waters - and that takes dedication and determined practice.
