Likes Likes:  0
Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6
Results 76 to 87 of 87

Thread: Enlightenment = good ?

  1. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    This is my take on the subject, is on things I can see;

    1. In a broad sense, without delving into empirical intricacies, The human body is a collection of closely and loosely joined atoms, but on an infinitesimally smaller scale, they would appear unrelated, or, possibly connected inseparably as part if the quantum minutiae, unseperable from the fabric of the universe. (A bit dramatic, but perhaps my point is made.)

    2. Portions of these atoms fall into collections of molecules within our bodies, some of which form major organs, most noteworthy, the human brain.

    3. The human brain will, inevitably, attempt to organize the data it receives into categories favorable to it's nature and design. Part of it's nature, is to label things such as I, you, that, this, good, bad, hot, warm, cold, etc, etc.
    Of this function, I observe this to be the "mind".

    4. If we observe this model, we come to the conclusion that the concepts of which the "mind" are obviously illusionary, and a construct of the function of the organ in question. An example of this would be "What is a rock, when we remove the label of such from it?"

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Belgium
    Posts
    202
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kenzan
    "What is a rock, when we remove the label of such from it?"
    It's still a stone. It just doens't carry the name rock anymore, for you at least. Removing labels never alters reality, in the very best of cases it alters perception.

    Cheers,


    Regards,
    Christophe van Eysendyck.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Cufaol
    It's still a stone. It just doens't carry the name rock anymore, for you at least. Removing labels never alters reality, in the very best of cases it alters perception.

    Cheers,
    I would submit to you that while the properties of an object still will exist (In the sense that our mind thinks these properties exist) -If we cease to label the object, the view of how one perceives that object according to the bias of labels.
    If in order to define something, we have to deal in absolutes; then otherwise it's just abstraction, which is my point.
    If we define an object via its properties is not there then a finite point to where the object in question ceases to have the properties which makes it thus?
    If that is accepted, then must not we also accept that the naming convention by which we use to label objects is clearly on valid for our use in discerning reality from perception of reality?
    The use of the "mind" as it were, would appear to have nothing to do with an object’s ultimate nature, and thus reality.

    Speaking of Reality and its alteration:
    I would additionally submit that it is the very disagreement that humans have with one another regarding the nature of reality that causes much discord.
    So we can also see that based upon the mind, each mind can possibly see reality in a differing perspective, some slight, some wide. This is further evidence that the mind is only a “lens” for which we view the world, and the lens can be convex, concave, cracked, foggy, dirty, or faceted.

    With respect to Budo, since the mind is not a reflection of reality, but simply an interpreter of reality, it is not reliable, and therefore I see it as a liability.

    Of course, all is easier said than done!

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Kenzan,

    I agree with much of what you have said. Our experience of reality is determined by the perspective from which we view it. We use language to communicate our experiences of phenomena with one and other. We use language (words/labels) to describe experiences in order that we may share them with others. As a result we tend to confuse the label we use to communicate an experience of a phenomenon with the actual phenomenon. My description of a tree is NOT the tree. At best my description is nothing more than a shadow of the experience of the actual tree I have described! We tend to consider the label as having greater reality than the actual experience.

    Phenomena are perceived/interpreted according to the label/definition ascribed to them. Words/Definitions are meant to communicate an experience, but instead they become the limiter/arbiter of what is accepted as a real experience or possible to experience; the servant (words) becomes the master (the arbiter of what is real).

    An accepted definition is NOT the phenomena it is meant to describe, it is only an inadequate representation of what it is meant to designate. Any experience that does not fall within the accepted definition is then disregarded as less valid. We are thereby confined by the definitions/labels we use to communicate our experiences. Labels, although useful, have the side effect of limiting our perspective according the prevailing meaning of the label/word accepted by the society at any given time. These limiting labels then affect our perspective which determines what we experience.

    I do not agree that the problem is mind. The problem is ego which is merely an arbitrary, artificially created division of mind. The ego is the problem because it is a division of mind that does not inherently exist in mind. Since it is an artificial construct is creates artificial means to relate itself to the world/reality. The “artificial means to relate to the world/reality” creates preconceived notions and erroneous thoughts that obstruct our perception of reality.

    Ego affects the quality of our perception. It confuses what it perceives/filters with reality/unobstructed perception and tries to force its limited perspective onto the world. Ego is an artificial gatekeeper to the mind and tends to arbitrarily limit what it will accept as reality according to its preconceived notions. These preconceived notions are what Zen masters such as Hui-Neng refer to as “erroneous thoughts”. They are errors in thought that cause obstruction to direct (unfiltered) perception. Since most people are unaware of this they are unable to perceive in an unobstructed manner. The purpose of Zen is to point the seeker to a direct experience of reality without the filtering and limiting perspective imposed by the ego and the arbitrary languages it uses to communicate reality.
    Scott R. Brown

  5. #80
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hello Scott,
    A very concise way of putting the point if I must say!

    On Ego and the Mind:
    If Ego is a process of the mind, can we really separate the ego from the mind?
    If we say "I have desolved my Ego";
    Who is saying this, and to whom is it being said?

    If the Mind sees the world as "I", The Ego can be seen as an extension or definition of "I." Since the "I" of its perception is a illusory as Ego, and if Ego is an extension or natural process of mind, then there can be no separation from the two.

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Kenzan,

    Think of it this way:

    A wave is a function/process of the ocean. It is not separate from the ocean. It is something the ocean does. It is the same with ego. It is not separate from mind; it is a function/process of mind. The ego is not separate from mind; it is something mind does. The ego does not dissolve. That is just an expression that is used to say what it is “like” or “similar to” when one ‘realizes” the true function/purpose of the ego and the expanse of mind. The ego is a tool mind uses; it is an artificial construct that allows us to function within the material, limited world. It is the over identification with the ego that causes an obstructed perception of mind. This prevents us from expanding our perspective which would allow us to perceive clearly, in an unobstructed manner.

    Over identification causes us to assume the ego IS our mind. We limit our perception by not looking beyond the self-imposed limits created by our ego. We tend to not look beyond the end of our nose so to speak. The ego is a useful tool as long as we understand its purpose, but it can just as easily be a barrier that limits our perception. It all depends upon perspective. From the perspective of mind, ego is merely a tool not separate from mind, from the perspective of a self-limiting ego the mind is separate and beyond. This perception is an erroneous view, but since the ego limits its perception it is unable to perceive completely and this creates the illusion the two are separate.

    It is similar to the optical illusion I posted above in this post. For one who can only perceive the old woman, the young woman does not exist. No matter how much another person professes the existence of the young woman she does not exists to the person whose perception is obstructed. Once one’s perception is unobstructed, the old woman does not disappear, vision is clarified and a complete perception of the reality is revealed. Both old woman and young woman co-exist at the same time in the same place and we perceive one or the other according to the perspective we choose to view it from. This ability to perceive with an unobstructed mind is called realization or illumination. It is the condition where we perceive completely what has always been there from the beginning. Nothing is lost and nothing is gained from one perspective (mind) while from another perspective (ego) everything is gained.This is where confusion arises when we talk about what occurs when our perception is unobstructed. Some statements are made according to what occurs from the perspective of ego and some statements are made according to what occurs from the perspective of unobstructed perception.
    Last edited by Scott; 3rd February 2007 at 15:29.
    Scott R. Brown

  7. #82
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hello again Scott,
    I agree with your assessment, and If I would add anything, it would be to say that I see the Mind as the filter, and the Ego as perhaps the interpretor.
    However, though since both are mere mental constructs of our human nature, and do not really exist, I see them both are invalid in terms of the interpretation of reality.

    Examples of Mind as the enemy:

    If a drop of water in the Ocean believes:

    1. That is is indeed a drop of water in the Ocean.

    2. That it's own centrality of "I" allows it to interpret otherwise, although admittedly, this feature would be also a function it's own natural state, i.e., a Bird simply sings, it does not "think" about doing so.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Kenzan,

    I don’t see the mind as an enemy though. The mind just IS! The teachings of Taoism and Zen state that it is ignorance and erroneous thinking that is the cause of obstructed perception, it is a condition of mind that is the enemy, not the mind itself. We need not accept this teaching out of hand. We may observe the functioning of our mind and see for ourselves that this is the state of affairs. It is possible that we have differing definitions of mind and ego as well.

    To follow your example: to me, the drop of water in the ocean is BOTH a drop of water in the ocean AND the ocean. Similarly, concerning the optical illusion I provided above, it is at ONCE, an old woman, a young woman and both! How we experience the picture is determined by our perspective. The picture never changes. How we perceive it changes. Those with erroneous thoughts, limiting beliefs or limited perception do not have the freedom see perceive the picture as they choose. Their erroneous thoughts limit their perception and thereby their experience, however a person with unobstructed perception has the choice to perceive the picture according their own whim. They may artificially limit their perception or they may not limit it at all as they choose according to their purpose. This is where freedom lies. If all I may perceive is the ONES of creation, but not the separateness then I am just as afflicted as one who only perceives only the separateness!
    Scott R. Brown

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hello again Scott, thank you for taking the time for your once again thoughtful reply.

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    Hi Kenzan,
    To follow your example: to me, the drop of water in the ocean is BOTH a drop of water in the ocean AND the ocean.

    I would tend to view this example as the trap of duality.
    Rationally, logically, we could say that it is both, however is not there only one truth?
    One could say that that the function of the Ocean is to have a property among countless innumerable properties in which certain portions of it think they are droplets, but, as you pointed out, with respect the mind that just IS, so is the Ocean. So isn’t there only just Ocean?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott
    How we experience the picture is determined by our perspective. The picture never changes. How we perceive it changes. Those with erroneous thoughts, limiting beliefs or limited perception do not have the freedom see perceive the picture as they choose. Their erroneous thoughts limit their perception and thereby their experience, however a person with unobstructed perception has the choice to perceive the picture according their own whim.
    This reminds me of a story I read once regarding Lao Tzu observing a masterful cook at work.
    (Paraphrased of course)
    The cook, who was quite aged, would set about carving a whole side of beef using his knife which such precision and speed, that he could flawlessly reduce the body of the carcass to exacting portions within minutes.
    Amazed by the cook's skill, Lao Tzu asked how the cook accomplished this, and more precisely, what the cook was thinking about when he worked.
    The cook replied that when he was young and an apprentice, he focused his thought to every aspect of the process of his tasks, so much so that no detail was spared. The cook then went on to say that over the years as he endeavored to become increasingly more skillful at his trade, he thought about his actions less and less, until at his present state, he had no thought what so ever when he worked; he simply let the actions of his knife and hands to what they do naturally.
    It was written that Lao Tzu interpreted this state that the cook had achieved as pure Tao. In other words, the natural state of action, removed from the obfuscation of mind, allowed for the action to be performed almost seemingly by itself, with no conscious mind to guide it.
    Similarly, in Martial Arts, I view a similar if not identical phenomenon whereby the more I think about a process, the more clouded my mind becomes.
    The monk Takuan and the Yagyu family wrote extensively regarding the technique of "No mind" and I think it is applicable here because it represents my point in that the more we attempt to use the mind to "think" of stratagem, the more we are cutting off the very thing of which we seek, which is a total and completely natural reaction, requiring no thought to accomplish.
    Like Lao Tzu's cook, we seek to achieve a state where we are not influenced by the mind's perception of a constant analysis of data, but rather to experience reality directly, unfiltered, from moment to moment; the essence of the situation as it were.
    That is what I mean when I write, "The mind is my enemy."

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Stavanger
    Posts
    7
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Indar
    One of the aims or objectives of Buddhism is to obtain enlightenment.
    But is it safe to assume that enlightenment is always good? For example it could be possible to argue that Hitler was enlightened ?
    This is unfortunatly a possibility, how ever.... One might allso say that him and his goons where mental. For example: one of Hitlers number one men spent most of his adult life in a mental institution.... (This was before he escaped and joined Hitler...) ...so I'm told at least...

    So I think that this speaks for its self...
    Halgeir Surland Våge

  11. #86
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    113
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hi Kenzan,

    I too appreciate your participation in our discussion.

    I would tend to view this example as the trap of duality.
    Rationally, logically, we could say that it is both, however is not there only one truth?
    One could say that that the function of the Ocean is to have a property among countless innumerable properties in which certain portions of it think they are droplets, but, as you pointed out, with respect the mind that just IS, so is the Ocean. So isn’t there only just Ocean?
    There is nothing wrong with duality. Duality exists. Perhaps it has always existed. It isn’t that we ignore duality, transcend duality, or no longer perceive duality; it is that we are no longer trapped by duality. It is erroneous views that create obstructions in the mind and interferes with our direct perception of ONENESS (non-duality), not duality itself. Direct perception of the non-dual condition does not eliminate duality; it frees us from the ensnarement of duality. That is, we are no longer bound or limited by duality. We are free to experience duality or not as we choose, and this is true freedom. If we were to experience the non-dual condition and not recognize that duality is inherent within the non-dual then we would be trapped by the non-dual. From one perspective it is impossible to experience non-duality anyway because there must be an experiencer to have an experience and this is a duality. If there is inherently only non-duality then there is no one to experience anything and no one to come back to communicate the experience to those trapped within duality. Therefore, duality must be inherent within the non-dual. Duality must exist for us to communicate the non-dual condition to others. If there is no experiencer than nothing occurs, there is no creation and nothing could occur. For there to be action, growth, change there must be duality. This principle is expressed in the symbol of Yin-Yang. Without duality and action existence would be static and there could be no existence at all.

    If there is only ONENESS and not duality, then nothing would or could occur, no separate identity, no time, no place, no events, no experiences. Since we do have identity, time, places, events and experiences, duality exists. However, duality is founded upon an inherent ONENESS, a non-dual condition wherein nothing occurs, yet all things occur. Duality became inherent within ONENESS (Tao) when Tao chose to expresses itself, however duality is artificially contrived and inherent within Tao at the same time. This is expressed symbolically in Yin-Yang. It is at once both dual and non-dual. It is Yin and Yang, and it is Yin-Yang. How we perceive/experience it is a matter of perspective. Once again, there is nothing wrong with duality. It is not any less preferable than non-duality. It simply is. It is our erroneous views that creates obstructed perception and this lead us to conclude that the non-dual condition is preferable or represents a higher condition of being than the dual condition, but this view is just as erroneous. Non-dual and dual are both valid conditions of Tao. If we become trapped by one or the other we have a limited understanding of reality. It is the paradox of it that makes it eternally so, Tao is ONE and many at the same time.

    Therefore, to perceive the non-dual AND the dual as we so choose is the unobstructed condition. To believe that duality dissolves into non-duality is an erroneous view that limits ones understanding and experience of Tao. ONENESS is the foundation of duality. Duality is the expression of ONENESS. Duality is a contrived artificial phenomenon created by Tao (ONNENESS) for a purpose. If there was no purpose for duality it would not exist. Duality could be called Tao at play.

    There is only one TRUTH, however within the dualistic system this TRUTH is subject to the limitations of the system. It can only be communicated according to the ability of the one who perceives it in an unobstructed manner. In other words, the inexpressible unlimited condition is subject to limitation by the perceiver simply because the act of communication is a function of the dualistic system. The non-dual condition must be translated into a dualistic system in order for us to communicate it to others. When it is translated it must be communicated according to the audience’s ability to understand. This ability to understand is influenced by historical era, cultural influences, and the personal limitations possessed by each individual in the audience. This is not so unusual really. It occurs with any direct experience. The description of a thing is always a shadow of the actual experience of it. I can describe to you a painting I have viewed at a museum, but my description is NOT the painting. Your understanding and appreciation of the painting is limited by my ability to communicate and your ability to understand. It is also incumbent upon us to share the same language, and some similar experiences. So for example, if you speak Chinese and I speak English it makes no difference that we are both literate and have the ability to communicate effectively. Further, if I am communicating to you something of which you have no comparable experience, then my description will not communicate the experience effectively either. It the picture has a hippopotamus in it and you have never seen a hippopotamus you will not completely understand my description. If this difficulty is inherent when attempting to communicate themes that exist within the dualistic field of experience how much more difficult would it be to communicate a non-dual theme and this is why it appears to those with erroneous views that there are many truths rather than one TRUTH. They are all variations of a central theme that are understandable only according to a specific context, limited by the ability of the original perceiver to communicate their experience, and the audiences inherent personal, social and historical limitations. At best the description may only point the way for others to look in order to directly experience it for themselves anyway.

    Like Lao Tzu's cook, we seek to achieve a state where we are not influenced by the mind's perception of a constant analysis of data, but rather to experience reality directly, unfiltered, from moment to moment; the essence of the situation as it were.
    That is what I mean when I write, "The mind is my enemy."
    Yes, I agree. It is clear we are defining mind differently. Your mind is my ego. To me it is the mind that is the field of our identity and existence. It is that which perceives directly and the ego is artificially constructed in order to navigate the dualistic system. Even then, the mind is merely an artificial construct of Tao that provides for apparent individuality.

    Keep in mind that in each of your two examples, the butcher and the martial artist, a non-structured response was born of a structured learning system. It takes effort and structure at the beginning and then as we attain the higher levels of training we transcend the structure in order to respond spontaneously without inherent form. From form comes the formless in this circumstance, yet inherently all form is born of the formless.
    Scott R. Brown

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Glendale, Ca.
    Posts
    32
    Likes (received)
    0

    Default

    Hello again Scott,
    I thank you for your dialogs.
    You have provided much of which to meditate upon.

Page 6 of 6 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •