Otis

If you think there's something that I'm not getting, I would appreciate it if you would at least try to let me know, so I can try to see this thing you're referring to .

Hi Hundun, Thanks for your reply. What I am saying is: Psychology tells me that my brain is a constellation of structures and pathways, that (as much as possible) work in concert to sustain my organism. There are language structures, movement structures, vision centers, memory centers, etc. and each part is composed of many substructures, fibers and individual cells. So who could I possibly say is "I"? In what structure, which neuron, am "I" to be found in? It seems that "I" am just an illusion, brought about by the collective activity of all of the neurons of my brain. There is actually "we", many tiny functions that act in dynamic balance with each other. A function to start eating and another to stop, etc. These functions play and tug with each other across a complex web of interdependence. This is an orchestra without a conductor, but the orchestra comes into harmony by itself. The problem, as I see it, with self-improvement, is that the voice which is telling me to change other functions, is itself, just a function. It can be a useful function, sure, but is it right? I have seen no evidence to suggest that there is any part of my brain which is inherently more "right", more "wise", or more "me" than the other parts. Some parts of my brain speak in language, some in images, some in emotions. For someone like me who is language-centric, I think it is easy to give extra weight to those brain structures which speak in English. I have tended to see the emotions as being suspect, but the words as being more relevant, more authoritative. On reflection, I think that was just a bias, without any real evidence to support it. Another bias I had for many years, was to see my internal self-critic as somehow being an authority figure. It sounded like a parent, with utter confidence that it knew what was right. Negative voices tend to sound more authoritative than positive ones; they tend to dismiss the positive voices as naive and foolish, whereas the positive voices rarely dismiss. Funny how this self-critic seems so authoritative. It never actually does any of the work, just complains about how insufficient all the other functions are. Its entire function is to throw around blame, and declare how things should be. What gives it the standing to pass judgment on everything else? And how come it never applauds me when I do something right? Isn't it madness to berate one's self? Isn't that the sign of a divorce between different parts of one's brain? Who am "I" berating? And who is this "me" which is receiving the hard time? I am one being, and yet I am in conflict within myself. Some functions tell me that they are more important or more "me" than other functions are, and for some reason, I believe them. But it's all "me"; there's no part of me that is above or below me. There is no function that is too banal, too dark, or too smelly to not still be as much "me" as the rest. Whenever I look at my other parts as being lesser or other or not me, then I am creating separation, where none need exist. I hope this makes more sense to you.

Down to what yet? I don't follow. By the way, by coincidence, I saw "How to Train your Dragon" last night. Very nice; I highly recommend it. It's all about a village of Vikings that battle dragons eternally, until one boy makes friends with one. He learns that dragons are really not evil at all, and are just doing their best to get along. The dragons would rather get along with humans, but the humans keep attacking them, so they fight back. Once they've learned that fighting is not necessary, the two species become symbiotic. Beautiful fable.

Manitou, I don't mean anything personal, when I disagree with the quote you posted. I do think there is a very important error in it, however, and I think it is worth discussing, because at its heart is one of the great fallacies of self-image. The part of us that cannot accept other parts of ourselves somehow seems above reproach, as if it is the legitimate one, the real authority figure. It is this part which insists that we must corral and train the other parts, as if they were dumb animals. But I do not think there is a valid reason for believing that that voice is any more legitimate, wise, or inherently "me" than any of the other parts. It is just one alarm, among many. It is compelling in an "of course" way, but there is no logic behind giving it extra weight. Who am I? I am a cluster of functions. But if I give extra belief importance to one of the functions, then I have deformed the natural flow between the entire group of functions. I entrap myself in my own efforts at changing me, thinking somehow that I am doing myself a favor. Meanwhile, real change is immediately available, if I instead learn to humble that part of me, and see it as just a cluster of neurons, performing its function among all the other neurons.

Hi Medhavi. There's a lot in your post to respond to, so I'm going to try to be succinct. The Myth of Perfection = the perspective that there is some yardstick in reality, above which my attributes can be measured as acceptable, and below which my attributes can said to be "lacking". In this perspective, we are essentially "born sinners", who have to strive, just to make it up to the "acceptable" level. By "Perfection Paradigm", I just meant: living as if the "Myth of Perfection" was true. The alternate viewpoint, as I see it, is to see my growth in the pattern of a plant. A plant is never "not enough"; it is merely what it is. It is not "less than perfect" when it is a seed, or a sprout, or a sapling. It is just in the process of growing. I think it was Seuhn Sahn who said "You are already perfect. And, you could use some work." Yes, it is an awkward word. Let me try to put it in context. If I have a angry and abusive parent, I may learn to keep my head down and my mouth shut. This is very helpful conditioning, in the context of that parent, but later in life, it will likely cause many problems for me. This is what I meant by "mis-matured", not a dualistic concept, but a recognition that conditioning may help us acquire habits that don't necessarily serve us well, in other contexts. Anytime we say something is a "defect" or even "harmful", we're speaking about the view from one perspective, not about "how things actually are". A tornado, for example, is "harmful" from the perspective of the human standing in its path, but it could hardly be considered a "defect". It's just what is. Well, I definitely believe in listening to reality's feedback to my actions. For example, if my mom doesn't like swearing, then I won't swear around her. It's not that swearing is "bad", but it's just not useful in this situation. I have a different understanding. To me, spirituality is play, not work. In the case of the tree, the truth is not that "there is no tree". It is rather: "there is something which I call tree, but what is actually real, is not the same as what my mind thinks 'tree' is." In the case of "defect", yes, the concept may point to unhelpful habits that can be dissolved, or potentials that have not yet been realized. But I think "defects" also carries with it a trap, that will prevent growth. For example: laziness. If one is diagnosed as suffering from laziness, how does one correct that defect? It's just a label, a judgment, not something I can grow from. In contrast, if I realize instead that I have not yet awakened or aligned with my motivation, then I have a path of growth and a practice to go with it. As far as "loving the beast", it doesn't take nearly as much strength as trying to fight the beast. That's where we waste all our energy, trying to overcome ourselves. But if we accept, and see as perfect (in the sense that a baby is perfect, although not yet matured) all the parts of ourselves, then we can raise ourselves the way we would a Buddha, as a being that just needs some encouragement, rather than judging ourselves constantly against a bunch of social fantasies about how it is we're supposed to look and behave. Actually, I think everyone IS born a tantric. Every other species on the planet is born tantric, and has no schools, traditions or methods. Humans are just taught towards method, hierarchy and yardsticks, and away from our natural inclination. Nor do I think we can find our natural inclination, as long as we try to change ourselves to fit a concept/fantasy. The only way we can find our natural path, is by stop being so much in charge, and just learn to listen.

Easy! Follow the dwarves! The dwarves are my motivation; my real source of power. "I" (i.e. the part of me that wants to control my path), on the other hand, is merely a self-image! I am a conditioned aspiration towards a fantasy of "who I'm supposed to be", rather than just allowing myself to be who I am. The problem is not: "how do I change the parts of me that I don't like?" Rather, the problem is: "how do I surrender the illusion that I am separate from my parts?" The best way to do that is to stop trying to be in control. Listen to the dwarves. Build a round table, at which they have equal say. Don't be "above" any part of me, or I will always be in separation from myself. Post script: it is important not to "KNOW my core purpose", because I "know" in words, and words will only create more delusion. Instead, my core purpose is realized in the living of it. If I follow my path, then it will lead me through my purpose, without me having to "know" anything. If, however, I try to "know" that purpose, then I will continue to act as a conditioned aspiration, i.e. as an ego.

I think what you're talking about are habits. And yes, I do believe in "dissolving" habits, so the automatic programming doesn't run my life. Addictions, avoidances, etc., are included in that. But the "beast" isn't so much my habits, as it is my "untrained" or "wild" parts. My drives, desires, passions, etc. are not habits (although their expression may be shaped by habit). They are just parts of my brain, parts of my body. And here's the real kicker: "I" cannot be the master of "I", without creating schism, internal division. As long as I try to put some parts of me in control, and other parts of me under that control, then I remain in conflict within myself. How will I find peace and unity with the "outside world" if I am not willing to find peace and unity within myself? For a moment, think of the self as Egypt. The Parental Fallacy says that "autocracy is good, because then there is stability; if the people revolt, it must lead to mob rule." But we have democracy to tell us that we don't need an autocratic leader, but instead, need to encourage the people to learn, grow wise, and really care about their society. Getting the whole organism/society involved and participating in the same direction will always be more peaceful and powerful than trying to be an autocratic ruler of my own mind.

The skeptic is the one who doubts everyone's belief system but his own.

My personal credo is: believe as little as possible, and make sure that what I do believe makes as much sense as possible.

That's the tricky thing here, and why I'm not sure I agree with your quoted writer. There are no such things as character defects! That is an illusion, created by the Myth of Perfection. If I let go, for a moment, of the idea of "character defects" and instead ask: what is really there?, I realize that what I am looking at is merely my own raw material, that has not yet matured (or which has mis-matured). When my parts are immature, I see them as defects, but they're just parts that are supposed to be there, only not yet fully integrated. If I choose to "divorce" or "gain mastery over", then I stay in the Perfection Paradigm, in which the ego is the master, and certain parts of me are "good" and "bad". But if I truly want peace with all of the parts of my greater self, I cannot judge any of those parts to be lesser than the parts that are doing the judging. Because the judge is no more "me" than the parts of me that I don't like. IME, the only way to change the beast is to love the beast, and allow it room to learn, discover and grow on its own. As long as I see parts of myself as the enemy (or the virus, or the mold, or whatever), then I will only live in pieces, which don't get along. If I accept all the parts of me, including the beast, then I do not need to "master" them. I become friends with them, and together, we become a masterful team.

Just wanted to back up what Sloppy Zhang wrote. In my case, I've decided that the dwarves are actually wiser than I am, so my practice is in letting them run the show. I've found out that they're interested in things I never considered. And the motivation to do those comes very easily. It's a more fun life, when I'm not trying to tell the dwarves how to do their job.

I think you're getting stellar feedback, Thomsun. Just a little addition. You wrote: I think it's worthwhile drawing a bright line about one of your words: careless. Learning to accept emotions is not the same as being careless about them. It is not "f*** it". Instead, emotions are easier to accept as I care MORE. Not "care" as in "get bothered over". But care as in: caring for a new baby. Care is the acknowledgment that: this life is worthwhile slowing down for, paying attention to, being patient with. Care with my behavior is using no more force than necessary, listening to the feedback of reality, being willing to put process over product, and learning over being right. Care is treating other human beings, nature and myself with kindness and gentleness. I have found that my inspiration has grown immensely, as I care more about my life. In particular, since growth and change is what excites me so much, I've found that learning and trying new things are more fun than they've ever been. These leads me in a variety of new directions, none of which are either wrong or right. They're just more of this potential we call the world.

Great paying attention, Matt!

Rainbow Vein and Surfing Buddha, well said!

Yeah, that's how I feel. I think, too, it's worthwhile checking in now, to see how much of that need to avoid mistakes we still have. Without room to do that, it seems like we're just going to do the same old things, over and over, and get smaller and smaller, as consequence.

Good question.

For me, it was a bad back, and more generally, a body that was neglected and prone to spasm. Learning to undo the spasm led me to love sensing my body, and from there, to the discovery of an inner path.

Personally, I don't see usefulness in "increasing self love". Nor usefulness in self love, at all. Of course, I also don't see any usefulness in attacking or despising the self. My preference is: no self image at all, neither positive nor negative. I think there's an alternative to self love that has all the power, with none of the ego traps. And that is: loving my life. Not love life as an evaluation: "my life is good". Because that's all based on comparison to a fantasy of how good someone else's life is (or a memory about my previous experiences). Rather, love life as in: live in constant wonder and appreciation for the opportunity to be alive, no matter what particular conditions happen to be at the moment. If I love life, then I don't need to find "compassion", because loving my life means loving all the contents of my life, including other people. Nor do I need to find "self love" because I am not separate from my life. If I live as a distinct organism to whom life happens, then I am wary of life, because it is what brings suffering. But if I accept suffering as just one of the many flavors of this adventure, then I embrace all experience. Indeed, "I" am indistinct from experience. So, no, I don't believe in affirmations and other self-love techniques, because they seem to be just reinforcing the sense of self, which reinforces separation from life. Rather I say: forget the self, and just love the process of living.

Oh, and I have a question for you, Cat Pillar. When you are alone, do you sometimes feel as if there is someone (like an 'invisible observer') watching you, judging you, maybe looking over your shoulder? I think that sensation is another form of alarm function.

I just wanted to echo Five Element Tao's recommendations, because I think it's a great model for self-inquiry. And yes, I agree that if using psych language helps you, then choose that (it works for me). The way I see it is: I am not one thing, but a constellation of functions. Some are functions for breathing and digesting, some for doing math, some for connecting to other humans. The voices in my head are merely alarm functions. They are there to serve me, to remind me: better floss your teeth, take time and listen to this other person, go back and check the stove, to make sure it's not on. So, they're all useful, but sometimes they get out of control. An OCD sufferer checks the stove, but the alarm won't stop ringing, so he checks it again, but the alarm keeps going, so he checks it again, etc. So yes, the voice that is telling you to take responsibility is a useful function. But it does sound like it's also gotten corrupted, somewhat! The big hint is that the voice is putting YOU down, as if that voice was not just part of you. In other words, when the voice acts as if it is somehow NOT YOU, but is above you in some way, then it is clearly delusional, because there are no alien invaders in your head, just parts of you. In my head, the critic voices often sound a lot like my more critical parent (in my case, my mom). Of course, it's not my mom, but because she was so instrumental in conditioning that critic within me, it feels a lot like her. So I give that voice all kinds of extra importance because 1. it sounds like a real authority figure, 2. it's so damn confident, and 3. it brings out the whimpering kid part of me. Not to analyze you, but you spoke about your relationship with your dad, and it makes me wonder if your critic voices tend to resemble him? Maybe that's why you can't accept yourself, even though your dad now does, because you're still trying to finish the job for (what feels like, sounds like) him? For me, I have achieved a great deal of real peace by exposing these voices, not as things that are smarter or more moral than me, but just as alarms that are there to serve me. Once I see their function, then it's much easier for those various parts within my head to make peace, and work together as a team. The best way I see to find non-separation, is to first heal separation in my own head. Kudos to you for opening up so much on this thread, and best to you!

This is a great observation. IME, I have thought functions that are all language-based, and they tend to get triggered by other language cues. For example, if there is a written word in my view, or someone is talking loudly in the other room, or if I am indulging in any language (like counting), then I am (almost) automatically swept back into the language centers, and the noisy ramble that goes along with it. (This is part of why meditative music or chanting can be so useful, because they occupy that language part of the brain, keeping it busy, without adding meaning). However, when I put my attention fully on awareness without content, then language disappears, and "I" soon follow it. When I say "awareness without content" I mean that: although I start by "listening to the sensation of my inhalation and exhalation", soon that breaks down, and I am not aware of what it is I am listening to. I am just experiencing a mass of sensation. Soon that, too, breaks down, and then there is no "I" to do the experiencing. Rather, all that I am, is in the sensation, with no labels and no words.

Yeah, I agree it's probably a good idea to ease that in over time. No one wants to feel utterly exposed (before they're ready).

My own path began as a result of a bad back. My whole life, I've lived within severe limits, proscribed by muscles with intense and volatile tendencies toward spasm. All parts of my body were affected, but the area around my sacrum has always had the craziest triggers. At the age of 32, after an episode which incapacitated me for a few months, I took a movement therapy class, which was a combination of Continuum and Body/Mind Centering. In both practices, the idea is to teach the person how to really listen to deep sensation, and allow that sensation to lead the body into its own healing. When I first heard my internal conversation with clarity, it was an amazing epiphany. I had no idea how much pain and tension I had, and had been tuning out from, over the years. As I practiced listening to sensation, I realized that my listening would give rise to deep delicious stretches, that my body would seek out, without my intention or interference. Soon, I realized that if I brought that same awareness to dance, that my body would go deep into new territory, without the slightest intent or will on my part. It was at that point that I realized that "I" am superfluous, and that my body has a lot more intelligence than "I" have. It became clear that the more I practiced surrendering this "I", the more freedom and joy my body experienced. Also, the more physical practice I had, the more I saw my emotional landscape slowing down, becoming simpler, less volatile. It wasn't long after this, that I started discovering Zen for the first time, and re-discovering Taoism. I recognized a lot of the talk of "emptiness" and "surrender" and "wu wei" or "non-self", as being related to what I was experiencing, when I got out of my body's way. Soon, I began to think of the body as the Buddha, because it is the whole self, whereas the "I" is just one small part, one function. Because I began to pay attention to the traditions after finding what I consider to be "my path", I have been very slow to take on technique from those traditions. After all, all the techniques seemed to be there to help us find our paths. Once the path was found and the relationship became intimate, I saw no reason to put a bunch of concepts or a hierarchy between me and it. My view on the traditions, dharmas, TTC, etc. is that they are all holographic images of reality (not reality itself). If I shine them through any situation, they help illuminate things about the situation that I might miss on my own. The more laser beams (traditions) that shine from the more directions, the more 3-D the model of reality becomes, so it helps to illuminate and give context to my path. The traditions themselves are not the path for me, because that path is always one unique and specific to me. Nor will my realization/awakening look like anyone else's because I have different things to wake up from. Practices: stretch, dance, break-dance, parkour, spontaneous qi gung / tai chi / IMA / tantra, stunts, whirling, staff/prop play, mindfulness, standing meditation, barefoot hiking, playing, improv comedy, acting, etc.

Along the same lines, my response to the OP: Dependent Origination, non-separation, etc. are not (IMO) descriptors of how the world actually works (although it's possible that the world does work that way, as science is showing us). Rather, they are suggestions for how to believe. We are given suggestions as to how to believe, because beliefs are very important in surrendering the ego. So if we believe in separation, then the ego will continue to see separation, which is not its job. Other parts of the brain can handle the whole ground / object thing, and the ego only confounds things, when it tries to figure out separation. Same for dependent origination. When the ego tries to figure out cause and effect, it inevitably creates (to some degree, at least) superstition. This is because the ego wants to simplify causes, whereas the reality is always a lot more complex. So, the more we try to figure out causation, the more we get trapped in an ego that's not doing what it was designed for: solely paying attention. We are encouraged not to believe in cause and effect, because that belief reinforces the ego, and because it creates delusion. Likewise, however, we should be wary of believing too strongly in Dependent Origination, either, because all belief reinforces ego, even Buddhist doctrine. The fewer beliefs, the better, as all beliefs are ego fodder. But we have to make sure our beliefs make as much sense as possible, so better to choose Dependent Origination (if we must choose), then to continue to create superstition with causality.

Nonsense! There is no difference "between a Buddha and a human"! A Buddha is an awakened human, not a non-human. Nor does a Buddha "see" "reality" "correctly". (I had to put all of those words in quotes, because none of them make sense). A Buddha is, of course, a human being, with the same senses, and the same brain. She does not view in the infrared, nor does she see sonar. She cannot view through solid objects, nor is she privy to the "true nature" of anything. What a Buddha has is merely ALL of the potential of a human being. What makes her different is that the rest of us put our conditioning and our separation between ourselves and immediate experience of our senses. Note that I wrote "of our sense", not "of reality". We do not experience reality; we only experience our senses' response to reality. The Buddha does not see the ultimate reality, nor can she ever. She merely gets rid of the myth of "ultimate reality" and understands her own limitations will never allow her to fully connect to that reality. She is not a master of "reality" but a master of "internal unity". It is internal unity which allows the full human being (the awakened one) to act without the obstruction of self. In other words, the Buddha is not "the one who knows". The Buddha is instead "the one who accepts that she will never know", the one who "lives in mystery." This is what emptiness is.