The Mystery of Consciousness

[sean]

Via Time

 

... ANOTHER STARTLING CONCLUSION FROM the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along. Read more

[el_tortugo]

Via Time

 

... ANOTHER STARTLING CONCLUSION FROM the science of consciousness is that the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain, scanning the screens of the senses and pushing the buttons of the muscles, is an illusion. Consciousness turns out to consist of a maelstrom of events distributed across the brain. These events compete for attention, and as one process outshouts the others, the brain rationalizes the outcome after the fact and concocts the impression that a single self was in charge all along. Read more

Sean,

 

What are your thoughts on and what do "they" say concerning the ideas of holism and of the three minds or brains?

 

By holism I am meaning the general Idea that everything is everywhere and interconnected (hologram), and by the three minds/brains, I mean both the taoist idea of each Dantien having a brain as well as our upper brain having three layers of functionality.

[Taomeow]

Sean,

 

What are your thoughts on and what do "they" say concerning the ideas of holism and of the three minds or brains?

 

By holism I am meaning the general Idea that everything is everywhere and interconnected (hologram), and by the three minds/brains, I mean both the taoist idea of each Dantien having a brain as well as our upper brain having three layers of functionality.

 

El Tortugo,

 

I don't know what "they" say but I say it's right on.

 

Consciousness is only a mystery to those who "study" someone else's consciousness. To those whose mantra is "know thyself," it's as clear as a shot of Smirnoff's.

 

"Mystery" is just another word for "poor memory." And memory is poor when the bulk of its developmental history is repressed. And it is repressed only when it is traumatic. And this is why dabblers and "professionals" in "someone else's consciousness" alike don't go there. For if they were to go there, they'd find out why they don't remember, and then they would remember, and then they would shit in their diapers... um, pants.

 

Take the lower brain and the midbrain, e.g., the ones that were there when your neocortex wasn't fully developed yet. Meaning during gestation, birth, infancy, and the first five years of your life. Your neocortex is a late afterthought, both in evolution and in personal development. Everything has already happened, you are complete as a feeling, conscious being long, long before your neocortex comes into the picture. Ah but the moment it comes, it starts telling the rest of you what to feel and what to think, and the rest of you complies because the neocortex is the boss in a crisis, and your life IS a crisis since before birth, civilization has made it so. In a crisis, the boss tells you, "forget everything you've experienced so far, forget how it made you feel, forget all you know, now I'm going to be telling you what to know and what to forget, what to feel and how to intellectualize it away, and what not to feel under any circumstances, numb out forever -- or else we go crazy, how's that for a plan for the rest of your life?" And you shit in your pants and comply. That's how modern consciousness works. No mysteries...

[sean]

I think you'd have to go into theoretical physics to hear the kind of interconnection concepts you are getting at. Cognitive scientists I've read don't really talk about things like that. What I like about science, particularly cognitive science, and I had a discussion with Todd on the forum about this recently, is how it can slap my hidden desires for unsupportable new age fantasies in the face ... making me recognize that the mystery can be much deeper than my beliefs. In this sense I still say the best introduction for the "Western mind" to the concept of no-self is "Consciousness Explained" by Daniel Dennett. I've only recently been introduced to U.G. Krishnamurti, but intuitively speaking Dennett is like a calm, logical, not pissed off version of U.G. Krishnamurti without even the spiritual context U.G. has, that still lets you still weasel around and hold on to "spiritual beliefs", despite his rantings otherwise.

 

What beliefs are we holding on to about the way we really want the mystery to be? Is the mystery gentle / violent? Does it care / not care about our feelings? Is the mystery even "spiritual"? What does the word spiritual mean to you? Is there even a mystery at all, as Taomeow provocatively suggests?

 

I've noticed that spiritual communities tends to, in one way or the other, sweep the more disturbing aspects of "no-self" under the rug. Exalt a witness state or a "higher self", or a soul in heaven, or, here's a good one, a future perfected enlightened self ... and ten thousand other attempts to spiritualize the REALITY that there never was is or will be a separate YOU. That's the whole Teaching. There is no individual reading this. There is no you that wants anything. There is no you that needs to be perfected. There no that can even do anything.

 

What if what the Buddha and many many many other beings tapped into is not mystical or spiritual at all. It's just tended to be framed in the only language capable of communicating something so abstract, namely, philosophical language, which historically tended to be the domain of religion. It's only recently these roles have separated in the West. What if enlightenment is just the simple recognition that the appearance of an I and a you co-arises from a pandemonium of concurrent, purely mechanical processes through which a sense of a separation emerges but in reality there is none at all.

 

Just thoughts...

 

Sean

[Cameron]

Yeah, yeah Sean that whole there is no you thing. That's sort of interesting but whats the 'next' juicy topic we can argue over and find problems with to keep 'you' going.

 

I am joking of course. Those momentary encounters I have had of no self have been like treasured gifts of the universe. To see beyond the 'little me' to use Tolle language is so very ordinary and so freeing.

 

I can only hope to shut up and let my teachers help guide me more deeply into this unknown wonder. As opinions and any sense of self that can be identified dissolves, a deeper peace arises.

 

One of my teachers, Nirmala, uses the metaphor of the self being like trying to construct a building out of marbles

 

Just keeps rolling away..

[Taomeow]

But that's in Buddhism. In taoism, there IS a self. "Qi blowing on ten thousand things so each can be itself " (Zhuangzi). Not "so each can be nothing," not "so each can be everything," but "so each can be exactly what it is instead of trying hard to be what it isn't." A "real human" of taoism is a self, a unique personality, not the kind made on some cosmic assembly line of pointless illusions but the kind shaped into a unique being like no other being in the universe, by qi blowing just on him, just on her,just so, just like that, the way it doesn't on anyone or anything else. That's the individual of taoist classics, not some amorphous refugee from personal to universal (because personal fails to satisfy, being what one is fails to satisfy, applications are sent to the universal buddhist-zen-hindu INS for citizenship in some no-self universality... and, as a matter of routine, denied on a case by case basis, have you noticed?..)

 

The self of taoist psychophysiology is comprized of levels of consciousness that are present all at once but are invisible from a fragmented (not whole) perspective of each of its parts severed from its other parts, and taoist cultivation is about restoring links between parts of the fragmented self and, at a higher level, between the re-united self and tao. However, a self re-united with tao is not "nonexistent," it is still "itself," only harmoniously aligned with the rest of reality instead of clogging same with its broken bits and pieces.

[三江源]

one of the nice things is, there's no such thing as tao 'ism'.

[Pero]

But that's in Buddhism. In taoism, there IS a self. "Qi blowing on ten thousand things so each can be itself " (Zhuangzi). Not "so each can be nothing," not "so each can be everything," but "so each can be exactly what it is instead of trying hard to be what it isn't." A "real human" of taoism is a self, a unique personality, not the kind made on some cosmic assembly line of pointless illusions but the kind shaped into a unique being like no other being in the universe, by qi blowing just on him, just on her,just so, just like that, the way it doesn't on anyone or anything else. That's the individual of taoist classics, not some amorphous refugee from personal to universal (because personal fails to satisfy, being what one is fails to satisfy, applications are sent to the universal buddhist-zen-hindu INS for citizenship in some no-self universality... and, as a matter of routine, denied on a case by case basis, have you noticed?..)

 

The self of taoist psychophysiology is comprized of levels of consciousness that are present all at once but are invisible from a fragmented (not whole) perspective of each of its parts severed from its other parts, and taoist cultivation is about restoring links between parts of the fragmented self and, at a higher level, between the re-united self and tao. However, a self re-united with tao is not "nonexistent," it is still "itself," only harmoniously aligned with the rest of reality instead of clogging same with its broken bits and pieces.

 

I think what you`re saying is not true. Being nothing and being everything are two extremes. Nihilism and Eternalism are to be avoided in Buddhism. This is still dualistic vision. In Buddhism you are exactly what one is. The question is what that is. I don`t think I really understand what you`re talking about next... But, let me ask you this, when you are in a state of emptiness where are you? Where are all those concepts about yourself? The mind has a concept of self. But when there is no mind, where is the self? If you identify with the "self", does it mean the self has disappeared, died or something, when you are in a state of emptiness? When you die, and are reborn, you leave one self for another. I doubt you`d think you are the same person like in a previous life.

And fails to satisfy? Desires are satisfied. Desire (attachment) is cause of suffering...

What is denied on a case by case basis?

 

 

one of the nice things is, there's no such thing as tao 'ism'.

 

You wish.

 

Anyhow, I`m just happy that I managed to write a short poem (2 fourliners) after a long time hahaha.

[Cameron]

All interesting views. I don't really see either view as right or wrong necissarily. If you want to say the self is empty or the self realizes its true nature(I beleive this is called Zhi Ran in Taoism?)

 

I think when Taoists talk about finding your authentic nature or Zhi Rhan and when Buddhists talk about finding Buddha Nature they are basically talking about the same thing. But I think each has their own unique expression.

 

Actually, I have been reading some poetry of the Persian Masters Rumi and Omar Khayyam a little recently and as far as I can tell they are basically also saying the same thing as what Buddhists and Taoists do but from their unique cultural backround and views.

 

I don't really like to even talk in terms of different religions so much as in terms of truth. I mean, truth is truth, right? Just different human descriptions of truth which will always have limitations. The Tao Te ching talks about that.

[Trunk]

the intuitive feeling we have that there's an executive "I" that sits in a control room of our brain,

One of the things I got a better look at with that recent "brain visual chi meditation", is that there was the assemblage of fixed identity within the brain, and that it blocked flow. When I got some of the good circulation going, I had to relax my hold of identity there, in order to let the flow through.

[Taomeow]

one of the nice things is, there's no such thing as tao 'ism'.

 

Yeah, all one needs to do is pretend six thousand years of Chinese cultural history never happened, and then of course there's no such thing. Poor Fu Xi and the clueless King Wen and the hapless Duke of Zhow would never have bothered putting together a useless 'ism' if only they could be as lucky as we are and have access to mister Tolle's celestial revelations.

[Taomeow]

I think what you`re saying is not true. Being nothing and being everything are two extremes. Nihilism and Eternalism are to be avoided in Buddhism. This is still dualistic vision. In Buddhism you are exactly what one is. The question is what that is. I don`t think I really understand what you`re talking about next... But, let me ask you this, when you are in a state of emptiness where are you? Where are all those concepts about yourself? The mind has a concept of self. But when there is no mind, where is the self? If you identify with the "self", does it mean the self has disappeared, died or something, when you are in a state of emptiness? When you die, and are reborn, you leave one self for another. I doubt you`d think you are the same person like in a previous life.

And fails to satisfy? Desires are satisfied. Desire (attachment) is cause of suffering...

What is denied on a case by case basis?

You wish.

 

Anyhow, I`m just happy that I managed to write a short poem (2 fourliners) after a long time hahaha.

 

 

What is denied is tangible daily 24/7 human membership in this theorized "oneness." People are born to be people, not emptiness, and are better off behaving like who they are (that's the real meaning of ziran, 'spontaneously natural') in taoism's cognitive paradigm --

in order to be fully human (ren), in order to have integrity (de), not in order to score points for some "empty state" of this or that philosophy. I'm talking about buddhism being interested in things taoism is not interested in, and vice versa. E.g., "desire is the cause of suffering" is a view taoism never had. The cause of suffering in taoism is lack of spontaneous naturalness, lack of integrity, also known as "fragmentation of consciousness." So taosim is concerned with unifying the fragmented, un-whole body, mind, and spirit into a coherent conscious whole. A lot of it is concerned with this and only this, in this-here life, and might take it from there towards any subsequent ones (in which not all taoist sects believe to begin with) only after the main task is accomplished.

 

As for "dualistic" vision, what can be more dualistic than the mind-body split? And where in Buddhism is it NOT perpetuated? You are supposed to "discard" the body -- nice, where's the universal dumpster for things that don't matter, like living, feeling bodies of live, feeling people, and how does it make it non-dualistic to have such a dumpster distinct and separate from the purported unity of "the rest of it?"

 

But in any event, why don't you share the poem?

Edited January 25, 2007 by Taomeow

[Pero]

What is denied is tangible daily 24/7 human membership in this theorized "oneness." People are born to be people, not emptiness, and are better off behaving like who they are (that's the real meaning of ziran, 'spontaneously natural') in taoism's cognitive paradigm --

in order to be fully human (ren), in order to have integrity (de), not in order to score points for some "empty state" of this or that philosophy. I'm talking about buddhism being interested in things taoism is not interested in, and vice versa. E.g., "desire is the cause of suffering" is a view taoism never had. The cause of suffering in taoism is lack of spontaneous naturalness, lack of integrity, also known as "fragmentation of consciousness." So taosim is concerned with unifying the fragmented, un-whole body, mind, and spirit into a coherent conscious whole. A lot of it is concerned with this and only this, in this-here life, and might take it from there towards any subsequent ones (in which not all taoist sects believe to begin with) only after the main task is accomplished.

 

As for "dualistic" vision, what can be more dualistic than the mind-body split? And where in Buddhism is it NOT perpetuated? You are supposed to "discard" the body -- nice, where's the universal dumpster for things that don't matter, like living, feeling bodies of live, feeling people, and how does it make it non-dualistic to have such a dumpster distinct and separate from the purported unity of "the rest of it?"

 

But in any event, why don't you share the poem?

 

Well of course we aren`t born to be emptiness. And we`re not. But emptiness is part of our real condition. And in this regard, there is no difference between me, you, a dog or anyone else. The is no difference between my nature, yours or Buddhas.

While it may seem that in Buddhism the body is rejected or something (and I guess some do that), it`s not really true. Buddha himself said that our body is prescious and we should treat it with care. And human realm is considered the best for realization, even better than god realm.

I think you are putting all of Buddhism into one basket, there are many different teachings in it. The way you see it, it seems to me, is mostly renounciation, sutra style teaching. But even so, since everything is an illusion (but is also part of our real condition), including mind, how can there be a split?

I might not be explaining this in the right way though... In a way I actually see Buddhism in a way "unifying the fragmented, un-whole body, mind, and spirit into a coherent conscious whole." Only that maybe there is nothing un-whole to unify in the first place...

 

I won`t share the poem in public, I`m too shy for that. And I wouldn`t want people to make fun of me.

 

(and boy, a year back I would never have imagined myself talking about buddhism)

[sean]

One of the things I got a better look at with that recent "brain visual chi meditation", is that there was the assemblage of fixed identity within the brain, and that it blocked flow. When I got some of the good circulation going, I had to relax my hold of identity there, in order to let the flow through.

This is what I'm getting at. A recognition of no-self. There is no fixed location where a self resides. There are just habits. Habits of perception. In energetic terms a habit that occludes natural flow is a blocked flow. Natural flow is without fixed reference point. Like the wind.

 

No-self is really more like no-executive. No-self is really another way of saying infinite selves, infinite diversity, in dynamic, inseparable relationship.

 

Allow me to ramble, this isn't necessarily directed to you Trunk, or anyone else specifically, I just feel drawn to clarify.

 

There is a very common human habit of perceiving as if there were a fixed location, ie: in the head somewhere - behind the eyes. The sense is that this place is where all our perceptions get filtered through and where major decisions get made. The sense is that this is where the "real you" is and there is often a strong accompanying identification. "This is ME." Yet this sense of a fixed location ME is just a sense amongst many other senses. It just happens to be arising so frequently, and without insight into the fact that the "fixed" location is not only not fixed at all, but can never be found. (What is looking for it?) This is what Buddhists and Taoists and many other great contemplative traditions call delusion.

 

"In humans the 5 spirits arrive (from ancestors, Heaven or Dao) to animate a developing fetus, take residence in/near the 5 yin organs, dwell within the body during life and depart/disperse unchanged and certainly undead at the moment of so-called death. Together they give us the phantom impression of being alive as a solitary and abiding self. This delusional impression comes from what might be called a lack of reflection on our components and their relationships and the exertions and outflows of qi that result."

--- Liu Ming

 

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with the sense that there is a fixed reference point for "self" or "you" or "I". It's just a sense that arises and crowds out deeper truth. Like a noisy neighbor that interupts your silence for so long, it's forgotten to exist. All that it really takes to see an insight into this is to just try to find a fixed location where your self is. "Where am I?" Truly try to pinpoint a self. This is a scientific method of contemplative spirituality. Maybe you think there is a self or all this sounds really abstract and far out. Fair enough. So look! And the answer is immediate.

 

Do by not doing.

Practice by not practicing.

 

"This advice is not about being passive or lazy but relaxing the compulsion to be active, busy, successfull. It suggests relaxing the subjectivity of your life/path/practice. This subjectivity is based on the false notion of an abiding self - an extremist view that we are the masters of our destiny and/or the creators of our life in some absolute sense. Laozi challenges the roots of such false views. Dao, nature itself, and de, self-nature (common to all beings/things), are mutually arising in an interwoven experience too vast to comprehend. Relaxation of our subjectivity and our compulsive activity describes entry into Laozi's transcendent and yet constant naturalness where Daode is our experience."

-- Liu Ming

 

 

Sean

[三江源]

lawrence day on ch'an and taoism - just a shortie, but a goodie.

[DentyDao]

[sean]

Nice post.

 

Here is my perspective.

 

The teachings that can be most credibly traced to Buddha himself, the man, not the legend or the God, are the Pali canon. In the Pali canon the Buddha teaches, essentially, a single approach to meditation. There is really no mention in the Pali canon of the Buddha engaging in convoluted esoteric practices. There also isn't this firm distinction made between stabilizing tranquility practices and insight practices as the Tibetans are fond of teaching. The Tibetans have a particular style, but it's probably not authentically what the Buddha was originally teaching. Not that this really matters, who knows? maybe the Tibetans made things better. I'm sure they have for some beings, but this is just an FYI. Really though, the Buddha just simply sat under a tree with utter resolve. That's it. No method. No secret teaching. He just wanted to be free of suffering with all of his being. That's what it takes. No matter how cool your library is, no matter how much you think you know, how tremendously powerful your teachers are, and how arcane your esoteric knowledge, IMO it all just boils down to, do you really want to be free or not? No one can give that to you. You can't learn that. You can't even make yourself have it. It just comes or it doesn't.

 

Also, one more clarification. My intention here is not to use words and thinking to try and grasp direct truth. My intention is to point to an experience of direct truth that is always accessible. This is my experience and the experience is accompanied with a sense of incontrovertible truth and clarity that it is unlike anything else. It's untouchable. The experience (it's actually not an experience at all - but attempting to language this sounds ridiculous) is humbly much much bigger, though also much simpler, than the words chosen as pointers.

 

Sean

[Pero]

[DentyDao]

Nice post.

 

Here is my perspective.

 

The teachings that can be most credibly traced to Buddha himself, the man, not the legend or the God, are the Pali canon. In the Pali canon the Buddha teaches, essentially, a single approach to meditation. There is really no mention in the Pali canon of the Buddha engaging in convoluted esoteric practices.

 

The Tibetans say that the Buddha did teach these practices to his disciples. And that he predicted the birth of another Buddha, Padmasambava, who would come and teach these teachings called Vajrayana.

 

The Buddha taught what was needed depending on the individual. These were the secret teachings of teh Buddha and while he did not write about them. Many Buddhas have.

 

There also isn't this firm distinction made between stabilizing tranquility practices and insight practices as the Tibetans are fond of teaching.

 

Perhaps, I haven't read the whole thing, but insight practice doesn't comprise the whole teaching. That's all I'm really saying. I didn't say that was your view either.

 

The Tibetans have a particular style, but it's probably not authentically what the Buddha was originally teaching.

 

I think they would really disagree on this point quite a bit. They would say that they have added what the Buddha didin't 'publically' teach.

 

Not that this really matters, who knows? maybe the Tibetans made things better. I'm sure they have for some beings, but this is just an FYI. Really though, the Buddha just simply sat under a tree with utter resolve. That's it. No method. No secret teaching. He just wanted to be free of suffering with all of his being. That's what it takes.

 

They also say that he was born already enlightened. Are you sure this is what happened? I don't think we can know for sure.

 

No matter how cool your library is, no matter how much you think you know, how tremendously powerful your teachers are, and how arcane your esoteric knowledge, IMO it all just boils down to, do you really want to be free or not? No one can give that to you. You can't learn that. You can't even make yourself have it. It just comes or it doesn't.

 

So, are you saying we have no control over this process? That sounds a little hard to believe. If this is the case, why do any form of practice. Like meditation. What would be the point?

 

Also, one more clarification. My intention here is not to use words and thinking to try and grasp direct truth. My intention is to point to an experience of direct truth that is always accessible. This is my experience and the experience is accompanied with a sense of incontrovertible truth and clarity that it is unlike anything else. It's untouchable. The experience (it's actually not an experience at all - but attempting to language this sounds ridiculous) is humbly much much bigger, though also much simpler, than the words chosen as pointers.

 

It's an interesting take, I have to admitt it sounds tempting. Are you saying we are all already enlightened? Or perhaps that there is nothing to get as UG has stated? I definity think truth exists, but what about the whole happiness thing? It sounds like you saying on the one hand, just stop doing and you're there. And then you say, but we have no control over this process. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction, but maybe that's just my perception.

 

I think things are very dual in life and I still think I have more to experience before I decide I have already reached the supreme truth, but perhaps I'm stopping my self from seeing that it's easier than that. Something to consider.

 

S

 

 

 

And so of course the Tibetans don`t really have only what the Buddha was originally teaching, since he didn`t teach tantra. Buddha taught sutra, renounciation. And, they have this teachings as well. Though I don`t see why this would really matter.

 

I agree with the Tibetans who say the Buddha knew about these practices and taught them. When kings with massive harrems would request teachings from the Buddha, he taught them sexual cultivation.

 

Funny... In my understanding true compassion only arises after (with) realization of emptiness. Compassion itself does not lead to realization of emptiness. There was actually quite a long debate about this on E-Sangha not so long ago... (or maybe long, hehe, bad feeling for time...)

In Dzogchen they believe you need both.

 

Can you say more about this? What do you mean? (Because thinking is thinking to me.)

Don`t all actions affect karma? I mean, any kind of action creates karma, no?

 

Actions are also just a creation of your thinking. The idea is that you are your thinking. Thinking here, in anyform, is just the act of grasping 'I.'

 

Everything we preceive is the creation of our thinking. And any sensation, gross or subtle, is also thinking. This would naturally include strong emotions and the body since we feel with our body.

 

Interesting version of 4 noble truths BTW. But not just a little different.

 

Secret teaching of Buddha.

 

 

BTW, the Pali Canon is he exact word for word teaching that the Tibetans have. They have done comparisons. Their view is that following just these teachings will only lead to the first basic level of enlightenment Arhat. Even Hinayana and Theravada sects in Thailand and India, among others, totally agree with that idea. They say it takes many life times even after you become an arhat. Makes sense to me when you put the whole thing into context. The story of the Buddhas own life said he had aready been enlightened for many life times before he became Buddha.

 

I'm not sure we can just throw out all of these considerations. Unless of course you don't believe in reincarnation which is one of the foundations of Buddha's teachings.

 

I guess this would be a more modern interpretation, but it's also Nhilism which the Buddha taught was a false view. It's hard to make all the pieces fit to the theory being presented, but, perhaps if you add love into the mix, it would work. At least we arn't just reduced to a mechinism if we practice loving kindness.

 

Best, Sean

Edited January 26, 2007 by seandenty

[Wayfarer64]

Much of this comes down (or up) to awareness. I am aware of levels of my consciousness after meditating for a couple hours that I somehow forget as I am typing into cyber-space a few days later. Just because I had a satori of deep revelation on Monday does not mean that I can balance my consciousness to "exude" this awakening later in the week.

 

 

So how can I claim that I have gained these insights IF I am unable to maintain or manifest them as a part of my behavior in the continuum? Even if I can now again, more days later remember those revelations and can claim to have held onto them somewhere in my consciouness. The levels of my awareness and ability to manifest my awareness changes.

 

Sometimes I work to make my practice such that I will hold that higher state always. Other times I am so thankful for another state of being and the awareness of that being that there is no way I want to give up the chance of returning to that other seperate state of being and awareness!?!

 

The notion of time is important here. The concept of the eternal past/now/future. Also has a few differing concepts to deal with from quantum to cyclicle to linear etc... We tend to want to repeat "good" experiences. When much of one's time is spent in meditation, then it is natural to seek those levels that "please" us the most.

 

So how do we not become attached to these levels and keep transcending?

 

We all seem to know that these levels of consciouness exist for us, or at the least many of us believe we are able to reach higher levels of consciouness through our practices. Most believe in the potentials within ourselves to become manifest. It seems there are different goals and different perceptions and even different interpretations of these perceptions.

 

There are many distinct differences between Taoism and Buddhism as well as amongst the many sects of these and other systems of belief.

 

There may be a goal of being in The Way (not like a big dog in the hall)- that refutes the "void" of Buddhism. I am not sure that the states of being that seem the same can be the same if the intent, direction, and goals are different for the various beings who have attained these levels.

 

And still within the Tao all that exists for us to ponder...IS...At least in our minds and cyberspace!

[sean]

Pero, I agree. Lot's and lot's of teaching strategies. I find that some teachings are better pointers than others, but I can only really speak for my own experience.

 

So, are you saying we have no control over this process? That sounds a little hard to believe. If this is the case, why do any form of practice. Like meditation. What would be the point?

The point of meditation is the same point as anything as looking for the meaning of anything deeply enough leads you to the ultimate questions such as the Western favorite "What is the meaning of life?" The ultimate point can't be defined because it's alive in this very moment, in this very transaction between us right this second. In order to articulate an ultimate point to anything, to yourself or to someone else, you have to choose a reference point, which is a rapidly disintegrating abstraction.

 

An analogy is like being asked by someone "Where is Tai Shan mountain?" Well, ideally you can just point in the direction of the mountain. The person asking the question still has to take the journey and go to the mountain to have the question answered, but you are doing the best you can. Metaphorically speaking, I think a lot of people will end up just looking at your finger, so even direct pointing is flawed (as you've pointed out ). But I think there is even more potential for confusion inherent to trying to formulate a coherent reference point with words because, to continue with the analogy, this would be like picking a cloud drifting through the sky and saying "See that cloud over there? Well the mountain is northeast of that cloud". That cloud won't be there the next day, so unless she can really follow through the whole abstraction, the directions are not given at all. In fact much confusion follows when this beautiful young woman and all of her sexy friends are at the same spot the next day and now they are looking for a particular cloud instead of the mountain. (Hey, it's my story. )

 

It's an interesting take, I have to admitt it sounds tempting. Are you saying we are all already enlightened? Or perhaps that there is nothing to get as UG has stated? I definity think truth exists, but what about the whole happiness thing? It sounds like you saying on the one hand, just stop doing and you're there. And then you say, but we have no control over this process. Sounds like a bit of a contradiction, but maybe that's just my perception.

 

I think things are very dual in life and I still think I have more to experience before I decide I have already reached the supreme truth, but perhaps I'm stopping my self from seeing that it's easier than that. Something to consider.

It's totally a contradiction for the mind. The mind does either-or. It's just a tool that has limitations like everything. All of this genuine awakening enlightenment language folds, pulls, expands and collapses on itself. It's alive in way the mind can't get a handle on, the way mind-tools do. No big deal. Minds don't really have a whole lot to do with what happens in our life anyway. Our lives unfold in a deep mystery. This is what I mean by saying we have no control. When we try to control things, that is almost always are mind getting involved. And our minds have so very little say in how our destiny unfolds.

 

A distinction between awake and enlightened may be useful. (Who knows, I am winging this). I think we are all already awake. This is our access to pure, timeless awareness in any moment. It's what is aware of experience without any judgment or concern or interference. It's untouchable. Each of recognizes this awakeness to varying degrees. As we are drawn into a deepening of awakeness, ie: via skillful means, at some point there is a deep recognition of unity that occurs that there is no returning from. As Joshu said, "Suddenly I was ruined and homeless." This seems to be capable of happening suddenly or gradually. But the belief in an abiding self is torn apart for good. Or so the story goes. This how my mind currently tends to think of enlightenment, though I really prefer not to get hung up on concepts or take things I don't understand very seriously.

 

So, the Sage, by not striving for greatness, Achieves greatness.

-- Laozi

 

There is always a higher teaching. There is always a more evolved teacher. There is always a more evolved you. There is always room for advancement. There is always room to embody truth more deeply. There is always something being left out or under emphasized. There is always something missing. There is always misinterpretation. There is alway space for clarification. There is always something bigger and better. There is always a way to make a hierarchy out of anything. There is always "what's next?" There is always something moving. There is always evolution.

 

But where is silence in this unending cacophony? Where is there stillness within this infinite dance? Where ever is there to rest in this constant commotion?!

 

 

... ?!

 

 

Nowhere.

 

 

Sean

[Cameron]

Buddhism per say is filled with alot of teachings and alot of teachers. You can probably point to different teachers for different aspects of what Buddha taught.

 

As far as what I personally feel is the essence of all of this.

 

Master Dogen's words,

 

"To study the Way is to study the self. To study the self is to forget the self. To forget the self is to be enlightened by all things of the universe. To be enlightened by all things of the universe is to cast off the body and mind of the self as well as those of others. Even the traces of enlightenment are wiped out, and life with traceless enlightenment goes on forever and ever."

 

 

 

And..dare I say I like Adyashanti's direct teaching to just stop even better

[Wayfarer64]

First I accept the premis that there are levels of consciousness. It seems that most here do as well.

 

I think we may each have needs that are discribible for each level of consciousness that we attain.

A novice needs to be reminded of many more aspects of practice than one who has been "at it" a while, usually...

 

While some of us who have been "at it" a while need to be reminded of the original letting go process, as we may have become attached to aspects of our current practice.

 

Being human is usually enjoyed the most when we are being, (or maybe in our modern world), letting ourselves be - Natural in our comportment and thinking. If we constrict our thinking into moralistic or technical systems we may lose touch with healthyer and happier ways of going about our lives.

 

I have the notion that many of us began our religious thinking in the western tradition. The leap of faith as it were, into the eastern modes that most relate to here, is already huge in societal terms. We could well have been one huge weenie roast a couple hundred years ago, or even in many parts of our homelands today, IF our ways of thinking and our beliefs are threatening to those around us.

 

That does not mean we are being un-natural in our ways of life. The tolerance we grant ourselves to go beyond what we are comfortible with may be a challange. But it is a challange that we have already accepted.

 

What system we use to grow into an expanded consciousness doesn't seem to matter much. What worked for Buddha was not Jesus' way was not Lao Tzu's was not anybody's way but their own. I am not sure that our strivings will get us anywhere until we each find our own way to be the most conscious we can be.

 

Tie a string around your finger to remind yourself to be kind to others, if you think you need to. Or sit for ten months in a cave if that is your next step towards your attainment of the consciousness you are seeking.

 

Many find a level of enlightenment that is not a constant, but it is a far cry from barbarism and seems to be a great step forward in the world. We can each only be mindful of where we are at and take it from there.

 

It is our direction and intent that we are conscious of when we are awakening that seems to change. Either it becomes very clear or it is somehow gone... I for one am not sure which or if at that level it may just be the same thing. In that our intent becomes synonomus with the Way/moment/devine will-you name it...

 

And somehow we obtain the awareness of correctness and completeness in our consciousness...With the One and All -Naturally.

That is when I feel that I am happiest, and I could just be watching the snow fall to get me there.

Edited January 26, 2007 by Wayfarer64

[DentyDao]

Edited January 26, 2007 by seandenty

[Lozen]

There's a lot of Buddhists in town who tell me that the point of meditation is to experience emptiness. But when I meditate it's because I want to drop enough ego for the Light to work through me. Is that emptiness? I never understood the whole emptiness thing.

 

I read about a study that showed that the part of your brain that's in charge of SELECTION, of what you pay attention to, is actually increased, grows bigger, through meditating.