Longevity or Immortality . . . But Not Both (?)

[Karl]

"I'm completely clear on what I know", if so then you are most likely a nut although I'm not completely sure of that.  

 

Well if I'm a nut, here's to being a nut :-) I've known the suffering of being other than the nut that I am and I prefer this way.

[3bob]

nothing wrong with older and wiser nuts

[3bob]

Karl, we also find that we are not this mind (if you meant and include that?) and dis-identify with it... and that is a much bigger leap than all the various forms of body beyond just the physical.  Btw I'd say there are requirements for the various forms and or various energies which you seemingly belittle with the term "base"; for one must have a base from which to reach and cross the next threshold until death finally dies. 

Edited August 4, 2015 by 3bob

[Karl]

Karl, we also find that we are not this mind (if you meant and include that?) and dis-identify with it... and that is a much bigger leap than all the various forms of body beyond just the physical. Btw I'd say there are requirements for the various forms and or various energies which you seemingly belittle with the term "base"; for one must have a base from which to reach and cross the next threshold until death finally dies.

By 'base' I meant a necessity for life which has switched on to other base objects as necessary. Holidays, cars, jewellery, qualifications, position.

 

There are two versions of 'we are not this mind'. The mind doesn't exist apart from the body and brain. Instead there is a collection, of experiences, memories, direct sensation and conceptual thoughts mixed with emotions. All of this is viewed through the self as pure conscious awareness. When thoughts and sensations are completely absent, then there is no conscious awareness of anything. Consciousness arises and subsides at the same time. If the body is not alive, then consciousness is absent. There is no place for it to go, because there is nothing it can be conscious of. The mind is the filter prior to conscious awareness and not apart from it. It's like an intellectual lens that focuses things for awareness to grasp, but they are not independent. As long as consciousness is functioning then so is mind and thoughts. Neither operates independently of the other. Dead mind, dead consciousness-dead consciousness, dead mind.

 

The other version of 'not the mind' is really neti neti. Here we get back to that old argument of subjectivity in which the consciousness is self and all is created by it. I've already said enough on that topic so I'm not going to repeat it. The subjectivists will always assume the objectivists are part of conscious creation and that completes their circle of reality. It plunges those that adhere to that ideology into a loop from which escape is difficult. It's like thinking you are God.

Edited August 4, 2015 by Karl

[Karl]

nothing wrong with older and wiser nuts

 

Nothing particularly right either, just the way it is. Wisdom doesn't appear to be transferable so it's an entirely selfish accommodation.

I think, well people have the desire to, and if they get sick of suffering they will figure it all out themselves eventually. People are resourceful enough as long as the desire is strong enough. If they don't, they can still have a great life-family, friends, adventures. I think it's only when things aren't so good that it starts the thinking. Others I suppose are doing it because they imagine some gain of powers, influence, or abilities.

[3bob]

one persons suffering can be another persons bliss - since and again perception and it's related framework and or factors is key.

[Karl]

one persons suffering can be another persons bliss - since and again perception and it's related framework and or factors is key.

 

This was always the case during therapy with clients. Many really didn't want to change as they were comfortable with their own predicaments, they wanted to manage it better. Those who struggled to make a living wanted to win the lottery, or at least believe they could win the lottery, in order to make them feel better about not doing anything practical towards making a better living.

 

I only took on clients who were 100% serious about change, but really, they knew what was required anyway without any help from me. It felt like a salesman pretending to sell a car-the customer had their hands out with the money and I just handed them the keys and a sales receipt.

 

 

 

 

[Tibetan_Ice]

Karl, do you perform any regular practice?

[Tibetan_Ice]

By 'base' I meant a necessity for life which has switched on to other base objects as necessary. Holidays, cars, jewellery, qualifications, position.

 

There are two versions of 'we are not this mind'. The mind doesn't exist apart from the body and brain. Instead there is a collection, of experiences, memories, direct sensation and conceptual thoughts mixed with emotions. All of this is viewed through the self as pure conscious awareness. When thoughts and sensations are completely absent, then there is no conscious awareness of anything. Consciousness arises and subsides at the same time. If the body is not alive, then consciousness is absent. There is no place for it to go, because there is nothing it can be conscious of. The mind is the filter prior to conscious awareness and not apart from it. It's like an intellectual lens that focuses things for awareness to grasp, but they are not independent. As long as consciousness is functioning then so is mind and thoughts. Neither operates independently of the other. Dead mind, dead consciousness-dead consciousness, dead mind.

 

The other version of 'not the mind' is really neti neti. Here we get back to that old argument of subjectivity in which the consciousness is self and all is created by it. I've already said enough on that topic so I'm not going to repeat it. The subjectivists will always assume the objectivists are part of conscious creation and that completes their circle of reality. It plunges those that adhere to that ideology into a loop from which escape is difficult. It's like thinking you are God.

It is funny how Ramana's writings about mind are so similar to the penultimate Buddhist teachings...

 

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=20281

 

 

 

 

The problem here is mostly around definitions.

 

What is meant by "mind"? What is meant by "awareness?" What is meant by "wisdom."

 

One can certainly find many Dzogchen texts that assert mind and wisdom are mutually exclusive. For example, one of the texts in the Pellucid Transcendent State of Samantabhadra cycle declares:

 

The general dharma systems assert buddhahood for the mind. The system of the Pellucid Transcendent State of the Great Perfection does not assert buddhahood in the mind. The mind is the basis of accumulating various traces. Buddhahood is self-originate pristine consciousness [rang byung ye shes] that is free from thought. There is no place for traces to accumulate in the pristine consciousness that is free from thought.

 

It then cites a text called Molten Silver:

 

Observe the mind with the mind, there isn’t anything to see;

likewise, even though the nature of the mind is understood to be empty, this is not buddhahood;

that removes afflictions, but does not increase wisdom.

Hoping for buddhahood in the mind is like a feather being carried by the wind.

 

It finally distinguishes that mind and pristine consciousness [ye shes] have different results:

 

The results are not the same: the mind is mounted on the vāyu, and the mental concepts of the merged vāyu and mind move wildly. An undercurrent of concepts arise, accumulating as an undercurrent of traces. The present cause of birth in samsara is always engaging in the dualism of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject through combining both mind and the breath. Since one possesses a mind of an apprehended object and an apprehending subject, concepts arise in the mind. Since various concepts proliferate, temporary concepts arose. Since the five poisonous afflictions arose in the mind, they increased to eighty-four thousand. Since concepts proliferate in the mind, in every instant of time, one hundred concepts arise and on hundred cease. Therefore, the wheel of suffering is uninterrupted. The result is the ripening of the three lower realms.

 

Pristine consciousness self-originates from the beginning, is without breath, is pellucid, free from the mind, limpidly clear, non-conceptual and completely blissful. Since it is without arising and ceasing, it does not move. Clear in uniformity, unchanging and uninterrupted, clarity and non-conceptuality, bliss and emptiness are the same. The result is self-appearing perfect buddhahood.

 

So, one needs to be careful.

 

[Karl]

Biggest mind fuck ever. Everyone striving to become some other thing than what they are. Why does anyone need mountains of books to know that ? Who can tell anyone how to be what they already are ? How is it that we scurry here and there for that which was never lost ?

 

It seems to me that this is the far greater mystery. What is so scary or boring about reality we have to pretend we don't know what it is and go off in search of it ? Seems mad and amusing at the same time. The great false treasure hunt in which we trade a myriad of stories. We don't seem to be able to accept the gift of life as the ultimate gift. Buddahood see some vaguely like rejection of reality, a place in which reality is transmuted permanently into something better. That's just earthly Nirvana.

Edited August 5, 2015 by Karl

[子泰]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SbnAAYtFdZg

[Karl]

Karl, do you perform any regular practice?

 

Can you be more specific ?

[Apech]

Can you be more specific ?

 

Do you (question related to activity addressed directly to another person) , Karl (or the person posting here under the screenname Karl) do any regular (i.e. routinely repeated) practice (i.e. some kind of meditation or cultivation process). ?

[Karl]

Do you (question related to activity addressed directly to another person) , Karl (or the person posting here under the screenname Karl) do any regular (i.e. routinely repeated) practice (i.e. some kind of meditation or cultivation process). ?

Do you (question related to activity addressed directly to another person) , Karl (or the person posting here under the screenname Karl) do any regular (i.e. routinely repeated) practice (i.e. some kind of meditation or cultivation process). ?

 

The aforementioned person referred to as Karl is no longer practising but using, day to day, hour to hour, second to second, moment by moment. When everything is practice it's hard to define practice as separate.

[Apech]

The aforementioned person referred to as Karl is no longer practising but using, day to day, hour to hour, second to second, moment by moment. When everything is practice it's hard to define practice as separate.

 

Gracias.