Emotions are the path

[Apech]

21 hours ago, stirling said:

 

This is author and teacher Shinzen Young's take on the differences between the "powers" or Siddhis and enlightenment, or insight. This is also my experience, so it goes without saying that I absolutely agree with him:

 

 

So the siddhis, or "powers" exist in the relative sense (we experience them, and it is most likely that no-one else could verify what we apprehend) but are not indicators of any absolute understanding, though they are sometimes made available after that understanding. 

 

The absolute understanding or enlightenment is, at the very least, this fundamental paradigm shift about what the "I" is and what "we" are. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I wanted to unpick in detail some of what Shinzen Young was saying in that interview - but it didn't copy when I hit the quote button - so I'll stick to general points.

 

To suggest, I think, that siddhis are not verifiable by science in the physical world, makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of reality.  It is a modern approach to follow the path that Mr. Young has done - from Buddhist monk to mindfullness/neuroscience which of course suggests that he is upholding the basic tenet of science that the fundamental is an objective physical universe, with mind and so on as epiphenomena superimposed upon it.  The traditional Buddhist view is the opposite, that the outer vessel (what we would call the objective world) is a projection by mind formed from collections of karmic imprints which are stored since beginningless time in the alaya.  So the physical is not basic, in this view, but the alaya is.

 

I guess you have decide for yourself which you are going to support as a view.  But I would say in terms of 'non-dualism', taking the scientific view seems to give certainty at first but leaves you with unresolvable problems later on.  If enlightenment consists of a paradigm shift in how one views oneself ... just that and nothing else ... the implication is that this happens somehow in splendid isolation from the world 'outside'.  As such this is highly dualist.

 

It is quite easy to gain minor siddhis and if you understand them as being nothing other than equivalent to the 'gongs' of martial arts etc. as the sensitivity and manipulation of qi is a qi gong and so on.  Then you could say that through fairly basic meditation, such as shamatha, siddhis like clairvoyance and precognition arise once you have been able to settle the mind in its own nature to a certain degree.  It doesn't take much if you allow it.  There are of course another class of siddhis which like say, levitation and so on, are another kettle of fish and few of us will walk on water in this life.  But there is an important point here, as to whether you accept, or are at least open minded to such possibility, because in the scientific view it never will be possible to do these things, but in the traditional views of Buddhism etc. it is ultimately possible.

 

 

[doc benway]

12 hours ago, Apech said:

he is upholding the basic tenet of science that the fundamental is an objective physical universe, with mind and so on as epiphenomena superimposed upon it

 

I suggest that’s no longer a basic tenet. Quantum mechanics has been the most effective explanation and predictor of the observed universe to date and pulled the rug out from under materialism.

 

[stirling]

14 hours ago, Apech said:

To suggest, I think, that siddhis are not verifiable by science in the physical world, makes a lot of assumptions about the nature of reality.  It is a modern approach to follow the path that Mr. Young has done - from Buddhist monk to mindfullness/neuroscience which of course suggests that he is upholding the basic tenet of science that the fundamental is an objective physical universe, with mind and so on as epiphenomena superimposed upon it.  The traditional Buddhist view is the opposite, that the outer vessel (what we would call the objective world) is a projection by mind formed from collections of karmic imprints which are stored since beginningless time in the alaya.  So the physical is not basic, in this view, but the alaya is.

 

Let me say that the primary point that I agree with Mr. Young on is that spiritual paths that rely on siddhis are often sideways motion instead of upward. Shinzen has used the metaphor of spelunking, saying that while a good spiritual path could be represented by a more or less continual upward climb, many "powers" often take us sideways and often not upwards at all. This reflects my personal experience with such things - interesting, but not really directly toward a complete understanding. I personally wasted many years thinking this was some kind of key to understanding, but with insight, now see that it is ultimately a cul-de-sac.

 

Science is just another subject/object language and is therefore unable to render any real information about the nature of reality. Science takes a limited number of variables and looks for repeatable results. 

 

Quote

A scientific theory is an explanation of an aspect of the natural world and universe that has been repeatedly tested and corroborated in accordance with the scientific method, using accepted protocols of observation, measurement, and evaluation of results. Where possible, theories are tested under controlled conditions in an experiment.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory

 

How many variables would it take to model a universe? How many variables are there in the universe itself? It is obvious that any set of limited variables could never represent things as they are. It would take infinite variables (or possibly only 10,000?   ). Science is, in my opinion, an inadequate vehicle for understanding or even properly modeling the universe even BEFORE one takes into account its flawed subject/object structure. Like all languages, it can never be efficacious for this purpose.

 

-

Not all schools of Buddhism are "mind only", but I see where you are going.

(On this topic I would highly recommend Dakpo Tashi-Namgyal's amazing work, "Clarifying The Natural State" )

-

 

My personal experience with the siddhis (which I did not seek, but are persistently present) is primarily with entities, and physic phenomena, neither of which I feel could be corroborated with someone else. My teacher and other teachers I have met have shared some truly amazing stories along other lines including time drop outs, teleporting through walls, etc., but none would be able to offer any real "proof" in the conventional sense. All of these people are ENTIRELY credible as far as I am concerned. 

 

I believe you might agree that once the nature of mind and reality is truly understood NOTHING seems truly impossible, (though some things seem more unlikely than others)?

 

Quote

I guess you have decide for yourself which you are going to support as a view.  But I would say in terms of 'non-dualism', taking the scientific view seems to give certainty at first but leaves you with unresolvable problems later on.  If enlightenment consists of a paradigm shift in how one views oneself ... just that and nothing else ... the implication is that this happens somehow in splendid isolation from the world 'outside'.  As such this is highly dualist.

 

I support no particular view in this matter EXCEPT about the efficacy of pursuing siddhis on an enlightenment path for their own sake, which (in my opinion) are quite likely to merely reinforce "self-view" and deeper karmic fetters at the very least.

 

 

Quote

It is quite easy to gain minor siddhis and if you understand them as being nothing other than equivalent to the 'gongs' of martial arts etc. as the sensitivity and manipulation of qi is a qi gong and so on.  Then you could say that through fairly basic meditation, such as shamatha, siddhis like clairvoyance and precognition arise once you have been able to settle the mind in its own nature to a certain degree.  It doesn't take much if you allow it.  There are of course another class of siddhis which like say, levitation and so on, are another kettle of fish and few of us will walk on water in this life.  But there is an important point here, as to whether you accept, or are at least open minded to such possibility, because in the scientific view it never will be possible to do these things, but in the traditional views of Buddhism etc. it is ultimately possible.

 

I agree. I don't think that even having a spiritual pursuit is necessary to obtain minor siddhis in my experience, but having had some instances of them since my teens, I think they are a common diversion from real progress. I know what you mean by there being another "class", but I think until it is revealed as possible I won't be reifying their existence. My take is that having NO view on them is healthiest. 

 

I appreciate your thoughtful response. _/\_

 

[liminal_luke]

Buddhists and their ilk ardently debating the finer points of enlightenment and it's (non)achievement.  Feels like old times.

[Apech]

1 hour ago, liminal_luke said:

Buddhists and their ilk ardently debating the finer points of enlightenment and it's (non)achievement.  Feels like old times.

we knows what we knows that’s for sure

[Taoist Texts]

On 3/24/2023 at 5:15 PM, Apech said:

siddhis like clairvoyance and precognition arise

my  precognition recently rose to a healthy  50% veracity

[Apech]

19 hours ago, Taoist Texts said:

my  precognition recently rose to a healthy  50% veracity

I knew you were going to say that

[Mark Foote]

On 3/26/2023 at 4:41 AM, Apech said:

I knew you were going to say that
 

Spring in the Northern Hemisphere!  The path that is emotions has received an uplift, but apart from that,
 

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Mark Foote

[Invisible Acropolis]

Quote

One of the main features of Yogācāra philosophy is the concept of vijñapti-mātra. It is often used interchangeably with the term citta-mātra, but they have different meanings. The standard translation of both terms is "consciousness-only" or "mind-only." Several modern researchers object to this translation, and the accompanying label of "absolute idealism" or "idealistic monism".^[10] A better translation for vijñapti-mātra is representation-only,^[13] while an alternative translation for citta (mind, thought) mātra (only, exclusively) has not been proposed.

 

The passage is depicted as a response by the Buddha to a question which asks "whether the images or replicas (*pratibimba) which are the object (*gocara) of meditative concentration (*samadhi), are different/separate (*bhinna) from the contemplating mind (*citta) or not." The Buddha says they are not different, "Because these images are vijñapti-mātra." The text goes on to affirm that the same is true for objects of ordinary perception.^[15]

 

Regarding existing Sanskrit sources, the term appears in the first verse of Vasubandhu's Vimśatikā, which is a locus classicus of the idea, it states:^[16]

Vijñaptimātram evaitad asad arthāvabhāsanāt yathā taimirikasyāsat keśa candrādi darśanam. "This [world] is vijñaptimātra, since it manifests itself as an unreal object (artha), just like the case of those with cataracts seeing unreal hairs in the moon and the like."

According to Mark Siderits, what Vasubandhu means here is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but "there is actually no such thing outside the mind."

 

Edited April 5, 2023 by Invisible Acropolis

[stirling]

4 hours ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

According to Mark Siderits, what Vasubandhu means here is that we are only ever aware of mental images or impressions which manifest themselves as external objects, but "there is actually no such thing outside the mind."

 

This is the opinion of the "mind only" schools, but the debate on this topic goes surprisingly deep, and no-one has dug deeper than the Tibetans, IMHO. The various major schools of thought in Tibetan Buddhism include, but are not limited to: Sravaka, Cittamatra, Svatantrika, Prasangika, and Shentong approaches.

 

For the full monty on the depth of "emptiness" and the nature of reality, I heartily suggest reading: Progressive Stages of Meditation on Emptiness, by Khenpo Tsultrim Gymtso Rinpoche. It is highly technical and challenging reading, but certainly authoritative.

[old3bob]

'mind only" has been well refuted for thousands of years by Self Realized Rishi's,  (and so many that came after them)  note that the Upanishads point that way.   Anyway far better yet is find out for ourselves for no matter how much is read and debated or from whatever texts that will not be enough. 

Edited April 6, 2023 by old3bob

[Invisible Acropolis]

Quote

The spirit is thought.

Thought is the heart.

The heart is the fire.

The fire is the elixir.

 

-   太乙金華宗旨, The Secret of the Golden Flower

 

[Invisible Acropolis]

11 hours ago, old3bob said:

'mind only" has been well refuted for thousands of years by Self Realized Rishi's,  (and so many that came after them) 

 

But not you... so its secondhand knowledge at best, or some kind of blind faith belief system that you use to replace your responsibility for critical thinking on your own.

 

11 hours ago, old3bob said:

note    Anyway far better yet is find out for ourselves for no matter how much is read and debated or from whatever texts that will not be enough. 

 

Yeh thats what I was saying above.  You havent proven anything here.  You havent shown anything here.  You pointed at someone else and said "look at them, they did it"  but you dont even know what "it" is to begin with.  So you should probably start there.

[old3bob]

8 hours ago, Invisible Acropolis said:

 

But not you... so its secondhand knowledge at best, or some kind of blind faith belief system that you use to replace your responsibility for critical thinking on your own.

 

Yeh thats what I was saying above.  You havent proven anything here.  You havent shown anything here.  You pointed at someone else and said "look at them, they did it"  but you dont even know what "it" is to begin with.  So you should probably start there.

 

well I know that I'm not a qualified teacher, (just fortunate in some ways by the Grace of "God") but I do know what is being pointed to and your presumptuous attack points to what you are identified with...

Edited April 6, 2023 by old3bob

[manitou]

On 4/5/2023 at 12:04 PM, stirling said:

 It is highly technical and challenging reading, but certainly authoritative.

 

 

That's actually kind of funny.  An authoritative one on the nature of  emptiness.

 

 

 

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by manitou
(I don't think that's your business)

[old3bob]

From Lions Roar staff:  April 2017

 

"According to Mahayana Buddhism, any concepts we have about the basic nature of reality are incomplete, inaccurate, and in fact block our direct experience of things as they really are. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy pioneered by the Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (2nd–3rd century CE) uses reason to negate our mistaken concepts about reality. Take a pair of opposites, such as real and unreal. Madhyamaka logic looks at four possibilities—that things are either real, unreal, both, or neither—& refutes them in turn. So in this case, the four negations are:

1. 1. Not real.
2. 2. Not unreal.
3. 3. Not both real and unreal.
4. 4. Not neither real nor unreal.

"You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality."

 

Edited April 10, 2023 by old3bob

[Apech]

2 hours ago, old3bob said:

From Lions Roar staff:  April 2017

 

"According to Mahayana Buddhism, any concepts we have about the basic nature of reality are incomplete, inaccurate, and in fact block our direct experience of things as they really are. The Middle Way (Madhyamaka) philosophy pioneered by the Indian Buddhist philosopher Nagarjuna (2nd–3rd century CE) uses reason to negate our mistaken concepts about reality. Take a pair of opposites, such as real and unreal. Madhyamaka logic looks at four possibilities—that things are either real, unreal, both, or neither—& refutes them in turn. So in this case, the four negations are:

1. 1. Not real.
2. 2. Not unreal.
3. 3. Not both real and unreal.
4. 4. Not neither real nor unreal.

"You can practice Madhyamaka by studying its logical arguments why any assertions about the nature of reality are self-defeating. You can also use it as a kind of koan practice. Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither. Contemplate where that leaves you. In either case, the Middle Way philosophy cuts through conceptualization and points you directly to the true nature of reality."

 

 

What is it that causes people to search for the certainty of the real?  What is it that makes them dissatisfied with not knowing the real?  Why do people resist and get angry when their assumptions are challenged?  What is pleasing about thinking that one is right?  What is displeasing about thinking one may not be right?  Why does anyone want to cut through conceptualisation?  What is displeasing about concepts?

 

Why is all this difficult?  Why isn't it easy?

 

What is resisting and why?

 

 

[old3bob]

as a side note I was thinking about the energy of emotion being used by logic, thus not all that unlike to me of what Manitou and Apech said.

 

(thus one might say no logic is an island unto itself, although it may reason that it is)

Edited April 10, 2023 by old3bob

[old3bob]

3 hours ago, Apech said:

 

What is it that causes people to search for the certainty of the real?  What is it that makes them dissatisfied with not knowing the real?  Why do people resist and get angry when their assumptions are challenged?  What is pleasing about thinking that one is right?  What is displeasing about thinking one may not be right?  Why does anyone want to cut through conceptualisation?  What is displeasing about concepts?

 

Why is all this difficult?  Why isn't it easy?

 

What is resisting and why?

 

 

 

not exactly about what you are asking but if the wise ones live and teach true Dharma which can hopefully be recognized and appreciated for its results in this world (or the next)... then I'd say that their students do not like to see them or that trampled because the same is just and dear to them.  

[stirling]

12 hours ago, manitou said:

That's actually kind of funny.  An authoritative one on the nature of  emptiness.

 

It is! I guess you could say it is the definitive CONCEPTUAL accounting of the depths of intellectually understanding emptiness, which makes it... uh... useless.  

 

Brings to mind:

 

Quote

Writing about music is like dancing about architecture. - Martin Mull

 

[liminal_luke]

12 hours ago, manitou said:

 

 

That's actually kind of funny.  An authoritative one on the nature of  emptiness.

 

 

 

I can pontificate for hours about things that don't exist but (relative) reality is a real head-scratcher.

[old3bob]

2 hours ago, liminal_luke said:

 

I can pontificate for hours about things that don't exist but (relative) reality is a real head-scratcher.

 

can we add to that with,  "Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither, (and then) contemplate where that leaves you"

Edited April 10, 2023 by old3bob

[manitou]

23 hours ago, old3bob said:

 

can we add to that with,  "Accept, for the sake of argument, that things are not real, unreal, both, or neither, (and then) contemplate where that leaves you"

 

 

As to real or unreal, reality or illusion - I sometimes wonder if the nature of quantum physics explains that.  Matter is both a particle and a wave of probability at the same time.  A particle takes up space, a wave uses time.  That way,  the kitty makes sense.

[manitou]

On 4/10/2023 at 3:56 AM, Apech said:

 

What is it that causes people to search for the certainty of the real?  What is it that makes them dissatisfied with not knowing the real?  Why do people resist and get angry when their assumptions are challenged?  What is pleasing about thinking that one is right?  What is displeasing about thinking one may not be right?  Why does anyone want to cut through conceptualisation?  What is displeasing about concepts?

 

Why is all this difficult?  Why isn't it easy?

 

What is resisting and why?

 

 

 

I'm not sure there is any certainty of the real, as not everyone can agree on what real is.  I think the only 'real' that can be understood with certainty is our true god-nature.  And of course there's no 'understanding' that either.  But the realization of who we really are is the only realization that counts, IMO.

 

(Speaking of what's real.....I read someplace a long time ago that 'the only real thing is a shadow'.  I don't know why this has stuck with me over the years, but it has - probably because I sense that it's true, but I haven't seen the connection yet)

 

I think that excessive ego lies at the bottom of why people get angry when challenged.  If a person didn't have excessive ego, there would be no challenge apparent to them.  All things are respected as being the perception of other persons and their particular conditionings.  Anger arises if there is too much vestment in being right, and it rubs against a point of conditioning inside us that would be best put out of its misery.  

[stirling]

15 minutes ago, manitou said:

As to real or unreal, reality or illusion - I sometimes wonder if the nature of quantum physics explains that.  Matter is both a particle and a wave of probability at the same time.  A particle takes up space, a wave uses time.  That way,  the kitty makes sense.

 

Ken Wilber suggests that the Absolute includes but supersedes the Relative. Both are always present, but the relative is merely an illusory aspect of the whole.