Intention

[CarsonZi]

Namaste White Tiger....

While you might understand to not intend just Do... I feel or think your still missing pieces.

Fair enough! I'm sure there is LOTS that I'm still missing. haha. I don't claim to have all the answers or even A answer....all I have is my experience and my awareness. That is all.

People in the Here and Now (in the present moment) can also have Intentions.

Yes indeed!

In Chinese their is a word "Yi" It roughly translates in english to mean Intent... The meaning is slightly different though.

And in Sanskrit I believe it is "para" or "tatpara". Or at least the adjectives anyway.

In mainstream Buddhism they talk or express it slightly differently.

No offense but I'm not really into "mainstream" anything. *wink*

Speaking about BEING in the HERE AND NOW you don't intend (like you don't try you just DO) Is one theory.

Indeed it is one of many theories. But in my experience it is true.

But what I'm referring to is Why have an Intention at all?

Thats what I'm asking.

A great question. Not sure I have an answer. Will meditate on it. Thank you for the stimulating conversation!

 

Love,

Carson

Edited February 5, 2009 by CarsonZi

[WhiteTiger]

Namaste White Tiger....

Hi

 

Fair enough! I'm sure there is LOTS that I'm still missing. haha. I don't claim to have all the answers or even A answer....all I have is my experience and my awareness. That is all.

I'm sure I'm missing many pieces also.

 

No offense but I'm not really into "mainstream" anything. *wink*

Smart not to be... No one serious about practice should look at anything generalized.

[NeutralWire]

Hey CarsonZi -

 

Nothing happens by accident, everything has purpose and beating ourselves up over mistakes (or successes) is not productive. Learning from these mistakes is necessary so we don't repeat them, but making mistakes is natural and necessary. So in that respect there is no "successes" and no "Failures", there is only what IS. Make more sense now?

 

Well yes, this makes much more sense to me. (Of course you already know, as I have repeated many times, that I don't believe in 'beating oneself up over failure' -- this was the point of the cheetah example. I don't attach to outcomes as I believe I mentioned.)

 

Some things in your point of view do remain a little unclear though. Going back to what you said before, we were talking about 'seeking'. And you said:

 

I personally chose to let go of trying to "find" something that I know exists within myself. To me it was more a matter of "realizing" as opposed to "seeking and finding"... Everyone, not just magicians must act in the physical world, but that doesn't mean we need to "seek" anything. Everything you seek you already have.

 

So I would like to ask more on this.

 

You believe that 'learning from mistakes is necessary'. Now my 1st question is: do you seek to learn from mistakes?

 

My 2nd question has to do with Bardon. I know you said you know little about him, but he was one of those who had a very 'interesting life', tortured by the Nazis in concentration camps and so forth, and also cured many people of difficult illnesses and things like that.

 

So my 2nd question is: let us say he wants to cure somebody. Does he 'seek' to cure somebody? Is that his 'intention'?

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

Edited February 6, 2009 by NeutralWire

[CarsonZi]

Hi NeutralWire....will try to explain a little better.

You believe that 'learning from mistakes is necessary'. Now my 1st question is: do you seek to learn from mistakes?

Nope. It is important to learn from our mistakes, but "seeking" to do this is "planning" for the future, and that isn't living in the now. Again we just DO learn from our mistakes, just like I suggest we just DO meditation. If we don't learn from them then we don't learn from them and we will likely make the mistake again and be given a second opportunity to learn. Self inquiry (IMO) plays a large part in human spiritual transformation and plays a part in learning from our mistakes, but again, there is no need to intend anything except perhaps to end our suffering, and the best way to do that is to intend nothing.......and instead to enjoy everything that IS instead of battling with reality in our minds. (ie. Life SHOULD be this way even though it isn't) As always, all this is being spouted purely from the perspective of my own experience and others may have a completely different experience/opinion.

My 2nd question has to do with Bardon. I know you said you know little about him, but he was one of those who had a very 'interesting life', tortured by the Nazis in concentration camps and so forth, and also cured many people of difficult illnesses and things like that.

Interesting.....I know nothing of Bardon....I thought maybe it was plural for Bardo or perhaps a version of Bon Po.....I'm very under edumacated as Stigweard would say haha. Please don't hold it against me, hahaha.

So my 2nd question is: let us say he wants to cure somebody. Does he 'seek' to cure somebody? Is that his 'intention'?

You would really have to ask him. I can't tell you someone elses intentions. I would just be speculating. I try to stay away from that. Sorry I couldn't be more helpful here.

 

Love,

Carson

Edited February 6, 2009 by CarsonZi

[NeutralWire]

Well CarsonZi, I think that you agreed with the idea that 'letting go of success is what brings success', and as far as I'm concerned, every single other difference between us is actually a practicing or a vocabulary difference, not a real difference of understanding. Bardon is an Hermetic (magical) practice, so it is literally all about training the intent. Of course, he gives clear instructions how he does healing and you do indeed begin with intent. Everything in magic always begins with intent because the idea is to build up the strength of the will.

 

For example, your self-knowledge practice is about events teaching you. But Bardon begins by having one meditate on all your faults and virtues, and (implicitly) at that point you already have the intent to deal with every single one of them! So if you have fear of failure, it will be rooted out right away. But you still have intent to succeed! It's a difference in method.

 

I totally agree that if you 'fail to learn,' life will teach you, and Bardon would have agreed also. But nonetheless in Bardon you do seek and intend to learn from self-knowledge. Because of the magical nature of the practice, this seeking is not the same as 'seeking success' in a regular egotistical way -- as I mentioned, you have to let go of those ideas to have success! But it is still seeking a result -- just not looking for it, worrying about it, etc. It is allowed to arise gradually and naturally. Even the common (mis-)conception about 'magic spells' includes the obvious fact that there is intent in them. But all magicians know that if you think about the result, it doesn't appear.

 

If you think about it, this fact about intention is true of many other practices as well -- for example, the intention to open the microcosmic orbit if you know about that. If you force it, if you try to make it happen, nothing happens. But you can still have the intent, without the force (=fear).

 

With Bardon, similarly, you do energy work with organs or areas of your body, different types of energy... impossible to do this without intent as such, but still, to be in the state where you just flow and 'it happens' is very necessary. In other words, there is no 'should' or trying to force it. This 'should' or seeking of results is not the same as intent - or magical will as it is often known.

 

I think it is natural for some practitioners to feel intent starts to be 'trying to overrule reality' but there are other types of practice where intent is harmonizing with reality, and Bardon (to me) is the King of such practices.

 

Interesting conversation! I hope that I haven't poked around too much in your opinions. Like you, I'm very interested in variety...

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[CarsonZi]

Namaste NeutralWire, thank you for the indepth response!

 

Well CarsonZi, I think that you agreed with the idea that 'letting go of success is what brings success', and as far as I'm concerned, every single other difference between us is actually a practicing or a vocabulary difference, not a real difference of understanding.

 

Agreed.

 

Bardon is an Hermetic (magical) practice, so it is literally all about training the intent. Of course, he gives clear instructions how he does healing and you do indeed begin with intent. Everything in magic always begins with intent because the idea is to build up the strength of the will.

 

There are many paths to the same destination. Thank you for elaborating on what Bardon is. I have never had much dealings with "magic" although i did dabble in Satanism for a couple of months.....my paths have mainly been Christianity, drugs/loose shamanism, Kriya yoga and AYP, in that order with a little bit of overlap between them.

 

For example, your self-knowledge practice is about events teaching you. But Bardon begins by having one meditate on all your faults and virtues, and (implicitly) at that point you already have the intent to deal with every single one of them! So if you have fear of failure, it will be rooted out right away. But you still have intent to succeed! It's a difference in method.

 

This goes into what I am learning as we speak.....When responding to White Tiger above, I mentioned at the end that I didn't have an answer to the question he asked "Why have intention at all" and I said that I would meditate on it. I did. I didn't get a definite answer to his question, but what I DID come to realize was that there are what I would term as "gross" intentions and "subtle" intentions. The gross intentions would be the ones that we are trying to get away from having. The subtle intentions will always be there. What you are describing I believe are the "subtle" intentions. This is again, my opinion, and a fresh one at that, so there may be many issues I have yet to find with this theory. Please take it as such.

 

I totally agree that if you 'fail to learn,' life will teach you, and Bardon would have agreed also. But nonetheless in Bardon you do seek and intend to learn from self-knowledge.

 

What I would now consider a "subtle" intention.

 

Because of the magical nature of the practice, this seeking is not the same as 'seeking success' in a regular egotistical way

 

That would be seeking in the "gross" sense IMO.

 

-- as I mentioned, you have to let go of those ideas to have success! But it is still seeking a result -- just not looking for it, worrying about it, etc.

 

Probably a good way to define the difference between "gross" and "subtle" intentions. Well done.

 

It is allowed to arise gradually and naturally. Even the common (mis-)conception about 'magic spells' includes the obvious fact that there is intent in them. But all magicians know that if you think about the result, it doesn't appear.

 

Duh! hahahaha Just joking around.

 

If you think about it, this fact about intention is true of many other practices as well -- for example, the intention to open the microcosmic orbit if you know about that.

 

I'm under-edumacated but I'm not daft! Again, just joking around.....haha.

 

If you force it, if you try to make it happen, nothing happens. But you can still have the intent, without the force (=fear).

 

It's the same with anything. Try to make your wife want to have sex ten times a day, try to "become enlightened"...etc etc. Gross intentions will only beget the opposite of the sought after result. IMO.

 

With Bardon, similarly, you do energy work with organs or areas of your body, different types of energy... impossible to do this without intent as such, but still, to be in the state where you just flow and 'it happens' is very necessary. In other words, there is no 'should' or trying to force it. This 'should' or seeking of results is not the same as intent - or magical will as it is often known.

 

In yoga we call this "automatic yoga". This is when the kundalini energy does what it needs and you let it. Also sometimes called spontaneous kriyas. Learning to "let go" and relinquish control of the body is necessary for this, but it is not only possible, it is necessary. It is the learning to "Let go and Let God."

 

I think it is natural for some practitioners to feel intent starts to be 'trying to overrule reality' but there are other types of practice where intent is harmonizing with reality, and Bardon (to me) is the King of such practices.

 

To me AYP is the King of such practices. Big surprise on both accounts! haha.

 

Interesting conversation! I hope that I haven't poked around too much in your opinions. Like you, I'm very interested in variety...

 

Don't worry my brother....no opinions of mine are set in stone.....always good to check your baggage at the door and to come here with a mindset of wanting to learn, not teach. True in life as well as on this forum. Variety is the spice of life. Thank you for the stimulating conversations. Much love.

 

Love,

Carson

 

P.S. Really sorry about the RED text, but I tried everything and for whatever reason I couldn't get the quotes to work....WTF? They worked before! I swear I'm not an idiot! *wink wink*

Edited February 6, 2009 by CarsonZi

[NeutralWire]

... well with this difference between 'gross' and 'subtle' intentions we are pretty much there.

If you force it, if you try to make it happen, nothing happens. But you can still have the intent, without the force (=fear).

 

It's the same with anything. Try to make your wife want to have sex ten times a day...

 

Oh no, that's easy...

[CarsonZi]

... well with this difference between 'gross' and 'subtle' intentions we are pretty much there.

Glad we can agree. Thank you for helping me to see this from a new perspective. Gratitudes!

Try to make your wife want to have sex ten times a day

Oh no, that's easy...

Hahaha. Thanks for the laugh....stud

 

Love,

Carson

Edited February 6, 2009 by CarsonZi

[Uncle Screwtape]

Silence and stillness.

[forestofsouls]

I'm just piping in because of what was said here about Buddhism being a closed book. Maybe I can help clear up a few points.

 

We often associate the word suffering with gross suffering--- starvation, physical pain, crippling depression, etc. This is not what "dukkha" refers to: it refers to the fact that all things are ultimately unsatisfying. Buddhism in this regard is dealing with ultimate reality-- i.e. things as they are universally, as opposed to how I personally suffer. This is not to say that we aren't satisfied in the short term--- a warm bed and a nice meal, a hot bath, a gentle kiss all produce a form of satisfaction. But it doesn't last. After a while--- seconds or years--- the satisfaction fades. We want something else, or want to avoid what we do not like. This leads to suffering-- sometimes on a very subtle level. Much of my own suffering never makes it into my consciousness, but if I monitor my body closely, I can feel it as subtle bodily tension. The Buddhadharma (or dhamma) teaches that only when we are free from causes and conditions, when our satisfaction is independent of any conditions, only then are we truly free. Otherwise we are simply driven by our cravings/aversions (or indifference).

 

In many Buddhist practices, there is intent, at least in the beginning. To get to the other shore, we need a boat. A boat that sinks or doesn't steer just won't do--- we need a plan. Once we make it to the other shore, we no longer need to the boat.

 

Well of course I hear a lot of people talking like this but Buddhism is a bit of a closed book to me. Normally I don't think about 'suffering' exactly -- but in terms of meditation, either frustration at not achieving something, or failure to achieve something can be a problem, or both. Letting go of outcomes seems the easy way out of that one, I think in terms of 'allowing', 'flowing' and so on. Like I said, 'focused indifference' or 'positive non-desiring'. Maybe that's 'non-attachment'? Only, I still do have intention.

[NeutralWire]

We often associate the word suffering with gross suffering--- starvation, physical pain, crippling depression, etc. This is not what "dukkha" refers to: it refers to the fact that all things are ultimately unsatisfying.

 

That's interesting... I never heard it before. In Hermetics what you are speaking about is called 'yearning for perfection'.

 

Would you say that, by and large, most Buddhists worldwide would agree with what you say here? Or would many Buddhists think that the 'suffering' referred to is indeed more of the physical variety?

 

I always thought that the Shakyamuni legends, with their emphasis on his initial protection from scenes of earthly misery, illness and death, followed by that sudden revelation of their existence, were meant to show that said misery, illness and death were the sum of human life on earth and the very definition of 'suffering'. If what you say is true, they could be said to have awakened in him simply a yearning, a feeling that there 'must be something more', which I find far more humane.

 

I must admit, one of the reasons I never investigated Buddhism was this concept of 'suffering', which (as it had been presented to me before) seemed extremely negative to me. I'd be happier if yearning and suffering were identified, but I still prefer the word 'yearning'. 'Suffering' still sounds too negative to me really, but 'yearning for a greater reality', 'the call of the infinite for soul to understand deeply' -- this I do understand.

 

'Things being ultimately unsatisfying' as a reason to practice is not really as motivating as 'finding satisfaction in self-perfection'... but this is just me. In the west (as in Taoism) 'life with a perfectly harmonious flow' is often seen as the goal as well, in other words, the cultivation of earthly destiny is as important as the heavenly one. If what you say is true, then that perspective would harmonize better with Buddhism than I had previously thought -- whereas if 'suffering' really were starvation and pain, this would suggest that earthly life itself has no ultimate meaning, an idea I think is misplaced...

 

Rambling!

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[林愛偉]

That's interesting... I never heard it before. In Hermetics what you are speaking about is called 'yearning for perfection'.

 

Would you say that, by and large, most Buddhists worldwide would agree with what you say here? Or would many Buddhists think that the 'suffering' referred to is indeed more of the physical variety?

 

I always thought that the Shakyamuni legends, with their emphasis on his initial protection from scenes of earthly misery, illness and death, followed by that sudden revelation of their existence, were meant to show that said misery, illness and death were the sum of human life on earth and the very definition of 'suffering'. If what you say is true, they could be said to have awakened in him simply a yearning, a feeling that there 'must be something more', which I find far more humane.

 

I must admit, one of the reasons I never investigated Buddhism was this concept of 'suffering', which (as it had been presented to me before) seemed extremely negative to me. I'd be happier if yearning and suffering were identified, but I still prefer the word 'yearning'. 'Suffering' still sounds too negative to me really, but 'yearning for a greater reality', 'the call of the infinite for soul to understand deeply' -- this I do understand.

 

'Things being ultimately unsatisfying' as a reason to practice is not really as motivating as 'finding satisfaction in self-perfection'... but this is just me. In the west (as in Taoism) 'life with a perfectly harmonious flow' is often seen as the goal as well, in other words, the cultivation of earthly destiny is as important as the heavenly one. If what you say is true, then that perspective would harmonize better with Buddhism than I had previously thought -- whereas if 'suffering' really were starvation and pain, this would suggest that earthly life itself has no ultimate meaning, an idea I think is misplaced...

 

Rambling!

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

Too much about the word suffering...thinking about it causes more of it. Why bother?

If it wasn't said, there would be no confusion about it, no question. Rationalization occurs when there is some view we hold about what we gather through our senses.

 

How about utilizing methods that make nothing arise, and nothing fall in the mind? How about that thought which is no where supported?

 

Suffering in Buddhism is not in Buddhism, but Buddhism is in suffering. When a problem arises, so does the Buddha Dharma. Because there is Suffering in the world, not only physical pain and sickness, but emotional entertainment...haha there will be Buddha Dharma. When people have their riches, they will become lazy and not cultivate much.

 

Its good.

 

Intentions during meditation... it should be What you intend before you meditate. Holding intention during meditation is not meditation, but concentration. THere still is a state of viewing and holding, it is not yet stillness, not yet "empty". Meditation can be in forms of concentration, but when even the idea of concentrating has stopped in the miind, then one is not even meditating. What are they...?

 

To the person viewing them, they are meditating, to another, just sitting, wasting time. What's the difference... intention for enlightenment only fuels the excitement for it, it doesn't make it happen faster. Enlightenment of oneself only helps others when the others are asking for it, have conditions to accept it.

 

 

Have fun!

 

Peace,

Lin

[forestofsouls]

I may have worded that poorly. This is not to say that dukkha does not contain gross physical suffering, but that dukkha means so much more than that. Dukkha includes unhappiness is all forms: gross to subtle, etc. On a microlevel, sometimes it is taught that upon contact of the senses with any object (keep in mind the mind is the sixth sense) there arises a subtle craving, aversion, or indifference. These lead to the three root poisons, greed, hatred, and ignorance.

 

Sickness, old age, and death are simply three extreme, common forms of dukkha, one or more of which will effects every human being. Encountering these phenomenon inspired Shakyamuni to leave his palace of bliss in search for a solution. Personally, I also think that he realized his wife and son who he loved so much would experience one or more of these things as well. He wanted not only to save himself, but also his family, and ultimately, all sentient beings.

 

Keep in mind that there are also two other ultimate marks of existence: anatta and anicca. That is to say not-self and impermanence. These three marks are interrelated, and understanding one leads to understanding the others. Our ignorance of these marks causes dukkha. Realizing these truths on all levels of understanding leads to liberation. One dimension usually pulls in a practitioner, and then the others are revealed. For me, the door was anicca.

 

I do not think most Buddhists would necessarily agree or even know about these things. Most native Buddhists are like most practicing Christians. However, you find these teachings among meditators, monks, and the suttas.

[Apech]

That's interesting... I never heard it before. In Hermetics what you are speaking about is called 'yearning for perfection'.

 

Would you say that, by and large, most Buddhists worldwide would agree with what you say here? Or would many Buddhists think that the 'suffering' referred to is indeed more of the physical variety?

 

I always thought that the Shakyamuni legends, with their emphasis on his initial protection from scenes of earthly misery, illness and death, followed by that sudden revelation of their existence, were meant to show that said misery, illness and death were the sum of human life on earth and the very definition of 'suffering'. If what you say is true, they could be said to have awakened in him simply a yearning, a feeling that there 'must be something more', which I find far more humane.

 

I must admit, one of the reasons I never investigated Buddhism was this concept of 'suffering', which (as it had been presented to me before) seemed extremely negative to me. I'd be happier if yearning and suffering were identified, but I still prefer the word 'yearning'. 'Suffering' still sounds too negative to me really, but 'yearning for a greater reality', 'the call of the infinite for soul to understand deeply' -- this I do understand.

 

'Things being ultimately unsatisfying' as a reason to practice is not really as motivating as 'finding satisfaction in self-perfection'... but this is just me. In the west (as in Taoism) 'life with a perfectly harmonious flow' is often seen as the goal as well, in other words, the cultivation of earthly destiny is as important as the heavenly one. If what you say is true, then that perspective would harmonize better with Buddhism than I had previously thought -- whereas if 'suffering' really were starvation and pain, this would suggest that earthly life itself has no ultimate meaning, an idea I think is misplaced...

 

Rambling!

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

 

 

In Buddhist thought 'suffering' can be 'suffering of suffering' i.e. pain, misery and so on, BUT also suffering arising from the ephemeral nature of things and/or conditionality. The idea is that samsara the cyclic world of sense objects is governed by ignorance, desire and fear/anger. Samsara is illusory in that it is not an adequate understanding of the nature of reality but it is the way the world is seen by most people. This is ignorance. In other words we see the world as space filled with objects which have separate independent existence (i.e. selfhood). By mistakenly seeing things in this way we fall into the idea that if we had more of certain attractive things we would be happy. Thus desire for those things arises. We pursue the things and either a) we get hold of them or b ) we can't get hold of them. Either way we begin to suffer. If we get hold of them, we might get what we desire, but because everything is subject to change + decay, the pleasure we get last only for a certain length of time. As the pleasure fades we begin to get angry, or if we fail to ever to get hold of them we chase angrily after one thing or another. Eventually we end up chasing round and round seeking happiness. If after experiencing this state we set our minds or 'higher' ideals or even gods, which appear to be beyond time, even then if we gain them, we find that they are conditioned, that is not the complete view of reality but some kind of form or structure. Eventually suffering is generated from this conditonality.

 

So there is suffering of suffering. Suffering of impermanence and suffering of conditionality. As was said above the English word suffering is not quite right for this because during this cycling you might experience pleasure and even joy, but these feelings will be time limited and conditioned and eventually we will realize that they are not satisfactory - they do not satisfy our need for understanding or realization or liberation. This is because the basic view of the world as samsara is mistaken and illusory.

Edited February 7, 2009 by apepch7

[Ya Mu]

... Rationalization occurs when there is some view we hold about what we gather through our senses.

 

Maybe not the emphasis on your post but I think it should be repeated.

[林愛偉]

Maybe not the emphasis on your post but I think it should be repeated.

 

 

What do you mean?

[Ya Mu]

What do you mean?

 

I thought it was a good thing that many don't pay attention to so I just repeated it for emphasis.

[林愛偉]

I thought it was a good thing that many don't pay attention to so I just repeated it for emphasis.

 

 

 

My English isn't so well...talk Chinese all day, listen to Chinese all day... I'm surprised I can still type!

 

Peace and Blessings,

Lin

[rookie]

When I sit, my intention is to just be with what is. Sometimes there is silence, sometimes not.