The Moment of Choice

[forestofsouls]

Oh, I won't fall into that one either! Just because something is one thing does not necessarily EXCLUDE it from another. It can be baseless AND false.

 

Sadly, the ego traps us, not the other way around.

 

I wish you would cut my head off. It would be less of a bother that way.

 

The dichotomy is not false. It's baseless. There is a difference between something being false and something being without basis.

Sounds good. Why would we want to let the ego escape the trap? If something can get caught in a trap, it's not reliable, and we want it caught ASAP so that we may move beyond it.

 

Don't be scared of getting caught in my traps. I will cut your head clean off. Don't worry.

[goldisheavy]

Oh, I won't fall into that one either! Just because something is one thing does not necessarily EXCLUDE it from another. It can be baseless AND false.

 

Sadly, the ego traps us, not the other way around.

 

Not in this case. This is a special case. If an experience is without basis, it cannot be false. Something can only be false if some kind of truths can be confirmed about it, for sure. When experience is said to be without basis, it is implied that ultimately nothing can be confirmed or dis-confirmed about the experience. If you understand this thoroughly, it's obvious why clear true/false dichotomies only arise in those minds that do not comprehend the ultimate baselessness of phenomena, and do not tolerate the ultimate inconceivability of phenomena.

 

I wish you would cut my head off. It would be less of a bother that way.

 

If your head is bothering you, who or what is it that would enjoy having no head?

[forestofsouls]

This is the trouble mental concepts create. You can get painted into an odd corner.

 

Experience has a basis. The basis is your perception. If I see the moon and say "The moon is the size of a plate," I have a basis (sensory experience), but it would be false.

 

If I see the moon and say "It is made out of the horns of rabbits," I have no basis and it is false.

 

Phenomenon may or may not have an ultimate basis, but would anyone know the difference? And would it even matter?

 

I think you do better than that.

 

Headless for a moment, but not cut off. It returns.

 

Not in this case. This is a special case. If an experience is without basis, it cannot be false. Something can only be false if some kind of truths can be confirmed about it, for sure. When experience is said to be without basis, it is implied that ultimately nothing can be confirmed or dis-confirmed about the experience. If you understand this thoroughly, it's obvious why clear true/false dichotomies only arise in those minds that do not comprehend the ultimate baselessness of phenomena, and do not tolerate the ultimate inconceivability of phenomena.

If your head is bothering you, who or what is it that would enjoy having no head?

Edited May 6, 2009 by forestofsouls

[goldisheavy]

This is the trouble mental concepts create. You can get painted into an odd corner.

 

How do you like your corner?

 

Experience has a basis. The basis is your perception.

 

That's wrong. Perception is experience. What you're saying is circular and therefore logically invalid. Perception is not something other than experience, it's a synonym and means the same thing. For example, if I perceive having a flu and if I experience having a flu, that's the exact same thing I am describing. There is no difference whatsoever.

 

If I see the moon and say "The moon is the size of a plate," I have a basis (sensory experience), but it would be false.

 

Not at all. If you see the moon, what you have there is an unexamined experience which exists within the context of your beliefs. In other words, you have to know something about plates, you must have some beliefs about the sizes and how to compare them, etc...

 

Once you begin to examine your perception of the moon, and try to establish what gives rise to that perception, or what makes the moon to be the moon and not a cow or a flower, you eventually realize that there is NOTHING that makes the moon inherently and permanently and reliably to be the moon. In fact, the moon CAN turn into a cow under the right conditions, and these conditions can turn out a lot more dynamic than you can imagine prior to investigating this whole process of experiencing/perceiving.

 

So that's what is mean by saying "things are empty". It means there is nothing that's backing them up. When you see something, like say a car driving along a street, there is nothing that's backing up that perception. It's a spontaneously arisen perception and you have spontaneous trust in it, and it accords, spontaneously and inconceivably, with all your pre-existing beliefs about what is possible and what isn't, what is real and what isn't and how things work in the real world. But all that, together with your beliefs, etc...is not maintained or held in place by anything at all. That's what it means for it to be without basis. It means that if you want to change the car into a turnip, ultimately, when you become a highly self-realized being, you can accomplish that. From the point of view of a conventional, normal, average, mortal being on planet Earth, such being who can accomplish the inconceivable appearance would be considered insane or impossible. If you could examine the mind of a Buddha who can generate miracles such as spitting water mixed with fire from his chest, you'd conclude it was an insane person, because such mind is not fixated in any way. In other words, it lacks all the certainties that you currently enjoy. For example, you see the keyboard before you and you have no doubt whatsoever it is real and not just a perception. You think there is substance in that keyboard, that it's made of atoms and molecules and it works according to physics. All that is absolutely beyond doubt. A Buddha doesn't have that kind of fixation in mind.

 

But Buddhas are not insane. Far from it. They are super-sane while our minds are somewhat insane. We have many self-sabotaging and self-limiting beliefs, beliefs that hurt us every day and cause us real disease and suffering. That's why we are insane. Buddha's don't have that problem because they've learn to trust their mind on one hand, while not trusting any appearance that arises therein on the other hand. In other words, attention goes from concrete to the abstract, from details to the whole. The trust goes toward the whole and the whole is inconceivable. It's only at the level of details that things appear conceivable. Nonetheless, without details there is no whole, and without the whole, no details, so you have to master the level of details too.

 

Phenomenon may or may not have an ultimate basis, but would anyone know the difference? And would it even matter?

 

It does matter in the relative sense. In the ultimate sense, nothing matters and everything is perfect as is. In the relative sense it helps to know that there is no ultimate basis behind any experience, because this is what opens you to wider possibilities and gives you more strength in life, more capacity to enjoy life, to have more fun, to take things less seriously, to perform magic from time to time, and to die gracefully without fear. So it does matter.

[Unconditioned]

I'll throw in my "not even close logically, mentally, or spiritually" comment on this discussion.

 

I agree with gold in that what we THINK we perceive is added to our experiencing and what we THINK we experience is added to the perceiving. Experiencing and perceiving are pure in their own right, we add our past and projected future to the reality and distort it.

 

However, the labels, concepts, etc. that we use are still there. They cannot be excluded from reality but they can be understood to be empty in and of themselves. And if we try to exclude anything from everything that IS we're delusional and ignorant (I use those words without attaching any connotation).

 

So, to label, to conceptualize, to imagine, is to be human. To realize that those abilities are baseless and not seperate is our gift. I think that is what you (gold) were saying here:

 

Nonetheless, without details there is no whole, and without the whole, no details, so you have to master the level of details too.

 

Nonetheless a very interesting discussion... even if it is in a language that makes my brain hurt

 

Edit: After rereading I've realized that I cannot effectively use words Nothing can be added or taken away, that's only a metaphor. I just have no other means of clearly explaining what I mean.

 

Some days I really like Ramana's approach - silence. But then there are those among us who have a way to use a medium which is by nature divisive to explain something that cannot be divided (and I stole those words from someone else).

 

Also, I don't fell the need to say this but I will anyway out of compulsion. When reading posts, it's very telling when we become defensive of what the other person is saying. It's our spiritual nervous system saying "there's something going on here!!". To that point, if we can get past what we think the poster's hidden agenda is and not judge the content I think we'd have more constructive conversation.

Edited May 6, 2009 by Unconditioned

[goldisheavy]

I agree with gold in that what we THINK we perceive is added to our experiencing and what we THINK we experience is added to the perceiving. Experiencing and perceiving are pure in their own right, we add our past and projected future to the reality and distort it.

 

So it seems you somewhat agree with me, but you don't agree with me 100%. Let's look at what you're saying here.

 

You are saying that there is a level of experience that's inherently true and inherently thus, and if only we can abandon our mental fabrications, we can perceive this true level directly.

 

But what I am saying is that fabrications are not entirely fabricated, that even in the process of fabrication there is spontaneity. And I am also saying that even the ultimate truth is not entire true, because even in the process of complete and total self-realization, there is still nothing concrete that's realized, and ultimately, it cannot even be called "a realization" with absolute certainty. Maybe it's brain damage. Maybe not.

 

What I am saying, in even simpler terms, is that there is no such thing as the completely true and completely "thus" or "it is thus and not any other way" level of experience at all. So the obscurations are, in a way, not really obscuring anything at all... obscurations are all there are in some sense. But why do we call them "obscurations" then? If you want to ask that, that's a good question. The reason we refer to some mental dynamics as obscurations is simply because they sometimes (not always and not necessarily!) unnecessarily limit the self-expression of life, of a person, of mind, of Mind, if you will. mind = Mind. person = universe. person = society and human = humanity. Society = one person. Universe = One Mind and One Mind = ordinary day to day mind of a deluded mortal. Those are not absolute equalities, but they are "equals in important aspects and different in ornamental aspects". So the intention here is to see them as the same, but not to fixate on that sameness to the point where the mind becomes dogmatic and starts to think, "oh yea, they are definitely the same, that's the absolute truth, nothing more can be said, etc. case closed." That would be somewhat like entering into an extreme, which can be too constricting for good life.

 

So if you realize that there is nothing to see, nothing to find, no true experience to experience, no real perception to unveil, THEN you can relax. Then you understand the ultimate groundlessness of all perception.

 

But if you think that under the layer of mentally fabricated experience there is a layer of "pure" experience, then you still don't understand that ALL experience is groundless.

 

The Zen Koan that points to the same truth is, "The monk was walking along a market when he overheard this conversation:

 

Customer: Dear butcher, which cut of meat do you think is the best?

Butcher (offended): ALL my meat is "the best!"

 

The monk becomes enlightened"

 

That's the same thing in Zen terms. There is no pure experience. There is no dirty experience. We speak about mental fabrications, but we don't imply that there is something UNfabricated! Even fabrications themselves are spontaneous and are unfabricated. The process of concept-arising is itself not a concept! So concepts have non-conceptual nature and are 100% pure from the start. To reduce the suffering, instead of abandoning concepts, one simply smooths over the line between the concepts and the non-conceptual.

 

However, the labels, concepts, etc. that we use are still there. They cannot be excluded from reality but they can be understood to be empty in and of themselves.

 

Yes, I agree. But don't stop there. Empty the reality as well. Then empty the emptiness.

 

And if we try to exclude anything from everything that IS we're delusional and ignorant (I use those words without attaching any connotation).

 

I somewhat agree. If you change your mind about something, is it an exclusionary process? I hope not. I hope you're not saying that I cannot change my mind about anything or everything. On the other hand, can exclusion be done without a change in mind?

 

So, to label, to conceptualize, to imagine, is to be human.

 

And it's also to be Buddha or a Taoist Immortal.

 

To realize that those abilities are baseless and not seperate is our gift. I think that is what you (gold) were saying here

 

Yup. It's your innate "gift" that nobody gave you and that no one can take away from you. You are the Lord of that gift of yours and how you use it is your Lordship's say.

[forestofsouls]

How do you like your corner?

 

Constricting. But only because I can see the limitations.

 

 

That's wrong. Perception is experience. What you're saying is circular and therefore logically invalid. Perception is not something other than experience, it's a synonym and means the same thing. For example, if I perceive having a flu and if I experience having a flu, that's the exact same thing I am describing. There is no difference whatsoever.

 

No, this is just mixing up definitions. Experience can refer to a single perceptual moment, multiple, or to an abstract concept. When I was using the word experience, I was using its more abstract meaning, and when I used the word perception, I was using it to refer to specific audio/visual/feeling events.

 

Not at all. If you see the moon, what you have there is an unexamined experience which exists within the context of your beliefs. In other words, you have to know something about plates, you must have some beliefs about the sizes and how to compare them, etc...

 

I agree.

 

Once you begin to examine your perception of the moon, and try to establish what gives rise to that perception, or what makes the moon to be the moon and not a cow or a flower, you eventually realize that there is NOTHING that makes the moon inherently and permanently and reliably to be the moon. In fact, the moon CAN turn into a cow under the right conditions, and these conditions can turn out a lot more dynamic than you can imagine prior to investigating this whole process of experiencing/perceiving.

 

Well, here is where the confusion sets in. You cannot establish what gives rise to any perception. You have the perception, that is all. Anything that is outside the perception is unknown. You can add mental pictures/concepts/associations to your perception, but that doesn't establish anything.

 

Now, if there was nothing that makes the moon reliably (I leave aside inherent, because how do you perceive inherentness? and permanence because everything changes, eventually the moon will fade away like everything else), how could anyone distinguish between the moon and the sun? Even a tiny child knows the difference.

 

So that's what is mean by saying "things are empty". It means there is nothing that's backing them up. When you see something, like say a car driving along a street, there is nothing that's backing up that perception. It's a spontaneously arisen perception and you have spontaneous trust in it, and it accords, spontaneously and inconceivably, with all your pre-existing beliefs about what is possible and what isn't, what is real and what isn't and how things work in the real world. But all that, together with your beliefs, etc...is not maintained or held in place by anything at all.

 

Whether or not there is something "behind" perceptions is unknowable. So to say there is a basis, or not a basis behind a perception is unverifiable, because you can go no further than your perceptions.

 

Now the car is not empty--- if you think so, step in front of it! But it is impermanent, that is to say, subject to change. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a transitory state, in your perceptions.

 

That's what it means for it to be without basis. It means that if you want to change the car into a turnip, ultimately, when you become a highly self-realized being, you can accomplish that. From the point of view of a conventional, normal, average, mortal being on planet Earth, such being who can accomplish the inconceivable appearance would be considered insane or impossible. If you could examine the mind of a Buddha who can generate miracles such as spitting water mixed with fire from his chest, you'd conclude it was an insane person, because such mind is not fixated in any way. In other words, it lacks all the certainties that you currently enjoy. For example, you see the keyboard before you and you have no doubt whatsoever it is real and not just a perception. You think there is substance in that keyboard, that it's made of atoms and molecules and it works according to physics. All that is absolutely beyond doubt. A Buddha doesn't have that kind of fixation in mind.

 

What do you know of Buddhas? Have you seen them do this? Or is this "conjecture"?

 

But Buddhas are not insane. Far from it. They are super-sane while our minds are somewhat insane. We have many self-sabotaging and self-limiting beliefs, beliefs that hurt us every day and cause us real disease and suffering. That's why we are insane. Buddha's don't have that problem because they've learn to trust their mind on one hand, while not trusting any appearance that arises therein on the other hand. In other words, attention goes from concrete to the abstract, from details to the whole. The trust goes toward the whole and the whole is inconceivable. It's only at the level of details that things appear conceivable. Nonetheless, without details there is no whole, and without the whole, no details, so you have to master the level of details too.

 

Speculating on the minds of the Buddhas cannot be helpful. Do you perceive the inner mind of the Buddha? Yes, but not outside yourself. How else can it be?

 

The rest is concepts. They do not connect to perceptions, and, in my simple mind, appear as mental gymnastics.

 

It does matter in the relative sense. In the ultimate sense, nothing matters and everything is perfect as is. In the relative sense it helps to know that there is no ultimate basis behind any experience, because this is what opens you to wider possibilities and gives you more strength in life, more capacity to enjoy life, to have more fun, to take things less seriously, to perform magic from time to time, and to die gracefully without fear. So it does matter.

 

Bravo! I've said this so myself. There are different levels. But the neo-Advaitans don't talk about this. They just stay in the absolute realm, which is not helpful to people stuck in the relative realm.

[goldisheavy]

Constricting. But only because I can see the limitations.

 

If you can see the limitations, you can ultimately see how to overcome them as well. That's how cognizance works. How does awareness of a limit appear? When you feel some constriction it's a sense that you COULD move somewhere, but something is holding you back. So the part where you feel you COULD move somewhere is half the answer right there. The other half is to examine the nature of that which seems to hold you back. This involves a certain amount of testing and getting outside the comfort zone.

 

No, this is just mixing up definitions. Experience can refer to a single perceptual moment, multiple, or to an abstract concept. When I was using the word experience, I was using its more abstract meaning, and when I used the word perception, I was using it to refer to specific audio/visual/feeling events.

 

What's the difference between an audio event and an experience of hearing? Can you describe it clearly?

 

Well, here is where the confusion sets in. You cannot establish what gives rise to any perception. You have the perception, that is all.

 

I agree. But go further. Even the feeling of having the perception, the havingness of perception, that's also perception.

 

Anything that is outside the perception is unknown.

 

Let's go further. First of all, things outside perception are irrelevant. If something affects perception, it's not outside perception. So either it's relevant and we can perceive it, or it's not relevant and we cannot perceive it. Thus we can relieve ourselves of the worrying about things outside perception. We only need to consider perception and nothing else. This makes the scope realistic and manageable and less hypothetical and less speculative. When you consider something to be outside perception, you enter into a speculative realm in an extreme way.

 

You can add mental pictures/concepts/associations to your perception, but that doesn't establish anything.

 

The process of adding is also perceived, isn't it? You do notice the adding right? That means it's also a perception. So if adding is a perception, how can you add something to perception? Adding is a perception. Adding is not something that's not perceived.

 

I agree that nothing can be established, but even in your speculative line of thinking you are not careful. So you reach an agreeable to my mind conclusion via a disagreeable to my mind process. Since the process you use is not very refined, and since the process has not been aborted, it's only a matter of time before the faulty process yields an undesirable conclusion. Of course that's just my evaluation of it. You're missing a little bit of mindfulness. You're not aware of that adding is perception. What's not perception? Can you even discuss something that's not a perception? You'd be talking bullshit, right? You'd be talking about something you have no experience of.

 

Now, if there was nothing that makes the moon reliably (I leave aside inherent, because how do you perceive inherentness? and permanence because everything changes, eventually the moon will fade away like everything else), how could anyone distinguish between the moon and the sun? Even a tiny child knows the difference.

 

When the tiny child knows the difference, as you say, they have a habitual mind-energy. It's a mind habit. What people are not aware of, is that the perception of meaning is a habit. People think that meanings are inherent in the seemingly external objects of the seemingly external world. For example, if you see a tree, you think, that's definitely a tree, that's not a cow, no doubt about it. You don't see that this meaning is being made by your mind. You see that this meaning is somehow implied to you by the seemingly external world, and that you are innocent. You see yourself as purely passive innocent receptacle of meaning, and not as a creator, maintainer, destroyer and transformer of meaning. In reality, the process of perception is not purely passive. It's semi-passive and semi-active, for the lack of a better word. Really it cannot even be described in terms of passivity of activity at all. Meaning perception is definitely not passive. So when you see a cloud in the sky, you know the meaning. You know it might mean rain. You know it might mean thunder. It might mean blocking the light temporarily. It mean might beautiful sight. You're very familiar with those meanings. You can recognize those meanings effortlessly. And since you associate yourself with effort, and some of these meanings appear effortlessly, you think it must be that the meaning comes to you from outside, from the seemingly external world, and that you are seemingly apart from that world and cannot affect it directly via your intent.

 

This is the knot you really have to investigate. Investigation involves contemplation, meditation AND performance of magic. You cannot fully understand phenomena until you make an attempt to, for example, transmute flesh into light, or lead into gold, or cold into heat, and succeed. That can be a tall order, but it's doable. A good place to start, is to learn to lucid dream and try all those things in your dreams first. See how it works. If your memory is not so good, write down what happened. Contemplate it thoroughly. Feel it as deeply as you can while you contemplate it. You can discover A LOT by attempting magic in your dreams. After you learn it in your dreams, and then you realize non-difference between dreaming and waking, you can do it in the waking experience too. When you master the playful appearance this way, when you become a dancer in illusion and not just a ghost of illusion who sits and watches the illusion like on TV... you have to dance in it freely, THEN you will have enough wisdom to equal Buddha's. There is no rush though. You can spend a few lifetimes just practicing sitting meditation without any magic. But at some point you will have to confront your reality-belief, and there is no way to confront it other than to propose a hypothesis: "reality is not how I think it is..." and test it wholeheartedly. That's what magic is. It's a test of a hypothesis that there is nothing beyond mind, that all is mind.

 

Whether or not there is something "behind" perceptions is unknowable. So to say there is a basis, or not a basis behind a perception is unverifiable, because you can go no further than your perceptions.

 

The orthodox way of dealing with this is to say that you make no claims, but rather, you only refute the claims of your opponents who claim that there is stability. In other words, if someone proposes a definite and clear view of stable identities, you have all kinds of ways to criticize that view. You don't have to replace it with a better view, because you're a mystic and not a college professor who has to make the kids adhere to a convention as his job. Mystics have a very strange relationship with convention.

 

Now the car is not empty--- if you think so, step in front of it!

 

Don't be an ass. I've done this before and yes, it's empty. Being hit and feeling pain is also empty. I've set myself on fire too. So stop trying to try to out-macho me. I am a bigger man than you and I can tear your head off and drink your blood, understand? My point is, if you want to get into whose dick is bigger contest, you won't learn anything and your days will be short and brutal. So don't offer empty challenges like that.

 

A better approach is an analytical one. Invite me to continue the discussion instead of trying to play off my fear. How do you know I haven't mastered my fear? You will have a very rude surprise if you go around assuming everyone shares your fears and you try to challenge them on based on that assumption.

 

If you want to discuss fear, that's great. But if you want to enact it -- watch out. Are you ready to die right now? Are you ready to be tortured and do you think it's fun? If yes, you're qualified to play that game. If no, then it's more respectable to stick to the analytical side rather than to the side of the wild dance, at least for now.

 

Keep in mind that Lin Chi hit his master straight in the kisser after he got enlightened. He didn't hold back due to respect or deference or the old age of his master.

 

But it is impermanent, that is to say, subject to change. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in a transitory state, in your perceptions.

 

I don't deny appearances. I only discuss the manner in which appearances appear. My goal is to bring more fun, more playfulness, more carefree enjoyment into life. I don't try to create a feeling of absolute certainty about some truth or other.

 

What do you know of Buddhas? Have you seen them do this? Or is this "conjecture"?

 

Why "them"? I've done it to some extent. I won't claim to be the best at it, but I've done enough to not have to refer to "them" for authority.

[forestofsouls]

I see the way. But as the saying goes, just because the sun is out doesn't mean all the snow is melted.

 

If you can see the limitations, you can ultimately see how to overcome them as well. That's how cognizance works. How does awareness of a limit appear? When you feel some constriction it's a sense that you COULD move somewhere, but something is holding you back. So the part where you feel you COULD move somewhere is half the answer right there. The other half is to examine the nature of that which seems to hold you back. This involves a certain amount of testing and getting outside the comfort zone.

 

I would say there's no constriction, no holding back. When you see the small mind as the mind, this is clear. How can you be constricted? Ignorant, yes. Forgetful, yes. This seems to be more where the problem lies.

 

What's the difference between an audio event and an experience of hearing? Can you describe it clearly?

I agree. But go further. Even the feeling of having the perception, the havingness of perception, that's also perception.

 

Actually, I was not fully clear when I said there was nothing else. There is perceiving. Not a feeling of perceiving, this is a perception.

 

Let's go further. First of all, things outside perception are irrelevant. If something affects perception, it's not outside perception. So either it's relevant and we can perceive it, or it's not relevant and we cannot perceive it. Thus we can relieve ourselves of the worrying about things outside perception. We only need to consider perception and nothing else. This makes the scope realistic and manageable and less hypothetical and less speculative. When you consider something to be outside perception, you enter into a speculative realm in an extreme way.

 

You're just restating what I said. Thus, there is agreement.

 

The process of adding is also perceived, isn't it? You do notice the adding right? That means it's also a perception. So if adding is a perception, how can you add something to perception? Adding is a perception. Adding is not something that's not perceived.

 

You're missing the point. The point was, there is nothing beyond perception (and perceiving). Adding more perceptions (i.e. thoughts) doesn't establish anything about perception. The point is, you cannot go beyond perception to talk of crazy things like "essence" or "identity" or "bases."

 

I agree that nothing can be established, but even in your speculative line of thinking you are not careful. So you reach an agreeable to my mind conclusion via a disagreeable to my mind process. Since the process you use is not very refined, and since the process has not been aborted, it's only a matter of time before the faulty process yields an undesirable conclusion. Of course that's just my evaluation of it. You're missing a little bit of mindfulness. You're not aware of that adding is perception. What's not perception? Can you even discuss something that's not a perception? You'd be talking bullshit, right? You'd be talking about something you have no experience of.

 

You assume a lot, gih. I've noticed a tendency to take a tiny bit of information, and extrapolate. I see you're misinterpreted what I said, and come to a conclusion based on it. I don't blame the misinterpretation, this is the nature of communication.

 

You're right, my process is not refined. It is easy. It is simple. It is using awareness to investigate. Not concepts, theories, or mental tricks. Just observing, watching, noticing. It's not about smart or dumb, fancy or plain.

 

You can talk about patterns of perceptions, and these are not necesarily perceptions. You see a light. Then it is gone. That is impermanance. But you aren't REALLY seeing impermanance. You are seeing a light, light, light, gone.

 

In reality, the process of perception is not purely passive. It's semi-passive and semi-active, for the lack of a better word. Really it cannot even be described in terms of passivity of activity at all. Meaning perception is definitely not passive. So when you see a cloud in the sky, you know the meaning. You know it might mean rain. You know it might mean thunder. It might mean blocking the light temporarily. It mean might beautiful sight. You're very familiar with those meanings. You can recognize those meanings effortlessly. And since you associate yourself with effort, and some of these meanings appear effortlessly, you think it must be that the meaning comes to you from outside, from the seemingly external world, and that you are seemingly apart from that world and cannot affect it directly via your intent.

 

Well, it goes more like this. Eyes open, tree. There was no volition, no process of selection, coloring, or shaping the tree. It is just there. All that other stuff "beautiful sight" "rain" "thunder" this is just adding thought. Soemtimes there are thoughts, sometimes not. But again, not controlled. As you noted earlier, they arise spontaneously. Now, you appear to say that it arises partly of effort.

 

This is the knot you really have to investigate. Investigation involves contemplation, meditation AND performance of magic. You cannot fully understand phenomena until you make an attempt to, for example, transmute flesh into light, or lead into gold, or cold into heat, and succeed. That can be a tall order, but it's doable. A good place to start, is to learn to lucid dream and try all those things in your dreams first. See how it works. If your memory is not so good, write down what happened. Contemplate it thoroughly. Feel it as deeply as you can while you contemplate it. You can discover A LOT by attempting magic in your dreams.

 

While I admit that what you say here is interesting (and makes me wonder what your experiences actually ARE), I do say I smell ego. Shape, control, change according to will, this is small mind stuff. Does big mind care? But on the other hand, if this was possible, I suppose it would loosen up small mind's grip, if not destroy it. Let me say this point is deferred.

 

But there is no lucid dreaming without realizing one is in a dream. To paraphrase Gurdjieff, how can you change anything unless first you are present?

 

The orthodox way of dealing with this is to say that you make no claims, but rather, you only refute the claims of your opponents who claim that there is stability. In other words, if someone proposes a definite and clear view of stable identities, you have all kinds of ways to criticize that view. You don't have to replace it with a better view, because you're a mystic and not a college professor who has to make the kids adhere to a convention as his job. Mystics have a very strange relationship with convention.

 

 

There is some responsibity, I would hope. If you start a process, you should be around to finish the job.

 

Don't be an ass. I've done this before and yes, it's empty. Being hit and feeling pain is also empty. I've set myself on fire too. So stop trying to try to out-macho me. I am a bigger man than you and I can tear your head off and drink your blood, understand? My point is, if you want to get into whose dick is bigger contest, you won't learn anything and your days will be short and brutal. So don't offer empty challenges like that.

 

This is another big leap, again based on little information. Read again what I wrote, perhaps with some calm passivity. I wouldn't jump in front of the car, and I'm pretty sure you wouldn't either. As any good soldier knows, a battle plan usually lasts about five seconds into an actual battle.

 

A better approach is an analytical one. Invite me to continue the discussion instead of trying to play off my fear. How do you know I haven't mastered my fear? You will have a very rude surprise if you go around assuming everyone shares your fears and you try to challenge them on based on that assumption.

 

Your reaction to my words says more about you than about me. And vice versa.

 

If you want to discuss fear, that's great. But if you want to enact it -- watch out. Are you ready to die right now? Are you ready to be tortured and do you think it's fun? If yes, you're qualified to play that game. If no, then it's more respectable to stick to the analytical side rather than to the side of the wild dance, at least for now.

 

Again, I won't play into your options. It's not either/or, choice A or B.

 

Keep in mind that Lin Chi hit his master straight in the kisser after he got enlightened. He didn't hold back due to respect or deference or the old age of his master.

 

I would keep less in mind than what Lin Chi may or may not have done, and more what we can do hereand now.

 

I don't deny appearances. I only discuss the manner in which appearances appear. My goal is to bring more fun, more playfulness, more carefree enjoyment into life. I don't try to create a feeling of absolute certainty about some truth or other.

 

You seem to profess different things at different times, so who knows?

 

Why "them"? I've done it to some extent. I won't claim to be the best at it, but I've done enough to not have to refer to "them" for authority.

 

You brought up the Buddhas.

Edited May 7, 2009 by forestofsouls

[goldisheavy]

Forest, we're getting to the point where I have no idea what I am talking about with you, so I'll try to be brief. Just a few comments. I have no idea what you want to know, if anything, so I have no idea what to say, and so it becomes just my own random self-expression without limits.

 

I see the way. But as the saying goes, just because the sun is out doesn't mean all the snow is melted.

 

Maybe it's nighttime and you cannot see the desert sand? I don't know. I guess you decide what your problem is. I can't say what it is for you. If you're happy with yourself, then you have no problem. I can also look for inconsistencies in your expression. But are those problematic or not? Again, I don't know. Ultimately you decide for yourself.

 

I would say there's no constriction, no holding back.

 

Feeling constricted is different from actually being constricted. Having a nightmare is not the same thing as being attacked by monsters. Isness takes things too far from feeling.

 

You're missing the point. The point was, there is nothing beyond perception (and perceiving). Adding more perceptions (i.e. thoughts) doesn't establish anything about perception.

 

Not at all. Perception comes to us structured. When one contemplates, no time is wasted. It's very productive. Why? Because even though the structure is dynamic and even though the ultimate nature of the structure is that of an empty appearance, knowing what it is and how it plays out brings relative benefit. So thinking is very very useful depending on how you think, what topics you engage in, etc. After all, even the notion of usefulness is relative, it is always with regard to a certain aim. If you are aimless, there is neither usefulness nor uselessness for you.

 

Even if you don't want to keep the structures it is good to know what you are changing. Thinking helps to feel that out.

 

The point is, you cannot go beyond perception to talk of crazy things like "essence" or "identity" or "bases."

 

Right. Now, do you know how to make use of this in life? Can you make this understanding feed and heal you? That's the real trick, isn't it?

 

You assume a lot, gih.

 

I assume, because without assuming there is no experience, no knowledge, no true and no false. How much I assume cannot be measured. It cannot be said that I assume a lot or a little or a medium amount. You don't like my assumptions is what you're attempting to say. Don't pretend you've been able to measure my assumptions as an amount and then compare that to some other amount, like your amount or the average amount of assumptions made by some average person or whatever.

 

Well, it goes more like this. Eyes open, tree. There was no volition, no process of selection, coloring, or shaping the tree. It is just there.

 

Ah... you have no insight into volition. You need to contemplation volition. As it stands, you're seeing too clear a boundary between volitional and non-volitional phenomena, which indicates you haven't done your homework.

 

All that other stuff "beautiful sight" "rain" "thunder" this is just adding thought. Soemtimes there are thoughts, sometimes not. But again, not controlled. As you noted earlier, they arise spontaneously. Now, you appear to say that it arises partly of effort.

 

You cannot control your control. In other words, there is no head on top of the head. When you control something, this controlling is spontaneous. It's not controlled by some another a yet higher level of control, is it? If it was, then what controls that control? If you really understood this, you'd stop seeing control as obviously as you do now. You'd be very unsure about what was controlled and what wasn't and what the difference between controlling and not-controlling was, if any. But since you see such clear and obvious differences, it means you haven't contemplated intent yet. Contemplation tends to smooth out the differences and increase one's mental flexibility. You should be able to talk about the same thing in many ways. If you can only talk about the same thing in one way, that's what a fixation is like.

[forestofsouls]

gih, I don't have a great agenda. What I find perplexing, and interesting about your posts is the unique combination of things that seem completely wrong and things that are right on. My purpose for this exchange was to 1) sharpen my communication; 2) see if there anything to learn; 3) see what produces gih types of posts.

 

I am a simple person. In the past, I used to philosophize a lot, contemplate a lot, spun up thoughts up a lot. But over time, I found this not to be helpful. One helpful thing I learned is that there was no thought, no way of thinking, no book, no golden key, no technique that would solve the riddle. I have found a lot more to do with perceiving than thinking. There is an organic knowledge that is born only through perception, and a more mechanical (in my view) born of thinking, associating, and rearranging the mental contents. I have found, in my life, that organic knowledge brings change, while mechanical often perpetuates what has come before.

 

My sense of your posts is that they tend to emphasize philosophical concepts over experiential data. I suppose what I'm trying to get at are the experiences, if any, behind the concepts.

[goldisheavy]

Ok, good. We're back on track, cause now I know what to say again.

 

gih, I don't have a great agenda. What I find perplexing, and interesting about your posts is the unique combination of things that seem completely wrong and things that are right on. My purpose for this exchange was to 1) sharpen my communication; 2) see if there anything to learn; 3) see what produces gih types of posts.

 

It sounds like fun. The only thing I can do is try to be here and participate.

 

I am a simple person. In the past, I used to philosophize a lot, contemplate a lot, spun up thoughts up a lot. But over time, I found this not to be helpful. One helpful thing I learned is that there was no thought, no way of thinking, no book, no golden key, no technique that would solve the riddle. I have found a lot more to do with perceiving than thinking. There is an organic knowledge that is born only through perception, and a more mechanical (in my view) born of thinking, associating, and rearranging the mental contents.

 

So you maintain a strong distinction between the organic and the inorganic types of knowledge. I don't maintain the same distinction as you. I have no way to convince myself that such a strong distinction exists. The best I've come up with is to say that conventionally we accept that there is a difference between theory and practice, but in reality I find very little difference. Because theorizing involves practice, and practicing involves assumptions, thus theory. Intent, at a relative level, involves assumption. At an absolute level, it doesn't. However, the cool thing is that the relative level is an expression of absolute. In other words, the relative is not something you abandon in favor of the absolute. Another way to say the same thing is that assumptions arise spontaneously and do not depend on more assumptions. That's the nature of assumption -- it is a mental construct that has no support. Assumption is literally outside cause-effect-condition chain. If it was part of cause-effect-condition, it wouldn't be an assumption, it would be a logical effect of some cause and conditions. But that's now what we mean by "assumption". We mean precisely the opposite. We mean that there is no logical continuity, no reason for it, it just appears and seems to be in common use. We agree not to dispute the most common assumptions. This non-disputing of assumptions is at the basis of convention.

 

You should find it interesting that assumptions arise spontaneously. Since this is the case, unless you have found a way to control spontaneity, you're assuming at all times, even when you "just perceive". In fact, to detect a change of state from active thinking to "just perceiving" relies on an assumption about what it means to "just perceive". How do you know that "just perceiving" is not an active state? Why do you think it's passive? How do you know it's different from thinking? Are you assuming that it is? You might say you feel that it is. But how is assumption different from a feeling then? Isn't assumption a kind of feeling? It's something that feels right but you can't explain why, hence assumption?

 

It sounds to me like you're a failed contemplator who gave up before reaching results. You were contemplating and facing some challenges. Instead of wising up to your challenges, you just abandoned the entire approach. And that may be OK for you. After all, you decide what works and what doesn't. But from my point of view, telling me that you no longer contemplate is not a bonus point for you. It's not to your credit.

 

Also, I notice you seem to imply that contemplation is similar to "spinning thoughts". That's very wrong. This also makes me think perhaps you've never tried authentic contemplation.

 

I have found, in my life, that organic knowledge brings change, while mechanical often perpetuates what has come before.

 

I don't see how change can be brought. Change comes of itself, due to the impermanence of dharmas. I don't see how you need to force the change to happen or cajole it to happen. It happens whether you like it or not. What you can influence is the ornamental expression of change, but not the fact that there is a change. So ornamentally, playfully, you like your flavor of change better. That's not the same thing as saying you're creating change via your approach. Also, your change is not real. It's ornamental. Like my change. Perceptions are ornaments of reality, they are not reality. So to get big-headed due to perceiving something is wrong. It's like getting a big head because you're wearing a golden bracelet whereas I wear a rubber band on my wrist. You're getting a big head over an ornament. Alternatively, it's OK to get a big head, as long as you don't take yourself seriously. If you get a big head AND take yourself seriously, that's a deadly combination. But I won't be judging whether or not you take yourself seriously or not! I can't say from your words. You know what it is and I trust you to take care. I don't want to be responsible for determining just from the content of your writing whether or not you are serious or not. I want to leave those honors to you.

 

My sense of your posts is that they tend to emphasize philosophical concepts over experiential data. I suppose what I'm trying to get at are the experiences, if any, behind the concepts.

 

Experience is not really behind the concepts. To say that implies that concepts are non-experiential and that experience is non-conceptual. I'd like to say that's completely wrong, but if I am very charitable, I'll say it's not entirely right. To see why, you have to examine concepts in detail and experience in detail. Look at it and you'll see.

Edited May 8, 2009 by goldisheavy

[forestofsouls]

I don't necessarily agree with what you wrote on assumptions. Assumptions may have an experiential basis. If assumptions were alogical, they wouldn't make any sense. For instance, I might assume that "soup in the 2 = 0". No, I don't assume that. On the other hand, I assume based on your writing that you are a male. It is logically based on tone, style, and content. Yet it is an assumption.

 

What I know about perception is based on experience. I can't say it is active nor passive. How do I know it's different from all other things, including active mentation? Well, I have perceived it. Perceivin transcends and includes other states, which is how we can even talk about them to begin with.

 

I don't know what you mean by true contemplation. I do know there is a difference between thinking about Paris and travelling to Paris. Likewise, there is a difference between thinking about the mind and observing the mind.

 

Experience and concepts obviously bear some relationship. Again, we could make up nonsensical concepts. If I go out and look at mountains, I may come up with a concept of a mountain, a mental abstraction based on experiential sensation. I am unlikely to come up with a concept "lever tree two thousand". However, I could come up with concepts about Paris based on reading about Paris, and come up with concepts based on visiting Paris. These different experiences will give rise to completely different concepts, don't you think?