Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 136

Thread: Meditation

  1. #61
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    then who is writing this?
    Nothing is being written, so how can there be a writer?

  2. #62
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    If the "I" is cut off at the root, and there is no mind to experience the senses, then what is this "Self" of which you speak? If there is no "I" how can there be a "SELF"?
    Here is some elaboration:

    The Self is happiness, bliss, peace. There is no doer of peace, the Self is peace. It is a disturbed mind that hinders one from realizing their true nature. This occurs from the delusion that the body is the self, and thus the five senses and memory are perceived as the "I". As one delves into the source of the "I" through self-inquiry, one will realize their true nature, and the mind that seems to constantly chatter will vanish, leaving one with clarity and true understanding of the self.


    Experience the Self, do not seek to know it through knowledge of others, but through self-inquiry. By looking for the minds source, the mind will eventually vanish. This can be done by looking inward, introverted, for the source from where the notion of "I" arises and not deviating from this looking. This is not a process of analyzing where it came from, but rather directly focussing on the source inwardly from where the "I" arises. Look for when the notion of "I" arises, and find its source.

    If there is no doer that experiences any senses, then why do I experience sensation and what is it that is experiencing them?
    The answer is in the question. Look to where the source of the "I" that experiences sensation comes from.
    Last edited by Nexus; 10-23-2009 at 01:08 AM.

  3. #63
    Hi Nexus,

    Thank you for your response. I have a few more questions please:

    Previously by us:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus View Post
    The "we" that is experiencing the senses is the mind. When the source of the "I" is sought, it is cut off at the root. Then there is in fact no mind by which to experience any senses.
    If the "I" is cut off at the root, and there is no mind to experience the senses, then what is this "Self" of which you speak? If there is no "I" how can there be a "SELF"?


    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus View Post
    The Self is happiness, bliss, peace. There is no doer of peace, the Self is peace. It is a disturbed mind that hinders one from realizing their true nature. This occurs from the delusion that the body is the self, and thus the five senses and memory are perceived as the "I".
    It appears you are stating that identity with the body and experiences from the senses are what form the “I”. But if there is an experience there must be something that experiences. So if there is a something, you call the “Self”, that experiences “happiness, bliss and peace” it must be an identity itself and therefore could be referred to as an “I” as well! If it was not an identity then who is it that states, “Self is happiness, bliss, peace” and who is it that either experiences these or identifies that these exist at all!

    If this argument is valid, then there is more than one way in which “I” may be manifested,

    1) that which “experiences and remembers sensations” and
    2) that which “conceptualizes” happiness, bliss and peace”.

    If as you say, the “Self” is “no doer of peace”, but “is peace”, then there must still be something other than “Self-peace” that identifies/labels/conceptualizes the “Self-as-equal-to-peace”! If there is not, than we cannot say that “Self = peace”, because there is nothing to do the identifying/labeling/conceptualizing.

    If there is no “I” that experiences these and they merely ARE the “Self” how can they be identified as being experienced by “Self” at all?

    Further, if there is no “Self-I” what is it that experiences “happiness, bliss, peace”? If there is no “Self-I” that experiences these, then “happiness, bliss, peace” cannot be said to exist. For, in order for them to exist there must be something that “states” they exist and they must be separate from that which declares their existence or they could not exist! Also, just as Ying mutually arises when Yang manifests, so something other than happiness/bliss/peace mutually arises when happiness/bliss/peace become manifest. If opposing concepts do not arise, then happiness/bliss/peace does not exist! If they do not exist, then to what purpose is there to even be concerned about it at all?

    If there is no experiencer how can we say an experience has occurred at all? If there is no doer, how can anything be done, such as “realizing of true nature”? For there to be an experience, there must be an experience AND an experiencer, for there to be something done, “realizing true nature”, there must be a doer, for there to be Yin there MUST be Yang!

    If there is no “Self-I”, there can be no “self-inquiry”, no “happiness/bliss/peace, no “true nature”. If these do not exist, who/what is it that does the searching, and for what purpose?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus View Post
    As one delves into the source of the "I" through self-inquiry, one will realize their true nature, and the mind that seems to constantly chatter will vanish, leaving one with clarity and true understanding of the self.
    If one has “true understanding of the self”, they are understanding an “I”. If there is no “I” there cannot be a “Self” as they are the same thing. If there is no “Self-I” what is it that occurs when there is “self-inquiry”? Is it not inquiring into what is not there?

    If there is no “Self”, what is doing the inquiry? If there is no “Self” there will be nothing for self-inquiry to find, in which case, why inquire at all?

    Isn’t this “self-inquiry” then, just another form of delusion? For if there is no “Self” there is not only nothing to do the inquiring, but nothing for inquiry to find!

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus966104
    Experience the Self, do not seek to know it through knowledge of others, but through self-inquiry. By looking for the minds source, the mind will eventually vanish. This can be done by looking inward, introverted, for the source from where the notion of "I" arises and not deviating from this looking. This is not a process of analyzing where it came from, but rather directly focussing on the source inwardly from where the "I" arises. Look for when the notion of "I" arises, and find its source.
    Once again, if there is some “thing” that seeks, it must be a “Self-I”! If not, then what does the searching/inquiry? If you say it is the “mind”, it is still a “thing” (a Self) that is “doing” something (searching/inquiring), in order to locate a third “thing” (the Source of itself)!

    So we have one “thing” performing an “action” in order to locate “something else”! The first “thing” must be a “Self”, an “I”, a “Mind”,all are just different names for the same thing! And what it is searching for is “Itself”!

    If “the mind will eventually vanish”, then so will this “Self-I”, for the “Self-I” is formed from the mind. If the “Self-I” vanishes, it could be said it was never there to begin with. If it was not there to begin with, then why inquire into it in the first place?

    You previously stated:

    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus View Post
    The mind, when sought after disperses since there cannot be both the "doer" and the one who observes the "doer."
    If this is the case it is futile to inquire at all because the doer is inquiring into itself. If it is inquiring into itself, and “there cannot be both ‘doer’ and the one who observes the ‘doer’, as you have stated, then, ‘that which is doing cannot observe itself’, in which case inquiry is a purposeless action! The doer will never find what it is looking for because it is looking for itself, but since the doer cannot observe himself, the doer will never find what it is inquiring about/searching for!

  4. #64
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    east TX
    Posts
    405

    Yes.......

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    .................If this is the case it is futile to inquire at all because the doer is inquiring into itself. If it is inquiring into itself, and “there cannot be both ‘doer’ and the one who observes the ‘doer’, as you have stated, then, ‘that which is doing cannot observe itself’, in which case inquiry is a purposeless action! The doer will never find what it is looking for because it is looking for itself, but since the doer cannot observe himself, the doer will never find what it is inquiring about/searching for!
    Thanks Scott!!!

    "I" wish "I" could say all of that...
    .... Skip

  5. #65
    Quote Originally Posted by Nexus View Post
    Nothing is being written, so how can there be a writer?
    oh, boo; D-

  6. #66
    Quote Originally Posted by Skip J. View Post
    Thanks Scott!!!

    "I" wish "I" could say all of that...
    Thank you Skip!

  7. #67
    Join Date
    Dec 1969
    Location
    Anchorage, Alaska
    Posts
    1,317
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    If the "I" is cut off at the root, and there is no mind to experience the senses, then what is this "Self" of which you speak? If there is no "I" how can there be a "SELF"?

    If there is no “I” that experiences these and they merely ARE the “Self” how can they be identified as being experienced by “Self” at all?

    Further, if there is no “Self-I” what is it that experiences “happiness, bliss, peace”?

    If there is no experience how can we say an experience has occurred at all? If there is no doer, how can anything be done, such as “realizing of true nature”? F

    If there is no “Self-I”, there can be no “self-inquiry”, no “happiness/bliss/peace, no “true nature”. If these do not exist, who/what is it that does the searching, and for what purpose?


    If one has “true understanding of the self”, they are understanding an “I”. If there is no “I” there cannot be a “Self” as they are the same thing. If there is no “Self-I” what is it that occurs when there is “self-inquiry”?

    Is it not inquiring into what is not there?

    If there is no “Self”, what is doing the inquiry?

    If there is no “Self” there will be nothing for self-inquiry to find, in which case, why inquire at all?

    Isn’t this “self-inquiry” then, just another form of delusion?


    Once again, if there is some “thing” that seeks, it must be a “Self-I”! If not, then what does the searching/inquiry?


    If “the mind will eventually vanish”, then so will this “Self-I”, for the “Self-I” is formed from the mind. If the “Self-I” vanishes, it could be said it was never there to begin with, If it was not there to begin with, then why inquire into it in the first place?


    The doer will never find what it is looking for because it is looking for itself, but since the doer cannot observe himself, the doer will never find what it is inquiring about/searching for!
    Knowing the Self means being the Self. Can you say that you do not know the Self? Though you cannot see your own eyes and though not provided with a mirror to look in, do you deny the existence of your eyes? Similarly, you are aware of the Self even though the Self is not objectified.

    Or, do you deny your Self because it is not objectified? When you say ‘I cannot know the Self, it means absence in terms of relative knowledge, because you have been so accustomed to relative knowledge that you identify yourself with it. Such wrong identity has forged the difficulty of not knowing the obvious Self because it cannot be objectified. The mind cannot rest until the Self is known. Finding futility in self-inquiry rather then applying self-inquiry is hindering knowing the Self. Look for the source of the "I" without deviation and each time a question arises, rather than writing it here as an argument to the futility of the practice of self-inquiry, use that question as a means to finding the source from where that question arises.

    Paraphrasing, the question is ‘how is one to know the Self?’

    Ramana Maharshi says it in this way:

    Your duty is to be and not to be this or that. "I am that I am" sums up the whole truth. The method is summed up in the words "Be still". What does stillness mean? It means destroy yourself. Give up the notion that "I am so and so". All that is required to realize the Self is to be still. What can be easier than that? Self-knowledge is then simple to attain.

    This knowledge of oneself will be revealed only to the consciousness which is silent, clear and free from the activity of the agitated and suffering mind. Know that the consciousness which always shines in the Heart as the formless Self, ‘I’, and which is known by one’s being still without thinking about anything as existent or non- existent, alone is the perfect reality.
    Last edited by Nexus; 10-23-2009 at 10:44 AM.

  8. #68
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    east TX
    Posts
    405

    anytime....

    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    Thank you Skip!
    Oh you're welcome Scott!

    anytime....
    .... Skip

  9. #69
    This is a very simple subject for those who have an enligthenment teacher to learn.
    This is a practice which most will not do thus will not be able to witness the teacher's teaching.

    Speculation is useless for those who dont have a teacher( who have been there and be able to describe the journey ) and have never walked the journey .

    it is beyond mind, so simple but so difficult.

  10. #70
    1, There is nothing wrong with self.

    Self is just an Identity. To do a certain job, and Identity is a must. When a Buddha teaches he took the identity of a teacher.


    2, The issue is get stuck at the identify. That becomes problem.



    3, meditation is a practice to not get stuck. meditation is not a practice to attain a certain state or to stay at certain high or low energy state. For the practice of attaining a certain state or stay at a certain state is attachement is getting Stuck. practicing a meditation to get stuck doesnt get you to liberation but trapping you even more.

    IE: taking a cold softdrink feel cool in the throat however one will rely on softdrink and wanting more and more and thus deeply attach to soft drink. those kind of practice is suffering or Duka.





    4, enlightement is as it is and have no love or hate or dueling. It is as It is and if the situation needs an Identity arise as the condition changes the identity is letting go without a second thought.




    5, Thus, life is ok, death is ok, peaceful is ok, suffering is ok, everyting is a transformation within the samadhi of the Thus comes one --- the silence, the Nirvana. only those who knows there will know the direction of the liberation. Those who have been there will no longer desire to attach.
    Last edited by Hendrik; 10-23-2009 at 02:45 PM.

  11. #71
    For those who knows chinese and would like to learn Zen check the following master.

    http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/JkWmPB-kwWk/

    http://www.xzxdc.com/xmwj/a27.htm


    100000% honest and solid for your cultivation.


    I really hope somedays there is a translation to English. This sure will benifit lots of practitioner who is seeking for Zen teaching.

  12. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by Hendrik View Post
    1, There is nothing wrong with self.

    Self is just an Identity. To do a certain job, and Identity is a must. When a Buddha teaches he took the identity of a teacher.

    2, The issue is get stuck at the identify. That becomes problem.

    3, meditation is a practice to not get stuck. meditation is not a practice to attain a certain state or to stay at certain high or low energy state. For the practice of attaining a certain state or stay at a certain state is attachement is getting Stuck. practicing a meditation to get stuck doesnt get you to liberation but trapping you even more.

    IE: taking a cold softdrink feel cool in the throat however one will rely on softdrink and wanting more and more and thus deeply attach to soft drink. those kind of practice is suffering or Duka

    4, enlightement is as it is and have no love or hate or dueling. It is as It is and if the situation needs an Identity arise as the condition changes the identity is letting go without a second thought.

    5, Thus, life is ok, death is ok, peaceful is ok, suffering is ok, everyting is a transformation within the samadhi of the Thus comes one --- the silence, the Nirvana. only those who knows there will know the direction of the liberation. Those who have been there will no longer desire to attach.
    it must be an off day, because I concur w/Hendrik (); especially, as he puts very well, that within the suchness of enlightenment, identity / self arises with changing conditions - much the same as in "not-enlightenment", but the condition out of which that self / identity rises and falls comes out of a responsiveness to the immediate situation such as it is, as opposed to a reaction based on habitual projection; meaning that, if I encounter someone and they and / or the situation within which I find myself reminds me of someone else I have "issues" with (e.g. a parent, an ex, etc.), if I simply react, I will do so based on the stored-accumulation of memory of that person / event; OTOH, if I do not act out of that habitual pattern, but rather respond based on what is directly in front of me, without filtering it through an inapplicable past experience, then it is suited to that moment and I have the freedom to act as the situation warrants
    in this responsiveness, one experiences a wide range of things: joy, peace, anger and sorrow; but it is a joy, calm, anger, sorrow. born out of that immediate moment, meaning that it, like all things is transitory - which, being transitory, eventually comes to an end, and one has awareness of this, as opposed to the joy / suffering experienced out of habit, which one either wants to go on forever in the case of the former or seem like it will never end on the case of the latter - and this is neurosis / anxiety and suffering - suffering is what happens when we do not experience directly, but rather try to avoid or enhance experiences beyond their natural rising and falling - and in the acknowledgment of this, one is free from fear of fully experiencing directly, and one is then able to drink deeply from the cup of life;

  13. #73
    Quote Originally Posted by taai gihk yahn View Post
    it must be an off day, because I concur w/Hendrik (); especially, as he puts very well, that within the suchness of enlightenment, identity / self arises with changing conditions - much the same as in "not-enlightenment", but the condition out of which that self / identity rises and falls comes out of a responsiveness to the immediate situation such as it is, as opposed to a reaction based on habitual projection; meaning that, if I encounter someone and they and / or the situation within which I find myself reminds me of someone else I have "issues" with (e.g. a parent, an ex, etc.), if I simply react, I will do so based on the stored-accumulation of memory of that person / event; OTOH, if I do not act out of that habitual pattern, but rather respond based on what is directly in front of me, without filtering it through an inapplicable past experience, then it is suited to that moment and I have the freedom to act as the situation warrants
    in this responsiveness, one experiences a wide range of things: joy, peace, anger and sorrow; but it is a joy, calm, anger, sorrow. born out of that immediate moment, meaning that it, like all things is transitory - which, being transitory, eventually comes to an end, and one has awareness of this, as opposed to the joy / suffering experienced out of habit, which one either wants to go on forever in the case of the former or seem like it will never end on the case of the latter - and this is neurosis / anxiety and suffering - suffering is what happens when we do not experience directly, but rather try to avoid or enhance experiences beyond their natural rising and falling - and in the acknowledgment of this, one is free from fear of fully experiencing directly, and one is then able to drink deeply from the cup of life;


    Thanks.

    Hope you attained Buddha hood soon.

  14. #74
    Hi Nexus,

    Thank you once again for taking the time to reply to my comments!

    Here are a few more:

    Knowing the Self means being the Self.

    When the concept of “knowing” is created an "objective thing to know" mutually arises. To conceive of a "Self" to "know" is to objectify "Self". When "Self" is conceived it becomes “I”. If "Self" is not conceived no “I” arises and there is no "Self" to "know" and no conception of "knowing". Why conceive of "Self" and "knowing" in the first place? If there is no "Self" there is no "knowing". If there is no "knowing" there is no "Self". So why be concerned with any of it?

    The mind cannot rest until the Self is known.

    First you create a "Self" to "know"; now you have created a “mind” and the condition of “rest” in order for "Self" to be "known". This complicates matters more! When there is no "Self" from the first there is no "mind" that must "rest" and nothing to "know"!

    Finding futility in self-inquiry rather then applying self-inquiry is hindering knowing the Self.

    More complication! First you started with conceiving/creating a “Self”, then you decided this “Self” should/must be “known”. Then you created a “mind” that must “rest” in order for this “Self” to be “known”. And now you have created “self-inquiry” in order to bring the “mind” to “rest” in order to “know” the “Self”. All you have done is create something out of nothing in order to complicate matters. When one realizes there is nothing from the first all this rigmarole becomes useless drivel! It only has meaning when one is attached to a conception of "Self"!

    Look for the source of the "I" without deviation and each time a question arises, rather than writing it here as an argument to the futility of the practice of self-inquiry, use that question as a means to finding the source from where that question arises.

    “Self-I” is a conception. When “Self-I” is conceived, conception of “the source” mutually arises. Questions arise due to conceptions. When no “Self-I” is conceived no “source” arises and no questions arise. With no conceptions there are no questions. When one recognizes this there is no need for inquiry! There is no need for inquiry because, with no conceptions there is nothing to find!

    Paraphrasing, the question is ‘how is one to know the Self?’

    When there is no “Self” there is nothing to "know". When there is nothing to "know" there is no "question"! While the entire process may be engaging and entertaining, it is also unnecessary.

    What can be easier than that? Self-knowledge is then simple to attain.

    When there is no “Self” there is no "easy or difficult" and no "simple", there is no “self-knowledge", and nothing "to attain"!

    Your duty is to be and not to be this or that.

    When there is no “Self” there is no “duty”, no “being”, no “this”, no “that”!

    "I am that I am" sums up the whole truth.

    When there is no “Self” there is no "I am that I am" because there is no "I" and no "being", therefore there is no “truth” to "sum up"!

    The method is summed up in the words "Be still".

    When there is no “Self” there is no “method”, no “being”, there is no agitation so there is no need for “stillness”!

    What does stillness mean?

    When there is no “Self” there is no "stillness" and no reason to be concerned about it!

    It means destroy yourself.

    When there is "nothing from the first" there is nothing to be "destroyed"! When there is no “Self” there is nothing to be "destroyed" because nothing was created!

    Give up the notion that "I am so and so".

    Give up the notion of "I-Self" and "so and so" disappears!

    All that is required to realize the Self is to be still

    When there is no “Self” there is nothing required! When there is no “Self” there is no agitation, when there is no agitation there is no need for stillness!

    Once again: Look for the source of the "I" without deviation and each time a question arises, rather than writing it here as an argument to the futility of the practice of self-inquiry, use that question as a means to finding the source from where that question arises.

    When there is no “Self” there is no “I”! When there is no “I”, there is nothing to "look for"! When there is nothing to "look for", no “questions arise”! When no "questions arise" "self-inquiry" is unnecessary, when "self-inquiry" is unnecessary, there is nothing to “deviate” from!

    When there is no “Self” there is no “source”! When there is no “Self” there is no self-knowledge and nothing to attain?

    This knowledge of oneself will be revealed only to the consciousness which is silent, clear and free from the activity of the agitated and suffering mind.

    When there is no “Self” there is no concept of "oneself", no "knowledge" to be “revealed” and no “consciousness which is silent, clear and free from the activity of the agitated and suffering mind”! When there is no “Self” there is no “agitated” mind, there is no “suffering” mind, and there is no need for any kind of “knowledge” to be “revealed”!

    Know that the consciousness which always shines in the Heart as the formless Self, ‘I’, and which is known by one’s being still without thinking about anything as existent or non- existent, alone is the perfect reality.

    There is no “formless Self” because there is no “Self” from the start! When there is no “Self” there is neither “stillness” nor agitation, neither “knowing” nor not-knowing, neither “existence” nor “non-existence’ and certainly no “perfect reality”!

    One certainly may go through this whole process of “self-inquiry”, “stilling”, “knowing” etc., but in the end, one must give up conceptions of “Self”. So rather than dilly dally around for years following a process that is artificially created from the first, only to give up conceptions in the end, how about giving up conceptions from the first, and skip all this intermediate bunk!
    Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 10-23-2009 at 11:26 PM.

  15. #75
    Quote Originally Posted by Scott R. Brown View Post
    So rather than dilly dally around for years following a process that is artificially created from the first, only to give up conceptions in the end, how about giving up conceptions from the first, and skip all this intermediate bunk!
    oh, you're no fun anymore...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •