Asceticism

Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>David: The process of developing into a sage is a long and arduous one and requires total commitment from the particpant, which means that the valuing of wisdom needs to become all-consuming. When this happens, your whole life is completely taken over.

<span style="text-decoration:underline">(I know, what a rush, what a feeling.)</span>

Sap: I understand, but so were the all-consuming values of Hitler. The question is, which one does Reality "value"?

David: Why? What does that matter?<hr>

Sorry, it was a rhetorical question, meaning that it does not matter, hence yours or Hitler’s "valuing", although different, does not really matter, but the common intensity of conviction does, which makes it all-consuming to an individual "I", and the common intensity, conviction that one applies to any 'value' is basically emotional in nature.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Sap: Personal, very personal, a wish that arises from the illusion of the "I", for he thinks and wants others to enjoy the Truth and Reality, which I am not against, only that he has to know that the "I", although inherently non-existent, operates as long as you are alive.

David: His brain and body continues to operate in a unified fashion, yes.<hr> ...and what does that mean?

Does not the resultant individuality of David Quinn, the practical "I" through which David Quinn operates, exist? Are you saying that a 'mind' is a separate 'thing' that could exist without a brain and body? For that matter, I know you might say that a brain or a body also need not necessarily exist, but that's another story.


Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: 123

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Is there some difference between the infinite and the fundamentals of reality? Are you now introducing another kind of reality in the discussion, a limited or personal one? <hr>

Um, don't think so. Really, all I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't make a any difference to me if you replaced the number "1" with a zero and gave it the same definition. Why should it?

Quote:Quote:<hr>As for the relation between portraying, refering or communicating a principle and the process of understanding, that's a whole other barrel of fish. <hr>

Really? I think portraying, referring or communicating a principle is part and parcel of the process of understanding. It involves thinking. How is it a whole other barrel?
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: 123

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Leyla,Quote:Quote:<hr>all I'm trying to say is that it wouldn't make a any difference to me if you replaced the number "1" with a zero and gave it the same definition. Why should it?<hr>
The question is more why should you or I make any difference at all? Creating clarity for starters.
Quote:Quote:<hr>I think portraying, referring or communicating a principle is part and parcel of the process of understanding. It involves thinking. How is it a whole other barrel?<hr>The relationship between them is a related but way broader topic compared to the specifics of the use of zeroes and ones. I was trying to create more focus while I was suspecting you were introducing a red herring.

The relationship is more complex than thinking alone. As an example, it's way more easy in this day and age to copy words, ideas and styles to create impressions of understanding only. The representation becomes then more and more disconnected of a mastery of the topic itself.
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: 123

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>The question is more why should you or I make any difference at all? Creating clarity for starters.<hr>

Man, I reckon if I can't even ask the right question, I've got no hope of creating clarity.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The relationship between them is a related but way broader topic compared to the specifics of the use of zeroes and ones. I was trying to create more focus while I was suspecting you were introducing a red herring. <hr>

OK.

Quote:Quote:<hr>Leyla: I think portraying, referring or communicating a principle is part and parcel of the process of understanding. It involves thinking. How is it a whole other barrel?

Diebert: The relationship is more complex than thinking alone. As an example, it's way more easy in this day and age to copy words, ideas and styles to create impressions of understanding only. The representation becomes then more and more disconnected of a mastery of the topic itself. <hr>

OK. So, ultimately, what you're saying is that some people think they are thinking when in fact they aren't. Right?
Greg Pike
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Re: Asceticism

Post by Greg Pike »

David wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: Given this, it should be no surprise that the fully-developed sage spends every moment working for the cause of wisdom. It has become so ingrained in him that he doesn't even have to consider it.<hr>


This would necessarily depend upon the Sages level of development. If an imperfect Sage had developed an all-consuming drive to perpetuate the cause of wisdom, it will be because his ego still has the desire to do so. If this same Sage becomes perfect, then the motivation is not an emotional one driven by the ego, but one which would necessarily have had to be habitual or routine(in the early stages of his development). The motivation to teach wouldn't be there if he's Perfect, he would be completely indifferent to the world, even his own wisdom, and beyond desire. It would have to be ingrained in the early stages of his development,only this way do I believe it would become automatic. His every action and expression would then become a perfect manifestation of Truthfulness.

To desire to liberate other "beings" would indicate that he wasn't a Buddha. A Buddha has only awareness of the Self, which is absolutely everything and can't be finitized to limited forms or concepts. The Self is seen effortlessly in all objects, places, people, etc. It becomes the only object of awareness.



Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Personal, very personal, a wish that arises from the illusion of the "I", for he thinks and wants others to enjoy the Truth and Reality, which I am not against, only that he has to know that the "I", although inherently non-existent, operates as long as you are alive.<hr>


If you are referring to the I, in this case being the ego, then you must understand that a fully-enlightened Buddha makes no distinction outside the non-inherent Self(his true nature). The distinction between people, places, and things(separate entities) is no longer made. He would see no "others" in which to enjoy Truth.

You must realize that as long as the ego(inherent/separate existence) remains than so does the illusion of other separate selves. As I said above his motivation for teaching at this point would have to be habitual, otherwise the basis for teaching would no longer be there. For a Buddha, using reason would be nothing more than a catalyst to facilitate the process of enlightenment for students. He derives no personal benefit from it's use either way.

Also, a Buddha doesn't have to convince himself that the "I" or ego doesn't exist. It isn't some form of intellectual trickery, it is an advanced physiological, neurological stage of development and an effortless state of being.

Lastly, the ego can only survive with the physical body. A Buddha has no association with the physical body, having transcended egotism. Life and death to the physical body becomes meaningless to him. All that remains to a Buddha is awareness of his true Self, which is all-encompassing and which exists with or without the support of the physical body.



Greg
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Asceticism

Post by David Quinn »

Greg wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>DQ: Given this, it should be no surprise that the fully-developed sage spends every moment working for the cause of wisdom. It has become so ingrained in him that he doesn't even have to consider it.

Greg: This would necessarily depend upon the Sages level of development.<hr> Yes, I was refering here to the ideal of perfect Buddhahoood.


Quote:Quote:<hr>If an imperfect Sage had developed an all-consuming drive to perpetuate the cause of wisdom, it will be because his ego still has the desire to do so. If this same Sage becomes perfect, then the motivation is not an emotional one driven by the ego, but one which would necessarily have had to be habitual or routine(in the early stages of his development). The motivation to teach wouldn't be there if he's Perfect, he would be completely indifferent to the world, even his own wisdom, and beyond desire.<hr> Emotionally, he is indifferent, yes. But psychologically, it's a different situation. Powered by the automatic desire to spread wisdom, his mind is fully involved in the process. His intellect, intuition, sense of curiosity, and humour are all active towards that end.
User avatar
Diebert van Rhijn
Posts: 6469
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:43 pm

Re: 123

Post by Diebert van Rhijn »

Hi Leyla,Quote:Quote:<hr>what you're saying is that some people think they are thinking when in fact they aren't. Right?<hr>
Indeed, having thoughts and moving them around so that they fit the circumstances where they have to be uttered, is not the thinking we're thinking of. A good carpenter can make furniture out of any chunk of wood you give him, but others can only simulate to a certain degree by ordering at IKEA and following the folded out directions.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

Greg wrote,

Quote:Quote:<hr>The distinction between people, places, and things(separate entities) is no longer made.

For a Buddha, using reason would be nothing more than a catalyst to <span style="text-decoration:underline">facilitate the process of enlightenment for students</span>.<hr>

Why? If a Buddha makes no distinction between things any more, and as you say...

Quote:Quote:<hr>The Self is seen effortlessly in all objects, places, people, etc. It becomes the only object of awareness.<hr> ....then who is he teaching? Him self?

Quote:Quote:<hr>You must realize that as long as the ego(inherent/separate existence) remains than so does the illusion of other separate selves.<hr> For example, students?


For the attention of David;
Quote:Quote:<hr>Greg: Lastly, the ego can only survive with the physical body. A Buddha has no association with the physical body, having transcended egotism. Life and death to the physical body becomes meaningless to him. All that remains to a Buddha is awareness of his true Self, which is all-encompassing and which exists with or without the support of the physical body.<hr>
David, Could I please have your comments on the above?

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Emotionally, he (sage) is indifferent, yes. But psychologically, it's a different situation. Powered by the automatic desire to spread wisdom, his mind is fully involved in the process. His intellect, intuition, sense of curiosity, and humour are all active towards that end.<hr> Can a desire in any other circumstances be considered automatic or does it work only for a sage?
Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: 123

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Indeed, having thoughts and moving them around so that they fit the circumstances where they have to be uttered, is not the thinking we're thinking of. A good carpenter can make furniture out of any chunk of wood you give him, but others can only simulate to a certain degree by ordering at IKEA and following the folded out directions. <hr>

LOL. And pretty soon, as a group, we'll have built a complete home. I mean, Anna and I are banging away at the foundation in The Brothel and you and I are doing the kitchen here. Dan's just quit and the architects -- David and Sapius -- are still arguing over the plans. Love it.

I think we should appoint a materials supervisor. I mean, I would want only the best wood -- chipboard is so flimsy.

(I do like the analogy, to be sure. :)) Edited by: Leyla Shen at: 7/2/05 9:05
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Asceticism

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius,

Quote:Quote:<hr> For the attention of David;

Greg: Lastly, the ego can only survive with the physical body. A Buddha has no association with the physical body, having transcended egotism. Life and death to the physical body becomes meaningless to him. All that remains to a Buddha is awareness of his true Self, which is all-encompassing and which exists with or without the support of the physical body.

Sapius: David, Could I please have your comments on the above? <hr> I assume Greg is refering to his infinite self, the Totality, in which case it does continue to exist without his physical human body. Moreover, when you successfully shift your allegiance from your human body to your infinite self, you do transcend life and death.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: Emotionally, he (sage) is indifferent, yes. But psychologically, it's a different situation. Powered by the automatic desire to spread wisdom, his mind is fully involved in the process. His intellect, intuition, sense of curiosity, and humour are all active towards that end.

Sapius: Can a desire in any other circumstances be considered automatic or does it work only for a sage? <hr> The sage's desire to spread wisdom is automatic in the same sense that an ordinary person's desire to be happy is automatic. It's not something that has to considered. It's a given which the whole mind supports automatically.
Greg Pike
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Re: Asceticism

Post by Greg Pike »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Greg: The distinction between people, places, and things(separate entities) is no longer made.

For a Buddha, using reason would be nothing more than a catalyst to facilitate the process of enlightenment for students.



Why? If a Buddha makes no distinction between things any more, and as you say...

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Self is seen effortlessly in all objects, places, people, etc. It becomes the only object of awareness.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

....then who is he teaching? Him self?
<hr>


If a Buddha is still teaching, it only because it is an automatic response which has been inculcated by his earlier spiritual practises(when he was still an imperfect Sage).

He may have lived his life by certain principles in his earlier spiritual development. Things like perfecting your intellectual understanding of Reality, avoidance and aversion of egotistic activities and entrappings of society; as well as eliminating core delusions through Reason and intellectual discrimination.

He may have also heard from books or wise teachers that when he has perfected his intellectual understanding of Reality and glimpsed the formless state(Enlightenment), than he must work to save "others" or teach them the value of enlightenment. It becomes a natural part of his valuation or his "modus operandi".

But still, at this point, he is still imperfect and has an ego and he still sees "others" to save and "students" to teach. He still sees the "multiplicity" of form and objects(separate entities). He may work with great zeal to get the cause of Wisdom out there and read many books, and perfect many reasonings in which to teach it, as well as follow spiritual disciplines to faciltate the Perfection of Enlightenment. This of course is motivated by his ego, but it's egotism which eventually leads to the destruction of egotism.

This is the state of development which I would categorize the QRS. They have reached the state of Enlightenment through intellectual discrimination, and following certain practises to faciltate the process of Perfection(like ones mentioned above). They have glimpsed the formless state(the Infinite Self), but have not reached the "Perfect" state where their minds rest effortlessly in the "Formless" state. In other words, they haven't completely transcended egotism. Their zeal and motivation is egotistically motivated(to a certain degree).

So, if an imperfect Sage completes the path of Wisdom(Perfection of Enlightenment) then his mind no longer sees "students" to teach or "beings" to save. He has transcended egotism and all divisions and separateness within nature disappears. Arbitrary distinctions such as students, wisdom and ignorance, etc. are extinguished and the Infinite Self alone is all that remains.

His zeal turns to indifference and he serves to benefit nothing from teaching either way. It becomes a habitual response.

Although this is not an absolute truism because some Sages, after reaching the final state may abandon their spiritual practises altogether and not teach at all. At this stage, there becomes no persons to teach or wisdom to transmit, nor motivation in which to teach it. Many were not even motivated to preserve their physical body.



Quote:Quote:<hr>Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You must realize that as long as the ego(inherent/separate existence) remains than so does the illusion of other separate selves.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

For example, students?
<hr>

Yes, as long as he is imperfect and still hasn't transcended egotism, then he still associates himself with the physical body and still see's students to teach and beings to liberate, as well as a teaching to transmit.

He may have glimpsed the formless state and perfected his intellectual understanding, but he still see's the multiplicity of form and objects within the world. If and when he has transcended egotism then the association with the physical body disappears and so does the multiplicity of object and form.

The Self then becomes the only object of awareness.




Greg

Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

David wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>I assume Greg is refering to his infinite self, the Totality, in which case it does continue to exist without his physical human body. Moreover, when you successfully shift your allegiance from your human body to your infinite self, you do transcend life and death.<hr>
Are you sure? He is referring to <span style="text-decoration:underline">HIS</span> infinite self!? According to you there is no "I", so what is this "his"? Some egoistical wishful thinking I would say!

Quote:Quote:<hr>The sage's desire to spread wisdom is automatic in the same sense that an ordinary person's desire to be happy is automatic. It's not something that has to considered. It's a given which the whole mind supports automatically.<hr> So nobody is actually at fault I take it. There is still a <span style="text-decoration:underline">desire</span> though, although their aims are different according to what they think is "good" for them, and others.
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

Greg wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr>Yes, as long as he is imperfect and still hasn't transcended egotism, then he still associates himself with the physical body and still see's students to teach and beings to liberate, as well as a teaching to transmit.

He may have glimpsed the formless state and perfected his intellectual understanding, but he still see's the multiplicity of form and objects within the world. If and when he has transcended egotism then the association with the physical body disappears and so does the multiplicity of object and form.

The Self then becomes the only object of awareness<hr>

I don't think so. Not a single object disappears. Having a glimpse of formless state is nothing more than philosophically thinking it so, and association with physical things cannot disappear by mentally thinking that one has transcended egotism, for when <span style="text-decoration:underline">he</span> is hungry, it is a <span style="text-decoration:underline">thought</span> associated with the physical world, which he cannot transcend as long as he lives.





Thinker23
Posts: 42
Joined: Sun Jul 03, 2005 11:24 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Thinker23 »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Yes, as long as he is imperfect and still hasn't transcended egotism<hr>

It may not be a matter of 'perfection' (kind of a religious idea)....it may be more about 'perception'.

If reality is really energy or consciousness doing it's enernal dance then getting past my identification with my personality will free me up to see myself and everything else as it is.
Plus empower me to dis-cover new abilities based on my real identity as a point of consciousness in the unified field.
<img src="http://members.cox.net/sharonmills/dogsmile" style="border:0;"/>Thinker23
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Re: Asceticism

Post by David Quinn »

Sapius wrote:

Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: I assume Greg is refering to his infinite self, the Totality, in which case it does continue to exist without his physical human body. Moreover, when you successfully shift your allegiance from your human body to your infinite self, you do transcend life and death.

Sap: Are you sure? He is referring to HIS infinite self!? According to you there is no "I", so what is this "his"? <hr> Yes, it's not really his, but everyone's. And it's not really everyone's, either.


Quote:Quote:<hr> DQ: The sage's desire to spread wisdom is automatic in the same sense that an ordinary person's desire to be happy is automatic. It's not something that has to considered. It's a given which the whole mind supports automatically.

Sap: So nobody is actually at fault I take it. <hr> Of course. In the end, we're all just lifeless puppets whose every movement and thought is controlled by causation. Nobody's to blame for anything.


Quote:Quote:<hr>There is still a desire though, although their aims are different according to what they think is "good" for them, and others.<hr> They have intention, rather than desire.
Greg Pike
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Re: Asceticism

Post by Greg Pike »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Not a single object disappears.<hr>

What changes here is the internal representation. The physical world is still "out there" in the sense that it makes an appearance to your mind. The difference is that a Buddha no longer attributes qualities or attributes to anything, but withdraws the senses and maintains the role of the silent witness.

The world appears to the mind as a myriad of concepts, the world itself is but a concept, the ego is nothing more than a concept. It's all created by the mind and is dependant upon the mind for it's existence..

It is to create a plurality, where there is only a singularity. To conceptualize "anything" is to project appearances onto things which aren't really there(other than in the mind).
A Buddha no longer projects these boundaries in the form of "concepts", he sees things "as they are" without evaluation.

To finitize "anything" within the Totality is to negate the Totality. Even this statement negates itself.


Quote:Quote:<hr>Having a glimpse of formless state is nothing more than philosophically thinking it so, <hr>


Stop projecting false appearances onto things for a single moment and you will see the formless state. Stop projecting them indefinately and you will become a Buddha.



Quote:Quote:<hr>and association with physical things cannot disappear by mentally thinking that one has transcended egotism,<hr>


As I've already explained, a Buddha doesn't "mentally think" that he has transcended egotism. It is an effortless state of being. It reflects a higher level of physiological/neurological development within his brain, facilitated by meditation and other mind development practises. It goes beyond mere intellectualizing.


Quote:Quote:<hr> for when he is hungry, it is a thought associated with the physical world, which he cannot transcend as long as he lives.<hr>


Naturally he can still associate with hunger, thirst and other bodily requirements. But these functions are autonomic and usually things outside his control(in the sense that he can't stop them from happening).

These things take place as an automatic response, in the sense that when he's hungry he has a momentary association(thought) with food. It will subside when those feelings are satiated. This is a basic survival mechanism within any human being, Buddha or otherwise.

After this though the mind pulls itself back to the natural state without effort.


Greg
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

Greg, you write quite well but these kind of things are not easy to express, otherwise, those enlightened ones would never need to speak in analogies and riddles, which leaves room for interpretations of things not experienced personally, that is, thought over logically for ones own self.

Quote:Quote:<hr>After this though the mind pulls itself back to the natural state without effort.<hr> No, once your perception changes, and I say Only perception, which is a result of simple logical thinking, it cannot be removed if you have strong enough "emotional" attachment to you own logical thinking, for logically, even a mind is a temporal illusion from which your conclusion that change your perception comes and one should not be attached to it, but "emotional" attachment to your changed perception becomes logically necessary, only then subjectivity and objectivity are totally forgotten, and then one could not go in-to and out-of any "states", since all "states" become natural state.

I find the following posted by David quite simple, clear and to the point, at least for me.

Quote:Quote:<hr>The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po<hr>

My point is, only logic does not do the trick, "emotions", for the lack of a better word, or one can say dedicated conviction, which has all to do with intense "feelings" towards valuing logic rather than logic alone, which does not then let you get out of it once realized, and you are basically left with ¡§valuing¡¨ Everything that Reality has to offer, with no contradictions. You do not become a lump of gray matter acting indifferent to experiences that continue.



Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

David wrote;

Quote:Quote:<hr>Sap: Are you sure? He is referring to HIS infinite self!? According to you there is no "I", so what is this "his"?
David: Yes, it's not really his, but everyone's. And it's not really everyone's, either.<hr>
Nice riddle. So in other words there would be no inherent ¡§Self¡¨ to infer any infinity upon, but just Reality, which is not a thing with a deluded though as a ¡§Self¡¨. It is only we who could think it so. Isn¡¦t it?

Quote:Quote:<hr>David: The sage's desire to spread wisdom is automatic in the same sense that an ordinary person's desire to be happy is automatic. It's not something that has to considered. It's a given which the whole mind supports automatically.

Sapius: There is still a desire though, although their aims are different according to what they think is "good" for them, and others.

David: They have intention, rather than desire.<hr>
Come on David, what¡¦s the difference? Any action has a reason, and even the intention to spread wisdom emerges from the thought that it will benefit someone, and that thought is illusional since it is egotistically attached. Are you saying that Reality is somehow intentionally pushing you through cause and effect to spread wisdom, and pushing the other guy towards being happy? If you say it is automatic, then only this could be the reason.
Greg Pike
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Re: Asceticism

Post by Greg Pike »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Greg, you write quite well but these kind of things are not easy to express, otherwise, those enlightened ones would never need to speak in analogies and riddles, which leaves room for interpretations of things not experienced personally, that is, thought over logically for ones own self.<hr>

The QRS have been doing this for years, and have much more teaching experience with this sort of thing. Personally, I am very much a newcomer to this racket of internet forums, so there's always room for improvement. :)



Quote:Quote:<hr>No, once your perception changes, and I say Only perception, which is a result of simple logical thinking, it cannot be removed if you have strong enough "emotional" attachment to you own logical thinking, for logically, even a mind is a temporal illusion from which your conclusion that change your perception comes and one should not be attached to it, but "emotional" attachment to your changed perception becomes logically necessary, only then subjectivity and objectivity are totally forgotten, and then one could not go in-to and out-of any "states", since all "states" become natural state.

I find the following posted by David quite simple, clear and to the point, at least for me.

Quote:The ignorant eschew phenomena but not thought; the wise eschew thought but not phenomena. When everything inside and outside, bodily and mental, has been relinquished; when, as in the Void, no attachments are left; when all action is dictated purely by place and circumstance; when subjectivity and objectivity are forgotten - that is the highest form of relinquishment. - Huang Po



My point is, only logic does not do the trick, "emotions", for the lack of a better word, or one can say dedicated conviction, which has all to do with intense "feelings" towards valuing logic rather than logic alone, which does not then let you get out of it once realized, and you are basically left with ¡§valuing¡¨ Everything that Reality has to offer, with no contradictions. You do not become a lump of gray matter acting indifferent to experiences that continue.<hr>




I am going to take a few days off to do that write-up about dissipative structures I was talking about. This will give some valuable insight into the "enlightened" experience and into the process of emotional mastery that a Buddha has reached. It does little good for me to talk about the superficial effects of enlightened experience if you don't understand what happens below the surface and the evolutionary processes which must take place.

At the very least it will provide a new slant on things.



Greg
Greg Pike
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 2:47 am
Location: Newfoundland, Canada

Re: Asceticism

Post by Greg Pike »

Sapius,

If you found that quote by Huang Po valuable, you may benefit enormously by reading the whole book, The Zen Teaching of Huang Po On The Transmission of Mind by John Blofeld. It is only a short book and it is very accessible to even the layman.

David has a good collection of his writings on his website.


<a href="http://home.primus.com.au/davidquinn/Bo ... gPo.htm</a>
Sapius
Posts: 1619
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2001 4:59 pm

Re: Asceticism

Post by Sapius »

Quote:Quote:<hr>At the very least it will provide a new slant on things.<hr>
Will look forward to it, Greg.

I just read the Huang Po book. It is well expressed, but I have my reservation on the use of "Buddha Mind". You see, no matter how hard you try to Explain, once you use the word "Mind", it undermines the beautiful and meticulous attempt of explaining its essence in words, and gives people a kind of mental picture of what it might be like. I would rather call it simply Reality, or the Essence of Reality, or the Nature of Reality, but all these fall short too because it is not something one can conceptualize, simply experience.


Leyla Shen
Posts: 3851
Joined: Fri Jun 03, 2005 4:12 pm
Location: Flippen-well AUSTRALIA

Re: Asceticism

Post by Leyla Shen »

Quote:Quote:<hr>Sapius: My point is, only logic does not do the trick, "emotions", for the lack of a better word, or one can say dedicated conviction, which has all to do with intense "feelings"...<hr>

There is nothing inappropriate nor insufficient in the term "emotions." Its only failing is in one's definition (or lack thereof), delusion and lack of understanding on the subject.

There is no better word. Really. Surely, such minds would have thought of it by now if there were. Edited by: Leyla Shen at: 7/5/05 13:30
Locked