Click here to go to the next issue
Highlights Home Page | Receive the Nondual Highlights each day
Nondual Highlights Issue #1621 Wednesday, November 19, 2003 Editor: Mark
- Editor's
note: I'm not always sure how to deal with ongoing conversations
in the highlights, especially when they extend
over more than one day and involve multiple speakers. What I did
here was the lazy approach. I posted just one message - number
79468, and I left it alone, hoping the reader will parse who said
what and when.
> "Andy"
> > "Gene Poole" >
> Hi Gene ~
>
>
> *****I wonder: what is wrong with having preferences? Or
with having no preferences?
If you are asking me 'what is wrong' with that, I must ask... did
I say anything is wrong with it?
Nope.
> > Being 'without preferences' may also be
> > called 'abiding'... to set yourself into a
> > state that you recognize and to remain
> > 'there', no matter the changing of
> > circumstances. That is the (too) short
> > description.
> >
> > 'Without preferences' is the hardest work...
> > but it is to remain faithful to the 'no doer'
> > framework.
>
>
>
> *****As there is 'no doer' who sets oneself into any state?
And yet,
> sometimes, the setting of oneself into a state does happen.
If you can find such a state, and practice
'being there' in that state, you will find
value... beliefs aside.
The issue of 'doer' abounds with theories
and beliefs... yet, only direct experience of
'having it done' will satisfy any questions
of 'doer'.
> > To get beyond the point of even having
> > compelling thoughts... let alone speaking,
> > or acting, in reaction, is the point. At the
> > least, it is a rewarding practice of 'working
> > on oneself'.
>
> *****I would reword the above as:
>
> to get beyond the point of even caring about having
compelling
> thoughts is the point.
On the contrary; we do this, because we
care, very much. Compelling thoughts may
lead to wrong action; creating the lead-time
to comprehend what is happening within oneself,
is a very useful, if not by certain criteria, 'spiritual'
ability.
> It's not as if we can control our thoughts.
> Thoughts happen. Some are compelling; others not.
> Thoughts are part of what allows the dream to persist, for
apparent
> action to occur. It is in the taking "ownership"
of thoughts that
> suffering may appear.
I can only disagree with all statements in your
above paragraph, with the exception of the
'some are compelling, others not' statement.
We can control our thoughts; in fact, with practice,
you can learn to recognize the factors which
will eventually become thoughts; you can recognize
the emotions, as subtle as they are, which give rise
to thoughts; those thoughts usually being expressed
product of the static data-file which comprises 'identity'.
The best way to 'control' thoughts, is to allow them
to become extinct, before they are born.
> > In this practice, eventually, the most subtle
> > of emotions can be recognized early in its
> > arising-phase.
> >
> > So, it is to go beyond reaction to external
> > events... and eventually to controlling
> > reaction to even the most subtle of internal
> > events.
>
>
> > This 'practice', once embedded at the level
> > of habit, can then be called upon... it can be
> > used or not, as one chooses.
>
>
> *****A subtle "trap": believing that there is
*any* control and that
> there is a one who may do as he/she chooses. ;-)
Advaitin dogma aside, belief is not required; trial
and error will do to verify, if what I say is workable.
> *That* is what I see as the side-effect of engaging in
> any 'practice.' And yet, if one is drawn to practice, then
one will
> practice. There's nothing to do about it.
Sometimes, it will occur that one who does not
practice, will have regrets as a result; and that
one may adopt practice, to avoid situations which
give rise to regret.
> > If one understands that 'truth is found only
> > in language',
>
>
> *****Without any challenge here, I would submit that 'truth'
can't be
> known or encapsulated in thought or language.
"Truth" is simply a
> thought. And there are a lot of them!
I stand by my statement; truth is found only
in language. 'Reality' is not truth; 'reality' may
be ineffable, but truth can be thought and spoken.
In fact... truth is only one degree from the lie/error
axis... which includes the subset known as 'delusion'.
> > and that language is among the
> > many stimuli that we habitually react to,
> > one may also understand that if the field is cleared
> > of reaction, that what remains, is the reality
> > which currently informs one's awareness.
>
>
> *****Reactions occur. As long as there is a functioning
biological
> organism (not in deep sleep or a coma or a drug-induced
haze),
> reactions happen through that entity.
>
> Cheers!
> andy
Thanks, Andy...
Remember:
A Being abiding
Abides nonabiding Beings;
Nonabiding Beings do not abide
Beings abiding.
==Gene Poole==
- From Nonduality Salon, Wednesday, November 19, 2003
1:1 Confucius said:
"Isn't it a pleasure to study and practice what you have
learned? Isn't it also great when friends visit from distant
places? If people do not recognize me and it doesn't bother me,
am I not a Superior Man?"
[Comment] Superior Man is a common English translation for the
Chinese term chü n-tzu which originally means "Son of a
Prince"- thus, someone from the nobility. In the Analects,
Confucius imbues the term with a special meaning. Though
sometimes used strictly in its original sense, it also refers to
a person who has made significant progress in the Way (Tao) of
self-cultivation, by practicing Righteousness, by loving
treatment of parents, respect for elders, honesty with friends,
etc. Though the chü n-tzu is clearly a highly advanced human
being, he is still distinguished from the category of sage
(sheng-jen), who is, in the Analects more of a "divine
being, " usually a model from great antiquity.
The character of the Superior Man, in contrast to the sage, is
being taught as a tangible model for all in the here and now. And
although many descriptions of the requirements for chü n-tzu
status seem quite out of our reach, there are many passages where
Confucius labels a contemporary, or one of his disciples a
"Superior Man, " intending a complement. Thus, the
categorization is not so rigid. One might want to compare the
term "Superior Man" to the Buddhist bodhisattva, in
that both are the models for the tradition, both indicate a very
high stage of human development as technical terms, yet both may
be used colloquially to refer to a "really good
person."
- Excerpt from the Analects of Confucious,
translated by Charles Muller
More here: http://www.hm.tyg.jp/~acmuller/contao/analects.htm
Student: If
someone is determined to reach enlightenment, what is the most
essential method he can practice?
Bodhidharma: The most essential method, which includes all other
methods, is beholding the mind.
Student: But how can one method include all others?
Bodhidharma: The mind is the root from which all things grow if
you can understand the mind, everything else is included. Its
like the root of a tree. All a trees fruit and flowers,
branches and leaves depend on its root. If you nourish its root,
a tree multiplies. If you cut its root, it dies. Those who
understand the mind reach enlightenment with minimal effort.
Those who dont understand the mind practice in vain.
Everything good and bad comes from your own mind. To find
something beyond the mind is impossible.
Student: But bow can beholding the mind be called understanding?
Bodhidharma: When a great bodhisattva delves deeply into perfect
wisdom, he realizes that the four elements and five shades are
devoid of a personal self. And he realizes that the activity of
his mind has two aspects: pure and impure. By their very nature,
these two mental states are always present. They alternate as
cause or effect depending on conditions, the pure mind delighting
in good deeds, the impure mind thinking of evil. Those who arent
affected by impurity are sages. They transcend suffering and
experience the bliss of nirvana. All others, trapped by the
impure mind and entangled by their own karma, are mortals. They
drift through the three realms and suffer countless afflictions
and all because their impure mind obscures their real self.
-excerpt from the Breakthrough Sermon from The
Zen Teachings of Bodhidharma, translated by
Red Pine.
More here: http://hjem.get2net.dk/civet-cat/zen-writings/teachings-of-bodhidharma.htm
Patanjali's
Yoga has essentially to do with the mind and its modifications.
It deals with the training of the mind to achieve
oneness with the Universe. Incidental to this objective are the
acquisition of siddhis or powers.
The aim of Patanjali Yoga is to set man free from the cage of
matter. Mind is the highest form of matter and man freed from
this dragnet of Chitta or Ahankara (mind or ego) becomes a pure
being.
The mind or Chitta is said to operate at two levels-intellectual
and emotional. Both these levels of operation must be removed and
a dispassionate outlook replace them. Constant Vichara (enquiry)
and Viveka (discrimination between the pleasant and the good) are
the two means to slay the ego enmeshed in the intellect and
emotions. Vairagya or dispassion is said to free one from the
pain of opposites love and hate, pleasure and pain, honour and
ignominy, happiness and sorrow.
The Yoga of Patanjali is Ashtanga or comprised of 8 limbs.
They are :
1. Yama
2. Niyama
3. Asana
4. Pranayama
5. Pratyashara
6. Dharana
7. Dhyana and
8. Samadhi.
Ahimsa (non-injury), Satya (truth), Asteya (non-covetousness),
Brahmacharya (continence) and Aparagriha (abstinence from
avarice) come under Yama.
These five austerities are universal and absolute. Under no
condition should they be deviated from. A Yogi must not cause
injury or pain to another in thought, word or deed, One must not
hurt even in self-defence. This is Ahimsa.
Truth is concurrence between thought, word and deed. it must be
true to fact and at the same time pleasant. If by speaking the
truth, another is hurt it ceases to be truth and becomes himsa.
There is a story which illustrates this point.
In olden days there was a sage renowned for his austerities and
observance of the vow of truth. It so happened that once when he
was sitting by his little hut, a frightened man with a bundle ran
past him and disappeared into a cave nearby. a couple of minutes
later there came a band of fierce robbers with gleaming knives,
apparently looking for this man. Knowing that the sage would not
lie, they asked him where the man with the bundle was hiding. At
once, the sage, true to his vow of not uttering falsehood, showed
them the cave/ The cruel robbers rushed into it, dragged out the
scared man, killed him mercilessly and departed with his bundle.
the sage never realised God in spite of his austerities and
tenacity for truth for he had been instrumental in the murder of
a man. This is not the kind of truth that yoga requires. It would
have been better if the sage had remained quiet for that would
have saved the poor man. Great care is therefore to be exercised
in speaking and each word must be carefully weighed before it is
uttered.
Yoga shows us all happiness is within our selves and trying to
quench desires is like pouring ghee on fire which only makes it
blaze more instead of putting it out. So with desire, It is never
satisfied. yoga shows us that happiness for which we are
eternally searching can be obtained through non-desire.
To achieve a state of non-desire, the mind must be trained to
think clearly.
-An excerpt from An Introduction to Yoga
on the IndiaExpress Network.
More here: http://indiaexpress.com/mind/yoga/
Meditation
isn't really about getting rid of thoughts, it's about changing
the pattern of grasping on to things, which in our
everyday experience is our thoughts.
The thoughts are fine if they are seen as transparent, but we get
so caught up judging thoughts as right or wrong, for and against,
yes and no, needing it to be this way and not that way. And even
that might be okay except that is accompanied by strong, strong
emotions. So we just start ballooning out more and more. With
this grasping onto thoughts we just get more caught, more and
more hooked. All of us. Every single one of us.
It's as if you had vast, unlimited space- complete openness,
total freedom, complete liberation- and the habit of the human
race is to always, out of fear, grasp onto little parts of it.
And that is called ego and ego is grasping on to the content of
our thoughts. That is also the root of suffering, because there
is something in narrowing it down which inherently causes us a
lot of pain because it is then that we are always in a
relationship of wanting or not wanting. We are always in a
struggle with other people, with situations, even with our own
being. That's what we call stress. That's what we experience as
continual, on-going stress. Even in the most healthy, unneurotic
of us, there's some kind of slight or very profound anxiety of
some kind, some kind of uneasiness or dissatisfaction.
When Trungpa Rinpoche came to the West and was teaching in the
early days in Vermont at what used to be called Tail of the Tiger
(now Karme Choling), he used to tell the students: "Just sit
and let your mind open and rest-- let yourself be completely open
with an open mind, and whenever you get distracted and find
yourself thinking-- in other words when you are no longer fully
in the present and are carried away-- simply just come back again
to resting your mind in an open state."
But when he began to realize is that for most people it was just
chatter, chatter, chatter constantly, and there was no openness
or stillness. We were practicing with our worries and concerns
about our jobs and relationships and everything. And the average
experience was of no openness at all, just a lot of noise. So we
sat down and rested our minds in talking to ourselves. . . The
instruction wasn't doing what it set out to do. It was actually a
more advanced instruction than we were capable of following.
So Rinpoche drew from the tradition and gave us more of a form
than just this "Open your mind and let it rest there."
He said, "Relate to the breath; go out with the
outbreath." He gave us an object of meditation. It's very
significant that it's only the outbreath that we attend to. This
isn't easy to say that we don't breathe in and out. We do, of
course. But what it's like saying is more like: get the sense of
emphasizing the outwardness, because that's as close as you can
come to just resting your mind in its natural state, since the
breath naturally goes out and dissolves into space.
I was reading an article recently on meditation which he had
written in the early days, which is kind of transitional
instruction. In it he told us to start with attending to
breathing in and out, but he said, "The key thing here is,
try not to watch the breath, but try feeling in go in and out, so
you feel one with the breath. Just see if from the beginning you
can minimize that sense of heavy-duty watching it, and just feel
the breath going in and out." And then he said, "Then
start to emphasize the outwardness and the space that the breath
goes into, and emphasize that more and more. And then just see if
you can let that sense of outwardness and space begin to pervade
the whole practice more and more."
Once I was describing this technique to a friend of mine in
another Buddhist tradition which emphasizes a strong focus on
mindfulness of the breath, and I said, "We emphasize the
outbreath, and then we're told to just wait. As the breath is
coming in we are told to just wait, and then go out again, and
then wait again and then go out again." She said, "No,
that's impossible." And I said, "Why?" And she
said, "Well because there's a whole part of meditation there
where you don't have an object-- there's nothing to concentrate
on, there's a whole part there where the point is nothing to be
mindful of." And then I realized that was the point. I had
never before realized so clearly that that was actually the
point.
This space between outbreaths is sometimes called the *gap.* It
points toward some gap in the internal chatter, some experience
of spaciousness. It may take quite a long time for the beginning
meditator to have an experience of that gap or space, and that's
okay. That is why the other part of our meditation instruction is
to label any thoughts we have as "thinking" and just
let go of them and come back to the outbreath. That instruction
encourages us to interrupt the constant barrage of talking to
ourselves. And even if we do that only once *there is already
some kind of gap which underlies remembering to come back to the
sense of the outbreath going out.* We may not be aware of it as
"gap," but it is already there as the basis of the
process of remembering to label thoughts thinking and come back
home to the present moment.
Trungpa Rinpoche used to say, "The technique leads us
towards opening and doesn't have any hang-ups of something we
have to undo later." With this technique you can't get
attached to having something to hold on to all the time. You
could say it's sort of a *death* there the breath goes out,
and then what? Then the breath goes out and out and out and then
what? Sometimes people will panic when their breath goes out
because of the fact that there's nothing to hold on to. We don't
want to encourage panic, but when that happens I always know that
the person has actually connected with what it's all about.
This open state which we connect with is the true nature of mind
and is often described as like the big sky. It is described this
way in both the Mahamudra and Dzogchen traditions and is
similarly described in the Zen tradition. The true nature of our
being is not really so much this embodiment, this corporeal form
which is transient and is always in a a state of changing and
decaying. From the moment of birth to the moment of death it's
going through a process of wearing out. But what is always
accessible to us in any moment as our birthright is actually the
completely open and vast nature of our mind. And what we call ego
is narrowing it down and grasping on to small parts, which is our
personal experience is saying, "I want this and I don't want
that," "I like this and I don't like that." We are
grasping onto our limited thinking instead of staying with what's
really possible for us.
So I think it's helpful to know that the history of the technique
because it clearly points to the true nature of mind, which is
unobstructed and really vast. And that is the true nature of all
reality. But we have a very strong habit of always wanting to
hold on to things, even if we label it "mindfulness."
We want ground under our feet. This technique is weaning us from
that towards a much more liberated and vast way of living and
being. It also isn't getting rid of thoughts so much as letting
thoughts play in the vast space of which we are a part, if we
could only realize it.
- Pema Chodron on What is True Mindfulness?
More here: http://www.shambhala.org/teachers/pema/