Back to Buddhist philosophy

[sentient]

From the motivational speeches about the predicament to try & convince the rational mind to let go…

To ….
The view:

Don Juan says: "The most difficult part of the warrior's way is to realize that the world is a feeling”.

To….
The practice:

“When one is not-doing, one is feeling the world"

Tip:

Feeling is done with the body – it is like seeing, "responding to the perceptual solicitations of a world outside" the paradigm.

http://www.alangullette.com/essays/philo/stopping.htm

***

Except that most likely was no 'injun-speak' – that probably was the martial arts master teaching Carlos to get out of his head and into the body.
(Because subconsciously Westerners are so Cartesian body–mind dualism conditioned; - disembodied minds).

He very cleverly, by easy steps was easing Carlos into a further realization that the world is not what we think it is: "The most difficult part is to realize that the world is energy - Everything is Qi”.

*

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

that probably was the martial arts master teaching Carlos to get out of his head and into the body.
(Because subconsciously Westerners are so Cartesian body–mind dualism conditioned; - disembodied minds).

It's such a complicated thing to talk about and no scientists, past or modern, knows what we, or consciousness, actually is. No one knows where consciousness resides, what creates it, what it is made of, and on and on. Yet, it is what we are! How can we be something, be aware we are conscious, that we are experiencing this or that and have zero information about what we actually are or what we are created of or from or how? Scientists would love to make a consciousness to put into a robot or computer I can tell you that.

So it's good to remember that ideas like "body-mind dualism" are largely non-sense. A concept like that is thrown out there and accepted as actually explaining or meaning something and it leaves out or ignores the elephant in the room, consciousness itself.

Take the phrase, "get out of his head and into the body." Consciousness is merged with the body until the death of the body. So any idea of being in the body or out of it is non-sense. We are continually merged with it. With the phrase, "get out of his head" head there is obviously referring to thought which originates in the brain which exists in the head. But then scientists have discovered brain like areas in the body which function as little brains and share data with the large organ in the head so really the brain is a network that exists in various parts in the body as well.

So that sentence or phrase is obviously not accurate in anyway but it is pointing to an idea. Everyone knows the experience of thinking too much, being too focused on ideas, and we can learn or choose (if we are aware of what we are doing) to stop focusing on thought or thinking. It's not even difficult. We can go watch our favorite tv show and boom, we are not focused on our ideas or thoughts anymore. Did we get out of our heads and into our body? Of course not. The conceptual phrase is a way to visualize something using shorthand. "Being in the head" represents the experience of focusing on thought, "body" refers to not focusing on the thinking part of moment to moment content produced by the body. Thought is as much a product of the body as any other perception created by the brain and sense organs. The head and brain are both also parts of the body. So yea a phrase like we get out of our heads and instead into the "body" is pure non-sense.

But we have a experiential link to a nonsensical conceptual phrase like that, it is a finger pointing to the moon to put it into Buddhist terms. It "means" or represents the experience of taking our focus off of thought or thinking. It has to do with what we are, consciousnesses, and what we are merged with, an animal body and it's mind. The fact that we can change what our relationship is with various input and content produced by the body proves consciousness's source cannot be the brain or body. Krishnamurti gave an excellent talk once proving through logic that consciousness and thought cannot have the same source but it was extremely hard to follow and was very complex. But nevertheless, it's true and because "we" are not the body or it's mind and are only merged with it, we have the potential to change our relationship with it's content by understanding it. We identify with the content as us and therefore live in a delusional state and act out and experience these animal natures.

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

disembodied minds

I'd point out direct understanding or perceiving I am not the body or it's thoughts does not make me believe in (or experience) a concept of being "a disembodied mind" nor does it make me dualistic or create an experience of dualism. It is a observable fact that I am the perceiver and not the perceived. I am permanent and unchanging, all perceptions are in a continual state of change and impermanence. It is also an observable fact I am merged with this animal body and it's mind. It is the frame of reference from which I experience and perceive for this lifetime.

Dualism has nothing to do with understanding this reality. With understanding experientially what I am and what I am not. Dualism, in the negative religious or philosophical sense, is a consciousness identified with the body's mental content as self, which results in an ego that sees itself (and creates experiences) as separate from everything else, which leads to an experience of "me and that," indirect perception. Perception is filtered through mind or thought, the "personal bias" and that is where "dualism" comes into the equation in a negative sense.

Dualism, like all other concepts, is an idea, a thought or thoughts. Ideas are all temporary and continually changing. They only have the "reality" or meaning we give them. They are an optional layer to what now is. No idea actually defines anything real or actual. As the real or actual is the now as it is, before we label it with ideas or concepts. But then that conceptual human created stuff is of course real and experienced, but it is wholly a creation of mind or thought. It has no source outside of our minds. It is mind projected reality. Consciousness and it's attributes are obscured by this animal mind created reality that surrounds us and is projected.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

It's such a complicated thing to talk about and no scientists, past or modern, knows what we, or consciousness, actually is. No one knows where consciousness resides, what creates it, what it is made of, and on and on. Yet, it is what we are! How can we be something, be aware we are conscious, that we are experiencing this or that and have zero information about what we actually are or what we are created of or from or how? Scientists would love to make a consciousness to put into a robot or computer I can tell you that.

So it's good to remember that ideas like "body-mind dualism" are largely non-sense. A concept like that is thrown out there and accepted as actually explaining or meaning something and it leaves out or ignores the elephant in the room, consciousness itself.

Take the phrase, "get out of his head and into the body." Consciousness is merged with the body until the death of the body. So any idea of being in the body or out of it is non-sense. We are continually merged with it. With the phrase, "get out of his head" head there is obviously referring to thought which originates in the brain which exists in the head. But then scientists have discovered brain like areas in the body which function as little brains and share data with the large organ in the head so really the brain is a network that exists in various parts in the body as well.

So that sentence or phrase is obviously not accurate in anyway but it is pointing to an idea. Everyone knows the experience of thinking too much, being too focused on ideas, and we can learn or choose (if we are aware of what we are doing) to stop focusing on thought or thinking. It's not even difficult. We can go watch our favorite tv show and boom, we are not focused on our ideas or thoughts anymore. Did we get out of our heads and into our body? Of course not. The conceptual phrase is a way to visualize something using shorthand. "Being in the head" represents the experience of focusing on thought, "body" refers to not focusing on the thinking part of moment to moment content produced by the body. Thought is as much a product of the body as any other perception created by the brain and sense organs. The head and brain are both also parts of the body. So yea a phrase like we get out of our heads and instead into the "body" is pure non-sense.

But we have a experiential link to a nonsensical conceptual phrase like that, it is a finger pointing to the moon to put it into Buddhist terms. It "means" or represents the experience of taking our focus off of thought or thinking. It has to do with what we are, consciousnesses, and what we are merged with, an animal body and it's mind. The fact that we can change what our relationship is with various input and content produced by the body proves consciousness's source cannot be the brain or body. Krishnamurti gave an excellent talk once proving through logic that consciousness and thought cannot have the same source but it was extremely hard to follow and was very complex. But nevertheless, it's true and because "we" are not the body or it's mind and are only merged with it, we have the potential to change our relationship with it's content by understanding it. We identify with the content as us and therefore live in a delusional state and act out and experience these animal natures.

Originally Posted by Phaelyn

I'd point out direct understanding or perceiving I am not the body or it's thoughts does not make me believe in (or experience) a concept of being "a disembodied mind" nor does it make me dualistic or create an experience of dualism. It is a observable fact that I am the perceiver and not the perceived. I am permanent and unchanging, all perceptions are in a continual state of change and impermanence. It is also an observable fact I am merged with this animal body and it's mind. It is the frame of reference from which I experience and perceive for this lifetime.

Dualism has nothing to do with understanding this reality. With understanding experientially what I am and what I am not. Dualism, in the negative religious or philosophical sense, is a consciousness identified with the body's mental content as self, which results in an ego that sees itself (and creates experiences) as separate from everything else, which leads to an experience of "me and that," indirect perception. Perception is filtered through mind or thought, the "personal bias" and that is where "dualism" comes into the equation in a negative sense.

Dualism, like all other concepts, is an idea, a thought or thoughts. Ideas are all temporary and continually changing. They only have the "reality" or meaning we give them. They are an optional layer to what now is. No idea actually defines anything real or actual. As the real or actual is the now as it is, before we label it with ideas or concepts. But then that conceptual human created stuff is of course real and experienced, but it is wholly a creation of mind or thought. It has no source outside of our minds. It is mind projected reality. Consciousness and it's attributes are obscured by this animal mind created reality that surrounds us and is projected.

^
We used to have this tv-program called “Talking Heads”, but I can’t remember ever watching it …

However - in practice - it is best to bring everything down to utter simplicity and a lot depends on how we regard the body:

Tantric Buddhists hold the attitude of understanding that the body is a mandala, a holy temple, and naturally sacred.

https://www.buddhistdoor.net/feature...dy-in-buddhism

*

[Phaelyn]

Originally Posted by sentient

Tantric Buddhists hold the attitude of understanding that the body is a mandala, a holy temple, and naturally sacred.

"Within my body are all the sacred places of the world, and the most profound pilgrimage that I can ever make is within my own body." Buddhist saint Saraha

Saraha is considered to be one of the founders of Buddhist Vajrayana, and particularly of the Mahamudra tradition.

The body is a potential home for the divine, if ego leaves and makes room for it! Interestingly, consciousness can choose to fully identify with the bodies animal nature and mask it's own attributes.

From one of Saraha's female teachers who he followed...

Saraha noted her wisdom and realized his own faults in meditative practice. He decided that the only way for him to make any progress on the spiritual path would be to move into an isolated mountain location, away from all distractions.

"what do you think the isolation of the mountains will do for you?

The purest solitude," she counseled, "is one that allows you to escape from the preconceptions and prejudices, from the labels and concepts of a narrow, inflexible mind.

The body can be a temple if the divine dwells within it. If ego and violence and conflict rule the body, what is it then? A vehicle for evil?

[sentient]

Body and mind together …

Body on the cushion – mind in the body:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ3iakCN9Zo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpBEQbmEtiU

*

Originally Posted by sentient

Body and mind together …



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ3iakCN9Zo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PpBEQbmEtiU

*

I love listening to that guy in your vids.
He makes me thinks Buddhism not so hard.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by ImthatIm

I love listening to that guy in your vids.
He makes me thinks Buddhism not so hard.

Heh, he is the sweetest – such a delight ….
But it was you, who first introduced him (to me anyway) in one of these threads …
So – thanks ImthatIm

*

[Gem]

Cause. Such a big subject which has 2 primary facets: the 2nd noble truth 'suffering has a cause'; and kamma, the overall principle of cause and effect, and the interwined relationship between these.

It s probably easier to start with kamma because this is clearly defined in Buddhism. Kamma is volition. The complexity is getting from the volition to the suffering associated with being bound within the kammic cycle.

According to the dependent origins, volition arises from ignorance, and Buddhism is supposedly the way from bondage to liberation through the journey from ignorance to wisdom. I say 'supposedly' because the teachings of Buddha are interpreted into a discourse which upholds a religious structure... whereas the original teachings were orated in impermanent fashion appropriate to the circumstances in which they were spoken. Some people mistakenly thought the words were very important, that their monastic structure was important, so they wrote everything down in order to preserve that they were attached to and pretended it was pure.

I digress. This is not a Buddhist thing, but it is not 'not Buddhist'. It is Buddhist philosophy, not a Buddhist religion, where the philosophy deals with a way from ignorance to wisdom on the pathway from bondage to liberation.

Cause. The cause of suffering. Cause and effect or kamma and volition. From ignorance to wisdom, bondage to liberation.

[Mr Interesting]

Gosh, it's been a while, how are you doing my friend"
Kamma? I call it intent, it's been a while, I've been somewhat worldy for quite a bit, but it is, as much as I can surmise, what lies directly below consciousness that when quieted can be felt as a kind of energetic field of being. It is also what might be called desire though desire seems more like an ignorance of that intent as a kind of energy that can be conjoined with as the quieted consciousness. Maybe I'm wrong, I don't know, but from within all of my own meditation it does seem to be what I think it might be.