Meditation

[spidergoat]

If it was otherwise, the acts of self destructive/entanglement/ignorance would be indistinguishable from acts of liberation/freedom/wisdom.

There is no "act" of liberation. All actions of the conscious mind reinforce it, not liberate us from it.

For one whose glossary (ie, mind) is bereft of any liberating acts, then I guess the best one can do is attempt to refrain from everything.

That won't help either.

And second, once again, we are left to ponder whether the mind is ultimately false or whether it is a reflection of something substantial.

Even illusions are based on some sort of perception. Something is there, but it's not what we think it is.

So one can work to have a purified mind (and a purified mind gives rise to purified action).

There is no work possible to this end. That's the basic conundrum of zen. Purifying the mind can only be an action of the mind, and is thus impure.

Its not that you just throw it away. In the same way we have to find a way to purify our mind, and not merely throw it away.

Agree to some extent. The mind never goes away, but that's fine as long as we know it's just a utilitarian construct of the brain, an edifice of thought that is not our true self and is created by something we cannot know.

The problem is that this freedom is not sustainable .... or to go back to the cup of im/pure water, if you merely throw it away, you will get thirsty (and then, who knows what you will drink ...).

Once the bubble is broken, that's it. You can never again take "mindfulness" seriously. Where is this mind that I can be full of it? At best, it's a useful trick, like Buddhism itself. As the saying goes, the raft lets you cross the river, but it's pointless to then carry it around on your head.

In the same way, if one attempts to wholesale throw away material existence, while it may afford the opportunity for a broader perspective, one will simply come back for round two, and so on.

It's the only kind of existence there is.

The result is simply inner conflict.

The mind can be conflicted, but the body knows best. I'm sure there are situations where you need a mind to solve a problem, I'm not concerned with such issues, they are beside the point.

 

[Bowser]

Capitalism reduces everything to capital ($$$)

Agreed.

Capitalism requires infite growth patterns of consumerism. Given we are on a planet with limited resources, obvious problems will ensue.

Agreed.

As far as the majority goes, jumping off the hamster wheel is certainly not an option (If it was attempted in some widescale manner, you could bet the government would intercede in some way, whether by policy or propaganda, to keep that hamster wheel spinning)

I can't speak for all, but possibly there is room for an individual to jump off the hamster wheel. The question is whether it's worth doing what we want to do, even if that involves being hungry; or doing what we hate, simply because we are well fed.

No, but I do watch some things online.

What do you watch online? Is it drama?

After all, if the universe has some element that is real, and you are also a part in the universe, why eliminate one's self?

Eliminating one's self and seeing the whole as the true self might be the point. Would you agree?

Precisely.
Only the horrifically traumatized entertain notions that the solution to all problems requires the complete elimination of themselves

I don't think it's an elimination of one's self, but a better understanding of one's self.
https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/976/258/320/donkey.gif

 

[Musika]

I can't speak for all, but possibly there is room for an individual to jump off the hamster wheel. The question is whether it's worth doing what we want to do, even if that involves being hungry; or doing what we hate, simply because we are well fed.

To quote Marx (quite a good historian but a terrible prophet), the means of production determine political relationships.
In short, opting out of an industrial economy in is easier said than done.

What do you watch online? Is it drama?

Sometimes

Eliminating one's self and seeing the whole as the true self might be the point. Would you agree?

The "whole" what?
There is part of us that is the same as everyone else (if we were radically different communication would be impossible) but we also have recourse to a private world that no one else (except God) has recourse to.
Eliminating this private world is as much an imagination as the notion of being the ruler of the public world.

I don't think it's an elimination of one's self, but a better understanding of one's self.
https://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/976/258/320/donkey.gif

I would argue that an important part of that understanding is understanding the role action, born of desire, plays.
In otherwords, at the end of the day, its how and why you act in this world that matters. Advocates of the philosophy of inaction (or restraint of desire) merely offer a modicum of benefit for those who are inevitably stuck in modes of self destruction. Ultimately we require a positive alternative, because act we must.

 

[Bowser]

In short, opting out of an industrial economy in is easier said than done.

We'll always be consumers. It's the environment in which we live. You're right, there is no way of escaping that fact. But you reach a point where having stuff simply for the sake of having stuff doesn't really satisfy the spirit.

The "whole" what?

What is. it is you, me, and everything else. What else is there?

There is part of us that is the same as everyone else (if we were radically different communication would be impossible) but we also have recourse to a private world that no one else (except God) has recourse to.
Eliminating this private world is as much an imagination as the notion of being the ruler of the public world.

We are individuals and are the whole. There's a saying that not one particle of dust has been misplaced. Would you agree?

I would argue that an important part of that understanding is understanding the role action, born of desire, plays.
In otherwords, at the end of the day, its how and why you act in this world that matters. Advocates of the philosophy of inaction (or restraint of desire) merely offer a modicum of benefit for those who are inevitably stuck in modes of self destruction. Ultimately we require a positive alternative, because act we must.

Dharma? Is it true that every act of good intention results in a positive reaction?

 

[spidergoat]

Advocates of the philosophy of inaction (or restraint of desire) merely offer a modicum of benefit for those who are inevitably stuck in modes of self destruction.

Who's doing that? I suppose there are forms of meditation that are not associated with what I'm talking about, but it's a misunderstanding to think that zen promotes inaction. Beginner practices may emphasize conscious restraint of desire, but it's a temporary exercise until one gets the source of desire. If you are lucky enough to realize we are not our minds, then it's also easier to ignore it's desires.

 

[Musika]

There is no "act" of liberation. All actions of the conscious mind reinforce it, not liberate us from it.

The eightfold path suggests otherwise

That won't help either.

It offers a moment to refrain (from ignorance) and the opportunity to change perspective. If one doesn't change persoective, then yes, it doesn't really help.

I am not advocating this as the best plan of action. I am just explaining why people do it and its scope for benefit.

Even illusions are based on some sort of perception. Something is there, but it's not what we think it is.

The question is whether the "something" even illusions are based on, has a "real" or "false" basis.
In otherwords, whether perception of the world has, at its core, reality or illusion.

There is no work possible to this end. That's the basic conundrum of zen. Purifying the mind can only be an action of the mind, and is thus impure.

Then you have the view that the mind (and its contingent agencies/actions, like desire) are constitutionally impure.

Agree to some extent. The mind never goes away, but that's fine as long as we know it's just a utilitarian construct of the brain, an edifice of thought that is not our true self and is created by something we cannot know.

Utilitarian construct? Utilized for what? Illusion?
Also you just said that the mind is constructed by the brain yet the mind is also created by something we cannot know.
Maybe there is a better way you can say this.

Once the bubble is broken, that's it. You can never again take "mindfulness" seriously. Where is this mind that I can be full of it? At best, it's a useful trick, like Buddhism itself. As the saying goes, the raft lets you cross the river, but it's pointless to then carry it around on your head.

Yes, that's the theory. I am just wondering about the practice.

It's the only kind of existence there is.

Which is why labelling it as illusion is quite catastrophic.

The mind can be conflicted, but the body knows best. I'm sure there are situations where you need a mind to solve a problem, I'm not concerned with such issues, they are beside the point.

When you say the body knows best, what is doing the "knowing" here? (The body, divorced from the mind, doesnt have an obvious agency of knowing)

 

[Musika]

What is. it is you, me, and everything else. What else is there?

If I (and everyone else) have recourse to a private world you don't have access to, how do you propose to become whole with this?

We are individuals and are the whole. There's a saying that not one particle of dust has been misplaced. Would you agree?

Panentheism, or the notion that God pervades everything while simultaneously maintaing an identity greater than the sum of the parts, also resolves this problem.
Otherwise you are left with the problem of trying to explain what a misplaced or properly placed particle of dust would even look like.

Dharma? Is it true that every act of good intention results in a positive reaction?

The dharma (essence) of action, yes.
As far as results go, I am just talking about what is within our scope to control. There are factors that determine results that are beyond our control.

 

[Bowser]

If I (and everyone else) have recourse to a private world you don't have access to, how do you propose to become whole with this?

Certainly I can't read your mind.

Otherwise you are left with the problem of trying to explain what a misplaced or properly placed particle of dust would even look like.

Or reach the conclusion that it is exactly where it should be.

As far as results go, I am just talking about what is within our scope to control. There are factors that determine results that are beyond our control.

Kind of like a Chinese pinball machine?

 

[Musika]

Certainly I can't read your mind.

And if I (and everyone else here) cannot read yours, then there is an apparent problem in holistically integrating everything.

Or reach the conclusion that it is exactly where it should be.

If you, me, or any collective "us" doesn't have the scope to put particles of dust in their "proper" place, how could the statement " not one particle of dust has been misplaced" be meaningful?

Kind of like a Chinese pinball machine?

The chinese pinball analogy would lie in unpacking what agency we use to determine what is a good intention and what is a positive result.
If, as you say, life is fatal, what sort of positive result would you see as adequate reciprocation for a good intention?

 

[Bowser]

And if I (and everyone else here) cannot read yours, then there is an apparent problem in holistically integrating everything.

I think we reached this in another thread, something about ignorance and knowledge, where my point was that all knowledge is contained within a collective conscious, yours being part of the overall picture.

If you, me, or any collective "us" doesn't have the scope to put particles of dust in their "proper" place, how could the statement " not one particle of dust has been misplaced" be meaningful?

I suppose you could move it and say, "There! Now it's in the right place!" {EDIT} And you would be right.

If, as you say, life is fatal, what sort of positive result would you see as adequate reciprocation for a good intention?

I suppose you could view it either way: a reminder that life should be lived, or that death is on your doorstep. What intention would you like it to imply?

 

[Musika]

I suppose you could move it and say, "There! Now it's in the right place!"

And how would that make it the "right" place? And what if other disagree with the place you put it?
This is the problem with the (headless) collective conscious model : it doesn't resolve conflict.

I suppose you could view it either way: a reminder that life should be lived, or that death is on your doorstep. What intention would you like it to imply?

I'm asking that given the parameters of life (that it is lived until we die), what would you see as approoriate reciprocation (by God, who controls everything else outside of our intentions) for acting with good intention?

 

[Bowser]

And how would that make it the "right" place? And what if other disagree with the place you put it?
This is the problem with the (headless) collective conscious model : it doesn't resolve conflict.

Conflict seems to resolve itself. Even though you and I might disagree, there's a larger world out there. We're just two fools on a ship of fools, yet we manage to keep sailing along.

I'm asking that given the parameters of life (that it is lived until we die), what would you see as approoriate reciprocation (by God, who controls everything else outside of our intentions) for acting with good intention?

Should I assume the role of God?

 

[Musika]

Conflict seems to resolve itself. Even though you and I might disagree, there's a larger world out there. We're just two fools on a ship of fools, yet we manage to keep sailing along.

I agree, there is a larger world out there. But if the notion of "proper" is ultimately a consequence of a ship of fools (or perhaps the most threatening fool), that makes for a very weak form of the term "proper".

Should I assume the role of God?

I'm not sure how assuming such a role would help one control things that are beyond one's ability.
What would it mean to call one's self "God" if one is still susceptible to tooth aches?

 

[Bowser]

I agree, there is a larger world out there. But if the notion of "proper" is ultimately a consequence of a ship of fools (or perhaps the most threatening fool), that makes for a very weak form of the term "proper".

Yet there it is. People with good intentions have tried to change it, yet there it is. The drama continues, and will do so long after you and I are gone.

I'm not sure how assuming such a role would help one control things that are beyond one's ability.
What would it mean to call one's self "God" if one is still susceptible to tooth aches?

I have no idea. Would we reach that goal if we controlled the world?

 

[Musika]

Yet there it is. People with good intentions have tried to change it, yet there it is. The drama continues, and will do so long after you and I are gone.

So either the result of good intentions follows the logic of a chinese pinball or the parameters of theodicy incorporate a broader scope than this world of perennial dramas.

Would we reach that goal if we controlled the world?

If our goal was to become God, then yes, that would be a good start .... of course given that we stumble at the point of tooth aches, it's not clear whether it is an intelligent goal

 

[Bowser]

So either the result of good intentions follows the logic of a chinese pinball or the parameters of theodicy incorporate a broader scope than this world of perennial dramas.

If you want to break it down into bits and pieces. I'm not saying you can't try acting "proper." However, the consequence might not be what you expect.

If our goal was to become God, then yes, that would be a good start .... of course given that we stumble at the point of tooth aches, it's not clear whether it is an intelligent goal

Or maybe the world has its own agenda, one that isn't fallen by toothaches.

 

[Musika]

If you want to break it down into bits and pieces. I'm not saying you can't try acting "proper." However, the consequence might not be what you expect.


Or maybe the world has its own agenda, one that isn't fallen by toothaches.

My point is, just as we are not the final agencies in directing the consequences of action , we are also not the final agencies in establishing what constitutes the right intention.

A collective of individuals that are not the final agency cannot surmount this limitation by any sort of cooperative appeal. One doesn't surmount the designation of being infinitesimal by playing a numbers game.

 

[Bowser]

My point is, just as we are not the final agencies in directing the consequences of action , we are also not the final agencies in establishing what constitutes the right intention.

A collective of individuals that are not the final agency cannot surmount this limitation by any sort of cooperative appeal.

Is there a higher authority that you wish to petition in an effort to resolve the paradox?

One doesn't surmount the designation of being infinitesimal by playing a numbers game.

Okay...?

 

[Musika]

Is there a higher authority that you wish to petition in an effort to resolve the paradox?

Not so much petition a higher authority, but meditate upon it. If the point of meditation is to get control of the mind's ability to give false form, there's an obvious advantage in breaking the minds tendency to engineer problems by viewing itself as the highest authority.

 

[Bowser]

Not so much petition a higher authority, but meditate upon it. If the point of meditation is to get control of the mind's ability to give false form, there's an obvious advantage in breaking the minds tendency to engineer problems by viewing itself as the highest authority.

Is that your reason for meditation?