There is no higher or lower.
Meditation
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Yet there are contrasts in life. They compliment each other.
Then any discussion about the absence or presence of freedom is untenable.
Regardless of whether we see it as a problem or not, if we are attached to things that will shortly cease to exist, we have a problem and are not free
For sure.
If one is attached to things that will shortly cease to exist, one has a problem and is not free.
And alternatively, if one is adverse to things that will shortly cease to exist, one has a problem and is not free.
(Hence, spiritual beggar .... although in one sense thats not accurate since the notion of a beggar implies they are begging for something they perceive they require. I am just working with words you provide)
In otherwords, if one's sense of self is primarily about the acquisition or renunciation of material things (either subtle, like fame or distinction, or gross, like wealth or beauty) one will have a problem, because one's sense of self primarily revolves around things that will cease to exist.
While it is advantageous to enter a state of inaction, this is not an actual solution for as long as one is returning to action primarily revolving around the acquisition or renunciation of material things.
In otherwords, the actual solution is to engage in action that is not primarily revolving around such things.
Anything else is simply a means to such an end.
Last edited:
Or, there is inaction, simply letting things go. The dance will continue whether or not we are on the floor.
Last edited:
The problem with inaction is that the mind (the surveyor of the 5 senses) is active and won't permit one to refrain from the dance floor. One may be afforded windows of inaction, but the dance floor ultimately beckons.
The nature of the object of the attachment doesn't matter. It's the attachment itself that is at issue, and that attachment is in essence identification with mind. It takes effort to reinforce this illusion, to be embedded in a culture that calls you by name or asks who you are and what you want. I don't know that there is any effort which can break this, but sometimes it disappears (perhaps by lack of effort to maintain it), and in it's absence there is the freedom I speak of.
No, the brain is not the mind. You probably have a mind that forms connections and creates thoughts in response to sensory input, but it is not primary. The brain is primary and can't observe itself. It feels very strange if it should ever happen to you, but it is possible for the mind's illusory center of activity to take a back seat. One's actions then seem to happen spontaneously, even surprisingly, without thinking. If you take away anything from this discussion, it should be hope that this is possible, although I have no idea how it's done, it happened to me quite by accident. Then you realize that what you thought was you, your mind, is only a secondary sub-system of the brain. It can be noticed but ignored, it's not as important as you might think. Using the mind to control the brain and the body creates uncomfortable feedback loops, useless introspection, tension, fear, and excess thought. In other words, suffering.
Back to desires? We do love to dance. My evolving perspective is that we know nothing, ultimately. And that there is wisdom in ignorance. It might be best to look on the setting sun rather than argue it's meaning or its value. It simply is.
As if there was ever a manageable platform outside of them?
If ignorance and wisdom are irreconciable, where is the evolution?
It's scary outside, isn't it?
Perhaps for those who make the determination to eradicate desire. The notion is so counter-intuitive it makes one wonder what trauma a person must have experienced to even entertain such an ambition.
Consumerism might be a manageable platform, but all we are doing is feeding on our desires.
The drama will always be there. Always has been, always will be. Where is the evolution?
I don't believe it's counter-intuitive in the least. It's probably one of the most self-centered pursuits you can undertake.
By Doenertier82 at the German language Wikipedia, CC BY-SA 3.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=642841
For eradication of desire that culminates in eradication of self to be called "most self centred", is to show the degree of counter-intuitiveness at stake
I'm not sure what you mean by consumerism, but as far as the capitalist version of it goes, its a clear example of being unmanageable. If desire is simply self feeding, then of course it will be unmanageable.
There is the example of a tree and its multitude of leaves being sustained by watering the root. If one tries to embark on a more democratic approach, thinking its now time to water all the leaves individually because for too long the root has been receiving all the water, the tree will die.
Basically its a question of whether the "drama" is an illusion or a reflection.
If its an illusion, being totally bereft of any fragment of truth, one is faced with the onerous task of negating not only one's self false but also the entire universe.
If however it is a reflection, then it means our selves and this universe are simply the reflection of something truthful. The example is there of staring at the reflection of a fruit tree on water. The reflection actually provides a great deal of accurate information about the fruit tree. The only problem is that if one tries to enjoy (eat) the reflected fruit, one will not get many carbohydrates.
In this way, if one rejects the reflection as completely meaningless, attempting to renounce the totality of this world, one does not get the complete picture. And if one dives into the reflection to attempt to enjoy the fruits, one is guilty of the same crime
(Edit: at the end of this I will clarify what I mean by mind, intelligence. We may be using words in different ways)
Two Things:
First, the object of attachment does matter. If it was otherwise, the acts of self destructive/entanglement/ignorance would be indistinguishable from acts of liberation/freedom/wisdom. 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. Hopefully this may lead to a broader perspective at some point, but unless it culminates in the mind adopting liberating activities, one will be stuck with the problem of a mind running to nonsense.
And second, once again, we are left to ponder whether the mind is ultimately false or whether it is a reflection of something substantial. If it is false, then by all means, attempt to do head stands 24 hrs per day and send the mind to the fartherest reaches of oblivion (however the mind will kick and drag you screaming every inch of the way).
Actually many people adopt such acts simply as diversions to prevent themselves getting jaded by their attachments. In otherwords, meditation is all about doing it "for a change", rather than "for change", if you catch my drift.
However, rather than an all out illusion, if it is a reflection, then that means the mind must have some core information that is actually accurate. So one can work to have a purified mind (and a purified mind gives rise to purified action).
It is kind of like acquiring a cup of pure water. If you have a cup of impure water, you already have a cup of pure water .... the only problem is that you have to find a way to get rid of all the impure parts. 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.
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 ...).
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.
By mind, I mean that aspect that likes and dislikes things. The senses feed the mind information, according to our 5 senses, and the mind decides whether we like it or not. By intelligence I mean that aspect that perceives benefit, and thus either accepts or rejects something. So for instance our mind may not like the taste of a particular food, but we may eat it on the strength of intelligence, since we know it is good for us. Or alternatively, our intelligence may get hijacked by our mind, and we may eat something that tastes good even though we know it is bad for us. In this way, we are internally conflicted by this battle between the mind and intelligence. The senses pump us full of information about what's available and, between the mind and intelligence, we engineer a narrative born of pleasure and suffering and acceptance and rejection. This narrative ultimately writes itself according to our pursuit of benefit.
In a perfect world, we have a mind that naturally delights in things that bestow (actual) benefit. However, if we simply try to bludgeon our mind into obedience via intelligence or if we simply let our mind run riot over our intelligence, there is a good chance we will die prematurely..
In short, to be successful, we have to have all parts of our inner world come together in an appropriately cooperative fashion. Obviously this is not such an easy thing and takes time. If we don't, we will be conflicted, regretful, depressed, fearful, etc.
A cruel irony of modern life is that there is an overt focus on feeling good, rather than acting good. The result is simply inner conflict.
Capitalism is the only mechanism that works. Greed motivates people to innovate. Unfortunately, people simply don't work for anyone's interest but their own, which is why socialism is such a dismal failure. Everyone starves.
At least in the capitalist system, you can choose your level of participation, even if you choose to jump off the hamster wheel. There's no obligation to play.
Do you own a television?
Or possibly our notion of the universe.
Well, I'm guilty.
“You yourself, as much as anybody in the entire universe, deserve your love and affection.”
Capitalism is more than simply an arena for free trade (of which there are numerous examples in history).
Capitalism reduces everything to capital ($$$). So the value of food is not its dietary provisions but is its value as a commodity. The value of a house is not its value as a home but is its value as real estate and so on. Even business terms have crept into everyday usage ... for instance "to get to the bottom line" means to get to the most important aspect .... or "a profit/loss assessment" is to determine whether something is beneficial. Classic case was in the aftermath of 9/11 when Bush announced to the public "we really need you to all show the world how strong we are. Get out there and shop."(granted there is a need to keep the national economy rolling, but the fact he could say such things with a straight face is very telling imho).
Capitalism requires infite growth patterns of consumerism. Given we are on a planet with limited resources, obvious problems will ensue.
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)
No, but I do watch some things online.
If you are rejecting a certain notion of the universe, rather than the universe, per se, you are treating it as a reflection.
In otherwords you are conceding that the universe is a mixed bag of truth and smoke and mirrors, so you attempt to determine what is what (rather than a "burn it with fire" wholesale rejection of it.
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?
To a greater or lesser extent, anyone in this world is.Well, I'm guilty.
Precisely.
Only the horrifically traumatized entertain notions that the solution to all problems requires the complete elimination of themselves
True, wanting to eradicate desire is also a desire.