Meditation people roll call!

HOOS OTM tho - where is this dominant part of the mind that is fooling all the other parts

the cerebral cortex.

lolz - consciousness does not have a physical center. the brain is a dynamic system with no central processor.

is there anything you aren't an expert on? all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying. lolz!

sorry dean, i'll try to put it in words you'll understand:
the lone lizard in the house of peace extends his vision to the noble warrior.

haha, that's funny.

The part I didn't get was this bit: just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience

I thought that's what reality was, scientifically speaking (a mystical energy field we only understand through experience).

...or maybe you'd like to rephrase that into a ludicrous strawman?

all advance thought occurs in the forebrain is allz i was saying.

I'm not a neurobiologist or anything but I have read enough to know that this kind of blanket generalization is not accurate and does not really describe how the brain functions. No single part of the brain functions independently of all the others.

what I'm getting at is that brain functions can't be compartmentalized as simply as that - for any given thought process, a bunch of different parts of the brain are going to be involved, even when some parts are playing a more dominant or central role. Current science has only the dimmest notion of how various brain functions are interrelated.

I just don't think there needs to be any mystical energy field this pure experience that quasi-religious gobbledygook thrown on top of it.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 5:16 AM

1. Reality exists.
2. Every moment we make decisions to ignore and escape from reality (that which is physically in front of us) and run into a little world in our heads. Rather than "he raised his voice at me," in our little imaginary world "he hates me and I keep doing this thing wrong, why oh why etc"
3. Zazen (that is, sitting on your ass and simply Sitting On Your Goddamn Ass, allowing thoughts to arise and disappear without following their Byzantine pathways) is a way of training the mind to focus on the present moment rather than scurrying away into safe and familiar imaginary corners. It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

Better?

kinda lacks the poetry of "the lone lizard in the house of peace" though

Yeah I gotta meet that lizard. I hear he's got great weed.

http://x53.xanga.com/5fbd957a67d33136696461/w100291663.jpg

Better?

Yeah, that was better. Who was talking about lizards and whatever?

Dzogchen meditation is actually called "contemplation" and does not resort to any reality escapage. It is regularly lived life with arising thoughts, existing reality and everything else lived in the state of rigpa.

A lot of people compare Zen and Dzogchen, like Thich Nhat Hanh, for example because they seem to be saying the exact same thing. There is a major difference between Zen and Dzogchen, though, which is lost on Zen practitioners.

I've seen Thich Nhat Hanh's books on Dzogchen before, but I'm not terribly familiar with the practice. What is the major difference? Put me in that minority of Zennos that almost kinda knows what he's talking about.

oh and re: lizard

sorry dean, i'll try to put it in words you'll understand:
the lone lizard in the house of peace extends his vision to the noble warrior.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 7:26 PM

Well, for starters, Zazen dudes stare at a wall and Dzogchen dudes gaze at the sky. ;-) Dzogchen has direct introduction to the natural state by a guru. Dzogchen meditation calls for the senses to be left in their natural state. Dzogchen has primordial reality. The differences go pretty deep and are hard to explain.

I wouldn't mind starting with a phonetic description of how to pronounce "Dzogchen"

The d and g are almost silent and it is dZog’ CHen (rhymes with the last name "OLDman" emphasis on the first syllable.)

Almost like tZojinn

what I'm getting at is that brain functions can't be compartmentalized as simply as that - for any given thought process, a bunch of different parts of the brain are going to be involved, even when some parts are playing a more dominant or central role. Current science has only the dimmest notion of how various brain functions are interrelated.

As simply as what? Obv different parts of the brain are interconnected! You seem to be arguing against something that you think I meant, but didn't actually say. (fwiw, I'm not a neurobiologist either, but I was a psych major and took several courses in neurobio. not like i remember much of it now though! But I don't think you'd get much argument from any respected neurobiologists that the what we consider higher thought is the exclusive domain of the forebrain, even though yeah, it gets input from all other parts. as well as sends output to the less "developed" parts. But this is all pretty much irrelevant, since i was just making a pithy wiseass respone to your pithy wise ass response)

It's called "practice" because it's practice for applying that kind of focus and non-judgment to every moment in our daily lives.

Doesn't seem like a goal worth attaining. Would be nice to have a switch you could turn off and on, though.

Well, if you stop to consider that judgment is the source of all dissatisfaction, it's pretty worthwhile investment. But, not if you don't give a shit to begin with, obv.

Doesn't seem like a goal worth attaining.

It seems we have some fundamental disagreements, then.

Thanks for the conversation, though.

xpost

If you start with the lesser vehicles, what Shakyamuni Buddha taught, you learn that "all is dukkha," (dissatisfaction) but in the greatest vehicle (the 9th), Dzogchen or Ati Yoga, you learn "all is good." Big difference! Shakyamuni started with what he knew people could relate to. People look for answers because they're dissatisfied, but their dissatisfied because of how their minds are wired. It's almost like that "jouney into pain" that was discussed above. The Buddha said everything is dissatisfaction and then proceeded to give ascetic practices generally thought to be pretty dissatisfying. And through this practice, we don't generally find a lot of dissatisfied monks. No, they're smiling their asses off, very natural and spontaneous, in my experience.

Well, if you stop to consider that judgment is the source of all dissatisfaction

see, this is the sort of quasi-religious, unprovable "fact" that turns me off the whole thing. i guess i don't like how that aspect of it has more or less turned so many people off of something which could be beneficial to people individually and as a whole.

It's not quasi-religious, it's fact. If you make the decision you like some things and not other things, you create dissatisfaction. And when the new wears off the things you like, you create more dissatisfaction.

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

You figured out the secret goal of buddhism: to be a smiling robot. And it only took, what, 2 days posting on a message board?

guys guys guys can't you tell we are clearly in the presence of an enlightened one

personally I would totally dig being a tree

btw, sorry everyone for temporarily turning this into a buddhism/dzogchen discussion. I know it's about all meditation styles and so I shut up now. :-)

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 9:03 PM

I'd like to respond, but I honestly don't know what to say to this.

(not trying to imply your response is faulty or that you are dumb, just truly don't know where to begin)

Granny sees value in suffering, considers it essential to being "human" etc. This isn't really a new or unusual position.

(although in my experience usually the people making that argument are deeply religious)

most people I've met tend to be happy when they discover a new appreciation for something they thought they hated

guys guys guys can't you tell we are clearly in the presence of an enlightened one

no no, it's you man. tell me more about how the brain works, the economy of brazil, and who should die a painful death.

also please to not try to say what you think i believe. that's the my #1 pet peeve of ilx.

okay then please to explain to me what "being human" means k thx

(or rather, please elaborate on what you meant by "that's called being human" in response to dean ge's post about the root of dissatisfaction)

I mean I can sum up the "goal" of Buddhism (and most schools of meditation) pretty easily - to relieve suffering. There's nothing particularly "quasi-religious" about that goal, nor in emphasizing that all suffering comes from attachment (attachment to the body, to pleasure, to habits, whatever)

that's called being human! i wouldn't want to be a robot who smiled perpetually and was just as content walking on a pile of broken glass as they were hugging their loved ones. trees are nice to look at, but i wouldn't want to be one.

-- Granny Dainger, Friday, July 20, 2007 9:03 PM

Up to this point I've been trying to clarify misconceptions about what zazen, my meditation form of choice, is intended to accomplish. I've done my best to do that and it now seems clear that we have more fundamental philosophical differences. That's fine. I'm not here to evangelize for Zen Buddhism and one doesn't change one's fundamental beliefs about the nature of human suffering due to arguments on an internet message board.

Thank you again for allowing me the opportunity to clarify how I believe zazen works, and for the stimulating exchange. This is where I bow out, if you will, of the conversation.

Gassho.

To a certain extent, I'm with Granny on this subject. Dean says, "If you make the decision you like some things and not other things, you create dissatisfaction." Liking something or not isn't normally considered to be a "decision" - it's an emotional reaction. The only decision involved is whether you're just going to let this emotional reaction go or not, following the Eastern premise of not reacting or that doing nothing is preferable.

Again, I'm looking for a way to live where I can, actually, enjoy the fact I like something. Or that I want to do something. I believe that I am here, precisely, TO do things. I know that there are ramifications involved in doing so, but the idea that these ramifications will always end up involving some degree of dissatisfaction or displeasure or pain is, I believe, extremely pessimistic.

I think you should look somewhere else besides eastern traditions, Tim.

Maybe sufism.

altho honestly I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it (and thus suffer, be disatisfied, etc.)

I mean, time is unceasing and only flows in one direction, everything changes or dies, and therefore if you become attached to something, you will suffer whenever it does eventually change/die.

totally agree w/tim's 2nd paragraph there. more well said than i've been able to manage.
shakey, i didn't necessarily mean that without suffering one isn't human (though it the idea of someone never suffering is creepy in a brave new world sort of way), but more that being detached from emotional ups and downs (and plateaus!) seems like it would result in a less than complete human being experience, or at the very least make the sacrifice the full pleasure of the eyes in order to eliminate the full pain of the lows. I don't think it's a fair trade. Obv I am not nor have I ever been free of desire/judgment/whatever you want to call it, so maybe that trade isn't even a necessary one!

xpost
altho honestly I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it (and thus suffer, be disatisfied, etc.)
see this is exactly the tradeoff i mean. missing something isn't all that bad! there is still a sweetness in bittersweet.

I don't believe there is any way to really enjoy anything without fundamentally accepting that it isn't gonna last forever and that you will, therefore, eventually miss it

If you're talking about emotional relationships with people, that's one thing. But if I listen to a record because I like it and then someone comes and steals it, will I "suffer" as a result? Does my "dissatisfaction" with the theft cause me to think that I shouldn't have "formed an attachment" with the record?

Talking about the Vision is like dancing about architecture.

:-D

Just kidding. I only wanted to use a fave cliche that annoys people.

But, seriously, talking about the Vision is fine and good. The reason it is generally translated as the "Vision", rather than the "View", however, is because "view" tends to imply a philosophical understanding (ie. "view" or "viewpoint") while Vision implies sight and experience a little more.

Most experts on meditation can argue logically and philosophically up and down about reality and the mind without becoming unsound in their arguments, but that doesn't give anyone else the actual experience of meditation or the result of extended practice. It might cause a cynic to reconsider or have him off to the library to see if he can prove you wrong, but unless a person has the inclination and determination to practice honestly, the fruit of the path can never be experienced or understood (or enjoyed!).

Liking something or not isn't normally considered to be a "decision" - it's an emotional reaction. The only decision involved is whether you're just going to let this emotional reaction go or not, following the Eastern premise of not reacting or that doing nothing is preferable.

This is dualistic thinking and if you're going to cling to dualism, you will not get very far. For example, a buddhist technique is to remove judgement from your experience and just let the experience be what it is. If you burn your hand on the stove, rather than jumping up and saying, "Ow, I burned my fucking hand on that goddamn stove!" and kicking it and then saying, "Ow, I hurt my fucking toe when I kicked that piece of shit!" just say (or scream), "HOT!" Thinking like this is part of the process of deconditioning conditioned thinking, which is considered dualistic ignorance. Beyond the stove analogy, all emotional responses are learned, conditioned dualism. So, you're right that you don't generally decide what you like or dislike, but you can essentially "learn" to by unlearning your "karmic pattern" (learned expectations). It starts with baby steps, that's for sure.

if you're going to cling to dualism, you will not get very far.

Get very far with what, exactly? With this deconditioning that you're apparently claiming to be the spiritually evolutionary path.