Thread: Kakusei (disillusion; come to one's senses; wake up)

Originally Posted by wendylove

I didn't say I don't understand.

I wasn't commenting on how you rationalized your response, but the response itself.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Anyway, I can't prove the negative.

You can add to the body of evidence or provide convincing analysis, improving our confidence in reaching conclusions.

Originally Posted by wendylove

Meditation may increase serotonin. This is scientifically weak.

Now if something says it may do something then there is no sciencitific evidence that it is reliable.

Pretty weak evidence.

Another way of describing this evidence is that those methods science has devised to address the physical and behavioral side effects of meditative practice return weakly positive results.

In any case, I would no more wait for science to affirm meditation than walking or breathing. It's something I started doing on my own before I had any concepts to attach to it, and I've found it more intense and beneficial in the ten years that I've taken a more studied and disciplined approach (more disciplined, but still pretty erratic over most of that period). Given the fruits of meditation for a 'weekend warrior' like myself, I can barely imagine the outlook of a dedicated and skillful practitioner.

The Zen Mind - An Introduction


A Day in the Life of a Zen Monk

Buddhism: Seeing Through the Illusion


Ajahn Brahm: Dharma talk on loneliness

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Translation: Clear your mind of all mundane thoughts, and you will find even fire cool.

This is a very famous old quote from a buddhist monk whose temple was being burned to the ground by samurai, and right after saying this he burned to death.

Was that meant to be hilarious?

Not really. It's a true story... [HERE] (unfortunately, you need to be able to read japanese)

Anything positive to add?

err solskye wow nice thread i just dug up. I just want to say kudos for all the good threads you've been making lately. You're on a roll man!

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Not really. It's a true story... [HERE] (unfortunately, you need to be able to read japanese)

Anything positive to add?

Well, it's kind if ridiculous and rather amusing. "And then he said "fire will become cool if you do this." Then he burned to death." Owned!

He obviously meant one's perception of the fire. I find it inspiring that one has that much control over their mind. I hear fire is one of the worst ways to go.

The point isn't that his body would survive, but that he wasn't disturbed by its loss or the pain involved.

Still, I did get a chuckle out of my initial reading of "cool" in the slang sense, as if he not only remained comfortable but died admiring the flames.

Perhaps the message is not about the power of our mind, but rather the impracticality of such "enhanced" modes of perception. Indeed, you can quell pain. But we have pain for a reason -- to recognize and respond to danger appropriately and promptly. There is more than one interpretation to that story.

As with any word, 'Practicality' is in the eye of the beholder.

When you boil language down to it's base, it's just one's attempts at self-expression. Attempts of the beholder trying to be beheld by that which it beholds, when what the beholder beholds is itself manifest...

So, with that in mind, what is 'practicality' again?

For myself, I'd say practicality is awareness of the moment, because at that point comes also the awareness and acceptance of the frivolity of language and all that follows as just a twiddling of one's thumbs... That way, you can kick back, relax, and enjoy yourself as opposed to fight it...

prac·ti·cal /ˈpræktɪkəl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[prak-ti-kuhl] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–adjective
4. adapted or designed for actual use; useful: practical instructions.

There is nothing in there about "being aware at the moment." And please, no offense, but don't go spewing crap about words meaning different things and about language. Yes, all words have a unique connotation to people. And yes, language is a means of communication and self-expression. But the connotation is always related to the actual meaning of the word, and language is, well, useless if you put your own definition to anything you feel like. For example, I can't say "Elephant guardagoop love calculator fun" to mean "I went to the store yesterday." No matter how much I talk about words being in the eye of the beholder, it's just not true.

So I go back to my original point, it seems that this Zen-like philosohpy is actually rather obsolete, impractical, and entirely unnecessary considering the ramifications of it. I believe the correct interpretation of that occurrence is of the impracticality of certain modes of perception. "I have such a unique perception, I can even feel fire as cold. ... And then he burned to death." What else can that honestly show you? Almost always, it is not dignified, strong, or noble to die for a cause or an idea. Once you're dead, nothing more can come from you. It is much less cowardly and more dignified to instead live for a cause. I realize though that that has little relation to what we are talking about, I am just mentioning that to say that his death wasn't noble as it seems.

I'm well-aware of the definition which like all words doesn't speak or hold objectively true.

'Useful'?

'Actual' meaning?

My point was, just because you haven't taken the time to broaden your horizons enough to see or understand the 'use' doesn't mean it's not there.

I see a point in it, so it's practical for me and millions of other people. So, It's a pretty bold statement for you to consider what they do useless, aka. impractical.

Just as a snake slowly constricts and limits it's adversaries options of escape, when you speak from within the confines of a limited mind one might tend to constrict the meanings you arbitrarily construe around their connotation. Especially in the face of all the wonderful interpretations and open-ended words out there.

Words are boxes, think outside them once and a while, and you can more artfully see the deeper intent that lies within...

Originally Posted by wasup

Perhaps the message is not about the power of our
mind, but rather the impracticality of such "enhanced" modes of
perception. Indeed, you can quell pain. But we have pain for a
reason -- to recognize and respond to danger appropriately and
promptly. There is more than one interpretation to that
story.

The view obtained through mindfulness training is not so much enhanced
as informed and unobstructed. As such, one does not "quell" pain, but
experiences it fully and lets it be. What more practical response is
there, barricaded in a burning building by trained warriors? You can
shout and throw yourself on their swords, playing your part in a
script they've likely acted out before and would repeat again. Or you
can demonstrate unmistakably that their way of life, what they take to
be necessity and gain, is in fact delusion and the grounds of their own suffering, and there is another way.

If you never suffer from frustration, anxiety or despair over your own situation or the state of the world, then don't worry about it--if it ain't broke, don't fix it. For those who are troubled by suffering in the world, the Buddha pointed out that this suffering comes from clinging to forms that have no inherent existence and are fading even as we become aware of them. We grasp after these forms because we ignore and reject the true state of things, that we exist only as part of a field of thoroughly interpenetrating phenomena. We can abandon these activities of ignorance, grasping and suffering, by taking a balanced, complete view and acting on that basis. These are the Buddha's Four Noble Truths, essence of the Eightfold Path.

Originally Posted by wasup

So I go back to my original point, it seems that this Zen-like philosohpy is actually rather obsolete, impractical, and entirely unnecessary considering the ramifications of it. I believe the correct interpretation of that occurrence is of the impracticality of certain modes of perception. "I have such a unique perception, I can even feel fire as cold. ... And then he burned to death." What else can that honestly show you? Almost always, it is not dignified, strong, or noble to die for a cause or an idea. Once you're dead, nothing more can come from you. It is much less cowardly and more dignified to instead live for a cause. I realize though that that has little relation to what we are talking about, I am just mentioning that to say that his death wasn't noble as it seems.

The monk burned himself to attract attention and he has obviously done more for the cause while dead then some other guy in the protest who is still alive. I don't know the sircumstances and I'm not saying that his death was necessary, but that just happens to be what he decided to do and he did it quite well. I don't understand why you think that being seen as noble or courageous was the point.

The way I see it, Buddhism was never about being practical, necessary or gaining new modes of perception to amaze others. Seriously, if that's the way you see it, you don't need a burning monk to prove your point, just look at them while they are alive, sitting their lives away in fancy robes. The whole burning while staying cool thing just shows me how detached they really are from the material world. But it is true that even meditation amazes me, so maby not everybody find the burning man inspiring.

If you want to be normal, then these philosophies certainly aren't from you. As we all know, people have different perceptions and analizing others from your point of view won't always give you satisfying answers. I see christians as deluded, you see buddhists as impractical and obsolete. Although I must admit, I am seeing chirstianity as delusional because it's "goal" is the truth, while you are seeing buddhism as impractical when it's goal isn't practicality. Sorry if that's not the way you're seeing it, but that was the feeling I got from that post.

Originally Posted by Bonsay

The monk burned himself to attract attention and he has obviously done more for the cause while dead then some other guy in the protest who is still alive. I don't know the sircumstances and I'm not saying that his death was necessary, but that just happens to be what he decided to do and he did it quite well. I don't understand why you think that being seen as noble or courageous was the point.

The way I see it, Buddhism was never about being practical, necessary or gaining new modes of perception to amaze others. Seriously, if that's the way you see it, you don't need a burning monk to prove your point, just look at them while they are alive, sitting their lives away in fancy robes. The whole burning while staying cool thing just shows me how detached they really are from the material world. But it is true that even meditation amazes me, so maby not everybody find the burning man inspiring.

If you want to be normal, then these philosophies certainly aren't from you. As we all know, people have different perceptions and analizing others from your point of view won't always give you satisfying answers. I see christians as deluded, you see buddhists as impractical and obsolete. Although I must admit, I am seeing chirstianity as delusional because it's "goal" is the truth, while you are seeing buddhism as impractical when it's goal isn't practicality. Sorry if that's not the way you're seeing it, but that was the feeling I got from that post.

A) I never said being noble or courageous was his point. In fact, I specifically said it has no relation to his point. Learn to read next time.

B) I think buddhism is pretty cool and I didn't say it's goal was practicality. I am simply showing that while indeed it is nice to perceive life in new ways and experience it in different ways, one must realize when it is inappropriate to act and think in certain ways. I mean, if buddhism is about making your life experiences and perceptions more valuable and enhanced and better in general, how is burning to death by buddhist practices doing that? It is a good lifestyle, but a LIFEstyle.

Buddhism is more a way of looking at the world and yourself.

All boundaries disappear, even those between life and death.

After you realize certain fundamental principals you can feel at ease with death, not fear it. You begin to realize that the ghost in the machine concept that is the true you won't ever end, because time and all attached to it is merely an illusion put there by your mind.

The perceiver isn't the finite body which allows him to perceive. Buddhism teaches one to isolate that idea of self by shifting one's observation to the observer until they cross the threshold of realization of the observer being ever-present in all things, and it ALL being an extension of 'you'.

That finite shell 'you' inhabit is guaranteed to fail and disappear into oblivion eventually, anyway. Living without acceptance of that, isn't truly understanding life. It's absolutely nothing to fear.

And with that in mind, how could one expect him to go out with any more grace than he did by saying that line? He lives more in death by having said it. Afterall, we are sitting here observing his memory.

Deepak Chopra explains it pretty clearly here...

Originally Posted by wasup

A) I never said being noble or courageous was his point. In fact, I specifically said it has no relation to his point. Learn to read next time.

B) I think buddhism is pretty cool and I didn't say it's goal was practicality. I am simply showing that while indeed it is nice to perceive life in new ways and experience it in different ways, one must realize when it is inappropriate to act and think in certain ways. I mean, if buddhism is about making your life experiences and perceptions more valuable and enhanced and better in general, how is burning to death by buddhist practices doing that? It is a good lifestyle, but a LIFEstyle.

I'm sorry that my reading comprehesnion doesn't meet your standards. I will try to improve it with further practice, I guess.
Even if you never said it was his point, you must have mentioned it for a reason and I just expressed my opinion.

Why would dieing be inappropriate? I see it quite differently. I thought that, above all, enlightenment was the real point. I also don't understand your point with LIFEstyle. Is a lifestyle something more than just a way of life before you die? Even being a part of some suicide cult is a lifestyle. Who decides which action is apporopriate or not. It was his decision to burn himself, he had his own reasons to do so. Who are we to say what is or isn't appropriate, just because our culture hasn't come to terms with our inevitable deaths.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Buddhism is more a way of looking at the world and yourself.

All boundaries disappear, even those between life and death.

After you realize certain fundamental principals you can feel at ease with death, not fear it. You begin to realize that the ghost in the machine concept that is the true you won't ever end, because time and all attached to it is merely an illusion put there by your mind.

The perceiver isn't the finite body which allows him to perceive. Buddhism teaches one to isolate that idea of self by shifting one's observation to the observer until they cross the threshold of realization of the observer being ever-present in all things, and it ALL being an extension of 'you'.

That finite shell 'you' inhabit is guaranteed to fail and disappear into oblivion eventually, anyway. Living without acceptance of that, isn't truly understanding life. It's absolutely nothing to fear.

And with that in mind, how could one expect him to go out with any more grace than he did by saying that line? He lives more in death by having said it. Afterall, we are sitting here observing his memory.

Deepak Chopra explains it pretty clearly here...


See video links above

You know Solskye, I watched Chopras interviews there and it just never ceases to amaze me , the synchronicity surrounding this existant life I experence.
I get to looking at things, and when questions start to arise, the means to answer those questions arise almost simultaneously. Its like I shift my view to this or that and the means to more clearly focus that view just materialize there in the moment such is needed. Thanks for posting those links.

As I watched them I had to laugh out loud at how the interviewer clearly had no idea as top what Chopra was really talking about. Really I was laughing at myself, as I was in the same moment personally identifying with both Chopra and the man interviewing him. A really interesting way of percieving...

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Deepak Chopra explains it pretty clearly here...

You know, I had largely dismissed Chopra on the basis of a couple of Oprah appearances when I was a teenager, where he came off rather fluffy, but he was spot-on throughout that interview. Thanks for the link.

Open-Eyed Meditation: The Four Corners Suite

The Primacy of Consciousness