Enlightenment and Awareness confusion?

[tradrockrat]

Do you remember what I said about confusion?

It is my belief that you already know the answer to any question you might desire to meditate upon.

You just have to trust yourself and let go enough to hear the answer.

Excellent answer!

I feel that the "obsession" many peopel have over the questions is causing them to miss the point. You don't meditate to find answers because you already have those, one meditates to to enable the mind to access those answers. That's what I meant by the mind "doing its job".

Once the mind is Empty, or at a begining state (tabula rasa, we called it) the answer might just peak out and ask you (metephysically speaking) if you want to listen to it.

So again, I say that meditation is a tool. You use a hammer to drive a nail, you use meditation to quiet the mind...

Here's a crummy example (aren't they all):

You ever stretch out just because it feels good to do so? I mean, we should all be stretching before and after our workouts, but have you ever done it unconciously - just for fun?

Try meditating just to be meditating. Forget koans, questions and enlightenment. Masters would say let go of desire, but lets stay grounded here. Just do it to be doing it. Don't persue some goal. I don't ride a motorcycle to get somewhere, nor do I sail to get to a port. I do it just because. The same should be said of meditation.

Enlightenment is almost a by product of the journey, no the destination.

As we say in LaLa Land (Los Angeles) -- Chill out, dude! Relax and enjoy the ride!

PS - I am in no way enlightened! :wink:

 

[heretic888]

Not to go off-topic here, but...

Once the mind is Empty, or at a begining state (tabula rasa, we called it) [...]

John Locke's tabula rasa is in no way, shape, or form (pun intended!) the same thing as Nagarjuna's shunyata or Zen's mushin. It is a grave error to confuse the two.

The so-called "blank slate" (tabula rasa) is a supposed condition that the Age of Reason empiricists postulated human infants were born into. In essence, it was assumed that human beings came into the world with no inherited knowledge or information outside of that acquired from the five physical senses, no a priori truths to speak of. The belief was that all knowledge of the world and the self was acquired from personal experiences after birth. Opponents of this position include nativists and idealists such as Immanuel Kant, who believed humans were born with at least some a priori knowledge about the world and themselves.

It should be noted that the tabula rasa hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked and discredited by modern developmental psychology. We know with firm certainty that, whatever else a human newborn may be, he or she is most assuredly not a "blank slate". This includes both instinctual responses (such as a newborn being able to automatically recognize upright human faces as opposed to upside-down human faces), biological reflexes (such as the sucking reflex), empirical knowledge (newborns seem to possess what is called "intuitive theories" about things such as gravity, motion, inertia, and intentionality), and even "sensitive" periods of development (a child that is not exposed to human language up to a certain point will almost assuredly never learn it). The hypothesis remains completely unfounded.

By contrast, the Emptiness expounded by Mahayana Buddhism is not some "infant state" that you are born into. It is your "Original Face", the face you had "before your parents were born". Emptiness (shunyata) precedes and underlies the duality of manifest existence altogether. Its not something that just begins when you're born, and something you subsequently lose with self-awareness. It is a grave mistake to confuse pre-egoic with trans-egoic (philosopher Ken Wilber's (pre/trans fallacy).

Besides, most animals possess even less self-awareness than a newborn infant. Yet we don't consider them to be consciously realized Buddhas. That is why there are prayers in Buddhism that give thanks for "this precious human body", because it is only in an ADULT human that Emptiness can be fully realized. Not even the devas (gods) are given such a privilege.

This equating of infantile consciousness with Nirvana is common in Western pop-philosophy (and undoubtedly has its origins in the Age of Reason romanticism movement), as well as neo-Jungian psychology, but it is an unfounded position in both psychology and Buddhism.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[tradrockrat]

Yup. Hume's Tabula Rasa has nothing to do with orthodox teaching of zen, meditation, or anything else for that matter, but it is a "catch phrase" that has wide (although erroneous) recognition in the western world. That's why it was used to help describe what an empty mind might feel like to a western practitioner that is comming from such a different background that they might not give a hoot about one hand clapping.

In fact, I have very little knowledge whatsoever about Buddihsm as it doesn't appeal to me at all, but Meditation is an independant activity, and that is what I was talking about.

That's why I put it in parenthesis with the caveat that it was a personal description. Sorry if I implied that I meant the literal Tabula Rasa hypothesis. I'll need to be more careful in the future, thanks for pointing this out fior me.

PS - Kants concepts of a priori knoledge were dependant upon sensory experience first, then intuition supplies the concept. He also had nothing to do with inborn insticts - in fact, he did NOT believe in them. In The Critique of Pure Reason he writes that all knowledge begins with experience, even if it doesn't actually need to arise from experience. He was wrong as was Hume.

 

[heretic888]

Hume's Tabula Rasa has nothing to do with orthodox teaching of zen, meditation, or anything else for that matter, but it is a "catch phrase" that has wide (although erroneous) recognition in the western world. That's why it was used to help describe what an empty mind might feel like to a western practitioner that is comming from such a different background that they might not give a hoot about one hand clapping.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

In fact, I have very little knowledge whatsoever about Buddihsm as it doesn't appeal to me at all, but Meditation is an independant activity, and that is what I was talking about.

Yes, meditation is a practice common to pretty much every religion and can even be engaged in a secular context. However, when one mentions things like "Empty Mind" in a thread about "Enlightenment and Awareness", well, expect certain assumptions to be made.

That's why I put it in parenthesis with the caveat that it was a personal description. Sorry if I implied that I meant the literal Tabula Rasa hypothesis. I'll need to be more careful in the future, thanks for pointing this out fior me.

No worries.

In The Critique of Pure Reason he writes that all knowledge begins with experience, even if it doesn't actually need to arise from experience.

I see.

Laterz. :asian:

 

[tradrockrat]

Yes, meditation is a practice common to pretty much every religion and can even be engaged in a secular context. However, when one mentions things like "Empty Mind" in a thread about "Enlightenment and Awareness", well, expect certain assumptions to be made.

You make an excellent point. :wink2: