Something and nothing

Is it possible that some of us pragmatic/hardcore dharma types get hung up on the "nothing" part of stuff and want life to just be all about that but run into endless trouble because we forget that it is actually nothing constantly becoming something and that is what we have to learn how to deal with -- the becoming something, not the nothing?

Was that just a confusing bunch of BS or does it mean something (pun intended) to you?

Chris -- should I try again?

We are empty of a solid, permanent self. Seeing this can bring a lot of freedom, a lot of insight. It's great. However, in an instant all the elements will inevitably come together to create something that says it to itself that it is empty -- thus immediately filling in the void and becoming ... something.

I think a lot of the pracitioners I've encountered in the "pragmatic" or "hard core" dharrma movement are looking for some kind of life in which the becoming something activity never happens somehow and thus they can be actually free, they will never "self" (as a verb), they can avoid all difficult self-centered emotions, etc. Some are even saying that this is the actual intention of Buddhist practice.

I think that the constant process of becoming something/somebody is just that ... constant and inevitable. Sure, there is cessation (nirvana?) but that is temporary, fleeting, nothing to grab onto and live in and just a sort of by product of certain practices. And, the only way you even know it happened is that you come back together as a person and think about the fact that you just had it.

Maybe the intention of practice is to learn how to be at peace with nothing AND something (emptiness and form?) all at the same time -- denying neither and embracing both?

Or, am I still not understanding what the "beyond technical fourth path" dudes are up to? That is very possible.

Can I offer an opinion?

I think there are several reasons.

1) There are people who have not really had an awakening, but think they have, and therefore think because things continue to be sort of crappy and unsatisfying decide that "awakening" is not all it's cracked up to be and therefore start looking for a new method or goal that will be a shortcut to "feeling good all the time."

2) There are people who have had an awakening, but never had a holistic grounding in tradition (ie development of compassion/wisdom/etc) OR bring along a lot of unresolved emotional/psychological/social issues from their past which don't just suddenly vaporize, and so are driven to continue trying to eradicate feelings they are uncomfortable with.

3) There are people who have had an awakening and then see that there is actually a whole universe of ongoing further integration, development, unfolding and deepening that continues afterwards, and are exploring a variety of deeper practices. This kind of thing is addressed by respected practitioners in various traditions, from Adyashanti to Bernadette Roberts and others I'm not as familiar with.

Chris -- of course I like that.

What I'm getting at is that I'm thinking I may have solved my problem with the idea I keep hearing of having total freedom from self-centered feelings and experiences. It just makes no sense to me with what I see going on in life.

Now, I could just not be understanding what I'm reading, but at least now I get why it just never makes sense to me ... so far at least.



I was reading another thread about all of this on another forum and it all sounded so wonderful yet so silly -- just a red hearing.

Can I offer an opinion?
I think there are several reasons.
1) There are people who have not really had an awakening, but think they have, and therefore think because things continue to be sort of crappy and unsatisfying decide that "awakening" is not all it's cracked up to be and therefore start looking for a new method or goal that will be a shortcut to "feeling good all the time."
2) There are people who have had an awakening, but never had a holistic grounding in tradition (ie development of compassion/wisdom/etc) OR bring along a lot of unresolved emotional/psychological/social issues from their past which don't just suddenly vaporize, and so are driven to continue trying to eradicate feelings they are uncomfortable with.
3) There are people who have had an awakening and then see that there is actually a whole universe of ongoing further integration, development, unfolding and deepening that continues afterwards, and are exploring a variety of deeper practices. This kind of thing is addressed by respected practitioners in various traditions, from Adyashanti to Bernadette Roberts and others I'm not as familiar with.

-ona

Right, this Bernadette Roberts is very popular with the people I'm talkng about -- not so much Adyashanti. I think Adyashanti just has a certain way of teaching how to get awakened while Bernadette Roberts is actually the example of the person who has no self feeling thing going on supposedly and is thus way cool.

One thing does seem to be true here -- many normal people, including some very advanced practitioners, are uncomfortable with some emotions. However they decide to deal with that (and there are many ways) is okay, perfectly normal and natural, and shouldn't be subject to criticism unless, maybe, they fall into Ona's category #1, in which case they should keep practicing to optimize the chances of awakening... and then worry about the next steps.
JMHO

-cmarti

Again I agree.

I've just been so confused with the idea of living some kind of life in which emotions and the feeling of being a separate person just go away forever. Am I misreading some of this?

@Chris, I agree, to each their own path. One of the early Christian mystics put it very well in The Book of Privy Counsel:

"do not discuss or judge God's designs in the lives of others. Do not
meddle in His affairs: whom He stirs and calls and whom He does not; when
he calls, whether early or late; or why He calls one and not another."

@Chris, I agree, to each their own path. One of the early Christian mystics put it very well in The Book of Privy Counsel:
"do not discuss or judge God's designs in the lives of others. Do not
meddle in His affairs: whom He stirs and calls and whom He does not; when
he calls, whether early or late; or why He calls one and not another."


-ona

I'm not trying to criticize specific people here I'm trying to understand certain practice ideas and discussions that are in the air that are confusing to me and then relate it back to what I am seeing and doing in my own life. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "silly?"

And, just to put this out there, when you are face to face and interacting with people who claim to have eliminated much or all affect they don't seem really all that dis-affective. So maybe it doesn't matter to us "out here" that they are not having affective processes going on "in there."


-cmarti

Didn't the researcher say as much in that Buddhist Geeks write-up? That when measured, the people he interviewed were seen to have emotional responses, but they were so unattached to them "inside" that they felt they didn't?

I think there's an idea that losing the sense of self or emotional clinging means we turn into weird zombie people. But in fact it seems in my small experience and in talking to others with more experience that it instead liberates a person to be open to the deep love and compassion which is a natural expression of awakening, instead of being entangled in the mundane clinging and aversion of reacting to everything in day to day life (with bursts of anger, jealousy, greed, etc.).

Thoughts?

I'm not trying to criticize specific people here I'm trying to understand certain practice ideas and discussions that are in the air that are confusing to me and then relate it back to what I am seeing and doing in my own life. Maybe I shouldn't have used the word "silly?"


-michaelmonson

I'm with you Mike - I didn't intend to imply you were criticizing, and I actually have been quite intrigued by this issue myself, and didn't intend my earlier opinion to be harsh or imply criticism on anyone in particular. I only know personally a very few of the people involved in these discussions, and one can't judge a person's heart by forum posts, in any case. I was discussing this very thing with my husband this morning.

I also consider that what I understand or what appeals to me is usually due to "where I'm at". There are things people were all excited about a year ago that made zero sense to me (ETA: then, but later suddenly became relevant). This particular discussion doesn't resonate with me at this point in my practice, and it may be that in a year or two it will mean everything. We can only be where we are, and each of us are in our own place on our own path.

Why not ask people involved in those discussions directly? I think I know where you're reading these things and I would suggest that you just post your questions there as opposed to here, where those of us who are here are being asked to be proxies for those people there
[image]

-cmarti

Because I think they are so caught up in their point of view they would just answer with more of the same stuff I don't understand.

Oh well, I like living right where everything begins.

Why not ask people involved in those discussions directly? I think I know where you're reading these things and I would suggest that you just post your questions there as opposed to here, where those of us who are here are being asked to be proxies for those people there
[image]


-cmarti

Personally I feel like that's intrusive, like walking into a conversation at a party and making the participants back and up and review the whole thing so you can join in. Besides coming from a long tradition (Santeria) of "shut up and listen" learning, where eventually stuff makes sense if it's relevant, and if it never makes sense, then it wasn't meant for you anyway.

...during that session it became very clear to me that the "solutions" to this emotions/no emotions "problem" are as vast as the range of human experience and as numerous as all human beings.
My current thinking on this area is more complicated than it used to be and I'm not sure I can articulate it very well, so I'll hold back until I can.


-cmarti

Oh, why wait!

@Ona -- goading will get you nowhere


-cmarti

worth a try

Chris is right in the sense that I am using ya'll as proxies because I am essentially lurking sometwhere else and am shy to get involved for real at this point.



Anyway -- I certainly have a LOT of times as a direct result of practice in which it feels like I am just buzzin along with no affect, no sense of self, just empty, cruising, no friction, energetic -- feeling NO pain. However, I think that during those times it just means that my sense of self is just being quiet for a while -- it is still there instant by instant always ready to manifest for good or ill.