On 9/3/2012 6:46 PM, mike brown wrote:
> I think you have a very shallow idea about what vipassana is.
Doesn't matter a wit if I do or don't - but since you keep dragging your
cushion around for me to see: FWIW I don't think it's zoning out at all
(though some will use it that way). It's also not like you invented it,
or it's a big secret. Do you get a discount, or good karma, for
mentioning it? ;)
No matter what I express, you come back to you own assumptions about
what I think - mostly involving some perceived attack on your practice.
This makes one of us appears shallow, and the other appear simple
minded. You can choose which is which.
Any practice can be an escape - or retreat if you prefer. Why do you
think people organize/attend those? Some find it helpful to disengage in
that way. Creating greater contrast between self-awareness and
autopilot, until that sort of in/out of awareness structure implodes.
The house of cards you mentioned. Then 'practice' opens up.
My concern is with the user, not the practices used. With what they
think they are fixing, or what fix they are getting from it. A not so
subtle difference.
There is a similar difference to how you and I are using the term
'mindfulness'. What you describe I might call a basic sense of
self-awareness. A sort of 'witnessing' with/as a conscience. This can be
developed, as it is still 'ordinary mind' (clearly not all have the same
capacities in this regard, and it appears to come and go, etc.). If
something you "do" then it's a form of mindfulness training, which is
still ordinary mind training (while such a distinction makes sense
anyway) and will serve as long as you still have ordinary uses for it
(meaning you are still alive/functioning). Catching and getting control
of the "ox". The higher and lower self business of other traditions. The
conflicted animal and godlike natures of man. Fortunately, even this
division can be seen as false. Short of that, much personal struggle
appears. All is seen through that lens.
Anyway, my point was not - despite your well intentioned but unnecessary
defenses/efforts to skew them as such - a criticism of your practice. I
was simply noting the way you appear to differentiate practice from
other experiences, maybe attaching some significance in the process that
reinforces this. How this is can be 'counterproductive', yet is also an
integral aspect of any practice, an aspect of what the practice reveals,
what is carried to all other experiences... what has always simply been
this experiencing...
Tomorrow, remind me to stick to one liners and crappy neo-haiku. Still
reeks of rotting flesh, but less dead bones for zen dogs to sniff
at/snarl over.
KG
PS - Equanimity is not a a lack of personality, or invariability of
reactions to what arises. No stone Buddha! "Cranky" was simply my
acknowledgement of what was presenting. Redirected energies, responding
differently to different stimuli/situations. I see no need wasting more
energy pretending to be this or that, unless I do. Something I used to
do to manipulate myself and others, I now only do if it aids
interactions with others. Looks the same.
------------------------------------
Current Book Discussion: any Zen book that you recently have read or are
reading! Talk about it today!Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Zen_Forum/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
