Bob, Of course you are right and Bill is wrong. The senses are illusions. They are not reality as it actually is. This is abundantly clear to anyone who understands how they work...
Edgar On Apr 17, 2013, at 6:37 PM, bobthomas564 wrote: > Hi Bill - To me the senses are inputs from the nose, eyes, ears, skin, mouth. > My thoughts are that these should feed directly to your understanding of the > world around you ie god made sense look outwards therefore etc etc. I think > that the ego grabs these feeds and uses them to distort our understanding of > the world around us. That is part of the training is to get a grip on the > reins of the senses in terms of that famous image from the Gita. > > I could write more about your post but I will wait until I have read more > from you. > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@...> wrote: > > > > Bob, > > > > Thanks for your reply but it did not answer my question which was: > > > > "The senses are always engaged. How could you disengage them while > > remaining conscious?" > > > > Perhaps we're using the same words differently. Here is how I am using the > > word 'senses'. > > > > 'Senses' to me is an awkward, dualistically-based word used in part to > > describe just plain experience. (I sometimes use the phrase 'direct, > > sensory experience' just to be clear, but the qualifiers 'direct' and > > 'sensory' are redundant and might lead you to believe there is such a thing > > as 'indirect' or 'non-sensory' experiences. There are not.) The word > > 'sense' itself implies an 'avenue' or 'interface' which 'connects' us with > > the 'outside world'. We divide 'senses' up into five categories: sight, > > hearing, touch, smell and taste. But there is no 'outside world', no > > 'interface' and only one experience ('sense') - and I usually call that > > Buddha Nature or Just THIS!. > > > > If you're wondering why I'm trying to be very precise about this it's > > because sentient-ness (having senses) is very key to Buddha Nature - not > > rationality or logic or emotions or memory or projections or physicality or > > anything else. Just sentient-ness. > > > > The term 'perceptions' IMO are the concepts (illusions) created by our > > discriminating, rational mind (intellect) which post-processes experience > > with such rational actions as filtering, augmenting, categorizing, > > evaluating, etc... > > > > So maybe when you say "different levels of awareness of our senses" you are > > saying (in my terms) there is experience, and then there is a whole host of > > levels of perceptions. And maybe not... > > > > I have no idea what you think the story about the drawing has to do with > > your 'senses'. You recognizing a line drawing as "an orchid in all its > > glory" is a perception - not an (direct, sensory) experience. > > > > So, I repeat my question again in a little different way... > > > > When you say "The senses do need to be engaged but should work > > 'properly'...", what exactly to you mean by that? > > > > ...Bill! > > > > --- In [email protected], "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > HI Bill thanks for the welcome. > > > > > > To answer your question I think there are different levels of awareness > > > of our senses. To remind the new meditators of their senses brings, what > > > is normally an autonomous process back into 'immediate reality' > > > (indicating a clearer idea of the senses rather than the reality of > > > reality - if you know what I mean). > > > > > > Many years ago a group of us did an experiment in focus and coming in > > > touch with the senses. We were given a large sheet of drwg paper and some > > > charcoal. We all had to draw a huge orchid in a brass pot. I am useless > > > at art and drawing match stick people is a stretch. Having meditated, > > > done a few straight lines and a few circles we started by concentrating > > > on a single point, drawing that and then moving on. After a short time I > > > stood back and was astounded that I had drawn an orchid in all its glory. > > > > > > I hope this answers your question. > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Bill!" <BillSmart@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > Welcome to the group.. > > > > > > > > I was also taught to relax my eyes so they are only 'half' open, lower > > > > my gaze to about 3 feet in front of me and allow my eyes to de-focus. > > > > Closed eyes were discouraged to help keep your mind from wandering, > > > > minimize visualizations and because as you note of the tendency to > > > > sleep. > > > > > > > > The senses are always engaged. How could you disengage them while > > > > remaining conscious? > > > > > > > > ...Bill! > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > HI Joe - I agree. I was taught to squint through slightly open eyes > > > > > but not at first. The senses do need to be engaged but should work > > > > > 'properly' ie not allowing the ego to take control of them and run > > > > > with them. Easier said than done. The ego, as it throws up things, > > > > > always strike me like files with a 'look at this' on the front of > > > > > them. > > > > > > > > > > I take the guys through getting in contact with their senses prior to > > > > > starting meditation encompassing the idea of 'nowhere to go and > > > > > nothing to do'. I find that they can deal with the issues of > > > > > meditation easier with their eyes closed in the early stages. > > > > > Eventually a few things happen as they get stronger, sleep disappears > > > > > as an issue and they naturally sit more upright. Then open eyes are > > > > > easier. > > > > > > > > > > A start is a start it means nothing, it is where you end up that > > > > > counts. Entry is from anywhere. In Zen's case you end up not being > > > > > able to open your mouth to say anything sensible. Strange really! > > > > > > > > > > Nice talking to you. > > > > > > > > > > Bob > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "Joe" <desert_woodworker@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Bob, > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks for posting the "notes" to the Group site as a .doc file. > > > > > > Well done and generous teaching and encouragement. Gee, I wish I > > > > > > could sit with your group. > > > > > > > > > > > > I'll note that, in general, in Zen practice as I've encountered it > > > > > > as taught and as practiced, we do not close the eyes. > > > > > > > > > > > > There are two reason for this. > > > > > > > > > > > > One is that we do not screen-out ANYTHING in our practice, as I've > > > > > > found it. All six senses are allowed to operate without screening. > > > > > > The "mind" is usually considered one of the six senses, so we do > > > > > > not suppress or screen out thoughts either: instead, we put all > > > > > > attention on the method of practice. If thoughts arise, we just do > > > > > > not follow them: that is not "screening", but it is just doing ONE > > > > > > thing at a time: remaining concentrated upon the method of practice > > > > > > in the time when we set ourself to practice. > > > > > > > > > > > > The second reason is that Zen practice is about opening to wisdom, > > > > > > through awakening. Closed eyes can lead to drowsiness and ... to > > > > > > sleep. > > > > > > > > > > > > Well, nothing new in these comments. And they are just that, > > > > > > comments. > > > > > > > > > > > > I like your noting the usefulness of the point of contact of the > > > > > > hands. I find in general that a closed mudra comes more naturally > > > > > > in our way of sitting, and does more good than an open mudra, a > > > > > > dispersing mudra, or no mudra. Hmm-m, I meant to write about this > > > > > > here last week, but the death of a very close sangha friend > > > > > > intervened and put me off doing much of anything: "Jim", a fellow > > > > > > who practiced his zazen with us always in a wheelchair. I'll get > > > > > > back to writing sometime. > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks again posting! > > > > > > > > > > > > --Joe > > > > > > > > > > > > > "bobthomas564" <bobthomas564@> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I also put statements and questions I prepare to them after the > > > > > > > group. I have attached a couple - (oops! attachments not so easy > > > > > > > will try another time). > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
