Robin:
>>>If you move, you're not meditating. But if <you> realise there
>>>is no you, then you are not moving.
Reed:
>>That's what I said, isn't it?
Robin:
>I don't think so, but it might be more productive to
>take another approach: you seem to be saying that your
>ego is reborn every time you stop meditating. That's
>actually OK, temporarily, but from a Buddhist point of
>view, if your meditative technique is OK, you should
>start getting insights into the nature of the ego (and
>other stuff) that cause it to be weaker every time it's
>resurrected.
But why would I want to weaken my ego? I can understand why I might want to prune it, might want to shape it and untangle it's knots. I might want to polish it to a bright reflective finish. But weaken it? I suppose that could be desireable if we define the ego simply as the source of all cravings. But, when I think of <I> that meme is more complex. <I> is not necessarily the source of cravings, yet it is <me>, the center of narrative gravity, the symbol signifying self. I think of that as the "ego". What do you think "ego" means?
To be Buddhist, I presume, is not total mind-suicide but selective destruction of those components which are deranged. What is left behind, however, must be a complete whole...it must function.
A functioning human being can have a "self" attributed to them...they can be given a name. Is this a convenient fiction, or a truth? Is there a difference?
>Are you forcing nothingness, or just
>letting it happen?
I don't know. How do you characterise nothing?
>>>>I've spent a lot of time
>>>>contemplating <stillness> and it isn't so attractive to <me>.
>>>
>>>That's fine, but it is only a means to an end, remember. If
>>><stillness> doesn't do it for you, maybe something else does?
>>
>>What I meant was that even the absence of thought, an empty
>>space without signifier can, itself, be a kind of meme.
>
>Of course! But what's the problem?
Silence isn't, itself, an end to craving. There are still patterns within the silences...meanings in the nothingness. Meditating itself doesn't lend a seeker of pattern any rest. One has to allow things not to make sense, to suspend disbelief. But the longest senselessness will collapse again into what you're calling insight. My experience, however, is that the moment of insight, clarity... whatever...is a timeless flash followed by a period of certianty and purposefulness...a construct.
I agree that making a habit of this pattern of thinking weakens the ego in the sense that the construct or the present paradigm is weakened...it becomes easier to dissolve distinctions once you have practice doing so. But this is only a desireable state of being if the mind has a resilience to outside influence. To be easily programmed by others is a weakness. Therefore there is something beyond simple innocence which characterizes what you would call enlightenment. There is something which affords the constancy, focus, and resilience. This is why the enlightened may be described as child-like, but they are not children.
What is this thing which differentiates the enlightened from the child?
>>>Words are not the lotus, but they can help prepare
>>>the ground for it. The best words are memetic weed killers.
>>
>>But what differentiates weeds from the garden? If I
>>want to raise wildflowers, or recreate the steppe, who
>>can argue with my aesthetic on objective grounds?
>
>Let's not get distracted by *mere* word games! All I'm
>saying is the words aren't necessarily distracting --
>they can have just the opposite effect.
Some ideas are easily expressed in words, others are ineffable. Some media focus the mind away from wholistic, associative thinking. Text is such a media. This is what McLuhan pointed out, and I agree.
>>If I offer you a rose in friendship, will you focus on
>>the scent or the thorns?
>
>Depends whether I get pricked!
Be careful how you accept it, then.
>>>>But, as Emerson tells us,
>>>>silence is death.
>>>
>>>To face death is to appreciate life.
>>
>>Facing and accepting aren't the same. Accepting is the more
>>difficult.
>
>Maybe. But I thought you meant "silence is death" as
>a put-down. Which, if you accepted death, I don't
>think it would be.
I don't think it's always desireable to be silent.
>>But, there is something a little disingenious about writing
>>an entire book about achieving silence.
>
>I don't think she was talking about literal silence,
>except to the extent that can facilitate a certain
>state of mind, which is what really matters. However:
So she will add more ideas and words into my head with the intention that I will end up with less words and ideas in my head. Like I said, that seems counterintuitive. Why say all that complicated crazy-sounding stuff? Why not just get to point in clear, honest langauge? If ones point is nothing, why not say nothing?
>>1) She is a work in progress, and the book represents a
>>shedding of sorts. If so, it is a pointer but not an end
>>point.
>
>I think there's quite a lot of truth in that.
Me, too.
>>In this case, there would still be a <Susan> to
>>speak to, and hold responsible.
>
>Who you hold responsible has more to do with what
>*you* believe. The degree of SB's progress towards
>Enlightenment is her business, not yours. But it
>seems you do believe in souls, despite what you said
>in the previous message against "the Cartesian <I>"...
Her business? It's everyone's business! She's writing books about how to think. I think I want to know how she thinks before I go taking advice. I need to think about it before I think with it.
As for "souls"...it all depends on what you mean by that. I'm talking about a center of narrative gravity...the self which we ascribe to other human beings and to ourselves. Yes, I believe in them. I think they are effective ways of understanding physical objects...not the only way, and not always the best way. A metaphor.
>...do you believe in something over and above the
>mechanical material, or don't you?
I don't understand the question. Is mathematics over and above material?
Reed
Reed Konsler konsler@ascat.harvard.edu ---------------------------------------------------------------------