Message Boards Message Boards

Practice Logs

nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"

Toggle
I thought "non-attachement" is something we develop,
It's a property of cognizance.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/3/19 7:19 PM as a reply to Todo.
Todo:
I thought "non-attachement" is something we develop,
It's a property of cognizance.


nada nada limonada...

if it was "a property of cognizance," you could develop it...

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/7/19 5:21 PM as a reply to terry.
Terry,

When you write "if it was "a property of cognizance," you could develop it.", may I understand that you do not see non-attachement as a property of cognizance and that for you the properties of cognizance can be developed?

Will you be kind to develop your views on this matter?

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/7/19 6:30 PM as a reply to Todo.
Todo:
I thought "non-attachement" is something we develop,
It's a property of cognizance.
I disagree.

I think attachment is a characteristic of normal development, and the goal of practice is to reduce and eventually break the mechanisms of attachment. When successful we experience less attachment and hopefully eventually the actual seeds of problematic experience don't even germinate.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/8/19 5:06 AM as a reply to Todo.
We develop an appreciation that fundamental non-attachment is a property of clear congnizance.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/13/19 10:31 PM as a reply to Todo.
Todo:
Terry,

When you write "if it was "a property of cognizance," you could develop it.", may I understand that you do not see non-attachement as a property of cognizance and that for you the properties of cognizance can be developed?

Will you be kind to develop your views on this matter?

aloha todo,

   By all means...thanks for asking. (btw, at the "kona pure" farmer's market last week I heard a banana seller say to another fruit and vegetable guy, "aloha, amigo" - both were native espanol speakers).


   No, non-attachment is not a property of cognizance. Yes, the properties of cognizance can be developed. 

   In the first case, "non-attachment" is not a thing, not a dharma, but an absence of such, a void. Think of it as like going to sleep. You can't actively "go to sleep," you can only let it happen, nod off. You can practice "non-thought" and this cognitive practice may help you develop non-attachment, but not in any direct way. It is prajna or ultimate insight that leads to non-attachment. The absence of all attachments is nirvana, enlightenment. Freedom from craving. Such liberation is not a power of or product of cognition. Cognition may in fact have to be abandoned before non-attachment can be attained.

   In the second case, the properties of cognizance can certainly be developed. Our primary interest is in mindfulness. Being awake; aware in the generalized sense. The mind wanders; the right-guided developer of cognitive skills brings it to heel through practice. One could call it, "taming the ox."



terry



from "the roaring stream" ed foster and shoemaker, in the "second letter from ta-hui to tseng shih-lang":


Master Yen-t'ou once said, "It is superior to expel things and inferior to pursue things." He also said, one must know "the phrase" in order to govern the basic principles. What is "the phrase?" When no thought exists, that is called the True Phrase. It is also called, "residing at the top," "abiding," "being vividly clear," "being aware," or "at this time." When the mind is "at this time," all distinctions of right and wrong are equally destroyed. As soon as something is deemed positive, it becomes negative. When you are "at this time," positive statement is cut away, negative statement is cut away. Like a fireball that burns anything it touches, there is no way it can be approached.  

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/14/19 12:17 AM as a reply to Matt.
Matt:
Todo:
I thought "non-attachement" is something we develop,
It's a property of cognizance.
I disagree.

I think attachment is a characteristic of normal development, and the goal of practice is to reduce and eventually break the mechanisms of attachment. When successful we experience less attachment and hopefully eventually the actual seeds of problematic experience don't even germinate.


aloha matt,

   We have struggled in the clinical laboratory with the concept of "normal." Tradionally, lab results are reported in a normal range, and abnormal values are flagged. We have found, however, that some body substances are normally present in unhealthy amounts, like cholesterol. Thus there is a conflict between what is the healthy value and the normal value. We now publish the desired values for lipids rather than imply that a normal cholesterol or lipoprotein value is healthy, but the process makes one doubt how healthy any "normal" value is in a fundamentally unhealthy - or even less than optimum - population.

   Applied to attachment being "a characteristic of normal development," it is perhaps not a healthy one. Perhaps "attachment" is both bred into and taught our children, but is nonetheless a disease condition, pathological. A sick society, and a population derived from rapine and genocide. The survival of the most vicious, most attached, and least self-sacrificing and courageous.

   The idea that evolution only provides fit survivors is nonsense. For example, the peacock, dragging around that ridiculous long tail which so impedes his progress. The tail is selected for because peahens like it. Same with innumerable other sexual overdevelopments, from huge antlers to women's breasts. You might say that species with overdeveloped organs and inherited illnesses would not be selected for, but nature produces countless failures for every success, most too brief to even leave a fossil record. Our species has been around a very brief time - though we are spectacularly successful (so far), other species have had their heyday as well, and gone extinct. Our "inability to adapt" that leads to extinction may well be a tendency to overpopulate and grow without restraint. And our selfish need to dominate and take more and more and never be satisfied. In a word, our attachments.


terry




"In ancient times (due to a certain mistake performed by some sacred individuals), humanity developed the negative side of the sexual center, its tenebrous Luciferic aspect. When the electronic sexual fire is directed downwards into the atomic infernos of the human being, it becomes the abominable Kundabuffer organ, the tail of Satan. Fortunately, after its development, the Luciferic organ vanished from humanity; nevertheless, its fatal consequences still remain. It is urgent to know that the disastrous consequences of the abominable Kundabuffer organ remained deposited within the five cylinders of the human machine. It is indispensable to know that the evil consequences of the abominable Kundabuffer organ constitute the lunar ego, the pluralized “I.”

–Samael Aun Weor


further discussion here:  [url=]https://sites.google.com/site/amritayanabuddhism/Home/the-organ-kuddddndabufferhttps://sites.google.com/site/amritayanabuddhism/H ome/the-organ-kundabuffer

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/13/19 11:30 PM as a reply to Daniel M. Ingram.
Daniel M. Ingram:
We develop an appreciation that fundamental non-attachment is a property of clear congnizance.


   I suspect "clear cognizance" is an oxymoron. Philosphers generally agree that consciousness requries an object cognized; we are always aware of something and it is aware of us.  I would say, "non-cognizance." But then, no one is left around to appreciate it. 

   Also, "cognizance" is a "property" (of mental functioning; a skandha), while non-attachment is not a property of anything, but an absence of relations. Real non-attachment is the void, beyond any cognizance or appreciation. To make a "thing" or dharma of non-attachment is to create a "flower of air." Turtle fur; hare horn. Non-existence is not a thing and cannot be apprehended in any way. As this assertion defines the tao, the Great Way, it is non-trivial.

terry


tao te ching, trans feng


One

The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. 
The name that can be named is not the eternal name. 
The nameless is the beginning of heaven and Earth. 
The named is the mother of the ten thousand things. 
Ever desireless, one can see the mystery. 
Ever desiring, one sees the manifestations. 
These two spring from the same source but differ in name; this appears as darkness. 
Darkness within darkness. 
The gate to all mystery.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/14/19 8:26 AM as a reply to terry.
The limitations of language are so frustrating sometimes. This is the kind of question where that is very obvious. The more precise we try to be, the more elliptic it gets, and we get further and further away from bare sensate awareness the more we try to stay close to it in our translation. When I manage to let go of the frustration, I can appreciate the humor in it, and the beauty of the poetry that sometimes appears as a result from the limitations.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/18/19 9:45 AM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Which words do you find frustrating here?

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/18/19 11:24 AM as a reply to Todo.
Cognizance, for instance, or develop, or basically any word that is generally associated with a doer or a perceiver. They can be used without that association being intended, of course, but it’s hard to tell from looking at the language only whether such an association is implied or not. The answers yes and no to your question can mean the same thing, and it could be either one meaning or the opposite meaning.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/20/19 6:15 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö:
Cognizance, for instance, or develop, or basically any word that is generally associated with a doer or a perceiver. They can be used without that association being intended, of course, but it’s hard to tell from looking at the language only whether such an association is implied or not. The answers yes and no to your question can mean the same thing, and it could be either one meaning or the opposite meaning.


aloha linda,

   Your observation is quite accurate that a doer or percever does not need to be associated with an activity, such as cognizance. However, the act of cognizance still implies something cognized, an object of cognizance. Language can be slippery, even deliberately ambiguous, and yet the misuse of language is another thing entirely. And quite common. People often use phrases in their own peculiar way, which can lead to misstatements and misunderstandings. Frequently, people are confused or haven't thought thihgs through. Sometimes people cling to outmoded or outdated formulations out of habit and/or being too enamored of their own philosophy to realize they need to constantly rethink their ideas. Ego likes to think, I have this down and can teach it to others on my own authority. Such thinking creates pitfalls and trips us up every time.

   
terry



from "rinzairoku":

Encountering a Buddha, killing the Buddha;
Encountering a Patriarch, killing the Patriarch;
Encountering an Arhat, killing the Arhat;
Encountering mother or father, killing mother or father;
Encountering a relative, killing the relative,
Only thus does one attain liberation and disentanglement

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/21/19 5:11 AM as a reply to terry.
I get what you are saying. Still, in the phenomenological reality of most people, cognizance does occur. There are thoughts and perceptions. There is what appears to be material stuff that affects us. That matters too, even though it’s empty. If I were to slap you in the face, that would probably hurt. That would be very unkind of me. If somebody was burying a loved one and I were to laugh and say ”Hey, they didn’t exist anyway so it doesn’t matter”, that would be cruel.

RE: nada nonsense: just say "I disagree" or "agree"
Answer
6/22/19 4:03 PM as a reply to Linda ”Polly Ester” Ö.
Finger pointing to the moon...

Many see only the finger...
A few see the moon...
Fewer see both the finger & the moon...
Fewer still see the finger, the moon & the seer...
...
The wise one knows all this is a magician's show.