Trying to avoid unpleasantness

Jake2, as nice as that teaching sounds, I'm afraid it doesn't really match up to reality testing. Many of the teachers who convey these messages are observed by their students in fearful situations, and they are by no means cool as cucumbers.



Also (and this is a bit of a "Lion's Roar" for me), the "no separate self" thing is so blatantly misunderstood by most people - teachers and students alike - that it's almost more harmful than helpful. The view of Onenes can be, and often is, just as pathological as that of separateness. Neither are true outside of their (verbal/conceptual) context, and so both are empty.



Talking about the dynamics of consciousness as though concrete pieces like a sense-of-self can be removed, and thus improve the workings of the whole system, is ontologically and epistemologically suspect. It just doesn't work that way. Language, perspective, and meaning are not acquired like physical objects, and so they cannot be manipulated as such; nor does ending one process result in the same kinds of changes that would result in moving a concrete object from a mechanistic system.



Therefore, it's more likely that it's the adding of perspective, rather than the removal of a perspective, that results in the most beneficial change. Yes, that's all very abstract, and I apologize for that. But as long as people are focus on the removal of something, it will just get reified or repressed.

Great response! Gets me thinking.

"as nice as that teaching sounds, I'm afraid it doesn't really match up to reality testing. Many of the teachers who convey these messages are observed by their students in fearful situations, and they are by no means cool as cucumbers." - Jackson

Although there are teachers that convey these messages but don't exhibit the behavior of the messages (they "talk the talk but can't walk the walk"), this does not mean that the exhibition of the behavior is impossible. It could just mean that there are posers out there. One reason I say this is because I observed my own teacher under a very stressful situation during which he almost died and he exhibited a centered strength the entire time. Even in his recollection of the situation, he was very dispassionate. So I definitely think it's possible, despite our biological wiring.



"Talking about the dynamics of consciousness as though concrete pieces like a sense-of-self can be removed, and thus improve the workings of the whole system, is ontologically and epistemologically suspect." - Jackson

I need to think this through more. I'm reminded of Motoyama's teaching about the 8th stage of meditation, "Neither image nor no-image." He says: “I am where there is no self, which produces everyone and which enables me to speak to everyone, while enabling everyone to act.”

and

"The (small) self that has been negated as to its being is still functional as a tool because it exists in the place that is the present self (i.e. no-self). "



So maybe saying the small self doesn't "remain" is incorrect. It's been negated and the individual no longer identifies with it.

"Neither are true outside of their (verbal/conceptual) context, and so both are empty." - Jackson

Yes, definitely. One can be attached to emptiness as well as form. Both must be seen as empty.

It's also important to understand that anything you try to imagine about this stuff* without actually experiencing it is always colored by imagination, projection, desires, fears, etc. and is not the actual experience. So to guess about what it must be like etc for others is not as productive as working on your own practice so you can see what it's like for you. And from *that* perspective have a much clearer understanding of what others mean when they try to describe their own experiences.... otherwise it's all conjecture and imagination, really.

Someone told me a story from their teacher, who was asked how he would react if someone ran him through with a sword. He wisely said "I have no idea, as that has never happened to me."

*meaning what it's like to be awakened, but also relevant to imagining what it's like to die

"It's also important to understand that anything you try to imagine about this stuff* without actually experiencing it is always colored by imagination, projection, desires, fears, etc. and is not the actual experience. " - ona

I understand and I wish I had commensurate experience that I could compare that with a text, such as Motoyama's. But in this regard, the analysis of how the self is experienced comes straight from Motoyama's words than my imagining of how it is experienced. It seems Motoyama is pretty straightforward in these quotations. Sometimes this is not the case, especially for those who favor metaphors.

"Someone told me a story from their teacher, who was asked how he would react if someone ran him through with a sword. He wisely said 'I have no idea, as that has never happened to me.'"

That's great!

Jake2, I can appreciate your intention to provide clear descriptions based on direct excerpts from somone who you believe really groks this stuff; rather than communicating what you think it means.



However, it's important to recognize that you are providing these quotations in the context of your intention to provide support for, or at least give some credence to, some ideas which you find plausible. In such a case, the excerpts are removed from the authors original context and placed into yours. This skews the meaning.



I know I'm being picky. But, that's why we like speaking from our own experience, rather than that of somebody else. Even when we try to do the latter, it ends up being more suggestive of the former, because meaning is context dependent - always.



Trust me, there is more rich, velvety meaning in your own words than in Motoyama's words, when you're writing to us here in the forum. A spark of your own wisdom is worth way more than what you might perceive as the roaring fire of someone else's wisdom.



Speak from your heart and guts!

@sunyata and I didn't mean "you" as in you personally shouldn't talk because you don't have the same experience as your teacher or other people, for example. I intended "you" to be general. "We" would have been valid. When anyone talks about how it will be when they do this or that, that they haven't actually done, they are just imagining and guessing. Sometimes accurately, but often not at all. When a friend invited me to fly with him in his small airplane one time, I thought it would be absolutely amazing and I looked forward to seeing familiar landmarks from the sky. Instead I filled 8 airsickness bags, which I then had to carry into the airport in front of all the other people.

I also wholeheartedly agree with Jackson - what you personally experience is utterly valid and totally welcome. And that includes "so and so said this and that makes me feel this way, wish I understood, fear what might happen, not like this or that practice" etc. I often find that certain texts or teachings jump out at me - in fact I keep a text file of all the little quotes and passages that have jumped out at me over time. The practice, the use, is to then inquire: why does this quote jump out at me. What does it mean to me? What emotions, memories, or feelings does it bring up? Then we start to get somewhere useful.

For example, does reading about Motoyama's take on fear of death encourage you to practice, because you want to feel that way too? Or do you doubt his words, and want others to say they agree, so you can feel more confident? There's always subtle stuff going on in our minds when we are fascinated with a subject (any subject, not just meditation related). That's the interesting part where the transformative work gets done, in my for-what-it's-worth opinion.

"... what you personally experience is utterly valid and totally welcome. And that includes "so and so said this and that makes me feel this way, wish I understood, fear what might happen, not like this or that practice" etc. I often find that certain texts or teachings jump out at me - in fact I keep a text file of all the little quotes and passages that have jumped out at me over time. The practice, the use, is to then inquire: why does this quote jump out at me. What does it mean to me? What emotions, memories, or feelings does it bring up? Then we start to get somewhere useful.

"For example, does reading about Motoyama's take on fear of death encourage you to practice, because you want to feel that way too? Or do you doubt his words, and want others to say they agree, so you can feel more confident? There's always subtle stuff going on in our minds when we are fascinated with a subject (any subject, not just meditation related). That's the interesting part where the transformative work gets done, in my for-what-it's-worth opinion." -Ona

YES! That's what I'm talking about!

Jackson,



If I spoke from my heart and guts, all you guys would get would be blood and viscera. And that ain't pretty!



I try my best. I haven't had these experiences yet. So when we discuss whether a fear of death is eliminated or not in the course of self-cultivation, I have to look for textual evidence. Just because my fear of death hasn't been eliminated does not mean it's not possible.



So, in many cases, I still rely on finger-wisdom rather than moon-wisdom.



I see how meaning can be skewed when cherry-picking quotations. I think one can definitely minimize the degree of skewness, however, by being cautious.



"The practice, the use, is to then inquire: why does this quote jump out at me. What does it mean to me? What emotions, memories, or feelings does it bring up? Then we start to get somewhere useful." - ona

I like this practice. Um, well, um, I guess, um. In this case, I brought it up because Jackson's statement of how eliminating "self" is "ontologically and epistemologically suspect" made me think my own statement that "no self remains" might be incorrect. So my mind jumped to that statement by Motoyama. Why Motoyama? I think I mentioned this before: 1) my own personal experience meeting Motoyama and having him show me practices to do that then relieved my chronic condition, while never having to palpate me or inquire about my habits in any way; and 2) my teacher's statement that Motoyama is very rare among spiritual adepts in his degree of experience.

I believe those experiences broadly enumerated by Motoyama are latent in everyone. Do I want to have this experience, i.e. elimination of the fear of death? Yes, but only because it is part of a bigger journey (I believe...). What interests me about the bigger journey? Reconnecting with the Source is an inner drive for me and I believe it will help me better serve universe-kind. ("Humankind" is so homocentric....). If I don't connect, I feel lost, anguish. I guess this is spiritual sickness.

I'll be totally honest that the only conscious thing that motivated my meditation practice when I first started was "Please God let me be able to face my own death with some equanimity." I had watched my father die terribly and had to deal with a year of aftermath (family drama, financial problems, legal stuff), then a friend who was killed in a terrible accident, and God threw in the loss of three pets one by one, each suffering with misdiagnoses and mysterious symptoms. Lovely.

I began practice from that total dread, that's all. The realization that there was going to be a whole lot of transformation happening, whether I was looking for it or not, only came later.

"I'll be totally honest that the only conscious thing that motivated my meditation practice when I first started was "Please God let me be able to face my own death with some equanimity." I had watched my father die terribly and had to deal with a year of aftermath (family drama, financial problems, legal stuff), then a friend who was killed in a terrible accident, and God threw in the loss of three pets one by one, each suffering with misdiagnoses and mysterious symptoms. Lovely. "

Wow, I am sorry you had to endure that. But I guess there was a very positive outcome.

I had major depression and anxiety and was borderline bulimic when I started sitting. Although I really liked the idea of spiritual cultivation, it seemed so far away and I was more inclined to practice in order to lessen my symptoms. As my symptoms lessened, my affinity for spiritual practice came to the fore.

It's interesting how the motivation to practice can so often transform in the course of practice, isn't it? Or even from day to day, hour to hour. 'Set and setting'

As for me, I think my initial motivation, which preceded practice by quite a while, was some kind of drive to understand "what is going on here". Early spontaneous experiences seemed to point at radically different ways of being/experiencing, and the common theme for a long time was to understand-- how does this function? How to be like that more often?

Perhaps because of the dryness of this motivation, and the profoundly... I dunno, unencumbered?... nature of those glimpses, it was natural for me to conceive practice as a "getting better". Understanding better, feeling better, acting better. It's no wonder I was so (experientially, though not theoretically) unaware of the tendency to try and avoid unpleasantness and cling to pleasure which pervaded my experience, and carried over unconsciously into my sporadic stabs at practice during my twenties. maybe this is really common. After all, there are few motivations as deep and pervasive as these two, right?

Anyhow, really transformative practice could only begin when that conscious motivation began to shift from merely understanding, to becoming authentically capable of participating in the world in a really beneficial way. I guess this was my personal "mahayana moment"; a little ray of bodhicitta shining through the confusion and distress. When I'm honest with myself, I feel that cutivating this motivation may be itself the most profound practice-- for me at least.

What good was practice if it were oriented only towards steering experience into temporary states of spacious clarity and temporary suspension of self-inflicted suffering? Things really began to unfold from there since something about this shift made it pretty much inevitable that I begin looking carefully at clinging and aversion as it actually functioned in my experience-- my total, daily experience of my actual life, not just in a quiet room on a cushion. As much as things have changed over the past few years of serious practice, this still seems like one of the richest veins of practice/life/awakening gold.