still deconstruction

Discussion of meditation in the Mahayana and Vajrayana traditions.

still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sat Feb 08, 2014 8:15 am

release of concepts and constructions

...

a kind of deep immersion,
perceived as longlasting meditation
with roots in traditional Buddhism seemingly


have a closer look in
www. mondo Zen.Ego deconstruction
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby Jikan » Sun Feb 09, 2014 1:40 am

neti wrote:with roots in traditional Buddhism seemingly


seemingly

http://www.dharmawheel.net/viewtopic.ph ... 56#p136622
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sun Feb 09, 2014 8:37 am

thank you for deep comprehension,
obviously in Europe we have to learn a little bit


During way of life I came in contact with Benjamin Radcliff "Understanding Zen" as well.
As you surely know, in this literary masterpiece the construction of a personal EGO is gently drawn
with its characteristics and faces. From this it is only a minor step ...
to release those constructs again

and you may put aside the literature silently
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby Simon E. » Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:39 am

neti wrote:release of concepts and constructions

...

a kind of deep immersion,
perceived as longlasting meditation
with roots in traditional Buddhism seemingly


have a closer look in
www. mondo Zen.Ego deconstruction

Why would something that is an activity rather than a structure need deconstructing ? :smile:
Simon E.
 
Posts: 2543
Joined: Tue May 15, 2012 11:09 am

Re: still deconstruction

Postby Jikan » Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:08 pm

Simon E. just put his finger on one of the reasons why deconstruction fell out of favor among philosophers after a flurry of heated interest (peaking, perhaps, in the early 1980s). Are processes and activities not, always already*, deconstructive? I'm still not clear on how it is that Derrida had to posit a transcendent, capital-S subject (not very Buddhisty) when his primary concern is with text, discourse, and Francophone wordplay (weirdly, his book on Marx is mostly about the ghost scenes in Hamlet). Peter Dews' book Logics of Disintigration explores this topic but hardly exhausts it. Why it is that new age authors such as K Wilber who feel they need to appeal to contemporary philosophy choose Derrida to work with is beyond me (the "mondo zen" people are Wilber followers). Perhaps someone with a better handle on the French scene can straighten me out if I'm in error here.

*sorry, couldn't resist
Jikan
Site Admin
 
Posts: 5519
Joined: Tue Jul 13, 2010 5:04 pm

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sun Feb 16, 2014 8:29 am

still deconstruction
... is an experience of meditation in my own life,
long before I found Jun Po Roshi's Mondo Zen approach
further confirming own experiences. That's encouraging


From my point of view western philosophy, mainly based on theoretical explanations
was never able to reflect the practical side of de-construction ... those kind of deep tranquility


Or has there been an ongoing delusion all over the years ?
And Ken Wilber revealed a well treasured secret of Buddhism ?
No wonder that established scholars and traditional meditation teachers
all over the world do not like him
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby thigle » Wed Feb 19, 2014 4:36 pm

neti wrote:still deconstruction
... is an experience of meditation in my own life,


Meditation is conceptualisation. This apparent de-construction seems to be only a nihilistic form of ignorance. This is the result of practiced 'letting go' instead of factual 'letting go'. To Wilber: He don't know anything about buddhism, therefore he mixed up everything with (neo)advaita-like idiocy.
thigle
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sat Feb 22, 2014 8:01 am

pardon,
deconstruction has been found by Jacques Derrida in the last century.
Maybe western philosophers avoided to clarify this simple way of tranquility and instead of slowing down
they further used complex explanations to save Platon's heritage of ideas and constructs,
up to the present day.

An unbelievable manipulation, however from western view it does make sense


And in the Far East ?
... those deconstructive condition of pure emptiness seems to be a secret of Buddhism
but of course, a lot of their teachers are not willing to unveil it as well
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby thigle » Mon Feb 24, 2014 12:57 pm

neti wrote:And in the Far East ?
... those deconstructive condition of pure emptiness seems to be a secret of Buddhism
but of course, a lot of their teachers are not willing to unveil it as well


Maybe there's something like a buddhist "Turing-Test" for real "de-construction".

Task: Behave yourself completely natural for a while. Now.
Question: Do you practice the task or not?

If you practice the task, you grasp only a reified concept.

Task: Do nothing for a while. Now.
Question: Do you practice the task or not?

If you practice the task, you grasp only a reified concept.
thigle
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sat Mar 01, 2014 8:56 am

Dear thigle,

you mean a test to find out if someone is able to really switch off (like in deep sleep) ?

... sounds good
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby thigle » Wed Mar 12, 2014 11:27 am

neti wrote:Dear thigle,

you mean a test to find out if someone is able to really switch off (like in deep sleep) ?

... sounds good


So ähnlich.. . It's like a "T-T" for fabricated/unfabricated mind. Fabricated mind is consciousness, unfabricated mind is primordial knowledge/transparency.

Test & Task: Don't focus on anything. Now. [..after some minutes..] If you don't focus on anything, you focus on "don't focus on anything", right? This is an fabricated trance. Some people call this "practice" or "meditation", most people don't know anything about their fabricated trance. But a focus on "don't focus on anything" does not comply with the task "don't focus on anything", therefore the task is not about "practice" or "practiced nonpractice". If you focus on "don't focus on anything", you fall into an special state of consciousness with a lot of "experiences" like "open mind" and stuff. But all this "experiences" are grounded on a big mistake, because you construct an fabricated reified concept out of "don't focus on anything". Therefore the quality of "don't focus on anything'nes" seems to appear. This quality is like some-thing which monitors all. You can call it subject or observer, seems to be reified-identified with everything. The task is misunderstood as a reified concept, because the reified-identified quality want to have something from "don't focus on anything". You can detect this expectations, if you understand the difference between your fabricated practiced task and the factual task. After you understand the difference exactly, don't focus on anything. Or leave everything as it is, which is the same. That's primordial unfabricated looseness. Since it is completely unfabricated, the reified concept of an "origin" doesn't matter from itself. This knowledge is immediate obvious, primordial not to distinct from appearences.
thigle
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: still deconstruction

Postby thigle » Wed Mar 12, 2014 12:41 pm

Final note:

Having directly known earth as earth, and having directly known the extent of what has not been experienced through the earthness of earth, I wasn't earth, I wasn't in earth, I wasn't coming from earth, I wasn't "Earth is mine." I didn't affirm earth. (MN49)


Like in the task before, some people think, the terms "didn't affirm earth", "wasn't coming from earth", "wasn't earth", "wasn't in earth" et cetera, are an statement out of the buddhas "practice", therefore some people think, their must practice all these terms to. But in fact it's a description out of knowledge/transparency. If knowledge is immediate obvious, all of these reified-concepts doesn't matter naturaly from itself, therefore he "didn't affirm earth", "wasn't coming from earth", "wasn't earth", "wasn't in earth" et cetera. Buddhism has nothing to do with nihilistic "neti-neti" stuff. What sounds the same, can be very different.
thigle
 
Posts: 117
Joined: Sat Jul 23, 2011 7:46 pm
Location: Salzburg

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Sun Mar 16, 2014 7:28 am

a similar experience was made by me

Concepts like "mind, consciousness, concentration, attentiveness" are subjectively perceived as mental activities
and can prevent us (in the moment of mentioning such an activity) from coming to quiescence ...
No matter if this concept is used affirmatively or negatively

You may ask a neurolinguistic for support
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany

Re: still deconstruction

Postby neti » Tue Mar 18, 2014 6:27 pm

it simply means that
during meditation most people focus on concepts like "mind, consciousness, attention"
or wrong metaphers like "force, light, energy and so on". However, based on experience,
such concepts or metaphers are connected with mental activity

... far away from stillness


For further clarification please see
www. Buddhaland.stille dekonstruktion or
www. Buddhaland.die kunst der namenlosen meditation
neti
 
Posts: 9
Joined: Sun Feb 02, 2014 8:56 am
Location: Heidelberg, Germany


Return to Meditation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests

>