Essential Zen

[Gonzo]

Oh I wouldnt say it doesnt require meditation. One of the purposes of zazen and sitting in the posture is to meditate. If we're gonna become enlightened, we have to tame the mind, which acts like a wild tiger in its thots, when they arise. This is why you see depictions of monks riding the tiger, overcoming the nature of fleighty mind.

You still can be lazy in mediation. Wnile it is difficult to sit still and be silent for long periods of time, whats it gonna hurt? We're only going to get better in the process and shut down that internal dialogue with such a technique.

Meditation is for those who believe they need to meditate. IMO, that's traditional Zen, and that's fine. I also don't believe its necessary to turn off the internal dialog, but once again, if one believes that is necessary to achieve something, then it is necessary.

I said somewhere Essential Zen is basically a thought process, and that means definitely, if you think a certain course of action, a certain self-discipline is required, and that the effort will take X number of years, then that will be the case.

[datura]

What about koans? Since you see zen as more a thought process, do you still value the koans used by masters to break through mind? Like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'

[Gonzo]

What about koans? Since you see zen as more a thought process, do you still value the koans used by masters to break through mind? Like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'

In my opinion, the following processes are all the same, produce the same results, and are essential,especially the last one, imo:

meditating on a koan
asking "Who am i?"
Spiritual Autolysis
recapitulation

In addition, imo, if one can find a guru with whom he connects, that can be helpful.

Even so, all the processes are really thought processes.

[Zamurito]

What about koans? Since you see zen as more a thought process, do you still value the koans used by masters to break through mind? Like 'what is the sound of one hand clapping?'

In my opinion, the following processes are all the same, produce the same results, and are essential,especially the last one, imo:

meditating on a koan
asking "Who am i?"
Spiritual Autolysis
recapitulation

In addition, imo, if one can find a guru with whom he connects, that can be helpful.

Even so, all the processes are really thought processes.

What are the results?

[Zamurito]

~

"Results" and "Thought process" are interesting.

Should we be asking "Who" is thinking and who is obtaining stated results?

As to the 'thought process,' if all one knows is 'thought,' that's all one will find. (The mirror of self-reflection.)

It's like being raised in one room of a house. If that's all you know, that's all you'll know. If someone (including oneself,) manages to find an entrace or exit to other rooms of the house, then one can perceive a bit more. Then of course one can leave the house, but that's beyond the scope of this at the moment.

You've stated before that you cannot obtain inner silence.

If all you know is thought, then of course you are correct in your statement that all is a thought process.

On the other hand, when one leaves the room of thought and finds other tools or rooms, not everything is a thought process.

Of course to do this one must find the one, as you mentioned. "Who am I?"

[Gonzo]

What are the results?

The elimination of the main impediments to enlightenment which are personal issues comprised of notions about self, negative and positive, isolation of reflexive behaviors and their causes, realization and acceptance of essential self, as well as of higher self.

[Gonzo]

~

"Results" and "Thought process" are interesting.

Should we be asking "Who" is thinking and who is obtaining stated results?

I think there aren't any "shoulds", rather there are do those things that work for you.

As to the 'thought process,' if all one knows is 'thought,' that's all one will find. (The mirror of self-reflection.)

It's like being raised in one room of a house. If that's all you know, that's all you'll know. If someone (including oneself,) manages to find an entrace or exit to other rooms of the house, then one can perceive a bit more. Then of course one can leave the house, but that's beyond the scope of this at the moment.

You've stated before that you cannot obtain inner silence.

If all you know is thought, then of course you are correct in your statement that all is a thought process.

On the other hand, when one leaves the room of thought and finds other tools or rooms, not everything is a thought process.

Of course to do this one must find the one, as you mentioned. "Who am I?"

By "thought process" I don't mean something limited to the internal dialog nor any stream of words. A thought process to me also includes all imagery, perception, sense, evaluation, consciousness, awareness, etc. That is back to Descartes statement...we are thinking beings at the moment inhabiting human bodies. There is nothing we do that is not thought based.

[Zamurito]

~

"Results" and "Thought process" are interesting.

Should we be asking "Who" is thinking and who is obtaining stated results?

I think there aren't any "shoulds", rather there are do those things that work for you.

As to the 'thought process,' if all one knows is 'thought,' that's all one will find. (The mirror of self-reflection.)

It's like being raised in one room of a house. If that's all you know, that's all you'll know. If someone (including oneself,) manages to find an entrace or exit to other rooms of the house, then one can perceive a bit more. Then of course one can leave the house, but that's beyond the scope of this at the moment.

You've stated before that you cannot obtain inner silence.

If all you know is thought, then of course you are correct in your statement that all is a thought process.

On the other hand, when one leaves the room of thought and finds other tools or rooms, not everything is a thought process.

Of course to do this one must find the one, as you mentioned. "Who am I?"

By "thought process" I don't mean something limited to the internal dialog nor any stream of words. A thought process to me also includes all imagery, perception, sense, evaluation, consciousness, awareness, etc. That is back to Descartes statement...we are thinking beings at the moment inhabiting human bodies. There is nothing we do that is not thought based.

Of course.

Because that's all you know. (Thought based.)

What I'm describing must be experienced, that's all I can say.

What am I describing? You don't know and can't know because you're still thinking about it.

[Gonzo]

Because that's all you know. (Thought based.)

What I'm describing must be experienced, that's all I can say.

What am I describing? You don't know and can't know because you're still thinking about it.

Can you say that what you experience is not a thought process? You remember the experience, I presume, and that in itself is a thought form, is it not?

[Zamurito]

~

Afterwards, at times, there is a thought process.

Don't get me wrong, thought is a wonderful tool.

It's just not the only one.

[Gonzo]

~

Afterwards, at times, there is a thought process.

Don't get me wrong, thought is a wonderful tool.

It's just not the only one.

It seems to me, regardless what these other tools are, that the process is known...minimally, it is imagined, or let's say intended, rather like lucid dreaming. There's no doubt there is a difference between reading about lucid dreaming and actually experiencing a lucid dream. Regardless, the thing of a lucid dream is a thought...what is intended when trying to get lucid is itself a thought process. I can't think of any tool that differs.

[Zamurito]

~

Hmmm....I don't know how to say this.

Based on your previous comments you see 'thought' as the all encompasing.

I experience thought as just a piece of the puzzle.

[Gonzo]

What would you call "other parts of the puzzle"?

The two statements I rely upon here (one of which McKenna also relies) are:

"Cogito ergo sum"

and

"We are what we think.
All that we are arises with our thoughts.
With our thoughts we make the world."

What other parts might there be?

[Zamurito]

~

The Nagual.

The Nagual is not a 'thinking thing.'

[Gonzo]

The nagual is not me. It is something I can access, something I can be aware of, something I can experience, but it is not me. I am a being of thought. The nagual is whatever it is, and in all of Castaneda it is defined as a thing external to us, a force of sorts, and in my estimation, having nothing to do with enlightenment. It's possible to surrender to the nagual, but that is not enlightenment. Enlightenment to me is something quite personal...it is something I do, for me, not for anyone or any thing else.