Captured by the Bamboozle......

“One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we’ve been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We’re no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It’s simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we’ve been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back.”

― Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World: Science as a Candle in the Dark

I post this in the context of this forum and our collective experiences with Kennett, Shasta, group-think.  Not saying that Kennett was a charlatan, but she certainly was a self-bamboozled leader of her own personality cult.  And the bamboozle - well, that's a big extended bamboozle - that includes the myths of the tradition itself, the Zen culture in Japan, patriarchal religion, suppression of critical thinking and integrity, demand for blind obedience, self-blinding, ignoring what is starring you in the face, guru worship, and on and on.... creates quite the multi-layered, colorful and complex bamboozle.  And for too many, they are captured by the bamboozle, can't even see it.  Yes, it is painful to acknowledge.

Interesting quote from a performance artist (original article http://www.independent.co.uk/arts-entertainment/art/news/marina-abramovic-what-a-performance-for-an-artist-taking-on-cynical-drunken-brits-9517940.html)

While performing in other countries, she found that Germans “discuss things to death” while Italians, Mexicans and Spanish “cry all the time”. The most frightening, she said, were the Japanese. “In Japan, if you are a teacher [or a performer] you are like a god. If you say to someone, ‘Jump from the fifth floor’, they will jump from the fifth floor.”

I'm feeling quite bamboozled by that quote!

" Perhaps the Shasta experience can be likened to being only one tree in a bamboozlement forest and that an unrelenting focus on just that one tree (then as it is now) is actually the means of not seeing the forest for the tree. The worst of the Shasta mind set, continuing to be transmitted, year after year, as the criticism of the Shasta mind set."

 Waking up from a Dream to find oneself in yet another Dream..........Painful !

I don't think that any meditation practitioner would discount Josh's posting that our bamboozlement is almost too painful to acknowledge but
an open effort at meditative inquiry presents the possibility that going from being worldly Borg to Shasta Borg to being anti Shasta Borg can all be done while maintaining the same bamboozlement within the same dream.

Is adopting a different application of face paint to join a different tribe, helpful to anyone, if the primary issue of bamboozlement is maintained by this very act of identity production?

Hmmm..What to do, what to do?

" What to do, what to do ? "

If it`s all " maintaining the same bamboozlement within the same dream. "  then nothing can be
done.  Bummer.   All actions done within the dream of Duality are limited and you can`t get a
limitless result...freedom...with limited actions.  an unlimited number of limited actions will never
add up to Limitlessness.

It`s that darn `Doer` ( Mr Ego ) that`s the problem.  He`s never going to limit himself as all doing
is done with an anticipated good result. He`s never going to `Do away` with himself.

Maybe it`s not a `what to do problem` but rather a `what to understand` problem ?
Are we really the Doer or just the Observer of the Doer ?  The Object can`t be the subject.  As
Josh might say..."Who are you without your story ? "

Howard wrote:

I don't think that any meditation practitioner would discount Josh's posting that our bamboozlement is almost too painful to acknowledge but
an open effort at meditative inquiry presents the possibility that going from being worldly Borg to Shasta Borg to being anti Shasta Borg can all be done while maintaining the same bamboozlement within the same dream.

Is adopting a different application of face paint to join a different tribe, helpful to anyone, if the primary issue of bamboozlement is maintained by this very act of identity production?

Hmmm..What to do, what to do?

 
I don't know Howard.  It's as bad as catching a sleeve full of cow poo while strapped to a hang glider  

Or nailing jelly to the ceiling....

Hey Howard, just a comment or two....

"Who are you without your story" is the same as asking "who are you without your tribe".

Yes, agreed.
                        ---------------------------------------------------

" Nothing that the fruit of a sincere nano second of meditation can't offer a taste of."

So what is " the fruit of a sincere nano second of meditation"  ?  Isn`t that just another
experience ?  Any experience is only worth the knowledge or understanding it imparts and needs
to be interpreted.  Usually Mr Ego hogs that position.  How can you tell if it`s not the Ego that`s
telling you "What to do ? ".

The reason I took this line of questioning was because of what Josh wrote earlier.....
  " and for too many, they are captured by the bamboozle,CAN`T EVEN SEE IT "
If you can`t see it, how can you " limit what what we will or will not question"...as you said .
You can`t question what you can`t see.   It`s all dream. Hence, how do you get out of the
Dream ?  Once in the Dream, All actions only take place in the Dream.

That "Who are you without your story" is the same as asking "who are you without your tribe"
thing ....do you fancy a shot at replying to that ?  Who are you without your story ?  I`ve
always wanted to ask someone what the answer is whan that comes up.....Lol...

As i`m a kindly person, i`ll let you use the get-out option of being one of those that are NOT one
of the " too many, they are captured by the bamboozle ".

Stan

Grats for the opt out card.

I think the question of "who are you without your story" often creates an unanswerable question by presupposing that there is a "who" to begin with.
Expecting an answer to it is similar to asking "when a flame is extinguished, where does it go", when it leads the questioner to incorrectly expect some consistency from what is only a temporary manifestation of phenomena.
But..
On the practical day to day level, the grace of investigating the question of "who are you without your story"  is in how it can illuminate the dream about our own separate existence and what keeps us snoozing within it.

I suspect the answer to your question is nothing and everything...which is really just another way of saying awakened.

Howard,

O.k,  I have to confess to an element of mischief making with asking the "who are you " question.
Respect for raising the energy needed to give an answer !  feel bad about that now  :-(    Lol..

Not trying to be mischievous here..honest...but,  `presupposing there ISN`T a who to begin with`,
well,.....who sees that ?  There has to be someone or something seeing that, surely ?  How would you
know what you know ?

I suppose the "Awakened" answer would be good enough.... if you presuppose that there was an
"Asleep"  to begin with.  from the very start, as it were.  Only problem with that is that if there was only
the "Asleep" from the very start, then nothing has ever happened.  Depending how you look at it, that
could be true.

I really liked your ...
" Questioning everything.
Welcoming doubt as a teacher.
Regularly slapping the behind of any cows marked as sacred."

Almost took the Buddha`s words right out of his mouth.
Too many `apparently` Buddhist sacred cows wandering about freely.

Hey Stan

An element of mischief!    How could I have missed that?  Me with a few fish in a barrel and you toying with that shotgun of yours.

Not trying to be mischievous here..honest...but,  `presupposing there ISN`T a who to begin with`,
well,.....who sees that ?  There has to be someone or something seeing that, surely ?  How would you
know what you know ?

Let's just say that the "who" is the evolving shape of our conditioned responses to phenomena with the Skandhas supplying the patterning inertia. The "who" is just a temporary reflection of our relationship to this karma.

The problem with a discussion about self, "who" or the ego arises from how much or how little the participants identity with a self, "the who" or the ego.
One side of this spectrum sees itself, seperated from the life's chaos by the identity wall that determines its relationship to existence.
The other end of this spectrum sees itself as an integral expression of the chaos where an identity boundary is seen for the dream construct of fear that it is.

Cheers
H

Howard I love your use of the term 'bamboozelement' though I think my take is a little more extreme than yours. I think that it fits perfectly in Ecclesiastes replacing 'vanity' in the King James version. As in 'Bamboozlement (Vanity) of bamboozlements (vanities), all is bamboozlement (vanity). But then I was ever the iconoclast, and Ecclesiastes is my favorite book of the bible since it 'sticks it to the man' and tells it as it is (in a hebraic context of course).

Thanks Mark

Amidst spiritual ads for the latest commodes and bidets, I'm still waiting to see if my own bamboozlement can make use of the newspaper on the floor.

Hope you are feeling better than the last time you posted.
Cheers
H

Hey Stan............   Hey Howard, re your reply.

An element of mischief!    How could I have missed that?  Me with a few fish in a barrel and you toying with that shotgun of yours.    ......... sorry `bout that !

" Not trying to be mischievous here..honest...but,  `presupposing there ISN`T a who to begin with`,
well,.....who sees that ?  There has to be someone or something seeing that, surely ?  How would you know what you know ? "
                                        ----------------------------------------------------------------------
Let's just say that the "who" is the evolving shape of our conditioned responses to phenomena with the Skandhas supplying the patterning inertia. The "who" is just a temporary reflection of our relationship to this karma.

" Let`s just say that the who is...."   Whoa...stop/rewind.  Err.no, let`s not. why should we ?  seems to me that the who or self you are refering to is just the personality. an `apparently` freestanding separate self.
If so, you are right  BUT is that all that we are ?  It comes back to the old question again....if you deduct your personality, who or what are you ?

Reality can be looked at as consisting of two orders...You, the subject and every thing around you which are the objects.  Everything other than you is an object . that includes trees, people, ideas, concepts etc.
If a `self` or concept of `no self` appear in Awareness, they must be objects as they are seen.  It follows that there must be a subject who sees these objects.
As you are the witness to the objects, you must exist . Further, you know you exist because you are self aware/ sentient.  you surelly wouldn`t say that you don`t exist ?  If so, the next question would have to be how do you know that you don`t exist ?  Who would be is saying that ?


The problem with a discussion about self, "who" or the ego arises from how much or how little the
participants identity with a self, "the who" or the ego.


Pretty much hit the nail on the head with that one Howard !  It`s a case of `Identifying with` that is the problem.  We know we Identify with the apparent separate self to our cost so, what should we identify with then ? What is our identity and why can`t we see it or experience it ?
I would say that it`s outside the scope of the senses and mind ...the whole construct of perception.
Perception can only see Objects and the self isn`t an object.  It is the Subject.  It would be like an eye trying to see itself directly.  It can`t as it is the seer.  There arn`t any senses for seeing the subject so, what is the `true self` and can it be known ?

I would say that when everything is reduced down, the real self can only be Awareness as everything that exists, exists in Awareness. Nothing can exist outside of Awareness or it wouldn`t be known to exist.
Getting down to the nitty gritty, Awareness is the only thing that fits that description of ` An unborn, Uncreated, undying etc.  Nothing else fits the bill.  The Buddha himself said that were it not for this Unborn, Uncreated,  there would be no escape from the Born and Created.  It is our "Identifying with" the wrong self that is the cause of all of the problems.  I always found it very odd that the teaching of the Unborn was either non existent or quickly glossed over in the OBC !

To drive the point further, I would say that Awareness is not some transcendental supreme Awareness but our ordinary everyday `non-experiencing` Awareness.  Whole and Complete, Unborn, Limitless, Non-Dual and Self Luminous.  I reckon that about covers it !  It is not confined to just being experienced when we pilot our zafus. That would limit Awareness.

Freedom or Liberation is only being able to differentiate the real self from the apparent at all times.
Experience through the senses cannot lead to the True Self but there is another way and that is Wisdom which is a pretty awful word with lots of baggage. I think knowledge or Understanding is much better.
When all objects are thoroughly investigated, including the body/mind, then the whole Universe can be negated as not real but only apparent.  Anything that is not permanent cannot be said to be Real but only Apparent and the Universe isn`t permanent.   It can`t be said to be unreal as it can be experienced.
As the Dream is part of the Universe, it follows that it too can be negated though nothing new is formed.  Life goes on as before but The Dream/Ignorance is known for what it is. Just a mirage and
not to be chased after.
No wondrous state of Enlightenment.   That is just another story...a dream.
 
                          -------------------------------------------

One side of this spectrum sees itself, separated from the life's chaos by the identity wall that determines its relationship to existence.
The other end of this spectrum sees itself as an integral expression of the chaos where an identity boundary is seen for the dream construct of fear that it is.

And who or what sees/knows  `both sides of the spectrum` ?
Are you the Body with Awareness  or Awareness with a Body ?

Cheers
H

Cheers Howard.

Hey Stan

It comes back to the old question again....if you deduct your personality, who or what are you ?

That which needs to define itself as being separate from existence, is the personality. If you deduct that personality, the who or what you are, reflects the truth that you have never truly been apart from existence and the who or what are you, becomes meaningless.

Reality can be looked at as consisting of two orders...You, the subject and every thing around you which are the objects.

This is identities view of existence. Have you never ventured beyond subject & object?     Is an existence represented by our own myopic mentality the only option available?

I would say that when everything is reduced down, the real self can only be Awareness as everything that exists, exists in Awareness. Nothing can exist outside of Awareness or it wouldn`t be known to exist.


Ever consider that what you call the ultimate reduction of the real self is simply a manifestation of selflesness?

Getting down to the nitty gritty, Awareness is the only thing that fits that description of ` An unborn, Uncreated, undying etc.  Nothing else fits the bill.

While the unconditioned can be experienced with awareness, I am assuming you are not suggesting that they are  interchangeable descriptions of each other?

The Buddha himself said that were it not for this Unborn, Uncreated,  there would be no escape from the Born and Created.  It is our "Identifying with" the wrong self that is the cause of all of the problems.

I agree that any identification with an attachment based self is a cause for suffering.

To drive the point further, I would say that Awareness is not some transcendental supreme Awareness but our ordinary everyday `non-experiencing` Awareness.  Whole and Complete, Unborn, Limitless, Non-Dual and Self Luminous.  I reckon that about covers it !  It is not confined to just being experienced when we pilot our zafus. That would limit Awareness.

I thought I was understanding you right up until you drove that point further than I could follow. Could you elaborate more on what those first two sentences (in bold) were about?

Cheers
H

Here's some thoughts that might be of interest re: this discussion --

http://speculativenonbuddhism.com/2012/09/18/ive-done-it/#more-1142

http://faithfulbuddhist.com/2013/10/04/the-practice-of-thought-and-the-subtle-atman/

Hey Stan.    Hey Howard.


It comes back to the old question again....if you deduct your personality, who or what are you ?

That which needs to define itself as being separate from existence, is the personality. If you deduct that personality, the who or what you are, reflects the truth that you have never truly been apart from existence and the who or what are you, becomes meaningless.

Yes , I`m very close with you on this one.  I would say though, that the reason you have never been apart
from Existence, is because your very Identity IS Existence.  How do you know you exist ?  because you
Exist.  It`s self evident.  It isn`t meaningless and is the source of all meaning.  Without you as Awareness,
nothing exists.


Reality can be looked at as consisting of two orders...You, the subject and every thing around you which are the objects.

This is identities view of existence. Have you never ventured beyond subject & object?     Is an existence represented by our own myopic mentality the only option available?

Well,... moot point as Existence doesn`t `have a view`.  Have I "never ventured beyond subject and
object ?".  Remiss of me as it may be, no, I havn`t.  Have you ?  Ha ha.....
O.k, i`m referring to me here as Awareness and not the personality and it`s normal to be able to say that !
My self as a person has indeed ventured beyond all objects...kensho, schmensho etc..but always returned
to the same place,  as those things are experiences.  All experiences are temporary by nature and what
changes isn`t strictly Real.  Panting after kenshos is not my idea of fun....it`s frustration and I don`t do it.
The person who thinks he has jumped out from the Relative world never actually leaves it.  It`s still in the
Dream or Samsara.
And no, "an existence represented by our own myopic mentality" is not the only option BUT, again,
for who ?  For the `person`, yes it is the only option. there is no way out.  As long as one Identifies with
the person, it`s endless.  The only true way out is of course by not identifying oneself as the limited
person or Body/Self.   "what to do ?, what to do?".....

I would say that when everything is reduced down, the real self can only be Awareness as everything that exists, exists in Awareness. Nothing can exist outside of Awareness or it wouldn`t be known to exist.


Ever consider that what you call the ultimate reduction of the real self is simply a manifestation of selflesness?

Yes, I considered it and know that the `Real Self` is not a reduction.  and .....how can `selflessness`
manifest ?  Frankly, is there such a thing as Selflessness ?  Is there a coffeelessness ? a Shoelessness ?
an Anythinglessness ?  It`s not the same word as Selfishness.  I think it`s romantic neo Buddhistic Bunk.
That and it`s joined at the hip sibling Emptyness.  If there is such a thing as Emptyness, it would be
impossible to know that,  unless something was there to witness and verify the fact......and then it wouldn`t
be Emptyness.  Why is Emptiness often referred to as `Fullness`.....the complete opposite ?
The same goes for Selflessness.  Who or what is the knower of Selflessness ?  It can only be Awareness.
I would agree that there is such a thing as Emptyness if it`s a synonym for Awareness.  It`s such a poor and
misleading word though.

Getting down to the nitty gritty, Awareness is the only thing that fits that description of ` An unborn, Uncreated, undying etc.  Nothing else fits the bill.

While the unconditioned can be experienced with awareness, I am assuming you are not suggesting that they are  interchangeable descriptions of each other?

Yes indeed I am .    I`m suggesting that they are synonyms.  The Unconditioned is ...Awareness.  They
are identical and they are you when all self ignorance has been removed.  They are, you even if all self
ignorance hasn`t been removed. so, no,  the Unconditioned cannot be experienced with Awareness.
There isn`t a Doer who `uses` Awareness as Awareness is the silent witness of the Doer.
The senses are for experiencing the apparent world seemingly `out there` and are known in the mind
together with mental objects. All of these are known in Awareness and that`s where the buck stops.
There isn`t anything behind Awareness.


The Buddha himself said that were it not for this Unborn, Uncreated,  there would be no escape from the Born and Created.  It is our "Identifying with" the wrong self that is the cause of all of the problems.

I agree that any identification with an attachment based self is a cause for suffering.

To drive the point further, I would say that Awareness is not some transcendental supreme Awareness but our ordinary everyday `non-experiencing` Awareness.  Whole and Complete, Unborn, Limitless, Non-Dual and Self Luminous.  I reckon that about covers it !  It is not confined to just being experienced when we pilot our zafus. That would limit Awareness.

I thought I was understanding you right up until you drove that point further than I could follow. Could you elaborate more on what those first two sentences (in bold) were about?




Yes, and again, all those descriptive words about Awareness are synonyms.  looks like i`m going to have
to work for my supper.....glad I didn`t think of any more synonyms now  Ha ha...

Non Experiencing Awareness.....is just THAT by which you know what you know.  rather like a mirror.
It`s not the mind as the term is normally used. There is a difference between the mind and Awareness
as Awareness has no sense of being a Doer.  It just reflects the Doer and all of the Doings.  It has nowhere
to store experiences.  All objects arise, abide and dissolve back into Awareness endlessly. As objects
include mental formations and the mind itself and are impermanent, there is only one Eternal point of
reference where they can be known and referred to.  That is Awareness alone.

Awareness as Whole and Complete means that nothing can be added to Awareness to make it more
whole.  Likewise, there is nothing that can be removed from it that can make it less complete.  I suggest
that it is the Fullness that is somewhat indirectly and erroneously known as Emptiness.

Limitless Awareness doesn`t mean endless expansion like space.  As it is never altered by any objects
that appear in it, they do not limit Awareness in any way.  It is always separate and free from all objects
and is unchangeable. It is everywhere.  There used to be an old saying in the hippy days which went,
"wherever you go, you are already there."


Unborn Awareness is just that.  Can you say when Awareness started ?  If Awareness itself never changes,
then it is not subject to birth or death.  It is Eternal and it is you.  All the rest is just a confidence problem.
What is the `Unborn` and `Uncreated` that the Buddha spoke of ?  Where is it ?  would you care to try
and answer this question ?

Non Dual Awareness.  The dreaded `Duality` word !  Awareness is non dual because it is a partless whole.
As it is a partless whole, then Duality is only a belief...an uninvestigated belief !  It`s a sub set of Non Duality.
Duality says that the subject and object are separate which is why we chase after objects to seemingly
fulfil us. We believe the objects are Real which is why we chase them but, would we chase them if we
knew that they are not Real ?  hopefully no.  It all hinges on the knowing that there is only the one self, it
is beyond perception and every object to it is insentient.  including the limited `person` which is why that
person has no real self.

Self Luminous Awareness means that Awareness doesn`t need any other light to make itself known.
It is self knowing from the start and is self evident as Existence.  Have you ever met anyone who said they
don`t exist ?  It wouldn`t work with your tax man.

It`s easy enough to spout this Non Duality talk and many people make an identity out of it nowadays.
However, you `gotta walk the walk as well as talk the talk and the proof is in the pudding...to mix my
metaphors.
To really say that you are Awareness you have to say it by Standing in Awareness....AS Awareness.
That entails no longer seeing oneself as a Doer..and..no longer being bound by our compulsions and
Desires to act them out.   ( Not under the control of the Vasanas ).

If one doesn`t have a certain type of mind that is inquiring and wants to...has to...know the Truth then this
is all meaningless.  Otherwise the heart will never be at rest until it understands what it is and the mind will
never fully accept what it doesn`t fully understand.

All the teachings are for the benefit of the individual so it can live happily and at peace in this constantly
changing world. There is no other use for the teaching.  Awareness sees No Other and doesn`t have a
problem.
In one sense it`s all just one big drama and we`re all just drama queens.  Lol...

Cheers Howard....that was the short version  ;-)

ps  sorry about the psychadelic colours...not very good at this formatting malarky.

Thanks for the links Josh....I`ll check `em out.

http://www.buddhistgeeks.com/2011/05/psychological-self-vs-no-self/

another posting on this topic. 

There are many essays and reflections on the core teachings of no-self on line - I am sure they are all over the place - but some might be worth reading, especially because this teaching is the probably the most radical and easily misunderstood.  when i bump into some good pieces or links, i may post them.