unconcern

[scout1]

PURE UNCONCERN
aiming for pure unconcern.

i have got visuals reading Your words QS

[quantumshaman]

scout1 wrote:
PURE UNCONCERN
aiming for pure unconcern.That's going to involve no longer caring whether Carlos was a shaman or a charlatan, no longer concerning yourself with who on these forums believes whatever, and generally reaching a level of detachment that is akin to a robot.  Sure that's what you want?

[delawaredan]

A place of no pity.

[quantumshaman]

scout1 wrote:
PURE UNCONCERN
aiming for pure unconcern.
EDIT ZULU 1
i have got visuals reading Your words QS
YOU OWE ME THE ANSWER WHETHER YOU ARE COUNSCIOUSLY  BILOCATED !!!
Nah.  I don't owe you that information.

[Gonzo]

From The Blue Cliff Record
The mind of a man of the Way is straightforward, without falsehood; there is no turning away nor turning towards, no deceitful false mind. At all times his seeing and hearing are normal; there are no further details or subtleties beyond this. He does not close his eyes or block his ears; it is enough that feelings do not attach to things. Since time immemorial all the sages have only spoken of the faults of impurity; if there is no such perverted consciousness, opinion and thought habits, then it is like an autumn pond, limpid and clean. Pure and clear, without contrivance, quiescent and still, without hindrance; such is called a man of the Way. He is also called an unconcerned man.

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrotecout1 wrote:
PURE UNCONCERN
aiming for pure unconcern.That's going to involve no longer caring whether Carlos was a shaman or a charlatan, no longer concerning yourself with who on these forums believes whatever, and generally reaching a level of detachment that is akin to a robot.  Sure that's what you want?
  So where does controlled folly come into the picture, then?
Unconcerned, but acting as if we care... hmmmm

[scout1]

QS and SB, do You understand that Gonzos excerpt from the Blue Cliff Record ? =)
How ? Explain us pls.)
This thread is Gonzos thread =))
I am asking You to make You sure if You understand the "zen unconcern"  it helps ;D

[quantumshaman]

scout1 wrote:
QS and SB, do You understand that Gonzos excerpt from the Blue Cliff Record ? =)
How ? Explain us pls.)
This thread is Gonzos thread =))
I am asking You to make You sure if You understand the "zen unconcern"  it helps ;D

I understand it perfectly.  I simply don't agree with it in the least.
We are human beings, and our emotional response is part of being human.  Trying to be "unconcerned" is contrary to our nature. 
Of course, with that said...
... I simply don't care.
...

[Gonzo]

Might I point out that the following sentences, far from disavowing human emotion, merely state one might consider not becoming attached thereto:


At all times his seeing and hearing are normal; there are no further details or subtleties beyond this. He does not close his eyes or block his ears; it is enough that feelings do not attach to things.


True unconcern has to do with attachment, not with diminution of the human experience.

[quantumshaman]

Gonzo wrote:
Might I point out that the following sentences, far from disavowing human emotion, merely state one might consider not becoming attached thereto:
At all times his seeing and hearing are normal; there are no further details or subtleties beyond this. He does not close his eyes or block his ears; it is enough that feelings do not attach to things.
True unconcern has to do with attachment, not with diminution of the human experience.If a man were TRULY unconcerned, he would essentially have no feelings and no reaction.  That is the definition of unconcerned:  to be without feeling or reaction to events.  That is also the definition of a zombie.  Heh.
You and I have had this discussion many times over the years.  You've even accused me of "flying in the face of 10,000 years of tradition" (something to that effect, particularly with regard to the idea of "re-incarnation"), and what it really comes down to is that I think you are "attached" to the notions of Zen, whereas I see Zen as just another program (so is Toltec, btw).  I'm not defending or attacking either one.  I'm simply pointing out that each system of knowledge comes with its own rhetoric and dogma, and the only way to overcome one program is to reject them all.
Zen calls it "unconcern."  Toltec calls it "detachment".  Both are perhaps worthy of exploration, but to adopt either as gospel is to BE concerned and to BE attached.
The program is self-replicating.

[Guest]

Gonzo wrote:Might I point out that the following sentences, far from disavowing human emotion, merely state one might consider not becoming attached thereto:


At all times his seeing and hearing are normal; there are no further details or subtleties beyond this. He does not close his eyes or block his ears; it is enough that feelings do not attach to things.


True unconcern has to do with attachment, not with diminution of the human experience.Yeah and I think that's the MOST important idea of all.  We CAN feel emotion, joy sadness longing, all that go with being human, feel them enjoy them, immerse in them and let them go.  Do not attach. 
Being unconcerned, also, means not being concerned whether we have feelings and emotions or not, (IOW not devaluing them).  Doesn't, by contrast, mean we do not feel. 
I spent a long time in war with myself, beating myself up for being emotional, feeling too much.  I just finally realized that this is ok, what's unhealthy is my attachment to these feelings and that includes, trying not to be *so emotional*.   Now I am working on letting my feelings sit, until they are done and moving on.   Freeing, really.
(This felt uncomfortable to write, but I'm going to leave it.  Another thing I am working on is trying to be more honest about how I feel rather than just shutting out)  Falls into the category of unconcern, too, I think.

[Gonzo]

Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.

[tambourine wind]

Deja vu.

[Guest]

tambourine wind wroteeja vu.
How so?

[quantumshaman]

Gonzo wrote:
Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.
Unconcern does not exist.  Nor does Zen.
You are chasing the wind.

[scout1]

pure unconcern is about no-afterlife

[Gonzo]

quantumshaman wrote:Gonzo wrote:
Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.
Unconcern does not exist.  Nor does Zen.
You are chasing the wind.
  
You appear to be concerned.

[quantumshaman]

Gonzo wrote:
quantumshaman wrote:
Gonzo wrote:

Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.
Unconcern does not exist.  Nor does Zen.
You are chasing the wind.
  
You appear to be concerned.

I never said I wasn't.  *winks*

[Guest]

quantumshaman wrote:
I never said I wasn't.  *winks*
Well, I never said that you never said that he never said that I never said..... wait, what are we arguing about?

[Mornings Son]

quantumshaman wrote:Gonzo wrote:
Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.
Unconcern does not exist.  Nor does Zen.
You are chasing the wind.
  'You are chasing the wind' ..
Who wrote that?

[quantumshaman]

Mornings Son wrote:
quantumshaman wrote:
Gonzo wrote:

Well said.  I struggled with a response, but you put it together.
The common misconception of "unconcern" perhaps might be laid to rest.  My favorite example of that is the story of Hakuin, of course, and his fine response of "Is that so?".  That in no way indicated he had no emotion about being presented with a child to raise, only that he fully accepted what had happened and was completely ready to deal with the circumstances without concern about his reputation.
Unconcern does not exist.  Nor does Zen.
You are chasing the wind.
  'You are chasing the wind' ..
Who wrote that?

MS - I wrote it.

[Gonzo]

Heh...yes, you wrote it...this time.  It's an old phrase, however, whose etymology I couldn't trace.

[quantumshaman]

Gonzo wrote:
Heh...yes, you wrote it...this time.  It's an old phrase, however, whose etymology I couldn't trace.
I cannot be held responsible for anyone who quoted me before I was born.
Heh.

[Guest]