Turning the light around
andy-k
wrote this description?
J.
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>Can anybody tell me where this advice comes from -- i.e. who first said or
>wrote this description?
Try getting a copy of 'The Secret of the Golden Flower', translated by Thomas
Cleary, published by HarpercCollins 1991
ISBN 0-06-250184-4
It has to be the Cleary translation.
From page 17
"Where did the term 'turning the light around' begin? It began with the adept
Wenshi. When the light is turned around, the energies if heaven and earth, yin
and yang, all congeal. This is what is called 'refined thought,' 'pure
energy,' 'pure thought."
Hope that helps.
J.
Rest in a sky-like mind.
Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
Breathe like the wind circling the world.
andy-k
around to opening it. I certainly will now. Thanks J.
J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020424132111...@mb-ml.aol.com...
J.
What do you think ... ? I've probably read this translation, oh maybe a
dozen times. Over the years I've found examples of the practice of "turning
the light around" in many different traditions. Understanding the technique is
pretty easy, and practicing the technique while sitting isn't really that hard,
but putting it into practice during daily activities, that is a bit difficult.
Still its worth the effort.
Though, you have to remember, effort is not applied. You don't force the
technique, you allow it.
J.
In article <3wFx8.36599$DZ2.6...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>Well well. I have had a copy of this book for a while now and never got
>around to opening it. I certainly will now. Thanks J.
>
>
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020424132111...@mb-ml.aol.com...
>>
>> Try getting a copy of 'The Secret of the Golden Flower', translated by
>Thomas
>> Cleary, published by HarpercCollins 1991
>> ISBN 0-06-250184-4
>>
>> It has to be the Cleary translation.
andy-k
J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> So Andy,
>
> What do you think ... ? I've probably read this translation, oh maybe a
> dozen times. Over the years I've found examples of the practice of
> "turning the light around" in many different traditions. Understanding
> the technique is pretty easy, and practicing the technique while sitting
> isn't really that hard, but putting it into practice during daily
> activities, that is a bit difficult. Still its worth the effort.
> Though, you have to remember, effort is not applied. You don't force
> the technique, you allow it.
Hi J.
I've had this phrase going around in my mind for a number of years now, and
wondered whether it was from one of the Christian mystics like Eckhart, so I
was looking in the wrong place all this time! (Eckhart does indeed say
something similar though, which isn't that surprising since he's talking
about instilling precisely the same state). I'm a great admirer of Plotinus,
who also says something similar in the Enneads. I'm not entirely unfamiliar
with the eastern traditions, but it never occurred to me that it might have
its origins there. I read Wilhelm's translation many years ago, but found it
incomprehensible (Cleary says why this is so). The practise itself I'm
familiar with -- it's the basic Buddhist practise -- but I find the advice
very descriptive of the distilled essence of my own "attempts", after
Ramana's advice of meditating on the question "what am I?" (without seeking
an answer!). Awareness becomes aware of awareness and everything else is
excluded from awareness. Attending to the breath, though, does give
something to fix the attention on, and return the attention to once it has
wandered. Incidentally, my own attempts have come to nothing so far, but I'm
convinced that all these people can't be wrong. I approach the subject from
a philosophical perspective, rejecting materialistic monism in favour of
idealistic monism for a number of technical reasons.
Regards,
Andy.
Antonio Aponte
I am not quite sure where I am entering in this discussion but I feel I might have
a few modest insights to add. Please forgive me if this has already been covered.
Many years ago while a part of a group seeking to 'expand our consciousness' in
hopes of futhering what we called our 'inner evolution' I came across an exercise
that was reportedly attributed to G.I. Gurdjieff, a Russian mystic.
He spoke of an exercise he called, "Self-remembering' whereby an individual would
try to put into action a kind of cyclical observational process. One would, for
example, listen to the sound of one's own voice while speaking and be aware
simultaneously of its sound and the person to which one was speaking. The exercise
was one of a great many exercises collectively called 'the work'. Through
practice, 'the work' was designed to create a certain momentum of consciousness by
instilling a more or less constant state of awareness. It is in this that I saw a
connection to the description in Wilhelms book where a 'turning round of the light'
is described.
Attention, as we normally experience it, is usually a one-way arrow pointing
outward, that is, we are usually aware of what we are looking at as we cease to be
aware that we ourselves exist. To turn round the light might be to reflect back
upon us some of the energy that is being expended ourtward to lighting the interior
soul; the natural result of which would, in my opinion, be an increase in self
awareness or consciousness.( It might be represented symbolically by a double arrow
pointing both forward and backwards.)
I also recall vaguely how the alchemists would gradually increase the heat (over a
period of months?) in their cauldrons by attentively watching the fire in their
attempts to create the philosophers stone--the material by which ordinary
consciousness (lead) would be transformed into higher consciousness (gold).
Antonio
andy-k
Antonio Aponte <t.ap...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3CD7A1BC...@attbi.com...
Thanks Antonio. Interesting that Gurjieff was also using a similar
methodology ... I don't know much about him.
Antonio Aponte
I would like to add that it seems to me that this "turning round of the
light" might just be one symbolic description of the many methods
available by which we observe our inner processes. Depth psychology,
Journal writing, some types of meditation, and even life's events
sometimes throw light back upon ourselves to reveal the processes of the
inner psyche.
Some larger questions come to my mind..... Why do this? Why probe the
depths? Does this actually lead to some kind of inner development? Is
the psyche supposed to be split in half between the conscious an
unconscious? If so, do we disturb a natural balance by punching through
the 'wall' that separates the two?
Antonio
andy-k
> No prob...I enjoyed the rant. ;-)
>
> I would like to add that it seems to me that this "turning round of the
> light" might just be one symbolic description of the many methods
> available by which we observe our inner processes. Depth psychology,
> Journal writing, some types of meditation, and even life's events
> sometimes throw light back upon ourselves to reveal the processes of the
> inner psyche.
> Some larger questions come to my mind..... Why do this? Why probe the
> depths? Does this actually lead to some kind of inner development? Is
> the psyche supposed to be split in half between the conscious an
> unconscious? If so, do we disturb a natural balance by punching through
> the 'wall' that separates the two?
Hi Antonio. You are asking the same questions here that I asked myself about
the eastern tradition and its search for "enlightenment" ... what difference
does it make if you get it? Why bother searching for it? This led me to
research the mystical traditions of east and west alike, whereupon I
discovered the similarity of all these traditions as you have described
above. The impression I get is that our normal mode of operation is a mode
of ignorance and of alienation (traditionally referred to as the 'fall'),
and that enlightenment (also referred to as salvation in the western
traditions) is an extrication from this ignorance, a return from our state
of alienation, a recollection of what we really are rather than what we
think we are. This has much to do with our notion of selfhood and of
consciousness. As I explained in my last post to J., I cannot speak from
personal experience here, but I have formed a strong conviction that there
is something in this worth working for. Some of the writings I have come
across have been inspirational, and I have appended my favourite extract
from the works of Plotinus.
Ennead VI.7.34:
"No longer can we wonder that the principle evoking such longing should be
utterly free from shape. The very soul, once it has conceived the straining
love towards this, lays aside all the shape it has taken, even to the
Intellectual shape that has informed it. There is no vision, no union, for
those handling or acting by any thing other; the soul must see before it
neither evil nor good nor anything else, that alone it may receive the
Alone.
Suppose the soul to have attained: the highest has come to her, or
rather has revealed its presence; she has turned away from all about her and
made herself apt, beautiful to the utmost, brought into likeness with the
divine by those preparings and adornings which come unbidden to those
growing ready for the vision - she has seen that presence suddenly
manifesting within her, for there is nothing between: here is no longer a
duality but a two in one; for, so long as the presence holds, all
distinction fades: it is as lover and beloved here, in a copy of that union,
long to blend; the soul has now no further awareness of being in body and
will give herself no foreign name, not "man," not "living being," not
"being," not "all"; any observation of such things falls away; the soul has
neither time nor taste for them; This she sought and This she has found and
on This she looks and not upon herself; and who she is that looks she has
not leisure to know. Once There she will barter for This nothing the
universe holds; not though one would make over the heavens entire to her;
than This there is nothing higher, nothing of more good; above This there is
no passing; all the rest, however lofty, lies on the downgoing path: she is
of perfect judgement and knows that This was her quest, that nothing higher
is. Here can be no deceit; where could she come upon truer than the truth?
and the truth she affirms, that she is, herself; but all the affirmation is
later and is silent. In this happiness she knows beyond delusion that she is
happy; for this is no affirmation of an excited body but of a soul become
again what she was in the time of her early joy. All that she had welcomed
of old-office, power, wealth, beauty, knowledge of all she tells her scorn
as she never could had she not found their better; linked to This she can
fear no disaster nor even know it; let all about her fall to pieces, so she
would have it that she may be wholly with This, so huge the happiness she
has won to."
J.
In article <bqwA8.1745$jE6....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Hi J.
>I've had this phrase going around in my mind for a number of years now, and
>wondered whether it was from one of the Christian mystics like Eckhart, so I
>was looking in the wrong place all this time! (Eckhart does indeed say
>something similar though, which isn't that surprising since he's talking
>about instilling precisely the same state). I'm a great admirer of Plotinus,
>who also says something similar in the Enneads.
If I remember correctly The Philokalia outlines a similar practice in one or
two of its texts. As for Eckhart "talking about instilling precisely the same
state," I'm not really sure if that is precisely right. It's been a while
since I read Eckhart. The phrase, "turning the light around," is a reference
to a practice. It isn't a term referencing a state of mind, but a practice
that leads to deeper insight into the nature of mind. Perhaps this is what you
mean by "the same state." Eckhart, Plotinus, and the Eastern traditions that
have cultivated the practice of "turning the light around," are all coming from
a nondual perspective. Even though each presents their own teachings dressed
in the surface conditions of their own cultures, each is pointing to nondual
truths that transcend cultural conditions.
> I'm not entirely unfamiliar with the eastern traditions, but it never
occurred to
>me that it might have its origins there. I read Wilhelm's translation many
years
>ago, but found it incomprehensible (Cleary says why this is so).
Yes, like Wilhelm's I Ching, he gets the credit for introducing the West to a
great book of wisdom, but his translation wasn't the best, to say the lest.
>The practise itself I'm familiar with -- it's the basic Buddhist practise --
Buddhism has been my path for a while now. The basic Buddhist practice is
actually at the level of "tuning the breathing" or "resting the mind on the
breath," as Cleary translates it in 'The Secrets of the Golden Flower.' With
practice this leads to a state Buddhist call, "calm abiding" and from there the
more advance techniques come into practice, such as, "turning the light
around." Of course these practices are also found in other traditions, I am
just most familiar with the Buddhist teachings. The Tibetan tradition of
Dzogchen I believe has the most sophisticated presentation of the technique.
Zen has also utilized this technique, though some sects rely more own the koan
practices to lead to insight today. Like Eckhart and Plotinus, Dzogchen and
Zen are coming from a nondual perspective.
>but I find the advice very descriptive of the distilled essence of my own
>"attempts", after Ramana's advice of meditating on the question "what am I?"
>(without seeking an answer!).
An old friend of mine, who enjoys life through chemically induced experience
rather than spiritual practice, said once, "To stand naked in front of
EVERYTHING and ask, why?" Ah the wisdom of drunks. Wish it were so easy.
>Awareness becomes aware of awareness and everything else is
>excluded from awareness.
In time, nothing is excluded. The sense of a finite awareness aware of
itself shatters. The meaning of inside and outside no longer apply.
>Attending to the breath, though, does give something to fix the attention on,
>and return the attention to once it has wandered.
It is helpful.
> Incidentally, my own attempts have come to nothing so far, but I'm
>convinced that all these people can't be wrong.
Give it time. Remember these people took years to develop themselves. Do
the best to set the right conditions for the practice to unfold naturally and
eventually it will naturally unfold. The best general advice I know is to
practice daily.
>I approach the subject from a philosophical perspective, rejecting
materialistic >monism in favour of idealistic monism for a number of technical
reasons.
Personally I approach the subject because it excites me, and over time I have
found that it is making me a better person. Its how I have fun. I try not to
reject or favor any particular view, though from a philosophical perspective
materialistic monism has its limitations.
J.
jelich
J. wrote:
>
> Rest in a sky-like mind.
> Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
> Breathe like the wind circling the world.
>
I like that. Sounds like a good approach to reaching a
meditative state. Your words, or is there an attribution?
Thanks!
--
Beth
jelich
Antonio Aponte wrote:
> No prob...I enjoyed the rant. ;-)
>
> I would like to add that it seems to me that this "turning round of the
> light" might just be one symbolic description of the many methods
> available by which we observe our inner processes. Depth psychology,
> Journal writing, some types of meditation, and even life's events
> sometimes throw light back upon ourselves to reveal the processes of the
> inner psyche.
> Some larger questions come to my mind..... Why do this? Why probe the
> depths?
Reduce personal suffering, most likely :-)
> Does this actually lead to some kind of inner development? Is
> the psyche supposed to be split in half between the conscious an
> unconscious? If so, do we disturb a natural balance by punching through
> the 'wall' that separates the two?
>
There is already a hole between the walls. Haven't you ever
remembered a dream? Isn't it wonderful to do so?
> Antonio
>
>
> andy-k wrote:
>
>
>>Antonio Aponte <t.ap...@attbi.com> wrote in message
>>news:3CD7A1BC...@attbi.com...
>>
>>Thanks Antonio. Interesting that Gurjieff was also using a similar
>>methodology ... I don't know much about him.
>>
>
Thanks for listening
--
Beth
andy-k
>
> If I remember correctly The Philokalia outlines a similar practice in
> one or two of its texts. As for Eckhart "talking about instilling
> precisely the same state," I'm not really sure if that is precisely right.
> It's been a while since I read Eckhart. The phrase, "turning the light
> around," is a reference to a practice. It isn't a term referencing a
> state of mind, but a practice that leads to deeper insight into the nature
> of mind. Perhaps this is what you mean by "the same state."
Yes -- the goal is the same, so it's not surprising to me that the methods
for attaining it differ little.
> Buddhism has been my path for a while now.
I should've guessed from the name "pemavajra". I have "vajra" translating as
"indestructible like a diamond, and powerful like a thunderbolt", and as
being used to denote the indivisibility of method and wisdom. I don't know
how "pema" translates.
> The basic Buddhist practice
> is actually at the level of "tuning the breathing" or "resting the mind on
> the breath," as Cleary translates it in 'The Secrets of the Golden
> Flower.' With practice this leads to a state Buddhist call, "calm abiding"
> and from there the more advance techniques come into practice, such as,
> "turning the light around."
I haven't yet discerned the distinction between the two, but I have started
reading the book through again.
> >Awareness becomes aware of awareness and everything else is
> >excluded from awareness.
>
> In time, nothing is excluded. The sense of a finite awareness aware of
> itself shatters. The meaning of inside and outside no longer apply.
This is reminiscent of the Gospel of Thomas -- a collection of sayings,
purportedly by Jesus, with many that do not appear in the canonical gospels.
The gospel has a strong non-dual flavour and is very Zen-like in places.
> > Incidentally, my own attempts have come to nothing so far, but I'm
> > convinced that all these people can't be wrong.
>
> Give it time. Remember these people took years to develop themselves.
> Do the best to set the right conditions for the practice to unfold
> naturally and eventually it will naturally unfold. The best general
> advice I know is to practice daily.
... or "just keep taking the medicine" :-)
I've been practising daily for about five years now, but with only books to
guide me, so it often occurs to me that if I'm doing something wrong I'd
never know, and all this time would have been wasted. There must be many
people that have practised inefficiently or ineffectively.
> > I approach the subject from a philosophical perspective, rejecting
> > materialistic monism in favour of idealistic monism for a number of
> > technical reasons.
>
> Personally I approach the subject because it excites me, and over time I
> have found that it is making me a better person. Its how I have fun. I
> try not to reject or favor any particular view, though from a
> philosophical perspective materialistic monism has its limitations.
Well I guess we all have our different reasons for wanting to follow the
path, though I get a bit confused when I consider that the goal is to stop
wanting -- my mind gets into a sort of "Russell Paradox" knot.
Antonio Aponte
andy-k wrote:
> The impression I get is that our normal mode of operation is a mode
> of ignorance and of alienation (traditionally referred to as the 'fall'),
> and that enlightenment (also referred to as salvation in the western
> traditions) is an extrication from this ignorance,
But this is exactly my confusion. Why would we presume that to "know" the
workings of the inner parts would be of benefit? I don't know how my liver
works, nor my brain, or pancreas and yet I seem to function just fine without
that knowledge.
Most of modern psychology and all of the so-called 'enligtenment building
systems' are built upon the premise that to know the inner workings of the
psyche is beneficial. This, however, is also how they (modern psychologists)
define psychosis--a spilling of the unconscious contents into the conscious
world. How can we, on the one hand, say that probing the depths is
'enlighenment' while, on the other, define madness as a breakdown of the barrier
between conscious and unconscious?
If my skin is cut the process of healing goes on quite independent of my
conscious efforts. Oh sure, I can assist by proper hygene but the process itself
is quite capable of sucess without my intervention--as it is with wild animals.
Why do we assume that the psyche is not similar in these respects? Perhaps the
unconscious part of the psyche carries on it's esoteric functions in order to
balance and heal the wounds of the conscious mind and, in this way, behaves
exactly as the autonomous system of the body.
Perhaps the conscious mind is really an abberation--constantly probing and
upsetting the balance of things until we have no peace at all.
Maybe there really is nothing to seek....and that is a vain game we play with
ourselves.
> a return from our state
> of alienation, a recollection of what we really are rather than what we
> think we are.
Why are we 'alienated' if we believe ourselves to be something other than we
'are'? Which things are you speaking of ? If I believe myself to be a human
don't I 'alienate' myself from the belief that I am just a 'pile of atoms'? I
guess what I am trying to say rather clumsilly is: Isn't the reality of
ourselves exactly what we believe it to be?
> This has much to do with our notion of selfhood and of
> consciousness. As I explained in my last post to J., I cannot speak from
> personal experience here, but I have formed a strong conviction that there
> is something in this worth working for.
Then, by all means, you should seek it out. A word of friendly caution though:
Sometimes to 'seek' something is to loose it. If you seek to find a shadow with
a flashlight you will understand me. ;-)
>
>
> Ennead VI.7.34:
>
> There is no vision, no union, for
> those handling or acting by any thing other; the soul must see before it
> neither evil nor good nor anything else, that alone it may receive the
> Alone.
Yes!
>
> for there is nothing between: here is no longer a
> duality but a two in one; for, so long as the presence holds, all
> distinction fades:
Love it! And the distinctions, I would add, *are* the lack of so-called
'enligtenment'.
Antonio
Antonio Aponte
jelich wrote:
> 'scuse the intrusion
Was there an intrusion? Sorry...I missed it!
>
>
> Antonio Aponte wrote:
>
> > No prob...I enjoyed the rant. ;-)
> >
> > I would like to add that it seems to me that this "turning round of the
> > light" might just be one symbolic description of the many methods
> > available by which we observe our inner processes. Depth psychology,
> > Journal writing, some types of meditation, and even life's events
> > sometimes throw light back upon ourselves to reveal the processes of the
> > inner psyche.
> > Some larger questions come to my mind..... Why do this? Why probe the
> > depths?
>
> Reduce personal suffering, most likely :-)
One can only hope so.
>
>
> > Does this actually lead to some kind of inner development? Is
> > the psyche supposed to be split in half between the conscious an
> > unconscious? If so, do we disturb a natural balance by punching through
> > the 'wall' that separates the two?
> >
>
> There is already a hole between the walls. Haven't you ever
> remembered a dream? Isn't it wonderful to do so?
Wonderful? Yes!!! But what you describe--sleep and a dream-- is, a natural
"hole' of a definite and calculated size. The 'turning round of the light' is
an exercise to enlarge the hole. It is fraught with danger. This is why Jung
went nuts in the later years. (Read "Memories, Dreams, and Reflections" by CG
Jung and see if you agree) After you wake from a wondrous dream the gate
shuts tight and leaves only traces of the experience accessible to the
conscious mind.
I must say though that, on the other side of things, the hole can also be a
treasure house of wondrous things. I think that artists--real
artists--sometimes have this hole slightly larger than normal. If it becomes
too large to fast though it can overwhelm the tiny conscious ego and cause one
to behave in an unbalanced way.
>
>
> Thanks for listening--
> Beth
I must be going deaf....I didn't hear anything! ;-)
Antonio
andy-k
>
> But this is exactly my confusion. Why would we presume that to "know" the
> workings of the inner parts would be of benefit? I don't know how my liver
> works, nor my brain, or pancreas and yet I seem to function just fine
> without that knowledge.
>
> Most of modern psychology and all of the so-called 'enligtenment building
> systems' are built upon the premise that to know the inner workings of
> the psyche is beneficial. This, however, is also how they (modern
> psychologists) define psychosis--a spilling of the unconscious contents
> into the conscious world. How can we, on the one hand, say that probing
> the depths is 'enlighenment' while, on the other, define madness as a
> breakdown of the barrier between conscious and unconscious?
>
> If my skin is cut the process of healing goes on quite independent of my
> conscious efforts. Oh sure, I can assist by proper hygene but the process
> itself is quite capable of sucess without my intervention--as it is with
> wild animals. Why do we assume that the psyche is not similar in these
> respects? Perhaps the unconscious part of the psyche carries on it's
> esoteric functions in order to balance and heal the wounds of the
> conscious mind and, in this way, behaves exactly as the autonomous system
> of the body. Perhaps the conscious mind is really an
> abberation--constantly probing and upsetting the balance of things until
> we have no peace at all.
>
> Maybe there really is nothing to seek....and that is a vain game we play
> with ourselves.
I have come to the conclusion that the kind of self-awareness referred to by
the "self-realised" is, confusingly, not awareness of the self at all, but
rather awareness of awareness -- I think it would be less confusing to refer
to it as reflexive awareness. Awareness of the self with all its attributes
and processes (conscious or unconscious) is quite mundane, but reflexive
awareness is a rare state and difficult to sustain without regular practise.
Furthermore, that the mistake we make is to consider awareness to be an
attribute of the self, as if the self were primary and awareness were
derivative. I have concluded (perhaps erroneously since my fallibility is
repeatedly brought to my attention!) that awareness is primary and the self
is, amongst other things, merely something that there is awareness of.
> > a return from our state
> > of alienation, a recollection of what we really are rather than what we
> > think we are.
>
> Why are we 'alienated' if we believe ourselves to be something other than
> we 'are'? Which things are you speaking of ? If I believe myself to be a
> human don't I 'alienate' myself from the belief that I am just a 'pile of
> atoms'? I guess what I am trying to say rather clumsilly is: Isn't the
> reality of ourselves exactly what we believe it to be?
My thoughts on the issue centre around the conceptual boundary that we
impose between the "me" and the "not me". We habitually place our mental
phenomena into one of these categories, and we identify with those phenomena
in the "me" category. By doing so we alienate ourselves from those phenomena
in the "not me" category, but ultimately there are only phenomena arising in
the mind. Distinction is the root of the error.
> > This has much to do with our notion of selfhood and of
> > consciousness. As I explained in my last post to J., I cannot speak from
> > personal experience here, but I have formed a strong conviction that
> > there is something in this worth working for.
>
> Then, by all means, you should seek it out. A word of friendly caution
> though: Sometimes to 'seek' something is to loose it. If you seek to find
> a shadow with a flashlight you will understand me. ;-)
Nice metaphor! A better one, perhaps, is that in order for the flashlight to
become aware of itself it would be necessary to turn the light around.
> > Ennead VI.7.34:
> >
> > There is no vision, no union, for
> > those handling or acting by any thing other; the soul must see before it
> > neither evil nor good nor anything else, that alone it may receive the
> > Alone.
>
> Yes!
>
> >
> > for there is nothing between: here is no longer a
> > duality but a two in one; for, so long as the presence holds, all
> > distinction fades:
>
> Love it! And the distinctions, I would add, *are* the lack of so-called
> 'enligtenment'.
Bang on.
J.
In article <3CDA653D...@netscape.net>, jelich <ejel...@netscape.net>
writes:
Thank you but it's not really a meditative state that is the goal. It doesn't
lead to or cause a new state of mind that I have never had before. States of
mind come and go, rise up and fade away. This does lead to insight though.
While I could claim the phrasing, the basic meaning and the most important
words are from a traditional Tibetan Buddhist teaching about, as you guessed,
meditation. I've heard or read so many different versions that I can't
remember who, or from what book, I learned it first. It has become such a
standard over the hundreds of years of Tibetan Buddhism that one could probably
find the symbolism used in each of the four main schools.
Basically, the mind's nature is sky-like. Clouds can rise up and form into
great thunderstorms with hail, thunder and lightening, and much rain. Yet when
clouds dissipate they leave no stains. Regardless of the weather the sky's
nature never changes. So, just rest in the sky-like nature of the mind, rather
than fixating on the mental weather.
To sit like a mountain, is advice relating to our body. A mountain rises
upward balanced and stable, without tension. When the body sits without
tension, balanced and stable, it rises upward naturally. Rather than using our
muscles to maintain a certain posture, we allow our bones to carry our weight
in a balanced manner. We sit relaxed and erect, not straight backed and
frozen.
Breathe like the wind, simply means to breath naturally. Breath in and breath
out seamlessly and silently. Just breath.
With that advice we now know what to do with our mind, our body, and our
breath. The three ways we can affect our life and the world around us is
through our thoughts, words (we are able to make sounds and words only because
we breath), and our deeds. By occupying each dimension of our being, we can
directly affect our being.
Thank you again.
J.
J.
In article <f0xC8.3288$1w6....@news8-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020508190019...@mb-ci.aol.com...
>>
>> If I remember correctly The Philokalia outlines a similar practice in
>> one or two of its texts. As for Eckhart "talking about instilling
>> precisely the same state," I'm not really sure if that is precisely right.
>> It's been a while since I read Eckhart. The phrase, "turning the light
>> around," is a reference to a practice. It isn't a term referencing a
>> state of mind, but a practice that leads to deeper insight into the nature
>> of mind. Perhaps this is what you mean by "the same state."
>
>Yes -- the goal is the same, so it's not surprising to me that the methods
>for attaining it differ little.
I agree, the goal is essentially the same, but that goal is not necessarily
equal in all traditions. I believe we all hunger for the same enlightenment or
release, and that if we seek that sincerely with an attitude of just keep on
going, we will eventually find fulfillment. The problem is that religion(s)
can grow stale over time. This usually happens when the dogma of a religion
becomes more important than practicing the spiritual disciplines of a religion.
Also, as Ken Wilber notes, religion, in a sense, has a dual purpose or
direction -- there is the horizontal and the vertical. The horizontal purpose
of religion is to be the glue of society. Its basically the cultural
traditions that bring family and the community together. The horizontal
purpose of religion doesn't have the goal we are talking about. This is an
important function for society, but it can easily be twisted into something
very ugly, as we have recently been reminded. Particularly if the horizontal
dominates the vertical purpose of religion. The vertical purpose of religion
is transformative. It's focus is on the personal practices that transform the
individual. Of course things can go wrong following the vertical direction, but
they are less likely to help the mob rationalize their actions. Also the miss
use of the transformative practices tends to lead to the kinds of mental
disorders that become obstacles to an organized harmful action. When we follow
the vertical path we are seeking that "same goal," and if we overcome the traps
and pitfalls of that vertical path we eventually get to that "same goal." Most
people tend to follow only the horizontal direction of religion, and due to
that much of what the world calls religion is primarily the horizontal
dimension of religion. This maybe more obvious in the Western secular
societies, but its the same in the Middle East and Asia.
>> Buddhism has been my path for a while now.
>
>I should've guessed from the name "pemavajra". I have "vajra" translating as
>"indestructible like a diamond, and powerful like a thunderbolt", and as
>being used to denote the indivisibility of method and wisdom. I don't know
>how "pema" translates.
Pema (sometimes spelled Padma) means lotus, which symbolizes the wisdom of
compassion. The wisdom of compassion and the wisdom of skillfull methods
(vajra) are considered the two wings of enlightenment or bodhisattva-hood.
Bodhi (awakened) sattva (hero).
>> The basic Buddhist practice
>> is actually at the level of "tuning the breathing" or "resting the mind on
>> the breath," as Cleary translates it in 'The Secrets of the Golden
>> Flower.' With practice this leads to a state Buddhist call, "calm abiding"
>> and from there the more advance techniques come into practice, such as,
>> "turning the light around."
>
>I haven't yet discerned the distinction between the two, but I have started
>reading the book through again.
Resting the mind (read as awareness, mental focus, attention) on the breathe,
is something you do. It requires some effort on your part. One of the basic
techniques that helps to cultivate this practice is breath counting. You count
one cycle of the breath at a time. Breath in and exhale count, "One." Breath
in and exhale count, "Two." Breath in and exhale count, "Three." Count ten
exhales and then start over. Experiment a little and count when you inhale.
After a while go back to counting when you exhale. Then drop the counting and
rest your awareness on the breath without the verbalizing.
Turning the light (read as awareness, mental focus, attention) around
requires little, and eventually no effort. It is like seeing the nature of the
mirror, rather than focusing on one of the reflections. We no longer "try" to
place our awareness on some object such as the breathe. We just rest in being
awareness. And whatever manifests in the mirror of awareness, the itching of
the body, the energy of breathing, the thought that rises upward and fades
away, the after taste of brushing the teeth, the desire for bacon and eggs, the
sound of the fan blowing, the light of the morning sun shining through the
window, the blissfully tranquil feeling -- all are just reflections in the
mirror of awareness. By seeing the nature of the mirror, we are no longer
caught by the reflections in the mirror. I stop identifying with them and
begin to simply acknowledge them for what they are.
>> >Awareness becomes aware of awareness and everything else is
>> >excluded from awareness.
>>
>> In time, nothing is excluded. The sense of a finite awareness aware of
>> itself shatters. The meaning of inside and outside no longer apply.
>
>This is reminiscent of the Gospel of Thomas -- a collection of sayings,
>purportedly by Jesus, with many that do not appear in the canonical gospels.
>The gospel has a strong non-dual flavour and is very Zen-like in places.
I'm familiar with it. "Heaven is on earth, yet man does not see it." I have
always liked that one. It really is an amazing read, considering the Gnostic
tradition wasn't really a nondual tradition.
>> > Incidentally, my own attempts have come to nothing so far, but I'm
>> > convinced that all these people can't be wrong.
>>
>> Give it time. Remember these people took years to develop themselves.
>> Do the best to set the right conditions for the practice to unfold
>> naturally and eventually it will naturally unfold. The best general
>> advice I know is to practice daily.
>
>... or "just keep taking the medicine" :-)
"Just keep going." It's a phrase regularly used in the martial art tradition
my wife and I study. It has many levels of meaning, but basically it just
means -- "just keep on going." ; )
>I've been practising daily for about five years now, but with only books to
>guide me, so it often occurs to me that if I'm doing something wrong I'd
>never know, and all this time would have been wasted. There must be many
>people that have practised inefficiently or ineffectively.
Well, if you really want to learn how to fish, you really should get a
fishermen to show you how. It is possible to figure it out on your own, its
just a lot harder that way.
>> > I approach the subject from a philosophical perspective, rejecting
>> > materialistic monism in favour of idealistic monism for a number of
>> > technical reasons.
>>
>> Personally I approach the subject because it excites me, and over time I
>> have found that it is making me a better person. Its how I have fun. I
>> try not to reject or favor any particular view, though from a
>> philosophical perspective materialistic monism has its limitations.
>
>Well I guess we all have our different reasons for wanting to follow the
>path, though I get a bit confused when I consider that the goal is to stop
>wanting -- my mind gets into a sort of "Russell Paradox" knot.
Then look at it as letting go. Technically speak, its right in front of us.
We don't have to "obtain" or "attain" anything. As you sit there reading these
words, your back stiff from sitting too long, the itch you scratch on your arm,
the sound of the computer processing information and perhaps the radio, or a
bird outside singing, the hunger you feel because you haven't eaten dinner yet,
the emotion leaden thoughts over something that happened earlier in the day --
relax and let it all go. They are all just reflections in the mirror of
awareness.
J.
PS. Just --
andy-k
Yes, this is the reason I rejected religion in my adolescence, only to
rediscover it a quarter of a century later in the "vertical" guise that
Wilbur writes of. It's such a shame that Western religion hides this aspect
away -- in fact, come to think of it, it's downright criminal.
> Pema (sometimes spelled Padma) means lotus, which symbolizes the wisdom
> of compassion. The wisdom of compassion and the wisdom of skillfull
> methods (vajra) are considered the two wings of enlightenment or
> bodhisattva-hood. Bodhi (awakened) sattva (hero).
Aha -- so I presume it's Pali (I'm familiar with the Sanskrit word)
> Resting the mind (read as awareness, mental focus, attention) on the
> breathe, is something you do. It requires some effort on your part. One
> of the basic techniques that helps to cultivate this practice is breath
> counting. You count one cycle of the breath at a time. Breath in and
> exhale count, "One." Breath in and exhale count, "Two." Breath in and
> exhale count, "Three." Count ten exhales and then start over. Experiment a
> little and count when you inhale. After a while go back to counting when
> you exhale. Then drop the counting and rest your awareness on the breath
> without the verbalizing.
This is the exercise I'm familiar with -- "mindfulness of breathing"
> Turning the light (read as awareness, mental
> focus, attention) around requires little, and eventually no effort. It is
> like seeing the nature of the mirror, rather than focusing on one of the
> reflections. We no longer "try" to place our awareness on some object
> such as the breathe. We just rest in being awareness. And whatever
> manifests in the mirror of awareness, the itching of the body, the energy
> of breathing, the thought that rises upward and fades away, the after
> taste of brushing the teeth, the desire for bacon and eggs, the sound of
> the fan blowing, the light of the morning sun shining through the window,
> the blissfully tranquil feeling -- all are just reflections in the mirror
> of awareness. By seeing the nature of the mirror, we are no longer caught
> by the reflections in the mirror. I stop identifying with them and begin
> to simply acknowledge them for what they are.
This is the state that Ramana Maharshi's question "what am I?" is intended
to instil, and the state that led me to make my initial enquiry. I sometimes
recognise this state when not specifically practising -- for instance when
tying my shoe laces it often seems that the fingers are not "my" fingers,
and the tying action is not "my" action, it all just "is". I recall
frequently entering this state as a young child, and attempting to explain
it to my mother with the analogy "sometimes everything seems like it's on
TV", whereupon she retorted "you've been watching too much TV, no more TV
for you my boy!". I learned to shut up.
> "Just keep going." It's a phrase regularly used in the martial art
> tradition my wife and I study. It has many levels of meaning, but
> basically it just means -- "just keep on going." ; )
Aikido by any chance?
> Well, if you really want to learn how to fish, you really should get a
> fishermen to show you how. It is possible to figure it out on your own,
> its just a lot harder that way.
What worries me is that there's too many cases of the blind leading the
blind these days, and I wouldn't know how to tell the difference. How does
one find a genuine "fisherman"?
> >Well I guess we all have our different reasons for wanting to follow the
> >path, though I get a bit confused when I consider that the goal is to
> >stop wanting -- my mind gets into a sort of "Russell Paradox" knot.
>
> Then look at it as letting go.
"Letting Go" -- a book by Hubert Benoit! It's a follow-up to his other book
"The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought" (Sussex
Academic Press 1998 (1955)), but nowhere near as good.
> Technically speak, its right in front of
> us. We don't have to "obtain" or "attain" anything.
As Adi Da says "it's always already the case".
> As you sit there
> reading these words, your back stiff from sitting too long, the itch you
> scratch on your arm, the sound of the computer processing information and
> perhaps the radio, or a bird outside singing, the hunger you feel because
> you haven't eaten dinner yet, the emotion leaden thoughts over something
> that happened earlier in the day -- relax and let it all go. They are all
> just reflections in the mirror of awareness.
> Just --
> Rest in a sky-like mind.
> Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
> Breathe like the wind circling the world.
"Rest in a sky-like mind" is a very nice aphorism, and comes to mind
frequently since starting this string.
jelich
(no new content below)
Antonio Aponte wrote:
--
Beth
Antonio Aponte
jelich wrote:
> :-)
>
> (no new content below)
>
Aw shucks! The optimist in me went looking anyway. Wait a minute! Waaait just a
minute!... Does that parenthetical comment refer to my words or the lack of
yours? ;-)
Antonio
J.
J.
Sorry this is kind of long, so I trimmed some of my old stuff.
In article <bqdD8.18528$xb4.3...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020510173749...@mb-ci.aol.com...
>>
>> I agree, the goal is essentially the same, but that goal is not
>> necessarily equal in all traditions. I believe we all hunger for the same
>> enlightenment or release, and that if we seek that sincerely with an
>> attitude of just keep on going, we will eventually find fulfillment. The
>> problem is that religion(s) can grow stale over time.
[snip.]
>> When we follow the vertical path we are seeking that "same
>> goal," and if we overcome the traps and pitfalls of that vertical path we
>> eventually get to that "same goal." Most people tend to follow only the
>> horizontal direction of religion, and due to that much of what the world
>> calls religion is primarily the horizontal dimension of religion. This
>> maybe more obvious in the Western secular societies, but its the same in
>> the Middle East and Asia.
>
>Yes, this is the reason I rejected religion in my adolescence, only to
>rediscover it a quarter of a century later in the "vertical" guise that
>Wilbur writes of. It's such a shame that Western religion hides this aspect
>away -- in fact, come to think of it, it's downright criminal.
I was raised an Episcopalian. My stepfather (mom's #2) became a priest when
I was a teenager. I was an altar boy and taught Sunday school. I realized
that I wasn't a Christian once I learned about the history of the early Church.
I could not say the Nicene Creed. I left Christianity many years before I was
introduced to Buddhism. Though, Western religion isn't completely at fault.
Modernity had it's effect on all aspects of modern life, religion especially.
Science hasn't been very helpful in showing the value of the vertical dimension
of life either. There is always that pre/trans confusion that Western
psychologist too easily fall into. The fundamentalist form of Christianity was
perfect in the 10th century, today the glue doesn't work. I've looked through
a telescope and have seen Jupiter with moons orbiting. After that happened,
that mythic rational world view slowly falls apart.
At the same time, I have known many people who have a complete understanding
of the material world, as it is accepted in Western modern science, but are as
self-centered, egocentric and as immature as little adolescents boys and girls
can be. Most Western fundamentalist Christians are at lest emotionally mature
and take responsibility for their actions in life. While too many Western
liberal Americans are narcissistic little children who are always blaming
society for their own failures.
In our modern world, with its great depends on pharmaceuticals, I wonder how
many saints are being put back to sleep, with the pills their doctors give
them. Granted, a glass of mushroom tea in one's youth can be a life changer ;
)
>> Pema (sometimes spelled Padma) means lotus, which symbolizes the wisdom
>> of compassion. The wisdom of compassion and the wisdom of skillful
>> methods (vajra) are considered the two wings of enlightenment or
>> bodhisattva-hood. Bodhi (awakened) sattva (hero).
>
>Aha -- so I presume it's Pali (I'm familiar with the Sanskrit word)
I believe that Padma is the Sanskrit form and Pema is the Tibetan. Vajra is
a Sanskrit word. In Tibetan it is usually presented as Dorje or Benza.
Tibetan is a complex language particularly when presented with our alphabet.
I'm using the most common spellings, not the spellings a scholar would use.
>> Resting the mind (read as awareness, mental focus, attention) on the
>> breathe, is something you do. It requires some effort on your part. One
>> of the basic techniques that helps to cultivate this practice is breath
>> counting. You count one cycle of the breath at a time.
[snip.]
>> Experiment a little and count when you inhale. After a while go back to
>> counting when you exhale. Then drop the counting and rest your awareness
>> on the breath without the verbalizing.
>
>This is the exercise I'm familiar with -- "mindfulness of breathing"
That is the basic Buddhist meditation technique found in nearly all of the
world's Buddhist traditions.
>> Turning the light (read as awareness, mental
>> focus, attention) around requires little, and eventually no effort. It is
>> like seeing the nature of the mirror, rather than focusing on one of the
>> reflections. We no longer "try" to place our awareness on some object
>> such as the breathe. We just rest in being awareness. And whatever
>> manifests in the mirror of awareness, the itching of the body, the energy
>> of breathing, the thought that rises upward and fades away, the after
>> taste of brushing the teeth, the desire for bacon and eggs, the sound of
>> the fan blowing, the light of the morning sun shining through the window,
>> the blissfully tranquil feeling -- all are just reflections in the mirror
>> of awareness. By seeing the nature of the mirror, we are no longer caught
>> by the reflections in the mirror. I stop identifying with them and begin
>> to simply acknowledge them for what they are.
>
>This is the state that Ramana Maharshi's question "what am I?" is intended
>to instil, and the state that led me to make my initial enquiry. I sometimes
>recognise this state when not specifically practising -- for instance when
>tying my shoe laces it often seems that the fingers are not "my" fingers,
>and the tying action is not "my" action, it all just "is". I recall
>frequently entering this state as a young child, and attempting to explain
>it to my mother with the analogy "sometimes everything seems like it's on
>TV", whereupon she retorted "you've been watching too much TV, no more TV
>for you my boy!". I learned to shut up.
It's really not a state of mind that comes and goes. Its like a cloudy day
suddenly clearing and suddenly you know exactly where the sun shines from,
because of the fall of the shadows. You don't need to look up in the sky. The
sun has always been there in the sky. Clouds part and we suddenly become aware
of the ever-present shining awareness. States of mind, attitudes, moods --
these are just objects in awareness. Like you said, "that awareness is primary
and the self is, amongst other things, merely something that there is awareness
of." Just another object in awareness. This is how it has always been. So,
we have a choice, do we fixate on the objects of awareness (like the self and
other reflections) or rest in the great expanse, the shining clear luminous
awareness.
My parents never understood it either. I described it as dreaming awake, and
everything moving quickly while everything happening slowly, or like seeing
both sides at once. I eventually learned to keep quiet also. Can't blame my
parents like a good Freudian, I was most definitely a difficult/problem child,
though generally good at heart. The only thing that kept me out of trouble, in
the long run.
>> "Just keep going." It's a phrase regularly used in the martial art
>> tradition my wife and I study. It has many levels of meaning, but
>> basically it just means -- "just keep on going." ; )
>
>Aikido by any chance?
"And now for something a little different," -- Monty Python
When I was younger I practiced Aikido (very little) and later Tai chi, but as
a teenager and in college jazz, ballet, and swing.
My wife and I have been practicing Toshindo for the past three years. We are
training to get our black belts together. Toshindo, like Aikido, is originally
from Japan and shares many qualities in the dynamics of applying techniques,
though Toshindo footwork dynamics are very, very, very different. I watched my
wife throw a 6'4" 250 lb. black belt across the floor just last week. She's
5'6" 125 lb. I sleep better at night. I also do the laundry more often.
There are no weight classes. There is no competing. When children test for
their black belt, their demonstration is with adults (or teenagers bigger than
them) attacking. Parents usually don't worry about another kid, its another
adult trying to take or hurt they're child. This is a combat art, but a very
family oriented tradition and Dojo [Tampa Quest Center] which is owned and run
by a husband (Mark Russo) and wife. There is more laughter here than any
"sports dojo" I've been in and it does not smell like a gym or locker room.
The phrase, "Just keep on going," is from Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, the
Grandmaster of the art in Japan. Toshindo has only been taught in America
since the early 90's when Stephen K. Hayes developed the system for teaching
the art to Americans. When he isn't teaching martial arts or in Japan learning
from Hatsumi, he is a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama.
http://www.skhquest.com/default.asp
>> Well, if you really want to learn how to fish, you really should get a
>> fishermen to show you how. It is possible to figure it out on your own,
>> its just a lot harder that way.
>
>What worries me is that there's too many cases of the blind leading the
>blind these days, and I wouldn't know how to tell the difference.
Everything you have already read and practiced is your foundation. You begin
the work from where you are. Right Now. Follow all of the hints, check out
all sources, just begin from right where you are. What follows is a list of
publishing companies that have specialized in publishing the translations of
the great wisdom traditions of world. Read what "catches" your eye.
Shambhala Publication, Inc.
Snowlion Publications
Dharma Publications
Sky Dancer Press
Wisdom Publications
HarperCollins Publishers
Paulist Press -- The Classics of Western Spirituality (60 volume series)
Contemporary Books
Ohara Publications, Inc.
Nine Gates Press
> How does one find a genuine "fisherman"?
That depends. What do you want from this fisherman? There are some who wait
on shore, watching. And when the fisherman sails in with their catch, they run
down to the shore flashing money and buying the best fish fresh. They will eat
it all up fresh and go back to waiting watching, always hungry. Always wanting
more.
There are others who work along the shore, but never go out to sea. They
clean the boat and mend the nets. They run the fish market and help the
fishermen sale their catch. Many of them know a lot about the fishing
business, and a few are directly related to the fishermen and women --
Husbands, wives, sisters, brothers, cousins, uncles, aunts, and friends and
orphans. Perhaps one of them could teach you how to mend nets, how to tie all
of the knots, and maybe introduce you to one of the great fishermen or one of
the grand matriarchs of the sea.
Then there are those who just eat fish, but never go near the sea. We buy it
at the store, fresh or frozen. Sometimes we eat it all the time, while other
people would never think of eating fish. Still, in our society, fish appears to
be readily available and we have the freedom to choose to eat it or not. Not
everyone on the planet can say that. Most of us buy from three or four
middlemen away from the fish market. That is pretty far from the source.
Then there are the rare few, who go to the docks to learn how to become
fishermen. They go out to sea.
If all you want to do is learn basic meditation from a human being, find
someone working on the shore. Someone who works in the fish market. You are
learning a skill, like tennis, fencing, martial arts, mending nets, meditation
is a skill. You can approach it that way.
If you want more than that, if you want to go out to sea and become a
fishermen yourself?
"Now there's the rub." Basically, you have to trust yourself and go the way
you feel most comfortable with. First, make sure you are basically
psychologically healthy. If a person is suffering "real" depression or they
are bipolar, therapy would be the better first action. "Real" depression and
manic states can be greatly worsened by practicing mindfulness of the breath or
other techniques, though rarely can such individuals sustain the practice for
any lengthen of time. If you believe your healthy, follow the tradition that
interests and excites you the most. Doing a little research on cults, may help
you stay clear of cultic groups and unbalanced leaders and false prophets. As
I understand it "Adi Da" is a very good example of an unbalanced master. His
transcendent insight is obviously great, on the nondual level, but it is out of
balance with the ethics and morality of his personal behavior and his treatment
of many of his students. If you are a mature and psychologically healthy
adult, that maturity and healthiness will, in a sense, protect you from cultic
influences.
Get the magazines Tricycle and Shambhala Sun, in the back they have Buddhist
directories for the US. There are other magazines that specialize in Taoism,
Yoga, neo-Gnosticism, neo-paganism and other traditions. As Joe Campbell said,
"Follow your bliss." Shambhala Publications also publishes a Buddhist
directory for the US. Look in the yellow pages under meditation centers (or
societies), metaphysical bookstore, churches (yes even churches, many of the
Unitarian Churches have Buddhist groups that use their facilities). Go to
Barnes & Nobles and Boarders and look through their Eastern Religion,
Philosophy, Psychology sections and just look around. Do the same thing in
your public library, it is cheaper. Do a search on the Internet, just be more
specific to your area and location. Play detective.
Get a map of your area and mark the locations of all of the centers on the
map. Travel to the closest one. Then go to the next. Keep going until you
find a teacher you can have confidence in, as a teacher. Read everything they
wrote AND read everything others have written about them. I found my teachers
400(?) miles away from home and, once I started looking, it only took six
months. Though, as I got to know the other members of the Sangha, I found that
I may have been lucky. Some good karma was cashed in when I found Khenpo
Tsewang Rinpoche and his brother Khenchen Palden Rinpoche, teachers of the
Nyingma lineage of Tibetan Buddhism. Khenpo means Abbot; Khenchen means Abbot
of Abbots.
My basic criteria was:
I wanted someone who was acknowledged by their peers as a master teacher
and practitioner. Someone who has an established following and a good
reputation, but I did not want a "famous" teacher. This meant that they would
have been teaching Americans for at lest 15 years, with at lest 15 to 20 years
of previous study and practice in their chosen tradition. While it really
didn't matter which tradition they followed, it was the individual that was
important to me, my tendency was/is to seek traditional teachers of recognized
spiritual lineages, instead of new age or new religions. For example, if I
want to learn Aikido, I go to an Aikido master. Learning something called
"American Karate" never appeared appealing to me. If I want to learn how to
speak French, I go to a speaker of French. If I want to learn how to read
French, I go to a writer of French.
Basically, ask yourself, would you buy a used car from this person? Do you
trust the cook and their cooking? Are you willing to eat the food they prepare
and place in front of you? You have to trust, have confidence in, your own
choices. Believing in yourself is the first step. Continuing to believe in
yourself is how you cultivate confidence. Having developed confidence,
believing in yourself becomes easy.
>> >Well I guess we all have our different reasons for wanting to follow the
>> >path, though I get a bit confused when I consider that the goal is to
>> >stop wanting -- my mind gets into a sort of "Russell Paradox" knot.
>>
>> Then look at it as letting go.
>
>"Letting Go" -- a book by Hubert Benoit! It's a follow-up to his other book
>"The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought" (Sussex
>Academic Press 1998 (1955)), but nowhere near as good.
Haven't read any of his books. I'll add it to my reading list.
>> Technically speak, its right in front of
>> us. We don't have to "obtain" or "attain" anything.
>
>As Adi Da says "it's always already the case".
His insight is great and from that transcendent level, he is absolutely
right. ; )
But from the level of common interaction, interpersonal relationships, there
have been many complaints made against Adi Da. Even Ken Wilber has written
critically about his behavior, and Ken (I think he was a follower at one time)
wrote the forward for one of Adi Da's books. And I understand that book is
pretty good.
Its how they act as teachers that is important. With practice, anybody can
sound pretty. Crazy wisdom masters are not excused from the effects of karma
(their own actions).
>> As you sit there
>> reading these words, your back stiff from sitting too long, the itch you
>> scratch on your arm, the sound of
[snip.]
>> , the emotion leaden thoughts over something
>> that happened earlier in the day -- relax and let it all go. They are all
>> just reflections in the mirror of awareness.
>> Just --
>> Rest in a sky-like mind.
>> Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
>> Breathe like the wind circling the world.
>
>"Rest in a sky-like mind" is a very nice aphorism, and comes to mind
>frequently since starting this string.
Well, then, here's another semi-traditional metaphor (since I have made this
post this long, a little long can't be that much worse).
The nature of mind is space-like awareness. There is no top of space. There
is no middle to space. There is no bottom of space. Space is everywhere and
regardless of your own location, you are always in space. And no matter how
far or how high or how low you go, you will never find the center of space and
you will never reach the boundary of space. No matter what fills space, space
will not be changed. Space is an emptiness, even when there are forms filling
space, it remains empty.
The nature of mind is like this space, aware. There is no top of awareness.
There is no middle to awareness. There is no bottom of awareness. Awareness
is everywhere and regardless of your own location, you are always in awareness.
And you will never find the center of awareness and you will never reach the
boundary of awareness. No matter what fills awareness, awareness is never
changed. Awareness is an emptiness, even when there are forms filling
awareness, it remains empty.
Rest there in that space-like empty awareness.
Don't forget to breath.
J.
jelich
Antonio Aponte wrote:
Wouldn't you like to know :-)
--
Beth
andy-k
> Hi Andy,
>
> Sorry this is kind of long, so I trimmed some of my old stuff.
No problem. Standard procedure I think.
> I was raised an Episcopalian. My stepfather (mom's #2) became a priest
> when I was a teenager. I was an altar boy and taught Sunday school. I
> realized that I wasn't a Christian once I learned about the history of the
> early Church. I could not say the Nicene Creed. I left Christianity many
> years before I was introduced to Buddhism. Though, Western religion isn't
> completely at fault. Modernity had it's effect on all aspects of modern
> life, religion especially.
Sure, but I think the rot set in when the Catholic Church began defining
itself in contrast to the Valentinian Gnostics.
> Science hasn't been very helpful in showing the
> value of the vertical dimension of life either. There is always that
> pre/trans confusion that Western psychologist too easily fall into. The
> fundamentalist form of Christianity was perfect in the 10th century, today
> the glue doesn't work.
> I've looked through a telescope and have seen Jupiter with moons orbiting.
> After that happened, that mythic rational world view slowly falls apart.
> At the same time, I have known many people who have a complete
> understanding of the material world, as it is accepted in Western modern
> science, but are as self-centered, egocentric and as immature as little
> adolescents boys and girls can be. Most Western fundamentalist Christians
> are at lest emotionally mature and take responsibility for their actions
> in life. While too many Western liberal Americans are narcissistic little
> children who are always blaming society for their own failures.
I find most scientists make a fundamental error of believing that monistic
materialism is a mandatory foundation for science. Once that unexamined and
unjustifiable assumption has been made, the way is barred to any spiritual
openness in the vertical sense.
> In our modern world, with its great depends on pharmaceuticals, I wonder
> how many saints are being put back to sleep, with the pills their doctors
> give them. Granted, a glass of mushroom tea in one's youth can be a life
> changer ; )
Finding a certain "unsatisfactoriness" in the world? You need Prozac! :)
> It's really not a state of mind that comes and goes. Its like a cloudy
> day suddenly clearing and suddenly you know exactly where the sun shines
> from, because of the fall of the shadows. You don't need to look up in the
> sky. The sun has always been there in the sky. Clouds part and we
> suddenly become aware of the ever-present shining awareness. States of
> mind, attitudes, moods -- these are just objects in awareness. Like you
> said, "that awareness is primary and the self is, amongst other things,
> merely something that there is awareness of." Just another object in
> awareness. This is how it has always been. So, we have a choice, do we
> fixate on the objects of awareness (like the self and other reflections)
> or rest in the great expanse, the shining clear luminous awareness.
Now I understand why you object to my phrase "state of mind". Permit me to
elaborate: I understand that awareness is *not* a temporary state of mind,
but (with the exception of the fully awakened) the direct acquaintance with
it appears to be just that (i.e. temporary), since it depends on a certain
kind of clarity of mind that is difficult to cultivate and difficult to
sustain. Awareness might well be there constantly, but the state of mental
quiet (or "absence of mind") required to recognise it, is not.
> My parents never understood it either. I described it as dreaming
> awake, and everything moving quickly while everything happening slowly, or
> like seeing both sides at once. I eventually learned to keep quiet also.
> Can't blame my parents like a good Freudian, I was most definitely a
> difficult/problem child, though generally good at heart. The only thing
> that kept me out of trouble, in the long run.
"Dreaming awake" is a good description of the state I tried to articulate
with the phrase "like everything is on TV".
> "And now for something a little different," -- Monty Python
> When I was younger I practiced Aikido (very little) and later Tai chi,
> but as a teenager and in college jazz, ballet, and swing.
> My wife and I have been practicing Toshindo for the past three years.
> We are training to get our black belts together. Toshindo, like Aikido,
> is originally from Japan and shares many qualities in the dynamics of
> applying techniques, though Toshindo footwork dynamics are very, very,
> very different. I watched my wife throw a 6'4" 250 lb. black belt across
> the floor just last week. She's 5'6" 125 lb. I sleep better at night. I
> also do the laundry more often. There are no weight classes. There is no
> competing. When children test for their black belt, their demonstration
> is with adults (or teenagers bigger than them) attacking. Parents usually
> don't worry about another kid, its another adult trying to take or hurt
> they're child. This is a combat art, but a very family oriented tradition
> and Dojo [Tampa Quest Center] which is owned and run by a husband (Mark
> Russo) and wife. There is more laughter here than any "sports dojo" I've
> been in and it does not smell like a gym or locker room. The phrase, "Just
> keep on going," is from Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, the Grandmaster of the art in
> Japan. Toshindo has only been taught in America since the early 90's when
> Stephen K. Hayes developed the system for teaching the art to Americans.
> When he isn't teaching martial arts or in Japan learning from Hatsumi, he
> is a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama.
> http://www.skhquest.com/default.asp
I have been practising Aikido for seven years now, and the phrase "just keep
on going" is equally applicable here. Like most Japanese pursuits, it seems
like a bottomless pool where one can keep making progress indefinitely
without ever reaching any stopping point. A penny drops here, and another
one there, and over the months and years you "grow into the part" without
being able to rationalise it very much. I also play the Japanese board game
of Go, which is much the same. If you've never played I thoroughly recommend
you give it a try.
> Everything you have already read and practiced is your foundation. You
> begin the work from where you are. Right Now. Follow all of the hints,
> check out all sources, just begin from right where you are. What follows
> is a list of publishing companies that have specialized in publishing the
> translations of the great wisdom traditions of world. Read what "catches"
> your eye.
> Shambhala Publication, Inc.
> Snowlion Publications
> Dharma Publications
> Sky Dancer Press
> Wisdom Publications
> HarperCollins Publishers
> Paulist Press -- The Classics of Western Spirituality (60 volume series)
> Contemporary Books
> Ohara Publications, Inc.
> Nine Gates Press
Thanks for the info.
Yep.
> "Now there's the rub." Basically, you have to trust yourself and go
> the way you feel most comfortable with. First, make sure you are
> basically psychologically healthy. If a person is suffering "real"
> depression or they are bipolar, therapy would be the better first action.
> "Real" depression and manic states can be greatly worsened by practicing
> mindfulness of the breath or other techniques, though rarely can such
> individuals sustain the practice for any lengthen of time.
No problem here.
There's a pretty big pond between you and me, and if I went 400 miles it
would place me somewhere in the North Sea :)
> My basic criteria was:
> I wanted someone who was acknowledged by their peers as a master
> teacher and practitioner. Someone who has an established following and a
> good reputation, but I did not want a "famous" teacher. This meant that
> they would have been teaching Americans for at lest 15 years, with at lest
> 15 to 20 years of previous study and practice in their chosen tradition.
> While it really didn't matter which tradition they followed, it was the
> individual that was important to me, my tendency was/is to seek
> traditional teachers of recognized spiritual lineages, instead of new age
> or new religions. For example, if I want to learn Aikido, I go to an
> Aikido master. Learning something called "American Karate" never appeared
> appealing to me. If I want to learn how to speak French, I go to a
> speaker of French. If I want to learn how to read French, I go to a writer
> of French. Basically, ask yourself, would you buy a used car from this
> person? Do you trust the cook and their cooking? Are you willing to eat
> the food they prepare and place in front of you? You have to trust, have
> confidence in, your own choices. Believing in yourself is the first step.
> Continuing to believe in yourself is how you cultivate confidence. Having
> developed confidence, believing in yourself becomes easy.
No problem here.
> >"Letting Go" -- a book by Hubert Benoit! It's a follow-up to his other
> >book "The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought" (Sussex
> >Academic Press 1998 (1955)), but nowhere near as good.
>
> Haven't read any of his books. I'll add it to my reading list.
I found The Supreme Doctrine such a good read that I made copious notes on
the PC. If you'd like a copy I can mail an attachment to you.
> >As Adi Da says "it's always already the case".
>
> His insight is great and from that transcendent level, he is absolutely
> right. ; )
> But from the level of common interaction, interpersonal relationships,
> there have been many complaints made against Adi Da. Even Ken Wilber has
> written critically about his behavior, and Ken (I think he was a follower
> at one time) wrote the forward for one of Adi Da's books. And I
> understand that book is pretty good.
> Its how they act as teachers that is important. With practice, anybody
> can sound pretty. Crazy wisdom masters are not excused from the effects
> of karma (their own actions).
I have always kept my distance from this group -- call it intuition if you
like -- but some of his writings hit the nail on the head.
> >"Rest in a sky-like mind" is a very nice aphorism, and comes to mind
> >frequently since starting this string.
>
> Well, then, here's another semi-traditional metaphor (since I have made
> this post this long, a little long can't be that much worse).
> The nature of mind is space-like awareness. There is no top of space.
> There is no middle to space. There is no bottom of space. Space is
> everywhere and regardless of your own location, you are always in space.
> And no matter how far or how high or how low you go, you will never find
> the center of space and you will never reach the boundary of space. No
> matter what fills space, space will not be changed. Space is an
> emptiness, even when there are forms filling space, it remains empty.
> The nature of mind is like this space, aware. There is no top of
> awareness. There is no middle to awareness. There is no bottom of
> awareness. Awareness is everywhere and regardless of your own location,
> you are always in awareness. And you will never find the center of
> awareness and you will never reach the boundary of awareness. No matter
> what fills awareness, awareness is never changed. Awareness is an
> emptiness, even when there are forms filling awareness, it remains empty.
> Rest there in that space-like empty awareness.
... echoes of the Tao Te Ching here.
> Don't forget to breath.
How did you know about my sleep apnia problem? :)
Viyan
"andy-k" <and...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:iHYw8.28399$ML.42...@news2-win.server.ntlworld.com...
> Can anybody tell me where this advice comes from -- i.e. who first said or
wrote this description?
>
>
Dogen Zenji, founder of the Soto sect of Zen Buddhism, in which he refers to
an advanced meditation called Eko Hensho( turning the light to shine upon
itself). It is a practice in which the Adept uses to negate his existence
within the Soul to experience the Oversoul and higher Omnipresent States of
Consciousness; though not limited to these higher states, for this technique
is fundamentally requisite for true contemplation.
Viyan
Antonio Aponte
jelich wrote:
>
>
> Wouldn't you like to know :-)
>
>
I think I already know....I haven't really said anything truly origional
since....well, let me think.....Dammed! I can't remember.
Antonio
Antonio Aponte
Does the term 'negating his existance within the soul' seem a bit like a
glass-half-empty perspective?
True contemplation? As opposed to what?
I loved the reference to 'Eko Hensho' but found the rest to 'stink of Zen'.
Antonio
andy-k
>
> Dogen Zenji, founder of the Soto sect of Zen Buddhism, in which he refers
> to an advanced meditation called Eko Hensho( turning the light to shine
> upon itself). It is a practice in which the Adept uses to negate his
existence
> within the Soul to experience the Oversoul and higher Omnipresent States
> of Consciousness; though not limited to these higher states, for this
> technique is fundamentally requisite for true contemplation.
Thanks Viyan.
J. has pointed out the use of this phrase in the Chinese classic "The Secret
of the Golden Flower", which credits Wenshi with the first use of the phrase
(purported to have been a student of Lao Tzu). It's use by Dogen is
interesting. I know of Dogen's "cast off body and mind", but I hadn't come
across his Eko Hensho before. Are there any references you could direct me
to?
Viyan
Yes, of course: A collection of essays from, Dogen Zenji's ' Shobogenzo' and
'Eihei Koroku' in ' Rational Zen: The Mind of Dogen Zenji, translated and
edited by Thomas Cleary. J. may be right about the origin of the phrase, on
further rendering into the work, the phrase was used only to describe Eko
Hensho in the collection of notes of the book's Appendix. Forgive the
misrepresention; it wasn't intentional.
" To remain fixedly abiding in the present mirroring awareness is the enemy
of the Buddhas of all times; yet anything outside of this is the same as
devil talk."
Zen Master Baizhang ( Hyakujo)
Viyan
Antonio Aponte
softly struck cracked bell. ;-p
J.
jelich wrote:
J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020513183034...@mb-ml.aol.com...
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>> Sorry this is kind of long, so I trimmed some of my old stuff.
>No problem. Standard procedure I think.
>> I was raised an Episcopalian. My stepfather (mom's #2) became a priest
>> when I was a teenager. I was an altar boy and taught Sunday school. I
>> realized that I wasn't a Christian once I learned about the history of the
>> early Church. I could not say the Nicene Creed. I left Christianity many
>> years before I was introduced to Buddhism. Though, Western religion isn't
>> completely at fault. Modernity had it's effect on all aspects of modern
>> life, religion especially.
>Sure, but I think the rot set in when the Catholic Church began defining
>itself in contrast to the Valentinian Gnostics.
I don't think Plotinus liked the Gnostics very much. While I appreaciate
many of the Gnostic texts that are available today it's my understanding that
they were just as dualistic as the Catholic Church. The Church at that time
was perfect for that time. The collective development of humanity wasn't
evolved enough to allow differing views about the "one true religion." The
believers of that time were simply consolidating their power to live in accord
with their beliefs of that time. It had so much more to do with politics, than
anything spiritual, but at that time there were no divisions between politics
and religion, or religion on a collective level and religion from the level of
personal spiritual practice.
I do wonder how the world would be different if Christianity had developed
from the nondual insight of Jesus, instead of the mythic rational insight of
Paul, but the world could not sustain a nondual understanding from the
cultural/social point of view. So it did not and we have the world we live
within today.
>> Science hasn't been very helpful in showing the
>> value of the vertical dimension of life either. There is always that
>> pre/trans confusion that Western psychologist too easily fall into. The
>> fundamentalist form of Christianity was perfect in the 10th century, today
>> the glue doesn't work.
[snip.]
>> Most Western fundamentalist Christians
>> are at lest emotionally mature and take responsibility for their actions
>> in life. While too many Western liberal Americans are narcissistic little
>> children who are always blaming society for their own failures.
>I find most scientists make a fundamental error of believing that monistic
>materialism is a mandatory foundation for science. Once that unexamined and
>unjustifiable assumption has been made, the way is barred to any spiritual
>openness in the vertical sense.
You would think that of all people, scientists would understand that the only
mandatory foundation for science is the scientific method.
>> In our modern world, with its great depends on pharmaceuticals, I wonder
>> how many saints are being put back to sleep, with the pills their doctors
>> give them. Granted, a glass of mushroom tea in one's youth can be a life
>> changer ; )
>Finding a certain "unsatisfactoriness" in the world? You need Prozac! :)
No! Lobotomizing. Saves on medical costs in the long run.
>> It's really not a state of mind that comes and goes. Its like a cloudy
>> day suddenly clearing and suddenly you know exactly where the sun shines
>> from, because of the fall of the shadows. You don't need to look up in the
>> sky. The sun has always been there in the sky. Clouds part and we
>> suddenly become aware of the ever-present shining awareness. States of
>> mind, attitudes, moods -- these are just objects in awareness. Like you
>> said, "that awareness is primary and the self is, amongst other things,
>> merely something that there is awareness of." Just another object in
>> awareness. This is how it has always been. So, we have a choice, do we
>> fixate on the objects of awareness (like the self and other reflections)
>> or rest in the great expanse, the shining clear luminous awareness.
>Now I understand why you object to my phrase "state of mind". Permit me to
>elaborate: I understand that awareness is *not* a temporary state of mind,
>but (with the exception of the fully awakened) the direct acquaintance with
>it appears to be just that (i.e. temporary), since it depends on a certain
>kind of clarity of mind that is difficult to cultivate and difficult to
sustain.
>Awareness might well be there constantly, but the state of mental quiet
>(or "absence of mind") required to recognise it, is not.
Yes, and no. For the beginner it does appear "to be just that (i.e.
temporary), since it depends on a certain kind of clarity of mind that is
difficult to cultivate and difficult to sustain."
With the right practice[s] and understanding, over time, mental quiet will
not be a requirement for recognise it. The "noise" the mind can make and the
mental stillness the mind can attain, are seen as just changes in the weather.
Just natural manifestations of the energy of awareness. Just the ups and downs
of the natural nature of awareness. The problem is not that the mind can
endlessly chatter away, the problem is our attachment to the chattering. We
tend to chase after the chatter and that is what gets us into trouble.
A traditional teaching talks about developing "a lion's gaze." If you throw
a stick, a dog will chase the stick. A lion will gaze at you. He watches the
source rather than chasing after projections. He is quite aware of the stick
you threw, but you are the source, so he watches you. When the mind chatters
don't chase after those thoughts. When the body feels don't chase after those
feelings. When emotions arise don't chase after those emotions. Just rest,
gazing on the source of reality. That placeless place, from which everything
appears to be thrown from.
>> My parents never understood it either. I described it as dreaming
>> awake, and everything moving quickly while everything happening slowly, or
>> like seeing both sides at once. I eventually learned to keep quiet also.
>> Can't blame my parents like a good Freudian, I was most definitely a
>> difficult/problem child, though generally good at heart. The only thing
>> that kept me out of trouble, in the long run.
>"Dreaming awake" is a good description of the state I tried to articulate
>with the phrase "like everything is on TV".
>> "And now for something a little different," -- Monty Python
>> When I was younger I practiced Aikido (very little) and later Tai chi,
>> but as a teenager and in college jazz, ballet, and swing.
>> My wife and I have been practicing Toshindo for the past three years.
[snip.]
>> The phrase, "Just keep on going," is from Dr. Masaaki Hatsumi, the >>
Grandmaster of the art in Japan. Toshindo has only been taught in America >>
since the early 90's when Stephen K. Hayes developed the system for teaching >>
the art to Americans. When he isn't teaching martial arts or in Japan learning
>> from Hatsumi, he is a bodyguard for the Dalai Lama.
>> http://www.skhquest.com/default.asp
>I have been practising Aikido for seven years now, and the phrase "just keep
>on going" is equally applicable here. Like most Japanese pursuits, it seems
>like a bottomless pool where one can keep making progress indefinitely
>without ever reaching any stopping point. A penny drops here, and another
>one there, and over the months and years you "grow into the part" without
>being able to rationalise it very much. I also play the Japanese board game
>of Go, which is much the same. If you've never played I thoroughly recommend
>you give it a try.
"Grow into the part' without being able to rationalise it very much." That
is very much how one develops in spiritual qualities. Think of one of the
basic techniques of Aikido and remember how sloppy you first attempted to
exacute that technique. Now you can do that same technique so very easily.
The subtle qualities of the technique are obvious to you now, but when you were
a beginner you did not even see the obvious. Progress in the practice of
meditation is just like this, at first you don't see the obvious, later you
rest completely aware.
I've never had the chance to play with another, but what I do know of Go, I
find very interesting.
[snip.]
>> Read what "catches" your eye.
>> Shambhala Publication, Inc.
>> Snowlion Publications
>> Dharma Publications
>> Sky Dancer Press
>> Wisdom Publications
>> HarperCollins Publishers
>> Paulist Press -- The Classics of Western Spirituality (60 volume series)
>> Contemporary Books
>> Ohara Publications, Inc.
>> Nine Gates Press
>Thanks for the info.
Your welcome.
>>> How does one find a genuine "fisherman"?
>
>> That depends. What do you want from this fisherman? There are some who
>> wait on shore, watching.
[snip.]
>> Sometimes we eat it all the time,
>> while other people would never think of eating fish. Still, in our
>> society, fish appears to be readily available and we have the freedom to
>> choose to eat it or not. Not everyone on the planet can say that. Most of
>> us buy from three or four middlemen away from the fish market. That is
>> pretty far from the source. Then there are the rare few, who go to the
>> docks to learn how to become fishermen. They go out to sea.
>> If all you want to do is learn basic meditation from a human being, find
>> someone working on the shore. Someone who works in the fish market. You
>> are learning a skill, like tennis, fencing, martial arts, mending nets,
>> meditation is a skill. You can approach it that way.
>> If you want more than that, if you want to go out to sea and become a
>> fishermen yourself?
>Yep.
>> "Now there's the rub." Basically, you have to trust yourself and go
>> the way you feel most comfortable with. First, make sure you are
>> basically psychologically healthy. If a person is suffering "real"
>> depression or they are bipolar, therapy would be the better first action.
>> "Real" depression and manic states can be greatly worsened by practicing
>> mindfulness of the breath or other techniques, though rarely can such
>> individuals sustain the practice for any lengthen of time.
>No problem here.
Didn't really think so.
>There's a pretty big pond between you and me, and if I went 400 miles it
>would place me somewhere in the North Sea :)
Well, don't go swimming, but I think there are a few centers in the UK and
Europe that are worth investigating. Who knows, you maybe sirprised. I know
of a couple of Tibetan Lamas who worked as dishwashers when they first
immigrated to the US.
>> My basic criteria was:
>> I wanted someone who was acknowledged by their peers as a master
>> teacher and practitioner. Someone who has an established following and a
>> good reputation, but I did not want a "famous" teacher. This meant that
>> they would have been teaching Americans for at lest 15 years, with at lest
>> 15 to 20 years of previous study and practice in their chosen tradition.
>> While it really didn't matter which tradition they followed, it was the
>> individual that was important to me, my tendency was/is to seek
>> traditional teachers of recognized spiritual lineages, instead of new age
>> or new religions. For example, if I want to learn Aikido, I go to an
>> Aikido master. Learning something called "American Karate" never appeared
>> appealing to me. If I want to learn how to speak French, I go to a
>> speaker of French. If I want to learn how to read French, I go to a writer
>> of French. Basically, ask yourself, would you buy a used car from this
>> person? Do you trust the cook and their cooking? Are you willing to eat
>> the food they prepare and place in front of you? You have to trust, have
>> confidence in, your own choices. Believing in yourself is the first step.
>> Continuing to believe in yourself is how you cultivate confidence. Having
>> developed confidence, believing in yourself becomes easy.
>No problem here.
Then, to use another slogan, "Just do it."
>>>"Letting Go" -- a book by Hubert Benoit! It's a follow-up to his other
>>>book "The Supreme Doctrine: Psychological Studies in Zen Thought" (Sussex
>>>Academic Press 1998 (1955)), but nowhere near as good.
>> Haven't read any of his books. I'll add it to my reading list.
>I found The Supreme Doctrine such a good read that I made copious notes on
>the PC. If you'd like a copy I can mail an attachment to you.
Thank you. It would probably be a while before I could pick up a copy.
>>>As Adi Da says "it's always already the case".
>> His insight is great and from that transcendent level, he is absolutely
>> right. ; )
[snip.]
>> And I understand that book is pretty good. Its how they act as teachers
that is >> important. With practice, anybody can sound pretty. Crazy wisdom
masters >> are not excused from the effects of karma (their own actions).
>I have always kept my distance from this group -- call it intuition if you
>like -- but some of his writings hit the nail on the head.
Right on the head.
>>>"Rest in a sky-like mind" is a very nice aphorism, and comes to mind
>>>frequently since starting this string.
>> Well, then, here's another semi-traditional metaphor (since I have made
>> this post this long, a little long can't be that much worse).
>> The nature of mind is space-like awareness. There is no top of space.
>> There is no middle to space. There is no bottom of space. Space is
>> everywhere and regardless of your own location, you are always in space.
>> And no matter how far or how high or how low you go, you will never find
>> the center of space and you will never reach the boundary of space. No
>> matter what fills space, space will not be changed. Space is an
>> emptiness, even when there are forms filling space, it remains empty.
>> The nature of mind is like this space, aware. There is no top of
>> awareness. There is no middle to awareness. There is no bottom of
>> awareness. Awareness is everywhere and regardless of your own location,
>> you are always in awareness. And you will never find the center of
>> awareness and you will never reach the boundary of awareness. No matter
>> what fills awareness, awareness is never changed. Awareness is an
>> emptiness, even when there are forms filling awareness, it remains empty.
>> Rest there in that space-like empty awareness.
>... echoes of the Tao Te Ching here.
Which is the echo of which ... echo?
>> Don't forget to breath.
>How did you know about my sleep apnia problem? :)
LOL Call me psychic. Or is that psychotic? hehehehe (manic laughter).
andy-k
>
> >Sure, but I think the rot set in when the Catholic Church began defining
> >itself in contrast to the Valentinian Gnostics.
>
> I don't think Plotinus liked the Gnostics very much.
He certainly didn't! He regarded them as having ripped off much of the work
of his revered master Plato, and to be wildly misrepresenting it.
> While I appreaciate
> many of the Gnostic texts that are available today it's my understanding
that
> they were just as dualistic as the Catholic Church. The Church at that
time
> was perfect for that time. The collective development of humanity wasn't
> evolved enough to allow differing views about the "one true religion." The
> believers of that time were simply consolidating their power to live in
accord
> with their beliefs of that time.
For the western world, but wasn't non-dual theology already extant in India
(Brahmism and Buddhism) and China (Taoism)?
> It had so much more to do with politics, than
> anything spiritual, but at that time there were no divisions between
politics
> and religion, or religion on a collective level and religion from the
level of
> personal spiritual practice.
> I do wonder how the world would be different if Christianity had developed
> from the nondual insight of Jesus, instead of the mythic rational insight
of
> Paul, but the world could not sustain a nondual understanding from the
> cultural/social point of view. So it did not and we have the world we
live
> within today.
A shame the wrong side won.
> >I find most scientists make a fundamental error of believing that
monistic
> >materialism is a mandatory foundation for science. Once that unexamined
and
> >unjustifiable assumption has been made, the way is barred to any
spiritual
> >openness in the vertical sense.
>
> You would think that of all people, scientists would understand that the
only
> mandatory foundation for science is the scientific method.
Right.
> >> In our modern world, with its great depends on pharmaceuticals, I
wonder
> >> how many saints are being put back to sleep, with the pills their
doctors
> >> give them. Granted, a glass of mushroom tea in one's youth can be a
life
> >> changer ; )
>
> >Finding a certain "unsatisfactoriness" in the world? You need Prozac! :)
>
> No! Lobotomizing. Saves on medical costs in the long run.
Of course! ... it all has to come down to costs in the long run.
You're way ahead of me here, but it's interesting to get a peep into what I
hope to experience sooner or later.
> A traditional teaching talks about developing "a lion's gaze." If you
throw
> a stick, a dog will chase the stick. A lion will gaze at you. He watches
the
> source rather than chasing after projections. He is quite aware of the
stick
> you threw, but you are the source, so he watches you. When the mind
chatters
> don't chase after those thoughts. When the body feels don't chase after
those
> feelings. When emotions arise don't chase after those emotions. Just
rest,
> gazing on the source of reality. That placeless place, from which
everything
> appears to be thrown from.
Sure.
> >I have been practising Aikido for seven years now, and the phrase "just
keep
> >on going" is equally applicable here. Like most Japanese pursuits, it
seems
> >like a bottomless pool where one can keep making progress indefinitely
> >without ever reaching any stopping point. A penny drops here, and another
> >one there, and over the months and years you "grow into the part" without
> >being able to rationalise it very much. I also play the Japanese board
game
> >of Go, which is much the same. If you've never played I thoroughly
recommend
> >you give it a try.
>
> "Grow into the part' without being able to rationalise it very much."
That
> is very much how one develops in spiritual qualities. Think of one of the
> basic techniques of Aikido and remember how sloppy you first attempted to
> exacute that technique. Now you can do that same technique so very
easily.
> The subtle qualities of the technique are obvious to you now, but when you
were
> a beginner you did not even see the obvious. Progress in the practice of
> meditation is just like this, at first you don't see the obvious, later
you
> rest completely aware.
Yes -- I can see the similarity.
> >> Having
> >> developed confidence, believing in yourself becomes easy.
>
> >No problem here.
>
> Then, to use another slogan, "Just do it."
Nike?
> >I found The Supreme Doctrine such a good read that I made copious notes
on
> >the PC. If you'd like a copy I can mail an attachment to you.
>
> Thank you. It would probably be a while before I could pick up a copy.
I'll send it soon (I think I know where to find it).
J.
>
>Yes, of course: A collection of essays from, Dogen Zenji's ' Shobogenzo' and
>'Eihei Koroku' in ' Rational Zen: The Mind of Dogen Zenji, translated and
>edited by Thomas Cleary. J. may be right about the origin of the phrase, on
>further rendering into the work, the phrase was used only to describe Eko
>Hensho in the collection of notes of the book's Appendix. Forgive the
>misrepresention; it wasn't intentional.
Another Cleary translation that deals with the practice of meditation that
follows the Buddhist tradition is 'Minding Mind -- A Course in Basic
Meditation,' published by Shambhala Publication in 1995. ISBN # 1-57062-004-0
In this book Cleary translates several meditation manuals from several
different schools. He finishes the introduction with a great Chan saying,
"First awaken on your own, then see someone else."
J.
In article <ztVF8.34554$Iv.39...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020519165725...@mb-fn.aol.com...
>>
>>>Sure, but I think the rot set in when the Catholic Church began defining
>>>itself in contrast to the Valentinian Gnostics.
>>
>> I don't think Plotinus liked the Gnostics very much.
>
>He certainly didn't! He regarded them as having ripped off much of the work
>of his revered master Plato, and to be wildly misrepresenting it.
>
>> While I appreaciate many of the Gnostic texts that are available today
>> it's my understanding that they were just as dualistic as the Catholic
Church. >> The Church at that time was perfect for that time. The collective
development
>> of humanity wasn't evolved enough to allow differing views about the "one
true
>> religion." The believers of that time were simply consolidating their power
to
>> live in accord with their beliefs of that time.
>
>For the western world, but wasn't non-dual theology already extant in India
>(Brahmism and Buddhism) and China (Taoism)?
Theology, yes, but this has rarely affected the politics and the social
conscious of those cultures. There have been brief moments in history were a
culture has attempted to structure their own society so that it leads the
citizens toward enlightenment or illumination, but those moments have been very
few and very brief. Remember, Jesus they killed on the cross, Confucius never
got tenure, and even though the Buddha taught for fourty years after his
Enlightenment, people tried to kill him too.
>> It had so much more to do with politics, than anything spiritual, but at
that
>> time there were no divisions between politics and religion, or religion on a
>> collective level and religion from the level of personal spiritual practice.
I do
>> wonder how the world would be different if Christianity had developed from
the
>> nondual insight of Jesus, instead of the mythic rational insight of Paul,
but
>> the world could not sustain a nondual understanding from the cultural/social
>> point of view. So it did not and we have the world we live within today.
>
>A shame the wrong side won.
I don't really see it as a win lose kind of situation. At that time the
nondual side couldn't have won. It would have been wrong for that time period,
just as the ideals of that time are wrong for today. Culturally they weren't
ready for such insight and the society would have collapsed in upon itself.
The Catholic Church was more effective at translating the mythos into positive
horizontal development. It had better glue to hold society together. The
political leaders of that time saw the effects of simply painting a cross on a
banner or shield. More people rallied to their cause. The symbols held power
within the group mind, so the leaders (as they have always and still do) used
those symbols to wield power. It was when the horizontal development begain to
deny the vertical dimension that we got stuff like the Spanish Inquisition. We
can wish it had turned out differently, but whose to say that that difference,
would have made a difference today. Consider the Dualistic nature of the
Gnostic idea of God, that could have lead to some interesting and far more
dangerous forms of anti-semetism if it had become the dominate form of
Christianity. Didn't they believe that the Creator-God of the Old Testament
was the Great Devil, and that Jesus represented the true God of light who was
trying to save humanity from the bondage of this gross physical evil realm of
slavery?
>>>I find most scientists make a fundamental error of believing that monistic
>>>materialism is a mandatory foundation for science. Once that unexamined
>>>and unjustifiable assumption has been made, the way is barred to any
>>>spiritual openness in the vertical sense.
>>
>> You would think that of all people, scientists would understand that the
>> only mandatory foundation for science is the scientific method.
>
>Right.
>
>>>> In our modern world, with its great depends on pharmaceuticals, I
>>>> wonder how many saints are being put back to sleep, with the pills their
>>>> doctors give them. Granted, a glass of mushroom tea in one's youth can
>>>> be a life changer ; )
>>
>>>Finding a certain "unsatisfactoriness" in the world? You need Prozac! :)
>>
>> No! Lobotomizing. Saves on medical costs in the long run.
>
>Of course! ... it all has to come down to costs in the long run.
Its energy efficiency. Just hand me the dripple cup so I don't drool all
over myself.
Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm just a
good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
>> A traditional teaching talks about developing "a lion's gaze." If you throw
>> a stick, a dog will chase the stick. A lion will gaze at you. He watches
>> the source rather than chasing after projections. He is quite aware of the
>> stick you threw, but you are the source, so he watches you. When the mind
>> chatters don't chase after those thoughts. When the body feels don't chase
>> after those feelings. When emotions arise don't chase after those emotions.
>> Just rest, gazing on the source of reality. That placeless place, from
which
>> everything appears to be thrown from.
>
>Sure.
LOL!
>>>I have been practising Aikido for seven years now, and the phrase "just
>>>keep on going" is equally applicable here. Like most Japanese pursuits,
>>>it seems like a bottomless pool where one can keep making progress
>>>indefinitely without ever reaching any stopping point. A penny drops here,
>>>and another one there, and over the months and years you "grow into the
>>>part" without being able to rationalise it very much. I also play the
Japanese >>>board game of Go, which is much the same. If you've never played I
>>>thoroughly recommend you give it a try.
>>
>> "Grow into the part' without being able to rationalise it very much."
>> That is very much how one develops in spiritual qualities. Think of one of
>> the basic techniques of Aikido and remember how sloppy you first attempted
>> to exacute that technique. Now you can do that same technique so very
>> easily. The subtle qualities of the technique are obvious to you now, but
>> when you were a beginner you did not even see the obvious. Progress in
>> the practice of meditation is just like this, at first you don't see the
obvious,
>> later you rest completely aware.
>
>Yes -- I can see the similarity.
The "process" is very similar. And they are also complamentary. Practicing
meditation will improve your "way of harmony" and the physical changes due to
you practicing Aikido has helped your efforts in meditation. As an Aikido
practitioner, one of the best times for you to practice meditation is just
after you have practiced Aikido.
>>>> Having developed confidence, believing in yourself becomes easy.
>>
>> >No problem here.
>>
>> Then, to use another slogan, "Just do it."
>
>Nike?
I don't have to buy the sneakers to acknowledge the wisdom in their
commercials.
Whatever reality gives, I try to use it as the provisions for my path to
wisdom, rather than the bane of my existence. It may not be easy but whatever
happens can be transformed into an enlightening practice that leads to
enlightenment.
>>>I found The Supreme Doctrine such a good read that I made copious notes
>>>on the PC. If you'd like a copy I can mail an attachment to you.
>>
>> Thank you. It would probably be a while before I could pick up a copy.
>
>I'll send it soon (I think I know where to find it).
And I just downloaded it, thanks. Haven't looked at it yet, but I'll let you
know what I think after a few days.
So, as the Tibetans say, "Tashi deleks." (may good things arise)
andy-k
> >For the western world, but wasn't non-dual theology already extant in
> >India (Brahmism and Buddhism) and China (Taoism)?
>
> Theology, yes, but this has rarely affected the politics and the social
> conscious of those cultures. There have been brief moments in history
> were a culture has attempted to structure their own society so that it
> leads the citizens toward enlightenment or illumination, but those moments
> have been very few and very brief. Remember, Jesus they killed on the
> cross, Confucius never got tenure, and even though the Buddha taught for
> fourty years after his Enlightenment, people tried to kill him too.
I agree -- a bit like Plato's Philosopher Kings: nice idea but not a viable
option with humankind in the immature state it was in then, and possibly
still is in now.
> >A shame the wrong side won.
>
> I don't really see it as a win lose kind of situation. At that time the
> nondual side couldn't have won. It would have been wrong for that time
> period, just as the ideals of that time are wrong for today. Culturally
> they weren't ready for such insight and the society would have collapsed
> in upon itself. The Catholic Church was more effective at translating the
> mythos into positive horizontal development. It had better glue to hold
> society together. The political leaders of that time saw the effects of
> simply painting a cross on a banner or shield. More people rallied to
> their cause. The symbols held power within the group mind, so the leaders
> (as they have always and still do) used those symbols to wield power. It
> was when the horizontal development begain to deny the vertical dimension
> that we got stuff like the Spanish Inquisition. We can wish it had turned
> out differently, but whose to say that that difference, would have made a
> difference today. Consider the Dualistic nature of the Gnostic idea of
> God, that could have lead to some interesting and far more dangerous forms
> of anti-semetism if it had become the dominate form of Christianity.
> Didn't they believe that the Creator-God of the Old Testament was the
> Great Devil, and that Jesus represented the true God of light who was
> trying to save humanity from the bondage of this gross physical evil realm
> of slavery?
Yes -- I understand that Gnosticism had a strong Zoroastrian element to it,
reflecting the radical dualism entailed by that religion. But reading the
gospel of Thomas, it seems to me that Jesus himself was advocating a radical
non-dualism.
I can't see a religion based on the non-dual insight being detrimental to
society in general, except inasmuch as it is perceived by the established
politico-religious leaders to be competition and therefore a threat to
undermine their own power base. I don't see why an alternative society based
on the non-dual insight couldn't become established and exist alongside the
majority society (with its politico-religious framework) without impinging
upon it greatly, since most people aren't ready to make the transition
anyway. I have come to the conclusion that what Jesus was up to was
recruiting members for an alternative society using his parables as a kind
of selection procedure -- but in this case with the express purpose of
replacing the corrupt and hypocritical Jewish religious authorities of the
time. Bad move -- he should've left them alone, like the Essenes in Qumran
did. He incurred their wrath, and the Romans were not the sort to tolerate
any public disorder (especially in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover --
a powder-keg waiting for a spark), so they dispatched him in the very
painful, protracted, and public manner they considered appropriate for
political agitators.
> >You're way ahead of me here, but it's interesting to get a peep into what
I
> >hope to experience sooner or later.
>
> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm just
a
> good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
... and pining for the fjords?
> >You're way ahead of me here, but it's interesting to get a peep into what
> >I hope to experience sooner or later.
>
> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm
> just a good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
Like Aikido -- "just keep training".
> The "process" is very similar. And they are also complamentary.
> Practicing meditation will improve your "way of harmony" and the physical
> changes due to you practicing Aikido has helped your efforts in
> meditation. As an Aikido practitioner, one of the best times for you to
> practice meditation is just after you have practiced Aikido.
I'll practise in the bar tonight then :)
> >> Then, to use another slogan, "Just do it."
> >
> >Nike?
>
> I don't have to buy the sneakers to acknowledge the wisdom in their
> commercials.
> Whatever reality gives, I try to use it as the provisions for my path to
> wisdom, rather than the bane of my existence. It may not be easy but
> whatever happens can be transformed into an enlightening practice that
> leads to enlightenment.
Sorry J. -- I was just being facetious (my friends keep telling me I'm full
of faeces).
J.
In article <esvG8.8469$D16.1...@news6-win.server.ntlworld.com>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020520180135...@mb-ca.aol.com...
>
>> >For the western world, but wasn't non-dual theology already extant in
>> >India (Brahmism and Buddhism) and China (Taoism)?
>>
>> Theology, yes, but this has rarely affected the politics and the social
>> conscious of those cultures. There have been brief moments in history
>> were a culture has attempted to structure their own society so that it
>> leads the citizens toward enlightenment or illumination, but those moments
>> have been very few and very brief. Remember, Jesus they killed on the
>> cross, Confucius never got tenure, and even though the Buddha taught for
>> fourty years after his Enlightenment, people tried to kill him too.
>
>I agree -- a bit like Plato's Philosopher Kings: nice idea but not a viable
>option with humankind in the immature state it was in then, and possibly
>still is in now.
An interesting take on Plato's great society is that it was actually a spoof,
with hidden little gems of truth. A joke, a tongue in cheek exaggeration to
show how a "perfect society" wouldn't be a very happy human society.
I agree that Jesus advocated a radical non-dualism. Its just that the
religions that evolved from Jesus's teachings are not nondual. (Hummm, I
wonder is that a double negative?)
>I can't see a religion based on the non-dual insight being detrimental to
>society in general, except inasmuch as it is perceived by the established
>politico-religious leaders to be competition and therefore a threat to
>undermine their own power base.
It's not that a non-dual insight is detrimental to society in general. Its
just that a society is not, as it is today and has been throughout history,
capable of embracing a nondual insight in total. Religions like Christianity
and Buddhism may originate from the teachings of the full experiencing of the
vertical dimension of an individual, and those religions may develop powerful
transformative practices for individuals who wish to follow the vertical path
of development, but for a religion to secure itself a place within a society it
must also embrace the horizontal dimension and that must be done on from the
stage of development of that society. This is why Christianty as a religion
developed from the mythic-rational stage. Basically everyone in your group is
OK, everyone else is the enemy, one of the devil's minons. Considering the
nature of the times, with the pagan tribes of the North, the wild horsemen of
the East, the chaos of what was left of the Roman Empire, it kind of makes
sense for the group to protect the group.
>I don't see why an alternative society based on the non-dual insight couldn't
become established and exist alongside the majority society (with its
politico-religious framework) >without impinging upon it greatly, since most
people aren't ready to make the transition >anyway.
Actually that is what did happen and is still happening. The nondual
traditions clothes themselves with the religion of the majority soceity. The
Sufi's of Islam, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra lineages of Tibetan Buddhism,
Eckhart of Christianity, the Vedanta of Hinduism, all of these ultimate lead
to, and are rooted in, nondual awareness. This is still happening today in
monastaries, retreats, Dharma centers, and in even strip-mall Dojos across
Europe and America.
> I have come to the conclusion that what Jesus was up to was recruiting
>members for an alternative society using his parables as a kind of selection
>procedure -- but in this case with the express purpose of replacing the
corrupt
>and hypocritical Jewish religious authorities of the time. Bad move -- he
should've
>left them alone, like the Essenes in Qumran did.
I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was recruiting for an
alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish authority. Jesus's
rhetoric is almost void of politics. Remember from the nondual perspective,
ultimately there are no sides.
The Essenes died out also, and from my own readings of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
I don't think that they were at the nondual level of development.
>He incurred their wrath, and the Romans were not the sort to tolerate any
public >disorder (especially in Jerusalem at the feast of the Passover -- a
powder-keg waiting
>for a spark), so they dispatched him in the very painful, protracted, and
public manner >they considered appropriate for political agitators.
Well, at this time the Romans deified their Emperors and kings were
considered to hold the power of God (or the gods), any challenge to the
religious ideals of the time was a challenge to the political leadership. The
idea of religion and politics as separate dimensions of life didn't arise until
the Enlightenment of the West.
>>>You're way ahead of me here, but it's interesting to get a peep into what
>>>I hope to experience sooner or later.
>>
>> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm just a
>> good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
>
>... and pining for the fjords?
LOL! Ahh those green isles, thats what I miss.
>> >You're way ahead of me here, but it's interesting to get a peep into what
>> >I hope to experience sooner or later.
>>
>> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm
>> just a good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
>
>Like Aikido -- "just keep training".
Like the joke --
The couple asked the taxi driver at JFK airport, "How do you get to the
Empire State Building?"
And he answered, "Practice, practice, practice!"
>> The "process" is very similar. And they are also complamentary.
>> Practicing meditation will improve your "way of harmony" and the physical
>> changes due to you practicing Aikido has helped your efforts in
>> meditation. As an Aikido practitioner, one of the best times for you to
>> practice meditation is just after you have practiced Aikido.
>
>I'll practise in the bar tonight then :)
That's the right attitude. Practice wherever you are, regardless of what you
are doing, no matter what is happening, and no matter who is with you.
Practicing in a bar is a great place to develop your skills. Just don't drink
too many pints! ; )
An interesting program of practice is to practice a meditation technique for
3 to 5 minutes every hour on the hour. If you get the recommended 8 hours of
sleep a day, that'll give you a potential of 48 minutes or up to 1 hour and 20
minutes of meditation practice a day.
>>>> Then, to use another slogan, "Just do it."
>>>
>>>Nike?
>>
>> I don't have to buy the sneakers to acknowledge the wisdom in their
>> commercials. Whatever reality gives, I try to use it as the provisions for
>> my path to wisdom, rather than the bane of my existence. It may not be
>> easy but whatever happens can be transformed into an enlightening practice
>> that leads to enlightenment.
>
>Sorry J. -- I was just being facetious (my friends keep telling me I'm full
>of faeces).
No need to apology, I didn't take that as criticism. Besides, I'm so full of
it that my eyes are dark brown. ; )
andy-k
>
> >I agree -- a bit like Plato's Philosopher Kings: nice idea but not a
> >viable option with humankind in the immature state it was in then, and
> >possibly still is in now.
>
> An interesting take on Plato's great society is that it was actually a
> spoof, with hidden little gems of truth. A joke, a tongue in cheek
> exaggeration to show how a "perfect society" wouldn't be a very happy
> human society.
Plato being ironic? Perhaps, but my understanding is that Plato's
philosopher kings are mooted as an ideal that cannot be realised in every
detail, but never the less present a standard to be aimed at (Republic,
VII.1). He argues that there is nothing inherently impossible in the idea,
but the training must be correct and the changes in society would have to be
radical (Republic, VII.4). Plato even made strenuous attempts to put the
idea into practise during the last ten years of his life -- he never lost
hope that a statesman could be turned into a philosopher. His greatest
shortcoming was that he never allowed enough for the element of sheer
unreason in politics and human affairs.
> >I understand that Gnosticism had a strong Zoroastrian element to it,
> >reflecting the radical dualism entailed by that religion. But reading the
> >gospel of Thomas, it seems to me that Jesus himself was advocating a
> >radical non-dualism.
>
> I agree that Jesus advocated a radical non-dualism. Its just that the
> religions that evolved from Jesus's teachings are not nondual. (Hummm, I
> wonder is that a double negative?)
Perfectly comprehensible statement anyway.
> >I can't see a religion based on the non-dual insight being detrimental to
> >society in general, except inasmuch as it is perceived by the established
> >politico-religious leaders to be competition and therefore a threat to
> >undermine their own power base.
>
> It's not that a non-dual insight is detrimental to society in general.
> Its just that a society is not, as it is today and has been throughout
> history, capable of embracing a nondual insight in total. Religions like
> Christianity and Buddhism may originate from the teachings of the full
> experiencing of the vertical dimension of an individual, and those
> religions may develop powerful transformative practices for individuals
> who wish to follow the vertical path of development, but for a religion to
> secure itself a place within a society it must also embrace the horizontal
> dimension and that must be done on from the stage of development of that
> society. This is why Christianty as a religion developed from the
> mythic-rational stage. Basically everyone in your group is OK, everyone
> else is the enemy, one of the devil's minons. Considering the nature of
> the times, with the pagan tribes of the North, the wild horsemen of the
> East, the chaos of what was left of the Roman Empire, it kind of makes
> sense for the group to protect the group.
Sure -- there's something inherently unsociable about the pursuit of the
non-dual insight, and so any attempt to socialise it must surely result in
its dilution and even its loss.
> >I don't see why an alternative society based on the non-dual insight
> couldn't become established and exist alongside the majority society (with
> its politico-religious framework) without impinging upon it greatly,
> since most people aren't ready to make the transition anyway.
>
> Actually that is what did happen and is still happening. The nondual
> traditions clothes themselves with the religion of the majority soceity.
> The Sufi's of Islam, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra lineages of Tibetan
> Buddhism, Eckhart of Christianity, the Vedanta of Hinduism, all of these
> ultimate lead to, and are rooted in, nondual awareness. This is still
> happening today in monastaries, retreats, Dharma centers, and in even
> strip-mall Dojos across Europe and America.
Yep.
> > I have come to the conclusion that what Jesus was up to was recruiting
> >members for an alternative society using his parables as a kind of
> >selection procedure -- but in this case with the express purpose of
> >replacing the corrupt and hypocritical Jewish religious authorities of
> >the time. Bad move -- he should've left them alone, like the Essenes in
> >Qumran did.
>
> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was recruiting
> for an alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish authority.
> Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I can make
a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
> Remember from the nondual
> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand when
society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly he was very
mistaken.
> The Essenes died out also, and from my own readings of the Dead Sea
> Scrolls, I don't think that they were at the nondual level of development.
Perhaps, but they certainly left the Jewish authorities alone and were
overlooked by them as a result. It wasn't until the first Jewish War that
the Romans destroyed their community (73 CE).
> >> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm
> >> just a good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
> >
> >... and pining for the fjords?
>
> LOL! Ahh those green isles, thats what I miss.
"No sir, the parrot's not dead, it's just meditating".
> >Like Aikido -- "just keep training".
>
> Like the joke --
> The couple asked the taxi driver at JFK airport, "How do you get to the
> Empire State Building?"
> And he answered, "Practice, practice, practice!"
:)
> >I'll practise in the bar tonight then :)
>
> That's the right attitude. Practice wherever you are, regardless of
> what you are doing, no matter what is happening, and no matter who is with
> you. Practicing in a bar is a great place to develop your skills.
I find driving and watching TV conducive to remembering the Unconditioned
in the midst of conditions (resting in a sky-like mind) -- but not both at
the same time!
> Just don't drink too many pints! ; )
I'm too old for that -- my bladder won't allow it anymore.
> An interesting program of practice is to practice a meditation technique
> for 3 to 5 minutes every hour on the hour. If you get the recommended 8
> hours of sleep a day, that'll give you a potential of 48 minutes or up to
> 1 hour and 20 minutes of meditation practice a day.
I'm inclined to say that this regime could be highly impractical, but I
guess you'd reply that with practise it becomes progressively less
disruptive.
J.
In article <5wpH8.2118$pf3.2...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020522182605...@mb-cs.aol.com...
>>
>> >I agree -- a bit like Plato's Philosopher Kings: nice idea but not a
>> >viable option with humankind in the immature state it was in then, and
>> >possibly still is in now.
>>
>> An interesting take on Plato's great society is that it was actually a
>> spoof, with hidden little gems of truth. A joke, a tongue in cheek
>> exaggeration to show how a "perfect society" wouldn't be a very happy
>> human society.
>
>Plato being ironic? Perhaps, but my understanding is that Plato's
>philosopher kings are mooted as an ideal that cannot be realised in every
>detail, but never the less present a standard to be aimed at (Republic,
>VII.1). He argues that there is nothing inherently impossible in the idea,
>but the training must be correct and the changes in society would have to be
>radical (Republic, VII.4). Plato even made strenuous attempts to put the
>idea into practise during the last ten years of his life -- he never lost
>hope that a statesman could be turned into a philosopher. His greatest
>shortcoming was that he never allowed enough for the element of sheer
>unreason in politics and human affairs.
The philosopher king ideal of Plato's was one of the gems of the Republic,
along with some of the educational ideas that went along with it. The radical
societal changes that he was asking for, I think, were and still aren't very
realistic. Not to say that some dictator couldn't try, but it would have to be
forced on a people. I know they would have to be forced on me.
I really don't think there was an attempt made "from" a nondual perspective.
Paul was the one who really built the foundation that was to become
Christianity, and I personally don't think that his insight was nondual in
nature.
>> >I don't see why an alternative society based on the non-dual insight
>> couldn't become established and exist alongside the majority society (with
>> its politico-religious framework) without impinging upon it greatly,
>> since most people aren't ready to make the transition anyway.
>>
>> Actually that is what did happen and is still happening. The nondual
>> traditions clothes themselves with the religion of the majority soceity.
>> The Sufi's of Islam, the Dzogchen and Mahamudra lineages of Tibetan
>> Buddhism, Eckhart of Christianity, the Vedanta of Hinduism, all of these
>> ultimate lead to, and are rooted in, nondual awareness. This is still
>> happening today in monastaries, retreats, Dharma centers, and in even
>> strip-mall Dojos across Europe and America.
>
>Yep.
>
>> > I have come to the conclusion that what Jesus was up to was recruiting
>> >members for an alternative society using his parables as a kind of
>> >selection procedure -- but in this case with the express purpose of
>> >replacing the corrupt and hypocritical Jewish religious authorities of
>> >the time. Bad move -- he should've left them alone, like the Essenes in
>> >Qumran did.
>>
>> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was recruiting
>> for an alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish authority.
>> Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
>
>Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I can make
>a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
Hmmm? Perhaps you could make a strong case, but would it be a convincing
case? If that was his goal, then I'd have to say, he sure was a very poor
politician.
>> Remember from the nondual
>> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
>
>Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand when
>society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly he was very
>mistaken.
Mistaken, only if he really was trying to re-make (or take over) the Jewish
political power base. If that was the case, then, it makes complete sense why
the Romans put him to death. This of course would also mean that his insight
was not nondual. I know of no nondual saint who has sought to obtain political
power, ever, in the history of the East or the West. In fact, all the ones I
have studied have in one form or another sought to transcend politics. They
may have been "a force" for social change (and that force would effect the
political situation) but politics, that was a game they just didn't play.
Personally I believe that the "the time close at hand" he envisioned was, in
a sense outside of time. I also think that possibly "the time close at hand"
was a refrence to his own coming death, and if he was truly a nondual saint it
isn't inconcievable that he knew the forces that he would set in motion, by
dying on the cross, would have much greater significance than was obvious
historically.
I ask myself, "Self? What is the time, that is always close at hand?"
Perhaps, possibly, this ever-present nowness, this "self-reflective
awareness," that is the past, the present, and the future, and regardless of
the date or what time it happens to be, it "is always close at hand." Perhaps,
possibly, it is the suffering of right now, your own moment on your own cross,
and the ever-present potential of the spiritual resurrection of the Christ
within you.
From a nondual perspective, and generally speaking this is a universal
cross-cultural/cross-tradition ideal, enlightenment, anointment, illumination,
immortality, the absolute nondual truth is already the case. There is nothing
that needs to be done, nothing that needs to be added, nothing that needs to be
taken away. One Taste -- everything percieved in form just the body of
enlightenment; every sound heard just the song of enlightenment; every thought
arising just the mind of Buddha at play. As The Gospel of Thomas says, "Heaven
is on earth, yet man does not see it."
>> The Essenes died out also, and from my own readings of the Dead Sea
>> Scrolls, I don't think that they were at the nondual level of development.
>
>Perhaps, but they certainly left the Jewish authorities alone and were
>overlooked by them as a result. It wasn't until the first Jewish War that
>the Romans destroyed their community (73 CE).
The Essences were just one of many groups. The Jews were not politically
unified. There were many different sects all of them following the Laws of
Moses, and all of them monotheistic, but that was probably all they agreed on.
There wasn't a ruling orthodoxy that sought out heratics to condemn them. The
Essenes had no problems with the other Jewish groups because the Essenes were
generally seen by the majority as being the most pure, the most strict
followers of the Covenant.
The Sadducee were the aristocrats, the conservative rich land owners, who
supported Roman rule. They were the ones on the High Council of Jerusualem,
and from them comes the High Priest of the Temple, but it really was just a
"boys club" with very little real power. They could influence but Rome was the
real power. The High Priest was appointed by the procurator, for example
Pontius Pilate, and could be removed at their pleasure.
For refrence, I pulled an old history book of the self, 'A History of
Christianity' by Paul Johnson, published 1976 by Macmillan Publishing Co. ISBN
0-689-70591-3. Between my wife and I, we have a good size library. A life
without the ability to read is a tragedy, someone with the ability but doesn't,
that's a sin. That is a self limiting blindness, from which it would be hard to
emerge. Such a person lives only as far as their eyes can see. Better to grow
up illiterate, than to learn how to read, but never practice reading after you
are able.
Sorry. That was for the lurkers who only read to fill the time. I'll get
back to the topic now. ; )
As noted in the Gospels, many on the High Council were Pharisees. The
Pharisees were kind of like a middle-class, and most of the lawyers were
Pharisees. The Pharisees generally didn't like the Romans, but they weren't a
unified group either. There were many different schools of biblical law within
the Pharisees sub-set within Jewish society, ranging from nationalists,
liberals, to Zealots.
Perhaps Jesus was just one of the first people to tell lawyer jokes?
Interestingly, Mr. Johson points out that Jesus echos some of the liberal
Pharisees teachings in his own words. Jesus may not have been so strongly
anti-Pharisees as the Gospels make him out to be.
"When Jesus said that the sabbath was made for man, not man for the sabbath,
he was quoting a Pharisaic formula; and when he announced his 'great
commandment' he was giving a heightened version of a saying taught by one of
the liberal Pharisee rabbis, Hillel."
Historically, the Sadducee and the Pharisees rarely ever agreed on anything
in the High Council. The prosecution of Jesus was one of the few moments when
the Sadducee and the Pharisees did work together.
Several of the other sects saw the High Council as corrupted, the ruling
priestly groups just puppets of Rome. Mr. Johson claims that there is enough
evidence, "to enumerate as many as twenty-four," - different sects of Judaism.
Hmm? After looking up this stuff, I think I'll read this book again. It's
getting interesting.
Mr Johson goes on to describe several of the different groups of the times,
and Jerusalem kind of sounds like a very odd New Age fair. Especially when one
consides that along with at lest 24 Jewish sects there were probably a couple
of dozen pagan groups transplanted from Greece (especially Hellenism), Rome,
Egypt, and other distant parts of the empire.
>> >> Like everything else, a little time and a little effort. Though I'm
>> >> just a good parrot, repeating the words of those much wiser than me.
>> >
>> >... and pining for the fjords?
>>
>> LOL! Ahh those green isles, thats what I miss.
>
>"No sir, the parrot's not dead, it's just meditating".
"LOOK YOU BLEEDING IDOIT!"
Hammers parrot repeatedly against the counter.
"THE PARROT IS DEAD!"
"Well, he is now. You just killed him."
>> >Like Aikido -- "just keep training".
>>
>> Like the joke --
>> The couple asked the taxi driver at JFK airport, "How do you get to the
>> Empire State Building?"
>> And he answered, "Practice, practice, practice!"
>
>:)
>
>> >I'll practise in the bar tonight then :)
>>
>> That's the right attitude. Practice wherever you are, regardless of
>> what you are doing, no matter what is happening, and no matter who is with
>> you. Practicing in a bar is a great place to develop your skills.
>
>I find driving and watching TV conducive to remembering the Unconditioned
>in the midst of conditions (resting in a sky-like mind) -- but not both at
>the same time!
I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike. It's
really hard to hold the book when I drive.
>> Just don't drink too many pints! ; )
>
>I'm too old for that -- my bladder won't allow it anymore.
I know what you mean.
>> An interesting program of practice is to practice a meditation technique
>> for 3 to 5 minutes every hour on the hour. If you get the recommended 8
>> hours of sleep a day, that'll give you a potential of 48 minutes or up to
>> 1 hour and 20 minutes of meditation practice a day.
>
>I'm inclined to say that this regime could be highly impractical, but I
>guess you'd reply that with practise it becomes progressively less
>disruptive.
Depends on how you approach the practice. You can always start small and
simply practice a program of every hour taking a moment, and mindfully breath
three breathes. Sure this would only be a brief moment, a few seconds, but
over time this acts cumulatively. You don't have to sit a special way and
light a candle each time. If you happen to be sitting, sit. If you happen to
be standing, stand. If you happen to be walking, walk. And mindfully take
three breathes. After a few days, practice mindfully taking seven breathes
every hour. When that becomes easy, practice taking ten breathes every hour.
Whenever the practice becomes easier (you don't have to be able to do it
perfectly) add a little more time. Just like physical exercise, once you can
do 10 push-ups easily, start doing 20 push-ups.
J.
PS -- I'm slowly working my way through the Benoit matterial. I want to read
it a second time before I comment on it. It is interesting so far.
andy-k
>
> >Sure -- there's something inherently unsociable about the pursuit of the
> >non-dual insight, and so any attempt to socialise it must surely result
> >in its dilution and even its loss.
>
> I really don't think there was an attempt made "from" a nondual
> perspective.
Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but an attempt made from *the pursuit
of* the non-dual insight makes sense to me.
> Paul was the one who really built the foundation that was to become
> Christianity, and I personally don't think that his insight was nondual in
> nature.
From what I know of him I'd agree, though I believe he did have some kind of
experience. It's precisely this state of non-totality that I believe leads
the subject to attempt to socialise it. Perhaps Plato is the prime example.
Augustine also -- his "Confessions" provide an insight into his experience
("Late have I loved thee, O beauty so ancient and so new. Late have I loved
thee, for thou wert within me and I outside"). He went on to instigate
revolutionary changes to the Catholic Church, and became extremely
anti-Pelagian and anti-Arian. How could this have happened "from" a
non-dual perspective? (Rhetorical question -- I'm actually agreeing with
you).
> >> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was recruiting
> >> for an alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish authority.
> >> Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
> >
> >Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I can
> >make a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
>
> Hmmm? Perhaps you could make a strong case, but would it be a convincing
> case? If that was his goal, then I'd have to say, he sure was a very poor
> politician.
Absolutely -- he was no politician, and he was no philosopher. I believe
religious reform is what he was about.
> >> Remember from the nondual
> >> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
> >
> >Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand
> >when society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly he
> >was very mistaken.
>
> Mistaken, only if he really was trying to re-make (or take over) the
> Jewish political power base. If that was the case, then, it makes
> complete sense why the Romans put him to death. This of course would also
> mean that his insight was not nondual.
Not to totality (or perhaps "to permenance" would be a better way of putting
it). I think Plotinus achieved a more pervasive attainment of the non-dual
insight than Jesus did.
> I know of no nondual saint who has sought to obtain political
> power, ever, in the history of the East or the West. In fact, all the
> ones I have studied have in one form or another sought to transcend
> politics. They may have been "a force" for social change (and that force
> would effect the political situation) but politics, that was a game they
> just didn't play.
A contemplative to become known by the name of Saint Bernard (1090 - 1153)
became the first abbot of Clairvaux in 1113 and the order thrived under his
leadership, developing methods for attaining to mystical union with God.
However, being a mystic and something of a religious zealot, Bernard
condemned Peter Abelard for his introduction of rational thought into
Christianity. This began a heated debate pitting Christian mysticism against
Scholasticism. In 1146 Bernard convinced the kings of France and Germany to
participate in the second Crusade. He also preached against the "heresies"
which were being practised in Languedoc, South of France, eventually
resulting in the Albigensian Crusade in which the Cathars were all murdered,
even the Christians amongst them, on the instruction that "God will know his
own".
> Personally I believe that the "the time close at hand" he envisioned was,
> in a sense outside of time. I also think that possibly "the time close at
> hand" was a refrence to his own coming death, and if he was truly a
> nondual saint it isn't inconcievable that he knew the forces that he would
> set in motion, by dying on the cross, would have much greater significance
> than was obvious historically.
Sure -- the Gospels are very much open to interpretation on this point. Your
interpretation is just as viable as mine. I find this particular issue to be
the most enigmatic issue in the whole story because of it's ambiguity.
> I ask myself, "Self? What is the time, that is always close at hand?"
> Perhaps, possibly, this ever-present nowness, this "self-reflective
> awareness," that is the past, the present, and the future, and regardless
> of the date or what time it happens to be, it "is always close at hand."
> Perhaps, possibly, it is the suffering of right now, your own moment on
> your own cross, and the ever-present potential of the spiritual
> resurrection of the Christ within you.
> From a nondual perspective, and generally speaking this is a universal
> cross-cultural/cross-tradition ideal, enlightenment, anointment,
> illumination, immortality, the absolute nondual truth is already the case.
> There is nothing that needs to be done, nothing that needs to be added,
> nothing that needs to be taken away. One Taste -- everything percieved in
> form just the body of enlightenment; every sound heard just the song of
> enlightenment; every thought arising just the mind of Buddha at play.
> As The Gospel of Thomas says, "Heaven is on earth, yet man does not see
> it."
Perfect.
> As noted in the Gospels, many on the High Council were Pharisees. The
> Pharisees were kind of like a middle-class, and most of the lawyers were
> Pharisees. The Pharisees generally didn't like the Romans, but they
> weren't a unified group either. There were many different schools of
> biblical law within the Pharisees sub-set within Jewish society, ranging
> from nationalists, liberals, to Zealots.
> Perhaps Jesus was just one of the first people to tell lawyer jokes?
> Interestingly, Mr. Johson points out that Jesus echos some of the
> liberal Pharisees teachings in his own words. Jesus may not have been so
> strongly anti-Pharisees as the Gospels make him out to be.
My understanding is that the Pharisees weren't big until they filled the
religious vacuum after the Romans dis-established the Sadducees during the
first Jewish War. If this is correct then the references to the Pharisees in
the Gospels must be a late interpretation placed on what was an oral
tradition until the gospels were committed to text (70 - 100 CE). The upshot
must surely be that Jesus himself may indeed not have been so strongly
anti-Pharisees as the Gospels make him out to be.
> >"No sir, the parrot's not dead, it's just meditating".
>
> "LOOK YOU BLEEDING IDOIT!"
> Hammers parrot repeatedly against the counter.
> "THE PARROT IS DEAD!"
> "Well, he is now. You just killed him."
Given up the ghost, shaken off it's mortal coil, snuffed it ...
> >I find driving and watching TV conducive to remembering the Unconditioned
> >in the midst of conditions (resting in a sky-like mind) -- but not both
> >at the same time!
>
> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
J.
In article <PUxI8.8530$t8.20...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020527153920...@mb-fv.aol.com...
>>
>> >Sure -- there's something inherently unsociable about the pursuit of the
>> >non-dual insight, and so any attempt to socialise it must surely result
>> >in its dilution and even its loss.
>>
>> I really don't think there was an attempt made "from" a nondual
>> perspective.
>
>Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but an attempt made from *the pursuit
>of* the non-dual insight makes sense to me.
Hmm? I do believe that there were isolated groups and individuals, who were
"following a nondual course from within" a Christian belief system. I just
don't think that this was the form of Christianity that dominated and became
the orthodoxy. Paul's interpretation of Jesus' teaching were from the mythic
rational perspective, his insight was in "universalizing" and "socializing" the
teachings, within the context of a Christian community.
>> Paul was the one who really built the foundation that was to become
>> Christianity, and I personally don't think that his insight was nondual in
>> nature.
>
>From what I know of him I'd agree, though I believe he did have some kind of
>experience. It's precisely this state of non-totality that I believe leads
>the subject to attempt to socialise it.
I believe that he had a mystical experience, though I wouldn't call it "a
state of non-totality." Paul may have had a very profound experience, but it
was rooted within his mythic world view, rather than transcend it.
> Perhaps Plato is the prime example.
>Augustine also -- his "Confessions" provide an insight into his experience
>("Late have I loved thee, O beauty so ancient and so new. Late have I loved
>thee, for thou wert within me and I outside"). He went on to instigate
>revolutionary changes to the Catholic Church, and became extremely
>anti-Pelagian and anti-Arian. How could this have happened "from" a
>non-dual perspective? (Rhetorical question -- I'm actually agreeing with
>you).
Yep. Though, history claims that Augustine (unless I'm confused, thinking of
this, it may have been Thomas who had this experience), toward the end of his
life, had some kind of mystical experience that made him put down the pen
forever after. All we know are hints, since he never wrote about the
experience or anything else again. Some claim that he said that his experience
was such that words would be meaningless if one attempted to describe it, and
that the experience also made all of the words he had written worthless.
Now that sounds like it "could have been" a nondual level experience.
>> >> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was recruiting
>> >> for an alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish authority.
>> >> Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
>> >
>> >Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I can
>> >make a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
>>
>> Hmmm? Perhaps you could make a strong case, but would it be a convincing
>> case? If that was his goal, then I'd have to say, he sure was a very poor
>> politician.
>
>Absolutely -- he was no politician, and he was no philosopher. I believe
>religious reform is what he was about.
Reform of the religious community or the reform of the spiritual being and
their relationship with the religious community?
>> >> Remember from the nondual
>> >> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
>> >
>> >Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand
>> >when society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly he
>> >was very mistaken.
>>
>> Mistaken, only if he really was trying to re-make (or take over) the
>> Jewish political power base. If that was the case, then, it makes
>> complete sense why the Romans put him to death. This of course would also
>> mean that his insight was not nondual.
>
>Not to totality (or perhaps "to permenance" would be a better way of putting
>it). I think Plotinus achieved a more pervasive attainment of the non-dual
>insight than Jesus did.
An experience at the nondual level that is integrated in a healthy manner
generally does not lead one to develop the motivation or wish for gaining
political or religious power.
>> I know of no nondual saint who has sought to obtain political
>> power, ever, in the history of the East or the West. In fact, all the
>> ones I have studied have in one form or another sought to transcend
>> politics. They may have been "a force" for social change (and that force
>> would effect the political situation) but politics, that was a game they
>> just didn't play.
>
>A contemplative to become known by the name of Saint Bernard (1090 - 1153)
>became the first abbot of Clairvaux in 1113 and the order thrived under his
>leadership, developing methods for attaining to mystical union with God.
>However, being a mystic and something of a religious zealot, Bernard
>condemned Peter Abelard for his introduction of rational thought into
>Christianity. This began a heated debate pitting Christian mysticism against
>Scholasticism. In 1146 Bernard convinced the kings of France and Germany to
>participate in the second Crusade. He also preached against the "heresies"
>which were being practised in Languedoc, South of France, eventually
>resulting in the Albigensian Crusade in which the Cathars were all murdered,
>even the Christians amongst them, on the instruction that "God will know his
>own".
As I said, I know of no nondual saint that has sought political power. Not
all mystics attain the nondual level of insight by direct personal experience
and many also lack the "right" intellectual understanding of the nondual. That
is if the tradition is nondual in orientation.
Though, what little I know of Bernard's life, he wasn't a bad guy. While he
had his worries about the heresies of the South, he was also a protector of
Jews and spoke out against the violence of the Crusaders. He "insist that
prayer, preaching, and the life of self-denial and worship should be the
militia of Church and state, monk and layman, alike," -- Oxford Dictionary of
the Christian Church, Bernard, St. He also warned about the trend toward
legalism within the papal court. A warning that wasn't heeded. Personally I
don't think that his preaching lead directly to the Albigensian Crusades. The
situation was very complex and the causal conditions were many. For one, many
of the heretic groups were being lead by fanatics who tended to go after the
clergy, that is if there were no Jews or Moslems available. The Church,
believing such groups were dangerous for society, would do their best to either
channel the energy of those groups in "positive directions," (like a nice
Crusade to the Holy Land, gets them out of Europe at lest) or try to get them
to go after each other.
What happened to the Carthars was a true horror. 15,000 killed, without
"showing mercy neither to order, nor age nor sex," in the capture of Bezier.
In a strange twist of fate the inquisition (the court system set up to deal
with heresies) was formed to stop the abuses that happened in the Albigensian
Crusades.
Some mystics, who have had profound mystical experiences, can do and have
done many horrible things. If their stage of development intellectually and
ethically, is only developed to the common mythic-rational level of the Middle
Ages, any peak mystical experience will be translated downward in
mythic-rational terms. This level is somewhat egoistic in social terms, but it
makes very good glue for a group.
"I have the truth of God. I am a child of the One True God. My people (my
social group), have the New Covenant with the One True God. If I have It, you
don't. If you don't have It, then you are against God and an agent of the
Devil."
Very simple logic. Either you have It or you don't -- No in between, no
middle way. Good and bad are clearly defined, black and white.
From such a mind set we get phrases like, "God will know his own."
It's one thing to form an elite based on actually attainment and really
ability, it is quite another to form an elite based only on accepted doctrine.
>> Personally I believe that the "the time close at hand" he envisioned was,
>> in a sense outside of time. I also think that possibly "the time close at
>> hand" was a refrence to his own coming death, and if he was truly a
>> nondual saint it isn't inconcievable that he knew the forces that he would
>> set in motion, by dying on the cross, would have much greater significance
>> than was obvious historically.
>
>Sure -- the Gospels are very much open to interpretation on this point. Your
>interpretation is just as viable as mine. I find this particular issue to be
>the most enigmatic issue in the whole story because of it's ambiguity.
Possibly.
>> I ask myself, "Self? What is the time, that is always close at hand?"
>> Perhaps, possibly, this ever-present nowness, this "self-reflective
>> awareness," that is the past, the present, and the future, and regardless
>> of the date or what time it happens to be, it "is always close at hand."
>> Perhaps, possibly, it is the suffering of right now, your own moment on
>> your own cross, and the ever-present potential of the spiritual
>> resurrection of the Christ within you.
>> From a nondual perspective, and generally speaking this is a universal
>> cross-cultural/cross-tradition ideal, enlightenment, anointment,
>> illumination, immortality, the absolute nondual truth is already the case.
>> There is nothing that needs to be done, nothing that needs to be added,
>> nothing that needs to be taken away. One Taste -- everything percieved in
>> form just the body of enlightenment; every sound heard just the song of
>> enlightenment; every thought arising just the mind of Buddha at play.
>> As The Gospel of Thomas says, "Heaven is on earth, yet man does not see
>> it."
>
>Perfect.
: )
>> As noted in the Gospels, many on the High Council were Pharisees. The
>> Pharisees were kind of like a middle-class, and most of the lawyers were
>> Pharisees. The Pharisees generally didn't like the Romans, but they
>> weren't a unified group either. There were many different schools of
>> biblical law within the Pharisees sub-set within Jewish society, ranging
>> from nationalists, liberals, to Zealots.
>> Perhaps Jesus was just one of the first people to tell lawyer jokes?
>> Interestingly, Mr. Johson points out that Jesus echos some of the
>> liberal Pharisees teachings in his own words. Jesus may not have been so
>> strongly anti-Pharisees as the Gospels make him out to be.
>
>My understanding is that the Pharisees weren't big until they filled the
>religious vacuum after the Romans dis-established the Sadducees during the
>first Jewish War. If this is correct then the references to the Pharisees in
>the Gospels must be a late interpretation placed on what was an oral
>tradition until the gospels were committed to text (70 - 100 CE). The upshot
>must surely be that Jesus himself may indeed not have been so strongly
>anti-Pharisees as the Gospels make him out to be.
I think this highlights one of the problems of using a religious text as a
source for historical understanding.
>> >"No sir, the parrot's not dead, it's just meditating".
>>
>> "LOOK YOU BLEEDING IDOIT!"
>> Hammers parrot repeatedly against the counter.
>> "THE PARROT IS DEAD!"
>> "Well, he is now. You just killed him."
>
>Given up the ghost, shaken off it's mortal coil, snuffed it ...
Hahahahahaha! Well, "Always look on the bright side of life."
>> >I find driving and watching TV conducive to remembering the Unconditioned
>> >in the midst of conditions (resting in a sky-like mind) -- but not both
>> >at the same time!
>>
>> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
>> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
>
>Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
But then how do I turn the pages as I read?
J.
andy-k
>
> >> >Sure -- there's something inherently unsociable about the pursuit of
the
> >> >non-dual insight, and so any attempt to socialise it must surely
result
> >> >in its dilution and even its loss.
> >>
> >> I really don't think there was an attempt made "from" a nondual
> >> perspective.
> >
> >Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but an attempt made from *the
pursuit
> >of* the non-dual insight makes sense to me.
>
> Hmm? I do believe that there were isolated groups and individuals, who
were
> "following a nondual course from within" a Christian belief system. I
just
> don't think that this was the form of Christianity that dominated and
became
> the orthodoxy. Paul's interpretation of Jesus' teaching were from the
mythic
> rational perspective, his insight was in "universalizing" and
"socializing" the
> teachings, within the context of a Christian community.
Sure, but I was thinking more of the faith aspect prior to any profound
religious experience (perhaps even grounded in superficial religious
experience). I think there are many groups that attempt to socialise this
faith aspect before they have "extricated themselves" so to speak ... like
trying to save others from drowning while they themselves are drowning in
the same pool. After any profound experience of non-duality, however, I
can't see why there would be any great motive to save others, since there
would be no distinction between self and other. Your insightful comments
would be appreciated.
> >> Paul was the one who really built the foundation that was to become
> >> Christianity, and I personally don't think that his insight was nondual
in
> >> nature.
> >
> >From what I know of him I'd agree, though I believe he did have some kind
of
> >experience. It's precisely this state of non-totality that I believe
leads
> >the subject to attempt to socialise it.
>
> I believe that he had a mystical experience, though I wouldn't call it
"a
> state of non-totality." Paul may have had a very profound experience, but
it
> was rooted within his mythic world view, rather than transcend it.
Language often fails me. What I was trying to imply was that there are
levels of religious experience that fall short of the non-dual insight. It
seems to me that it is all too often in the aftermath of these levels of
experience that attempts to socialise the practice are made. Truly
enlightened masters seem to hide themselves away in monasteries or mountain
retreats, teaching only their most ardent students, without any wish to
extend out beyond that microcosm.
> > Perhaps Plato is the prime example.
> >Augustine also -- his "Confessions" provide an insight into his
experience
> >("Late have I loved thee, O beauty so ancient and so new. Late have I
loved
> >thee, for thou wert within me and I outside"). He went on to instigate
> >revolutionary changes to the Catholic Church, and became extremely
> >anti-Pelagian and anti-Arian. How could this have happened "from" a
> >non-dual perspective? (Rhetorical question -- I'm actually agreeing with
> >you).
>
> Yep. Though, history claims that Augustine (unless I'm confused,
thinking of
> this, it may have been Thomas who had this experience), toward the end of
his
> life, had some kind of mystical experience that made him put down the pen
> forever after. All we know are hints, since he never wrote about the
> experience or anything else again. Some claim that he said that his
experience
> was such that words would be meaningless if one attempted to describe it,
and
> that the experience also made all of the words he had written worthless.
> Now that sounds like it "could have been" a nondual level experience.
You're referring to Thomas Aquinas. After writing great tomes upon religion
and its practice, and part-way through his opus magnum the Summa Theologiae,
he downed-quill claiming to have had and experience that caused him to
realise that "all I have written is as straw". He never completed the works,
writing not one more word until his death some six months later. Sounds a
likely candidate for the non-dual experience to me too.
> >> >> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was
recruiting
> >> >> for an alternate society, not even one to replace the Jewish
authority.
> >> >> Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
> >> >
> >> >Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I
can
> >> >make a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
> >>
> >> Hmmm? Perhaps you could make a strong case, but would it be a
convincing
> >> case? If that was his goal, then I'd have to say, he sure was a very
poor
> >> politician.
> >
> >Absolutely -- he was no politician, and he was no philosopher. I believe
> >religious reform is what he was about.
>
> Reform of the religious community or the reform of the spiritual being
and
> their relationship with the religious community?
I get the impression that he was trying to establish an alternative
community grounded in the religious insight rather than in scripture and its
interpretation (as Judaism was at that time), with the intention of
replacing the latter.
> >> >> Remember from the nondual
> >> >> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
> >> >
> >> >Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand
> >> >when society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly
he
> >> >was very mistaken.
> >>
> >> Mistaken, only if he really was trying to re-make (or take over) the
> >> Jewish political power base. If that was the case, then, it makes
> >> complete sense why the Romans put him to death. This of course would
also
> >> mean that his insight was not nondual.
> >
> >Not to totality (or perhaps "to permenance" would be a better way of
putting
> >it). I think Plotinus achieved a more pervasive attainment of the
non-dual
> >insight than Jesus did.
>
> An experience at the nondual level that is integrated in a healthy
manner
> generally does not lead one to develop the motivation or wish for gaining
> political or religious power.
Agreed, and this is clear in the case of Plotinus who gives a strong
impression that he doesn't really care two hoots for the world and all its
concerns. However, I get the impression that Jesus was unhappy with the
existing religious milieu and wanted to set the train back on the rails so
to speak.
Sounds like you're in agreement with my sentiments above concerning the
different levels of religious experience. So you're claiming that those
individuals that attain to the true non-dual insight would renounce worldly
concerns, and their effects upon the world would be incidental. This, then,
would exclude the likes of Augustine and Bernard almost by definition, since
they continued to engage with the world. I can buy that. It just leaves me
in a bit of a quandry about Jesus.
> >> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
> >> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
> >
> >Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
>
> But then how do I turn the pages as I read?
Hmm... is this a bit like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
J.
In article <WMaK8.18512$g63.3...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020601150255...@mb-fy.aol.com...
>>
>> >> >Sure -- there's something inherently unsociable about the pursuit of
>> >> >the non-dual insight, and so any attempt to socialise it must surely
>> >> >result in its dilution and even its loss.
>> >>
>> >> I really don't think there was an attempt made "from" a nondual
>> >> perspective.
>> >
>> >Sounds like a contradiction in terms, but an attempt made from *the
>> >pursuit of* the non-dual insight makes sense to me.
>>
>> Hmm? I do believe that there were isolated groups and individuals, who
>> were "following a nondual course from within" a Christian belief system. I
>> just don't think that this was the form of Christianity that dominated and
>> became the orthodoxy. Paul's interpretation of Jesus' teaching were from
the
>> mythic rational perspective, his insight was in "universalizing" and
>> "socializing" the teachings, within the context of a Christian community.
>
>Sure, but I was thinking more of the faith aspect prior to any profound
>religious experience (perhaps even grounded in superficial religious
>experience).
Faith maybe necessary for a religious experience, but it isn't needed to have
a sprirtual experience. It can be helpful, but it isn't a mandatory condition.
> I think there are many groups that attempt to socialise this
>faith aspect before they have "extricated themselves" so to speak ... like
>trying to save others from drowning while they themselves are drowning in
>the same pool.
Oh yes, the "true believer," those with "blind faith." Usually these are of
an already established religion, rather than individuals with something
original.
> After any profound experience of non-duality, however, I
>can't see why there would be any great motive to save others, since there
>would be no distinction between self and other. Your insightful comments
>would be appreciated.
Ah, this is a common miss-application of nondual insight. In a way, turn
inside out, what you just said. "Since there would be no distinction between
self and other," how could you not seek to save others. Others are you, and
you are others. This is a very complex concept to get across, since by it's
nature it isn't really "a concept." It is very easy to fall into sophistry or
nihilism. While there are many systems of utilizing the intellect, logical
inference, and words to help lead one to an understanding of the nondual
insight, only to a degree does this help in actually having a nondual
experience. Of course misunderstanding the nondual is a huge obstacle to
having a nondual experience. Better to relax and just let go of trying to
force an understanding.
There's the old Jewish/Christian/Moslem saying (paraphrasing), "To save the
life of one person is to save the world."
>> >> Paul was the one who really built the foundation that was to become
>> >> Christianity, and I personally don't think that his insight was nondual
>> >> in nature.
>> >
>> >From what I know of him I'd agree, though I believe he did have some kind
>> >of experience. It's precisely this state of non-totality that I believe
>> >leads the subject to attempt to socialise it.
>>
>> I believe that he had a mystical experience, though I wouldn't call it
>> "a state of non-totality." Paul may have had a very profound experience,
but
>> it was rooted within his mythic world view, rather than transcend it.
>
>Language often fails me. What I was trying to imply was that there are
>levels of religious experience that fall short of the non-dual insight. It
>seems to me that it is all too often in the aftermath of these levels of
>experience that attempts to socialise the practice are made.
Agreed.
>Truly enlightened masters seem to hide themselves away in monasteries or
>mountain retreats, teaching only their most ardent students, without any wish
to
>extend out beyond that microcosm.
When the conditions are right enlightened masters just appear. When
conditions are not conducive they are not apparent, but they're still out
there. They appear hidden, but that doesn't mean they aren't present. The
microcosom of the truly enlightened is without boundary and has no center.
There is a Chinese series of pictures called the Zen Ox Herding Pictures that
are considered to be an outline of the path to enlightenment. The picture that
symbolizes the nondual is an empty circle. The picture that symbolizes the
master "after" enlightenment shows the ox herder riding the ox into the market.
The more I thought about that, the more I thought it was Aquinas.
>> >> >> I believe that he was recruiting, but I don't think he was
>> >> >> recruiting for an alternate society, not even one to replace the
Jewish
>> >> >> authority. Jesus's rhetoric is almost void of politics.
>> >> >
>> >> >Of course the gospels may be variously interpreted, but I believe I
>> >> >can make a strong case for Jesus having these aims.
>> >>
>> >> Hmmm? Perhaps you could make a strong case, but would it be a
>> >> convincing case? If that was his goal, then I'd have to say, he sure was
>> >> a very poor politician.
>> >
>> >Absolutely -- he was no politician, and he was no philosopher. I believe
>> >religious reform is what he was about.
>>
>> Reform of the religious community or the reform of the spiritual being
>> and their relationship with the religious community?
>
>I get the impression that he was trying to establish an alternative
>community grounded in the religious insight rather than in scripture and its
>interpretation (as Judaism was at that time), with the intention of
>replacing the latter.
Interesting ... not my own impression. Can't say I remember any text
attributed to Jesus denying scriptural interpretation. I just don't see that
his motivation was based on a power play. Paul on the other hand did break
with the Judaic laws regarding circumcision and the dietary rules. Granted, if
he hadn't there probably wouldn't have been a Christian religion as we know it
today.
>> >> >> Remember from the nondual
>> >> >> perspective, ultimately there are no sides.
>> >> >
>> >> >Sure, but my interpretation is that he envisioned a time close at hand
>> >> >when society in general would accommodate the non-dual insight. Sadly
>> >> >he was very mistaken.
>> >>
>> >> Mistaken, only if he really was trying to re-make (or take over) the
>> >> Jewish political power base. If that was the case, then, it makes
>> >> complete sense why the Romans put him to death. This of course would
>> >> also mean that his insight was not nondual.
>> >
>> >Not to totality (or perhaps "to permenance" would be a better way of
>> >putting it). I think Plotinus achieved a more pervasive attainment of the
>> >non-dual insight than Jesus did.
>>
>> An experience at the nondual level that is integrated in a healthy
>> manner generally does not lead one to develop the motivation or wish for
gaining
>> political or religious power.
>
>Agreed, and this is clear in the case of Plotinus who gives a strong
>impression that he doesn't really care two hoots for the world and all its
>concerns. However, I get the impression that Jesus was unhappy with the
>existing religious milieu and wanted to set the train back on the rails so
>to speak.
I imagine taking care of orphans was a much more satisfying job for Plotinus.
As for Jesus being "unhappy with the existing religious milieu," I'm sure he
was, but that is the nature of existence. As for him wanting to "set the train
back on the rails," I'd agree with that, but not in the sense of fixing the
problem politically. I think he was trying to help humanity see that "Heaven
is on earth."
Yes I agree that there are levels to/of religious experience.
> So you're claiming that those individuals that attain to the true non-dual
insight >would renounce worldly concerns,
Well, they don't turn their backs on the world, they transcend worldly
concerns without ignoring the concerns of those within the world. One of the
great modern masters of Tibetan Buddhism is Thinley Norbu Rinpoche. He is
revered as a scholar, teacher, meditation master, and one of the best plumbers
in the Tibetan refugee community. This is a guy who could easily live his life
in complete seclusion being waited on hand and foot. Yet, if your toilet is
backed up or septic tank is having problems he is the one you want to call.
Being hip deep in crap is no big deal for him. Picking up a shovel, laying
pipe, or cleaning out the crap in your toilet, sure he can help you with that.
> and their effects upon the world would be incidental.
No. Their effects upon the world are subtle, but not incidental. The effect
of their presence within the world is great and deep, just not big and loud.
>This, then, would exclude the likes of Augustine and Bernard almost by
definition, >since they continued to engage with the world. I can buy that.
Being engaged with the world doesn't, by definition, exclude one from being a
nondual saint. Its continuing to play the games of the world. While I believe
that Augustine's level of spiritual insight never reached the nondual level, I
don't know enough about St. Bernard to make that same claim. I tend to think
that he didn't reach a nondual level of insight, since the Christian mystism of
the Middle Ages didn't have a nondual orientation, but there were exceptions to
that rule so it is possible.
>It just leaves me in a bit of a quandry about Jesus.
Hmmm ... let go of the politics and a will for power and the quandry will
fade away. Though there will still be questions. Quandries about other things.
If he wasn't motivated politically, and he wasn't after riches, what was he
trying to do? What if -- he lived his life and died on the cross for a purpose
that transcended the usual motivations of the "every-day-man." Oh, and sorry,
I don't accept that Jesus died on the cross simply for my sins. Limping along
with the orthodoxy doesn't give me a "get out of hell for free" ticket.
Changing the beliefs in my head, doesn't transform my mind. They're just more
objects to play with. Sure it can be fun and exciting learning new and
profound thoughts, but they're just more reflections to chase.
>> >> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
>> >> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
>> >
>> >Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
>>
>> But then how do I turn the pages as I read?
>
>Hmm... is this a bit like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
"Wooashhhwooashhwooashhwooashh!" Of course, you have to clap very hard to
really hear it.
; )
andy-k
>
> >Sure, but I was thinking more of the faith aspect prior to any profound
> >religious experience (perhaps even grounded in superficial religious
> >experience).
>
> Faith maybe necessary for a religious experience, but it isn't needed to
> have a sprirtual experience. It can be helpful, but it isn't a mandatory
> condition.
Faith still provides the foundations of any kind of organised religion,
since the majority of the followers of any religion will not be privy to the
non-dual insight themselves, and must take it on faith that there is
something worth working towards. Unfortunately this faith aspect has become
corrupted in the Christian tradition, into the assertion that faith alone is
sufficient for salvation (after Paul, as you rightly point out).
> > After any profound experience of non-duality, however, I
> >can't see why there would be any great motive to save others, since there
> >would be no distinction between self and other. Your insightful comments
> >would be appreciated.
>
> Ah, this is a common miss-application of nondual insight. In a way, turn
> inside out, what you just said. "Since there would be no distinction
> between self and other," how could you not seek to save others. Others
> are you, and you are others. This is a very complex concept to get
> across, since by it's nature it isn't really "a concept." It is very easy
> to fall into sophistry or nihilism. While there are many systems of
> utilizing the intellect, logical inference, and words to help lead one to
> an understanding of the nondual insight, only to a degree does this help
> in actually having a nondual experience. Of course misunderstanding the
> nondual is a huge obstacle to having a nondual experience. Better to
> relax and just let go of trying to force an understanding.
> There's the old Jewish/Christian/Moslem saying (paraphrasing), "To save
> the life of one person is to save the world."
This explains the Mahayana notion of a Bodhisattva -- one who renounces
Nirvana until every human has become enlightened. It doesn't seem to be the
case for Theravada Buddhism though, so it must have been a late development
in Buddhism. I know that Mahayana Buddhists refer to Theravada Buddhism as
"Hinayana" Buddhism, the "lesser vehicle" -- I wonder if this is a case of
"our gang's better than your gang". I'm reluctant to take sides in this
debate, but it seems to me that since there is no distinction between self
and other in the Ultimate Reality, by attaining to enlightenment the whole
of the cosmos should also attain to enlightenment, including the rest of
humanity. This is clearly not the case from the perspective of the
unenlightened person even after somebody else has attained to enlightenment,
so I'm inclined to think that there's something amiss in the whole idea.
Like trying to force a round peg into a square hole I think -- trying to
force the inconceivable into concepts. Your statement "better to relax and
just let go of trying to force an understanding" hits the nail on the head,
but my problem is that in order to move forward I have to have the consent
of my rational faculty, which must ultimately be the consent to leave the
rational faculty behind. Thus my faith must be grounded in reason by
eliminating the irrational first off. Needless to say that I don't consider
the notion of a non-dual Ultimate Reality to be irrational -- rather it is
*arational* -- not admitting of refutation by intellectual argument, but
neither admitting of increased confidence by intellectual argument alone.
Thus one requires faith in order to pursue the issue to its experiential
conclusion.
> >I get the impression that he was trying to establish an alternative
> >community grounded in the religious insight rather than in scripture and
> >its interpretation (as Judaism was at that time), with the intention of
> >replacing the latter.
>
> Interesting ... not my own impression. Can't say I remember any text
> attributed to Jesus denying scriptural interpretation.
> I just don't see that his motivation was based on a power play.
I can think of a few references, but I'm reluctant to get into this
discussion since I think it takes us off on a tangent. However, I would like
to continue this discussion another time.
> >> An experience at the nondual level that is integrated in a healthy
> >> manner generally does not lead one to develop the motivation or wish
> >> for gaining political or religious power.
> >
> >Agreed, and this is clear in the case of Plotinus who gives a strong
> >impression that he doesn't really care two hoots for the world and all
> >its concerns. However, I get the impression that Jesus was unhappy with
> >the existing religious milieu and wanted to set the train back on the
> >rails so to speak.
>
> I imagine taking care of orphans was a much more satisfying job for
> Plotinus. As for Jesus being "unhappy with the existing religious milieu,"
> I'm sure he was, but that is the nature of existence. As for him wanting
> to "set the train back on the rails," I'd agree with that, but not in the
> sense of fixing the problem politically. I think he was trying to help
> humanity see that "Heaven is on earth."
Would you be interested to hear the support for my argument at a later
juncture? I'd be interested in your feedback.
> > So you're claiming that those individuals that attain to the true
> > non-dual insight would renounce worldly concerns,
>
> Well, they don't turn their backs on the world, they transcend worldly
> concerns without ignoring the concerns of those within the world. One of
> the great modern masters of Tibetan Buddhism is Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.
> He is revered as a scholar, teacher, meditation master, and one of the
> best plumbers in the Tibetan refugee community. This is a guy who could
> easily live his life in complete seclusion being waited on hand and foot.
> Yet, if your toilet is backed up or septic tank is having problems he is
> the one you want to call. Being hip deep in crap is no big deal for him.
> Picking up a shovel, laying pipe, or cleaning out the crap in your toilet,
> sure he can help you with that.
Sounds very much like Plotinus -- reading the Enneads one gets the
impression that he'd be concerned to help an old lady across the road, but
that he would be completely unconcerned if the next minute she got squashed
by a truck. But there's a big difference between doing a bit of plumbing, or
helping an old lady across the road, and trying to start a social avalanche.
> > and their effects upon the world would be incidental.
>
> No. Their effects upon the world are subtle, but not incidental. The
> effect of their presence within the world is great and deep, just not big
> and loud.
My understanding is that they affect the world by virtue of their presence
and not by virtue of their effort. This kind of gets into the Chinese idea
of wu-wei. My interpretation of certain tracts in the Enneads is that the
cosmos would be unfolding optimally if it weren't for the human ego -- the
ego interferes in the unfolding and causes it to be sub-optimal. The
enlightened individual, having transcended the egoic boundary (between self
and not-self), still acts purposefully since he is part of the unfolding
cosmos -- it's just that his actions are not the result of desire or
premeditation, and are in tune with that unfolding. I find certain parts of
the Secret of the Golden Flower in very good agreement with this theme.
> >This, then, would exclude the likes of Augustine and Bernard almost by
> >definition, since they continued to engage with the world. I can buy
> >that.
>
> Being engaged with the world doesn't, by definition, exclude one from
> being a nondual saint.
I take your point. If my interpretation of the Enneads is correct (above),
then the enlightened individual's continuing purposeful behaviour would be
classed as continuing engagement with the world.
> >It just leaves me in a bit of a quandry about Jesus.
>
> Hmmm ... let go of the politics and a will for power and the quandry will
> fade away. Though there will still be questions. Quandries about other
> things. If he wasn't motivated politically, and he wasn't after riches,
> what was he trying to do? What if -- he lived his life and died on the
> cross for a purpose that transcended the usual motivations of the
> "every-day-man."
I don't see his activity as political or power-hunger, but rather as an
attempt to rectify a badly corrupted form of organised religion that was
leading its followers away from the goal rather than towards it -- i.e. as
attempting to start a social avalance. It seems the ultimate irony to me
that the organised religion he inspired has ended up just as badly
corrupted. When I use the word "corrupted" in this sense, what I mean is
that it had (or has) become what Wilber refers to as the horizontal aspect
of religion, but has lost emphasis on the vertical aspect (what I previously
referred to as "diluted"), and in doing so has effectively severed itself
from its own root.
> Oh, and sorry, I don't accept that Jesus died on the cross simply for my
> sins. Limping along with the orthodoxy doesn't give me a "get out of hell
> for free" ticket. Changing the beliefs in my head, doesn't transform my
> mind. They're just more objects to play with. Sure it can be fun and
> exciting learning new and profound thoughts, but they're just more
> reflections to chase.
The Vicarious Atonement seems just as absurd to me too, along with the
Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Ascension.
> >> >> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
> >> >> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
> >> >
> >> >Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
> >>
> >> But then how do I turn the pages as I read?
> >
> >Hmm... is this a bit like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
>
> "Wooashhhwooashhwooashhwooashh!" Of course, you have to clap very hard
> to really hear it.
Don't they have two hands where he comes from?
J.
In article <NP8L8.33342$g63.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020603162236...@mb-mh.aol.com...
>>
>
>Faith still provides the foundations of any kind of organised religion,
>since the majority of the followers of any religion will not be privy to the
>non-dual insight themselves, and must take it on faith that there is
>something worth working towards.
I guess it comes down to the kind and degree of faith a given religious
organization seeks to cultivate within their followers. For example, I may not
be privy to the insight needed to apply the skills of a black belt in the
martial art I study, but I get to see with my own eyes black belts manifesting
that insight every time I walk in the Dojo. I have also watched many
individuals progress through the training to receive their own black belt or to
move up in the dan ranks -- and "da da" they manifest that quality of movement,
the insight of a black belt. So I have faith (confidence) in my teachers, in
the training, and in my fellow practitioners.
Following a nondual spiritual tradition is just like this. I may lack the
insight of the nondual master, but I can see that insight manifest itself in
that master's actions. I can watch those who have practiced improve, and I can
also see the improvement in myself as I progress through the training. All of
these give me the confidence (faith) that this stuff really works. Faith in
the dogmatically Christian sense hasn't entered into the equation. My
confidence grows as I gain more experience, but this growth is based on
experience, not on faith.
Also -- if I have no faith and I am plagued by doubt, I won't be condemned
for my lack of faith, I'd probably be told to meditate on that doubt. To make
that doubt my best friend, so to speak, and this can become a very powerful
practice. Who exactly is it that doubts?
>Unfortunately this faith aspect has become corrupted in the Christian
tradition,
>into the assertion that faith alone is sufficient for salvation (after Paul,
as you
>rightly point out).
Yep. The Christian tradition demands faith before experience, and even then
the practices that would naturally lead to real faith aren't taught or
practiced by mainstream modern Christianity.
>> > After any profound experience of non-duality, however, I
>> >can't see why there would be any great motive to save others, since there
>> >would be no distinction between self and other. Your insightful comments
>> >would be appreciated.
>>
>> Ah, this is a common miss-application of nondual insight. In a way, turn
>> inside out, what you just said. "Since there would be no distinction
>> between self and other," how could you not seek to save others. Others
>> are you, and you are others. This is a very complex concept to get
>> across, since by it's nature it isn't really "a concept." It is very easy
>> to fall into sophistry or nihilism. While there are many systems of
>> utilizing the intellect, logical inference, and words to help lead one to
>> an understanding of the nondual insight, only to a degree does this help
>> in actually having a nondual experience. Of course misunderstanding the
>> nondual is a huge obstacle to having a nondual experience. Better to
>> relax and just let go of trying to force an understanding.
>> There's the old Jewish/Christian/Moslem saying (paraphrasing), "To save
>> the life of one person is to save the world."
>
>This explains the Mahayana notion of a Bodhisattva -- one who renounces
>Nirvana until every human has become enlightened.
To a degree, yes that is the case. Technically, someone following the
Mahayana path to enlightenment, doesn't become a Bodhisattva until one has
attained the level of insight of a Bodhisattva -- the awakening to nondual
insight. Usually this is called in English, "the thought of enlightenment."
Bodhi = awakened + Chitta = mind, so together we get, "awakened mind." But
what is this mind awakened to? In the Tibetan traditions, bodhichitta is
usually seen as having the dual aspects of relative bodhichitta and absolute
bodhichitta.
Relative bodhichitta is the "wish-intention" to gain complete enlightenment
for the sake of all sentient beings, as you say above. As the Flower Ornament
Scriptures states (and this is a repeated phrase throughout the scripture) "To
become the best of the best." This "wish" is supported and cultivated by
compassion and the practice of the Six Paramitas -- "perfections" (generosity,
patience, self-discipline, joyful effort, concentration, and wisdom).
You seek to be "the best of the best," not for personal reasons. You aren't
feeding your ego here. In fact, you will be starving your ego, while at the
same time you are strengthening self-confidence, self-discipline, and personal
power. You seek to be "the best of the best," so you can protect, help, and
teach the rest, until they are also "the best of the best." There is no trying
to be better than some "other," this is about awakening to our own inherent
potential -- buddha-nature. The "best of" oneself is the inherent potential
in all of us to become "the best of the best." This potential is in all of us;
we only need to actualize it by putting it into practice.
Relative bodhichitta is also defined as the "entry into meditation," with
the purpose of acquiring the appropriate means to actualize this wish.
Generally this is referring to practices that cultivate the conditions that
contribute to the arising of absolute bodhichitta.
There is also a threefold way of understanding bodhichitta as the union of
loving-kindness, compassion, and insight/method. The three together cultivates
and encourages the growth and fruition of absolute bodhichitta awareness. At
first as a peak experience that comes and goes, then with continuous practice
as a seamless trait of being.
Absolute bodhichitta is seen as the vision of the true nature of phenomena,
what is called sunyata and usually translated as "emptiness or void." Usually
the defining difference between the many different schools of Mahayana Buddhist
philosophy is how they define sunyata. With the first awakening to sunyata,
the essence of bodhichitta, you begin to progress through the Ten Bhumis and
this is when you could be rightly called a Bodhisattva.
Bhumis means: ground or land. The Ten Bhumis are like ten lands you have to
cross on your journey to Complete Buddhahood, the Eleventh land. Though, when
you reach the Eleventh land, you realize that the Eleventh Bhumi is the One
Earth that supports All of the Ten Lands. The Eleventh Bhumi of Complete
Buddhahood, is inherently, essentially the same ground as the First Bhumi, and
will be the same at each Bhumi. Simplistically, the planet Earth doesn't
change, just by going across state (stage) lines.
>It doesn't seem to be the case for Theravada Buddhism though, so it must have
>been a late development in Buddhism.
Well that depends on whom you talk to. All Buddhist traditions explain that
their tradition has been handed down from teacher to student and that the first
teacher was Siddartha Shakyamuni, the Buddha. Beyond that, the priests will
argue and the monks will practice.
My own opinion is that regardless of what you believe, if you are basically
humble rather than see yourself as better than others, seek to help rather than
harm, tend to give rather than take, and choose to speak the truth (teach)
rather than lie, well in my eyes I'd call you a Bodhisattva.
> I know that Mahayana Buddhists refer to Theravada Buddhism as
>"Hinayana" Buddhism, the "lesser vehicle" -- I wonder if this is a case of
>"our gang's better than your gang".
Most Tibetan masters do not technically consider the Theravadan tradition a
Hinayana tradition. Tibetan Buddhism is called a Mahayana tradition, but its
root is the essence of the Hinayana insight, and its fruit is the Vajrayana
nondual wisdom. None of the specifically Hinayana traditions ever established
a home in Tibet, but that is because no one from a Hinayana tradition ever went
to Tibet. The term "lesser (really 'small') vehicle" is a reference to (1)
personal liberation, and (2) that it is a monastic vehicle that few can follow.
The term "greater vehicle" is a reference to (1) Complete Buddhahood, and (2)
that it is a vehicle open to all beings, monastic and lay practitioners.
> I'm reluctant to take sides in this debate, but it seems to me that since
there
>is no distinction between self and other in the Ultimate Reality, by attaining
to >enlightenment the whole of the cosmos should also attain to enlightenment,
>including the rest of humanity. This is clearly not the case from the
perspective
>of the unenlightened person even after somebody else has attained to
>enlightenment, so I'm inclined to think that there's something amiss in the
whole >idea.
Well, it really is a difference in perspective, or I could say maturity.
Try explaining quantum mechanics to someone who has no understanding of basic
physics. Say, some primitive indian on an island in the Pacific, at the
archaic magical level. Newton was a genus, but Einstein was smarter, yet
without Newton would there have been an Einstein? Still Newtonian physics is
just fine for the basic mundane problems of engineering.
>Like trying to force a round peg into a square hole I think -- trying to
>force the inconceivable into concepts.
Traditionally the Buddha's teachings are said to number 84,000, one for each
kind of person, or one for each kind of obscuration that a person can suffer
from. Some who are intellectually driven need the concepts to transcend the
concepts; others, who are driven by faith, concepts that are purely
intellectual just get in their way of understanding.
When Joseph Campbell visited Japan for an intra-faith religious conference,
he noticed how all of the monks that practiced a spiritual discipline,
regardless of the tradition, tended to gather together and have fun, while the
priests and ministers tended to get into arguments over dogma.
He tells the story of a minister who was confused by the doctrine of
Shintoism and with his questioning he received the answer, "No doctrine, we
just dance."
>Your statement "better to relax and just let go of trying to force an
understanding" >hits the nail on the head, but my problem is that in order to
move forward I have to >have the consent of my rational faculty, which must
ultimately be the consent to >leave the rational faculty behind. Thus my faith
must be grounded in reason by
>eliminating the irrational first off. Needless to say that I don't consider
the notion of >a non-dual Ultimate Reality to be irrational -- rather it is
*arational* -- not admitting >of refutation by intellectual argument, but
neither admitting of increased confidence >by intellectual argument alone.
If your faith is grounded in pure reason alone, then it is nothing more than
dry algebra, but if it is also grounded in direct experience, well then, that's
a horse of a different color. Granted I needed a clear intellectual
explanation to help my own understanding also.
>Thus one requires faith in order to pursue the issue to its experiential
>conclusion.
Perhaps this is only a difference in word usage. The word "faith" in the
West tends to imply an anti-logic that accepts something as a given certainty,
without any evidence to support that conclusion. I don't have that kind of
faith, so I tend to use the word confidence instead. I have confidence in the
teachings because I have experienced their effectiveness. I have studied the
evidence, and like a good scientist, I have replicated the appropriate
experiments. And so far, it all seems to agree with what the saints have been
saying all along. The rest of humanity (those that have not studied the
evidence and have not repeated the experiments) may not see "Heaven on earth,"
but the rest of humanity is still in "Heaven on earth." From the Mahayana
perspective, "attaining to enlightenment the whole of the cosmos ... attain[s]
to enlightenment, including the rest of humanity." Just because others don't
see this doesn't mean I should treat them any less.
>> Interesting ... not my own impression. Can't say I remember any text
>> attributed to Jesus denying scriptural interpretation.
>> I just don't see that his motivation was based on a power play.
>
>I can think of a few references, but I'm reluctant to get into this
>discussion since I think it takes us off on a tangent. However, I would like
>to continue this discussion another time.
Sure. Probably better to weave this part of our discussion into another
thread.
>> >Agreed, and this is clear in the case of Plotinus who gives a strong
>> >impression that he doesn't really care two hoots for the world and all
>> >its concerns. However, I get the impression that Jesus was unhappy with
>> >the existing religious milieu and wanted to set the train back on the
>> >rails so to speak.
>>
>> I imagine taking care of orphans was a much more satisfying job for
>> Plotinus. As for Jesus being "unhappy with the existing religious milieu,"
>> I'm sure he was, but that is the nature of existence. As for him wanting
>> to "set the train back on the rails," I'd agree with that, but not in the
>> sense of fixing the problem politically. I think he was trying to help
>> humanity see that "Heaven is on earth."
>
>Would you be interested to hear the support for my argument at a later
>juncture? I'd be interested in your feedback.
Sure.
>> > So you're claiming that those individuals that attain to the true
>> > non-dual insight would renounce worldly concerns,
>>
>> Well, they don't turn their backs on the world, they transcend worldly
>> concerns without ignoring the concerns of those within the world. One of
>> the great modern masters of Tibetan Buddhism is Thinley Norbu Rinpoche.
>> He is revered as a scholar, teacher, meditation master, and one of the
>> best plumbers in the Tibetan refugee community. This is a guy who could
>> easily live his life in complete seclusion being waited on hand and foot.
>> Yet, if your toilet is backed up or septic tank is having problems he is
>> the one you want to call. Being hip deep in crap is no big deal for him.
>> Picking up a shovel, laying pipe, or cleaning out the crap in your toilet,
>> sure he can help you with that.
>
>Sounds very much like Plotinus -- reading the Enneads one gets the
>impression that he'd be concerned to help an old lady across the road, but
>that he would be completely unconcerned if the next minute she got squashed
>by a truck. But there's a big difference between doing a bit of plumbing, or
>helping an old lady across the road, and trying to start a social avalanche.
I would say that Plotinus would still be concerned, he would just be
unattached to the mundane appearance of the outcome. Though you are right,
starting a social avalanche would be a big difference, though for myself that
difference is named Paul.
>> No. Their effects upon the world are subtle, but not incidental. The
>> effect of their presence within the world is great and deep, just not big
>> and loud.
>
>My understanding is that they affect the world by virtue of their presence
>and not by virtue of their effort.
Yes, absolutely. As long as you understand that, that effortlessness is not
inactivity. The Buddha didn't just gain Enlightenment and sat there under his
tree. If he had, we wouldn't be talking about him now. He got up and went out
into the world and taught for some forty odd years. Like Jesus, his actions
made such an impact on the world, that we still feel his presence.
>This kind of gets into the Chinese idea of wu-wei.
The effortlessness of a sage is not inactivity. The stillness of a saint is
not just sitting there. Wu-wei is, so to speak, alive and dynamic. Imagine a
sailboat that moves without the need of a wind.
> My interpretation of certain tracts in the Enneads is that the cosmos would
be >unfolding optimally if it weren't for the human ego -- the ego interferes
in the >unfolding and causes it to be sub-optimal. The enlightened individual,
having >transcended the egoic boundary (between self and not-self), still acts
purposefully >since he is part of the unfolding cosmos -- it's just that his
actions are not the >result of desire or premeditation, and are in tune with
that unfolding. I find certain >parts of the Secret of the Golden Flower in
very good agreement with this theme.
: ) "And this monkey bows."
>> >This, then, would exclude the likes of Augustine and Bernard almost by
>> >definition, since they continued to engage with the world. I can buy
>> >that.
>I take your point. If my interpretation of the Enneads is correct (above),
>then the enlightened individual's continuing purposeful behaviour would be
>classed as continuing engagement with the world.
Yep. Just because you gain enlightenment, doesn't mean you can stop wiping
your bottom after you have taken a crap.
>> >It just leaves me in a bit of a quandry about Jesus.
>>
>> Hmmm ... let go of the politics and a will for power and the quandry will
>> fade away. Though there will still be questions. Quandries about other
>> things. If he wasn't motivated politically, and he wasn't after riches,
>> what was he trying to do? What if -- he lived his life and died on the
>> cross for a purpose that transcended the usual motivations of the
>> "every-day-man."
>
>I don't see his activity as political or power-hunger, but rather as an
>attempt to rectify a badly corrupted form of organised religion that was
>leading its followers away from the goal rather than towards it -- i.e. as
>attempting to start a social avalance.
Politics and religion (along with science and art) was fused together during
Jesus' lifetime. Trying to rectify one would have been trying to change the
other. I would also have to ask which form of Judaism was he trying to fix?
The temple cult or one of the other 23 possible sects current in his life time.
>It seems the ultimate irony to me that the organised religion he inspired has
>ended up just as badly corrupted. When I use the word "corrupted" in this
sense, >what I mean is that it had (or has) become what Wilber refers to as the
horizontal >aspect of religion, but has lost emphasis on the vertical aspect
(what I previously
>referred to as "diluted"), and in doing so has effectively severed itself
>from its own root.
I still believe Christianity has done much good in the world, in spite of
what I perceive as faults. Though, I do agree that mainstream Christianity
only focuses on and emphasis the horizontal. When I stopped believing in
Christianity, I didn't stop believing in Jesus. I stopped buying the dogma of
the Church.
>> Oh, and sorry, I don't accept that Jesus died on the cross simply for my
>> sins. Limping along with the orthodoxy doesn't give me a "get out of hell
>> for free" ticket. Changing the beliefs in my head, doesn't transform my
>> mind. They're just more objects to play with. Sure it can be fun and
>> exciting learning new and profound thoughts, but they're just more
>> reflections to chase.
>
>The Vicarious Atonement seems just as absurd to me too, along with the
>Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Ascension.
Oh the "Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the
Ascension," those I can believe. Of course, I would be interpreting those
terms from a symbolic mystical perspective. Sure that can happen .., but
Atonement, well, it is possible, but it just doesn't happen because you change
your mind or find a new idea to play with.
>> >> >> I can read while I'm walking, but not while I drive or ride a bike.
>> >> >> It's really hard to hold the book when I drive.
>> >> >
>> >> >Tried strapping it to the sun visor?
>> >>
>> >> But then how do I turn the pages as I read?
>> >
>> >Hmm... is this a bit like "what is the sound of one hand clapping?"
>>
>> "Wooashhhwooashhwooashhwooashh!" Of course, you have to clap very hard
>> to really hear it.
>
>Don't they have two hands where he comes from?
LOL!
And here we have an excellent example of a "call back." A comedic technique
were one, in a surprising way, repeats the punch line (or a variation of the
punch line) of a joke said earlier in a routine. You "call back" the punch
line, but the context will have changed from its original in a slightly odd
direction making it more absurd.
Tradition holds that Bodhidharma's (the man who brought Chan (Zen) to China)
first student and eventually dharma heir, cut off his own arm, to get his
attention and to show how much he was willing to give. Bodhidharma picked up
his bloody arm off the ground and hit him with it. That was the beginning of a
beautiful relationship. ; )
From 'The Vimalakirti Sutra' Chapter 9 'Entering The Gate of Nondualism'
At that time Vimalakirti said to the various bodhisattvas, "Sirs, how does
the bodhisattva go about entering the gate of nondualism? Let each one explain
as he understands it."
[Thirty different bodhisattvas stepped forward, each in turn explaining their
own understanding of entering the gate of nondualism. They would first explain
what constituted a dualism and then explain how to deconstruct that dualism.
Then ...]
When the various bodhisattvas had finished one by one giving their
explanations, they asked Manjushri, "How then does the bodhisattva enter into
the gate of nondualism?"
Manjushri replied, "To my way of thinking, all dharmas are without words,
without explanations, without purport, without cognition, removed from all
questions and answers. In this way one may enter the gate of nondualism."
Then Manjushri said to Vimalakirti, "Each of us has given an explanation.
Now, sir, it is your turn to speak. How does the bodhisattva enter the gate of
nondualism?"
At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word.
Manjushri sighed and said, "Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a syllable
-- this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!"
When this chapter on the Entering the Gate of Nondualism was preached, five
thousand bodhisattvas in the assembly were all able to enter the gate of
nondualism and to learned to accept the truth of birthlessness.
andy-k
I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which there
can be no certainty. This then must apply to all empirical knowledge because
inductive logic can provide no certainty. There can only be certain
knowledge for deductive logic, and then this reduces to tautologies anyway.
Examples: there can be certainty that a triangle has three sides, because
having three sides is explicit in the definition of a triangle -- this
requires no faith. However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in believing
they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this requires faith.
But there are different degrees of rationality in faith, and at the opposite
ends of the spectrum there are rational and irrational kinds of faith -- the
latter I would refer to as superstition (beliefs held in the face of
contradictory evidence).
The external behaviour pertaining to the acquisition of a skill is
objective -- we can all distinguish a good pianist from a bad one. But when
the phenomenon is entirely subjective -- like the experiential awareness of
a non-dual Ultimate Reality -- then it must surely be like having to take
somebody else's word for it that they have a headache. They may exhibit a
certain kind of skilfulness that we might aspire to, but that doesn't allow
us to share their experience of the non-dual -- we must take this on faith
until we have attained to it ourselves.
> >Unfortunately this faith aspect has become corrupted in the Christian >
tradition, > >into the assertion that faith alone is sufficient for
salvation (after Paul, > as you > >rightly point out).
>
> Yep. The Christian tradition demands faith before experience, and even
then > the practices that would naturally lead to real faith aren't taught
or > practiced by mainstream modern Christianity.
All traditions demand faith before experience, but the problem with the
Christian faith is that it demands nothing more. Faith is only the
motivation that spurs us on to put in the effort, since without the effort
there will be no progress.
Nice distinction here between the rational and psychological stage on the
way to enlightenment (having faith and working towards the goal -- relative
bodhichitta) and enlightenment per se (absolute bodhichitta).
The term "lesser (really 'small') vehicle" is a reference to (1) > personal
liberation, and (2) that it is a monastic vehicle that few can follow. >
The term "greater vehicle" is a reference to (1) Complete Buddhahood, and
(2) > that it is a vehicle open to all beings, monastic and lay
practitioners.
That's how I understood it, with the exception of the Complete Buddhahood
bit. Is the implication then that the Hinayana traditions admit of only
"incomplete Buddhahood"?
> > I'm reluctant to take sides in this debate, but it seems to me that
since > there > >is no distinction between self and other in the Ultimate
Reality, by attaining > to >enlightenment the whole of the cosmos should
also attain to enlightenment, > >including the rest of humanity. This is
clearly not the case from the > perspective > >of the unenlightened person
even after somebody else has attained to > >enlightenment, so I'm inclined
to think that there's something amiss in the > whole >idea.
>
> Well, it really is a difference in perspective, or I could say
maturity. > Try explaining quantum mechanics to someone who has no
understanding of basic > physics. Say, some primitive indian on an island
in the Pacific, at the > archaic magical level. Newton was a genus, but
Einstein was smarter, yet > without Newton would there have been an
Einstein? Still Newtonian physics is > just fine for the basic mundane
problems of engineering.
As I understand it the non-dual insight is by its very nature beyond the
objectifying process of language (only the means to its attainment may be
explained). But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because others are
no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment sufficient
(bacause others are no different from himself) -- this also reminds me of
another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by ones own efforts or by
the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I have my suspicions about
this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate Reality there can be no
distinction between self and not-self.
> >Your statement "better to relax and just let go of trying to force an >
understanding" >hits the nail on the head, but my problem is that in order
to > move forward I have to >have the consent of my rational faculty, which
must > ultimately be the consent to >leave the rational faculty behind. Thus
my faith > must be grounded in reason by > >eliminating the irrational first
off. Needless to say that I don't consider > the notion of >a non-dual
Ultimate Reality to be irrational -- rather it is > *arational* -- not
admitting >of refutation by intellectual argument, but > neither admitting
of increased confidence >by intellectual argument alone.
>
> If your faith is grounded in pure reason alone, then it is nothing more
than > dry algebra, but if it is also grounded in direct experience, well
then, that's > a horse of a different color. Granted I needed a clear
intellectual > explanation to help my own understanding also.
The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith provides the
motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant -- faith is the
necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to attain to that
experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and faith have
served their purpose and have become redundant.
> >Thus one requires faith in order to pursue the issue to its experiential
> >conclusion.
>
> Perhaps this is only a difference in word usage. The word "faith" in
the > West tends to imply an anti-logic that accepts something as a given
certainty, > without any evidence to support that conclusion. I don't have
that kind of > faith, so I tend to use the word confidence instead. I have
confidence in the > teachings because I have experienced their
effectiveness. I have studied the > evidence, and like a good scientist, I
have replicated the appropriate > experiments. And so far, it all seems to
agree with what the saints have been > saying all along. The rest of
humanity (those that have not studied the > evidence and have not repeated
the experiments) may not see "Heaven on earth," > but the rest of humanity
is still in "Heaven on earth." From the Mahayana > perspective, "attaining
to enlightenment the whole of the cosmos ... attain[s] > to enlightenment,
including the rest of humanity." Just because others don't > see this
doesn't mean I should treat them any less.
Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an underserved
bad reputation.
> >Sounds very much like Plotinus -- reading the Enneads one gets the >
>impression that he'd be concerned to help an old lady across the road, but
> >that he would be completely unconcerned if the next minute she got
squashed > >by a truck. But there's a big difference between doing a bit of
plumbing, or > >helping an old lady across the road, and trying to start a
social avalanche.
>
> I would say that Plotinus would still be concerned, he would just be >
unattached to the mundane appearance of the outcome. Though you are right,
> starting a social avalanche would be a big difference, though for myself
that > difference is named Paul.
More on this at a later juncture.
> >I don't see his activity as political or power-hunger, but rather as an >
>attempt to rectify a badly corrupted form of organised religion that was >
>leading its followers away from the goal rather than towards it -- i.e. as
> >attempting to start a social avalance.
>
> Politics and religion (along with science and art) was fused together
during > Jesus' lifetime. Trying to rectify one would have been trying to
change the > other. I would also have to ask which form of Judaism was he
trying to fix? > The temple cult or one of the other 23 possible sects
current in his life time.
More on this at a later juncture.
> >The Vicarious Atonement seems just as absurd to me too, along with the >
>Virgin Birth, the transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Ascension.
>
> Oh the "Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the >
Ascension," those I can believe. Of course, I would be interpreting those >
terms from a symbolic mystical perspective.
I guess that depends on whether or not you think the authors of the
synoptics intended their accounts to be taken as historical (the author of
John clearly did *not* intend the text to be taken as historical).
> >Don't they have two hands where he comes from?
>
> LOL!
>
> And here we have an excellent example of a "call back." A comedic
technique > were one, in a surprising way, repeats the punch line (or a
variation of the > punch line) of a joke said earlier in a routine. You
"call back" the punch > line, but the context will have changed from its
original in a slightly odd > direction making it more absurd.
The theory of comedy? You really do take your fun seriously J!
> Tradition holds that Bodhidharma's (the man who brought Chan (Zen) to
China) > first student and eventually dharma heir, cut off his own arm, to
get his > attention and to show how much he was willing to give.
Bodhidharma picked up > his bloody arm off the ground and hit him with it.
That was the beginning of a
> beautiful relationship. ; )
lol! No wonder they were so preoccupied with making one hand clap.
> From 'The Vimalakirti Sutra' Chapter 9 'Entering The Gate of Nondualism'
>
> At that time Vimalakirti said to the various bodhisattvas, "Sirs, how
does > the bodhisattva go about entering the gate of nondualism? Let each
one explain > as he understands it." > > [Thirty different bodhisattvas
stepped forward, each in turn explaining their > own understanding of
entering the gate of nondualism. They would first explain > what
constituted a dualism and then explain how to deconstruct that dualism. >
Then ...] > > When the various bodhisattvas had finished one by one giving
their > explanations, they asked Manjushri, "How then does the bodhisattva
enter into > the gate of nondualism?" > Manjushri replied, "To my way of
thinking, all dharmas are without words, > without explanations, without
purport, without cognition, removed from all > questions and answers. In
this way one may enter the gate of nondualism." > Then Manjushri said to
Vimalakirti, "Each of us has given an explanation. > Now, sir, it is your
turn to speak. How does the bodhisattva enter the gate of > nondualism?" >
At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word. >
Manjushri sighed and said, "Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a
syllable > -- this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!" > When this
chapter on the Entering the Gate of Nondualism was reached, five > thousand
bodhisattvas in the assembly were all able to enter the gate of > nondualism
and to learned to accept the truth of birthlessness.
The Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao.
J.
This is very long. Sorry.
In article <73YM8.110$Dr1....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020608214241...@mb-fb.aol.com...
>>
>> I guess it comes down to the kind and degree of faith a given religious
>> organization seeks to cultivate within their followers. [snip. for space]
>> So I have faith (confidence) in my teachers, in the training, and in my
fellow
>> practitioners. Following a nondual spiritual tradition is just like this.
I may
>> lack the insight of the nondual master, but I can see that insight manifest
>> itself in that master's actions. I can watch those who have practiced
improve,
>> and I can also see the improvement in myself as I progress through the
training. >> All of these give me the confidence (faith) that this stuff really
works. Faith in
>> the dogmatically Christian sense hasn't entered into the equation. My
>> confidence grows as I gain more experience, but this growth is based on
>> experience, not on faith. Also -- if I have no faith and I am plagued by
doubt,
>> I won't be condemned for my lack of faith, I'd probably be told to meditate
on
>> that doubt. To make that doubt my best friend, so to speak, and this can
>> become a very powerful practice. Who exactly is it that doubts?
>
>I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which there
>can be no certainty.
Yes. Which is one reason why I don't use the word "faith" as a requirement
for eventual nondual awareness and insight. Certainty is exactly what I am
seeking, not a good but changeable guess.
>This then must apply to all empirical knowledge because
>inductive logic can provide no certainty. There can only be certain
>knowledge for deductive logic, and then this reduces to tautologies anyway.
>Examples: there can be certainty that a triangle has three sides, because
>having three sides is explicit in the definition of a triangle -- this
>requires no faith.
What about direct perception, an "I" witness? If I see something with my own
eyes and confirm my observation with others who have also witnessed that truth,
I can and do hold that truth as a certainity. Of course, I check to make sure
that this is not some kind of mass delusion, or just a culturally conditioned
affectation -- and if its not ... Well, then why not believe in your own
personal experience of something universally experienced regardless of sex,
age, race, culture, ethnic origin, or religious affiliation?
For example, I can be certain that 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' is not a science
fiction novel about an International society that communicates through these
boxes the characters call "computers." All that is required is the abilitiy to
see, to hear, to understand English, to watch 'The Dead Parrot Sketch,' on
television, and then compare your interpration with others who have seen 'The
Dead Parrot Sketch'. If I claim that my favorite part of 'The Dead Parrot
Sketch' was the car chase and when the author discribed traveling through the
wires of the internet, you would be pretty certain that I hadn't seen it.
Another example would be for me to claim that the parrot was alive and that is
what was funny.
Now, of course 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' may only be funny to English speakers
with a Judeo-Christian Anglo-Saxon background, but what about those things that
are universally funny.
Have you read Ken Wilber's 'The Eye of Spirit -- An Integral Vision for a
World Gone Slightly Mad.' Shambhala Publications Inc. ISBN 1-57062-345-7
I agree very much with what he calls an "all-level/all quadrant" approach
towards valid knowledge, though I do tend to "do it" in my own style (but then
again, don't we all).
Very simplistically, "all levels" refers to the levels of development -- the
physical, the emotional, the mental, the religious, the spiritual and nondual
levels [or from birth, infancy, adolescence, puberty, young adult, adult,
maturity, old age, and death].
"All-quadrant" refers to the four quadrants of: the individual interior
subjective "I," the collective interior intersubjective "we," the individual
exterior object truth "it," and the collective interobjective functional fit
"its." Or as Ken describes it in a threefold manner, The Good, the True, and
the Beautiful.
>However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
>work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in believing
>they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this requires faith.
True, but I wouldn't equate that with religious faith. I am certain that
water flows down hill and I am certain that fire burns. I hope my breaks
works, and I pray that the sun doesn't go super nova or sends a flair that
destroys the ozone layer while I sleep. There are things that I can be certain
of, and there are things that will only always be good changeable guesses. I
am certain that some day I will die. I hope that I am awake and lucide when
death happens, ready and as excited as I was the first time I jumped out of a
perfectly good airplane, but I can't be sure when that will be. Unlike
skydiving, there are no appointments -- they get you eventially. We are
already in Death's waiting room. Most likely sometime after I post this or
sometime later in the not so distant future ...
>But there are different degrees of rationality in faith, and at the opposite
>ends of the spectrum there are rational and irrational kinds of faith -- the
>latter I would refer to as superstition (beliefs held in the face of
>contradictory evidence).
Most superstitions today (what you and I would call superstitions) are stage
specific truths that were appropriate when we were children (as individuals or
collectively as humanity), or they are quadrant confusions. This is trying to
apply the valid truths of one quadrant onto another quadrant -- this doesn't
work. Though the fault of quadrant confusion is not just a problem of
primitive superstitions. We see it in the common modern subtle reductive
materialism accepted by Western culture today. There are relationships and
correspondences between the quadrants, but the truths of one quadrant can't be
forced on another. The evidence acceptable for one quadrant won't necessarily
be applicable to another.
> The external behaviour pertaining to the acquisition of a skill is
> objective -- we can all distinguish a good pianist from a bad one. But when
> the phenomenon is entirely subjective -- like the experiential awareness of
> a non-dual Ultimate Reality -- then it must surely be like having to take
> somebody else's word for it that they have a headache. They may exhibit a
> certain kind of skilfulness that we might aspire to, but that doesn't allow
> us to share their experience of the non-dual -- we must take this on faith
> until we have attained to it ourselves.
Unless you have a master who can show it to you directly. The headache you
suffer IS objectively true for you, but unlike the direct experience of nondual
awareness, headaches are experiences that are changeable and unique events. A
direct "experiential awareness of ... non-dual Ultimate Reality" is the same
for all. Not being a unique event, but the ground of all events, not being
ever changing reflections, but the mirror like nature of awareness that is a
witness to all forms -- nondual awareness isn't conditioned by habits, and
isn't stained by ignorance. The difference is only in depth and the level of
integration.
>> Yep. The Christian tradition demands faith before experience, and even
>> then the practices that would naturally lead to real faith aren't taught
>> or practiced by mainstream modern Christianity.
>
> All traditions demand faith before experience, but the problem with the
> Christian faith is that it demands nothing more. Faith is only the
> motivation that spurs us on to put in the effort, since without the effort
> there will be no progress.
Generally speaking its the theistic religions that demand faith first. I
know of a few traditions that make no such demand of their followers -- Zen,
Dzogchen, and the Clear Reality School of Taoism. But then again, there are
always exceptions to the rule. Though practicing the transformitive spiritual
disciplines of these traditions will cultivate and develop faith, but
experience comes first. And all you need to have is enough interest to give it
a whirl. Originally I just had a basic curiousity about Eastern spiritual
practices. It was interesting and fun to study this stuff, and I noticed the
health and psychological benefits as I "tried" the practices out. Only after
practicing basic meditation for many years and reading thousands of books, did
I wake up one morning and realized that this stuff really works and that I had
a very deep confidence in the effectiveness of these practices. This is what
Buddhist faith is based: direct personal experience following a spiritual
practice.
>> > This explains the Mahayana notion of a Bodhisattva -- one who renounces
>>> Nirvana until every human has become enlightened.
>>
>> To a degree, yes that is the case.
[snip. for space]
>> With the first awakening to sunyata, the essence of bodhichitta, you begin
>> to progress through the Ten Bhumis and this is when you could be rightly
>> called a Bodhisattva. Bhumis means: ground or land. The Ten Bhumis are
>> like ten lands you have to cross on your journey to Complete Buddhahood,
>> the Eleventh land. Though, when you reach the Eleventh land, you realize
>> that the Eleventh Bhumi is the One Earth that supports All of the Ten Lands.
>> The Eleventh Bhumi of Complete Buddhahood, is inherently, essentially the
>> same ground as the First Bhumi, and will be the same at each Bhumi.
>> Simplistically, the planet Earth doesn't change, just by going across
>> state (stage) lines.
>
>Nice distinction here between the rational and psychological stage on the
>way to enlightenment (having faith and working towards the goal -- relative
>bodhichitta) and enlightenment per se (absolute bodhichitta).
Yes, the distinction is clearly defined, but this is the cleverness of 20/20
hindsight, since these outlines of the program were written by individiuals who
had become actual Bodhisattvas. Its like a travel log of how they reached the
destination of Buddhahood. From an experiential level, as you are going
through the process, the lines are fuzzy. You look up one day and you become
aware that you are already enlightened and have always been.
>> The term "lesser (really 'small') vehicle" is a reference to (1) > personal
>> liberation, and (2) that it is a monastic vehicle that few can follow. >
>> The term "greater vehicle" is a reference to (1) Complete Buddhahood, and
>> (2) that it is a vehicle open to all beings, monastic and lay
>> practitioners.
>
> That's how I understood it, with the exception of the Complete Buddhahood
> bit. Is the implication then that the Hinayana traditions admit of only
> "incomplete Buddhahood"?
Yes, and no. First, there is no "true" Hinayana traditions existing today.
The term Hinayana is used in Tibetan Buddhism as a discriptive word in relation
to the whole path of a Universalist Buddhist tradition. While it was
originally used as an insult, by the time Buddhism reached Tibet (around 800
C.E.) there was no separate Hinayana tradition to insult. The only other form
of Buddhism the Tibetans were exposed to was Chinese Chan (Zen), which had
basically the same philosophical tradition/lineage as it's foundation. The
differences were in method and program. Chan was seen as a "sudden school" to
enlightenment, while the Indian tradition that would become Tibetan Buddhism is
considered a "gradual school" to enlightenment. Of course the indigenous Bon
religion was an obstacle and there are many stories about the adventures of the
early masters. There was even a period in Tibet when Buddhism was almost wiped
out, but Buddhism hide among the nomads and lay masters, while the aristocracy
and the Bonpos destroyed the monasteries. Once there was a new king Buddhism
re-established itself -- and we have this wonderous experiment, an attempt to
transform a illiterate nomadic warrior culture into an enlightened society of
Bodhisattvas and Buddhas. I think that the Tibetan written language is the
only language that has the distinction of specifically being developed to
translate the holy texts of Buddhism (in Sanskrit, Pali, Chinese, Uddiyanain,
etc.) into a written form of the spoken language of the Tibetans.
One of the traditional Tibetan types of teaching is called a Lamrim. This is
a basic outline of the gradual path to Complete Buddhahood. It begins with the
Hinayana "stage" of Buddhism, not because it is less valuable, but because it
is the first rung on the ladder. This is early Monastic Buddhism which is
centered on the Four Noble Truths and aims for an individuals freedom and
enlightenment. If you are going to dedicate yourself to getting your black
belt, you have to start your training as a white belt. First you learn how to
protect yourself, from yourself. Then you learn how to protect yourself from
those who would harm you.
This is the level of the "Listeners" and the "Solitary Buddhas." Well, to
understand anything first you have to listen. Then to gain any skill, you have
to go off on your own and practice for a little while. The hero of the
Hinayana stage is the Arhat, or "Foe Destroyer." The "Foes" are our negative
(conditioned) emotions and the ignorance of our own true nature. The Hinayana
stage is also referred to as the paths of renunciation or purification, or the
Individual or Monastic Vehicle.
We learn what is worth picking up, and what is not, as well as learn how to
completely let go of our desires, our attachments, our fears, and our anger.
We learn how to let go of everything we have ever picked up or has ever been
laid upon our shoulders (in our own minds) over the many years of our flitting
existence.
The second stage of Buddhist development is the Mahayana or Messianic
Buddhism -- the Universal Vehicle. It is centered on emptiness (sunyata),
great compassion, and all beings freedom and enlightenment. The hero of the
Mahayana stage is the Bodhisattva, or "Awakened Hero."
The third stage is known as Vajrayana Buddhism (Diamond-Thunderbolt Vehicle),
Mantrayana, or Tantrayana focuses on implementing compassion as great bliss,
the use of artistic imagination to reconstruct the self and the universe with
pure perception, and with the aim for all beings accelerated freedom and
enlightenment. The hero of the Vajrayana level is the Mahasiddhi, or "Great
Accomplisher."
Thomas Cleary writes in his introduction to 'The Ecstasy of Enlightenment --
Teachings of Natural Tantra.' Published by Samual Weiser, Inc. 1998
"The first level of Buddhism addresses the problem of mental clarification,
dissolving gross attachment to the notional world. The purpose of this type of
exercise is to seek insight into objective truth by overcoming the subjective
emotional, percepual, and intellectual biases that are based on ignorant
selfishness and cultural conditioning. This is the stage in which personal
nirvana is realized.
The second level addresses the problem of harmonizing unbiased insight into
objective truth with the everyday world of historically conditioned social,
intellectual, and perceptual convention. The purpose of this type of exercise
is to discover and uncover objective truth everywhere, hidden in ordinary life
beneath a veneer of appearences formulated of frozen perceptions. This is the
stage in which nirvanic quintessence of both persons and things realized.
The third stage finally goes beyond duality in perception of absolute and
relative. Everything in relative and imaginary reality reminds the Tantric
Buddhist of absolute truth, and guides the understanding and expression of both
material and abstract dimension of life."
"One may become suddenly enlightened to the essence (personal liberation),
but as there are still remaining habit energies from beginningless time that
cannot be cleared away all at once, one must be taught to get rid of the
compulsive habitual flow of consciousness. That does not mean, however, that
there is a specific rule to have people practice or aim for." -- Guishan (Isan)
From Thomas Cleary's 'Vitality Essence Spirit -- A Taoist Source Book'
published by Shambhala Publications Inc.
[snip.]
>>> This is clearly not the case from the perspective of the unenlightened
person
>>> even after somebody else has attained to enlightenment, so I'm inclined
>>> to think that there's something amiss in the whole idea.
>>
>> Well, it really is a difference in perspective, or I could say
>> maturity. Try explaining quantum mechanics to someone who has no
>> understanding of basic physics. Say, some primitive indian on an island
>> in the Pacific, at the archaic magical level. Newton was a genus, but
>> Einstein was smarter, yet without Newton would there have been an
>> Einstein? Still Newtonian physics is just fine for the basic mundane
>> problems of engineering.
>
> As I understand it the non-dual insight is by its very nature beyond the
> objectifying process of language (only the means to its attainment may be
> explained).
Yes, but once one has reached attainment (even if it's tiny attainment),
language can be used to help confirm that attainment and gauge the degree.
Like two surgeons talking about a very difficult case, comparing notes -- the
untrained layperson wouldn't understand a word spoken. They wouldn't know the
vocabulary and they would lack the experience to place those words into any
sensible context.
All of the dusty tombs the saints have left behind, all of the holy books,
and sacred texts are there so we can first recognize the teachers of
transcendence and also to challenge and confirm our own insight.
> But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
> whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because others are
> no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment sufficient
> (bacause others are no different from himself) -- this also reminds me of
> another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by ones own efforts or by
> the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I have my suspicions about
> this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate Reality there can be no
> distinction between self and not-self.
I look at it like this -- You cannot do it alone, but neither can anyone else
do it for you. Though there are times when reality appears to help those who
seek the true nature of reality, and I have even come to believe in the power
of prayer -- it is just nothing like Grandpa giving you some candy or Daddy
getting you into the right clubs and fraternities.
Joseph Campbell tells the story of a Hindu disciple who is told by his master
that he is "God."
He is walking around feeling very good and really very special about being
God. He kept saying to himself, "I am God. I am God."
Well, as he was walking along saying to himself, "I am God. I am God," in
the distance he sees a great elephant, with a rider sitting high behind its'
ears, walking on the path towards him.
Saying to himself, "I am God. I am God. God is greater than an elephant.
An elephant cannot move God. I am God. I am God," he continues walking toward
the elephant as the elephant walks along the path towards him.
Walking, saying to himself "I am God. I am God. God is greater than an
elephant. An elephant cannot move God." The elephant getting closer and the
elephant driver yelling and yelling to move out of the way, he just continued
walking saying to himself "I am God. I am God. God is greater than an
elephant. An elephant cannot move God."
And then the elephant wrapped its' trunk around him, lifted him up and dumped
him on his ass by the side of the path in the bushes.
To say the lest, he was a little confused and startled. He ran to his master
very upset and told him what had happened.
His teacher asked him, "Why didn't you listen to the voice of God telling you
to get out of the way?"
>> > Your statement "better to relax and just let go of trying to force an >
>>> understanding" hits the nail on the head, but my problem is that in order
>>> to move forward I have to have the consent of my rational faculty, which
>>> must ultimately be the consent to leave the rational faculty behind. Thus
>>> my faith must be grounded in reason by eliminating the irrational first
>>> off. Needless to say that I don't consider the notion of a non-dual
>>> Ultimate Reality to be irrational -- rather it is *arational* -- not
>>> admitting of refutation by intellectual argument, but neither admitting
>>> of increased confidence by intellectual argument alone.
>>
>> If your faith is grounded in pure reason alone, then it is nothing more
> than dry algebra, but if it is also grounded in direct experience, well
> then, that's a horse of a different color. Granted I needed a clear
> intellectual explanation to help my own understanding also.
>
> The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith provides the
> motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant -- faith is the
> necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to attain to that
> experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and faith have
> served their purpose and have become redundant.
That is one way to approach it and most of the theistic religions do follow
that kind of theology (faith first or faith only), and there are also many
Buddhist traditions that follow that kind of program, but all of the nondual
traditions I have studied to any degree regardless of religion (Buddhist,
Taoist, Hindu, or Sufi) begin with experience. All you need is enough of an
interest to practice for a little while.
>> >Thus one requires faith in order to pursue the issue to its experiential
>> >conclusion.
>>
>> Perhaps this is only a difference in word usage. The word "faith" in
>> the West tends to imply an anti-logic that accepts something as a given
>> certainty, without any evidence to support that conclusion. I don't have
>> that kind of faith, so I tend to use the word confidence instead. I have
>> confidence in the teachings because I have experienced their
>> effectiveness. I have studied the evidence, and like a good scientist, I
>> have replicated the appropriate experiments. And so far, it all seems to
>> agree with what the saints have been saying all along. The rest of
>> humanity (those that have not studied the evidence and have not repeated
>> the experiments) may not see "Heaven on earth," but the rest of humanity
>> is still in "Heaven on earth." From the Mahayana perspective, "attaining
>> to enlightenment the whole of the cosmos ... attain[s] to enlightenment,
>> including the rest of humanity." Just because others don't see this
>> doesn't mean I should treat them any less.
>
> Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an underserved
> bad reputation.
Science didn't help much. While mainstream Christianity may have soiled the
word "faith," western science sought to make it meaningless. One of the sad
unintended consequences of modernity is the sense of meaninglessness so common
in the hearts of so many Westerners today. We read Kant and Nietzsche and have
been depressed ever since. "God is dead," and our metaphysics are a game of
pretend -- why do anything if everything is an accident?
The Dalai Lama has participated in several round table discussions with
western scientists, therapists, and doctors.* In one discussion the concept of
"self-esteem" or specifically "the lack of self-esteem," was raised by a
psychologist -- and the Dalai Lama needed that term explained, "self-esteem?"
He didn't really understand the concept, or why suffering from "lack of
self-esteem" could really be possible, or a problem.
>> I would say that Plotinus would still be concerned, he would just be >
>> unattached to the mundane appearance of the outcome. Though you are right,
>> starting a social avalanche would be a big difference, though for myself
>> that difference is named Paul.
>
> More on this at a later juncture.
Cool. I'll keep checking for the post.
>> Politics and religion (along with science and art) was fused together
>> during Jesus' lifetime. Trying to rectify one would have been trying to
>> change the other. I would also have to ask which form of Judaism was he
>> trying to fix? The temple cult or one of the other 23 possible sects
>> current in his life time.
>
>More on this at a later juncture.
Yep.
>> > The Vicarious Atonement seems just as absurd to me too, along with the >
>> Virgin Birth, the transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the Ascension.
>>
>> Oh the "Virgin Birth, the Transfiguration, the Resurrection, and the >
>> Ascension," those I can believe. Of course, I would be interpreting those >
>> terms from a symbolic mystical perspective.
>
> I guess that depends on whether or not you think the authors of the
> synoptics intended their accounts to be taken as historical (the author of
> John clearly did *not* intend the text to be taken as historical).
I agree that John's intentions were not to write a historical text,that would
have been too limiting. I'd call the synoptics trans-historical. Though I do
included The Gospel of Thomas (and others) in my readings, and believe that
Gospel of Thomas was a higher level expression of the basic synoptic message of
Jesus Christ. I even believe that Revelations is a sacred and true text,
though I interpret that text from a Tantric Buddhist esotoric point of view. I
believe it has already happened, that it is happening right now, and that it
will happen again in the future. Read 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead,' the one
published by Shambhala Publishing Inc. translated by Trungpa Rinpoche.
>> > Don't they have two hands where he comes from?
>>
>> LOL!
>>
>> And here we have an excellent example of a "call back." A comedic
>> technique were one, in a surprising way, repeats the punch line (or a
>> variation of the punch line) of a joke said earlier in a routine. You
>> "call back" the punch line, but the context will have changed from its
>> original in a slightly odd direction making it more absurd.
>
> The theory of comedy? You really do take your fun seriously J!
If I'm going to take anything seriously, might as well be fun. Seeing what
makes a person laugh and why, tells alot about that person.
>> Tradition holds that Bodhidharma's (the man who brought Chan (Zen) to
>> China) first student and eventually dharma heir, cut off his own arm, to
>> get his attention and to show how much he was willing to give.
>> Bodhidharma picked up his bloody arm off the ground and hit him with it.
>> That was the beginning of a beautiful relationship. ; )
>
> lol! No wonder they were so preoccupied with making one hand clap.
Well ... how else was he going to show his appreciation
>> From 'The Vimalakirti Sutra' Chapter 9 'Entering The Gate of Nondualism'
>>
>> At that time Vimalakirti said to the various bodhisattvas, "Sirs, how
>> does the bodhisattva go about entering the gate of nondualism? Let each
>> one explain as he understands it." [Thirty different bodhisattvas
>> stepped forward, each in turn explaining their own understanding of
>> entering the gate of nondualism. They would first explain what
>> constituted a dualism and then explain how to deconstruct that dualism.
>> Then ...] When the various bodhisattvas had finished one by one giving
>> their explanations, they asked Manjushri, "How then does the bodhisattva
>> enter into the gate of nondualism?" Manjushri replied, "To my way of
>> thinking, all dharmas are without words, without explanations, without
>> purport, without cognition, removed from all questions and answers. In
>> this way one may enter the gate of nondualism." Then Manjushri said to
>> Vimalakirti, "Each of us has given an explanation. Now, sir, it is your
>> turn to speak. How does the bodhisattva enter the gate of nondualism?"
>> At that time Vimalakirti remained silent and did not speak a word.
>> Manjushri sighed and said, "Excellent, excellent! Not a word, not a
>> syllable -- this truly is to enter the gate of nondualism!" When this
>> chapter on the Entering the Gate of Nondualism was reached, five thousand
>> bodhisattvas in the assembly were all able to enter the gate of nondualism
>> and to learned to accept the truth of birthlessness.
>
> The Tao that can be spoken is not the real Tao.
"-the unspoken Way ...
:all things have results, but it only goes to the root; all affairs have
consequences, but it only stays by the gate. Thereby it is possible to find
the end of the endless and the ultimate of the infinite, to percieve things
without being blinded and to respond echolike without minding."
-- Translated by Thomas Cleary -- I think it is in the book 'Vitality Essence
Spirit -- A Taoist Source Book'
andy-k
> Hi Andy,
> This is very long. Sorry.
No need to apologise -- I always find your comments illuminating and
inspiring.
> >I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which
> >there can be no certainty.
>
> Yes. Which is one reason why I don't use the word "faith" as a
> requirement for eventual nondual awareness and insight. Certainty is
> exactly what I am seeking, not a good but changeable guess.
I think we have marginally different definitions of faith, and some of my
comments in the rest of this post reflect my perspective. It's possibly a
fruitless exercise to attempt to reach a common definition, but I would be
interested in understanding your perspective ... it is a little beyond me at
the minute. Don't take my comments as an attempt to convince you that I'm
right and you're wrong ... take them as an investigation to find out where
your definition differs from mine.
It is consistent with my definition that in order to seek certainty one must
have faith that there is a certainty to seek. Until one achieves that
certainty it must surely be nothing more than a good but changeable guess --
witness the many that set out to pursue enlightenment only to fall by the
wayside because they conclude that they are on a wild goose chase.
> >This then must apply to all empirical knowledge because
> >inductive logic can provide no certainty. There can only be certain
> >knowledge for deductive logic, and then this reduces to tautologies
> >anyway. Examples: there can be certainty that a triangle has three sides,
> >because having three sides is explicit in the definition of a triangle --
> >this requires no faith.
>
> What about direct perception, an "I" witness? If I see something with
> my own eyes and confirm my observation with others who have also witnessed
> that truth, I can and do hold that truth as a certainity. Of course, I
> check to make sure that this is not some kind of mass delusion, or just a
> culturally conditioned affectation -- and if its not ... Well, then why
> not believe in your own personal experience of something universally
> experienced regardless of sex, age, race, culture, ethnic origin, or
> religious affiliation? For example, I can be certain that 'The Dead Parrot
> Sketch' is not a science fiction novel about an International society that
> communicates through these boxes the characters call "computers." All that
> is required is the abilitiy to see, to hear, to understand English, to
> watch 'The Dead Parrot Sketch,' on television, and then compare your
> interpration with others who have seen 'The Dead Parrot Sketch'. If I
> claim that my favorite part of 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' was the car chase
> and when the author discribed traveling through the wires of the internet,
> you would be pretty certain that I hadn't seen it.
No I wouldn't ... I would begin to wonder whether I was referring to the
wrong sketch, or maybe there's another sketch by the same name ... doubt
would creep in. I know I can be wrong ... I've been wrong so many times,
even when I thought I was certain about something! Augustine cites this as
indicative of a specific kind of certainty -- "si fallor, sum" --
i.e. I know I can be wrong, therefore I can at least be certain that "I am"
(for there to be doubt there must be a doubter). Descartes exhumed it as
"Cogito, ergo sum" (for there to be thoughts there must be a thinker). I'm
uncertain about their conclusions -- the existence of doubts or of thoughts
no more proves the existence of a doubter or of a thinker than the existence
of waves on water proves the existence of a "waver".
> Another example would be for me to
> claim that the parrot was alive and that is what was funny.
> Now, of course 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' may only be funny to English
> speakers with a Judeo-Christian Anglo-Saxon background, but what about
> those things that are universally funny.
Going back to Descartes, part of his argument is that there may be some evil
demon that is conjuring up the whole world in his (Descartes') mind. How can
he be sure about anything? He can only escape his dilemma by introducing God
as the guarantor, being the benign entity that He is. But this is a cop-out,
so how do WE get out of this dilemma?
> Have you read Ken Wilber's 'The Eye of Spirit -- An Integral Vision for
> a World Gone Slightly Mad.' Shambhala Publications Inc. ISBN
> 1-57062-345-7. I agree very much with what he calls an "all-level/all
> quadrant" approach towards valid knowledge, though I do tend to "do it" in
> my own style (but then again, don't we all).
> Very simplistically, "all levels" refers to the levels of development --
> the physical, the emotional, the mental, the religious, the spiritual and
> nondual levels [or from birth, infancy, adolescence, puberty, young adult,
> adult, maturity, old age, and death].
> "All-quadrant" refers to the four quadrants of: the individual interior
> subjective "I," the collective interior intersubjective "we," the
> individual exterior object truth "it," and the collective interobjective
> functional fit "its." Or as Ken describes it in a threefold manner, The
> Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
There's something about Wilber's style that makes him difficult reading for
me -- not that I don't understand him, but more that he seems to be making
too much of things.
> >However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
> >work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in believing
> >they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this requires
> >faith.
>
> True, but I wouldn't equate that with religious faith. I am certain
> that water flows down hill and I am certain that fire burns. I hope my
> breaks works, and I pray that the sun doesn't go super nova or sends a
> flair that destroys the ozone layer while I sleep. There are things that
> I can be certain of, and there are things that will only always be good
> changeable guesses. I am certain that some day I will die. I hope that I
> am awake and lucide when death happens, ready and as excited as I was the
> first time I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, but I can't be sure
> when that will be. Unlike skydiving, there are no appointments -- they get
> you eventially. We are already in Death's waiting room. Most likely
> sometime after I post this or sometime later in the not so distant future
Ben Franklin ... death and taxes?
My dreams are so convincing they frighten the hell out of me sometimes.
Occasionally I take a reality check when dreaming, and more often than not I
come to the wrong conclusion that this can't be a dream.
> > The external behaviour pertaining to the acquisition of a skill is
> > objective -- we can all distinguish a good pianist from a bad one. But
> > when the phenomenon is entirely subjective -- like the experiential
> > awareness of a non-dual Ultimate Reality -- then it must surely be like
> > having to take somebody else's word for it that they have a headache.
> > They may exhibit a certain kind of skilfulness that we might aspire to,
> > but that doesn't allow us to share their experience of the non-dual --
> > we must take this on faith until we have attained to it ourselves.
>
> Unless you have a master who can show it to you directly. The headache
> you suffer IS objectively true for you, but unlike the direct experience
> of nondual awareness, headaches are experiences that are changeable and
> unique events. A direct "experiential awareness of ... non-dual Ultimate
> Reality" is the same for all. Not being a unique event, but the ground of
> all events, not being ever changing reflections, but the mirror like
> nature of awareness that is a witness to all forms -- nondual awareness
> isn't conditioned by habits, and isn't stained by ignorance. The
> difference is only in depth and the level of integration.
If you've experienced this first-hand then you have dispensed with the need
for faith. I haven't, and I am relying on the reports of those that have --
i.e. I am taking their word for it on faith.
> > All traditions demand faith before experience, but the problem with the
> > Christian faith is that it demands nothing more. Faith is only the
> > motivation that spurs us on to put in the effort, since without the
> > effort there will be no progress.
>
> Generally speaking its the theistic religions that demand faith first.
> I know of a few traditions that make no such demand of their followers --
> Zen, Dzogchen, and the Clear Reality School of Taoism. But then again,
> there are always exceptions to the rule. Though practicing the
> transformitive spiritual disciplines of these traditions will cultivate
> and develop faith, but experience comes first. And all you need to have
> is enough interest to give it a whirl.
Why practice these transformative spiritual disciplines unless one has faith
at the outset that there is something to it all? How can experience come
first if these practices are intended to lead to that experience? Let me put
it another way ... these practices demand a great deal of time and effort,
so why should I consider making this investment if I don't have at least a
little faith that there will be a return on my investment?
> Originally I just had a basic
> curiousity about Eastern spiritual practices. It was interesting and fun
> to study this stuff, and I noticed the health and psychological benefits
> as I "tried" the practices out. Only after practicing basic meditation for
> many years and reading thousands of books, did I wake up one morning and
> realized that this stuff really works and that I had a very deep
> confidence in the effectiveness of these practices. This is what Buddhist
> faith is based: direct personal experience following a spiritual practice.
Don't we need faith in order to begin the spiritual practice in the first
place? Admittedly experiences will provide grounds for stronger faith, until
faith is no longer required, but I think faith must be there right from the
start. You cite curiosity as a motivating force, but surely curiosity is
grounded in the conviction that this is something worth investigating --
i.e. in faith?
> > But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
> > whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because others
> > are no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment
> > sufficient (bacause others are no different from himself) -- this also
> > reminds me of another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by ones
> > own efforts or by the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I
> > have my suspicions about this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate
> > Reality there can be no distinction between self and not-self.
>
> I look at it like this -- You cannot do it alone, but neither can anyone
> else do it for you.
Rationally the statement above is a contradiction, which is why I have my
suspicions about these rational arguments. As Plotinus says, reason leads
you to the door but it must be left on the threshold as you enter.
> > The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith provides
> > the motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant -- faith
> > is the necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to attain to
> > that experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and faith
> > have served their purpose and have become redundant.
>
> That is one way to approach it and most of the theistic religions do
> follow that kind of theology (faith first or faith only), and there are
> also many Buddhist traditions that follow that kind of program, but all of
> the nondual traditions I have studied to any degree regardless of religion
> (Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Sufi) begin with experience. All you need is
> enough of an interest to practice for a little while.
What is the experience they begin with?
> > Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an
> > underserved bad reputation.
>
> Science didn't help much. While mainstream Christianity may have soiled
> the word "faith," western science sought to make it meaningless.
Science is grounded in faith -- namely the hypothetico-deductive method. In
my experience most scientists acknowledge this fact, and it is only the
over-enthusiastic non-scientist that makes ridiculous claims for science
(this is called scientism). When evidence forces everybody onto the same
model (like the "spheroidal earth" model) then there can be great
confidence, but inductive logic admits of no certainty. Where the evidence
supports several competing hypotheses there can be little confidence.
> > I guess that depends on whether or not you think the authors of the
> > synoptics intended their accounts to be taken as historical (the author
> > of John clearly did *not* intend the text to be taken as historical).
>
> I agree that John's intentions were not to write a historical text,that
> would have been too limiting. I'd call the synoptics trans-historical.
> Though I do included The Gospel of Thomas (and others) in my readings, and
> believe that Gospel of Thomas was a higher level expression of the basic
> synoptic message of Jesus Christ. I even believe that Revelations is a
> sacred and true text, though I interpret that text from a Tantric Buddhist
> esotoric point of view. I believe it has already happened, that it is
> happening right now, and that it will happen again in the future. Read
> 'The Tibetan Book of the Dead,' the one published by Shambhala Publishing
> Inc. translated by Trungpa Rinpoche.
I think that Thomas, being non-narrative, does not invite the question of
historicity. Revelations is thought to have been written by the same author
that wrote John, and is again clearly not intended to be taken as a
historical account (although there have been some interesting arguments that
the author is railing against the Roman Empire). Regarding the synoptics, I
think the question of their respective intended audiences is revealing. It
is my understanding that they weren't intended for the spiritually mature,
but more for the purpose of recruiting within three very different
audiences -- the Jews at home (Mark, c.70CE), the Jewish Diaspora (Matthew,
c.80CE), and the gentiles (Luke/Acts, c.80CE). Theirs is a wide-net
("bandwagon" or inclusive) agenda, whereas the texts aimed at more
spiritually mature audiences are narrow-net (more esoteric and exclusive).
How does this compare with your understanding?
J.
Sorry about the delay. I've been preparing for my belt test (my wife and I
past) and helping out at the dojo, one of the instructors is on vacation in
England. ; )
I'll be replying shortly, but I just wanted to let you know why I am taking
so long.
andy-k
passion for jumping out of perfectly good airplanes?
J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
news:20020623160952...@mb-cb.aol.com...
J.
In article <f3OP8.2156$ZP1.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>> Hi Andy,
>> This is very long. Sorry.
>
>No need to apologise -- I always find your comments illuminating and
>inspiring.
Thank you, but give me enough time I'll say something silly eventually.
>> >I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which
>> >there can be no certainty.
>>
>> Yes. Which is one reason why I don't use the word "faith" as a
>> requirement for eventual nondual awareness and insight. Certainty is
>> exactly what I am seeking, not a good but changeable guess.
>
>I think we have marginally different definitions of faith, and some of my
>comments in the rest of this post reflect my perspective. It's possibly a
>fruitless exercise to attempt to reach a common definition, but I would be
>interested in understanding your perspective ... it is a little beyond me at
>the minute. Don't take my comments as an attempt to convince you that I'm
>right and you're wrong ... take them as an investigation to find out where
>your definition differs from mine.
That would be one of the traditional purposes of Tibetan style debate.
>It is consistent with my definition that in order to seek certainty one must
>have faith that there is a certainty to seek. Until one achieves that
certainty it >must surely be nothing more than a good but changeable guess --
witness the >many that set out to pursue enlightenment only to fall by the
wayside because >they conclude that they are on a wild goose chase.
Many people give up, but is this due to their lack of faith in the goal or
lack of confidence in themselves? Perhaps they have come to the conclusion
that they are on a wild goose chase as a rationalization for their own failure.
Its easy to give up. Its hard to keep on going. I would say that there is
one kind of faith that is a requirement -- faith in yourself.
Really? I used the above example because it is something that we have in
common. We are both referring to the same sketch and there is no other sketch
by the same name, yet I still claim that my favorite part is the car chase. Do
you still question yourself? Would doubt actually creep in, or would you
conclude that I was either lying or just a little crazy?
>Augustine cites this as indicative of a specific kind of certainty -- "si
fallor, sum" --
>i.e. I know I can be wrong, therefore I can at least be certain that "I am"
>(for there to be doubt there must be a doubter). Descartes exhumed it as
>"Cogito, ergo sum" (for there to be thoughts there must be a thinker).
"I think, therefore I am." So, what were you before you started thinking?
> I'm uncertain about their conclusions -- the existence of doubts or of
thoughts
>no more proves the existence of a doubter or of a thinker than the existence
>of waves on water proves the existence of a "waver".
Yep. Considering that there is a not so subtle dualism at the heart of such
statements I find their conclusions lacking. My own conclusion is that
thoughts do not lead to a thinker. Thoughts are the natural manifestation of
the energy of the mind. The thinker that we "think" is present, when we are
thinking, is just another thought. Just another reflection.
>> Another example would be for me to
>> claim that the parrot was alive and that is what was funny.
>> Now, of course 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' may only be funny to English
>> speakers with a Judeo-Christian Anglo-Saxon background, but what about
>> those things that are universally funny.
>
>Going back to Descartes, part of his argument is that there may be some evil
>demon that is conjuring up the whole world in his (Descartes') mind. How can
>he be sure about anything? He can only escape his dilemma by introducing God
>as the guarantor, being the benign entity that He is. But this is a cop-out,
I agree, it is a cop-out, a very gnostic dualistic cop-out. Descartes was
working within the limits of reason, he never transcends.
>so how do WE get out of this dilemma?
Wake up. Take up the appropriate practices and learn how to open the eyes
that can see the truth, rather than just think about (and around) the truth.
The way out of this dilemma is enlightenment. The practice of
contemplation/meditation is the telescope/microscope that you have to see
through to gain the insight. It is the experiment that you must do.
>> Have you read Ken Wilber's 'The Eye of Spirit -- An Integral Vision for
>> a World Gone Slightly Mad.' Shambhala Publications Inc. ISBN
>> 1-57062-345-7. I agree very much with what he calls an "all-level/all
>> quadrant" approach towards valid knowledge, though I do tend to "do it" in
>> my own style (but then again, don't we all).
>> Very simplistically, "all levels" refers to the levels of development --
>> the physical, the emotional, the mental, the religious, the spiritual and
>> nondual levels [or from birth, infancy, adolescence, puberty, young adult,
>> adult, maturity, old age, and death].
>> "All-quadrant" refers to the four quadrants of: the individual interior
>> subjective "I," the collective interior intersubjective "we," the
>> individual exterior object truth "it," and the collective interobjective
>> functional fit "its." Or as Ken describes it in a threefold manner, The
>> Good, the True, and the Beautiful.
>
>There's something about Wilber's style that makes him difficult reading for
>me -- not that I don't understand him, but more that he seems to be making
>too much of things.
His style does take a little time to get use to and for many he is still just
too difficult. Its worth the difficulty though. Part of the problem is his
intented audience. He is trying to get the "intellectuals" to stop
intellectualizing about realitiy and to start experiencing reality directly.
>> >However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
>> >work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in believing
>> >they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this requires
>> >faith.
>>
>> True, but I wouldn't equate that with religious faith. I am certain
>> that water flows down hill and I am certain that fire burns. I hope my
>> breaks works, and I pray that the sun doesn't go super nova or sends a
>> flair that destroys the ozone layer while I sleep. There are things that
>> I can be certain of, and there are things that will only always be good
>> changeable guesses. I am certain that some day I will die. I hope that I
>> am awake and lucide when death happens, ready and as excited as I was the
>> first time I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, but I can't be sure
>> when that will be. Unlike skydiving, there are no appointments -- they get
>> you eventially. We are already in Death's waiting room. Most likely
>> sometime after I post this or sometime later in the not so distant future
>
>Ben Franklin ... death and taxes?
>My dreams are so convincing they frighten the hell out of me sometimes.
>Occasionally I take a reality check when dreaming, and more often than not I
>come to the wrong conclusion that this can't be a dream.
Then wake up. ; ) My dreams are fantastic colorful and wonderous
adventures. Sometimes I get caught up in the dream, sometimes I am just
enjoying myself completely. Sometimes when I describe my dreams to others they
tend to see them as nightmares (like being eaten by a lioness and her cubs),
when I still just see them as dreams. What's even more fun is when I am wide
awake and reality appears dream like and unreal.
>> > The external behaviour pertaining to the acquisition of a skill is
>> > objective -- we can all distinguish a good pianist from a bad one. But
>> > when the phenomenon is entirely subjective -- like the experiential
>> > awareness of a non-dual Ultimate Reality -- then it must surely be like
>> > having to take somebody else's word for it that they have a headache.
>> > They may exhibit a certain kind of skilfulness that we might aspire to,
>> > but that doesn't allow us to share their experience of the non-dual --
>> > we must take this on faith until we have attained to it ourselves.
>>
>> Unless you have a master who can show it to you directly. The headache
>> you suffer IS objectively true for you, but unlike the direct experience
>> of nondual awareness, headaches are experiences that are changeable and
>> unique events. A direct "experiential awareness of ... non-dual Ultimate
>> Reality" is the same for all. Not being a unique event, but the ground of
>> all events, not being ever changing reflections, but the mirror like
>> nature of awareness that is a witness to all forms -- nondual awareness
>> isn't conditioned by habits, and isn't stained by ignorance. The
>> difference is only in depth and the level of integration.
>
>If you've experienced this first-hand then you have dispensed with the need
>for faith. I haven't, and I am relying on the reports of those that have --
>i.e. I am taking their word for it on faith.
: ) To paraphrase Eckhart, You must leave faith to find the faith of
certainty. The experience that you "think" you lack, you are already
experiencing right now, no need to take the word of others. Not that I claim
to be enlightened. Far from it.
>> > All traditions demand faith before experience, but the problem with the
>> > Christian faith is that it demands nothing more. Faith is only the
>> > motivation that spurs us on to put in the effort, since without the
>> > effort there will be no progress.
>>
>> Generally speaking its the theistic religions that demand faith first.
>> I know of a few traditions that make no such demand of their followers --
>> Zen, Dzogchen, and the Clear Reality School of Taoism. But then again,
>> there are always exceptions to the rule. Though practicing the
>> transformitive spiritual disciplines of these traditions will cultivate
>> and develop faith, but experience comes first. And all you need to have
>> is enough interest to give it a whirl.
>
>Why practice these transformative spiritual disciplines unless one has faith
>at the outset that there is something to it all? How can experience come
>first if these practices are intended to lead to that experience? Let me put
>it another way ... these practices demand a great deal of time and effort,
>so why should I consider making this investment if I don't have at least a
>little faith that there will be a return on my investment?
Its fun, interesting, entertaining, or because life without the possiblity
would be meaningless. Each of us are motived for different reasons. As long
as our intentions are not malevolent, and we follow the procedures correctly,
will get there eventually, as long as _we _don't_ give_ up_.
>> Originally I just had a basic
>> curiousity about Eastern spiritual practices. It was interesting and fun
>> to study this stuff, and I noticed the health and psychological benefits
>> as I "tried" the practices out. Only after practicing basic meditation for
>> many years and reading thousands of books, did I wake up one morning and
>> realized that this stuff really works and that I had a very deep
>> confidence in the effectiveness of these practices. This is what Buddhist
>> faith is based: direct personal experience following a spiritual practice.
>
>Don't we need faith in order to begin the spiritual practice in the first
>place? Admittedly experiences will provide grounds for stronger faith, until
>faith is no longer required, but I think faith must be there right from the
>start. You cite curiosity as a motivating force, but surely curiosity is
>grounded in the conviction that this is something worth investigating --
>i.e. in faith?
Does a child at play need faith to enjoy their playfulness? Creative play
requires no faith, just playfulness. Curiosity is simply being open to what
ever the outcome turns out to be. It is a sense of wonder about new insight.
Often when I paint or draw I have no idea what I will paint or draw, I relax
and allow the painting to paint itself, so to speak.
>> > But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
>> > whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because others
>> > are no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment
>> > sufficient (bacause others are no different from himself) -- this also
>> > reminds me of another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by ones
>> > own efforts or by the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I
>> > have my suspicions about this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate
>> > Reality there can be no distinction between self and not-self.
>>
>> I look at it like this -- You cannot do it alone, but neither can anyone
>> else do it for you.
>
>Rationally the statement above is a contradiction, which is why I have my
>suspicions about these rational arguments.
My statement above seems very logical to me, but it isn't a rational
argument.
>As Plotinus says, reason leads you to the door but it must be left on the
>threshold as you enter.
That's not the only thing that must be left, but in reality there is no
threshold you need to pass through, nor any door that must be opened. There is
a limit to reason and a "knowingness" that transcends reason.
>> > The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith provides
>> > the motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant -- faith
>> > is the necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to attain to
>> > that experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and faith
>> > have served their purpose and have become redundant.
>>
>> That is one way to approach it and most of the theistic religions do
>> follow that kind of theology (faith first or faith only), and there are
>> also many Buddhist traditions that follow that kind of program, but all of
>> the nondual traditions I have studied to any degree regardless of religion
>> (Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Sufi) begin with experience. All you need is
>> enough of an interest to practice for a little while.
>
>What is the experience they begin with?
The one they are experiencing.
>> > Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an
>> > underserved bad reputation.
>>
>> Science didn't help much. While mainstream Christianity may have soiled
>> the word "faith," western science sought to make it meaningless.
>
>Science is grounded in faith -- namely the hypothetico-deductive method. In
>my experience most scientists acknowledge this fact, and it is only the
>over-enthusiastic non-scientist that makes ridiculous claims for science
>(this is called scientism). When evidence forces everybody onto the same
>model (like the "spheroidal earth" model) then there can be great
>confidence, but inductive logic admits of no certainty. Where the evidence
>supports several competing hypotheses there can be little confidence.
Confidence in the method is not the same as faith in the answers. Also, this
certainty that I am claiming is not based on inductive logic, therefore I am
not constrained by the limits of inductive logic. It is reason-able, but when
expressed in words it only "makes sense" if you have been there and done that.
If you haven't been there and done that, then the words sound contradictory and
paradoxical.
I would agree with that. When I made the comment about Revelations "it has
already happened, that it is happening right now, and that it will happen again
in the future" -- 'the already happened' I believe was John's railing against
the Roman Empire. I also think that the Gospel of John's audience were the
Romans, or those living within the Roman cultural world view. The only part
that I think the writers of the Gospels meant as historical (in a sense) was
that Jesus died on the cross and arose to live again. I think that they wanted
to impress on the reader the reality of that experience as eyewitnesses.
Beyond that, the point was to give the "basic" teaching of Jesus. As you say,
they were casting a wide-net. Sadly that "bandwagon" inclusive agenda was
twisted into an exclusive "your with us or against us dogma," without any
accepted mainstream esoteric spiritual path that can lead you to the experience
of transcendent truth. One of my chief problems with mainstream Christianity
is the exclusivity of Jesus Christ as the only way, and that dogmaticlly
speaking you (me) can never attain the insight and union of a Christ. The
Church only allows good sheep, there is only one shepard and that job is
already taken. On the other hand, the whole point of Buddhism is to become a
Buddha.
J.
In article <L5JR8.3573$W93.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Congratulations to you both! By the way ... does your wife share your
>passion for jumping out of perfectly good airplanes?
LOL! Thank you. Oh, and no my wife doesn't share in my joy of jumping out
of perfectly good airplanes. In fact, its one of the joys that I had to give
up, for my wife. Like many people she thinks thats just c r a zy. Ah, the
sacrifices we make for those we love. : )
andy-k
>
> >> Hi Andy,
> >> This is very long. Sorry.
> >
> >No need to apologise -- I always find your comments illuminating and
> >inspiring.
>
> Thank you, but give me enough time I'll say something silly eventually.
Still human then :)
> >> >I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which
> >> >there can be no certainty.
> >>
> >> Yes. Which is one reason why I don't use the word "faith" as a
> >> requirement for eventual nondual awareness and insight. Certainty is
> >> exactly what I am seeking, not a good but changeable guess.
> >
> >I think we have marginally different definitions of faith, and some of my
> >comments in the rest of this post reflect my perspective. It's possibly a
> >fruitless exercise to attempt to reach a common definition, but I would
be interested in understanding your perspective ... it is a little beyond me
at the minute. Don't take my comments as an attempt to convince you that I'm
> >right and you're wrong ... take them as an investigation to find out
where your definition differs from mine.
>
> That would be one of the traditional purposes of Tibetan style debate.
Tibetan style debate sounds good to me then -- all too often these internet
debates descend into a battle of egos!
> > It is consistent with my definition that in order to seek certainty one
must have faith that there is a certainty to seek. Until one achieves that
certainty it must surely be nothing more than a good but changeable
guess -- witness the many that set out to pursue enlightenment only to fall
by the wayside because they conclude that they are on a wild goose chase.
>
> Many people give up, but is this due to their lack of faith in the goal
or lack of confidence in themselves? Perhaps they have come to the
conclusion that they are on a wild goose chase as a rationalization for
their own failure. Its easy to give up. Its hard to keep on going. I would
say that there is one kind of faith that is a requirement -- faith in
yourself.
Faith in one's ability to succeed ... absolutely!
My memory often lets me down -- there may have been a car chase in there
somewhere. Perhaps as one of those subliminal flashes they sometimes used
(or was that the Young Ones? -- there, you see what I mean?) And sometimes I
remember things I made up as if they really happened (the so-called "false
memory syndrome"). I've learned through repeated mistakes that a hundred
per-cent certainty is only possible for the qualities of immediate
and present experience -- even if I'm only dreaming that I see a red apple,
the quality of redness is still present in consciousness.
> >Augustine cites this as indicative of a specific kind of certainty -- "si
> fallor, sum" -- i.e. I know I can be wrong, therefore I can at least be
certain that "I am" (for there to be doubt there must be a doubter).
Descartes exhumed it as "Cogito, ergo sum" (for there to be thoughts there
must be a thinker).
>
> "I think, therefore I am." So, what were you before you started
thinking?
My conclusion is that before thoughts arose there was no impression of a
metaphysical subject at all. The "fall of man" begins with the "I-thought"
(what Ramana calls the "aham vritti").
> > I'm uncertain about their conclusions -- the existence of doubts or of
> thoughts no more proves the existence of a doubter or of a thinker than
the existence of waves on water proves the existence of a "waver".
>
> Yep. Considering that there is a not so subtle dualism at the heart of
such statements I find their conclusions lacking. My own conclusion is that
> thoughts do not lead to a thinker. Thoughts are the natural manifestation
of the energy of the mind. The thinker that we "think" is present, when we
are thinking, is just another thought. Just another reflection.
I think we are in perfect agreement here.
> >> Another example would be for me to
> >> claim that the parrot was alive and that is what was funny.
> >> Now, of course 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' may only be funny to English
> >> speakers with a Judeo-Christian Anglo-Saxon background, but what about
> >> those things that are universally funny.
> >
> >Going back to Descartes, part of his argument is that there may be some
evil demon that is conjuring up the whole world in his (Descartes') mind.
How can he be sure about anything? He can only escape his dilemma by
introducing God as the guarantor, being the benign entity that He is. But
this is a cop-out,
>
> I agree, it is a cop-out, a very gnostic dualistic cop-out. Descartes
was working within the limits of reason, he never transcends.
>
> >so how do WE get out of this dilemma?
>
> Wake up. Take up the appropriate practices and learn how to open the
eyes that can see the truth, rather than just think about (and around) the
truth. The way out of this dilemma is enlightenment. The practice of
> contemplation/meditation is the telescope/microscope that you have to see
> through to gain the insight. It is the experiment that you must do.
I have great faith that your answer is correct :)
> >> >However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
> >> >work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in
believing they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this
requires faith.
> >>
> >> True, but I wouldn't equate that with religious faith. I am certain
> >> that water flows down hill and I am certain that fire burns. I hope my
> >> breaks works, and I pray that the sun doesn't go super nova or sends a
> >> flair that destroys the ozone layer while I sleep. There are things
that I can be certain of, and there are things that will only always be good
> >> changeable guesses. I am certain that some day I will die. I hope that
I am awake and lucide when death happens, ready and as excited as I was
the first time I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, but I can't be
sure when that will be. Unlike skydiving, there are no appointments -- they
get you eventially. We are already in Death's waiting room. Most likely
> >> sometime after I post this or sometime later in the not so distant
future
> >
> >Ben Franklin ... death and taxes?
> >My dreams are so convincing they frighten the hell out of me sometimes.
> >Occasionally I take a reality check when dreaming, and more often than
not I come to the wrong conclusion that this can't be a dream.
>
> Then wake up. ; )
I'm working on it :)
> My dreams are fantastic colorful and wonderous
> adventures. Sometimes I get caught up in the dream, sometimes I am just
> enjoying myself completely. Sometimes when I describe my dreams to others
they tend to see them as nightmares (like being eaten by a lioness and her
cubs), when I still just see them as dreams. What's even more fun is when I
am wide awake and reality appears dream like and unreal.
I understand that last sentence (as we have discussed previously).
I've always regarded Eckhart's sermons as a kind of theistic Buddhism -- the
paraphrase above is very Zen-like.
> >> > All traditions demand faith before experience, but the problem with
the Christian faith is that it demands nothing more. Faith is only the
> >> > motivation that spurs us on to put in the effort, since without the
> >> > effort there will be no progress.
> >>
> >> Generally speaking its the theistic religions that demand faith
first. I know of a few traditions that make no such demand of their
followers -- Zen, Dzogchen, and the Clear Reality School of Taoism. But
then again, there are always exceptions to the rule. Though practicing the
> >> transformitive spiritual disciplines of these traditions will cultivate
> >> and develop faith, but experience comes first. And all you need to
have is enough interest to give it a whirl.
> >
> >Why practice these transformative spiritual disciplines unless one has
faith at the outset that there is something to it all? How can experience
come first if these practices are intended to lead to that experience? Let
me put it another way ... these practices demand a great deal of time and
effort, so why should I consider making this investment if I don't have at
least a little faith that there will be a return on my investment?
>
> Its fun, interesting, entertaining, or because life without the
possiblity would be meaningless. Each of us are motived for different
reasons. As long as our intentions are not malevolent, and we follow the
procedures correctly, will get there eventually, as long as _we _don't_
give_ up_.
Precisely! Not giving up demands faith! But I do take your point that we may
do things for fun, or simply to structure our time, and through that
accidentally wander across something that grabs our attention and draws us
in (I might cite your Toshindo and my Aikido as examples). However, I would
argue that this "grabbing and drawing-in" is itself grounded in faith that
there is something that may prove to be personally profitable here. Perhaps
the biggest joke of all is that in this particular case, what was originally
considered as possibly personally profitable ends in the extinguishing of
that which sought the personal profit!
> >> Originally I just had a basic
> >> curiousity about Eastern spiritual practices. It was interesting and
fun to study this stuff, and I noticed the health and psychological
benefits as I "tried" the practices out. Only after practicing basic
meditation for many years and reading thousands of books, did I wake up one
morning and realized that this stuff really works and that I had a very deep
> >> confidence in the effectiveness of these practices. This is what
Buddhist faith is based: direct personal experience following a spiritual
practice.
> >
> >Don't we need faith in order to begin the spiritual practice in the first
> >place? Admittedly experiences will provide grounds for stronger faith,
until faith is no longer required, but I think faith must be there right
from the start. You cite curiosity as a motivating force, but surely
curiosity is grounded in the conviction that this is something worth
investigating -- i.e. in faith?
>
> Does a child at play need faith to enjoy their playfulness? Creative
play requires no faith, just playfulness. Curiosity is simply being open to
what ever the outcome turns out to be. It is a sense of wonder about new
insight. Often when I paint or draw I have no idea what I will paint or
draw, I relax and allow the painting to paint itself, so to speak.
But you have faith that it will, or else you'd just be sitting relaxing.
Faith, as I understand the word (confidence in what there can be no
certainty of), is entailed by the mechanism of association and the
accompanying expectation that the conjunction will be repeated -- e.g.
Pavlov's dogs had faith that when the bell rang they would be fed. (Then one
day Pavlov came along and selected a dog, made an incision in the side of
its neck, led out its oesophagus through the incision, severed it, and hung
it over a jar to quantify the rate of salivation.) Any kind of
acknowledgement of, and reliance upon, an established association, is a show
of faith. But Man, being the rational animal, takes this rudimentary form of
faith to a higher level. Our capacities for symbolic representation and for
hypothesis creation allow us to have faith not just in what we have
experienced directly through the senses, but also in what can be
hypothesised over and above that which has been directly experienced. Out of
this capacity religious faith arises. You see -- I'm arguing that faith is
implicit in the animal kingdom, but rises to increasingly abstract levels,
in our species culminating in religious faith and in superstition (I'm not
implying a connection here, but there is an overlap).
> >> > But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
> >> > whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because
others are no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment
> >> > sufficient (bacause others are no different from himself) -- this
also reminds me of another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by ones
> >> > own efforts or by the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I
> >> > have my suspicions about this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate
> >> > Reality there can be no distinction between self and not-self.
> >>
> >> I look at it like this -- You cannot do it alone, but neither can
anyone else do it for you.
> >
> >Rationally the statement above is a contradiction, which is why I have my
> >suspicions about these rational arguments.
>
> My statement above seems very logical to me, but it isn't a rational
> argument.
The logic as I see it is that if I can't do it, and it can't be done for me,
then it won't be done. This is an example of the law of the excluded middle.
But I'm not arguing that it won't be done, of course -- just that logic and
reason don't provide a complete picture.
> >As Plotinus says, reason leads you to the door but it must be left on the
> >threshold as you enter.
>
> That's not the only thing that must be left, but in reality there is no
> threshold you need to pass through, nor any door that must be opened.
There is a limit to reason and a "knowingness" that transcends reason.
I love that word "knowingness" -- it seems to say so much more than
"consciousness". I think it's because I associate "consciousness" with the
subject-object dichotomy -- there is no consciousness without it being
"consciousness of ..."
> >> > The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith
provides the motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant --
faith is the necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to attain
to that experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and
faith have served their purpose and have become redundant.
> >>
> >> That is one way to approach it and most of the theistic religions do
> >> follow that kind of theology (faith first or faith only), and there are
> >> also many Buddhist traditions that follow that kind of program, but all
of the nondual traditions I have studied to any degree regardless of
religion (Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Sufi) begin with experience. All you
need is enough of an interest to practice for a little while.
> >
> >What is the experience they begin with?
>
> The one they are experiencing.
Then I guess what I'm arguing is that it requires faith to abandon all else
but the experience they are experiencing. It is such a counter-intuitive
claim that it causes more than a little consternation when first
encountered.
> >> > Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an
> >> > underserved bad reputation.
> >>
> >> Science didn't help much. While mainstream Christianity may have
soiled the word "faith," western science sought to make it meaningless.
> >
> >Science is grounded in faith -- namely the hypothetico-deductive method.
In my experience most scientists acknowledge this fact, and it is only the
> >over-enthusiastic non-scientist that makes ridiculous claims for science
> >(this is called scientism). When evidence forces everybody onto the same
> >model (like the "spheroidal earth" model) then there can be great
> >confidence, but inductive logic admits of no certainty. Where the
evidence supports several competing hypotheses there can be little
confidence.
>
> Confidence in the method is not the same as faith in the answers.
Faith in the method, faith in the answers, different kinds of faith but both
faith.
> Also, this certainty that I am claiming is not based on inductive logic,
therefore I am not constrained by the limits of inductive logic. It is
reason-able, but when expressed in words it only "makes sense" if you have
been there and done that. If you haven't been there and done that, then the
words sound contradictory and paradoxical.
So to one that has not been there and done that, faith is required that the
one who has been there and done that is not merely deranged.
You and I seem to think remarkably alike. I would take issue with a couple
of points here if I were pedantic enough, but I'm more taken by the level of
agreement.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
> Hi Andy,
>
>In article <L5JR8.3573$W93.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
><and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>
>>Congratulations to you both! By the way ... does your wife share your
>>passion for jumping out of perfectly good airplanes?
>
> LOL! Thank you. Oh, and no my wife doesn't share in my joy of jumping out
>of perfectly good airplanes. In fact, its one of the joys that I had to give
>up, for my wife. Like many people she thinks thats just c r a zy. Ah, the
>sacrifices we make for those we love. : )
I know what you mean, twenty-six years ago I had given up hang-gliding
for the same reason :-)
> J.
>
>Rest in a sky-like mind.
>Sit like a mountain floating on the earth.
>Breathe like the wind circling the world.
Glenn (Christian Mystic)
J.
In article <R1VS8.138$tN6....@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020626161247...@mb-fn.aol.com...
>>
>> >> Hi Andy,
>> >> This is very long. Sorry.
>> >
>> >No need to apologise -- I always find your comments illuminating and
>> >inspiring.
>>
>> Thank you, but give me enough time I'll say something silly eventually.
>
>Still human then :)
Well, as of the last time I checked, yes. Then again, I guess that depends
on who you ask. : ) Any who, hang on this is another long one.
>> >> >I understand the word faith to mean confidence in a belief for which
>> >> >there can be no certainty.
>> >>
>> >> Yes. Which is one reason why I don't use the word "faith" as a
>> >> requirement for eventual nondual awareness and insight. Certainty is
>> >> exactly what I am seeking, not a good but changeable guess.
>> >
>> >I think we have marginally different definitions of faith, and some of my
>> >comments in the rest of this post reflect my perspective. It's possibly a
>> >fruitless exercise to attempt to reach a common definition, but I would
>> >be interested in understanding your perspective ... it is a little beyond
me
>> >at the minute. Don't take my comments as an attempt to convince you that
>> >I'm right and you're wrong ... take them as an investigation to find out
where >> >> >your definition differs from mine.
>>
>> That would be one of the traditional purposes of Tibetan style debate.
>
>Tibetan style debate sounds good to me then -- all too often these internet
>debates descend into a battle of egos!
Though I do like a challenging debate, I usually go silent when that happens.
Why protect an ego, when it is just another illusion?
>> > It is consistent with my definition that in order to seek certainty one
>> >must have faith that there is a certainty to seek. Until one achieves that
>> >certainty it must surely be nothing more than a good but changeable
>> >guess -- witness the many that set out to pursue enlightenment only to fall
>> >by the wayside because they conclude that they are on a wild goose chase.
>>
> Many people give up, but is this due to their lack of faith in the goal
>or lack of confidence in themselves? Perhaps they have come to the
>conclusion that they are on a wild goose chase as a rationalization for
>their own failure. Its easy to give up. Its hard to keep on going. I would
>say that there is one kind of faith that is a requirement -- faith in
>yourself.
>
>Faith in one's ability to succeed ... absolutely!
It's the only way. Believing you can do it, is the first attitude to
cultivate. The first belief that matters. At the Dojo we open each class with
the Student Creed, the first line is "I believe in myself, I am confident. I
can accomplish my goals." Within the Dojo the "goal" is your next belt or
rank. Though you can think of any goal while saying the Student Creed. The
kids are told of thinking about getting good grades, thinking of a clean
bedroom. Adults are told of thinking about their own personal goals. This
system has a very pragmatic approach and presents a complete self-defense
program that leads to the integration of body, voice, and mental-emotional
attitudes. When you feel confident you stand tall and feel rooted to the
ground. Energy rises upward and sinks downward. When you feel threatened,
unsure, you move backward at 45 and 90 degree angles to get different views, to
get different perspectives of the situation. The energy is like the out going
wave on the beach shore, come rolling back crashing with an undertow. When
you feel commited to act, and you let go explosively, shutting down the attack
just as it begins. This is a person, who you cannot talk out of hurting other
people. The energy blasts through and is constaint, never letting up, bowling
everything over. When you feel unthreatened but the situation still calls for
intervention. A drunken friend, or someone ill, a family member, a child
acting violently -- anyone you need to gain control of, but also someone you
would never want to hurt. This element of the self-defense program is very
much like Aikido in dynamics, the footwork is different. Very circular, big
circles and little circles, within big circles little circles. The energy
tends to get lofted up, or takes flight. Like trying to fight the wind, blasts
eddies moments of calm, to blowing into whirlwinds or gusts of wind.
I am simplifiying a bit, but the point is the response begins with this
feeling-tone mental attitude you find within yourself. This is how you relate
to the situation, not how your "suppose to relate." You begin where you are
and the body acts. You no longer need to think about the moves, you begin
where you are and the body acts naturally.
Getting to learn this stuff builds confidence daily.
>> >> >This then must apply to all empirical knowledge because
>> >> >inductive logic can provide no certainty. There can only be certain
>> >> >knowledge for deductive logic, and then this reduces to tautologies
>> >> >anyway. Examples: there can be certainty that a triangle has three
>> >> >sides, because having three sides is explicit in the definition of a
>> >> >triangle -- this requires no faith.
>> >>
>>> What about direct perception, an "I" witness? If I see something
>>>with my own eyes and confirm my observation with others who have also
>>>witnessed that truth, I can and do hold that truth as a certainity.
>>>If I ... [snip]. ... claim that my favorite part of 'The Dead Parrot Sketch'
was the >>>car chase and when the author discribed traveling through the wires
of the
>>>internet, you would be pretty certain that I hadn't seen it.
>> >
>> >No I wouldn't ... I would begin to wonder whether I was referring to the
>> >wrong sketch, or maybe there's another sketch by the same name ... doubt
>> >would creep in. I know I can be wrong ... I've been wrong so many times,
>> >even when I thought I was certain about something!
>>
>> Really? I used the above example because it is something that we have
>>in common. We are both referring to the same sketch and there is no other
>>sketch by the same name, yet I still claim that my favorite part is the car
>>chase. Do you still question yourself? Would doubt actually creep in, or
>>would you conclude that I was either lying or just a little crazy?
>
>My memory often lets me down -- there may have been a car chase in there
>somewhere. Perhaps as one of those subliminal flashes they sometimes used
>(or was that the Young Ones? -- there, you see what I mean?) And sometimes I
>remember things I made up as if they really happened (the so-called "false
>memory syndrome"). I've learned through repeated mistakes that a hundred
>per-cent certainty is only possible for the qualities of immediate
>and present experience -- even if I'm only dreaming that I see a red apple,
>the quality of redness is still present in consciousness.
Ah, humm? Ghee, I hope this doesn't up set you, but I have eaten a few green
apples in my time. And they weren't bad apples. They were the one's that are
suppose to be green when you eat them. I've even made pie with green apples.
Very good pies. Though you are right, 100% certainty is possible through the
immediate [directly] present experiencing of reality/awareness. The total
experience in one taste. The whole world in one slice of pie. Fully
experienced, completely relaxed and resting in the experience of pie-ness. The
sweet of baked apples, a moist flaky honey crust with a hint of nutmeg, topped
with fresh vanila bean whipped cream. I am certain of the truth of apple
pie-ness, as I bite down on the last piece.
Just as certain of the truth of apple pie-ness, when I had it for the first
time. Unlike pies, baked goods, and apples, the immediate [directly] present
experiencing of reality/awareness, is always present and available. Rather
than identifying with a new concept introduce from outside you, you rest in the
immediate [directly] present experiencing of reality/awareness naturally
recognized within you.
>> >Augustine cites this as indicative of a specific kind of certainty -- "si
>>>fallor, sum" -- i.e. I know I can be wrong, therefore I can at least be
>>>certain that "I am" (for there to be doubt there must be a doubter).
>>>Descartes exhumed it as "Cogito, ergo sum" (for there to be thoughts there
>>>must be a thinker).
>>
>> "I think, therefore I am." So, what were you before you started
>>thinking?
>
>My conclusion is that before thoughts arose there was no impression of a
>metaphysical subject at all. The "fall of man" begins with the "I-thought"
>(what Ramana calls the "aham vritti").
"Aham" as the true "I" (atman) of every human being, not the "I"
consciousness. "Vritti" "wave of thought" the ceaseless mental oscillations
arising within each of us that veils absolute consciousness. The "fall of
man," fixating on the oscillations, in a sense caught in the waves of
"I-thoughts" arising ceaselessly, yes there is something before that, but it is
also present right now and will continue into the future. The self reflective
immediate present experiencing is before the waves of "I-thoughts" arising
ceaselessly .
>> > I'm uncertain about their conclusions -- the existence of doubts or of
>>> thoughts no more proves the existence of a doubter or of a thinker than
>>> the existence of waves on water proves the existence of a "waver".
>>
>> Yep. Considering that there is a not so subtle dualism at the heart of
>>such statements I find their conclusions lacking. My own conclusion is that
>>thoughts do not lead to a thinker. Thoughts are the natural manifestation
>>of the energy of the mind. The thinker that we "think" is present, when we
>>are thinking, is just another thought. Just another reflection.
>
>I think we are in perfect agreement here.
Now that's a circular statement. hahahahehehe giggle giggle giggle : )
>> >> Another example would be for me to
>> >> claim that the parrot was alive and that is what was funny.
>> >> Now, of course 'The Dead Parrot Sketch' may only be funny to English
>> >> speakers with a Judeo-Christian Anglo-Saxon background, but what about
>> >> those things that are universally funny.
>> >
>>>Going back to Descartes, part of his argument is that there may be some
>>>evil demon that is conjuring up the whole world in his (Descartes') mind.
>>>How can he be sure about anything? He can only escape his dilemma by
>>>introducing God as the guarantor, being the benign entity that He is. But
>>>this is a cop-out,
>>
>> I agree, it is a cop-out, a very gnostic dualistic cop-out. Descartes
>>was working within the limits of reason, he never transcends.
>>
>> >so how do WE get out of this dilemma?
>>
>> Wake up. Take up the appropriate practices and learn how to open the
>> eyes that can see the truth, rather than just think about (and around) the
>> truth. The way out of this dilemma is enlightenment. The practice of
>> contemplation/meditation is the telescope/microscope that you have to see
>> through to gain the insight. It is the experiment that you must do.
>
>I have great faith that your answer is correct :)
[And here we have another example of a "call back," though I have no idea if
its funny. Its not really a joke]. ; )
So than, just sit
And turn the light around.
Don't forget to breath.
>> >> >However, there can be no certainty that your brakes will
>> >> >work next time you use your car (though you may be justified in
>> >> >believing they will if you have your car regularly serviced) -- this
>> >> >requires faith.
>> >>
>> >> True, but I wouldn't equate that with religious faith. I am certain
>> >> that water flows down hill and I am certain that fire burns. I hope my
>> >> breaks works, and I pray that the sun doesn't go super nova or sends a
>> >> flair that destroys the ozone layer while I sleep. There are things
>> >> that I can be certain of, and there are things that will only always be
good
>> >> changeable guesses. I am certain that some day I will die. I hope that
>> >> I am awake and lucide when death happens, ready and as excited as I was
>> >> the first time I jumped out of a perfectly good airplane, but I can't be
>> >> sure when that will be. Unlike skydiving, there are no appointments --
they
>> >> get you eventially. We are already in Death's waiting room. Most likely
>> >> sometime after I post this or sometime later in the not so distant future
>> >
>> >Ben Franklin ... death and taxes?
>> >My dreams are so convincing they frighten the hell out of me sometimes.
>> >Occasionally I take a reality check when dreaming, and more often than
>> >not I come to the wrong conclusion that this can't be a dream.
>>
>> Then wake up. ; )
>
>I'm working on it :)
Don't work on it. Relax into it. Rather than trying to make it happen, just
let it happen. Allow it to happen. Give it permission to happen.
>> My dreams are fantastic colorful and wonderous
>> adventures. Sometimes I get caught up in the dream, sometimes I am just
>> enjoying myself completely. Sometimes when I describe my dreams to others
>> they tend to see them as nightmares (like being eaten by a lioness and her
>> cubs), when I still just see them as dreams. What's even more fun is when I
>> am wide awake and reality appears dream like and unreal.
>
>I understand that last sentence (as we have discussed previously).
There is the Tibetan practice of Dream Yoga, that is very helpful for turning
nightmares into neutral or pleasant dreams. Dream Yoga is a highly developed
practice in Tibetan Buddhism and makes the lucid dreaming research and
practices of Western psychology look like child's play. One major difference
is that Tibetan Dream Yoga isn't therapy. The practitioner seeks to gain
lucidity, so he or she can still practice the Buddhadharma even during sleep.
There is so much more possible in our dreams, than the whispers of Western
'wive's tales.' First thing to find out -- like my reference to my lioness
dream above -- you can die in your dreams and still wake up alive. The 'wives
tale' of "if you die in your dream, you die for real," is false.
It is also a practice that can be easily added to any regular meditiation
practice. Most Tibetan traditions, Buddhist and Bon, have a Dream Yoga as a
standard part of their practices. And it's fairly easy for Westerners to
develop.
First thing to do is keep a Dream Log. Record all of your dreams. Write
them down in long hand. All you want to do is go through the process of
describing your dream in a physical form. No need to analyze. No need to read
them later. Just write them down in a notebook and then put it away. Its the
process of recording, not the material recorded, that is important. When you
have an important dream, you won't need to refer to your notes. Still, write
it down and save it for later. In a few years maybe you'ld like to read them.
Reading and interpreting the recorded dreams later isn't part of the purpose of
the exercise though. The process helps develop and cultivate clarity and
recall in your dreams. It also improves the odds of gaining lucidity within
our dreams as we are dreaming. This is also a practice that greatly helps
insight development and cultivates a nondual awareness.
He is one of my favorites. One of the sad facts of Christian history is that
it was allowed to developed few branches. For a thousand years the Holy Roman
Catholic Church reigned over the West and the Orthodox Church in the East. The
sad part is that the branches were broken -- and they grow as separate trees.
The heritics were burnt, until Luther nailed his statements on the Church door
and the next branch was broken off and re-planted, so the tree of Protestantism
began to grow. Now there are around 250 trees of Christianity, each a separate
tradition. Buddhism is a little different. It has hundreds of branches, but
very few trees.
This difference is still observable in the way the practitioners of Buddhism
and Christianity relate within their traditions and with each other. For
example there are many practitioners of both traditions who are involved in
inter_faith_ "conversations," but in Buddhist circles we find many more
examples of those who are also involved in inter_practice_ retreats. A few of
the monastic Christian sects have begun to study meditation techniques and
there is a Jesuit Priest who is also an acknowledge Zen master and lineage
holder, but generally speaking most Christians (the Western mainstream
semi-secular Christian) won't dance to other people's music. Within the mind
of that type of believer, Heaven has become a very exclusive club and only
those "of the right kind, who wear the right clothes" get in.
Buddhism (and this is being led by Western Buddhist with the help of their
teachers) is having a kind of Renaissance, within all traditions world wide.
Over the pass thirty years nearly every form of Buddhism has slowly made its'
way to the West and especially the Americas. Within the next 20 years
everything written in Sanskrit, Pali, Tibetan, Chinese, Japanese, Korean,
Burmese, Vietnamese, or any other language with a script you can think of, will
have been translated in to English, French, and Spanish. That is if -- we as
human beings are able to integrate culture(s) without lossing our identity as
individuals. What are the long term social ramification of the whole world
population going "on-line"? While I think we will never get to the level of
100% (hope not), just think of 6 or 7 or maybe 8 or 9 billion people, on-line.
In an open free environment were the only limitations are of language and
personal interests, national boundaries become meaningless in such a world.
"We live in interesting times." In China that would be considered a curse.
I would say that that was my wife's experience with Toshindo. Myself, I am
an eight year old little boy who gets to play (and learn from) ninjas twice a
week. When I started to actually learn and practice the art, I had already
researched the system, the teachers, and their history. I read all of the
books to read. When I walked into the Dojo for the first time, I didn't walk
in blind. I had checked it all out. It is one of the only times I have walked
into a Dojo with real confidence that this was a good one. This was going to
be a good place. Only one Dojo in the mix and it was from the same system,
under students of the same teacher.
So, when I found out about a school only an hour away, I dragged my wife
there and basically talked her into joining with me. We signed up for the
Basic Self-Defense Program, 9 months. About half way through the program she
caught the "bug" and well, it has been 3 years and we are still going -- and
going for black. During that first 6 or 7 months she lost 20 or 25 lbs. She
felt good and she learned how to really defend herself. She was/is pretty good
at this stuff. Very empowering experience for her.
She does say now, "If five years ago someone were to say, 'I'd be a year away
from getting my black belt in a Japanese combat art in five years.' I would
have called them crazy."
For her the experience is/was like you describe -- "that this "grabbing and
drawing-in" is itself grounded in faith that there is something that may prove
to be personally profitable here."
For me, it is just fun really. Like practicing Tai Chi or dance. I learned
how to dance because I like dancing. Jazz, modern, ballet, swing, and some
ballroom. I love to waltz. Did musical theater in high school and college.
Great fun is the "first" reason, so rather than try to find (or make up) more
reasonable reason I just stick with the fun. The bliss and open awareness, of
the -- and within, the practice of any art or discipline that has as its
foundation the simple child-like enthusiasm and excitement that engages the
whole body-voice-heart-mind in what you are doing within that very moment,
shouldn't be underestimated in any long term practice.
It is the same with my approach with Buddhism and spiritual practices. I was
really just playing with it. It was fun. Of course later for a while I was
following "as if my hair was on fire," one of the Traditional approaches (the
phrase is from a sutra), very similar to "Giving it your best!" or "giving it
your best shoot!"
Another traditional approach is The Four Metaphors:
"Noble one, you should think of yourself as someone sick
Of the Dharma as the remedy,
Of your spiritual ffriend as a skillful doctor,
And of diligent practice as
The way to recovery."
My favorite traditional teaching on a positive approach towards the practice
and study of Buddhadharma more in line with the doing it for the fun approach
(or anything you want to learn) is the Five Perfections; cultivating the
attitude of the presense of the perfect teacher, perfect place, perfect
companions, perfect teaching, and the perfect time.
> Perhaps the biggest joke of all is that in this particular case, what was
originally
>considered as possibly personally profitable ends in the extinguishing of
>that which sought the personal profit!
Trungpa called that one of the great cosmic jokes. He would also say that as
long as we are trying to gain Buddhahood, we will never gain Buddhahood. It's
when we let go of (this is not giving up) the idea of gaining enlightenment,
that we will realize that we are already enlightened.
It was getting too long, had to split it. So ...
Coming Soon --
Continued under subject heading -- "Turning the light around Part Two -- Was:
Re: Turning the light around"
J.
Continued from thread -- "Re: Turning the light around," Responding to
Part Two, the second half, the rest of the babble ...
>> >Don't we need faith in order to begin the spiritual practice in the first
>> >place? Admittedly experiences will provide grounds for stronger faith,
>> >until faith is no longer required, but I think faith must be there right
>> >from the start. You cite curiosity as a motivating force, but surely
>> >curiosity is grounded in the conviction that this is something worth
>> >investigating -- i.e. in faith?
>>
>> Does a child at play need faith to enjoy their playfulness? Creative
>> play requires no faith, just playfulness. Curiosity is simply being open to
>> what ever the outcome turns out to be. It is a sense of wonder about new
>> insight. Often when I paint or draw I have no idea what I will paint or
>> draw, I relax and allow the painting to paint itself, so to speak.
>
>But you have faith that it will, or else you'd just be sitting relaxing.
No actually, I'd just be painting.
>Faith, as I understand the word (confidence in what there can be no
>certainty of), is entailed by the mechanism of association and the
>accompanying expectation that the conjunction will be repeated -- e.g.
>Pavlov's dogs had faith that when the bell rang they would be fed. (Then one
>day Pavlov came along and selected a dog, made an incision in the side of
>its neck, led out its oesophagus through the incision, severed it, and hung
>it over a jar to quantify the rate of salivation.)
Evidence for behavioral modification isn't evidence of faith. The dog is
responding naturally due to basic conditioning. Due to my work schedule I
regularly eat lunch at 10:30 am. On my days off, I am usually very hungry by
10:30 am. That hunger has nothing to do with faith, it just happens to be when
I usually eat lunch. A dog can develop faith in their owner and that they will
feed them when they are hungry, but when they salivate that's a basic
biological response to the appropriate stimuli and conditioning. And you won't
have to cut their throat. An act I don't think instills faith. Our cats know
that they can get food from me whenever I eat, they never bother my wife. They
know she only feeds them in the morning, which is when they do bother her.
>Any kind of acknowledgement of, and reliance upon, an established association,
>is a show of faith.
I'd have to say, this isn't my own experience. I do recognize that this
maybe the case with others, but with myself -- any kind of acknowledgement is a
show of knowingness or awareness. Established associations are just
conditioned responses instilled by our parents, culture, and our personal
behaviour. Just more dog drool resting on the surface.
> But Man, being the rational animal, takes this rudimentary form of
>faith to a higher level. Our capacities for symbolic representation and for
>hypothesis creation allow us to have faith not just in what we have
>experienced directly through the senses, but also in what can be
>hypothesised over and above that which has been directly experienced.
Part of our difference in our understanding about/of "faith" is your
definition of "faith" as "confidence in what there can be no certainty of."
This limits faith by keeping it within the logical mental world view. If we
acknowledge that "faith" transcend reason, why do we still demand that "faith"
work within the rules of reason? The fuel that really powers the practice is
joyful effort. Khenpo Tsewang would say that all you needed was "Courage,
commitment, and joyful effort."
The other part that I would quibble with, is that you often use the word
"faith" in a context where I would use the terms "knowledge," "knowingness,"
"awareness," "hope" or (yes even) "certainty."
If I study geometry and learn the proofs, I will be certain of the answers.
I won't have faith in the answers, I'll either know the answers or I won't
know, I'll be ignorant. And all of that math is based on "our capacities for
symbolic representation." In fact math is all "hypothesised over and above"
based on symbolic representation of concepts that
_will_never_be_known_experientially_. I have never "seen" a mathematical proof
lying around in the natural physical material world. But once I do the math
and comfirm my answers, I can claim certainty.
Also when "we have experienced directly through the senses" -- "directly
experienced" reality just as it is -- "hypothesised over and above" only takes
you farther away from the experience. Why go that way? Better to sit back
down and directly experience "it" again and again. To rest directly
experiencing until the peak experience is repeatable, until it becomes a trait,
not just another event.
>Out of this capacity religious faith arises.
"To have confidence in what there can be no certainty of," seems more like a
good definition for foolishness. I would define that as blind faith.
Something I have no faith in. ; )
>You see -- I'm arguing that faith is implicit in the animal kingdom,
Nothing personal, but I can't take doggy drool as evidence "that faith is
implicit in the animal kingdom." Yes, I could say that a dog develops "faith"
in an owner, but pushing the concept to say its implicit. Sounds a little too
anthropomorphic for me.
> but rises to increasingly abstract levels, in our species culminating in
religious >faith and in superstition (I'm not implying a connection here, but
there is an >overlap).
Though I do agree with ever "increasingly abstract levels" I don't think they
culminate in superstition or religious faith. There are higher levels of
attainment and insight of this faculty.
>> >> > But going back to my suspicions about the *rational* argument of
>> >> > whether the enlightened person would want to help others (because
>> >> >others are no different from himself) or consider his own enlightenment
>> >> > sufficient (bacause others are no different from himself) -- this
>> >> >also reminds me of another paradox; Does one achieve enlightenment by >>
>> >ones own efforts or by the "grace" of something beyond the self? Again, I
>> >> > have my suspicions about this argument since in a non-dual Ultimate
>> >> > Reality there can be no distinction between self and not-self.
>> >>
>> >> I look at it like this -- You cannot do it alone, but neither can
>> >> anyone else do it for you.
>> >
>> >Rationally the statement above is a contradiction, which is why I have my
>> >suspicions about these rational arguments.
>>
>> My statement above seems very logical to me, but it isn't a rational
>> argument.
>
>The logic as I see it is that if I can't do it, and it can't be done for me,
>then it won't be done.
"You cannot do it alone, but neither can anyone else do it for you."
This phrase can be interpreted on/from/within several different levels.
To take it apart -- "You cannot do it alone," simply means "You cannot do it
Alone. From birth we need help to live. First our mother had to feed us and
wipe our bottoms. She cares for us and teaches us how to speak. Perhaps a Dad
was there to help her and to help you become a good member of the family and
society. To help protect you from the world and shelter you. Later someone
along the way taught you how to read, and later how to use a computer. Think
of all of the people who have helped you throughout your lifetime, each as
important, each as needed, each has their function, and each are as necessary.
And many of the "worst times" of our life were with those people.
How much more precious is a man or woman how can show you the way "the
techniques" to enlightenment.
Like Sun Tzu's Art of War -- "And so the means by which an enlightened
sovereign and a wise general act, and so are victorious over others and achieve
merit superior to the multitude's -- This is foreknowledge.
Foreknowledge cannot be grasped from ghosts and spirits,
Cannot be inferred from events,
Cannot be projected from calculations.
It must be grasped from people's knowledge.
Knowledge leads to victory. Spies (human beings) lead to knowledge.
Foreknowledge is especially difficult to obtain, since it concerns things
that no one can see. Spirit divination presupposes a hidden reality with power
over events. Inference assumes that precedents will hold good in the future.
Extrapolation is distanced from the intimate situation of the here and now.
Each has its use, but one can be sure about the future only through knowledge
that is immediate, concrete, detailed and complex in human ways. Its best
sourse is direct perception."
>and it can't be done for me,
"but neither can anyone else do it for you." -- You have to see it through to
completion yourself. Even with all the right people, all the right schools,
the perfect life and the best teachers none of that is a guaranty. None of
them, none of that can do it for you. You have to take both the first step and
the last yourself, but ...
>then it won't be done.
Why do you come to that conclusion? Keep going, perseverance, seek out the
right friends and wise teachers -- it'll get done eventually. As long as you
persevere, how can you fail. As long as you never give up, never surrender,
never say, "I can't;" who can say how far off is this experience you seek? The
saints say that it is a hair's breadth away, and as far as the farthest star.
> This is an example of the law of the excluded middle.
>But I'm not arguing that it won't be done, of course -- just that logic and
>reason don't provide a complete picture.
Law of the excluded middle? The middle of what? All things that arise, come
into being, and pass away, depend on all things that arise, come into being,
and pass away. Of course "logic and reason don't provide a complete picture."
So why limit yourself to logic and reason as the only evidence for getting a
clear and complete picture?
>> >As Plotinus says, reason leads you to the door but it must be left on the
>> >threshold as you enter.
>>
>> That's not the only thing that must be left, but in reality there is no
>> threshold you need to pass through, nor any door that must be opened.
>>There is a limit to reason and a "knowingness" that transcends reason.
>
>I love that word "knowingness" -- it seems to say so much more than
>"consciousness". I think it's because I associate "consciousness" with the
>subject-object dichotomy -- there is no consciousness without it being
>"consciousness of ..."
Yes, "knowingness" is the immediate experience of awareness before any
dichotomy.
>> >> > The way I see it, reason provides the grounds for faith, faith
>> >> >provides the motivation for effort. Experience renders faith redundant
--
>> >> >faith is the necessary prerequisite for applying effort in order to
attain
>> >> >to that experience. Once the experience has been achieved, reason and
>> >>>faith have served their purpose and have become redundant.
>> >>
>> >> That is one way to approach it and most of the theistic religions do
>> >> follow that kind of theology (faith first or faith only), and there are
>> >> also many Buddhist traditions that follow that kind of program, but all
>> >> of the nondual traditions I have studied to any degree regardless of
>> >> religion (Buddhist, Taoist, Hindu, or Sufi) begin with experience. All
you
>> >> need is enough of an interest to practice for a little while.
>> >
>> >What is the experience they begin with?
>>
>> The one they are experiencing.
>
>Then I guess what I'm arguing is that it requires faith to abandon all else
>but the experience they are experiencing. It is such a counter-intuitive
>claim that it causes more than a little consternation when first
>encountered.
Your not abandoning anything, just relax and let go. Rest alertly in what
is. There are conditions that can help, practices and techniques that can
increase the potential for peak insightful experiences, teachers to study
under, and books you can read -- it all simply comes down to letting go of all
of those established associations, and resting in the experiencing -- like
being lost in the music, dancing. Like when you are training in Aikido,
there are those moments when the techniques just flow. Finally our body has
really learned how to move in harmony with our center of gravity. And without
our heads playing a running commentary telling the body what to do.
For some to get to that level faith is needed. Though with your definition
of faith, I would use the term "hope" in this context. You hope this will
work, since there can be no certainty. The reason you are doing this is to
gain a magical prize, like the holy grail. Still a little too "profit"
oriented for me. There is no prize to win, and with hope, comes fear. The
certainty I seek transcends hope and fear. A common Tibetan teaching slogan
is, "No hope, no fear." There is no winner, there are no losers. Kind of like
the way I interpret Revalations, enlightenment has already happened,
enlightenment is happening right now, and enlightenment will happen in the
future. All "I" have to do is get out of the way of enlightenments natural
unfolding.
>> >> > Yes -- I think that Christianity has given the word "faith" an
>> >> > underserved bad reputation.
>> >>
>> >> Science didn't help much. While mainstream Christianity may have
>> >> soiled the word "faith," western science sought to make it meaningless.
>> >
>> >Science is grounded in faith -- namely the hypothetico-deductive method.
>> >In my experience most scientists acknowledge this fact, and it is only the
>> >over-enthusiastic non-scientist that makes ridiculous claims for science
>> >(this is called scientism). When evidence forces everybody onto the same
>> >model (like the "spheroidal earth" model) then there can be great
>> >confidence, but inductive logic admits of no certainty. Where the evidence
>> >supports several competing hypotheses there can be little confidence.
>>
>> Confidence in the method is not the same as faith in the answers.
>
>Faith in the method, faith in the answers, different kinds of faith but both
>faith.
As I said, you use the word "faith" in places that I wouldn't. The methods
lead to knowledge, I trust the scientific methods because they work, not
because they outline a belief I hold. Really nothing more than tools that help
us aquire knowledge and information. Knowledge we can usually be certain of,
we should always be questioning and up dating our information.
>> Also, this certainty that I am claiming is not based on inductive logic,
>>therefore I am not constrained by the limits of inductive logic. It is
>>reason-able, but when expressed in words it only "makes sense" if you have
>>been there and done that. If you haven't been there and done that, then the
>>words sound contradictory and paradoxical.
>
>So to one that has not been there and done that, faith is required that the
>one who has been there and done that is not merely deranged.
Not to be nit picky, but I would use the word trust in this case also.
Trusting my teachers can eventually lead to perfect trust, an insight
experience shared between teacher and student and this appears to be a
cross-cultural phenomenon. Examples abound of Sufi masters, Tantric crazy
wisdom masters, Zen Bodhisattvas, Immortal Wayfairers who begin their path with
certainty, the certainty of experiential knowing awareness -- introduced by the
teacher, recognized within oneself. This is a transmission, an experience of
empowerment, this is a recognition of the nondual awareness of the student, by
the nondual awareness of the teacher. This is turning the light around and
seeing the world reflected through the enlightened eyes' of the teacher. There
is no self in the process of this seeing. This is not a gift he gives you, or
the fulfillment of some Freudian wish, or a prize you win, this is just the way
reality is, just as it is. And reflected back again.
Blind faith will not lead you to such an experience. It would just be
another "established association" that you would have to let go.
In the vast and great scheme of ten thousand things, we do have much in
common.
J. : )
J.
(Christian Mystic)) writes:
>
>On 27 Jun 2002 15:33:44 GMT, pema...@aol.comnojunk (J.) wrote:
>
>> Hi Andy,
>>
>>In article <L5JR8.3573$W93.4...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
>><and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>>
>>>Congratulations to you both! By the way ... does your wife share your
>>>passion for jumping out of perfectly good airplanes?
>>
>> LOL! Thank you. Oh, and no my wife doesn't share in my joy of jumping out
>>of perfectly good airplanes. In fact, its one of the joys that I had to give
>>up, for my wife. Like many people she thinks thats just c r a zy. Ah, the
>>sacrifices we make for those we love. : )
>
>I know what you mean, twenty-six years ago I had given up hang-gliding
>for the same reason :-)
Ah, what can I say? Its not like complaining would do any good. : )
andy-k
I've just finished reading a book called "The Way of Aikido -- Life Lessons
from an American Sensei" by George Leonard (has a dojo in California). The
book is more about how to live than about Aikido (he could well have made
tennis the carrier for his ideas). He's a very articulate and well-informed
author so if you see this book knocking around then have a flick through it.
Yeah -- green apples are the best :)
Here we have our ground state -- direct experiential awareness prior to any
requirement for faith.
> >My conclusion is that before thoughts arose there was no impression of a
> >metaphysical subject at all. The "fall of man" begins with the
"I-thought" > >(what Ramana calls the "aham vritti").
>
> "Aham" as the true "I" (atman) of every human being, not the "I" >
consciousness. "Vritti" "wave of thought" the ceaseless mental oscillations
> arising within each of us that veils absolute consciousness. The "fall of
> man," fixating on the oscillations, in a sense caught in the waves of >
"I-thoughts" arising ceaselessly, yes there is something before that, but it
is > also present right now and will continue into the future. The self
reflective > immediate present experiencing is before the waves of
"I-thoughts" arising > ceaselessly .
That's the way I understand it, but unfortunately when I say "I understand
it" I'm still referring to the metphysical subject "I". Must just keep
practising!
> >> Then wake up. ; )
> >
> >I'm working on it :)
>
> Don't work on it. Relax into it. Rather than trying to make it happen,
just > let it happen. Allow it to happen. Give it permission to happen.
Aah the eternal paradox -- I repeatedly come up against this one in Aikido:
the instructor says "stop *trying*", but if I don't *try* then nothing
happens. I can stand there waiting for it to "just happen", but that doesn't
get it done either. Until I've gotten through the "trying" stage into the
"fluent" stage, the advice to "stop trying" isn't too helpful. "Trying" is
the habit that must be broken, and to break a habit demands effort.
> There is the Tibetan practice of Dream Yoga, that is very helpful for
turning > nightmares into neutral or pleasant dreams. Dream Yoga is a
highly developed > practice in Tibetan Buddhism and makes the lucid dreaming
research and > practices of Western psychology look like child's play. One
major difference > is that Tibetan Dream Yoga isn't therapy. The
practitioner seeks to gain > lucidity, so he or she can still practice the
Buddhadharma even during sleep. > There is so much more possible in our
dreams, than the whispers of Western > 'wive's tales.' First thing to find
out -- like my reference to my lioness > dream above -- you can die in your
dreams and still wake up alive. The 'wives > tale' of "if you die in your
dream, you die for real," is false. > It is also a practice that can be
easily added to any regular meditiation > practice. Most Tibetan
traditions, Buddhist and Bon, have a Dream Yoga as a > standard part of
their practices. And it's fairly easy for westerners to > develop. >
First thing to do is keep a Dream Log. Record all of your dreams. Write >
them down in long hand. All you want to do is go through the process of >
describing your dream in a physical form. No need to analyze. No need to
read > them later. Just write them down in a notebook and then put it away.
Its the > process of recording, not the material recorded, that is
important. When you > have an important dream, you won't need to refer to
your notes. Still, write > it down and save it for later. In a few years
maybe you'ld like to read them. > Reading and interpreting the recorded
dreams later isn't part of the purpose of > the exercise though. The
process helps develop and cultivate clarity and > recall in your dreams. It
also improves the odds of gaining lucidity within > our dreams as we are
dreaming. This is also a practice that greatly helps > insight development
and cultivates a nondual awareness.
Interesting.
The internet thing is interesting ... if I'm right about Jesus aspiring to
start a social avalanche, then the internet may well be the tool to bring
his aspiration to fruition. Or do you think I'm just a hopeless optimist?
This draws me into a pet subject of mine -- the idea that all human activity
(and I would qualify that by making an exception in the case of enlightened
individuals) is driven by self-interest. If the anticipated profit that
causes you and I to pursue our respective practices is that of personal
enjoyment, it must follow that we harbour a conviction that our practises
will continue to provide this enjoyment.
> > Perhaps the biggest joke of all is that in this particular case, what
was > originally > >considered as possibly personally profitable ends in the
extinguishing of > >that which sought the personal profit!
>
> Trungpa called that one of the great cosmic jokes. He would also say
that as > long as we are trying to gain Buddhahood, we will never gain
Buddhahood. It's > when we let go of (this is not giving up) the idea of
gaining enlightenment, > that we will realize that we are already
enlightened.
Excellent! What book is that from?
andy-k
>
> >> Does a child at play need faith to enjoy their playfulness? Creative
> >> play requires no faith, just playfulness. Curiosity is simply being
open to > >> what ever the outcome turns out to be. It is a sense of wonder
about new > >> insight. Often when I paint or draw I have no idea what I
will paint or > >> draw, I relax and allow the painting to paint itself, so
to speak.
> >
> >But you have faith that it will, or else you'd just be sitting relaxing.
>
> No actually, I'd just be painting.
Enjoyment causes us to pursue that which brought about our enjoyment -- this
is desire. Desire is underpinned by a conviction that what brought us
enjoyment before will bring us enjoyment again -- this is what I refer to as
faith. What is very difficult is to get back to that state of enjoyment
without desire or the causing of desire -- what is referred to in Zen as
"beginner's mind" -- that experiencing of the present instant prior to the
arising of any kind of "faith" as I have defined it. The arising of faith
(and consequently of desire) is the human condition, and any attempt to move
away from the human condition back to the "pre-human" (or "divine") pure
state of experiential awareness demands from us (as humans) what I refer to
as "faith".
> >Faith, as I understand the word (confidence in what there can be no >
>certainty of), is entailed by the mechanism of association and the >
>accompanying expectation that the conjunction will be repeated -- e.g. >
>Pavlov's dogs had faith that when the bell rang they would be fed. (Then
one > >day Pavlov came along and selected a dog, made an incision in the
side of > >its neck, led out its oesophagus through the incision, severed
it, and hung > >it over a jar to quantify the rate of salivation.)
>
> Evidence for behavioral modification isn't evidence of faith. The dog
is > responding naturally due to basic conditioning. Due to my work
schedule I > regularly eat lunch at 10:30 am. On my days off, I am usually
very hungry by > 10:30 am. That hunger has nothing to do with faith, it
just happens to be when > I usually eat lunch. A dog can develop faith in
their owner and that they will > feed them when they are hungry, but when
they salivate that's a basic > biological response to the appropriate
stimuli and conditioning. And you won't > have to cut their throat. An act
I don't think instills faith. Our cats know > that they can get food from
me whenever I eat, they never bother my wife. They > know she only feeds
them in the morning, which is when they do bother her.
As I understand it, a dog's faith in its owner is just another example of
the conditioned response. The conditioned response conforms to my definition
of faith as "confidence in what there can be no certainty of", but my goal
here is to understand what *you* mean by faith. To that end allow me to make
an approach to understanding your definition by specifically excluding the
conditioned response.
> >Any kind of acknowledgement of, and reliance upon, an established
association, > > >is a show of faith.
>
> I'd have to say, this isn't my own experience. I do recognize that this
> maybe the case with others, but with myself -- any kind of acknowledgement
is a > show of knowingness or awareness. Established associations are just
> conditioned responses instilled by our parents, culture, and our personal
> behaviour. Just more dog drool resting on the surface.
Knowingness, if I understand the term correctly, is experiential awareness
in the present instant, transcending the past and future that our conceptual
minds abstract and create from it. Here there can be nothing other than
"what is". I am of the opinion that we humans get lumbered with conceptual
mind from a very early age, and from there we have to make our way back out
again to the simple "what is". Surely you're not claiming that there never
was a time when you were in this trap along with the rest of us?
> > > But Man, being the rational animal, takes this rudimentary form of >
>faith to a higher level. Our capacities for symbolic representation and for
> >hypothesis creation allow us to have faith not just in what we have >
>experienced directly through the senses, but also in what can be >
>hypothesised over and above that which has been directly experienced.
>
> Part of our difference in our understanding about/of "faith" is your >
definition of "faith" as "confidence in what there can be no certainty of."
> This limits faith by keeping it within the logical mental world view. If
we > acknowledge that "faith" transcend reason, why do we still demand that
"faith" > work within the rules of reason?
Yes -- that's my definition of the word, but I'm trying to understand your
definition of the word. The logical mental world view is the only view that
I am aware of at present, and "faith", being a concept, belongs within my
conceptual world-model. *Within* the constraints of this model, how else is
it to be defined? And *beyond* the constraints of this model, is there need
of words and their definitions?
> The other part that I would quibble with, is that you often use
the word > "faith" in a context where I would use the terms "knowledge,"
"knowingness," > "awareness," "hope" or (yes even) "certainty." > If I
study geometry and learn the proofs, I will be certain of the answers. > I
won't have faith in the answers, I'll either know the answers or I won't >
know, I'll be ignorant. And all of that math is based on "our capacities for
> symbolic representation." In fact math is all "hypothesised over and
above" > based on symbolic representation of concepts that >
will_never_be_known_experientially_. I have never "seen" a mathematical
proof > lying around in the natural physical material world. But once I do
the math > and comfirm my answers, I can claim certainty.
Deductive logic admits of certainty because it always reduces to
tautologies. The statement that a triangle has three sides admits of
certainty because three-sidedness is part of the definition of a triangle.
No faith needed here, because we aren't inferring anything over and
above what has already present in the axiomatic foundation.
> Also when "we have experienced directly through the senses" -- "directly
> experienced" reality just as it is -- hypothesised over and above" only
takes > you farther away from the experience. Why go that way? Better to
sit back > down and directly experience "it" again and again. To rest
directly > experiencing until the peak experience is repeatable, until it
becomes a trait, > not just another event.
Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process of
hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct experience
(and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but this is the human
condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it is the trap that is to
be escaped from.
> >Out of this capacity religious faith arises.
>
> "To have confidence in what there can be no certainty of," seems more
like a > good definition for foolishness. I would define that as blind
faith. > Something I have no faith in. ; )
Is it foolishness to have confidence in your car's brakes, or that your home
will still be there when you leave work, or that the laws of physics will
continue to hold for the forseeable future? It would be debilitating to have
to live without this sort of confidence.
> >You see -- I'm arguing that faith is implicit in the animal kingdom,
>
> Nothing personal, but I can't take doggy drool as evidence "that faith
is > implicit in the animal kingdom." Yes, I could say that a dog develops
"faith" > in an owner, but pushing the concept to say its implicit. Sounds
a little too > anthropomorphic for me.
Provisionally conceded above.
> > but rises to increasingly abstract levels, in our species culminating in
> religious >faith and in superstition (I'm not implying a connection here,
but > there is an >overlap).
>
> Though I do agree with ever "increasingly abstract levels" I don't think
they > culminate in superstition or religious faith. There are higher
levels of > attainment and insight of this faculty.
The way I understand things (to present) is that the higher levels you refer
to transcend the requirement for faith, since they are an escape from the
strictures of the human condition in a return to the "what is".
Sure ... but what I'm calling into question is the idea that there is a
"self" in splendid isolation from the objective world it considers itself to
be in. If there is no such entity then how can it achieve enlightenment
through its own efforts? So "I cannot do it alone" must surely become "I
cannot do it at all"? As I understand it the self is a consequence of
activity born of a kind of ignorance, and any attempt to extricate itself
from this state of ignorance is like trying to put out a fire with a bucket
full of gasoline -- it is simply a perpetuation of the self-sustaining
activity of the self. It sure beats the hell out of me (scratches head ...
no good telling me to "let go then" because I'd have to make an effort to
let go ... perhaps it's like a flywheel that has to be allowed to come down
to rest by refraining from putting more energy into it?)
> >and it can't be done for me,
>
> "but neither can anyone else do it for you." -- You have to see it
through to > completion yourself. Even with all the right people, all the
right schools, > the perfect life and the best teachers none of that is a
guaranty. None of > them, none of that can do it for you. You have to take
both the first step and > the last yourself, but ...
The problem arises again ... what is this "self" that sees it through to
completion but an error of perspective? Can an error of perspective
eradicate itself? I think not, but that's not to say it can't be
eradicated -- its just that this eradication is a consequence of the
unfolding of the cosmos, not a consequence of the efforts of the putative
"self". Is Augustine's predestinarianism a natural consequence of this
conclusion? Sorry if I'm going off at a tangent here, but you've set me
thinking. Perhaps predestinarianism is only offensive to those that believe
they have free will, and inoffensive to those that believe there's no need
to hypothesise any such thing?
> >then it won't be done.
>
> Why do you come to that conclusion? Keep going, perseverance, seek out
the > right friends and wise teachers -- it'll get done eventually. As long
as you > persevere, how can you fail. As long as you never give up, never
surrender, > never say, "I can't;" who can say how far off is this
experience you seek? The > saints say that it is a hair's breadth away, and
as far as the farthest star.
I don't come to this conclusion, as I say in the remainder of that remark...
> > This is an example of the law of the excluded middle. > >But I'm not
arguing that it won't be done, of course -- just that logic and > >reason
don't provide a complete picture.
>
> Law of the excluded middle? The middle of what? All things that arise,
come > into being, and pass away, depend on all things that arise, come into
being, > and pass away. Of course "logic and reason don't provide a
complete picture." > So why limit yourself to logic and reason as the only
evidence for getting a > clear and complete picture?
You make my point for me. The law of the excluded middle is a centrepiece of
logic, and logic is a consequence of conceptual mind. The law of the
excluded middle only works if there are such things as clear and distinct
boundaries (i.e. true discontinuities), and as Socrates repeatedly tried to
demonstrate (if we are to believe Plato), when we try to pin down those of
our distinct boundaries that have been inferred from empirical data, the
boundaries dissolve away. Clear and distinct boundaries only exist as
conceptual constructs, and therein we can work with them using deductive
logic.
> >> >> All > you > >> >> need is enough of an interest to practice for a
little while.
> >> >
> >> >What is the experience they begin with?
> >>
> >> The one they are experiencing.
> >
> >Then I guess what I'm arguing is that it requires faith to abandon all
else > >but the experience they are experiencing. It is such a
counter-intuitive > >claim that it causes more than a little consternation
when first > >encountered.
>
> Your not abandoning anything, just relax and let go. > Rest alertly in
what > is. There are conditions that can help, practices and techniques
that can > increase the potential for peak insightful experiences, teachers
to study > under, and books you can read -- it all simply comes down to
letting go of all > of those established associations, and resting in the
experiencing -- like > being lost in the music, dancing.
"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice is
unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly acceptable
to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith to let go of all
else but immediate experience.
> Like when you are training in Aikido, > there are those moments when the
techniques just flow. Finally our body has > really learned how to move in
harmony with our center of gravity. And without > our heads playing a
running commentary telling the body what to do. > For some to get to that
level faith is needed. Though with your definition > of faith, I would use
the term "hope" in this context. You hope this will > work, since there can
be no certainty. The reason you are doing this is to > gain a magical
prize, like the holy grail. Still a little too "profit" > oriented for me.
There is no prize to win, and with hope, comes fear. The > certainty I seek
transcends hope and fear. A common Tibetan teaching slogan > is, "No hope,
no fear." There is no winner, there are no losers. Kind of like > the way I
interpret Revalations, enlightenment has already happened, > enlightenment
is happening right now, and enlightenment will happen in the > future. All
"I" have to do is get out of the way of enlightenments natural > unfolding.
The main reason I practise Aikido is because I find it immensely
enjoyable -- that is the profit I seek, the desire that drives me. Another
reason is my desire to understand what is going on -- to be able to fit it
into my conceptual world model. Bergson was very good on this (though to my
knowledge he knew nothing about Aikido) -- he says that our error is to
attempt to break things down in order to understand them, and by doing so we
destroy the very thing we are attempting to understand. But I think it has
to be so in Aikido (along with many other things) -- we first break down the
action and re-assemble it from the parts only to find that it doesn't work.
We then proceed to progressively remove all the breakage points to bring it
back to the unity that it originally was, and therein find that it works ...
but also that it wasn't "me" that did it ... it just seemed to "do" itself
(This is the lesson in Eugen Herrigel's wonderful little book "Zen in the
Art of Archery").
> >> Confidence in the method is not the same as faith in the answers.
> >
> >Faith in the method, faith in the answers, different kinds of faith but
both > >faith.
>
> As I said, you use the word "faith" in places that I wouldn't. The
methods > lead to knowledge, I trust the scientific methods because they
work, not > because they outline a belief I hold. Really nothing more than
tools that help > us aquire knowledge and information. Knowledge we can
usually be certain of, > we should always be questioning and up dating our
information.
I'm still struggling to understand what you mean by the word. If I
provisionally exclude trust from the definition of faith as well, what is
left?
> >> Also, this certainty that I am claiming is not based on inductive
logic, > >>therefore I am not constrained by the limits of inductive logic.
It is > >>reason-able, but when expressed in words it only "makes sense" if
you have > >>been there and done that. If you haven't been there and done
that, then the > >>words sound contradictory and paradoxical.
> >
> >So to one that has not been there and done that, faith is required that
the > >one who has been there and done that is not merely deranged.
>
> Not to be nit picky, but I would use the word trust in this case also. >
Trusting my teachers can eventually lead to perfect trust, an insight >
experience shared between teacher and student and this appears to be a >
cross-cultural phenomenon. Examples abound of Sufi masters, Tantric crazy >
wisdom masters, Zen Bodhisattvas, Immortal Wayfairers who begin their path
with > certainty, the certainty of experiential knowing awareness --
introduced by the > teacher, recognized within oneself. This is a
transmission, an experience of > empowerment, this is a recognition of the
nondual awareness of the student, by > the nondual awareness of the teacher.
This is turning the light around and > seeing the world reflected through
the enlightened eyes' of the teacher. There > is no self in the process of
this seeing. This is not a gift he gives you, or > the fulfillment of some
Freudian wish, or a prize you win, this is just the way > reality is, just
as it is. And reflected back again. > Blind faith will not lead you to
such an experience. It would just be > another "established association"
that you would have to let go.
I regard "blind faith" as a qualified kind of faith -- faith held in the
face of evidence to the contrary. Is this what you are referring to as
"faith" in an unqualified manner? If so then I have a much clearer
understanding of your position .
I have found your comments particularly helpful in forcing me to clarify my
own ideas and in raising additional interesting issues -- this is the beauty
of good-humoured debate like this.
J.
In article <idpU8.2187$jN2.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
Interesting, I think I looked through it at the bookstore. I'll take a
closer look next time I'm there. The elemental scheme I described above would
make very little sense using tennis as the vehicle. Though once you got the
principles down as a physical combat art, you could then apply the principles
to tennis, I suppose. Also, Stephen K. Hayes has written many books that
describe the elemental theory, yet they don't really describe the experience of
the transformative process as you are going through the process of
internalizing the principles during training. You have to "go through the
experience of the process" on a dynamic physical level. The physical kamae
(pose) are reflections of our internal emotional/mental state within that
moment. How do you stand (speak and think) normally, or when you feel
confident? How do you stand (speak and think) when you're unsure of yourself
or unsure of the situation? How do you stand (speak and think) when you are
committed, ready, and set to act? How do you stand (speak and think) when you
don't want to act, yet light on your feet, and ready to get out of the way of a
fight?
Something happens in the environment, a threat appears and seemingly
spontaneously we react. Suddenly we feel threatened and we feel and do ...
well that depends on how we were feeling before the threat, our conditioning
culturally and personally, what and/or who has become a threat and the degree
of threat (how big are they?), the circumstances of the environment physically
(in the jungle or uptown big city), emotionally (strangers or friends and
lovers) and socially (cocktail party, mountain top, where you work, or home),
and if we have received any practical training in unarmed combat, and all of
this is taken in at once. Of course the goal is to simply move naturally
regardless of our feelings, the training begins with learning how to move under
the influence of those feelings. Its where/when it all starts. This can be
taught and is taught in several different Buddhist traditions, as a meditation
practice and spiritual path, but few Americans (over all) are interested in
taking up a meditation program. Learning about self-defense is something that
Americans do consider, particularly after 9/11. Trying to teach the science
divorced from the practical medium, dilutes the message. Like learning all
about the history of dance, but never getting up on the floor and shaking a leg
to the music. "Now, let's put on those red shoes and dance to the blues."
Which is the certainty and the source of the nondual paths of enlightenment.
Which is why I have no need for faith as you define it. I have recognized the
ground state, which is not another state but the nature of the mind, the
"direct experiential awareness prior to any" thing. And this is not something
other from outside of myself, nor is it something newly emerging from within
myself. It is that which observes, as I look on. The dark reflector that
manifests all images.
Sit in front of a mirror, the bigger the better, and breath focusing on
calming yourself with the exhales, letting go of your tensions as you breath
out. Once you are relaxed but alert, look directly into the eyes' of your
reflection. Invoke the feeling that you are gazing upon the "real" eyes.
Don't forget to breath.
>> >My conclusion is that before thoughts arose there was no impression of a
>> >metaphysical subject at all. The "fall of man" begins with the
>"I-thought" > >(what Ramana calls the "aham vritti").
>>
>> "Aham" as the true "I" (atman) of every human being, not the "I"
>> consciousness. "Vritti" "wave of thought" the ceaseless mental oscillations
>> arising within each of us that veils absolute consciousness. The "fall of
>> man," fixating on the oscillations, in a sense caught in the waves of
>>"I-thoughts" arising ceaselessly, yes there is something before that, but it
is
>> also present right now and will continue into the future. The self
reflective
>> immediate present experiencing is before the waves of "I-thoughts" arising
>> ceaselessly .
>
>That's the way I understand it, but unfortunately when I say "I understand
>it" I'm still referring to the metphysical subject "I". Must just keep
>practising!
Breath and ask yourself, "Who is reading these words?" Breath and ask
yourself, "Who am I?" Breath and ask yourself, "Who is sitting here
breathing?" Breath and ask yourself, "Who is sitting here breathing, and
repeating these questions?"
Still there are times when referring to the metaphysical subjective "I" is
completely appropriate. Like, "I have to go to the loo. Can you direct me to
the loo, please?"
>> >> Then wake up. ; )
>> >
>> >I'm working on it :)
>>
>> Don't work on it. Relax into it. Rather than trying to make it happen,
>> just let it happen. Allow it to happen. Give it permission to happen.
>
>Aah the eternal paradox -- I repeatedly come up against this one in Aikido:
>the instructor says "stop *trying*", but if I don't *try* then nothing
>happens. I can stand there waiting for it to "just happen", but that doesn't
>get it done either. Until I've gotten through the "trying" stage into the
>"fluent" stage, the advice to "stop trying" isn't too helpful. "Trying" is
>the habit that must be broken, and to break a habit demands effort.
Loosen up. Let the technique happen, do it without thinking about doing it,
do it without thinking as you do it. When you get home after work there is
probably a routine that has developed over time -- and you probably do this
routine without thinking about it. Your body knows what to do, so it does it.
When you walk down the street, do you thinking about how to walk down the
street? Our problem so often, is that our "head's" get in the way. Rather
than "thinking about" doing the moves, visualize yourself doing that technique
(martial or spiritual) successfully, will help you achieve "fluency," much more
quickly One of the main practices of Tibetan Buddhism is to visualize oneself
transforming into a Buddha, becoming a manifestation of Enlightenment, and
responding in a skillful manner reflecting the wisdom and compassion of a
Buddha. You want to become "that," then see yourself as "that."
And fun too. ; )
That would be a very large if, actually several large ifs. If your right
about Jesus aspiring to start a social avalanche? If your right that the
Internet could be used as a tool social? If the Internet could be used as the
tool to bring his aspiration to fruition? And if you are right that I would
ever think of you as hopelessly optimistic? ; )
I do believe that there are and will be great social changes due to the
Internet. Though that is an easy call, since historically there have always
been grand social changes whenever a new idea or technology is developed and
introduced into a society. The mill and the cotton gin; steam ships and
railroads; cars and electricity; the telegraph and the first recordings;
telephone, radio, television, and those great flying machines -- each brought
about changes within society. Now the Internet, wireless communications, the
Human Genome Project, molecular (bio and industrial) engineering, plastics,
glass, and fiberoptics ... Each has their effect on society. That's the way
it is ...
The potential of the Internet being used as a tool to effect social change?
That is already happening and we are only at the beginning of the Internet. In
a few years (10 or 20) we will have developed the technology for full immersion
into the digital world. We have the potential of creating a digital world, the
network, the operating system, the software. That is basically what the gaming
and media industry is in the process of doing. On another front, medicine is
developing implants that allow the deaf to hear and the blind to see. Add a
little wireless GPs, and a little zero gravity manufacturing in crystals,
perhaps a direct link bio-implant -- Would society become chaos, or will a
group hive mind develop? Would we just go out "on-line?" Live in the virtual
world until our body wastes away, never to come out and meet real flesh and
living human beings? Never to have a human relationship on human terms, never
to make a connection with people you can touch, and who can touch you. Will
the experience shatter our individuality, harmonizing the billions of voices to
sing one song? However bright or dark that song maybe, the potential is there.
Of course we are talking a hundred or two hundred years of development for it
to become established. Still from the perspective of history and time the leap
could be incredibly stupid enslaving us within our own dream machines, or take
us to the next level of development as a species. Really all possibilities are
open to the potential of their own unfolding. Going to school could be as easy
as doing a download, or the first step to wearing the mark of the beast.
The Four Noble Truths and the path of the middle way (In this post I'll only
talk about the first and second noble truths. The lurkers will need to do a
little research to learn about numbers three and four).
The first noble truth, is the truth of suffering.
We are born in pain, shocked and terrified awakened. We suffer through
birth, growth, disease, adolescence, pre-teens, adulthood, maturity, old age,
and death.
There is the pain of lossing what you love; the pain of getting what you don't
want; the pain of change impermanence death, the cyclical nature of our
suffering; and the pain of pain, when, in our hurry in pain we hurt ourselves
worse. There is also the dis-ease, this dissaticfaction, or discomfort to
existence.
The second noble truth is the cause of suffering -- thirst, hunger, desire,
attachment. Our desires can be base or gross, or refined and subtle. My
thirst could lead me to a life of addiction, always obsessively seeking the
next high in the next moment. My desires could lead me to becoming a slave to
my possessions, a slave to my position and rank within society, and a slave to
my "good name" in history. The problem is not so much that we have desires, it
is how we relate with our desires. Over the years I have met many addicts,
many who refrain from indulging in their own bad habit. They were very aware
of their desires and over time learned how to relate with them in a healthy
manner. I have also walked through the illicit world and know of it's
temptations first hand, and its a hand that will gladly lead you to the more
extreme expressions of your own deep desires. There have been many times when
we have gone too far in indulging our "selves", as individuals and as
cultural/social groups. Sometimes being base hedonists, at other times highly
refined in our pleasures. Ghee that sounds like ... ah ... today. It has
almost become the norm that the famous of popular culture, are famous because
of their behaviour, rather than their natural talent, great skill, profound
knowledge or transcendent wisdom.
Being "driven by self-interest," could be seen as a restating of the second
noble truth. Though ... ultimately it is in our self-interest to seek
enlightenment, or spiritual understanding and insight, or a personal
relationship with God. However you want to phrase it. Nothing wrong with
healthy self-interest.
> If the anticipated profit that causes you and I to pursue our respective
practices
> is that of personal enjoyment, it must follow that we harbour a conviction
that our
> practises will continue to provide this enjoyment.
The enjoyment is not anticipated as a profit paid in some future, there is
nothing we need to harbour. The experience of joy is a direct immediate
momentary awareness of our experience within the realm of reality -- whenever I
practice (martial, spiritual, art, gardening, just walking around. When we are
experiencing joy we are being paid in joy. The profit of joy is paid, just by
practicing. Practicing is joy. It is putting money in the bank, getting paid
to put money in the bank, and still earning double digits quarterly. Being
certain that this art and these teachers (both my martial art teachers and my
spiritual teachers) have alot that they can teach is much more than "a
conviction," but its not faith as you define it.
>> > Perhaps the biggest joke of all is that in this particular case, what
>> > was originally considered as possibly personally profitable ends in the
>> > extinguishing of that which sought the personal profit!
>>
>> Trungpa called that one of the great cosmic jokes. He would also say
>> that as long as we are trying to gain Buddhahood, we will never gain
>> Buddhahood. It's when we let go of (this is not giving up) the idea of
>> gaining enlightenment, that we will realize that we are already
>> enlightened.
>
>Excellent! What book is that from?
I would start with Trungpa Rinpoche's "Spiritual Materialism" published by
Shambhala Publications Inc..
Reply to Part Two Coming Soon!
J.
And we continue with Act II ...
In article <vepU8.2198$jN2.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020701234137...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>>
>> >> Does a child at play need faith to enjoy their playfulness? Creative
>> >> play requires no faith, just playfulness. Curiosity is simply being
>> >> open to what ever the outcome turns out to be. It is a sense of wonder
>> >> about new insight. Often when I paint or draw I have no idea what I
>> >> will paint or draw, I relax and allow the painting to paint itself, so to
speak.
>> >
>> >But you have faith that it will, or else you'd just be sitting relaxing.
>>
>> No actually, I'd just be painting.
>
>Enjoyment causes us to pursue that which brought about our enjoyment -- this
>is desire. Desire is underpinned by a conviction that what brought us
>enjoyment before will bring us enjoyment again -- this is what I refer to as
>faith.
Desire is the natural cause of our own suffering. Even when our desires are
necessary, like our desires for air, water, food, shelter, warmth, light,
something to do, and human companionship, our desires are still the link to our
sarrow, pain, and suffering in this life. To have, or cultivate the
"conviction that what brought us enjoyment before will bring us enjoyment
again," sounds like a thin and weak conviction and a metaphysical trap.
Associating it with "desire," in Buddhist theory, would make it a path to
ignorance and egohood.
>What is very difficult is to get back to that state of enjoyment
>without desire or the causing of desire -- what is referred to in Zen as
>"beginner's mind" -- that experiencing of the present instant prior to the
>arising of any kind of "faith" as I have defined it.
It is the ground state that you have already recognized --
"Yeah -- green apples are the best :)
Here we have our ground state -- direct experiential awareness prior to any
requirement for faith."
This "beginner's mind" you are looking for, is tasting the green apples.
*A Short Commentary on the Three Statements of Garab Dorje
by H. H. Dudjom Rinpoche
I. As for the direct introduction to one's own nature: This fresh immediate
awareness of the present moment, transcending all thoughts related to the three
times (past, present, future), is itself that primordial awareness or knowledge
(tibetan: ye-shes) that is self-originated intrinsic Awareness (tibetan:
rig-pa). This is the direct introduction to one's own nature.
II. As for deciding definitively upon this unique state: Whatever phenmena
of Samsara and Nirvana may manifest, all of them represent the play of the
creative energy or potentiality of one's own immediate intrinsic Awareness
(tibetan: rig-pa'i rtsal). Since there is nothing that goes beyond just this,
one should continue in the state of this singular and unique Awareness.
Therefore, one must definitively decide upon this unique state for oneself and
know that there exists nothing other than this.
III. As for directly continuing with confidence of liberation: Whatever
gross or subtle thoughts may arise, by merely recognizing their nature, they
arise and (self-) liberate simultaneously in the vast expanse of the Dharmakaya
[both the "body of truth" and the "realm of truth."], where Emptiness [nondual
insight] and Awareness (are inseparable). Therefore, one should continue
directly with confidence in their liberation.
Translated by Vajranatha
Baudhnath, Nepal, 1978
*Published in the book 'The Golden Letters' page 41
Garab Dorje -- the first human teacher of Dzogchen
H. H. Dudjom Rinpoche -- modern Nyingma Lama
>The arising of faith (and consequently of desire) is the human condition, and
any
> attempt to move away from the human condition back to the "pre-human" (or
> "divine") pure state of experiential awareness demands from us (as humans)
what > I refer to as "faith".
I would say that the consequence of desire is suffering, and suffering is
very much a part of the human condition. The arising of faith as you are using
it, I would call hope. Also, your division of a "human condition" and a
"pre-human" (or "divine") pure state of experiential awareness," as separate
things or separate experiences is inherently dualistic. The pure state of
experiential awareness is itself the human condition. Your own nature.
>> >Faith, as I understand the word (confidence in what there can be no
>> >certainty of), is entailed by the mechanism of association and the
>> >accompanying expectation that the conjunction will be repeated -- e.g.
>> >Pavlov's dogs had faith that when the bell rang they would be fed. (Then
>> >one day Pavlov came along and selected a dog, made an incision in the
>> >side of its neck, led out its oesophagus through the incision, severed
>> >it, and hung it over a jar to quantify the rate of salivation.)
>>
>> Evidence for behavioral modification isn't evidence of faith. The dog
>> is responding naturally due to basic conditioning. Due to my work
>> schedule I regularly eat lunch at 10:30 am. On my days off, I am usually
>> very hungry by 10:30 am. That hunger has nothing to do with faith, it
>> just happens to be when I usually eat lunch. A dog can develop faith in
>> their owner and that they will feed them when they are hungry, but when
>> they salivate that's a basic biological response to the appropriate
>> stimuli and conditioning. And you won't have to cut their throat. An act
>> I don't think instills faith. Our cats know that they can get food from
>> me whenever I eat, they never bother my wife. They know she only feeds
>> them in the morning, which is when they do bother her.
>
>As I understand it, a dog's faith in its owner is just another example of
>the conditioned response. The conditioned response conforms to my definition
>of faith as "confidence in what there can be no certainty of", but my goal
>here is to understand what *you* mean by faith. To that end allow me to make
>an approach to understanding your definition by specifically excluding the
>conditioned response.
Well, may as well use the term conditioned response, for conditioned
response. ; )
>> >Any kind of acknowledgement of, and reliance upon, an established
>> >association, is a show of faith.
>>
>> I'd have to say, this isn't my own experience. I do recognize that this
>> maybe the case with others, but with myself -- any kind of acknowledgement
>> is a show of knowingness or awareness. Established associations are just
>> conditioned responses instilled by our parents, culture, and our personal
>> behaviour. Just more dog drool resting on the surface.
>
>Knowingness, if I understand the term correctly, is experiential awareness
>in the present instant, transcending the past and future that our conceptual
>minds abstract and create from it. Here there can be nothing other than
>"what is". I am of the opinion that we humans get lumbered with conceptual
>mind from a very early age, and from there we have to make our way back out
>again to the simple "what is". Surely you're not claiming that there never
>was a time when you were in this trap along with the rest of us?
No. I'm claiming that there has never been a time when any of us were in
this trap. There is no trap. We are simply caught chasing the reflections and
it is the reflections and our relationship with them that have been conditioned
over time. The nature of reality doesn't change, our perception of reality
opens to the vastness of what has always been present and appearent. There is
no need to make our way back, since access to this ground is always avalilable,
immediately present awareness. There is no pre-human bliss from some golden
old age that I am trying to recapture. This is the direct experience, the
nowness of the moment, the foundation for all other experiences. If you were
trapped from having this direct experiencing you would have no experiences,
good or bad.
>> > > But Man, being the rational animal, takes this rudimentary form of
>> > > faith to a higher level. Our capacities for symbolic representation and
for
>> > > hypothesis creation allow us to have faith not just in what we have
>> > > experienced directly through the senses, but also in what can be
>> > > hypothesised over and above that which has been directly experienced.
>>
>> Part of our difference in our understanding about/of "faith" is your
>> definition of "faith" as "confidence in what there can be no certainty of."
>> This limits faith by keeping it within the logical mental world view. If
>> we acknowledge that "faith" transcend reason, why do we still demand that
>> "faith" work within the rules of reason?
>
>Yes -- that's my definition of the word, but I'm trying to understand your
>definition of the word. The logical mental world view is the only view that
>I am aware of at present,
I really doubt that. There is the physical body knowing, the way you know
how to hit the ball in cricket. The way you know how to execute a technique
from Aikido. The way you know how to walk down the street. There is the
emotional world view, the way you relate to those you relate with on any level.
There is the psycho-spiritual world view, the way you relate spiritually to
the deeper questions and to the suffering of life. All of these are ways of
knowing, views of reality. Each accepting the appropriate evidence, none alone
give a complete picture.
> and "faith", being a concept, belongs within my conceptual world-model.
The word "faith" is a symbol for a concept based upon the experiencing of
faith. Experiencing faith is an experience of faith, not an experience of the
concept called faith. But the words aren't worthless because of this, since
most of the time the words are generally pointing to a higher understanding and
a deeper insight.
>*Within* the constraints of this model, how else is it to be defined?
An intuitive trusting based on deep feeling/awareness (not emotions) that
only increases with experience. It is a hunch that you cannot shake off, no
matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it away. Rather than say that
it is a conviction of something that I cannot be certain of, I'd say that it is
a certainty of something that cannot be explained away.
>And *beyond* the constraints of this model, is there need of words and their
>definitions?
Until we develop telepathy as a species, words will be necessary.
>> The other part that I would quibble with, is that you often use
>> the word "faith" in a context where I would use the terms "knowledge,"
>> "knowingness," "awareness," "hope" or (yes even) "certainty." If I
>> study geometry and learn the proofs, I will be certain of the answers. I
>> won't have faith in the answers, I'll either know the answers or I won't
>> know, I'll be ignorant. And all of that math is based on "our capacities for
>> symbolic representation." In fact math is all "hypothesised over and
>> above" based on symbolic representation of concepts that
>> will_never_be_known_experientially_. I have never "seen" a mathematical
>> proof lying around in the natural physical material world. But once I do
>> the math and comfirm my answers, I can claim certainty.
>
>Deductive logic admits of certainty because it always reduces to
>tautologies. The statement that a triangle has three sides admits of
>certainty because three-sidedness is part of the definition of a triangle.
>No faith needed here, because we aren't inferring anything over and
>above what has already present in the axiomatic foundation.
Like recognizing the ground state, naked present awareness, looking right at
you, as you look through it. No faith needed.
>> Also when "we have experienced directly through the senses" -- "directly
>> experienced" reality just as it is -- hypothesised over and above" only
>> takes you farther away from the experience. Why go that way? Better to
>> sit back down and directly experience "it" again and again. To rest
>> directly experiencing until the peak experience is repeatable, until it
>> becomes a trait, not just another event.
>
>Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process of
>hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct experience
>(and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but this is the human
>condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it is the trap that is to
>be escaped from.
No, it is the habit of humans to hypothesis. The real human condition is the
immediate experiencing.
>> >Out of this capacity religious faith arises.
>>
>> "To have confidence in what there can be no certainty of," seems more
>> like a good definition for foolishness. I would define that as blind faith.
>> Something I have no faith in. ; )
>
>Is it foolishness to have confidence in your car's brakes,
Well that depends on how you maintain and care for your car's brakes. If
your a bad mechanic, well then, yes it would be very foolish. Still I can only
hope.
>or that your home will still be there when you leave work,
A basic Buddhist contemplation is meditating on the many ways one can die.
Visualizing the experience of dying in great detail and generally in not such a
pleasant manner. Traditional versions are visualizing yourself dying of
thirts, hunger, being trampled by elephants, executed or murdered. Later
versions included visualizing yourself dying of leprosy, of being lost at sea
and eaten by sharks, or of the roof of your house falling and crushing you to
death. Really, if you think about it, any of the above can happen. Though I
imagine the odds of dying of leprosy, or being trampled by elephants are pretty
low in England.
>or that the laws of physics will continue to hold for the forseeable future?
Hmm, unless a singularity suddenly self-generates near by I don't think I
need to worry about this one. As far as we understand, the universe has been
functioning within the laws of physics for something like 15 billion years.
That's a pretty good track record. Granted, it could be fun if we knew how
gravity works on a fundamental level. (Giggling at the fun we could have with
the ability to turn gravity off and on. "Look Ma! No hands.") Besides, I
think there is a greater threat that we (the planet Earth) will be hit by a big
rock, or Yellowstone National Park erupts as a volcano, or we get hit by a mega
flair from the sun that destroys the ozone layer.
> It would be debilitating to have to live without this sort of confidence.
I would call that kind of confidence ignorance. I hope my brakes work, I
hope my house is still there, I hope the laws of physics continue to operate, I
pray a big rock doesn't fall from the sky.
I'd say that most people deal with these things by ignoring them, and denying
their potential. Most people don't want to be reminded that they will some day
die. Thinking about death on a daily basis is considered a bit too depressing
and a possible sign of clinical depression. A modern personal version of death
meditation is to simply watch the evening news. First get comfortable with
your back erect and balanced. Focus on your breathing for a while to calm and
quiet your mind and body. Once you are relaxed begin watching the TV (listen
to the radio or read the newspaper -- whatever the medium you choose). Every
time you hear a story of someone dying, you place yourself as the person dying,
within the context of the story in relation to your own life. The famous, the
infamous, and the innocent bystander, whomever. That could be you. That could
be me.
>> >You see -- I'm arguing that faith is implicit in the animal kingdom,
>>
>> Nothing personal, but I can't take doggy drool as evidence "that faith
>> is implicit in the animal kingdom." Yes, I could say that a dog develops
>> "faith" in an owner, but pushing the concept to say its implicit. Sounds
>> a little too anthropomorphic for me.
>
>Provisionally conceded above.
: )
>> > but rises to increasingly abstract levels, in our species culminating in
>> > religious faith and in superstition (I'm not implying a connection here,
>> > but there is an overlap).
>>
>> Though I do agree with ever "increasingly abstract levels" I don't think
>>they culminate in superstition or religious faith. There are higher levels
of >>attainment and insight of this faculty.
>
>The way I understand things (to present) is that the higher levels you refer
>to transcend the requirement for faith, since they are an escape from the
>strictures of the human condition in a return to the "what is".
Yes and no. I could say that the higher levels transcend the requirement for
faith, but I could also say at the higher levels the concept of faith doesn't
work within the rules of logic. It would be like trying to explain English
literature using a mathematical language. Sure I could translate Hamlet into
binary code (it's been done), a mathematical language, but you would still need
to understand Elizabethan English. Its' just not going to make any sense that
way. The information, the data we recieve -- always needs to be understood in
context.
And, the higher levels are not "an escape from the strictures of the human
condition in a return to the 'what is'." The higher levels are the continuing
development of the human condition. There is no returning to a 'what is.'
There is no escaping from the strictues of the human condition. The higher
levels I am referring to are in fact the levels of completely fulfilling the
human condition. And "what is," simply is. No need to return, no need to go
forth, just ... take a deep breathe, let it out slowly, and "turn the light
around."
The End of Act II
Part Three Coming Soon. ; )
J.
And we continue with Act III ...
In article <vepU8.2198$jN2.5...@news11-gui.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
That's easy. There is no isolated self separate entity. "I" am many on all
levels. Physically my body is made of quarks combined into particles, combined
into atoms, into molecules, into cells, into tissues, tendons, organs, and
bone. "I" am none of these things, at lest "I" cannot find myself in any of
them, yet missing any of them or damage to any of them would definately effect
"me," if not kill "me." Or should I say that it would effect my body, if not
kill my body. Even though I can claim that "I" am not my body, without my body
where would I live? There are the physical senses of smell, taste, sight,
touch/balance, and hearing, but "I" am not any of these. Still, if this body
was born deaf and blind, that would mean "I" would be deaf and blind.
When I review my emotional self, my mental self, my spiritual self, I find a
simular structuring. Components and parts, seemingly separate entities, all
just parts of a greater unity and whole.
>If there is no such entity then how can it achieve enlightenment
>through its own efforts?
It's the complete being that awakens to enlightenment. No egotic "I"
achieves enlightenment. There isn't one that could.
> So "I cannot do it alone" must surely become "I
>cannot do it at all"? As I understand it the self is a consequence of
>activity born of a kind of ignorance, and any attempt to extricate itself
>from this state of ignorance is like trying to put out a fire with a bucket
>full of gasoline -- it is simply a perpetuation of the self-sustaining
>activity of the self. It sure beats the hell out of me (scratches head ...
>no good telling me to "let go then" because I'd have to make an effort to
>let go ... perhaps it's like a flywheel that has to be allowed to come down
>to rest by refraining from putting more energy into it?)
Or just let the fire run out of fuel. Your "flywheel" is a good image.
>> >and it can't be done for me,
>>
>> "but neither can anyone else do it for you." -- You have to see it
>> through to completion yourself. Even with all the right people, all the
>> right schools, the perfect life and the best teachers none of that is a
>> guaranty. None of them, none of that can do it for you. You have to take
>> both the first step and the last yourself, but ...
>
>The problem arises again ... what is this "self" that sees it through to
>completion but an error of perspective?
The none-self self sees it through to completion. The Buddhist understanding
of no-self doesn't mean you don't exist. It is pointing to the truth that
there is no permanent self separate entity that stands alone isolated from the
rest of reality. If there was a permanent self separate entity, there would be
no possiblity for enlightenment. There would be no possibility for anything
other than that permanent self separate entity. It would have no potential for
decay or growth, and being isolated from the rest of reality it wouldn't be
able to effect reality, even though (in such a case) this permanent self
separate entity would be reality. It would be a pretty boring world. No one
to talk to, no thing to play with.
> Can an error of perspective eradicate itself?
No! But seeing that error of perspective, as an error, does eradicate it.
There is a mere self, an actor that appears to be at center stage, but this
actor is hollow and is performed by many characters, as they play many
different roles. Who are you? Well, which me do you mean? Me the body, my
body? Me the heart, my feelings? Me the mind, my thoughts? Me at birth, 3, 5,
7, 15, 21 years, now at 40, or sometime in the future at my death, say
fourtysomething or later?
Interestingly the Dalai Lama has said that following a spiritual discipline
(this is my experience also) actually gives him a greater sense of self.
Confidence develops as our skills develop, as our self discipline develops, but
this is not confidence in an ego, skill in samsaric existence, or discipline in
hedonistic pleasures.
> I think not, but that's not to say it can't be eradicated -- its just that
this >eradication is a consequence of the unfolding of the cosmos, not a
consequence
>of the efforts of the putative "self".
Still that subtle dualism creeps in. Yes you are right, the ego is unable to
eradicate itself. But the ego, as a self separate entity, is an illusion.
Once we see the illusion as an illusion, we are no longer fooled by the
illusion. We are able to see right through the illusion. Also while in a
sense there is a natural unfolding of the cosmos, that doesn't mean we get to
sit on our fat fannies "doing nothing" "hoping" enlightenment will just happen
to us. "Nondoing is not "doing nothing." You need to learn and then practice
the techniques that lead to enlightenment, under the guidence of good teachers.
Even a Christian has to open their heart, to recieve the spirit (or grace) of
God. And opening the heart to God, is itself an act of grace. There is much
you can do to make the trip to your own enlightenment less difficult. Learn
how to quiet and calm the egotic personality, learn how to rest in the ocean of
your awareness, abiding naturally relaxed regardless of the size of the waves,
turning the light around. A calm lake reflects the moon without ripples. And
perhaps you will hear the silence beyond all of the noise.
To paraphrase a Tibetan phrase: "Hasten to the mat, relax in non-meditation."
> Is Augustine's predestinarianism a natural consequence of this conclusion?
If we accepted this conclusion, yes, then Augustine's predestinarianism would
be a natural consequence.
>Sorry if I'm going off at a tangent here, but you've set me thinking.
No need to apology. It's not like I haven't wandered off a few several many
times myself.
; )
>Perhaps predestinarianism is only offensive to those that believe they have
free
>will, and inoffensive to those that believe there's no need to hypothesise any
such >thing?
Hmm? Well actually, predestinarianism would be at odds with the law of
karma. The word 'karma' means 'action.' By our own actions is our destiny
determined. By our own actions is our perception of reality determined. We
don't have free will until we obtain enlightenment, but before that happens, we
do make many choices that do or will in the future effect your existence. If
you are to become enlightened within this life, you will have to be able to see
yourself as enlightened in this life, and to begin living your life in an
enlightening way. The way you live your life directly effects the kind of life
you experience. Tibetans claim that if you want to know what your last life
was like, look closely at this life; and if you want to know what your future
life will be like, look closely at this life. You can tell what your last life
was like by the conditions and circumstances, the gifts and the burdens of this
life. And, you can tell what your future life will be like by the way you have
responded to, reacted with, related with, your actions relating -- to those
conditions and circumstances, the gifts and the burdens of this life. It
really matters very little regarding "what happens to you," that is past karma
coming to fruit. What IS important IS how you respond, how you act regarding
"what happens to you." Your act is the seed of future karma. If you plant
roses, roses will grow and blossom, if you plant poison ivy, you will get a
rash.
While it is difficult to explain the way to enlightenment, it would be (it
is) very easy to explain the way to insanity. In fact the West has some highly
refined research and several specialized disciplines that have focused on
different aspects and qualities of insanity. Many of these disciplines are
accepted as part of the scientific community, some are not. Abnormal
psychology can be approached psychiatrically, behaviourally, through Freudian
or Jungian anaylisis, and with Transpersonal Psychology. Generally speaking
Western psychology has focused on human development and abnormal psychology and
pathological development.
In the West, only the approach of the Transpersonal psychologies has
acknowldeged the higher spiritual levels of human development, along with their
pathological forms. The discipline of parapsychology has become a little
laughable, but it is also an example of a Western approach of investigating
higher levels of human development, peak experiences, and weird events
unexplainable rationally. Most of what is past off as science under
parapsychology are the wishes and dreams of the researchers.
>> >then it won't be done.
>>
>> Why do you come to that conclusion? Keep going, perseverance, seek out
>> the right friends and wise teachers -- it'll get done eventually. As long
>> as you persevere, how can you fail. As long as you never give up, never
>> surrender, never say, "I can't;" who can say how far off is this
>> experience you seek? The saints say that it is a hair's breadth away, and
>> as far as the farthest star.
>
>I don't come to this conclusion, as I say in the remainder of that remark...
Ya.
>> > This is an example of the law of the excluded middle. But I'm not
>> > arguing that it won't be done, of course -- just that logic and reason
>> > don't provide a complete picture.
>>
>> Law of the excluded middle? The middle of what? All things that arise,
>> come into being, and pass away, depend on all things that arise, come into
>> being, and pass away. Of course "logic and reason don't provide a
>> complete picture." So why limit yourself to logic and reason as the only
>> evidence for getting a clear and complete picture?
>
>You make my point for me. The law of the excluded middle is a centrepiece of
>logic, and logic is a consequence of conceptual mind.
And enlightenment is the consequence of enlightened mind.
>The law of the excluded middle only works if there are such things as clear
and >distinct boundaries (i.e. true discontinuities), and as Socrates
repeatedly tried to
>demonstrate (if we are to believe Plato), when we try to pin down those of
>our distinct boundaries that have been inferred from empirical data, the
>boundaries dissolve away.
"Form is emptiness and emptiness is form." When I recognize the directly
immediate present naked self-reflective awareness -- I am not inferring from
empirical data, I am experiencing directly contemplative data.
>Clear and distinct boundaries only exist as conceptual constructs, and therein
we >can work with them using deductive
>logic.
So then use the tools of deductive logic to answer conceptual problems, and
use the appropriate techniques to find the answers to contemplative and
spiritual problems.
>> >> >> All you need is enough of an interest to practice for a little while.
>> >> >
>> >> >What is the experience they begin with?
>> >>
>> >> The one they are experiencing.
>> >
>> >Then I guess what I'm arguing is that it requires faith to abandon all
>> >else but the experience they are experiencing. It is such a
counter-intuitive
>> >claim that it causes more than a little consternation when first
encountered.
>>
>> Your not abandoning anything, just relax and let go. Rest alertly in
>> what is. There are conditions that can help, practices and techniques
>> that can increase the potential for peak insightful experiences, teachers
>> to study under, and books you can read -- it all simply comes down to
>> letting go of all of those established associations, and resting in the
>> experiencing -- like being lost in the music, dancing.
>
>"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice is
>unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly acceptable
>to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith to let go of all
>else but immediate experience.
If we agree that immediate experience is the ground state and the fundamental
basis of all experience, even the experience of faith, then why do we need
faith to experience what is already our experience? Just exhale and relax.
>> Like when you are training in Aikido, there are those moments when the
>> techniques just flow. Finally our body has really learned how to move in
>> harmony with our center of gravity. And without our heads playing a
>> running commentary telling the body what to do. For some to get to that
>> level faith is needed. Though with your definition of faith, I would use
>> the term "hope" in this context. You hope this will work, since there can
>> be no certainty. The reason you are doing this is to gain a magical
>> prize, like the holy grail. Still a little too "profit" oriented for me.
>> There is no prize to win, and with hope, comes fear. The certainty I seek
>> transcends hope and fear. A common Tibetan teaching slogan is, "No hope,
>> no fear." There is no winner, there are no losers. Kind of like the way I
>> interpret Revalations, enlightenment has already happened, enlightenment
>> is happening right now, and enlightenment will happen in the future. All
>> "I" have to do is get out of the way of enlightenments natural unfolding.
>
>The main reason I practise Aikido is because I find it immensely
>enjoyable -- that is the profit I seek, the desire that drives me.
How very tantric of you.
> Another reason is my desire to understand what is going on -- to be able to
fit it
>into my conceptual world model.
How very human of you. ; )
>Bergson was very good on this (though to my knowledge he knew nothing about
>Aikido) -- he says that our error is to attempt to break things down in order
to >understand them, and by doing so we destroy the very thing we are
attempting to >understand. But I think it has to be so in Aikido (along with
many other things) -- >we first break down the action and re-assemble it from
the parts only to find that it >doesn't work. We then proceed to progressively
remove all the breakage points to >bring it back to the unity that it
originally was, and therein find that it works ... but >also that it wasn't
"me" that did it ... it just seemed to "do" itself (This is the lesson >in
Eugen Herrigel's wonderful little book "Zen in the Art of Archery").
I'd say that our error is breaking things down in order to understand them in
a messy and slopy way. By going through the process of deconstructing the ego
we do destroy the very thing we are attempting to understand, but that is the
whole point and purpose of the practice. That is how you gain understanding.
This is using an analytical approach and that approach is very well developed
in the Buddhist tradition. Resting in our naked self-reflective awareness is
the nondual approach, an approach that makes the error of breaking things down
unnecessary.
On a practical level, your experience of learning Aikido is very much like
learning a contemplative discipline -- the process of "progressively remov[ing]
all the breakage [balance] points to bring it back to the unity" -- "it" is the
human condition. And as you say, "and therein find that it works ... but also
that it wasn't "me" that did it ... it just seemed to "do" itself" -- which is
the insight of our own nature.
>> >> Confidence in the method is not the same as faith in the answers.
>> >
>> >Faith in the method, faith in the answers, different kinds of faith but
>> >both faith.
>>
>> As I said, you use the word "faith" in places that I wouldn't. The
>> methods lead to knowledge, I trust the scientific methods because they
>> work, not because they outline a belief I hold. Really nothing more than
>> tools that help us aquire knowledge and information. Knowledge we can
>> usually be certain of, we should always be questioning and up dating our
>> information.
>
>I'm still struggling to understand what you mean by the word. If I
>provisionally exclude trust from the definition of faith as well, what is
>left?
The intuitive experience.
Faith held in the face of evidence to the contrary doesn't qualify as faith.
A conviction in something you can never attain certainty of or in, also doesn't
qualify as faith.
>I have found your comments particularly helpful in forcing me to clarify my
>own ideas and in raising additional interesting issues -- this is the beauty
>of good-humoured debate like this.
I have also enjoyed this lively debate. Hopefuly I've explained my
understanding in a way you can understand easily.
The End.
andy-k
I've extracted the ones I'd like to continue to debate:
> > >Any kind of acknowledgement of, and reliance upon, an established
> association, > > >is a show of faith.
> >
> > I'd have to say, this isn't my own experience. I do recognize that
this
> > maybe the case with others, but with myself -- any kind of
acknowledgement
> is a > show of knowingness or awareness. Established associations are
just
> > conditioned responses instilled by our parents, culture, and our
personal
> > behaviour. Just more dog drool resting on the surface.
>
> >Knowingness, if I understand the term correctly, is experiential
awareness > >in the present instant, transcending the past and future that
our conceptual > >minds abstract and create from it. Here there can be
nothing other than > >"what is". I am of the opinion that we humans get
lumbered with conceptual > >mind from a very early age, and from there we
have to make our way back out > >again to the simple "what is". Surely
you're not claiming that there never > >was a time when you were in this
trap along with the rest of us?
>
> No. I'm claiming that there has never been a time when any of us were
in > this trap. There is no trap. We are simply caught chasing the
reflections and > it is the reflections and our relationship with them that
have been conditioned > over time. The nature of reality doesn't change,
our perception of reality > opens to the vastness of what has always been
present and appearent. There is > no need to make our way back, since access
to this ground is always avalilable, > immediately present wareness. There
is no pre-human bliss from some golden > old age that I am trying to
recapture. This is the direct experience, the > nowness of the moment, the
foundation for all other experiences. If you were > trapped from having
this direct experiencing you would have no experiences, > good or bad.
Whilst I acknowledge that everybody has access to this ground state of
immediate experience, there are those of us who are distracted from that
ground state in a state of what you call "chasing reflections". This state
of distraction is what I referred to above as the "trap" because these
reflections comprise a stable state that keeps us distracted away from the
immediate experience that feeds and updates them. But your description of
"chasing reflections" will do just as well. So the claim that there is no
need to make our way back seems tantamount to saying that there is no need
to stop chasing reflections.
> > and "faith", being a concept, belongs within my conceptual world-model.
>
> The word "faith" is a symbol for a concept based upon the experiencing
of > faith. Experiencing faith is an experience of faith, not an experience
of the > concept called faith. But the words aren't worthless because of
this, since > most of the time the words are generally pointing to a higher
understanding and > a deeper insight.
Erm ...
> >*Within* the constraints of this model, how else is it to be defined?
>
> An intuitive trusting based on deep feeling/awareness (not emotions)
that > only increases with experience. It is a hunch that you cannot shake
off, no > matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it away. Rather
than say that > it is a conviction of something that I cannot be certain of,
I'd say that it is > a certainty of something that cannot be explained away.
... this is why I got so confused ... it is consistent with the way I
interpret the word that certainty demands no faith.
> >Deductive logic admits of certainty because it always reduces to
> >tautologies. The statement that a triangle has three sides admits of
> >certainty because three-sidedness is part of the definition of a
triangle. > >No faith needed here, because we aren't inferring anything over
and > >above what has already present in the axiomatic foundation.
>
> Like recognizing the ground state, naked present awareness, looking
right at > you, as you look through it. No faith needed.
Now *that's* consistent with my understanding of "faith" -- no faith needed
for what is directly experienced.
> >Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process of
> >hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct experience
> >(and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but this is the human
> >condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it is the trap that is
to > >be escaped from.
>
> No, it is the habit of humans to hypothesis. The real human condition
is the > immediate experiencing.
I would say that immediate experiencing is not restricted to humans at all
and so does not deserve the restrictive title of the human condition. Rather
the creation of hypotheses is our forte -- thus my comment above.
> >The way I understand things (to present) is that the higher levels you
refer > >to transcend the requirement for faith, since they are an escape
from the > >strictures of the human condition in a return to the "what is".
>
> Yes and no. I could say that the higher levels transcend the
requirement for > faith, but I could also say at the higher levels the
concept of faith doesn't > work within the rules of logic. It would be like
trying to explain English > literature using a mathematical language. Sure
I could translate Hamlet into > binary code (it's been done), a mathematical
language, but you would still need > to understand Elizabethan English.
Its' just not going to make any sense that > way. The information, the data
we recieve -- always needs to be understood in > context. > And, the
higher levels are not "an escape from the strictures of the human >
condition in a return to the 'what is'." The higher levels are the
continuing > development of the human condition. There is no returning to a
'what is.' > There is no escaping from the strictues of the human
condition. The higher > levels I am referring to are in fact the levels of
completely fulfilling the > human condition. And "what is," simply is. No
need to return, no need to go > forth, just ... take a deep breathe, let it
out slowly, and "turn the light > around."
Adapting your terminology from above, allow me to rephrase: We need to
refrain from "chasing reflections" (the strictures of the human condition)
in a return to immediate awareness alone (the "what is"). This means
refraining from our propensity to inhabit our respective conceptual
world-models (letting go).
> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice is
> >unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly
acceptable > >to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith to
let go of all > >else but immediate experience.
>
> If we agree that immediate experience is the ground state and the
fundamental > basis of all experience, even the experience of faith, then
why do we need > faith to experience what is already our experience? Just
exhale and relax.
Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent with
the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate experience
demands no faith.
> >I'm still struggling to understand what you mean by the word. If I
> >provisionally exclude trust from the definition of faith as well, what is
> >left?
>
> The intuitive experience.
This definition makes your position a lot clearer to me. Whilst I can't
comment on the definition of "faith" in American English as I don't have a
copy of Webster's, your definition does help me to understand why you reject
the Oxford English Dictionary definition so vehemently. Have American
English and British English really diverged so much? Or is your definition
peculiar to the Buddhist tradition?
J.
In article <Yo8Y8.10939$_n5.3...@newsfep2-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Thanks for your illuminating comments J.
>I've extracted the ones I'd like to continue to debate:
Thank you and your welcome. I also have to thank you, this debate is very
rewarding. It is helping me understanding my own understanding through the
process of trying to explain my understanding to you.
We just need to recognize the reflections for the reflections or projections
that they are. In one sense you are right that we "are distracted from that
ground state," but we aren't being distracted by the "reflections" we are
distracted by the "chasing."
The reason that I "claim that there is no need to make our way back," is that
that kind of approach usually carries with it the sense of lacking something we
have lost or lacking something we have never had. On a fundamental level that
isn't the case. Even though we are distracted by the chasing, the ground state
is always shining through. It's not that we are unable to see it, we are
seeing it, seeing through it, and seeing with it, all the time -- we just don't
recognize it.
This ground state, immediate present instrinsic self-reflective awareness, is
our original nature. The human condition manifests through our body, our
voice, and our mind. I am aware of my body, with its aches and pains, joys and
pleasures. "I" am not my body. I am aware of my emotional energy and express
this through my voice, be it dark depression, ecstatic happiness, flaming anger
or "I'm OK". "I" am not my emotions. I am aware of my mind, the thinking
relating cognitive qualities, the sensing intuitive processes, and the
thoughts, images, and sounds the mind recieves. "I" am not my thinking
relating cognitive qualities, my sensing intuitive processes, nor am "I" my
thoughts, the images, or the sounds my mind recieves. The underlining
fundamental original condition is our capacity for presence and awareness. It
is the continuum that holds everything together. Our basic oridinary
awareness, just as it is, and our capacity of being present. Regardless of how
my body feels, what my emotions are, where my mind is (past, present, or
future) awareness is the connection, the continuum, the medium for each to
manifest and for all to manifest together. The practice of "turning the light
around" rests on our capacity of being present and becoming aware of awareness.
It is the nature of awareness to be aware, so rather than trying to "do
something" with awareness (following a mind made technique) we simply rest in
awareness.
>> > and "faith", being a concept, belongs within my conceptual world-model.
>>
>> The word "faith" is a symbol for a concept based upon the experiencing
>> of faith. Experiencing faith is an experience of faith, not an experience
>> of the concept called faith. But the words aren't worthless because of
>> this, since most of the time the words are generally pointing to a higher
>> understanding and a deeper insight.
>
>Erm ...
>> >*Within* the constraints of this model, how else is it to be defined?
>>
>> An intuitive trusting based on deep feeling/awareness (not emotions)
>> that only increases with experience. It is a hunch that you cannot shake
>> off, no matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it away. Rather
>> than say that it is a conviction of something that I cannot be certain of,
>> I'd say that it is a certainty of something that cannot be explained away.
>
>... this is why I got so confused ... it is consistent with the way I
>interpret the word that certainty demands no faith.
Ah ... that is why I was confused ... I was under the impression that you
would only accept the traditional western cognitive mental skills and material
evidence as valid knowledge. The intuitive processes are usually excluded from
western lists. Sure the parapsychologists study "that stuff," but it isn't
real science.
Things are changing though. It is slowly becoming a standard practice to
record the dream material of schizophrenics. This material is used as a
diagnostic tool to regulate their drug therapy. It appears that there is a
correlation between strongly felt dreams that precede later schizoid episodes.
Drug levels are adjusted based on the intensity of the dream experience rather
than specific dream symbols. The one's doing this practice are generally
psychiatrists, the medical doctors, not the psychoanalysts.
There is a logic to the intuitive processes, so to speak, the spiritual
skills and spiritual evidence of ordinary awareness, the dream state, or deep
sleep. It just doesn't work logically in the sense of a + b = c. ; )
>> > Deductive logic admits of certainty because it always reduces to
>> > tautologies. The statement that a triangle has three sides admits of
>> > certainty because three-sidedness is part of the definition of a
>> > triangle. No faith needed here, because we aren't inferring anything over
>> > and above what has already present in the axiomatic foundation.
>>
>> Like recognizing the ground state, naked present awareness, looking
>> right at you, as you look through it. No faith needed.
>
>Now *that's* consistent with my understanding of "faith" -- no faith needed
>for what is directly experienced.
I thought you held that faith was a conviction in something that you could
never have certainty in. Why call it faith, when there is no faith needed?
This direct experiencing, you are experiencing, right now, as you read these
words.
>> > Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process of
>> > hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct experience
>> > (and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but this is the human
>> > condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it is the trap that is
>> > to be escaped from.
>>
>> No, it is the habit of humans to hypothesis. The real human condition
>> is the immediate experiencing.
>
>I would say that immediate experiencing is not restricted to humans at all
>and so does not deserve the restrictive title of the human condition. Rather
>the creation of hypotheses is our forte -- thus my comment above.
Perhaps it is our forte to hypotheses, but on a fundamental level our
immediate intrinsic presence of awareness, our experiencing, is our true
original human condition, as it manifests through the human body, voice, and
mind.
Animals can exhibit amazing qualities, but they can never transcend their
instincts and their capacity of awareness is a lot dimmer than humans. The
only "other" animals that have passed the "mirror test" are chimpanzees,
orangutans, and dolphins. Gorillas probably should be added to this list. We
have even taught sign language to the primates, and given time I imagine we
could develop something similar for dolphins. Maybe a "whistle language."
There is also that African Grey (parrot) in England who has a vocabulary of
around 400, or 600, words and really does understand the basic concepts behind
the words.
Animals don't have the capacity that humans do. Their awareness is too
shallow and in a sense, yoked to their instinctive nature. My cat may, at
times, sit like a sphinx, but that is no indication that she is resting in deep
contemplation of the riddles of life.
To paraphrase a Zen koan, "A dog has no buddha-nature." It's capacity for
enlightenment, in this life at lest, is nil. A dog can never become a Buddha
and dolphins can't become a Buddhas either. That's the way it is. Sure a dog
can become a Rin Tin Tin, or a Lassie and that is pretty good, still it an't no
Einstein. A dolphin can become a Flipper and that's really cool, but that's
not as good as a St. Francis, a Mozart, Gandhi, or that child just born in the
near by hospital.
>> >The way I understand things (to present) is that the higher levels you
>> >refer to transcend the requirement for faith, since they are an escape
>> >from the strictures of the human condition in a return to the "what is".
>>
>> Yes and no. I could say that the higher levels transcend the
>> requirement for faith, but I could also say at the higher levels the
>> concept of faith doesn't work within the rules of logic. It would be like
>> trying to explain English literature using a mathematical language. Sure
>> I could translate Hamlet into binary code (it's been done), a mathematical
>> language, but you would still need to understand Elizabethan English.
>> Its' just not going to make any sense that way. The information, the data
>> we recieve -- always needs to be understood in context. And, the
>> higher levels are not "an escape from the strictures of the human
>> condition in a return to the 'what is'." The higher levels are the
>> continuing development of the human condition. There is no returning to a
>> 'what is.' There is no escaping from the strictues of the human
>> condition. The higher levels I am referring to are in fact the levels of
>> completely fulfilling the human condition. And "what is," simply is. No
>> need to return, no need to go forth, just ... take a deep breathe, let it
>> out slowly, and "turn the light around."
>
>Adapting your terminology from above, allow me to rephrase: We need to
>refrain from "chasing reflections" (the strictures of the human condition)
>in a return to immediate awareness alone (the "what is"). This means
>refraining from our propensity to inhabit our respective conceptual
>world-models (letting go).
No. We need to rest in our human condition, our capacity of presence and
awareness manifesting through our body, voice, and mind. Its the "chasing"
that distracts us. There is nothing to return to -- immediate awareness is
already aware. Just sit relax and be alert awareness.
You are still trying to fit this understanding into a logical world-view of
your own making. You are so to speak, practicing that human forte of
hypothesizing. If you find it necessary to do something, refrain from
something, or let go of something -- let go of hypothesizing and rest in
awareness.
>> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice is
>> >unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly
>> >acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith to
>> >let go of all else but immediate experience.
>>
>> If we agree that immediate experience is the ground state and the
>> fundamental basis of all experience, even the experience of faith, then
>> why do we need faith to experience what is already our experience? Just
>> exhale and relax.
>
>Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent with
>the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate experience
>demands no faith.
With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that faith is not
required for spiritual practice.
>> >I'm still struggling to understand what you mean by the word. If I
>> >provisionally exclude trust from the definition of faith as well, what is
>> >left?
>>
>> The intuitive experience.
>
>This definition makes your position a lot clearer to me. Whilst I can't
>comment on the definition of "faith" in American English as I don't have a
>copy of Webster's, your definition does help me to understand why you reject
>the Oxford English Dictionary definition so vehemently. Have American
>English and British English really diverged so much?
Let's see, from -- The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language
3rd Edition 1992: faith -- noun. 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or
trustworthiness of a person, an idea, or a thing. 2. Belief that does not rest
on logical proof or material evidence. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing;
allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. Faith -- Theology. The
theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of
God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Moslem faith, the
Christian faith, etc. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.
Guess the meaning of the word hasn't diverged so much.
>Or is your definition peculiar to the Buddhist tradition?
No, and yes. Most of the World's Buddhist traditions do have teachings on
faith, but generally they are defining the word only in the terms of
definitions 1 and 3 above.
Definition 2. "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material
evidence," would be considered foolish by most Buddhists.
Definition 4, 5, and 6 don't really apply in the Buddhist sense. Definition
4 applies to Monotheism specifically, and Buddhists use the term Dharma to
define 5 and 6. "Buddhistically" phrased (no such word): 5. The body of
dogma of the Buddhist religion is called, the Dharma. 6. The set of principles
or beliefs of Buddhism is also called, the Dharma or the Buddhadharma.
At the same time, Buddhists who practice Zen, Mahamudra, Atiyoga, or Dzogchen
can be taught from the point of view that faith is not a requirement for
spiritual practice. This is the view I have been trying to describe. Doubt
itself can even become their vehicle if needed. At the same time followers of
Zen, Mahamudra, Atiyoga, or Dzogchen may still be taught from the point of view
that faith still needs to be cultivated. Within the Nondual traditions it is
not an either or situation. It's starting where you are right now, rather than
where some tradition assumes, or says, you should be. Fundamentally you are
awareness. Rest in the presence of awareness. To do that, faith isn't a
requirement. Your presence of awareness is already apparent right in front of
you. Now turn around.
andy-k
>
> >Thanks for your illuminating comments J.
> >I've extracted the ones I'd like to continue to debate:
>
> Thank you and your welcome. I also have to thank you, this debate is
very > rewarding. It is helping me understanding my own understanding
through the > process of trying to explain my understanding to you.
That's the great thing about these good-humoured debates. I'm also finding
that having to put things into words forces me to be much clearer about my
ideas.
> >Whilst I acknowledge that everybody has access to this ground state of >
>immediate experience, there are those of us who are distracted from that >
>ground state in a state of what you call "chasing reflections". This state
> >of distraction is what I referred to above as the "trap" because these >
>reflections comprise a stable state that keeps us distracted away from the
> >immediate experience that feeds and updates them. But your description of
> >"chasing reflections" will do just as well. So the claim that there is no
> >need to make our way back seems tantamount to saying that there is no
need > >to stop chasing reflections.
>
> We just need to recognize the reflections for the reflections or
projections > that they are. In one sense you are right that we "are
distracted from that > ground state," but we aren't being distracted by the
"reflections" we are > distracted by the "chasing."
So the problem is not that there are reflections, but that we chase them.
Okay, I think I'm following you here, but why make a distinction between
immediate awareness of the data of experience, and "reflections", if these
reflections are just more data of experience of which there is immediate
awareness?
This statement is perfectly clear. I tend to think of cognition as an
"outgrowth" of the ground state (perhaps having been influenced by Plotinus'
notion of "hypostases"), and to think of our error as being caught up in the
outgrowth, continually overlooking the ground state in the process. Hence my
use of the terms "distraction" and "making our way back" (i.e. stop
overlooking the ground state). Plotinus writes that "[I]n the Supreme ...
seeker and sought are one -- the sought serving as Hypostasis and substrate
of the seeker ..." [Ennead VI.8.15].
> >> >*Within* the constraints of this model, how else is it to be defined?
> >>
> >> An intuitive trusting based on deep feeling/awareness (not emotions)
> >> that only increases with experience. It is a hunch that you cannot
shake > >> off, no matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it away.
Rather > >> than say that it is a conviction of something that I cannot be
certain of, > >> I'd say that it is a certainty of something that cannot be
explained away.
> >
> >... this is why I got so confused ... it is consistent with the way I
> >interpret the word that certainty demands no faith.
>
> Ah ... that is why I was confused ... I was under the impression that you
> would only accept the traditional western cognitive mental skills and
material > evidence as valid knowledge.
Not at all ... this was the point of my ramblings about the law of the
excluded middle, and my suspicion of that kind of thinking. The word
"knowledge" is implied by the word "knowingness" (that we have already
discussed as preferable to "consciousness" because it does not presuppose
the subject-object split).
> >> Like recognizing the ground state, naked present awareness, looking
> >> right at you, as you look through it. No faith needed.
> >
> >Now *that's* consistent with my understanding of "faith" -- no faith
needed > >for what is directly experienced.
>
> I thought you held that faith was a conviction in something that you
could > never have certainty in. Why call it faith, when there is no faith
needed? > This direct experiencing, you are experiencing, right now, as you
read these > words.
That's precisely why I *don't* refer to direct experiencing as faith --
there can be no doubt about the presence of the immediate contents of
experience, but *nothing* of what is abstracted from them (the "outgrowth"
as mentioned above) is indubitable (not even Descares' Cogito).
> >> > Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process
of > >> > hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct
experience > >> > (and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but
this is the human > >> > condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it
is the trap that is > >> > to be escaped from.
> >>
> >> No, it is the habit of humans to hypothesis. The real human
condition > >> is the immediate experiencing. > > > >I would say that
immediate experiencing is not restricted to humans at all > >and so does not
deserve the restrictive title of the human condition. Rather > >the creation
of hypotheses is our forte -- thus my comment above.
>
> Perhaps it is our forte to hypotheses, but on a fundamental level our
> immediate intrinsic presence of awareness, our experiencing, is our true
> original human condition, as it manifests through the human body, voice,
and > mind. > Animals can exhibit amazing qualities, but they can never
transcend their > instincts and their capacity of awareness is a lot dimmer
than humans.
You seem to be implying that non-human animals have no immediate awareness
of the data of their experiences, and hence that immediate awareness is a
strictly "human condition", but your claim is muddied a little by your last
sentence which implies variability rather than discontinuity. I tend to
think of the difference being in the richness of content of immediate
awareness, so there is neither variability nor discontinuity of immediate
awareness but only variability of richness of content.
> The only "other" animals that have passed the "mirror test"
are chimpanzees, > orangutans, and dolphins. Gorillas probably should be
added to this list. We > have even taught sign language to the primates, and
given time I imagine we > could develop something similar for dolphins.
Maybe a "whistle language." > There is also that African Grey (parrot) in
England who has a vocabulary of > around 400, or 600, words and really does
understand the basic concepts behind > the words. > Animals don't have the
capacity that humans do. Their awareness is too > shallow and in a sense,
yoked to their instinctive nature. My cat may, at > times, sit like a
sphinx, but that is no indication that she is resting in deep >
contemplation of the riddles of life. > To paraphrase a Zen koan, "A dog
has no buddha-nature." It's capacity for > enlightenment, in this life at
lest, is nil. A dog can never become a Buddha > and dolphins can't become a
Buddhas either. That's the way it is. Sure a dog > can become a Rin Tin
Tin, or a Lassie and that is pretty good, still it an't no > Einstein. A
dolphin can become a Flipper and that's really cool, but that's > not as
good as a St. Francis, a Mozart, Gandhi, or that child just born in the >
near by hospital.
How do you feel about the idea that non-human animals can't be chasing
reflections because the content of their immediate awareness is not rich
enough -- i.e. they have not evolved the outgrowth of cognitive mind? If
I'm right about this, then there is no question of non-human animals
becoming enlightened, because they never became "endarkened" -- i.e. they
never left the state of immediate awareness.
Incidentally, the Zen koan you refer to goes something like this: the
student asks the master whether dogs have Buddha Nature, and the master
replies "Mu". I have read two accounts of this -- firstly that "Mu" is the
Chinese equivalent of our "woof", which makes it a humorous reply, and
secondly that "Mu" means "nothingness", or "emptyness", which makes it a
very enigmatic reply (very Zen). Either way, the master's reply seems
non-committal to me, as if he were saying that the question is irrelevant.
> >Adapting your terminology from above, allow me to rephrase: We need to
> >refrain from "chasing reflections" (the strictures of the human
condition) > >in a return to immediate awareness alone (the "what is"). This
means > >refraining from our propensity to inhabit our respective conceptual
> >world-models (letting go).
>
> No. We need to rest in our human condition, our capacity of presence
and > awareness manifesting through our body, voice, and mind. Its the
"chasing" > that distracts us. There is nothing to return to -- immediate
awareness is > already aware. Just sit relax and be alert awareness. > You
are still trying to fit this understanding into a logical world-view of >
your own making. You are so to speak, practicing that human forte of >
hypothesizing. If you find it necessary to do something, refrain from >
something, or let go of something -- let go of hypothesizing and rest in >
awareness.
I still don't understand your objection, though I fully acknowledge that my
claim is part and parcel of the outgrowth of cognitive mind that is to be
(sorry about this) left behind. I can see that this sort of hypothesising
leads to its own demise, but this, for me, is the whole point of it. My
rational faculty won't allow me to pursue anything that is clearly
irrational, so I must recruit it to the cause if I am to move forward and
leave it behind. I must, in a sense, have its permission to let go of it.
"So why not simply let go right now?" I hear you ask. Well, yes, that is
what I call "practice", but my practice doesn't bring what Zen calls satori
immediately -- it brings merely a temporary state that, as I understand it,
sets up conditions that are conducive to satori. The flywheel must be given
time to wind down to rest, and if I am to devote the necessary time to the
practice then I must have the consent of my rational faculty. See the
appended message I've added at the end of this post.
> >> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice
is > >> >unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly >
>> >acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith to
> >> >let go of all else but immediate experience. > >> > >> If we agree
that immediate experience is the ground state and the > >> fundamental basis
of all experience, even the experience of faith, then > >> why do we need
faith to experience what is already our experience? Just
> >> exhale and relax.
> >
> >Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent with
> >the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate experience
> >demands no faith.
>
> With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that faith is
not > required for spiritual practice.
The way I understand it, faith is required until one attains to satori --
whereupon faith is no longer required because there is the realisation that
there is no path and never was one. Faith is required as long as one
believes (as I do) that there is a path to follow.
I think it would have been far more appropriate if translators had used some
other term for "intuitive experience" than "faith" because of the strong
connotations the word already has in English. Bergson calls it simply
"intuition", which seems far more appropriate than "faith". But I guess that
since they didn't, we (i.e. those of us that haven't come across the
Buddhist variant) have to put up with the confusion it leads to. Perhaps
both American and British dictionaries should include "intuitive experience"
as a variant definition of "faith". I will certainly be acknowledging this
in future, along with "confidence in what there can be no certainty of"
(i.e. belief).
BuddhaThu <Runnin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:63e0e39e.02071...@posting.google.com...
>
> It is said that the Buddha shuns all type of metaphysical
> speculations. And his approach was out of pragmatic consideration. If
> it is not a vehicle to relieve suffering from sickeness, old age,
> death and from one's major desires, then it is not what is conducive
> to your salvation.
>
> In this, the Buddha is like a good doctor. When trying to save a
> patient who is dying, he does not meditate on the ontology of the
> patient's being, or whether the nature of the patient is of some
> metaphysical such and such. He would try to find the most expedient
> way to save him by coming up with the proper diagnosis and medical
> treatment. Sometimes, the patient would be too deluded to take his
> treatment, being so poisoned by the realm of desires for concepts that
> he would refuse to take his medicine. So the good doctor would have to
> make it more palatable. And add some sugar so to speak in order to
> make him well again.
>
> To me, intellectual speculations are like this, and to a certain,
> extent zen might also recognizes this.
>
> Anyway, Zen Buddhism as it is practiced sees meditation as an everyday
> practical sort of thing. It is a level of quietism which has as its
> tradition in other forms of meditation. To me, there are several types
> of meditations in Buddhism. One type is to be mindful of your
> everyday issues, like the breath or the tea ceremony. It is a one
> pointness level of awareness that calms the mind down. This level of
> meditation you can find not only in zen but also in the Theravadan
> Traditions of Sri Lanka, Thailand land Burma.
>
> The other is to do away with one's concepts, and metaphysics offers
> nothing but concepts for you to play with and to speculate on. This is
> the point of the zen Koan and of the laughing Buddha. (As an aside, he
> is one of my favorite for he teaches that your way to salvation and
> toward the detachment of concepts is through humour. I always wear him
> around my neck to remind me to laugh away the world's troubles.)
>
> Like Jesus, the Buddha loved to tell parables as a means of teaching
> his disciples. One of his more famous ones is the parable of the
> burning house which came from the Lotus Sutra. Although it is a story
> that alludes to faith issues, to me, it might also have zen
> connotations.
>
> The story goes like this. There was a rich man who had children. The
> children love to explore and play in an old dilapidated house. Knowing
> how children are, they can get so absorbed in their play that they do
> not know the dangers that existed in that house. One day, while the
> children were playing, the father noticed that the house was bursting
> into flames. The father yelled to the children, "Get out of the
> house!!!" But the children, so wrapped in play, ignored their father.
> So he bribed them by saying "I have better toys for you to play with,
> wagons with one pulled by a deer, another by a sheep and another by an
> ox". The children, upon hearing that there were better toys, got out of
> the house. But when the children left the house, they did not get the
> toys they were promised -- instead, they got an even better toy,
> a wagon pulled by a giant white ox.
>
> In this story, the burning house represents the world of desire for
> material things as well as for concepts. The father was a bodhisattva
> who desired to save the children, but could not by any other ordinary
> means. So he "tricked them", by saying "I have better toys for you."
> The toys represented other Buddhist ***concepts*** of learning and
> realization, but are, like any other, still concepts. But it was enough
> to get them out of the house.
>
> But upon getting out of the house, they found that their father had an
> even better toy for them. The final toy is the single path of
> Buddhahood which encompasses and annihilates all other concepts of
> learning and realizations.
>
> So is the study of Buddhist metaphysics bad for them, a means of
> deception? Well, not really. We must remember that the means of
> deception had a practical application that was conducive toward their
> salvation, and their salvation was what was promised even though they
> had to be tricked into it. We are tricked into believing that the the
> learning and understanding of "final" metaphysical realization is the
> expedient path toward salvation, but it is not. It is still the means
> of grasping. Instead, the final path is the path that leads one
> towards the detachment of one's concepts and the realization of that
> which underlies them.
J.
Beginning of Act I.
In article <MEZZ8.4943$K12.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020718103902...@mb-fw.aol.com...
>>
>> >Thanks for your illuminating comments J.
>> >I've extracted the ones I'd like to continue to debate:
>>
>> Thank you and your welcome. I also have to thank you, this debate is
>>very rewarding. It is helping me understanding my own understanding
>>through the process of trying to explain my understanding to you.
>
>That's the great thing about these good-humoured debates. I'm also finding
>that having to put things into words forces me to be much clearer about my
>ideas.
Slippery these words, how clearly we think they define themselves, yet how
differently others understand them. How do I say what cannot be sounded out
loud? How do I describe in words, an experience that abided within vast
silence? How do I point to, what cannot be pointed out? How can I lay bare,
what is already revealed, naked and present for all to see? Faced with such
obstacles, a good sense of humour maybe the only thing that will make any sense
in the long run.
>> >Whilst I acknowledge that everybody has access to this ground state of
>> >immediate experience, there are those of us who are distracted from that
>> >ground state in a state of what you call "chasing reflections". This state
>> >of distraction is what I referred to above as the "trap" because these
>> >reflections comprise a stable state that keeps us distracted away from the
>> >immediate experience that feeds and updates them. But your description of
>> >"chasing reflections" will do just as well. So the claim that there is no
>> >need to make our way back seems tantamount to saying that there is no
>> >need to stop chasing reflections.
>>
>> We just need to recognize the reflections for the reflections or
>>projections that they are. In one sense you are right that we "are
>>distracted from that ground state," but we aren't being distracted by the
>>"reflections" we are distracted by the "chasing."
>
>So the problem is not that there are reflections, but that we chase them.
>Okay, I think I'm following you here, but why make a distinction between
>immediate awareness of the data of experience, and "reflections", if these
>reflections are just more data of experience of which there is immediate
>awareness?
Ultimately you don't make any distinctions, but this is a tricky part.
Immediate awareness "of the data of experience," the immediate awareness of
"reflections," is all just the same immediate awareness. Our capacity for
presence and awareness can be confirmed by the immediacy of our experiencing
and the naked knowingness of our awareness within the realm of our experiences.
Breath in saying to yourself, "I am here." Exhale and say to yourself, "Now."
It's all just naked present immediate awareness.
The Dzogchen point of view is to see cognition as the natural play of the
mind. Thoughts rise up, abide for a moment, and then fade away. It only
becomes an "outgrowth" within our mind, if we obsessively fixate upon it or
attempt to constrain it's natural expression. The waves maybe gentle and calm,
or fierce and crashing -- regardless, the ocean is vast and deep, the sky is
wide and high. The nondual perspective is that samsara and nirvana are just
different views of the one same reality.
To "call back" the quote from The Gospel of Thomas, "Heaven is on earth, but
man does not see it." One traditional practice of Tibetan Buddhism (especially
in Dzogchen) is cultivating what is called, "pure perception." This is simply
a way of cultivating seeing "Heaven on earth." This is seeing the world with a
"Buddha's Eyes." Samsara and Nirvana, Hell and Heaven, self and other --
dualities, dualities, dualities, all part of the complete realm of reality.
>Hence my use of the terms "distraction" and "making our way back" (i.e. stop
>overlooking the ground state). Plotinus writes that "[I]n the Supreme ...
>seeker and sought are one -- the sought serving as Hypostasis and substrate
>of the seeker ..." [Ennead VI.8.15].
The sought and the seeker are one -- "[I]n the Supreme ..." "Serving as
Hypostasis and substrate of," just another dualism to contend with. Though I
do believe Plotinus is pointing to the nondual insight as the absolute found
through the experience of unity; ultimately understanding leads to the
realization that the seeker is the sought, and that which has been sought is
the seeker, and this has always been the case -- the basis of which is our
capacity for presence and awareness. Just another experience, another moment
of immediate awareness. Another wave on the ocean, just a cloud passing by.
The ocean is vast and deep, the sky is wide and high -- abide in the space of
awareness that contains all things.
>> >> >*Within* the constraints of this model, how else is it to be defined?
>> >>
>> >> An intuitive trusting based on deep feeling/awareness (not emotions)
>> >> that only increases with experience. It is a hunch that you cannot
>> >> shake off, no matter how many times you attempt to rationalize it away.
>> >> Rather than say that it is a conviction of something that I cannot be
>> >> certain of, I'd say that it is a certainty of something that cannot be
>> >> explained away.
>> >
>> >... this is why I got so confused ... it is consistent with the way I
>> >interpret the word that certainty demands no faith.
>>
>> Ah ... that is why I was confused ... I was under the impression that you
>> would only accept the traditional western cognitive mental skills and
>>material evidence as valid knowledge.
>
>Not at all ... this was the point of my ramblings about the law of the
>excluded middle, and my suspicion of that kind of thinking. The word
>"knowledge" is implied by the word "knowingness" (that we have already
>discussed as preferable to "consciousness" because it does not presuppose
>the subject-object split).
"Thus, the Base, the Primordial State, is not just emptiness in the negative
sense of void or nothingness, a mere absence of something. Rather, the state
of shunyata, this vast empty space where emptiness and luminosity are
inseparable (tibetan -- gsal stong dbyer-med), represents the state of pure
potentiality. It is the space or dimension or matrix of all existence out of
which all forms or manifestations arise (snang-ba), like clouds appearing
spontaniously in empty open sky. It is not just that forms lack an inherent
nature (rang-bzhin med-pa) or substance, but equally inherent in shunyata is
the potentiality for the arising of forms; this is the meaning of luminosity
(gsal-ba). Thus Dzogchen speaks of strong-cha and gsal-cha, "the side of
emptiness" and "the side of clarity," which are the two aspects or sides of the
Primordial Base. These two aspects are also known as ka-dag, "primordial
purity," and lhun-grub, "spontaneous self-perfection." This fact transcends
conventional logic, because it is not a matter of the Base being either A or
not-A, of being either emptiness or manifestation. If shunyata were a mere
nothing, then nothing would arise at all. But this pure nonexistence or
nothingness contradicts our experience. Thoughts and appearances are arising
all the time, arising continuously, and this is only natural. But equally, if
forms were not empty, then there would exist no possibility for change because
all things would be locked up in a static unchanging state of their own
self-identical essence or inherent nature (rang-bzhin, Skt. svabhava). But
that is not our experience. We experience that things contiuously change.
They are in a state of becoming."
From 'The Golden Letters' page 281
>> >> Like recognizing the ground state, naked present awareness, looking
>> >> right at you, as you look through it. No faith needed.
>> >
>> >Now *that's* consistent with my understanding of "faith" -- no faith
>> >needed for what is directly experienced.
>>
>> I thought you held that faith was a conviction in something that you
>> could never have certainty in. Why call it faith, when there is no faith
>> needed? This direct experiencing, you are experiencing, right now, as you
>> read these words.
>
>That's precisely why I *don't* refer to direct experiencing as faith --
>there can be no doubt about the presence of the immediate contents of
>experience, but *nothing* of what is abstracted from them (the "outgrowth"
>as mentioned above) is indubitable (not even Descares' Cogito).
Yes -- *nothing* of what is ... Giggles quietly. Not relying on
abstractions, what am I left with ... ? If the "outgrowths" troubles you, cut
them off at the Base. ; )
>> >> > Yes -- immediate experience precedes the need for faith. The process
>> >> > of hypothesising certainly does take us farther away from direct
>> >> > experience (and thereby introduces the requirement for faith), but
>> >> > this is the human condition rather than a way we *choose* to go -- it
>> >> > is the trap that is to be escaped from.
>> >>
>> >> No, it is the habit of humans to hypothesis. The real human
>> >> condition is the immediate experiencing. I would say that
>> >> immediate experiencing is not restricted to humans at all and so does not
>> >> deserve the restrictive title of the human condition. Rather the creation
>> >> of hypotheses is our forte -- thus my comment above.
>>
>> Perhaps it is our forte to hypotheses, but on a fundamental level our
>> immediate intrinsic presence of awareness, our experiencing, is our true
>> original human condition, as it manifests through the human body, voice,
>> and mind. Animals can exhibit amazing qualities, but they can never
>> transcend their instincts and their capacity of awareness is a lot dimmer
>> than humans.
>
>You seem to be implying that non-human animals have no immediate awareness
>of the data of their experiences, and hence that immediate awareness is a
>strictly "human condition", but your claim is muddied a little by your last
>sentence which implies variability rather than discontinuity. I tend to
>think of the difference being in the richness of content of immediate
>awareness, so there is neither variability nor discontinuity of immediate
>awareness but only variability of richness of content.
Non-human animals have immediate "instinctive" awareness that is rooted in
the bio-sensory world and limited to their "instinctive" biological drives.
Their "view" of reality is limited to their sensory horizon. A tiger never
suffers from the existential questioning of what it means to be a tiger.
Animals are unable to differentiate body and mind, there is no separate
experiencing. A dog cannot rest in immediate awareness, pretty soon he'll be
sitting there licking his genitals. The difference between non-human animals
and humans is of depth and of kind. It is much more than just a difference in
the variablity of richness of content. In each case, an animal is restricted
by its' form and the limitations of its' biological senses. The octopus "sees"
its' world as an octopus sees, not a shallow version of how humans see. The
human brain can be divided into brain stem, reptilian brain, mammalian brain,
primate brain, and higher functions. With those higher functions I am doing
something right now no dog is capable of -- think about those higher functions.
That self-reflective quality is unique to humans and its' foundation is our
capacity for presence and awareness.
>> The only "other" animals that have passed the "mirror test"
>> are chimpanzees, orangutans, and dolphins. Gorillas probably should be
>> added to this list. We have even taught sign language to the primates, and
>> given time I imagine we could develop something similar for dolphins.
>> Maybe a "whistle language." There is also that African Grey (parrot) in
>> England who has a vocabulary of around 400, or 600, words and really does
>> understand the basic concepts behind the words. Animals don't have the
>> capacity that humans do. Their awareness is too shallow and in a sense,
>> yoked to their instinctive nature. My cat may, at times, sit like a
>> sphinx, but that is no indication that she is resting in deep
>> contemplation of the riddles of life. To paraphrase a Zen koan, "A dog
>> has no buddha-nature." It's capacity for enlightenment, in this life at
>> lest, is nil. A dog can never become a Buddha and dolphins can't become a
>> Buddhas either. That's the way it is. Sure a dog can become a Rin Tin
>> Tin, or a Lassie and that is pretty good, still it an't no Einstein. A
>> dolphin can become a Flipper and that's really cool, but that's not as
>> good as a St. Francis, a Mozart, Gandhi, or that child just born in the
>> near by hospital.
>
>How do you feel about the idea that non-human animals can't be chasing
>reflections because the content of their immediate awareness is not rich
>enough -- i.e. they have not evolved the outgrowth of cognitive mind? If
>I'm right about this, then there is no question of non-human animals
>becoming enlightened, because they never became "endarkened" -- i.e. they
>never left the state of immediate awareness.
No, they never leave the state of instinctive awareness, whereas for us
humans leaving the state of instinctive awareness is part of our natural
development. We aren't "endarkened" due to this process, we are released from
an instinctive cage, so we are able to develop further. And non-human animals
can, an do, chase reflections, the content of their immediate awareness is very
rich in sensory data. The cognitive mind is not another "outgrowth," it is the
natural evolutionary development of human beings.
Continuing with Act II in a moment.
J.
Beginning of Act II: And the monk yaps like a doggy, chasing after bones.
In article <MEZZ8.4943$K12.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>Incidentally, the Zen koan you refer to goes something like this: the
>student asks the master whether dogs have Buddha Nature, and the master
>replies "Mu". I have read two accounts of this -- firstly that "Mu" is the
>Chinese equivalent of our "woof", which makes it a humorous reply, and
>secondly that "Mu" means "nothingness", or "emptyness", which makes it a
>very enigmatic reply (very Zen). Either way, the master's reply seems
>non-committal to me, as if he were saying that the question is irrelevant.
Case 1 of The Gateless Barrier: Chao-chou's Dog
A monk asked Chao-chou, "Has a dog Buddha nature or not?"
Chao-chou said, "Mu."
"Mu" can mean "nothingness," "emptiness," "does not have," "no," or "Stop!"
The point of this koan is not to understand that a dog does not have Buddha
nature, it is to stop the doggy mind (of the questioner) from chasing after
bones, balls, and rabbits. In a way you are right, the master is implying that
the question is irrelevant, but it is the questioning process that is
irrelevant not the question itself. Practicing this koan is abiding within the
startled awareness of "No!" or "Stop!" Each time the doggy mind monk steps
forward with a question shout, "STOP!" The startled naked awareness shines.
Cut the "outgrowth" off at the Base and observe it fading away. Oh, and due
to the nature of this kind of practice it is recommended that you refrain from
operating heavy machinery while practicing.
I highly recommend reading the translation of the Wumenguan [Mumokan], "a
classic collection [of one hundred cases] of comments on Chinese Zen koans,
symbolic stories designed to map the Zen Buddhist way to enlightenment." --
from Thomas Cleary's introduction to his translation, published under the title
'No Barrier: Unlocking the Zen Koan: A new translation of the Zen classic
Wumenguan (Mumokan)," by Bantam Books, a division of Bantam Doubleday Dell
Publishing Group, Inc. Copyright 1993. There is also Robert Aitken's
translation, titled 'The Gateless Barrier: The Wu-men Kuan (Mumokan), published
by North Point Press, Copyright 1991.
I find this interesting, since it makes reference to the koan we are talking
about, from the Cleary introduction, pages XI and XII:
"Another way to read the title Wumenguan is 'The Border Pass Whose Doorway is
No.' This meaning refers to a basic Zen practice and experience, which may be
described as radical disentanglement from thought and conceptualization. Here,
"No" symbolizes a cornerstone of Buddhist logic as well as a fundamental Zen
exercise. The logical principle is that no human conception can grasp absolute
reality as it is in itself. The Zen exercise is taught in the first koan (the
koan we have been referring to), one by which the mind transcends subjective
biases and aquired conceptions of the world, thereby arriving at direct
witness[ing] of reality."
>> >Adapting your terminology from above, allow me to rephrase: We need to
>> >refrain from "chasing reflections" (the strictures of the human
>> >condition) in a return to immediate awareness alone (the "what is"). This
>> >means refraining from our propensity to inhabit our respective conceptual
>> >world-models (letting go).
>>
>> No. We need to rest in our human condition, our capacity of presence
>> and awareness manifesting through our body, voice, and mind. Its the
>> "chasing" that distracts us. There is nothing to return to -- immediate
>> awareness is already aware. Just sit relax and be alert awareness. You
>> are still trying to fit this understanding into a logical world-view of your
own
>> making. You are so to speak, practicing that human forte of hypothesizing.
>> If you find it necessary to do something, refrain from something, or let go
of
>> something -- let go of hypothesizing and rest in awareness.
>
>I still don't understand your objection,
I am only pointing to naked immediate (the immediacy of) awareness, the clear
self-reflective pool reflecting the bright full moon in the sky. Rather than
objecting to something -- I am saying, "Sit, relax. Breath in calmly. Smell
the trees, and the earth, and the water. Feel the cool night breeze on your
face and listen to the wind in the trees. See the ivory shine of all things
glowing, lit by the light of the full moon now rising, reflected on the
tranquil surface of a calm forest pool.
> though I fully acknowledge that my claim is part and parcel of the outgrowth
of >cognitive mind that is to be (sorry about this) left behind. I can see that
this sort
>of hypothesising leads to its own demise, but this, for me, is the whole point
of
>it. My rational faculty won't allow me to pursue anything that is clearly
>irrational,
Then your rational faculty will be your biggest obstacle. No one is asking
you to pursue anything irrational, but if your view of the irrational is
anything not of the rational faculty, well, I can see how that would be a
problem. Einstein transcends Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics trumps
Einsteinium logic, yet there is nothing irrational going on here.
>so I must recruit it to the cause if I am to move forward and leave it behind.
>I must, in a sense, have its permission to let go of it. "So why not simply
let go >right now?" I hear you ask.
Actually I'd say recruiting it to the cause is a good idea.
>Well, yes, that is what I call "practice", but my practice doesn't bring what
Zen >calls satori immediately -- it brings merely a temporary state that, as I
understand >it, sets up conditions that are conducive to satori.
Don't really know of any practice that brings satori immediately.
>The flywheel must be given time to wind down to rest, and if I am to devote
the >necessary time to the practice then I must have the consent of my rational
faculty.
Sure that's normal. It maybe a little easier if you understand that that
flywheel is your rational faculty.
>See the appended message I've added at the end of this post.
See comments.
>> >> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my choice
>> >> > is unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are perfectly
>> >> > acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it requires faith
to
>> >> > let go of all else but immediate experience. If we agree that
immediate
>> >> > experience is the ground state and the fundamental basis of all
>> >> > experience, even the experience of faith, then why do we need faith to
>> >> > experience what is already our experience? Just exhale and relax.
>> >
>> >Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent with
>> >the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate experience
>> >demands no faith.
>>
>> With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that faith is
>> not required for spiritual practice.
>
>The way I understand it, faith is required until one attains to satori --
>whereupon faith is no longer required because there is the realisation that
>there is no path and never was one. Faith is required as long as one
>believes (as I do) that there is a path to follow.
And there is nothing "wrong" with that understanding. It is a well honored
path
that has been followed by many great masters. It's just not the only path.
The term "intuitive experience" has just as many connotations.
>But I guess that since they didn't, we (i.e. those of us that haven't come
across
>the Buddhist variant) have to put up with the confusion it leads to. Perhaps
>both American and British dictionaries should include "intuitive experience"
>as a variant definition of "faith". I will certainly be acknowledging this
>in future, along with "confidence in what there can be no certainty of"
>(i.e. belief).
It would still be just as confusing.
>BuddhaThu <Runnin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:63e0e39e.02071...@posting.google.com...
>>
>> It is said that the Buddha shuns all type of metaphysical
>> speculations. And his approach was out of pragmatic consideration. If
>> it is not a vehicle to relieve suffering from sickeness, old age,
>> death and from one's major desires, then it is not what is conducive
>> to your salvation.
This is a major theme found in all traditions of Buddhism. For a teaching to
be considered "by, or of, the Buddha" it must be a vehicle that leads to: the
relief of suffering, the release from the nature of suffering, and to the
manifestation of enlightened insight living within the world. Of course
different tradition do have differing ideas about "what is [and is not]
conducive to your salvation."
>> In this, the Buddha is like a good doctor. When trying to save a
>> patient who is dying, he does not meditate on the ontology of the
>> patient's being, or whether the nature of the patient is of some
>> metaphysical such and such.
Early Buddhism approached enlightenment as something caused. Do this and
stop doing that, and this will happen. Most of what was presented about the
experience of enlightenment described it in negative terms. Nirvana as the
"blowing out" of the flame of desire-ignorance. The first noble truth: The
nature of life is suffering. The essence of early Buddhism is the insight
(inward sight) that empowers and ennobles you to renounce the suffering of
cyclical existence. Still there is a carrot at one end "nirvana" and a stick
at the other end "the suffering of samsara." There is still a dualism within
the system that some may fixate upon.
Mahayana Buddhism is the path that seeks to intergrate this dualism through
its compassionate orientation, but enlightenment is still approached as
something caused. Early Buddhism begins with ignorance as the foundation for
our suffering -- and by doing this and by stop doing that I will become an
Arhat. Mahayana Buddhism begins with Buddha-nature as the seed of Complete
Enlightenment, and by doing this and by stop doing, the practice culminates in
the realization of universal shunyata. Subtle differences but they are
significant, still these are "casual vehicles" and they are still dualistic.
Vajrayana or Tantrayana is the path of creative play, or the transformative
path of enlightened display or the enlightened manifestation of the body,
speech, and mind of the Buddha. "The Tantra system begins with the state of
shunyata as a given, and it is out of this state of emptiness that the
transformations arises. ... the method of the Tantra proceeds to invoke and
develop the energy that is concealed, enfolded, and inherent in the state of
emptiness -- that is to say, visible forms are regenerated or remanifested out
of the pristine state of shunyata, just as they were at the time of the
beginning, symbolically the time of the first creation. Shunyata, the state of
emptiness itself, is the source of primoridal energy that brings all possible
forms, even the universe itself, into manifestation. The vast and infinite
empty space of the state of shunyata is pregnant with all possibilities; it has
within itself the potentiality or creative energy for manifesting all possible
manifestations, whether pure vision or impure vision, whether Nirvana or
Samsara." From 'The Golden Letters' pages 280 and 281.
Dzogchen also begins with the state of shunyata as a given, which is
experienced as the bare naked immediate awareness, but unlike the Tantra system
Dzogchen is not a transformative path, it is the path of self-liberation.
Dzogchen is considered a "resultant vehicle," the result, "enlightenment," is
already established as naked ordinary awareness. Dzogchen practice begins with
the enlightened view, naked ordinary awareness; continues by cultivating this
enlightened view by abiding in this naked ordinary awareness; and culminates by
manifesting this naked ordinary awareness as a manifestation of enlightenment.
It begins with and culminates with naked ordinary awareness. There are several
different ways a practitioner can approach the practicing of Dzogchen, but
fundamentally all practitioners begin and end with naked ordinary awareness.
>> He would try to find the most expedient way to save him by coming up with
>> the proper diagnosis and medical treatment. Sometimes, the patient would
>> be too deluded to take his treatment, being so poisoned by the realm of
>> desires for concepts that he would refuse to take his medicine. So the good
>> doctor would have to make it more palatable. And add some sugar so to
>> speak in order to make him well again.
Ah yes, it always goes down a little easier with honey. One of the things
that always makes me laugh (cry too) is someone full of themselves because they
think they are practicing Dzogchen. Traditionally Dzogchen is considered a
very high level of practice. The word 'Dzogchen' means 'Great Perfection.' So
with everyone around you reinforcing that ideal, and your teacher explaining
the doctrinal reasons for this level of teaching to be seen as the highest --
it becomes easy for this practice to become a great ego feeder, building a
bigger prettier shinnier cage, rather than freeing you from the existing
(really nonexistent) cage we live in now. The path of practice that is best
for you, is the path of practice that works most efficiently for you. If you
"get it" and are able to put it into practice effectively within your own life
on a personal level, why worry if its just a basic technique? All of those
cool higher level techniques and teachings are just lots of honey to help the
basics go down. How many times have we heard in the Dojo, "You need to work on
the fundamentals."
>> To me, intellectual speculations are like this, and to a certain,
>> extent zen might also recognizes this.
It does. When Chao-chou replied, "No!" It was to stop intellectual
speculations like this.
>> Anyway, Zen Buddhism as it is practiced sees meditation as an everyday
>> practical sort of thing. It is a level of quietism which has as its
>> tradition in other forms of meditation. To me, there are several types
>> of meditations in Buddhism. One type is to be mindful of your
>> everyday issues, like the breath or the tea ceremony. It is a one
>> pointness level of awareness that calms the mind down. This level of
>> meditation you can find not only in zen but also in the Theravadan
>> Traditions of Sri Lanka, Thailand and Burma.
Actually this style of meditation is found in all of the world's Buddhist
traditions and several non-Buddhist traditions, though the above traditions
have focused on this practice and have developed very sophisticated
understanding about the processes involved.
>> The other is to do away with one's concepts, and metaphysics offers
>> nothing but concepts for you to play with and to speculate on. This is
>> the point of the zen Koan
Well, I guess that's one way to say it.
>> and of the laughing Buddha. (As an aside, he is one of my favorite for he
>> teaches that your way to salvation and toward the detachment of concepts
>> is through humour. I always wear him around my neck to remind me to laugh
>> away the world's troubles.)
Ah ha? Laughing Buddha. Chinese style of depicting the future buddha
Maitreya, which dates around the 10th century. Traditionally, this figure is
the monk Pu-tai, who is considered an incarnation of Maitreya. "Several
Chinese ideals are embodied in this figure. The fat belly symbolizes wealth;
his smile and his relaxed sitting posture indicate his equanimity and
contemtment with himself and the world. The children around him show his great
love of children, one of the principle Chinese virtues." From page 199 of 'The
Encyclopedia of Eastern Philosophy and Religion' published by Shambhala
Publications, Inc 1986.
Well, if that figure works for this person, nothing wrong with a good sense
of humor.
Yes, this is one way to approach the different schools of Buddhism. Some
schools value the Lotus Sutra as the absolute and final teaching of the Buddha,
citing this story and chapter for their doctirnal reasons. The three wagons
symbolize the Hinayana, Mahayana, and Vajrayana schools of Buddhism. The
meaning that there is actually only one wagon (the final toy) is explained
differently in different traditions. Some schools that value the Lotus Sutra
as the absolute and final teaching claim that the Hinayana, Mahayana, and
Vajrayana schools are just meaningless metaphysics with little to no value.
Other schools claim that the designation "One Vehicle" or "Buddha Vehicle," is
actually a reorientation of the way one approaches the three vehicles. They
are not three separate schools, they are three different sections of the one
path to Buddhahood.
>> So is the study of Buddhist metaphysics bad for them, a means of
>> deception? Well, not really. We must remember that the means of
>> deception had a practical application that was conducive toward their
>> salvation, and their salvation was what was promised even though they
>> had to be tricked into it. We are tricked into believing that the the
>> learning and understanding of "final" metaphysical realization is the
>> expedient path toward salvation, but it is not. It is still the means
>> of grasping. Instead, the final path is the path that leads one
>> towards the detachment of one's concepts and the realization of that
>> which underlies them.
"The final path is the path" -- any words that would follow, are just more
fingers grasping.
The End.
andy-k
>
> >This statement is perfectly clear. I tend to think of cognition as an >
>"outgrowth" of the ground state (perhaps having been influenced by
Plotinus' > >notion of "hypostases"), and to think of our error as being
caught up in the > >outgrowth, continually overlooking the ground state in
the process.
>
> The Dzogchen point of view is to see cognition as the natural play of
the > mind. Thoughts rise up, abide for a moment, and then fade away. It
only > becomes an "outgrowth" within our mind, if we obsessively fixate upon
it or > attempt to constrain it's natural expression. The waves maybe
gentle and calm, > or fierce and crashing -- regardless, the ocean is vast
and deep, the sky is > wide and high. The nondual perspective is that
samsara and nirvana are just > different views of the one same reality. >
To "call back" the quote from The Gospel of Thomas, "Heaven is on earth, but
> man does not see it." One traditional practice of Tibetan Buddhism
(especially > in Dzogchen) is cultivating what is called, "pure perception."
This is simply > a way of cultivating seeing "Heaven on earth." This is
seeing the world with a > "Buddha's Eyes." Samsara and Nirvana, Hell and
Heaven, self and other -- > dualities, dualities, dualities, all part of the
complete realm of reality.
Yes, once again a very clear statement.
> >Hence my use of the terms "distraction" and "making our way back" (i.e.
stop > >overlooking the ground state). Plotinus writes that "[I]n the
Supreme ... > >seeker and sought are one -- the sought serving as
Hypostasis and substrate > >of the seeker ..." [Ennead VI.8.15].
>
> The sought and the seeker are one -- "[I]n the Supreme ..." "Serving
as > Hypostasis and substrate of," just another dualism to contend with.
Though I > do believe Plotinus is pointing to the nondual insight as the
absolute found > through the experience of unity; ultimately understanding
leads to the > realization that the seeker is the sought, and that which has
been sought is > the seeker, and this has always been the case -- the basis
of which is our > capacity for presence and awareness. Just another
experience, another moment > of immediate awareness. Another wave on the
ocean, just a cloud passing by. > The ocean is vast and deep, the sky is
wide and high -- abide in the space of > awareness that contains all things.
I believe this is the core of Plotinus' message.
> >> Ah ... that is why I was confused ... I was under the impression that
you > >> would only accept the traditional western cognitive mental skills
and > >>material evidence as valid knowledge.
> >
> >Not at all ... this was the point of my ramblings about the law of the >
>excluded middle, and my suspicion of that kind of thinking. The word >
>"knowledge" is implied by the word "knowingness" (that we have already >
>discussed as preferable to "consciousness" because it does not presuppose >
>the subject-object split).
>
> "Thus, the Base, the Primordial State, is not just emptiness in the
negative > sense of void or nothingness, a mere absence of something.
Rather, the state > of shunyata, this vast empty space where emptiness and
luminosity are > inseparable (tibetan -- gsal stong dbyer-med), represents
the state of pure > potentiality.
Excellent tie-up with Plotinus again (Ennead II Tractate 5: "On Potentiality
and Actuality").
It is the space or dimension or matrix of
all existence out of > which all forms or manifestations arise (snang-ba),
like clouds appearing > spontaniously in empty open sky. It is not just
that forms lack an inherent > nature (rang-bzhin med-pa) or substance, but
equally inherent in shunyata is > the potentiality for the arising of forms;
this is the meaning of luminosity > (gsal-ba). Thus Dzogchen speaks of
strong-cha and gsal-cha, "the side of > emptiness" and "the side of
clarity," which are the two aspects or sides of the > Primordial Base.
These two aspects are also known as ka-dag, "primordial > purity," and
lhun-grub, "spontaneous self-perfection." This act transcends >
conventional logic, because it is not a matter of the Base being either A or
> not-A, of being either emptiness or manifestation.
... i.e. it does not comply with the law of the excluded middle
If shunyata were a
mere > nothing, then nothing would arise at all. But this pure nonexistence
or > nothingness contradicts our experience. Thoughts and appearances are
arising > all the time, arising continuously, and this is only natural. But
equally, if > forms were not empty, then there would exist no possibility
for change because > all things would be locked up in a static unchanging
state of their own > self-identical essence or inherent nature (rang-bzhin,
Skt. svabhava). But > that is not our experience. We experience that things
contiuously change. > They are in a state of becoming." > From 'The
Golden Letters' page 281
Excellent.
> >> I thought you held that faith was a conviction in something that you
> >> could never have certainty in. Why call it faith, when there is no
faith > >> needed? This direct experiencing, you are experiencing, right
now, as you > >> read these words.
> >
> >That's precisely why I *don't* refer to direct experiencing as faith -- >
>there can be no doubt about the presence of the immediate contents of >
>experience, but *nothing* of what is abstracted from them (the "outgrowth"
> >as mentioned above) is indubitable (not even Descares' Cogito).
>
> Yes -- *nothing* of what is ... Giggles quietly. Not relying on >
abstractions, what am I left with ... ? If the "outgrowths" troubles you,
cut > them off at the Base. ; )
Sure, but that statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
faith.
You seem to be differentiating between "immediate instinctive awareness of
non-human animals ... a lot dimmer than humans" and "the real human
condition of immediate experiencing, our immediate intrinsic presence of
awareness, our experiencing". I am finding difficulty discerning a clear
hiatus here -- it just seems to me that the content of immediate awareness
for the non-human animal is less rich than that of the human animal. Your
last sentence hits the mark I think -- non-human animals (with very few
exceptions like chimps and dolphins) have not evolved to a stage where the
contents of their immediate awareness also encompasses a conceptual world
model complete with a concept of self resident within it. I interpret this
to be just a difference of richness of content then, and the few exceptions
that there are indicative that there is no real hiatus, just a continuous
process of evolution. Do you take humankind to be special (i.e.
discontinuous with the evolution of non-human animals)?
> A dog cannot rest in immediate awareness, pretty soon he'll be > sitting
there licking his genitals.
Perhaps a dog doesn't need to attain to "wu wei" because he's there all the
time anyway? Since the contents of his immediate awareness are devoid of a
concept of self, his activity is always "selfless" and unpremeditated ... ?
The difference between
non-human animals > and humans is of depth and of kind. It is much more
than just a difference in > the variablity of richness of content. In each
case, an animal is restricted > by its' form and the limitations of its'
biological senses. The octopus "sees" > its' world as an octopus sees, not
a shallow version of how humans see. The > human brain can be divided into
brain stem, reptilian brain, mammalian brain, > primate brain, and higher
functions. With those higher functions I am doing > something right now no
dog is capable of -- think about those higher functions.
With it's limbic system a horse does things that no reptile is capable of.
Seems to me there is nothing here but a progression of phylogeny, whereupon
the contents of awareness become increasingly rich -- ours being the richest
of all because of the conceptual world-model that sits on top of all the
data of immediate awareness, continually distracting us away from that
immediate awareness.
> That self-reflective quality is unique to humans and its' foundation is
our > capacity for presence and awareness.
The way I see it is that this is a capacity we wouldn't need if it weren't
for the distracting conceptual world model within which resides that
reflection we refer to as the self (beautifully allegorised in the myth of
Narcissus).
> >How do you feel about the idea that non-human animals can't be chasing
> >reflections because the content of their immediate awareness is not rich
> >enough -- i.e. they have not evolved the outgrowth of cognitive mind? If
> >I'm right about this, then there is no question of non-human animals
> >becoming enlightened, because they never became "endarkened" -- i.e. they
> >never left the state of immediate awareness.
>
> No, they never leave the state of instinctive awareness, whereas for us
> humans leaving the state of instinctive awareness is part of our natural
> development. We aren't "endarkened" due to this process, we are released
from > an instinctive cage, so we are able to develop further. And
non-human animals > can, an do, chase reflections, the content of their
immediate awareness is very > rich in sensory data.
But they don't form concepts, and so are not capable of being influenced by
the concept of self. This is exactly why they aren't subject to existential
anxiety as you rightly say above. With no concept of self, how can there be
anything that gets caught up in the "chasing" of reflections -- i.e. a
"chaser"? It seems to me that they simply respond to environmental stimuli
"in the instant", making no distinction between environment and self. It
also seems to me that only when a conceptual world model has evolved can the
organism "chase reflections". Does a slug chase reflections? An amoeba? A
cold-sore virus?
The cognitive mind is not another "outgrowth," it is the > natural
evolutionary development of human beings.
A "natural evolutionary development" is precisely what I am referring to as
an outgrowth -- something that has emerged from what was previously there
(i.e. cognitive mind has emerged from the non-human mind that consisted of
instinctive and conditioned responses alone).
andy-k
A useful reference here ... thanks J.
> >> >Adapting your terminology from above, allow me to rephrase: We need to
> >> >refrain from "chasing reflections" (the strictures of the human
> >> >condition) in a return to immediate awareness alone (the "what is").
This > >> >means refraining from our propensity to inhabit our respective
conceptual > >> >world-models (letting go).
> >>
> >> No. We need to rest in our human condition, our capacity of presence
> >> and awareness manifesting through our body, voice, and mind. Its the
> >> "chasing" that distracts us. There is nothing to return to --
immediate > >> awareness is already aware. Just sit relax and be alert
awareness. You > >> are still trying to fit this understanding into a
logical world-view of your > own > >> making. You are so to speak,
practicing that human forte of hypothesizing.
>
> >> If you find it necessary to do something, refrain from something, or
let go > of > >> something -- let go of hypothesizing and rest in awareness.
> >
> >I still don't understand your objection,
>
> I am only pointing to naked immediate (the immediacy of) awareness, the
clear > self-reflective pool reflecting the bright full moon in the sky.
Rather than > objecting to something -- I am saying, "Sit, relax. Breath in
calmly. Smell > the trees, and the earth, and the water. Feel the cool
night breeze on your > face and listen to the wind in the trees. See the
ivory shine of all things > glowing, lit by the light of the full moon now
rising, reflected on the > tranquil surface of a calm forest pool.
How does that statement differ from the statement that I begin this section
(above)?
> > though I fully acknowledge that my claim is part and parcel of the
outgrowth > of >cognitive mind that is to be (sorry about this) left behind.
I can see that > this sort > >of hypothesising leads to its own demise, but
this, for me, is the whole point > of > >it. My rational faculty won't
allow me to pursue anything that is clearly > >irrational,
>
> Then your rational faculty will be your biggest obstacle. No one is
asking > you to pursue anything irrational, but if your view of the
irrational is > anything not of the rational faculty, well, I can see how
that would be a > problem.
No -- that is not my view of the irrational. The irrational is *not* simply
everything that is not part of the rational, since to define it so would be
to ignore the "arational" such as immediate intuitive awareness.
> >so I must recruit it to the cause if I am to move forward and leave it
behind. > > >I must, in a sense, have its permission to let go of it. "So
why not simply > let go >right now?" I hear you ask.
>
> Actually I'd say recruiting it to the cause is a good idea.
>
> >Well, yes, that is what I call "practice", but my practice doesn't bring
what > Zen >calls satori immediately -- it brings merely a temporary state
that, as I > understand >it, sets up conditions that are conducive to
satori.
>
> Don't really know of any practice that brings satori immediately.
Precisely.
> >The flywheel must be given time to wind down to rest, and if I am to
devote > the >necessary time to the practice then I must have the consent of
my rational > faculty.
>
> Sure that's normal. It maybe a little easier if you understand that
that > flywheel is your rational faculty.
Nice one J! I hadn't thought of it that way -- immediate intuitive
experience has no intertia!
> >> >> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my
choice > >> >> > is unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are
perfectly > >> >> > acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it
requires faith > to > >> >> > let go of all else but immediate experience.
>>
If we agree that > immediate > >> >> > experience is the ground state and
the fundamental basis of all > >> >> > experience, even the experience of
faith, then why do we need faith to > >> >> > experience what is already our
experience? Just exhale and relax.
> >> >
> >> >Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent
with > >> >the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate
experience > >> >demands no faith.
> >>
> >> With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that faith
is > >> not required for spiritual practice.
> >
> >The way I understand it, faith is required until one attains to satori --
> >whereupon faith is no longer required because there is the realisation
that > >there is no path and never was one. Faith is required as long as one
> >believes (as I do) that there is a path to follow.
>
> And there is nothing "wrong" with that understanding. It is a well
honored > path > that has been followed by many great masters. It's just
not the only path.
Sure, but this statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
faith.
> >I think it would have been far more appropriate if translators had used
some > >other term for "intuitive experience" than "faith" because of the
strong > >connotations the word already has in English. Bergson calls it
simply > >"intuition", which seems far more appropriate than "faith".
>
> The term "intuitive experience" has just as many connotations.
The primary definition of "intuition" in the Oxford English Dictionary is
"immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning".
> >But I guess that since they didn't, we (i.e. those of us that haven't
come > across > >the Buddhist variant) have to put up with the confusion it
leads to. Perhaps > >both American and British dictionaries should include
"intuitive experience" > >as a variant definition of "faith". I will
certainly be acknowledging this > >in future, along with "confidence in what
there can be no certainty of" > >(i.e. belief).
>
> It would still be just as confusing.
Prehaps, but at least it has the support of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Thanks for that J -- some very interesting material here. I don't think I've
mentioned how much your posts have helped me, not least because you are
constantly reminding me to "let go".
J.
In article <mNE09.3967$U45.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
>J. <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
>news:20020724160625...@mb-fm.aol.com...
>>
>> >This statement is perfectly clear. I tend to think of cognition as an
>> >"outgrowth" of the ground state (perhaps having been influenced by
>> >Plotinus' notion of "hypostases"), and to think of our error as being
>> >caught up in the outgrowth, continually overlooking the ground state in
>> >the process.
>>
>> The Dzogchen point of view is to see cognition as the natural play of
>>the mind. Thoughts rise up, abide for a moment, and then fade away. It
>>only becomes an "outgrowth" within our mind, if we obsessively fixate upon
>>it or attempt to constrain it's natural expression. The waves maybe
>>gentle and calm, or fierce and crashing -- regardless, the ocean is vast
>>and deep, the sky is wide and high. The nondual perspective is that
>>samsara and nirvana are just different views of the one same reality.
>>To "call back" the quote from The Gospel of Thomas, "Heaven is on earth, but
>> man does not see it." One traditional practice of Tibetan Buddhism
>>(especially in Dzogchen) is cultivating what is called, "pure perception."
>>This is simply a way of cultivating seeing "Heaven on earth." This is
>>seeing the world with a "Buddha's Eyes." Samsara and Nirvana, Hell and
>>Heaven, self and other -- dualities, dualities, dualities, all part of the
>>complete realm of reality.
>
>Yes, once again a very clear statement.
: )
>> >Hence my use of the terms "distraction" and "making our way back" (i.e.
>> >stop overlooking the ground state). Plotinus writes that "[I]n the
>> >Supreme ... seeker and sought are one -- the sought serving as
>> >Hypostasis and substrate of the seeker ..." [Ennead VI.8.15].
>>
>> The sought and the seeker are one -- "[I]n the Supreme ..." "Serving
>>as Hypostasis and substrate of," just another dualism to contend with.
>>Though I do believe Plotinus is pointing to the nondual insight as the
>>absolute found through the experience of unity; ultimately understanding
>>leads to the realization that the seeker is the sought, and that which has
>>been sought is the seeker, and this has always been the case -- the basis
>>of which is our capacity for presence and awareness. Just another
>>experience, another moment of immediate awareness. Another wave on the
>>ocean, just a cloud passing by. The ocean is vast and deep, the sky is
>>wide and high -- abide in the space of awareness that contains all things.
>
>I believe this is the core of Plotinus' message.
I thought so.
>> >> Ah ... that is why I was confused ... I was under the impression that
>> >> you would only accept the traditional western cognitive mental skills
>> >> and material evidence as valid knowledge.
>> >
>> >Not at all ... this was the point of my ramblings about the law of the
>> >excluded middle, and my suspicion of that kind of thinking. The word
>> >"knowledge" is implied by the word "knowingness" (that we have already
>> >discussed as preferable to "consciousness" because it does not presuppose
>> >the subject-object split).
>>
>> "Thus, the Base, the Primordial State, is not just emptiness in the
>> negative sense of void or nothingness, a mere absence of something.
>> Rather, the state of shunyata, this vast empty space where emptiness and
>> luminosity are inseparable (tibetan -- gsal stong dbyer-med), represents
>> the state of pure potentiality.
>
>Excellent tie-up with Plotinus again (Ennead II Tractate 5: "On Potentiality
>and Actuality").
I haven't read enough of Plotinus, what are your favorite translations?
>>It is the space or dimension or matrix of all existence out of which all
forms or >>manifestations arise (snang-ba), like clouds appearing spontaniously
in empty >>open sky. It is not just that forms lack an inherent nature
(rang-bzhin med-pa)
>>or substance, but equally inherent in shunyata is the potentiality for the
arising
>>of forms; this is the meaning of luminosity (gsal-ba). Thus Dzogchen speaks
of
>>strong-cha and gsal-cha, "the side of emptiness" and "the side of clarity,"
which >>are the two aspects or sides of the Primordial Base. These two aspects
are
>>also known as ka-dag, "primordial purity," and lhun-grub, "spontaneous
>>self-perfection." This act transcends conventional logic, because it is not
a
>>matter of the Base being either A or not-A, of being either emptiness or
>>manifestation.
>
>... i.e. it does not comply with the law of the excluded middle
: )
>>If shunyata were a mere nothing, then nothing would arise at all. But this
pure >>nonexistence or nothingness contradicts our experience. Thoughts and
>>appearances are arising all the time, arising continuously, and this is only
>>natural. But equally, if forms were not empty, then there would exist no
>>possibility for change because all things would be locked up in a static
>>unchanging state of their own self-identical essence or inherent nature
>>(rang-bzhin, Skt. svabhava). But that is not our experience. We experience
>>that things contiuously change. They are in a state of becoming." From
'The >>Golden Letters' page 281
>
>Excellent.
Excellent book.
>> >> I thought you held that faith was a conviction in something that you
>> >> could never have certainty in. Why call it faith, when there is no
>> >> faith needed? This direct experiencing, you are experiencing, right
>> >> now, as you read these words.
>> >
>> >That's precisely why I *don't* refer to direct experiencing as faith --
>> >there can be no doubt about the presence of the immediate contents of
>> >experience, but *nothing* of what is abstracted from them (the "outgrowth"
>> >as mentioned above) is indubitable (not even Descares' Cogito).
>>
>> Yes -- *nothing* of what is ... Giggles quietly. Not relying on
>>abstractions, what am I left with ... ? If the "outgrowths" troubles you,
>>cut them off at the Base. ; )
>
>Sure, but that statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
>faith.
This faith that you feel is required for spiritual practice, if you have that
faith, invoke it with strength and confidence. Really turn it on, so to speak.
When you really have a sense of your faithfulness, ask yourself, "Who/what is
it that is having this sense of faith? If you lack faith, suffer many doubts,
then invoke that doubt. Really focus on doubt and then turn around.
I am differentiating between them yes, but the differences are more than just
a difference in intensity.
> I am finding difficulty discerning a clear hiatus here -- it just seems to me
that
>the content of immediate awareness for the non-human animal is less rich than
>that of the human animal.
A non-human's experience is just as rich as a humans, yet at the same time it
is less rich in content as you say. There is also a difference in the kind of
mind behind the awareness.
>Your last sentence hits the mark I think -- non-human animals (with very few
>exceptions like chimps and dolphins) have not evolved to a stage where the
>contents of their immediate awareness also encompasses a conceptual world
>model complete with a concept of self resident within it.
Thats part of it. Non-human animals haven't evolved to a level of awareness
equal to humans, but they do in a sense have a conceptual world view, its just
a nonverbal conceptual world view and undifferentiated from their instinctive
nature.
>I interpret this to be just a difference of richness of content then, and the
few >exceptions that there are indicative that there is no real hiatus, just a
continuous
>process of evolution. Do you take humankind to be special (i.e. discontinuous
>with the evolution of non-human animals)?
Yes and no. Humankind are special, but humans are not discontinuous with
evolution. There is no separation between humanity and nature, but humans have
the capacity to distinguish between humanity and nature. Non-human animals
don't have this capacity.
>> A dog cannot rest in immediate awareness, pretty soon he'll be sitting
>> there licking his genitals.
>
>Perhaps a dog doesn't need to attain to "wu wei" because he's there all the
>time anyway? Since the contents of his immediate awareness are devoid of a
>concept of self, his activity is always "selfless" and unpremeditated ... ?
A dogs activity is instinctive. Like the old saying, Ignorance isn't bliss.
Non-human animals suffer from ignorance, in the sense of lacking the cognitive
development of humans, as well as lacking the capacity of awareness of humans.
To attain enlightenment we must first evolve (be born) to the human level, and
then develop a healthy and mature ego identity. Non-human animals are not
abiding in a paradise, they live within a savage jungle of be eaten or eat.
This reminds me of reading about a Yorkshire terrier which received the
equivalent of the Medal of Honor in the British military. This little fellow
was assigned to a paratroop team working in Burma during WW II. He was
partnered with the demolitions expert and helped place explosives in small
places, hence the reasoning to pick a little terrier. The squad was pinned
down by a Japanese machine gun bunker when a grenade was thrown into the middle
of them. Before it explodes the yorky picks up the bomb (which probably
weighed just as much as the yorky) and takes off. A few seconds later the
Japanese bunker blows up. Sounds like a selfless thing to do, but does that
mean the yorky was acting from the source of "wu wei"? Mmm ... I don't think
so. Its' not like he sacrificed himself. A few minutes after the explosion
the little yorky came running back to the squad, much to their surprise. Even
a wild dog will protect the pack.
>> The difference between non-human animals and humans is of depth and of kind.
>> It is much more than just a difference in the variablity of richness of
content. In >> each case, an animal is restricted by its' form and the
limitations of its'
>> biological senses. The octopus "sees" its' world as an octopus sees, not
>> a shallow version of how humans see. The human brain can be divided into
>> brain stem, reptilian brain, mammalian brain, primate brain, and higher
>> functions. With those higher functions I am doing something right now no
>> dog is capable of -- think about those higher functions.
>
>With it's limbic system a horse does things that no reptile is capable of.
>Seems to me there is nothing here but a progression of phylogeny, whereupon
>the contents of awareness become increasingly rich -- ours being the richest
>of all because of the conceptual world-model that sits on top of all the
>data of immediate awareness, continually distracting us away from that
>immediate awareness.
I would say that is true, but not the whole truth.
>> That self-reflective quality is unique to humans and its' foundation is
>> our capacity for presence and awareness.
>
>The way I see it is that this is a capacity we wouldn't need if it weren't
>for the distracting conceptual world model within which resides that
>reflection we refer to as the self (beautifully allegorised in the myth of
>Narcissus).
This capacity isn't a "thing" we need or wouldn't need, its' the nature of
the beast, so to speak. ; )
>> >How do you feel about the idea that non-human animals can't be chasing
>> >reflections because the content of their immediate awareness is not rich
>> >enough -- i.e. they have not evolved the outgrowth of cognitive mind? If
>> >I'm right about this, then there is no question of non-human animals
>> >becoming enlightened, because they never became "endarkened" -- i.e. they
>> >never left the state of immediate awareness.
>>
>> No, they never leave the state of instinctive awareness, whereas for us
>> humans leaving the state of instinctive awareness is part of our natural
>> development. We aren't "endarkened" due to this process, we are released
>> from an instinctive cage, so we are able to develop further. And non-human
>> animals can, an do, chase reflections, the content of their immediate
awareness >> is very rich in sensory data.
>
>But they don't form concepts, and so are not capable of being influenced by
>the concept of self. This is exactly why they aren't subject to existential
>anxiety as you rightly say above. With no concept of self, how can there be
>anything that gets caught up in the "chasing" of reflections -- i.e. a
>"chaser"? It seems to me that they simply respond to environmental stimuli
>"in the instant", making no distinction between environment and self. It
>also seems to me that only when a conceptual world model has evolved can the
>organism "chase reflections". Does a slug chase reflections? An amoeba? A
>cold-sore virus?
Reflections are anything that comes to mind/awareness. While I agree that
non-human animals are not capable of being influenced by a concept of self, in
the sense of an ego, but they can be influenced by nonverbal instinctive
concepts. Hunger, fear, the excitement of the kill are reflections within the
mind of non-humans. Threat behavior, or bonding behavior these instinctive
behaviors are just the intinctively conditioned responses to reflections in the
mind of non-human animals. The non-human animal is unable to distinguish
between instinct and concept. Have you ever played fetch with a dog? I have a
cat that plays fetch, and she will "play" until she collapses out of breathe.
Have you ever watched a dog or a cat chase their own tail? Animals chase
reflections, thats all they do. An amoeba chases after hunger, and hunger is
just another reflection. Not so sure about viruses, but since they do respond
to the environment I imagine that there is something aware on some level.
>The cognitive mind is not another "outgrowth," it is the natural
>evolutionary development of human beings.
>
>A "natural evolutionary development" is precisely what I am referring to as
>an outgrowth -- something that has emerged from what was previously there
>(i.e. cognitive mind has emerged from the non-human mind that consisted of
>instinctive and conditioned responses alone).
No. Well, ... I guess, in away you could say yes from an evolutionary point
of view, but from the point of an individual human being, the human cognitive
mind does not emerge from a non-human mind, it emerges from a pre-cognitve
human child. Lots of instinctive responses, but not yet conditioned. That is
other than the biological conditioning of human beings as a species.
It is a bit difficult to explain the differences between the awareness of
non-human animals and humans. I'm not really satisfied with my feeble attempt.
Unlike the differences of mind (as the West describes it) and the brain, the
awareness is a lot more subtle; and really, the Modern West has only begun
studying the awareness. It is very easy to explain the differences of the
brain, a material object. We can pull it out and look at it. It is a little
more difficult to explain the differences of the mind (psychology), but since
the human mind has developed the cognitive mind and language and non-human
animals haven't, its not too hard. When it comes to the differences of
awareness, well, that's a horse of a different colour. ; )
J.
In article <CNE09.3968$U45.1...@newsfep1-win.server.ntli.net>, "andy-k"
<and...@ntlworld.com> writes:
x
Your statement above is an attempt to cognitize what I am trying to say. I
am trying to express a way of being (becoming) without over intellectualizing.
I realize that I am a little handicaped attempting this, but until I develop
telepathy I have to continue to use words. ; )
>> > though I fully acknowledge that my claim is part and parcel of the
>> >outgrowth of cognitive mind that is to be (sorry about this) left behind.
>> >I can see that this sort of hypothesising leads to its own demise, but
>> >this, for me, is the whole point of it. My rational faculty won't allow me
to
>> >pursue anything that is clearly irrational,
>>
>> Then your rational faculty will be your biggest obstacle. No one is
>> asking you to pursue anything irrational, but if your view of the irrational
is
>> anything not of the rational faculty, well, I can see how that would be a
problem.
>
>No -- that is not my view of the irrational. The irrational is *not* simply
>everything that is not part of the rational, since to define it so would be
>to ignore the "arational" such as immediate intuitive awareness.
: )
>> >so I must recruit it to the cause if I am to move forward and leave it
>> >behind. I must, in a sense, have its permission to let go of it. "So
>> >why not simply let go right now?" I hear you ask.
>>
>> Actually I'd say recruiting it to the cause is a good idea.
>>
>> >Well, yes, that is what I call "practice", but my practice doesn't bring
>> >what Zen calls satori immediately -- it brings merely a temporary state
>> >that, as I understand it, sets up conditions that are conducive to satori.
>>
>> Don't really know of any practice that brings satori immediately.
>
>Precisely.
Well, there is sudden enlightenment, but that's not a practice. Well, not
really a practice. *And the idiot giggles quietly to himself.*
>> >The flywheel must be given time to wind down to rest, and if I am to
>> >devote the necessary time to the practice then I must have the consent of
>> >my rational faculty.
>>
>> Sure that's normal. It maybe a little easier if you understand that
>> that flywheel is your rational faculty.
>
>Nice one J! I hadn't thought of it that way -- immediate intuitive
>experience has no intertia!
Still, it can be a very 'moving' experience. ; )
>> >> >> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my
>> >> >> >choice is unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are
>> >> >> >perfectly acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it
>> >> >> >requires faith to let go of all else but immediate experience.
>>>
>> >> >>If we agree that immediate experience is the ground state and
>> >> >>the fundamental basis of all experience, even the experience of
>> >> >>faith, then why do we need faith to experience what is already our
>> >> >>experience? Just exhale and relax.
>> >> >
>> >> Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent
>> >>with the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate
>> >>experience demands no faith.
>> >>
>> >> > With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that faith
>> >> > is not required for spiritual practice.
>> >
>> >The way I understand it, faith is required until one attains to satori --
>> >whereupon faith is no longer required because there is the realisation
>> >that there is no path and never was one. Faith is required as long as one
>> >believes (as I do) that there is a path to follow.
>>
>> And there is nothing "wrong" with that understanding. It is a well
>> honored path that has been followed by many great masters. It's just
>> not the only path.
>
>Sure, but this statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
>faith.
What different problem?
>> >I think it would have been far more appropriate if translators had used
>> >some other term for "intuitive experience" than "faith" because of the
>> >strong connotations the word already has in English. Bergson calls it
>> >simply "intuition", which seems far more appropriate than "faith".
>>
>> The term "intuitive experience" has just as many connotations.
>
>The primary definition of "intuition" in the Oxford English Dictionary is
>"immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning".
Think about the fun we could have with the phrase "the mind without
reasoning"?
>> >But I guess that since they didn't, we (i.e. those of us that haven't
>> >come across the Buddhist variant) have to put up with the confusion it
>> >leads to. Perhaps both American and British dictionaries should include
>> >"intuitive experience" as a variant definition of "faith". I will
>> >certainly be acknowledging this in future, along with "confidence in what
>> >there can be no certainty of" (i.e. belief).
>>
>> It would still be just as confusing.
>
>Prehaps, but at least it has the support of the Oxford English Dictionary.
Oh? I know many who'd say following a "mind without reasoning," is just
dumb.
; )
Your very welcome, thank you. Though you have helped me just as much.
Trying to exlpain this stuff is a stretch, but the effort is worth it. Even as
I fail. : ) Now forget everything I have said, let go of it all, and find a
real teacher you can talk to face to face. Until then rest in awareness and be
aliveness. Don't forget to breath.
J. ; )
andy-k
> >>
> >Excellent tie-up with Plotinus again (Ennead II Tractate 5: "On
Potentiality > >and Actuality").
>
> I haven't read enough of Plotinus, what are your favorite translations?
I've only read MacKenna, which is a little dated now (though you can find
his unabridged translation on the web). A more modern translation is that by
Armstrong, in seven volumes by the Loeb Classical Library (and Plotinus
says that words are useless for conveying what he wants to convey!) I have
a copy on order, so I'm interested to compare the translations.
> >> 'The Golden Letters'
> >
> >Excellent.
>
> Excellent book.
You've mentioned it a few times, and each time I'm quite impressed with the
quote. Must add it to my reading list.
> >Sure, but that statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
> >faith.
>
> This faith that you feel is required for spiritual practice, if you have
that > faith, invoke it with strength and confidence. Really turn it on, so
to speak. > When you really have a sense of your faithfulness, ask
yourself, "Who/what is > it that is having this sense of faith? If you lack
faith, suffer many doubts, > then invoke that doubt. Really focus on doubt
and then turn around.
Sound advice -- must keep practising.
=========================================================
> >> >You seem to be implying that non-human animals have no immediate
> >> >awareness of the data of their experiences, and hence that immediate
> >> >awareness is a strictly "human condition", but your claim is muddied a
> >> >little by your last sentence which implies variability rather than
> discontinuity. > >> >I tend to think of the difference being in the
richness of content of > immediate > >> >awareness, so there is neither
variability nor discontinuity of immediate > >> >awareness but only
variability of richness of content.
> >>
> >> Non-human animals have immediate "instinctive" awareness that is
rooted > >> in the bio-sensory world and limited to their "instinctive"
biological > drives. > >> Their "view" of reality is limited to their
sensory horizon. A tiger never > suffers > >> from the existential
questioning of what it means to be a tiger. Animals > are > >> unable to
differentiate body and mind, there is no separate experiencing.
> >
> >You seem to be differentiating between "immediate instinctive awareness
of > >non-human animals ... a lot dimmer than humans" and "the real human
condition > >of immediate experiencing, our immediate intrinsic presence of
awareness, our > >experiencing".
>
> I am differentiating between them yes, but the differences are more than
just > a difference in intensity.
=========================================================
> > I am finding difficulty discerning a clear hiatus here -- it just seems
to me > that > >the content of immediate awareness for the non-human animal
is less rich than > >that of the human animal.
>
> A non-human's experience is just as rich as a humans, yet at the same
time it > is less rich in content as you say. There is also a difference in
the kind of > mind behind the awareness.
=========================================================
> >Your last sentence hits the mark I think -- non-human animals (with very
few > >exceptions like chimps and dolphins) have not evolved to a stage
where the > >contents of their immediate awareness also encompasses a
conceptual world > >model complete with a concept of self resident within
it.
>
> Thats part of it. Non-human animals haven't evolved to a level of
awareness > equal to humans, but they do in a sense have a conceptual world
view, its just > a nonverbal conceptual world view and undifferentiated from
their instinctive > nature.
=========================================================
> >I interpret this to be just a difference of richness of content then, and
the > few >exceptions that there are indicative that there is no real
hiatus, just a > continuous > >process of evolution. Do you take humankind
to be special (i.e. discontinuous > >with the evolution of non-human
animals)?
>
> Yes and no. Humankind are special, but humans are not discontinuous
with > evolution. There is no separation between humanity and nature, but
humans have > the capacity to distinguish between humanity and nature.
Non-human animals > don't have this capacity.
=========================================================
=========================================================
> >> The difference between non-human animals and humans is of depth and of
kind. > >> It is much more than just a difference in the variablity of
richness of > content. In >> each case, an animal is restricted by its'
form and the > limitations of its' > >> biological senses. The octopus
"sees" its' world as an octopus sees, not > >> a shallow version of how
humans see. The human brain can be divided into > >> brain stem, reptilian
brain, mammalian brain, primate brain, and higher > >> functions. With
those higher functions I am doing something right now no > >> dog is capable
of -- think about those higher functions.
> >
> >With it's limbic system a horse does things that no reptile is capable
of. > >Seems to me there is nothing here but a progression of phylogeny,
whereupon > >the contents of awareness become increasingly rich -- ours
being the richest > >of all because of the conceptual world-model that sits
on top of all the > >data of immediate awareness, continually distracting us
away from that > >immediate awareness.
>
> I would say that is true, but not the whole truth.
=========================================================
> >> That self-reflective quality is unique to humans and its' foundation is
> >> our capacity for presence and awareness.
> >
> >The way I see it is that this is a capacity we wouldn't need if it
weren't > >for the distracting conceptual world model within which resides
that > >reflection we refer to as the self (beautifully allegorised in the
myth of > >Narcissus).
>
> This capacity isn't a "thing" we need or wouldn't need, its' the nature
of > the beast, so to speak. ; )
=========================================================
=========================================================
> >The cognitive mind is not another "outgrowth," it is the natural
> >evolutionary development of human beings.
> >
> >A "natural evolutionary development" is precisely what I am referring to
as > >an outgrowth -- something that has emerged from what was previously
there > >(i.e. cognitive mind has emerged from the non-human mind that
consisted of > >instinctive and conditioned responses alone).
>
> No. Well, ... I guess, in away you could say yes from an evolutionary
point > of view, but from the point of an individual human being, the human
cognitive > mind does not emerge from a non-human mind, it emerges from a
pre-cognitve > human child. Lots of instinctive responses, but not yet
conditioned. That is > other than the biological conditioning of human
beings as a species. > It is a bit difficult to explain the differences
between the awareness of > non-human animals and humans. I'm not really
satisfied with my feeble attempt. > Unlike the differences of mind (as the
West describes it) and the brain, the > awareness is a lot more subtle; and
really, the Modern West has only begun > studying the awareness. It is very
easy to explain the differences of the > brain, a material object. We can
pull it out and look at it. It is a little > more difficult to explain the
differences of the mind (psychology), but since > the human mind has
developed the cognitive mind and language and non-human > animals haven't,
its not too hard. When it comes to the differences of > awareness, well,
that's a horse of a different colour. ; )
=========================================================
Your understanding in this respect is so completely different to mine that
it seems like we're talking about different subjects :) However, I've been
reading a book called "Wen Tzu" (Tr. Thomas Cleary, Shambalah 1992) --
reputed to be the further teachings of Lao Tzu. If you're not familiar with
this book I highly recommend it. Lao Tzu (if he really was the author) says
that sages "lay to rest their learned opinions" (Ch2, p5), "The Great Way
... lessens rumination" ... it "is level and not far from oneself. Those who
seek it afar go and then return" (Ch3, p6), "Realize genuine knowledge, and
don't use twisted reasoning" (Ch5, p8), "The learned come to an impasse
again and again; this is not as good as keeping centred" (Ch.6, p9), "Those
who use intellectual rumination to exercise control, pain their minds
thereby and accomplish nothing" (Ch10, p16), "They are virtuous who close
their senses, put away their aspirations and intentions, cast off their
intellectual brilliance, and return to a vastness where there is no
conscious knowing" (Ch16, p23), "To try to cure the outgrowths without
taking care of the root is no different from breaking down a dam to stop a
flood, or trying to put out a fire with a bundle of kindling in your arms"
(Ch.19, p26). I haven't finished it yet, but herein lies my problem -- I
derive a lot of enjoyment from rumination, and I chase these reflections
tirelessly. Must find out who is doing the chasing! Who is it that is asking
this question? Aha! The words are just arising in the void! But what is the
source of the order prevalent in what is arising? And why is it sufficient
to give the impression of being a subject in an objective world? Mmmmm....
Doughnuts....
andy-k
>
> >> >> >> >"Let go" is exactly what I mean by "abandon". If the word of my
> >> >> >> >choice is unacceptable to you then the words of your choice are
> >> >> >> >perfectly acceptable to me and we can work with them instead: it
> >> >> >> >requires faith to let go of all else but immediate experience.
> >>>
> >> >> >>If we agree that immediate experience is the ground state and
> >> >> >>the fundamental basis of all experience, even the experience of
> >> >> >>faith, then why do we need faith to experience what is already our
> >> >> >>experience? Just exhale and relax.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Again this highlights the source of my confusion -- it is consistent
> >> >>with the way I interpret the word that the certainty of immediate
> >> >>experience demands no faith.
> >> >>
> >> >> > With that as the basis of my spiritual path, I can claim that
faith > >> >> > is not required for spiritual practice. > >> > > >> >The way
I understand it, faith is required until one attains to satori -- > >>
>whereupon faith is no longer required because there is the realisation >
>> >that there is no path and never was one. Faith is required as long as
one > >> >believes (as I do) that there is a path to follow.
> >>
> >> And there is nothing "wrong" with that understanding. It is a well
> >> honored path that has been followed by many great masters. It's just
> >> not the only path.
> >
> >Sure, but this statement addresses a different problem to the nature of
> >faith.
>
> What different problem?
The nature of immediate experience (intuitive awareness), which demands no
faith. Problem solved if I add your definition of faith to the dictionary
definitions. No problem.
> >> The term "intuitive experience" has just as many connotations.
> >
> >The primary definition of "intuition" in the Oxford English Dictionary is
> >"immediate apprehension by the mind without reasoning".
>
> Think about the fun we could have with the phrase "the mind without
> reasoning"?
>
> >> >But I guess that since they didn't, we (i.e. those of us that haven't
> >> >come across the Buddhist variant) have to put up with the confusion it
> >> >leads to. Perhaps both American and British dictionaries should
include > >> >"intuitive experience" as a variant definition of "faith". I
will > >> >certainly be acknowledging this in future, along with "confidence
in what > >> >there can be no certainty of" (i.e. belief).
> >>
> >> It would still be just as confusing.
> >
> >Prehaps, but at least it has the support of the Oxford English
Dictionary.
>
> Oh? I know many who'd say following a "mind without reasoning," is just
> dumb. > ; )
Yeah -- they're probably the same ones that say that trying to attain a
state of "No Mind" is just dumb ;)
andy-k
>
> Highly recommend it. I always try to read at lest three translations of
the > same work. More if possible. The specific work here is 'The Three
Statements > That Strike the Essential Points,' by Garab Dorje, eighth
century, Tibet, the > first human teacher of Dzogchen. > The three books I
have are:
>
> 1. The Golden Letters
> Forward by Namkhai Norbu Rinpoche
> Translation, introduction and commentary by John Myrdhin Reyolds 1996
> Published by Snow Lion Publications, P.O. Box 6483, Ithaca, New York
14850 > USA
>
> 2. Lion's Gaze: A commentary on Tsig Sum Nedek
> By Venerable Khenchen Palden Sherab Rinpoche & Venerable Khenpo Tsewang
> Dongyal Rinpoche 1998 Published by Sky Dancer Press, Boca Raton, Florida,
33429 USA
>
> 3. Dzogchen: The Heart Essence of the Great Perfection
> Dzogchen Teachings given in the West, by His Holiness The Dalai Lama
> Published by Snow Lion Publications, P.O. Box 6483, Ithaca, New York
14850 > USA. He gives a short commentary of The Three Statements.
>
> You should be able to order them from the 'Snow Lion' website, I'll look
for > the address ... > Each of the above includes a translation of 'The
Three Statements That > Strike the Essential Points,' by Garab Dorje, as
well as commentary 'the > essential points of the words.' By studying
(reading) the three together, we > are able to acquire a broarder
understanding of the work. The text is really > very short, just three
lines. These books are 99% commentary or history.
>
> The Golden Letters: version of 'The Three Statements That Strike the
> Essential Points,' is:
> "I. One is introduced directly to one's own nature.
> II. One definitively decides upon this unique state.
> III. One continues directly with confidence in liberation."
>
> Lion's Gaze: version of of 'The Three Statements That Strike the
Essential > Points,' is:
> "I. Introduction directly to one's own nature is the first crucial
point.
> II. To decided directly upon one thing is the second crucial point.
> III. To have confidence directly in liberation is the third crucial
point."
>
> Dzogchen: HH Dalai Lama's version of 'The Three Statements That Strike
the > Essential Points,' is:
> "I. Introducing Directly the Face of Rigpa (nondual naked awareness) in
Itself.
> II. Decide Upon One Thing, and One Thing Only
> III. Confidence Directly in the Liberation of Rising Thoughts"
>
> Three different examples of the same work. And yes, that's all of it.
To > really understand this stuff a teacher is required. A master must do
the > introduction. Thankfully these are all translated with commentary,
which at > lest (at the most) helps in telling you what it doesn't mean.
These are > excellent books. Well worth the investment.
Thanks J. Don't know when I'll get around to it ... I've had the Wen Tzu on
my shelf for about five years, and only just gotten round to starting it!
Many thanks for the rest of your post -- always enjoy reading your anecdotes
and views.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have cobbled together what I consider a reasonable argument in support of
the view that Jesus was attempting to initiate a social avalanche. I have
restricted my argument to the gospel of Mark because this is the earliest
canonical gospel, much of which is absorbed into Matthew and Luke, and
because Matthew and Luke often modify what they use from Mark in order to
suit their own agenda. Your constructive criticisms would be appreciated.
The "good news" which Jesus announces is that the Kingdom of God is about to
arrive. This is presented as a reception on the level of the individual
(Mk.10:15, 12:34), but also as a development which must be widely announced,
even to the Gentiles (Mk.13:10, 16:15). The parable of the Seed Growing
Secretly (Mk.4:26-29), the parable of the Mustard Seed (Mk.4:30-32), and the
parable of the Sower (Mk.4:20-21) are indicative that some people will be
receptive to the message, and for those people the message will take root
and completely change their outlook. With the objective of reaching as many
people as possible, Jesus recruits a number of disciples (Mk.1:16-20) and
accompanies them to the neighbouring towns in order to proclaim the news
(Mk.1:38). When he has a sufficiently sizeable following, he appoints twelve
of them to hold special status amongst his disciples -- these are the
apostles (Mk.3:13-19). It appears from these anecdotes that the author of
Mark believed Jesus to be laying the foundations for a religious movement
which would continue to expand until it became an influential social
structure. This interpretation may gain support from the miracles of the
feeding of the five thousand and of the four thousand (Mk.6:30-44, 8:1-10)
since these are presented as having allegorical import (Mk.8:16-21).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
And finally, I've received the first three volumes of Armstrong's
translation of the works of Plotinus. Here's a copy of my notes on the
Armstrong's preface. Be wary though that what Plotinus means by Intellect
and Soul has nothing to do with the human intellect and the individual soul.
His ontology entails three levels, or "hypostases": the highest level is the
One, and this is utterly simple admitting of no distinctions -- it is a
timeless unity. The One engenders Intellect, wherein that unity is broken
but still inheres in every part. Intellect is still a timeless realm.
Intellect engenders Soul, wherein that timelessness is broken and we have a
world of multiplicity and change. Soul engenders Nature -- the world we know
and in respect of which all human souls are siblings. My notes follow:
Apophatic: The One is so absolute that even the attribute of existence is
inapplicable to it (AK: as a concept in opposition to non-existence . the
idea of nothing). As the source of all things it is not itself a thing. It
is beyond the duality of thought and its object, but neither is it
unconsciousness. Rather it is beyond Mind, "a simple self-intuition, an
immediate self-consciousness higher than the thought of the Divine
Intellect" (p.xvii).
Presence: "just because the One is not any particular thing He is present to
all things according to their capacity to receive Him" (p.xvii). (AK: Greek
"katalambano", "according to the capacity to receive", crops up in the
gospel of John).
Intellect: Noesis rather than dianoia - "the activity of direct mental
insight or immediate grasp of the object of thought, or a mind which grasps
its object in this direct way and not as the conclusion of a process of
discursive reasoning" (p.xviii). It "is the level of intuitive thought which
grasps its object immediately and is always perfectly united to it, and does
not have to seek it outside itself by discursive reasoning" (p.xxi) ... "in
that world, where the laws of space and time do not apply and the part is
the whole, we are Being and the All" (p.xxii). Hence Plotinus' pantheism
(e.g. VI.5.12).
Activity: "There is no activity on the part of the One, still less any
willing or planning or choice . There is simply a giving-out which leaves
the source unchanged and undiminished. But though this giving-out is
necessary, in the sense that it cannot be conceived as not happening or as
happening otherwise, it is also entirely spontaneous" (p.xix).
"The characteristic of the life of Soul is movement from one thing to
another; unlike Intellect, it does not possess being as a whole, but only
one part at a time, and must always be moving from one to the other; it is
on the level of discursive thought, which does not hold its object in
immediate possession but has to seek it by a process of reasoning; and its
continual movement from one thing to another produces time, which is "the
life of the soul in movement" (III.7.11); this movement of soul is the cause
of all physical movement in space and time" (p.xxiii).
The universe is the work of Soul and is "wholly good and everlasting as a
whole, though the parts are perishable (the universe of Intellect is of
course eternal as a whole and in every part)" (p.xxiv).
Plotinus' Last Words: "Try to bring back the god in you to the divine in the
All" (p.xxv). (AK: cf. Buddha: "Work out your own salvation with diligence")
Plotinus does not "consider that external religious rites are any help to
the ascent of the soul . The process of return is one of turning away from
the external world, of concentrating one's powers inwardly instead of
dissipating them outwardly, of rediscovering one's true self by the most
vigorous intellectual and moral discipline, and then waiting so prepared for
the One to manifest His presence. The discovery of one's true self is a
return to Intellect" (p.xxvi)
"There is never any suggestion in Plotinus that all things except the One
are illusions or fleeting appearances" (p.xxviii). (AK: cf. Nirvana and
samsara are not different.)
J.
Just wanted you to know that I've been a little busy, but will be posting a
reply in a few days. Sorry that I've left you hanging. Hope all is well.
J.
andy-k
"J." <pema...@aol.comnojunk> wrote in message
> Hi Andy,
>
> Just wanted you to know that I've been a little busy,
Me too.
> but will be posting a
> reply in a few days. Sorry that I've left you hanging. Hope all is well.
No problem.