|
Post by amit on Jul 16, 2013 1:36:57 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two.
1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice.
2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer.
What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views.
amit
|
|
|
Post by topology on Jul 16, 2013 7:09:45 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit There is a middle point of view espoused by Richard Rose which was that a practice is neither required nor does it guarantee a final realization, but it has the potential of making one "accident prone" by increasing the odds of having one. The appearance of a practice is a natural expression of that inner yearning and is intentional time for allowing that yearning to come to the surface and play itself out. Without acting on the intention to become self-aware and conscious, can there be movement in that direction?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 7:15:40 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 7:18:31 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 7:33:25 GMT -5
lol, the cat is here, an my posts have been eradi-cat-ed. Sorry, but my cat farts and it is a force to be reckoned-with.
Without the seeker an the sought, no investigation is neccessary. In the begining, we are fine...then along comes affixation...the librarian is born an is needed to attend the library at the front desk.(Who greets the oncomers seeking knowledge) Mostly, the idea is to be come aware of ones conditioned mind and reality. CD is what we create over an above reality. Hopefully, the zen master has made it Home, before we knock his block off. If he aint home, he's still out there in the back paddock pondering life from afar. We start with, why are we not LIFE? How was it we became separated as two, having been first born ONE! Who did this to US? Yes, mankind suffers with the same problem, them an us.
Awakening is the process we all grow through to realise we have been duped,fooled an its no wonder the world is angry. We are being milked, but unaware of who is farming us... Returning to our true nature is surrendering. If you have intuition....go there an you will arrive back-home, where you started out from, an this time be an adult within innocence.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 7:44:39 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit Hi amit, I consider myself a seeker, sort of. I'm curious about stuff and want to see how things work. This investigation into nonduality is largely because I'm curious about it. No realizations or anything that I'm aware of. I'm driven to see more clearly about everything. My understanding of nonduality is that #1 makes no sense, ultimately. It only makes sense within the story of duality. I practiced various forms of buddhism for many years. It was a gradualist vision. Steady effortful meditation and integration of mindfulness throughout the day would lead to greater and greater freedom from always grasping this or pushing away that. Buddhism was appealing because it was immediately comprehensible and had a cool history. Good jokes, etc (Zen). These days, exploring nonduality, I'd say #2 makes more sense. That said, what can be called 'practice' happens. I meditate daily. I ATA throughout the day. From all appearances, I'm not doing much different than I was before when I was firmly believing in the buddhist gradualist path. But things have changed. I don't really believe I have any choice whether I meditate or not. I don't intentionally try and ATA. When I meditate, it's really just sitting and seeing what happens. There is no goal. The thing about how you worded #2 above that puzzles me a little is your use of the word 'requirement.' It implies that there is a goal which has certain requirements. I'm not sure what that is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 7:55:03 GMT -5
"I" arrived soon after birth max. Its interesting for i to come back to its innosence an find itself as creator. Working backwards here.... having been meditating a while ones i momentarilly dissappears an then reappears as it is the i that seeks knowledge. Going back further... i was a blank black slate of unknowingness that is incredibly sensitive. When we dont know we are intimately sensitive. I dont know you, you dont know me, an now we can get to Know Each other as our self. Hense, selflessness.
this is different to anihilating another is it not?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 8:12:07 GMT -5
"I" arrived soon after birth max. Its interesting for i to come back to its innosence an find itself as creator. Working backwards here.... having been meditating a while ones i momentarilly dissappears an then reappears as it is the i that seeks knowledge. Going back further... i was a blank black slate of unknowingness that is incredibly sensitive. When we dont know we are intimately sensitive. I dont know you, you dont know me, an now we can get to Know Each other as our self. Hense, selflessness. this is different to anihilating another is it not? As this game goes, there is nothing to anihilate anyhoo, right? It's more like a dissolution, a settling of dust.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jul 16, 2013 8:37:29 GMT -5
Practice is for a better today, but there are also longer term benefits. The thing is, one doesn't practice for the longer term benefits, they just practice because it enhances today, and can be glad it also pays off in the long run.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 16, 2013 9:55:07 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit The only practice worthy of the name is the practice of what we are never not, which is here and now, and requires no effort. It is an imperative futility.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 16, 2013 10:21:00 GMT -5
It seems there is a clear distinction between the two. 1) The former takes the view that practice is required and that there is a doer who can practice. 2) The latter holds that there is no such requirement and no doer. What is it about the character of a seeker that is attracted to one rather than the other? If there any reading who would describe themselves as seekers, I would be interested to hear your views. amit I'm no longer a seeker, but I was fairly recently a seeker. I would say approach #2 works infinitely better for me, but that may have more to do with my innate preferences and nature. I have dabbled in various practices along the way but I would quickly lose interest in them, and that would make me feel like a total failure. Somewhere along the way, I developed a graceful acceptance that I'm just not very disciplined, in fact, I can be downright lazy, and that's okay. I would say the only practice I have been consistent about is asking a ton of questions and doggedly, determinedly trying to chase the answers. Basically, curiosity killed the cat. If there was any doer, or practice, it was my mind. That's why I am okay with mental masturbations and over intellectualizing. It led somewhere. The final shove, however, came from that Unmani retreat - an experience. And one reason I was attracted to that retreat is because from what Unmani wrote in her books, she was also like me - a lazy and inconsistent practitioner who dabbled in a lot of things. After that experience, I'd now say there's no such requirement and no doer. Practice may still happen. I am likely to be just as lazy and inconsistent about it though.
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Jul 16, 2013 10:21:59 GMT -5
Ceremony for us is how we get information from the other side. Ceremony and ritual is also the language of the sub-conscious. I just returned from a Sundance a couple of days ago, where almost everyone there had something extraordinary happen. I do not know what works for you, but I have found what works for me. If you want a spiritual ass kickin, you are going to have to go after it. The spirits and the ancestors are there waiting to help us, but we have to be willing to do our part if we want results.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Jul 16, 2013 10:39:45 GMT -5
I'd like to revise my answer. No practice "worked," because there was never anything to work on. Just the illusion that all that questioning, inconsistent practice, and going to a retreat is what "worked." Something shifted and the rest is just an elaborate story the "I" is using to explain how it came about. The "I" had nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Jul 16, 2013 10:44:37 GMT -5
I'd like to revise my answer. No practice "worked," because there was never anything to work on. Just the illusion that all that questioning, inconsistent practice, and going to a retreat is what "worked." Something shifted and the rest is just an elaborate story the "I" is using to explain how it came about. The "I" had nothing to do with it. Before one can start 'practicing' anything, they must first arrive at the belief that A) there's something that needs to practice something and B) that there's a goal to practice for. Both are beliefs, based on the misconception of 'what is'.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2013 11:22:24 GMT -5
Ceremony for us is how we get information from the other side. Ceremony and ritual is also the language of the sub-conscious. I just returned from a Sundance a couple of days ago, where almost everyone there had something extraordinary happen. I do not know what works for you, but I have found what works for me. If you want a spiritual ass kickin, you are going to have to go after it. The spirits and the ancestors are there waiting to help us, but we have to be willing to do our part if we want results. Hey I really like the perspective you offer here. For someone not up on the cosmology you're reporting on, but maybe slightly familiar with nonduality, how would you explain what spirits and ancestors are that you mention above? I'm thinking it might be close to intuition, but maybe that's off the mark.
|
|