|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 10:08:54 GMT -5
As much as I now see that there's plenty of good and reasonable stuff about all this non-dual, Buddhist type stuff, there are things that either haven't clicked or never will, because - perchance - there's something a tad off about it. Why not go the whole 9 yards and stay in la la land, or admit that there are imperfections...I mean, if YOU had to personally live in one of the roughest spots, I do believe you'd change your tune. I already believe some of this stuff makes 'perfect' sense, but perfect does not. *shrug* Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. Ok, well that's pretty good...I will say that to imagine my creating a world just as this one is, as opposed to one that many if not most would create that is without rancor or violence, etc., would seem counterintuitive, but it IS only in the imagination of the comparing of the two types of worlds, and the one type that we do live in now, does seem extra-exciting and so forth, but since the heavenly type wasn't created, we won't know exactly what it would be like. I mean, after all, peeps look for neighborhoods - places to move to - that have low crime rates, etc., so there's that. Cool and calm is a good thing. (ZMSS saying he wanted to go to hell for the more interesting company is a clever quip, but he, too is imagining this.)
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 20, 2014 10:13:55 GMT -5
"Perfectly so" settles in only when there's "only one" left!
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 10:18:36 GMT -5
As much as I now see that there's plenty of good and reasonable stuff about all this non-dual, Buddhist type stuff, there are things that either haven't clicked or never will, because - perchance - there's something a tad off about it. Why not go the whole 9 yards and stay in la la land, or admit that there are imperfections...I mean, if YOU had to personally live in one of the roughest spots, I do believe you'd change your tune. I already believe some of this stuff makes 'perfect' sense, but perfect does not. *shrug* Silver, I understand the objections that you and others have raised about “perfectly so”. There’s nothing that I can type here that will bridge the divide completely. If we were in the same room, and the nuances of personal emotional expression were available, I think I’d come closer, but there would still be a gap at the end of our talk. Realization and nonduality don’t make any sense, and not just logically, but even from the perspective of body and mind unified in health and in balance between emotion and rationality. This is because what’s referred to by those ideas is transcendent of our experience, our knowledge and our senses. All that’s left to me in responding to your objections is to write about what perfection does not refer to. The perfection of this moment doesn’t mean that the conditions that I can see and describe in motion around me are accepted as being the way they are, now and forever. Acceptance of the now doesn’t mean acceptance of some imagined future. [yes, good] While a sort of poor shadow of perfection is the commonsense recognition that I can’t change the past, the point that nothing is wrong doesn’t mean that I can’t look back and feel sorrow for the past suffering of others. [yep, good, I like]If nonduality wasn’t ultimately about human suffering there would be no cultural artifacts of it. No Zen, no Advaita and no new-age meditation and yoga folks who look like hippies out there with you in Cali. To see how nonduality and suffering relate, notice that much of what is written here is on the point that spiritual seeking is about finding oneself, about inquiring into the nature of what one is. That self-inquiry is essentially the individual journey to find out what it means to be human. What one finds at the end of the journey is beyond description, and while no one can bring you there, it’s not completely accurate to say that you’re ever really on your own. Because what is found is transcendent of even our ability to express ourselves, we often wind up expressing ourselves in contradiction. The emptiness that Ayda talks about here: In that moment of recognition, you have already begun to move beyond the wall of accumulated knowledge. Then, if you don't redefine this moment or rebox it in some concept, rethinking yourself into existence, your true state of being starts to present itself. What you really are begins to awaken. The true I am is so unbelievably empty. It's so free of everything you thought you were. It has no limitation. It has no definition. Any definition would be a disservice to what you are. All that's left is consciousness, and it's not even that because that's just a word. When you see what you really are, no concepts apply anymore. You are so empty there is just consciousness. There is no inner child, and there is no adult either. None of your identities exist until you think them into existence. Consciousness can look down and see there is a body, but that's not the source of anyone's problem. .. is alive and light and, as he says, in motion, in a dance. One of those contradictions is that the emptiness dancing is actually, in a sense, quite full. The unbelievable beauty of that dance is one that fills us with tears of such profound and powerfully poignant and sorrowful joy that there is an urge to throw our arms around the world, give it a hug, and let it know that, yeah, really, everything’s gonna be ok. This is what perfection refers to. Perfection doesn’t mean inaction. It doesn’t mean that there’s no need for change, as in fact, change is inevitable. Perfection doesn't mean indifference. It doesn’t mean that I’d shake the hand of a genocidal dictator if I met one, but it does mean the recognition that what is judged are his actions, as his humanity is ever and always beyond any possible aspersion. You see, we could say that to be human means to be forgiven, and even though that embodies a misconception, it conveys what is meant by perfectly so quite well. Yeah, ok, I see what you mean. It never quite comes across that way in previous talks about it.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 10:24:32 GMT -5
"Perfectly so" settles in only when there's "only one" left! and not even that!
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 20, 2014 10:38:48 GMT -5
"Perfectly so" settles in only when there's "only one" left! and not even that! Uh oh
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 10:54:15 GMT -5
I have to protest that characterization as I'm not a big fan of 'nothing can be done', and I don't think I've ever used that phrase. It's tricky to talk about because the search is undertaken on false pretenses using a false identity, so all the volition in the world is unlikely to lead to freedom under those circumstances. An imagined individual is seeking freedom from that imagined story, so which direction is the correct one for the seeker to take? Obviously, any movement at all is the wrong move and at best will culminate in a dead end. I wonder how many seekers are familiar with the dead end. I wouldn't say nothing can be done, I would say nothing needs to be done. If the seeker hears that and concludes that he should go about his biznis and forget the whole thing, that's not what's being said. What's being said is that nothing needs to be done in order to be what you are, and this needs to be realized, which is not a doing, but it does involve an undoing. How does one do an undoing? One doesn't, and this is the dilemma. That dilemma is the only problem. There isn't anything hidden from view that needs to be found. I watch as folks look away. Over and over they look away, for countless reasons in countless imaginative ways. The looking away is all that stands in the way of freedom, and yet how does that end? That's the dilemma. Then you're going to have to explain non-volition once more to me (as in, how does that not equal nothing can be done?) It seems to me that you continually put yourself in a straightjacket................................ sdp To say nothing can be done seems to say that nothing you do changes anything, and that's not true at all. To say nothing that you do results in change is not the same as saying you are not the volitional center of that proposed doing. That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken'. (For the reasons I described) If there were a foolproof method for awakening, of course that could be done whether or not you are volitional. The only problem then would be in getting folks to do it.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 20, 2014 11:22:50 GMT -5
Awakening is used differently at ST.. it seems to mean that the experiencer accepts specific beliefs as if they were true..
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 20, 2014 11:30:43 GMT -5
As much as I now see that there's plenty of good and reasonable stuff about all this non-dual, Buddhist type stuff, there are things that either haven't clicked or never will, because - perchance - there's something a tad off about it. Why not go the whole 9 yards and stay in la la land, or admit that there are imperfections...I mean, if YOU had to personally live in one of the roughest spots, I do believe you'd change your tune. I already believe some of this stuff makes 'perfect' sense, but perfect does not. *shrug* Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. The world that IS is the world we have created, apart from imagining it differently than it 'is'.... IF i were given the task of creating a Universe, i would copy this one.. put the raw material for existence (energy) in place, give it freewill to manifest its evolution, and let it reveal itself to itself.. allowing its destiny to change with each choice it makes.. i would let creation discover itself.. It's not 'perfect', it just 'is'.. perfection is a localized belief about what 'is'..
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 11:43:38 GMT -5
Silver: As a crude way to get a sense of what is meant by the claim that the universe is perfect just as it is (which doesn't mean that one can't work for peace or try to educate people or, if necessary, kill killers), here's a fun little thought experiment that might give a glimpse of what is being pointed to: For just a moment, put yourself in God's place (SOI if the word "God" is too offensive). Imagine that you had the power to create a universe in which to live, and then imagine that you had to live in that universe for infinity (because you would be every creature that inhabited that universe). What kind of universe would you create? If you consider in depth all of the implications of this creative choice, then this very world (with all of its beauty, horror, love, joy, pain, and pleasure) is the world that I suspect you would voluntarily choose to create. Please don't jump to any immediate conclusions about this idea; just silently contemplate why you might choose to do this. Most people imagine that heaven is a wonderful place where nothing bad ever happens (no suffering, no death, no disease, etc). This idea proves that they lack both imagination as well as insight into the matter. One moment of deep insight would show them that heaven is already present. It's just not the heaven that they usually imagine. If they could get the heaven that they imagine they want, they would soon recognize it as hell. Even 72 virgins or streets paved with gold would soon pale in comparison to THIS. Someone once asked ZMSS if he wanted to go to heaven. He replied, "No. I want to go to hell because that's where all of the interesting people will be." Everyone laughed, but I don't think that he was joking. Ok, well that's pretty good...I will say that to imagine my creating a world just as this one is, as opposed to one that many if not most would create that is without rancor or violence, etc., would seem counterintuitive, but it IS only in the imagination of the comparing of the two types of worlds, and the one type that we do live in now, does seem extra-exciting and so forth, but since the heavenly type wasn't created, we won't know exactly what it would be like. I mean, after all, peeps look for neighborhoods - places to move to - that have low crime rates, etc., so there's that. Cool and calm is a good thing. (ZMSS saying he wanted to go to hell for the more interesting company is a clever quip, but he, too is imagining this.) A world in which everything is perfect, in the most common definition of that term, isn't possible in relative experience. How do you know perfect without the experience of imperfect? Perfect compared to what? Life isn't about attaining a state in which nothing needs to change or improve, it's about movement; ongoing change. (The journey and not the destination) All feeling is a movement only. We notice joy only as it arises and falls, and so there cannot be as static state of joy, or sorrow, or perfection or anything else. All static states lead to stagnation. So as God in ZD's thought experiment, what sort of world would you create?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 20, 2014 11:44:22 GMT -5
Then you're going to have to explain non-volition once more to me (as in, how does that not equal nothing can be done?) It seems to me that you continually put yourself in a straightjacket................................ sdp To say nothing can be done seems to say that nothing you do changes anything, and that's not true at all. To say nothing that you do results in change is not the same as saying you are not the volitional center of that proposed doing. That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken'. (For the reasons I described) If there were a foolproof method for awakening, of course that could be done whether or not you are volitional. The only problem then would be in getting folks to do it. The only relevant thing we are talking about is awakening, so when you say, That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken', makes my whole point. As far as a foolproof method for awakening, a journey of a thousand miles, begins with one step. And, if you could get people to do anything, that's sourced in ego. The way has to be completely voluntary, without coercion. As you obviously wholly and truly and unequivocally believe you are correct, well.....that's the end of the journey.......... sdp
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 11:54:48 GMT -5
The description of an absence of belief necessitates the expression of ideas.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 20, 2014 11:58:12 GMT -5
Then you're going to have to explain non-volition once more to me (as in, how does that not equal nothing can be done?) It seems to me that you continually put yourself in a straightjacket................................ sdp To say nothing can be done seems to say that nothing you do changes anything, and that's not true at all. To say nothing that you do results in change is not the same as saying you are not the volitional center of that proposed doing. That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken'. (For the reasons I described) If there were a foolproof method for awakening, of course that could be done whether or not you are volitional. The only problem then would be in getting folks to do it. As every perspective is unique there are as many methods for awakening, as there are people. That what is realized is the commonality between all people is enough to indicate that there's nothing special about it, and also why what sometimes worked for some peeps in the past seems to have worked for others in the present.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 12:02:15 GMT -5
To say nothing can be done seems to say that nothing you do changes anything, and that's not true at all. To say nothing that you do results in change is not the same as saying you are not the volitional center of that proposed doing. That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken'. (For the reasons I described) If there were a foolproof method for awakening, of course that could be done whether or not you are volitional. The only problem then would be in getting folks to do it. The only relevant thing we are talking about is awakening, so when you say, That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken', makes my whole point. As far as a foolproof method for awakening, a journey of a thousand miles, begins with one step. And, if you could get people to do anything, that's sourced in ego. The way has to be completely voluntary, without coercion. As you obviously wholly and truly and unequivocally believe you are correct, well.....that's the end of the journey.......... sdp As it relates specifically to awakening, I already said I wouldn't say nothing can be done, I would say nothing needs to be done. You brought the idea of volition in and asked me to reconcile, so you seemed to think it was "relevant". Non-volition doesn't actually say anything about the potential for awakening or whether or not awakening can be done. If there were a method for awakening then it could be done, and if it weren't too rigorous then most who are interested would likely do the method. Volition isn't the issue there at all, and the fact that nobody has volition is not what keeps peeps from awakening. Non-volition simply points away from the separate individual and toward oneness.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 20, 2014 12:11:00 GMT -5
To say nothing can be done seems to say that nothing you do changes anything, and that's not true at all. To say nothing that you do results in change is not the same as saying you are not the volitional center of that proposed doing. That's why I wouldn't say 'nothing can be done', but that's not to imply something can be done to 'awaken'. (For the reasons I described) If there were a foolproof method for awakening, of course that could be done whether or not you are volitional. The only problem then would be in getting folks to do it. As every perspective is unique there are as many methods for awakening, as there are people. That what is realized is the commonality between all people is enough to indicate that there's nothing special about it, and also why what sometimes worked for some peeps in the past seems to have worked for others in the present. The conditioning of every individual goes through an evolution, and when it is ready, awakening happens through that individuation. What a particular conditioning dynamic needs for that to happen is, as you suggest, as unique as the person. I say regardless of the dynamic, it always comes down to willingness.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Sept 20, 2014 12:11:05 GMT -5
Ok, well that's pretty good...I will say that to imagine my creating a world just as this one is, as opposed to one that many if not most would create that is without rancor or violence, etc., would seem counterintuitive, but it IS only in the imagination of the comparing of the two types of worlds, and the one type that we do live in now, does seem extra-exciting and so forth, but since the heavenly type wasn't created, we won't know exactly what it would be like. I mean, after all, peeps look for neighborhoods - places to move to - that have low crime rates, etc., so there's that. Cool and calm is a good thing. (ZMSS saying he wanted to go to hell for the more interesting company is a clever quip, but he, too is imagining this.) A world in which everything is perfect, in the most common definition of that term, isn't possible in relative experience. How do you know perfect without the experience of imperfect? Perfect compared to what? Life isn't about attaining a state in which nothing needs to change or improve, it's about movement; ongoing change. (The journey and not the destination) All feeling is a movement only. We notice joy only as it arises and falls, and so there cannot be as static state of joy, or sorrow, or perfection or anything else. All static states lead to stagnation. So as God in ZD's thought experiment, what sort of world would you create? I can't be sure that you're not talking 2 different contexts with the word perfect here, and it did cross my mind the same thing you said, 'all static states lead to stagnation,' so I wouldn't create a static world, but I dunno but what any world that anyone would create with maybe just a tad more cool and calmness -- once the world was put into motion, the lack of any quality control that the creator would desire would be evident. Looking at that way, it seems it's all just a total hodge-podge from the get-go, and if you believe what the Bible says, the world was created and was expected or declared (by man, claiming he knows God) good.
|
|