|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:39:41 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't read Roy as shrinking from criticism. He welcomed/invited it more than once. IMO, he just feels strongly that mind matters are too seductive and obscure that which is between thoughts, so to speak. I appreciate the caution and resolve. Heck, nonconceptual awareness -- nuff said. It's not surprising that a recluse/hermit would advise such a thing. I wish him well. Yup, I agree. & His admonishment I also see as one of value. In terms of being 'seductive' in that sense, forum engagement, and the sharing & comparing ( not to mention the one-upman-ship that sometimes goes on here) could be said to be like honey to a bee. "Staying away forever", strikes me as overkill, but surely, that seductive quality, and pull to come back again & again, hehe...to talk about that which most of us agree defies words, is good thing to have a look at. Now I wish I had a pic of two rastaphants starin' at each other.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:41:32 GMT -5
Might be very wrong, but when Tzu speaks of 'potential', I think he is sort of pointing away, in his own Tzu way, of 'static conceptions of truth'. He is talking about the movement that is Life Life-ing, which is ever-changing. Thing is with Tzu is that he will always challenge non-dual expressions. I would say it's good for the forum overall, but his particular-ness when it comes to language use means he is not an easy man to please lol ::ducks for cover:: Yup, it adds balance. A counter to those who may have released one lot of knowledge, only to turn around to take on another. It's an important kind of challenge for those who are in a position of feeling they've got it all sewn up in a nice tidy little package. Forces folks to look at the ideas they're holding to. I've been the beneficiary of his gifts a few times myself. Link or giraffe.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:45:40 GMT -5
I was just looking at Roy's website. It seems there are so many people out there who have some experiences and then suddenly they're on the satsang circuit. What I read along these lines that was direct and made sense was that it's a very rare teacher who really is just completely clear and engaged in the teaching for no other reason than to illuminate the student. What happens is that any residual pattern of reactivity, any trace of ego remaining will eventually finds it's way into the interaction by the mechanism of projection. If that idea doesn't give a potential teacher at least a moments pause well then. Obviously though, peeps are gonna teach, and ultimately, this is just perfectly so.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:47:22 GMT -5
Tzu has written many posts that I enjoyed very much--particular the one about his experience in the military. His repetitive claim, however, that anyone who writes about oneness is attached to an idea of oneness gets a bit tiring because when he does that, he seems to be exhibiting the very thing that he complains about. I'm probably a bit ADHD, though, so repetition without some creativity causes me to rather quickly lose interest. No problem either way. FWIW, I've never put Tzu on ignore, and I did what I could to reverse his banishment from the forum some time ago. He certainly offers food for thought for anyone who is attached to a static conception of truth or oneness. One month temp-ban.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:49:46 GMT -5
I was just looking at Roy's website. It seems there are so many people out there who have some experiences and then suddenly they're on the satsang circuit. Yeah, it's too bad we kant bottle the forum and send it out on the road.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 15:53:01 GMT -5
Might be very wrong, but when Tzu speaks of 'potential', I think he is sort of pointing away, in his own Tzu way, of 'static conceptions of truth'. He is talking about the movement that is Life Life-ing, which is ever-changing. Thing is with Tzu is that he will always challenge non-dual expressions. I would say it's good for the forum overall, but his particular-ness when it comes to language use means he is not an easy man to please lol ::ducks for cover:: No need to duck from this direction. I think you're pretty much on target. Distractions come in many forms and their efficacy is always a function of our specific and unique conditioning.
|
|
|
Post by earnest on Mar 10, 2015 16:08:08 GMT -5
Okay, I'll try and throw you another pointer: There are people who 1) know that they know 2) don't know that they know 3) know that they don't know 4) don't know that they don't know According to Tzu, oneness means interconnectedness and separate and different are synonyms. Now it's up to you to decide to which category Tzu belongs and if his non-dual advice can be trusted or not. I would say it's pretty obvious. Such a good picture for first thing in the morning! Zzzzzappy!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 16:15:51 GMT -5
Yeah, it's too bad we kant bottle the forum and send it out on the road.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 10, 2015 19:30:25 GMT -5
The error is in the presumption of 'truth', it leaves no room for potential to reveal itself, it is stagnant.. people who come to this forum become 'wrong' if they don't acquiesce to the dominant belief system.. The monk story reveals the inherent arrogance in the 'truth' attachment.. Room for potential to reveal itself? What does this even mean. I need some kind of decryption key to crack the meaning of this. Here's the key: Be still, let go of what you you believe, and of what you think you know.. be willing for 'isness' (that which is), to reveal itself apart from your expectations and beliefs.. that willingness, the willingness to trust the experience to reveal what is actually happening, rather than trying to make the happening fit into your beliefs and expectations, that is the key.. not for cracking any mystery, but for your own liberation.. stale guru words pale in light of openness and authentic experience..
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 10, 2015 19:34:36 GMT -5
UG (touching his forehead): "Nothing but empty words .. memorized phrases.."
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 10, 2015 20:09:20 GMT -5
FWIW, I don't read Roy as shrinking from criticism. He welcomed/invited it more than once. IMO, he just feels strongly that mind matters are too seductive and obscure that which is between thoughts, so to speak. I appreciate the caution and resolve. Heck, nonconceptual awareness -- nuff said. It's not surprising that a recluse/hermit would advise such a thing. I wish him well. Hi max, I think that people on the spiritual path who extricate themselves from society, falsely believe that they have transcended the unpleasant, painful and harassing obstacles that ordinary people usually face in the world. Just because I'm on a spiritual path doesn't mean that the world isn't going to give me a kick once and a while. The question is should I cleanse life's kicks so that they never arise again or should I run back to the sanctity of the mountain or cave? The problem is that the problems don't go away, they will be there waiting for you when you return to the world. Generically (still not going to dissect Roy), problems aren't out there is the world. We're like a magnet, we attract the circumstances that reflect our 'insides', mostly our unconscious. The world is our mirror, we see what we are. Taken in the right way, this is actually a gift, as it shows what we need to 'work on'. Why do some of us keep finding ourselves in similar messes again and again (maybe not us personally, but we can see it in friends and family). Again, life has a way of pulling out of us, showing us what we are really like, what we need to work on. So if we isolate ourselves, there isn't an exterior world to reflect what's inside, and we can think everything is roses, roses. And then we meet a wake (I had to look it up) of vultures on a website .........and.....well.........a-hummmm....... ........... Now, this is not a hard and fast rule, as one can be pure and innocent and still get kicked in the teeth, as that one can point out someone else's failings, like Jesus did to the Pharisees, and they snuffed out his light. Yea, he told them they were like whitewashed tombs, pretty on the outside but inside, rotting and dead men's bones.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 20:57:03 GMT -5
Room for potential to reveal itself? What does this even mean. I need some kind of decryption key to crack the meaning of this. Here's the key: Be still, let go of what you you believe, and of what you think you know.. be willing for 'isness' (that which is), to reveal itself apart from your expectations and beliefs.. that willingness, the willingness to trust the experience to reveal what is actually happening, rather than trying to make the happening fit into your beliefs and expectations, that is the key.. not for cracking any mystery, but for your own liberation.. stale guru words pale in light of openness and authentic experience.. So why didn't you just say that the first time round. This I can relate to.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 10, 2015 21:12:10 GMT -5
Tzu has written many posts that I enjoyed very much--particular the one about his experience in the military. His repetitive claim, however, that anyone who writes about oneness is attached to an idea of oneness gets a bit tiring because when he does that, he seems to be exhibiting the very thing that he complains about. I'm probably a bit ADHD, though, so repetition without some creativity causes me to rather quickly lose interest. No problem either way. FWIW, I've never put Tzu on ignore, and I did what I could to reverse his banishment from the forum some time ago. He certainly offers food for thought for anyone who is attached to a static conception of truth or oneness. Well .....there's the reality of whatever is, and then there's talking about whatever is. Even if one has had certain experiences or certain realizations, when you try to put that into words it doesn't mean anything except maybe to someone who has had the same experiences or realizations. I think Tzu is continually pointing out not to 'trust' hardcore conceptual fundamentalist non-dualism, the words. The words can't lead to the truth. OK, that much is not new (and that fact continually gets thrown back at Tzu). Tzu also points out that basic hardcore non-dualism teaches there isn't a self, and the only way to come to know this is to have a realization of the fact. But there isn't anything anyone can do to bring about a realization, they're acausal. So, you have a teaching, (and it is a teaching because hundreds of books have been written about it), but a teaching that can't be directly verified. So there are probably many people who have become members of the 'church of non-duality', peeps who 'believe' the lingo and hope a realization falls from the sky some day. That's just as illusory, or probably more so, than never to have ever heard of non-duality. I think Tzu is just warning not to make the leap into la-la land, into an imaginary stance of considering that self is an illusion, when that's merely a concept (unless it isn't). I posted earlier (this thread, this morning) why I consider self is real (there is a reason and a purpose for this universe, it is what it is, is what it seems to be FAIAP), so I'm in Tzu's camp on this. I'd say as long as self is real to you, you have to live as if self is real. I see no value in buying into conceptual non-dualism. I think it possible that with a lot of reading and thinking one can convince oneself of the validity of non-dualism, and get deeper into illusion instead of out of it. Sure, maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, but this is what I see as Tzu's valid message. I don't see the problem. I don't see how it can hurt. Anybody can say all day long that Tzu doesn't follow his own message. Hearing that doesn't seem to bother him........... I don't have time to reread this now, it'll be at least an hour...........
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2015 21:42:54 GMT -5
Tzu has written many posts that I enjoyed very much--particular the one about his experience in the military. His repetitive claim, however, that anyone who writes about oneness is attached to an idea of oneness gets a bit tiring because when he does that, he seems to be exhibiting the very thing that he complains about. I'm probably a bit ADHD, though, so repetition without some creativity causes me to rather quickly lose interest. No problem either way. FWIW, I've never put Tzu on ignore, and I did what I could to reverse his banishment from the forum some time ago. He certainly offers food for thought for anyone who is attached to a static conception of truth or oneness. Well .....there's the reality of whatever is, and then there's talking about whatever is. Even if one has had certain experiences or certain realizations, when you try to put that into words it doesn't mean anything except maybe to someone who has had the same experiences or realizations. I think Tzu is continually pointing out not to 'trust' hardcore conceptual fundamentalist non-dualism, the words. The words can't lead to the truth. OK, that much is not new (and that fact continually gets thrown back at Tzu). Tzu also points out that basic hardcore non-dualism teaches there isn't a self, and the only way to come to know this is to have a realization of the fact. But there isn't anything anyone can do to bring about a realization, they're acausal. So, you have a teaching, (and it is a teaching because hundreds of books have been written about it), but a teaching that can't be directly verified. So there are probably many people who have become members of the 'church of non-duality', peeps who 'believe' the lingo and hope a realization falls from the sky some day. That's just as illusory, or probably more so, than never to have ever heard of non-duality. I think Tzu is just warning not to make the leap into la-la land, into an imaginary stance of considering that self is an illusion, when that's merely a concept (unless it isn't). I posted earlier (this thread, this morning) why I consider self is real (there is a reason and a purpose for this universe, it is what it is, is what it seems to be FAIAP), so I'm in Tzu's camp on this. I'd say as long as self is real to you, you have to live as if self is real. I see no value in buying into conceptual non-dualism. I think it possible that with a lot of reading and thinking one can convince oneself of the validity of non-dualism, and get deeper into illusion instead of out of it. Sure, maybe this doesn't apply to everyone, but this is what I see as Tzu's valid message. I don't see the problem. I don't see how it can hurt. Anybody can say all day long that Tzu doesn't follow his own message. Hearing that doesn't seem to bother him........... I don't have time to reread this now, it'll be at least an hour........... Hi star, yeah, I understand what your saying. So are you agreeing with Roy's admonition? Should I leave this forum?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 10, 2015 22:20:03 GMT -5
What? I was just being mischievous for no particular reason Oneness is when there is no difference whatsoever between action and inaction.No, that's not it either.
|
|