|
Post by klaus on Oct 26, 2010 18:30:38 GMT -5
Goody,
Part and whole is "point of view." That's why zendancer can say,"I am one with THAT, I AM THAT, but I am not ALL of THAT.
Each statement is correct.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 26, 2010 19:04:22 GMT -5
Hi question I do not find using absolutes when speaking about such matters very helping but that is just my take.
For myself the real question(no pun) is simply "what matters?" Ideas like the universe is smart or dumb, experiences similar for many or different etc in my world these questions and answers hold little value if any. The answer to "what matters" for myself holds most value.
peace
|
|
|
Post by desertrain on Oct 27, 2010 5:37:02 GMT -5
Hi Desertrain, "What kind of experience or evidence would be needed to support the notion that the universe is intelligent and aware? Do you have an idea what such an universe should look like?"I don't understand the definitions of awareness and intelligence used in nonduality. Therefore I have no idea what such a universe should look like or what evidence would be required. What evidence would you want me to show you to prove that ghjghgflashfhasfsaf? I'm sorry I can't explain it any better, you have to experience ghjghgflashfhasfsaf for yourself to know. See the problem? All I'm saying is that the common definitions of awareness and intelligence have absolutely no place in inanimate matter. And so in this case the burden of proof is on the one making the extraordinary claim. "Why do you think this one we're living in couldn't be intelligent and aware?"There is no scientific observation that demands the universe to be intelligent or aware, every observation is consistent with a dead and stupid universe. For the notion of an intelligent and aware universe to be true one would have to establish radically different definitions of intelligence and awareness, so radical in fact that nobody could understand. A while ago Enigma explained his understanding of "intelligence", be honest with yourself if you understand it or not. "I'm asking this because my experience isn't absolutely inconsistent with an intelligent universe."Care to elaborate on the experience? More importantly: is it absolutely inconsistent with a non-intelligent universe? I can understand if you don't choose sides, but just in case you had to, what would make you throw away Occam's Razor? My experience is that after having relinquished control in my life to some degree, i. e. paying more attention to what's happening instead of trying to make things happen, life keeps going on just fine with minimal conscious deliberation regarding what to do. It's as if my body always knows what to do and the mind always comes in a bit late, claiming ownership for a given course of action. It is also somewhat clear that what is needed in a given moment is always there, and although things don't always turn out as I would expect or want, in retrospect it becomes clear how perfectly everything has lined up. To me this suggests that there might be a higher order of intelligence operating behind the scenes. I admit though that after having studied the writings of non-dual folks, ZD and Enigma among others, I am prone to interpret my experience against the conceptual framework presented in those writings. It's a case of confirmation bias. However, putting all concepts of intelligence and awareness aside for a moment, if I were to rely on my personal experience alone to formulate a theory, I wouldn't necessary go for an intelligent and alive universe, as all I'm aware of is the body's seeming intelligence. Meanwhile, my experience does fit well with the idea of such an universe, and I don't see how amazing synchronicities could be possible in a dead and non-intelligent universe. So to answer your final two questions, I guess my experience isn't absolutely inconsistent with a non-intelligent universe either, but since the idea of an intelligent universe appeals to me and seems plausible in light of my experience, that's what I would choose. I couldn't prove it nor would I proclaim it as truth, but that is my preferred view.
|
|
goody
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by goody on Oct 27, 2010 22:11:08 GMT -5
After reading lots of the old posts I've got another question:
Buddhists believe in karma,nirvana and incarnation because these are part of Buddha's teachings. Everybody agrees Buddha is enlightened. I just don't know why the enlightened people in this forum so disagree to these concepts and leave them as nonsense? Shouldn't we be awakened to the same truth?
|
|
|
Post by karen on Oct 27, 2010 22:48:20 GMT -5
Beliefs can be obstacles. Knowledge even more so. And forget about disagreement. It doesn't even get that far.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 28, 2010 1:20:50 GMT -5
The simple truth is there is and never has been such a person as being non awaken or enlighten reason being there never was or has been a person so there is nothing or nothing left to agree with. peace michael Shouldn't we be awakened to the same truth?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 28, 2010 3:16:11 GMT -5
Goody: When Ramesh Balsekar became enlightened, his teacher, Nisargadatta, told him that his teaching would be different from his and told him not to expect people to understand. Sure enough, many of Nisargadatta's students refused to believe that Ramesh was enlightened because his teaching was so different than Nisargadatta's. Each teacher uses a different approach due to their own life experiences and their audience.
The Buddha came out of an ancient culture that already believed in karma, reincarnation, and nirvana; he just put his own spin on those concepts. What the Buddha taught is not nearly as important as your own direct experience of the truth.
A teacher's job is to break people free from their ideas. This is why Rinzai used to tell devout Buddhists "kill the Buddha if you meet him on the road." People were so attached to their ideas about what the Buddha taught, that those ideas had become a stumbling block.
As a practical matter the Buddha advised keeping the sexes separated; he thought sex was a big distraction for people who were serious about finding the truth. Today we live in a more enlightened time (no pun intended) and a more sexually liberated era, so his advice in this area is rather antiquated. The same is true for his advice about becoming monks and nuns, begging for a living, not handling money, and dozens of other similar precepts.
As Michael pointed out, there is only oneness here, so where is a separate someone who could get reincarnated? Looked at in a different way, we could say that who you are is being reincarnated a trillion times each day because the process gives birth to a trillion new forms of life each day, but in any case it is not personal. There is no personal "you" to whom anything is happening. "I", as a separate entity, is the fundamental egocentric illusion that the path of non-duality exposes.
So, to paraphrase Rinzai, "If you meet Buddhism on the road, kill it; if you meet Christianity or Hinduism, or Islam, or Advaita Vedanta on the road, kill them too." These are all mind-sticky sets of ideas that obscure the truth. The truth is alive and cannot be contained in any kind of mind-box. Find the truth, and all ideas will be seen for what they are---bits of mental flotsam and jetsam best discarded and left behind. Cheers.
|
|
|
Post by ashtavakra on Oct 28, 2010 3:52:12 GMT -5
ZD..... Your last para is a killer !!!
|
|
mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Oct 28, 2010 4:07:53 GMT -5
And here "I" always thought it pertained to the "ego"
|
|
|
Post by question on Oct 28, 2010 10:55:31 GMT -5
Goody, Part and whole is "point of view." That's why zendancer can say,"I am one with THAT, I AM THAT, but I am not ALL of THAT. Each statement is correct. Does the whole have a point of view? I get it how the whole is oneness and how it's myself right now 100%. But what I don't get is this point of view thingy (another expression for awareness). Many points of view, many instances of consciousness... fine. One overmind watching the many points of view (unbeknownst to them)... ugh, really? I would have probably stopped seeking a long time ago, if it wasn't for the claim that consciousness has anything to do with anything. Can't Being just be left alone to BE, completely devoid of any supposedly inherent intelligence, awareness, love, creativity etc?
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 28, 2010 11:38:37 GMT -5
Question: Yes, Being can be left totally alone if that is It's desire as manifested through you. The question is, "Are you in charge of this, or is something else in charge of this?"
You wrote, "I would have probably stopped seeking a long time ago, if......" but you didn't. You're still here asking questions, so this idea is nothing more than an idea and has nothing to do with reality.
A major part of the non-duality path is seeing what is real in the here and now, beyond ideas, and accepting it fully.
If you think that you don't need to think about anything existential, check it out. Is that true? Or will you continue to think about this stuff? Just watch. There is no requirement that you waste another moment thinking about the Absolute (or the absence thereof), intelligence, awareness, love, creativity, or anything else, but I suspect that that isn't what's going to happen. LOL
If you will start watching your own body and mind very carefully, you may be surprised to discover that they don't need "you" to do anything. "You" are like a sideshow created by mind. What animates the body and mind is something else entirely. Cheers.
|
|
goody
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by goody on Oct 28, 2010 12:57:29 GMT -5
The picture I got here is that Reality looks like a gigantic puppy show played by oneness with zillions of invisible hands, and behind each hand there is the exactly same Mona Lisa's mysterious smiley face... don't cry and don't hate for your desperation and suffering because it's all part of being in show business. Whether if you are enlightened or not, it doesn't matter because the result is exactly same: the show is over...
So if it is the case, why should we get into this enlightenment business? How about saving people after enlightenment? Pretending to save? When I hear people saying God is all and God is love, I can feel in my heart that pure Love is part of everyone and that Love is also from God. But where is the Love of oneness in this puppy show? If saving people is part of the show, why not stopping the freaking part of the show in the first place?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 28, 2010 13:43:50 GMT -5
saving ppl? What are ppl? The mind is no help here as the mind itself is not real therefore at least from my experience the best I could say is "it is what it is" Michael
|
|
goody
New Member
Posts: 10
|
Post by goody on Oct 28, 2010 14:12:50 GMT -5
saving ppl? What are ppl? The mind is no help here as the mind itself is not real therefore at least from my experience the best I could say is "it is what it is" Michael People here don't have same opinions on this "saving people". Didn't ZD quote herding picture of Zen before? The last stage is called "Entering the marketplace with helping hands."
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Oct 28, 2010 14:45:20 GMT -5
well not sure but what do know is as we become more realized (whatever that means) we become more loving and helping at least is seems like this. probably because the level of inner peace becomes more .
peace Michael
|
|