|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 13:42:05 GMT -5
Post by sharon on Apr 17, 2011 13:42:05 GMT -5
I think Question gave a valid reply to this request last night ...
Trying to make Michael/Randolph/Richard see anything is a cat and mouse game ~ with the mouse thinking it's a cat by copying selective cat vocabulary.
|
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 13:50:47 GMT -5
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2011 13:50:47 GMT -5
Well, that's cool n all but really I was talking more about the issues discussed than the dynamics of trying to help resistant peeps. Maybe the challenge is to see through our own resistance to the tone of the conversation and focus on what's being talked about.
|
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:04:30 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2011 15:04:30 GMT -5
Lemme ask an open question here; In all this Michael nonsense, has anybody noticed, realized or gained more clarity about anything that came out of the utterly failed discussions with Michael? If so, then you know why these discussions happened, and why they continue to happen with others. It's not about the cigarette man, it's about the rest of the Zen students in the room. I know that's not the answer to the koan, but I don't care about the koan. I care about the people in the room. Ironically, this is what one aspect of that koan points to. The question asks, how can you teach someone who will not listen to anything you say? First, what can YOU learn from that situation? Second, what can OTHER people learn (who may be a bit more open-minded) from what you've learned as a result of seeing through the koan? There are many reasons for engaging with someone who is close minded. First, is there a gap in the armor anywhere--some tiny opening that might permit an insight to occur? Second, what can YOU learn as you investigate all aspects of the armor. Third, what can OTHER people learn as one probes the armored one? I think this is what you're referring to in this part of your post. One of the reasons I enjoy the discussions on this website is that I often see things in a new light as a result of reading various posts. Sometimes it can be highly revelatory, and its always fun to explore new territory. There is no end to what can be discovered here. It may be "turtles all the way down," but there are so many fascinating types of turtles that compose the stack. LOL I understood at least two reasons for your lengthy engagement (other than probing the armor), and I was impressed with your staying power. As a senior citizen, I just didn't have the energy to think through all of the issues that thoroughly. Ha ha. |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:08:35 GMT -5
Post by dreamerrach on Apr 17, 2011 15:08:35 GMT -5
Trying to teach someone who will not listen to anything you say... You could be describing a daily part of my job.
I just present it anyway and hope at some point, they'll want to engage. But really I just focus more on those who will listen and who do want to learn.
|
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:30:17 GMT -5
Post by unveilable on Apr 17, 2011 15:30:17 GMT -5
I’m sad to see you leave this way Michael. You know this seekery thing is so crazy. Its like we are all mobile lack units wandering about looking at each other with tainted lack-glasses. Lack sucks and so does feeling the need to pull away. Thank you for the awesome book though!  |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:31:50 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2011 15:31:50 GMT -5
ZD, thanks for that post about koans. Just curious. I doubt this matters, but do the koans have a right answer? If the koan is understood properly, is there a specific answer that is given?. If not, then how does the guru verify that the person understands it? Teetown: Yes, koans have very simple and very specific answers. There are a few esoteric koans that have two-stage answers, but even those have specific responses that are necessary. Here is an example: During a baseball game the bases were loaded, and the batter hit a home run, yet not a man scored. Why? If the answer isn't immediately obvious, you can meditate on this koan for a while, and the answer will appear. This is a koan that deals with gender identification and cultural stereotypes. There are several formal koans (formal koans cannot be discussed in public) and informal koans that deal with this issue. After seeing through a few of these koans, one sees through lots of related issues in everyday life, and one is psychologically freed to some degree. To a teacher who has seen through hundreds of koans a student's state of mind becomes obvious as soon as he/she presents an answer. If the teacher is not positive about the student, then there are "checking" koans that can be used to determine if someone really understands the issue or has been given the answer by someone. For example, if a teacher asked a student, "What is Mu?" and the student answered correctly, the teacher could follow up that question by asking, "How much does Mu weigh?" or "What would one say to Mu at the train station?" These checking koans would make it instantly apparent if the student understood what Mu is all about. For fun you can play with these public koans: 1. What is the true nature of a dog? 2. How far can you throw an imaginary baseball? 3. You are going to a high school reunion. You own three cars, a shiny new Ferrari, an old Volkswagon beetle, and a nice non-descript but relatively late-model Chevrolet. You get ready to drive your Ferrari, but then you think, "Uh oh, my former classmates will think I'm showing off. I better take the beetle." Then, you think, "Uh oh, if I drive the cheap old beetle, I'll be playing a different kind of one-upsmanship--that although I own a Ferrari, I chose to drive an old car to show that owning a Ferrari means nothing to me." He therefore decides to drive the Chevrolet, but then he thinks, "Uh oh, it doesn't matter which car I select, my ideas about my classmates' opinions of me will be determining which car I drive." Which car should the man drive to his high school reunion? He only owns those three cars. Your body already knows the answers to all three of these questions, but the mind often paralyzes the body's knowledge or obscures it. How could you answer each question in a way that would make it obvious to a teacher that you see through the koan? |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:33:56 GMT -5
Post by dreamerrach on Apr 17, 2011 15:33:56 GMT -5
:-o But girls can't play baseball!
|
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:34:24 GMT -5
Post by Portto on Apr 17, 2011 15:34:24 GMT -5
What about the pledge for "no cigarette man left behind?" Hey, tell it to the Marlboro man.  Hehe, yes, Marlboro man can trick them all. Nicely said, Enigma. And as one common fried said, we generally teach what we want to learn. |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:39:42 GMT -5
Post by Portto on Apr 17, 2011 15:39:42 GMT -5
About Michael: he invested a lot of time and effort into his awakening, and he would like to see some return, or at least some recognition.
Unfortunately, not much is happening, and he can get jumpy.
|
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:49:53 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2011 15:49:53 GMT -5
If I'm unable to see through the koan then how can I teach him anything? For me to teach him is only possible if I'm attached to ideas of my own. It's actually the cigarette man who teaches me that I'm attached to a set of ideas which make me want to preach to him about how attached he is. Question: First, seeing through the koan is the entire point of the koan. The koan is about seeing through your own ideas about how to deal with aspects of reality similar to what is presented by the cigarette man. Second, the point of koan study is to get free of ideas, and the best teachers are those who are not attached to any ideas. Third, the ultimate goal of koan study is to get free of selfhood. If selfhood is present on both sides of an argument, its a pissing contest. If a dialogue occurs between someone who is strongly attached to selfhood and self-oriented ideation and someone else who isn't, it's a one-sided pissing contest. The other side has no horse in the race (to mix metaphors a bit). |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:55:53 GMT -5
Post by dreamerrach on Apr 17, 2011 15:55:53 GMT -5
You all are welcome for introducing pissing contest as a term which will undoubtedly be used nearly as frequent as neo advaita  |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 15:57:22 GMT -5
Post by teetown on Apr 17, 2011 15:57:22 GMT -5
Here is an example: During a baseball game the bases were loaded, and the batter hit a home run, yet not a man scored. Why? Well that's not really a koan, is it? It's a riddle. Riddles seem to be different than koans, like the Mu koan, in that they have, logical answer that can be verbalized....on the other hand, riddles usually require a shift in perspective and an examination of unconscious assumptions before the answer appears, so I see where you're going with this. Maybe they're not so different. |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 16:15:56 GMT -5
Post by vacant on Apr 17, 2011 16:15:56 GMT -5
Lemme ask an open question here; In all this Michael nonsense, has anybody noticed, realized or gained more clarity about anything that came out of the utterly failed discussions with Michael? If so, then you know why these discussions happened, and why they continue to happen with others. It's not about the cigarette man, it's about the rest of the Zen students in the room. I know that's not the answer to the koan, but I don't care about the koan. I care about the people in the room. E, you might not care about the cigarette man koan ( I don’t either) but for me you have answered it anyway: “The cigarette man will flick his ashes and wander off and nothing at all can be done about that, nor does anything need to be done about it” — so just walk on by, mind your own business, no teaching, no righting wrongs, with a half smile and a polite nod of the head, it’s all cool, and it all isn’t too. But this is for replying to your open question, of course, it’s about the reason all here come interacting or just reading, the students in the room, and certainly not so failed discussions with Michael. A speciality of mine is misinterpreting the posts I read, but, do I detect a touch of insecurity going the roundabout way to justify some action that bears no need to be justified? Like ZD I was impressed with your staying power and rockwiler persistence when a lot of us have given up (not to be too flattering, that tends to be counterproductive) This forum has a glorious life of its own and I bow in thanks. Not least to E’s contributions. |
|
|
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 16:43:16 GMT -5
Post by sharon on Apr 17, 2011 16:43:16 GMT -5
"What is Mu?" Smiles fondly and body moves forward. *Scratches nose with right hand having written it* "How much does Mu weigh?" Hmmm ~ *chuckling* This much ... right hand out and open palm facing upwards ... thought about opening out left hand and the doing makes it feel serious ...  "What would one say to Mu at the train station?" There isn't anything to say ~*~ "2. How far can you throw an imaginary baseball?" As far as I like. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Bye bye
Apr 17, 2011 16:50:14 GMT -5
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2011 16:50:14 GMT -5
Lemme ask an open question here; In all this Michael nonsense, has anybody noticed, realized or gained more clarity about anything that came out of the utterly failed discussions with Michael? If so, then you know why these discussions happened, and why they continue to happen with others. It's not about the cigarette man, it's about the rest of the Zen students in the room. I know that's not the answer to the koan, but I don't care about the koan. I care about the people in the room. it's a good question to ponder and i agree with your answer. for me it gave me some confidence that i was accurately sorting BS from not-BS. if this had been more of a 'can't we all be friends' type of spiritual place i'd have been long gone. even in these last iterations of whack-a-mole with abideinself (honest name), it seemed clear that a lie was popping up again but it wasn't until i saw others chime in that i could rest in confidence with this discernment. |
|
