|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 0:39:02 GMT -5
This is a good reminder. I think this is one of the BIGGIE'S. There are times when I remember to simply allow, but it's so frickin' easy to forget. Mind doesn't want to allow, and then it thinks it wants to allow, and thinks it needs to remember to do what it doesn't want to do, and thinks it keeps forgetting. It's useful to collapse all of that into a little greasy spot. That alone will be the release of a burden. |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 1:23:41 GMT -5
There is absolutely no doubt in my 'mind' that the imagined conceptual Tath, is experiencing the reading of these words. And that's true because 'Nothing' can't read...lol Peace Then you have at least one huge thing yet to discover. There is no Tath or TRF, and what E. and I are pointing to is what is actually reading these words. The living truth has nothing to do with any kind of conceptualization. I have no doubt that there is no doubt in your mind, but this has nothing to do with mind. Extremism at its finest lol.....THERE IS NO SELF!!!....THERE IS NO SELF!!! As an aside...the same Steven that is reading these words is the same E and "I" that is pointing...and that's the same thing as what you and E are pointing AT....there does however appear to be seperate waves and those waves are just as real or unreal as the ocean..... A monk asked Ummon: `What is Buddha?' Ummon answered him: `Dried dung.' Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 1:25:30 GMT -5
Yes but yes but no but yes… How much help can the guide offer when talking to the dreamer within the dream? Some advisers make sense within my dream but it feels like the quick sands are swallowing me more, advise well intended or not. Guidance from the sage is often beyond grasp and disturbing because it is not concerned with the seeker’s dream, it talks past reasonable dialectics to the source. On the receiving end of this I can tell (sometimes  )that there is such communication as direct pointing. Thank goodness! Yes, I resonate with that . It really makes little sense to talk to the imaginary person who can't do anything anyway, which only encourages the delusion. 'Something' is listening and noticing, so it makes sense to address what is actually here and point to what's actually going on and away from the delusion. That highlighted bit might be the most absurdly obtuse thing I've ever read...and what's worse, is that you've got poor ivory beliving it and as a result he actually believes that he cannot surrender to his isness...some of you guys are FAR to heavily influenced by budhist Zen teachings that were meant for a specific audience in a specific time in history...namely Asian budhist monks who for centuries became obsessed with memorizing sutras and commentaries on sutras and engaging in overly ritualistic practices...the enlightened beings talking to that audience HAD to speak out against practice Becuase in their audience there was over practice and over intelectuallization in the extreme....to follow those ideas in this time and place only promotes what jed called happyism at best...continued delusional suffering at worst....as to the tony parsons pedigry of enlightened people from his methods...his method is 1 of the 112. if ya want to have that kind of absurd pizzing contest I'll stack the 112 methods of the 5000 year old Vigyan Bhairav Tantra up against any methods for success rates...Becuase within those 112 techniques every method ever used for any being to become enlightened is in there...every great teacher or enlightened being in history realized their true nature in one of those techniques....budha, ramana, Tolle, Niz, jesus...every single one...within those 112 methods that are the oldest surving spiritual text in the world and the subtle variations of the application of each, there is every technique ever used by an enlightened being ....every major world religion was founded on one of those 112...even Zen is founded in 1 of those techniques...the amount of people that will become enlightened by the method that Parson uses in his entire lifetime is like one spec of water in one cloud compared to the entire endless sky of people that have been enlightened by those techniques and the other 111 in the Vigyan Bhairav Tantra lol... So to all you seekers lurking out there, please know that this spoon fed Zen monk idea that you cannot do anything to enter the full realization of yourself is not true unless you have become obsessed by overly ritualistic practices and memorization and intellectualization, but unless you live in a monastary this is likely not true...and please know that this idea that practice was an obstacle was a teaching that was useful for a specific audience in a specific time, namely proffessional budhist clergy who were mired in ritualistic practices and extreme over intellectualization...trying to apply that type of teaching to modern American culture just does not fit...in most cases the best you can hope for is a satisfied but delusional self nature, or what jed mckena called Happyism, and I call lazyism...at worst you will continue to be in delusion and suffering while thinking there is no doer so you can't do anything about your suffering until the universe grants you a pardon. On a final note....ATA is in the 112 techniques...Becuase it is a workable technique for enlightenment if done correctly....while noticing is not in there...this is Becuase noticing is little more than self administered psychotherapy...its good for improving your mental state...but not for realizing true nature...not unless it becomes a focused noticing of the I amness/awareness that is the source of you individual self...if this source is observed enough the mechinations of the I amness can be puased long enough for you to enter true nature. This will be all for me now in these types of conversations....I will post 1 technique a day with commentary on the application of the technique for the next 112 days....if you have any questions regarding the technique, or any other questions, please feel free to email or PM me.... Love You are the hands of god, of isness, of silence.....you have it within your power to both create as the hands of God, and to become fully aware of your existing unity with your full nature, you have this within YOUR POWER....you may have forgoten this in the habitual focusing on other things in this lifetime, but I promise you its true....I have been blessed with the oppertunity to learn and use each of the methods that have ever been used by a person to uncover their true nature...they are not hidden or secret techniques, they have survived in written form for Longer than any other writing in history...you can find them and use them, there is one or more techniques within the 112 that will work for any human being in any activity in any culture in any level of self awareness to move beyond mind, and beyond I amness into your true nature....if you have any questions regarding these techniques I would be very blessed to answer as my capabilities allow. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 23, 2011 1:40:02 GMT -5
Yes, I resonate with that . It really makes little sense to talk to the imaginary person who can't do anything anyway, which only encourages the delusion. 'Something' is listening and noticing, so it makes sense to address what is actually here and point to what's actually going on and away from the delusion. That highlighted bit might be the most absurdly obtuse thing I've ever read...and what's worse, is that you've got poor ivory beliving it and as a result he actually believes that he cannot surrender to his isness...some of you guys are FAR to heavily influenced by budhist Zen teachings I dunno nuthin bout Zen Buddhism, so the potential for extreme influence here is minimal. My view of Buddhism in general is that it's loaded to the gills with practices. Nonvolition isn't actually a lie told by some Buddhist teachers to keep students from thinking so much. It's actually the case. This doesn't mean that doing, surrendering, thought control or self realization can't happen, it just means the person can't cause it to happen. This distinction becomes important when we consider what to do, which is not to say there is a doer, just that considering is happening, and it's helpful to notice what's actually going on. Mind is functioning spontaneously. That is, thought and feeling begin on unconscious levels and some of it arrives at the conscious level and is then observed. The observer is just observing it and not doing anything with it. When the observer engages mind again in order to respond to the thought, the response will be determined by the same conditioning that formed the first thought, but even if we were to assume the thought CAN be responded to without conditioning, what can one do with that thought but to accept it or go to war with it? I suggest that going to war with it is not a good option, since this is mind going to war with mind. Mind thinks and also tries to control thought. Mind struggles and also tries to surrender. Mind resists Truth and also seeks it. Mind believes and also tries to not believe, etc. A tremendous amount of energy is expended on this silliness, and the effect of it is to keep the seeking going. There was a time when I suspected that the number of individuations through whom awakening had occurred could be counted on the fingers and toes. Though that view has changed considerably, I never before heard it suggested that there might be an "endless sky" of enlightened peeps. Perhaps an endless sky of peeps who think they are enlightened, yes. The issue as to whether any practice had anything at all to do with any of those awakenings is open for debate. That fact that a devoted seeker did a practice, which only seems like a logical thing to do from the seeker's perspective, doesn't imply the practice caused the realization. This is confusing correlation with causation. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 2:00:23 GMT -5
As I said earlier, I recommend a wide variety of teachers and practices, but I cant imagine often recommending Tony Parsons or neo-advaita of any kind. The people I have met in the last couple of years on forums who continually quote Tony Parsons et al are not enlightened in my opinion. They are stuck in a mind enlightenment, and are very disconnected from their body and from feeling. Not only that, they all secretly think they are enlightened (despite their continual assertion that there is no-one to be enlightened) and its very difficult to show them that they are not because of the particular nature of their understandings. There is an element of the robot about them (not dissimilar to the RT crew) though the neo-advaita mantra is more like 'there is nothing to be done, its all just happening'. When their mind-enlightenment is questioned the reply is invariably ''well, who is the one.....?''. I dont see neo-advaita as threatening to the existent or non-existent ego, I see it as a comfort. The ego gets to hide in a rhetoric that is very difficult to unweave and undo because the whole principle of neo-advaita is that there is nothing to unweave and undo.
I agree with whoever said that nothing cannot talk to nothing. Individuation talks to individuation, mind talks to mind....but the devoid cannot talk to the devoid, and I wouldnt even say that awareness talks to awareness. Communication happens at a level at which there is difference and multiplicity.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 2:04:12 GMT -5
The advice I give can vary wildly too. Meditations of different kinds, Ho'oponopono, EFT, yoga, Sedona Method, Byron Katie's work, self-enquiry, energy work, healing work, NLP, a practice of forgiveness, a practice of gratitude and appreciation, hynotherapy, neurofeedback, shadow self work....to name but a few. Are these really just a few?  Yes. There really arent many tools and practices that I think are without relevance and value depending on the situation and person. |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Sept 23, 2011 2:23:18 GMT -5
When their mind-enlightenment is questioned the reply is invariably ''well, who is the one.....?''. I dont see neo-advaita as threatening to the existent or non-existent ego, I see it as a comfort. The ego gets to hide in a rhetoric that is very difficult to unweave and undo because the whole principle of neo-advaita is that there is nothing to unweave and undo. Spot on, Andrew. +1 |
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Sept 23, 2011 2:30:41 GMT -5
When their mind-enlightenment is questioned the reply is invariably ''well, who is the one.....?''. I dont see neo-advaita as threatening to the existent or non-existent ego, I see it as a comfort. The ego gets to hide in a rhetoric that is very difficult to unweave and undo because the whole principle of neo-advaita is that there is nothing to unweave and undo. Spot on, Andrew. +1 And this no volition thing Lmao....what a wonderful way to blame the universe for your suffering instead of taking personal responsibilty for it while at the same time getting to feel all special when the universe chooses you for enlightenment lol. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 3:06:30 GMT -5
And this no volition thing Lmao....what a wonderful way to blame the universe for your suffering instead of taking personal responsibilty for it while at the same time getting to feel all special when the universe chooses you for enlightenment lol. Yes. I get what is meant by the no volition thing, but I see it as just one side of the equation. The other side of the equation, and equally relevant is 'personal responsibility' (as you say). Its the same as the whole 'there is choice/ there is no-choice' thing. I see both sides of the balance as equally true. 'No choice' was probably more relevant to my path a year ago, 'choice' (and personal responsibility) tends to me more relevant for me today. That doesnt mean that I consider it to be more true necessarily, its more just that my focus has changed. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 3:08:45 GMT -5
When their mind-enlightenment is questioned the reply is invariably ''well, who is the one.....?''. I dont see neo-advaita as threatening to the existent or non-existent ego, I see it as a comfort. The ego gets to hide in a rhetoric that is very difficult to unweave and undo because the whole principle of neo-advaita is that there is nothing to unweave and undo. Spot on, Andrew. +1 Why thank you  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Sept 23, 2011 7:28:55 GMT -5
Then you have at least one huge thing yet to discover. There is no Tath or TRF, and what E. and I are pointing to is what is actually reading these words. The living truth has nothing to do with any kind of conceptualization. I have no doubt that there is no doubt in your mind, but this has nothing to do with mind. Extremism at its finest lol.....THERE IS NO SELF!!!....THERE IS NO SELF!!! As an aside...the same Steven that is reading these words is the same E and "I" that is pointing...and that's the same thing as what you and E are pointing AT....there does however appear to be seperate waves and those waves are just as real or unreal as the ocean..... A monk asked Ummon: `What is Buddha?' Ummon answered him: `Dried dung.' Daibai asked Baso: `What is Buddha?' Baso said: `This mind is Buddha.' Let's state this more accurately. What Steven is is what E and Bob are and what everyone else also is. Who we ARE is not imaginable, but it is infinite and unified. It pumps blood, regulates hormone levels, thinks, reads, imagines, and moves the planets in their orbits. There is only one thing here, and it is not a thing. It is always interacting with itself because there is no other. I am writing these words as Self, and Self is reading these words. When E. asked if you are Tath, all you needed to do was reply, "No, I am the same one who asked the question. There are not two here." There is no need to retreat to some imaginary middle; just relax and be what you are. You already understand this at some level or you couldn't have responded to 1HC in the way that you did. When you look in the mirror in the morning, you see what I AM and when I look in the mirror I see what YOU ARE. It's the same one. There is no Steven or Bob or E. or TRF; there is only THIS. The RT people realize that there is no self, but they don't take the next step. They know what they are NOT, but they don't know in any embodied sense what they ARE. As many people have pointed out, there are two ways to interact with people. One way is to meet the dreamer in the dream and explain what's going on or provide practices, etc. The other way is to deny that the dreamer exists and thereby short-circuit the mind at the very start (the Tony Parsons approach). Both ways of interacting with peeps are obviously valid because both have resulted in people waking up, but, as E. accurately points out, there is only a correlation rather than causation. Waking up is a mystery. If practices always led to awakening, then there would be millions of awakened people, but practices obviously don't always lead to awakening. In most cases they don't. I've met dozens of Zen students who have practiced like crazy for many years but still haven't escaped the sense of personal selfhood. Losing the feeling of a "me in here" looking at "a world out there" happens, but it doesn't happen because of anything involving personal volition. Every teacher of non-duality has the goal of stopping the mind of the student because the mind is what keeps peeps in bondage and makes them think that they are separate entities. Most teachers meet the dreamer in the dream and proceed from there. I suspect, without knowing for sure, that the Tony Parsons approach (refusing to meet the dreamer in the dream) may be more efficacious. When a person goes to a Zen Master or a Hindu meditation master, the usual advice is to sit down and pursue a practice that will still the mind so that the person can get some mental space for seeing through mind-generated illusions. Tony Parsons, by contrast, goes for the jugular right at the start. He refuses to acknowledge the dreamer and slams the door on the mind. This can lead to enormous frustration in the seeker, but it often blasts peeps right out of their mind, literally. I have no idea which approach wakes up the largest percentage of people exposed to it, but I suspect that the Parsons approach is at least as effective as the traditional "sit down and focus on one of these 112 practices" approach, and it may be more effective. The jury is still out, but maybe it will become clearer in the future. This forum is a place to play as well as learn. In a PM you sent me you said that "I have nothing to teach you and you have nothing to teach me." I disagree with both halves of that statement, but the statement itself suggests that it would be pointless to have a dialogue. Why have a dialogue if one person's mind is closed? However, just as I learn new things all the time, I suspect that you do too. For example, I obviously know lots more about koans than you do. This isn't good or bad; it's simply due to the fact that I was once involved in a Zen lineage that stresses koan study. I'm sure that I could teach you all kinds of stuff about koans if you were interested. If nothing else, it would help you understand many of the Buddhist stories and quotes you post in an entirely new way and give you some insight into the nature of formal dharma combat. AAR, have a good day, and don't hold on too tightly to those 112 techniques. There might be another one out there somewhere that that 5000 year old book overlooked. LOL. As Gangaji once told a student who was very attached to some Advaita or Zen teaching book, "The only good use for that book is to conk you on the head with." |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 7:40:15 GMT -5
Yes. There really arent many tools and practices that I think are without relevance and value depending on the situation and person. Then, as we previously discussed, we need an infinity of practices. Nevertheless, I'm not surprised that 'vastness' is playing with such a number. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 23, 2011 7:44:09 GMT -5
Yes, Andrew is the comforter of dying egos. And he is doing a good job at it, so we have to appreciate him. And Tat is the master of dying egos: rounding them up and putting them to work. And he can do a good job too. However, the universe doesn't care much for these things; it's too busy rotating. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 8:15:35 GMT -5
Yes. There really arent many tools and practices that I think are without relevance and value depending on the situation and person. Then, as we previously discussed, we need an infinity of practices. . I tend to make some generalizations. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 23, 2011 8:42:35 GMT -5
Yes, Andrew is the comforter of dying egos. And he is doing a good job at it, so we have to appreciate him. And Tat is the master of dying egos: rounding them up and putting them to work. And he can do a good job too. However, the universe doesn't care much for these things; it's too busy rotating. ;D A comforter of dying egos....thats kinda funny. Im not sure that those Im closest to would often put me down as a 'comforter'. |
|
)that there is such communication as direct pointing. Thank goodness!
