|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2012 10:57:36 GMT -5
Don't try to go away from the question arisen. We were talking about selfishness deep down in every person, and not about this universal stuff, which is the subject of a different discussion. Stillness is right. Self fulfillment is the nature of all things. All of creation is serving itself, and when there is innocence, it also serves everything else, just as the tree provides fruit that contains it's own seed, and inhales as the creatures exhale, and breathes out as they breathe in. It is inherent in the singular movement of creation unfolding as one. Even the master serves only himself, though all is seen to be himself. Between the innocence of the fruit tree, and the wisdom of the master, lies the ignorance of mankind. Beautifully said. |
|
|
|
Post by question on Apr 17, 2012 11:02:33 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2012 11:04:12 GMT -5
Well I've been back through to read the posts. This one made me cry Enigma a real belly cry and in waltz my husband so I then had to explain which is hard, we have a fab relationship but I'm in this spiritual game alone with just you guys and a load of You Tube for company. Not that I'm complaining, but I've decided that you got me into this mess can get me out (smiley face insert). I can totally relate to this -- it's nice when that happens. Thanks. I figure these enlightend folks here need us strugglers around, or, like ZD said recently, it would be really really boring. At least what I write offers a different flavor of boring, maybe. Ha ha. No, I never said things would be boring if there were no seekers. I said that certain topics would simply not arise in conversation. Our interactions on this forum are fascinating, but so is life beyond this sphere of interest. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 17, 2012 11:07:03 GMT -5
You only have become even more illusioned with Oneness. So, you think you are free, and this is the highest criterium. Did you help anybody by being, ( illusionally ), free? Even priorities are wrong with those who accept this teaching. You are not free, and never will. First of all because you are again only about you and yourself. When you forget about yourself and turn your attention to others, then you'll be free. I know there are some language difficulties here, but the way this post is written is highly misleading. When you realize that selfhood is an illusion, you don't become free because you turn attention to others; you are already free. There is no longer "otherness," so there are no specific implications. You may work in a soup kitchen and give away everything you own, or you may become a captain of industry. Freedom manifests differently through every person who realizes freedom. Last week I was invited to join an interfaith panel discussion at a local university--some sort of program sponsored by the White House to encourage interfaith dialogue and understanding. We had a Baptist minister, a Muslim professor, a Jewish Rabbi, a Presbyterian minister, and moi. The subject of the day was how each religion viewed service. Most of the speakers emphasized that service was a tenet and an obligation that his religion demanded. I introduced myself more humorously than the others and said something like, "I'm here as a sort of representative of all the non-duality spiritual traditions, such as Zen, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Kabirpanthism, Mystical Christianity, Mystical Islam, etc." I explained that social service is not viewed in the same way from the non-dual perspective as it is in traditional religions. I said that the emphasis in non-dual traditions is self-realization, and it is understood that when self-realization occurs, one spontaneously and automatically then sees other people as part of a unified whole. We therefore effortlessly become service-oriented for two reasons. First, we know that our neighbor is ourself, literally, and second, we live in service to the vastness of what we are. However, I pointed out that this kind of selfless service does not look a particular way because how it will manifest cannot be imagined. However service manifests, there is no one who can take credit for it because it is fundamentally empty of self. I quoted both Bunan ("Die and be completely dead, and then do what you will. It will all be good) and Christ ("Like the Centurion, I am under orders"). My point was that there is no separate person who needs to meet the expectations of either society or religion regarding ideas of service. Each human being who sees through the illusion of selfhood will function effortlessly in service to both God and man, but that service may or may not look like service from a traditional perspective. This is because there is no one doing anything who can take credit or blame for anything. The idea that we can only be free if we act in a certain prescribed way is nonsense. Freedom means freedom. Finally, the person who has become free of selfhood finds social approval for selfless acts somewhat distasteful and usually stays out of the limelight on purpose. If money is given to help people, it is usually given anonymously or accompanied by a story that diminishes the importance of the giver, and if thanks are rendered, they are re-directed to Source, "which is the giver of all good things." The issue of social service is far deeper than what was implied in Arisha's post as it was written, but that may be because there is a language and communication issue. Hopefully she sees more deeply into this than her words implied. Good stuff. I'm curious how the other members of the panel responded to your sacrilege. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 17, 2012 11:16:57 GMT -5
Last week I was invited to join an interfaith panel discussion at a local university--some sort of program sponsored by the White House to encourage interfaith dialogue and understanding. We had a Baptist minister, a Muslim professor, a Jewish Rabbi, a Presbyterian minister, and moi. The subject of the day was how each religion viewed service. Most of the speakers emphasized that service was a tenet and an obligation that his religion demanded. I introduced myself more humorously than the others and said something like, "I'm here as a sort of representative of all the non-duality spiritual traditions, such as Zen, Advaita Vedanta, Taoism, Kabirpanthism, Mystical Christianity, Mystical Islam, etc." I explained that social service is not viewed in the same way from the non-dual perspective as it is in traditional religions. I said that the emphasis in non-dual traditions is self-realization, and it is understood that when self-realization occurs, one spontaneously and automatically then sees other people as part of a unified whole. We therefore effortlessly become service-oriented for two reasons. First, we know that our neighbor is ourself, literally, and second, we live in service to the vastness of what we are. However, I pointed out that this kind of selfless service does not look a particular way because how it will manifest cannot be imagined. However service manifests, there is no one who can take credit for it because it is fundamentally empty of self. I quoted both Bunan ("Die and be completely dead, and then do what you will. It will all be good) and Christ ("Like the Centurion, I am under orders"). My point was that there is no separate person who needs to meet the expectations of either society or religion regarding ideas of service. Each human being who sees through the illusion of selfhood will function effortlessly in service to both God and man, but that service may or may not look like service from a traditional perspective. This is because there is no one doing anything who can take credit or blame for anything. The idea that we can only be free if we act in a certain prescribed way is nonsense. Freedom means freedom. Groovy! What did the others from the panel say about your humorous and probably unusual introduction / point of view? I think the audience enjoyed it more than my fellow panel members. LOL. The Muslim professor seemed impressed that I had such a wide knowledge of world religions, but the others pointedly ignored me. Each had his own axe to grind, and were not interested in searching for common ground. I explained that each religion includes a wide spectrum of followers from fundamentalists on one end of the spectrum (with very rigid beliefs) to mystics on the other end (who seek union with God). I suggested that the non-duality spiritual traditions were way out beyond the mystics on that end of the spectrum. I told the audience that most religions have certain core beliefs, but that non-duality traditions point beyond beliefs and ideas and focus on direct experience, realization that all separation is illusory, and self-transcendence. Those statements probably didn't go over too well with the axe-grinders. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 17, 2012 11:18:41 GMT -5
Now I see conflict in advice, from ZD saying I have to be warrior-like, maybe for years and be in the moment (like Tolle) or Enigma and others saying I only think I want it but equally it is possible right here right now, but I have to be sure although I don't have a choice, Andrew saying I need to set myself a goal etc etc and I know it's like anything, one size does not fit all...but right here right now I am sincere in this...whatever the hell you want to call it. Throw all of our advice out. You might be surprised to find out that you haven't spent even a moment taking your own. The intelligence that's already present within you. It HAS to come from YOU. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 17, 2012 11:23:56 GMT -5
I figure these enlightend folks here need us strugglers around, or, like ZD said recently, it would be really really boring. At least what I write offers a different flavor of boring, maybe. That whole dynamic is utter nonsense. Don't waste a moment with the enlightened folk vs. strugglers or seekers bit. We're just a group of people having discussions about life. I can't speak for anyone else but I seriously don't know anything you don't. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 17, 2012 11:34:42 GMT -5
Ummmm, I would disagree with your last paragraph, Stillness. What I'm pointing to does not come down to selfishness in the end. When selfhood is not a motivational factor, good deeds happen in emptiness, for no reason at all, and there is no one who "feels good" about what is done. There is simply no self-center from which actions emanate. The whole thing has a more matter-of-fact flavor. If a sage gives money or assistance to someone, s/he does not think about it or reflect upon it, and afterwards there is no "warm glow" of satisfaction. Afterwards, the act has totally disappeared because the sage lives only in the present moment. There is no savoring the moment even in the moment. It is too empty for that. The only happiness that occurs is the kind of happiness a messenger feels who has delivered a gift from someone else. There is a kind of joy knowing that the receiver of the gift has been helped by Source, but the messenger or deliverer of the gift only sees himself/herself as a messenger/deliverer and nothing more. Yeah, I know what your saying. I know that what you are pointing to doesn't come down to selfishness in the end. But I would say that the motivation for all action does come down to the apparent selfishness of a self that doesn't actualy exist. Those who have realized this almost always experience a change in their personality, but the personality can't just die all together while the body/mind organism is still apparently alive, because a personality is required for any apparent interaction with the world to take place. Again, as I said, this is not actually a bad thing. In fact, it is here where we find that volition does not exist at all. We realize that we were never someone who directed actions, and we still aren't. I'd say the organism itself is as selfish as it gets. It wants to survive and it wants to reproduce. The difficulty is that mans ability to contemplate has resulted in thought structures of morality and a sense of superiority. This selfishness has been condemned and thus a constant struggle has emerged. The struggle of the organism that simply doesn't care about any of your non-dual ideas, morality, or any thought structure. The absence of these thought structures (particularly the foundation of self) frees the organism up to act naturally. The organism doesn't care about feeling happy from helping someone. It cooperates with others to the extent that this helps it survive. It also doesn't care about good and bad and so you may witness someone who is "free" acting quite unusually. Despite the apparent selfishness of the organism, while free of oppressive thought, the organism functions much more harmoniously with its surroundings just as any other being does. The lion may not give a damn about the hyenas needs but it also doesn't consume more than it needs or destructively wipe out entire species because it has projected into the future and is fearful. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 12:47:27 GMT -5
I can totally relate to this -- it's nice when that happens. Thanks. I figure these enlightend folks here need us strugglers around, or, like ZD said recently, it would be really really boring. At least what I write offers a different flavor of boring, maybe. Ha ha. No, I never said things would be boring if there were no seekers. I said that certain topics would simply not arise in conversation. Our interactions on this forum are fascinating, but so is life beyond this sphere of interest. I sit, typing: corrected. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 17, 2012 12:49:12 GMT -5
I figure these enlightend folks here need us strugglers around, or, like ZD said recently, it would be really really boring. At least what I write offers a different flavor of boring, maybe. That whole dynamic is utter nonsense. Don't waste a moment with the enlightened folk vs. strugglers or seekers bit. We're just a group of people having discussions about life. I can't speak for anyone else but I seriously don't know anything you don't. As the convo goes, you probably know less than me, which is the problem (for me). |
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 17, 2012 13:15:32 GMT -5
That whole dynamic is utter nonsense. Don't waste a moment with the enlightened folk vs. strugglers or seekers bit. We're just a group of people having discussions about life. I can't speak for anyone else but I seriously don't know anything you don't. As the convo goes, you probably know less than me, which is the problem (for me). If you believe that you are a body, and that you will eventually get sick and die, than you are a seeker of knowledge. If you believe that you are spirit and that there is no such thing as death, than you are a seeker of life. And if you don't believe either of those, than you are empty and seek nothing... ;D |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Apr 17, 2012 13:20:17 GMT -5
Yes, the search for happiness is the cause of misery. Where did the idea come from that something is wrong? That idea, focused on intensely, begins to seem very, very real, and then it's all about solutions. Mind in delusion and fear has made this world in it's image, and it will refer to that world as proof that there is a problem. It's a self fulfilled prophecy, but it begins with you refusing to play the game. Questions need answers and problems need solutions, and the imaginary self cannot exist without them, so they become very important. In a way, we can't live without them, and we don't want to die, so we feel caught between a rock and hard place. This is why we have to get all nondual and throw away the separate identity. It cannot be reconciled. The separate person must have a world of struggle and suffering in order to sustain the sense of self. You are a mental structure composed of need. Without a sense that something is lacking, that something has to be done, you vanish as the person you imagine yourself to be. Stop imagining that anything at all is missing, and very quickly mind will begin weaving a story of lack. It must, it is the life's blood of the separate person. It's a serious existential crisis, and it is pure imagination. You want to play and you want to stop playing. Choose one, not both. Choosing both is what keeps you stuck, but it also keeps 'you' alive, and that's why you do it. Now I see conflict in advice, from ZD saying I have to be warrior-like, maybe for years and be in the moment (like Tolle) or Enigma and others saying I only think I want it but equally it is possible right here right now, but I have to be sure although I don't have a choice, Andrew saying I need to set myself a goal etc etc and I know it's like anything, one size does not fit all...but right here right now I am sincere in this...whatever the hell you want to call it. Hey Esponja, not that it really matters but just wanted to clarify that in this instance I wasnt particularly suggesting to set a goal as such, I was suggesting more just to take a close look within at what you want. |
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Apr 17, 2012 13:28:54 GMT -5
On the selfishness bit from zen stillness and silence:
As a mind, what I notice about myself is that I think when i want to. I think the same can be said for pretty much everyone, except for those who delude themselves into thinking that they dont want to be thinking when they clearly are thinking otherwise. I suppose it can be a hard pill to swallow to think that at times, we actually want to suffer, and the core of the desire for that experience, the experience of suffering, of being separate, deluded, mind identified, is simply a desire to not want to feel a certain way. These thoughts and feelings are happening, I am creating them to experience, and I delusionally believe that I shouldnt be creating them, or better yet, that im not creating them and some other mind is, and of course finally, that i can control a spontaneous aspect of the creative principle while identified as that very same aspect. God's taking a piss off the balcony and the piss is telling the wind which way it wants it to blow.
That's where the suffering comes in and the disharmony arises in the human experience, the idea that we can control ourselves, our experiences, our own creation. If a saber tooth tiger walked into the room right now, id be hard pressed to say that i wouldnt drop a terd in my pants. I had a big dinner and one is on deck. But my point is, the desire for life is as natural as it gets, and in the end, I suppose so is the willingness to die, to go away, to be erased from existence. I guess, in a way, every thought anyone has ever had is entirely selfish, entirely driven by the dynamics of being a personally conditioned mind geared to think and act precisely how you want to think and act, and that's all good unless you yourself say otherwise. Now if you'll excuse me hehe...
|
|
|
|
Post by therealfake on Apr 17, 2012 14:04:58 GMT -5
On the selfishness bit from zen stillness and silence: As a mind, what I notice about myself is that I think when i want to. I think the same can be said for pretty much everyone, except for those who delude themselves into thinking that they dont want to be thinking when they clearly are thinking otherwise. I suppose it can be a hard pill to swallow to think that at times, we actually want to suffer, and the core of the desire for that experience, the experience of suffering, of being separate, deluded, mind identified, is simply a desire to not want to feel a certain way. These thoughts and feelings are happening, I am creating them to experience, and I delusionally believe that I shouldnt be creating them, or better yet, that im not creating them and some other mind is, and of course finally, that i can control a spontaneous aspect of the creative principle while identified as that very same aspect. God's taking a piss off the balcony and the piss is telling the wind which way it wants it to blow. That's where the suffering comes in and the disharmony arises in the human experience, the idea that we can control ourselves, our experiences, our own creation. If a saber tooth tiger walked into the room right now, id be hard pressed to say that i wouldnt drop a terd in my pants. I had a big dinner and one is on deck. But my point is, the desire for life is as natural as it gets, and in the end, I suppose so is the willingness to die, to go away, to be erased from existence. I guess, in a way, every thought anyone has ever had is entirely selfish, entirely driven by the dynamics of being a personally conditioned mind geared to think and act precisely how you want to think and act, and that's all good unless you yourself say otherwise. Now if you'll excuse me hehe... Yes, there is a belief that states that there is no world out there. And that the objective world is really all in our head or rather our minds. Of course that too, is just another thought of the mind. |
|
|
|
Post by relinquish on Apr 17, 2012 14:09:25 GMT -5
But the fact remains that the absolute truth of a person of higher morality and a person of zero morality is exactly the same. We're all made of the same stuff. All the elements our bodies are comprised of were formed in cores of stars, billions of years ago. So absolute truth/oneness is about common elements? Hehe. No. I was just trying an 'eased up' way of pointing for Arisha. I'm leading somewhere with this. Don't worry, E!! |
|
