|
|
Post by Peter on May 26, 2009 4:14:12 GMT -5
I've been really enjoying the exchange between Uncreated and Harmony so I'm posting something that came up for me here in a new thread so as to avoid de-railing something important. What people need to realize that when you play the spirituality game, you're in it knowing that at some point you and all you value are going to have to go up in flames. I'm pleased that Harmony seems to be taking on board what you're saying here because it initially looked like you'd ignored her request to not "debate philosophy" and started bulldozing away the rock she's been clinging to. It's a dangerous road to walk, deciding what other people 'need'. It totally fails to respect the free will of others. Where does 'offering the truth' stop and 'forcing it' start? Would you tell a child that Santa doesn't exist? As I see it, people come to the Truth when they're ready to receive it. Looks like Harmony might be ready to untie herself from her raft. Not sure if that's skilful teaching on your part, or the Universe playing it's synchronicity game. Well, at the end of the day, we're all going to do what we're going to do. You're going to write as you feel moved to write and I'm going to write as I feel moved to write. People also ignore what they need to ingore. Shame we don't get to meet up ever, we might get to experience this group being present in silence. Whatever road you travel, make sure it's about non-dual TRUTH. Calling "non-dual" the TRUTH is, as I see it, just another belief. |
|
|
|
Post by The Uncreated on May 26, 2009 10:32:55 GMT -5
I agree, and in the context of my original statement, the 'need' will eventually be superceded by reality if they're persistent. Remember, no proseletyzing happening here; I'm not out to force a point of view on anyone aside from pitting that person against their own assumptions. St. Nicholas did exist, only the person that's become the chimney-invading, reindeer-riding myth doesn't. And that's the head clouding part of the dream that should come crashing down. So to that child I'd say "yes, he existed, but the real Santa Claus he's not what you think he is." Sounds familiar I'd say. Even if what I've said has served to uproot Harmony's assumptions even for a moment; stirred the sands if you will, then that should be enough to propel her to the next step, but it's up to her and how ready she is. Depending on how hard her grip on the "tiller" is, the next step could be an incremental jump or an exponential one. Or none at all. Well, it's a partial truth anyway, which is the same as being completely false. Let's call that ultimate principle Tinky Winky, shall we? Back to square one.  Even calling that ultimate principle TRUTH does it great violence, because it is true and it isn't true; it's neither true nor not true. All at once and none at all. Or neither. I'd also like to say that respect free will is to respect ego. Is ego worthy of that sort of reverence? Depends on who you ask. It's at least of some value because without it there'd be no reason for seeking. When one says "free will", the question that spontaneously arises is "who's free will?" And I believe that question has been answered by those who See. No 'I', no volition. No volition, no free will. No free will, no karma. No karma, no rebirth. Thanks Peter. - |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on May 27, 2009 4:16:56 GMT -5
I'm not out to force a point of view on anyone aside from pitting that person against their own assumptions. Holding up a mirror to someone can be a great spiritual service. But if they haven't asked you a question, are you then seeking to change them against their will? So to that child I'd say "yes, he existed, but the real Santa Claus he's not what you think he is." Sounds familiar I'd say. I see a difference between answering the question of "Uncle Uncreated, does Santa really exist?" with the truth, and the other situation of stopping little unsuspecting Timothy on his way up to bed on Christmas Eve and turning his world upside down. Let's call that ultimate principle Tinky Winky, shall we? Even calling that ultimate principle TRUTH does it great violence, because it is true and it isn't true; it's neither true nor not true. All at once and none at all. Or neither. Actually it was the adjective "Non-Dual" that I was flagging up, not the noun "Truth", although now that I've read your reply I can see that both are equally problematic. To use any adjective in front of the word Truth is to specify, to restrict. To say that the Truth is non-dual implies that there is no Truth to be found in dual. While non-dual might be where we ultimately arrive, the journey is 99% dual, as I see it. Going inside, knowing the self, allowing emotion to be felt, seeing things as they really ARE, letting go. These things are all dual, part of the ordinary experience of everyday life. Tinky Winky is obviously also a dual term since it implies Laa-Laa and Po. I think smiling and smacking a student with a stick may be the only sensible thing to do at this point. Also whenever I see "non-dual" I sense the spectre of Neo-Advaita which I've not been finding at all helpful of late. I looked up Steven Norquist's article on Shawn's site and was amused to see he'd also posted an anonymous article that took a different path: spiritualteachers.org/neo_advaita_article.htmI'd also like to say that respect free will is to respect ego. Is ego worthy of that sort of reverence? Reverence, certainly not. Is anything actually worthy of reverence? But respect, yes I think so. People (as we experience each other day to day) basically ARE ego. It's the ego that gets hurt. There is suffering in the world and it's mostly ego that's suffering. From a game theory point of view, it makes sense to treat others as we would wish to be treated. Would you wish to have your free will respected and come to the truth in your own time, or would you want your spiritual growth to follow the agenda of another (who you haven't chosen to follow)? |
|
|
|
Post by The Uncreated on May 27, 2009 14:43:56 GMT -5
Holding up a mirror to someone can be a great spiritual service. But if they haven't asked you a question, are you then seeking to change them against their will? I laugh at the cruelty in that, but truth is rarely kind. People execute all manner of evasive maneuvers to avoid even relative truths, nevermind absolute truth. Sooner or later Timmy's fantasy would go topsy turvy anyhow, whether by his own inquiry or those of his friends, so why delay the inevitable? I remember as a youngster, I'd never want believe the world of so-called professional wrestling was staged. But my sister relented. "Fake," she'd say, and I'd counter with "no it isn't." When it became increasingly clear to me that she might be right, my heart sank, but as my interest dropped away, so did the pain of the revelation and ultimately professional wrestling was a non-entity for me. Suppose you could say I transcended it. Broke free from that system. All words are inherently restrictive, because language is a closed system with finite rules. It's basically a system of logic, with each word representing a statement describing a relative truth, but you've answered the question as I would have -- neither dual nor non-dual, etc. The classic Madyamika answer of neti neti.That's fine, but ignoring the relativity of the word "non-dual" as it attempts to describe absolute truth, it isn't Neo-Advaita's offspring alone. It's as much Christianity's offspring as it is Buddhisms, as it is Islam's. It's the one without a second that stands atop all those disciplines, call it what you will -- The Kingdom of Heaven, God, Void, Dharmakaya, Nirvana, Kensho, etc. As I mentioned before, I have serious hangups about the notion of free will, period, though if what I say benefits anyone positively then that's great. But if as seekers we're to be guided, we should be open to a bit of encouragement from time to time. After all, in Buddhism, the sangha (spiritual community) is one of the three jewels in which the seeker can expect respectable progress -- the others being the teaching itself and the teacher. - |
|
|
|
Post by Peter on May 28, 2009 4:17:41 GMT -5
Holding up a mirror to someone can be a great spiritual service. But if they haven't asked you a question, are you then seeking to change them against their will? See now, that is just the sort of non-dual response that I've been finding so unhelpful of late. The will of the individual. Who may not ultimately exist as a separate entity, but as far as it's true to say that you're you, and you make decisions about what to do with your day (or are under the illusion that you do), you are AS real as anything you see around you. I suppose a first question to ask is: Do you think you have free will? Do you decide what to do with your day, or are those actions just performing themselves? Are You (big you) just watching you (little you) the puppet? If so, what is pulling the strings? This is my big problem with the Abrahamic religions in general is the 'Not my will, but thine' thing. Who's will exactly, and how is this will being communicated? The voices in your head? The feelings in your heart? Who knows what sort of entities could be poking around in there. Priests/Government? Don't make me laugh. Jihad/Crusade anyone? Shave this, wash that, stone him, nuke her, taxes. Control control control. I was working with the I Ching yesterday asking this question about free will and how much I should look to my intuition to provide my direction in life and got this response back which I found helpful: www.afpc.asso.fr/wengu/wg/wengu.php?l=Yijing&no=22 ..and the other situation of stopping little unsuspecting Timothy on his way up to bed on Christmas Eve and turning his world upside down. I laugh at the cruelty in that, but truth is rarely kind. Sooner or later Timmy's fantasy would go topsy turvy anyhow, whether by his own inquiry or those of his friends, so why delay the inevitable? Good question. I think where the teacher shows skill is in judging when the student has come to that tipping point of their own accord and only needs a nudge. Rather than a clubbing. It's as much Christianity's offspring as it is Buddhisms, as it is Islam's. It's the one without a second that stands atop all those disciplines, call it what you will -- The Kingdom of Heaven, God, Void, Dharmakaya, Nirvana, Kensho, etc. I think the popular interpretation of Heaven (and God) for that matter is that is very much a dual thing - Gnostic Gospels notwithstanding. Heaven and God up there, us down here. Neo-Advaita is more 'out of the box' non-dual. I can't imagine our local minister standing up and telling us that the Kingdom of Heaven is here and now if we could only recognise it, and that our minds and bodies (and those of all other beings in the universe) are God, the very substance of God. Would you wish to have your free will respected and come to the truth in your own time, or would you want your spiritual growth to follow the agenda of another (who you haven't chosen to follow)? As I mentioned before, I have serious hangups about the notion of free will, period Great, me too. What are these hang-ups, or can you point a link to where you've discussed this before if you've already answered if you still stand by that? If as seekers we're to be guided, we should be open to a bit of encouragement from time to time. After all, in Buddhism, the sangha (spiritual community) is one of the three jewels Yes, Sangha is important. I guess the area of discernment for me is the question of: Is someone a real seeker who has nailed their flag to the tree and publicly said "Please help me see the Truth. Please take away my sacred cows, please destroy my a$$umptions, please show me how ignorant and egotistical I am". Or are they someone who's passing through asking to have their attainment validated, their knowledge respected, their practice praised, their devotion admired, their beliefs confirmed, their Sundays filled with friends and congenial discussion, the cotton wool protection of their lives left cosy and undisturbed? Phew! PS LightMystic, do you have any control over the swear word monitor here? I can't even write a_s_s_umptions! |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 28, 2009 10:12:51 GMT -5
I don't have any control over the content filter, but I'm not sure why you are having a problem. While I'm aware that it bleeps the f word, I think you can say ass and assumptions just fine.... I'm not sure why you're having a problem.... PS LightMystic, do you have any control over the swear word monitor here? I can't even write a_s_s_umptions! |
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on May 28, 2009 10:15:28 GMT -5
Uncreated,
Just for fun, since it's been brought up, let's poke it. Get the truth out of it.
Why do you feel like others need to see the truth? Why try to break down the doors of their delusion? Is there something wrong with their delusion? Why are you trying to force them to wake up?
I would be quite interested to hear where this is coming from...
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 16, 2009 11:18:53 GMT -5
I'm very sorry to note that this was Uncreated's last contribution to this board; just as things were getting interesting!
He didn't come over as someone who'd be frightened off by a challenge.
Does anyone know what happened to him?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Nov 16, 2009 11:54:26 GMT -5
I wonder that too. I think back quite fondly of him. I would love to know what he's up too if anyone knows, but it's okay either way. After all, no use crying over someone who was never created in the first place.  I'm very sorry to note that this was Uncreated's last contribution to this board; just as things were getting interesting! He didn't come over as someone who'd be frightened off by a challenge. Does anyone know what happened to him? |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 17, 2009 11:39:15 GMT -5
i really cannot believe that none of you know which of your reviewed teachers uncreated is. his speech patterns and his sardonic humor when trying to get people out of their ruts is like a finger print.
|
|
|
|
Post by Peter on Nov 17, 2009 11:55:34 GMT -5
You're such a tease, Robert.
Who is it?
|
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 17, 2009 13:44:28 GMT -5
who is the one teacher that hides his identity, and speaks exactly the same. who's will is used by all of the teachers. but i laugh at the cruelty in that but the truth is rarely kind is written with the same cadence and spirit as jed mckenna. i happen to like his work but most people shy away from him.
|
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 17, 2009 13:48:21 GMT -5
also "when you play the spirituality game every one realizes that at some point every thing you value is going to go up in flames. classic jed. burn it all. blood caked swords. further.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Nov 17, 2009 15:09:31 GMT -5
I love Jed McKenna, and am a big fan, but uncreated is not Jed McKenna. I can tell from the writing style and his background. I have some information on who Jed is, and Uncreated doesn't fit. Also, I know Uncreated to be open and truthful (at least as much as anyone who is not created can be) and he has said that he isn't. And I think that is true. That said, it's certainly understandable why one would associate his teachings with Jed's. They both are very clear, and have a bit of a harder, Zen style bent. I love people like that.... I'm sure he has read Jed, but saying the same thing from his own experience doesn't make him Jed. It just means he gets it. who is the one teacher that hides his identity, and speaks exactly the same. who's will is used by all of the teachers. but i laugh at the cruelty in that but the truth is rarely kind is written with the same cadence and spirit as jed mckenna. i happen to like his work but most people shy away from him. |
|
|
|
Post by robert on Nov 17, 2009 16:09:12 GMT -5
i stand corrected and i like his style. i think we are in constant need of having our cherished beliefs brought out into the light to be seen as nothing more than our beliefs.
|
|
