|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 16, 2019 20:04:31 GMT -5
Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) How to answer koans?  You mean how NOT to answer lest you get the thwack across the chops! Sure does keep the place quiet though, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 17, 2019 0:49:37 GMT -5
Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) How to answer koans? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 17, 2019 8:34:41 GMT -5
So is little s self just God identifying with mind? I get it now. Took me long enough. So SR is basically a perspective, "behind" mind. Sort of like the dreamer, in bed, in the head of the dream's main character. And the dreamer knows that character isn't really him/her. Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) My mistake. Its an understanding of E's views. Not a breakthrough or realization. In the Zen temple this kind of discussion would have been discouraged, appropriately so. There was no teaching, just sitting. No koans either. Soto Zen. I see a lot of problems with this understanding, but I'd rather keep them to myself. I approached E to understand where he was coming from. His communication style is a bit cryptic, at times. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 17, 2019 9:16:57 GMT -5
Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) My mistake. Its an understanding of E's views. Not a breakthrough or realization. In the Zen temple this kind of discussion would have been discouraged, appropriately so. There was no teaching, just sitting. No koans either. Soto Zen. I see a lot of problems with this understanding, but I'd rather keep them to myself. I approached E to understand where he was coming from. His communication style is a bit cryptic, at times. Enigmatic. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 17, 2019 11:16:58 GMT -5
How to answer koans? THWACK!... |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 18, 2019 2:29:25 GMT -5
Well, dang, man. What the hell did they teach you at that wing ding zen-do anyway?! :-) My mistake. Its an understanding of E's views. Not a breakthrough or realization. In the Zen temple this kind of discussion would have been discouraged, appropriately so. There was no teaching, just sitting. No koans either. Soto Zen. I see a lot of problems with this understanding, but I'd rather keep them to myself. I approached E to understand where he was coming from. His communication style is a bit cryptic, at times. Zen philosophy is definitely taught, yet understood 'insightfully' via 'realisation'. Hence, philosophy and practice are unified. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2019 9:25:53 GMT -5
I feel somewhat responsible for the end of this debate. I maligned folks engaged in it because I was put off by the tone, childish of me. My apologies.
I ran into this video by Paul Hedderman where he addresses the "seemingly so" and the "real" and argues that each is approprite depending on the context. Many folks here made the same point.
I'd be curious to hear the different takes on how he uses the word "denial."
I think it relates well to this topic.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 4, 2019 10:32:06 GMT -5
I feel somewhat responsible for the end of this debate. I maligned folks engaged in it because I was put off by the tone, childish of me. My apologies. I ran into this video by Paul Hedderman where he addresses the "seemingly so" and the "real" and argues that each is approprite depending on the context. Many folks here made the same point. I'd be curious to hear the different takes on how he uses the word "denial." I think it relates well to this topic. Listened to the whole thing, very good (I could maybe disagree with something In the last minute or so, but It's not absolutely problematic). A relevant quote from Meetings with Dr. and Mrs Welch in NY 1991-1997: I remember that it has been said that "in order to get there you have to be there" and "There isn't any way from here to there, but only from there to here". pg 123 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2019 11:46:25 GMT -5
I feel somewhat responsible for the end of this debate. I maligned folks engaged in it because I was put off by the tone, childish of me. My apologies. I ran into this video by Paul Hedderman where he addresses the "seemingly so" and the "real" and argues that each is approprite depending on the context. Many folks here made the same point. I'd be curious to hear the different takes on how he uses the word "denial." I think it relates well to this topic. This is an interview with Jean Klein. His take on exhausting the mind and the residue of little self is interesting and is a topic in Hedderman's vid: Klein Interview |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 14:46:43 GMT -5
I figure I'll leave before I get banned. 
Fwiw, I enjoyed my short stint back here. Thanks to all who engaged me civilly, even though we may not have been seeing eye to eye. I'll continue to read along & respond to various posts/ideas presented here over on Spiritualgab.
Ciao.
This is what I have been saying Story rules, what else do you think Story rules means? You continued to say to me that ongoing story doesn't have any impact on you, what does that mean to you then? I've never said I'm not 'impacted' by the story. I still very much engage with it, at times, very deeply and passionately, but I do not agree that the story 'rules' as in, it has the power to totally engulf and completely capture awareness.
SR means that when experience happens, there is abiding awareness underscoring the arising/appearing story. In abiding SR, Awareness (that which I am) never completely falls into/gets lost within the story. Even in the deepest of engagement, there remains a grounded-ness in awareness/presence that remains foundational to the arising experience/story.
So long as that which I am, abides/remains foundational and does not become caught up in/lost to the arising story, the story's impact is going to be limited. Suffering due to arising conditions won't happen because suffering hings upon 'losing sight of Being/presence..which means, getting so deeply drawn into the story that the Peace of Being is obscured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 10, 2019 15:19:29 GMT -5
For many people these realizations are not simultaneous; they're sequential. Suddenly seeing the absence of the SVP leads to the subsequent realization that what one is is THIS. Also, for many people oneness suddenly becomes the case, and it is not a realization in the way that you prefer to define it. One moment one lives in a dualistic reality, and in the next moment that dualistic reality disintegrates and is replaced by an alive oneness witnessed by an unknown witnesser. What do we call that? Perhaps we should call it "a non-dual event." Some people call it "a shift." Many of us talk about CC's as experiences because the condition of oneness continues, but the actual event of shifting from one world to the other is sudden. It happens in a split second. Neither the word "experience" nor "realization" seems adequate as a definition. Yeah, that's a great description, though it clearly raises the question of what lives in a 'dualistic reality'. The dualistic reality is never actually so, and yet there is almost a concrete experience of it.No-thing at all. There is but the 'appearance' of life.
And yes, no doubt about it. The experience of it all (things that are alive, etc.) very, very, compelling indeed.
That appearance of 'things that are living, breathing, feeling, thinking, sensing, etc.' is so deeply compelling in fact, that the seeing that it is all but a play of appearances upon the screen of Consciousness, requires a momentous happening referred to as 'awakening.'
Being asleep means being fully bamboozled by that 'concrete experience.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 3:45:04 GMT -5
Yeah, that's a great description, though it clearly raises the question of what lives in a 'dualistic reality'. The dualistic reality is never actually so, and yet there is almost a concrete experience of it.No-thing at all. That's a better post. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 11, 2019 12:42:56 GMT -5
If so, then it surely follows that this is a better post:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:21:33 GMT -5
This is what I have been saying Story rules, what else do you think Story rules means? You continued to say to me that ongoing story doesn't have any impact on you, what does that mean to you then? I've never said I'm not 'impacted' by the story. I still very much engage with it, at times, very deeply and passionately, but I do not agree that the story 'rules' as in, it has the power to totally engulf and completely capture awareness.
SR means that when experience happens, there is abiding awareness underscoring the arising/appearing story. In abiding SR, Awareness (that which I am) never completely falls into/gets lost within the story. Even in the deepest of engagement, there remains a grounded-ness in awareness/presence that remains foundational to the arising experience/story.
So long as that which I am, abides/remains foundational and does not become caught up in/lost to the arising story, the story's impact is going to be limited. Suffering due to arising conditions won't happen because suffering hings upon 'losing sight of Being/presence..which means, getting so deeply drawn into the story that the Peace of Being is obscured.
Oh my God ! You replied to this post! Story decides how much deep you are engulfed by the story. You are already in! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:25:08 GMT -5
I've never said I'm not 'impacted' by the story. I still very much engage with it, at times, very deeply and passionately, but I do not agree that the story 'rules' as in, it has the power to totally engulf and completely capture awareness.
SR means that when experience happens, there is abiding awareness underscoring the arising/appearing story. In abiding SR, Awareness (that which I am) never completely falls into/gets lost within the story. Even in the deepest of engagement, there remains a grounded-ness in awareness/presence that remains foundational to the arising experience/story.
So long as that which I am, abides/remains foundational and does not become caught up in/lost to the arising story, the story's impact is going to be limited. Suffering due to arising conditions won't happen because suffering hings upon 'losing sight of Being/presence..which means, getting so deeply drawn into the story that the Peace of Being is obscured.
Oh my God ! You replied to this post! Story decides how much deep you are engulfed by the story. You are already in! I'm in to some degree...sure, but I still see it's just a story. I'm by no means 'engulfed.' So long as there is seeing it's a story, you can't be 'engulfed.' That really is the point.
|
|
