|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 10:30:22 GMT -5
First question, I mean in an ultimate sense, not a superficial sense. Understanding makes me wish to understand more. It's better than any drug, anything, anything. Ultimately, what you do matters to everyone on the planet. Your freedom would open the door wider to freedom for all. That's the evolution of consciousness and why we honor the sages and not the seeker. Understanding is the drug that makes you happy. Lets not hear any more about how you're not interested in happiness. Second sentence is just not true. Every person has to face themselves. Others can aid you in this, others are necessary, but nobody can take one step for you, that has to be taken alone. Happiness is always inevitably, temporary.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Oct 1, 2017 10:31:21 GMT -5
There are at least two kinds of koans that are never answered in public--any of the 2000 formal Zen koans and any koans that people obviously need to resolve for themselves. The usual approach when introducing people to koans is to ask some illustrative (informal) koans just to show them that koans have simple answers that can be answered without reflective thought. They're then given some koans that are fairly easy to resolve, and are asked to contemplate them as a form of "homework." At first, people try to resolve them using thought and logic, but they soon realize that thought is useless and that direct seeing (insight) is necessary. Seeing through a koan involves a kind of "aha!" moment and is usually accompanied by a smile or a laugh. Introductory koans usually involve questions, such as, "What is this?" (asked while holding up some object or pointing to some object). This kind of question might be followed by, "What is the difference between this (perhaps a book) and this sound (drops book on the floor)? As the student becomes familiar finding answers that are not dependent upon thought, s/he will be given somewhat harder koans, such as, "Why can't a strong man lift his own leg?" or "Why do you have two eyes?" or "What is the sound of one hand clapping?" Students learn that by contemplating a question in silence, non-conceptual answers can be accessed. In one Zen tradition students are told that if they don't immediately see through a koan, they should slap the floor with an open hand (koan interviews are conducted one-on-one with both the teacher and the student sitting on cushions facing each other). Sometimes slapping the floor has the effect of short-circuiting the intellect, and the obvious answer to a koan will suddenly pop out. The first time that happened to me, I was totally shocked. I was asked a koan that I had known about for a long time, but didn't have a clue concerning the answer. As soon as I heard the question, I said to the teacher, "I don't know the answer to that one." The teacher said, "First, hit." Understanding what he meant, I slapped the floor very hard with my right hand, and the moment I did so, I suddenly knew the answer to the koan. Sometimes when the mind is quiescent (which often occurs on silent multi-day retreats), a koan will be asked, and the body will instantly respond even if the question has never been heard before. If they start thinking about the question, it is much less likely that they'll discover the answer. "What is the color red and who made it?" are two great koans. All that's required to see the answers is sufficient silence to trigger a non-dual realization. See, I see this as misunderstanding the nature of the question being asked. Suppose I asked: why do the stars shine in the sky? 2000 years ago I might have been given a divine explanation. Now I might be given a scientific one. 500 years ago the science would have said one thing. Today it says another. In neither case is slapping the floor going to give you the answer. Now, if one is asking in the context of a spiritual search for happiness, such a question might be treated as a koan. But by no means is it thereby answered. It is simply treated as a spiritual teaching instrument. Suppose I ask: what is the meaning of love? It's the same deal. That question can be answered many different ways. There are literary and artistic explanations: the meaning of love is given in Dante, or the Mahabharata. The meaning of love is given in the Pieta. Those are kinds of answers. There are also scientific explanations (love is an emotion created by genetics and natural selection). There are cultural explanations. There are philosophical treatises. And so on. In no case would we ever say we have "the definitive answer." The searching keeps going and going. And no koanic answer will give you all of the answers obtained by these other means. So what's going on here is confusion of modes of explanation. No mode of explanation can replace any other. One might be satisfied with whatever level of understanding one has, but that doesn't mean that greater increases of understanding aren't possible -- and may not be of interest to others. In my experience, nondual realization is not simple peace but the peace that is compatible with doubt.Yes, all questions can be asked in two different ways--conventionally or existentially. I often distinguish the two kinds of questions by inserting the word "really." 1. What is electricity? (a form of energy, blah blah blah) 2 What is electricity, really? 1. What is love? (there are many kinds of love--erotic, familial, cosmic, blah blah blah) 2. What is love, really? 1. Who are you? (I'm John Doe, a mathematician, a father, a husband, a human being, blah blah blah) 2. Who are you, really? There can be hundreds of non-dual realizations dealing with all kinds of questions, but the most important realizations, for most seekers, involve identity questions and "why" questions. Conventional questions are answered intellectually, and the answers will change over time. Existential questions can only be resolved through non-dual realizations and those answers never change with time. Once seen, the truth is not forgotten. Existential truth is self evident. I assume that people on this forum are not particularly interested in conventional questions; they're interested in finding the truth of their being and understanding what's going on in the largest context possible.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 10:36:59 GMT -5
I don't remember what my former answer was. Essence comes from a deeper order of reality. Our personality is for the most part haphazardly formed from cultural influences. So personality lives under the law of accident. Essence lives under the law of fate. So, if one ever comes to live through their essence, yes, they no longer live under general laws, but live their fate. If that's what you mean by providence, then yes, it is a rung on the ladder. There was an openness in your answer this time, though that may be due to the simultaneous conversation about 'personal evolution'. Now I vaguely recall before. I think maybe I got stuck on trying to get a definition of providence from you, whether you meant by providence some inevitable ~event~. Fate does not mean certain events.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 10:39:18 GMT -5
First question, I mean in an ultimate sense, not a superficial sense. Understanding makes me wish to understand more. It's better than any drug, anything, anything. Ultimately, what you do matters to everyone on the planet. Your freedom would open the door wider to freedom for all. That's the evolution of consciousness and why we honor the sages and not the seeker. Understanding is the drug that makes you happy. Lets not hear any more about how you're not interested in happiness. Interconnectedness 101?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 10:40:31 GMT -5
There was an openness in your answer this time, though that may be due to the simultaneous conversation about 'personal evolution'. Now I vaguely recall before. I think maybe I got stuck on trying to get a definition of providence from you, whether you meant by providence some inevitable ~event~. Fate does not mean certain events. So you don't actually know whether Providence really is a rung on your imaginary ladder?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 10:43:33 GMT -5
We're talking about happiness, not peace. Dualistic peace is useful when needed, but soon becomes boring. To have meaning in your life is one of the things that currently makes you happy. The cause may change but your goal is always to be happy. That's what interests you. I would say that any person who has a aim in life to be happy, does not know themselves well enough, nor life. You want to be happy when you log out of this forum don't you?
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 10:57:00 GMT -5
In Beelzebub's Tales, in the "Preface", the Arousing of Thought, Gurdjieff says we have two consciousnesses within us. That our ordinary consciousness is in fact a fictitious consciousness, our real consciousness is our subconsciousness. A Buddhist master once said, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him." This statement was a statement about all belief systems. Stories and koans are passed down. However, "transmission outside the scripture" means there is inward validation of stories and koans. Likewise, abstractions are merely abstractions (any abstractions) until they are validated (or invalidated). In a very real sense, no abstractions are true, that ia, an abstraction ia always inevitably at least once removed from reality. So yes, your post is correct, it cannot be argued with. But does that mean someone else's abstraction cannot be validated? No. But then it becomes a living truth, until you ~try~ to tell someone else. (Then repeat cycle).
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 10:58:22 GMT -5
I would say that any person who has a aim in life to be happy, does not know themselves well enough, nor life. You want to be happy when you log out of this forum don't you? Happiness is not in the least a priority.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 11:04:09 GMT -5
Now I vaguely recall before. I think maybe I got stuck on trying to get a definition of providence from you, whether you meant by providence some inevitable ~event~. Fate does not mean certain events. So you don't actually know whether Providence really is a rung on your imaginary ladder? When I mentioned "crawling up through one's self", recently, that had a subjective meaning (every beginning ia necessarily subjective). But then one day one might find the objective "ladder". Personality = subjectivity. Essence is what can evolve, in an objective sense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 11:31:22 GMT -5
So you don't actually know whether Providence really is a rung on your imaginary ladder? When I mentioned "crawling up through one's self", recently, that had a subjective meaning (every beginning is necessarily subjective). But then one day one might find the objective "ladder". Personality = subjectivity. Essence is what can evolve, in an objective sense. I know that you are writing what you believe.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 11:32:52 GMT -5
You want to be happy when you log out of this forum don't you? Happiness is not in the least a priority. So what emotional state do you enjoy having when you log out of this forum?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 1, 2017 14:34:56 GMT -5
Ah, ok, I think I understand a little better now. I think I mostly agree with you that non-duality per se does not address the maturation of the essence, as you call it. But that's because it views the baby non-verbal mind and the adult mind as both manifestations of the ego. True, the former is non-verbal and more immediate, and yes, that does bear an important relation to the meditative state. But realization shows that both involve duality, that both are not the true I. IMO. That said, maturation of the ego -- integration of the thinking and non-thinking modes of mind -- happens post-realization. And from the relative standpoint it's a good thing! Well....there us a problem. Ego is a dead end and goes nowhere, there is zero maturation of ego. Any movement in ego is merely moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. (But nice try). In its own way, ego is very Wile E. Can play bait and switch, the shell game, hide and seek, and spiritual materialism, with the best. ..ego becomes the mask/(hand)puppet that continues to-be what the world sees.
|
|
|
Post by redglove on Oct 1, 2017 17:39:44 GMT -5
See, I see this as misunderstanding the nature of the question being asked. Suppose I asked: why do the stars shine in the sky? 2000 years ago I might have been given a divine explanation. Now I might be given a scientific one. 500 years ago the science would have said one thing. Today it says another. In neither case is slapping the floor going to give you the answer. Now, if one is asking in the context of a spiritual search for happiness, such a question might be treated as a koan. But by no means is it thereby answered. It is simply treated as a spiritual teaching instrument. Suppose I ask: what is the meaning of love? It's the same deal. That question can be answered many different ways. There are literary and artistic explanations: the meaning of love is given in Dante, or the Mahabharata. The meaning of love is given in the Pieta. Those are kinds of answers. There are also scientific explanations (love is an emotion created by genetics and natural selection). There are cultural explanations. There are philosophical treatises. And so on. In no case would we ever say we have "the definitive answer." The searching keeps going and going. And no koanic answer will give you all of the answers obtained by these other means. So what's going on here is confusion of modes of explanation. No mode of explanation can replace any other. One might be satisfied with whatever level of understanding one has, but that doesn't mean that greater increases of understanding aren't possible -- and may not be of interest to others. In my experience, nondual realization is not simple peace but the peace that is compatible with doubt.Yes, all questions can be asked in two different ways--conventionally or existentially. I often distinguish the two kinds of questions by inserting the word "really." 1. What is electricity? (a form of energy, blah blah blah) 2 What is electricity, really? 1. What is love? (there are many kinds of love--erotic, familial, cosmic, blah blah blah) 2. What is love, really? 1. Who are you? (I'm John Doe, a mathematician, a father, a husband, a human being, blah blah blah) 2. Who are you, really? There can be hundreds of non-dual realizations dealing with all kinds of questions, but the most important realizations, for most seekers, involve identity questions and "why" questions. Conventional questions are answered intellectually, and the answers will change over time. Existential questions can only be resolved through non-dual realizations and those answers never change with time. Once seen, the truth is not forgotten. Existential truth is self evident. I assume that people on this forum are not particularly interested in conventional questions; they're interested in finding the truth of their being and understanding what's going on in the largest context possible. I can't agree with the division. First, almost every art and science has, in order to push itself, to ask, of what it has already investigated, "What is X, really?" That's the question that pushes the changing answer one step forward. Second, why is it the case that the conventional is necessarily not "the truth of their being" and "the largest context possible"? For why give as examples for the "conventional" answers the most uninspiring and hackneyed little lists? The great poetry of the world, the great literature, the great scientific treatises from the infinite past into the infinite future, all possible cultures, all possible concepts, all possible conversations, all possible thoughts... these are no mere one-sided disposable trifles. They are nothing less or other than the Absolute.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 1, 2017 17:58:19 GMT -5
Well....there us a problem. Ego is a dead end and goes nowhere, there is zero maturation of ego. Any movement in ego is merely moving the deck chairs on the Titanic. (But nice try). In its own way, ego is very Wile E. Can play bait and switch, the shell game, hide and seek, and spiritual materialism, with the best. ..ego becomes the mask/(hand)puppet that continues to-be what the world sees. Yes, ego (personality) is the fictitious consciousness, AKA imaginary I. I was surprised ZD disagreed.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Oct 1, 2017 21:07:57 GMT -5
Do you perhaps have quotes from nonduality teachers that we can talk about? I say what you're saying is not correct. No, this is what I surmise from the "nondual" posting, here. ....If there is no doer, ever, if all "doing" is merely a part of the flow of the universe, what difference does the question make anyway? Even I remember having had this conversation before. I'm not understanding how you get from "there is no doer" to "it doesn't matter how life was lived".
|
|