|
Post by zendancer on May 31, 2023 9:28:05 GMT -5
I think you'd agree that there's no idea of hot or cold for a baby or an animal; there's just "what is," and a direct physical response to "what is." This is why the old Zen Master told the monk who was complaining about the Summer heat, "Why not go where there is no hot or cold?" The direct sensory perception is beyond concept, and it remains beyond concept until ideation makes a distinction and labels the distinction, all of which may be useful but is not necessary. In the world of suchness, beyond mind, the body functions intelligently without reflective thought. The Rinzai Zen tradition encourages a direct non-conceptual response to all of its formal test questions, and this is why a large number of koans are answered with a silent physical response rather than words. I can imagine a ZM handing a student something and asking, "Is this hot or cold?" Anyone familiar with koans and their usage as a teaching tool will know that if the student opens her mouth, she will have already made a mistake. If the student is NOT thinking, a silent response will occur. There will be no act of distinction and no idea of distinction because no act or idea of distinction will be necessary. Approaching this from a position of looking at definitions. Some folks might define 'what is' as prior to direct physical/sensory experience/responses, because we need to talk of a 'ground' that is prior to experience. I don't know what you would call that, personally I'd go for 'Being' or 'the Absolute' or.....there are many options....but it points prior to what you are calling 'what is'. The only state that is totally beyond physical experience (other than unconsciousness) is nirvikalpa samadhi, and although many people consider that the holy grail for a spiritual adherent, I would disagree simply because it's transitory and many people awaken who have never entered that state. OTOH, NS does give insight into what ND is pointing to because it's often the first time a human realizes that there can be pure awareness without content. Even so, I wouldn't call that state "beyond 'what is'" because I consider NS to simply be another aspect of "what is"/THIS.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 9:34:32 GMT -5
Approaching this from a position of looking at definitions. Some folks might define 'what is' as prior to direct physical/sensory experience/responses, because we need to talk of a 'ground' that is prior to experience. I don't know what you would call that, personally I'd go for 'Being' or 'the Absolute' or.....there are many options....but it points prior to what you are calling 'what is'. The only state that is totally beyond physical experience (other than unconsciousness) is nirvikalpa samadhi, and although many people consider that the holy grail for a spiritual adherent, I would disagree simply because it's transitory and many people awaken who have never entered that state. OTOH, NS does give insight into what ND is pointing to because it's often the first time a human realizes that there can be pure awareness without content. Even so, I wouldn't call that state "beyond 'what is'" because I consider NS to simply be another aspect of "what is"/THIS. That makes sense to me, in fact this whole discussion makes more sense to me. Some folks here like to point beyond all experiences and states (including NS). They are pointing to a 'foundation' or 'ground'. I haven't spent time studying Zen, but it strikes me that your path really is a Zen path, whereas others here are more.....say....Nisargadatta....who definitely points beyond 'what is' (as you define it). That's not a criticism, there's much to be said for the Zen path, and it clearly works well for you. In my early days here, Steven once described me as a Taoist, which seemed odd to me because it's also not something I've studied in depth, but as the years have gone by, I was reminded of that description occasionally, and he may have been right.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on May 31, 2023 9:42:28 GMT -5
I remember many moons ago ZD once suggesting that he might write something about "Spiritual Arrogance". I remember hoping he would but don't think he ever did. Maybe I just missed it. The concept of Spiritual Arrogance has crossed my mind of late and thought I'd question the bot and see what it popped out. The results... Question: In terms of non-duality, what would be examples of spiritual arrogance? ChatGPT: "In the context of non-duality, examples of spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways. Here are a few examples: Believing One's Understanding is Superior: A person who practices non-duality might believe that their understanding of non-dual principles is superior to others. They may consider themselves more enlightened or advanced, looking down upon those who have different perspectives or interpretations. Correcting Others' Views: Someone exhibiting spiritual arrogance may constantly correct or dismiss others who have differing views or interpretations of non-dual teachings. They may feel the need to assert their own understanding as the "correct" or "authentic" one, without allowing space for diverse perspectives. Egoic Identification with Knowledge: Spiritual arrogance can manifest when a person becomes deeply identified with their knowledge of non-dual concepts. They may derive a sense of self-worth and importance from their intellectual understanding, using it as a tool to elevate themselves above others. Judgment and Criticism: Individuals displaying spiritual arrogance may harshly judge or criticize others who have not reached the same level of realization or understanding. They may see these individuals as less evolved or misguided, fostering a sense of separation and superiority. Lack of Humility and Openness: Spiritual arrogance can be characterized by a lack of humility and openness to alternative viewpoints or teachings. The person may believe they have "figured it all out" and close themselves off to new insights or perspectives, considering their own understanding as the ultimate truth. Using Spirituality for Egoic Purposes: Instead of using spiritual teachings as a means of self-transformation and genuine awakening, someone displaying spiritual arrogance may use their spiritual knowledge or practices to bolster their ego. They may seek validation or admiration from others, using spirituality as a tool for self-aggrandizement. It is important to note that these examples are not exhaustive, and spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways depending on the individual. The essence of non-duality emphasizes humility, compassion, and the recognition of the underlying unity of all beings. True realization goes beyond egoic identifications and judgments, fostering inclusivity and openness to diverse perspectives. Funny. I was debating a gentleman who believed in spiritual levels. He's told me he was at a higher level than me. I argued there was no such thing. Used the "least among you is the greatest." It got heated. Then he pointed out that believing in no levels is akin to believing in levels. In other words I was thinking I was better, higher, because I didn't believe in levels. I had to concede. Logic sometimes takes a funny bounce.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2023 9:42:51 GMT -5
What I am saying isn't really any different from what Niz said: You see, we are going in circles. This Q & A game isn't going anywhere. Obviously we are not seeing eye to eye and are not going to given that this discussion has been going on for at least six years. From my perspective, you have not yet realized suchness, which means your only reference is thingness, which is precisely why you still struggle with the question about other perceivers, oneness and aliveness. IOW, you haven't seen into your true nature, you haven't realized yet who you really are. Because if you would, you would agree with what ZD and I have been saying and what Niz, Ramakrishna, Watts, Tolle and countless others have been saying.
So at this point, all I can offer is to agree to disagree and let this topic go for good. Suchness is reference to how the world of things is experienced post SR... to the realization of Oneness/absence of separation, the non-conceptual knowing that it's all ultimately, one seamless, undivided movement, abiding alongside the experience of and engagement with appearing, discrete, distinct things/objects/facets of experience.
Suchness is the primary, visceral knowing of essential Oneness amidst the appearance of many.
& I don't struggle with the question of perceivers at all. I've seen the question as misconceived...there's no struggling for an answer or wondering going on here.
I take issue with the idea of an Absolute answer to what can only ever be, a relative question.
In that quote, Niz is taking liberties....obviously speaking to someone who is still very mired in experience/duality. He often did that...spoke to a seeker from where the seeker sat...making at times, some very deep and wide concessions to mind. It doesn't mean what you think it means.
& here you are now, ready to completely dismiss this discussion just as we are making some headway. This is what you've done every time....ignore direct questions...insist that I simply don't get what you are saying, but all without offering explanations.
Before folks can arrive at an agreement to disagree, it's kind of nice if there's an actual understanding of what it is they are actually disagreeing on, first. figs, you're just not going to ever solve this. I can read stuff and see, oh, that's how they see me (sdp). End of story. Pointing out what you see as contradictions means nothing. Don't you see it's a problem that you keep trying?
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 9:46:56 GMT -5
The only state that is totally beyond physical experience (other than unconsciousness) is nirvikalpa samadhi, and although many people consider that the holy grail for a spiritual adherent, I would disagree simply because it's transitory and many people awaken who have never entered that state. OTOH, NS does give insight into what ND is pointing to because it's often the first time a human realizes that there can be pure awareness without content. Even so, I wouldn't call that state "beyond 'what is'" because I consider NS to simply be another aspect of "what is"/THIS. That makes sense to me, in fact this whole discussion makes more sense to me. Some folks here like to point beyond all experiences and states (including NS). They are pointing to a 'foundation' or 'ground'. I haven't spent time studying Zen, but it strikes me that your path really is a Zen path, whereas others here are more.....say.... Nisargadatta....who definitely points beyond 'what is' (as you define it). That's not a criticism, there's much to be said for the Zen path, and it clearly works well for you. In my early days here, Steven once described me as a Taoist, which seemed odd to me because it's also not something I've studied in depth, but as the years have gone by, I was reminded of that description occasionally, and he may have been right. Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe).
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on May 31, 2023 9:59:30 GMT -5
I remember many moons ago ZD once suggesting that he might write something about "Spiritual Arrogance". I remember hoping he would but don't think he ever did. Maybe I just missed it. The concept of Spiritual Arrogance has crossed my mind of late and thought I'd question the bot and see what it popped out. The results... Question: In terms of non-duality, what would be examples of spiritual arrogance? ChatGPT: "In the context of non-duality, examples of spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways. Here are a few examples: Believing One's Understanding is Superior: A person who practices non-duality might believe that their understanding of non-dual principles is superior to others. They may consider themselves more enlightened or advanced, looking down upon those who have different perspectives or interpretations. Correcting Others' Views: Someone exhibiting spiritual arrogance may constantly correct or dismiss others who have differing views or interpretations of non-dual teachings. They may feel the need to assert their own understanding as the "correct" or "authentic" one, without allowing space for diverse perspectives. Egoic Identification with Knowledge: Spiritual arrogance can manifest when a person becomes deeply identified with their knowledge of non-dual concepts. They may derive a sense of self-worth and importance from their intellectual understanding, using it as a tool to elevate themselves above others. Judgment and Criticism: Individuals displaying spiritual arrogance may harshly judge or criticize others who have not reached the same level of realization or understanding. They may see these individuals as less evolved or misguided, fostering a sense of separation and superiority. Lack of Humility and Openness: Spiritual arrogance can be characterized by a lack of humility and openness to alternative viewpoints or teachings. The person may believe they have "figured it all out" and close themselves off to new insights or perspectives, considering their own understanding as the ultimate truth. Using Spirituality for Egoic Purposes: Instead of using spiritual teachings as a means of self-transformation and genuine awakening, someone displaying spiritual arrogance may use their spiritual knowledge or practices to bolster their ego. They may seek validation or admiration from others, using spirituality as a tool for self-aggrandizement. It is important to note that these examples are not exhaustive, and spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways depending on the individual. The essence of non-duality emphasizes humility, compassion, and the recognition of the underlying unity of all beings. True realization goes beyond egoic identifications and judgments, fostering inclusivity and openness to diverse perspectives. Funny. I was debating a gentleman who believed in spiritual levels. He's told me he was at a higher level than me. I argued there was no such thing. Used the "least among you is the greatest." It got heated. Then he pointed out that believing in no levels is akin to believing in levels. In other words I was thinking I was better, higher, because I didn't believe in levels. I had to concede. Logic sometimes takes a funny bounce. I would say that there are no levels of Essential Self but there are degrees of transparency to it, depending upon the degree of attachment or detachment from the egoic self one has.
|
|
|
Post by andrew on May 31, 2023 10:07:07 GMT -5
That makes sense to me, in fact this whole discussion makes more sense to me. Some folks here like to point beyond all experiences and states (including NS). They are pointing to a 'foundation' or 'ground'. I haven't spent time studying Zen, but it strikes me that your path really is a Zen path, whereas others here are more.....say.... Nisargadatta....who definitely points beyond 'what is' (as you define it). That's not a criticism, there's much to be said for the Zen path, and it clearly works well for you. In my early days here, Steven once described me as a Taoist, which seemed odd to me because it's also not something I've studied in depth, but as the years have gone by, I was reminded of that description occasionally, and he may have been right. Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe). LOL yep I can't deny that's a reasonable description of my spirituality....except when it's not! I get what you mean about Niz, though I have a soft spot on the basis that when I stumbled on his writings on a previous forum (Enigma was called Phroggy at the time lol), that it was actually a bit of a relief for me....like....finally I'd found someone that was lucidly describing some of what I was wanting to talk about but I didn't have good words. Far more than Tolle ever did for me. I don't have experience of NS to this day, which I understand to be an extraordinarily deep meditative state, but I can relate to what might be called 'the void' or 'Non-being' or 'what is Not', or what Niz calls 'The Absolute/Parabrahman'. In truth, I prefer the lightness and playfulness that Abe points to. Even Tolle is lighter in his talk about Joy. But, sometimes, my experience has been that we have to go with what we are being given by Life.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 31, 2023 10:14:06 GMT -5
I remember many moons ago ZD once suggesting that he might write something about "Spiritual Arrogance". I remember hoping he would but don't think he ever did. Maybe I just missed it. The concept of Spiritual Arrogance has crossed my mind of late and thought I'd question the bot and see what it popped out. The results... Question: In terms of non-duality, what would be examples of spiritual arrogance? ChatGPT: "In the context of non-duality, examples of spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways. Here are a few examples: Believing One's Understanding is Superior: A person who practices non-duality might believe that their understanding of non-dual principles is superior to others. They may consider themselves more enlightened or advanced, looking down upon those who have different perspectives or interpretations. Correcting Others' Views: Someone exhibiting spiritual arrogance may constantly correct or dismiss others who have differing views or interpretations of non-dual teachings. They may feel the need to assert their own understanding as the "correct" or "authentic" one, without allowing space for diverse perspectives. Egoic Identification with Knowledge: Spiritual arrogance can manifest when a person becomes deeply identified with their knowledge of non-dual concepts. They may derive a sense of self-worth and importance from their intellectual understanding, using it as a tool to elevate themselves above others. Judgment and Criticism: Individuals displaying spiritual arrogance may harshly judge or criticize others who have not reached the same level of realization or understanding. They may see these individuals as less evolved or misguided, fostering a sense of separation and superiority. Lack of Humility and Openness: Spiritual arrogance can be characterized by a lack of humility and openness to alternative viewpoints or teachings. The person may believe they have "figured it all out" and close themselves off to new insights or perspectives, considering their own understanding as the ultimate truth. Using Spirituality for Egoic Purposes: Instead of using spiritual teachings as a means of self-transformation and genuine awakening, someone displaying spiritual arrogance may use their spiritual knowledge or practices to bolster their ego. They may seek validation or admiration from others, using spirituality as a tool for self-aggrandizement. It is important to note that these examples are not exhaustive, and spiritual arrogance can manifest in various ways depending on the individual. The essence of non-duality emphasizes humility, compassion, and the recognition of the underlying unity of all beings. True realization goes beyond egoic identifications and judgments, fostering inclusivity and openness to diverse perspectives.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 10:26:00 GMT -5
That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. I think you'd agree that there's no idea of hot or cold for a baby or an animal; there's just "what is," and a direct physical response to "what is." This is why the old Zen Master told the monk who was complaining about the Summer heat, "Why not go where there is no hot or cold?" The direct sensory perception is beyond concept, and it remains beyond concept until ideation makes a distinction and labels the distinction, all of which may be useful but is not necessary. In the world of suchness, beyond mind, the body functions intelligently without reflective thought. The Rinzai Zen tradition encourages a direct non-conceptual response to all of its formal test questions, and this is why a large number of koans are answered with a silent physical response rather than words. I can imagine a ZM handing a student something and asking, "Is this hot or cold?" Anyone familiar with koans and their usage as a teaching tool will know that if the student opens her mouth, she will have already made a mistake. If the student is NOT thinking, a silent response will occur. There will be no act of distinction and no idea of distinction because no act or idea of distinction will be necessary. That's really a nice analogy.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 10:31:27 GMT -5
That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. I think you'd agree that there's no idea of hot or cold for a baby or an animal; there's just "what is," and a direct physical response to "what is." I would agree, no probs. This is where I start to drift. For me, "to go where there is no hot or cold" would only be akin to NS or such-like. As you mentioned the other day, even in what we might term direct sensory perception, the hand will be removed from the hot stove. I agree that the mental overlay is superfluous, (moreover would actually be a hindrance in that circumstance). I'm with you until perhaps the last line. ... I'm happy with the "no idea of distinction" part.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 10:40:57 GMT -5
That's not exactly what I was saying. I was beginning by talking about the experience holistically so in terms of THIS. Saying that the distinctive sensation coldness arose, or was apparent, prior to imagination or any subsequent associated surface level thoughts and classification. I mean, I'm not even sure you can talk about it as being cold before I touched it. If you think about it that engenders the 'if a tree falls in the forest …' scenario. In that respect. So I'm not interested in hand or bath tub at that level, or existing coldness. That doesn't really fit with my understanding of emptiness anyway. Which would be more along the lines of there is no coldness per se, prior to the arising sensation of it, presently, and ultimately holistically. So for arguments sake, think of the starting point as pea soup. Or 'THIS, THISing'. As the surface level aspects of mind are quiescent. (I know you like that word). And the first thing to become consciously apparent was the distinctive sensation coldness, ... followed by the rest (subsequent mental overlay/classification etc). And I say that was prior to imagination. And that it would be the same with tree'ness. Edit. To be clear, the way I tend to approach these topics is from the base of the iceberg, not the tip. This is what I was acknowledging with the "difference between a mental distinction - say, lat/long lines - and the contrast of physical sensation". And I can understand why you'd clarify as you've done here. You know, if we're going to engage with this via thought, then here's one of those shadows: the feeling of coldness is a process, a transfer of heat from your body to the metal, that doesn't happen until the moment you touch your hand to the tub. So this "distinction that is prior-to" is simply an inevitability of conditions. Just the interdependent interplay in the endless and boundless dance of emptiness, which has no real boundaries that aren't arbitrary creations of mind. The tree is far easier even still to deal with. Okay. But after the first couple of lines I'm not entirely sure what your point is. Maybe I'm missing something. My point is that distinction happens prior to imagination. I'm not quite sure what yours is, hehe. Perhaps it's that ultimately it all just happens spontaneously, which is fine. I grok 'conditions' anyway, and tend to work with 'the world at large' in terms of 'the conditioned'. (Obviously in noun-like form merely as a concession). And when it comes to emptiness it's turtles all the way down.
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on May 31, 2023 10:56:11 GMT -5
Approaching this from a position of looking at definitions. Some folks might define 'what is' as prior to direct physical/sensory experience/responses, because we need to talk of a 'ground' that is prior to experience. I don't know what you would call that, personally I'd go for 'Being' or 'the Absolute' or.....there are many options....but it points prior to what you are calling 'what is'. The only state that is totally beyond physical experience (other than unconsciousness) is nirvikalpa samadhi, and although many people consider that the holy grail for a spiritual adherent, I would disagree simply because it's transitory and many people awaken who have never entered that state. OTOH, NS does give insight into what ND is pointing to because it's often the first time a human realizes that there can be pure awareness without content. Even so, I wouldn't call that state "beyond 'what is'" because I consider NS to simply be another aspect of "what is"/THIS. Fwiw, that's not the Buddhist perspective. Although the terminology is different, as far as I can glean NS is comparable with the 8th jhana, which is a rare enough attainment to be sure. But there is one deeper still. The 9th Jhana ... which is synonymous with paranibbana. I would tend to agree with the sense of the rest of your post, insofar as NS is transitory etc, but for me when we begin to talk at this depth, it highlights the issues with the whole "what is"/THIS paradigm.
In new age terms I have begun to equate paranibbana with ascention, which obviously won't be everyones cup of tea. Frankly, it sounds daft when I say it!
edit- spelling!
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 11:02:13 GMT -5
Yes, when I read your post above I just wanted to ask you if you said that maybe with Niz in mind (parabrahman and stuff, hehe). I have my disagreements with Niz' approach on this topic as well, precisely for the reasons ZD mentioned. It gives SR an almost theoretical touch. I think Steve is right in the sense that your approach to spirituality seems to be a very soft and flexible approach, and that's typical for Daoism (the so-called way of the water aka attachmentless attachment of the positionless position, hehe). LOL yep I can't deny that's a reasonable description of my spirituality....except when it's not! I get what you mean about Niz, though I have a soft spot on the basis that when I stumbled on his writings on a previous forum (Enigma was called Phroggy at the time lol), that it was actually a bit of a relief for me....like....finally I'd found someone that was lucidly describing some of what I was wanting to talk about but I didn't have good words. Far more than Tolle ever did for me. I don't have experience of NS to this day, which I understand to be an extraordinarily deep meditative state, but I can relate to what might be called 'the void' or 'Non-being' or 'what is Not', or what Niz calls 'The Absolute/Parabrahman'. In truth, I prefer the lightness and playfulness that Abe points to. Even Tolle is lighter in his talk about Joy. But, sometimes, my experience has been that we have to go with what we are being given by Life. My first encounter with non-duality was Ramakrishna and his Brahman without form and at about the same time Ramana. Niz was much later but it also hit soft spot, because he is so uncompromising. His vocabulary I found to be a bit confusing though and it took me months to get thru "I AM THAT". The one who really gave the vocabulary to talk about this stuff was Wei Wu Wei. And more recently Watts. UG also had a big impact with his natural state talk, because that was the link to the Abe vortex and alignment talk. I can't find much use for Tolle though, but that could be a case of incompatible personalities. I certainly fully acknowledge the validity of his realization, but he does seem a bit slow and dense at the same time, hehe. So in terms of realization and pointing nothing really changed over the years except maybe in terms of focus as Ouro quite accurately described it. But in terms of style and way of talking about this stuff, there certainly has been an evolution. There is much more flexibility now. My next project is to read Waite's books and get a better grip on these Sanskrit terms. Because I think they are actually very helpful if you fully understand their meaning, because there often is no English equivalent for them. Similar to those classical Chinese Chan/Zen and Daoist terms. So from my perspective, there's still a lot of exciting stuff to explore. And this is where reading books helps a lot. You can't get that kind of mastery of language from browsing non-duality websites or watching youtube satsang videos.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on May 31, 2023 11:07:11 GMT -5
The only state that is totally beyond physical experience (other than unconsciousness) is nirvikalpa samadhi, and although many people consider that the holy grail for a spiritual adherent, I would disagree simply because it's transitory and many people awaken who have never entered that state. OTOH, NS does give insight into what ND is pointing to because it's often the first time a human realizes that there can be pure awareness without content. Even so, I wouldn't call that state "beyond 'what is'" because I consider NS to simply be another aspect of "what is"/THIS. Fwiw, that's not the Buddhist perspective. Although the terminology is different, as far as I can glean NS is comparable with the 8th jhana, which is a rare enough attainment to be sure. But there is one deeper still. The 9th Jhana ... which is synonymous with paranibanna. I would tend to agree with the sense of the rest of your post, insofar as NS is transitory etc, but for me when we begin to talk at this depth, it highlights the issues with the whole "what is"/THIS paradigm.
In new age terms I have begun to equate paranibanna with ascention, which obviously won't be everyones cup of tea. Frankly, it sounds daft when I say it!
Funny how you keep correcting ZD about Buddhism. ZD certainly knows Zen, but it does show you that Zen isn't exactly Buddhism (even though they refer to sutras) and also not exactly Daoism (even though they use Daoist lingo and concepts) but something unique that stands for itself. For questions on 9th jnana, I may refer you to Steve.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 31, 2023 11:16:40 GMT -5
But you see, her very persistent questioning is precisely what puts her into the student position and myself into the teacher position. Obviously Figgles is trying very hard to understand something that she just can't grasp and she also seems to think that I am the solution to her problem. If she wouldn't consider myself an authority on these matters, she wouldn't care about my perspective and dissect every word that I say. So unconsciously, she creates that kind of unequal relationship right from the start. You do the same, btw. And then you complain being treated not as an equal. But you're literally asking for it, unconsciously. If you wouldn't feel worthless to some degree, you wouldn't extract condescending behavior from others. [...] I doubt she's questioning you because she thinks your answers are worth anything. My impression is she thinks you're full of it, and is trying to corner you with cross examination. But you're right, that's a waste of time. We shouldn't engage with people we don't respect. And you're right that's why you and I haven't spoken in months. It will go back to that, but sometimes it's hard not to bump into someone if you're reading the same forum.
|
|