|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2019 2:24:20 GMT -5
You could say that the choice to practice or not is out of your control because there is no doer but that is of no help. If there's interest because some spaciousness is sensed or glimpsed, because after all we are already complete even though the total recognition of it might be veiled, interest alone won't be enough. It's interest that keeps spirituality groups going forever with conceptual discussions. The interest needs to be put to one side in quietude.Isn't it interest though that has one seeking, practicing and ultimately unveiling, quietude? Yes.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 8:01:07 GMT -5
I'm not planning on participating much in discussions anyway. I really don't have the time for that anymore. And I'd prefer if we all could get along somehow and just walk away and agree to disagree when we hit a wall instead of going on crusades. I'd also rather have you all here together instead of splattered over different forums and cross-referencing/attacking each other from these different platforms. It's impossible to moderate. The whole point of letting you back in was to end this kind of mess. Ok. Just so you know, posting here does not mean I will stop posting on my forum.  I don't. I was interested in clearing up some stuff with a few of ZD's recent posts. His recent posts seem to be indicating a shift in seeing from what he's said in the past...and the conversation Zazeniac was involved in also piqued my interest. For the most part I've been more than happy to have what's pretty much been a one way conversation responding to posts taken from here to respond to them on my forum, but just recently I felt compelled to engage in deeper conversation. FWIW, I'm not aware of any significant shift in seeing in the last twenty years. A few minor tweaks ten years ago, but nothing worth writing home about. I feel like a one-trick pony--always pointing in the same direction. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 8:04:35 GMT -5
We would have to define what we mean by interest. It's a tricky word. The interest can start off as a deeply abstract feeling for something greater than the superficial reality but then the mind gets involved and turns it into a search based around beliefs and concepts. I suppose that's the role of the guru, to steer it back to the simplicity of going back to the source. My main point is that we cannot separate out the interest/intent to practice from the sense there is something more to see, the sense of seeking and SR itself. It's all part and parcel of one unified movement. It may seem as though practicing is a volitional choice one makes, but if we back up a bit to see that the interest behind that is clearly not volitional, it becomes clear that nor is the practice.
The whole idea that if one is interested in SR, he should engage in practice, seems to miss that bit imo. Yep, that's certainly the way I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 8:08:19 GMT -5
[/quote]I can agree about the personal plans and controlling behavior and such but I would like to point out that functioning in society requires an intermediary, an imaginary entity.[/quote]
Lost me here. Why the necessity of an imaginary entity?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 10:43:00 GMT -5
My main point is that we cannot separate out the interest/intent to practice from the sense there is something more to see, the sense of seeking and SR itself. It's all part and parcel of one unified movement. It may seem as though practicing is a volitional choice one makes, but if we back up a bit to see that the interest behind that is clearly not volitional, it becomes clear that nor is the practice. The whole idea that if one is interested in SR, he should engage in practice, seems to miss that bit imo. and I would agree with that. The next thought that appears in your mind and the intention to practice are completely spontaneous without doership. But that doesn't change the fact that a choice to act appears to you.
I am saying that nothing is volitional AND, ultimately, despite the appearance of things, there are no paths.
The path (practice causing SR) is an appearance only just as the choice to act with volition is an appearance only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 10:57:43 GMT -5
Ok. Just so you know, posting here does not mean I will stop posting on my forum. I don't. I was interested in clearing up some stuff with a few of ZD's recent posts. His recent posts seem to be indicating a shift in seeing from what he's said in the past...and the conversation Zazeniac was involved in also piqued my interest. For the most part I've been more than happy to have what's pretty much been a one way conversation responding to posts taken from here to respond to them on my forum, but just recently I felt compelled to engage in deeper conversation. FWIW, I'm not aware of any significant shift in seeing in the last twenty years. A few minor tweaks ten years ago, but nothing worth writing home about. I feel like a one-trick pony--always pointing in the same direction. Ok. I already asked about this and received no response from you, but I'll try again.
We conversed in the past and you insisted that it could be realized that every thing is 'alive.' You spoke about this property of 'aliveness' being fundamental to all that is.....and you maintained that this seeing is an integral facet inherent in an SR that is 'complete.' That without seeing this, one is missing an important piece of the puzzle, kind of thing.
But in recent conversations you are really emphasizing that that____________ can only be pointed to. (In actuality, you've emphasized this in the past too, which is why I was so confused when the whole insistence upon 'alive' came up) The quote below is a good example;
ZD: "I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions."
And as I said in a previous post; I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are specifically 'alive.' Alive is an attributable distinction, and you say above 'there is no room for distinctions of any kind.'
Again, At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 12, 2019 11:00:53 GMT -5
You are just saying that nothing is volitional and I would agree with that. The next thought that appears in your mind and the intention to practice are completely spontaneous without doership. But that doesn't change the fact that a choice to act appears to you.
I am saying that nothing is volitional AND, ultimately, despite the appearance of things, there are no paths.
The path (practice causing SR) is an appearance only just as the choice to act with volition is an appearance only.
Yes, practice and everything else is an appearance. Is that significant for some reason? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:08:29 GMT -5
I can agree about the personal plans and controlling behavior and such but I would like to point out that functioning in society requires an intermediary, an imaginary entity.[/quote] Lost me here. Why the necessity of an imaginary entity? [/quote][/div]
Yes, As I see it, the imagined entity, the mind invoked intermediary, is what causes all the problems in the first place.
In SR, it's that imagined entity that gets seen through and in that, it becomes crystal clear just how unnecessary an intermediary ever was.
Reef's assertion almost reads to me as though he is saying that functionality requires one to continue to imagine that separation is the case...?.....which would be very strange. Anyway, I look forward to hearing more from him on this.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:32:16 GMT -5
I am saying that nothing is volitional AND, ultimately, despite the appearance of things, there are no paths.
The path (practice causing SR) is an appearance only just as the choice to act with volition is an appearance only.
Yes, practice and everything else is an appearance. Is that significant for some reason? It's significant if there's an interest in what's 'actually' going on. In this case, it means being clear that there are no paths nor practices that will cause arrival at grace or eventual SR.
The very recommendation of practice to one who is seeking is really akin to suggesting he keep actively seeking.
In actuality, it is the very seeking itself (the seeker) that is obscuring what's being sought.
While seeing this this may not change the impetus to tell seekers to practice, I think it's important to be clear about all this...(and I think you are). And, if so, Could you put into your own words why you continue to recommend practice...? I think I know what you're gonna say, but I'm curious. Thanks. 
|
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Mar 12, 2019 11:38:49 GMT -5
Yes, practice and everything else is an appearance. Is that significant for some reason? It's significant if there's an interest in what's 'actually' going on. In this case, it means being clear that there are no paths nor practices that will cause arrival at grace or eventual SR.
The very recommendation of practice to one who is seeking is really akin to suggesting he keep actively seeking.
In actuality, it is the very seeking itself (the seeker) that is obscuring what's being sought.
While seeing this this may not change the impetus to tell seekers to practice, I think it's important to be clear about all this...(and I think you are). And, if so, Could you put into your own words why you continue to recommend practice...? I think I know what you're gonna say, but I'm curious. Thanks.
Because it works! I asked if the fact that everything is an appearance has any significance to the seeker who is practicing. If the practicer thinks that he has volition and he is a doer who is on a path and practicing and he hasn't heard your words that it's just all an appearance, it makes no difference. He will continue to practice. if you tell him he's not the doer and it's just an appearance he will still continue to practice. It's not really useful to say that everything is just an appearance because you will still continue to eat food, go for walks in the forest, do your work, have relationships and everything else. Who cares whether it's an appearance? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 11:50:13 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm not aware of any significant shift in seeing in the last twenty years. A few minor tweaks ten years ago, but nothing worth writing home about. I feel like a one-trick pony--always pointing in the same direction. Ok. I already asked about this and received no response from you, but I'll try again. We conversed in the past and you insisted that it could be realized that every thing is 'alive.' You spoke about this property of 'aliveness' being fundamental to all that is.....and you maintained that this seeing is an integral facet inherent in an SR that is 'complete.' That without seeing this, one is missing an important piece of the puzzle, kind of thing.
But in recent conversations you are really emphasizing that that____________ can only be pointed to. (In actuality, you've emphasized this in the past too, which is why I was so confused when the whole insistence upon 'alive' came up) The quote below is a good example;
ZD: "I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions." And as I said in a previous post; I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are specifically 'alive.' Alive is an attributable distinction, and you say above 'there is no room for distinctions of any kind.'
Again, At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
I often use the phrase "the living truth" in the same way that I think Jesus intended it. I use it to evoke a feeling of life as visceral, dynamic, mysterious, juicy, and flowing rather than static and dead. I also use the word "alive" in the same way. It captures a sense of reality, of THIS, as a verb rather than a noun. I don't mean for the distinction to be taken in an extremely rigid sense or for people to get attached to it. It's an attempt to capture the flavor of what I experienced in a CC and at other subsequent times (though never as strongly as during the CC). I was so stunned at the aliveness of reality that I apprehended that I remember thinking something along the lines of, "OMG, everything is alive. Even the air, the ground, and the space between things is alive. There's nothing dead anywhere! The whole blooming thing is alive." Eckhart uses the same kinds of words when he talks about "feeling the aliveness" in one's hands or body. One difference between the Zen tradition and the Advaita tradition is that Zen rarely uses the dream metaphor, and Zen people rarely think about consciousness in any way separate from "what is." IOW, Zen people look at the world in a more concrete way, which is a bit hard to explain, and perhaps can only be grokked. If someone said to a Zen Master, "All there is is consciousness," or "Life is nothing but a dream," the ZM would probably conk him/her on the head with a Zen stick, and say something like, "Does that feel like a dream to you?"  Although I left the Zen tradition twenty years ago because I prefer the unstructured approach of Advaita satsangs and retreats, I still appreciate the Zen matter-of-fact down-to-earth concrete approach to everyday life. When I use the word THIS, I'm using it to point to both the solidity of a rock as well as to the pure awareness of nirvikalpa samadhi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:52:09 GMT -5
It's significant if there's an interest in what's 'actually' going on. In this case, it means being clear that there are no paths nor practices that will cause arrival at grace or eventual SR.
The very recommendation of practice to one who is seeking is really akin to suggesting he keep actively seeking.
In actuality, it is the very seeking itself (the seeker) that is obscuring what's being sought.
While seeing this this may not change the impetus to tell seekers to practice, I think it's important to be clear about all this...(and I think you are). And, if so, Could you put into your own words why you continue to recommend practice...? I think I know what you're gonna say, but I'm curious. Thanks.
I asked if the fact that everything is an appearance has any significance to the seeker who is practicing. If the practicer thinks that he has volition and he is a doer who is on a path and practicing and he hasn't heard your words that it's just all an appearance, it makes no difference. He will continue to practice. if you tell him he's not the doer and it's just an appearance he will still continue to practice. It's not really useful to say that everything is just an appearance because you will still continue to eat food, go for walks in the forest, do your work, have relationships and everything else. Who cares whether it's an appearance? I'm on board with everything you say there except the bolded.
Practice per se neither causes nor prevents SR. However, so long as there's a doer/seeker/practicer in play, Self is obscured.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 11:53:38 GMT -5
FWIW, I'm not aware of any significant shift in seeing in the last twenty years. A few minor tweaks ten years ago, but nothing worth writing home about. I feel like a one-trick pony--always pointing in the same direction. Ok. I already asked about this and received no response from you, but I'll try again.
We conversed in the past and you insisted that it could be realized that every thing is 'alive.' You spoke about this property of 'aliveness' being fundamental to all that is.....and you maintained that this seeing is an integral facet inherent in an SR that is 'complete.' That without seeing this, one is missing an important piece of the puzzle, kind of thing.
But in recent conversations you are really emphasizing that that____________ can only be pointed to. (In actuality, you've emphasized this in the past too, which is why I was so confused when the whole insistence upon 'alive' came up) The quote below is a good example;
ZD: "I don;t have any problem with the idea of panentheism, but I don't see why that idea in any way contradicts ND. If there is no twoness, then there's no room for distinctions of any kind, except in the most superficial sense. That which is infinite has no inside, outside, above, below, or any other attributable distinction. Anyone who apprehends THAT will understand why language can never capture any aspect of THAT via distinctions."
And as I said in a previous post; I agree with all you say there, but am having trouble reconciling that with your insistence that all things arising in experience, are specifically 'alive.' Alive is an attributable distinction, and you say above 'there is no room for distinctions of any kind.'
Again, At best, when it comes to the inherent nature of THIS, all we can do it point. Firm arrival at a specific word, term, denoting property, quality, necessarily then means, we've stumbled.
Did you ever consider the possibility that your conclusion is incorrect? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 12, 2019 12:02:00 GMT -5
Because it works! I asked if the fact that everything is an appearance has any significance to the seeker who is practicing. If the practicer thinks that he has volition and he is a doer who is on a path and practicing and he hasn't heard your words that it's just all an appearance, it makes no difference. He will continue to practice. if you tell him he's not the doer and it's just an appearance he will still continue to practice. It's not really useful to say that everything is just an appearance because you will still continue to eat food, go for walks in the forest, do your work, have relationships and everything else. Who cares whether it's an appearance? I'm on board with everything you say there except the bolded.
Practice per se neither causes nor prevents SR. However, so long as there's a doer/seeker/practicer in play, Self is obscured.
When you say 'in play' what does that mean exactly? The movement of thinking individualistically is subtle. And far more subtle than even that. But, it is attention that is Self. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 12, 2019 12:07:47 GMT -5
Because it works! I asked if the fact that everything is an appearance has any significance to the seeker who is practicing. If the practicer thinks that he has volition and he is a doer who is on a path and practicing and he hasn't heard your words that it's just all an appearance, it makes no difference. He will continue to practice. if you tell him he's not the doer and it's just an appearance he will still continue to practice. It's not really useful to say that everything is just an appearance because you will still continue to eat food, go for walks in the forest, do your work, have relationships and everything else. Who cares whether it's an appearance? I'm on board with everything you say there except the bolded.
Practice per se neither causes nor prevents SR. However, so long as there's a doer/seeker/practicer in play, Self is obscured.
Ditto, and the fact that it DOESN'T always work, should give pause. Zen has a famous koan about this specific issue. It goes like this: A zen monk sat in meditation for a million kalpas (trillions of years), but never woke up. Why? This koan is not answered with words, but there is a definite simple answer that explicates the matter. I remember the first time I went to a satsang with Gangaji. She attacked the idea of practice as a way to become enlightened, and I was shocked, because I was very attached to the idea of practice at that time. Later, I understood what she was pointing to, and I stopped using the word "practice" because it implies things that often lead people in the wrong direction. Sure, some people practice meditation and wake up in six months, but other people practice meditation for forty years and never have a single significant insight. Why? |
|
