|
Post by laughter on Jul 5, 2020 14:37:25 GMT -5
Near the end of the talk, Shi drops what I'd imagine would have been a bombshell to some if not most of the audience - provided they were paying attention: (16:40) ".. and ultimately 'non-identification' means .. it is the practice : .. 'I am not the body' .. 'I am not the mind' .. 'I am not my emotion' .. it's just that, I can see, all these three aspects, about me".
Certainly, the common view among most Americans would lead to an eyebrow raise here. Central to the talk that precedes it is the topic of "self mastery". That topic seems to me as one more naturally culturally resonant to the average American. For example, temperance is still widely considered to be a virtue and a quality that most people look for in their mates and other relationships. I see this as related to the deeply embedded conditioning that comes down to us in what used to be the "Western world" from the ancient cultural movement of the Stoics. Now, the question of self-inquiry is one that's no stranger to the regular poster's here. Shi's ending a talk about self-mastery with the idea that "you are not the body, you are not your mind", naturally raises the question then: "what is this self, that is mastered, if not the body and the mind, and what is the self that does the mastering?". Clearly, this is a form of the existential question of self-inquiry. Love it! Sekida approaches this issue, and, if I recall, quite directly in his Zen Training. The process of self-mastery that Shi describes strikes me as potentially beneficial to anyone, in material and relative terms. It's also potentially useful in terms of a spiritual search, as it leads to less falsity. The flip side, however, is that can reinforce the false sense of existentially separate individual identity, by strengthening and stabilizing the temporaryand material state of that individual, relative to his or her circumstance. This is where the existential question becomes paramount: "what has been mastered, and who is the master?". Another counterpoint: this process of quieting the body and mind seems to me to depart from the notion of a "middle-way" - the Shaolin are Zen Buddhists, after all - and perhaps isn't the best approach in terms of all facets for all people in every situation. Total denial of our sexual nature, for example, is bound (for most people at least) to lead to imbalance, and pursing other sensual extremities in sport has just as much potential to illuminate the falsity of existential seperation. There's a poetry to skiing or surfing or climbing or sailing, for example, that's often quite transcendent. Just because that sort of approach didn't work for the Buddha, doesn't mean it might not work, for someone else. And indeed, the Shao Lin pursue the physical, sensual aspect of their path in perfecting their ability to fight in hand-to-hand and (primitively) armed combat.
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 5, 2020 16:03:41 GMT -5
Nice presentation. Thanks!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 15, 2020 12:07:17 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by amit on Oct 15, 2020 16:19:39 GMT -5
Near the end of the talk, Shi drops what I'd imagine would have been a bombshell to some if not most of the audience - provided they were paying attention: (16:40) ".. and ultimately 'non-identification' means .. it is the practice : .. 'I am not the body' .. 'I am not the mind' .. 'I am not my emotion' .. it's just that, I can see, all these three aspects, about me".
Certainly, the common view among most Americans would lead to an eyebrow raise here. Central to the talk that precedes it is the topic of "self mastery". That topic seems to me as one more naturally culturally resonant to the average American. For example, temperance is still widely considered to be a virtue and a quality that most people look for in their mates and other relationships. I see this as related to the deeply embedded conditioning that comes down to us in what used to be the "Western world" from the ancient cultural movement of the Stoics. Now, the question of self-inquiry is one that's no stranger to the regular poster's here. Shi's ending a talk about self-mastery with the idea that "you are not the body, you are not your mind", naturally raises the question then: "what is this self, that is mastered, if not the body and the mind, and what is the self that does the mastering?". Clearly, this is a form of the existential question of self-inquiry. Love it! Sekida approaches this issue, and, if I recall, quite directly in his Zen Training. The process of self-mastery that Shi describes strikes me as potentially beneficial to anyone, in material and relative terms. It's also potentially useful in terms of a spiritual search, as it leads to less falsity. The flip side, however, is that can reinforce the false sense of existentially separate individual identity, by strengthening and stabilizing the temporaryand material state of that individual, relative to his or her circumstance. This is where the existential question becomes paramount: "what has been mastered, and who is the master?". Another counterpoint: this process of quieting the body and mind seems to me to depart from the notion of a "middle-way" - the Shaolin are Zen Buddhists, after all - and perhaps isn't the best approach in terms of all facets for all people in every situation. Total denial of our sexual nature, for example, is bound (for most people at least) to lead to imbalance, and pursing other sensual extremities in sport has just as much potential to illuminate the falsity of existential seperation. There's a poetry to skiing or surfing or climbing or sailing, for example, that's often quite transcendent. Just because that sort of approach didn't work for the Buddha, doesn't mean it might not work, for someone else. And indeed, the Shao Lin pursue the physical, sensual aspect of their path in perfecting their ability to fight in hand-to-hand and (primitively) armed combat. Do we not recognise from our own experience how mind operates? Does it not seem like it works on problems that are causing discomfort to the organism? One of these seems to be the discomfort resulting in the spiritual search. If it is mind that conducts the search, (Niz says that it is mind that discovers) it would not be surprising if mind had the capacity to select (resonate with) a solution that works for the character (Ego) it had constructed. This is often called the false self and helpfully defends the child against rejection, by constructing a personality that deflects rejection. That the person then grows to forget that this is a falsehood (repression)and regards the construction (character/personality) as the self would only make the defense more convincing, and effective. So in this scenario the purpose of the search would not be to eliminate the defense before the person had evolved not to need it anymore (because rejection may not be so terrifying for the adult as it was for the child), but for it to be realized that it is a defense, whilst leaving it in place to use as a tool when necessary to deflect rejection. It would be dangerous to the organism for the this defense (ego) to be eliminated prematurely. This purpose for the ego was probably not known when its elimination was first recommended long ago in spiritual circles, and remains a questionable recommendation today. In this scenario, it is mind that is given the task of mastering the ego, a very difficult conflict for the mind to be in, to elimate that which it constructed for a helpful reason.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Oct 15, 2020 20:38:28 GMT -5
Near the end of the talk, Shi drops what I'd imagine would have been a bombshell to some if not most of the audience - provided they were paying attention: (16:40) ".. and ultimately 'non-identification' means .. it is the practice : .. 'I am not the body' .. 'I am not the mind' .. 'I am not my emotion' .. it's just that, I can see, all these three aspects, about me".
Certainly, the common view among most Americans would lead to an eyebrow raise here. Central to the talk that precedes it is the topic of "self mastery". That topic seems to me as one more naturally culturally resonant to the average American. For example, temperance is still widely considered to be a virtue and a quality that most people look for in their mates and other relationships. I see this as related to the deeply embedded conditioning that comes down to us in what used to be the "Western world" from the ancient cultural movement of the Stoics. Now, the question of self-inquiry is one that's no stranger to the regular poster's here. Shi's ending a talk about self-mastery with the idea that "you are not the body, you are not your mind", naturally raises the question then: "what is this self, that is mastered, if not the body and the mind, and what is the self that does the mastering?". Clearly, this is a form of the existential question of self-inquiry. Love it! Sekida approaches this issue, and, if I recall, quite directly in his Zen Training. The process of self-mastery that Shi describes strikes me as potentially beneficial to anyone, in material and relative terms. It's also potentially useful in terms of a spiritual search, as it leads to less falsity. The flip side, however, is that can reinforce the false sense of existentially separate individual identity, by strengthening and stabilizing the temporaryand material state of that individual, relative to his or her circumstance. This is where the existential question becomes paramount: "what has been mastered, and who is the master?". Another counterpoint: this process of quieting the body and mind seems to me to depart from the notion of a "middle-way" - the Shaolin are Zen Buddhists, after all - and perhaps isn't the best approach in terms of all facets for all people in every situation. Total denial of our sexual nature, for example, is bound (for most people at least) to lead to imbalance, and pursing other sensual extremities in sport has just as much potential to illuminate the falsity of existential seperation. There's a poetry to skiing or surfing or climbing or sailing, for example, that's often quite transcendent. Just because that sort of approach didn't work for the Buddha, doesn't mean it might not work, for someone else. And indeed, the Shao Lin pursue the physical, sensual aspect of their path in perfecting their ability to fight in hand-to-hand and (primitively) armed combat. This is a most excellent video, it is a resounding echo to my POV. I think here you are conflating two different things. He discusses being a good son, doing the academic route, on a path to be an engineer, lawyer or doctor. But he also began Shaolin training at the age of 4. So when he had finished university, what his parents wanted him to do, he decided, for himself, the Shaolin way was his way. So "self mastery" had to do with the body and the mind. When he talked about non-identification means the practice, I am not the body, I am not my mind, I am not my emotions, he is leaving behind "self mastery" in any form. It doesn't concern a self that masters anything, what is this self that is mastered cannot be found in his talk. So the story is central. You can't get from 30+ people the experience you get from climbing the mountain. His whole talk is saying, you have to actually climb the mountain. So it is useless to try to describe what you see, experience, realize. You try to get the other person to want to climb the mountain, that's all one can really do. He said, unlike the character in the story, you can't get from words what climbing the mountain is really like.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2020 2:03:23 GMT -5
What strikes me about the Master's movements is a poetry .. a union of opposites: entirely fluid and yet, implacably unyielding in the delivery of contact. I'd bet cash money they got a one-word term for that.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2020 4:14:31 GMT -5
Near the end of the talk, Shi drops what I'd imagine would have been a bombshell to some if not most of the audience - provided they were paying attention: (16:40) ".. and ultimately 'non-identification' means .. it is the practice : .. 'I am not the body' .. 'I am not the mind' .. 'I am not my emotion' .. it's just that, I can see, all these three aspects, about me".
Certainly, the common view among most Americans would lead to an eyebrow raise here. Central to the talk that precedes it is the topic of "self mastery". That topic seems to me as one more naturally culturally resonant to the average American. For example, temperance is still widely considered to be a virtue and a quality that most people look for in their mates and other relationships. I see this as related to the deeply embedded conditioning that comes down to us in what used to be the "Western world" from the ancient cultural movement of the Stoics. Now, the question of self-inquiry is one that's no stranger to the regular poster's here. Shi's ending a talk about self-mastery with the idea that "you are not the body, you are not your mind", naturally raises the question then: "what is this self, that is mastered, if not the body and the mind, and what is the self that does the mastering?". Clearly, this is a form of the existential question of self-inquiry. Love it! Sekida approaches this issue, and, if I recall, quite directly in his Zen Training. The process of self-mastery that Shi describes strikes me as potentially beneficial to anyone, in material and relative terms. It's also potentially useful in terms of a spiritual search, as it leads to less falsity. The flip side, however, is that can reinforce the false sense of existentially separate individual identity, by strengthening and stabilizing the temporaryand material state of that individual, relative to his or her circumstance. This is where the existential question becomes paramount: "what has been mastered, and who is the master?". Another counterpoint: this process of quieting the body and mind seems to me to depart from the notion of a "middle-way" - the Shaolin are Zen Buddhists, after all - and perhaps isn't the best approach in terms of all facets for all people in every situation. Total denial of our sexual nature, for example, is bound (for most people at least) to lead to imbalance, and pursing other sensual extremities in sport has just as much potential to illuminate the falsity of existential seperation. There's a poetry to skiing or surfing or climbing or sailing, for example, that's often quite transcendent. Just because that sort of approach didn't work for the Buddha, doesn't mean it might not work, for someone else. And indeed, the Shao Lin pursue the physical, sensual aspect of their path in perfecting their ability to fight in hand-to-hand and (primitively) armed combat. Do we not recognise from our own experience how mind operates? Does it not seem like it works on problems that are causing discomfort to the organism? One of these seems to be the discomfort resulting in the spiritual search. If it is mind that conducts the search, (Niz says that it is mind that discovers) it would not be surprising if mind had the capacity to select (resonate with) a solution that works for the character (Ego) it had constructed. This is often called the false self and helpfully defends the child against rejection, by constructing a personality that deflects rejection. That the person then grows to forget that this is a falsehood (repression)and regards the construction (character/personality) as the self would only make the defense more convincing, and effective. So in this scenario the purpose of the search would not be to eliminate the defense before the person had evolved not to need it anymore (because rejection may not be so terrifying for the adult as it was for the child), but for it to be realized that it is a defense, whilst leaving it in place to use as a tool when necessary to deflect rejection. It would be dangerous to the organism for the this defense (ego) to be eliminated prematurely. This purpose for the ego was probably not known when its elimination was first recommended long ago in spiritual circles, and remains a questionable recommendation today. In this scenario, it is mind that is given the task of mastering the ego, a very difficult conflict for the mind to be in, to elimate that which it constructed for a helpful reason. Went back and listened to the talk for a reason: note that Shi doesn't mention this word, "ego". This seems to be a pattern in the Buddhist material I've dabbled in. Perhaps this reflects a certain institutional wisdom they've gained over the thousands of years they've been at the work. Certainly, the ego is tricky business. The ego is certainly a two-sided coin. But at the top of the mountain, there is nothing to defend. Now, it might seem, in simple terms, as if not everywhere is the top of the mountain, but that just reflects the double-sided nature of mind, language and ideation. As you've stated many times: oneness manifesting. Each of the conceptions of a mountain, a path, and a person who walks a path are opportunities for the existentially curious, and each of them are ultimately empty. Some of us can relate how directly approaching the dark side of ego, putting it at arm's length, and seeing it for what it is, describes a pivotal moment on the path to what Shi calls self-mastery. In terms of his mountain metaphor, there are as many paths leading to the peak as there are, ever have been, and ever will be people, and certainly, not all of them include such a tale. The role of ego you describe, is relative to a process of change, but the existential truth is always, right here and now. It's not the result of a healing process nor a reward for hard work or living life correctly. It's a commonality both subtle and yet potentially explosive, that seems to elude the majority of mankind. The only relationship between any process of evolution and that truth is the description of a blueprint of the machine that obscures the truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 16, 2020 4:36:08 GMT -5
Near the end of the talk, Shi drops what I'd imagine would have been a bombshell to some if not most of the audience - provided they were paying attention: (16:40) ".. and ultimately 'non-identification' means .. it is the practice : .. 'I am not the body' .. 'I am not the mind' .. 'I am not my emotion' .. it's just that, I can see, all these three aspects, about me".
Certainly, the common view among most Americans would lead to an eyebrow raise here. Central to the talk that precedes it is the topic of "self mastery". That topic seems to me as one more naturally culturally resonant to the average American. For example, temperance is still widely considered to be a virtue and a quality that most people look for in their mates and other relationships. I see this as related to the deeply embedded conditioning that comes down to us in what used to be the "Western world" from the ancient cultural movement of the Stoics. Now, the question of self-inquiry is one that's no stranger to the regular poster's here. Shi's ending a talk about self-mastery with the idea that "you are not the body, you are not your mind", naturally raises the question then: "what is this self, that is mastered, if not the body and the mind, and what is the self that does the mastering?". Clearly, this is a form of the existential question of self-inquiry. Love it! Sekida approaches this issue, and, if I recall, quite directly in his Zen Training. The process of self-mastery that Shi describes strikes me as potentially beneficial to anyone, in material and relative terms. It's also potentially useful in terms of a spiritual search, as it leads to less falsity. The flip side, however, is that can reinforce the false sense of existentially separate individual identity, by strengthening and stabilizing the temporaryand material state of that individual, relative to his or her circumstance. This is where the existential question becomes paramount: "what has been mastered, and who is the master?". Another counterpoint: this process of quieting the body and mind seems to me to depart from the notion of a "middle-way" - the Shaolin are Zen Buddhists, after all - and perhaps isn't the best approach in terms of all facets for all people in every situation. Total denial of our sexual nature, for example, is bound (for most people at least) to lead to imbalance, and pursing other sensual extremities in sport has just as much potential to illuminate the falsity of existential seperation. There's a poetry to skiing or surfing or climbing or sailing, for example, that's often quite transcendent. Just because that sort of approach didn't work for the Buddha, doesn't mean it might not work, for someone else. And indeed, the Shao Lin pursue the physical, sensual aspect of their path in perfecting their ability to fight in hand-to-hand and (primitively) armed combat. This is a most excellent video, it is a resounding echo to my POV. I think here you are conflating two different things. He discusses being a good son, doing the academic route, on a path to be an engineer, lawyer or doctor. But he also began Shaolin training at the age of 4. So when he had finished university, what his parents wanted him to do, he decided, for himself, the Shaolin way was his way. So "self mastery" had to do with the body and the mind. When he talked about non-identification means the practice, I am not the body, I am not my mind, I am not my emotions, he is leaving behind "self mastery" in any form. It doesn't concern a self that masters anything, what is this self that is mastered cannot be found in his talk.So the story is central. You can't get from 30+ people the experience you get from climbing the mountain. His whole talk is saying, you have to actually climb the mountain. So it is useless to try to describe what you see, experience, realize. You try to get the other person to want to climb the mountain, that's all one can really do. He said, unlike the character in the story, you can't get from words what climbing the mountain is really like. I'd say to anyone interested in following a path the way that Shi invites: just do it, don't ask why, don't ask what, just do it. We all are walking. There's always a next moment, a next step. The climbing metaphor is the difference between walking in an awareness of what's going on as we walk, or not. His point that you have to climb yourself is unmistakable, but go back and listen again. He makes it clear that there is a use for words and stories. Shi doesn't say what you say, he's simply silent on the issue of "what is this self?", which is precisely why I wrote the OP. I'd opine that it might seem like to you that his meaning of self-mastery only applies to the individual form and it's characteristics, but this isn't the case. We can reduce a clock to a list of parts and an instruction for assembling them, but the reduction, is not, the clock. Ultimately, these processes that are happening are not other, not existentially seperate from the timelesss, limitless and formless totality that has the only valid claim on the word, "reality", and which, 'pilgrim, is your true nature. Now, here, Shi says there are two mistakes: never starting and stopping too soon. Shi's practice of recoginizing that we're not our body, not our mind, not our emotion, isn't indefinite. At the top of the mountain, there is no such distinction. One way to know if one has stopped too soon, is to get self-honest as to whether or not they've resolved that issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 16, 2020 16:24:25 GMT -5
What strikes me about the Master's movements is a poetry .. a union of opposites: entirely fluid and yet, implacably unyielding in the delivery of contact. I'd bet cash money they got a one-word term for that.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Oct 17, 2020 2:45:49 GMT -5
Do we not recognise from our own experience how mind operates? Does it not seem like it works on problems that are causing discomfort to the organism? One of these seems to be the discomfort resulting in the spiritual search. If it is mind that conducts the search, (Niz says that it is mind that discovers) it would not be surprising if mind had the capacity to select (resonate with) a solution that works for the character (Ego) it had constructed. This is often called the false self and helpfully defends the child against rejection, by constructing a personality that deflects rejection. That the person then grows to forget that this is a falsehood (repression)and regards the construction (character/personality) as the self would only make the defense more convincing, and effective. So in this scenario the purpose of the search would not be to eliminate the defense before the person had evolved not to need it anymore (because rejection may not be so terrifying for the adult as it was for the child), but for it to be realized that it is a defense, whilst leaving it in place to use as a tool when necessary to deflect rejection. It would be dangerous to the organism for the this defense (ego) to be eliminated prematurely. This purpose for the ego was probably not known when its elimination was first recommended long ago in spiritual circles, and remains a questionable recommendation today. In this scenario, it is mind that is given the task of mastering the ego, a very difficult conflict for the mind to be in, to elimate that which it constructed for a helpful reason. Went back and listened to the talk for a reason: note that Shi doesn't mention this word, "ego". This seems to be a pattern in the Buddhist material I've dabbled in. Perhaps this reflects a certain institutional wisdom they've gained over the thousands of years they've been at the work. Certainly, the ego is tricky business. The ego is certainly a two-sided coin. But at the top of the mountain, there is nothing to defend. Now, it might seem, in simple terms, as if not everywhere is the top of the mountain, but that just reflects the double-sided nature of mind, language and ideation. As you've stated many times: oneness manifesting. Each of the conceptions of a mountain, a path, and a person who walks a path are opportunities for the existentially curious, and each of them are ultimately empty. Some of us can relate how directly approaching the dark side of ego, putting it at arm's length, and seeing it for what it is, describes a pivotal moment on the path to what Shi calls self-mastery. In terms of his mountain metaphor, there are as many paths leading to the peak as there are, ever have been, and ever will be people, and certainly, not all of them include such a tale. The role of ego you describe, is relative to a process of change, but the existential truth is always, right here and now. It's not the result of a healing process nor a reward for hard work or living life correctly. It's a commonality both subtle and yet potentially explosive, that seems to elude the majority of mankind. The only relationship between any process of evolution and that truth is the description of a blueprint of the machine that obscures the truth. Yes the defensive purpose of ego is only one description among many. In that description it takes energy for mind to maintain this defense so monitors the ongoing need for it with a view to eliminating it altogether when it is no longer needed. So in that sense the process to eliminate the ego WHEN APPROPRIATE is already in hands of the mind, rather than the recommendation of some spiritual practise which is not aware of the protective aspects of ego. The idea of a truth that can be relied upon, existential or otherwise, is strongly doubted by some (Kieregaard's Highwayman parable), and rejected as an objective of the search, preferring reliance on the vibration of resonance which does not require that the solution found to the search , is the truth.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2020 2:53:28 GMT -5
Went back and listened to the talk for a reason: note that Shi doesn't mention this word, "ego". This seems to be a pattern in the Buddhist material I've dabbled in. Perhaps this reflects a certain institutional wisdom they've gained over the thousands of years they've been at the work. Certainly, the ego is tricky business. The ego is certainly a two-sided coin. But at the top of the mountain, there is nothing to defend. Now, it might seem, in simple terms, as if not everywhere is the top of the mountain, but that just reflects the double-sided nature of mind, language and ideation. As you've stated many times: oneness manifesting. Each of the conceptions of a mountain, a path, and a person who walks a path are opportunities for the existentially curious, and each of them are ultimately empty. Some of us can relate how directly approaching the dark side of ego, putting it at arm's length, and seeing it for what it is, describes a pivotal moment on the path to what Shi calls self-mastery. In terms of his mountain metaphor, there are as many paths leading to the peak as there are, ever have been, and ever will be people, and certainly, not all of them include such a tale. The role of ego you describe, is relative to a process of change, but the existential truth is always, right here and now. It's not the result of a healing process nor a reward for hard work or living life correctly. It's a commonality both subtle and yet potentially explosive, that seems to elude the majority of mankind. The only relationship between any process of evolution and that truth is the description of a blueprint of the machine that obscures the truth. Yes the defensive purpose of ego is only one description among many. In that description it takes energy for mind to maintain this defense so monitors the ongoing need for it with a view to eliminating it altogether when it is no longer needed. So in that sense the process to eliminate the ego WHEN APPROPRIATE is already in hands of the mind, rather than the recommendation of some spiritual practise which is not aware of the protective aspects of ego. The idea of a truth that can be relied upon, existential or otherwise, is strongly doubted by some (Kieregaard's Highwayman parable), and rejected as an objective of the search, preferring reliance on the vibration of resonance which does not require that the solution found to the search , is the truth. Truth, in the way I use the word, has two meanings. In the relative context, from the perspective of a seeker, it refers to what cannot be denied. The other meaning is only important if someone happens to be interested in what I have to say.
|
|
|
Post by amit on Oct 17, 2020 6:51:48 GMT -5
Yes the defensive purpose of ego is only one description among many. In that description it takes energy for mind to maintain this defense so monitors the ongoing need for it with a view to eliminating it altogether when it is no longer needed. So in that sense the process to eliminate the ego WHEN APPROPRIATE is already in hands of the mind, rather than the recommendation of some spiritual practise which is not aware of the protective aspects of ego. The idea of a truth that can be relied upon, existential or otherwise, is strongly doubted by some (Kieregaard's Highwayman parable), and rejected as an objective of the search, preferring reliance on the vibration of resonance which does not require that the solution found to the search , is the truth. Truth, in the way I use the word, has two meanings. In the relative context, from the perspective of a seeker, it refers to what cannot be denied. The other meaning is only important if someone happens to be interested in what I have to say. Always interested is the case for Amit, but never as THE TRUTH:)
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 17, 2020 15:26:03 GMT -5
Truth, in the way I use the word, has two meanings. In the relative context, from the perspective of a seeker, it refers to what cannot be denied. The other meaning is only important if someone happens to be interested in what I have to say. Always interested is the case for Amit, but never as THE TRUTH:)
|
|
|
Post by amit on Nov 2, 2020 5:44:00 GMT -5
Key element for me was the idea that once you get through something belief is not necessary. The mustard seed moves the mountain but once the mountain is moved, the mustard seed becomes a sentimental artifact. You put the photo of the mustard seed in your wallet. But the real understanding experiences no interference from the mental construct. The trust suggested by Niz as an alternative to practise, is close to faith, and both close to a firm belief. So not much different to what religion talks about as having faith being the requirement. So it seems like this firm belief may also apply to nonduality, that one is already what is sought, as a solution that ends the search. Consideration of that firm belief may have to be revisited in order for it to be monitored and maintained. A crisis of faith (firm belief) often seems to occur due to various causes.
|
|
|
Post by roydop on Nov 2, 2020 12:02:07 GMT -5
"So it seems like this firm belief may also apply to nonduality, that one is already what is sought, as a solution that ends the search."
So a belief is the solution? This is what you are saying in this sentence.
|
|