|
|
Despair.
Jul 22, 2020 4:02:56 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by andrew on Jul 22, 2020 4:02:56 GMT -5
I like your attitude re: Seth and channeled material. However, from my perspective, I think what's getting in the way of communicating clearly with you on subjects that go beyond the Seth context of reality (channeled material) is your belief that everyone here is necessarily pushing some kind of belief. That may or may not be the case. Communication can be free from belief and even non-conceptual. That's the whole point of zen koans. In most cases you are probably right about people on online forums speaking merely from belief systems, but ruling out categorically freedom from belief in communication will put unnecessary limits on what can be known or communicated. That's the whole point of non-duality, to get out of such tiny mental boxes, any mental box. And that's mostly been the focus on this forum. So people will mostly approach you from that perspective or steer discussion back into that direction. Thanks  I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Actually even clearing my mind is a coarse tool I don't use anymore. I directly ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum state for whatever I intend to do: read, workout, drive, get in contact with my inner guide, get an out-of-body (I rarely do this anymore, as have no use for it), ... I also use suggestions for remembering dreams, having true dreams (no symbolism), accelerated mental processing (compressing or expanding the psychological time vs. the clock time for a purpose), automatic subconscious reaction to certain stimuli (for example, when while dreaming or being awake negative emotions develop). What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 22, 2020 5:13:00 GMT -5
The New English Bible: Luke 9:25: "What will a man gain by winning the whole world, at the cost of his true self?" The New Jerusalem Bible: Luke 9:25: "What benefit is it to anyone to win the whole world and forfeit or lose his very self?" The New International Version Bible: (same as NJB, above) King James Bible: Luke 9:25: "For what is a man advantaged if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?" What do you think he was talking about? What is one's "very self" or "true self?" SDP explained the issue; how would you explain it? How about Jesus' statement, "Before Abraham was, I am?" FWIW, Nisargadatta said the same thing. What we ARE was here before this universe existed and will be here after this universe disappears. This can be known, but not through the intellect.  Gopal believes in a personal God. And with that mental filter, the scriptures read a bit differently. I know; but he's attracted to non-duality, so ya never know..... |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2020 5:56:42 GMT -5
Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Actually even clearing my mind is a coarse tool I don't use anymore. I directly ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum state for whatever I intend to do: read, workout, drive, get in contact with my inner guide, get an out-of-body (I rarely do this anymore, as have no use for it), ... I also use suggestions for remembering dreams, having true dreams (no symbolism), accelerated mental processing (compressing or expanding the psychological time vs. the clock time for a purpose), automatic subconscious reaction to certain stimuli (for example, when while dreaming or being awake negative emotions develop). What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. Nodding along with most of this, although, the one point I'd disagree with, is that the nondual pointers have the potential to unbalance a perspective, in the most profoundly wonderful fashion, and that's the only purpose for which they're worthwhile.  |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 22, 2020 6:01:33 GMT -5
What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. Nodding along with most of this, although, the one point I'd disagree with, is that the nondual pointers have the potential to unbalance a perspective, in the most profoundly wonderful fashion, and that's the only purpose for which they're worthwhile. ah yes, i see how that can be said to be the case |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 22, 2020 9:15:51 GMT -5
Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. It can be just a belief system if it isn't backed up by an actual realization. If that's the case, it usually leads to dogmatism and a black/white approach. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. Yes, I understood that. And I agree. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Yes, koans are tools, but the goal is a radical change in perspective, not attaining a certain state. And there are different types of koans. Some koans can only be understood if you know the background story of the koan, like a specific line from a sutra. Some others don't require any such knowledge. What they all require though is a reference for what we call the impersonal perspective, seeing from prior to mind, prior to any concepts, beliefs or knowledge. If a zen master would ask you: "Show me your original face, the face you had before your parents were born." How would you reply? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 22, 2020 9:18:03 GMT -5
Gopal believes in a personal God. And with that mental filter, the scriptures read a bit differently. I know; but he's attracted to non-duality, so ya never know..... Yeah, but remember, once you're stamped you're stamped forever. It's hopeless. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 22, 2020 9:21:15 GMT -5
Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Actually even clearing my mind is a coarse tool I don't use anymore. I directly ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum state for whatever I intend to do: read, workout, drive, get in contact with my inner guide, get an out-of-body (I rarely do this anymore, as have no use for it), ... I also use suggestions for remembering dreams, having true dreams (no symbolism), accelerated mental processing (compressing or expanding the psychological time vs. the clock time for a purpose), automatic subconscious reaction to certain stimuli (for example, when while dreaming or being awake negative emotions develop). What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. By definition ND cannot be a set of beliefs. But on a forum like this words are used. So it's a nonstarter to say by definition ND cannot be a set of beliefs. zd has found a way to say it best _______. But this is not new. There is a word used for centuries to indicate what cannot be said, apophatic. And Michael Sells wrote a book on this: Mystical Languages of Unsaying. When one talks about ND, you are automatically at least once removed from it. But a great Zen teacher said once, You Have To Say Something. www.google.com/books/edition/You_Have_to_Say_Something/ePX9e0ECFawC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jul 22, 2020 11:03:29 GMT -5
What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. But on a forum like this words are used. So it's a nonstarter to say by definition ND cannot be a set of beliefs. zd has found a way to say it best _______. But this is not new. There is a word used for centuries to indicate what cannot be said, apophatic. And Michael Sells wrote a book on this: Mystical Languages of Unsaying. When one talks about ND, you are automatically at least once removed from it. But a great Zen teacher said once, You Have To Say Something. www.google.com/books/edition/You_Have_to_Say_Something/ePX9e0ECFawC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcoveryes...as said, for me 'non-belief' characterizes the oddity. I respect and value the distinction between direct knowing and belief, and yet there is a point at which this distinction can be said to be misconceived, or an error. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 22, 2020 12:53:43 GMT -5
Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Actually even clearing my mind is a coarse tool I don't use anymore. I directly ask my subconscious to put me in the optimum state for whatever I intend to do: read, workout, drive, get in contact with my inner guide, get an out-of-body (I rarely do this anymore, as have no use for it), ... I also use suggestions for remembering dreams, having true dreams (no symbolism), accelerated mental processing (compressing or expanding the psychological time vs. the clock time for a purpose), automatic subconscious reaction to certain stimuli (for example, when while dreaming or being awake negative emotions develop). What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. I think I understand what you're saying. Although what I do I call "channeling", it is actually a form of direct knowledge. The knowledge, answers, guidance I receive download directly, instantly in my mind; I know all of it, with no words. I put it in words when I write it down in my journal. When I ask questions, the reply comes most of the time before I finish formulating the question. It is like communicating at a level prior to my conscious. I don't rationalize the information in any way, and even when I translate it in words I am careful to keep in my memory the original raw knowledge, and not the way I formulated it. I want to minimize as much as possible inducing distortions. Later, if I have doubts I just ask again. The way I see it, intuition is a form of direct knowledge, the next step after the intellect. But what I'm doing isn't based on intuition, although I'm purposefully working at developing it. What I'm doing is communicating with a source. I associate intuition more with the physical senses, like a sixth sense, when you know and don't know where from. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 22, 2020 13:26:18 GMT -5
Thanks I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs. It can be just a belief system if it isn't backed up by an actual realization. If that's the case, it usually leads to dogmatism and a black/white approach. What I was trying to say is that I trust my inner source of knowledge and guidance over any possible external source (of knowledge in guidance), so I see no point in arguing the validity of my beliefs. I recognize that everybody has their own sources of knowledge and guidance (inner, guru, dogma), and I recognize everybody's right to feel about theirs the same way I feel about mine. I might want to learn more about somebody's beliefs, and somebody might want to learn more about mine, but I see no point in arguing about them, or proving their validity. Yes, I understood that. And I agree. I think that the zen koans are a tool to attain a certain state. I attain that using self hypnosis, and more recently mostly simple direct suggestions. When I want to clear my mind, I just ask that from my subconscious, and so it is. Yes, koans are tools, but the goal is a radical change in perspective, not attaining a certain state. And there are different types of koans. Some koans can only be understood if you know the background story of the koan, like a specific line from a sutra. Some others don't require any such knowledge. What they all require though is a reference for what we call the impersonal perspective, seeing from prior to mind, prior to any concepts, beliefs or knowledge. If a zen master would ask you: "Show me your original face, the face you had before your parents were born." How would you reply? I can't show it to him, but I can describe it from my regression. The point is that the zen master's question shows a misunderstanding of the concepts of time, and of reincarnation. He doesn't seem to have an understanding neither of the physical universe, nor of the wider reality ... If people believe something, that is a belief system. If you unequivocally hold on those beliefs, that is dogmatism (in the way I use those words). |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 22, 2020 14:09:14 GMT -5
It can be just a belief system if it isn't backed up by an actual realization. If that's the case, it usually leads to dogmatism and a black/white approach. Yes, I understood that. And I agree. Yes, koans are tools, but the goal is a radical change in perspective, not attaining a certain state. And there are different types of koans. Some koans can only be understood if you know the background story of the koan, like a specific line from a sutra. Some others don't require any such knowledge. What they all require though is a reference for what we call the impersonal perspective, seeing from prior to mind, prior to any concepts, beliefs or knowledge. If a zen master would ask you: "Show me your original face, the face you had before your parents were born." How would you reply? I can't show it to him, but I can describe it from my regression. The point is that the zen master's question shows a misunderstanding of the concepts of time, and of reincarnation. He doesn't seem to have an understanding neither of the physical universe, nor of the wider reality ... If people believe something, that is a belief system. If you unequivocally hold on those beliefs, that is dogmatism (in the way I use those words). Zen koans have simple clear answers, but the answers have nothing to do with intellectual understanding. They are answered via what we might call "body knowing" rather than head knowing. The koan that Reefs made reference to has nothing to do with time, reincarnation, or any other concepts. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 22, 2020 14:53:12 GMT -5
What you'll find here is that folks here tend to speak in terms of a firm distinction between belief, and what they might call 'direct knowing'. Belief pertains to new age teachings, channellings, personal development, religion. Direct knowing pertains to 'non duality'. Personally, I definitely see value in the distinction...even a firm one, but then again...technically speaking, I do see non duality as a belief system, albeit a strange one...one that leads to a structure of experience that does seem to transcend belief. In actuality, I would say that through non duality, the rational and irrational aspects of mind are rebalanced, and the formerly very dominant rational aspect, is now healthily in its place. So as a way of talking about this, I would perhaps say that non-duality is 'non-belief', and there's no doubt that as part of the integration, we do...in a very experientially real sense...'lose all belief'. Having discussed the issue for many years here...and it was part of the big mega thread that you have seen...the subject has largely worn itself out for me, though your interest has perhaps rekindled in me a tiny spark of what was once more of a roaring fire. By definition ND cannot be a set of beliefs. But on a forum like this words are used. So it's a nonstarter to say by definition ND cannot be a set of beliefs. zd has found a way to say it best _______. But this is not new. There is a word used for centuries to indicate what cannot be said, apophatic. And Michael Sells wrote a book on this: Mystical Languages of Unsaying. When one talks about ND, you are automatically at least once removed from it. But a great Zen teacher said once, You Have To Say Something. www.google.com/books/edition/You_Have_to_Say_Something/ePX9e0ECFawC?hl=en&gbpv=1&printsec=frontcover"Ineffable" is another word that applies, one that I find to have potentially poetic overtones, depending on how it's used. It suggests a delightful game of keep-away from the intellect, offering a potential clue as to the limits of use of the intellect as a tool. One very useful facet of nondual culture is introducing this distinction between intellect and non-intellect, and this notion of using it as a tool. It also naturally raises the question: "what is it that uses intellect?". On tip of a tongue There, a flavor of stardust Here, but elusive |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 22, 2020 14:55:59 GMT -5
I can't show it to him, but I can describe it from my regression. The point is that the zen master's question shows a misunderstanding of the concepts of time, and of reincarnation. He doesn't seem to have an understanding neither of the physical universe, nor of the wider reality ... If people believe something, that is a belief system. If you unequivocally hold on those beliefs, that is dogmatism (in the way I use those words). Zen koans have simple clear answers, but the answers have nothing to do with intellectual understanding. They are answered via what we might call "body knowing" rather than head knowing. The koan that Reefs made reference to has nothing to do with time, reincarnation, or any other concepts. Are you saying that the koans' purpose isn't to put you / your mind in a certain state to access something, that some practitioners might want to call nothing? And that using koans isn't a matter of belief that you should use them for whatever you want to achieve, based on a guru's or a dogma's teachings (I don't give any negative connotation to the words guru or dogma)? You see, people who adhere to a certain common way of thinking start using a jargon, where the words have different meanings that ordinary people might give them. Is there somewhere where I can read a half to one page description of what most of the posters on this forums believe in this matters? The basic idea? Thanks. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 22, 2020 16:34:24 GMT -5
To Whom It may Concern, link synopsis of ND. The link is a quick overview of Dzogchen (zog-chen, the D is silent), which is a nondual Tibetan Buddhist teaching and view of existence. Dzogchen also previously existed in Tibet before Buddhism came to Tibet, in Bon. I favor Taoism (Lao Tzu and his Tao Te Ching, and Chuang Tzu) over Tibetan Buddhism, but more specific teachings exist in Dzogchen, more ~how-to~ information and ~what-it-is~, and more accessible. You can skip down to Overview of Dzogchen Teachings and and then The Base part of The Base, The Path, and the Fruit. I'd say it's a good synopsis of nonduality, what nondual means. Dzogchen goes straight to the matter of "fact", doesn't beat around the bush. I don't think anyone here will disagree that this is accurate in relation to nonduality (which means not two), in general. Just ~see~/~perceive~ What Is before the brain or consciousness has a chance to interpret It. www.soul-guidance.com/houseofthesun/dzogchen.htmIn Christianity Meister Eckhart said: The eye by which God sees me and I see God are one and the same. This is an expression of ND. Have you ever seen the film The Miracle Worker? Helen Keller was born seeing and hearing, but early on lost the ability to see or hear. So Helen as a child essentially lived in a nondual world, she did not have language. She could taste food, and smell, and she had the sense of touch. So everything in her world was immediate. Annie Sullivan was hired by the family to try to teach Helen sign language, by touch. Now, a very dramatic and moving part of the film is when Helen first learned that the letters Annie formed in Helen's hand, signified water, while ATST Annie held her hand under the water pump under a flow of water. Suddenly Helen understood, the motions of Annie's fingers symbolized water, finger motions = water. And then a whole world opened up to Helen. She went around touching different things and asked Annie to give her the different finger motions that represented the different objects. Now, most children learn this over months and years, slowly, learn how to abstract. Something in Helen just clicked, and she understood symbolism, immediately. (Incidentally, Walker Percy, and some other semioticians, understood this to be a triadic process. Tree = the living object that has roots, a trunk, limbs, branches and leaves. But it takes a third aspect/thing to make this connection, human consciousness). Why this little story? Understanding nonduality is a kind of reverse process. It's, in part, the experience of What Is previous to conceptualization. The world, the universe, is one unified whole. Awareness perceives just what is, and then the mind and intellect puts it into categories and concepts and language. Dzogchen is all about this Awareness. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jul 24, 2020 5:16:00 GMT -5
It can be just a belief system if it isn't backed up by an actual realization. If that's the case, it usually leads to dogmatism and a black/white approach. Yes, I understood that. And I agree. Yes, koans are tools, but the goal is a radical change in perspective, not attaining a certain state. And there are different types of koans. Some koans can only be understood if you know the background story of the koan, like a specific line from a sutra. Some others don't require any such knowledge. What they all require though is a reference for what we call the impersonal perspective, seeing from prior to mind, prior to any concepts, beliefs or knowledge. If a zen master would ask you: "Show me your original face, the face you had before your parents were born." How would you reply? I can't show it to him, but I can describe it from my regression. The point is that the zen master's question shows a misunderstanding of the concepts of time, and of reincarnation. He doesn't seem to have an understanding neither of the physical universe, nor of the wider reality ... If people believe something, that is a belief system. If you unequivocally hold on those beliefs, that is dogmatism (in the way I use those words). You went right into the monkey mind trap the zen master laid out for you. The zen master has no use for your concepts of "time", "reincarnation", "the physical universe" or "the wider reality". He wants to see the real deal, not abstractions. Knowledge, any kind of knowledge, isn't going to help you here. That doesn't mean though that you cannot reply using words. It just means that you cannot answer it from an intellectual level. You have to answer from a deeper, visceral level of your being. |
|
I don't know if I understand correctly ... I believe you're saying that people can discuss ignoring their own beliefs, and that is the whole point of non-duality. I confess I never thought from this perspective. I think that non-duality is a system of beliefs.
