|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 24, 2020 6:32:51 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).  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. Correct. A koan can be any existential question. The formal koans are usually used to test a student's existential understanding, but informal koans can be just as important. Should I marry this person I'm dating? Should I quit my job and pursue something that I enjoy more even though it will pay less? What is the meaning of life if any? What is my purpose in life? Some of the formal koans are used as "enlightenment" koans, such as "What is mu?" The Buddha had said that everything in the universe has Buddha-nature. In Christian terms this would be like saying, "Everything in the universe is a part of God." A monk asked Joshu, a famous ZM, "Does even a dog have Buddha-nature?" Joshu replied, "Mu," which means "No." This contradiction forms the basis of the koan. One master said that everything is part of God, or one-with God, and the other master denied that a dog is part of God, or one-with God. A Zen student is first told this story and then asked, "What is mu?" If the student finds the answer to this question, a question that cannot be solved using the intellect, s/he might be asked, "So, which master was correct, the Buddha or Joshu?" If the student answers this question correctly, s/he might be asked, "So, what do you say to Mu if you meet Mu at the train station in the morning?" All of these questions may appear nonsensical to the intellect, but the body can answer any of them if the intellect is not engaged. To answer any koan, one simply contemplates the issue in silence. The idea is to leave the intellect behind and access a deeper level of mind, a level of mind that is connected to reality directly. Most humans live in a meta-reality created by imagination, but reality is beyond imagination even though it includes imagination. Sages spend their time pointing at reality. As Don Oakley recently said, "It's like someone pointing to a blue bird." Do you see it? It's right there. Look again. Look in that direction. Do you see it? Like a bluebird in a tree, the truth is always right in front of everyone's eyes, but it usually isn't seen. A sage has nothing special to transmit to other people; she simply points to the solid ground of being--to "what is." Koans are just a methodology for shutting off the intellect so that something more fundamental can break through the meta-reality trance state that make people imagine a world of separate things and events. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2020 6:58:33 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). 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. zin is unable to access the link above, so here are some excerpts concerning ND Dzogchen. (From the post above to whom it may concern). Dzogchen is an ancient teaching that explains both who we are in the world as in our essence, and how we can make our essence manifest. Dzogchen translates as Great perfection. As Ground it is our already self-perfected Natural State. Our essential being, that what we were, what we are and what we will always be is a state of awareness that is primordial pure. Our normal mind and consciousness is always obscured by impurities of emotions and thoughts, but our essence is total purity. This is called the Natural State of our being. This purity has no obscurations whatsoever of thoughts or emotions. Dzogchen uses the image of a mirror which has the capacity to reflect whatever is in front of it, but is not obscured by it. The mirror always remains the same. We all are this primordial purity. But our everyday consciousness is so clouded by emotions and thoughts, that we are not aware of it. When our awareness is in the Natural State there are no restrictions or limitations to the expression of our being. The appearances we perceive are just the reflections of the mind. They are manifestations of the mind. Manifestations come and go, they are recognized just as reflections. Awareness remains in its pure state. As ordinary beings on the earth our awareness identifies itself with the manifestations and takes them to be real. So there is the pure state. Most of us have never experienced our pure essence in our lives, so how do we know what it is? In meditation thoughts are observed to arise and flow away, are insubstantial waves that come and go and cease to exist. It is important not to identify, not to follow thoughts as they lead your awareness away. The purpose is to eventually stay aware of one's Natural State. Everything we think is a constriction of the mind and not our true Natural State. The Base is our Ground of existence, it is non-dual. Our Primordial State is beyond time and space. Once our being enters duality, then begins time and space. In duality we become caught up in projections which we mistake as external reality. The Natural State is permanent. Everything we experience is impermanent because nothing exists within itself as a permanent state. In the world we need concepts and words to communicate. A lot of thoughts are just ramblings, automatic programs that just keep the mind busy. The point is to keep one's awareness in one's true essence, and just let the thoughts go by. Edit: I just read zd's post above. The Dzogchen excerpts above and zd's post explain each other. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 10:48:51 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. Oh you are talking about "one's True Self" as a kind of REAL YOU? That's okay, I don't have the problem with that. I misunderstood like you are saying Jesus said "one's True Self" as God. Jesus has never said that! |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 10:53:25 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. Jesus was talking about the pre-existence of him to those people, he is not saying 'I am' exist forever or something like that because If he were to say that, he could not have used that line because Abraham was that same I AM. We have already had this conversation once.
And also you have to know that the line you are pointing at is taken from book of John, John and Paul believes in Jesus preexistence, rest of the people like Matthew,Luke doesn't believe in preexisting Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 10:57:32 GMT -5
Jesus has never said that! Jeremiah 1:5, Before you were born I knew you. (new self) Ephesians 4:22,24 Lay aside the old self, and put on the new self Colossians 3:9,10 Since you laid aside the old self, and have put on the new self Jesus, Matthew 16:25 If you seek to save your self (Paul's old self) you will lose your self (new self), but if you seek to lose your self (old self) you will save your self (new self). In Luke 14:26 Jesus said you have to hate your own life to be my disciple. You have to hate the self you-are-not, the old self. How did Jesus pick the disciples? He didn't choose them for any outward reason. He chose on the basis of seeing their true self, who God formed them to be (Jeremiah 1:5). For example, meeting Peter (Simon) he saw the true nature of Simon, and he gave him a new name, he said, I'm going to call you Peter. Jesus saw what they were going to become, not what they seemed to be, or who they presently were. They all kept messing up during the ministry/teaching of Jesus. The night before Jesus was crucified Peter denied even knowing Jesus. Near the end the brothers James and John were arguing over who was going to be next to Jesus in the Kingdom. So these two natures exist in us, the conditioned self and one's true self. So Jesus definitely knew of the existence of these two aspects of our nature, one's true self and the old self, and he talked in these terms. (Or do you think Paul knew more than Jesus?) Why did Jesus dislike the Pharisees? Because they were all the old self, functioned through old self and were full of pride. (Except a few of them, like Nicodemus). The line you point at "Jeremiah 1:5, Before you were born I knew you. (new self)" is very famous line(I am not sure whether you know or not), calvinist takes this line to prove the predestination of chosen individual. That line doesn't prove Jeremiah preexist instead he was predestined to the Prophet.
And this old self and new self you are talking about is true in Christianity, it's related to reborn spiritually, those who believe in christ is taking rebirth according to Christianity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 10:59:21 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. That's it, simple and easy. One who allows the text to speak for itself can clearly see this truth. One who reads into the text which is not there can't see this truth. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 24, 2020 11:10:54 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. That's it, simple and easy. One who allows the text to speak for itself can clearly see this truth. One who reads into the text which is not there can't see this truth. Yes his ministry is also referred to as redeming the doctrine of original sin from the symbolic story of eating the apple in the garden of Eden. Again nothing to do with Nonduality. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Despair.
Jul 24, 2020 11:31:13 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 11:31:13 GMT -5
That's it, simple and easy. One who allows the text to speak for itself can clearly see this truth. One who reads into the text which is not there can't see this truth. Yes his ministry is also referred to as redeming the doctrine of original sin from the symbolic story of eating the apple in the garden of Eden. Again nothing to do with Nonduality. Yes perfectly. Adam is considered to be one soul in which we are all in and Jesus is considered to be another soul which is pure and sacrificed to save the first soul. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 24, 2020 12:09:26 GMT -5
Yes his ministry is also referred to as redeming the doctrine of original sin from the symbolic story of eating the apple in the garden of Eden. Again nothing to do with Nonduality. Yes perfectly. Adam is considered to be one soul in which we are all in and Jesus is considered to be another soul which is pure and sacrificed to save the first soul. What? Wasn't the apple "tree" in Eden also called the tree of the 'knowledge of good and evil'? That doesn't sound like "nothing to do with non-duality" to me. It's one thesaurus step away from "the tree of the knowledge of duality". Though that 2nd phrase doesn't sound as good. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 24, 2020 13:23:29 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. I'd say, rather, that's the institutional distortion of what he was offering. The truth of it lives on by and through those institutions even despite their having distorted it. In the communion, all are one, in the body and by the blood of Christ. And even that distortion isn't entire benighted if you put it into historical context and look past the literalism to the intended metaphor. Teaching that no sin is irredeemable and that noone need die because of sinning (anymore, after Christ) is to shed the falsity of a jealous and angry, over-personified "God" figure. People used to make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of "God", some of them quite violent and gruesome. So you see a win-win symbiosis here: the sacrifices to God become money donations to the churches, and Christ's blood is the last (theoretically anyway) that need to be shed "in the name of God". Self-serving for the Christian institutions, no doubt, but think of that cultural context, think of what life was like, prior to this social innovation. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 24, 2020 13:35:05 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). 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. Nah ... As he worded his question, so I worded my answer. Anyway, I can't argue with your belief. |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Jul 24, 2020 15:59:16 GMT -5
Jesus main teaching was redemption of sin through a blood sacrifice (His). The condition was that you had to believe in him, but apparently God could waive this condition if it so suited him and save you anyway. None of it has anything to do with nonduality. I'd say, rather, that's the institutional distortion of what he was offering. The truth of it lives on by and through those institutions even despite their having distorted it. In the communion, all are one, in the body and by the blood of Christ. And even that distortion isn't entire benighted if you put it into historical context and look past the literalism to the intended metaphor. Teaching that no sin is irredeemable and that noone need die because of sinning (anymore, after Christ) is to shed the falsity of a jealous and angry, over-personified "God" figure. People used to make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of "God", some of them quite violent and gruesome. So you see a win-win symbiosis here: the sacrifices to God become money donations to the churches, and Christ's blood is the last (theoretically anyway) that need to be shed "in the name of God". Self-serving for the Christian institutions, no doubt, but think of that cultural context, think of what life was like, prior to this social innovation. i The Christians in our group disagree about Jesus mission. One of my ex wives studied the teachings but I have not with any care. So I am really relying on what those scholars have said to me about it in discussion which is predominately Jesus as Saviour. There may be some here who can get into what he said and swop Bible quotes which I will follow if it happens. I dont have a Bible any more. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 24, 2020 17:07:19 GMT -5
I'd say, rather, that's the institutional distortion of what he was offering. The truth of it lives on by and through those institutions even despite their having distorted it. In the communion, all are one, in the body and by the blood of Christ. And even that distortion isn't entire benighted if you put it into historical context and look past the literalism to the intended metaphor. Teaching that no sin is irredeemable and that noone need die because of sinning (anymore, after Christ) is to shed the falsity of a jealous and angry, over-personified "God" figure. People used to make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of "God", some of them quite violent and gruesome. So you see a win-win symbiosis here: the sacrifices to God become money donations to the churches, and Christ's blood is the last (theoretically anyway) that need to be shed "in the name of God". Self-serving for the Christian institutions, no doubt, but think of that cultural context, think of what life was like, prior to this social innovation. i The Christians in our group disagree about Jesus mission. One of my ex wives studied the teachings but I have not with any care. So I am really relying on what those scholars have said to me about it in discussion which is predominately Jesus as Saviour. There may be some here who can get into what he said and swop Bible quotes which I will follow if it happens. I dont have a Bible any more. I have numerous versions of the Bible, but I rarely look at them anymore. I wrote a newspaper column for ten years about a more mystical/cosmic interpretation of Jesus' teachings, and I followed that up with a book based on those articles (A Path to Christ Consciousness, Non-Conceptual Awareness Practice as a Doorway to the Infinite), but other than a handful of open-minded people there was virtually no interest in that subject by conventional Christians. Stephen Mitchell also wrote a book about Jesus that was rather shocking in its claims, but after thinking about the issues he covered, I suspect that he was correct in his speculations. Nevertheless, I lost interest in trying to discuss non-duality with people who are locked into any hard-core belief system. There are mystics in Christianity, and one of the most widely watched interviews on batgap.com is between Rick and a Christian who became enlightened, but that kind of attainment is pretty rare. One of the reasons I ask people if its possible to find the truth on a desert island without any holy books or teachers is to attack the idea that any book or teacher is necessary for finding the truth. All that's required is shifting attention away from thoughts and staying focused on what can be seen. Another approach is simply to "look within." "Looking," of course, is the key word. People would rather think than look. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 24, 2020 17:45:27 GMT -5
I'd say, rather, that's the institutional distortion of what he was offering. The truth of it lives on by and through those institutions even despite their having distorted it. In the communion, all are one, in the body and by the blood of Christ. And even that distortion isn't entire benighted if you put it into historical context and look past the literalism to the intended metaphor. Teaching that no sin is irredeemable and that noone need die because of sinning (anymore, after Christ) is to shed the falsity of a jealous and angry, over-personified "God" figure. People used to make all sorts of sacrifices in the name of "God", some of them quite violent and gruesome. So you see a win-win symbiosis here: the sacrifices to God become money donations to the churches, and Christ's blood is the last (theoretically anyway) that need to be shed "in the name of God". Self-serving for the Christian institutions, no doubt, but think of that cultural context, think of what life was like, prior to this social innovation. i The Christians in our group disagree about Jesus mission. One of my ex wives studied the teachings but I have not with any care. So I am really relying on what those scholars have said to me about it in discussion which is predominately Jesus as Saviour. There may be some here who can get into what he said and swop Bible quotes which I will follow if it happens. I dont have a Bible any more. I've never had any serious dialog with anyone in person about my take on Christianity, as I doubt most can relate to it. I had one orientation to it before spending some serious time at participating in mass, and then another one, after. Christianity doesn't seem to me to be traditionally condusive to what we might consider a "path of insight" involving self-inquiry and neti-neti, and it seems to me that this is to a large degree a function of those institutional distortions that I alluded to already: the churches that are here now, are here because they were good at perpetuating themselves, and any true propagation of the "spirit of Jesus" is almost incidental to that perpetuation. What has the potential to happen in prayer and communion isn't, in my opinion, apprehendable by the scriptures or the dogma or any philosophy, and ultimately, I think any of the ideas about Christianity can just as easily obscure the communion as not. And I'd opine that the true propagation of that spirit by those institutions was as inevitable as it was incidental, as it's in that spirit, and in the practice of the prayer and communion, in which the relationship to the nondual pointers might be found. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Jul 24, 2020 21:20:47 GMT -5
i The Christians in our group disagree about Jesus mission. One of my ex wives studied the teachings but I have not with any care. So I am really relying on what those scholars have said to me about it in discussion which is predominately Jesus as Saviour. There may be some here who can get into what he said and swop Bible quotes which I will follow if it happens. I dont have a Bible any more. I have numerous versions of the Bible, but I rarely look at them anymore. I wrote a newspaper column for ten years about a more mystical/cosmic interpretation of Jesus' teachings, and I followed that up with a book based on those articles (A Path to Christ Consciousness, Non-Conceptual Awareness Practice as a Doorway to the Infinite), but other than a handful of open-minded people there was virtually no interest in that subject by conventional Christians. Stephen Mitchell also wrote a book about Jesus that was rather shocking in its claims, but after thinking about the issues he covered, I suspect that he was correct in his speculations. Nevertheless, I lost interest in trying to discuss non-duality with people who are locked into any hard-core belief system. There are mystics in Christianity, and one of the most widely watched interviews on batgap.com is between Rick and a Christian who became enlightened, but that kind of attainment is pretty rare. One of the reasons I ask people if its possible to find the truth on a desert island without any holy books or teachers is to attack the idea that any book or teacher is necessary for finding the truth. All that's required is shifting attention away from thoughts and staying focused on what can be seen. Another approach is simply to "look within." "Looking," of course, is the key word. People would rather think than look. Starting from the title you mentioned, I browsed on some 2010 posts on this site, and eventually a presentation you gave in 2012 (vimeo ~1h25min). If you don't mind, what makes your experiences more valid that my experiences? It is a honest question; I'm not looking to argue it. Thanks. |
|
He doesn't seem to have an understanding neither of the physical universe, nor of the wider reality ...
