|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 1, 2020 19:34:36 GMT -5
Yesterday, I browsed the 5 levels of teachers. Shawn said he decided he wasn't going to list any more #1's. Then he made an exception, a lady, forget her name, Pam maybe. I think his words were, he decided to list her as way-over-the-top #1, a kind of model as to way he's not going to list any more #1's (my words). Pamela Wilson. After a few seconds of that video of her talking, I'm already laughing. There are no bad teachers, only bad students who don't know how to get meat out of the lesson that's right in front of them. What a delicious double meal. Not only pam, but also Shawn's reaction to her reveals so much about him. And then, my reaction to him reacting to her, reveals so much about me!
Thank you for that.
I will watch her video. That will give me my reaction to Pam and understanding Shawn's reaction to Pam and to your reaction to Shawn's reaction to Pam. And all that, yes, will tell me something about, me. (I would rearrange Shawn's numbers. I think he is somewhat incognito, about some [one], understandable). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 2, 2020 3:50:35 GMT -5
There have been many dialogs here in the past that got quite overheated. At various points in those, it became clear that sometimes people would essentially be trying to teach other's what they were trying to learn. It's actually a very old method, culturally speaking. Those folks were doing it unconsciously. So. You're ahead of that game, anyway.  Nicely said! George Bernard Shaw wrote: ‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’ And, funnier: 'I explained it so many times that eventually I understood it myself' Well, thanks for the kind words, it's just describing the Universe doin' it's thing, in all it's lively manifestations. Now, I know this isn't in line with your interests, but it comes to mind here anyway. The notion of a spiritual teacher is an interesting one to begin with, because, ultimately, in nondual terms, there's no teaching anyone to be what they already are, never weren't and always will be. But, as many of the people on Shawn's list sometimes point out, one can come to understand this point about nonduality - on many different levels - but still, in all self-honesty, describe themselves as spiritual seekers. I think it was a Bob Ferguson video where he lays that out starkly, in terms of (paraphrasing) "well, knowing that does you absolutely no good". This state, when it happens, of self-honestly seeking, while knowing that one is what is sought, is actually quite auspicious. In Rose/TAT terms, during a time like that, one is quite .. "accident prone". It relates to the Shaw quote in that for as long as one is alive, there's always something happening. The question of who or what is the doer, is the question of self-inquiry, and in the nonduality culture, the most frank and direct example of self-inquiry is Ramana Maharshi. In term of self-inquiry, what is being done, in any given instant, is simultaneously, in existential terms, entirely moot, and yet, imperative to notice as it's happening. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 2, 2020 6:39:29 GMT -5
Nicely said! George Bernard Shaw wrote: ‘Those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.’ And, funnier: 'I explained it so many times that eventually I understood it myself' Well, thanks for the kind words, it's just describing the Universe doin' it's thing, in all it's lively manifestations. Now, I know this isn't in line with your interests, but it comes to mind here anyway. The notion of a spiritual teacher is an interesting one to begin with, because, ultimately, in nondual terms, there's no teaching anyone to be what they already are, never weren't and always will be. But, as many of the people on Shawn's list sometimes point out, one can come to understand this point about nonduality - on many different levels - but still, in all self-honesty, describe themselves as spiritual seekers. I think it was a Bob Ferguson video where he lays that out starkly, in terms of (paraphrasing) "well, knowing that does you absolutely no good". This state, when it happens, of self-honestly seeking, while knowing that one is what is sought, is actually quite auspicious. In Rose/TAT terms, during a time like that, one is quite .. "accident prone". It relates to the Shaw quote in that for as long as one is alive, there's always something happening. The question of who or what is the doer, is the question of self-inquiry, and in the nonduality culture, the most frank and direct example of self-inquiry is Ramana Maharshi. In term of self-inquiry, what is being done, in any given instant, is simultaneously, in existential terms, entirely moot, and yet, imperative to notice as it's happening. I am not a "NDist". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 2, 2020 6:49:56 GMT -5
Well, thanks for the kind words, it's just describing the Universe doin' it's thing, in all it's lively manifestations. Now, I know this isn't in line with your interests, but it comes to mind here anyway. The notion of a spiritual teacher is an interesting one to begin with, because, ultimately, in nondual terms, there's no teaching anyone to be what they already are, never weren't and always will be. But, as many of the people on Shawn's list sometimes point out, one can come to understand this point about nonduality - on many different levels - but still, in all self-honesty, describe themselves as spiritual seekers. I think it was a Bob Ferguson video where he lays that out starkly, in terms of (paraphrasing) "well, knowing that does you absolutely no good". This state, when it happens, of self-honestly seeking, while knowing that one is what is sought, is actually quite auspicious. In Rose/TAT terms, during a time like that, one is quite .. "accident prone". It relates to the Shaw quote in that for as long as one is alive, there's always something happening. The question of who or what is the doer, is the question of self-inquiry, and in the nonduality culture, the most frank and direct example of self-inquiry is Ramana Maharshi. In term of self-inquiry, what is being done, in any given instant, is simultaneously, in existential terms, entirely moot, and yet, imperative to notice as it's happening. I am not a "NDist". I can understand a difference of opinion on the question of existential teaching, and, in full context, I'm not criticizing the concept or the people who hold themselves out to be spiritual teachers. Now, you bolded: "The question of who or what is the doer .. is moot". Did you think that's what I meant, that the question of "who or what is the doer?" is moot? Because, that would definitely be taking the writing out of context.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 2, 2020 14:16:21 GMT -5
Well, thanks for the kind words, it's just describing the Universe doin' it's thing, in all it's lively manifestations. Now, I know this isn't in line with your interests, but it comes to mind here anyway. The notion of a spiritual teacher is an interesting one to begin with, because, ultimately, in nondual terms, there's no teaching anyone to be what they already are, never weren't and always will be. But, as many of the people on Shawn's list sometimes point out, one can come to understand this point about nonduality - on many different levels - but still, in all self-honesty, describe themselves as spiritual seekers. I think it was a Bob Ferguson video where he lays that out starkly, in terms of (paraphrasing) "well, knowing that does you absolutely no good". This state, when it happens, of self-honestly seeking, while knowing that one is what is sought, is actually quite auspicious. In Rose/TAT terms, during a time like that, one is quite .. "accident prone". It relates to the Shaw quote in that for as long as one is alive, there's always something happening. The question of who or what is the doer, is the question of self-inquiry, and in the nonduality culture, the most frank and direct example of self-inquiry is Ramana Maharshi. In term of self-inquiry, what is being done, in any given instant, is simultaneously, in existential terms, entirely moot, and yet, imperative to notice as it's happening. I am not a "NDist". To laughter, I don't know how I distorted what you said. I didn't intent to distort what you said. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Nov 2, 2020 14:18:16 GMT -5
I can understand a difference of opinion on the question of existential teaching, and, in full context, I'm not criticizing the concept or the people who hold themselves out to be spiritual teachers. Now, you bolded: "The question of who or what is the doer .. is moot". Did you think that's what I meant, that the question of "who or what is the doer?" is moot? Because, that would definitely be taking the writing out of context. Responded to above. (This [post] is for notification). |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 3, 2020 4:42:52 GMT -5
To laughter, I don't know how I distorted what you said. I didn't intent to distort what you said. Thanks for taking a 2nd look and at least partially restoring some of the conext 'pilgirm.  I would both strongly deny and disagree with the bald statement: "The question of who or what is the doer, is entirely moot". To read that, out of context, into what I wrote is to distort it, yes. And, I can certainly understand how you'd disagree with the statement in full context, as it presents the appearance of what might be interpreted as a paradox. But, notice that your current form, (if I include both the bolded and non-bolded parts), doesn't even make any sense, while what I wrote, in full context, was at least grammatically correct  : "The question or who or what is the doer, is the question of self-inquiry," .. "In terms of self-inquiry, what is being done, is simultaneously, entirely moot". Simultaneous?? .. with what??  |
|
