Haunted Universe - by Steven Norquest

[zendancer]

As I said, this is better than Jay Leno!

[Steven Norquist]

Hello,

Haunted Universe Revised Edition's Amazon page is now live. You can reach it through this link:

tinyurl.com/2cjydm3

Thank you.

[Steven Norquist]

Hello,

The Amazon page for Revised Haunted Universe just went up and the book is now available at this link:

tinyurl.com/2ab33bx

Thank you.

[sherry]

Thank you Steven. I have just found the revised and affordable version at Amazon and ordered it.
sherry

[DoubtingTom]

Sorry Steven, I think all this is much ado about nothing. The initial pricetage of your book seems to indicate that financial necessity rather than so called 'spiritual insights' drove your wish to share your wisdom with the world.

Yes, yes, I know you said your relatives etc urged you to.

Pardon my cynicism but I suggest that the initial price and your campaign now to sell your 'affordable' book suggests you are short of cash because of the same condition that makes playing the guitar or even writing so difficult.

I respectfully suggest your condition is of a mental nature rather than an awakened consciousness.

The philosophical tradition that you have incorporated in your book has been expressed much better by true thinkers than the blurb article I have read on the net. Your notion that the self does not exist is merely a re-heated version of often misplaced thinking and solipsism which can justify itself under any circumstances because of its reductionism.

Your 'reasoning' in the net blurb is fairly poor. The same disappearance of self that you trumpet as some kind of original insight is actually a common symptom of certain types of mental disorders like those in schizophrenia. That is not the case for all who claim to have been 'awakened' in one way or another but it's certainly true of a significant proportion of them.

The great wall staring exercise referred to on that enlightenment dudes website (which may well simply be a clever PR exercise by publishers to get their books sold and I suspect it is) can be explained very easily by anybody who has a basic knowledge of neurology.

Similar although different in character distortions can occur when staring at bodies of water or in mirrors for certain periods of time.

You're clever at self promotion Steve but you use jargon and promote it as some kind of genuine philosophical/consciousness insight. It certainly isn't that. I think this comes down to a need for cash and views obtained through first hand experiences of depression and possibly other mental disorders.

Sorry.

[Doubting Tom]

May 15, 2010 12:30:29 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Of course, Norquist's basic point is correct; personal selfhood is an illusion, and seeing through the illusion is what ends the search for enlightenment.

While I like some of your post, I question your confident assertions that "Of course" there is "no personal selfhood". Really? This kind of idea has been bounced around for centuries and in the last one or two has achieved its solipsistic/reductionist peak.

That does not make it correct in the sense "Of course", as some kind of indisputable fact that solipsistics do not have to really justify because the whole thinking behind it is circular and shies away from any kind of argument in the real sense of the word.

There are multiple arguments against that assertion including the lives that its advocates are leading even now. You don't believe in your personal selfhood and that's fine but your assertion about how supposedly it does not exist for anybody else (because you consider it does not exist for you) is essentially narcissism.

[zendancer]

Wow. Maybe we need a pre-cigarette man koan! LOL. At least the cigarette man had peered below the surface before getting attached. LOL.

[skyblue]

Does anybody else smell a rat?

[Myself]

May 25, 2010 16:13:07 GMT -5 skyblue said:

Does anybody else smell a rat?

Nay... just "regular natural" worries!

[Myself]

Maybe Skyblue, Tom, and even Zendancer are actually writing about something that Zendancer mentioned before:

There's no right or wrong, but there's holy and unholy.

What is holy and what is unholy in oneness?

[karen]

May 25, 2010 10:11:39 GMT -5 @Doubting Tom said:

There are multiple arguments against that assertion including the lives that its advocates are leading even now.

You screw the pooch once you make any arguments. This is a solo journey my friend. All we're doing here is looking for hobo signals.

[zendancer]

Myself: I don't think Tom is on the same page in this discussion. LOL. As for right/wrong and holy/unholy, it is part of the progression from the meta-reality of thought, to emptiness (beyond all duality), and then to oneness-in-action. At first, we are attached to our ideas about the world, and we see the world as if were composed of separate things--trees, mountains, human beings, etc. At this stage we are rigidly attached to dualistic thinking and are firmly convinced that we are separate entities confronting an externalized reality.

Later, we penetrate this illusion and suddenly see that reality is unified but empty. The cigarette-man koan deals with someone who gets attached to the state of emptiness. Later still, we attain a deeper understanding and see that emptiness is full and manifests "just like this." Trees, mountains, and human beings are once again seen as things, but from a perspective that simultaneously sees the relative in the absolute and the absolute in the relative. In the heart sutra it is rendered as "emptiness is form, form is emptiness." At this stage we have discovered our True Self and seen through the illusion of personal selfhood. Having come full circle, we live an ordinary life in which holy is holy and unholy is unholy. Right is right and wrong is wrong. If we visit a mosque, we do what is appropriate there. If we visit a Hindu temple, we do what is appropriate there. If we visit a Carthusian monastery, we observe the rules of silence and do what is appropriate there. We do this in the emptiness/fullness of the absolute. This is how we/It manifests.

I forget all of the details, but Zen teachers sometimes describe the path as a clockwise rotation starting from conventional reality at zero degrees. 180 degrees represents emptiness, and 360 degrees is "entering the marketplace with helping hands." Even enlightenment is forgotten by that point. I think 270 degrees is magic and miracles, but that may be 90 degrees. I can't remember. There are other stages along the way, but in general, it is a path that leads from consensual reality to selfless isness summed up in the phrase that points to utter simplicity and ordinariness---everything is "just like this."

[Myself]

Thank you Zendancer!

You're a treasure box.

[what is this]

So now we have the definitive statement on enlightenment!
Do you think you got it right this time? Or should one wait for the 3rd edition for you to get it right?
I bought the first edition and was quite disappointed.
Why would I ever want to send more money your way Steven?

I really have to question why you continue to push this book.
The remark made by another poster that it must be all about making a buck start to make sense.

Anyone can publish in this day.
Just really be careful.

I would like to recommend "The end of Your World" by Adyashanti, especially to Steven N. Practical advice on some post awakening issues. Having seen the truth and being able to deal with it as an adult seem to be quite different things altogether.

I have noticed a new crop of "emerging teachers" that seem to have a very dark view of reality, or should I better say their current view is very dark.

I am reminded in the christian tradition of the dark knight of the soul, which is actually the return to a free and joyus state after going through the darkness and the pain while still attached to the false self.

You know, I am beginning to wonder if a lot of these newly emerging awakened teachers have had a partial awakening and still need to really work on what remains of ego attachments. Seeing the truth and accepting it are quite different things. And if you cannot accept it, maybe you are not clearly seeing.

[ravenscroft]