|
Post by Reefs on Jun 6, 2021 6:51:29 GMT -5
I don’t mind some of Tony Parsons' stuff. I’ve seen him a few times and actually had a conversation on the phone with him in the early noughties. He was actually quite pleasant, reasonable and obliging. JN has picked up from some of TP’s more radical gestures and has really run with it. But in doing so has tipped over (as I see it) into metaphysical solipsism. There can be a fine line between pure non duality and metaphysical solipsism. See my comment to ZD for more on this. True. You really have to go deep into the details in order to tell the difference and see who is who and arguing for what. And discussions on such a deep level are extremely rare. That's why many metaphysical solipsists can go unnoticed for years in non-duality circles. However, ultimately, all this talk - no matter how deep or impressive - doesn't matter. What matters is how these realizations people had affect their day to day life. And that's usually how you can tell the difference. After all, what all genuine ND teachers teach is the natural state. They call it many different names, but ultimately, they teach all exactly the same thing (or no-thing). And you won't see that topic mentioned much (if at all) in a discussion with a metaphysical solipsist.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 6, 2021 7:52:56 GMT -5
I don’t mind some of Tony Parsons' stuff. I’ve seen him a few times and actually had a conversation on the phone with him in the early noughties. He was actually quite pleasant, reasonable and obliging. JN has picked up from some of TP’s more radical gestures and has really run with it. But in doing so has tipped over (as I see it) into metaphysical solipsism. There can be a fine line between pure non duality and metaphysical solipsism. See my comment to ZD for more on this. True. You really have to go deep into the details in order to tell the difference and see who is who and arguing for what. And discussions on such a deep level are extremely rare. That's why many metaphysical solipsists can go unnoticed for years in non-duality circles. However, ultimately, all this talk - no matter how deep or impressive - doesn't matter. What matters is how these realizations people had affect their day to day life. And that's usually how you can tell the difference. After all, what all genuine ND teachers teach is the natural state. They call it many different names, but ultimately, they all teach exactly the same thing (or no-thing). Precisely, and I suspect that Adya's idea about a progressive movement from "intellectual enlightenment" through "heart enlightenment" to a "gut-level enlightenment" is pointing to this very issue. For each human the path of seeking truth and understanding plays out somewhat differently, but "the natural state" seems to be a result of numerous realizations that deepen and become internalized over time until one's way of life becomes quite childlike. Those adults who exhibit what we call "the natural state" live psychologically in the present moment and do whatever they do without reflection, second-guessing, expectations, worries, doubts, etc. The natural state is, in effect, THIS embodied rather than THIS inheaded.
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 6, 2021 9:50:20 GMT -5
Haha. It's not like I haven't been caught with my pants down. We all play the fool. Some just keep on pretending. So if you were a Rinzai guy I could make a crack about Gutei at this point, right? Now, that's one side of the existential coin: showing someone how they might be attached to something unreal. The other side is that Sam didn't see the sadistic aspect of putting her in that position - everyone in the group "waiting for her next thought". Ego much? See now you made me go read about Gutei, you sadist. Torture reading about foolish Rinzai folk. Although I did enjoy the kiusaku. Never thought about the teacher with the funny name's motivation. I guess you'd have to gage his intent to determine his guilt or innocence. Now whether she was hurt or not. Yes, you might be right in that regard. Not completely sure. You and froggy used to go after "bliss bunnies."
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 6, 2021 9:57:21 GMT -5
I've read Adams book a few times. My favorite passage is where he tells the reader to run from folks who claim enlightenment. I think it's sound advice. And anyone talking about "testing someone's enlightenment" is presupposing that they're "enlightened". Fixating on whether someone's mind is quiet enough or whether they've checked all the experiential boxes is creating an "enlightened strawman", as well. And that's not to p1ss on doing any of that - the "testing", the strawmanning, etc.. - per se. These have their times, and places. Perhaps someone telling you they're enlightened is time to lace up your converse. Perhaps you only need to run if they get insistent about it. A lot of RM's people think Adams a fraud. Nobody remembers him. I still like parts of his book. They fall in line with my Zen conditioning. I think the "running" here is figurative. Just tune her/him out. I've gotten comfortable with my selective hearing. It too is part of this great oneness.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 6, 2021 12:08:39 GMT -5
So if you were a Rinzai guy I could make a crack about Gutei at this point, right? Now, that's one side of the existential coin: showing someone how they might be attached to something unreal. The other side is that Sam didn't see the sadistic aspect of putting her in that position - everyone in the group "waiting for her next thought". Ego much? See now you made me go read about Gutei, you sadist. Torture reading about foolish Rinzai folk. Although I did enjoy the kiusaku. Never thought about the teacher with the funny name's motivation. I guess you'd have to gage his intent to determine his guilt or innocence. Now whether she was hurt or not. Yes, you might be right in that regard. Not completely sure. You and froggy used to go after "bliss bunnies."
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 6, 2021 12:10:45 GMT -5
So if you were a Rinzai guy I could make a crack about Gutei at this point, right? Now, that's one side of the existential coin: showing someone how they might be attached to something unreal. The other side is that Sam didn't see the sadistic aspect of putting her in that position - everyone in the group "waiting for her next thought". Ego much? See now you made me go read about Gutei, you sadist. Torture reading about foolish Rinzai folk. Although I did enjoy the kiusaku. Never thought about the teacher with the funny name's motivation. I guess you'd have to gage his intent to determine his guilt or innocence. Now whether she was hurt or not. Yes, you might be right in that regard. Not completely sure. You and froggy used to go after "bliss bunnies." FWIW, I love the stories about Gutei. Reportedly, when he was dying, he held up his famous finger and said, "I've used this all of my life and I've never exhausted it." Haha! Gotta love it. I also suspect that the story about his cutting off the finger of his attendant was made up by some later ZM who wanted to create a great koan. That koan has special meaning for me because I never saw the answer to it until asked that koan in an interview. When my first response was, "I don't know," the teacher reminded me to slap the floor with an open palm as an initial broad answer to any koan. I thought, "Oh yeah, I forgot to do that," and as soon as I slapped the floor, my mind went empty and the answer to the koan suddenly became obvious. I was stunned, and my astonishment must have been obvious because the teacher said, 'Yes, hitting the floor is a bit like hitting the 'clear' button on a calculator. When everything goes empty, the answers to many koans can become obvious." For many years my daughter used to become irritated when, in response to any why question she asked, I would often hold up my index finger in silence. A few weeks ago she came to visit and said, "Dad, I finally understand the one-finger Zen thing."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2021 12:35:18 GMT -5
Agreed. When I'm hammering nails, it is THIS hammering nails. Duality is included in non-duality, but it only arises with the act of distinction, or imagination, or symbolization. No one is ever separate from THIS, but separation can be imagined by THIS as a human being. If there is no reflective thought about what's going on, then what I am, THIS, does not imagine separation, and life is simply a unified flow of being. I got the same impression from the quote you posted that you did. Yes. When you’re out hammering nails and there is the sensibility that ’there is only THIS’, I’m sure that that isn’t (for a moment) conceived as ‘there is only this bloke hammering nails’. There is only THIS is a realisation of the primordial event of existence itself - the natural state of Source simply presenting (none of these words do it justice.) JN’s assertion that there is ONLY this particular conversation and that right now there are no others seems to me to almost be the equivalent of saying there is ONLY a bloke hammering nails (although I realise that he might well say that there isn’t a bloke hammering nails either - but if so, why make the distinction in the first place.) The apperception ‘there is only THIS’ doesn’t say anything about the status of other people, of Paris or the back of my head for that matter. I’ve no reason to suspect that they’re not (in some sense) there in this ever-fresh present actuality. Of course it’s possible that they might not be - it’s just that it’s not the job of THIS-ness to disclose this either way. That’s a further philosophical add on. It’s a product of thinking about THIS. ND is (for me, at least) simply the 'apperception' that whatever THIS is it’s not-two. That’s it. All that other stuff is metaphysics and philosophy of mind. Once again I wanted to tell you that I loved this reply.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 7, 2021 10:11:47 GMT -5
True. You really have to go deep into the details in order to tell the difference and see who is who and arguing for what. And discussions on such a deep level are extremely rare. That's why many metaphysical solipsists can go unnoticed for years in non-duality circles. However, ultimately, all this talk - no matter how deep or impressive - doesn't matter. What matters is how these realizations people had affect their day to day life. And that's usually how you can tell the difference. After all, what all genuine ND teachers teach is the natural state. They call it many different names, but ultimately, they all teach exactly the same thing (or no-thing). Precisely, and I suspect that Adya's idea about a progressive movement from "intellectual enlightenment" through "heart enlightenment" to a "gut-level enlightenment" is pointing to this very issue. For each human the path of seeking truth and understanding plays out somewhat differently, but "the natural state" seems to be a result of numerous realizations that deepen and become internalized over time until one's way of life becomes quite childlike. Those adults who exhibit what we call "the natural state" live psychologically in the present moment and do whatever they do without reflection, second-guessing, expectations, worries, doubts, etc. The natural state is, in effect, THIS embodied rather than THIS inheaded. Yeah, young and naive. My motto exactly!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 13:25:23 GMT -5
Precisely, and I suspect that Adya's idea about a progressive movement from "intellectual enlightenment" through "heart enlightenment" to a "gut-level enlightenment" is pointing to this very issue. For each human the path of seeking truth and understanding plays out somewhat differently, but "the natural state" seems to be a result of numerous realizations that deepen and become internalized over time until one's way of life becomes quite childlike. Those adults who exhibit what we call "the natural state" live psychologically in the present moment and do whatever they do without reflection, second-guessing, expectations, worries, doubts, etc. The natural state is, in effect, THIS embodied rather than THIS inheaded. Yeah, young and naive. My motto exactly! Fortunately you can be child-like without becoming naive or dumb.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 7, 2021 17:02:33 GMT -5
Yeah, young and naive. My motto exactly! Fortunately you can be child-like without becoming naive or dumb. Yes, I usually use the term "childlike" to point to what Zen people sometimes call "non-abidance in the mind." There is present-moment focus, lack of expectations, no thoughts about what should happen or what people ought to do, no esteem needs, no worries or cares, etc. It's certainly not a childish, naive, or unintelligent way of life, and is probably best encapsulated by a phrase like "going with the flow." Float, float, float, along, gently down the stream; merrily , merrily, merrily, merrily, what we are is THIS.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 7, 2021 20:19:05 GMT -5
"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless." - Nisargadatta Maharaj ------------ "The only real demon is conceptual thought." - Dudjom Lingpa ------------ "When the rejection of mental activities becomes continuous and automatic, you will begin to have the experience of the Self." - Annamalai Swami ------------ Speaking of childlike - It's interesting to me that these are all teachings that are very much "for adults" in the sense that a child of the right age is still very much in unicity. The Niz quote in particular is something that I could see a child finding laughably obvious if you told it to them, while some adults would struggle. Rupert Spira spoke on this in the past and tried to differentiate the state of a child (unknowingly resting in being) with that of a sage (knowingly resting in being) - presumably to quell concerns from a questioner that they would lose some of their adult intellect or something like that. Frankly I get the distinction he's making and think it's fine, but I also do feel that those adults who truly relate to the world directly without much conceptual overlay tend to have more in common with children than other adults (and I mean that as a complement of course!)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2021 21:00:18 GMT -5
"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless." - Nisargadatta Maharaj ------------ "The only real demon is conceptual thought." - Dudjom Lingpa ------------ "When the rejection of mental activities becomes continuous and automatic, you will begin to have the experience of the Self." - Annamalai Swami ------------ Speaking of childlike - It's interesting to me that these are all teachings that are very much "for adults" in the sense that a child of the right age is still very much in unicity. The Niz quote in particular is something that I could see a child finding laughably obvious if you told it to them, while some adults would struggle. Rupert Spira spoke on this in the past and tried to differentiate the state of a child (unknowingly resting in being) with that of a sage (knowingly resting in being) - presumably to quell concerns from a questioner that they would lose some of their adult intellect or something like that. Frankly I get the distinction he's making and think it's fine, but I also do feel that those adults who truly relate to the world directly without much conceptual overlay tend to have more in common with children than other adults (and I mean that as a complement of course!) As a counter-point to some of the "childlike" idea, I don't remember ever being much in "unity", unless I misunderstand the term. I remember being 3, and probably earlier. My world was simpler, but I had thoughts. Not many fancy names, but there was "stuff", things, story – mom, dad, yard, house, car, firetruck, brother, cat, water, food, etc. Adults project onto children. I remember "mommy" being important. I wonder if that "object" appears first. Maybe a felt sense of separation occurs before language/labeling. There was a world of stuff "out there" for as long as I can remember.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 7, 2021 21:05:11 GMT -5
Yeah, young and naive. My motto exactly! Fortunately you can be child-like without becoming naive or dumb. The word naive has two basic meanings: You'll find 2) as the main theme in the Daodejing. It is also what Ramakrishna meant when he said that the sage is like a 3 year old. He obviously didn't mean that the sage forgets where he lives or doesn't know anymore how to tie his shoes or that 2+2=4. And Ramakrishna embodied that kind of naiveté to almost perfection. So what is meant here is a fresh and direct and fully spontaneous approach to life that you usually only find with the very young because their consciousness has not yet been bamboozled by the veil of thought. Most adults don't understand this perspective at all. And yet, being bamboozled by the veil of thought almost 100% of their waking lives, they deep inside feel that something isn't quite right with their entirely symbolic approach to life. Later, when some of them have a realization and their consciousness gets unbamboozled again, they'll realize that what they were looking for was actually something utterly familiar and something that was never lost. Hence this frequent reference to early childhood.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 7, 2021 21:14:54 GMT -5
"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless." - Nisargadatta Maharaj ------------ "The only real demon is conceptual thought." - Dudjom Lingpa ------------ "When the rejection of mental activities becomes continuous and automatic, you will begin to have the experience of the Self." - Annamalai Swami ------------ Speaking of childlike - It's interesting to me that these are all teachings that are very much "for adults" in the sense that a child of the right age is still very much in unicity. The Niz quote in particular is something that I could see a child finding laughably obvious if you told it to them, while some adults would struggle. Rupert Spira spoke on this in the past and tried to differentiate the state of a child (unknowingly resting in being) with that of a sage (knowingly resting in being) - presumably to quell concerns from a questioner that they would lose some of their adult intellect or something like that. Frankly I get the distinction he's making and think it's fine, but I also do feel that those adults who truly relate to the world directly without much conceptual overlay tend to have more in common with children than other adults (and I mean that as a complement of course!) As a counter-point to some of the "childlike" idea, I don't remember ever being much in "unity", unless I misunderstand the term. I remember being 3, and probably earlier. My world was simpler, but I had thoughts. Not many fancy names, but there was "stuff", things, story – mom, dad, yard, house, car, firetruck, brother, cat, water, food, etc. Adults project onto children. I remember "mommy" being important. I wonder if that "object" appears first. Maybe a felt sense of separation occurs before language/labeling. There was a world of stuff "out there" for as long as I can remember. Thought itself isn't the problem. Not even labeling things is a problem per se. It only becomes a problem when your world has been slowly reduced to mere thought and merely labeling things to the degree that you lost touch with what these symbols originally stood for, i.e. when you start confusing the map with the territory. Then your world and your life become merely an abstraction.
|
|
Xiao
Full Member
Posts: 184
|
Post by Xiao on Jun 8, 2021 1:16:13 GMT -5
"When you look at anything, it is the ultimate you see, but you imagine that you see a cloud or a tree. Learn to look without imagination, to listen without distortion; that is all. Stop attributing names and forms to the essentially nameless and formless." - Nisargadatta Maharaj ------------ "The only real demon is conceptual thought." - Dudjom Lingpa ------------ "When the rejection of mental activities becomes continuous and automatic, you will begin to have the experience of the Self." - Annamalai Swami ------------ Speaking of childlike - It's interesting to me that these are all teachings that are very much "for adults" in the sense that a child of the right age is still very much in unicity. The Niz quote in particular is something that I could see a child finding laughably obvious if you told it to them, while some adults would struggle. Rupert Spira spoke on this in the past and tried to differentiate the state of a child (unknowingly resting in being) with that of a sage (knowingly resting in being) - presumably to quell concerns from a questioner that they would lose some of their adult intellect or something like that. Frankly I get the distinction he's making and think it's fine, but I also do feel that those adults who truly relate to the world directly without much conceptual overlay tend to have more in common with children than other adults (and I mean that as a complement of course!) As a counter-point to some of the "childlike" idea, I don't remember ever being much in "unity", unless I misunderstand the term. I remember being 3, and probably earlier. My world was simpler, but I had thoughts. Not many fancy names, but there was "stuff", things, story – mom, dad, yard, house, car, firetruck, brother, cat, water, food, etc. Adults project onto children. I remember "mommy" being important. I wonder if that "object" appears first. Maybe a felt sense of separation occurs before language/labeling. There was a world of stuff "out there" for as long as I can remember. That's fascinating - I distinctly remember exiting a point of more-or-less unity with what is, which wasn't characterized by a complete absence of thoughts but rather a preference for direct experience in a less conceptual way. Probably my fault for assuming that was more commonplace but it didn't feel particularly special to me. Until it was gone, of course!
|
|