|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 11:11:09 GMT -5
Sure that's fine. Really, it's just a poetic way of saying Consciousness has come to identify with its own [dream-like] creation. In that sense it ties in with the (fairly prevalent) CT perspective which generally involves mind-body identification, and fairly narrow conceptions of ones being. And there's an argument to be made that, that scenario is a bit like G-d believing in Santa! … although not a very good one, and you'll appreciate why as it tracks back to our stance on the whole imagination thing. But more broadly, the metaphor could perhaps be viewed as a poetic take on the path the very arising of experientiality takes, i.e how Impersonal expression 'descends' to individuated expression. And in that sense might even be said to apply to all creatures, or sentient expression. So, I'm not opposed to it, but just shootin the breeze. That's a good way to state it. Clearly, THIS, in the form of humans, becomes culturally conditioned to imagine separateness, and in that sense THIS, in the form of humans, has misidentified with a body and the idea that the body/mind organism is a SVP. When THIS, via a human, sees through the illusion that IT, ITSELF, in the form of that human, has mistakenly imagined SVP-ness, THIS, in effect, wakes up from the dream of separateness. I'm not sure why SDP would have any disagreement with E's metaphor unless he imagines that there is some fundamental God-like entity separate from humans, and never the twain shall meet. SDP? Yes.
If my understanding of ACIM...that ontology that called itself "A Course In Miracles," is correct, I think there was a basic idea fundamental to it all that said 'delusion/illusion' somehow falls outside of "God." |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 11:14:34 GMT -5
Without getting too far into it ... I'm pro practice, but it's easy to see how practice itself can become a form of avoidance. In fact, that's what practice for practice sake sounds like to me. What I would say though is that practice can take many forms, and I think much of the jabbering on the forums could be viewed as a form of perhaps unwitting paractice in so far as we are mostly teaching what we need to learn. I guess that is to say the jabbering could be viewed in terms of the process of purification. FWIW, as time when by, I stopped using the word "practice" and started using the word "activity" when discussing meditation precisely because the idea of practice is often misconstrued as an attempt to get from one point to another when its impossible to practice becoming what you already are. The result of meditative activities, generally speaking, is to get out of one's head (stop imagining separation) and discover what's always here and now. That's why many sages say that "practice is empty" or that meditation should be pursued "with no gaining idea." Dogen was essentially telling his followers, "What you are is already what you're looking for, so sitting in meditation is being what you are as much as doing anything else." That's why Soto people refer to their meditative activity as "just sitting" rather than "sitting in order to get somewhere." Yeah...there is a world of difference between a true, sincere interest to "just sit," to quiet mind, or even to inquire within, simply because there is a pure, honest love of that immediate quietude/looking, etc, vs. sitting with an intent to get somewhere, which is quite often accompanied by a sense of boredom....inattention....thoughts like, "oh man, how long is this gonna take".... 
|
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 11:26:14 GMT -5
Take a close look at what it means to 'know' perception as it happens. The knowing of 'it,' is inextricably tied to the knowing of 'what' is the content of that perception.
Absent the knowing/seeing of the content, how is it/can it be known there IS perception in play?
I think this is so much more readily seen when there is direct reference for the ground of awareness ABSENT perception. Those who have no reference claim that "IF" there is reference for that ground, then there "had to be" mind's perception in play in order to 'know it.'
[div ]I cannot explain how or why that is false, but I assure anyone who believes that, that it is. Unbounded Awareness, absent any limited arising window of perception, is/can be known and once 'it' has been apprehended, and wakefulness abides, it abides, Yes. I have a reference for pure awareness without content (nivikalpa samadhi), but I can't explain it either except to speculate that what the Buddhists call "Big Mind," or the intelligence of THIS, is one-with whatever is happening, so memory of a direct apprehension of pure awareness (beyond thought) remains after perceptual content returns. Cool...yes, I think I recall you talking about this....I'm not very well versed at all in the sanskrit terms....to be honest, I find it confusing as hell and just resort to direct apprehension to talk about this stuff...but it's cool there is an actual term that references that apprehension of Unbounded awareness, prior to any arising content.
With that in mind (that you DO have reference for that) do you agree or disagree with the point that I made here, that perception itself is a distinction arising within unbounded Awareness...and the knowing of "perception" necessarily also means the knowing of "content/perceivables"?
"Figs: Take a close look at what it means to 'know' perception as it happens. The knowing of 'it,' is inextricably tied to the knowing of 'what' is the content of that perception.
Absent the knowing/seeing of the content, how is it/can it be known there IS perception in play?"
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 11:26:26 GMT -5
It has to do, yes, with origins. I take Consciousness as the origin or everything. (consciousness didn't arise from some complicated "self"-manipulation of the 100 some-odd elements, IOW, dirt, and then you would have to ask where did the elements come from in the first place). I see intelligence operating everywhere in the universe. Is there an intelligence greater than the intelligence manifest in human consciousness? Yes, obviously for sdp. You write of it often, could you pump your own blood? Scientists don't even know how life came to be. So I don't see how this vast field of Intelligent Consciousness could ever go unconscious in the first place. It's that simple. At what point would the vast Intelligence go to sleep, to make man, asleep? It seems if that vast Intelligence went to sleep, it would become inoperable and everything would just disintegrate. The metaphor just doesn't compute for sdp. The vast intelligence that you refer to, and which we all agree on, only goes to sleep in the form of humans who have developed an intellect and imagine separation, so it's not like the entire universe goes to sleep, whatever that would mean. It just means that THIS, in the form of humans, falls into the dream of separateness. THIS and humans are not two separate things. That's good to know. I first read Alan Watts over 50 years ago, that never made sense to me (The universe is the play of "God", layla, etc). But it still doesn't solve all my issues. Just wrote to figs. {This is the Whole, All That Is} I freely admit SR does not compute for me. I understand experience. Reefs says SR is Source seeing through the eyes of Source. There is a distinction between SR and the mind being informed. Somehow all that has to be resolved. (This is man's realm/experience). So you have: { ( ) } So I can't put together SR as Source seeing through the eyes of Source, but it's not an experience. It's not a major concern, as you guy say "I" can't do anything about it anyway, SR is acausal. If anyone could have practiced their way to SR, it would be sdp. I just do my thing, and share about that as best as I can, here. I don't understand why laughter seems to feel he needs to use sdp as a punching bag, I freely admit SR is not relevant for sdp (yet). laughter seems to have to goal of making sdp wrong within my own paradigm, that's not going to happen. It seems there is a broad span of what exactly All This means even here on ST's. I understand the futility of language in trying to express. Just briefly. There is a Ground of All That Is. Alan Watts called it a Which of Which there is no Whicher. No problem with that. I think I might have done a thread on the following, but, anyway. As analogy, let's make the Whicher, Legos (as the Monads of Leibniz or Seth's CU's, Consciousness Units). I have no problem with the Realization of Legos. (I think in the thread I did a play on Logos). So, Legos doesn't concern sdp, the Realization of Legos. sdp is interested with what can be built from Legos. Ken Wilber says to emphasize Legos as what's central is to make the pre-trans fallacy. If we can dialogue, well and good. If we can't, people will just stop replying to my posts. But I am not wholly alone, here. I can dialogue with ouroboros, zazeniac, someNOTHING when he pops in, sharon, even Reefs. When things dry up here, when posting stops, it's because of the lack of *mix* of views, the lack of yin and yang. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 11:28:43 GMT -5
The harder she tries the worse it gets. Verbosity is a bad substitute for actual clarity. If I wrote that or some similar insult about the 'way' you engage, I'd likely receive an admonition...yes, or no? No. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 11:30:59 GMT -5
The vast intelligence that you refer to, and which we all agree on, only goes to sleep in the form of humans who have developed an intellect and imagine separation, so it's not like the entire universe goes to sleep, whatever that would mean. It just means that THIS, in the form of humans, falls into the dream of separateness. THIS and humans are not two separate things. That's good to know. I first read Alan Watts over 50 years ago, that never made sense to me (The universe is the play of "God", layla, etc). But it still doesn't solve all my issues. Just wrote to figs. {This is the Whole, All That Is} I freely admit SR does not compute for me. I understand experience. Reefs says SR is Source seeing through the eyes of Source. There is a distinction between SR and the mind being informed. Somehow all that has to be resolved. (This is man's realm/experience). So you have: { ( ) } So I can't put together SR as Source seeing through the eyes of Source, but it's not an experience. It's not a major concern, as you guy say "I" can't do anything about it anyway, SR is acausal. If anyone could have practiced their way to SR, it would be sdp. I just do my thing, and share about that as best as I can, here. I don't understand why laughter seems to feel he needs to use sdp as a punching bag, I freely admit SR is not relevant for sdp (yet). laughter seems to have to goal of making sdp wrong within my own paradigm, that's not going to happen. It seems there is a broad span of what exactly All This means even here on ST's. I understand the futility of language in trying to express. Just briefly. There is a Ground of All That Is. Alan Watts called it a Which of Which there is no Whicher. No problem with that. I think I might have done a thread on the following, but, anyway. As analogy, let's make the Whicher, Legos (as the Monads of Leibniz or Seth's CU's, Consciousness Units). I have no problem with the Realization of Legos. (I think in the thread I did a play on Logos). So, Legos doesn't concern sdp, the Realization of Legos. sdp is interested with what can be built from Legos. Ken Wilber says to emphasize Legos as what's central is to make the pre-trans fallacy. If we can dialogue, well and good. If we can't, people will just stop replying to my posts. But I am not wholly alone, here. I can dialogue with ouroboros, zazeniac, someNOTHING when he pops in, sharon, even Reefs. When things dry up here, when posting stops, it's because of the lack of *mix* of views, the lack of yin and yang. Imo, Alan Watts is clearly more of a mystic/philosopher than a Self-realized/awake sage. You too. & All good....as I see it, a very conscious, deep looking/inquiring mystic who fulfills the criteria of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood," is about as good as it gets in the absence of full out SR/wakefulness. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 24, 2023 11:38:05 GMT -5
That's good to know. I first read Alan Watts over 50 years ago, that never made sense to me (The universe is the play of "God", layla, etc). But it still doesn't solve all my issues. Just wrote to figs. {This is the Whole, All That Is} I freely admit SR does not compute for me. I understand experience. Reefs says SR is Source seeing through the eyes of Source. There is a distinction between SR and the mind being informed. Somehow all that has to be resolved. (This is man's realm/experience). So you have: { ( ) } So I can't put together SR as Source seeing through the eyes of Source, but it's not an experience. It's not a major concern, as you guy say "I" can't do anything about it anyway, SR is acausal. If anyone could have practiced their way to SR, it would be sdp. I just do my thing, and share about that as best as I can, here. I don't understand why laughter seems to feel he needs to use sdp as a punching bag, I freely admit SR is not relevant for sdp (yet). laughter seems to have to goal of making sdp wrong within my own paradigm, that's not going to happen. It seems there is a broad span of what exactly All This means even here on ST's. I understand the futility of language in trying to express. Just briefly. There is a Ground of All That Is. Alan Watts called it a Which of Which there is no Whicher. No problem with that. I think I might have done a thread on the following, but, anyway. As analogy, let's make the Whicher, Legos (as the Monads of Leibniz or Seth's CU's, Consciousness Units). I have no problem with the Realization of Legos. (I think in the thread I did a play on Logos). So, Legos doesn't concern sdp, the Realization of Legos. sdp is interested with what can be built from Legos. Ken Wilber says to emphasize Legos as what's central is to make the pre-trans fallacy. If we can dialogue, well and good. If we can't, people will just stop replying to my posts. But I am not wholly alone, here. I can dialogue with ouroboros, zazeniac, someNOTHING when he pops in, sharon, even Reefs. When things dry up here, when posting stops, it's because of the lack of *mix* of views, the lack of yin and yang. Imo, Alan Watts is clearly more of a mystic/philosopher a Self-realized/awake sage. You too. & All good....as I see it, a very conscious, deep looking/inquiring mystic who fulfills the criteria of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood," is about as good as it gets in the absence of full out SR/wakefulness. Yes. I would put Osho in that camp too. (But to claim different is kind of scamming). I like the word integrity. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 14:02:12 GMT -5
Without getting too far into it ... I'm pro practice, but it's easy to see how practice itself can become a form of avoidance. In fact, that's what practice for practice sake sounds like to me. What I would say though is that practice can take many forms, and I think much of the jabbering on the forums could be viewed as a form of perhaps unwitting paractice in so far as we are mostly teaching what we need to learn. I guess that is to say the jabbering could be viewed in terms of the process of purification. FWIW, as time when by, I stopped using the word "practice" and started using the word "activity" when discussing meditation precisely because the idea of practice is often misconstrued as an attempt to get from one point to another when its impossible to practice becoming what you already are. The result of meditative activities, generally speaking, is to get out of one's head (stop imagining separation) and discover what's always here and now. That's why many sages say that "practice is empty" or that meditation should be pursued "with no gaining idea." Dogen was essentially telling his followers, "What you are is already what you're looking for, so sitting in meditation is being what you are as much as doing anything else." That's why Soto people refer to their meditative activity as "just sitting" rather than "sitting in order to get somewhere." I don't often talk about meditation, but it's hard to do so without talking in terms of what the goal might be. Even if ultimately it's in terms of a goalless goal. For me there are two interrelated systems, the development of serenity and the development of insight. They are like two sides of the same coin, and together tie in with what I've recently been talking about in terms of purification. As a practice meditation tends to begin with a movement of intent. However, the development of serenity [or equanimity] might best be described in terms of cessation, i.e the quieting of the monkey mind, and I'm not sure whether this sort of letting go, or relaxing, is better classed as a doing or a non-doing? …. I mean it begins with intent and the result is a measure of cessation, right. So I guess we can already begin to think of this in terms of using a thorn to remove a thorn, and in part that side of the coin is about creating the space for the development of insight. So conditions conducive to that. Insight meditation might better be described in terms of focus (samadhi) and is also instigated with intent. Insight itself is fascinating and might be described in terms of a spontaneous, creative and intuitive process. Yet it can also be gently guided, and in fact that’s the technique which is being perfected in something like vipassana. Typically they talk in terms of single pointed focus on an 'object', which for me is actually more like a subject. But the goal is to glean penetrating insight into the nature of the meditation object, which of course can be something like, the fundamental nature of phenomena, or some of the various existential questions we both began with. Now depending on the nature of the object/subject, (i.e. how deep the dhamma), the development of equanimity can also be seen as being requisite to a smoother ride, and once again I'm talking in terms of resistance/purification there. Which is another reason why they are developed in tandem. I'm saying the the CT perpsective can be held quite tightly, it affords a sense of 'normality' and without the requiste purification the looseing of that can be quite a rambunctious ride. To say the least. Incidentally, although we're largely talking about meditation as a formal practice here, I think one can slip into these states quite spontaneously, like morgan somers. I actually have quite a broad spectrum to which I might apply meditation. For example, flow, ATA, CC NS, are all akin to meditative states to me. As well as woo, and the various altered states of consciousness. Walking meditation is another. Even being conscious and mindfulness I consider to be forms of meditative state. Point is, it doesn't have to be formal with a cushion, and even meditation can take place during the course of normal day to day life. Practice as a whole can be said to extend even more broadly. Again, I'm not even sure where I'm going with all this. Other, I suppose, than perhaps to question this notion that it's necessarily done 'by someone to get somewhere'. I mean yeah, but that's beginners stuff. The magic only happens if it actually leads to getting out of your own way. And I associate the deeper stuff with energy work and purification. I like the "being what you are, as much as doing" line. That's nearer where I'm coming from. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 14:26:44 GMT -5
Actually, they would! (and I sensed reefs might have done it yesterday with his LOA stuff). Coz that would be form of second mountaineering and brown-bearing. I should probably say that I'm a proponent of the two truths doctrine, which means I see truth is an expression of Truth, albeit within the relative context (appearance). The truth I'm talking about is dhamma - Truth/truth which transcends different times, languages and cultures. Which means it holds true regardless of those. dhamma is the relative expression of 'the living Truth', and I consider, 'that volitioning is the case', to be an example of this, of dhamma. Therefore, I don't align with this inference that ultimately it's all only so much hot air. To give an example you more likely will relate to, 'that oneness is the case' is another example of what I mean by dhamma. I mean what it points to in terms of the living Truth. It's truth which transcends time language and culture. truth is an extension of Truth, or is conditioned by it, ... precisely because non-separation and Oneness is the case. I can understand your concerns with all that, and maintain that what's being pointed to is a bit more subtle, and ultimately empty and verb-like. You're positing an extreme first mountain perspective and then rightly shooting it down based on that conception. And in doing so you're merely offering the opposite extreme - the second mountain perspective, which implies that ultimately it's all baloney. It needs to be approached from a third mountain perspective, which is somewhere above and between the first two. Otherwise you just end up chucking the bathwater out with the baby and missing the dhamma. I very much agree with what you're saying there. What I was aiming for there was an acknowledgement that ultimately, words will never fully capture "It."
Again, you've put that really well......nice explanation.
Okay, sure, (and that's kind). No doubt. (I can actually remember that far back), and that makes it extra rough! hehe. I'd say it's a particularly intricate issue. I mean, the buddhists also specifically disclaim that 'agency' you were talking about before. But this notion I referred to as 'determinism par excellence', where everything's sorta scripted, or can only be one way is definitely not what the Buddha taught either. For me that's just a bit too 'clockwork' and flies in the face of what's apparent. I'm pretty much over it now anyway. Although, I will just say that, if it's not actually True, those guys (e & r) will still be making a helluva pretence about it.  |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 24, 2023 14:48:23 GMT -5
That's good to know. I first read Alan Watts over 50 years ago, that never made sense to me (The universe is the play of "God", layla, etc). But it still doesn't solve all my issues. Just wrote to figs. {This is the Whole, All That Is} I freely admit SR does not compute for me. I understand experience. Reefs says SR is Source seeing through the eyes of Source. There is a distinction between SR and the mind being informed. Somehow all that has to be resolved. (This is man's realm/experience). So you have: { ( ) } So I can't put together SR as Source seeing through the eyes of Source, but it's not an experience. It's not a major concern, as you guy say "I" can't do anything about it anyway, SR is acausal. If anyone could have practiced their way to SR, it would be sdp. I just do my thing, and share about that as best as I can, here. I don't understand why laughter seems to feel he needs to use sdp as a punching bag, I freely admit SR is not relevant for sdp (yet). laughter seems to have to goal of making sdp wrong within my own paradigm, that's not going to happen. It seems there is a broad span of what exactly All This means even here on ST's. I understand the futility of language in trying to express. Just briefly. There is a Ground of All That Is. Alan Watts called it a Which of Which there is no Whicher. No problem with that. I think I might have done a thread on the following, but, anyway. As analogy, let's make the Whicher, Legos (as the Monads of Leibniz or Seth's CU's, Consciousness Units). I have no problem with the Realization of Legos. (I think in the thread I did a play on Logos). So, Legos doesn't concern sdp, the Realization of Legos. sdp is interested with what can be built from Legos. Ken Wilber says to emphasize Legos as what's central is to make the pre-trans fallacy. If we can dialogue, well and good. If we can't, people will just stop replying to my posts. But I am not wholly alone, here. I can dialogue with ouroboros, zazeniac, someNOTHING when he pops in, sharon, even Reefs. When things dry up here, when posting stops, it's because of the lack of *mix* of views, the lack of yin and yang. Imo, Alan Watts is clearly more of a mystic/philosopher than a Self-realized/awake sage. You too. & All good....as I see it, a very conscious, deep looking/inquiring mystic who fulfills the criteria of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood," is about as good as it gets in the absence of full out SR/wakefulness. Do like me a bit of Wattsy ... so I guess I do like me a bit of mysticism. |
|
|
|
Post by figrebirth on Jun 24, 2023 17:57:26 GMT -5
I very much agree with what you're saying there. What I was aiming for there was an acknowledgement that ultimately, words will never fully capture "It."
Again, you've put that really well......nice explanation.
Okay, sure, (and that's kind). No doubt. (I can actually remember that far back), and that makes it extra rough! hehe. I'd say it's a particularly intricate issue. I mean, the buddhists also specifically disclaim that 'agency' you were talking about before. But this notion I referred to as 'determinism par excellence', where everything's sorta scripted, or can only be one way is definitely not what the Buddha taught either. For me that's just a bit too 'clockwork' and flies in the face of what's apparent. I'm pretty much over it now anyway. Although, I will just say that, if it's not actually True, those guys (e & r) will still be making a helluva pretence about it. For whatever it's worth....I know we do have several here who fall more under the umbrella of "Buddhism" and really, Nonduality and Buddhism are two quite different ontologies. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 24, 2023 23:23:00 GMT -5
Imo, Alan Watts is clearly more of a mystic/philosopher than a Self-realized/awake sage. You too. & All good....as I see it, a very conscious, deep looking/inquiring mystic who fulfills the criteria of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood," is about as good as it gets in the absence of full out SR/wakefulness. Do like me a bit of Wattsy ... so I guess I do like me a bit of mysticism. My take on him is quite different from figs. He was into intellect as a starting point, and I rezz with that completely. I think the "intellect-only understanding" can get a bad straw man rap around here - which is an extreme flip-side to my bottom line on intellect these days, but, that's a reflection of the human mind, which is nothing, if not extreme. I think that anyone expressing an intellectual understanding on existential issues almost always has some underlying deeper reference point for what they're expressing. And Al goes way deeper than the typical "mystic", Also, if you pay close enough attention, I do believe that you'll even find that he's a bit of Ruthless Truther who liked to feed the Brown Bears. He was a rouge, that way, and a libertine and a gleeful social gadfly. I certainly can't look down on the guy. Perhaps I could have found a basis to spar with him if I'd been his contemporary, but that's all second hand, so I don't take that speculation all that seriously. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 24, 2023 23:32:28 GMT -5
Imo, Alan Watts is clearly more of a mystic/philosopher than a Self-realized/awake sage. You too. & All good....as I see it, a very conscious, deep looking/inquiring mystic who fulfills the criteria of Jed mcKenna's "human adulthood," is about as good as it gets in the absence of full out SR/wakefulness. Do like me a bit of Wattsy ... so I guess I do like me a bit of mysticism. You gotta be careful with the mysticism label when talking to Figgles. What she means by that label is someone with an interest in woo-woo experiences, not non-duality or SR. So this label is usually used in a rather derogatory way. Traditionally, mysticism refers to seeing directly into your true nature as opposed to the indirect approach of scholars and church service. Meister Eckhart and Rumi are often called mystics. And when you read their works, they come as non-dual as it gets. Now, while Watts officially was a scholar, and an exceptional one I might add, he was definitely not a woo-woo guy. For one he understood the distinction between suchness and thingness quite clearly and when you read or listen to his talks on Zen you'll see that he also had a reference for kensho and satori. So if he deserves the label of a mystic, then only in the sense of a Meister Eckhart and Rumi. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 24, 2023 23:42:42 GMT -5
Do like me a bit of Wattsy ... so I guess I do like me a bit of mysticism. You gotta be careful with the mysticism label when talking to Figgles. What she means by that label is someone with an interest in woo-woo experiences, not non-duality or SR. So this label is usually used in a rather derogatory way. Traditionally, mysticism refers to seeing directly into your true nature as opposed to the indirect approach of scholars and church service. Meister Eckhart and Rumi are often called mystics. And when you read their works, they come as non-dual as it gets. Now, while Watts officially was a scholar, and an exceptional one I might add, he was definitely not a woo-woo guy. For one he understood the distinction between suchness and thingness quite clearly and when you read or listen to his talks on Zen you'll see that he also had a reference for kensho and satori. So if he deserves the label of a mystic, then only in the sense of a Meister Eckhart and Rumi. I think she also means that woo-woo is a transitory state which comes and goes. It is then referred to as a memory of something that happened in the past. Such an experience cannot be the permanent reality. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 0:28:01 GMT -5
You gotta be careful with the mysticism label when talking to Figgles. What she means by that label is someone with an interest in woo-woo experiences, not non-duality or SR. So this label is usually used in a rather derogatory way. Traditionally, mysticism refers to seeing directly into your true nature as opposed to the indirect approach of scholars and church service. Meister Eckhart and Rumi are often called mystics. And when you read their works, they come as non-dual as it gets. Now, while Watts officially was a scholar, and an exceptional one I might add, he was definitely not a woo-woo guy. For one he understood the distinction between suchness and thingness quite clearly and when you read or listen to his talks on Zen you'll see that he also had a reference for kensho and satori. So if he deserves the label of a mystic, then only in the sense of a Meister Eckhart and Rumi. I think she also means that woo-woo is a transitory state which comes and goes. It is then referred to as a memory of something that happened in the past. Such an experience cannot be the permanent reality. Yes. |
|
