|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 25, 2023 2:52:34 GMT -5
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. It's lovely to feel your admiration for him. If the decades had aligned a little differently then I would definitely enjoy watching a podcast between the two of you |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jun 25, 2023 2:57:47 GMT -5
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." The mechanism and counter movement that displays itself as delusion and misdirection originates from the same Source that "God" is. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jun 25, 2023 3:04:33 GMT -5
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.
[div ]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"? I smiled when I read this question because it's quite similar to many Zen koans. As you know, Zen eschews intellection in general, so numerous koans are designed like this: "The Buddha said that everything has Buddha nature, but Joshu (a famous ZM who lived a thousand years later) said that a dog does NOT have Buddha Nature. Which master was correct?" "One master said X and another master said Y. Which master do you agree with?" With any koan having this structure, if one replies correct or incorrect, or agrees or disagrees, a student is dismissed and told to go meditate more because an entirely different type of answer is required. To your question the best answer is, "The wall is white, the floor is brown," because the issue is perception, and the question appears to be rather intellectual in nature. OTOH, and from a more conventional perspective, I don't fully understand exactly what is meant by the statement that the question refers to, so I'd need a clearer grasp of what the words are pointing to in order to answer in any other way. In the Zen tradition everything is very down-to-earth, simple, and direct because fine distinctions often obscure the obvious and keep one in one's head, if you see what I mean. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2023 5:55:44 GMT -5
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. Yes, I tend to agree, although there's possibly more that could be said. Like for example that, otoh there are many crossovers, but otoh perhaps different areas of focus and different ways of approaching specific subjects between the ontologies. In fact that can be said even between the various traditions in Buddhism and so something like zen is actually closer to advaita than theravada, (so, accordingly further away from the dhamma ). Also that in some respects buddhism could be said to be an extension of advaita, due to the fact that advaita was the traditional and prevalent spirituality of the time and place of the buddha, and what he was schooled in. Although the story goes that he essentially found it lacking and so developed something else, and in the ninth jhana, rediscovered a deeper state that had been lost to the ages. But the fact is a lot of folks just consider them quite incompatible, and I can see why. What I see is that the guys around here are quite selective in what they take even from teachers such as ramana and niz, and I've pointed this out before. The guys seem to have an even more narrow and selective focus than those gurus already relatively narrow and selective focus. And I get the impression that at least one of those gurus came to know about that towards the end of their lives and specifically distanced themselves from some of their earlier work which had taken off like wild-fire. Perhaps the other was just more selective in casting pearls due to the audience, but they are there if you look closely. You're right though. You won't get any 'Self's, or 'what you Are's' in buddhism, and for good reason. No 'unchanging reality' even, although something like that might be pointed to quite indirectly. Really the whole structure of the doctrines are different, and buddhism has more emphasis on what I call biggest picture stuff (rebirth and wotnot). Perhaps also just to say that aspects of both hinduism and buddhism focus a lot more of the energy work than we do here in this format. The jabbering will only get you so far. I perceive l lot of what's expounded around here leans more towards neo, with perhaps the exception of sat who I think leans more traditional and if memory serves I think incorporates this 'energy work' by leaning more into the yogic side as well. Imo, the traditional advaita stuff would be more compatible with buddhism than the neo stuff. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2023 6:07:35 GMT -5
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. He was a proper sage, make no mistake about that. And obviously, incredibly eloquent. And a bit of an ol' rascal. |
|
|
|
Post by ouroboros on Jun 25, 2023 6:13:40 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. Labels, schmabels.
I have an interest in all those things anyway, but aren't necessarily a proponent of them. And I think a lot of folks who disparage woo likely have no real reference for it, so I don't put a lot of stock in it. It necessitates purification. Okay, I promise I'm gonna stop banging on about that now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 25, 2023 13:11:31 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. Labels, schmabels. I have an interest in all those things anyway, but aren't necessarily a proponent of them. And I think a lot of folks who disparage woo likely have no real reference for it, so I don't put a lot of stock in it. It necessitates purification. Okay, I promise I'm gonna stop banging on about that now.
I'd say the mystics stand for the living truth and it was usually the mystics that kept and still keep the core truths of the major religions alive, despite hundreds of years of ossification on the outside. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 26, 2023 11:13:43 GMT -5
The speculation impulse is the ego/mind trying to ascertain the future. It tries to decipher why and how things turn out the way they do. Attachment to this is no different than any other attachment. It's a fish looking for water while swimming. Creation, manifestion, it's method, is undecipherable and only the ego feels compelled to decipher it. It can't let go and be. Peace.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 26, 2023 13:31:05 GMT -5
The speculation impulse is the ego/mind trying to ascertain the future. It tries to decipher why and how things turn out the way they do. Attachment to this is no different than any other attachment. It's a fish looking for water while swimming. Creation, manifestion, it's method, is undecipherable and only the ego feels compelled to decipher it. It can't let go and be. Peace. We each have a sphere of influence, for most of us it's very tiny, mostly ourself. We have to recognize, the Stoics say, where change is possible and where we have no influence. A lot of peace and lack of strife come out of recognizing that. One of my rules in life is: What you think of me is none of my business. (#1 rule, make sure you have toilet paper on the roller before you sit down to business). But we can be vigilant. When we're about to screw up, being vigilant can stop us, not that we're doing, the vigilance itself effects change. But some people have a greater sphere of influence, Putin for instance. Nasty business. I can't do anything about Putin, except, Be the change you want to see in the world. And then there is always the law of unintended consequences. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 26, 2023 19:28:38 GMT -5
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. It's lovely to feel your admiration for him. If the decades had aligned a little differently then I would definitely enjoy watching a podcast between the two of you Wow thanks for such a kind thought! It would be a grandfather paradox thingy 'cause of his cultural influence.  Watts -> KerouacKerouac -> Weir: (better Jerry...) |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Jun 29, 2023 8:31:41 GMT -5
Not to disparage assholes, they can be excellent teachers. Some are conscious a la Miagi and could be awakened. Some are unconscious. There's the story of the rinpoche who hired one to live with his students. My favorite one is Charlie Harper. Loved that character.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jun 29, 2023 13:10:36 GMT -5
Not to disparage assholes, they can be excellent teachers. Some are conscious a la Miagi and could be awakened. Some are unconscious. There's the story of the rinpoche who hired one to live with his students. My favorite one is Charlie Harper. Loved that character.
Gurdjieff had never asked—or tried to persuade—anyone to
stay at the Prieure. On the contrary, he sent a great many people away even when they would have given a great deal for the privilege of staying. Rachmilevitch's case was hardly
in point, in any event, since he was paid to be there,
according to Mr. Gurdjieff, and even he had only been "asked" to stay. Gurdjieff then told me the story of Rachmilevitch. Accord ing to this tale, Rachmilevitch had been a Russian refugee who had located in Paris after the Russian revolution and had become a prosperous merchant dealing in such merchandise as teas, caviar, and various other products for which there was, primarily, a demand among displaced Russian persons. Gurdjieff had apparently known him for a long time—he may have been one of the people who came to France with Gurdjieff from Russia some years before— and 78 MY JOURNEY WITH A MYSTIC had decided that his personality was an essential element in
the school.
"You remember," he said, "how I tell you that you make
trouble? This true, but you only child. Rachmilevitch grown
man and not mischievous, like you, but have such personality
that he constantly cause friction whatever he do,
wherever he live. He not make serious trouble, but he make
friction on surface of life, all the time. He cannot help this—
he too old to change now. "When I tell you that though Rachmilevitch is already rich merchant I pay him to stay here, you are surprised, but this so. He very old friend and very important for my purposes. I cannot pay him what he can already make, all
by self, in tea business in Paris; so when I go to see him I
humble self, have to beg him to make sacrifice for my sake.
He agree to do this, and I now have obligation to him for life.
Without Rachmilevitch, Prieure' is not same; I know no one
person like him, no person who just by existence, without
conscious effort, produce friction in all people around him." I had by this time acquired the habit of always assuming that in anything that Gurdjieff did there was always "more than meets the eye"; I was also familiar with his theory that
friction produced conflicts which, in turn, agitated people
and, as it were, shocked them out of their habitual, routine
behaviour; also I could not help but wonder what rewards
were in this for Rachmilevitch, besides money, that is.
Gurdjieff's only answer to this was to say that it was also a
privilege for Rachmilevitch to be at the Prieure "Nowhere
else can his personality perform such useful work." I was not particularly impressed by this answer, but I did have a picture in my mind of Rachmilevitch's every move being of great importance. It seemed, at best, a curious destiny— he
must, I assumed, live in a constant state of cataclysm,
creating havoc incessantly.
There was no question that his presence not only created
trouble, but also seemed to attract it. Very shortly after his return, he and I were again the focal points in another "incident". |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 20, 2023 22:32:17 GMT -5
For many people, if not most, what gets "lost" in flow is the false self, but only temporarily. Flow refers to lucid absorption (in an activity like juggling, for instance), not a daydream. "Lost in a daydream" is a use of "lost" that fits your use of the word "lost" here. But that's not what descriptions of flow are relating. Ever seen a top chef and his knife work? He is in flow. He keeps all of his fingers precisely because his false sense of self, which operates through indirect layers of perception, is "lost". What you write here suggests an obvious form of the existential question : what is it, that maintains conscious efforts continually? You are, of course, completely closed off to the possibility that I have to offer a facet of perspective within your current blind spot. That is, what it is.  This effort to consciously maintain attention, if done in self-reference, eventually all it will do is serve to reinforce the ego. Witnessing is a state with all sorts of subtle layers to it, and one can reach states of witnessing that are quite sublime and profound. But, for as long as there is the witness, and what is witnessed, there is existential delusion.
Resistance is, after all, quite futile. Correct; all forms of conscious practice are based on the idea of a "me" doing something in order to get something, and only when the "me" falls away does it become obvious that there was never a "me" doing anything ever. That's the cosmic joke, and it's why nobody ever gets enlightened. In order for someone to get enlightened there would have to be a someone, and there isn't. The truth is too funny for words. I don't know if Gurdjieff has been misinterpreted by his followers or whether he actually believed what he seems to have implied about the necessity of being relentlessly conscious. That idea makes me tired just thinking about it! I'm so glad that I don't have to care about whether THIS is thinking or not thinking any longer. When Hui Neng said, "Let the mind function freely without hindrance," that's what he was pointing to-- the only real and lasting freedom--, but that statement can't be fully appreciated as long as one is trying to get to some imaginary state of higher consciousness. ...bumped, as I just referred to this. and I don't know how to isolate a post-link, without a specificallywordedphrase... But it has zero to do with thinking, being-conscious has zero to do with thinking. |
|
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. 
