|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 7, 2024 7:18:06 GMT -5
I have read along with peeps for 10 years on forums, the hardcore ND peeps all sing from the same hymn sheet. From the illusory peep, to the dream world scenario. I just read something on another forum from this lady who declared she knows everything about Non duality and knows for certain life is a dream. I mean you just don't get this from ordinary folk. It's like a cult. Peeps read stuff and recite it like it's the truth. You can spot a N.D. peep a mile off. You ask a question against their core beliefs and it goes pear shaped pretty quickly, You're either not even here to begin with and if you are you're an illusory dream character that arises in consciousness. It's not normal mate. Soz, butt it ain't. This type of talk belongs in a niche club, that recites the scriptures when push comes to shove. I mean I like ZD and find him highly respectful butt he doesn't know what the spirit or soul refers too, only consciousness. I used to pull figs up on her posts, for they weren't normal. Its was like a non duality language that you wouldn't dare speak of down the pub with your mates. There is defo a code here that N.D.'s speak of, the general public wouldn't have a clue what's been said. The thing is, half of what is said, isn't known lol, and if it is, it's only a pointer what is True, that can't be conceptualised. I am not having a rant here, I am not anti N.D. peeps, it's just I see through it all . All Good, mate. It's easy enough to understand why. Following through tends to turn things inside out and back a bit, and it's not always fun. If you are interested and/or prefer to depersonalize the look a bit more, there's a history to the realization (at least as far as what has been written down), and many have said that it is actually the core of many of the great traditions. Some that realized what's pointed to have been revered, deified, crucified, or ex-communicated, depending on the prevailing culture of the time. Others have just gone on and lived quiet, peaceful lives with a sense of simply Knowing. I loves ya, mate. Well I am only going by what peeps say. I am sure there are peeps out there that make sense and their foundations support their premises. Even teachers can change their minds from book to book, some like Jeff Foster made a complete 180° turnaround. When I hear peeps realise the person is illusory or the world is a dream there isn't a realisation had to back that up. This kinda illustrates such teachings and knowings that are supposed to be True and not based upon beliefs for example and from this perspective are not 100% knowings or realisations. As Inavalan said, these should all reflect sameness if this is the case. It seems that where there can be common ground at times is if peeps recite from the same scriptures. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 7, 2024 7:28:22 GMT -5
Who asked you to go treasure hunting? In this dialog I've explained the distinction between belief and existential belief. I don't disagree that your ideas about conditions and filters apply to ideas that revolve around nonduality pointing, such as the flagpole koan. Butt this picture you paint of a wiggler is a self portrait, 'cause you wrote this: What existential beliefs? Be specific. Or wiggle some more. Either way. I don't mind.  At a guess...and I'm questioning whether I should get involved.....I think T is saying that the explanation as to why you don't have an existential belief, would constitute existential belief. Yes mate, it's exactly that. You can't make a statement of not having an existential belief without that reflecting one. This is how self reflection works. Existential beliefs are integrated within our thoughts and behaviours, they are part of our belief system. They are present even if one say's they are not. Again, this is why we don't have to have at the forefront of our minds each day a belief that there is a floor beneath our feet when we roll out of bed. The belief is already integrated, just like our existential beliefs are. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 7, 2024 8:17:52 GMT -5
From my POV all there is is THIS, and although there's an individual body/mind organism with the screen name ZD, I know from direct experience that what I am is infinite, unified, and beyond birth or death. When I take a breath of air, I know that the air coming into the body is as much the real "Me" as the body most people imagine as ZD because what I am is infinite and includes all that IS. When this body dies, what I am will still be here because it is not confined to a body.
.. What you are that is not being confined to the mind-body doesn't make what you are that comprises of the mind-body any less 'what you are'. You are correct in that what you are will still be present after the physical experience ends, but one will have an etheric body, living in an etheric environment so although there is change, there is a constant. You will still have an individual experience. You will still have a personality that reflects your previous life and that can change when awareness comes to the fore that will bring further understanding of what you are. There is still a self reference. You see this is why it helps to have a different perspective other than comparing the physical experience with beyond mind. How many worlds and planes of existence are there? I don't know, How many mind-bodies can one experience? A causal body, an etheric body - How many more? I don't know. I don't hear any Non dualist speak along such lines because it isn't in their vocabulary. I haven't a clue from what I have read on forums such as these if such peeps vanish into a puff of non dual smoke and merge with the ocean. Just for the record, Niz was taught all this from his teacher, he wrote a book from his teacher's teaching that covers all this territory, your posts today. I haven't read it, I don't have it, but it's 'on my list'. Here. (The price never comes down, which is unusual on Amazon. I was wrong, the new 2023 edition is $19.99, five dollars cheaper, must be a print-on-demand version). Master of Self-Realization - International Edition: An Ultimate Understanding Paperback – July 25, 2023 by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj (Author) In this book is a collection of 130 talks that were given by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, guru of Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ranjit Maharaj. The talks in this book were recorded and edited by Nisargadatta Maharaj and were originally published by him in two volumes in the Marathi language under the name of "Adhyatma Jnanacha Yogeshwar" in the years 1960 and 1961. The text was reprinted in the year 2000 at the insistence of Shri Ranjit Maharaj. Afterwards it was translated into English for this book, truly a modern day spiritual classic in its own right. Also included within the covers of this book is the text "Master Key to Self-Realization" which was authored by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj in the form of a methodical explanation of many fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta and Self-Realization. The teaching found here helps the aspirant to form a solid foundation for understanding the fundamental principles of non-duality and in realizing one's True Nature. Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj was the disciple of Shri Bhauseheb Maharaj who mainly taught the path of Meditation as a means to realization. During his spiritual practice, Siddharameshwar Maharaj spent much of his time practicing meditation and reflecting on the teachings of great Saints such as Shri Samartha Ramdas, a renowned Maharashtran Saint of the 17th century (author of Dasbodh and Manache Shlok), as well as the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, Valmiki and Vasisthta, and other great Saints such as Kabir, Tukaram, Eknath, (author of Eknathi Bhagwat), and others. After the passing away of his master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj in the year 1914, Siddharameshwar Maharaj continued meditating on the teachings of his Master. In 1918, he renounced the world and joined four of his brother disciples to popularize his Master's teachings. In the year 1920 when he was on the tour of popularizing his Master's teachings, he got the idea that one could go beyond the path of many years of long meditation as a means for realization and that meditation is an initial stage to attain Final Reality. His brother disciples disagreed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, saying that their master, Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj has not told them this. He agreed with them, but stated, "Okay! Can one not go beyond that?" He left his co-disciples and returned to his home in Bijapur. While in Bijapur he meditated for nine months continuously without a break. Since his Master had taught him only meditation, he had no other means to find out the way to attain the Final Reality without long arduous meditation. He said, "I will attain the Final Reality even at the cost of my life." By the grace of his Master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj he attained the realization of Final Reality. From that time on he taught "The Bird's Way" instead of the path of meditation. Now we are blessed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj's precious teaching on the Bird's Way. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:04:33 GMT -5
What existential beliefs? Be specific. Or wiggle some more. Either way. I don't mind. Okay, now when you said for example Now, I won't deny that this sounds like a belief, but it's not quite that simple. I have an absence of existential belief. My belief that others are not absent these beliefs is based on what I hear them say or reading what they write.
This is an existential belief based upon what you believe yourself to be in reflection of what other's are that can write something for whatever you are that can read it. This is why I said it doesn't really matter what it is you say because whatever it is will reflect upon what you believe of yourself to be that is existing. It matter's not if one wants to proclaim that they don't have any existential beliefs at all for that in itself reflects one. I think this was along the same lines as what Andy interjected with. My beliefs about others beliefs are based on what they tell me or write about it. If you dig a hole, you have a hole, with the dirt off to the side. The space in the hole is only tangentially related to the dirt to the side. The space in the hole is an absence. If you spend your paycheck, you're broke. It's an absence of funds. An open palm or a glass with nothing in it is empty. I say I have no existential belief. You mistake that statement of absence for a statement of belief. No, you haven't identified any existential belief that I hold. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:09:44 GMT -5
I'm not passing opinion either way, and I could be wrong, in which case we'll scrub my message and your facepalm, and rewrite history, as per today's fashion! .. well, we went over this years ago. An absence isn't the presence of something that is absent.  It's related to the dialog I had with lolz some weeks back about atheism. Every atheist that I've ever heard defines themselves by the refusal to believe in God, and justifies that position with a different set and structure of beliefs. So, atheism is a "belief in God with a NOT in front of it". What is pointed to by nonduality is not that. This is why mental quiescence is recommended along with the pointing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:15:38 GMT -5
I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. "They didn't" ... Or, maybe they did. The accounts ring similar to me. The so-called differences are what I'd expect if a non-verbal reality, beyond language, were realized by different minds, in different cultures, different histories, different languages. You can understand this by analogy - look at something in the world, and notice how two different people might describe that same thing in wildly different styles. They might highlight different aspects or angles, or use different modes of expression - realism, poetry, analogy, parable, etc. And the existential truth is not the sort of truth that inavalan has described. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:23:58 GMT -5
I think that this "points" to what we are, and here in this physical reality, we are only what we remember to be. Every perception, every experience is a memory, is read from memory (not in the sense of a piece of brain). The implication is that if the content of your banks of memories is altered by something / somebody, then you become a different you, and aren't aware of that change. Take a game-console example: load another program, another reality is created. All experiences, physical and nonphysical, all perceptions, direct and indirect, are just recollections, and could actually be implanted with no "factual" basis. You can only say that "you are". Surely, you make assumptions, hypotheses, but believing they are "true" is a mistake. They are only work in progress. If the truth is unique, then all the people who had the ultimate realization would've realized the same truth. They didn't. The first few paragraphs (and maybe the conclusion) reads to me like a rendition of Plato’s forms theory: “We thus know about such things prior to any sense experience we have or could have about them. This knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori. ” Plato is an example of a rationalist. As such, it sounds to me like Gestalt Theory, as you’re alluding to often, can fall in the same dualism that a lot of Platonism devolved into, either while still alive or afterwards as folks studied him. Hell, even Plato himself had to make up chora/space to bring it all together (see Timaeus), but there’s a lot that I still do not know, I’m sure. It is said that even he was not clear on it, but was making a logical jump to open up a participatory space for exploring truth, which he was keen on. I'm cool with the participatory intention, to be fair, but to me, it is also indicative of mentation, and not so much as realization. I could be wrong and have only a limited reading/study on his philosophy in translations (good/bad) and via others’ interpretations. Plotinus, on the other hand, though he just saw his own philosophy as an extension of Platonism, seems to be more resolute in his The One and/or uses of flow via transcendence and emanation, ultimately in/as The One. To me, that’s a big difference (i.e., seems to point to a realization of sorts), and it was reported by his student that he has ‘gone into it’ (or something like that) at least 4 times that he (the student) could recall. I do not know wtf that is supposed to mean being that it was reported by another person, but that’s why I’d be interested in talking to Plotinus himself. In my own experience, discussions about distinguishing Nous and The One can be either overly direct and/or lost on those trying to understand. In discussing it with someone who can sense what's being pointed to, it wouldn't matter, because where there are agreements or disagreements on finer points would just be known to be mind stuff (like preferences or hashing out linguistic devices). I sense Baba Plotinus would recognize that with a decent poke session, based on what I presently understand him to mean in the synopsis of his expressions of/model for/pointing to The One (i.e., Truth). So, that brings us to your approach via gestalts. Your interpretations of Truth is that it must be many; whereas, I’d say one’s approach to (search for) Truth and ITS emanations may appear as many, but not Truth ITSELF. You are more involved with the gestalt stuff, so maybe you can help explore its potential value. I read through Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change to get a bit of a grasp of your preferred approach to these discussions. When I read it, I noticed certain spots that gave opportunities or openings for potential insights/realization, while at the same time, they could be clouded by the resistances mentioned. I'm curious about what aspects of the model can be useful, misunderstood, limited, etc and/or where you think it negates the potential for an ND perspective. You could even start a new thread where the discussion would be more consolidated. I’d be interested to hear your take on it, as well as others’ perspectives as a healthy discussion. Again, I'll try to get back on occasion, but may be sporadic. The extreme brown bears roaming the trails around the peak of Mt. Second are not wrong after all. For as long as what is perceived is filtered through object-oriented mind, the existential truth of perception is obscured. Enter sasquatch and his nervy samadhi .. or consider the Ashtavakra Gita, for instance. Because there is no inner, and no outer, the same insights are available via a tantric approach such as ATA, or via what would seem to thinking mind to be the opposite: the falling away of the world. So, questioning the "truth" of perception is a fine starting point, but like any other approach can lead to an existential dead end, despite any relative, material insight that might be had along the way. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:33:58 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. None of what you write about denies the works in progress, after all. There are varying opinions about evolution among the "nondualists" here, but none of anyone who 'dusty or inavalan might consider a "nondualist" denies constant change .. they just .. put it into perspective. There is consensus, though, it seems to me, on the nature of objects. Bodidharma called this, his bones, and, after all, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:40:03 GMT -5
My first mystical experience, kind of Chuang Tzu-butterfly man-like. I was about five (actually, this would be my second mystical experience). We were coming back from the beach. I was laying down in the back seat on the floorboard, the middle hump was my pillow. I woke up, 'out of it'. I had been 'some where' or I was 'some where', I wasn't sure, which. But I knew either where 'I was supposed to be', or where I was. So I shouted: Are pots and pans really true!!! Turned out, I was in the right place, in the real world, because pots and pans, here, are true (real). Honestly, I can hear myself shouting it, in memory. In Glimpses of Truth, Gurdjieff told a newcomer, I'm speaking to you in language that you can understand. If I spoke to you, precisely, you'd think I was crazy. In another place someone asked Gurdjieff what he taught. He answered: I teach that when it rains, the sidewalks get wet. I love road trip insights and mystical experiences. Had a few of them meself as a kid on the 7hr drives to see Nanaw and Papaw. And I've slept on that hump and remember loving the warmth in December. Then there was the sitting in the back of the Vista Cruiser in the pop up seats they had, looking up at the rear window, watching the highway dashed lines traveling in reverse in the reflection, thinking, "Are we really going anywhere?" It sank in a good bit, but I eventually did get the itch to get up and took a look. I've got a vivid memory from when I was probably about 5 or 6, in a car with my folks, at night, coming back from an aunt's house. I remember the exact spot: a viaduct that overlooks a baseball field. The lights were on and a guy hit one to the outfield, and I wondered (along the lines of) "where will all these people be a long time from now? what happens to this moment? I might remember this, but, will anyone else?". I also think I remember remembering my first heartbeat and opening my eyes in the womb while hearing my own pulse lying down at that age .. but that might be false, the other one is quite lucid. Introverts! (or, more precisely, those with the propensity to contemplate) .. almost everyone who posts here can likely allude to similar stories, no matter even the other disagreements. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 7, 2024 11:43:50 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. At the level of soul, English is not spoken, nor any conceptual language. We take physical birth because the only way to learn, really, is the school of hard knocks. And the organism is a [an al]chemical laboratory. A perfect example of a belief worth questioning! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 7, 2024 12:55:44 GMT -5
Now, with all of that in mind, can you explain or describe what you mean by the words "soul" or "spirit"? It’s the individual life force that is if you like a spark of ‘what you are’ be it referred to God, Source or whatever word suits. You see things just don’t arise in consciousness an d can’t simply be empty appearances. One has to understand what a person constitutes and comprises of. This is why I started a thread reflecting the nature of all appearances. If one like yourself and other Non Dualists only believes that a person reflects a SVP then you’re confined to that space. Likewise those that speak of everything is a dream or an illusion of sorts where every concept needs to be burnt gives one very little wiggle room when trying to uphold their premise. I see at times such a premise is self negating. The individual person that is not separate from everything comprises of many attributes that facilitates and allows individual experience to be had, that doesn’t necessarily have to reflect an illusory separate dream character that arises as an appearance only. The Soul or Spirit, that embodies the object or Awareness becoming Consciousness in the presence of an object as Niz or Ramana put it refers to the person and the person isn’t the issue. As reefs quoted the other day ' As at one time I am clothed, and at another time naked, so Brahman is at one time with attributes and at another without'. The person is Brahman clothed. And all this 100% knowings that are Truth and are not beliefs have to reflect what you are as an individual person and what you are that is beyond that. At present there doesn’t seem to be any Non Dualists here that speak about anything other than Consciousness, and again this is a conceptual belief, and not realised to be the case. So under scrutiny no matter what is said in reply about how much I am not understanding or on the same page, I do know that such foundations don’t support what peeps say at times. Plato said every human being is endowed with three qualities though in different proportions. He said these qualities are Reason, which resides in a person's head, Spirit which resides in a persons heart and Appetite which resides in a person's stomach. He said these are the three parts of the human soul.
To be clear here there are probably as many notions of the Spirit as there are hot dinners. I just plucked out one of the first quotes that came up to give another perspective. I don't think I've ever claimed anything about "empty appearances." That's more in the ballpark of a few others. I was just curious about what you consider to be "soul" or "spirit." Unlike Plato, I don't think reason resides in the head, spirit resides in the heart, or appetite resides in the stomach, except metaphorically. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 7, 2024 12:56:47 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. None of what you write about denies the works in progress, after all. There are varying opinions about evolution among the "nondualists" here, but none of anyone who 'dusty or inavalan might consider a "nondualist" denies constant change .. they just .. put it into perspective. There is consensus, though, it seems to me, on the nature of objects. Bodidharma called this, his bones, and, after all, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Yes, indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 7, 2024 12:59:07 GMT -5
Tenka: I think you understand the ND perspective quite well, and I fully agree with your basic claim that "there is only what you are." I also agree with your attitude toward the " it's all a dream" folks. From my POV life is quite concrete and down-to-earth, and if someone said to me, " This everyday life isn't real," I'd be tempted to smack them with a Zen stick. ATST each human is unique, and many people have highly unusual experiences on this path. Although this character has also had many unusual experiences, it's possible that you've had experiences that have never occurred here, and that's why I mentioned the guy who talked about different kinds of bodies--causal, etheric, astral, etc. FWIW, I've never encountered a soul, a spirit guide, astral stuff, other planes of existence, etc, so I have no reference for those types of things. I accept that other people have had experiences beyond those I know about, and I'm always curious about those kinds of things even though I'm totally content with ordinary everyday life however it manifests. From my POV all there is is THIS, and although there's an individual body/mind organism with the screen name ZD, I know from direct experience that what I am is infinite, unified, and beyond birth or death. When I take a breath of air, I know that the air coming into the body is as much the real "Me" as the body most people imagine as ZD because what I am is infinite and includes all that IS. When this body dies, what I am will still be here because it is not confined to a body. Now, with all of that in mind, can you explain or describe what you mean by the words "soul" or "spirit"? Scientifically-minded literalist folks are all the same, and can't appreciate the poetic expression of the 'godbuddha dreaming' simile/metaphor! Yes, it's much easier, as a Zen master, to have authority, run a monastery maintaining a code of silence, tell people to go to the mat and don't come back until you're dead (metaphorically, in case you didn't get that! ), and smack them with a Zen stick when they can't prove it.  Living in Kyoto amongst all the beautiful, silent temples which I frequented, I get it. Indeed, there was something dreamy about them and the expression found in their poetry. I also understand why some people don't like, get or appreciate metaphors. Just mind stuff. ******************************************************* "The place where the dream is expressed within a dream is the land and the assembly of buddha ancestors." "This is the dream expressed within a dream, prior to all dreams." "Every dewdrop manifested in every realm is a dream. This dream is the glowing clarity of the hundred grasses." "The expressing of the dream within a dream is all buddhas." "There are inner dreams, dream expressions, expressions of dreams, and dreams inside. Without being within a dream, there is no expression of dreams. Without expressing dreams, there is no being within a dream. .... Furthermore, going beyond the dharma body is itself expressing the dream within a dream." "The expression of the dream within a dream can be aroused by both ordinary people and sages. Moreover, the expression of the dream within a dream by both ordinary people and sages arose yesterday and develops today. Know that yesterday’s expression of the dream within a dream was the recognition of this expression as expressing the dream within a dream. The present expression of the dream within a dream is to experience right now this expression as expressing the dream within a dream. Indeed, this is the marvelous joy of meeting a buddha." ~ DogenExcerpts from Dogen Zenji’s Shobogenzo Muchu Setsumu (Within a Dream Expressing the Dream / 夢中説夢) ******************************************************* In this world of dreams, dozing off still more; and again speaking and dreaming of dreams. Just let it be. ~Ryokan ******************************************************* A star at dawn A bubble in a stream A flash of lightening in a summer’s cloud A flickering lamp A phantom and a dream So is this fleeting world ~from The Diamond Sutra******************************************************* Waking from a crazy dream, a dream that feels rich with meaning, one might be inclined to analyze. Thus books are sold, experts paid. Years later, the old dream returns, but now, penniless, one just washes his face, sips her tea, stretches and gets on with the day. ~ Kuei-shan (771–853) : Co-founder of the first of the Five Houses of Ch’an. According to one story, he was handpicked by master Pai-chang to start a monastery on Mt. Kuei, while according to another, he lived there for eight years with only wild monkeys for company before people got wind of his whereabouts and built a monastery for him. At the age of 83, after washing his face and rinsing his mouth, he took a seat and—so it is said—passed away with a smile. ****************************************************** I have no problem with the dream metaphor, and from my POV the past is quite dreamlike; the present, not so much. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 7, 2024 13:05:01 GMT -5
From my POV all there is is THIS, and although there's an individual body/mind organism with the screen name ZD, I know from direct experience that what I am is infinite, unified, and beyond birth or death. When I take a breath of air, I know that the air coming into the body is as much the real "Me" as the body most people imagine as ZD because what I am is infinite and includes all that IS. When this body dies, what I am will still be here because it is not confined to a body.
.. What you are that is not being confined to the mind-body doesn't make what you are that comprises of the mind-body any less 'what you are'.You are correct in that what you are will still be present after the physical experience ends, but one will have an etheric body, living in an etheric environment so although there is change, there is a constant. You will still have an individual experience. You will still have a personality that reflects your previous life and that can change when awareness comes to the fore that will bring further understanding of what you are. There is still a self reference. You see this is why it helps to have a different perspective other than comparing the physical experience with beyond mind. How many worlds and planes of existence are there? I don't know, How many mind-bodies can one experience? A causal body, an etheric body - How many more? I don't know. I don't hear any Non dualist speak along such lines because it isn't in their vocabulary. I haven't a clue from what I have read on forums such as these if such peeps vanish into a puff of non dual smoke and merge with the ocean. Why would anyone here think anyone here thinks that? Has anyone stated that? Just curious. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Jan 7, 2024 13:19:45 GMT -5
I'm not passing opinion either way, and I could be wrong, in which case we'll scrub my message and your facepalm, and rewrite history, as per today's fashion! .. well, we went over this years ago. An absence isn't the presence of something that is absent. It's related to the dialog I had with lolz some weeks back about atheism. Every atheist that I've ever heard defines themselves by the refusal to believe in God, and justifies that position with a different set and structure of beliefs. So, atheism is a "belief in God with a NOT in front of it". What is pointed to by nonduality is not that. This is why mental quiescence is recommended along with the pointing. yes I agree that what is pointed to, is not the same as atheism. What is pointed to, by virtue/definition of what it 'is', is not a belief. That's why it can only be pointed to. And yet, I'd also say that what is pointed to is contained within a broader mindset (or belief system). In a sense, there are beliefs surrounding it, which create the capacity to point to what is not-a-belief. The best evidence I can offer to illustrate this is to say that that 'following the pointer' is a movement of attention (or awareness). Movement happens from within a broader system. So I probably fall in the middle between you on this. I agree with an important aspect of what you are saying. But I also agree with Tenka's understanding of how it all works. |
|
Living in Kyoto amongst all the beautiful, silent temples which I frequented, I get it. Indeed, there was something dreamy about them and the expression found in their poetry.