The Christian Meaning Of Enlightenment (Richard Rohr)

[laughter]

Apr 5, 2024 6:41:50 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I've enjoyed watching several of his videos, and IMO he's one of the best explainers of a ND Christian perspective. However, yesterday someone mentioned something from one of his videos that surprised me. In one of his YouTube videos Rohr apparently said something like, "I try to stay in presence, but I'm not always able to do so." I've been searching for that quote, but so far have been unable to find his actual words about this. If he actually said something like that, then he hasn't yet penetrated the illusion of the SVP. In every other way he seems extremely clear, but it's impossible to fall out of presence or cease being THIS and any sage worth his/her salt would know this. All apparent efforting is seen to be an illusion after one discovers the truth of one's being. This reported statement doesn't detract from his primary message, but it indicates that one further realization might result in what Zen people call "discovering the last word of Zen."

Out of curiosity does anyone here know which video contains his words regarding this issue?

He also made some interesting comments about free will to Rick Archer in the batgap interview. If I spoke with him I'd be interested in asking him about what I consider to be a (really the) Christian Koan: in any given moment, the choice is, do you love God, or not?

In terms of effort, I certainly don't disagree with your points, and there are several things I've heard him say that reminded me of potential disagreements you might have with the guy. But Christianity has always been practical this way. It offers practices and structure for people who haven't realized the existential truth. Seems to me that the Catholics essentially reserve insight for the clergy and monks, and the liaty is expected to outsource this to them.

I did notice that R.R. doesn't seem to have an explicit model for realization that I can discern. Sue wanted to watch this vid and I got a laugh out of how the interviewer wanted to talk about the relative but Richard kept on bringing it back to the existential. He even used the term "nondual", at one point. His "third state" beyond the "first state" of "order" and the second state of "disorder" seems to be the closest to a notion of realization I can hear from him. But it might just be a sort of purified state like the ones the 'pilgrim likes to write about.

[laughter]

Apr 5, 2024 6:41:50 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I've enjoyed watching several of his videos, and IMO he's one of the best explainers of a ND Christian perspective. However, yesterday someone mentioned something from one of his videos that surprised me. In one of his YouTube videos Rohr apparently said something like, "I try to stay in presence, but I'm not always able to do so." I've been searching for that quote, but so far have been unable to find his actual words about this. If he actually said something like that, then he hasn't yet penetrated the illusion of the SVP. In every other way he seems extremely clear, but it's impossible to fall out of presence or cease being THIS and any sage worth his/her salt would know this. All apparent efforting is seen to be an illusion after one discovers the truth of one's being. This reported statement doesn't detract from his primary message, but it indicates that one further realization might result in what Zen people call "discovering the last word of Zen."

Out of curiosity does anyone here know which video contains his words regarding this issue?

.. just remembered the specific point R.R. made that reminded me of our dialogs here: he talks about suffering as integral to the path. .. well ..

[laughter]

Apr 4, 2024 21:56:53 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Mar 31, 2024 15:04:38 GMT -5 laughter said:

A great example of the value that can be offered by a learned sage who has devoted his life to the truth. Only seekers need burn the books. Paraphrasing Father Joe from memory: "the resurrection happens in the moment, every moment". Thank you (profusely), kind sir. and Happy Easter!

It's like these people give you some kind of decoder ring, and suddenly when you go back to the scriptures, it all makes sense and is also so obvious. Amazing. RR got a book on the story of Job btw, Job and the Mystery of Suffering. I've been browsing a bit thru the book, because I think it's very much related to the 'ND and suffering' topic. I found this formula in the book:

Holiness = reunited to the whole = goodness = what is.

Yes, now I have a third source that can make sense of the Bible for me.

Good quote. He said something related to Archer about Jesus and the cross.

(from the transcript)

Archer asked about a quote:

.. 'Jesus’s justice strategy is solidarity with suffering itself wherever it is'. I’m bringing this up because you were just talking about suffering. This is the core meaning of his crucifixion and why the cross is our unique agenda for salvation and liberation, even more than working or fighting for justice, per se. And I don’t completely understand that.

RR answered:

"Well, if we see the extended arms of Jesus, the imprisoned hands and feet of Jesus, as committing himself to universal identification with every act of suffering that has ever existed since the beginning of time. As an act of solidarity, not an act of sacrifice, then we realize religion isn’t so much sacrifice, because that gets you into being more heroic than your neighbor. I’m more sacrificial than you are. But solidarity is much more subtle. .. So solidarity instead of sacrifice.

He offers it as an alternative interpretation to the Calvinist idea that Jesus had to die for the sins of humanity as an act of atonement. His point is that Jesus didn't have to sacrifice to "change God's mind about humanity", but rather, Jesus was here to change humanities mind about God.

[laughter]

Apr 4, 2024 22:16:32 GMT -5 Reefs said:

I don't know all the historical reasons for that, my guess—and that's all I can say—is that both in Eastern orthodoxy and in Roman Catholicism we align ourselves with Empire. And once you align the message of a spiritual teacher with imperial thinking, there's a whole bunch of questions you can't ask anymore, and you can only see what you're told to look for. And if you weren't told to look for it, you can't see it.

The common state of mind in the late Roman Empire doesn't seem to me to have been fertile ground for the reconciliation of internal presence/stillness/sovereignty with external material hierarchy. How to justify slave labor if every set of eyes looked out from the same infinity? It explains excluding the Gospel of Thomas, the purge of the Gnostics, etc .. Antiquity was in dire need of Christianity (or anything similar), but the common-mind wasn't ready for the existential truth. Interesting that they couldn't get rid of the explicit message altogether though. I think the coin parable is an interesting case in point, and deceptively deep water as well. The reconciliation is, of course, non-conceptual, and we'll likely have social hierarchy in one form or another for the foreseeable future. It's a matter of efficiency and practicality.

Will the state of common mind ever be more fertile ground for the existential truth?

[Reefs]

Richard Rohr - The Christian Meaning Of Enlightenment (part 3)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGOSDyfH7s

(17:50)

But once you've got to prove that Jesus is God, then all of the… and almost half of the gospel stories are healing stories, read: transformation, right? But we couldn't hear them as transformational stories, where every symbol of the person and the response afterwards is a transformed response. It's not just medical cures, of what's happening in the body, it's clear something is happening in the spirit. But we had to use all of the healing stories in the four Gospels, and there's a lot of them, to say “Wow, Jesus works miracles! See, Jesus is God!” Now, there's a leap there, of course, but that's what the miracle, the healing stories became.

(18:45)

And very often at the end of these healing stories Jesus will use phrases like “Your faith has saved you”, “Your faith has made you whole, go in peace”… you're there, you're okay. It's clear, that this salvation he's talking about, is present tense. He's not saving someone from the Hellfires later. It's clear, once I tell you this, you go back to the Gospels, you say “How did anybody ever miss the point?” He's not talking about a reward-punishment-system later. He's talking about transformation NOW, enlightenment NOW.

(19:25)

But we weren't told to look for that, so we didn't see it. We really didn't see it. We were just supposed to say: “Wow Jesus can do it. Jesus is the real God. Jesus is the true God”… “Wow”-theology doesn't transform people, it just inflates them. It just makes them think they're far more along the path than they really are, thinking because they're riding on the coattails of the true God, who can work miracles, then that must mean I'm transformed too. And we all know that has not been the case. So we just largely missed it.

(20:05)

Now in all fairness, if you take, in the four Gospels, in all the letters of Paul and the other letters, every time the word salvation is used, about one-third of them seem to be saying—salvation/enlightenment—I'm using them almost synonymously—is something that has already happened. It's an objective accomplishment, you are saved. And that's where most of the Mystics lean. This is not something you achieve, you accomplish by any performance principle whatsoever. You are inherently children of God. You are recipients of the divine indwelling, your DNA is divine—use whatever language you're comfortable with.

(21:00)

But that third of the text clearly lost out—except in the first centuries, the patristic period, will come back to that in a minute—and especially in eastern orthodoxy—and I suppose there's reasons for that, I'm not sure. One-third of the texts, which talk about salvation or being saved, talk about something actively happening now. So it has happened, it is happening, you are in the process of being saved. And one third of them, in all fairness, do say salvation is yet to come. But, you put them all together, and that's the only way you can read the Bible, if you want to, you know, you can prove anything you want from a line of the Bible. Just pick and choose, and many of them contradict one another, clearly. I don't know how people can't see that… But it's interesting that we, by and large, Catholic and Protestant, chose the last third, those that said it was coming later, and almost entirely ignored, certainly the first third of the statements.

(22:20)

Was there some self interest involved in that? You know, as a clergyman, I'm quite aware of what… although my father Francis didn't let us go in this direction… but, you know, clergy can be a career state, you understand? And after a while, it becomes job security, you want them to keep coming back. I mean, they're putting the collection… It's paying your bills and so if you keep the message sort of like a carrot on a stick out in front of them, “A few more masses on Sunday, a few more Commandments to obey, maybe some day on your deathbed you'll be saved”… That has been our underlying bias, not to teach prayer—if I can just use that word, which I think is an alternative processing system, a system that demands enlightenment—we have a bias against teaching contemplation, in my experience, because then you find inner authority. And I mean inner authority in a very healthy, solid, beautiful way. But to the degree we give you inner Authority, of course, what happens? You don't rely as much upon the outer authority. And if you want to hold the whole system together by outer authority, to obey the Pope, obey the priests, obey the Bible, you don't want to lead people to a high degree of inner awareness.

(23:50)

Now, I don't think that was done maliciously, I really don't. Most of them taught what they were taught. You know, I look at the Catholic Church in particular, to an outsider it certainly must look like a monolithic pyramid, Pope and Cardinals and Archbishops, it certainly is hierarchy. But for those of us inside, of course, we were so aware—I in particular—that there's all these satellites around the edge of the pyramid, called nuns and Franciscans and Benedictines and Carmelites… and we hardly pay attention to… I think that probably shocks a bona fide Catholic, how little we pay attention to the pyramid. I mean, it's often an embarrassment, you know. But found a way to do what we had to do, when you're a Franciscan, our ideals are the gospel and the following of Jesus in the way our Father Francis did. It's not about the Pope and the priests and the bishops, do you understand? In fact, I became a priest really, because they asked me to. But Francis didn't even want us to be priests, because he knew, once you're a priest you got to speak the party line and got to… and I don’t, again, mean that in a terribly malicious way. It's the nature of institution, any institution. If you're going to speak for it and protect it you got to speak for it. We've seen what trouble this has gotten us into, in the scandals in the last 20 years.

(25:30)

But at any rate, we didn't by and large teach people what for the Carmelites, the Franciscans is the heart of the message, which is to learn to develop an inner life and to balance all this externalization, all this form with some emptiness. I mean, John of the Cross and the early Franciscans, almost the only message is letting go, detachment, you know. Detaching from this world of form and realizing that it's all passing away. It sounds again amazingly like the Buddha.

(26:10)

So I did mention that that it held on probably better than anywhere else in the Eastern mystics, Eastern Orthodoxy, which of course, as Western churchmen Catholic or Protestant, we didn't study them nearly as much—Maximus the Confessor, Symeon the New Theologian, the Cappadocian Fathers from Eastern Turkey. Now, they to the man—and it was mostly men at that point who at least were the teachers because they didn't allow women to be educated for the most part—they rather universally believed in a doctrine that was called Theosis.

(26:55)


Theosis is translated “divinization”. They had no doubt, that what salvation was, was the revelation to the soul, to the individual, of its divine nature. This is clear in the Eastern mystics and fathers of the church, up till about the fourth century, when again they get overtaken by the Eastern Empire and Byzantium. Once you start asking those questions, the questions of mysticism are largely marginalized into distant monasteries, hermits, a few people hold on to it. Or as I said here earlier today, you almost have to be a hermit, because you don't fit in. The way the gospel is normally being taught in a Sunday church, which is much more “keep them coming back”, “keep the carrot on the stick out in front of them”, “don't really awaken the soul”, “don't really give them a lot of self-knowledge”… got a lot of interiority because that will undo the process.

[Reefs]

Richard Rohr - The Christian Meaning Of Enlightenment (part 4)

www.youtube.com/watch?v=evGOSDyfH7s

(28:10)

So the doctrine of theosis, one of the phrases they use most often is from the second letter of Peter the first chapter he says: “Do you not know you are sharers in the divine nature?” Now that's what was put most directly. Once you get it, you can see that it's intimated, it's hoped for, it's half believed and longed for all throughout the scriptures. But it's almost too daring to believe it. It was called hubris, or pride.

(28:50)

We instead, with our dualistic minds reminded humanity of its humanity and Jesus of his divinity. That's what the dualistic mind did to Western Christianity. It utterly split, “You carry the human part”… which reached really low points, you know. And again, I'm not trying to be against any one of the particular reformers, but you know, some of the Swiss and the Scottish reformers, you begin with absolute damnation, or inferiority... There's no positive anthropology whatsoever. You've got such a huge pit to dig out of that most people just never got there.

(29:35)

So the effect was this, in general is, we substituted morality for mysticism. That's what we did. And you can almost perfectly correlate the more moralistic a Christian Church is, the less it has encountered the mystical. It's very clear to me.

(30:10)

The Franciscans, we've never been known as the moralists of the church, we’re sort of considered lightweight and we're always pictured as fat cookie jars and drinking beer and so forth… and in great part it's true. I mean, not all of it, but in great part is true, that we're not real moralistic, because we just had these magnificent beginnings with Francis, and the early Italian Franciscans who just were utterly free and happy human beings. And we so got inebriated with that. When you get the mystical first, the oneness we've been talking about here, you just don't get preoccupied with “this much morality will achieve you this much heaven”, “this much morality will make God love you more”, “ this much morality will achieve your own superior state whatever it might be”…

(31:20)

So, moralism very much appeals to the ego, in my opinion. Even though we fail at it all the time, we like a contest that we can climb in. Grace is always a humiliation for the ego, it really is. When it's just given, and it's given to those people on the street just as much as you, and you're not a bit better than they are, and you're not a bit better than Hindus and Buddhists and Protestants, and “Oh, we don't want to believe that!”,do you understand? No group wants this, this great democratization of the message, that in fact even the new physics, as we've heard this afternoon, is revealing to us.

(32:00)

So what's happening now, as we're re-appreciating the mystical tradition, our inherent identity in God, the new seeing that proceeds from this inherent identity in God, and then the nonviolent attitudes then that proceed from that… We’re calling theology, or some are calling theology right now, a turn toward participation. And I've heard that word used a lot here, beautifully so. That the religion I grew up with, I was raised in Kansas, was very much not religion as participation, it was religion as observation: you observed the theater of the mass, you observed the doctrines of the church as something to be intellectually assented to. But it wasn't an emphasis upon practices, whereby you experienced it for yourself. And this is happening in all of our groups, the moving toward practices whereby you can experience your true state for yourself.

(33:15)

Now, since I've been so critical of my own denomination and Christianity in general, I want to say that a lot of those have always been there. I mean, I do know people that the what I call “the theater of the mass” was also a true sacramental encounter, that led them to this experience. I mean, the very phrase we use, “to go to communion”, that's what Catholics describe when they go to mass, “I went to communion” –that's very good, “We keep feeding you who you are, and one day you get it!” My god, I mean, Augustine said that in the fourth century, he said “We feed you the body of Christ so you will know that you are what you eat, that YOU are the body of Christ”— that's really good stuff!

(34:10)

So please, I'm not trying to be an iconoclast. I have no time for that. It's a waste of time to be rebellious and oppositional. I just said those things to let you know how we did, in many ways, miss the point. But I don't think it was malicious, I don't think was intentional. I think consciousness just wasn't ready, in many ways. Why did it take to the last century for Gandhi and Martin Luther King to emerge and to be understood on a broad scale? It seems me, we just weren't ready for it.

(34:45)

I was so glad when Drew mentioned how the corporate name of love is justice. I mean, that was said by Thomas Aquinas and Duns Scotus, but we just we weren't ready to get it. I mean, justice has not been high on our priority list up to now. I think of how we brought Catholicism to Latin America. They're Catholics from Mexico to Argentina, but you say “Oh my god, was there any notion of corporate justice? Was there any notion of compassion?” when you see the immense poverty of all of these Catholic countries.

(35:25)

So we're ready for it now. I think we're getting there. Because the way I can talk to you is the way I can talk to more and more people, and they don't fight me. The way they did, even 40 years ago when I was first ordained, then people wrote letters to the bishop, you know… maybe some of you will but I doubt it.

(35:50)

But I hope I am answering the question of the Christian meaning of enlightenment. I think it's there, it's very parallel and consistent with awareness of who you are and how you see reality from this new ontological identity, who you are hidden with Christ in God, as Paul would say, and the behaviors that proceeded from that new pair of eyes. But was that ever the main line position in the normal Sunday churches? I'm sorry to say, no. But we're getting there. So thank you for hearing.

- THE END-

[zendancer]

OK. I finally found the video. It's on YouTube and is titled "What is contemplative prayer and why is it needed?" Just before the 3 minute mark he says that he has practiced contemplation all his life but hasn't yet "got there." He seems to be saying that he occasionally goes deep enough to reach a satisfyingly adequate unitive state, but thoughts and feelings pull him out of it. That's my general interpretation of what he's saying.

If that's the case after 35 years of contemplation, then I would like to ask him two questions: (1) Who is it that is practicing contemplation in order to "get there?" and (2) Is whatever happening here and now any less "there" than when one gets "there" in the future as a result of practice?

I like Richard a great deal, and I think his interpretation of what Jesus was pointing to in the NT is terrific, but if he hasn't yet realized that "there" is always here and now, he has something more to realize. He seems to be saying that he's at point A trying to get to a point B. For those who are interested, check it out.

[Reefs]

Apr 7, 2024 14:58:26 GMT -5 zendancer said:

OK. I finally found the video. It's on YouTube and is titled "What is contemplative prayer and why is it needed?" Just before the 3 minute mark he says that he has practiced contemplation all his life but hasn't yet "got there." He seems to be saying that he occasionally goes deep enough to reach a satisfyingly adequate unitive state, but thoughts and feelings pull him out of it. That's my general interpretation of what he's saying.

If that's the case after 35 years of contemplation, then I would like to ask him two questions: (1) Who is it that is practicing contemplation in order to "get there?" and (2) Is whatever happening here and now any less "there" than when one gets "there" in the future as a result of practice?

I like Richard a great deal, and I think his interpretation of what Jesus was pointing to in the NT is terrific, but if he hasn't yet realized that "there" is always here and now, he has something more to realize. He seems to be saying that he's at point A trying to get to a point B. For those who are interested, check it out.

Sounds like he's talking about a still mind, mindfulness etc., i.e. what Lolly usually likes to talk about.

In general, what I have noticed is that in yoga and other mystical traditions, you are usually not finding a reference for SR the way we define it here, i.e. SR = kensho + satori. What you usually find is only the kensho aspect of SR, but not the satori aspect of SR. And in non-duality, especially western non-duality, you usually only find the satori aspect of SR, but not the kensho aspect. Which is why I think yoga and non-duality are complementary.

ETA:

Here's the video for reference...

[laughter]

Apr 8, 2024 11:00:08 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Apr 7, 2024 14:58:26 GMT -5 zendancer said:

OK. I finally found the video. It's on YouTube and is titled "What is contemplative prayer and why is it needed?" Just before the 3 minute mark he says that he has practiced contemplation all his life but hasn't yet "got there." He seems to be saying that he occasionally goes deep enough to reach a satisfyingly adequate unitive state, but thoughts and feelings pull him out of it. That's my general interpretation of what he's saying.

If that's the case after 35 years of contemplation, then I would like to ask him two questions: (1) Who is it that is practicing contemplation in order to "get there?" and (2) Is whatever happening here and now any less "there" than when one gets "there" in the future as a result of practice?

I like Richard a great deal, and I think his interpretation of what Jesus was pointing to in the NT is terrific, but if he hasn't yet realized that "there" is always here and now, he has something more to realize. He seems to be saying that he's at point A trying to get to a point B. For those who are interested, check it out.

Sounds like he's talking about a still mind, mindfulness etc., i.e. what Lolly usually likes to talk about.

In general, what I have noticed is that in yoga and other mystical traditions, you are usually not finding a reference for SR the way we define it here, i.e. SR = kensho + satori. What you usually find is only the kensho aspect of SR, but not the satori aspect of SR. And in non-duality, especially western non-duality, you usually only find the satori aspect of SR, but not the kensho aspect. Which is why I think yoga and non-duality are complementary.

ETA:

Here's the video for reference...

Expressed that speculation about kensho but no SR as to Joe a few years back. He had a seminary guy who we got to know during RCIA. Saw seminary guy a few months later after he'd spent time with Franciscans, after he'd made Deacon. Kensho eyes! It's a thing!

But you know all those different realizations that ZD writes about sometimes? I'm more ZD than ZD when it comes to considering insight, a matter of degree. I think that even mental enlightenment gets a bad rap. Not to say the traps you id about it aren't a thing, but still, even with the hard, discontinuous breaks of realization, there's still a relevant spectrum.

[zendancer]

Apr 8, 2024 19:42:19 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 8, 2024 11:00:08 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Sounds like he's talking about a still mind, mindfulness etc., i.e. what Lolly usually likes to talk about.

In general, what I have noticed is that in yoga and other mystical traditions, you are usually not finding a reference for SR the way we define it here, i.e. SR = kensho + satori. What you usually find is only the kensho aspect of SR, but not the satori aspect of SR. And in non-duality, especially western non-duality, you usually only find the satori aspect of SR, but not the kensho aspect. Which is why I think yoga and non-duality are complementary.

ETA:

Here's the video for reference...

Expressed that speculation about kensho but no SR as to Joe a few years back. He had a seminary guy who we got to know during RCIA. Saw seminary guy a few months later after he'd spent time with Franciscans, after he'd made Deacon. Kensho eyes! It's a thing!

But you know all those different realizations that ZD writes about sometimes? I'm more ZD than ZD when it comes to considering insight, a matter of degree. I think that even mental enlightenment gets a bad rap. Not to say the traps you id about it aren't a thing, but still, even with the hard, discontinuous breaks of realization, there's still a relevant spectrum.

I agree because each human is unique, and the range of experiences and realizations that might occur for any particular human are infinite. I can't remember the details, but somewhere I read that Rohr had a big kensho event when he was young (about ten if I remember correctly), and that's probably why he knows with certainty that THIS is unified and infinite and why he is able to explain how the NT teachings are pointers to non-duality. His most humorous line is "Christ was not Jesus's last name." He distinguishes between Jesus, the human who discovered his unity with THIS, and Christ as THIS, ITSELF. If SR had occurred, I don't think he would make a statement such as, "I'm not there yet." As long as there's a "me" thinking "I'm not there yet," there's no there there.

[laughter]

Apr 9, 2024 7:48:35 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 8, 2024 19:42:19 GMT -5 laughter said:

Expressed that speculation about kensho but no SR as to Joe a few years back. He had a seminary guy who we got to know during RCIA. Saw seminary guy a few months later after he'd spent time with Franciscans, after he'd made Deacon. Kensho eyes! It's a thing!

But you know all those different realizations that ZD writes about sometimes? I'm more ZD than ZD when it comes to considering insight, a matter of degree. I think that even mental enlightenment gets a bad rap. Not to say the traps you id about it aren't a thing, but still, even with the hard, discontinuous breaks of realization, there's still a relevant spectrum.

I agree because each human is unique, and the range of experiences and realizations that might occur for any particular human are infinite. I can't remember the details, but somewhere I read that Rohr had a big kensho event when he was young (about ten if I remember correctly), and that's probably why he knows with certainty that THIS is unified and infinite and why he is able to explain how the NT teachings are pointers to non-duality. His most humorous line is "Christ was not Jesus's last name." He distinguishes between Jesus, the human who discovered his unity with THIS, and Christ as THIS, ITSELF. If SR had occurred, I don't think he would make a statement such as, "I'm not there yet." As long as there's a "me" thinking "I'm not there yet," there's no there there.

You and your high standards!

[zendancer]

Apr 10, 2024 3:26:42 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 9, 2024 7:48:35 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I agree because each human is unique, and the range of experiences and realizations that might occur for any particular human are infinite. I can't remember the details, but somewhere I read that Rohr had a big kensho event when he was young (about ten if I remember correctly), and that's probably why he knows with certainty that THIS is unified and infinite and why he is able to explain how the NT teachings are pointers to non-duality. His most humorous line is "Christ was not Jesus's last name." He distinguishes between Jesus, the human who discovered his unity with THIS, and Christ as THIS, ITSELF. If SR had occurred, I don't think he would make a statement such as, "I'm not there yet." As long as there's a "me" thinking "I'm not there yet," there's no there there.

You and your high standards!

I know; it's a major failing.

There seem to be an infinite number of possible realizations, but the two major ones are (1) realizing that reality is NOT what was imagined (seeing that it's a unified whole), and (2) realizing that who one is is NOT what was imagined (seeing that the "me" and conventional self identity as a SVP was an illusion). As Reefs noted, we assume that in the Zen tradition "kensho" reveals that reality is unified and infinite and "satori" is equivalent to what Ramana called "Self-realization" or what some of us like to call "THIS-realization."

Interestingly, many people seem to discover #1, above, but do not discover #2. This seems to be the case for Rohr unless satori occurred after the video posted above was filmed. I can identify with Rohr because I wrote a newspaper column for ten years pointing to the same thing that Rohr points to, but still hadn't discovered that there was no "me" who apprehended the Infinite.

I remember Figs giving me lots of grief in the past because she couldn't understand how someone could apprehend the Infinite/oneness and not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. All I could tell her is that that's what usually happens (particularly with Christian mystics), and there are hundreds of examples of this. It is extremely rare for someone to penetrate both issues simultaneously, but it does occasionally happen, and the Buddha may be the best example. He had a kensho event occur when he looked up and saw Venus in the morning sky, and he apparently got everything in one big blast.

[laughter]

Apr 10, 2024 10:17:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Apr 10, 2024 3:26:42 GMT -5 laughter said:

You and your high standards!

I know; it's a major failing.

There seem to be an infinite number of possible realizations, but the two major ones are (1) realizing that reality is NOT what was imagined (seeing that it's a unified whole), and (2) realizing that who one is is NOT what was imagined (seeing that the "me" and conventional self identity as a SVP was an illusion). As Reefs noted, we assume that in the Zen tradition "kensho" reveals that reality is unified and infinite and "satori" is equivalent to what Ramana called "Self-realization" or what some of us like to call "THIS-realization."

Interestingly, many people seem to discover #1, above, but do not discover #2. This seems to be the case for Rohr unless satori occurred after the video posted above was filmed. I can identify with Rohr because I wrote a newspaper column for ten years pointing to the same thing that Rohr points to, but still hadn't discovered that there was no "me" who apprehended the Infinite.

I remember Figs giving me lots of grief in the past because she couldn't understand how someone could apprehend the Infinite/oneness and not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. All I could tell her is that that's what usually happens (particularly with Christian mystics), and there are hundreds of examples of this. It is extremely rare for someone to penetrate both issues simultaneously, but it does occasionally happen, and the Buddha may be the best example. He had a kensho event occur when he looked up and saw Venus in the morning sky, and he apparently got everything in one big blast.

I remember that from figs, it's funny stuff. To state the obvious, our senses create an experience centered on our individual body. Less obvious and more controversial is that culture creates the rest of the basis of the existential illusion, based on that one simple, innocent fact. We can say the same thing in many ways: people are not what they think they are, reality is not what they think it is. Another way to put that is, boundaries are not what most people perceive them as.

There are two different by-chance jackpots that I benefited from. Growing up during a time when artists were popularizing stuff like "I am he, As you are he, As you are me, And we are all together". They were expressing something important. (at the very least) An emotional version of "mind-enlightenment". The other jackpot was parents that led me to a mind as wide open as a cloudless sky, no overt spiritual indoctrination, but with a "realistic perspective" (low expectations) on human nature. So the benefit was, thinking back, natural resistance to the common-mind perception of boundaries. Likely a common story for those times. Certain physical flow experiences can even erode the false sense of boundary. Like a cool mountain lake on a hot day. But this is, ultimately, relative and ongoing. It's changes to the state of the mind and body over time. Realization is a discontinuity. Realization illuminates all past and future moments. Realization is sideways to time.

That the end of the illusion bifurcates as you've described (kensho/satori), is interesting, and I have to say that your and Reefs model about it makes quite a bit of sense, but only based on experience, as it seems to me to defy abstraction, other than pointing. But there is great potential confusion for the mind here. Philosopher's turn the non-dual pointers into an objectified monism. That's an intellect wonk on my part, but that's what philosophers do, and they're just (ultimately innocently) taking thinking as far as thinking can go. They take that monism and then throw away any notion of transcendence, and so in doing that the mind chases it's tail.

And the flip side of this is that people can have genuine insights, and express them with vocabulary and mental models ("epistemology") that can seem contradictory to others who actually might agree with them. You already know what I say about Billy Shakes and good and evil and how reality is neither objective nor subjective.  But the opposite ideas can be used to unravel the philosopher's error on the transcendent, as well. Here Jordon Peterson uses the ideas of "good", "God", social relationships and objectified monotheism to eventually get to "Namaste":

.. and now here he is brought to tears in contemplation of Jesus, and he uses the term "objective world" to refer to what he had referred to in the last one as a "unity"; ..

So Jordan, similar to our opinion of Richard Rhor, he tells us flat out that he's a work in progress, and seems to demonstrate this bifurcation of what he is seeking. The two different presentations seem to me to track the "kensho/satori" dichotomy, as expressed by someone with obvious deep existential insight, but, at best, dubious realization status. I could relate my own personal experience to that satori/kensho dichotomy, and to the gradual/sudden distinction,  but won't for the sake of brevity other than to say "no inner/outer". Also, these abstractions can, on one hand, lead to a great resonance of understanding between individuals, or, some of the deepest mental confusion possible.

Not everyone has the combination of your patience and tenacity with that sort of confusion. It's kinda' quite rare, actually.

[Reefs]

Apr 8, 2024 19:42:19 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 8, 2024 11:00:08 GMT -5 Reefs said:

Sounds like he's talking about a still mind, mindfulness etc., i.e. what Lolly usually likes to talk about.

In general, what I have noticed is that in yoga and other mystical traditions, you are usually not finding a reference for SR the way we define it here, i.e. SR = kensho + satori. What you usually find is only the kensho aspect of SR, but not the satori aspect of SR. And in non-duality, especially western non-duality, you usually only find the satori aspect of SR, but not the kensho aspect. Which is why I think yoga and non-duality are complementary.

ETA:

Here's the video for reference...

Expressed that speculation about kensho but no SR as to Joe a few years back. He had a seminary guy who we got to know during RCIA. Saw seminary guy a few months later after he'd spent time with Franciscans, after he'd made Deacon. Kensho eyes! It's a thing!

But you know all those different realizations that ZD writes about sometimes? I'm more ZD than ZD when it comes to considering insight, a matter of degree. I think that even mental enlightenment gets a bad rap. Not to say the traps you id about it aren't a thing, but still, even with the hard, discontinuous breaks of realization, there's still a relevant spectrum.

"Kensho eyes!"

About the spectrum, I'd say it depends on from what side of the gateless gate you look at it, hehe.

[Reefs]

Apr 10, 2024 16:15:29 GMT -5 laughter said:

Apr 10, 2024 10:17:51 GMT -5 zendancer said:

I know; it's a major failing.

There seem to be an infinite number of possible realizations, but the two major ones are (1) realizing that reality is NOT what was imagined (seeing that it's a unified whole), and (2) realizing that who one is is NOT what was imagined (seeing that the "me" and conventional self identity as a SVP was an illusion). As Reefs noted, we assume that in the Zen tradition "kensho" reveals that reality is unified and infinite and "satori" is equivalent to what Ramana called "Self-realization" or what some of us like to call "THIS-realization."

Interestingly, many people seem to discover #1, above, but do not discover #2. This seems to be the case for Rohr unless satori occurred after the video posted above was filmed. I can identify with Rohr because I wrote a newspaper column for ten years pointing to the same thing that Rohr points to, but still hadn't discovered that there was no "me" who apprehended the Infinite.

I remember Figs giving me lots of grief in the past because she couldn't understand how someone could apprehend the Infinite/oneness and not simultaneously see through the illusion of selfhood. All I could tell her is that that's what usually happens (particularly with Christian mystics), and there are hundreds of examples of this. It is extremely rare for someone to penetrate both issues simultaneously, but it does occasionally happen, and the Buddha may be the best example. He had a kensho event occur when he looked up and saw Venus in the morning sky, and he apparently got everything in one big blast.

I remember that from figs, it's funny stuff. To state the obvious, our senses create an experience centered on our individual body. Less obvious and more controversial is that culture creates the rest of the basis of the existential illusion, based on that one simple, innocent fact. We can say the same thing in many ways: people are not what they think they are, reality is not what they think it is. Another way to put that is, boundaries are not what most people perceive them as.

There are two different by-chance jackpots that I benefited from. Growing up during a time when artists were popularizing stuff like "I am he, As you are he, As you are me, And we are all together". They were expressing something important. (at the very least) An emotional version of "mind-enlightenment". The other jackpot was parents that led me to a mind as wide open as a cloudless sky, no overt spiritual indoctrination, but with a "realistic perspective" (low expectations) on human nature. So the benefit was, thinking back, natural resistance to the common-mind perception of boundaries. Likely a common story for those times. Certain physical flow experiences can even erode the false sense of boundary. Like a cool mountain lake on a hot day. But this is, ultimately, relative and ongoing. It's changes to the state of the mind and body over time. Realization is a discontinuity. Realization illuminates all past and future moments. Realization is sideways to time.

That the end of the illusion bifurcates as you've described (kensho/satori), is interesting, and I have to say that your and Reefs model about it makes quite a bit of sense, but only based on experience, as it seems to me to defy abstraction, other than pointing. But there is great potential confusion for the mind here. Philosopher's turn the non-dual pointers into an objectified monism. That's an intellect wonk on my part, but that's what philosophers do, and they're just (ultimately innocently) taking thinking as far as thinking can go. They take that monism and then throw away any notion of transcendence, and so in doing that the mind chases it's tail.

And the flip side of this is that people can have genuine insights, and express them with vocabulary and mental models ("epistemology") that can seem contradictory to others who actually might agree with them. You already know what I say about Billy Shakes and good and evil and how reality is neither objective nor subjective.  But the opposite ideas can be used to unravel the philosopher's error on the transcendent, as well. Here Jordon Peterson uses the ideas of "good", "God", social relationships and objectified monotheism to eventually get to "Namaste":

.. and now here he is brought to tears in contemplation of Jesus, and he uses the term "objective world" to refer to what he had referred to in the last one as a "unity"; ..

So Jordan, similar to our opinion of Richard Rhor, he tells us flat out that he's a work in progress, and seems to demonstrate this bifurcation of what he is seeking. The two different presentations seem to me to track the "kensho/satori" dichotomy, as expressed by someone with obvious deep existential insight, but, at best, dubious realization status. I could relate my own personal experience to that satori/kensho dichotomy, and to the gradual/sudden distinction,  but won't for the sake of brevity other than to say "no inner/outer". Also, these abstractions can, on one hand, lead to a great resonance of understanding between individuals, or, some of the deepest mental confusion possible.

Not everyone has the combination of your patience and tenacity with that sort of confusion. It's kinda' quite rare, actually.

The funny thing about the Figs case is that, if you look at her gradual transformation from Figgy to Figless to Figgles, her path is actually a stellar example of the 'numerous' realizations, mind-enlightenment model, which always seemed to me driven by linguistics, i.e. she incorporated a lot of our vocabular, especially from Enigma, and by doing so, she took over that perspective as well, to the degree that in the end her perspective became basically identical to Enigma's perspective. 

My original model is essentially the Buddha model. I always assumed that that's the way "IT" always happens. But apparently it doesn't, as ZD and other ND teachers have explained. The bottom line is always the same though, without the satori aspect, there's no liberation. 

What I found really fascinating to watch though over the years with dozens of people on the forum is how far mind/intellect can actually go in mimicking the SR perspective, presenting it convincingly and coherently in a discussion. And there, I think, is a trap for the intellectually and linguistically gifted, they may actually talk themselves into liberation and actually believe they've got it simply because they have arrived at a basically airtight, logically unassailable mental model. However, where these models usually fail is in real life situations, when these models suddenly force their proponents to take absurd positions that make them argue for separation again... without noticing it! Someone with an actual reference for oneness would never do that, he/she would rather point out the limits of that mental model and all mental models in general than argue for a totally absurd position just in order to save that mental model. That's essentially the difference between truth and truthin'... which I see RR pointing out as well.