|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2024 22:13:39 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 12, 2024 22:22:05 GMT -5
Transcript:
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 13, 2024 12:39:12 GMT -5
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. And as you mention in the other post, one of the trickiest traps is when someone thinks they're done when they're not. That story of Hakuin, "the devil in the hole". So guys like 'pilgrim and tzu' have a point. But Hakuin's final kensho was the sound of the snowflake, so even that point - seeking lasts a lifetime - can be its own trap. Hakuin benefited from a culture that led him through those traps, but it was specific to a time and a place. Past performance seems to indicate that formalized cultures are going to be hit or miss as far as precipitating realization. But maybe that's a limiting belief, and one that it seems to me definitely shaped the past institutions of Christianity. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 13, 2024 22:57:54 GMT -5
"Kensho eyes!" About the spectrum, I'd say it depends on from what side of the gateless gate you look at it, hehe. And as you mention in the other post, one of the trickiest traps is when someone thinks they're done when they're not. That story of Hakuin, "the devil in the hole". So guys like 'pilgrim and tzu' have a point. But Hakuin's final kensho was the sound of the snowflake, so even that point - seeking lasts a lifetime - can be its own trap. Hakuin benefited from a culture that led him through those traps, but it was specific to a time and a place. Past performance seems to indicate that formalized cultures are going to be hit or miss as far as precipitating realization. But maybe that's a limiting belief, and one that it seems to me definitely shaped the past institutions of Christianity. WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 14, 2024 3:18:29 GMT -5
And as you mention in the other post, one of the trickiest traps is when someone thinks they're done when they're not. That story of Hakuin, "the devil in the hole". So guys like 'pilgrim and tzu' have a point. But Hakuin's final kensho was the sound of the snowflake, so even that point - seeking lasts a lifetime - can be its own trap. Hakuin benefited from a culture that led him through those traps, but it was specific to a time and a place. Past performance seems to indicate that formalized cultures are going to be hit or miss as far as precipitating realization. But maybe that's a limiting belief, and one that it seems to me definitely shaped the past institutions of Christianity. WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message. Yes, he is, and if one were to bother to look back at my post dumpster they would find my own personal echo chamber on the subject expanding it's walls. . And what you say about that Universal message is of course as true as it gets. On one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who are lost, so there will always be a place for some sort of culture to generate hints and throw shadows on the wall. Always an opportunity to "enter Zen .. from there!" (of course, that's all relative, I'm not saying anything about some far far future I can't even imagine right now). On the other end of the spectrum you have sources of direct pointing to that truth. Some are more clear, than others. . As far as competitive spirituality goes, that's as slapstick as it gets. Funny how ego translates innocent observation of relative distinctions into more ego. That's the mind losing itself in the endless loop of the liar's paradox.  And then, extending your point about which side of the gate, and the ability of mind to impersonate, there is the impetus for THIS to "test itself" .. too too funny! ..  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 21, 2024 23:59:02 GMT -5
WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message. Yes, he is, and if one were to bother to look back at my post dumpster they would find my own personal echo chamber on the subject expanding it's walls. . And what you say about that Universal message is of course as true as it gets. On one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who are lost, so there will always be a place for some sort of culture to generate hints and throw shadows on the wall. Always an opportunity to "enter Zen .. from there!" (of course, that's all relative, I'm not saying anything about some far far future I can't even imagine right now). On the other end of the spectrum you have sources of direct pointing to that truth. Some are more clear, than others. . As far as competitive spirituality goes, that's as slapstick as it gets. Funny how ego translates innocent observation of relative distinctions into more ego. That's the mind losing itself in the endless loop of the liar's paradox. And then, extending your point about which side of the gate, and the ability of mind to impersonate, there is the impetus for THIS to "test itself" .. too too funny! .. He really is trying to get the role grace (read: acausality) plays in this whole liberation game across. I'm halfway thru his Job book. I remember you mentioning the story of Job in the past, too. But I forgot in what context. What was, according to you, the point of that story again? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 22, 2024 2:05:41 GMT -5
Yes, he is, and if one were to bother to look back at my post dumpster they would find my own personal echo chamber on the subject expanding it's walls. . And what you say about that Universal message is of course as true as it gets. On one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who are lost, so there will always be a place for some sort of culture to generate hints and throw shadows on the wall. Always an opportunity to "enter Zen .. from there!" (of course, that's all relative, I'm not saying anything about some far far future I can't even imagine right now). On the other end of the spectrum you have sources of direct pointing to that truth. Some are more clear, than others. . As far as competitive spirituality goes, that's as slapstick as it gets. Funny how ego translates innocent observation of relative distinctions into more ego. That's the mind losing itself in the endless loop of the liar's paradox. And then, extending your point about which side of the gate, and the ability of mind to impersonate, there is the impetus for THIS to "test itself" .. too too funny! .. He really is trying to get the role grace (read: acausality) plays in this whole liberation game across. I'm halfway thru his Job book. I remember you mentioning the story of Job in the past, too. But I forgot in what context. What was, according to you, the point of that story again? Job never turns his heart against God. Instead, Job asks the question, repeatedly, "why?, why God, is this happening to me?". God rebukes the Pharisee's at the end, the one's who tried to explain to Job why he was suffering as it was happening, and rationalize away his misfortune. To me, that's the most significant element of the story. Satan's premise (the bet he made) was that Job's love of God was conditional. If we account for the personification of God as an allegory, it's a comment on the source and premise of unconditional peace. It's also rather child-like, as Job gets restored at the end. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 22, 2024 4:43:43 GMT -5
WWW made an interesting comment once about natural sounds being able to trigger satori, because the Zen literature is full of such stories. The 'further' of the pilgrim/tzu perspective is the still mind perspective (at best!), i.e. right in front of the gateless gate. So their idea of a 'further' is necessarily a great deal of speculation and probably mostly projection based on the road already traveled, their current spiritual milage. They imagine that 'further' from within the pre-SR context, and this is where it gets all wrong in the end. And it gets even wronger when they compare people in order to determine who got furtherest and who is still lagging behind. Competitive spirituality is basically an ego game. That's why those conversations were always so contentious with these guys, sometimes outright combative. In that context, notice how RR emphasizes grace, and calling it the ultimate slap in the face to the ego. Because grace puts an end to competitive spirituality, including behaviorism. That's why grace has such a bad rap here. The bottom line of all true spiritual teachings is that everyone has direct access to the Source, the Infinite, God... and so there is no need for any intermediary, dogma or ritual. Those may be helpful though for those who are totally lost, a necessary initial or intermediary step, similar to the myths JC talks about. Notice how RR also made that point when he talks about Christianity settling for the lowest common denominator, and therefore teaching religion at the lowest level. So my big takeaway from the RR material is that it's already all there, hidden in plain sight in the scriptures. But we can't see it, because we don't know how to decode it. And also because those who taught us tend to mix contexts in the worst possible way. RR is very clear about the distinction between the personal and impersonal context of the Christian message. Yes, he is, and if one were to bother to look back at my post dumpster they would find my own personal echo chamber on the subject expanding it's walls. . And what you say about that Universal message is of course as true as it gets. On one end of the spectrum, there will always be people who are lost, so there will always be a place for some sort of culture to generate hints and throw shadows on the wall. Always an opportunity to "enter Zen .. from there!" (of course, that's all relative, I'm not saying anything about some far far future I can't even imagine right now). On the other end of the spectrum you have sources of direct pointing to that truth. Some are more clear, than others. . As far as competitive spirituality goes, that's as slapstick as it gets. Funny how ego translates innocent observation of relative distinctions into more ego. That's the mind losing itself in the endless loop of the liar's paradox. And then, extending your point about which side of the gate, and the ability of mind to impersonate, there is the impetus for THIS to "test itself" .. too too funny! .. Yes, THIS does enjoy testing Itself, and the testing can be both evaluative as well as playful. It's like asking, "How deeply has THIS, as a particular human, seen into the nature of THIS? It reminds me of Layman Pang who went around China engaging with other Chan masters to test both his own understanding as well as the understanding of others. In some cases he enjoyed interacting with others who had seen equally deeply; in some cases he was dismissive, and in some cases he laments that he's been bested. After one encounter, he says, in essence, "Damx! I blew it by trying to be too cool!" If a sage meets a sage with equally deep insight, the relationship is often playful and appreciative because it's fun to interact with someone else who has seen deeply. In that case it's more like mutual admiration because they are able to share with each other insights and understandings that are relatively rare. I recently went to check out a guy whose intelligence I respect, but whose insight seemed questionable. His presentation did not clear up the matter, but afterwards he asked another fellow who is extremely clear a particular question, and I think he was stunned by the response he got. As we left the meeting together, he asked a question and made a comment that confirmed he is still "a poor hole-dwelling devil" even though he thinks otherwise. He's a super-nice guy, and one of the most intellectually brilliant people I've ever met, but from things that he said it became obvious that he hasn't yet passed through the gateless gate. It reminds me of a Zen koan that goes like this: Joshu heard about a monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him sitting in meditation. Joshu walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" The monk never looked up. He remained in silence and simply raised his right fist in the air. Joshu replied, "The water is much too shallow to anchor here" (meaning that the monk was NOT enlightened). He then heard of another monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him also sitting in meditation. He walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" Like the other monk, he never looked up, remained in silence, and simply lifted his right fist in the air. Joshu said, "Ahh, you have the power over life and death." (meaning that the monk was indeed enlightened). A Zen student who reads this account is then asked, "How did Joshu know that the first monk was NOT enlightened whereas the second monk was?" |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 6:53:19 GMT -5
Joshu heard about a monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him sitting in meditation. Joshu walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" The monk never looked up. He remained in silence and simply raised his right fist in the air. Joshu replied, "The water is much too shallow to anchor here" (meaning that the monk was NOT enlightened). He then heard of another monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him also sitting in meditation. He walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" Like the other monk, he never looked up, remained in silence, and simply lifted his right fist in the air. Joshu said, "Ahh, you have the power over life and death." (meaning that the monk was indeed enlightened). A Zen student who reads this account is then asked, "How did Joshu know that the first monk was NOT enlightened whereas the second monk was?" That's a really good koan, haha. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 22, 2024 7:55:59 GMT -5
Joshu heard about a monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him sitting in meditation. Joshu walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" The monk never looked up. He remained in silence and simply raised his right fist in the air. Joshu replied, "The water is much too shallow to anchor here" (meaning that the monk was NOT enlightened). He then heard of another monk who was supposedly enlightened. He went to find the monk and found him also sitting in meditation. He walked past him in one direction and then the opposite direction and then asked, "What is the deepest truth?" Like the other monk, he never looked up, remained in silence, and simply lifted his right fist in the air. Joshu said, "Ahh, you have the power over life and death." (meaning that the monk was indeed enlightened). A Zen student who reads this account is then asked, "How did Joshu know that the first monk was NOT enlightened whereas the second monk was?" That's a really good koan, haha. That one's relatively easy compared to some of them. Here's another easy one that for some reason I couldn't penetrate for 25 years: The Buddha said that everything in the universe has Buddha nature, but when a monk asked Joshu if even a dog had Buddha-nature, Joshu said no. One master said that everything has Buddha nature (is an aspect of the Infinite) and the other master said that a dog does NOT have Buddha nature (is NOT an aspect of the Infinite). Which master was correct? I was driving along about a year ago and happened to remember that koan and the answer was instantly obvious. Once penetrated, I was amazed that I had never seen the obvious answer prior to that moment. Of course, it helps to consider the context in which each statement was made, but it's not actually necessary. Another more difficult koan also was resolved 30 years after I first heard about it. It goes: The mouse eats cat food, but the cat bowl is broken. What does this mean? This was the koan that supposedly stumped ZM Seung Sahn in his confrontation with Ko Bong, but he reportedly penetrated it after staring at Ko Bong for a long time in silence. Koans are fascinating. I lost interest in them long ago, but occasionally a koan will pop into my head that I read about in the 1990's but never resolved. Sometimes the answer will be clear as a bell, and other times it will remain as opaque as before. There's one supposedly simple koan that many of my friends could answer, but I never could. Carol answered it correctly, but now she's forgotten her answer! Haha. It's about a bull that passes through a window. Every part of the bull passes through the window except the tail. Why won't the tail pass through the window? Several answers have occurred to me, but all of them generate doubt. Usually, when an answer is correct, there's no doubt whatsoever. Here's another interesting one: As long as you believe in God, you can pray to God, and as long as you believe in the Buddha, you can pray to the Buddha, but who can you pray to when you no longer believe in any kind of ultimate entity? Here's one that I created for my Christian friends: Some people say that Jesus was a pacifist because he said to turn the other cheek. Other people say that he was an activist because he turned over the tables of the money changers. When he turned over the tables of the money changers was that the act of a pacifist or an activist? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 22, 2024 8:41:21 GMT -5
(** dons dunce cap and sits in corner quietly **)
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 22, 2024 9:10:46 GMT -5
He really is trying to get the role grace (read: acausality) plays in this whole liberation game across. I'm halfway thru his Job book. I remember you mentioning the story of Job in the past, too. But I forgot in what context. What was, according to you, the point of that story again? Job never turns his heart against God. Instead, Job asks the question, repeatedly, "why?, why God, is this happening to me?". God rebukes the Pharisee's at the end, the one's who tried to explain to Job why he was suffering as it was happening, and rationalize away his misfortune. To me, that's the most significant element of the story. Satan's premise (the bet he made) was that Job's love of God was conditional. If we account for the personification of God as an allegory, it's a comment on the source and premise of unconditional peace. It's also rather child-like, as Job gets restored at the end. Hmm, weird. I remember I already replied but can't see my post anymore. Looks like I either didn't hit send or internet got interrupted when I hit send. So I'll join you in the dunce corner, I guess. RR's book really fascinating. I'll do an extra thread on this when I've finished it. Like you, RR points out that the answers Job gets from his friends, while from a theological perspective correct, have little or nothing to do with reality. And Job is the only one who actually wants to talk to God, everybody else is satisfied with merely talking about God. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 24, 2024 5:57:11 GMT -5
I found this quote on facebook and was looking for a place to put it. It's just a person on facebook, the reason no attribution.
Jesus dying on a cross so God could forgive humanity…was Paul trying to make Jesus (who Paul never met) fit into the Jewish sacrificial system.
Jesus had already rejected the idea of a blood sacrifice: “I desire mercy, not sacrifice” (Jesus quoting the prophet Hosea).
But the church ultimately went along with Paul…allowing Paul’s letters to comprise 1/2 the New Testament…and even copying the Jewish priesthood.
The God of Jesus loved and forgave unconditionally…like the father in Jesus’ parable of the prodigal son. “The father saw his son from a distance and ran to meet him.” Nothing about a sacrifice in that parable - just a gracious welcome home party for a wayward son.
Jesus welcomed everyone in the same way…and taught his followers to also love and forgive unconditionally. No “blood atonement” required.
Only in the writings of Paul and the gospel of John, (written long after the other 3 gospels) do you see Jesus fully portrayed as a “sacrificial lamb” averting the wrath of a vengeful God.
Jesus said “you can’t put new wine into old wineskins.” But Paul and the early church tried.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Seems I just missed this thread, from my self-imposed vacation. I've read some RR, he's right there with Thomas Merton, understanding how this religious thingy works. I'll have to go back and start from the beginning, just breezed through it (saw my name mentioned). He actually picked up the torch from Merton writing about True Self vs false self (who got it from both Jesus and Paul).
But I was most particularly interested in Gopal's reaction to the quote.
|
|
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. 
