|
|
Post by karen on Feb 17, 2010 23:10:58 GMT -5
Lightmystic always seems to points me in the right direction. Are you so sure that is not what he was doing with calmheart222?
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2010 0:04:05 GMT -5
Inquiring mind: I, for one, was glad that Lightmystic took the time to respond to you. I didn't have the energy or the desire to think that much. The title of this thread, alone, showed that Calmheart doesn't understand anything about non-duality. If he did, he would not have titled this thread "Which religion is correct?" and asked people to vote on a set of options that omitted anything pointing to the truth. He should be posting on a spiritual forum where intellectual discussions of theology are highly valued. His post was filled with layers and layers of thoughts and beliefs, and he did not respond to any of the questions that he was asked concerning his personal experience. His last post was virtually unintelligible, and after reading it five times, I couldn't figure out what he was trying to say.
Lightmystic was not being arrogant in his reply to you. In fact, he was being incredibly patient and almost grandmotherly in answering your questions. You should have thanked him for not figuratively whacking you upside the head and telling you to put it all down. My advice to Calmheart and to you is to drop all of your ideas, become silent, and look deeper into this matter. You guys are writing about the ocean and, based upon what you've written, you haven't even dipped your toes in the water yet.
When Rinzai went to see Obaku after spending three years in intense meditation, he asked about the nature of the absolute. Obaku beat him up and threw him out of the interview room. Rinzai went back twice more and twice more Obaku beat him up and threw him out. Rinzai, utterly perplexed, finally gave up trying to understand, left Obaku's monastery, travelled to visit another well-known Zen Master, and told him what had happened with Obaku. This Zen Master said to Rinzai, "Why you impudent little punk. Obaku showed you the gentle kindness of a grandmother, and you didn't even have enough insight to appreciate it!" Upon hearing these words Rinzai suddenly had a big enlightenment experience.
The truth has nothing to do with ideas or beliefs. Not-knowing is the way. Look inside and find out who is posting under the name "Inquiringmind." I can assure you that it is not who you think it is.
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2010 0:15:12 GMT -5
Sorry, I meant to refer to 1soulwithin as the writer of the original post and Calmheart as the secondary poster, but the same issue is applicable.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquiringmind on Feb 18, 2010 10:20:53 GMT -5
zendancer - There seems to be a whole lot of quoting of books here and yet you contradict yourself. You, supposedly as a mystic, state that it is about direct experience and then you say this is a "spiritual forum where intellectual discussions of theology are highly valued." What does intellectual discussion have to do with direct experience? Secondly, you should never assume what another person practices or understands by the title of an article. It you know something about literary styles you would know the question wasn't intended to have an actual answer. It's like saying "is the glass half empty or half full"? If I may quote the author he/she says in the first sentence of paragraph five – “Part of the problem is that the majority of religious followers who grudgingly hold on to their religious beliefs do not speak from their own direct and personal experience of the Supreme Being but rather from the holy scriptures of their religion and/ or teachings of their holy figure’s experience.” I don't know how much more "mystic, non-duality or advaita vedanta" one can be! Perhaps the article was intended for a particular audience at a particular point on their journey. However, an "advanced" student shouldn't forget the lessons learned from earlier experiences otherwise you find yourself in a quagmire of not being able to "see the forest from the trees." As far as the poll, I believe it covers every possible option you could consider. Either you believe one or all religions can lead to enlightenment or you think none of them will or you don't believe in God or you believe God is within... Are you suggesting your answer doesn't fall into one of those categories? You cannot speak of what is the "way" if you yourself haven't reached the destination. If in fact you had, then you would know that there are MANY ways to reach the goal. How can you "not know" that which you "know"? There seems to be a lot of "intellectual fluff" about mysticism and cool "neo & morpheus" type names here but that appears to be the extent of it. That's a cute story about Obaku but by no means is that the only way towards enlightenment. That was one master's approach. I would dare say Jesus, Krishna or Buddha would've taken another approach to show the "gentle kindness of a grandmother" in redirecting the seeking student if they were sincere... As far as you not having the "energy or desire to think that much" shows that you are no Obaku! If so, you would kindly assist any and ALL seekers of truth for you would not only see the Source in them but you would see YOUR-SELF in them! Isn't that what "non-duality" is supposed to be about?
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Feb 18, 2010 11:10:42 GMT -5
Hey inquiringmind, Thank you for your comments. If I might ask, what do you mean by "love" being closest to God? What does love mean the way you definite it? What does that look like? Is it about behavior, is it a feeling? What is your experience of love and it's relationship to God? On another note, I must say that I respectfully disagree that one must "believe" in Enlightenment or "more" in order to find it. Any seeker is actually having a subtle experience of it, and it's simply trust in that experience. That said, I totally appreciate what you are saying about there being a process of the intellect to start to recognize and accept what our experience already is on a subtle level, what is already going on at a subtle level. And when those feelings are abstract enough at the outset, it can very feel almost like imagination. And, so while that willingness to consider any possibility is important, and I think it's very useful to highlight that as you did, I've found that a certain degree of skepticism is required as well. That doesn't mean that one is cynical - which means writing something off without examining it, as that would just be the other side of the coin. It means really look at it, in detail, for oneself, and not accepting something because it sounds good. The idea of infinite love and light everywhere and God and all that is great I guess....but it's really not useful accept to the extent that it's not a direct experience. And I don't feel like making the assumption that it's true is any more useful than making the assumption that it's false. It strikes me that 1soulwithin is trying to tell us what to believe. And while I know that it's quite "spiritually correct" in spiritual/new age circles to tell people that if it's unifying and positive and sounds happy, it couldn't be further from finding the truth in my experience. I'm not saying that others even NEED to find the truth, but that is kind of what this board happens to be about. And I am certainly not asking anyone to listen to me or believe me, but I am asking people to really examine things for themselves, rather than just quote love and light things. Because, even if an experience looks like that, it's the very avoidance of death and darkness that needs to be resolved in order to integrate that experience enough to have the wholeness (the lack of suffering) all the time. And, when that happens, I find that one can appreciate any experience. Love and light is no more valid than death and dark. They are all important aspects of Creation for me. You say we shouldn't judge, but aren't you judging everyone by saying that? I mean, what's wrong with judging? We all do it all the time! I mean, I don't put any stock in my judgments (or really anyone's), because judgments have little to do with direct experience, but that doesn't mean they are "wrong" any more than religion or belief systems are wrong. Religions/belief systems are okay, it's just that they cause suffering. So if one wants to get out of suffering, then they must be moved away from. And my questions are sincere. I actually want to hear about people's experience. Yes, I am casting doubt on whether the beliefs are true (perhaps they're "leading" questions to some extent  ), but I would never want anyone to believe me until they found a truth for their selves. Because, no matter how close to "the truth" my beliefs had been in the past, they never were able to capture the experience. And it was actually important that I let go of those beliefs in order to be open to the experience itself. Because it never (in my experience) looks on the surface like we would expect. It's the same "feeling" made concrete, but that is all we can really know..... And so no belief system can capture it, and putting stock in any belief system actively gets in the way (hence the suffering). So that is more or less where I am coming from. I realize I've said a lot of different points here, but I would appreciate hearing what you think. Thanks. lightmystic. (& the other critics that "don't have time to put together concise ideas or arguments" but DO have the time to offer nothing of worthwhile value) I think some of you went into reading the article with some "pre-judgment." If you actually read what is being said I think the author would agree with you. He is specifically pointing out clearly that no one religion or faith is the "right" choice or path towards enlightenment thus why he actually quotes many "mystics" who all did have DIRECT experience of God (supposedly). However, many of today's "mystics, non-dualists, etc" seem to condemn religion as if they are inherently the culprit to blame when in fact like you said "they are only beliefs." RELIGIONS IN AND OF THEMSELVES ARE NOT TO BLAME AND ARE NOT SOMEHOW EVIL! It is "IGNORANCE" of one's true essence that veils man's Truth. But I would challenge that even the individual seeking "direct experience" would first have to do so by accepting the "belief" that there is actually something there to be FOUND! That is what causes one to become a mystic, meditate, practice yoga or use whatever technique to find "direct experience." If it were as simple as saying "God is within" and clicking your heels three times then EVERYONE WOULD'VE ACHIEVED ENLIGHTENMENT ALREADY! One of the most certain ways to NOT find "Realization" is by becoming "spiritually arrogant" thinking you've achieved something that others haven't... "Thou shalt not judge for as ye judge so shall ye be judged." If you want to offer constructive feedback then do so but to simply "mock" or look "down your nose" doesn't make one a true mystic! BTW, I don't think you just stumbled upon a keyboard one day and started using it. Someone else told you what it was for (may have even shown you) and you had to "believe" it would do what they claimed before you were able to "confirm" it for yourself through "direct experience." "Calmheart" whether or not he/she quoted something from a book is closest to Truth by realizing & recognizing LOVE to be closest to God. Practice unselfishness, patience & purity of heart to "experience" Divinity - perhaps someone else has been simply quoting books as well rather than direct experience...  |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 18, 2010 11:10:45 GMT -5
zendancer - There seems to be a whole lot of quoting of books here and yet you contradict yourself. You, supposedly as a mystic, state that it is about direct experience and then you say this is a "spiritual forum where intellectual discussions of theology are highly valued." What does intellectual discussion have to do with direct experience? @ inquiringmind You missed the point of Zendancer's post. He said that the discussion about religions SHOULD be posted on a suitable board, and NOT that this board is about intellectual discussions of theology. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 18, 2010 13:47:14 GMT -5
Inquiring mind: Porto has already responded to the first issue you raised. You mis-read my statement. Most people on this forum have little or no interest in theological or intellectual discussions about spirituality. We are interested in direct experience. There are other websites where intellectual discussions are valued, and they would be appropriate places for 1soulwithin to post his ideas.
You wrote: "As far as the poll, I believe it covers every possible option you could consider. Either you believe one or all religions can lead to enlightenment or you think none of them will or you don't believe in God or you believe God is within... Are you suggesting your answer doesn't fall into one of those categories?" Yes, I am saying that the living truth does not fall into any of those categories.
You wrote: "I would dare say Jesus, Krishna or Buddha would've taken another approach to show the "gentle kindness of a grandmother" in redirecting the seeking student if they were sincere...." How would you interpret Ramana Maharshi's response of total silence when serious seekers came to him for guidance? Was he ignoring them? Have you read any of Nisargadatta's dialogues? He was often ruthless with seekers, and he did not suffer fools lightly. You have many ideas about how spiritual masters should respond to seekers, but these are your ideas. The truth is far beyond ideas.
You wrote: "As far as you not having the "energy or desire to think that much" shows that you are no Obaku!" I know who I am, and Obaku knew who he was, but you do not know who you are. If you will look inside yourself, and give up all of your ideas, you will discover the truth. Do that, and then see if your ideas have any validity in relation to THAT.
You also wrote: "If so, you would kindly assist any and ALL seekers of truth for you would not only see the Source in them but you would see YOUR-SELF in them! Isn't that what "non-duality" is supposed to be about?" No! That is not what non-duality involves. Those are your ideas ABOUT non-duality.
Not-knowing is the way. Stop and be still. Become silent. Shift your attention away from thoughts to what you can see and hear. Enlightenment does not come through the mind. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by inquiringmind on Feb 18, 2010 17:23:15 GMT -5
@ porto - I'm confused... are you suggesting you can have relgion without theology or theology without religion? From what I understood this forum WAS about "intellectual discussion" because it clearly is NOT about direct experience. (unless your goal is to directly experience staring at a monitor & typing on a keyboard). zendancer - Beliefs/religions do NOT cause suffering. They are nothing but "beliefs." It is "believing" that you are suffering that causes suffering. Spirit is intangible and cannot suffer. Suffering is merely a concept of the mind. I agree with you that you won't find God with the mind. And yes I do "go within" to directly experience that which Is. But a lot of "new age non-dualists" seem to think that they are in fact God! You ARE NOT God... rather God IS YOU! There is a distinct difference! Until you have been fully liberated, kaivalya, you are still under the influence of Maya and thus "beliefs" which are merely "ideas." Yet there is a difference between the Source's Ideas and the ego's ideas. If you want to say that Source is "No-Self" in the sense that it has no definition then fine. But if you're suggesting that "No-Self" is the absence of "Self" (or anything) then that is clearly an oxymoron because it takes "someone" to "directly experience" "some-thing." Absolute Consciousness is some "thing" it cannot NOT exist. If you truly thought "beliefs" caused suffering then you would drop everything, go sit under a tree like Buddha, and never come from under it until you overcame all delusion! Anyone in a physical body - Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta or otherwise is still interacting with their environments through "beliefs" and some degree of "maya." The goal isn't to try to deny the belief or maya (that which you resist - persists) but to simply recognize that it is a dream or an idea; IS you and yet is NOT you. Balance is the key. Evenmindedness in all dualities... You keep speaking as if you have a monopoly on truth or you captured it in a bottle... Truth is! Whether you "believe" in it or not. Just two different ends of the spectrum. And you seem to keep assuming that you're path is the only one that promotes "silencing the mind" or "going within" for direct experience. Again, non-duality, advaita vedanta all have their origins from the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita! This is just "new age" yoga which is thousands (actually eternal) years old! You seem to hold fast that "not-knowing" is the way! As if there is only one way... when clearly if you accept that Krishna, Buddha, Jesus, Maharshi to have been enlightened then you must acknowledge they all got "there" along different paths. As far as Love, that is as difficult to define as God. However, it can be a feeling and yet it is not limited to that. It can be a behavior all though it's not limited to that either. It is synonomous with Truth. It is a unifying force. It holds all things together in the Reality of Oneness while all else divides into the illusion of many. It is the baptizing and purifying transformation of ignorance into awareness. It is the absence of judgment for who is there to judge other than Self? Whomever is unable to express it at ALL TIMES is not yet Realized and thus still under the influence of Maya, beliefs and delusion. Experience & karma leads to the desire to awaken. Love filters the imperfect from the perfect. It is repentance & purity that brings one to the door of Truth, it is Love that opens the door and it is Consciousness that welcomes Itself home... Untruth cannot become Truth, Unreal cannot become Real, Relative cannot become Absolute, Duality cannot become Non-Dual! Only that which "IS, always WAS and ever WILL BE Truth, Real, Absolute & Non-Dual" can do is REALIZE it was never anything untrue, unreal, relative or dual - IT was simply imagining Itself to be... |
|
|
|
Post by vacant on Feb 18, 2010 19:51:31 GMT -5
What on earth is it of opinions that we seem to hold so dear?
To paraphrase Mr Harding: direct seing is for living always, for sharing occasionally, for arguing about never.
|
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Feb 18, 2010 20:48:24 GMT -5
@ porto - I'm confused... are you suggesting you can have relgion without theology or theology without religion? From what I understood this forum WAS about "intellectual discussion" because it clearly is NOT about direct experience. (unless your goal is to directly experience staring at a monitor & typing on a keyboard). Well, I'm not confused about religion. But I am sometimes confused about who I am. |
|
|
|
Post by loverofall on Feb 18, 2010 23:21:58 GMT -5
self reading self debating with self about self
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 19, 2010 0:09:07 GMT -5
Inquiring mind: The second paragraph in your post concerned something Lightmystic said, and he can answer that. I'll start with paragraph three. You wrote: "Anyone in a physical body - Ramana Maharshi, Nisargadatta or otherwise is still interacting with their environments through "beliefs" and some degree of "maya." No, that is simply not true. People who escape the mind interact with their envrionment directly, in mental silence--no ideas, no words, no symbols, no images, and no beliefs.
In your prior post you asked, "How can we not-know what we know?" I forgot to address that issue. A young child sees the world without knowing--without making distinctions. As the child grows up, it is taught to make distinctions (which are concepts) and then to name the distinctions. Most adults make no attempt to reverse this process and stay trapped in an imaginary meta-reality of their own creation. When they walk down the street, they see the world as if it were divided into "things." That is a tree, this is a sidewalk, dog, automobile, etc. They also imagine that they are human-being things that see those other things. To discover the truth we have to break the habit of incessant cognition. We break the habit by shifting away from thoughts to direct sensory perception. After we have broken the habit and seen the living truth that underlies the dead meta-reality, then we can choose whether to know or not-know at will. Let's consider an example that I've used on other threads.
You can see that your hand is connected to your wrist and that your wrist is connected to your arm. Hand/wrist/arm, however, are a unified whole; they are not really three separate things. We imagine the truth that our eyes see as if it were divided into three separate things. Look again at the truth. Do you see one thing or three things? Do you see "the oneness of the three" or do you see "hand," "wrist," and "arm?" This may seem like a puzzling question, but stay with it. The truth is _________. You can see it. It isn't one and it isn't three. It is ________________. If we are looking at __________in total mental silence, then we are choosing to not-know. In the same way it is possible to interact with the world all the time like this. We see what is as is, but until we choose to know (dualistically) what we are looking at, the world remains unified and whole. The observer and the observed remain one. There is no one "in here" looking at a world "out there." If we choose to remain in this unified state, the illusion of the ordinary world--what we call "consensual reality"--will eventually collapse, and we will find ourselves face to face with the absolute. Anything that we say about the absolute must be both true and false at the same time because any act of distinction is imaginary.
I do not claim to have a monopoly on the truth; I simply see the truth. Anyone else can learn to see the truth, too, but it is not easy. Zen calls it "passing through the gateless gate." It is the ability to see the difference between what we think is a "tree" and what a tree is (The first tree is a noun but the second tree is a verb). What a tree is is __________. It is beyond words, ideas, images, symbols, and beliefs. What you, yourself, are is also ___________. There is only THAT wherever you look.
When we use words like "not-knowing," we are simply pointing to a different way of interacting with the world that is beyond words and ideas. It is just a pointer. In the same way, the idea of a path that leads to truth is also just a pointer. In reality there is no path and no one who can follow a path. This is just word-medicine used to treat incessant-mind-activity sickness. We call oneness "oneness" in order to talk about it, but there is no such thing as oneness. As soon as we open our mouth, we make a mistake, but we make this mistake willingly in order to point the way out of the house of mirrors. This entire forum is like an escape hatch leading to the unimaginable world of the absolute. My job is to keep pointing to the hatch and saying, "Go through the hatch so that you can see what's on the other side." If you go through the hatch, your laughter, joy, and awe will be sufficient repayment for both me and the one who gave me this job. Cheers.
|
|
|
|
Post by karen on Feb 19, 2010 0:10:38 GMT -5
As far as the poll, I believe it covers every possible option you could consider. No he left out: Pine cones toothpicks paperclips staples aluminum cans cat hair linoleum tile I could go on and on and never touch all the infinite possible answers (if I wanted it to be limited to answers), because I am not bound by the constraints of the poll and can answer it anyway I see fit. |
|
|
|
Post by drunkenlady on Feb 19, 2010 4:57:04 GMT -5
Not cynicism more like ego pretending to know more than others and then disguise itself in pretentious humility.
|
|
|
|
Post by lightmystic on Feb 19, 2010 11:15:58 GMT -5
Hey drunkenlady. What are you responding to? Not cynicism more like ego pretending to know more than others and then disguise itself in pretentious humility. |
|
), but I would never want anyone to believe me until they found a truth for their selves. Because, no matter how close to "the truth" my beliefs had been in the past, they never were able to capture the experience. And it was actually important that I let go of those beliefs in order to be open to the experience itself. Because it never (in my experience) looks on the surface like we would expect. It's the same "feeling" made concrete, but that is all we can really know.....
