|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 30, 2010 0:25:39 GMT -5
Must all understanding be non-dual? Is it 'the way' to enlightenment and all other disciplines (ie: Christian, Buddhist, Sufi et al) just other expressions of non-duality though cloaked in different language. How, for example, should we understand Saint John of the Cross who seemed to have a handle on all things mystical? He wrote in the Christian context but seemed to be pointing to the same truth that is expressed in non-duality? Are all other disciplines and non-duality mutually exclusive? Please excuse the clumsy language. Sometimes words are like shoes two sizes too big, clumsy and unwieldy.
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jul 30, 2010 2:01:13 GMT -5
I would say willingness is the key. As such, understanding is only relevant to the extent that it influences willingness.
There is nothing to understand, though it may be helpful to understand that. Hehe.
|
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 30, 2010 4:21:26 GMT -5
thanks E ... I think ...
|
|
|
|
Post by ravenscroft on Jul 30, 2010 11:05:23 GMT -5
Must all understanding be non-dual? Is it 'the way' to enlightenment and all other disciplines (ie: Christian, Buddhist, Sufi et al) just other expressions of non-duality though cloaked in different language. How, for example, should we understand Saint John of the Cross who seemed to have a handle on all things mystical? He wrote in the Christian context but seemed to be pointing to the same truth that is expressed in non-duality? Are all other disciplines and non-duality mutually exclusive? Please excuse the clumsy language. Sometimes words are like shoes two sizes too big, clumsy and unwieldy. my little take on it is duality does not exists, so the path can have many themes and styles I can turn on the Bible thumping radio station and listen to that guy scream about sin and still give you 5 messages about the infinite reality of our non-exists from it but that doesn't mean we end with that guy on the radio or get stuck in any teaching like has been said before, if a concept or teaching is 99.99% true is is completely and utterly false and will eventually have to be left behind |
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 30, 2010 11:34:27 GMT -5
I like that take on it, Raven. thanks ...
|
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 30, 2010 14:10:50 GMT -5
Must all understanding be non-dual? Is it 'the way' to enlightenment and all other disciplines (ie: Christian, Buddhist, Sufi et al) just other expressions of non-duality though cloaked in different language. How, for example, should we understand Saint John of the Cross who seemed to have a handle on all things mystical? He wrote in the Christian context but seemed to be pointing to the same truth that is expressed in non-duality? Are all other disciplines and non-duality mutually exclusive? Please excuse the clumsy language. Sometimes words are like shoes two sizes too big, clumsy and unwieldy. Charlie: Every religion contains a broad spectrum of understanding. On one end of the spectrum are the fundamentalists who take everything literally. A is A. On the other end of the spectrum are the mystics or non-duality folks. A is not A. Between the two lies a huge gulf. The mystics understand the fundamentalists completely, but the fundamentalists have no clue about where the mystics are coming from. The fundamentalists are dominated by mind and their understanding is conceptual; the mystics are dominated by spirit and their understanding is non-conceptual. Non duality folks in every religion describe the same thing using different terminology. Zen Masters, Sufi Masters, Taoist Masters, Mystical Christians, and Advaita Vedantists are all pointing to the same unspeakable unthinkable reality. (check out those fantastic cloud formations; they're not clouds) Consider Christianity as one example. Jesus knew that he was one-with God; he was a mystic. The average Christian worships Jesus like an idol in the sky (When will he return? When will he return?), not realizing that who Jesus IS has not gone anywhere. The living truth is always here and now. Jesus himself said, "I am the truth." Mystics experience truth directly. Fundamentalists experience ideas ABOUT the truth. All of the other believers fall somewhere between these two ends of the spectrum. BTW, as you probably know, St. John was a far out character. If my memory serves me correctly, he was put in one of his monastery's prison cells because he refused to wear shoes. One night a light was seen coming from his cell even though there was no source of light in the cell. The jailer reported that the light came from around John. At one point John heard a voice which told him to go outside and the prison doors opened to his touch. He subsequently found himself on top of a sixty foot wall without knowing how he got there. What really happened? Who knows? What really matters, of course, is always here and now. Should someone pursue non duality? Only if he/she will settle for nothing less that the truth. Cheers. |
|
|
|
Post by charliegee on Jul 30, 2010 14:39:31 GMT -5
ZD, I was pretty much leaning toward what you said. John is a favorite of mine. He was imprisoned because of his writings which blurred the gap between God and man. Of course, the Inquisitionists were the fundamentalists of that day and couldn't understand what people like John or Eckhardt were saying. Suppose that's what Jesus railed at the Pharisees and Scribes for, their insistence on outward display while ignoring the spirit. One truth, many manifestations. I'll take that answer. Thanks Bob.
|
|
