|
Post by zendancer on May 3, 2024 11:17:27 GMT -5
Only slightly addresses my concerns, but not in any way that helps (answer my concerns). Conditioning distorts the capacity to observe what is so, events in the world. I should think and should hope that SR would eliminate all distorting factors, to allow one to see aright. The conditioning of which the self consists, is still there post SR (the conditioning exists, a self doesn't exist, is imaginary). The distorting factors still exist within the organism, the programming. ...Some exist head and shoulders above all others, a Buddha, a Lao Tzu, a Chuang Tzu even, a Jesus, I will even buy a Ramana or a Niz, a Dogen, especially Bankei, a Yasutani. Why is this so? What *good* is SR if the distorting factors still exist within the organism? Why doesn't SR eradicate suggestibility? ZD has mentioned "holy buddhahood" before, but all I know about that is from reading along with what he's written on the topic. Your question is only tangentially related to what you're imagining as "SR". It presupposes some absolute "undistorted" set of conditioning, which is the oxymoron of relative perfection. The monks that destroy those intricate sand paintings as soon as they are complete are demonstrating that to you. Exactly! Holy Buddhahood is a step beyond SR/freedom from the matrix, so there's no point in discussing that rarified issue here, but the idea of an "undistorted" set of conditioning or freedom from conditioning is just another erroneous idea. If a jet pilot attains SR, s/he will still automatically and spontaneously respond to an emergency because the body/mind organism has been conditioned via simulators and training to respond faster than thought. This kind of conditioning will obviously continue after SR, but the SR pilot will NOT imagine that s/he is a separate volitional entity in control of what's happening. That thought structure will have collapsed. ITSW, as pointed out many times here, if the intellect becomes totally silent, the body/mind organism will continue to function intelligently because what we are is incomprehensibly intelligent. The intellect is like a miniscule graphics generator/calculator riding along in the pre-frontal cortex whereas the vast intelligence of THIS is running the whole show (keeping the body's temperature stable, regulating hormone levels, circulating blood, walking, talking, dreaming, thinking, samadhiing, etc) as well as running the intellect.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on May 3, 2024 11:04:54 GMT -5
The eye isn't a camera. The optic nerve attaches at the back of the eye, so there are no rods or cones there, so nothing there to perceive light. If the eye were a camera we would have a hole in the center of our vision. We don't, the mind/brain patches over the hole so that we see a uniform view of the world, no breaks, no hole. So the mind/brain creates an illusion of wholeness. Here is my question. Before SR there is a seeming self which operates in the world, makes choices, acts. I think we are on the same page that the so-called self is a result of conditioning. So, SR is the recognition, realization, that there is no self, no separate self, no volitional self (on this I agree, always have, concerning the small s self, yesterday called the self-avatar). But yet the conditioning continues to operate in the world. It appears there is a self operating, someone, an ordinary person looking from the outside would see a self operating in the world. Before SR the illusory self operating in the world doesn't operate without error, or always according to truth or actuality. The very nature of the illusory self is to be a distorting factor, a distorting lens, at least somewhat. Some conditioning is more distorting, some less, less efficient, more efficient. So after SR the distortions still exist, that's pretty obvious to me. The now-non-person still functions through the former conditioning. The SR now-non-person will even argue that it's not necessary for the conditioning to be altered in any way, that's the argument against purification. See my dilemma? If SR is seeing the truth as truth and the false as false, why doesn't distorting conditioning drop away? If you say it doesn't matter or there is no distortion post SR, I say you have a blind spot. Objectivity doesn't exist post SR. All this is why I maintain that purification is necessary. If your paradigm doesn't account for all this, it deficient. I somewhat spoke to all this yesterday in reply. I suppose this is where 3 months has left me, to sum up. Yes, the eye is like a camera except for the hole you mention, and the brain is conditioned to fill in the hole. That's a minor issue, and does not address the big issue--that people are conditioned to imagine what they see are separate things being observed by a separate thing. If the intellect is quiescent, then the eye sees "what is" rather than ideas ABOUT "what is." In essence, most adults live in their heads and believe what John Troy calls "the narrator"--the mind chatter that reinforces the illusion of separateness. Yes, people are conditioned to imagine separateness. Fortunately, it's possible to wake up from this illusion and realize that Reality is a unified infinite whole. Activities that are highly correlated with this insight include meditation, spending time alone in nature, etc. In essence, 95% of all meditative activities involve shifting attention away from thoughts to direct sensory perception, and if one stays focused upon what's happening NOW rather than thoughts about the past, future, or self-referential ideation, the intellect can become quite silent. The more silent the intellect becomes, the more likely that the illusion of separateness will collapse. Essentially, the path to SR is reversing the habits that created the illusion of separateness, and the path is much like returning to the same state of mind as a little child. One becomes child-like but retains full intellectual adult capabilities. What you see is what you are because the see-er and the seen are one and the same, but what you imagine is like a thought-fog that obscures the obvious. You wrote than "an ordinary person looking from the outside would see a self operating in the world." This is false. It is impossible for anyone to see a self operating in the world because selfhood is imaginary. An ordinary person looking from the outside would see "what is," which is beyond name and form. An ordinary person might imagine that they are seeing "a human" or a "self" but both ideas are ideas, only. The absolute truth is obvious, and even little children see it, but adults fail to see it because they spend most of their time imagining and entertaining thoughts that reinforce their imaginary ideas. Yes, "the very nature of an illusory self is a distorting factor" because it distorts the true nature of what's going on. Little children do not think about the future or the past and they do not ask crazy questions, such as, "Am I happy?" This is because they have not yet imagined themselves as separate from the rest of Reality. The original sin, if we want to imagine one, is imagining separation where there is no such thing. Yes, after SR there is still conditioning, both long-term and short term, but the conditioning that leads one to imagine separateness is gone! I've told the story about ducking under a ham hanging from a garage door opener rail. After the ham was removed, the body continued to duck under a non-existent ham for a week or so because it was conditioned to respond like that to avoid a head impact. It became re-conditioned NOT to duck after 8 or 10 days because the body/mind organism learned that it didn't need to do that. This kind of conditioning and re-conditioning is unimportant compared to the conditioning that creates what Charles Tart called "the concensus trance state," and what G and other sages have called "sleep-walking through life" or robotic behaviors based on thoughts about separation that are believed to be true. What is the difference between someone living in the matrix (the trance state of believing in separation) and someone who has escaped the matrix? The escapee has realized how mind functions to create cognitive illusions, has seen through the illusions, and has become focused on what is actually happening in the present moment rather than thoughts ABOUT what's happening. An escapee, because of having seen how thoughts obscure the obvious, becomes a person of action and does not waste time fantasizing about hypothetical futures, regretting past actions, imagining what other people should be doing, imagining what the body/mind organism should be doing, worrying about anything, and accepts Reality just as it is. The state of mind of an escapee cannot be imagined; it can only be lived. No purification of any kind is necessary for discovering the truth unless by "purification" one means shifting attention to "what is" again and again until the obvious becomes obvious.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 28, 2024 14:29:43 GMT -5
Well, the source of the amnesia is pretty well known and understood. That's the nature of the machine, you can draw up a blueprint for it. But people can study and understand that blueprint in fine detail, and yet, still live their lives out mechanistically. The machine is a distraction, and it seems to me that most people never become interested in the existential truth because their attention is distracted to elsewhere. The very notion that the truth has to be attained, and is not always here and now, is another distraction, and in some cases, the final distraction. So why do you think that we are not remembering what we are that is forever present right here, right now? In my opinion I don't think many have a Scooby-doo why they don't remember what they are. You see in my eyes if a peep knows why they forget, then that will reflect what needs to be done in order to remember.
Peeps that say there is nothing to be done will have a different understanding to those that believe there is lots to do.[/b] Even if we explain to people how they have been conditioned to imagine that the world is composed of separately-existing things being seen by a separately-existing volitional entity, very few will have any interest in discovering the reality that underlies the meta-reality. IOW, even if people are told that they live in the matrix, very few will have any interest in discovering how to escape from the matrix or discovering what lies beyond the matrix. Those who have such an interest may be willing to take certain actions that might reveal what is always here and now, but whether they will ever be sufficiently motivated to take those actions, or pursue those actions persistently for a sustained period of time, is simply the result of how THIS may or may not unfold. An interesting book regarding one aspect of this issue is "Determined: A Science of Life Without Free Will," by Sapolsky.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 22, 2024 9:44:40 GMT -5
TBH, I’ve never heard of Shunyamurti before. Some of his videos just popped up one day in the suggestion column on youtube, so I watched a couple of those and found them to be exceptionally clear. And so I posted one video. Then ZD mentioned those rumors. I looked it up and there seem to be some folks dedicated to badmouthing Shunyamurti, they set up a website especially for that purpose. And you know what that reminds me of? Gab! Spiritual communities are tricky business. They attract of lot of needy, confused and also egomaniacal people, with lots of interpersonal dynamics. Consider this: imagine a newbie coming to ST and reading a couple of posts by ZD (or yours truly) and finding them to be of exceptional clarity, and thinking “Wow, awesome. Such clarity! I like that guy.” And then that newbie goes to gab and starts reading what’s written there about ZD (or yours truly). And not knowing anything about ST’s history, he’s probably going to think “Woah, I had no idea that guy was such a fraud and bully! Apparently he randomly bans members as soon as they dare to disagree with him, threatening his oversized but fragile spiritual ego! He seems to be running his own personal cult on that forum, like a dictator, having all opposition silenced or banned, surrounded by yes-men, who don’t have the balls to point out this blatant abuse of power... very much like society these days!” Now, what is fact and what is fiction here? How could the newbie ever tell without knowing the whole story, first hand? I think we are in a very similar situation with Shunyamurti and many other gurus who have been accused of questionable behavior, like Osho, Sadhguru, Mooji etc. Those allegations could be all true, or not. It could all be true and then it would be a bad case of supersized spiritual ego gone wild. Or it could be someone envying their popularity and success, one of their direct competitors in the spiritual circus, just trying to get some of their market share. Or it could be a former disgruntled follower of them, who had been rejected for whatever reason and his/her ego bruised and is now trying to get even from afar. The pointers are crystal clear though. And that’s why I posted the video and why we are still discussing these other gurus. So, while on the one hand, if the walk doesn’t match the talk is an indicator that clarity isn’t really that crystal, we can’t verify the walk of these people first hand, only based on hearsay, and so have to stick to the talk for the time being and take what we hear about the walk with several grains of salt. But as far as I can tell, having watched only a couple of videos, Shunyamurti’s talk is exceptionally clear and also very elegant, one of the best you can find these days. I agree, and without knowing firsthand what went down, it's impossible to know what's going on and whether S walks the talk or not. Rick Archer has run into the same thing. He posted one video of a guy who had what appeared to be a genuinely huge realization. The guy attracted a lot of followers, but subsequently many followers fell away and began describing actions that made everything far more problematic. Apparently there was an addiction and the guy borrowed lots of money from his followers that he didn't pay back. Rick took down his interview, and the guy posted a rebuttal explaining his side of the story. I read the claims from both sides of the aisle and concluded that the guy had some serious problems. For that reason I quit recommending that people listen to the guy. Rick told me that this has happened about 25 times which is not bad considering he's done 800 interviews. It does, however, bring up the issue of what it means to walk the talk. S is very clear concerning ND, but if the allegations are true, what does that imply? To me it implies that a human can discover the non-dual nature of reality but still have some deep--seated personality issues/flaws that would NOT make them good in-person teachers. It would be safer for a newbie to listen to the satsangs, but not get involved personally with the teacher. I suspect that this is more of a problem with independent teachers than ones who teach in traditional structures among people who have equal insight. Even then, there's no certainty because there are several well-known Tibetan figures of some renown whose high-ranking cohorts hid their bad behavior for years. It appears that there can be enlightened insight by both mature psychologically well-adjusted people and enlightened insight by immature psychologically-screwed up people. Perhaps this is why some Zen Masters distinguish between enlightenment and "Holy Buddhahood." Thoughts?
|
|
|
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 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 zendancer on Apr 20, 2024 14:41:55 GMT -5
Yes, and this is why each human has to find out for him/herself what's going on and what it will take to attain satisfaction with what has been realized and/or experienced. One fellow in TAT was a serious seeker until he lost interest in seeking when he decided that seeking is solely a mind game. He thinks that he's enlightened because his seeking came to an end, and many other people have accepted this idea and think that he's enlightened. The question he pursued was, "Who or what am I?" He never found out because he lost interest in the search, but if a cessation in seeking isn't accompanied by a realization of what one IS, then IMO the search ended way too soon. If a cessation in seeking is considered to be enlightenment, then every fundamentalist believer who thinks s/he understands the nature of reality because of adherence to some religious teaching (and therefore isn't seeking anything) is enlightened, and I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with that. There are also many people who have genuine breakthrough realizations who then acquire followers. The admiration and acclaim of followers then makes them feel special or superior, and self-centeredness creeps back in through the spiritual backdoor, so to speak. The general rule is that if a guru wants anything (money, sex, admiration, etc) from followers, then the followers need to run in the other direction. I perceive a subtlety here in that there still is room for professional teachers. The story you tell of Seung Sahn comes to mind .. "give money, or don't!" Yes, but that was a different situation. Apparently this guy has reportedly asked for lots of money from followers, suggested that people get divorced and give him the settlement money, tried to keep followers away from outside influences, etc. If any of this is true, then people would probably be well advised to stay away from his ashram. Maybe listen to his videos, but stay out of reach.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 20, 2024 14:11:46 GMT -5
As many know I can't do long posts or videos, but watched a good 2 minutes lol. I think some non dualist see the connection made with what you are with what you are as a bit of a red herring. As this dude say's it a deeper level that isn't known on the surface. It's similar to the unrealised and the realised even though there is only what you are. So we have this point within self awareness that either reflects a deeper connection or realisation of what we are or not. It's about getting to the point of this deeper connection or realisation. As always said, if one is ripe there isn't much to do, if one isn't then there is plenty. Yes, and this is why each human has to find out for him/herself what's going on and what it will take to attain satisfaction with what has been realized and/or experienced. One fellow in TAT was a serious seeker until he lost interest in seeking when he decided that seeking is solely a mind game. He thinks that he's enlightened because his seeking came to an end, and many other people have accepted this idea and think that he's enlightened. The question he pursued was, "Who or what am I?" He never found out because he lost interest in the search, but if a cessation in seeking isn't accompanied by a realization of what one IS, then IMO the search ended way too soon. If a cessation in seeking is considered to be enlightenment, then every fundamentalist believer who thinks s/he understands the nature of reality because of adherence to some religious teaching (and therefore isn't seeking anything) is enlightened, and I don't think anyone on this forum would agree with that. There are also many people who have genuine breakthrough realizations who then acquire followers. The admiration and acclaim of followers then makes them feel special or superior, and self-centeredness creeps back in through the spiritual backdoor, so to speak. The general rule is that if a guru wants anything (money, sex, admiration, etc) from followers, then the followers need to run in the other direction.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 20, 2024 8:18:07 GMT -5
See edited response, above.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 19, 2024 16:01:16 GMT -5
This is really good. I think he explains it quite well why some of us say that you cannot practice your way to SR and yet recommend to continue practice at the same time. Thoughts? The pointing in this video seems to be totally clear, but apparently many people claim that Shunramurti is a cult leader who exploits people attracted to his ashram in Costa Rica. If the claims are true, then this may be a case of someone who has attained a deep understanding of what's going on, but has not yet escaped a narcissistic and manipulative mindset. It may be a case of listen to message but ignore the messenger.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 10, 2024 10:17:51 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 9, 2024 7:48:35 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 7, 2024 14:58:26 GMT -5
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.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 6, 2024 7:47:56 GMT -5
Based on what trans folks have told me, there's a 'relative' peace to be found in the medical surgeries and hormones, which could be taken as an indication of how unpleasant their experience is before. So I think it 'works' for some folks. But not others. And it's very drastic. And I believe it's born out of a fundamental misconception, that pretty much everyone in society has. Simply, that 'I' am a category. I am sure there is some peace attained for some butt it's never going to hit the actual mark is it. No matter what is done kant change how things actually are and were intended through the natural process. It's each to their own I dare say, many I believe would come to the earth plane to go through this soul searching type of thing on this level just like being gay does. There is nothing wrong with going against the grain and expressing one selves as one see's fit, but there is a foundation in place that can't be changed no matter how much one wishes or desires for it not to be. I wonder what makes a male want to be a female, it's not even some kind of non identified thing going on it's a deep mind set held within identity that wants to be turned on it's head. We can't even put it down to some spiritual awakening beyond the gender identity. From peeps that you have talked with that are trans have they come up with a reason for why they don't want to be the gender they were born with? When my wife taught 6th grade students, she had a girl in one class who always wore boy's clothes, cut her hair short, and carried a string of keys on her belt like a night watchman. Carol liked her and got to know her. The girl told Carol that from the earliest age she knew that although she was biologically born as a girl, she had felt like a male, and she couldn't wait until she was old enough to transition to being male via surgery or whatever else was required. Her mother had offered her $200 just to wear a dress one single time, but the girl had always refused and had no interest in anything "girlish." All of the kids in her class who had known her for many years accepted that she was a "he" in a girl's body. This was fifty years ago, and it was the first human that my wife had ever met who was what we now call "trans." Carol was convinced that although her student was biologically a girl, something in her genetic makeup prevented her from feeling female in any sense. I suspect that it's the same sort of biological phenomenon that makes people of the same sex attractive to one another rather than to members of the opposite sex. In the world of ballroom dance about half of all the male dancers are gay, and we've known many of them personally. They've all told us that they were attracted to men from the earliest age and never had any interest in, or attraction to, females, so culture does not seem to be a factor in those cases. We now know that homosexuality occurs in other animals, so this, too, indicates that something is biologically/genetically different in at least some percentage of people and animals attracted to the same sex. In some recent studies it appears that female humans are more gender fluid than males, so cultural attitudes probably play a part in those attitudes, and we know lesbians who have been married to men, but later divorced and gave up on male relationships because of either overt mistreatment/abuse or a failure to communicate with men who had "a feminine side" to their personality. I have no idea what the actual percentages are, but clearly some percentage of humans identify with a different gender than how they are born, and culture does not seem to be a factor in that group of people.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Apr 5, 2024 6:41:50 GMT -5
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?
|
|