doc benway

Why is it necessary to accept anything? In another thread you applauded the Buddha's admonition to question everything. Perhaps starting from a belief in non-existence, an insight or evolution can occur. Withdrawing a hand from the fire implies there is a body to preserve, not a self. Quite well, actually. So does that make the rest of you pointless as well? It actually doesn't require much in the way of thinking and it's quite liberating. Chair is just a label. It can be used for many other purposes than simply sitting down. In labeling, we limit our understanding not enhance it. The value isn't in recognizing the lack of inherent existence of a chair, the value is in applying that insight to the "self" that is at the core of human problems and conflict. The chair is just an illustration. Another illustration is a person, any person. I'll pick a woman - one person sees her as their support and source of nurturing, to that person she is mother and makes them feel safe and loved; another person sees her as lover and when in her presence they are sexually charged; to another she may be a boss, a taskmaster, a beast, they may be fearful in her presence... and so on. Things exist only as they are relationship with other things not in any incontrovertible, inherent, absolute way. This is a subtle insight that can really paint the world in a different way. And the more different perspectives with which we can see the world, the more likely we are to have a more comprehensive picture. Rather than dismissing alternative perspectives as ridiculous because they don't fit your own limited view, why not open up a little and see if perhaps there is something more to learn out there in the world - 500 million Buddhists can't all be completely wrong. That is the basic message but the point is what are those values? Karma has nothing to do with punishment - that is more a Christian interpretation. Karma simply means action. The law of karma means that our actions lead to other actions, much like Newton's third law. If you do something good for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood that good will come of it. If you do something harmful for others (or yourself), there's a higher likelihood of harm coming from it. In Eastern religions, where reincarnation is understood and accepted those consequences are seen to occur in this life and others. Clearly karma transcends a single life - if climate change is real and we do nothing to address it, future generations will be harmed by our actions (or inaction), that is karma. It's not a mystery, it is only a mystery to you because you don't understand it. Buddhism is not pointless to Buddhists, only to you. Christianity may seem pointless to Buddhists... but you may embrace or at least be OK with it. Yet another example of the principle of dependent origination. The meaning is not in the religion it is in the mind of the follower or detractor. Show us a thought - can you hold it in your hand, can you capture it in a box, how long can you hold on to it? Thoughts are completely empty - they are invisible, they come from nowhere and return to nowhere, they are transient dances of disembodied language and memory. If you pay careful attention, you may see that you don't even think. What I mean is, thoughts come and thoughts go but where do they come from? Do you plan the thought, do you consciously sort through a selection and then pick a thought? They simply appear and then, when we tire of ruminating on them or resolve them, they are gone. They may return... Who and what is it that is controlling this? You are welcome to say me but that is nothing more than a gratuitous label. So the "self" or the "me" is simply a thought that claims the title of thinker. It's a thought like any other that usurps all others. But find that me, find that self... it's as empty as thought. And yet we can see the manifestation of thought very clearly in our lives whether it be in our choices, art, invention, and so forth. Clearly, there is awareness and then there is a tendency for us to try and limit, capture, localize, and label that awareness as a "me." That is partly due to the nature of our anatomy and physiology - sensory organs encased in a mobile bag of skin embedded in awareness. We have the tendency to see something, label it, and then assume we understand it simply because of that label. It is a natural mechanism that is rooted in our survival instinct. But that "understanding" is very limited. Some of us are satisfied with accepting labels and explanations like "me," "self," and so on, but others are motivated somehow to dig deeper or are blessed with a spontaneous insight that paints a different picture. Similarly some folks are satisfied with saying - that is a tree and leaving it at that while others are botanists and arborists who aren't satisfied with that superficial level of understanding. We can choose to brush them off and stick with the status quo or we can open our mind and heart a bit and see if there is something more. If we choose to stay closed, then I would say what Karl said earlier - it seems kind of pointless.... Spiritual people are those who are not satisfied with the superficial label "me" but prefer to dig deeper. Here's a beautiful quote from one of my favorite teachers, a Christian - a Jesuit in fact: It was lecture time and the Master said, "The genius of a composer is found in the notes of his music - but analyzing the notes will notreveal his genius. The poet's greatness is contained in his words - yet the study of his words will not disclose his inspiration. God reveals himself in creation - but scrutinize creation as minutely as you wish, you will not find God, any more than you will find the soul through the careful examination of your body." At question time someone asked, "How then shall we find God?" "By looking at creation, not by analyzing it." "And how is one to look?" "A peasant sets out to find beauty in the sunset,but all he finds is sun and cloud and sky and earth's horizon - till he understands that beauty is not a 'thing' but a special way of looking. You will seek for God in vain till you understand that God can't be seen as 'thing'; he needs a special way of looking - similar to that of little children whose sight is undistorted by prefabricated doctrines and beliefs." - Anthony de Mello

Why is it that we jump to the conclusion that without purpose we should commit suicide? Why not just live? Take a walk, connect with nature, sit and do nothing, breathe ... these are all good things.

Yes, this is nihilism. Nihilism has nothing to do with darkness or neutrality - those are related to the thinker.

Wonderful

I'll share a few words about my feelings - I would say that I was an emotional cripple for many years. I was highly successful in non-emotional endeavors but really completely out of touch with deeper emotions in myself, though completely unaware of it. Sure, I could tell you that I felt sad or happy, and I was very good at being angry. I had a general sense of others' feelings but was not nearly as connected with others as I thought. A few things transpired that changed me profoundly from an emotional point of view. I don't plan to share details but I've become much more aware of the presence, depth, and value of my own feelings and, in doing so, I am much more sensitive to and concerned with the feelings of others. This is something that occurred over a long period of time and multiple factors played into it. It is not possible to really understand the feelings of others if we are not first in touch with ourselves deeply. And we are living in a very narrow and sterile bandwidth when we are not living a full emotional life. It is a bit painful and a bit frustrating to read so much discussion here concerning spirituality, awakening, enlightenment, higher levels of consciousness, meditation, transformation, and related topics, and seeing so little discussion or demonstration of feelings, of caring for each other, of kindness. So many intellectual discussions and arguments here but often so sterile and theoretical - so little juice! What good is a theoretical dissertation on enlightenment when we're lonely and mean? Why bother with any of this if it's just to pick fights, put others down, build up our own ego? For me, that's worthless and I'm not saying that I'm not guilty as well but I'm trying to be very aware of that and go in a different direction in my life. It's really wonderful to see this thread and I hope to see many more like it. But what I really would love to see is more kindness and friendliness here, more genuine concern for each other rather than for our arguments and points of view. Until we begin to explore our feelings, not analyze or understand intellectually, but simply spend time feeling and opening to others, and seeing how that affects our day to day lives, we are simply playing mental gymnastics with talk about awakening and spirituality. I see people use words like light and bliss but do they recognize and feel that what these words are pointing to is connection, awareness, openness, and love? We are collectively starved for human contact and relationship in our modern lives, we've lost so much of our sense of community and family. I think it's one of the great poisons in our lives and is responsible for much of the pain and suffering we see and feel. When I think of these things in my meditative practice, I can feel enormous pain and find myself in tears. And yet in that deep sadness is beauty because it's that very pain that is a manifestation of feeling and connection. Sorry for the rant and especially sorry to sound so preachy... I love you all (well, I'm trying anyway)

If you're looking to define the thinker, just saying we or me isn't enough. We need to look deeper than that, otherwise why bother having the conversation. I question your definition of conscious vs unconscious thinking. When we think in our non-lucid dreams it is generally quite similar to our waking thought process. If you pay close attention, I suspect you won't find any difference. Similarly, we can become lucid in our sleeping dreams and carry on much as we would in our waking state, just without so many limitations.

Undoubtedly so - everything I said is just a description, a labeling. When we look, what do we find? Nothing... and everything. In the paradigm I currently feel most comfortable with the most basic/elementary "substrate" is space and awareness, the union of which is warmth. Unlike many labels, they are rooted in experiential practice as opposed to theory.

Sensing seems to be related to neurophysiology and subsequent interpretation and storage. Thinking seems to be primarily the action of memory interacting with language. Reason seems to be a set of rules rooted in self-constent application of language. To go deeper than that we will tend to get in to different spiritual or philosophical paradigms I suspect. No time for more right now. Krishnamurti is a great resource for discussions of the nature of thought and reason.

Given that we are energetic beings and our modes of sensory perception are all energetic, I would propose that everyone feels energy all the time. It is so fundamental to us that we don't know we are doing it. When it comes specifically to meridians, they are simply lines on a chart to guide practitioners, as has been mentioned. They are not discreet structures, they are conventions used by people to try and organize something organic and fluid into discrete and comprehensible patterns. I think that when we feel specific meridians it is a combination of the existing energy, which does not obey anatomical diagrams, and focused attention which creates particular patterns based on one's chosen paradigm.

Any and all of the above are as effective as the person wielding them. The longer and narrower the weapon, the more likely it will break - material is important. Anything can be used against you by a superior martial artist and anything wrapped around your fingers or wrist can cause some pain, injury, or used to control you. Beware of any weapons you can't easily let go of if needed. If you are looking for a self-defense tool, pepper spray is quite good but even that requires appropriate preparation, training, and accessibility. Something that can be quite effective, perfectly legal in all jurisdictions, and even permitted on a plane is a cane. Again, you need to put in the time to learn how to use it but it can be an awesome weapon, hidden in plain sight. https://www.canemasters.com/

Reason has its place in our lives certainly, as does emotion. And there is much more beyond for those who care to look with sincerity. Peace

Safe travels, dear one

Like most spiritual concepts we discuss, to have a meaningful discussion we'd have to agree on a definition of the 3rd eye and what it means to open it. I wonder if that is possible? In my view, if the 3rd eye is truly open, it cannot be abused or misused in any way as it is a direct connection to the truth which is love. On the other hand, I suspect that many who seek to open the 3rd eye are lusting after power and something more than what they perceive they already are. In that mind-space, we often throw caution to the wind.

I owe you an apology, Karl. I posted the stoned Spock photo because I thought you must be pulling my leg. Perhaps not... In answer to your question, morals and values arise spontaneously as a consequence of our ability to connect to others and our environment in a genuine way. When we feel that connection, that warmth, that spark of sharing something precious with another, life and awareness for example, we lose the ability to take advantage of another, we can no longer stand seeing other sentient beings suffer. That is the foundation for lasting and incontrovertible morality and ethics. Any morals or ethics derived through reason and thought are on shaky ground because the very mind that "created" them is equally capable of tearing them down. We see that every day in our lives as we see the heartlessness, the opportunism, the selfishness. Reason is extremely powerful, it has created human civilization (or at least takes the credit) but, at the same time, it is responsible for just as much destruction. As it rests on a foundation of relative causes and conditions, it is ever changing and unstable. Reference the numerous philosophies we see throughout human history. The moral and ethical truths that reason is reaching for and finds always just out of its grasp, is not of or created by reason, they are much more stable but also subtle and elusive and easily obscured and ignored.

Ask and you shall receive, I'll send it along with the others...

And to quote someone whose tolerance, patience, and lovingkindness I admire...

One of the best introductions I've ever read. It's wonderful to meet you Cody and a warm welcome to you.

Thanks for answering the question. I sort of inferred that but try not to be too presumptive. We'll have to disagree on that point as well. For me, higher reasoning plays little role in spirituality which is much more about feeling, openness, connection, and love. It's of value in the beginning when we are assimilating information but there is another universe of possibility that one can come to if one has the aptitude and requisite karma. I was of the opinion that you hold for a very long time. Not surprising as I tend towards the left brain very strongly and my background is in science. I mentioned Krishnamurti earlier because more than just about any other spiritual teacher (Watts is the other one), he really appealed to my higher reason. And he is a good enough teacher (or perhaps I was a good enough student, or both) that he helped me transcend that limitation as that is his core message regarding spirituality - we must go beyond the known and see what, if anything, there is that lies beyond the realm of thought. And it is not a question in the sense that he or anyone else can answer for you. It is an invitation to do the personal, internal investigation. In a sense he uses that higher reason to transcend itself. One of the yoga schools does the same, I believe, but I can't recall the name. Along the same lines there is a nice little book by Steven Harrison called The Question to Life's Answers in which he describes the fact that unanswered questions are alive and full of possibility whereas answers are dead. Once we answer a question we stop looking, stop being open. Anyway, I have my path and you have yours. I wish you well.

Not correct if A and B are not mutually exclusive categories. I can be both an asshole and a nice guy, depends when you catch me. The experiments are completely conclusive and not theoretical but rather experimental - do some reading on particle-wave experiments if you don't want to take my word for it. Too general to be an accurate statement, IMO. There's some very good work going on in physics. Maybe, maybe not. I'm surprised to hear you say this if you truly think science is "going up its own tailpipe." Here we can agree although I don't see it as the point of life, just a characteristic. For me they reveal the limitations of thought, logic, and reason. They are very valuable tools but to use your words, we are so much greater than we can even imagine [think] we can be. For me, they are an invitation to go beyond thought. This appears to have been John's intent based on his other writings and it is the invitation extended by most spiritual paths. That's where the work needs to be done, with the mind that wants to reject. Seeing that there is a limitation in the power of thought and logic, we may be willing to look beyond those. If your path is thought and logic and you have no interest in going beyond that, that is fine and it is your path. Then I wonder what spirituality means for you? This brings us back full circle to the start of this discussion where I asked: "Hi Karl, I don't mean to be argumentative but I am curious about what you think you can prove and how to go about that in the spiritual realm. Warm regards, Steve" That's true if we are discussing an analytical exercise. That's not where I'm coming from, nor was John.

Nope - both wave and particle properties exist in light and this has been verified many times experimentally. It's not that they are wrong, it's more the blind people and elephant thing... They don't see the whole picture - just like you and I don't see the whole picture. You're missing the point. John did not want us to remove those contradictions. For John those contradictions are pointing to a higher level of consciousness than the logic that is stymied by them. I base that on having read and listened to a fair amount of his work. And this speaks to the earlier point about creating our reality. We both read the same poem - to you it is an admonition for analytical reasoning and to me a pointer towards the non-conceptual. Anam Cara is a particularly good place to start if his work interests you.

Something I meant to address earlier - So does physics Is light a wave or particle? Or is physics not logical? The answer is - both and neither: If you simply use John's poem to prove your point, you are missing a great opportunity. He is asking us to embrace contradiction and see what that can teach us. He is not asking us to resolve the contradiction.

PS - this is probably my favorite thread on this site. Thank you CT

I can feel the air, the space, and the restfulness in this beautiful phrase. How eloquent, concise, and comprehensive all at once.

I'm glad you like the poem. Each of us creates our reality... or not, as you wish. Peace _/\_