Otis

-

Have you seen "Children of Men"? It posits a future, after mankind suddenly becomes barren, and stops bearing children. Without hope for a future, society just crumbles.

That's my understanding. The faithful, upon death, become like Angels and get their own planet to be Lord of. I think there's also some serious UFO rapture stuff going on in Mormonism, but I don't know many details.

Nice image/parable.

Good response. I find authenticity as a relative thing still useful, in terms of considering my practice, but I agree: there is no standard, yardstick or fixed bearing.

So Mormons get their own planet, but only for a little while?

Awesome! That wave is straight out of a disaster movie! What a ride!

When traditional religion defines "the nature of the world", I always see it as just a metaphor. My choice is to remain agnostic as to the absolute nature of the world. I don't think it serves me to believe how people are, or what forces ultimately guide the universe. Why? Because I am my ego. And any such belief just reinforces me into thinking that "I" know. That "knowing" inevitably gets in my way of surrendering, which is the one action that I feel I (my ego) can do towards awakening. If I increase my determination, I increase my ego. If I gird my will, I strengthen my ego. I can't force "waking up" by any of the forceful methods of me, the ego; I can only make room for it, get out of its way. I am not trying to be a master of the world. My aim is merely to surrender my beliefs and will, so my body can take over, and live its life, without "my" interference. I don't need to be my own master anymore, and am ready to resume my role as just part of the mechanism, which my experience suggests is a lot more fun and joyful than it sounds. My body knows how to live life fully; I am just overseeing the transition to let it do so.

OK, if you're calling out "authenticity" as a myth, can you explain why?

One thing that I think is tough about nondual writers: they are writing to be understood by egos, not by enlightened beings. So, how would one write for egos, in such a way as to suggest the path that is already there in front of them, without getting the egos to fixate on the words, and start making a religion out of them? The best answer, I think, is people like Tolle. Live prophets can be understood, but once they're dead, only the shell of their truth tends to remain (and it becomes ossified). So we need more live prophets who "get it". If we don't have new modern interpreters, then we get stuck with the words from the past, and religion continually shows, that we get those words wrong. We deify the old masters, instead of listening to them. We turn concepts like "luminous emptiness" or "the kingdom of heaven" into a divine state, instead of a normal, physiological one. We make Qi esoteric and tantra forbidden. We make the spiritual knowledge into a "closed door" teaching, letting in only the chosen few. Modern interpreters (can) break down the b.s., and help us re-focus on how these ancient concepts apply to our lives now. I think we should applaud those who bring light into others' lives, instead of rejecting them, because they don't sound exactly how we think they should.

Another great share, Ulises, thanks! Who else's path does it make sense for me to follow, than my own? So why spend all my time trying to learn how to follow a traditional (someone else's) path, when my own is inside of me, all the time, begging for me to pay attention? Once I have a taste of my own path, then tradition becomes useful, as a series of mirrors, to help find clarity along the way. But if I choose tradition over my own path, then I am just choosing to be programmed by new conditioning.

I see what you mean.

I won't insist it for anyone else, but personally, the mysterious unknown seems like the only reasonable path for me. Otherwise, I will spend the rest of my life in a "shrinking-V" life (living within smaller and smaller opportunity), instead of an "expanding-V" life. Being comfortable and safe has its place, which is why I'm an incrementalist, but the "known" does not feel like the soil for growth, to me. Growth is my only pole star, because all other points of reference seem like illusions.

Very true. If I am too focused on the mythical "tomorrow", then I will never appreciate and experience "right now". That said, I am not ready yet to "live every day like it's my last day" (a related concept). If I lived that way, I'd never plan or build anything, never manage my energy from day to day, never work for a long-term solution. I would only be focused on experiences, and less so on deepening relationships. Why stretch or cultivate or save money or raise a child, if I deny the existence of a "tomorrow" that will benefit from my efforts today?

I think "enlightenment as an attainment" is an unfortunate story, that serves no useful purpose. The story creates an impenetrable and inscrutable barrier between the "haves" and "have nots", without creating any more illumination than that. It creates a horrible trap, for those who think they have arrived (the trap of certainty, of self-importance). It also entraps the seekers in a goose chase after a future distant goal, instead of encouraging them to focus on accepting the world and themselves here and now. Do we become compassionate by focusing on attainment, and hoping that it opens our hearts? Or do we just practice opening our hearts? Do we become clear by focusing on attainment, and hoping it dispels our ego? Or do we just start letting go of unnecessary beliefs, and feel ourselves becoming lighter, thereby? If we seek to escape life, become omniscient, or rise above other people, these goals IMO will cripple the path of becoming lighter. Becoming lighter is not about accomplishments or winning; IME it comes from being fiercely honest, self-skeptical, fearless and loving.

If "convenience" is the aim, then it is problematic. But if precision is the aim, then it seems useful. We all know that no one word will accurately reflect the concept, and no one concept will accurately reflect what the concept points at. Fine-tuning our meanings seems like a good way of getting rid of (some of) the non-essential.

Thanks. I can only do partial handstand push-ups, but I didn't try them in that environment. In time, maybe...

You are far too reasonable, Marblehead, to disagree with for long. And yes, I agree harmony is a more elegant and accurate concept than balance. I will have to start including it in my posts, if you don't mind.

Excellent shares, Gerard! I think there's also room on this thread for free-running, no? And free-style dance?

My read on the "causes no harm" phrase is: sages walk lightly on the earth, leaving as little impression on it, in one way or the other. No harm is caused, because almost nothing is caused. They are gentle with life.

Ditto on the "life is suffering" bit. Also, the unfortunate translation of the Pali word for "clinging/craving" into the English word "desire", creating a puritanical anti-desire myth that I don't think is true or useful. Also, in early conversations, I heard people use "the middle way" as if it meant: "live a moderate life". Whereas, I now understand it to mean: "don't take anything too literally, because opposite ideas are often true at the same time". In fact, the "middle way" is exactly about this topic, living/understanding in the gray.

There is no way that I could possibly know if someone else was enlightened. However, I do think Tolle is right-on, in most (if not all) of what he says. His books have a lot in common with Buddhist and Taoist teachings (and he gives them their due), but I wouldn't say that he's "ripped them off" in any way. That implies a dishonesty that I haven't seen any hint of. Yes, he makes a living from teaching and book sales, but that's also true of people on this forum. Are we to imply that any one who makes a living off of their gifts is dishonest? I don't think the sutras are particularly approachable for a Western audience. The authors who can translate those ideas into a modern metaphor, and who can reach people living a Western lifestyle; I think they're doing a great service to mankind. Authors like Don Miguel Ruiz, Paul Ferrini, Benjamin Hoff, etc., help build a bridge of understanding, to help disentangle modern neuroses, and lead readers toward the lessons of the old traditions. The purists hate on them, but I think that's being attached to tradition, and putting it over compassion. I'm sure there were people who hated on Buddha, as well, when he was teaching, because he probably seemed to be stealing from the old masters.

And apropos of posts on handstands, danger, and finding balance: Edit: actually, I held back from the center point on most of these handstands, precisely because I couldn't afford to fail.

Marblehead, you know that I do agree with you on most things. In fact, you are probably the poster on TTB that I most often agree with. I do have a coupla niggling (but potentially important) bones to pick with you, though, if you don't mind. One is: in your response to Rookie, you lumped "idealism" in with "mysticism" and "imagination". But I contend that they do not fit together, at all. Idealism is pure delusion; it is belief trying to force itself on reality. Mysticism is about experiencing without beliefs, so it is the opposite of idealism. Imagination is just a tool of the brain to help us venture into the unknown. If we stick to a mystical path, we will have to engage our imaginations, but not our idealism. Secondly: the "usefulness" test is a good one, perhaps the best one I know. However, it is also easy to dismiss very useful input, just because it doesn't immediately seem useful. Thirdly: yes, it is wise to be aware of dangerous animals, and to give them wide berth. But it is also very true that caution and "false positives" can stop possibility, long before danger actually begins. This is part of why I got into stunts, a couple years ago, because I had lived removed from risk, and all the limitations that I saw were imaginary. As I started exploring further into the unknown of my own capacity for not freaking out, I realized that I was able to explore a great deal of seemingly dangerous situations, without hurting myself. And I am sure you will agree that balance is necessary in each case. I guess the question is: how do we know where the balance lies?

Excellent observations, Stigweard, and thank you for sharing your own experience of discovering the sense of Qi. I quoted the above paragraph, because I think that it is also one of the hallmarks of "living in the unknown". New freedom tends to breed some temporary clumsiness. You seem to have experienced a pendulum swing, where you went "too far out there", and then self-corrected. That is, I think, the sign that you were living in the unknown. An example of this that I often see is: people trying to learn handstands. Because people tend to be afraid of falling on their backs, beginners rarely go all the way to the center point, where balance is easy. They tend to hang back, biased toward the face side, so they won't tumble. They are stuck within the comfort of the known, and therefore cannot go far enough to find the easy balance point. When people ask me for handstand advice, I suggest that they find some place to practice, in which they have no fear of falling, either social or physical. If failing is not the wrong thing to do, but instead is just a necessary part of learning, then it becomes much easier to move into the unknown. That's a big part of why I practice surrendering my need to do it right. Because I learn a lot faster, and a lot more true to my own system, if I don't worry about "right", rather: just practice with what is available, right now.