Nikolai1

Michael - so there is a certain irony around our opinions. We hold them lightly, we see that there is a lot to be said against them. Tomorrow, and what tomorrow brings, may mean that I no longer have the same opinion?

What is the difference?

So something inside of us senses that we have been pulled off-track.. We see that we have formed a fixed opinion about events. And then we centre ourselves by being sceptical about our own opinion. So having an opinion IS a disturbance of the peace?

"The challenge on the Middle way is that extremists on both sides only see their enemy behind you." I think this is a very revealing quote. The person walking the middle path is against taking views. But those who don't walk the Middle Way operate in a world of dichotomy. "If you do not agree with me then you must logically subscribe to the opposite view...the view I have just refuted." The Middle Way is literally unthinkable. It is what we are following when thoughts cease to guide our action. But why does this bring us peace?

This is how I've always understood the Middle Way as it applies to the question of individual selfhood and it clearly ties in to the insights of the Three Marks of Existence. But is there any suggestion in those sutras dealing with the Middle Way that seeing things from both persepectves is itself healing? For example, that suffering can only happen if we have become attached to a specific viewpoint, and that release from suffering shall come when we learn to remain sceptical on that viewpoint?

Thank you everyone for your contributions. In Ancient Greece the philosopher Pyrrho talked about the mental imperturbabiity (ataraxia) which comes when we see that both sides of any given argument are equivalent. The technique is to try and make both sides of the argument as strong as possible until we see that to fall on either side is impossible and the only possibility is epoche - total suspension of judgement. Can this be likened to the Middle Way, perhaps Nagarjuna's slant on it. Do the sutras talk about a state of peace and repose that comes when we are no longer fixated on a certain viewpoint?

If we take Nagarjuna's Middle Way, which is about avoiding extreme views, how specifically does that bring about the peace and tranquility of awakening? What is the process? How is the relationship between intellectual state and affective state made? Is there a sutra which talks specifically about this? Thanks

Hi Apech - do you draw a distinction between Buddha's Middle Way and Nagarjuna's?

I don't think you realise,dreambliss, what an inspiring writer you are!

That's interesting Kubba , what kind of change?

When we have an inner thought or emotion it always manifests as micro-adjustments of facial expression. The person whose inner life is calmer will naturally have a calm dignified expression, noble and unruffled. The maelstrom within is compensated with a gaze that is mild, wide and comprehensively takes in all that is happening in that moment. The less happening on the inside, the more we can take in from the outside, through the eyes. This combination of repose in the face and wisdom in the eyes is noticed by everyone.

The longer I spend mixing in spiritual circles the more I'm noticing two different types of seeker, who have two different ideas about 'finding'. I wonder if this resonates with you guys? The Healed The first is a person who, for whatever reason, has suffered greatly in their life. They have turned to religion as a means to heal their suffering, and very often they succeed. After success has come, they are the passionate advocates for whatever path they have taken, but they are basically just everyday, ordinary people. Their practice has enabled them to go from sub-average, to average levels of happiness, and they can't really conceive of anything higher than that. The Wholed The second type has probably had a good, stable and happy start to life, They are emotionally robust and cheerful enough. They are however plagued by a subtly existential malaise: 'there must be more to life?' With practice, these people are able to lift themselves above the normal levels of happiness, wisdom and ethics. They become teachers and examples to others. They have moved from average to above average. The problem is: during the seeking phase these the types of people inevitably come into contact with each other. And because they haven't gained perspective on their own path, they tend to view each other as peers. And then the disputes begin: For example, the Healed don't tend to have the stability to question their own chosen teacher, path etc. They can seem dogmatic to the Wholed, who don't panic when things they need are brought into question. Or, the Healed may think the path is about coming to terms with and accepting our imperfections. For the wholed, the aim is to remove imperfections altogether. These are just two examples, but I think many of the disputes we all encounter can be explained by this split. I shouls also say that many people, and these perhaps make the best teachers as all, start needing healing but don't stop when they get it but carry on to become whole. What do you all think?

Well said!

Wonderful Manitou thank you! You know you said that you often thought you had 'found it' - how did it feel when you realised you hadn't? Was it frightening, disappointing? I wonder if there is some unpleasant emotion associated with moving on, and this why people are loathe to do it.

For me, prayer, and the fact that prayer works is something that we need to discover in ourselves and for ourselves. The moment we try and concoct a theory behind the process we run the risk of alienating people. I for one see no difference between the 'God is listening' theory and the 'words uttered with intent create reality' theory, but I don't like to impose this woolly relativism on people who have definite ideas. All I know, myself, is that prayer works!

Hi Manitou, Yes, I don't for a moment think these categories are anything other than very vague generalisations that may resonate for some people. My own main criticism of my idea I've presented is the fact that there are many people who pass from suffering to personal healing...and don't stop there! They go on to become whole people and agents of healing themselves. Why did I write it? I think many of us understand and accept that many, if not most, people simply aren't drawn to the spiritual way of life, Fair enough. But what can be confusing is when we meet people who are very passionate about the religious life, and yet have a radically different idea about what that is and should be. All that we consider right, they consider to be wrong. Hence the theory as to why a person can be passionately religious, and yet not feel the need for the higher moral life or spiritual vision. They are content to leave all that to prophets, and wish only that the rest of us don't get too far above our station. Some of us recognise great spiritual genius in men and women who in their day were persecuted by their own brethren. This sad situation is mirrored in all the disputes we have amongst each other, even on this website. But, actually, this website is not bad at all in this respect. We all freely discuss high notions about, say, Christianity. Were we to speak these ideas aloud in our local church we would be met quite often with a shocked non-comprehension. For those of us who may at some point start to step out of our coterie and start teaching to men and women on the street, it is useful to understand the different styles of spiritual motivation so that we can sympathise with them all the more.

Hi Manitou Yes I think so too, and I fully believe in your healing gifts and have seen something of the same in myself - self-healing I mean. I think the attitude that only Jesus can do such things is the attitude I'm talking about in many religious people. The have been Healed by the path they are on, but they do not think that healing is something that they can do themselves. They believe in the moral perfection of the prophets, but do not expect the same of themselves. The key point of the Healed, as I paint them here, is that they appear to the Wholed to have stopped their spiritual development prematurely. Of course, this is simply not true to the Healed. The spiritual ambitions of the Wholed are, to them, unrealistic and proud. The I AM consciousness is something I would associate with the Wholed rather than the Healed, again, as I define them here. The suggestion that we somehow partake of God's person would be totally blasphemous to the religious mind of the Healed. The Healed are still highly religious people, but their relationship with the Divine principle is dualistic, and that is how they want it to stay and believe it should stay if we are to avoid blasphemy.

Seth, Yes you are right. But you must also see that your OP also looks like blatant sexism, which is why I found it so offensive. I understand that may not have been your intention, but it definitely comes across as the wost kind of sexist comment which is when the writer is unconscious of it in themselves. I saw the whole thing like a car crash in slow motion. I just wanted the thread to close before the whole sorry spectable unravelled, which has included a totally unfair suspension. Anyway, glad to see you end it now.

For those who are on a higher spiritual path, the 3 Ps are unlikely to present themselves as some kind of defined project - like earning your stripes as a Seal. The moment a specific idea comes up for consideration, it is always going to be subject to all sorts of doubts and criticisms. With time we will come to realise that every moment is that defined project. Whatever life brings we affirm, we enjoy and we believe in. Our 3Ps will forever remain undefinable, yet our attitude to our whole life will akin to the passionate attitude the artist has for his work, or the Navy Seal for his work. I understand that this might be a bit of a disappointing answer. But bear in mind. That Navy Seal might be writing books about his technique, but rest assured, there will be areas of his life where he is completely unable to put his principles into practice. There will be things that are required of him on a daily basis, that he hates and finds total drudgery. It does not occur to him that he must accept what is and learn to love and accept it. When we lack a specific directions in life, we can very envious of those who do. But actually, your life and your tolerance for all of your circumstnces means that you aren't as bad off as you think.

Time for Seth to fall on his sword methinks.

Come back Karl - all is forgiven!

As I said on post 2, this thread has Pit written all over it and should never have been posted at all.

It's a good job Seth is here to look after the womenfolk. They are too weak themselves and the rest of us would love to defend them but don't have a sword.

Inanity will creep into any discussion, but we should try not to have it at the core of the OP argument. One for the Pit?

An important trait of the first kind - the Healed - is the sense that their own search has ended. They suffered, they found truth, and their suffering ceased. They may well be unable to conceive of any further spiritual development either necessary or possible. They have found everything they needed, and wish only to give others the same opportunity. Hence, they are passionate advocates for the specific path they took. They are untroubled by their anger, their upsets, their disputes. They consider these part of the human condition and the notion that we might be free of them is idealistic moonshine. They are fond of the acceptance teachings. if we get anger just accept it and don't feel too much guilt about it. Morally they appear as ordinary citizens, despite having religion as an extremely important part of their identity. Intellectually too, they are satisfied with the conventions of their time. The interest in the paranormal that we see in those with supernormal spiritual ambitions is also dismissed as illusion. Only figures like the good Lord Jesus can perform miracles, and to suppose that you and I might do the same is either gross pride or madness.