Questioning some thoughts on "God" and human progress towards enlightenment

[tyler zambori]

original post gone bye bye

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[Marblehead]

During my lifetime I have observed that it is best to accept reality as it is (unless we want to change those things we can change) without adding anything to it nor subtracting anything from it.

 

Peace & Love!

[tyler zambori]

Can you please explain that a little more?

[Sloppy Zhang]

Can you divulge the name of this teacher? Sounds like a few people I've come across.

 

The rule of thumb, at least that I've heard, is learn from someone you want to become. Because, what you practice, you will become.

 

I hear a lot of people say stuff like, "well when you are that advanced, you just don't relate well with people who are so far below you."

 

...... Right.

 

Now look, I have my crazy eccentric moments. There are moments where people look at me like, "what the heck are you talking about?" I think it's safe to say that in those moments I don't relate to them, and they don't relate to me. But there is no arrogance anywhere in there. There is never a sense of inferiority/superiority. Just because we can't relate, doesn't mean there's some hierarchy, like I perceive something they don't in a situation.

 

It's just, we're on different pages, and that's all. With a high level teacher, they're maybe chapters apart. That doesn't mean that with time someone can't catch up to where they are, it just means that the teacher has a lot of spoilers

 

I find it very irresponsible how people use explanations like that as an excuse to act arrogant or treat people unkindly. If you are a teacher that is so perceptive, then you should be able to perceive how the student is feeling, and what a jerk you are being by acting arrogant and putting people (students or not) down.

 

Now, I guess there's a slight distinction you have to make, in that sometimes you need to separate the message from the teacher. Some very flawed people are giving a very pure message. So I will say that you may want to consider that.

 

HOWEVER, the other thing you must consider is, "how did that person get to be that way? When I get to his point, do I want to be that way? Did he get that way because of what he teaches, or something else?"

[Marblehead]

Can you please explain that a little more?

 

Not very well, I sure. But let's see what happens, Okay?

 

First, you spoke of God as if you had placed your own personal expectations on this deity. Okay, I do not hold to the concept of God or any other deities. And even if there were such entities, do you really think that they would care about your opinion?

 

It is my understanding that the purpose of enlightenment (whatever that is) isto gain wisdom so that we can live our life to its fullest potential. So yes, in this regard, enlightenment is important.

 

So what is enlightenment? Isn't it a personal journey with the goal of understanding our Self? Now, I won't place judgement on the importance of teachers because there are many who has the honest goal of helping others find their true Self. But the journey must be undertaken by the individual; the teacher is the guide providing the guide-posts.

 

If we find that the guide-post have all been put in the wrong places then we should remove ourself from the presence of that teacher. You have done that. Good. So do you look for another teacher, do you communicate on a forum such as this, do you strike out on your own? Your choice. At the moment you are with us here. That's good.

 

Test everything you have any doubts about. Even test what I am saying here. Find your own truths. But what you hear and see should not be added to nor subtracted from. And even question what you hear and see to make sure that they are not illusions or delusions. I'm not really speaking against illusions and delusions, it is just that we need to know those things in our life, our belief system, that are illusions and delusions. (But still, it is best to not have them as a part of our life.)

 

So basically, my little comment above was nothing more than an attempt to get you to look at "your" reality, where you are along your journey, where you wish to be, thoughts on how you will proceed in order to get there, without relying on a teacher (but get one if you feel it would help) or omniscient powers, etc.

 

Peace & Love!

[fizix]

Don't waste time with "why didn't God do this...that", don't believe that an enlightened teacher is the only path.

 

The Tao is the real teacher, and you cannot be given what you already have; it is something speechless, without a name. . . how could anyone, even an enlightened being, properly convey its entirety through a means as limited as words? A teacher can only show you the path, you have to tread it, and teachers come in my forums; the sage learns from the trees, sun and moon, wind, water, etc... One can find this thing called enlightenment without a teacher, and will wonder how the mysterious state could ever be given, when it's simply inherent and part of everything, and in fact so simple that the stillness of water could be perhaps the greatest teacher of man in all.

 

When you are one with the Tao, you are the Tao, the Tao is you, the Tao is all.

[tyler zambori]

yet more stuff gone bye bye.

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[Sloppy Zhang]

I'd rather not divulge who it is. I will say it's for sure you've never heard of him,

and that he is a Croatian living in Croatia - a culture of people who, I'm told,

love to go down to a coffee house and stand around yelling at each other. Not sit

calmly and talk pleasantly and have a nice sip of coffee, but stand around yell.

(my apologies to any Croatians present). So there are cultural and language differences

going here too, and English is not his native language.

 

I'm not so sure I agree that an enlightened person is automatically always

kind and humble no matter what. I agree with you that it is not so good

nor effective, to be arrogant, but I think there are examples of people who

actually got enlightened, and still make this error.

 

I have been a lot of thinking and observing about the quirks of enlightened people,

and have come to the conclusion that yes they can delude themselves about mundane

matters, and still be enlightened. For example on that "stripping the gurus" thread,

I learned that Vivekananda brainwashed himself into think that he would literally

convert the entire world to Hinduism, and had to continually revise that expectation

downward throughout his life. Also I have a book by one of his students, who quotes

Vivekananda a lot, and I noticed that Vivekananda had a rather "fire and brimstone"

approach that is rather reminiscent of a fundamentalist Christian approach. Does that

mean he was not really enlightened , or does it mean that he had personality quirks

in addition to enlightenment?

 

Also, another thing I've observed is how the belief in God differs between Hinduism and

Buddhism. OK, here's the thing: the beliefs are very different. Each religion has

members who have become enlightened. They keep those beliefs even after becoming

enlightened. So we end up with enlightened Hindus/Yogis who believe in a personal

God, and enlightened Buddhists who do not. How could this happen, if enlightened

people all have direct access to and knowledge of the TRUTH?

 

Here's what I think: They become indoctrinated with the belief structure of that religion

before they becomes enlightened, and then they keep it even after they become enlightened!

That is what I think. So being enlightened does not necessarily mean that one is very logical,

or really really scientific and open minded about things.

 

 

I am not defending arrogant teachers, I think it is very unworkable. But it

doesn't automatically mean such a teacher is not enlightened, and I really

do believe mine has something to offer. I have experienced it myself.

Even Alexander Berzin in "Relating to a Spiritual Teacher: Building a

Healthy Relationship" talks about the difficulties students can have in

dealing with a difficult teacher in an atmosphere in which the student is

pretty much prohibited from complaining. So I don't think it so uncommon

to find enlightened teachers who are not always charming and wonderful. I

think that the way it has worked, traditionally,is that pretty much anybody

who becomes enlightened is expected to teach, even if they don't really

have a natural talent for it. And this one doesn't really have a

natural talent for it, not by words, imo. I still choose to work with him,

because of the bond we already have, but in a very limited way. He is the one

who found a way to work with me that cuts out all the personality quirks, and

leaves me free to explore a religion that I find far more practical and workable.

I'm not so sure I want to go into more details about that.

 

No, I don't want to become arrogant like him. I'm remembering that the few times

I inadvertently used some ACOA (adult children of alcoholics) recovery methods

on him, just as if he were an alcoholic, it worked like a charm. it worked far better

than it worked on my alcoholic sister, who was reduced to screaming by my saying

"It's ok that you feel that way" over and over in one particular conversation. I

didn't realize until just recently that he really acts co-dependent in a lot of

ways, with people who are not his students, and whom he doesn't respect so much.

And if I had known it sooner, boy I would have known how to deal with him a whole

lot better, by words. That's ok, it's too bad I didn't realize it sooner, but

I can work more on my own recovery in the present.

 

Anyway, getting back to my original point/question, my line of thinking

is that maybe the Taoist concept of "the Tao" makes more sense, logically,

than that of a personal God who takes a personal interest in human efforts

at enlightenment - just going by these observations of mine. It's hard to

get over that idea, being raised Christian, but it seems more logical,

does it not? yeah, it does.

 

I'm just getting into this, just starting to read the TTC, and am liking the

TTC a lot.

 

Well the Tao that can be explained is not the true tao.

 

Enlightenment, ignorance.

 

Arrogance, humility.

 

All of these are dualities that are quite limited so neither of these can really be the full truth, can they?

 

Plus when you throw in change, there is a season for everything. Sometimes it's good to be humble and sometimes you gotta stand up and tell someone they don't got a clue

 

So who knows. Good to know I haven't met this person, because I don't have very high opinions of the people I've had in mind, despite my very high opinions of what some of them have accomplished.

[tyler zambori]

opinion changed like a LOT.

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[suninmyeyes]

I'd rather not divulge who it is. I will say it's for sure you've never heard of him,

and that he is a Croatian living in Croatia - a culture of people who, I'm told,

love to go down to a coffee house and stand around yelling at each other. Not sit

calmly and talk pleasantly and have a nice sip of coffee, but stand around yell.

(my apologies to any Croatians present). So there are cultural and language differences

 

 

 

:lol: ahahahahahahaha ,Tyler you made me laugh so much!Croatians going to coffee house and stand around yelling at each other.

Thats how it looks like to you looking through the glasses your culture shaped you.

We are of Mediterenian mentality with the twist and very lively (too much sometimes look at the history).And no we dont stand around shouting ,thats how the language and passionate way of communication may be percived by foreigners visiting Croatia.

Anyway I love the way you told above.And no offense taken of course.So funny.

I wonder who this guy is?

I dont belive in God or Tao etc..,but I love God- dont know how or why.Probably my mind explains expansion in my heart as love for God.But whats really happening and from where and to whom really I dont know.Maybe just something taking place,or ?

Thinking out loud.

So question everything ,Marblehead said it well in his post.

and try have some fun and laughter also .

You are exploring and doing lots already,I think you already know inside of you how to dance with your life.

[tyler zambori]

Nothing to see here. Move along.

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[suninmyeyes]

.

Edited November 6, 2010 by suninmyeyes

[goldisheavy]

I mean on the relationship between the two...

 

Ok ,so my teacher is really really arrogant, moreso with people who are

not his students, and who don't seem at all like good prospects.

He is not an evil cult leader type, he just doesn't have that schtick going,

not enough charisma for it. He has been known to cut off all the students

who aren't making progress and announce that he wants to be left alone

with his four real students, (I'm not one of the four), then quite a while

later come back to making a public appearance.

 

So I'm working up to a general thought here.. I figured out his personality

is a lot like a cross between J. Krishnamurti, and Alfred Korzybski.

As I Understand it, J. Krishnamurti would tell people to "just still the mind,"

and he would be impatient with people who couldn't understand it or do it, all

the while being clueless that people actually need more instruction than that.

This is exactly my teacher, this is why I'm here doing Taosim to actually

learn to get somewhere. No matter how times you tell people to "just

still the mind, just do it," it isn't going to happen by just saying so.

 

Good observation. And why can't people "just" still their minds? What stirs the mind? In a positive sense, we could say it is curiosity, and in the negative sense it is concern. Either way it is some level of discontent, which is not always a bad thing (for example you might not be content with slavery or ignorance, etc.). Driving discontent, positive and negative kinds of discontent, are foundational beliefs, values, and expectations. Or if you have a wide understanding of what a belief is, you can say it's all just driven by beliefs, because values are beliefs, and so are expectations and so are tacit assumptions and so on. These are just different ways to say "belief." These beliefs give a person his or her unique mentality (privately observed) and personality (publicly observed).

 

Now suppose you believe that your body is absolutely essential to your identity. And suppose there is news of an oncoming tsunami. In five minutes tsunami will be here. And someone tells you "just still your mind." Can you do it? No. Not honestly. Not sincerely. You can pretend to still it. You can try. But it won't work. It won't work because you have a concern. This concern is caused by your beliefs about yourself, your body, about the nature of the tsunamis and so on. If you try to mechanically force your mind into stillness without modifying these beliefs, you will have an unresolved concern shoved into the background at best, or in the worst case, you'll just continue to have a disturbed mind.

 

There are some people who can be calm in the middle of a tsunami. These people have different beliefs about themselves, tsunamis and about reality. It is these different beliefs that allow them to remain calm. It's not just a mechanical skill.

 

A good teacher will understand this and explain it like I am explaining to you now. And yes, if you think I am implying I am a good teacher, you are correct. There is no way to say this with any more modesty, and so I don't bother.

 

So there seems to be a general idea, in Yoga/Vedanta/HInduism

and etc., that we are here on this planet to work towards our own enlightenment,

and we probably really need the help of an enlightened teacher to help us

get there. So if this is so, then why doesn't God give these teachers

close personal supervision in how they teach people? Why does God

make himself subservient to dysfunctional cultural influences and

perosnality quirks that essentiually cause the teachers to be clueless

about how to get through to people at the basic level? Or for that

matter, why doesn't God just teach people individually his or her own

self? That would cut out a lot of problems for sure..

 

I mean seriously, if human enlightenemnt is the point of the whole game,

then why leave it to such a chance? Or could it be....that "God"

actually doesn't have a human personality with a personal interest

in what humans do or do not do to gain enlightenment? And that

is why we are left with struggling with cultural dysfunction and

personality quirks, on top of our own problems? yeah.

 

There is no God. Period. People have made up the idea of God, but whatever people imagine as "God" is not real and doesn't exist, because the ideas people have for God are self-contradictory and logically inconsistent. Even if such a thing did somehow exist, you'd not be able to recognize it or sense it, as it would make no sense to you and you'd have nothing to connect with.

 

God is a blind alley. You should focus on real problems in life. What's your problem? Something hurts? You are anxious? You worry? What are your worries? These are the real problems. Get to the root of these problems. What is causing them? Do these problems have something in common? Just do a down to earth analysis of your situation. Give yourself an honest self-appraisal. A moment of reflection. I think just one honest moment of reflection, without inventing things and making things up, without relying on what you have read from various books/teachers/forums (yea, without this post), just between you and you, without a hint of pretense, just discuss with yourself what your real problem is. Not what people tell you your problem is. But what you think and feel in your bones it is. Then you'll be half-way toward enlightenment just from the one reflection alone.

[sifusufi]

This is your Brain

 

This your Brain on God

 

I may be bias however I believe V.S. Ramachandran is cutting edge.

 

Check these out if you will

 

Thanks everybody for

Keeping life interesting,

Robbie

[tyler zambori]

It's nobody's business any more.

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[3bob]

Well think of a high voltage electrical buss, lets say a trillion volts with a bascically unlimited flow of amps... now just reach out and grab that electricity with both of your hands soaked with salt water while standing on wet concrete; "God" direct can be like that. Now imagine standing close to that same electrical buss but not grabbing onto it while also seeing that there is a an enlightened person who is in fact holding onto that buss but by some mystery he or she is not being melted or vaporized... "Christ" is like that, and also way wise enough to protect you from grabbing more than you can hold onto - in the sense of connecting you with just the right amount of voltage, thus while needed that Being is acting just like an electrical transformer for you to the level that doesn't get you melted or vaporized.

 

Amen and

Om

Edited May 31, 2010 by 3bob

[Aetherous]

To the original poster:

 

Or for that

matter, why doesn't God just teach people individually his or her own

self?

 

I think that happens...maybe not the man himself descending from the clouds, but we can learn things from paying attention.

 

For instance, interpreting your own dreams...or doing what feels right to you...

[tyler zambori]

never mind it all.

Edited July 26, 2011 by tyler zambori

[goldisheavy]

Saying there is no God is a belief. Saying there is a God is a belief. Don't you get it,

 

I do get it. Belief in God is superfluous. It doesn't enrich anything. It doesn't improve life. It doesn't explain anything at all. It produces fear, anxiety and confusion, and it serves as a context for manipulation by others.

 

Not believing in God is also a belief. And in my opinion, it's a better belief that leads to a better life. There are less distractions that way, because there is no all-powerful entity to blame and to appeal to.

 

I'm saying that even enlightened people do not necessarily rise above this situation.

 

That's what I'm saying. The difference between an enlightened man and an unenlightened one is that an enlightened man understands the nature of beliefs and is not confused. Unenlightened one doesn't fully appreciate the power and the nature of beliefs, and doesn't feel free to select for oneself a better set of beliefs.

 

 

They (enlightened people) get indoctrinated at the beginning, by whatever beleif sysytem, and keep it no

matter what they experience afterwards.

 

That's not true. It is possible to rise above your beliefs, no matter what you're indoctrinated with. Indoctrination is weighty and influential, but it is not all-powerful.

 

I would agree that at the beginning it's better to be focused on the practice than on

ideas about things, because being focused on ideas about things doesn't get you anywhere.

 

You enjoy being helpless, don't you? You like being mistreated. That's why you keep going back to a teacher who doesn't care about you. But if someone gave you good bread and water, you'd spit on that person. That's because you don't think you deserve better.

Edited May 31, 2010 by goldisheavy

[tyler zambori]

I do get it. Belief in God is superfluous. It doesn't enrich anything. It doesn't improve life. It doesn't explain anything at all. It produces fear, anxiety and confusion, and it serves as a context for manipulation by others.

 

Not believing in God is also a belief. And in my opinion, it's a better belief that leads to a better life. There are less distractions that way, because there is no all-powerful entity to blame and to appeal to.

 

 

 

That's what I'm saying. The difference between an enlightened man and an unenlightened one is that an enlightened man understands the nature of beliefs and is not confused. Unenlightened one doesn't fully appreciate the power and the nature of beliefs, and doesn't feel free to select for oneself a better set of beliefs.

 

 

You enjoy being helpless, don't you? You like being mistreated. That's why you keep going back to a teacher who doesn't care about you. But if someone gave you good bread and water, you'd spit on that person. That's because you don't think you deserve better.

 

Please stay off of my thread. I don't want to hear from you.

There, I reported you to the moderators. I hope they do something.

How rude.

Edited May 31, 2010 by tyler zambori

[goldisheavy]

Oh, and one more thing. Being enlightened and being helpful are two different things. Someone can be wizard in mathematics but can't explain even a simple arithmetic to a stumbling student. Someone else might only know arithmetic, but is able to explain that arithmetic so well, that even a cow can understand. Being able to teach is a separate skill.

 

On top of this, there are people with amazing abilities who are neither enlightened and nor can they teach.

 

So again it goes back to you. What is useful for you? Do you just want to be next to someone you think is enlightened, just feeling close? Is that all? Or do you want to associate with someone who can actually help you? Some people are fully happy just putting the person they think is enlightened next to oneself, kinda like a little statue. Like a lucky charm. They don't care about understanding anything. They don't want to practice anything. They just want the lucky charm to be next to them. And some people think this is actually good, this is merit-building. I think it's a waste of time. It's like sleeping on some sacred text -- it doesn't make you more enlightened. It just serves as a bad pillow.

 

What matters is not how someone is on the inside. What matters is how that someone is able to affect you. If an idiot can effect enlightenment in you, go with the idiot. If a wise man can only effect confusion in you, avoid the wise man. You might need to follow some street sweeper or some regular Joe. Maybe become friends with a politician. Something like that. That might be better for you.

 

Oh, and I'm not telling you what to do and how to be. By all means, do what you want. I know if I was suffering like you, I'd want that someone to tell me what I am telling you.

[RongzomFan]

There is no such thing as God the Creator. If there was, It could not interact with our reality in the slightest. Everything that is dependently orginated is empty.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prat%C4%ABtyasamutp%C4%81da

[tyler zambori]

Unfortuanetey the Buddhists are starting to highjack my thread.

I don't see a way to lock it myself. Some forums will let you do that.

I'll ask...

[fizix]

ah...nothing more pointless than a God debate.

 

The light will forever shine, yet some sadly choose to live in the dark...

Edited May 31, 2010 by fizix

[tyler zambori]

ah...nothing more pointless than a God debate.

 

The light will forever shine, yet some sadly choose to live in the dark...

 

Thank you, I'm not looking for advice in that area right now.