The Nature of Self

[Aaron]

You seem to know oh so much do you?

 

Just because I study Buddhism; DOES NOT mean, that I am naive or blind to what happens in its history or is going on in some of the monasteries. I just choose not to focus on these negative events.

 

You go on and on about being compassionate and loving towards your fellow human beings, so I ask you this: Can you not only feel remorse for the victims of this abuse, but ALSO for the ones committing these acts? I am not justifying these actions, but I feel remorse for both parties because: The ones who are committing these acts, that are causing such harm to the victims, are playing out their own karma. They are accruing more negative karma for themselves, which will only lead to suffering sooner or later.

 

I ask again: Can you feel remorse for both the victims and victimizers?

 

Its like as Jesus Christ said:

Matthew 5:43 Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.

 

Matthew 5:44 But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;

 

Luke 6:27 But I say unto you which hear, Love your enemies, do good to them which hate you,

 

 

 

 

Hello Jack,

 

I was going to message you, but I think you brought up an important topic that needs to be addressed. In regards to sexual predators within the monasteries, the point of my argument (and own opinion) was that religions do not ultimately heal deviancy, and they do not help someone transcend who they actually are.

 

In another thread I've commented on compassion for others, including sexual offenders. My argument isn't that we shouldn't show them compassion, but that we need to be sure that they do not cause any more harm and that those who have allowed them to cause harm are held accountable.

 

Compassion isn't necessarily forgiving others when they do something wrong, sometimes it's teaching them that they've done something wrong through correction, other times it's ensuring that they don't cause anymore harm, for their own sake and others.

 

There aren't very many black and white topics out there, but I think when it comes to sex offenders, regardless of where they are, it's very black and white. We, as compassionate individuals, are responsible for ensuring that they do not harm the innocent. This doesn't mean killing them or imprisoning them for life, some prisons are reporting that they have around an 85% success rate in treating sex offenders who actively participate in their treatment.

 

Just a request, if anyone wants to talk about this, could you start a new topic and message me? I would be happy to discuss this with you, but I don't want to sidetrack this thread anymore than it already has been.

 

Aaron

Edited May 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Aaron]

"From my own personal beliefs" "My current beliefs" "Again in my opinion I believe" "From what I believe it to be"

 

Who's "beliefs" are these? Where do these "beliefs" come from?

 

If you can really, truly, let go of all these "beliefs:" THEN you can talk about "seeing things as it is" or "seeing things as they are."

 

Until then, your only spinning your own wheels and talking nonsense.

 

Hello Jack,

 

I agree with you, it's only by letting go of beliefs that we can really experience things as it is, in fact I think it was mentioned previously. The purpose of my practice is to get back to the original nature, to understand what we are at our fundamental basic level, but there are experiences I've had that lead me to believe that certain things are real, even if I cannot prove them to you. For instance I do believe the spirit is eternal, even if the mind and body aren't. I had this belief before I learned about Buddhism and Taoism and it was this belief that led me away from Christianity and caused me to examine other philosophies.

 

It's been two decades since I first had that spiritual experience and as time goes on I've begun to examine my life, how the experience of self relates to me, rather than the philosophy surrounding the nature of one's self. When I talk about the mind-body-soul being one, it's because I feel it on a deep level, but also I can see it on an intellectual level.

 

I think being done with beliefs doesn't mean that we cease to have opinions and ideas, but rather that we examine the world and from that examination take our ideas from how we experience the world. So these days, though there may be some philosophies that have led me to lean in one direction or the other, I do believe my general practice is becoming one devoid of dogma and religious ideology and rather one based on the very basic human experience as I know it.

 

Anyways, I think you've made a good point and I do think it's what we should all aspire to, examine our beliefs, understand where they come from, so that we can decide whether or not they are valid in relation to our own human experience.

 

Aaron

Edited May 4, 2011 by Twinner

[manitou]

It's an odd phenomenon, this inner journey. When we do get to the point where we are no longer concerned with beliefs, which are a conclusion of the mind, the Knowing takes over because it is being taught from the inner entity (for lack of a better phrase). But the funny thing is that when we share our own self-awarenesses, the product of this inner dynamic, on this forum, somebody is always quick to want to refer you to a book.

 

Books are wonderful. I've been reading them forever. But I've sort of sworn off them for now. Life (this inner manifestation that I call my life) is bringing to me exactly what I need to continue the honing of my inner cultivation. Life is the lesson. The guy cutting you off in traffic is the lesson. The long line is the lesson. The leaky pipe is the lesson (as I recently and dramatically learned).

 

I think we get to a particular point sometimes, when we need to stop inputting stuff into our brains. By reading a book, you are spending time with another person's mind. As much as they may try and cater the understanding to your brain, it can never be truly done as the lens through which each one of us interprets the information is based upon different truths.

 

But where I'm going with this is the well of Knowing, once the sight is developed. Beliefs then fade into the air, they are replaced with substantive knowledge of experience from the inner journey. It is difficult to put this type of Knowing into words; but it seems to dwell somewhere way deep inside and when needed, it is there. It is an absolute channel, actually.

 

Beliefs are merely conclusions, and usually there is ego riding on beliefs. With Knowing, it doesn't matter if someone agrees or disagrees. You just Know.

[Aaron]

It's an odd phenomenon, this inner journey. When we do get to the point where we are no longer concerned with beliefs, which are a conclusion of the mind, the Knowing takes over because it is being taught from the inner entity (for lack of a better phrase). But the funny thing is that when we share our own self-awarenesses, the product of this inner dynamic, on this forum, somebody is always quick to want to refer you to a book.

 

Books are wonderful. I've been reading them forever. But I've sort of sworn off them for now. Life (this inner manifestation that I call my life) is bringing to me exactly what I need to continue the honing of my inner cultivation. Life is the lesson. The guy cutting you off in traffic is the lesson. The long line is the lesson. The leaky pipe is the lesson (as I recently and dramatically learned).

 

I think we get to a particular point sometimes, when we need to stop inputting stuff into our brains. By reading a book, you are spending time with another person's mind. As much as they may try and cater the understanding to your brain, it can never be truly done as the lens through which each one of us interprets the information is based upon different truths.

 

But where I'm going with this is the well of Knowing, once the sight is developed. Beliefs then fade into the air, they are replaced with substantive knowledge of experience from the inner journey. It is difficult to put this type of Knowing into words; but it seems to dwell somewhere way deep inside and when needed, it is there. It is an absolute channel, actually.

 

Beliefs are merely conclusions, and usually there is ego riding on beliefs. With Knowing, it doesn't matter if someone agrees or disagrees. You just Know.

 

Hello Manitou,

 

I can understand your aversion to books. The reason I mentioned Allan Watts "The Book" is because if I didn't know any better, I would've assumed you had read it. Much of what it talks about is the idea that we are God asleep and the process of being and also becoming aware, not only physically, but experientially, of our existence as God. No need to read it, I just thought you might gain some insight.

 

My own belief is that, even though we should define our own beliefs, as I mentioned, we shouldn't dismiss those who came before. We shouldn't stop learning because we think no one knows anything, or we've learned as much as we can, and the only way we can learn now is to experience it for ourself. Many people have learned magnificent things that they are more than willing to share, but if you close yourself off to that, whether it is pride or ego, then you deprive yourself of that source of knowledge.

 

That's one of the reasons I disagree with the notion of giving up ideas and beliefs entirely, because it says that everyone who has lived before us has not learned anything of value, that only we can learn what is valuable. That's almost like saying, "I am the center of the universe and the universe revolves around me."

 

I can only speak for myself, but if I took that approach I would've never been able to achieve sobriety because I didn't know how to get sober, it was only through the guidance of others, and through their shared experience that I was finally able to understand what sobriety was about and what I needed to do to achieve it.

 

Anyways, you're free to give up on books and knowledge, but I think there's this idea that somehow thinking is bad that is misunderstood by the Western World. They hear phrases like, "be done with learning and you will have no more vexation" and believe that it's telling people to stop learning, when that's not it at all, it's talking about learning for the sake of learning, amassing knowledge with no real purpose.

 

Anyways, I'll leave it there. I didn't mean to offend you by recommending you read "The Book". I appreciate your opinion and you're free to have it.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I wanted to add that I in no way believe one shouldn't begin to define their own understanding of the world through their experience as I mentioned to Jack, but rather that we can do that and still learn at the same time. We just need to be able to examine things critically to determine what is valid to our experience and what isn't.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

Speaking in the relative sense here: I know, that I am at a very low level of realization and that there are those with more experience than me, whose realization goes further. There is definitely a "ladder" so to speak, of differing levels of insight.

Is it possible, however, that there is no such ladder?

 

For example, how would you rate Mickey Mantle vs. Einstein vs. Gandhi vs. Mozart? Each has his own brand of genius. They are skilled in very different areas, with only a little cross-over. They certainly are not on the same ladder.

 

So too, I think that Simple Jack and Twinner and Manitou and so on, each has their own brand of genius. Each of us has experiences, insights and wisdom to share with each other. We are not two-dimensional hierarchical beings. The ladder is only an illusion.

[Otis]

"From my own personal beliefs" "My current beliefs" "Again in my opinion I believe" "From what I believe it to be"

 

Who's "beliefs" are these? Where do these "beliefs" come from?

 

If you can really, truly, let go of all these "beliefs:" THEN you can talk about "seeing things as it is" or "seeing things as they are."

 

Until then, your only spinning your own wheels and talking nonsense.

I agree, but only to a point.

 

For Aaron to admit that what he's saying is "belief" as opposed to "reality" is already an enlightened step. Too many people mistake their inner simulacra for the real thing, and will insist to their dying breath that they are describing "actual reality" instead of the contents of their heads.

 

However, when it comes to "seeing things as they are", I don't see how anyone can do that. We can see things with less crap in the foreground, but we're still limited by being a singular organism, with a specific set of senses that we evolved into. Objectivity is an asymptotic goal; we can get closer and closer to it, but never reach it. And there are no omniscient beings around to (dis)confirm how close we got to actual truth. So it's always a big question mark.

 

To me, "seeing things as they are" merely means seeing my own limitations as an ego, studying a simulacrum inside my head that is created by electrochemical impulses in my nervous system based upon certain stimuli from the outside world. But I remain agnostic about the "actual world", because that is, a priori, forever outside of my view.

[Otis]

My own belief is that, even though we should define our own beliefs, as I mentioned, we shouldn't dismiss those who came before. We shouldn't stop learning because we think no one knows anything, or we've learned as much as we can, and the only way we can learn now is to experience it for ourself. Many people have learned magnificent things that they are more than willing to share, but if you close yourself off to that, whether it is pride or ego, then you deprive yourself of that source of knowledge.

 

That's one of the reasons I disagree with the notion of giving up ideas and beliefs entirely, because it says that everyone who has lived before us has not learned anything of value, that only we can learn what is valuable. That's almost like saying, "I am the center of the universe and the universe revolves around me."

Great!

 

I think that balance, as in all things, is the answer.

 

Some people read something that their chosen authority figure has written, and declare: "this is the gospel!"

 

Others read, not to understand better, but to be able to overwhelm others through authority: "oh yeah? Well, I know best cuz my guru said it was so!"

 

Others will not even seek to gain other viewpoints, but will still insist that their provincial view is correct. No better reason than: "it's mine, so it's real".

 

But there is something in-between, in which we read to hold a mirror up to our own viewpoint. We can see any well-thought-out text as a projection which attempts to illustrate the nature of reality. The more wise projections we have, the more fully dimensional our hologram of reality can be. Triangulation gives me a much better 3-D view than my own individual point of view ever could.

Edited May 4, 2011 by Otis

[Marblehead]

 

But there is something in-between, in which we read to hold a mirror up to our own viewpoint. We can see any well-thought-out text as a projection which attempts to illustrate the nature of reality. The more wise projections we have, the more fully dimensional our hologram of reality can be. Triangulation gives me a much better 3-D view than my own individual point of view ever could.

 

That sounds a little bit like Chuang Tzu talking about the Sage being a mirror, perfectly reflecting whatever shines on him/her.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[manitou]

Hello Manitou,

 

I can understand your aversion to books. The reason I mentioned Allan Watts "The Book" is because if I didn't know any better, I would've assumed you had read it. Much of what it talks about is the idea that we are God asleep and the process of being and also becoming aware, not only physically, but experientially, of our existence as God. No need to read it, I just thought you might gain some insight.

 

My own belief is that, even though we should define our own beliefs, as I mentioned, we shouldn't dismiss those who came before. We shouldn't stop learning because we think no one knows anything, or we've learned as much as we can, and the only way we can learn now is to experience it for ourself. Many people have learned magnificent things that they are more than willing to share, but if you close yourself off to that, whether it is pride or ego, then you deprive yourself of that source of knowledge.

 

That's one of the reasons I disagree with the notion of giving up ideas and beliefs entirely, because it says that everyone who has lived before us has not learned anything of value, that only we can learn what is valuable. That's almost like saying, "I am the center of the universe and the universe revolves around me."

 

I can only speak for myself, but if I took that approach I would've never been able to achieve sobriety because I didn't know how to get sober, it was only through the guidance of others, and through their shared experience that I was finally able to understand what sobriety was about and what I needed to do to achieve it.

 

Anyways, you're free to give up on books and knowledge, but I think there's this idea that somehow thinking is bad that is misunderstood by the Western World. They hear phrases like, "be done with learning and you will have no more vexation" and believe that it's telling people to stop learning, when that's not it at all, it's talking about learning for the sake of learning, amassing knowledge with no real purpose.

 

Anyways, I'll leave it there. I didn't mean to offend you by recommending you read "The Book". I appreciate your opinion and you're free to have it.

 

Aaron

 

edit- I wanted to add that I in no way believe one shouldn't begin to define their own understanding of the world through their experience as I mentioned to Jack, but rather that we can do that and still learn at the same time. We just need to be able to examine things critically to determine what is valid to our experience and what isn't.

 

 

No aversion to books here, lol. My brain is just tired. I've read so many books for so many years. I'm just taking a break. Thanks for the recommendation.

[xabir2005]

[xabir2005]

Is it possible, however, that there is no such ladder?

 

For example, how would you rate Mickey Mantle vs. Einstein vs. Gandhi vs. Mozart? Each has his own brand of genius. They are skilled in very different areas, with only a little cross-over. They certainly are not on the same ladder.

 

So too, I think that Simple Jack and Twinner and Manitou and so on, each has their own brand of genius. Each of us has experiences, insights and wisdom to share with each other. We are not two-dimensional hierarchical beings. The ladder is only an illusion.

http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2009/05/are-insight-stages-strictly-linear.html

 

Are the insight stages strictly linear?

Posted by: An Eternal Now

I wrote this based on what Thusness/PasserBy have said regarding his Thusness/PasserBy's Seven Stages of Experience on Spiritual Enlightenment ( http://awakeningtoreality.blogspot.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html ) - not to think of the 7 stages as strictly linear or having a hierarchy.

 

Some is able to understand the profound wisdom of emptiness from the start but have no direct experience of luminosity, then luminosity becomes a later phase. So does that mean the most pristine experience of "I AM" is now the last stage? On the other hand, some have experienced luminosity but does not understand how he got himself 'lost', as there is no insight to the karmic tendencies/propensities at all, therefore they cannot understand Dependent Origination adequately. But does that mean that one that experience emptiness is higher than one that experience luminosity?

 

Some people experience non-dual but did not go through the I AM, and then after non-dual the I AM becomes even more precious because it will bring out the luminosity aspect more. Also, when in non-dual, one can still be full of thoughts, therefore the focus then is to experience the thoroughness of being no-thoughts, fully luminous and present... then it is not about non-dual, not about the no object-subject split, it is about the degree of luminosity for these non-dualist. But for some monks that is trapped in luminosity and rest in samadhi, then the focus should be on refining non-dual insight and experience.

 

So just see the phases as different aspect of insights of our true nature, not necessarily as linear stages or a 'superiority' and 'inferiority' comparison. What one should understand is what is lacking in the form of realization. There is no hierarchy to it, only insights. Then one will be able to see all stages as flat, no higher.

Labels: Stages of Enlightenment |

[Aaron]

Go back and compare the passage or the highlighted part to Twinners posts in this thread. Try and see the difference between what he is describing, compared to the passages. No one can fake this or bullshit anyone who's actually realized what "being as is" is like:

 

"The primordial purity of the original basis transcends the extremes of existence and non-existence, and it is the great transcending of (the objects of) conception and expression. As the essence (of the basis) is primordially pure, it transcends the extreme of existence, eternalism, and it is not established as the phenomena of things or characteristics. As the nature (of the basis) is spontaneously accomplished, it transcends the extreme of non-existence, nihilism, and it is present as the purity, the ultimate nature of emptiness clarity, as the nature of the primordial Buddha, as the state of changeless ultimate body (Dharmakaya,) as non-existent either as samsara or nirvana, and as the self-arisen great intrinsic wisdom which is present from primordial time like space."

 

"Thus, awareness, the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness, epitome of the three kayas, is the primordial nature of reality. Precise recognition of awareness, ultimate reality as it is, is what is called the Great Perfection’s view beyond the intellect."

 

I ask you, Otis: Do you comprehend what is being said in these passages? Not many people can. Most people can't even understand it intellectually. I really don't talk much of this type of stuff for that reason alone.

 

Hello Jack,

 

I'm not saying this to upset you or antagonize you, but I do believe I know what's being talked about here. What is being referred to as the "primordial purity of the original basis" is what I call the spirit, others call it the god spark, god-self, etc. It is something that encompasses everything, it has been here from the beginning and will be here at the end. From my experience one becomes aware of it when they completely let go of all thoughts and ideas, when one ceases to see the world as the entirety of reality and can see a realm of existence that transcends it, yet is right beside it. I have experienced this on several occasions during meditation, and I have explained the experience to others long before I heard it described here.

 

It came to me the first time in a sudden flash, when I had achieved complete stillness of mind, no thought or action, just a complete and utter emptiness. When it happens it's as if nothing exists, at least not as you sense it. If you asked me to describe it I would say it as if the universe is not a jumble of things, but just one thing, a thing without form or any real characteristic, not even being. Trying to attach a feeling or definition is impossible because it has no form to define. It's like you feel nothing, for a moment you are not there. I once told people that it's like you are connected to everything that exists, that you are not simply one simple individual but the entirety of everything that exists. I experienced this several years ago on several occasions after years of daily meditation (at one point in my life I meditated an hour to two hours daily.)

 

After reaching this state I stopped trying because it is extremely humbling. Yes you feel an immense degree of peace afterwards, but I honestly believe that if your house is not in order, that you cannot appreciate it, and at that time I couldn't. If you want a true scale of what your self is, that experience gives you a true scale. From my experience I could see how infinitely small I actually was, how my belief that I was somehow important (more important) than others wasn't true and that really nothing is important. We are all simply ants dragging grains of rice back to the colony. At least that's how it made me feel. (Note I can still reach this state today, but I choose not to for the aforementioned reasons.)

 

You don't have to believe me. Perhaps I misunderstood what is being said, but regardless, I don't think that alone was enough for me to achieve any form of real awareness, because now after years of meditation I think there's more to it. I tried to come up with an explanation of what that is, but I can't. It's not something I can describe. Perhaps one day I'll be able to, but right now it's like trying to describe a shadow in a pitch black room.

 

Aaron

 

edit- With what I just said, I should add that I have no doubts about what reality is, but there's no way for me to prove it to you. What concerns me now is not the nature of the spirit (hence the reason I've never really gone into great depth about that) but rather the way we define reality.

 

I had this experience before I delved into Buddhism, Hinduism, and many other -isms, so trying to explain it was very difficult. I think much of my research into these religions was to understand completely what I had experienced. Perhaps the fact I could not explain it is a good indicator that it was not an enlightening experience, but rather a sudden awareness.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Twinner

[Otis]

Go back and compare the passage or the highlighted part to Twinners posts in this thread. Try and see the difference between what he is describing, compared to the passages. No one can fake this or bullshit anyone who's actually realized what "being as is" is like:

 

"The primordial purity of the original basis transcends the extremes of existence and non-existence, and it is the great transcending of (the objects of) conception and expression. As the essence (of the basis) is primordially pure, it transcends the extreme of existence, eternalism, and it is not established as the phenomena of things or characteristics. As the nature (of the basis) is spontaneously accomplished, it transcends the extreme of non-existence, nihilism, and it is present as the purity, the ultimate nature of emptiness clarity, as the nature of the primordial Buddha, as the state of changeless ultimate body (Dharmakaya,) as non-existent either as samsara or nirvana, and as the self-arisen great intrinsic wisdom which is present from primordial time like space."

 

"Thus, awareness, the indivisibility of appearance and emptiness, epitome of the three kayas, is the primordial nature of reality. Precise recognition of awareness, ultimate reality as it is, is what is called the Great Perfection’s view beyond the intellect."

 

I ask you, Otis: Do you comprehend what is being said in these passages? Not many people can. Most people can't even understand it intellectually. I really don't talk much of this type of stuff for that reason alone.

I don't think you're making a very compelling argument. You offer up a dense piece of jargon, much of which is not in English, and much of the English which is used in novel ways, and then suggest that the comprehension of said jargon is a useful yardstick for how advanced someone is. Of course I could attempt to draw some meaning from the above quotes, but there is no way whether I could tell you if I "comprehend" it, because the writer's intent is opaque. The person who is most likely to come up with an accurate deciphering is the one most familiar with the jargon. That's no judge of someone's ability to understand their own existence and viewpoint.

 

I've met plenty of people on discussion groups who write extremely Zen-sounding wise-ish posts, but who also exhibit zero self-awareness or self-responsibility in those posts. I am much more impressed by someone who sees themselves honestly and humbly, who can really make sense without taking short-cuts, and who can make themselves understood even when discussing the ineffable, then by someone who has learned to speak in an esoteric and largely incomprehensible language. The latter proves nothing but cleverness and geekhood.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

Not to mention that I disagree with the quote. It appears to be speaking about "ultimate reality as it is", and I think that is nothing but delusion.

 

I think the quote is mistaking a mental state, with a reality state. It seems to be describing the experience of internal unity, and mistaking it for what is actually out there in the world.

 

So this is an example of what I was talking about. You seem to see the quote as evidence of attainment, and I see it as evidence of delusion.

 

There is no yardstick that we both rely on, so any yardstick is self-reinforcing. One believes it because one believes it, not because it's so.

[Lucky7Strikes]

I agree, but only to a point.

 

For Aaron to admit that what he's saying is "belief" as opposed to "reality" is already an enlightened step. Too many people mistake their inner simulacra for the real thing, and will insist to their dying breath that they are describing "actual reality" instead of the contents of their heads.

 

However, when it comes to "seeing things as they are", I don't see how anyone can do that. We can see things with less crap in the foreground, but we're still limited by being a singular organism, with a specific set of senses that we evolved into. Objectivity is an asymptotic goal; we can get closer and closer to it, but never reach it. And there are no omniscient beings around to (dis)confirm how close we got to actual truth. So it's always a big question mark.

 

To me, "seeing things as they are" merely means seeing my own limitations as an ego, studying a simulacrum inside my head that is created by electrochemical impulses in my nervous system based upon certain stimuli from the outside world. But I remain agnostic about the "actual world", because that is, a priori, forever outside of my view.

"Seeing things as they are is" a way of being, not necessarily SEEING things as they are.

 

Also, as Xabir noted, I AM experience, the opening of the heart is unmistakeable. It is a direct realization that leads to feeling of timelessness, spacelessness, bliss consciousness. It's not a delusion because...your whole system basically shifts from neuroticism to a centered being.

 

If terms like anatta and emptiness are only understood intellectually without intrinsic experience of life as blissful creation, it can lead to nihilistic tendencies, a egoic excuse. Same with the I AM fixation..it leads to attachment to a state of awareness. One has to see the unity of both, like seeing that space and form are one: form is emptiness and emptiness is form.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Lucky7Strikes

[Lucky7Strikes]

Xabir,

 

From what I have read in the past, Krishnamurti is for the head and Osho is for the heart!

 

Thanks for the quotes!

[manitou]

Chop wood, carry water.

 

The only way I can think to say it, is that the answers come from within. There is no longer a point of view, because a point of view is of the mind and is limiting to only that which is within the point of view.

 

The stuff that comes up from the inside is quite mysterious. I have a 12th grade education, that's all - but I can See things that I have no business knowing because it lays out in geometric form behind me somewhere and a little bit to my right. It's a situational triangulation that is always at my disposal. When people are talking about things scientific, somehow I can See exactly what they're talking about and see how it triangulates. Mysterious stuff, this kundalini and 3rd eye situation.

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[Simple_Jack]

.

Edited February 5, 2014 by Simple_Jack

[wearydreamer]

Great posts Xabir2005 and Lucky7Strikes.

 

Only thing to remember (if there is someone to remember) is anything expressed in words is just a finger pointing to moon. May lead attention to moon but is not the moon.

Edited May 5, 2011 by wearydreamer

[Otis]

Otis, bro, Trust me: I wouldn't have been able to understand what these passages are really talking about, just a few years ago; even if I did know "the jargon." It is in English, and is not "opaque" at all. It's one thing to read something and it's another thing to actually understand what it's really saying.

 

The reason it is gibberish to you, is simply because (I AM NOT trying to put you down) you haven't reached this level of insight.

LOL! So if I had "this level of insight", I would be able to understand a language that I do not know (Pali/Hindi)? And somehow, I would know the exact meaning the writer intends for the word "basis", when I've never heard that word used in this way? That's absurd. That would take ESP, not insight.

 

"Opaque" is exactly the description for an assertion that is written in esoteric jargon. If I were to post a paragraph from one of my dad's neuropsychology papers here, I imagine it would seem pretty opaque to you. It's not that you're not insightful, smart or wise, but that you probably have never heard the jargon before.

 

You can declare all you want to about other people's "level of insight" Jack, but you are not making sense here. Don't tell me you have insight, show me by making sense!

Edited May 5, 2011 by Otis

[Otis]

"It seems to be describing the experience of internal unity, and mistaking it for what is actually out there in the world."

 

What is "out there in the world," is no different than what's "inside." This quote from Shakyamuni Buddha says it well: "We are what we think. All that we are arises with our thoughts. With our thoughts we make the world."

It is also like this quote: "Since everything is but an apparition, having nothing to do with good or bad, acceptance or rejection, one may well burst out in laughter." -Longchenpa

Again, I think you're proving my point again.

 

You quote the Buddha to support what you are saying, but I hear his words differently. Your yardstick is different than mine.

 

When I hear these words from the Buddha, I hear no reference to actual reality. What I hear him referring to is our experience of reality. I.E. the only reality we ever know, is the one that takes place within our heads, in our awareness. That is absolutely not a support for making assertions about how the world actually is, which is what your earlier quote was doing. The only reason why What is "out there in the world," is no different than what's "inside." is because all of our reality is inside.

 

Again, you are creating a yardstick of "level of insight" that is based purely upon your own understanding of the tradition that you follow. That DOES NOT equal reality! That is exactly the same mechanism by which any fundamentalist supports his or her argument: "of course I'm right, because I'm adhering to (my understanding of) the gospel".

 

This is the mechanism of delusion, not of liberation. IME, liberation comes from "I don't know", not from certainty about the "level of insight" of someone you meet on the internet.

Edited May 5, 2011 by Otis