Is new age and spiritual stuff irrelevant to the tao cultivator?

[GrandmasterP]

Which presumes cultivation ( Position 2).

That said most people just get bored and give up cultivating hence Position 1 is a grand excuse for doing so or for not even starting to cultivate in the first place.

It does smack of Nihilism that Position 1 IMO.

Nothing at all wrong with nihilism for those nihilists as 'don't' like it.

 

Edited August 10, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[silent thunder]

I don't cultivate to arrive or get somewhere.

I cultivate to be now...

 

these days, seems like anything and/or nothing can be used in that

[deci belle]

Deci seems to be flirting with nihilism here

 

That isn't possible for enlightening beings. But since you are in performance mode (again) mr P, why don't you book your own lighting, hmmmm? Please stop making doubt-based insinuations (supposedly for the sake of argument) that there are issues that you are obviously grappling with yourself that you would presume to project onto me to put on a nice show.

 

Let's analyze what you might be flirting with here, shall we?

 

Doing is the problem. Non-doing is the matter of birth and death reverting to unity. Carrying this out is self-refinement. Nihilism is relative to eternalism. The Supreme Vehicle is neither.

 

The last line of the OP distinctly states:

 

I also dare to ask that isn't manifesting "doing"?

 

But mr P wants to dabble in conventional arguments because he can't address the profound.

 

That mr P could conceive of nihilism in what is recognition of reality as is, is indicative of an inability to see reality as is. It is what it is already, mr P. That is the point.

 

Read what I say and understand it. If you doubt it, then qualify it on the level I make the statement you doubt. If you can't, then you aren't qualified to call it into doubt on your own terms. Why? Because they aren't your terms. They are my terms used as only I can use them. Use my terms as I do and you can learn. You can't do anything else at this point (except pretend) — you certainly don't know yourself.

 

Perhaps you need to stand down and instead of perpetuating your professional self-image of (grandmaster of showmanship), perhaps you aught to endeavor to ask an authority before shooting your big mouth off for effect.

 

If you could get to the point yourself, you would, but you can't, so you flirt with doubt and "reasoning".

 

Refrain from calling into doubt anything I say to make a point because any point you might make based on doubts relative to anyone other than yourself is not only not immediate knowledge, it is deluded conjecture.

 

If you don't know, don't make a business of projecting doubts on others to appear knowledgable yourself. I write here on this forum because I know the basis, not because I'm a showgirl.

 

Is it nihilism or not? If you don't know then shut the fuck up. If you do know then say so and say why. Don't make me express this tone on your account again.

 

DO YOU INDERSTAND mr P(ERFORMANCE ARTIST)?

 

ENLIGHTENING ACTIVITY IS NOT A MATTER OF REASON. MY EXPRESSIONS ARE TANTAMOUNT TO ENTRY INTO INCONCEIVABILITY.

 

Now, if you are not qualified to understand what I say on that level, do not presume to analyze what I say on your level of conventional logic.

 

I AM NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. MY WORDS ARE NOT THE SUBJECT OF THIS THREAD. YOU ADDRESS THE OP TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY AND DON'T RIDE MY COATTAILS, mr sage on the stage.

 

Since it is obvious (to me) that you actually don't know the basis of my treatment of this topic, cease from analyzing my contribution.

 

NIHILISM, INDEED.

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "If you could get to the point yourself, you would, but you don't, so you flirt with doubt and "reasoning"

Edited August 11, 2014 by deci belle

[deci belle]

Nicely stated, deci! Thank you.

 

When that recognition (what a delightfully appropriate word, I think) arises, it's like, "WTF? It's that simple?"

 

After that recognition, so much of what is discussed with great enthusiasm here seems almost embarrassingly silly.

 

Until that recognition is nascent, however, your words fall on deaf ears (at least, that was the case for me...)

 

haha!! One already knows (that nothing knowing is the shining open nonpsychological awareness). One is amazed at others' incredulity (or worse), though.

 

Situations just come and go. What of it all matters to the functional aspect? Nondoing is detachment.

 

And thank you, Brian.❤ The recognition is oneself's nondoing perfectly appropriate in terms of the context of the situation. One has no feelings of result done relative to the personality. It has nothing to do with good or bad. This appropriateness utterly transcends social convention. The propriety of nondoing has no reflection on the person. Reality is the stability of presence being the result in perpetuity— not by one's own power nor anything existing. The situation itself is just the expression of one's own presence. Abiding in the knowledge of reality as is, is resting in the highest good.

 

Impersonal response is a process of maintaining clarity inherent in karmically polluted circumstances (some more or less polluted than others). It really can be hard work, after all …even so, nothing is really done. It is all a matter of floating around in the center of the compass.

 

When one recognizes the immediate stability of reality independent of self and other, there is just no before or after relative to the person. This is a continuity without beginning or destination. The result is perpetual. There is nothing to do. Why would one therefore incur karmic retribution on account of delusional circumstances that are passing one by due to their own momentum.

 

One simply does not go along.

 

Reality has never moved. The entirety of what goes on here is pure folly— some controlled folly (per Don Juan Matus' description of a warrior's controlled folly), and the rest, yes… quite silly.

 

Deaf ears, scaly eyes. I cannot pick my audience.

 

 

 

 

 

ed note: add "due to their own momentum" at end of 2nd paragraph

Edited August 11, 2014 by deci belle

[simonpi]

If one was in total harmony with the tao, would you need to worry about chakras, the pineal gland, sacred geometry, dimensions, indigo children, crystals, and all that other stuff found in spiritual stores and websites?

 

From the western spiritual science perspective you're refering to an over-emphasis on non-duality, avoiding taking any karmic action in the world - that kind of stuff. The Rosicrucian tradition has a nice phrase 'beings of love and beings of freedom'. What this poetic phrase is referring to is the balancing of non dual awareness with the fully individuated consciousness. You are attuned to the oceanic 'consciousness without an object' and have also fully developed your higher ego. Thinking processes are not denigrated or seen as an obstacle to spiritual progress. They are refined and developed into their full sacred potential. Sacred geometry especially is related to active mediating of patterns in the manifested world (whilst also pointing to the non-dual core of those emanated patterns)

 

A lot of spirituality these days emphasis the non-dual to the exclusion of any of this. And so we get people doing things like praising their idea what 'pure' Zen is whilst denigrating things like Daoist magic. It seems to be the way the pendulum is over- swinging at the moment in reaction to to much new-age chakra affimrations maybe? Part of me wonders if it isn't the imbalanced aspects of Christian 'world denying' mentality filtering into misunderstood eastern teachings. Who knows...

 

You pays your money you takes your chances... Mine is on 'beings of love and beings of freedom' as the most balanced approach. Of course we want to be very careful what we lump together. There's 'new age' sacred geometry where we have nice ideas about aliens: and then there's Pythagoras, Kepler and actually learning geometric construction.

[GrandmasterP]

Thank you for deleting that unnecessarily personal attack from your response to my contribution Deci.

I was not accusing you of Nihilism but commented that

"Deci seems to be flirting with nihilism here."

and qualified my comment with

"Maybe not,"

I then went on to ask what I still think is a fair question for anyone on this thread to maybe add to that....

"if cultivation is unnecessary then why bother doing it?"

For sure 'is-ness' just 'is' but I'd venture that regular cultivators enjoy a better quality of 'is-ness' ( and life) than do couch potatoes ( for example).

 

Edited August 14, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[katsura]

Chakras are a part of traditional Taoist practices though they didn't think of them in precisely the same way as the Yogis of the Hindu traditions.