Sometimes I feel/think that...

[Songtsan]

...the greatest thing we can do for ourselves, is to do something healing/teaching/good for someone else..

[Michael Sternbach]

...the greatest thing we can do for ourselves, is to do something healing/teaching/good for someone else..

 

The Hindu say that a smile you give returns to you. :)

Edited August 7, 2015 by Michael Sternbach

[soaring crane]

Moderator message

 

the gratituitously politcal posts that quickly

dominated this thread have been split to Off Topic

[Songtsan]

I've been thinking a lot about bodhichitta, and emptying the heart of malice. That's what sparked this thread. Wasn't some kind of hallmark card feeling, lol. Serious spiritual reflection. When ones own ego is ground down to the point of seeing no point in trying to attain, consume, seek name, fame, or gain, one can get lost in feeling bereft of purpose. This seems to be a middle section of a path. Then, when desires to add to the little self have been extinguished, there are still desires. Don't know right now, just trying to see emptiness...

[ThisLife]

I've been thinking a lot about bodhichitta, and emptying the heart of malice. 

 

An extract relevant to the central point of this thread, from a talk given by Wayne Liquorman :

 

*

 

*

 

 

 

{Q} :  After far too many years of dedicated spiritual seeking without any visible progress, insights, or changes in myself,… I’m virtually on the point of giving up this whole search from sheer, endless frustration.

 

{W} :  Well, we’ll have to see if those things are ready to give you up ! Because until they’re ready to give you up, your opinion on whether you’re ready to give them up is irrelevant. It’s only when your decision to give them up coincides with their decision to give you up that they disappear.

 

{Q} :  So a person can’t say, “Okay, I’m going to give up. I’m just going to be That.”

 

{W} :  Wouldn’t you have done it by now if you could have ?

 

{Q} :  I never thought of it that way.

 

{W} :   The presumption involved in saying, “I think I’m about ready to give this up,” is that you have some position on which to stand to effect that kind of change, that you have some sort of power that you can exercise to create that change in your life. And I’m sure that you’ve often experienced that in your life, where you’ve made decisions such as “Okay, goddamn it, I am not going to do this for another day. I have decided I am going to give this up !” Yet, you find yourself continuing to do that thing despite the fact that you have decided to give it up. It has not given you up, therefore it keeps happening. Now what we usually say in those situations is, “ I just didn’t want to give that up badly enough. If I really had, in my heart of hearts, wanted to give it up, it would be gone.”

 

{Q} :   I did that once. I gave up smoking.

 

{W} :   Yes, as I said, when the confluence of the two is such that it gives you up at the same time as you give it up, then there’s every appearance that you have got some kind of control. And you will use that one example to sustain the notion that you have some kind of power, despite ten other examples to the contrary. 

 

*

Edited August 10, 2015 by ThisLife

[Spotless]

An extract relevant to the central point of this thread, from a talk given by Wayne Liquorman :

 

*

 

*

 

 

 

{Q} : After far too many years of dedicated spiritual seeking without any visible progress, insights, or changes in myself,… I’m virtually on the point of giving up this whole search from sheer, endless frustration.

 

{W} : Well, we’ll have to see if those things are ready to give you up ! Because until they’re ready to give you up, your opinion on whether you’re ready to give them up is irrelevant. It’s only when your decision to give them up coincides with their decision to give you up that they disappear.

 

{Q} : So a person can’t say, “Okay, I’m going to give up. I’m just going to be That.”

 

{W} : Wouldn’t you have done it by now if you could have ?

 

{Q} : I never thought of it that way.

 

{W} : The presumption involved in saying, “I think I’m about ready to give this up,” is that you have some position on which to stand to effect that kind of change, that you have some sort of power that you can exercise to create that change in your life. And I’m sure that you’ve often experienced that in your life, where you’ve made decisions such as “Okay, goddamn it, I am not going to do this for another day. I have decided I am going to give this up !” Yet, you find yourself continuing to do that thing despite the fact that you have decided to give it up. It has not given you up, therefore it keeps happening. Now what we usually say in those situations is, “ I just didn’t want to give that up badly enough. If I had really, in my heart of hearts, wanted to give it up, it would be gone.”

 

{Q} : I did that once. I gave up smoking.

 

{W} : Yes, as I said, when the confluence of the two is such that it gives you up at the same time as you give it up, then there’s every appearance that you have got some kind of control. And you will use that one example to sustain the notion that you have some kind of power, despite ten other examples to the contrary.

 

*

Very apt and excellent!

Edited August 10, 2015 by Spotless

[ThisLife]

Very apt and excellent!

 

Thank you for taking the time to thank another person. Perhaps like yourself, I find the pointers given out in Non-Duality teachings to be strangely compelling. For me, the attraction only came after many years of following various gurus and spiritual paths, looking for the 'key to unlock the golden door.' It took me a long time to be able to actually hear the personal message behind the very low simmering awareness that, every spiritual path has inbuilt into it two central, (but double-edged), themes. One,... that we are fundamentally imperfect right now, and Two,... that perfection always lies 'just ahead', through following this practice ... (fill in the blank with the 'ism' of your choice.)

 

On a strictly personal level there were two books that stood out above all others when I found myself drawn towards the pointers and explanations of Non-Duality. The extract above is from "Acceptance of What Is" by Wayne Liquorman, (a Californian teacher in his mid-sixties from LA), and "I Hope You Die Soon" by Richard Sylvester, (an Englishman of the same age, from a small county town in Kent.) I'll throw in an extract from Richard's book below, just so you can get a feel for the somewhat different flavour his style of cooking imparts to the same ingredients "

 

*

 

*

 

 

Some of the questions we have been having, like “What is liberation ? What is it like for you ?" are very natural questions. We are often inclined to think that what we are talking about here is something special. Sometimes we think that the person who is reporting on it is also special.

 

Neither of these ideas is true. This isn’t special. This is the natural state of being and the character reporting on it here is just an ordinary character. But because we deny our own adequacy, we sometimes project that adequacy that we deny in ourselves onto a teacher or guru or some other authority figure. We make them special.

 

Then, if the guru or teacher thinks that they themselves are special, (as they often do), a wonderful collusion is created between the guru and the devotees. The more special the guru is, the more special the devotees become,… because they must have been particularly spiritually evolved to be able to see the qualities of their great master.

 

It is a game. It is the great game of projection that humans play so much of the time. It can be a very entertaining and colourful game, but it is still just a game.

 

What you are listening to here is just a very ordinary chap reporting on the natural state of being.

 

*

Edited August 10, 2015 by ThisLife

[Spotless]

ThisLife:

"It took me a long time to be able to actually hear the personal message behind the very low simmering awareness that, every spiritual path has inbuilt into it two central, (but double-edged), themes. One,... that we are fundamentally imperfect right now, and Two,... that perfection always lies 'just ahead', through following this practice ... (fill in the blank ....)"

 

This is not the underlying message in every true practice - it is quite the opposite - you are perfect and spotless and cannot be otherwise - all that is required to Awaken is a shift in awareness - a very simple shift. It is however a paradigm shift.

 

It is a paradigm shift that requires no new assumptions and no new rules - it Does require Nothing from you.

Edited August 10, 2015 by Spotless

[ThisLife]

 

 

This is not the underlying message in every true practice - it is quite the opposite - you are perfect and spotless and cannot be otherwise - all that is required to Awaken is a shift in awareness - a very simple shift. It is however a paradigm shift.

 

It is a paradigm shift that requires no new assumptions and no new rules - it Does require Nothing from you.

 

Spotless,

 

You've raised some interesting points in your post. Before I express anything further about them I just want to say that the thought behind most of the things I say is not coming from some kind of assumption that I think my beliefs are in some way "better" than anyone else's. I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone who spends their time hanging out in an internet chatroom on spirituality like this one, is someone who is still looking for the meaning of life - not someone who's found the answers. And that tars me completely with the same brush. So, just take this as puzzled questions coming from a fellow questioner along the road of life.

 

*

 

But after reading your post there were immediately two points that I couldn't agree with, based on my current set of beliefs. I'll reply to the second one first, (where you made the statement that I have extracted from your post in the box above).

 

Here, if I was to take an extract from my earlier extract by Wayne Liquorman and substitute in a section taken from what you said - I think you'll see immediately where the problem lies for me :

 

"The presumption involved in saying, “ all that is required to Awaken is a shift in awareness ,” is that you have some position on which to stand to effect that kind of change, that you have some sort of power that you can exercise to create that change in your life."

 

*

 

Now, to turn to the first point in your post where I found my beliefs diverging from your own, it was where you said, "This is not the underlying message in every true practice."

 

The problem for me lies in this idea of a 'true' practice.

 

Again, because I don't make any claim to know any answers first hand, the best way I can explain my uneasiness with this idea is to quote someone who is not only far more eloquent and clear in his words, but who also claims to have had personal experience of what he's talking about. I'll leave you here with another extract from WL.

 

*

 

"For those of you who are hearing me for the first time I want to emphasize that nothing I say is the Truth. I make no claims whatsoever that one word comings out of my mouth is the Truth.

 

Now I am not unique in this. None of the teachers that you've either read or heard are speaking the Truth. Truth can't be spoken. All of these concepts are simply pointers, indicators of a Truth that is right here - that is ever-present - as clear, and as unmasked as it could possibly be.

 

So, I personally have no trouble with anybody else’s teachings. If one teacher says you exist and another one says you don’t exist, and this one says that you’re God incarnate and this other one says that you’re nothing, I don’t care. They are all understood to be relative teaching tools. There is never a question of the hammer being Truer than the screwdriver. What I find objectionable (in an aesthetic sense) is when someone says, “What I am saying is the Truth and what the other teaching is saying is bullshit.” Such an assertion lacks the essential clarity of understanding that it’s all bullshit, and that a given teacher’s teaching is a matter of enculturation and personal programming that determine how their teaching is expressed.

 

Ramana Maharishi used the image of a concept, (or religion, or philosophy), as being like a thorn that is used to remove some other thorn that is, let's say, embedded in your foot. So you have a thorn (which is some concept about how things are) and it's embedded in you. The sage comes and uses another concept in the hopes of removing that embedded concept with this second concept. If the embedded concept is removed both concepts become superfluous - they get discarded. The thorn that's being utilised to remove the other thorn has no intrinsic value. After it has done its job you don't wax rhapsodic over what a great thorn it was. Its value was only as a tool. The purpose of all religions and philosophies is exactly the same.

 

Generally, by the time you've gotten here you've read a lot, you've been to a lot of teachers, you have absorbed a vast number of concepts, and many of them are contradictory. How do you reconcile what this teacher said with what that teacher said ? I mean, you've sat with this teacher; you know that this person is a genuine teacher. There's no question of him scamming you. And yet he's saying something that is utterly and completely different from what this one over here is saying. How do you reconcile these conflicting explanations ?

 

The way you reconcile them is to understand that none of these teachers' concepts are true. All concepts, religions, and philosophies are simply tools, and their applicability is only in the moment."

 

*

Edited August 11, 2015 by ThisLife

[Spotless]

Spotless,

 

You've raised some interesting points in your post. Before I express anything further about them I just want to say that the thought behind most of the things I say is not coming from some kind of assumption that I think my beliefs are in some way "better" than anyone else's. I think it's pretty safe to assume that anyone who spends their time hanging out in an internet chatroom on spirituality like this one, is someone who is still looking for the meaning of life - not someone who's found the answers. And that tars me completely with the same brush. So, just take this as puzzled questions coming from another questioner.

 

*

 

But after reading your post there were immediately two points that I couldn't agree with, based on my current set of beliefs. I'll reply to the second one first, (where you made the statement that I have extracted from your post in the box above).

 

Here, if I was to take an extract from my earlier extract by Wayne Liquorman and substitute in a section taken from what you said - I think you'll see immediately where the problem lies for me :

 

"The presumption involved in saying, “ all that is required to Awaken is a shift in awareness ,” is that you have some position on which to stand to effect that kind of change, that you have some sort of power that you can exercise to create that change in your life."

 

*

 

Now, to turn to the first point in your post where I found my beliefs diverging from your own, it was where you said, "This is not the underlying message in every true practice."

 

The problem for me lies in this idea of a 'true' practice.

 

Again, because I don't make any claim to know any answers first hand, the best way I can explain my uneasiness with this idea is to quote someone who is not only far more eloquent and clear in his words, but who also claims to have had personal experience of what he's talking about. I'll leave you here with another extract from WL.

 

*

 

"For those of you who are hearing me for the first time I want to emphasize that nothing I say is the Truth. I make no claims whatsoever that one word comings out of my mouth is the Truth.

 

Now I am not unique in this. None of the teachers that you've either read or heard are speaking the Truth. Truth can't be spoken. All of these concepts are simply pointers, indicators of a Truth that is right here - that is ever-present - as clear, and as unmasked as it could possibly be.

 

So, I personally have no trouble with anybody else’s teachings. If one teacher says you exist and another one says you don’t exist, and this one says that you’re God incarnate and this other one says that you’re nothing, I don’t care. They are all understood to be relative teaching tools. There is never a question of the hammer being Truer than the screwdriver. What I find objectionable (in an aesthetic sense) is when someone says, “What I am saying is the Truth and what the other teaching is saying is bullshit.” Such an assertion lacks the essential clarity of understanding that it’s all bullshit, and that a given teacher’s teaching is a matter of enculturation and personal programming that determine how their teaching is expressed.

 

Ramana Maharishi used the image of a concept, (or religion, or philosophy), as being like a thorn that is used to remove some other thorn that is, let's say, embedded in your foot. So you have a thorn (which is some concept about how things are) and it's embedded in you. The sage comes and uses another concept in the hopes of removing that embedded concept with this second concept. If the embedded concept is removed both concepts become superfluous - they get discarded. The thorn that's being utilised to remove the other thorn has no intrinsic value. After it has done its job you don't wax rhapsodic over what a great thorn it was. Its value was only as a tool. The purpose of all religions and philosophies is exactly the same.

 

Generally, by the time you've gotten here you've read a lot, you've been to a lot of teachers, you have absorbed a vast number of concepts, and many of them are contradictory. How do you reconcile what this teacher said with what that teacher said ? I mean, you've sat with this teacher; you know that this person is a genuine teacher. There's no question of him scamming you. And yet he's saying something that is utterly and completely different from what this one over here is saying. How do you reconcile these conflicting explanations ?

 

The way you reconcile them is to understand that none of these teachers' concepts are true. All concepts, religions, and philosophies are simply tools, and their applicability is only in the moment."

 

*

Regarding:

 

"The presumption involved in saying, “ all that is required to Awaken is a shift in awareness ,” is that you have some position on which to stand to effect that kind of change, that you have some sort of power that you can exercise to create that change in your life."

 

Extraordinarily good question/point!

 

It is in not having a position that this shift takes place - no position - non-movement - a shift from Positions to Positionless.

This is a shift from the false to the universal.

No power is required - but to step from the solid grip of positions - to the flow / radiance of no position, no thought, no inertia - now.

 

It is so subtle that it cannot possibly make sense - yet a time will come when it does because a gap or gaps will expand - perhaps explode upon you - wherein all the games and all the positions cease - possibly from exhaustion, "pure luck" or practice - but they are often there /always there. This is why when it happens - either temporarily or permanently - it may be rejected, feared and misunderstood - or taken to be too simple - too uncomplicated - and for most it will be overwhelming graciousness and entry into a world completely familiar and new in every moment.

 

The transition to this new life is thoroughly unique - nothing has changed and yet everything is completely fresh. Positions vanish.

Some proclivities remain - personality traits - patterns of your former self remain - but they are more mechanisms than enlivened parts of you.

 

The quote you used in the second half of the post is again very good and could not be more true - words are inadequate to relate what is trying to be transmitted - and one can certainly state with assurance that it is all bull shit - it is the general smell that is trying to bring your nose to point in a helpful direction - somewhat regardless of how the universe makes it happen.

 

Is Positionless a position?

If my feet are not firmly planted am I standing on solid ground?

It is easy to have ones feet firmly planted and grounded in some position - and in martial arts it is a juxtaposition that is highly prized.

It is hard to grasp the fear involved in being fully grounded with no planting in anything - freely floating though not floating because there is no barrier - your skin is not "yours" and the air that meets it is.

 

 

Edit: I don't mean to imply that that there is fear in this new shift - it is the opposite. The fear is in the prior state - we are in the grasp of our positions and they are everything to us - they constitute our identity. It is why we cannot hear the teachers words - it is simply inconceivable and even immoral and reckless - we want it to be tidy and preferably very hard and specific - anything to make it nearly impossible because relinquishing the highly prized baffoon who is unique and singular and really likes French fries is and would be an enormous loss to all of humanity and to our mothers and brothers and the whales and the starving babies and those communist bastards.

Edited August 12, 2015 by Spotless

[Kubba]

your skin is not "yours" and the air that meets it is.

 

Just great!

[ThisLife]

 

 Words are inadequate to relate what is trying to be transmitted - and one can certainly state with assurance that it is all bull shit - it is the general smell that is trying to bring your nose to point in a helpful direction -  regardless of how the universe makes it happen.

 

 

 

 

 

Your clarification of "true paths" above made a real connection with me. Thanks very much for the different slant on an idea that I've been fruitlessly fumbling around with for a considerable number of years now.

Edited August 11, 2015 by ThisLife