Effort vs no-effort

[C T]

Some would say faith, others seem inclined towards devotion. I think its a 30/70 mix. Its no different in the Eastern traditions, in essence. 

[Pilgrim]

There are two Jesus's in the bible, one is a simple man who asks people to seek for the kingdom of God, and likens it to a treasure hidden in a field that we must find, the other is almost megalomaniacal, saying 'I am the way, the truth and the light, no man cometh to the father but by me.'

 

One says seek within, the other says only have faith in him, which has created the religious division that we know today.

 

The bible is a many layered text, and it seems to me we are reading the layer that most appeals to us.

Hey Jeff what exactly does " I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT, NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" mean? Edited February 25, 2017 by Pilgrim

[Jeff]

I don't think he was a megalomaniac, I think the megalomaniac words just weren't spoken by him but by later Christians with an investment in the doctrine of faith only in Jesus.

 

As another example, the Lord's prayer is addressed directly to the Father, not to Jesus as intermediary.

 

But in your terms and preferably in your words, why can I only find the Kingdom of God through faith in Jesus, why can't I seek it directly?

Hey Jeff what exactly does " I AM THE WAY, THE TRUTH AND THE LIGHT, NO MAN COMETH TO THE FATHER BUT BY ME" mean?

I think a big part of the confusion is that people are taking a verse (or sometimes only half of verse) and removing it from broader context of the teaching/passage. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in the teachings of Jesus actually read the gospels. You will find that in many cases what Jesus actually says is dramatically different than what many institutions teach. In the particular section of this statement, Jesus is starting to talk about his ascension and leaving the physical plane of existence. Looking at his words in context, he states....

 

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

 

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

 

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

 

The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

 

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

 

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

‭‭John‬ ‭14:6-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Doing this on an iPad so hard to highlight, but as you can see in context that when Jesus talks about himself as the Son of God, he means... "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". Additionally, all of us have this same potential, but for most it remains unrealized as you can see in Jesus's words a few sentences later... "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you".

 

In the teaching of Jesus, we are all "one in Christ" and we all need to go "through" that same shared Christ (manifest Father aspect) in ourselves to realize the father. The concept is very similar to everyone having the same inherent "buddhanature", but in the teachings of Jesus it is kind of like a "shared space" of the primordial "Adam" (or all sentient beings).

 

Jesus with the Christ realization becomes like manifest "form" of this potential in all of us. Like becoming the conduit or network. Like a "super guru" that is easily accessible. As he says...

 

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:25-30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

[Bindi]

I think a big part of the confusion is that people are taking a verse (or sometimes only half of verse) and removing it from broader context of the teaching/passage. I would suggest that anyone who is interested in the teachings of Jesus actually read the gospels. You will find that in many cases what Jesus actually says is dramatically different than what many institutions teach. In the particular section of this statement, Jesus is starting to talk about his ascension and leaving the physical plane of existence. Looking at his words in context, he states....

 

“Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him.

 

Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us.

 

Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?

 

The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works.

 

Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake. Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto my Father. And whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask any thing in my name, I will do it. If ye love me, keep my commandments. And I will pray the Father, and he shall give you another Comforter, that he may abide with you for ever;

 

Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you.

 

I will not leave you comfortless: I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth me no more; but ye see me: because I live, ye shall live also. At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him.”

‭‭John‬ ‭14:6-21‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Doing this on an iPad so hard to highlight, but as you can see in context that when Jesus talks about himself as the Son of God, he means... "The words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works". Additionally, all of us have this same potential, but for most it remains unrealized as you can see in Jesus's words a few sentences later... "Even the Spirit of truth; whom the world cannot receive, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye know him; for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you".

 

In the teaching of Jesus, we are all "one in Christ" and we all need to go "through" that same shared Christ (manifest Father aspect) in ourselves to realize the father.

 

Reading the full passage referring to 'we are all one in Christ':

 

For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

 

seems to very clearly refer to the equality of all baptised Christians being 'one in Christ', we aren't all one in Christ except through baptism. 

 

 

The concept is very similar to everyone having the same inherent "buddhanature", but in the teachings of Jesus it is kind of like a "shared space" of the primordial "Adam" (or all sentient beings).

 

Everyone having the same inherent buddha-nature makes complete sense to me. TBH 'the shared space of the primordial Adam' sounds kind of new-agey to me, and a very personal theology.

 

Jesus with the Christ realization becomes like manifest "form" of this potential in all of us. Like becoming the conduit or network. Like a "super guru" that is easily accessible. As he says...

 The potential to attain Buddha-nature was around before Jesus, as was the potential for 'Self-realisation', and these are enough for me.

 

 

“At that time Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because thou hast hid these things from the wise and prudent, and hast revealed them unto babes. Even so, Father: for so it seemed good in thy sight. All things are delivered unto me of my Father: and no man knoweth the Son, but the Father; neither knoweth any man the Father, save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal him.

 

Come unto me, all ye that labour and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Take my yoke upon you, and learn of me; for I am meek and lowly in heart: and ye shall find rest unto your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:25-30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

Edited February 26, 2017 by Bindi

[Jeff]

Reading the full passage referring to 'we are all one in Christ':

 For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. Galatians 3:28

 

seems to very clearly refer to the equality of all baptised Christians being 'one in Christ', we aren't all one in Christ except through baptism. 

 

Everyone having the same inherent buddha-nature makes complete sense to me. TBH 'the shared space of the primordial Adam' sounds kind of new-agey to me, and a very personal theology.

 

 The potential to attain Buddha-nature was around before Jesus, as was the potential for 'Self-realisation', and these are enough for me.

The potential for Buddha as been around since there have been sentient beings. The challenge is such realization. It is the method (or relative potential) that shifts with turnings.

[Bindi]

The potential for Buddha as been around since there have been sentient beings. The challenge is such realization. It is the method (or relative potential) that shifts with turnings.

 

When you say the method shifts, do you mean the Buddhist method is surpassed by the Christian method? 

[silent thunder]

Did you ever read the story about Neem Karoli Baba and David Alpert (Ram Das)?

 

Alpert was researching LSD at the MIT when he went to India and met NKB. He explained what he was doing and His research into consciousness.

 

Baba asked him for some LSD. Instead of taking the suggested dose, baba downed the entire bottle of LSD. Alpert and his colleagues panicked thinking someone terrible was going to happen. Nothing did...Baba's consciousness was not affected by LSD...

 

Jivanamuktas are free from these type of "addictions". Whatever they do, they continue simply by habit, not compulsion.

This resonates with me deeply.  For me all such condemnations fall in the realm of the typical and overused religious projection/judgement of how everyone else must act to achieve nirvanna/awakening/heaven, when it comes to areas of sexuality and consumption of plants, booze and such. 

 

I recall once, shortly before I left the church,shutting down a person who attempted to shame my teenage self, accusing me of insulting god with my dross humor.  I responded "I guess we have a very different idea of god... because as I see it, if the creator of the entire universe, is capable of being insulted by my small vibrations of words, then they are a very insecure supreme being." 

 

I have on occasion experienced the inability to become inebriated in spite of effort. 

 

Now I look at the myriad of simple potions, plants and extracts we use for hallucination and generating emotional states and see them as rather simplistic legos such as are in my son's play box.  Their reach is very limited and their scope is as nothing compared to realization and authentic presence, stillness and awareness.

 

On a side note:  No drug I have ever ingested has ever impacted me more potently than working with my breath in such pursuits a tummo and pranayama, retention/sublimation and hypo-ventilation.  Breath and consciousness are more intimately linked than perhaps any other two things I can name at present.

 

edit: to alter some wording for clarity (i hope)

Edited February 26, 2017 by silent thunder

[C T]

There are also many Buddhist who would agree that without empowerments or direct transmission one cannot reach Buddhahood.

 

 

 

 

 

Credible citation needed 

[Jeff]

When you say the method shifts, do you mean the Buddhist method is surpassed by the Christian method?

 

I am not trying to say that any tradition is better than any other tradition. I am simply saying that the "tools available" shift and have continued to shift. The methods (and realization) in the Old Testament are not the same as with the coming of Jesus. Similarly, the tools and technology of Tibetan Buddhism are not the same as Theravada Buddhism.

 

Also, it doesn't matter how good you are at walking from place to place if you are trying to cross an ocean. But, a plane can fly you to the other side easily.

[Mark Foote]

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”
‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:25-30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Our topic here is effort/no effort, and Jesus seems in this passage to be coming down on the side of effort, that is almost effortless (but not quite). 

 

How's that for a wiggle?

 

In my mind John is a later composition, like the 5th volume of the Nikayas that contains Dhammapada, and may not represent the words of Jesus (as the 5th Nikaya may not represent the words of Gautama).

 

I would affirm Silent Thunder's insight, that breath and consciousness are linked in the most amazing manner. 

 

My effort lately is this, which Gautama described as his way of living before and after enlightenment (in the chapter titled "Concentration on In-breathing and Out-breathing" in the Sanyutta Nikaya Volume V trans. Pali Text Society, and again in Majjhima Nikaya Vol. 3 I believe it is):

 

"Mindful [one] breathes in. Mindful [one] breathes out.

 

Whether [one] is breathing in a long (breath), breathing out a long (breath), breathing in a short (breath), breathing out a short (breath), one comprehends 'I am breathing in a long (breath), I am breathing out a long (breath), I am breathing in a short (breath), I am breathing out a short (breath).'

 

Thus [one] trains [oneself] thinking, 'I will breathe in experiencing the whole body; I will breathe out experiencing the whole body.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking ' I will breathe in tranquillizing the activity of body; I will breathe out tranquillizing the activity of body.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out experiencing zest... experiencing ease... experiencing the activity of thought... tranquillising the activity of thought.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out experiencing thought... rejoicing in thought... concentrating thought... freeing thought.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out beholding impermanence... beholding detachment... beholding stopping (of "voluntary control... concealed from the consciousness by habit") ... beholding casting away (of "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body")'."

 

(MN III 82-83, Pali Text Society III pg 124; parentheticals added: "voluntary control... concealed from the consciousness by habit" borrowed from Feldenkrais's "Awareness and Movement", "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body" from MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society III pg 68; "zest" and "ease" from SN V 310-312, Pali Text Society V pg 275-276, in place of "rapture" and "joy")

 

 

The trick is in that second line.  Rujing, Dogen's teacher in China, said this:

 

 

"Breath enters and reaches the tanden, and yet there is no place from which it comes. Therefore it is neither long nor short. Breath emerges from the tanden, and yet there is nowhere it goes. Therefore it is neither short nor long."

 

("Eihei Koroku", Dogen, vol. 5, #390, trans. Okumura)

 

 

Essentially the way of living Gautama described requires thought applied and sustained, yet hinges on freeing the direction of mind (or "freeing thought") and the beholding of "cessation", and I would contend without these latter elements the initial element of comprehending the long or short of inhalation or exhalation is absent. 

 

The place where the location of mind can move without triggering activity in the body--that's right here, and it's a lot like falling asleep or waking up.

 

Lately I spend time on relaxing whatever comes into mind, and on allowing gravity to generate the activity of my posture.  I spend time on relinquishing the direction of mind, and accepting the influence of sensory contact and the surface of the skin on the activity of posture.  I rely on the movement of breath and the rhythm of experience that Gautama described as "a pleasant way of living", in the knowledge that action can originate in what lies beyond the senses, given the mind of friendliness that reaches beyond the senses (or the mind of compassion, or sympathetic joy, or equanimity).

 

IMO it is in accord with the teachings of Jesus in "Thomas", as far as "entering" (the Kingdom, which is within), and with the teachings of Bodhidharma ("have no coughing or sighing in the mind, with a mind like a wall one can enter...").

Edited March 1, 2017 by Mark Foote

[Bindi]

"For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.”

‭‭Matthew‬ ‭11:25-30‬ ‭KJV‬‬

 

Our topic here is effort/no effort, and Jesus seems in this passage to be coming down on the side of effort, that is almost effortless (but not quite). 

 

How's that for a wiggle?

 

A lot hinges on the word 'easy'. Biblical commentary states:

 

Easy (χρηστὸς)

 

Not a satisfactory rendering. Christ's yoke is not easy in the ordinary sense of that word. The word means originally, good, serviceable. The kindred noun, χρηστότης, occurring only in Paul's writings, is rendered kindness in 2 Corinthians 6:6; Titus 3:4; Galatians 5:22; Ephesians 2:7 (Rev.), and goodness, Romans 2:4 (Rev.). At Luke 5:39, it is used of old wine, where the true reading, instead of better, is good (χρηστός), mellowed with age. Plato ("Republic," 424) applies the word to education. "Good nurture and education (τροφὴ γὰρ καὶ παίδευσις χρηστὴ) implant good (ἀγαθὰς) constitutions; and these good (χρησταὶ) constitutions improve more and more;" thus evidently using χρηστός and ἀγαθός as synonymous. The three meanings combine in the word, though it is impossible to find an English word which combines them all. Christ's yoke is wholesome, serviceable, kindly. "Christ's yoke is like feathers to a bird; not loads, but helps to motion" (Jeremy Taylor).

 

http://biblehub.com/commentaries/matthew/11-30.htm

His yoke is a 'good thing', not necessarily easy, the good or right thing can of course be the harder option, but if it gets you where you want to go then it's worth it.

 

Also a yoke in itself is a very specific constraint used only for work and unnecessary when wandering around or grazing contentedly.

 

True there is also the sense that what he requires in terms of work or effort is light, but personally I take this as light in comparison to the heavy burden of religious Law and strict observance that the Scribes and Pharisees had laid upon the shoulders of the people, which Jesus denounced emphatically (to put it kindly) and probably quite often.

 

¹⁰ Now then, why do you try to test God by putting on the necks of Gentiles a yoke that neither we nor our ancestors have been able to bear? ¹¹ No! We believe it is through the grace of our Lord Jesus that we are saved, just as they are.” Acts 15:10-11

 

In my mind John is a later composition, like the 5th volume of the Nikayas that contains Dhammapada, and may not represent the words of Jesus (as the 5th Nikaya may not represent the words of Gautama).

 

I would affirm Silent Thunder's insight, that breath and consciousness are linked in the most amazing manner. 

 

My effort lately is this, which Gautama described as his way of living before and after enlightenment (in the chapter titled "Concentration on In-breathing and Out-breathing" in the Sanyutta Nikaya Volume V trans. Pali Text Society, and again in Majjhima Nikaya Vol. 3 I believe it is):

 

"Mindful [one] breathes in. Mindful [one] breathes out.

 

Whether [one] is breathing in a long (breath), breathing out a long (breath), breathing in a short (breath), breathing out a short (breath), one comprehends 'I am breathing in a long (breath), I am breathing out a long (breath), I am breathing in a short (breath), I am breathing out a short (breath).'

 

Thus [one] trains [oneself] thinking, 'I will breathe in experiencing the whole body; I will breathe out experiencing the whole body.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking ' I will breathe in tranquillizing the activity of body; I will breathe out tranquillizing the activity of body.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out experiencing zest... experiencing ease... experiencing the activity of thought... tranquillising the activity of thought.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out experiencing thought... rejoicing in thought... concentrating thought... freeing thought.'

 

[One] trains [oneself], thinking: 'I will breathe in... breathe out beholding impermanence... beholding detachment... beholding stopping (of "voluntary control... concealed from the consciousness by habit") ... beholding casting away (of "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body")'."

 

(MN III 82-83, Pali Text Society III pg 124; parentheticals added: "voluntary control... concealed from the consciousness by habit" borrowed from Feldenkrais's "Awareness and Movement", "latent conceits that 'I am the doer, mine is the doer' in regard to this consciousness-informed body" from MN III 18-19, Pali Text Society III pg 68; "zest" and "ease" from SN V 310-312, Pali Text Society V pg 275-276, in place of "rapture" and "joy")

 

 

The trick is in that second line.  Rujing, Dogen's teacher in China, said this:

 

 

"Breath enters and reaches the tanden, and yet there is no place from which it comes. Therefore it is neither long nor short. Breath emerges from the tanden, and yet there is nowhere it goes. Therefore it is neither short nor long."

 

("Eihei Koroku", Dogen, vol. 5, #390, trans. Okumura)

 

 

Essentially the way of living Gautama described requires thought applied and sustained, yet hinges on freeing the direction of mind (or "freeing thought") and the beholding of "cessation", and I would contend without these latter elements the initial element of comprehending the long or short of inhalation or exhalation is absent. 

 

The place where the location of mind can move without triggering activity in the body--that's right here, and it's a lot like falling asleep or waking up.

 

Lately I spend time on relaxing whatever comes into mind, and on allowing gravity to generate the activity of my posture.  I spend time on relinquishing the direction of mind, and accepting the influence of sensory contact and the surface of the skin on the activity of posture.  I rely on the movement of breath and the rhythm of experience that Gautama described as "a pleasant way of living", in the knowledge that action can originate in what lies beyond the senses, given the mind of friendliness that reaches beyond the senses (or the mind of compassion, or sympathetic joy, or equanimity).

 

IMO it is in accord with the teachings of Jesus in "Thomas", as far as "entering" (the Kingdom, which is within), and with the teachings of Bodhidharma ("have no coughing or sighing in the mind, with a mind like a wall one can enter...").

 

[Mark Foote]

Reminds me of Gautama's analogy for mindfulness, the stake an elephant is tied to in order to calm it. 

Not the way I think of it, I'm afraid.  More like a juggling thing, not just hard to get the elements he described up in the air and rolling, but requiring a state of grace while at the same time a natural rhythm of living.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Mark Foote

[dwai]

attention bindi --

 

This is relevant on your OP about effort vs no-effort --

 

https://youtu.be/TfCPPzztKYM?t=1079

Edited March 1, 2017 by dwai

[Bindi]

The story of the Flower Sermon appears to have been created by Chinese Chán Buddhists.^[3] The earliest known version of the tale appeared in 1036 (wikipedia).

 

Immediate realisation/enlightenment is not possible in my mind, the frameworks I relate to are the nadi's and the dantians, in the nadi system energy needs to travel through ida and pingala into the central nadi, this is neither quickly done nor can it be unconsciously achieved I suspect. Same with dantian work and bringing the energy up dantian by dantian, it's not quick and it doesn't just happen. 

 

Immediate 'non-dual' realisation is to me a mental state that has nothing to do with Self-realisation, The idea that all karma and all ego can disappear in a moment is the equivalent of saying all dantians and all nadis can be clear and appropriate energy flowing in a second.

 

David Godman on Self-realisation...

 

I don't think that there is an epidemic of Self-realization in the West or anywhere else. I think full realization is a rare phenomenon. There are certainly more people who think that they have realized the Self, but I think that they are deluding themselves.

[3bob]

ah but all karma and ego can be suspended and or detached for an eternal moment beyond time, space and form - for such is the power, grace, reach and speed of the Mystery beyond a particular matrix or mental process.  

Edited March 2, 2017 by 3bob

[Mark Foote]

dwai, can you summarize or quote?

 

Interesting to me that in some Japanese arts, the initial promotion to a master's rank is by the individual's attainment (and possibly some of the subsequent master ranks), yet there comes a time when promotion depends on the attainment of the master's students or of honorarium.  I'm thinking of judo, but I think there's something similar in the hats that they wear at the main training temples of Zen.

 

See George Carlin, on hats.

 

Anyway... Gautama spoke of initial states that were characterized by equanimity with respect to multiplicity, and subsequent states characterized by equanimity with respect to uniformity.  He himself studied the "state where no-thing exists" with his first teacher, but was unsatisfied, and so came to study the "state of neither perception-and sensation-or-yet-not-perception-and-sensation" with his second.  He wasn't satisfied with that either, and subsequently attained the cessation of "neither perception-and sensation-or-yet-not-perception-and-sensation", which was identified with his enlightenment.

 

Point being that there were masters and then there were masters, in the India of 500 B.C.E., and I suspect that's still the case today.  Can't judge the saint by the followers, witness "Kumari".  I hear a different voice in the sermons in the first four Nikayas that are uttered by Gautama's disciples, not exactly the view of Gautama, even from the foremost of his disciples. 

 

Do we look to turn a corner, either through effort or effortlessly, and always be the son or daughter of the divine or a Tathagatha without ever losing faith or teaching things that lead to the suicide of others?

 

Or do we look to manifest that tight connection between breath and consciousness simply because there's a kind of happiness involved, and understand that there are no Zen teachers (even if there is Zen)?

Edited March 2, 2017 by Mark Foote

[Bindi]

ah but all karma and ego can be suspended and or detached for an eternal moment beyond time, space and form - for such is the power, grace, reach and speed of the Mystery beyond a particular matrix or mental process.  

 

Is 'the eternal moment beyond time' a transient state that some experience, a taste of things to come if this state can one day be established, or is it a permanent state won in a moment without any previous work in this life or a previous life?

[3bob]

Bindi, A handle one might use is with an analogy of dimensions and the laws that apply to them... for instance laws for 2d can not be used to limit the laws for 3d,  and so on extrapolated to a what could be called a "no-thing" or God  dimension that is also eternally and simultaneously within and throughout all dimensions, and in that sense an eternal moment is not transient, nor can the laws of transient time or place be applied to it.  Further, and atom or Atman of and at the God dimension never gains, loses or wins that which IT already IS.  I'd say there is a point of no return (to various "states") for a matrix, and also a point of no longer coming or going but I'm not qualified on that. 

Edited March 2, 2017 by 3bob

[dwai]

dwai, can you summarize or quote?

 

 

So the question asked to Papaji is "there are many teachers who prescribe some practice following which a certain result is achieved. Further he asks, you yourself seem to have done many thousand hours of practice and read many scriptures. How can you then say that no effort is needed?"

 

Papaji's response as I understood is this.

He spontaneously experienced the full awakening at the age of 7 or 8. But he couldn't understand it and no one could explain to him what it was that he became fully aware of. So he went from teacher to teacher, did many practices till he realized that, that which he was seeking to understand was beyond understanding, and that he never once was not THAT!

 

Further he suggests that all practices/efforts to attain something might get you to that thing but it won't be permanent. Only by becoming aware of that which we never not are, and fully accepting that simple and constant fact of our being, can we become fully free.

 

In another talk he asks "tell me who you are..."...in a split second of a split second, try to see what your identity is..."

 

That is a telling question really, as it brought home to me the same realization/awareness that I have now and always had (but didn't recognize it)...

[Bindi]

According to Cohen [one of many of Papaji's students whom Papaji at one stage declared was enlightened], "Poonja insisted that the realization of the Self had nothing to do with worldly behavior, and he did not believe fully transcending the ego was possible." According to Poonja, "karmic tendencies remained after enlightenment, [but] the enlightened person was no longer identified with them and, therefore, did not accrue further karmic consequences." For Poonja, ethical standards were based on a dualistic understanding of duality and the notion of an individual agent, and therefore were not representative of Advaita: "For Poonja, the goal was the realisation of the self; the illusory realm of relative reality was ultimately irrelevant." Cohen did not agree, insisting instead on "flawless behavior" as the manifestation of enlightenment.

 

https://upclosed.com/people/andrew-cohen-5

 

 

These are some of the issues which we have been debating here. Fundamental differences of opinion like Papaji "did not believe fully transcending the ego was possible" will underlie his whole approach and perspective, and having a different fundamental opinion myself Papaji's perspective as well as his means and aims will always remain foreign to me.

 

edit: I could even say that if complete dismantling/transcending of the ego isn't required, then I agree that Papaji's version of enlightenment or self-realisation is possible in a split second. But to transcend the ego completely time and effort will be required.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Bindi

[dwai]

These are some of the issues which we have been debating here. Fundamental differences of opinion like Papaji "did not believe fully transcending the ego was possible" will underlie his whole approach and perspective, and having a different fundamental opinion myself Papaji's perspective as well as his means and aims will always remain foreign to me.

 

edit: I could even say that if complete dismantling/transcending of the ego isn't required, then I agree that Papaji's version of enlightenment or self-realisation is possible in a split second. But to transcend the ego completely time and effort will be required.

Can you tell me which Upanishad says that the ego will be destroyed completely? If you read more advanced texts on Advaita Vedanta like Ashtavakra Gita you'll see that they are suggesting something similar to Papaji.

 

I used to believe the same thing as you - that the ego must be "killed", until my teacher told me that there is no need. The ego is needed in order to function in this world. We have to just make it realize that it is subservient to the True Self (He called it Spiritual Mind).  Slowly, as experiences unfolded, I realized that while the ego doesn't "die", it slowly relinquishes control and lets the True Self take over.

The upadhi (limiting adjunct aka body-mind) is only limiting if there is absolute identification with it and it's modifications. Stop the modifications and see that your true self is not the body-mind. Then, further more that all that is, is predicated on that true self.

 

With that being established as a fact, let go of your attachments to the impulses of the body-mind, and be free.

 

What is prarabhda (already acivated) will continue to play out until they run their course or the body-mind ends.

Edited March 2, 2017 by dwai

[Mark Foote]

"A sinking spiral, rising upward, it opens and closes by turns..."--I like that, dwai!

 

"When true simplicity is gained, to bow and to bend we shall not be ashamed, to turn, to turn shall be our delight, 'til by turning, turning we come round right."

 

     

 

(zikir practice in Sufism, bowing to the left, straightening and bending the knees, bowing to the right, straightening and bending the knees--whilst chantin the name of the divine or similar)

 

 

This morning I found myself particularly focused on the part of Gautama's "way of living" that is the experience of zest in inhalation and exhalation, and similarly the experience of ease.  He speaks of the body permeated and suffused with such feeling, so that no part of the body is left out.

 

To the extent that relaxation of the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation precedes such experience of feeling, I identify the zest and ease with picking up the sense of proprioception (and joy with opening the hand of thought, as it were).  Sure enough, if I look for it, zest and ease.

 

Equally, the role of my eyes in the experience of equalibrioception and a location of mind was necessary to me this morning, to begin. 

 

Is this an effort, or is this the effortless experience of things as they is, out of necessity ("things as they is", after Shunryu Suzuki)?  The lotus definitely gives me to know necessity, but I presume any bent-leg posture would do the same, including prayer on the knees or zikir.

 

For me, the differences in the coordination of support for posture are reconciled in the autonomic function of the movement of breath; I have faith in this, because I know the breath that reaches everywhere in the mind of friendliness has gotten up and walked around, and I believe can as necessary.

Edited March 2, 2017 by Mark Foote

[dwai]

"A sinking spiral, rising upward, it opens and closes by turns..."--I like that, dwai!

 

"When true simplicity is gained, to bow and to bend we shall not be ashamed, to turn, to turn shall be our delight, 'til by turning, turning we come round right."

 

     

 

(zikir practice in Sufism, bowing to the left, straightening and bending the knees, bowing to the right, straightening and bending the knees--whilst chantin the name of the divine or similar)

 

 

This morning I found myself particularly focused on the part of Gautama's "way of living" that is the experience of zest in inhalation and exhalation, and similarly the experience of ease.  He speaks of the body permeated and suffused with such feeling, so that no part of the body is left out.

 

To the extent that relaxation of the activity of the body in inhalation and exhalation precedes such experience of feeling, I identify the zest and ease with picking up the sense of proprioception (and joy with opening the hand of thought, as it were).  Sure enough, if I look for it, zest and ease.

 

Equally, the role of my eyes in the experience of equalibrioception and a location of mind was necessary to me this morning, to begin. 

 

Is this an effort, or is this the effortless experience of things as they is, out of necessity ("things as they is", after Shunryu Suzuki)?  The lotus definitely gives me to know necessity, but I presume any bent-leg posture would do the same, including prayer on the knees or zikir.

 

imho, effort in this context refers to "mental effort" and not necessarily physical. My teachers have told me that Tai chi should be practiced with effortless effort. Put too much effort and it is detrimental and put too little effort and there's no effect whatsoever. The right amount of effort is effortless effort  (paradoxical).

 

 So when I teach now, I see my friends struggling with the same conundrum - how much effort is too much effort? What does it take to become effortless in your effort? My yardstick is, if you feel strained in anyway, that is too much effort. It should be as you put it, just like "things as they is"...

[Mark Foote]

dwai, I confess to having added to my post--just fyi on that.

 

"Relax! Sink!", as one of the local Tai-chi instructors is fond of saying.

[dwai]

dwai, I confess to having added to my post--just fyi on that.

 

"Relax! Sink!", as one of the local Tai-chi instructors is fond of saying.

 

Haha..we don't yell "RELAX HARDER!" either...