Simply Be -- Summa Iru

[dwai]

31 minutes ago, steve said:

I recognize that it is not something anyone can simply access and yet it seems so simple on the surface.

So when one does encounter challenges they are magnified by the apparent simplicity, leading to frustration, anger, even bitterness.

Would you agree that a part of the reason why this can be challenging is that the mind tends to gravitate towards complex activities and tasks?

[doc benway]

1 minute ago, dwai said:

Would you agree that a part of the reason why this can be challenging is that the mind tends to gravitate towards complex activities and tasks?

 

Sure, that's part.

Another way to look at it is simply that the mind tends to grasp things - complex activities and tasks, memories, fears, desires, shapes, colors, sounds - anything and everything. More than anything it grasps at a "self," a permanent entity that is the narrator, the doer, our very own frame of reference. But even that frame of reference is a movable, temporary construct. The one thing the mind does not know how to do is simply rest. That's not at all in its wheelhouse. Partly that is because the mind is specifically that aspect of us which does anything other than rest. So we must show it what a resting mind looks like and then give it the opportunity to see value and develop some familiarity with that. 

 

In the Tibetan Buddhist and Bön traditions, this method of "leaving it as it is" was the single most inaccessible and secretive of all practices. It was considered very radical and even heresy by some, such is the power of the mind that does not understand or value rest.

[manitou]

I know that lots of folks embrace the idea that learning to meditate by intentionally omitting thoughts is a bad one.  I've heard that from more than one person.  But this is exactly how I was taught to meditate - first, to focus on a candle or something (this is 40 years ago), and when a thought arrived, gently push it away with an imaginary feather.  I kept doing this over the years, and I can go into no-thought at will.

 

However, I am having real memory issues, sometimes losing a thought while I'm talking.  I don't know if the meditation had anything to do with that, as I come from an Alzheimer's family.  And I haven't found that my ability to think or cogitate or figure stuff out has been affected, when focused on something.  My thinking now remains in the abstract most of the time.  Or sometimes no thoughts at all, just being.  And what I do know is that I no longer harbor negative thoughts (okay, maybe Trump) - I have control over them.  We get to think about what we want to think about.  If at all.

 

I think the value of following your thoughts in meditation is great.  I think evaluating those thoughts and seeing where they come from, or whether specific traits get in your way or are causing unbalance.  This would be a great tool for the inner work that's required for clarity.  (In my particular case, the introspection I needed was enabled by the 12 steps of recovery.  The process continues to this day).  

 

If a situation comes to mind during meditation, and it's a situation that's far from congenial, the best thing to do is to look at your thoughts (or your indignation) and try to see exactly what part you're playing in the situation.  They and only then, when we are honest with ourselves, do we break down the barriers to clarity.  It might hurt a little at first, but this passes soon and the revelations become welcome visitors.  Apologize when needed.

 

 

 

Edited January 24, 2021 by manitou

[forestofclarity]

For the Bon, the emphasis seems to be on the "was" whereas with the Nyingma is "is." I note that some here talk about Dzogchen fairly plainly and openly--- do you think that such public expressions are warranted nowadays? 

 

38 minutes ago, steve said:

In the Tibetan Buddhist and Bön traditions, this method of "leaving it as it is" was the single most inaccessible and secretive of all practices. It was considered very radical and even heresy by some, such is the power of the mind that does not understand or value rest.

 

[manitou]

46 minutes ago, steve said:

In the Tibetan Buddhist and Bön traditions, this method of "leaving it as it is" was the single most inaccessible and secretive of all practices. It was considered very radical and even heresy by some, such is the power of the mind that does not understand or value rest.

 

 

Is this the same as wei wu wei?

[Nungali]

4 hours ago, forestofemptiness said:

I suppose it depends on what your conception of divinity is, because it is different for different people. I will give one interpretation, but know that it is necessarily partial, incomplete, etc. 

 

But desire tends to drive what we spend our time, energy, and (perhaps most of all) our attention on. And we tend to suffer when we don't have what we want--- when what we want is absent from experience. Desire is basically for happiness, although what this means is defined differently by different traditions. 

 

The curious thing is that what we generally want and believe will make us happy are tangible (and also intangible) things--- things usually with form, shape, color, texture, etc. This can range from food, money, sexual partners to high spiritual states (which is why I say usually, many of these states would not be considered tangible). We may expect to find lasting happiness from somehow arranging these things or having these things, but it never happens because they are all impermanent. 

 

Now spirituality comes along and promises us that what we are looking for is not the expression or display of the divine but the divine itself. And surprise, surprise, the divine is not only present in every moment of experience , but it actually transcends and infuses all things. However, we are largely blinded from this astonishing fact by our desire for the display which comes and goes. If we could just loosen our obsession with the display shift our attention, then we could see this and relax, we would find the happiness we seek. 

 

 

 

Urrrmm .... I  think  I get it .  I do live in a happiness that sees the divine in everything material  ( no difference   with or transition between 'heaven and earth' )  But I am more inclined to say  ' Thank you for all of this '  rather than  'I want you ' . So I still dont get the 'I want you ' bit .  Maybe if I didnt have my happiness bringing awareness I might ask  ' I want that '  or   even,  'I want to feel your presence' is what 'I want you'  means  ?  . Maybe I have trouble   with the idea of 'wanting' a personification  or an ' entity '  ... it seems too much like 'possession '   .....   for me

 

 

[forestofclarity]

I'd say don't worry about it. I'm just rambling anyway. 

 

14 minutes ago, Nungali said:

 

Urrrmm .... I  think  I get it .  

 

 

 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

For the Bon, the emphasis seems to be on the "was" whereas with the Nyingma is "is." I note that some here talk about Dzogchen fairly plainly and openly--- do you think that such public expressions are warranted nowadays? 

 

 

 

Yes, I do

[forestofclarity]

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious. 

 

34 minutes ago, steve said:

 

Yes, I do

 

[doc benway]

Just now, forestofemptiness said:

Care to elaborate? I'm genuinely curious. 

 

 

Sure

 

Our current world is deeply suffering. 

The people, all of the living creatures, the very Earth herself. Furthermore, the home and heart of these teachings has been under attack and occupation for decades.

 

I think these are the fundamental motivating factors for the masters that are making the teachings public. If they have something that can help us as well as protect the teachings from extinction, it seems they feel an obligation and opportunity to share.

 

The nature of the teachings is their simplicity and practicality. No complicated concepts or visualizations, no need for specialized equipment or a knowledge of exotic languages, no need for years and decades of study, no dependence on cultural subtleties. Certainly all of these things can support the practice but none are necessary if the practice is understood and done correctly. I’ve heard it said that this is exactly the practice needed for the modern era, I tend to think along those lines.

 

 

[Limahong]

14 minutes ago, steve said:

I think these are the fundamental motivating factors for the masters that are making the teachings public. If they have something that can help us as well as protect the teachings from extinction, it seems they feel an obligation and opportunity to share.

 

 

Hi steve,

 

And they help us in our cultivation forward to pass the batons on...

 

 

- Anand

 

 

[Limahong]

2 hours ago, Nungali said:

Maybe if I didnt have my happiness bringing awareness I might ask  ' I want that '  or   even,  'I want to feel your presence' is what 'I want you'  means  ?  . Maybe I have trouble   with the idea of 'wanting' a personification  or an ' entity '  ... it seems too much like 'possession '   .....   for me

 

 

Good morning Nun,

 

For me ~ when it comes to happiness/awareness/...

 

'I want to' is better than 'I don't want to'.

 

Better still ~ 'I need to'.

 

 

 

- Anand

 

 

[Nungali]

5 hours ago, steve said:

Sure

 

Our current world is deeply suffering. 

The people, all of the living creatures, the very Earth herself. Furthermore, the home and heart of these teachings has been under attack and occupation for decades.

 

This bit  ^

 

This is the reason that Wunan Law keepers  , who have held a secret tradition for  about 12,000 years regarding the 'unknown'  ' Gwion Gwion  rock art tradition, have recently 'come out' with their knowledge .  That, and the destruction of their 'written record '  and people.

 

Desperate times need desperate actions

 

 

 

https://www.creativespirits.info/aboriginalculture/arts/bradshaw-gwion-gwion-rock-art

 

( first part , 'Old School' Euro interpretation , 2nd part , updates .  )

 

Quote

 

I think these are the fundamental motivating factors for the masters that are making the teachings public. If they have something that can help us as well as protect the teachings from extinction, it seems they feel an obligation and opportunity to share.

 

The nature of the teachings is their simplicity and practicality. No complicated concepts or visualizations, no need for specialized equipment or a knowledge of exotic languages, no need for years and decades of study, no dependence on cultural subtleties. Certainly all of these things can support the practice but none are necessary if the practice is understood and done correctly. I’ve heard it said that this is exactly the practice needed for the modern era, I tend to think along those lines.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by Nungali

[Nungali]

59 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

 

Good morning Nun,

 

For me ~ when it comes to happiness/awareness/...

 

'I want to' is better than 'I don't want to'.

 

Better still ~ 'I need to'.

 

 

 

- Anand

 

 

 

 

Oh Gawd  .....  he's awake  . 

 

Spoiler

I remember  my GF and I looking down at her baby twins , asleep together  ....

 

" They are SOOOO cute   .... when they are asleep  . "

 

 

 

.

Edited January 24, 2021 by Nungali

[forestofclarity]

I don't have anything to argue with the statement below--- evidently, Lopon Tenzin Namdak encouraged teachers to teach and point out to anyone interested, rather than say reserving it for a select few or requiring years of preliminary practice. However, this seems to be a much different approach than publicly discussing the teachings without limit. 

 

What I have been taught is that Dzogchen is very subtle and very precise. Accordingly, it must be taught from a living teacher to a living student, and it cannot be captured in words and concepts. It is easy to get wrong and develop mistaken views about, many of which then have to be removed later. In addition, even under the best of circumstances, many people miss the point or make errors (this can include authorized lineage masters, but their own admission). Of course, there are often many preliminary practices and teachings that are offered in the event a student "doesn't get it." Finally, only a living teacher can really confirm whether one has gotten it. I only say this because I wish I had known this many years ago. 

 

Of course, not being omniscient, it is impossible to judge anyway.

 

Do Bon teachers encourage everyone to discuss Dzogchen publicly? 

 

3 hours ago, steve said:

Sure

 

Our current world is deeply suffering. 

The people, all of the living creatures, the very Earth herself. Furthermore, the home and heart of these teachings has been under attack and occupation for decades.

 

I think these are the fundamental motivating factors for the masters that are making the teachings public. If they have something that can help us as well as protect the teachings from extinction, it seems they feel an obligation and opportunity to share.

 

The nature of the teachings is their simplicity and practicality. No complicated concepts or visualizations, no need for specialized equipment or a knowledge of exotic languages, no need for years and decades of study, no dependence on cultural subtleties. Certainly all of these things can support the practice but none are necessary if the practice is understood and done correctly. I’ve heard it said that this is exactly the practice needed for the modern era, I tend to think along those lines.

 

 

 

Edited January 25, 2021 by forestofemptiness

[dwai]

3 hours ago, steve said:

Our current world is deeply suffering. 

The people, all of the living creatures, the very Earth herself. Furthermore, the home and heart of these teachings has been under attack and occupation for decades.

Well said! 

I like to give this analogy — if you find people who are lost and dying of thirst in a desert, and you have water with you, will you check to see if they are “qualified” to give them water? 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

Do Bon teachers encourage everyone to discuss Dzogchen publicly? 

 

I've never been encouraged to discuss dzogchen publicly by my teachers.

On the other hand, my teacher does encourage us to share our personal experiences with other practitioners to whatever degree we feel comfortable.

The teachings themselves do offer warnings against sharing teachings with those who are not karmically connected.

They also describe the problems that can arise from unsuitable practitioners encountering the teachings.

Consequently, I use caution when discussing the teachings and generally limit discussion to my own personal experience. 

I share here as I consider this a relatively small community of variably dedicated practitioners, among whom are some quite experienced and knowledgable folks. 

[doc benway]

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

I don't have anything to argue with the statement below--- evidently, Lopon Tenzin Namdak encouraged teachers to teach and point out to anyone interested, rather than say reserving it for a select few or requiring years of preliminary practice. 

I think the mindset is that know one can really know who will connect with the teachings and who will not.

As a result, given the difficult state of current affairs he has decided to share the teachings with little reservation in hopes they will germinate and blossom in a few blessed individuals.

 

1 hour ago, forestofemptiness said:

However, this seems to be a much different approach than publicly discussing the teachings without limit. 

True

I do limit what I share to a considerable degree.

 

[manitou]

23 hours ago, Nungali said:

Maybe I have trouble   with the idea of 'wanting' a personification  or an ' entity '  ... it seems too much like 'possession '   .....   for me

 

 

And the idea of 'wanting' a personification is dual.  We are the personification of the entity.

[Limahong]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

 

And the idea of 'wanting' a personification is dual.  We are the personification of the entity.

 

 

 

Hi Barbara,

 

I want... I don't want... I want... I don't want... I want... I don't want...

 

 

- Anand

 

 

[Nungali]

1 hour ago, manitou said:

 

 

And the idea of 'wanting' a personification is dual.  We are the personification of the entity.

 

Strangely , I get that side of it .

 

 

 

 

62.	At all my meetings with you shall the priestess say — and her eyes shall burn with desire as she stands bare and rejoicing in my secret temple — To me! To me! calling forth the flame of the hearts of all in her love-chant.
63.	Sing the rapturous love-song unto me! Burn to me perfumes! Wear to me jewels! Drink to me, for I love you! I love you!
64.	I am the blue-lidded daughter of Sunset; I am the naked brilliance of the voluptuous night-sky.
65.	To me! To me!

 

[Nungali]

38 minutes ago, Limahong said:

 

 

Hi Barbara,

 

I want... I don't want... I want... I don't want... I want... I don't want...

 

 

- Anand

 

 

 

Stop destroying that flower Limi  .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Limahong]

23 hours ago, Nungali said:

Stop destroying that flower Limi  .

 

Hi Nun,

 

Good morning ~ just woke up.

 

COVID 19 ~ poor business.

 

Few buy flowers.

 

 

Where have all the florists gone?

 

 

 

- Anand