Are "repeatable" spiritual paths, simply a myth ?

[ThisLife]

Edited February 15, 2009 by ThisLife

[Bruce]

Quite possibly, my friend. The notion would seem consistent with the sudden enlightenment school of Ch'an, the idea being that we're all Buddhas and only have to realize it. In the stories of the Patriarchs of Ch'an/Zen, not all of them had their realizations only after sitting in the lotus position on a mountain for 3 years. Some only had to hear a snipit of a sutra before they "got it".

 

Maybe some are just "nearly there" to start with, so no matter the method or non-method, they had the purity of mind to see deeply that may take others a lifetime or lifetimes to achieve.

 

The goal of enlightenment is often seen as an obstacle anyway.

 

Just an edit: I wouldn't say that repeatable paths are a myth, but maybe in some cases unnecessary.

Edited February 15, 2009 by Bruce

[contrivedname!]

i find myself agreeing w/ a lot of what you are saying. i think that the various spiritual paths are like guidelines, but not set in stone, i.e. i think the "enlightened" masters hoped by giving their example of how they achieved this always elusive, enigmatic state, that others may be able to learn from their experience and thus produce their own experience of enlightenment. a good saying is "dont mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon"

 

personally, a historical, possibly legendary figure, i like on this subject is hui-neng, who says things like "whether sutra chanting will enlighten one or not depends on the mind", "for straight-forward behavior the practice of dhyana may be dispensed with", or in one story he lauds the individual who has "realized the essence of mind" yet has nothing to do with the four noble truths. my point is that imo a true master isnt one who simply relays a set of timeworn instructions, s/he is one who helps an individual return to (or realize if you will) their basic nature.

 

ps i dont think those are direct quotes, just from me memory

 

 

 

Quite possibly, my friend. The notion would seem consistent with the sudden enlightenment school of Ch'an, the idea being that we're all Buddhas and only have to realize it. In the stories of the Patriarchs of Ch'an/Zen, not all of them had their realizations only after sitting in the lotus position on a mountain for 3 years. Some only had to hear a snipit of a sutra before they "got it".

 

Maybe some are just "nearly there" to start with, so no matter the method or non-method, they had the purity of mind to see deeply that may take others a lifetime or lifetimes to achieve.

 

The goal of enlightenment is often seen as an obstacle anyway.

 

Just an edit: I wouldn't say that repeatable paths are a myth, but maybe in some cases unnecessary.

 

interesting that we were both posting about that school at the same time...

 

edit: hmm interesting scripting, if you reply to a subject you were the last post on it simply adds it to your previous post

Edited February 15, 2009 by contrivedname!

[Bruce]

ps i dont think those are direct quotes, just from me memory

interesting that we were both posting about that school at the same time...

 

Yep.

[NeutralWire]

My two cents: there are absolutely repeatable and verifiable aspects to spiritual improvement. They're perfectly clear and they're there for all to see. They're not the whole deal. No system is complete and humanity's spiritual journey has hardly begun. There are unknown factors, personal and individual factors, and those are vital too. And the 'moment' of enlightenment is not to be predicted by anyone. But a good method to follow does absolutely make all the difference in the world.

 

Certain things predictably arise at certain points upon all paths. There are many things that need attending to and there is nothing better than trying to learn a good perspective upon them from someone who has trodden the path before oneself -- if indeed they have really trodden it and know how to get you going on it themselves. ('The bullshit on this topic is deep and wide' - Glenn Morris.)

 

A successful spiritual lineage creates an energetic gateway almost. But you still have to pass through the gateway yourself.

 

It is absolutely true that you can get fixated on imitating, and/or guru-dependent, and therefore unable to manifest, but this is a psychological thing owing to insufficient self-knowledge.

 

If the method is good it does indeed being forth fruit in other people. The system I like best, Bardon's Hermetics, does exactly that since people who have followed have indeed obtained enlightenment. I see definite signs that enlightenment is possible with other methods that have been published too.

 

These successes are indeed 'because of the method', because of the ability to pass on something which can cut short the search. It's still the student doing it, not the method, and there are still very personal differences between the way the same method will work with different people -- but a good method honours this fact, allowing for personal differences and indeed expecting personal experiment.

 

Paths don't inevitably and mechanically produce a kind of conveyor belt of 'enlightened' human beings. The Buddha himself recommended not simply taking anyone's word for anything, including his. But there are so very many things that it helps to know and practice and think about, and it's good to pass those things on. If they are combined into a coherent method, in my opinion it will most often take people way way past what they would have been able to do otherwise.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[Yoda]

Yogani says that some advanced teachers say to just open your eyes and look around, no need for climbing!! But what about those of us at base camp?

 

AugustLeo's journal and autobiography is very helpful on this issue.

[三江源]

I think the myth lies in the unspoken belief that the time frame of the path is knowable.

 

 

a spit second for those unknowingly on the brink.

 

for others

 

A lifetime..

 

 

for others

 

 

many lifetimes...

[Bruce]

I thought this snipit of a teaching from the late Ch'an master Shing-yen pertinent:

 

Practice is not like trying to clear thoughts from your mind and vexations from your life as if they were dust on a mirror. You cannot wipe the dust away and make yourself enlightened. It is not like that. Whether you use the methods of the Lin-chi or Tsao-tung sects within the Ch'an tradition, once enlightened, you realize that enlightenment has nothing to do with the practice that brought you there.

 

So why bother to practice? Practice is like a bridge that can lead to enlightenment, even though enlightenment has nothing to do with practice.

[Spiritual_Aspirant]

I don't think "repeatable" spiritual paths are just myth. I believe in the concept of "Spiritual Technology" wherein tried and tested techniques are given to aspirants to develop spiritually.

[ThisLife]

I thought this snipit of a teaching from the late Ch'an master Shing-yen pertinent:

 

[1] Practice is not like trying to clear thoughts from your mind and vexations from your life as if they were dust on a mirror. You cannot wipe the dust away and make yourself enlightened. It is not like that. Whether you use the methods of the Lin-chi or Tsao-tung sects within the Ch'an tradition, once enlightened, you realize that enlightenment has nothing to do with the practice that brought you there.

 

So why bother to practice? Practice is like a bridge that can lead to enlightenment, even though enlightenment has nothing to do with practice.

 

 

[2] I don't think "repeatable" spiritual paths are just myth. I believe in the concept of "Spiritual Technology" wherein tried and tested techniques are given to aspirants to develop spiritually.

 

 

I find real-life situations such as the above really intriguing,... where a seemingly random sequence of unconnected events end up unintentionally working together to form something quite different. The two previous and sequential posts by Bruce and Spiritual Aspirant,, (which I have quoted in this post above), at first glance seem to be taking the exact opposite stance on the idea of whether spiritual attainment is dependent on the path and practices a person follows.

 

My feeling is that they are actually only opposites in the same way that the head side of a coin is opposite to the tail side. Yes, they are opposites from one point of view,... yet equally, they are both simply essential parts of the same coin. Without the head and the tail,... you have no coin. And yet, looked at individually, they quite clearly face in opposite directions.

 

I wish I could speak from direct personal experience in this, but unfortunately my point of view on this is just a mere intellectual playing around randomly with pieces of a spiritual jigsaw puzzle. But what I find myself believing from patterns I've seen made out of similar pieces I've looked at in the past,... is that genuine spiritual development seems to happen by the seeker first finding a path he/she truly believes in. They then follow these teachings and practices till, one day, they unexpectedly come up against what often seems an insurmountable obstacle. A situation where one is faced with two opposing points of view. Then, since a person can only follow one branch of a path at a time,.... a decision between the left or the right fork seems essential if one wants to continue to 'make progress'.

 

But I think that these spiritual dilemmas in life are actually like Zen koans. And, (though I am not a Zen practitioner and am not speaking from personal experience),...my feeling is that the way through the seeming obstacle of a paradox is not by solving them,....but by transcending them. Or, (putting it more visually instead of into new age airy-fairy language),... by stepping out of the process of inwardly listening for one's own preference, or inclination to become clear, then following it. Perhaps the way to resolve a paradox is by mentally finding a viewpoint above the situation, i.e."transcending it".

 

From outside and above a difficult decision, one can finally understand. One can see through, or encompass, the paradox of how two sides of a coin can be both an opposite and a unity, at the same time. One can see how the left and the right fork of a path are actually just leading around different sides of the same mountain.

 

So, with regards to this discussion, Bruce's quote saying that "Enlightenment has nothing to do with the practice that brought you here",... and Spiritual Aspirant's conviction that, "tried and tested techniques are given to aspirants to develop spiritually",.... are both part of a unity. What unites them is that it is the same Tao working through both individuals, giving them each their own particular convictions. And yet, the Tao has no preference. There is no connection to practice , 'and' the practice is vital to attainment. Because the same Tao is the source, substance and activating force within every point of view. Even more abstractly,... the appearance of these two views being opposites,... is also created, activated and sustained by the Tao.

 

These attempts at seeing an all-inclusive points of view I find that I can only mentally imagine for very, very brief glimpses. Because my conscious, or rational mind just cannot live there. There is nothing familiar for my mind to sustain itself with. Our mind needs 'food', just as does our body.

 

Nevertheless, I think this inner mental striving to stand on one's tiptoes to see over the fence, is part of the same compulsion which drives people to find out what life on the ocean floor is like, or to see how it is in outer space. But, always, the reality of our human body-mind apparatus and its needs, draws me back to life on the earth's surface.

 

I think that at heart, everyone attracted to sites like this, is trying, via their own nature and inclinations, to satisfy this same strange, inner compulsion "to know". That, as seemingly varied and often completely opposed as the thousands of views expressed here often appear,.... somehow, they are simply the thousand and one faces of the same, living Tao.

 

 

ThisLife

 

 

.

[sheng zhen]

I think Wilber's prepersonal, personal, and transpersonal levels of developement presents a very interesting way to look at it.

 

In the pre-level the world is magical and everything happens with the blessing of an authority, like God or a guru. In the personal-level everything happens by natural law and everything spiritual and un-seen is just fantacy. But in the transpersonal level everything becomes magical again, only this time it includes(and transcends) both the prepersonal and personal levels. So in this level we can include a personal/scientific prosedure to transcend both the prepersonal and transpersonal.

 

Wilber mentions Zen as "repeatable" spiritual technology to experience the transpersonal reality. But obviously there are thousands of repeatable spiritual techniques out there.

 

I guess it all depends on what level of reality you see your path from. Or what level of reality you recieve the teaching from.

[Unconditioned]

There is nothing wrong or right with a path or with no path. They are the same thing, they are a striving or an evading. But you can't have the good without the bad, the material without the immaterial, you can't add or take away from the Tao.

 

We all have to go beyond path and no-path (both of which are beliefs/experiences/whatever) but are all fragmented reality.

 

Can we know the void?

 

Can we feel emptiness?

 

If we say "yes" it is knowable, we are creating an image, an idea of what those things are. If we say "no" we cannot we are also creating an image, an idea of what those things are. But if we ask the question, without an answer without a predisposition, what happens? We stop dead in our (mental) tracks and the mind quiets. In this state, without expectation (that's just another image/idea)... then...

[Sunya]

yes, i agree.. and that makes sense to me.

 

there was this one video on youtube, i'll try to find it if anyone is interested, but basically Wilber was asked about the role of the Guru in todays spiritual traditions and he responded that it definitely has benefit but that whole subservience comes from feudalistic societies and today that just wouldn't work because its like stepping backwards. we are at a stage of movement from mythic to rational to post-rational and that whole movement involves building a healthy ego, making decisions, learning from mistakes, complete dependence and obedience to an authority figure just doesn't fit in, but that doesn't mean teachers should be disregarded

 

 

If the method is good it does indeed being forth fruit in other people. The system I like best, Bardon's Hermetics, does exactly that since people who have followed have indeed obtained enlightenment.

 

naturalwire,

can you point to some proof of that statement? who has obtained enlightenment from Bardon's system?

 

 

how do you prove enlightenment? and how do you test the worth of a system if you don't have role models of people who "made it" ?

 

this dude, Daniel Ingram, who claims enlightenment from the Buddhist path, talks about that,, how there needs to be more people who act as role models, because the end goal is so hazy. we have all these paths that seem to work, but not enough examples of success. in the Buddhist tradition particularly there seems to be people who have made it (but who knows) but rarely do they ever come out and say it, it seems almost taboo to admit that you finally made it on the path that you so earnestly and diligently followed. I find that so silly, especially since you can act as inspiration for those seeking what you have gained.

[adam mizner]

bardons system delivers exactly what it says it will. if that is englightenment or not depends on your definition.

 

metta

adam

 

 

yes, i agree.. and that makes sense to me.

 

there was this one video on youtube, i'll try to find it if anyone is interested, but basically Wilber was asked about the role of the Guru in todays spiritual traditions and he responded that it definitely has benefit but that whole subservience comes from feudalistic societies and today that just wouldn't work because its like stepping backwards. we are at a stage of movement from mythic to rational to post-rational and that whole movement involves building a healthy ego, making decisions, learning from mistakes, complete dependence and obedience to an authority figure just doesn't fit in, but that doesn't mean teachers should be disregarded

naturalwire,

can you point to some proof of that statement? who has obtained enlightenment from Bardon's system?

how do you prove enlightenment? and how do you test the worth of a system if you don't have role models of people who "made it" ?

 

this dude, Daniel Ingram, who claims enlightenment from the Buddhist path, talks about that,, how there needs to be more people who act as role models, because the end goal is so hazy. we have all these paths that seem to work, but not enough examples of success. in the Buddhist tradition particularly there seems to be people who have made it (but who knows) but rarely do they ever come out and say it, it seems almost taboo to admit that you finally made it on the path that you so earnestly and diligently followed. I find that so silly, especially since you can act as inspiration for those seeking what you have gained.

[ThisLife]

Edited February 17, 2009 by ThisLife

[Bruce]

The spiritual traditions seem to me to have a similar thread when it comes to path; namely purification, faith, contemplation, and concentration. Purification may be mind and body or just mind, but a mind filled with hate, guilt, fear, lust, etc isn't a receptive vessel. Faith seems all important in this question. If you don't have faith in the path, or the method how could any of them possibly work? How about faith in yourself?

 

What are the questions you're trying to answer? Who am I? Where do I come from? Where am I going? Why is my life shit? What is the Ultimate? All questions for contemplation, but not just an idle thinking about. Does the path you have chosen address the questions you have?

 

Concentration, either through meditation or prayer or both seem central to all spiritual paths. So does living mindfully. An uncluttered mind is obviously more receptive.

 

No matter the label one puts on the path or what new guru dude is teaching it, you have to live it. I think that's where most fail. Anyone can learn to sit on their ass and concentrate for an hour a day. What about the other 23 hours? I can honestly say that's where I fail, but I'm trying.

[NeutralWire]

ThisLife -

 

(What are Hermetics, anyway ?)

 

Just wanted to say, I posted an article entitled 'Bardon's Hermetics as an Egyptian Practice' which will tell you something about Hermetics. Here's the link:

 

http://www.thetaobums.com/Bardonand39s-Her...tice-t8826.html

 

Bruce -

 

Concentration, either through meditation or prayer or both seem central to all spiritual paths. So does living mindfully. An uncluttered mind is obviously more receptive.

 

You're right, and also more able to act freely and in a balanced manner.

 

But I feel there are many, many more parallels between paths than this. For example the comments I've posted elsewhere about the development of astral senses in Bardon's system when compared with Huai-Chin Nan's system. These are very comparable indeed. (I guarantee there is no 'enlightened' person in the world who has not developed astral senses.)

 

Anyone can learn to sit on their ass and concentrate for an hour a day. What about the other 23 hours? I can honestly say that's where I fail, but I'm trying.

 

These things get easier the more years you have under your belt. Personally I do practice 100% of the time now. Bardon's second exercise is to learn to concentrate all the time. It's essential IMO. I agree that if you don't practice this (which you can work up to gradually) then it's harder to really live a practice. Of course you have to be constantly aware.

 

I've already recommended this book:

 

http://www.amazon.com/Self-Hypnosis-Revolu...4140&sr=1-1

 

... as a way to practice during all non-sleep hours which will definitely advance you IMO, I will continue to recommend that one. Just one more repeatable item.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[phore]

Edited February 17, 2009 by phore

[NeutralWire]

Sorry Mikaelz, just noticed your questions -

 

naturalwire,

 

ahem, neutralwire...

 

can you point to some proof of that statement? who has obtained enlightenment from Bardon's system?

 

Hmm... I might have to write a short article on this to point to.

 

First off, read this page carefully:

 

http://www.abardoncompanion.com/IIH-Step10.html

 

... and realize that the only alternatives are that Rawn Clark is 'enlightened' (Adam Mizner -- my definition) or that he's lying. I could say, take it from me, he isn't lying, but there's really no point. If you're interested you will discover the truth. I'm not interested in those oh-yes-he-is-oh-no-he-isn't types of arguments!

 

Secondly, as I've mentioned before, Rawn did a survey of 500 people practicing Bardon's system and 14 had reached the end of the first book which means they were also enlightened. That was in 2003 if I remember. Again, whether you believe this is or true or not is your business, but I can assure you Rawn has ways of telling if people are lying or sincere on such an issue. For what that's worth.

 

Thirdly, that was only one survey. That wasn't everybody.

 

Fourthly, there are at least two other fairly public and fairly serious Bardonist teachers on the net, namely Moryason and Mistele, with their students.

 

Fifthly, there is alot that is completely private where Bardon is concerned. His system is growing much more outside the public eye than within it, because it doesn't dovetail too well with current cultural norms.

 

I could go on but this is easily enough!

 

how do you prove enlightenment?

 

To someone anonymous in a forum (however worthy the forum ) - you don't of course. One's own experience is what matters. These things are of course very personal.

 

and how do you test the worth of a system if you don't have role models of people who "made it" ?

 

I agree with necessity for role models and they are out there, not only for Bardon's system either. Another system which for various reasons I'm sure can lead to enlightenment is that of Nan Huai Chin.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[goldisheavy]

That's a brilliant question. I cannot help but think that the person who posted it is really a sage who already understands the issues intimately and doesn't need an answer for oneself.

[adam mizner]

ok so completion of step 10 in your view is enlightenment.

and i know who Rawn is although we havnt talked in a number of years

i wonder if those 14 people had teachers, i have found that it made a huge difference for me in working through the steps.

metta

adam

 

Sorry Mikaelz, just noticed your questions -

ahem, neutralwire...

Hmm... I might have to write a short article on this to point to.

 

First off, read this page carefully:

 

http://www.abardoncompanion.com/IIH-Step10.html

 

... and realize that the only alternatives are that Rawn Clark is 'enlightened' (Adam Mizner -- my definition) or that he's lying. I could say, take it from me, he isn't lying, but there's really no point. If you're interested you will discover the truth. I'm not interested in those oh-yes-he-is-oh-no-he-isn't types of arguments!

 

Secondly, as I've mentioned before, Rawn did a survey of 500 people practicing Bardon's system and 14 had reached the end of the first book which means they were also enlightened. That was in 2003 if I remember. Again, whether you believe this is or true or not is your business, but I can assure you Rawn has ways of telling if people are lying or sincere on such an issue. For what that's worth.

 

Thirdly, that was only one survey. That wasn't everybody.

 

Fourthly, there are at least two other fairly public and fairly serious Bardonist teachers on the net, namely Moryason and Mistele, with their students.

 

Fifthly, there is alot that is completely private where Bardon is concerned. His system is growing much more outside the public eye than within it, because it doesn't dovetail too well with current cultural norms.

 

I could go on but this is easily enough!

To someone anonymous in a forum (however worthy the forum ) - you don't of course. One's own experience is what matters. These things are of course very personal.

I agree with necessity for role models and they are out there, not only for Bardon's system either. Another system which for various reasons I'm sure can lead to enlightenment is that of Nan Huai Chin.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~

[NeutralWire]

Adam Mizner -

 

ok so completion of step 10 in your view is enlightenment.

 

Absolutely, but I don't mean enlightenment in terms of an ending of course. That clearly is the end of book 1, and if that was all there was to it, there would be no more books! But there are plenty more books. Still, yes. You don't agree?

 

NW

[Sunya]

Adam Mizner -

Absolutely, but I don't mean enlightenment in terms of an ending of course. That clearly is the end of book 1, and if that was all there was to it, there would be no more books! But there are plenty more books. Still, yes. You don't agree?

 

NW

 

what is your definition of enlightenment?

[Sunya]

you are talking about step 10 in Initiation to Hermetics?

 

Step X ~ Magic Mental Training Page 136

1. Elevation of the spirit to higher levels

Step X ~ Magic Psychic Training Page 140

1. Conscious communication with the personal God

2. Communication with deities &c.

Step X ~ Magic Physical Training Page 144

1. Several methods for acquiring magic faculties

 

what does that have to do with enlightenment?

[NeutralWire]

what is your definition of enlightenment?

 

Well if you read the link I gave, you already know! This is not a 'definition' of course, because you can't define it. It is a description, and an incomplete one... it corresponds with other definitions as far as I know.

 

The most important thing is that the entire universe is experienced as one thing I guess... but I shouldn't really speak of it as if I know!

 

What I would say is this:

 

There are those who say that 'enlightenment' is only achieved when the individuality is completely dissolved. This is definitely not Bardon's way though. He agrees with Nan Huai-Chin who says 'being enlightened once is like not being enlightened at all'. In other words you practice this ability to merge with the One, as I understand it, until you can do it with greater and greater facility. But you don't dissolve into it, according to Bardon, because there is so much to learn!

 

For example, the nirva-kalpa-samadhi, the 'perfect consciousness of micro- and macrocosm', happens after this form of 'enlightenment', and this is more a divinization of the soul and body and an energetic connection to the planets, etc. Which as I understand it brings a different kind of wisdom and deepens things. Then there is alchemy... Bardon's idea is that you learn all this and more... (let's not forget he said there were at least 21 of these systems of wisdom...) and you continually incarnate and fulfill missions for Providence and experience more and more, until at last, 'because your longing is very great' as he says, you dissolve your individuality.

 

Now, which bit of this is the 'enlightenment'?

 

For the purposes of this conversation perhaps it just doesn't matter. All of these things are repeatable paths, and repeatable paths is our subject.

 

But I myself would say, when you have experienced the 'merging with the Creator', as it were, that will do for me as 'enlightenment' or 'union with the Tao' of the first kind. I mean, we should all be so blessed! Rawn Clark might add that there are other realms beyond that, but that these are incomprehensible to the human mind -- in this, he agrees with other reports. So what that comes down to meaning is, this is some kind of ultimate -- and just as Michael Winn says, it is a moment that only 'happens when it happens', or just as the Sufis say, it can't be found by seeking, yet only seekers find it. Etc. And it is to apprehend the ultimate, higher or deeper than which you can't go.

 

To me that all sounds like enlightenment. I guess if I get there and it isn't, I'll fell gypped! lol... but this seems unlikely.

 

All best wishes,

 

~NeutralWire~