Richard Rose

[goldisheavy]

I've mentioned Richard Rose a few times. He's a very interesting man. Also, there is a really good free book with his teachings, but it's not easy to find on Google. So here's the link:

 

http://www.onzen.com/atatoc.htm

 

Enjoy! It's a real gem.

 

I can't help myself but to quote some of the truly, truly amazing questions of this amazing contemplator and mystic (from chapter 9):

 

"Does a man enjoy or is he consumed?" Rose intoned, his dime-store reading glasses perched on the end of his nose.

 

"Do you have possessions, or are you possessed by them?

 

"Does a man own a house, or does the house own him?

 

"Does a man have power, or is he overpowered?

 

"What is sin?

 

"Is it a sin to eat meat?

 

"Are the animals our brothers?

 

"Do animals sin when they eat other animals?

 

"Is it wrong to kill except for food?

 

"If so, do we do wrong by not eating the people we kill?"

 

...

...

 

"What are you doing for certain and what is done to you?

 

"Do we think or imagine that we think?

 

"Does a tree create wind by waving its branches?

 

"If we observe our thoughts, who is looking?

 

"Is there a soul?

 

"Did it exist before the body or must it be developed, grown, or evolved?

 

"Can a man become?

 

"How shall he know what he should become?"

 

I hope more pie guy sees this too.

Edited April 8, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

I read the book and wasn't impressed. He seemed to have caught a glimpse and then thought that it was full enlightenment. A lot of people have done that, and it doesn't make them special. It shouldn't allow them to act like know it alls, and waste people's time with zen master antics.

 

Just my view.

[goldisheavy]

I read the book and wasn't impressed. He seemed to have caught a glimpse and then thought that it was full enlightenment. A lot of people have done that, and it doesn't make them special. It shouldn't allow them to act like know it alls, and waste people's time with zen master antics.

 

Just my view.

 

I don't think you've read the book then. Maybe you've glanced through it at best. The guy more than "just caught the glimpse." He had a complete realization and lived his life in a manner very different from normal people. If you read the book you'll see that Richard's life is very unique. It's not like that of a lot of people at all. Not even slightly similar.

 

Also, he was critical of zen. It's the people that gathered around him that called him a "zen master". I don't think Richard cared about zen at all as much as he cared about wisdom.

Edited April 9, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

You don't think I've read the book?? Um...yes, I did.

 

I will stick to my opinion - he had a glimpse and "came back". Real enlightenment is a permanent shift in perception, which based on his actions and words he didn't seem to have attained. Of course he attained a complete glimpse...there is no partial glimpse. But no permanent, deep realization or change in his being.

 

The way he was quoted as describing his experience in the book made it pretty clear to me that it was only a glimpse.

 

Anyone can fake enlightenment and fool themselves. It's easy to become a teacher and forsake some worldly pleasures. Way too easy. Everyone wants to do it!

 

It shows a total lack of wisdom.

[goldisheavy]

You don't think I've read the book?? Um...yes, I did.

 

I will stick to my opinion - he had a glimpse and "came back". Real enlightenment is a permanent shift in perception, which based on his actions and words he didn't seem to have attained. Of course he attained a complete glimpse...there is no partial glimpse. But no permanent, deep realization or change in his being.

 

The way he was quoted as describing his experience in the book made it pretty clear to me that it was only a glimpse.

 

Anyone can fake enlightenment and fool themselves. It's easy to become a teacher and forsake some worldly pleasures. Way too easy. Everyone wants to do it!

 

It shows a total lack of wisdom.

 

Sorry mate, but I think you have no clue whereof you speak. No offense. If you read carefully, you would see that his behavior day to day demonstrated that his had a permanent shift in perception. Not to mention that he performed what some people call "miracles", which require perception to be open to work. Had his perception not been "shifted" (to use your word), he couldn't do some of the things he did, like change weather or lift extremely heavy objects (and he didn't train as a strongman to do that). Maybe you don't believe it, that would be another story.

 

Of course you can have your opinion, but I strongly disagree with your assessment.

 

Another thing is that we're not here to judge whether Richard was perfect or not, but we're here to see if what he has to say is useful or not. A spiritually perfect person can give useless advice. A less than perfect person can be very useful for one's development. It all depends on whether or not the message connects and is relevant to you. Maybe Richard's message is not relevant to you, but I find it to be extremely relevant to me. This is much more relevant and useful than learning how to move energy around your body, which is a life-maintenance skill and has nothing to do with wisdom or enlightenment. Richard talked about beliefs that obscure our understanding. Not many teachers talk about those! Name someone else who does? No teacher popular on this forum does. Most are busy promoting their "systems" rather than teaching people how to question. Questioning is a different lifestyle and leads to a different result than following a prescribed system, traditional or otherwise. Following prescriptions is a lower path, since it fails to mature reasoning faculty.

[bindo]

I read it too. It was an average read at best. Not something I would read again, or recommend to others.

 

Not saying he's a fraud or anything, just didn't like the book. Though, I tend to agree with Scotty about the "glimpse".

[dizzydazzle]

I read it too. It was an average read at best. Not something I would read again, or recommend to others.

 

Not saying he's a fraud or anything, just didn't like the book. Though, I tend to agree with Scotty about the "glimpse".

 

Yeah, waste of time reading this one

[mjjbecker]

..

Edited August 26, 2009 by mjjbecker

[Aetherous]

Gold,

 

Sorry mate, but I think you have no clue whereof you speak. smile.gif No offense.

 

Well, likewise.

 

If you read carefully, you would see that his behavior day to day demonstrated that his had a permanent shift in perception. Not to mention that he performed what some people call "miracles", which require perception to be open to work. Had his perception not been "shifted" (to use your word), he couldn't do some of the things he did, like change weather or lift extremely heavy objects (and he didn't train as a strongman to do that). Maybe you don't believe it, that would be another story.

 

I didn't find his miracles to be all that miraculous. Anyone can change the weather and lift heavy things. Also, anyone can zap someone with energy (which was another thing the book said he did, without trying). And his behavior definitely didn't demonstrate the shift, but rather demonstrated a huge ego believing it had seen it all. Sure, he was further along the path than most. And technically, a stream winner (someone who has had a glimpse) is enlightened. I just don't like to consider that to be the final goal. It's like finally realizing that your room is dirty, yet not taking the time to clean it.

 

Another thing is that we're not here to judge whether Richard was perfect or not, but we're here to see if what he has to say is useful or not.

 

After seeing how he toyed around with his followers, with no apparent good result...I would have to say I found what he had to say useless.

 

He was just eccentric and that was his strong suit.

 

Anyway, I agree that we can disagree. It really doesn't matter what we think about him.

[goldisheavy]

Well, if you are ready to step up a level from such profound 'gems' of wisdom, I am sure you can find a Disney store near you...

 

There is nothing like an insult to get your message across. Ok, point taken moron.

[goldisheavy]

And his behavior definitely didn't demonstrate the shift, but rather demonstrated a huge ego believing it had seen it all.

 

Well, I don't agree.

 

But what's more, I don't think the size of an ego can be established at all. I mean, how do you measure the size of an ego? I don't think it's possible to say who has a big or small ego. I think Buddha Gotama had an ego the size of the universe and was an asshole of the 10th degree, but still, even with such bad qualities, he managed to spread some wisdom. The people think of him as "selfless" is amazing. I chalk it up to convention. When I look at things from beyond convention, looking at it asking, "Was this necessary or was this an excess?" I find much Buddha Gotama's behavior to be highly excessive, and hence egoistic. But does that make him less interesting or less useful? I am only picking on Gotama because he's very famous and is considered to be almost unanimously to be selfless, but what I am saying is not personal about Gotama. I am saying something general.

 

I think what's important is not so much the size of ego but other qualities. Someone who thinks their ego is small or anyone's ego is small is surely nursing a huge subterranean ego. No doubt about it. So letting the size of the ego bias you is not wise. There must be other angles that you use for evaluation than just ego size.

 

In my life, one of my best ex-friends had an enormous ego. But also, he was the one I learned the most from. Sure, he caused me much heart ache. Eventually I couldn't be his friend anymore. But he's influenced me, in a good way, more than all my "nice" friends combined. Now, that's not to say having huge uncomfortable egos is always good, but I am saying, it can't be the only angle of evaluation. There must be other angles if you want your evaluation to be holistic. It's possible to teach all the same things my ex-friend taught me without the huge ego, but in life you don't always get to choose. Sometimes you take a dish that's healthy and bitter at the same time because that's what you got. Ideally you'd want something healthy and sweet, sure. But you have to measure on more angles than just sweetness alone.

Edited April 9, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Aetherous]

I see exactly what you're saying, and agree...but I don't think it can be applied to enlightenment. Yes, someone who is enlightened will still have an ego...a self which they construct in order to function like everyone else...but it will constantly be seen as not who they are. Just a mental construct. Whereas an unenlightened person, no matter how much wisdom they spout from their mouth, will always operate from that mental construct and never see through it.

 

A big ego is almost always a sign of an unenlightened person. Why? Because it's challenging to construct an ego, and even more challenging to give it personality and attitude.

[goldisheavy]

I see exactly what you're saying, and agree...but I don't think it can be applied to enlightenment. Yes, someone who is enlightened will still have an ego...a self which they construct in order to function like everyone else...but it will constantly be seen as not who they are. Just a mental construct. Whereas an unenlightened person, no matter how much wisdom they spout from their mouth, will always operate from that mental construct and never see through it.

 

Not only can it be applied to enlightenment, but it has to be applied if you want to get enlightened. Someone who is enlightened is beyond fixed viewpoints. The meaning of this is very subtle. It's much more subtle than what you say above. In particular, an enlightened person recognizes all appearances to be mental constructs, but at the same time, does not view oneself to be one of those constructs or all of them NOR does the enlightened person view themselves to be something apart and separate from those constructs, AND an enlightened person can identify with any and all constructs at will AND an enlightened person can identify with no construct at will, knowing that all identifications are temporary (this includes the identification of being something outside all constructs too!). Because even the perception of being beyond constructs is a mental construct in its own right. Enlightenment, not just what's discussed, but the actual enlightenment, nirvana, is a mental construct. Samsara is a mental construct and so is nirvana.

 

A big ego is almost always a sign of an unenlightened person. Why? Because it's challenging to construct an ego, and even more challenging to give it personality and attitude.

 

I strongly disagree. A big ego is not a sign of anything in particular. Nor is having a pimple a sign of anything. Nor is a missing limb a sign of anything in particular. Now, in our concrete life we experience and rely on signs of all kinds. It can be that in your life you accept that what you call "big ego" (as nonsensical as this idea really is, and you agree it's nonsensical) as a sign of foolishness (non-englightenment). And that's fine. But if you want to be enlightened you must also recognize that all the signs you rely on are empty of self. Meaning, the signs you rely on have no inherent meaning. You imbue them with meaning! If you want, you can reverse the meaning of any sign. For example, you can, if you want, make the big ego be a sign of enlightenment. Easily. The fact that you have this power should tell you that signs are not very reliable. The signs can be relied on ornamentally, for fun, but never for real. In fact, samsaric state can be described as taking the signs for real. Nirvanic state is not taking the signs for real. Both are states of mind and the contents of both states are mental constructs.

 

May you be blessed.

Edited April 9, 2009 by goldisheavy