|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
 Posted - May 29 2007 : 02:14:07 AM
|
Great pointers, as the non-dualists like to call them, can be found at John Wheeler's site: http://thenaturalstate.org/pointers.htmlHe is a friend of 'Sailor' Bob.
 Enjoy! |
Edited by - Balance on May 29 2007 02:14:51 AM |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 30 2007 : 2:44:55 PM
|
From the same "lineage of pointers", if you will (of course there are many "other branches" too):
Nisargadatta (and countless before him), 'Sailor Bob' Adamson, John Wheeler, and here is the website of Stephen Wingate:
http://livinginpeace-thenaturalstat...pondence.htm |
 |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 3:10:57 PM
|
And here is one more. Mark West is a friend of Bob Adamson. They were at Nisargadatta's together in the 70's. The interviews with Gilbert Schultz on this site are quite good...well worth the listen. One could say that Mark and Gilbert are peers in awareness and it carries into their conversations (especially in #4). I just now listened to #4 and found it to be most excellent.
http://nisargadattasmessage.blogspot.com/
and # 4: http://www.shiningthroughthemind.ne...terview4.mp3 br /
It appears I am focusing more and more on the approach pointed out by these people. I guess it shouldn't be surprising since it is quite clear that I am a fan of Nisargadatta's teaching. The way to freedom pointed out by these ones is different than the practices that many of you are carrying out here, and different than the kriya yoga I have been practicing. It isn't my intention to steer anyone away from their chosen path, please understand that I am only sharing my excitement.
Cheers
Alan |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 4:27:50 PM
|
Hi Alan:
From the AYP point of view, it does not have to be all one thing or the other. In fact, becoming polarized in a single practice greatly increases the risks. Yoga is forever multi-dimensional, reflecting the broad inherent capabilities within our nervous system, a fact that can sometimes be forgotten in our enthusiasm for an exciting new angle on human spiritual transformation.
While some advaitists promoting non-dual self inquiry to the exclusion of all else might not like to hear it, self inquiry is aided tremendously when integrated with a daily routine of deep meditation, spinal breathing pranayama, etc. The whole of integrated practice is much greater than the sum of the parts.
Cultivating inner silence via deep meditation is especially important for advancing in self inquiry, or in any other yoga practice. This is consistent with non-dualism. Our inner silence is the non-dual nature of life itself.
While non-dual self inquiry is very appealing to the intellect, it can also lead to great personal difficulty (and getting very stuck) if not balanced with other practices and normal everyday living. This is true of any practice that is taken to excess to the exclusion of everything else.
Balance is the key. Hey, that's your name, isn't it? 
Wishing you all the best on your chosen path. Practice wisely, and enjoy!
The guru is in you.
PS: Abiding inner silence always leads to self inquiry, but self inquiry does not always lead to abiding inner silence.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 4:56:26 PM
|
"From the AYP point of view, it does not have to be all one thing or the other."
Thanks for the reminder yogani . Practices leading to oneness are compatable.
"While non-dual self inquiry is very appealing to the intellect..."
From my understanding the approach I'm investigating isn't an intellectual practice. There are fundamental thoughts (questions) that arise and are released. This is a process that occurs naturally. the answers are not found in thought. I certainly don't want to carry on an intellectual exercise, I reached the end of that kind of enjoyment(?) some time past. Actually what gives me a breath of fresh air with this is seeing the end of intellect, or addiction to thought patterns which uphold a false sense of a separate identity with all of its sufferings. There is an end to Balance too |
|
|
|
yogani
USA
5242 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 5:16:33 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balance
From my understanding the approach I'm investigating isn't an intellectual practice. There are fundamental thoughts (questions) that arise and are released. This is a process that occurs naturally. the answers are not found in thought.
Yes, agreed, and that process finds its source in inner silence -- the witness. Lacking some abiding inner silence, the intellect has a tendency to get tangled up in the details, because where stillness is not present there will be endless discrimination. This is what makes self inquiry a two-edged sword. If it isn't helping release the mind, it will be further entangling the mind (24/7!). It is a very difficult practice for those without at least some abiding inner silence.
The impeccable logic of non-dual self inquiry is very seductive. Perhaps we have had a glimpse, and feel drawn. Even so, maintaining a stable effective practice is a very different thing.
That is one reason why we have not covered self inquiry in depth in AYP so far. But times are changing. Stillness is on the move.
The guru is in you.
|
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 6:06:18 PM
|
Yes, cultivating inner-silence clears obstructions. Practicing yoga has brought me that.
I'll only add here that the advaita I have been refering to is not so much a practice. It is an accepting of who I am and have always been, which has been called, among other things, presence-awareness. All manifestation in apparent time and space arises in this "who you are." Upon investigation it is the only thing that can be said to truly be. Only awareness in this moment is. Seeing this is not an intellectual pursuit, or a method of using logic. At first there are questions but they begin to boil away. There is no way to "use the mind" to see this because mind, which is a collection of thoughts, appears in presence-awareness. This "me" that "I" think I am also arises, and passes on in this one being. As I begin to see this it becomes apparent that who appears to be doing these things in this life, living, dying, washing dishes, meditating, is a passing phantom. Life is doing these things through me and through everyone and everything. Which shall I choose to see myself as? Ultimately there is no "I" but the only one who lives and breathes us all and has always been. It is a process of "seeing" that leads to letting go of everything to become one with everything. Ultimately the mind is let go of as it cannot see This because the mind only rises and passes as a collection of thoughts within the Whole. Only the Self is seeing, and it sees itself mirrored in all things. I'm mostly parroting from the periphery here, but I have had little tastes of freedom. I understand that there comes a point of a complete letting go.
There. Now I'll get off this soap-box. Thanks for listening. |
Edited by - Balance on May 31 2007 8:02:48 PM |
|
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 7:05:26 PM
|
Just thought I would throw my 2 cents in here. I have attended many of John Wheeler's meetings and have spoken with his teacher on the phone. My understanding of what they are sharing is I believe fairly straight forward, and that is to look and see within ourselves what we are though direct perception. So, we look and report what we find. Thoughts, emotions, memories, fantasies all coming from who knows where and going back into who knows what. And that is about it, no central controller is found upon investigation. The self is then recognized as an assumption that was before believed to be there, but for some strange reason cannot now be found upon our own investigation. It then follows that all of life’s events happen but there is no one there to take credit or delivery of any of it. Life happens, choices are made, highs and lows occur but they are not happening to an imagined self anymore. In the final analysis all we can know is that we are, we exist (the “I Am”) and anything else other than that feeling of “I Am” is an idea or thought about something that happened or might happen. Like Sailor Bob likes to say “What’s wrong with right now, unless you think about it?” BTY, their definition what is real is something that never changes and only that which never changes can be the self.
Respectfully
Greg108
|
|
|
|
Kyman
530 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 9:49:02 PM
|
| I've enjoyed this thread and the links too, thanks for posting Balance. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - May 31 2007 : 11:36:29 PM
|
I'm glad you enjoyed the sites.
There is no way to describe This, only pointing toward That which is always unknown to the so called separate self can be done. Everything appears as a paradox from a dualistic view.
I guess practice might be in the dropping of attachment/judgement of EVERY thing that arises. Nothing is left standing. No emotional or thought bonds are entertained. As has been said to me; "Full stop." The dropping or letting go is a full acceptance of WHATEVER arise in the moment of presence-awareness. The only Thing left "standing" is presence awareness. This is a 24/7 attention (for me it hasn't fully made itself known thru sleep but is picked up upon awakening in this dream). It becomes an enjoyable habit. It does bring up a peaceful vibrancy and a gentle humor towards the play of the drama of life as even serious events are seen as having an unreal, or a non-bindingness. People get caught up in such seeming nonsense, though it seems serious it is merely a passing play of temporary events, and still standing throughout is presence-awareness. That is who we are, not the play of events. It is said that eventually a "time" comes when we are known completely as That and all form and event unfold within That which we are.
Oops! I got on that soap-box again! |
Edited by - Balance on May 31 2007 11:40:21 PM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 01 2007 : 12:01:11 AM
|
| P.S. There are new pointers just up at Wheeler's site for anyone interested. |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 03 2007 : 8:10:31 PM
|
Hello. I just listened to the Mark West interview #9, the last of his talk on the non-duality of the words of Christ. I liked it, here it is:
http://www.shiningthroughthemind.ne...terview9.mp3 br / br /
Enjoy! |
Edited by - Balance on Jun 03 2007 8:48:18 PM |
|
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 09 2007 : 6:52:44 PM
|
Hi Greg
Some of us have checked out the site you mentioned and discussed it a bit. The discussion is somewhere around here, though I can't seem to find it. Looks like an intense practice. I thought I'd give it a whirl, but then figured if I'm going to sit then I'll do my regular pranayama/meditation practice. What was prescribed on that site was watching the watcher. I find I'm learning to do that all day long while I go about my business. What do you think about the technique on that site?
Thanks for sharing that,
Alan |
|
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
Posted - Jun 10 2007 : 4:42:53 PM
|
Hi Balance,
The technique described is also known in Taoism as "Turning the light around and looking backward" (described in T. Cleary's translation of The Secret of the Golden Flower), which is also the general teaching in Zen. Perhaps the most famous demonstration of this method in Zen history is case 41 in the Wumenkan: BODHIDHARMA'S PEACE OF MIND Bodhidharma sits facing the stone wall. The Second Patriarch, Suika, stood long in the thick snow. Finally, he severed his own arm and presented it to Bodhidharma. He said, "Your student cannot pacify his mind. You, the First Patriarch, please, give me peace of mind!" The First Patriarch replied, "Bring that mind, I will calm it down!" The Second Patriarch said, "I search for it everywhere, but I cannot find it!" Bodhidharma replied, "I have already pacified it for you!" So in looking for the source of the mind, for mind itself, no actual mind can be located. This question "Who am I?" takes us to this source, the the self that is always and ever present (never changing). There is just this self and it is one, there is not two mes or two yous. Awareness is present and is this inmost sense of self, of our own being. I believe any technique will work as long as we do not confuse the subject for the object, the guest for the host. The test is a sense of peace and of being complete, anything else is the mind doing its good/bad, outside/inside and not enough game again. I find AYP excellent, I also have got allot out of people like John Wheeler, John Sherman, Michael Langford and Michael James (www.happinessofbeing.com) to name a few. I also recently re-read Nan Yar and I think everything to know about this path of advaita is in there.
Greg108 |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 12 2007 : 03:00:49 AM
|
Very interesting.
Thanks for that info Greg.
Balance |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 13 2007 : 1:50:10 PM
|
Burt Jurgens has a very to the point e-book which is a free read. He is in the same group as the folks I mentioned at the beginning of this thread. Check it out for yourself, anything I try to say about it comes from one still under the spell of a dual perspective.
Burt Jurgen's book can be read at: http://www.beyonddescription.net/flash/index.html
Cheers,
Alan |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
Posted - Jun 18 2007 : 12:58:56 PM
|
Here is another perspective that might be worth looking at.
Neo-Advaita or Pseudo-Advaita and Real Advaita-Nonduality
Traps and Pitfalls in the “Neo-Advaita” or “Pseudo-Advaita” form of Advaita (Nondual) Spirituality
—and an assessment of Harilal Poonja / Papaji
—and a discussion of money and Advaita spirituality
—and a conversation on Advaita instruction in the West
http://www.enlightened-spirituality...advaita.html
Sincerely
Greg108 |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 18 2007 : 9:06:24 PM
|
Great article and website Greg108.
Thanks! |
|
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
Posted - Jun 22 2007 : 1:35:27 PM
|
Some more info about AWA, thought you might find helpful(http://happinessofbeing.blogspot.co...areness.html).
Greg108
-----------------------------
Sunday, January 07, 2007
'Awareness watching awareness'
In a comment on the post Your comments and questions are welcome (1), Ganesan wrote:
http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/
Are you connected, sir, with the above site, carrying the caption mentioned on the subject, 'Awareness watching awareness', with your name or namesake as the promoter, containing excerpts on the writings of Bhagavan, Muruganar and Sadhu Om, as well as containing the views of the promoter, purporting to explain the technique of self-enquiry? From the way the writings appear, I am inclined to believe that it is not so. Please clarify.
I am not in fact connected in any way with this site to which Ganesan refers, www.albigen.com/uarelove/, but after reading his question about it, I had a look at it and found that it is a mirror of various pages from two or three other sites, some of which I have seen before. All these pages are written or compiled by Michael Langford, who also writes under the pseudonym 'uarelove'.
I can understand why Ganesan is confused about these two Michaels, Michael Langford and me, because this other Michael's website is largely about Sri Muruganar, Sri Sadhu Om and their writings, and as Ganesan probably knows, I was closely associated with Sri Sadhu Om. Moreover, on one of the pages of his website, www.albigen.com/uarelove/mic...sadhu_om.aspx (which is a mirror of a page from one of his other sites, http://uarelove1.tripod.com/wings.htm), Michael Langford has reproduced in a slightly modified form an article that I wrote many years ago about Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om.
Regarding Michael Langford's explanation about the technique of self-enquiry, his basic idea, namely that it is "awareness watching awareness", as he describes it, is correct. This term that he has coined, 'awareness watching awareness', is just another way of describing self-attention or self-attentiveness, which is the state in which consciousness is conscious only of itself and not of any other thing. This is the correct and only technique of self-enquiry.
So long as we, who are consciousness or awareness, are conscious of anything other than ourself, our natural clarity of pure non-dual self-consciousness or self-knowledge is clouded and obscured by that consciousness or knowledge of otherness or duality. Therefore if we wish to attain a clear, unconfused and certain knowledge of our true self or essential being, we must withdraw our attention or consciousness from all other things and must focus it wholly and exclusively on itself, that is, on ourself.
This state of clear unadulterated self-attention, self-consciousness or self-awareness can therefore be aptly described as 'awareness watching awareness', 'consciousness attending to consciousness', 'consciousness being conscious of consciousness' or simply 'us being conscious of ourself'.
Though 'awareness watching awareness' may not be a term that I would choose to describe the practice of atma-vichara (a term that is usually translated as 'self-enquiry' or 'self-inquiry', but which can be more accurately translated as 'self-investigation', 'self-examination' or 'self-scrutiny'), I can appreciate that for many people it is a description that may help them to understand exactly what the practice of atma-vichara or 'self-enquiry' really is. Therefore, by putting so much stress on this term 'awareness watching awareness', I believe Michael Langford may well have helped a considerable number of people.
Nevertheless, though I agree with Michael's description of self-enquiry or self-attention as being 'awareness watching awareness', I do have certain reservations about some of the other ideas that he expresses in his website, such as his idea about the 'six rings' of the direct path. However, to be fair to him, I feel that some such questionable ideas of his have arisen due to the fact that he has not been able to read the writings of Sri Ramana, Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om in their original Tamil form, but only some rather poor and inadequate English translations of them. This is perhaps the reason who he has classified two of the most important writings of Sri Ramana, Nan Yar? (Who am I?) and Ulladu Narpadu (Forty Verses on Being), or rather certain English translations of them, as belonging to the 'third ring' or third most direct expression of the direct path (as he writes in http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/five_sages.aspx).
However, Michael's view about how clearly the direct path of atma-vichara or 'self-enquiry' is expressed in Nan Yar? and Ulladu Narpadu might change if he were to read more accurate translations of these two very important works. In my book, Happiness and the Art of Being, I have included fresh translations of almost all of Nan Yar? and most of the verses of Ulladu Narpadu, along with often very detailed explanations of them, so if Michael reads this book, I hope he may be in a better position to appreciate how clearly and accurately Sri Ramana has expressed and explained the practice of this direct path of self-attention in these two central works of his.
I have not yet made an index for Happiness and the Art of Being, but in the PDF format in which it is currently available on my website, it is easy to do searches on words such as Nan Yar? or Ulladu Narpadu, and such searches will create a list of links to each of the pages on which any chosen word or group of words occurs. Therefore if any reader would like to read my new translation of most of Nan Yar? and Ulladu Narpadu, they may do so easily by using this search facility.
At present Happiness and the Art of Being contains nineteen of the twenty paragraphs of Nan Yar? and twenty-seven verses of Ulladu Narpadu, but before it is published as a printed book I hope to find appropriate places to incorporate the missing paragraph of Nan Yar? and at least six more verses of Ulladu Narpadu, and also some verses from Sri Ramana's other poems, so by the time the book is complete it should contain translations and explanations of most of his important philosophical writings.
Returning once again to Ganesan's question about the views that Michael Langford expresses in his website, in spite of the reservations that I have about some of his ideas, I still feel that he has compiled in his website a lot of material that can be very useful to people who are unable to read the teachings of Sri Ramana in their original Tamil. For example, in two pages, http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/sad...inquiry.aspx and http://www.albigen.com/uarelove/sad...hnique.aspx, he has reproduced the final two chapters of The Path of Sri Ramana by Sri Sadhu Om, 'Self-Enquiry' and 'The Technique of Self-Enquiry'.
I also believe that Michael Langford has done a good service in his website by emphasising the importance of the contribution made by both Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om to the correct understanding of Sri Ramana's teachings that many people now have. As Michael rightly makes clear, the writings of Sri Muruganar and Sri Sadhu Om make them the two most significant disciples of Sri Ramana from the prespective of any of us who truly wish to understand his philosophy and practise his teachings.
Posted by Michael James - www.happinessofbeing.com at 10:48
Labels: atma-vichara, Bhagavan Sri Ramana Maharshi, clarity, direct path, duality, Happiness and the Art of Being, Nan Yar? (Who am I?), practice taught by Sri Ramana, self, self-attention, self-attentiveness, self-awareness, self-consciousness, self-enquiry, self-scrutiny, Sri Muruganar, Sri Sadhu Om, Tamil writings of Sri Ramana, The Path of Sri Ramana, Ulladu Narpadu
4 comments:
Anonymous said...
Michael, please explain how to "withdraw our attention or consciousness from all other things and . . . focus it wholly and exclusively on itself, that is, on ourself" while one is moving, talking, eating, etc. How can I be typing these words if I am withdrawing my attention from the computer, my fingers, and the thoughts forming in my head? Or are you saying that this investigation is to be done only when one is sitting in meditation with the eyes closed? Maybe you answer this question in your book, but I have not finished it yet. Thanks.
Mark
08 January 2007 22:07
Ganesan said...
Regarding the question of Mark, I think what he says is correct from the view point of objective meditation, but is not applicable to self-enquiry, where the search is for the very source of thoughts. This is clarified in the chapter, 'Aham Vritti,' of the book, 'Gospel,' edited by Maurice Frydman. Hence, once the quest is begun, it should be continuing, of course in the subliminal consciousness ( I don't want to use the word sub-conscious in view of its different connotations relating to Frauedian ideas of dreams )in spite of surface activities, this being more so in view of the fact that there is no individual doer, and is a misconception, in the light of the truth of the sole reality of the self. Further, one should not confound the Vyavaharic reality of the waking state as having any bearing on the Self, and interpret self-enquiry from that standpoint.
09 January 2007 13:17
Anonymous said...
Mark, what I've been experimenting with, I've documented here .. http://practicaladvaita.blogspot.co...ly-life.html
Perhaps you may find something that feels right for you. Is that the right way, I don't know, I'm yet to find out myself.
06 March 2007 14:38
Michael James - www.happinessofbeing.com said...
In reply to today's comment by 'anonymous':
Whatever helps each of us individually to draw our attention back to ourself — that is, to our fundamantal and essential self-consciousness 'I am' — is beneficial.
However, we should be careful not to be distracted from our single goal, which is the absolute clarity of non-dual self-consciousness. Anything other than 'I am' — whether a subtle object like a thought or a gross object like our breath — is liable to distract us from our essentially non-objective self-consciousness.
The practice of self-attentiveness is so very simple that we really do not need anything to support it. All we need is the true all-consuming love just to know and to be our real self, which we always truly are, but from which we allow ourself to be distract by our desires and attachments for anything other than that.
Provided that we have that love, there is nothing easier than to know and to be ourself. The sole aim and purpose of all our practice is therefore just to cultivate that love, and its inseparable counterpart, absolute freedom from desire and attachment.
Best wishes, Michael
06 March 2007 15:09 |
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2007 : 12:18:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balance
I'll only add here that the advaita I have been refering to is not so much a practice. It is an accepting of who I am and have always been, which has been called, among other things, presence-awareness
Alan, speaking as someone who really loves the advaita stuff, and gets what what you're saying on this (and might have been moved to offer the same objection)....Yogani's right IMO. It's totally a practice.
None of the practices, at their most refined, are "practices", like practicing the piano. They're ALL about acceptance and awareness. They all lead to (and, simultaneously, ARE) the same truth. And while the practice of self inquirey might have a different flavor and might not feel "practicey", it is just another persistent working away at blockage and resistence. Yogani made a profound and persuasive case, and I'm certain he's right. Again, just IMO! |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Jun 25 2007 12:24:20 PM |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2007 : 12:49:29 PM
|
Hi Jim
Practice of energetic living, which is every action including self-inquiry, meditation, and taking the trash out, I think among other labels has been called "consciousness moving in stillness". All sincere "practices" bring "us", the energetic movement, to realization of that nameless One.
Who is practicing?
Meditation is good.
Just my thoughts |
|
|
|
Balance
USA
967 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2007 : 4:28:09 PM
|
Let me add that I agree with you Jim about yogani making a profound and persuasive case as he always does. His ever helpful and kind advice comes from a personal practice that has been tested and has born fruit. Any argument or advice coming from my lips is from one who is still finding his way. I have been "actively" seeking (actually putting forth daily effort) in this life-time for a mere two or three years. Anything I say is from a completely dualistic experience, it will probably be obvious when that is no longer the case. My real advice to anyone reading my words is to take anything I write with a grain of salt.
Peace,
Alan |
|
|
|
Greg108
29 Posts |
Posted - Jun 25 2007 : 8:32:27 PM
|
More grist for the mill.
This is from:http://www.interactivebuddha.com/bull****.shtml
Regards
Greg108
Why The Notion That You Cannot Become What You Already Are is Such Bull****
There was a guy on a blogsite to which I sometimes post who kept inserting comments in our discussion such as you can not become what you already are, awakening is not about more knowledge but instead about less knowledge, and that awakening happens regardless of study and meditation. I have encountered this vile point of view and its variants before, and so replied as follows, in slightly edited form:
Dear [delusional view-poster],
Somehow I just cannot resist countering your point of view with every bit of rhetorical force I have despite the fact that I am afraid the number who listen will be few.
Here is a detailed analysis of what is wrong with that perspective on a number of fronts:
The notion that you cannot become what you already are implies a whole host of conceptual problems that I will claim do not lead to much that is good that cannot be attained by conceptual frameworks that are not so problematic. Here is a list of the problems:
1) This notion encourages people to not practice. You can say what you like, but again and again I see people who subscribe to this and similar notions resting on their cleverness and grand posteriors and not actually getting it in the same way that my accomplished meditator friends get it. It seems so comforting, this notion that you are already something that you, in fact, are not. This brings us to the question of what you are and are not.
2) This notion solidifies a True Self teaching almost by definition. From any cursory analysis, what we are from an insight point of view is an extrapolation of continuity from a pattern of utterly fresh, transient, ephemeral, causal sensations. Anything added to this is extraneous from an insight point of view. Try as people might, a True Self in an experiential sense cannot be found. Thus, the notion that people already are something begs the question: What are they? It tends to imply that they are already something such as perfect, enlightened, realized, awakened, or something even worse such as Awareness, Cosmic Consciousness, The Atman, an aspect of The Divine, etc. all of which cannot actually be found. While Buddhism does sometimes go there, such as using terms such as Dharmakaya and Buddha Nature, these are very slippery, high concepts that were added later and require a ton of explanation and practice experience to keep them from becoming the monsters they nearly always become in less experienced hands.
3) Awakening involves clearly perceiving universal characteristics of phenomena. While one can attempt to rest comfortably in the notion that as these universal characteristics are there anyway, the whole, core, essential, root point of all this is that there is something to be gained by becoming one of the people that can actually directly perceive this clearly enough to fundamentally change the way reality is perceived in real-time. The straight truth is that the vast majority of people do not start out being able to do this at all. The notion that everyone already is someone who can perceive reality this way without effort in real-time is a fantastic falsehood, lie, untruth, and in short, one great load of apathy-creating bull****. Said another say, your notion, namely that one cannot become one of the people who can perceive this because everyone already is a clear perceiver of highest caliber, is a profound delusion and simply does not hold up to reality testing.
If one goes around asking people without very good insight into these things, i.e. the unenlightened, about basic dharma points, points that are obvious to those who have learned to pay attention well, one does not find that everyone already is a person who is perceiving things at the level that makes the difference the dharma promises. Further, even those of lower levels of enlightenment generally have a hard time saying they really are able to perceive the emptiness, luminosity, selflessness, causality, transience, ephemerality, etc. of reality in real-time at all times without having to really do anything. In short, your notion that this is as easy as just being what you already are is wildly off the mark, as the vast majority of people are woefully underdeveloped on the perceptual front in question.
Thus, all reality testing reveals that your notion is missing a very fundamental point: while the universal characteristics are always manifesting in all things and at all times, there are those that can perceive this well and those that cannot, and meditative training, conceptual frameworks, techniques, teachers, texts, discussions and the like can all contribute to developing the internal skills and wiring to be able to fully realize what is possible, as thousands of practitioners throughout the ages have noticed.
I have no idea where you are getting this bizarre notion, except that perhaps you are reading The Power of Now, following Adiashanti, or some other tradition that for reasons completely beyond me assumes that everyone already has the powers of perception of the rarest perceptual superstars.
I myself have known before and after, meaning that I know what I was capable of perceiving and understanding before I underwent meditative training and after, and no amount of being fed the concept that I was already as developed as I could be, was already enlightened, was already there, had nothing to do, nothing to develop, was already as clear as I could be, was already perfectly awake, etc. was going to make the difference that the thousands of hours over years of increasing my ability to perceive things clearly did.
It would be like saying: you are already a concert pianist, you just have to realize it, or you already are a nuclear physicist, you just have to realize it, or you already speak every language, you just have to realize it.
It would be like saying to a two-year old: you already understand everything you need to know so stop learning new things now, or to a severe paranoid schizophrenic: you already are as sane as anyone and do not need to take your meds and should just follow the voices that tell you to kill people, or to a person with heart disease: just keep smoking and eating twinkies and you will be healthy, or to an illiterate person with no math skills who keeps having a hard time navigating in the modern world and is constantly disempowered and ripped off: no need to learn to read and do math, as you are just fine as you are, or saying to a greedy, corrupt, corporate-raiding, white-collar criminal, Fascist, alcoholic wife-beater: hey, Dude, you are a like, beautiful perfect flower of the Now Moment, already enlightened [insert toke here], you are doing and not-doing just fine, like wow, so keep up the good work, Man.
Would you let a blind and partially paralyzed untrained stroke victim perform open-heart surgery on your child based on the notion that they already are an accomplished surgeon but just have to realize it? Would you follow the dharma teachings of people who feed other people this kind of crap? In short, are you completely out of your mind?
Those who imagine that everyone somehow in their development already became as clear and perceptive as they could be just by being alive is missing something very profound. Do you imagine that you can just remind people of these things and suddenly all wisdom and clarity will suddenly just appear? This mind-bogglingly naive. I simply have to ask: from where did you attain this fantastic fixed delusion?
I have gained so much that is good and lost so much that is bad by learning to practice well, learning to concentrate, learning the theory, learning insight practices, going through the organic process of the stages over decades, reading the stories, reading about the lives of the great practitioners, having dharma conversations with dharma friends, debating points, wrestling with difficult concepts and how to apply them to my actual life, teaching, learning, studying, playing with the powers, writing, realizing how things are, and delving deeply into the sensate world that I am astounded that anyone would want to try to reduce something so grand, wonderful, deep, rich, amazing and profound to such a paltry, ridiculous concept as the notion that all that is already in place in everyone regardless of what they have done or not done. All those benefits, skills, abilities, powers, states, stages, experiences, insights, and fundamental perceptual changes simply were not available until I did the work, took the time, participated in the process, and no amount of anyone telling me it was otherwise would have helped or made it so.
This is an organic, causal process. I know of no examples where the necessary and sufficient causes did not involve some kind of work rather than a mere concept that somehow all those benefits and abilities have magically appeared already and they somehow just did not notice until you told them they had.
In short: STOP IT! You are spreading craziness, and this is craziness that many people will not be able to tell is craziness, including, it seems, yourself. While I usually do not go so far as to tell people that there is something so deeply wrong with what they think and how they communicate it that they should stop it immediately and forever, this particular point is a great example of something I consider abhorrent and worthy of profound revision.
Regardless of any kind intentions, the teachings that you perpetuate take a half-truth that seems so very nice and seductive to us neurotic Americans who just can barely stand another achievement trip and have such a hard time with self-acceptance and turn it into sugary poison.
There is no need to tie the three useful concepts of 1) no-self, 2) self-acceptance in the ordinary sense, and 3) the notion that the sensations that lead to understanding if clearly perceived over and over again are manifesting right here, right now, to such a perversely twisted yet seemingly benign and similar concept as the one you unfortunately promote. While they look the same, careful examination will reveal why your way of stating things is so deeply flawed.
P.S. For those not used to this sort of hard-hitting rhetoric, check out texts where the Buddha took on some dogmas he considered useless or harmful and see if he wasn*t even more forceful than me at points.
Moderator note: The above link will work when the asterisks have been replaced with the automatically censored 4-letter word.
|
|
|
|
Jim and His Karma
2111 Posts |
Posted - Jun 26 2007 : 10:13:10 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by Balance
Let me add that I agree with you Jim about yogani making a profound and persuasive case as he always does. His ever helpful and kind advice comes from a personal practice that has been tested and has born fruit. Any argument or advice coming from my lips is from one who is still finding his way.
But do bear in mind that Yogani isn't the guru! I've vehemently disagreed with him a couple times myself! My point is that I really think he nailed this one. But if you ever disagree with him (or anyone else), shoot, by all means say so without hesitation! We're ALL just working on stuff (including Yogani); no one's infallible here! |
Edited by - Jim and His Karma on Jun 26 2007 10:14:05 AM |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Great pointers
