|
|
 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
 Posted - Jun 13 2011 : 6:56:09 PM
|
| Oh I see, sure. Paradox is an idea. On the path all notions disappear in stillness. But the reality cannot be explained without utilizing paradoxes like outer and inner nondual. |
 |
|
|
kevincann
USA
335 Posts |
Posted - Jun 13 2011 : 7:16:31 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
quote:
Originally posted by kevincann
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
Simply put, outer and inner nondual.
Umm... I don't want to get in the middle of this titillating discussion but isn't "outer and inner non-dual" a complete oxymoron? 
Love!
If it's not paradox, it's not true.
APPARENT paradox dissolves away at a certain point, for a great many things. It is not necessary to invoke paradox. Does mystery remain? Sure. Until the last unification, outside of all space and time, after the end of the current cycle of existence for all temporary beings.
Nodoubt, perhaps if you disagree with this reply, you might wish to say something like "I respectfully disagree" or "Thank you for your continuing intent". I have had good luck with those two phrases.
Just a suggestion for someone I love and respect. Feel free to disregard this suggestion completely; I will think no less of you.
Kev
What do you mean by apparent in this context?
Apparent means that at a certain level of awareness there actually
is no paradox.
Of course this might be a pretty rarified level of awareness. So I can understand what you were getting at.
Love,
Kev |
|
|
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
Posted - Jun 13 2011 : 7:32:01 PM
|
| Yes. I see only two levels, dualist and nondual stillness. |
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 12:57:54 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
Simply put, outer and inner nondual.
Umm... I don't want to get in the middle of this titillating discussion but isn't "outer and inner non-dual" a complete oxymoron?
Love!
Carson,
You raise a good point. Part of the challenge of sharing and describing "experiences on the path" is that there are two basic approaches (or outlooks) to the path. Both are valid. For simplicity, I call them Buddhist and Taoist...
Buddhist – Suffering... Deny everything until nothing is left. Big Bang.
Taoist – It’s all good... Love and accept everything until you are everything. Incremental Bang.
In the end it is the same, but each “feels” different along the path. In this discussion around "enlightenment" and "near enlightenment" descriptions, the two paths become statements like "know that I am nothing" (B) or "know that I am everything" (T). Both are two sides to the same coin, but it can be very hard to "see" it along the way.
Peace & Love. |
|
|
|
CarsonZi
Canada
3189 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 1:07:39 PM
|
Hey Jeff 
I was only joking with my comment.....wasn't being serious in the least. Tried to indicate that with the winking face at the end but I guess my joking intentions may not have been as evident as I had thought they would be. I coined a phrase a while back to describe those (myself included) who tend to become "Advaita/Nondual Police".... I use the term "Advaitass"... I was just playing the Advaitass with my "oxymoron comment." I'll try to be more obvious about it next time. 
Love!
|
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 1:31:09 PM
|
Carson,
Don't worry, I got your point. I was just trying to "sneak" some stuff into the thread and it was "easier" to pick on you.
Peace & Love. |
|
|
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 1:56:09 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
quote:
Originally posted by CarsonZi
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
Simply put, outer and inner nondual.
Umm... I don't want to get in the middle of this titillating discussion but isn't "outer and inner non-dual" a complete oxymoron?
Love!
Carson,
You raise a good point. Part of the challenge of sharing and describing "experiences on the path" is that there are two basic approaches (or outlooks) to the path. Both are valid. For simplicity, I call them Buddhist and Taoist...
Buddhist – Suffering... Deny everything until nothing is left. Big Bang.
Taoist – It’s all good... Love and accept everything until you are everything. Incremental Bang.
In the end it is the same, but each “feels” different along the path. In this discussion around "enlightenment" and "near enlightenment" descriptions, the two paths become statements like "know that I am nothing" (B) or "know that I am everything" (T). Both are two sides to the same coin, but it can be very hard to "see" it along the way.
Peace & Love.
You must have missed the Buddhist understanding of Samantabhadra ("It's all fine"). There are many levels of Buddhist wisdom. |
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 2:33:13 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
There are many levels of Buddhist wisdom.
Agreed and that is true of all paths. I was not commenting on the path, but our "personal" perspectives "looking" at the path. Each of us (who may still perceive as dualistic entities) leans one way or the other. It is helpful to remember the differing perspective when discussing (or reading) about various paths. It makes translating understanding easier.
In particular, Zen Buddhism is a flowering of both perspectives. Sufism is similar.
I always like to ask myself "What do I know and what have I read (or been told)?". I find that when I "feel it" or "know it", it is easy to understand what the ancient texts mean. Otherwise, I am usually left with a "huh?" and scratching my head.
Peace & Love. |
|
|
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 6:55:01 PM
|
| Some teachings take you directly to the ultimate just by reading. It's amazing. Maybe the words won't mean anything to you, but the energy is felt and your realize the truth without a doubt. |
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 7:25:23 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by nodoubt
Some teachings take you directly to the ultimate just by reading. It's amazing. Maybe the words won't mean anything to you, but the energy is felt and your realize the truth without a doubt.
Very true!
Peace & Love. |
|
|
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 7:34:48 PM
|
| A mantra, for example. |
|
|
|
nodoubt
India
90 Posts |
Posted - Jun 14 2011 : 7:36:27 PM
|
A mudra, for example.
Stillness, for example.
Mind is like space, speech mantra, body is mudra. Space is mind. Sound is mantra. Matter is mudra. |
|
|
|
jeff
USA
971 Posts |
Posted - Jun 15 2011 : 2:01:55 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by kevincann
So who becomes enlightneed, if it is not the ego?
The Self that most of us first become aware of, as the Witness in the silence, is in fact a fragment of Atman that has streamed into ths time and place --this Earth. I call this a temporally stranded bit of Atman; this is in fact what we feel as the Self for the longest time. It is this Self, limited a bit by time and space (though not as much as "us") that is the one who becomes enlightened, not our egos.
As the temporal Self becomes enlightened, the ego does tend to shrink.. but it never shrinks away.. it assumes it's proper role..
When the ego happens to be relaxed, and the Self is enlightened, or in the process of becoming enlightened, the ego often feels the "dissolving effect".. this is the ego falling into the Awareness of the Self.
At a later stage, the temporally stranded bit of Self becomes Aware of it's true nature, and starts getting folded up into the Atman, sitting 99% outside of what we would consider time and space.. At a later stage even Atman gets folded up into the One.. until the next cycle starts all over again.. and the sparks of God, the Atman are reborn as 99% outside of time and space.. sending streamers into time and space to become temporally "stranded" bits of Self, who eventually become enlightened again.. in a different time.. in a different way.. in a different world... it is for this reason that it is said, that we are ALWAYS a work in progress.
Eventually, the ego lives in the presence of the Self, which is no longer bound by this time and space..the Self sits on the throne of the body.. but the ego is not discarded.. both aspects remain..
Kevin,
I would be interested in going back to your post on "who becomes enlightened". Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to describe the ego and the localized Self as two different entities (with the localized self being a component or derivative of the higher self or Atman). Even stating that the ego continues to "exist" after enlightenment.
But I wonder if it may be more like the discussion on the two perspectives (B & T) and be a question of your "base" or original defining perspective. Your description seems to fit with a B model, where the perspective is from Ego and "dissolves" down to nothing (or almost nothing). The "I am nothing" answer and ultimately leaving the "Self" in charge.
But coming from a T model, once realizing "witness", perspective resides in your "localized self" as a base. There is no "ego" to hang around. It is just a bunch of random noise that can be ignored. Enlightenment becomes more about the "Self" becoming "fully engaged", starting with the "local" body and expanding to everything. Or the "I am everything" perspective.
Peace & Love. |
|
|
|
kevincann
USA
335 Posts |
Posted - Jun 15 2011 : 4:26:49 PM
|
quote:
Originally posted by jeff
quote:
Originally posted by kevincann
So who becomes enlightneed, if it is not the ego?
The Self that most of us first become aware of, as the Witness in the silence, is in fact a fragment of Atman that has streamed into ths time and place --this Earth. I call this a temporally stranded bit of Atman; this is in fact what we feel as the Self for the longest time. It is this Self, limited a bit by time and space (though not as much as "us") that is the one who becomes enlightened, not our egos.
As the temporal Self becomes enlightened, the ego does tend to shrink.. but it never shrinks away.. it assumes it's proper role..
When the ego happens to be relaxed, and the Self is enlightened, or in the process of becoming enlightened, the ego often feels the "dissolving effect".. this is the ego falling into the Awareness of the Self.
At a later stage, the temporally stranded bit of Self becomes Aware of it's true nature, and starts getting folded up into the Atman, sitting 99% outside of what we would consider time and space.. At a later stage even Atman gets folded up into the One.. until the next cycle starts all over again.. and the sparks of God, the Atman are reborn as 99% outside of time and space.. sending streamers into time and space to become temporally "stranded" bits of Self, who eventually become enlightened again.. in a different time.. in a different way.. in a different world... it is for this reason that it is said, that we are ALWAYS a work in progress.
Eventually, the ego lives in the presence of the Self, which is no longer bound by this time and space..the Self sits on the throne of the body.. but the ego is not discarded.. both aspects remain..
Kevin,
I would be interested in going back to your post on "who becomes enlightened". Correct me if I am wrong, but you seem to describe the ego and the localized Self as two different entities (with the localized self being a component or derivative of the higher self or Atman). Even stating that the ego continues to "exist" after enlightenment.
But I wonder if it may be more like the discussion on the two perspectives (B & T) and be a question of your "base" or original defining perspective. Your description seems to fit with a B model, where the perspective is from Ego and "dissolves" down to nothing (or almost nothing). The "I am nothing" answer and ultimately leaving the "Self" in charge.
But coming from a T model, once realizing "witness", perspective resides in your "localized self" as a base. There is no "ego" to hang around. It is just a bunch of random noise that can be ignored. Enlightenment becomes more about the "Self" becoming "fully engaged", starting with the "local" body and expanding to everything. Or the "I am everything" perspective.
Peace & Love.
Jeff,
There are a large number of ways to climb a mountain; what matters is getting to the top. I do appreciate your fundamental distinction between the top down and the bottom up approaches. It's always useful to have a good map, even if you DO throw it away after arriving..
People seem to love to use the word ego. Just like they love to use the words energy and enlightenment. I don't care for any of those words.. these are failed words that need to be replaced with better ones over time.
I highly prefer to use the phrase "little self". There is nothing wrong with being little. We all start out little. Our bodies need to eat, drink, sleep, reproduce, defend themselves against attack and what not -- and this is completely legitimate. Nobody ever gets so "evolved" that this vanishes.
For example, if you walk up and kick a Buddha in the balls, the Buddha will almost certainly yelp. If a Buddha is hungry, they generally eat. Buddha's do not accientally poke their own eyes out with forks, because some Self has overwritten their basic human condition. Becoming fully alive does not mean we become abnormal freaks of nature.. it means we live fully in the eternal NOW.
When most people say ego, generally they mean the conditioned mind, the grasping mind. But this grasping is just a bad habit that the little self learns, and it can be unlearned.
Likewise, we know that Awareness is One.. that every drop of Awareness that exists is part of the One undifferentiated Awarneess.
So what is the source of the Awareness that a little self has? Why, the same source as anything else. Awareness itself.
But this little self "locks" Awareness into a form, while we are living on Earth. Even a "fully enlightened being" has Awareness flowing through the brain.. the circuits.. habits that are just habits, but not based on clinging or anything inappropriate.
Even Buddha had a little self.. there was no choice.. now, did his little self get in the way of his supreme enlightenment? I'd say no.. millions have said no.. his enlightenment was first rate.
I speak from firsthand experience.. even if you spend hours at the level of Awaress where everything is melted into everything.. still.. the consciousness of that would NOT BE possible, without Awareness flowing through those little circuits in the brain.. the circuits that comprise the "little self". From a practical perspective, at least 10% of the little self must "remain" or there will be nothing to record experience.
Remember, without friction (form paths to flow through), there COULD BE NO CONSCIOUSNESS just formless Awareness.
Likewise, people generally confuse the fragment of Self locked within this space/time, for the Atma.. the highest self. But this is not true. Just like the "little self" at some point realizes it is just an echo of something greater "the fragment of Self locked wtithin this space/time", this Self comes to realize that there is a level beyond itself.. the Atma.. which participates in the formation of space/time/matter/energy AND has 99% undifferentiated Awareness like that of the One.
For "karma" to be recorded, so that the delusions of one life may be passed on to the delusions of the next life.. there has to be a recording apparatus.. just like the "litlte self". We have all felt the more subtle parts of matter/energy/being/mind .. and it is these "subtle circuits", that even if fully purified, allow for Awareness to become higher consciousness. Without this higher consciousness, there would be no capability to LEARN. Without LEARNING (unlearning really) there could be no awakening.. no enlightenment.
Each layer of being becomes enlightened, across spatial and temporal boundaries, and falls away one after the other, until the only thing remaining is the One, at the last moment of the Cosmic cycle, before it all begins anew, for a trillion, trillion, trillion years.
Once the basics of the temporal mechanics of Awareness, Being and Consciousness are understood.. many silly and counterproductive thought maps and apparent paradoxes are easily resolved.
For Jeff and others.. due to some email questions.. I'm going to post yet again... taking another tangent on this subject.
Love,
Kev
|
Edited by - kevincann on Jun 16 2011 10:04:20 AM |
|
|
|
manigma
India
1065 Posts |
Posted - Jun 17 2011 : 02:00:59 AM
|
quote:
Originally posted by kevincann
For example, if you walk up and kick a Buddha in the balls, the Buddha will almost certainly yelp.
LOL... almost certainly. It seems you have not met a real Buddha yet.
There was a Mohammedan fakir by the name of Sarmad. A very sweet but strange incident took place in his life. As has always happened, the maulvis, the priests, filed a suit against him. The priests have always been against the mystics. Sarmad was summoned to appear in the emperor's court.
Mohammedans express their belief through a sutra, a maxim, and that is, "There is only one God; other than him there is no God. There is only one messenger of God and he is Mohammed."
Sarmad would not repeat the sutra fully. Sarmad used to repeat only the latter half. He said, "There is no God!". Now this was too much.
Sarmad was brought to the court. The emperor asked, "You say there is no God. Is it true?"
Sarmad answered, "I do say so." And he proclaimed in a loud voice, "There is no God!"
The emperor asked, "Are you an atheist?"
Sarmad said, "No, I am not an atheist. But I have not known any God as yet, so how can I say God is? I say only as much as I know. In this sutra, so far I have come to know only one half of it, that there is no God. I don't know anything of the other half. The day I come to know it, I will let everyone know. How can I lie about it if I don't know? A religious man cannot lie."
It was a difficult situation. He was ultimately executed, beheaded in front of the Jama Masjid in Delhi.
This is not a story. Hundreds of people watched him executed. As he was beheaded at the front door of the mosque, and as the head started rolling down the steps of the mosque, a voice came out of the rolling head, "There is only one God. There is no God other than the one God."
His lovers standing in the crowd said, "You crazy Sarmad, if you had to say it, why didn't you say such a simple thing before?"
Sarmad said, "How can one know him until one has lost his head? Now that I know, I say there is God, that no God exists other than him. But how could I have said this without knowing?"
There are truths we come to know only by passing through them. The truth of death is one of these. But in order that one may know death, one needs to prepare while one is still alive. One who fails to do so, dies a wrong death.
And now and here - Osho
http://www.livingworkshop.net/ob-andnowand.html
And a Buddha is already dead. You can kick him or behead him, he will not utter a single cry, because he is not the body, he is not the pain that the body suffers.
You can scold him or praise him, he will not be affected, because he is in a realm beyond cognition. Beyond mind.
|
|
|
|
vijikr
United Arab Emirates
413 Posts |
Posted - Jun 17 2011 : 02:09:20 AM
|
| Nice story Manigma! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| AYP Public Forum |
© Contributing Authors (opinions and advice belong to the respective authors) |
|
|
|
|
Ask Kevin!
