tony
Administrator
Posts: 172 
|
Post by tony on Jun 23, 2015 1:11:18 GMT
Angelsix, I'm interested to find out what criteria you use to judge genuine-ness in people. It's a very important area to look at, not only in these discussions but clearly also in ordinary life. It's useful to be cautious about people setting themselves up as teachers, but, if the criteria are too rigid, there is a risk of missing out on receiving genuine knowledge. After all the job of a teacher is to transmit it to others.
Over the years I found that accepting/rejecting what people say is a very subjective and variable process. For example, contradiction can be in the ears of one hearing the message as much as in the words of the messenger. Knowing this, I am watchful of what I take on and check its reasonableness along the lines recommended by the Buddha [see below].
Anyway, having given Adyashanti and Rupert Spira a good listening in the last few years, it would be hard find two more genuine people/teachers.
Tony
“Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many.
Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books.
Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders.
Do not believe in traditions simply because they have been handed down for many generations.
But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it." Buddha
|
|
|
|
Post by angellsix on Jun 25, 2015 1:21:03 GMT
My guess would be that these two men make a lot of money doing what they do and it would also be my guess that if they stopped making money at what they do, they would do something else. My criteria is very simple. I listen and listen for what concludes, makes sense and is valid to further understanding. I find these 2 people to be redundant and circular. In other words, what they say goes nowhere. Then I turn down my volume and watch there eyes and I don't see anything genuine there. I'm glad you included that we cannot always believe what people say because I don't believe anything they say.
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Jun 25, 2015 17:12:58 GMT
hmmmmm, interesting!
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jun 26, 2015 6:21:46 GMT
Angellsix, my guess is that those two would encourage you not to believe a word they are saying but to look and check it out for yourself; also they would not be too worried whether you understand and agree with them or not. Out of the 7 1/2 billion people currently on this planet, I would guess 99.9% would not even know of them or would bother listening in the first place. They just love to talk about what they know. Some listen and like it and some listen and don't like what they say. Probably much like playing in a band. Some would like the music you make and others would not. I think Jesus, Gautama, etc. had a similar experience (both of them made lots of enemies, by the way).
What's of interest to me/us, on this Forum, is that the subject matter they address is not just information but the ultimate nature of what we all are. What I hear is that they are pointing to that 'within' dimension that Jesus talked about. Partly because of language, partly because of our own filters and conditioning, there's plenty of room for misunderstanding!
We also do a lot of 'talking' on this Forum! Who knows what people who look in think of it. Hopefully, we don't get too attached to what we say or believe that what we say is somehow right.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jun 28, 2015 0:51:34 GMT
(I did a little editing)
Does it really matter what path we take? But we need to come to terms in some manner, otherwise, we just judge and react like puppets. I thought this quote from Ramana Maharishi is a nice:
“Because God remains of the nature of the Self, shining as ‘I’ in the Heart, because the scriptures declare that thought itself is bondage, the best discipline is to stay quiescent without ever forgetting Him (God, the Self), after resolving in Him the mind which is of the form of the ‘I- thought’, no matter by what means. This is the conclusive teaching of the scriptures.”
Maybe another way of saying this is (perhaps more direct) is that "we awaken to that which is always happening and that inextricably includes a part of the very life we considered unsatisfactory".
BTW Angel6, What do you think of Mooji?
Just thought this was a fun clip
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 9, 2015 16:11:03 GMT
Ok
I will answer my own question about Mooji. Ya, it’s weird he sits on some pedestal dressed in white and probably charges big bucks for ‘tuition’. But now that I listened to him a bit more i feel he is amazingly good at articulation truth to my ears. I don’t think it is possible to elaborate so fluidly without having a solid understanding. In this case, it might be better to just listen without looking at all the accessories.
Anyone is free to disagree
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 10, 2015 10:57:49 GMT
Kolomo, your remark 'truth to my ears' is a critical statement. I also find Mooji comes from an insightful place, but I think it is possible to be very articulate and fluid (lots of scholars are) and not have dropped 'body and mind' as the main point of reference. You would agree that we tend to accept more readily as 'true' what makes sense to us and not accept what still doesn't make sense (by that I mean not just intellectually, but as an insight of our own).
I am pointing to the risks of taking on what any one says (including what's in the scriptures) without having had an intimate student/teacher, disciple and Master relationship.
The Truth spoken through the man/woman of wisdom has to be transmitted Mind to Mind and Heart to Heart. Both the humanity and the divinity of the Teacher need to be experienced and lived with. It is not helpful to idealize him/her. That experience is the essence of the Guru/disciple relationship, a resonance that involves both heart and mind. In other words one is connected by Love and Gratitude toward That (the Sadaguru) which the Teacher represents and talks about. Trust then develops, continuously tested by the student during interactions, that what is being transmitted is some essence beyond concepts, words and letters. Jesus' and Gautama's disciples lived with them day in and day out,learning from them as models of how to live ordinary life from an extra-ordinary perspective.
Sailor Bob tells of his experience with Nisargadatta Maharaji over the years he was with him. By his account they argued a lot, often aggressively. He (Bob) was putting up a strong resistance and would push his views against Nisargadatta, who on his part would easily get angry and cranky. Still they persisted! Once Nisargadatta was satisfied that Bob had 'understood' he let him go back to Australia.
In regard to teachers (from the ancients to the modern ones), in my experience it pays to remember that they are human and that they need to be approached as such.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 10, 2015 14:18:16 GMT
Yes, I tend to agree with you, a relational teaching can be very powerful. I don’t think you can really assess a teacher through the internet. There is an unspoken aura when you meet someone face to face that can be much more effective than any words spoken. But again, I suppose that is very subjective. I once visited a Zen monastery nearby and, to say the least, was very nonplussed. I thought the abbot was pretentious and smug but everyone else seemed to like him. None of the other disciples or monks were allowed to talk or make eye contact, only the abbot. I could not wait get out of there. The thing that bothers me about Mooji and others who can charge a lot because they have a large group of followers is the way they are revered and their full acceptance of reverence. It has a cultist feeling to it. But if I can tease that out and just listen to what they are trying to point to, then, at least to my ears, its pretty good.
I have never been to a satsang or met teacher. I probably never will (but who knows)*. I just don't have the motivation to do so. Somehow enlightenment or awakening is no longer that appealing or realistic to me. It is a mere concept that desires such things anyway and that which desires will suffer a lot before it dies. I suppose I could say that every day is my guru, figuring out what is true or just more BS.
* I just saw that Adyshanti is having one in town for a 10 buck ‘donation’ -(maybe)
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 11, 2015 4:42:20 GMT
This topic, about teachers and teachings, is a very important one to discuss and tease out. As has been pointed out a number of times, in the end, it's what I (the whole of me, What I Am) can hear, receive, accept and put into practice rather than 'believe in/get attached to' that counts. That's the meaning of 'if you see the Buddha [teacher/teachings] on the road, slay the Buddha'. So, even when the teachings ‘ring a bell’, one needs to take them on as just a statement that only points to but is not That.
After many years of my own going from teacher and teachings to other teacher and teachings, getting impressed by one and not impressed by another (all invaluable and necessary phases of the journey) the discovery of Meditation, as a way to act and be, was critical. In the practice of Meditation there is no ‘one’ who needs to believe in anything. What arises is pristine, pure, coming out of ‘No-thing’, prior to ‘me’. It is clear and unambiguous. There is only the activity of Awareness, which is recognised to be there Always, Already as “I”. It is all inclusive because there is no ‘one’ who accepts or rejects. Thoughts and feelings are allowed to come and go. Therefore, no teacher or teachings, no enlightenment, nothing to achieve: just things as-they-are.
My view on "somehow enlightenment or awakening is no longer that appealing or realistic to me" is that it’s a stage of the journey. Ramesh Balkesar used to say that sooner or later one gets to 'who cares?' about enlightenment. What he meant is enlightenment as a goal, as something to achieve. It happens after one gets tired of looking, seeking and believing and is then ready to surrender to ‘this’, as it arises moment to moment. The words of the teacher may come in as a reminder that it’s OK to surrender to That which is beyond perception.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 17, 2015 20:04:14 GMT
I tried to edit out a few potholes from the last post.
I have never been that motivated to seek out a teacher. I suppose part of it may be a trust issue. But also, (I know this may sound arrogant) I truly wonder what could anyone possibly tell me that I couldn’t figure out on my own. We live in an amazing age where there is instant access to almost any teaching. In fact, I wonder if there may be a greater chance of being led astray with the traditional guru – disciple relationship. A case in point was these monks that I mentioned in my last post. Now I could be totally off the mark about this, but what do they think they were going to find by shunning social interactions and looking at the floor all day long? It seems to me that we all live in this certain dimensional plane. There is no other place to go, this is It. When you feel like you need to go out and engage in some practice such as that, you are not seeing what is already here. Anyone who claims to have found something is still in this dimensional plane; no different than anyone else. I don’t feel anyone is better or worse off, farther along a ‘path’, less awake, more enlightened. It is all part of this dimension where everything apparently abides. Sometimes things go well, other times not too good but the existence in this apparent dimension plays out in its own perfection. The problem, I believe, in seeing this inherent perfection is the notion of free will. There is a strongly held belief that by engaging in some practice one can bring about a 'positive' outcome. Although there may be some benefit within the dimensional plane, things do not fundamentally shift. Is it not far better to see that instead of being an individual that you and everyone else are in actuality a conglomeration of infinite forces that interact in unique ways? So when you look at your actions and those of others you see it is not a result of individual volition but that of the interacting forces. Instead of being deluded by the belief of free will with all the personal guilt and blame that go along with it, everything is seen non-judgmentally, in its own perfection. This can also be reinforced through contemplation. It can be seen that the content of arising thoughts are intrinsically analogous with this dimension. So the question is what is prior to these thoughts, or in other words, what is the substance of this dimension? There is no way to know, but that from which the thoughts arise must be what we truly are- a truth without the existence of form or dimension. There is no need to shun or judge anything, on the contrary, appreciate the dimension for how it comes into play. Of course, there are concerns about the future, about death and there are a range of reactive emotions but this is just how this apparent dimension works. It is not the sole truth but rather a reflection that comes into play. Don’t some call this the dance of Shiva? Now, if I may speculate a bit (more). It seems to me that the seed of all religions allude to this fundamental ‘non-existence of truth’ but then, once the ‘seed’ becomes organized into a system of beliefs, ‘truth’ takes on a conceptual form and the world becomes divided into true and false, good and bad. We come to believe we are separate individuals who have the free will to make the ‘right’ choice according to some relative doctrine of truth. But there is nothing wrong with all this, for it too is the dance of Shiva. Perhaps the greatest freedom we can have is the understanding that our conceptual self, the one abiding in this dimensional plane, is not free, that everything is going on just as it should. Could this be translated into God’s will?
Maybe two quotes that say all this in a much more concise manner:
"This which is free is not an entity, that which is bound is not what you are." Wei Wu Wei
“If you understand, things are just as they are; If you do not understand, things are just as they are. -Zen saying
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 22, 2015 1:49:47 GMT
Some elaboration on ‘all ways point to no way’: This post is something I wrote in my journal where I'm just 'preaching' to myself - no one else.
The first step is seeing how, without doubt, that all these objective thoughts, images, ideas have no reality whatsoever in themselves. This in itself is quite an undertaking for all around, 24 hours a day (except maybe in deep sleep) everything appears so real in itself. There is the need to incessantly be reminded that that which is perceived is a transient image in consciousness. If you tell anyone this they would definitely think your psycho but the fact is few see beyond or within the dimension of images playing out in consciousness (although, it doesn't matter nor is it important). These images should not be simply disregarded. No, they are what is; ‘no-thing’ apparently appearing as the ever-changing, or perhaps, as mentioned elsewhere on this board; nirvana appearing as samsara. It is the personal attachments or identification to these ever-changing images, taking them as the sole, independent dimension of reality that causes what is termed bondage. These images we take for reality are just plays in consciousness and just as importantly, this modulating, ever-changing consciousness itself is but another aspect of this ‘play’. What then really exists? Both the images and the consciousness that is thought to see the images have no reality in themselves. It is often said that it is the open space that allows everything to play, the unchanging ‘screen’ , the subject without object, the absolute, God or as already mentioned, ‘no thing’ appearing as everything, but all these are conceptualizations. In truth, it is clear to see that there is nothing that could be understood, no person to understand, nothing to find, nothing to practice. There is no knowledge whatsoever to be had, only degrees of pride. In the words of Hui-Hai (an 8th century Zen master) “I have is no mental processes that would be of use and no Way to follow”. In our humility we are have nothing whatsoever we can exercise; this complete non-action is Tao.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 22, 2015 8:30:39 GMT
In these conversations we are refining our capacity to tease out the meaning of the words and concepts we use in order to go beyond those very words. We are not exchanging information or facts, but insights into our nature. Therefore all insights are welcome! The use of words in communicating what cannot be communicated is the paradox of the Buddha talking for 40 years and not saying a word. In that spirit, commenting and amplifying on various posts:
- And yet...there is plenty to understand, to find, to practice! That's 'Nirvana is Samsara' and the central point of Non-duality. That's what those Zen monks do: practice-enlightenment (they don't stare at anything...). The very impulse to know, and activity of understanding, seeking and finding, practicing, etc. happen as part of everything happening, including the delusion of seeking to understand by 'I/me' as a separate fixed self. If we could all be enlightened (i.e. if enlightenment was something we as individuals could acquire) we would have it now in this time and space dimension. Having a human nature with its perceived imperfections is part of the perfection of 'What Is'. In this sense, we feel separate from God/Now. The act of embracing our humanity and our delusions (forgive as we know not), transcends and includes it, and makes us whole.
- Better to say that No-thing is none other than everything (rather than 'appears as'). Better still, is the insight that Form is Form in its own right and Emptiness is Emptiness in its own right. Like daylight and darkness. Each being 100% itself. At the same time, they cannot be separated because even at the very darkest point there is a seed of light (and vice versa). As ash is ash (not burned wood), so I am just what I am, as I change moment by moment. The insight is that I am not a fixed self, but a constantly changing entity, neither real nor unreal (who is writing or reading this?).
- Looking out through my eyes is the light, at the back of my head is darkness. Yang and Yin are absolutely separate, absolutely one. The No-thing (darkness) is as much 'me' (light) as 'I' am No-thing. To the discriminating mind (the perspective of what is when using thought/reason) this is paradoxical and nonsensical. To a 'beginner's mind' (Zen mind) it is obvious. It's inductive knowledge, not deductive.
Therefore, just sit (but don't fixate on anything!).
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 23, 2015 4:05:03 GMT
How great it is to have a conversation like this. Yes, there are a lot of paradoxes when talking of these matters. But, I fully believe that if the posts are read carefully, and there is an effort to see what is expressed, then there are very little real differences. It is more a matter of approaches. I have to admit that sometimes I need to re-read a post several times before I can glean what is implied and I haven’t quite got all what you said in your last post. Nevertheless, I still sense we are both talking about the same thing.
I may have a just a completely different way of saying the same thing. For example, it seems to me that you cannot practice enlightenment. That’s an oxymoron. How can you practice being what you already are? It is not a matter of practice or knowledge. It’s a matter of negation, letting go of all the falsehoods of the individual self. To be what you truly are there is nothing to know. Knowledge is just a form of vanity. In other words, our true nature is the complete absence of objective beingness. Here there are no judgments, no such thing as enlightenment or ignorance. Everything and everybody just is and in that absolute humility there is love all around; we all share this same consciousness. And as you say, ‘just sit without fixating on anything’; the only practice is this absolute non practice.
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Jul 23, 2015 7:37:13 GMT
"To be what you truly are there is nothing to know. Knowledge is just a form of vanity. In other words, our true nature is the complete absence of objective beingness"
Also
Reading these posts prompted an example of living that happened years ago.
I was in a smallish row boat with a friend and I rowed it out of the river into the ocean, not too far out but just enough to experience a lovely sunny day within the movement and expanse of the ocean.
Now my friend was a far better and faster swimmer than me, in fact when younger she was being trained for the Commonwealth games. She was unable to just relax into what was as her thoughts started, and once they got traction they produced their own story of dread and the fear of an unknown, as in being somewhere she had never been before. She was at home in an olympic pool and thia was new.
However, had she been able to relax into the experience there was enjoyment there, something different yes, and also a first time experience of being in the ocean.
I see this example as a parallel to many life moments whereby we let something pull us into an evaluative process rather than allowing an easy relaxation into the what-is-ness of this moment.
We lose the spontaneity of life and fall for an objective beingness and so miss the experience of our true nature.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 23, 2015 22:45:09 GMT
Thanks for sharing your story. I am going through some changes in my work situation and I felt your story spot on (as the young-ins say). I suppose, in a sense, it is kind of a meaningless sport to try and express what is ‘fundamental and natural’ into words, so it’s really nice when it all comes back to earth. Maybe we could say love is here, unless you’re haunted by your own stories.
|
|
