bee
Administrator
Posts: 117 
|
Post by bee on Jul 25, 2015 0:49:57 GMT
Re the last part of my post, I believe this may be more accurate:
We lose the spontaneity of life and fall for a "subjective" beingness and so miss the experience of our true nature.
Kolomo or tony would you like to post your perceptions on living the spontaneity of the moment, as in the true understanding of an objective vs subjective beingness?
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 25, 2015 11:05:47 GMT
Picking up on Kolomo's earlier post "...it seems to me that you cannot practice enlightenment. That’s an oxymoron. How can you practice being what you already are?"
My understanding and experience is: enlightenment is practice. Enlightenment, knowing my true nature, is the expression of what "I" am, awakened to What Is, and therefore not separate from acting in the world. The difficulty may be in the language. Practice means simply the doing of it, actualization (e.g. practice law, a profession) not the other meaning of 'rehearsal before you do the real thing'. Therefore, in Zen languaging, it is called 'practice-enlightenment': it is not done in order for 'me' to get enlightened, but comes from the ever existing condition of Enlightenment, Buddha-nature, Universal nature. If this was not the case, ordinary living (moving, thinking, feeling, imagining, being clear or confused, happy or unhappy) would be separate from My Nature, i.e. performed by some 'one' other than God, "I", the Source, etc. Useful to hear from another source (Ekai Korematsu Osho, the Zen Master I practice with):
“Our practice is not frozen, it is alive, it involves waking up and coming back. It involves effort. In practice we move away from being frozen, because life is not static, truth is not static, nothing is fixed. To try to fix life in a certain form is absurd. Yet in the midst of this life we want to find our own place in this universe. That is where practice comes in. In the midst of everything changing, everything rolling around, you want to find a place.
Practice can bring us back to the centre of the whole thing. In the midst of emotions and thinking and all those things coming, practice can bring everything back to that centre place. In the midst of stressing out, you meet yourself and bring yourself back. In the midst of the busy mind, the mind that plays the game of like and dislike – our practice is to bring ourselves back. As soon as we have a thought such as ‘I don’t like that’ we bring ourselves back! That is our practice.
In the midst of reality, everyone experiences reality unfolding. Even the fantasy mind is reality unfolding that way, a particular reality called fantasy. You don’t need to be obsessed about it. Many people become obsessed about having a certain kind of intellectual world. Oftentimes it is a thinking world or an obsessively emotional, feeling world. Oftentimes in this mind you are trapped or bounced back and forth. Often life is that way, but we do not find our practice in it. In our practice we can bring everything back to the really simple.
Practice doesn’t just occur. It doesn’t occur if you don’t make an effort or if you don’t know how to do it…What is automatic is to go in fantasy mode, that’s how you are conditioned. Like watching the same movie again because you like it, or avoiding a particular moment because you hate it. But that’s the place, the busy mind, where practice happens. Very good practice.”
I'll let that speak for itself, but worth making the point that 'What Is' is so simple and obvious that it escapes any attempt by thought to describe it as if it could be 'frozen' into a concept . What Is cannot be understood but can be experienced directly. That's shikan-taza, 'just sit'. Therefore the answer by the Zen Master to the student asking "what is enlightenment?" was "Pour me a cup of tea".
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 25, 2015 11:48:10 GMT
bee, the above talk is also relevant to the question of 'spontaneity'. I think your revised expression is a more accurate description of what happens, and it's a great topic to explore because we can discover lots of nuances and insights about 'who/what we are' vis-a-vis the world we live in.
As I see it, your friend was being spontaneous in feeling the fear of the unknown. Who has not felt that, or some kind of anxiety at uncertainty, not knowing what's coming up next, etc. The unit, the body/mind apparatus, responds like that to stimuli (e.g. fight or flight). Both Jesus and Gautama responded in an emotional, human way to events (both cried when their loved ones died), same as a young child would. However, they Allowed (neither accepting nor rejecting) that to be expressed fully in the moment as it occurred, as they would respond fully to events in the next moment.
Spontaneity is picking up the rubbish off the floor and putting it in the bin without a second thought. By contrast, it is not spontaneous to pick up the rubbish because 'the floor has to be kept clean'. The sword of the samurai swinging into action (and killing the man) is spontaneous when it comes out of 'nothing'. It is not spontaneous when he believes he must act out of duty.
In other words, when doing something comes out of an idea the action is not spontaneous. When it comes out of a direct response to the particular circumstance, it is spontaneous (watch a very young baby, or an animal). That 'I' am the doer/author of the deed is the delusion that results in lack of spontaneity: "deeds are done, there is no doer thereof".
|
|
bee
Administrator
Posts: 117
|
Post by bee on Jul 26, 2015 13:51:03 GMT
That's right, whenever there is an argument (even with the self) or a justification for what one's actions are then one could reflect and ask what has happenened to that georgeous sponaneity of life that has often been felt but is right now missing?
Has reason become the script of life on occasions?
And I see I can ask this also: Has justification become the judge for the action? It's sad really that when looking from a position of non-alignment the answer to that last question is a definite yes.
And then I may also ask why does anyone deviate from their true nature, which is the trueness of all life?
"For behold Thou wert within me, and I outside, and I sought Thee outside and in my unloveliness fell upon those lovely things that Thou hast made. Thou went within me and I was not with Thee."
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 26, 2015 14:28:25 GMT
I wrote this before seeing Bee's post-
Yes, it may be just how language is interpreted, as well as, a different angle or approach. Personally, I do not see any major contradiction between ‘you cannot practice enlightenment’ and ‘practice is enlightenment’. I think it might be easier to see if instead of the word ‘enlightenment’, which could suggest a fantasy state, we use the word ‘consciousness’. Since everything is consciousness, nothing could possibly exist outside of it. So it is not possible to practice consciousness because you already are consciousness (you already are what you seek). Practice is consciousness, it cannot be outside of it. Separation is no more than mind noise within consciousness
Now, I think this ties in with spontaneity, at least this is my take on it. Consciousness is what everything is. A lot of suffering, doubt and uncertainty takes place because we believe we have a free will separate from this consciousness. When things do not go the way we planned and hoped for, there is often some measure of reactive personal guilt, blame, depression or anger (it’s my fault, it is their fault). But when it is understood that all happenings are plays in consciousness we begin to better understand who we are and the personal - selfish burden is no longer the center of attention. We are no longer are personally enmeshed with emotional reactions. We understand it is a play of consciousness. Instead of thinking that somehow we got off course and need to engage in a practiced for rectification, whatever feeling is being felt is fully accepted without adding personal stories to it. Perhaps, this is called surrender to what is (but who is it that surrenders?). As far as spontaneity is concerned, there is none or very little when we believe in a separate, reactive self. As such, there is nothing that can be done to practice spontaneity, but by fully accepting what is, by understanding there is no personal doer, that all is consciousness playing out for no particular reason, - personal guilt and doubt is eased. By accepting (or perhaps surrendering to) what is in this matter allows space for spontaneity to come or not to come on its own accord as a play in consciousness.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 26, 2015 18:02:34 GMT
It just occurred to me that a lot of this so-called non duality can seem like a lot of strange double talk to people. I rarely talk about these things to anyone, even my family. When I do, oftentimes, it turns into a laughing party. And I am laughing right along with them, I think it’s funny too. I mean if you go around and tell people that most likely the world’s not really real, that it is just an image in your mind, they would think you might be psycho. But cannot this whole thing be interpreted less enigmatically through religion or belief in God? Not that I’m an expert in these matters, but it does seem that we are truly separate from god (translation; there is something not real about the world; not really real). It is only through acceptance of god’s will that there is any sense of reunion (translation; we understand that we’re not the doer, there is ‘surrender’ to what is without resistance). Anyway, I just thought to throw that in.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 26, 2015 23:33:56 GMT
Excellent discussions! Coming from an ongoing look into our own experience, ready to be amended and revised, as against being based on 'belief'. Open to continuous 'editing' [as practiced by Kolomo] of how we express what we know. Because of that, the next expression could reveal a new insight, a perspective not seen before. As the Buddha said "Excellent in the beginning, excellent in the middle and excellent in the end" [regarding the Dharma, Teachings, Things-as-they-are].
Where are Clouddust and Angelsix? When is Arlene going to 'pop in' to say hi?
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 28, 2015 13:12:45 GMT
Still not done editing this, I keep thinking that that past renditions were missing something
It sure appears as though things have happened in the past. In other words, we think that a finite event transpired within the infinite. But it is impossible to divide or section off the infinite in any manner. It is easy to see that you cannot cut the infinite in half or quarters or fifths, but is it possible to extract a finite set from the infinite? If the infinite includes everything, not just in the dimension of time or some linear concept, but everything, then it cannot be divided or sectioned off in any manner. No matter what you do or 'extract' it is still the infinite; everything is included. The finite is only a conceptualization. Yet, even the conceptualization must be the infinite. So, with all this said, do past events really exist? The only answer is yes and no, or perhaps, no and yes.
In this regard, Nisargadatta makes the point, “The presence of here and now is all that really exists, where ‘here’ is the absence of space and ‘now’ the absence of time”. This is really an all-inclusive statement for the presence of here and now is what everything is. The play in consciousness with all its various conceptualizations is none other than presence. The world goes on, as it apparently does, with an infinite variety of forms that are empty, yet, brimming full of presence.
|
|
|
|
Post by angelssix on Jul 29, 2015 17:42:32 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 Yah, I think so too, but like others I listen to, it's another "feel good" message. |
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Jul 30, 2015 17:55:58 GMT
I totally understand what you’re saying. I find it uncomfortable or at least a little awkward to be around people, especially groups of people, who seem (at least to my cynical perspective) to be trying to catch a good feeling instead of really turning back and examining what may be true. But to Mooji’s credit, whenever anybody brings up a kundalini or awakening experience he tells them, in one way or another, not to place importance on these experiences, that they can actually lead you astray.
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Jul 31, 2015 11:35:42 GMT
My guess is that all of us, at one stage or another in our lives, to a greater or lesser extent, have been "trying to catch a good feeling instead of really turning back and examining what may be true." Why shouldn't we? People since the beginning of time (e.g. Adam and Eve) have done all sorts of things (e.g. loving and hating, etc.) and will continue to do so for a while yet.
The phenomenon of 'seeing' through that attraction, or waking up from it, comes about only when it does through an 'individual'. Therefore what is spoken also comes through a particular individual. A good example is what Jesus said "I don't speak on my own authority. The Father who sent me has commanded me what to say and how to say it." In other words, Mooji (Buddha, Ramana, etc.) speaks and people only hear what they can hear.
People will simply do what they do, and change as they do, despite all the lectures, instructions and admonitions from Teachers, Prophets, Saints and Sages.
|
|
Kolomo
Administrator
Posts: 182
|
Post by Kolomo on Aug 1, 2015 1:54:47 GMT
Yes, very good point. I don’t think many people meditate or pray hoping to become depressed or anxious. I think the issue here has more to do with my reaction to some aspects of the spiritual movement. I sometimes feel there are certain codes of behavior or attitudes that some people adopt mindlessly. I am only left to ask myself; why do I get drawn into judging in such manner? What real difference should it make anyway? It must be that I am protecting some notion or belief that I think is right. Isn’t this what all conflicts are about? There is a belief that you are right and the other doesn’t understand correctly. Things happen on their own accord. There is no one that understands or doesn’t understand. Judgment and resistance likewise happen on their own accord. I suppose this is where the practice (or absolute non-practice) comes into play. Is there identification with a self-image that likes to feel resistive or reactionary or is there effortless, nonjudgmental acceptance that sees everything is always awareness expressing?
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Aug 3, 2015 1:20:17 GMT
"There is a belief that you are right and the other doesn’t understand correctly" is an obvious but deep insight into one's self-nature. What may be a truism for some, could be a fresh discovery for others: one man's meat is another man's poison. It is of the essence in this journey to understand the 'self' in order to forget or transcend it. Understanding the self means to see through its age-old habits [one can't remember their chain of causation], ways of responding or reacting to events, temptations, grasping at 'other than self', likes and dislikes, love and hate, its dualistic nature, etc.
The essence of the 'spiritual' path is that process of seeing through it, dying to it, Accepting and Allowing the self perspective without blaming or judging it. That process removes what is false. What's left is What Is (Always, Already). Any endeavour that puts that Accepting and Allowing into practice is called spiritual practice. It's not therapy, feeling good, improving one's self image, believing in any thing, or generally changing for the better. It requires radical honesty about what one has assumed to be true from a self perspective. So no idea, concept, behaviour, etc, is beyond questioning and inquiry [e.g. 'do I really love my neighbour?].
Clearly and obviously, the only method that actually works is that which excludes the self from the inquiry (otherwise it's like asking the thief to catch himself). Any one of the methods indicated by the Great Religious Traditions does it through: Worship and Love [Heart], Self-less Service [Body], Knowledge [Mind], known as the Maha-Yogas. They are non-dual methods in so far as the very act of performing them is an enlightened act (e.g. Love for the sake of loving).
All of the great traditions embody all three approaches, with greater emphasis on one or the other method. Earnestness is the basic requirement to get started on any of them. Earnestness arises when one has had enough of suffering and wants to find a way out of it. Only when one feels his head is on fire, one moves very quickly to put it out!
|
|
|
|
Post by clouddust on Aug 9, 2015 16:41:17 GMT
Hi,
Tony, I have a question:
You describe earnestness as a requirement to action from having suffered enough.
In your words, "Earnestness arises when one has had enough of suffering and wants to find a way out of it."
I ask: What spiritual path is without suffering?
In regard to it's very nature, the act of dying to self, in sacrifice and love results in suffering.
There is growth in the spiritual path of suffering.
And as Jesus said: "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world."
|
|
tony
Administrator
Posts: 172
|
Post by tony on Aug 10, 2015 11:47:06 GMT
Hello Clouddust, we hadn't heard from you for a while! Good to have you back into these conversations. I think we touched on the subject of suffering a while ago (was it by Kolomo?) and it's a good one to explore. Some comments based on my experience, in regard to 'What spiritual path is without suffering?'.
(i) suffering ceases when one is on a genuine spiritual path. That's because a genuine, no compromises, 'I'm ready to die for this' path is that where one is being pulled towards the Truth irrespective of what one thinks or believes in; it's the path of surrendering to what 'you' don't know;
(ii) suffering is a condition of mind here one is at odds with reality. It's what one experiences in a dream, running away from the non-existent tiger. That suffering stops when it is seen that the tiger was not real. It's like the experience of a toothache, which is just pain (requiring action like going to the dentist), but if I say that I should not have a toothache, then I suffer (I go against the reality of the pain). Another analogy: if someone slaps me in the face, it hurts physically, but if I believe that the action was malicious and take it personally, I suffer and cannot offer the other cheek; lastly, suffering is the condition of separation and alienation from the Whole. When we lose sight of the fact that I am Life itself, and nothing can harm Me, I suffer the uncertainty and anxiety of being a mere mortal, of Life not protecting me. That's a real joy killer!
(iii) suffering then is what spurs us into asking questions about why we suffer and/or the causes of suffering. Until that happens, one is not on a conscious 'spiritual' path. Those questions can lead one to explore solutions and eventually the search for one's Source begins in earnest. Typically one enters a path: hears of God as a Higher Power, follows the teachings of one of the great teachers, reads the scriptures from his/her own religious tradition, joins groups, finds a teacher, etc.
(iv) Earnestness is a condition of mind where a new level of consciousness is developing. One has heard the 'Good News' that there is a solution to suffering, a way out of what can feel like hell on Earth. It brings a new confidence: about oneself, others and what life is about. One stops being fearful and reactive. In that condition of mind, it becomes right suffering, i.e. actions that one willingly goes through, without complaining (too much) and is able to suffer injustice (like Job could do). Right suffering has a cleansing effect, like deep and meaningful repentance for what one has done while unconscious, for the hurt others have suffered.
(v) Earnestness comes, it is not manufactured by 'me'. It arises only when the lessons of unconscious suffering (known as karma in the East) have been learned.
So, I can fully agree with your statement that there is growth in suffering!
|
|
