[goldisheavy]

I'm not sure that this interest is such a special quality. I think that it is more or less inherent, and that it just is not talked to very often, and so it lies dormant.

 

Potentially two people could have a deep interest in reality but never talk about it, for they both hide it to abide by convention. Scratch people and you'll find some fairly not-usual stuff.

 

 

I remember a survey where something like half of the respondents reported a non-ordinary experience of consciousness, and so something in their consciousness is interested in more than just the conventional experience, or else they would not have noted or remembered it.

 

You might be right. I accept this possibility.

 

Still, why aren't our membership rolls on thetaobums and similar forums exploding? It's not like our convention will viciously punish anyone participating on such forums and you never have to reveal your real name, so employers googling for your name will not find anything unconventional that's linked to you, right?

 

Another example. I go to a fully anonymous forum where people have no reason to hide their true thoughts. I make a statement rejecting physicalism. 95 out of 100 people argue against me. It's not even close to a 50/50 opinion split. Of course some people might be worried that while employers cannot use google to link unconventional thoughts back to the person's identity, ISPs and the NSA can. But then I consider how many people easily and blissfully give up their information to Facebook, so worries about ISPs and NSA thought-policing must not be very prevalent in the population.

 

Thus I conclude that while people have this or that weird experience, serious seekers are very few indeed, even now. I also believe that the times for spiritual seeking are actually better than before. The environment is less oppressive while science itself is no longer as grossly physicalist as it used to be in the recent past.

[Todd]

Some of the tendency of others to argue with you might have to do with the fact that you are arguing against physicalism instead of for what is. There might be assumptions in your argument that they detect, even if they cannot easily verbalize them.

 

I do agree that sincere interest in truth, beyond convention, is still a rather underground phenomena. Even with people who go rather deep in their explorations, interest tends to go underground at some point and very little apparent progress is made. The biggest impediment, in my view, is that people don't know that there is more to be realized. At some point they just accept it at face value, inconsistencies and all, despite a certain covert uneasiness with this situation.

[goldisheavy]

Some of the tendency of others to argue with you might have to do with the fact that you are arguing against physicalism instead of for what is. There might be assumptions in your argument that they detect, even if they cannot easily verbalize them.

 

You may be right. I may be inviting the response I get by my tone and approach. Even then, why won't others do a better job where I presumably fail? I see lots of people trying to argue for God's existence, but it's mostly from the point of view of trying to prop up a conventional religious doctrine. I don't equate this with a sincere exploration of reality. All I see for the most part is people following two competing conventions: Abrahamic theological conventions or the secular physicalist ones.

 

You might be right anyway because maybe all the people who agree or who don't strongly disagree with the essence of what I am trying to say (if not the way I am saying it) are simply timid. Perhaps they are timid not because they fear NSA or ISP employes poking where they don't belong or employers googling, but perhaps they are timid just because internally they don't feel strong enough conviction to enter the discussion or a philosophical argument. But then, can one be serious about exploring reality and still be timid? It seems to me that timidity and seriousness are not fully compatible qualities. But... yea I guess I don't really know. I'm just showing how I tend to think about this.

 

I do agree that sincere interest in truth, beyond convention, is still a rather underground phenomena. Even with people who go rather deep in their explorations, interest tends to go underground at some point and very little apparent progress is made. The biggest impediment, in my view, is that people don't know that there is more to be realized. At some point they just accept it at face value, inconsistencies and all, despite a certain covert uneasiness with this situation.

 

I agree.

[Aaron]

[Mal]

maybe all the people who agree or who don't strongly disagree with the essence of what I am trying to say (if not the way I am saying it) are simply timid. Perhaps they are timid not because they fear NSA or ISP employes poking where they don't belong or employers googling, but perhaps they are timid just because internally they don't feel strong enough conviction to enter the discussion or a philosophical argument.

 

I don't think it's just from being timid or from lacking conviction. I feel it could have more to do with the lack of return on time invested in some philosophical arguments. As you said -

 

Personally I have different ways of speaking. I have a less accurate way and a more accurate way. I don't bother with a more accurate way unless the person I am talking to is special. The more accurate way to talk is much more time consuming, since it lies outside the habit.

[Birch]

Occur to anyone that not everyone might have the conceptual framework to understand a lot of the discussions? I keep getting lost in the GIH, Todd and Vmarco posts because they're so...wordy.

I'm doing my best to "get" what you guys are on about but roughly half the time I'm lost. I don't know if it's because I'm mediocre, maybe, but I can read some other posters' complicated stuff and understand it right away. I wonder why that is?

[Todd]

Occur to anyone that not everyone might have the conceptual framework to understand a lot of the discussions? I keep getting lost in the GIH, Todd and Vmarco posts because they're so...wordy.

I'm doing my best to "get" what you guys are on about but roughly half the time I'm lost. I don't know if it's because I'm mediocre, maybe, but I can read some other posters' complicated stuff and understand it right away. I wonder why that is?

 

Maybe we just don't know how to talk right.

[Birch]

Maybe we just don't know how to talk right.

Maybe!

And maybe there's something about the way I've learned language that makes it near impossible to grasp much of what you're saying.

And maybe there's something about the way you guys are communicating that obscures meaning for some? Which is fine if you want:-)

The "we don't talk right" thing could be cute, I'm really not sure. I believe that my comment was intended to offer y'all an opportunity to get more participation and to pose the wider question of how the way things are talked about might hold keys to truths about them or ont. Because we only ever talk about things, not talk the things themselves.

 

In qi-gong there are forms and sponteous qi-gong (often referred to as formless). They are both about physical reality while simultaneously being real. I think that's why I like it:-) I guess it would be hard to have a "formless" conversation on a forum but I guess I'm wondering if your "forms" are doing whatever they're supposed to do. Maybe exclude people, yes? If not, then could you be more inclusive? Or maybe point folks like me in the correct practice direction to ensure that I'll "get it" at some point? :-)

[Vajrahridaya]

Maybe!

And maybe there's something about the way I've learned language that makes it near impossible to grasp much of what you're saying.

And maybe there's something about the way you guys are communicating that obscures meaning for some? Which is fine if you want:-)

The "we don't talk right" thing could be cute, I'm really not sure. I believe that my comment was intended to offer y'all an opportunity to get more participation and to pose the wider question of how the way things are talked about might hold keys to truths about them or ont. Because we only ever talk about things, not talk the things themselves.

 

In qi-gong there are forms and sponteous qi-gong (often referred to as formless). They are both about physical reality while simultaneously being real. I think that's why I like it:-) I guess it would be hard to have a "formless" conversation on a forum but I guess I'm wondering if your "forms" are doing whatever they're supposed to do. Maybe exclude people, yes? If not, then could you be more inclusive? Or maybe point folks like me in the correct practice direction to ensure that I'll "get it" at some point? :-)

 

This is why it's different in person, as there's an easier, more fluid form of intuition at work when communicating. When reading, you have to have some type of similar reference point to begin with... sometimes the complicated sounding stuff is really simple if you had the same reference points. To an African, born and raised, the simple stuff in English is going to be gibberish. That's just an extreme example.

 

The Buddhist stuff seemed like gibberish for me at first... then I just educated myself and applied personal experience to the terminology and... now it's all quite simple.

[Vmarco]

Hello Vmarco,

 

I can see you don't get it. Maybe after a little more practice it'll click. That's not meant to be rude, but rather an honest assessment. I think you are getting close to what you think is the truth, but selfishness and pride are getting in the way. Don't worry about vanity, let yourself be a fool, and all shall reveal itself. I promise.

 

Aaron

 

I'm sure you feel as if you post out of the most respect, that is, from your personal viewpoint, however, your post above is as a definition of ad hominem. Interestingly, you don't address the message at all,...you just attack the messenger, as a selfish, prideful, dishonest fool to whom the truth may someday be revealed. Go figure!

 

I can understand you have a fixed notion of compassion,...and my sharing some other points of view did not encourage you to share your feelings on compassion and how they conflict with Chögyam Trungpa or the Bodhisattva vow to liberate sentient beings from all that steps between them and their direct experience.

 

Yes,...it is quite difficult for the personal to interact with the impersonal. The impersonal is often seen as immoral by the personal. For example, a moral person can become quite upset over the story of Naropa's time with Tilopa, and wonder how could Tilopa have been so mean. But that's the view point of a moral person.

 

As Osho correctly said,

“Morality can only be imposed from without when we are asleep. It can only be pseudo, false, a façade, it cannot become your real being…morality is bound to be nothing but a deep suppression. You cannot do anything while asleep; you can only suppress. And through morality, you will become false. You will not be a person, but simply a “persona”—just a pseudo-entity. . . . Only a dishonest person can be moral.”

 

I must also assume that your attacks on the messenger were also prompted by an irritation of your ego to consider the nature of light and duality,...a very frightening subject for ego. Thus, overall, your total disregard of the message is indicative of a narrow belief system that keeps ego in seemingly check, such as when Martin Luther said, "Reason should be destroyed in all Christians" or St Ignatius Loyola saying, "If the church should have defined anything to be black which to our eyes appear white, we ought in like manner pronounce it black." Or William Jennings Bryan stating, "If the bible had said that Jonah swallowed the whale, I would believe it."

 

Regardless,...thanks for the dialogue.

 

 

V

[Todd]

Yes,...it is quite difficult for the personal to interact with the impersonal. The impersonal is often seen as immoral by the personal.

 

 

If any person claims to speak or act for the impersonal, while denying their personal nature, then this is willful ignorance. To the extent that that person has faith in their own impersonality, abominations are likely to arise. Essentially every religion is the result of either the founder or his followers taking this stance.

 

You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about.

[Vmarco]

If any person claims to speak or act for the impersonal, while denying their personal nature, then this is willful ignorance. To the extent that that person has faith in their own impersonality, abominations are likely to arise. Essentially every religion is the result of either the founder or his followers taking this stance.

 

You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about.

 

So, "Essentially every religion is the result of either the founder or his followers taking this stance"....that, "If any person claims to speak or act for the impersonal, while denying their personal nature, then this is willful ignorance. To the extent that that person has faith in their own impersonality, abominations are likely to arise."

 

I can understand that faith in anything can, and generally does, manifest abominations of all kinds,...that's the nature of faith. But part one of the "stance" looks tricky to me. Is the claiming person speaking from the personal or impersonal (the impersonal being akin to cooperative rather than competitive, or liberal rather than illiberal). Would the impersonal actually deny the personal? Or perhaps denying the "force" of the personal as being more important than the impersonal.

 

Next,...how does that play into the line: "You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about."

 

Which you are you? The you that one thinks they are? Or the you, the impersonal you, beyond thinking? What is not getting a pass? Is it that one should not assume they should get a pass from attacking a messenger because they are offended by the message.

 

I don't know,...not sure I understand that post.

 

V

[goldisheavy]

I don't think it's just from being timid or from lacking conviction. I feel it could have more to do with the lack of return on time invested in some philosophical arguments. As you said -

 

Lack of return? That's crazy. It's very powerful and desirable to talk to people and to keep a minimum level of synchronization. When we go it alone, we can discover and accomplish many things unhindered by convention, but at the same time, convention is with us. If we don't synchronize we will create the intent of an outcast and be consigned to live in a society we've intentionally abandoned. The society is our own subconscious mind. Avoiding talking to others is avoiding talking to yourself.

 

I'm all for taking it easy, going with the flow, avoiding the bad vibes, going solo, etc... but if you don't sync up your kingdom will be a bleak-looking one.

 

Syncing up requires talking about sensitive but very important topics to others, fearlessly and honestly. Even if you decide to meditate in a cave for 40 years, you should at least come out for 1 year and talk to people so as to not develop a huge intentional rift.

 

Of course some people want to abandon humanity and a rift is precisely what they want. That's fine with me. But know what you're doing if that's your path.

 

So the question is this then -- do those people who avoid discussion avoid all other discussion as well? Or do they avoid spiritually oriented discussion and engage in mundane one? So if the mundane discussion is not a waste of time, but spiritual one is, then we're back to square one where the situation is that not many people can stomach seriously questioning reality.

[goldisheavy]

Occur to anyone that not everyone might have the conceptual framework to understand a lot of the discussions? I keep getting lost in the GIH, Todd and Vmarco posts because they're so...wordy.

I'm doing my best to "get" what you guys are on about but roughly half the time I'm lost. I don't know if it's because I'm mediocre, maybe, but I can read some other posters' complicated stuff and understand it right away. I wonder why that is?

 

I understand everything Todd is saying.

 

When I first read Vmarco's posts, I thought V was absolutely crazy. Nothing made any sense to me. He seemed to have a personal vocabulary talking about densities, divided light vs undivided, bizarre and mathematically incorrect formulas, etc. Later on I realized that undivided light in V's parlance refers to a mystic experience which I can relate to. I still ignore V though because I cannot be arsed to think about my own life in terms of densities and formulas have no place in my spirituality (this is also why I am not a huge fan of a Kabbalistic approach of Rabbi Laitman either, who likes to draw many graphs and tries to make spiritually look like a science).

 

As for myself, I think everything I say is down to earth, crystal clear, and brutally simple. I am shocked anyone would think I am being opaque in my writing. Err... I don't know what to say! I wish if anyone felt like whatever I am saying makes no sense, they'd just ask a question. If you get a crazy answer from me, you at least have a moral right not to understand what I say. But if you didn't even try asking, then you have no right to claim that I am being impenetrable.

 

I don't always write long posts, but I agree sometimes I will write an exceptionally long post. If I can explain something in three words, I will try to do that. At the same time, if the topic is not interesting, no one wants to read a long post on that topic. I too will skip a long post about things that are of only tangential interest to me. But if the post is on the topic I love and it's long, I will read the entire thing without a problem.

[johndoe2012]

Edited December 11, 2011 by chris d

[Aaron]

[Todd]

I can understand that faith in anything can, and generally does, manifest abominations of all kinds,...that's the nature of faith. But part one of the "stance" looks tricky to me. Is the claiming person speaking from the personal or impersonal (the impersonal being akin to cooperative rather than competitive, or liberal rather than illiberal). Would the impersonal actually deny the personal? Or perhaps denying the "force" of the personal as being more important than the impersonal.

 

Next,...how does that play into the line: "You don't get a pass because you are you and those other people didn't know what they were talking about."

 

Which you are you? The you that one thinks they are? Or the you, the impersonal you, beyond thinking? What is not getting a pass? Is it that one should not assume they should get a pass from attacking a messenger because they are offended by the message.

 

 

Well, there is an impersonal experience. It feels like it has nothing to do with what we want or don't want. It just is. As it meets day to day existence, the feeling of it is that it is taking the whole into account, without input from the usual personal concerns that usually cloud perception. Or else, all personal matters are seen in their true place, which is usually much less total or important than the personal perspective thinks it is.

 

There is a perspective that feels totally impersonal. There is nothing that we might think of as a self there. This perspective can inform many things in day to day life.

 

The issue arises when a person claims this perspective as their own. There is a lack of humility, a lack of recognition that no amount of realization or accessing of the impersonal actually erases our tendency to experience day to day life through filters. It also cannot erase the fact that our expression always passes through filters, cultural, linguistic, physical, energetic, etc... Thus anything that we conceive or express will always have some degree of error in it, in relation to the impersonal. There will always be a personal element.

 

Those who deny this personal element tend to get into trouble and to cause trouble. Those who recognize it can allow the impersonal to function through them in a much more clear way.

 

It is very tempting to ignore what remains of the personal, to try to transcend or eradicate it, or just not to refer to or acknowledge it, since this is seen to be the major source of most people's blindness and difficulty. History shows that this is not an effective approach, because it is not realistic.

 

I hope you can see the implications of this. If not, then we can explore them further. Do you see these implications?

 

No one gets a pass, no matter how clear the recognition and realization of the impersonal. The personal is always there, as long as there is a body, and maybe after.

 

If there is any claim to impersonal, then it must also be given to all beings, and it never absolves responsibility.

 

I do not recommend attacking the messenger, but some messages, though well meaning, have a toxic aspect that is well to be recognized.

 

 

[Vmarco]

Hello VMarco,

 

I really didn't mean to offend you, though I thought you might be upset from what I said, I also believe it needed to be said, so I said it. You are close. I've already made my point, nothing you've said changes that, so I leave it at that. You are close, but you have blinded yourself because you are unwilling to see anything that you have not learned is right and correct.

 

Good luck in your journey.

 

Aaron

 

Once again you are not discussing the message, but that the messenger must be wrong because she doesn't agree with your predetermined view of things. Speaking for myself, I haven't been offended, upset, or selfish for at least a dozen years,...thus your comments are puzzling, as if you tell a non-smoker that they are a smoker.

 

Something I wrote on another thread has relevance here,..."Although those on the Long Path's appear to love calling those on the Short Path prideful and such, you really don't have a clue, because any pride has been effortless extinguished as a consequence of entering the Short Path. Thus, your insistent character assassinations is just proof of your own Long Path level,...and attachment to the delusion of humility.

 

"Humility is just a degree of pride" Wei Wu Wei

 

Unfortunately, the immature who see no humility, and automatically prescribe pride, are way too caught up in duality."

 

Your indoctrinated idea of compassion doesn't match my compassion,...and that troubles you,...and that's OK. Of course I'd love to see you liberated from your sentient beliefs,...but it is not a bodhisattvas job to liberate every sentient being by herself,...is a process of cooperation,...and a process, that for many, takes a long, long time.

 

The good news is, not only is time one-thing, but it doesn't even exist, except as people perceives it to exist.

 

The first Absolute Bodhichitta says, treat everything you perceive as a dream.

 

 

V

[Informer]

Once again you are not discussing the message, but that the messenger must be wrong because she doesn't agree with your predetermined view of things. Speaking for myself, I haven't been offended, upset, or selfish for at least a dozen years,...thus your comments are puzzling, as if you tell a non-smoker that they are a smoker.

 

Something I wrote on another thread has relevance here,..."Although those on the Long Path's appear to love calling those on the Short Path prideful and such, you really don't have a clue, because any pride has been effortless extinguished as a consequence of entering the Short Path. Thus, your insistent character assassinations is just proof of your own Long Path level,...and attachment to the delusion of humility.

 

"Humility is just a degree of pride" Wei Wu Wei

 

Unfortunately, the immature who see no humility, and automatically prescribe pride, are way too caught up in duality."

 

Your indoctrinated idea of compassion doesn't match my compassion,...and that troubles you,...and that's OK. Of course I'd love to see you liberated from your sentient beliefs,...but it is not a bodhisattvas job to liberate every sentient being by herself,...is a process of cooperation,...and a process, that for many, takes a long, long time.

 

The good news is, not only is time one-thing, but it doesn't even exist, except as people perceives it to exist.

 

The first Absolute Bodhichitta says, treat everything you perceive as a dream.

 

 

V

 

Excuse my ignorance, but could you tell me about the short path and long path, and/or direct me to a site that might further my understanding? Thanks!

[Todd]

Maybe!

And maybe there's something about the way I've learned language that makes it near impossible to grasp much of what you're saying.

And maybe there's something about the way you guys are communicating that obscures meaning for some? Which is fine if you want:-)

The "we don't talk right" thing could be cute, I'm really not sure. I believe that my comment was intended to offer y'all an opportunity to get more participation and to pose the wider question of how the way things are talked about might hold keys to truths about them or ont. Because we only ever talk about things, not talk the things themselves.

 

In qi-gong there are forms and sponteous qi-gong (often referred to as formless). They are both about physical reality while simultaneously being real. I think that's why I like it:-) I guess it would be hard to have a "formless" conversation on a forum but I guess I'm wondering if your "forms" are doing whatever they're supposed to do. Maybe exclude people, yes? If not, then could you be more inclusive? Or maybe point folks like me in the correct practice direction to ensure that I'll "get it" at some point? :-)

 

There a lot of different ways that I can respond to this. There is a pithy way, but I'm less inclined to that, right now. I am being a little self-indulgent, following through on threads that reveal themselves. I am leaving a lot out, just because of time and space, but I enjoy offering an attempt at expressing various threads.

 

I am talking with Gold and Vmarco because I want to. I am not trying to disseminate a message. I am conscious that the way that we talk is not directed to a lot of people. I can feel the moment in a lot of posts, often quite early, where I have just left most people out-- to them its just gibberish. With Gold, it has to do with his general clarity and sharpness. To talk to him I have to be a lot more precise than with other people, because he will attack anything that he sees as less than precise, often, it seems, even if he gets the general drift of what I am saying. I appreciate this, because it gives me the opportunity to be very precise, which can open conscious involvement with vistas that before were much more hazy.

 

I use a lot of non-standard vocabulary with Vmarco, because he uses it. It is his language, and I see that he is trying to convey something that I recognize. Learning a new language can open me to different perspectives. I also see that he has views that do not accord with mine in some areas, so I want to establish a mutual understanding so that we can explore those areas where we disagree, which might be mutually profitable. The same goes with Gold. We make efforts to come to a mutual understanding of words, and then try to use them consistently, so that we can discuss things that are not commonly discussed. I do this, so that I might encounter different views and communicate my own views. I like that he tries to use everyday language, though. I also prefer this, though I slip into more technical usage with him at times. I am grateful that there is an opportunity to communicate with people who share certain experiences and viewpoints, so that the conversation does not have to remain at those levels and can go to areas less commonly explored.

 

Often I skip long posts by people who I do not feel a strong connection with. Sometimes I read them, but more and more I go with my immediate gut reaction to the post. I depends on how much time I have and my interest in the topic. I encourage anyone who does not feel a strong connection with me to skip any of my posts the are not drawn to.

 

There are basically as many languages as there are people. And its not just people. Every city and town has its own language, every profession, every gender and age group, every school, every religion and spiritual practice, every group of memories, every set of books read, every TV show watched, sport enjoyed, mental, spiritual and physical experience. It is impossible to speak all of these languages at once. You can do a decent job just speaking a certain style of English. You can get by in a huge portion of the world like that, but there are things that you cannot explore and people that you cannot reach like that. There are plenty of things that are impossible to express like that. So language is a huge field of possibilities. I enjoy exploring that with different people, in different ways. I do not want to limit myself to just one way.

 

As Gold says, if you want to talk, all you have to do is ask a question or offer a suggestion.

 

Practices: To get at the essential insights that Vmarco, Gold and I are speaking from, the method is simple. Just stop and remain interested in what is. Stop looking for any particular thing. Just see what is. At some point you can even stop the stopping, and remain interested in what is.

 

Most people cannot do this method well, in part because they want something, they expect something other than what reveals itself, which is very much like nothing. The nothing has a lot to show you though, and I recommend giving it your time and attention and allowing it to reveal itself to you. Just dipping your toe in and then thinking about it, wondering whether it is valuable or not, whether one still existed when it revealed itself or not, or whatever, does not do it justice. It has depths and depths.

 

This is the gate. The gate can also be a trap, because we are better off not to just go to that gate and try to get all of ourselves through it. There is a koan: "Why can the water buffalo get its horns, its head, its hooves, its body, and its ass through the window, but its tail cannot pass through?" There is a call that will be felt, to realize the nothing and stillness that is revealed through stopping and looking, when there no longer seems to be stopping, in all this catastrophe, wonder and dullness.

 

Another huge block for a lot of people is that all their stories about what is wrong with the world come up. Thats all well and good, but it does not help to dwell on them. What there is to do in the world or in yourself does not disappear if you take this all the way. You just have a lot more energy to respond and it no longer seems like the "problem" that it did before. I am not claiming any perfection or even close in this regard, but in my experience this is the trajectory.

 

More important than all that is to remain true to what moves you. That is more important than anything. It is a question, since sometimes we can seem to be at conflict with ourselves, can't we?

 

I have already shared my main source of "outside" guidance: Adyashanti. I think you have already checked him out. He probably won't resonate for a lot of people, but there he is for anyone who resonates with him. I cannot recommend his retreats and whatnot highly enough. His teachings seem simple, but they reveal more and more depth, especially in conjunction with practice and inquiry. I am amazed, even though at times I get sick of it. I refer to it less and less, but I am amazed at what it can continue to offer. Recently, his teachings have focused more on post awakening. Anyone who is interested in his more awakening oriented teachings can check out Spontaneous Awakening. I used them as Dharma talks for a self-guided retreat and it was a very revealing experience. The awakening teachings can be helpful to clarify just what awakening is and increase its depth, even for those who have had an "awakening". The post awakening teachings speak more to a quieter movement, which is often happening before any teachings have been heard probably (I actually tend think its always happening in everyone, even if in a very subterrainian way).

 

 

I've also been exploring spontaneous movement practices recently. Its only been several weeks, so I'm not so inclined to talk about them though they might have something to do with why I am posting more. I'm glad you're enjoying them!

[Vmarco]

Excuse my ignorance, but could you tell me about the short path and long path, and/or direct me to a site that might further my understanding? Thanks!

 

 

I excuse your unfamiliarity,...the term ignorance should not imply a lack of object-ive knowledge. Ignorance is what muddies the diamond that we are. Buddha said, “Your ignorance and delusion are nothing strange, for it is difficult for logical thinking to understand peace.”

 

For a primer on the Short Path try:

http://wisdomsgoldenrod.org/notebooks/

 

Check out: 23. Advanced Contemplation.

 

V

[rene]

Well, there is an impersonal experience. It feels like it has nothing to do with what we want or don't want. It just is. As it meets day to day existence, the feeling of it is that it is taking the whole into account, without input from the usual personal concerns that usually cloud perception. Or else, all personal matters are seen in their true place, which is usually much less total or important than the personal perspective thinks it is.

 

There is a perspective that feels totally impersonal. There is nothing that we might think of as a self there. This perspective can inform many things in day to day life.

 

The issue arises when a person claims this perspective as their own. There is a lack of humility, a lack of recognition that no amount of realization or accessing of the impersonal actually erases our tendency to experience day to day life through filters. It also cannot erase the fact that our expression always passes through filters, cultural, linguistic, physical, energetic, etc... Thus anything that we conceive or express will always have some degree of error in it, in relation to the impersonal. There will always be a personal element.

 

Those who deny this personal element tend to get into trouble and to cause trouble. Those who recognize it can allow the impersonal to function through them in a much more clear way.

 

It is very tempting to ignore what remains of the personal, to try to transcend or eradicate it, or just not to refer to or acknowledge it, since this is seen to be the major source of most people's blindness and difficulty. History shows that this is not an effective approach, because it is not realistic.

 

I hope you can see the implications of this. If not, then we can explore them further. Do you see these implications?

 

No one gets a pass, no matter how clear the recognition and realization of the impersonal. The personal is always there, as long as there is a body, and maybe after.

 

If there is any claim to impersonal, then it must also be given to all beings, and it never absolves responsibility.

 

I do not recommend attacking the messenger, but some messages, though well meaning, have a toxic aspect that is well to be recognized.

 

Todd, I agree fully. My nomenclature calls this 'either/or' thinking, i.e., either personal or impersonal. A useful tell, for me, is when the ideas presented understand fully and integrate easily the presence, necessity and joy found in the simultaneous both.

 

warm regards

[Mal]

(edit wrong thread)

[Vmarco]

[Aaron]

Ultimately, there are no obsticles,...except those we see as such.

 

I see you were listening to what I said, now you just need to go further.

 

Aaron