Seeing, Recognising & Maintaining One's Enlightening Potential

[C T]

CT - I see where everyone is coming from.  And I do remember the light of love at the beginning of this incarnation - before all the darkness started, the pain, the alcoholism.  I see it more today as a lotus rising up from the mud to the pond surface.

 

But yes, I do see where there is a return to light.  I just needed reminding.  I guess I was just putting it into too personal a context.

the pains, alcoholism, and other addictions are not the real darkness, so it says in the teachings. They are the imagined or relative darkness arising from something more fundamental, perpetuated unceasingly by the force of habitual clinging and aversive tendencies. 

 

In the absolute sense, mud, lotus and pond are all interdependently linked. If these are seen, and they are for most people, to be independently existing, then grasping and rejecting cannot be avoided. 

 

If there is a way to be open and free, this seed will have to be planted in the quality of the space that holds the objects of the senses, rather than the solidness and contraction that is bound tightly through ignorance which gives rise to blind identification with the senses and forming the false perception that these are truly existent and which constitutes a self. In this way, the intention to plant good seeds may prevail from life to life, but these will always end up on infertile ground. 

 

A potentially growable seed will always retain its potential, no matter what, but it needs all the necessary elements to come together before it will sprout. Those that lack the potential will return to nature to fulfill its cyclical purpose. Through deep seeing, we will discover that even within a growable seed there are elements of reformed, ungrowable seeds there, each supporting the other in complex ways. 

 

Are the processes of human existence somehow spared or excluded from this dynamic interchange? 

 

Through introspection, we will be able to find this out for ourselves. 

[manitou]

Gotcha.  The 10,000 dense cosmic vegetables float around in the cosmic soup, but the cosmic broth always remains crystal clear. It's about the space.

Edited March 31, 2017 by manitou

[blue eyed snake]

 

In the absolute sense, mud, lotus and pond are all interdependently linked. 

 

 

thank you

[C T]

“One of the principal evils in life, according to Buddhism, is ‘repugnance’ or hatred. Repugnance (pratigha) is explained as ‘ill-will with regard to living beings, with regard to suffering and with regard to things pertaining to suffering. Its function is to produce a basis for unhappy states and bad conduct. Thus it is wrong to be impatient at suffering. Being impatient or angry at suffering does not remove it. On the contrary, it adds a little more to one’s troubles, and aggravates and exacerbates a situation already disagreeable. What is necessary is not anger or impatience, but the understanding of the question of suffering, how it comes about, and how to get rid of it, and then to work accordingly with patience, intelligence, determination and energy.” 

 

~ Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula ~

[manitou]

 

 

 

“One of the principal evils in life, according to Buddhism, is ‘repugnance’ or hatred.

 

 

 

 

 

This is exactly why I think it is such a good time to Practice, at this point in history.  So often I feel repugnance as my first instinct when turning on the news.  And yet to feel the sentiment change from repugnance to compassion is to actually feel the heart soften - and the realization that it is yet just another aspect of Self.

[C T]

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. 

 

 

~ Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula ~

[Stosh]

There is no unmoving mover behind the movement. It is only movement. It is not correct to say that life is moving, but life is movement itself. Life and movement are not two different things. In other words, there is no thinker behind the thought. Thought itself is the thinker. If you remove the thought, there is no thinker to be found. [/color

 

 

 

 

~ Ven. Dr. Walpola Rahula ~

Um Ct , you arent considering a rolling rock to be alive right? Unmoved mover is an originator of events, and without any spark whatsoever ,the universe is dead Yes?

Youd be saying you have no life nor will , just consequence unending..and un begun.. no volition whatsoever

Edited April 1, 2017 by Stosh

[manitou]

Um Ct , you arent considering a rolling rock to be alive right? Unmoved mover is an originator of events, and without any spark whatsoever ,the universe is dead Yes?

Youd be saying you have no life nor will , just consequence unending..and un begun.. no volition whatsoever

 

But maybe looking at it from the point of view of the maya of life, the rock is consciousness too, albeit insentient.  And even if the rock is just sitting there, there is movement in even the slightest bit of erosion at any given moment.

 

It seems analogous to there being no difference between the seer, the seeing, and the seen.  It's all one action.

Edited April 1, 2017 by manitou

[C T]

Um Ct , you arent considering a rolling rock to be alive right? Unmoved mover is an originator of events, and without any spark whatsoever ,the universe is dead Yes?

Youd be saying you have no life nor will , just consequence unending..and un begun.. no volition whatsoever

 

But maybe looking at it from the point of view of the maya of life, the rock is consciousness too, albeit insentient.  And even if the rock is just sitting there, there is movement in even the slightest bit of erosion at any given moment.

 

It seems analogous to there being no difference between the seer, the seeing, and the seen.  It's all one action.

Correct! One action, with no gap separating the seer, the seeing and the seen. Keeping this at the forefront of mindfulness is the way towards the cultivation of knowing the true nature of all things. Meditation is the practice towards increased mindful awareness of this inseparability. The Buddhist notion of 'ignorance' points at those instances where there is a cause or causes which act as contributing factors that bring about an absence or temporary obscuration of this awareness. 

 

What we call a 'rock' is simply a coming together of non-rock elements - its never a rock, but a process. At some point in this process a rock is apprehended, and there is the immediate thought of solidness and permanence. In actual fact, non-rock elements form, persist for a period of time, and subsequently de-form back to an elemental state, which may or may not retain some of the qualities of its previous formation.

 

Therefore, a rock may become stone, a stone may become a pebble, a pebble may become sand, sand may become something else, and so on, which eventually may re-form to become rock again. But if we look at a rock and believe it only possesses rock elements exclusively, then misapprehension will result.

 

The above is also directly applicable to the formation of a self, and all other objects that are apprehended by and through the senses.

 

To train the mind in becoming aware of the simultaneous presence of both rock and relative non-rock elements, the self and relative non-self elements, closes the gap of apparent separation and allows for correct insight into the true nature of things to arise.

 

Cultivating such an insight allows for compassion to arise effortlessly. Conversely, cultivating compassion will also lead to the eventual arising of insight. In Mahayana terms, insight meditation is wisdom-training, while compassion meditation is method-training. Both approaches will yield the same result. Some find affinity with one or the other, and thats ok, because on a deeper level these two expedient means are all-inclusive - eventually the expansive insight peaks - at this time, clear seeing gives rise to an effortless knowing of both rock and non-rock elements arising and subsiding simultaneously. 

Edited April 1, 2017 by C T

[manitou]

Wow, CT - that was incredible.

 

And then is it so that the Space (in which Time is inherent) is the very thing that provides the borders for which things may have their form?  i.e. Why the atoms of, say a chair, don't just fly apart, and it stays in the form of a chair?  That space in a way prohibits further expansion?  If this is so, my guess is that what we might call 'intent' is contained within Space.  The chair is a chair because there was an intent at one time for it to be a chair, and it remains in that form until Time works its magic on it, or there is an overriding intent for the chair to be turned into something else.

[silent thunder]

This notion you speak of as intent manitou, is very close to me and I have long now held the sense that if there weren't some latent intent, spirit, or even remote sentience to every form we perceive, then no form would manifest and hold shape, even temporarily. 

 

This is why for some years now, I inherently approach all things, animate and inanimate as sentient, or latently sentient, for without this foundational intent of form, no shape would manifest. 

 

It seems now that the very fabric underlying all perceptual experience is one awareness. 

 

Universal.  Foundational.  Ephemeral.  Pervasive.  Utterly subtle.  Permeating.  Saturating.  Blissful.  Empty yet filled with Potential.  Clear.

 

edit to add:  It's the notion repeated in so many ancient and pre-modern cultures, Native Americans, Africans, Aboriginal Australian, the Druids and the pre-industrial cultures, who all honored and paid conscious acknowledgement to the essential living spirit of all things.

Edited April 1, 2017 by silent thunder

[Stosh]

Lets try this out ,Any of you and I witness Rj going on a killing spree, I think his actions arent compassionate , and in this case revenge is an appropriate arm of justice ,and so consider that he should be terminated.

You however possibly consider it that he has not in fact killed anyone , he has rendered materials non functional , and revenge or any other sanction would be the uncompassionate behavior, on our part. In fact ! since all of us are part of the universe which is sentient, and we have no volition, ,we would not exist to be held responsible , if we did the same as Rj.

Is this not fair extrapolation? and if not , how so?

[manitou]

This notion you speak of as intent manitou, is very close to me and I have long now held the sense that if there weren't some latent intent, spirit, or even remote sentience to every form we perceive, then no form would manifest and hold shape, even temporarily. 

 

This is why for some years now, I inherently approach all things, animate and inanimate as sentient, or latently sentient, for without this foundational intent of form, no shape would manifest. 

 

It seems now that the very fabric underlying all perceptual experience is one awareness. 

 

Universal.  Foundational.  Ephemeral.  Pervasive.  Utterly subtle.  Permeating.  Saturating.  Blissful.  Empty yet filled with Potential.  Clear.

 

edit to add:  It's the notion repeated in so many ancient and pre-modern cultures, Native Americans, Africans, Aboriginal Australian, the Druids and the pre-industrial cultures, who all honored and paid conscious acknowledgement to the essential living spirit of all things.

 

 

 I think a good parallel in nature is a fish who grows according to the size of its container.  It's the amount of space that's dictating the size of the fish.

[Stosh]

Correct! One action, with no gap separating the seer, the seeing and the seen. Keeping this at the forefront of mindfulness is the way towards the cultivation of knowing the true nature of all things. Meditation is the practice towards increased mindful awareness of this inseparability. The Buddhist notion of 'ignorance' points at those instances where there is a cause or causes which act as contributing factors that bring about an absence or temporary obscuration of this awareness. 

 

What we call a 'rock' is simply a coming together of non-rock elements - its never a rock, but a process. At some point in this process a rock is apprehended, and there is the immediate thought of solidness and permanence. In actual fact, non-rock elements form, persist for a period of time, and subsequently de-form back to an elemental state, which may or may not retain some of the qualities of its previous formation.

 

Therefore, a rock may become stone, a stone may become a pebble, a pebble may become sand, sand may become something else, and so on, which eventually may re-form to become rock again. But if we look at a rock and believe it only possesses rock elements exclusively, then misapprehension will result.

 

The above is also directly applicable to the formation of a self, and all other objects that are apprehended by and through the senses.

 

To train the mind in becoming aware of the simultaneous presence of both rock and relative non-rock elements, the self and relative non-self elements, closes the gap of apparent separation and allows for correct insight into the true nature of things to arise.

 

Cultivating such an insight allows for compassion to arise effortlessly. Conversely, cultivating compassion will also lead to the eventual arising of insight. In Mahayana terms, insight meditation is wisdom-training, while compassion meditation is method-training. Both approaches will yield the same result. Some find affinity with one or the other, and thats ok, because on a deeper level these two expedient means are all-inclusive - eventually the expansive insight peaks - at this time, clear seeing gives rise to an effortless knowing of both rock and non-rock elements arising and subsiding simultaneously. 

I was hoping youd respond to the next post I made ( I was using my phone and quoting existing quotes on there takes up all the space , so I didnt , and dont know if this was presented to you , this issue is returning to me,,  ,in reading the Bahagavad Gita, it again looks like the assertion is being made that no one lives nor dies so its OK to kill people in pursuit of ones spiritual goal.  This to me does not sit well with the idea of compassion , as in , considering others wellbeing to be tied to ones own. And if you have a resolution , or want to point out my misapprehension , I would like to hear it. 

[manitou]

straw dogs

[steve]

I was hoping youd respond to the next post I made ( I was using my phone and quoting existing quotes on there takes up all the space , so I didnt , and dont know if this was presented to you , this issue is returning to me,,  ,in reading the Bahagavad Gita, it again looks like the assertion is being made that no one lives nor dies so its OK to kill people in pursuit of ones spiritual goal.  This to me does not sit well with the idea of compassion , as in , considering others wellbeing to be tied to ones own. And if you have a resolution , or want to point out my misapprehension , I would like to hear it. 

 

From my perspective, anyone who proposes that it is OK to kill others in pursuit of spiritual goals has not had an insight into the nature of mind. Bodhicitta is the infinite source of pure compassion - the one who would pursue spiritual goals is seen as the illusion it is. The former are more akin to political extremists hijacking spirituality or religion as a justification for their ignorance. We are invited to learn from the ancient books, not necessarily accept everything they portray at face value. 

[Stosh]

Ok,.., Krishna urges Arjuna to do exactly this in bhagavad gita, expressly. And even if you take this work as some kind of expression of an inner journey, folks of several faiths take the exact stated and implied positions such as no one ever dying , literally.
The entire overt message is that Arjuna needs to OVERCome his own natural compassion-westernstyle- concerns about good and evil , on a conscienceless quest for personal salvation.
If this is indeed hijacking by extremists, what demonstration is there that this is purely allegorical and warped? I would like to know the sutra or whatever that says so.
thanks

Edited April 14, 2017 by Stosh

[manitou]

I think there are two different ends of the spectrum.  At one end is our sentient experience, the dream within which we have become fully engaged, the experience that has evolved to a societal code of conduct.  This matter that we think we actually are, in reality, is a dream.  Matter breaks down into atoms, atoms into the nothingness of ideation.  For some unknown reason, we are the experiencers experiencing the experience in a mutual fashion.  It is within this paradigm that such things as compassion and good and evil exist.

 

The other end of the spectrum is the void.  It is not linear, it's all here and now, it underlies all ideation and sense of what we think of as reality.  It does not contain separation, and it does not care which of us lives and dies, as it is all the same thing anyway.  It is the nothingness underlying potentiality.  In this sense, things like compassion are not relevant.  To use nature as a guide, nature is cruel in the sense that things eat and live on other things.  Compassion in the wild is an aberration, perhaps a coincidence.

 

I think we're talking about apples and oranges.  Like quantum physics -we are both the particle and the wave.  We are here and we are not here.  We are all of it and we are none of it.  In that sense, both aspects of morality are valid.

[Stosh]

Ok Manitou, that is , if I understand you, probably true. But I am pressing a particular point, that I personally am being moved to take an earthy view , that in real life we would not condone taking lives of others as illusion. That unless one is a psycho, there is a morality which we innately are destined ,or at least are predisposed to -sense as conscience.

 

Spirituality ? is it , to kill your friends and family to avoid being embarrassed that the women of the house would call one weak? That one becomes somehow great by pursuing their own welfare with total disregard for everyone and anything else? Compassion somehow is a byproduct of this?

Talk about a disconnect!

Its like calling the inquisition ,the will of god.

But I gotta say, there may be one saving grace and is the refusal to accept what appears to be said as the meaning of what it says. People wish to be good, and the idea of what that is ,aint as fungible as text.

Edited April 15, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

I guess Im being pushed to see that although social good may be done in self interest, compassion , real compassion , western definition compassion, is to do the stupid thing.. for Others to benefit from.

[steve]

Ok Manitou, that is , if I understand you, probably true. But I am pressing a particular point, that I personally am being moved to take an earthy view , that in real life we would not condone taking lives of others as illusion. That unless one is a psycho, there is a morality which we innately are destined ,or at least are predisposed to -sense as conscience.

 

Spirituality ? is it , to kill your friends and family to avoid being embarrassed that the women of the house would call one weak? That one becomes somehow great by pursuing their own welfare with total disregard for everyone and anything else? Compassion somehow is a byproduct of this?

Talk about a disconnect!

Its like calling the inquisition ,the will of god.

But I gotta say, there may be one saving grace and is the refusal to accept what appears to be said as the meaning of what it says. People wish to be good, and the idea of what that is ,aint as fungible as text.

 

Are you being pushed to take the earthly view? Or do you already simply have it?

I think that view simply exists, it must be acknowledged and it is the frame of reference within which we operate.

We don't need to do anything to have that view, it is the product of our collective human karma and conditioning.

 

To transcend that view requires a fundamental alteration.

It is often portrayed as killing oneself, as dying to the self.

 

For many, there is a need to seek isolation in order to connect with a deeper experience of Self - this could be the message in the description of killing friends and family. Only after it is found and stabilized are they able to return and integrate.  Being called weak by women may represent a challenge to the ego and to the one who would cut through that ego. The process of connecting with the truth is often described as cutting through, as in the Dzogchen tradition - Trekchöd (cutting through) is the method of connecting with one's true nature. There is a practice in Buddhism called Chöd, which is figuratively cutting oneself to pieces and offering the body and mind to demons and those less fortunate, and is traditionally practiced in very threatening and unsafe environments, alone and at night.

 

Demello speaks well about how it can be a very painful process, how we don't want to wake up. 

We are very comfortable in our illusion and ignorance, opening ourselves involves extreme vulnerability and subjects us to a degree of empathy that can be devastating to some who aren't prepared.

 

Perhaps there is a clue to what's going on in the fact that many of the ancient books of wisdom are full of violence and contradiction, and yet at there core are similar principles of love, compassion, and wholeness. I think that represents the Two Truths to which manitou alludes.

 

In my opinion and experience, teachings are all best viewed as myth, as allegory, as fable, not as indisputable and literal fact. Those who take these teachings literally generally make a mess of things - we see that very clearly in Islam, in Christianity. I've discussed the Gita with Hindu practitioners on occasion and I've yet to meet one who takes the story as literal fact. They take it as a guide, a multi-layered story that speaks to us on multiple levels. 

 

And I know relatively little about the Gita, so take everything I say with a grain of salt. 

[manitou]

 

 

For many, there is a need to seek isolation in order to connect with a deeper experience of Self - this could be the message in the description of killing friends and family.

 

 

What an excellent point, Steve.  And I must admit that I have wondered about my own isolation in recent years - how differently my life has shaken out to be in contrast to the abilities I once possessed - and yet I have to say that the deepest and most profound philosophical and spiritual growth has taken place during this time of non-movement and non-participation.  I am often conflicted about this gap between 'what could have been' and 'what has turned out to be' - and yet, had I had a more adventurous life, the time and inclination for spiritual inquiry wouldn't have been needed.  I burned out early, I guess.

 

Life is odd.

[C T]

A primary goal of seclusion practice, from the Buddhist yogic pov, is to get a feel for what being on the threshold of near-death bardo feels like. Some say its an exercise towards gaining familiarity into/of the unknown by venturing to radically challenge one's deeply ingrained habits of body, speech and mind, which these yogis believe have been accrued over lifetimes. 

 

 

 

And no, its not ok to kill people in the pursuit of Buddhist liberation. Cant speak for other traditions. Although i would argue that the Hindu tradition especially is simply too diverse within which there are innumerable, complex views which makes it immensely challenging to assess it all and draw the conclusion saying, "There, this is the definitive guideline" in relation to what Stosh had put up for review. Being that most of the strict Hindus are vegetarians, it lends weight to the idea that the Sanatana Dharma generally do not condone killing in any form. In fact i believe its part of their custom to treat life as sacred. 

 

Stosh said: Reading the Bahagavad Gita, it again looks like the assertion is being made that no one lives nor dies so its OK to kill people in pursuit of ones spiritual goal. 

 

[Stosh]

 

In my opinion and experience, teachings are all best viewed as myth, as allegory, as fable, not as indisputable and literal fact. Those who take these teachings literally generally make a mess of things - we see that very clearly in Islam, in Christianity. I've discussed the Gita with Hindu practitioners on occasion and I've yet to meet one who takes the story as literal fact. They take it as a guide, a multi-layered story that speaks to us on multiple levels. 

 

 

I basically agreed with this, there's what the writings say , and there's what the followers think, and if they aren't the same... then the followers are already disregarding-spinning  the text themselves.

I saw a teacher-Yogi discussing a sutra , and in his opinion , any of the permutations should be considerable as valid.

He said a guy came to him and said he wanted throw acid in his girlfriends fathers face because he refused to let them get married because he was poor.

So he was told he should do it if he calculated that in the long run it would not destroy his life pursuits, and it was truly what he wanted to do. ( swadharma)  Krishna says to Arjuna , in common parlance , 'I will literally drive you there!'

So I asked , whats the sutra , that contradicts my earthy reading? because I cant consider this other western-compassionate sacred life stance as being...

A) what the book says

B.)contradictory to the main essence of the teachings.

No biggie , just point me at the translation of the sutra (done by someone who speaks the language, and english) , so the wise of old can establish the point is old like the BG. 

Edited April 17, 2017 by Stosh

[Stosh]

Edited for simplicity, Whats the sutra , that contradicts the BG. Im not asking for votes, nor am I asking what traditions say. Im just asking where its spelled out in the ancient writings that you cant chop people up. Or simply just blow off everyone elses concerns in the pursuit of your own quest. Or for the buddhist minded ,clarifies how you can not die, but can be killed. Very simple.

Because Krishna is using the exact same logic as I am , before I even read it. Which means the author new darn well, how this would read , thousands of years before I was even born. So , if its just an allegory, some kind of symbolism, then it should be spelled out somewhere how this is supposed to be read otherwise, because.....

Edited April 17, 2017 by Stosh