Guest guest Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Hi Tim, , "Joyce Short" <insight@s...> wrote: > The realized being does not question any issue at all, the real > being does not question, the real being admonishes others to also > stop questioning... Well, actually Wim posted that - Im referring more to the notion that any intellectuality is any more than a 'phantom" -so one doesn't take it as 'real' or true. Although it can be useful in coming to understanding within oneself of what must be done. I actually don't feel comfortable with 'The realized being" or "the real being" as these are nouns, whereas I feel more comfortable with verbs. When chatting one is obviously using intellect. But, thought does take on a dreamlike quality and there is nothing to grasp at. I don't have any sense of Ramana Maharshi even "admonishing" others - he was definately speaking as Truth. Even in one's quite unenlightened state, one can resonate to this. I don't see the final statement above (admonishes others to stop questioning) as "true as a blanket statement." Questioning often leads to seeing the futility of all questioning (may in fact be *necessary* in some cases). Im most familiar with the Buddhist tradition, and within this tradition, debate, all practice and teachings move through stages using conceptual mind to tame conceptual mind. Then, the student may really see any phenomena like 'dreams, mirage, phantoms etc. and launch into Dzogchen which uses wisdom to tame the mind (having given up trying to figure out, mind calms and then there is a hope of recognition of innate wisdom). The direct experience of wisdom that is innate and always present. Im guessing that this view (Dzogchen) would be what would be of interest to folks on this list and NondualitySalon. So- in general, the only admonishing the Buddhist tradition does is be mindful. For example, Ramana Maharshi's recommendation (admonishing others) to question, "Who am I?" In order for questioning to end, the futility of questioning has to be "seen" -- and often that involves a whole lot of questioning. Examining the life of the Buddha "before Awakening" might help clear that up once and for all. Yes, I rather like the question "Who Am I?" Also used in Zen to break through. But at the moment Im back into Dzogchen texts which refer to Value of Being and this goes beyond the subject object problem of bifurcation. And I'm currently transcribing some very simple teachings from Theravada teacher Ven.Achan Chah. Even on the most basic level of teachings he refers to "Buddha" as - "the One-Who-Knows, the one who has purity, radiance and peace in the heart". Namaste, Joyce Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 3, 2001 Report Share Posted July 3, 2001 Dear Joyce, >I actually don't feel comfortable with 'The realized being" or "the real >being" as these are nouns, whereas I feel more comfortable with verbs. Ditto, although not for the specific reason of these terms being nouns... just that so-called "Realization" is really the lack of "a separate being" altogether. A statement i have used before -- "Reality is already enlightened -- quit bugging it" ;-). >When chatting one is obviously using intellect. But, thought does take on a >dreamlike quality and there is nothing to grasp at. Well, intellect is certainly in use... whether "one is using it" is truly up for question ;-). <snip> >Im most familiar with the Buddhist tradition, and within this tradition, >debate, all practice and teachings move through stages using conceptual mind >to tame conceptual mind. It seems reasonable to speak from a position you're most comfortable with... "everyone" does this -- the sages included. Thought can 'speak' only from memory, from conditioning or vasanas. "Using conceptual mind to tame conceptual mind" sounds very much like Jnana Yoga in the "neovedanta" tradition, which is often defined as "using intellect to transcend the intellect." Buddhist Awakening and Hindu "Realization" appear as one and the same thing here... the similarities become more and more evident at some point, the differences a matter of convention or tradition or teaching methods only -- a topic for philosophers who like to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. >Then, the student may really see any phenomena like 'dreams, mirage, phantoms >etc. and launch into Dzogchen which uses wisdom to tame the mind (having given >up trying to figure out, mind calms and then there is a hope of recognition of >innate wisdom). The direct experience of wisdom that is innate and always >present. Im guessing that this view (Dzogchen) would be what would be of >interest to folks on this list and NondualitySalon. Certainly *all* views are probably of interest at one point or another. Dogen, Dzogchen, Rinzai Zen, Theravada, Neovedanta, "Orthodox" Vedanta (Shankara), even Tantra... all pointing to the same "moon." <Snip> >Yes, I rather like the question "Who Am I?" Also used in Zen to break >through. For some reason it was never of interest 'here' because there was never any question that "I Am" -- it has always seemed the most obvious fact. So Nisargadatta's teaching "remain with the Beingness or I-am-ness" has tended to resonate here the best... but as with all teachings, it truly depends on "innate tendencies." Thank goodness there are so many "approaches" to choose from! >But at the moment Im back into Dzogchen texts which refer to Value of Being >and this goes beyond the subject object problem of bifurcation. "Value of Being" is something that i can definitely relate to :-). All the (Hindu) sages teach *some* variation on "Be Still" or "Just Be" -- including Ramana. In fact, Ramana stated: "The method is summarized in, Be Still." But i am open to any sort of 'approach'. Whatever resonates best with intuition. Even "no approach" -- just a sudden, unexpected 'discovery' in the course of living (everyday) life is not uncommon at all, and i have heard confessions of this from quite a few. Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 Hi Tim, I think we are the only ones up. >I actually don't feel comfortable with 'The realized being" or "the real >being" as these are nouns, whereas I feel more comfortable with verbs. Ditto, although not for the specific reason of these terms being nouns... just that so-called "Realization" is really the lack of "a separate being" altogether. A statement i have used before -- "Reality is already enlightened -- quit bugging it" ;-). Yes. OK, Now what is all that? This "reality already enlightened" of which you and I are part of a web of interacting processes. Not separate entities. The problem, and its always a problem, of separateness is only a small part of what is possible to discern. "Man's solidity, his very identity, is dissolved and becomes protean, dream-like, a presence that is and has nothing about it about which could be said that this is it. Yet a presence is that which is presented, which appears and is placed within the focus of attention occurring in a spatio-temporal horizon." So- we are a 'presence-presentation'.laugh. >When chatting one is obviously using intellect. But, thought does take on a >dreamlike quality and there is nothing to grasp at. Well, intellect is certainly in use... whether "one is using it" is truly up for question ;-). Sloppy communication from this end. We could just drop the idea that either of us, or anyone, is separate from anything or anyone and then carry on from there-it would be more interesting, then we wouldn't be catching each other up in 'dualities' of expression via language. <snip> >Im most familiar with the Buddhist tradition, and within this tradition, >debate, all practice and teachings move through stages using conceptual mind >to tame conceptual mind. It seems reasonable to speak from a position you're most comfortable with... "everyone" does this -- the sages included. Thought can 'speak' only from memory, from conditioning or vasanas. Yes. But this list is primarily Advaitan and thus its difficult for me to chat because I don't know the reference points of the tradition and symbolic language. No essential differences. Im more comfortable in Nonduality of Nodoer where its more of a free for all. I would never be able to have a free ranging chat on a Buddhist list. So end up chatting off list with Buddhists who are as electic as I. Just being pragmatic. "Using conceptual mind to tame conceptual mind" sounds very much like Jnana Yoga in the "neovedanta" tradition, which is often defined as "using intellect to transcend the intellect." Buddhist Awakening and Hindu "Realization" appear as one and the same thing here... the similarities become more and more evident at some point, the differences a matter of convention or tradition or teaching methods only -- a topic for philosophers who like to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Yes, Nagarjuna comes to mind-laugh. There is much in Buddhism that predates Buddhism. But I don't know it, have never had the opportunity to have teachings with a Vedanta Sage. >Yes, I rather like the question "Who Am I?" Also used in Zen to break >through. For some reason it was never of interest 'here' because there was never any question that "I Am" -- it has always seemed the most obvious fact. So Nisargadatta's teaching "remain with the Beingness or I-am-ness" has tended to resonate here the best... but as with all teachings, it truly depends on "innate tendencies." Thank goodness there are so many "approaches" to choose from! Asking "Who Am I?" cuts through refection and discursiveness and puts awareness back front and center. Quite handy. But i am open to any sort of 'approach'. Whatever resonates best with intuition. Even "no approach" -- just a sudden, unexpected 'discovery' in the course of living (everyday) life is not uncommon at all, and i have heard confessions of this from quite a few. Well, my flashes of insight are more likely to occur in the Mall. And who knows if anything comes out of any study and practice. It just seems to be karma when one is on something that is called a "Path'. I like beachcombing. laugh. Anything the sea throws up I'll have a look at. I'm curious about something. (if you are still with me and havent dozed off) The Maharshi posts come in, everyone ejoys them but there is never any discussion about the text -peoples insights about what is said. Why is this? Namaste, Joyce Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 Dear Joyce, >Hi Tim, I think we are the only ones up. Why, it's 8:20 PM on the Pacific coast of the USA? Namaste, Tim Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 4, 2001 Report Share Posted July 4, 2001 >Hi Tim, I think we are the only ones up. Why, it's 8:20 PM on the Pacific coast of the USA? It's 12 midnight in Central Canada. Don't ask me why I think everyone is in the same time zone-laugh. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.