Prayer

[Guest guest]

Inquiry into Prayer with Linda

 

 

 

Ø LINDA ^i^: Since my understanding of God is not a "man" but,

rather, an essential creative force that is the ground of our

existence, and Love in composition, I would answer that God doesn't

care (for the standpoint of judging that it is a 'good' or 'bad'

or 'useless' thing) because God does not operate in the same way the

human mind does. However, I find great use in praying for others,

not because we can ever change another person, or - laughably-

change "God's" mind; but, rather, because the act of prayer is a

validation of the Oneness of the Universe and our inherent connection

with all that exists. In praying - presumably an intention of

sharing goodwill - we have contributed to the whole in a very

positive way that affects all of existence.

 

 

)))) Beloved Linda,

 

So beautifully said!

 

Now, perhaps it might be interesting to

investigate this matter a bit further:

 

Prayer is commonly based upon the desire and motivation to have

circumstances (which are perceived and interpreted to be less than

desirable) change, in order that they become different than what they

are (and more desirable to our own will). It is a desire or intent to

achieve an outcome that coincides with what we believe would be in

our best interests (even if ostensibly for "the good of others",

which is still a form of self-gratification, since that "good" is

invariably based upon our own arbitrary interpretation of what

constitutes "good"). It is the "spiritual" version of the ego-mind's

strategy of trying to attain pleasure and avoid pain. It is also

usually wrapped up in assumptions based upon superstitious

conditioning -- that there is some higher power outside of ourselves

whose will can be influenced by our petitions. To that point, I will

quote Adyashanti:

 

"Spiritual seekers are some of the most superstitious people on the

planet. Most people come to spiritual teachers and teachings with a

host of hidden beliefs, ideas, and assumptions that they

unconsciously seek to be confirmed. And if they are willing to

question these beliefs they almost always replace the old concepts

with new more spiritual ones thinking that these new concepts are far

more real than the old ones. Even those who have had deep spiritual

experiences and awakenings beyond the mind will in most cases

continue to cling to superstitious ideas and beliefs in an

unconscious effort to grasp for the security of the known, the

accepted, or the expected. It is this grasping for security in all

its inward and outward forms which limit the perspective of

enlightenment and maintain an inwardly divided condition which is the

cause of all suffering and confusion. You must want to know the truth

more than you want to feel secure in order to fully awaken to the

fact that you are nothing but Awakeness itself.

Shortly after I began teaching I noticed that almost everyone coming

to see me held a tremendous number of superstitious ideas and beliefs

that were distorting their perceptions and limiting their scope of

spiritual inquiry. What was most surprising was that in almost all

cases, even those who had deep and profound experiences of spiritual

awakening continued to hold onto superstitious ideas and beliefs

which severally limited the depth of experience and expression of

true awakening. Over time I began to see how delicate and challenging

it was for most seekers to find the courage to question any and all

ideas and beliefs about the true nature of themselves, the world,

others, and even enlightenment itself. In almost every person, every

religion, every group, every teaching and every teacher; there are

ideas, beliefs, and assumptions, that are overtly or covertly not

open to question. Often these unquestioned beliefs hide superstitions

which are protecting something which is untrue, contradictory, or

being used as justification for behavior which is a less than

enlightened. The challenge of enlightenment is not simply to glimpse

the awakened conditioned, nor even to continually experience it, but

to be and express it as your self in the way you move in this world.

In order to do this you must come out of hiding behind any

superstitious beliefs and find the courage to question everything,

otherwise you will continue to hold onto superstitions which distort

your perception and expression of that which is only ever AWAKE."

 

There is another form of prayer, similar in scope to what you

referred to in the remark "...the act of prayer is a validation of

the Oneness of the Universe and our inherent connection with all that

exists." This is a very "high" ideal, and yet, for whom is

this "validation" necessary? If the univesrse is One, then what part

of it needs to OK another part? The very concept of some sort of

connection implies that there are two who may or may not enjoy union,

but if that is so, then it contradicts the original proposition of

pre-existing Oneness.

You go on to say: "In praying - presumably an intention of sharing

goodwill - we have contributed to the whole in a very positive way

that affects all of existence."

Again, there is a tacit assumption here that some kind of desirable

effect that can be gained by applying a mental affirmation. Of

course, one person or group's idea of what is "positive" may be at

odds with another's. The perennial turmoil in this realm can be

boiled down to different interpretations of what constitutes

a "positive" outcome. For example, some might consider the 9/11

incident to be the answer to their prayers. If the Nazis had won the

war and suceeded in exterminating the Jewish Race, revisionary

textbooks may have hailed this as a great act of God, just as many

Americans still consider the genocide of the Native Peoples as part

of the "Manifest Destiny" of this nation, blessed by their version of

the "Almighty". Many believed that the enslavement of the Africans

was Divinely sanctioned, and contributed to the positive good of the

whole.

Essentially, as we inquire into the activity of prayer, we can

observe that it is invariably thought-based. Even the

meditative "Jesus Prayer" is generated as a repetitive mantra-like

mental device, intended to deliver one into a state that is

comparable to the yogic aim of Union. However, this is still based

upon a certain assumption of an identity that, when inquired deeply

into, proves to be non-existent. Again, to quote Adyashanti:

 

"The aim of spiritual practice is to discover in your own present

experience That which the movement of thought never touches. This

does not mean to suppress the thinking mind, nor does it mean to

attempt to understand by using thought. What I am pointing toward is

the Unknown: the already, ever-present, silent-still-source that not

only proceeds thought but surrounds it. You must become more

interested in the unknown than in that which is known.

Otherwise you will remain enslaved by the very narrow and distorted

perspective of conceptual thinking. You must go so deeply into the

Unknown that you are no longer referencing thought to tell you who

and what you are. Only then will thought be capable of reflecting

that which is true rather than falsely masquerading as truth."

 

Thus, when thought becomes capable of reflecting what is True, it

indeed becomes True Prayer, which is one with cause and effect, and

not in conflict with What Is. The totality of the universal

functioning proceeeds unimpeeded regardless, and this Mystery is

enough to render us to Silence.

 

LoveAlways,

 

b

 

> ROBERT: There is another form of prayer, similar in scope to what

you referred to in the remark "...the act of prayer is a validation of

the Oneness of the Universe and our inherent connection with all that

exists." This is a very "high" ideal, and yet, for whom is

this "validation" necessary?

 

LINDA ^i^: Adyashanti, evidently. And you and me. To validate is

merely to support or corroborate on a sound or authoritative basis.

You just used Adyashanti as an authority (presumably) to support your

belief. Adyashanti just validated his belief by referencing to "every

person, religion, group, teaching, tearer, etc." He used a "them" and

an "us" to contrast belief systems in an attempt to validate "his"

way of seeing.

 

 

)))) Beloved Linda,

 

It is wonderful to inquire into this matter with you, and I do

appreciate your thoughtful exploration and insights. Language is by

nature dualistic, but there is a difference in the objective world

between a belief in the Unknown, which is a matter of projection

based upon accumulated conditioning factors organized around the

central reference point of a presumed "I", and resting deeply in the

Unknown, prior to a separate self-sense. Such resting can be

interpreted, perhaps, as a kind of validation, but it is not the

validation of an "us" versus "them". Rather, it is in the

relinquishing of such apparent dichotomies that such resting becomes

true prayer.

Teachers such as Adyashanti perform a function within the world of

objective reality by pointing to that which is beyond

differentiation -- our True Nature -- but in order to do so must use

language, such as we do with our poetry, acknowledging at the same

time that whatever we say is a lie, in the sense that Truth is beyond

words. Jesus is recorded as having entered into hell worlds after he

died, not to hang out there, but to liberate those for whom hell

seemed to be a destiny.

Validation would appear to be necessary as long as the Truth seems to

be separate from what we are. When we "remember" our actual

condition, there is nobody for whom validation is needed, since there

is no "other". For example, who is needed to confirm your love of

Tigger? It is self-actualizing and self-confirming, so to speak, and

you do not require some outside authority to recognize that it is

real.

Adyashanti is not attempting to validate his way of seeing, which

needs no external validation. Rather, he is pointing to observable

human tendencies that are based around belief systems, and offering

the opportunity to delve below the layers of conditioning and

superstition in order to discover what is True.

 

>Incidentally, I happen to believe the way Adyashanti does so I am

definitely not disputing the way he thinks. I'm just suggesting that

validation is as an inescapable process of the human mind on its

journey.

 

))) Along the path, what seems to be "inescapable" often turns out to

be merely another set of beliefs, perhaps new beliefs that we have

used to replace obsolete ones, but a bundle of thoughts nonetheless.

 

"Human beings have a drive for security and safety, which is often

what fuels the spiritual search. This very drive for security and

safety is what causes so much misery and confusion. Freedom is a

state of complete and absolute insecurity and not knowing. So, in

seeking security and safety, you actually distance yourself from the

Freedom you want. There is no security in Freedom, at least not in

the sense that we normally think of it. This is, of course, why it is

so free; there's nothing there to grab hold of.

The Unknown is more vast, more open, more peaceful, and more freeing

than you ever imagined it would be. If you don't experience it that

way, it means you're not resting there; you're still trying to know.

That will cause you to suffer because you're choosing security over

Freedom.

When you rest deeply in the Unknown without trying to escape, your

experience becomes very vast. As the experience of the Unknown

deepens, your boundaries begin to dissolve. You realize, not just

intellectually but on a deep level, that you have no idea who or what

you are. A few minutes ago, you knew who you were—you had a history

and a personality—but from this place of not knowing, you question

all of that. Liberated people live in the Unknown and understand that

the only reason they know what they are is because they rest in the

Unknown moment by moment without defining who they are with the mind.

You can imagine how easy it is to get caught in the concept of the

Unknown and seek that instead of the Truth. If you seek the concept

you'll never be Free, but if you stop looking to myths and concepts

and become more interested in the Unknown than in what you know, the

door will be flung open. Until then, it will remain closed." ~Adya

 

 

 

>Shall I wear a coat in this cold weather? I think I shall be cold if

I don't.....and if I chose not to wear the coat, sure enough, my

belief was validated.

 

))) This is certainly the common experience, and yet perhaps it can

be seen how these very expectations preclude the full experience of

the Mystery's richness. I have sat nearly naked in the snow for hours

and not been cold, and at other times have shivered uncontrollably.

Buddha said: "As ye think, so shall ye be." If we cling to beliefs

and expectations about how the world is, we can certainly find

validation. If we think the world is a dangerous disgusting place,

for example, we will find ample evidence that this is so, just as

much as if we think that our prayers will be answered by "My God",

then we will find all sorts of corroboration, but the question Adya

suggests inquiring with is:

 

"Is it true, or more belief?"

 

>Shall I comb my hair to look presentable? Shall I try to be a

better person? Shall I eat or starve?, etc. Validation is a specific

way of moving forward or backward, as long as we all believe we are

functioning in a dualistic world. Validation is a good thing. It

shows us where we stand in our "challenge of enlightenment: (to quote

Adyashanti).

 

))) Again, I would take a closer look at what constitutes a "good

thing". Holding to a belief that we are a something which moves

forward or backward certainly confirms the sense of a separate self

at play in the realm of phenomenality, but is that not just more of

an identity we assume, based upon a description of the world that we

have yet to question? Is it a "good thing" to continue to buy into

delusion?

 

 

ROBERT: If the univesrse is One, then what part

of it needs to OK another part? The very concept of some sort of

connection implies that there are two who may or may not enjoy union,

but if that is so, then it contradicts the original proposition of

pre-existing Oneness.

 

 

LINDA ^i^: Prayer/poetry - same difference. It is the whining of the

dog which connects it to it's Master (Rumi). It's not about okaying

another part, it's about the challenge.

 

 

)))) Such yearning of the "Love Dogs" is not in need of validation --

it is in itself an expression of the Oneness in the form of whining.

 

> Adyashanti's words: "The challenge of enlightenment is not simply

to glimpse the awakened conditioned, nor even to continually

experience it, but to be and express it as your self in the way you

move in this world" could have no meaning unless he was praying for

them.

 

)))) This seems comparable to claiming that, because i am watching

the sun come up, i am praying that it does so. In other words, the

sun coming up is not dependent on any meaning we might attribute to

its rising. Adding "meaning" separates us in mind from the nakedness

of the mystery. The "challenge" is to be what we are, prior to the

assumption of arbitrary and conditioned beliefs, stories, and

meanings, which are superimpositions on what is.

 

> He evidently sees that there is 'someone' outside himself, who

needs to know something other than what they presently know.

 

))) On the contrary, what he points to is not the need to acquire

more knowledge, but to abandon the knowledge that only acts as a

hedge to realization.

 

> It is fine to believe in non-dualism, Oneness, hoe-down religion or

thumb-sucking as a "method" or "belief", but until we

live it, it is still a concept.

 

))) That was his point -- the beliefs in methods, etc. preclude our

actual living of it.

 

> I believe in the Oneness of all Existence.

On rare occasions I re-experience it. But I cannot say I live it on a

continual basis because the very act of prayer or poetry or writing

on the computer confirms my belief that there is a 'me' and a 'you',

a 'here' and a 'there'.

 

)))) It need not be a confirmation of belief, but an expression of

what wants to be said, emerging in the functioning of the impersonal

totality, prior to distinctions of self and other.

 

>And yet, I beg you to continue writing your exquisite poetry.

 

 

))) Too late --

not another word!

 

:-))

 

 

> I will continue sharing my beliefs and experiences. I love coming

to my computer to hearing the cacophany of voices that sing from this

screen in a United , Beautiful, Harmonious, Transcendent Whine.

Tigger is my guru.

 

 

))) Woof!

 

 

 

ROBERT: Essentially, as we inquire into the activity of prayer, we can

observe that it is invariably thought-based.

 

LINDA ^i^: Of course it is. So is poetry. But, in your poetry, why do

you not say things like:

"Ugghhh, grunt, up yours, it's all a downer anyway and Mazie is a

piece of junk."

 

 

))) That's reserved for another egroup, when i let my hair down.

 

 

> It's because you are offering a thought-based object that you

offer outward into a world, a separate world. If you did not believe

there were 'separate' ears to hear, you would not write.

 

 

))) I am not critiquing the activity of thought per se, but only the

tendency of identification with it, the referencing of perception

itself to some imaginary center that seems to imply an

individual "I", separate from the universal functioning.

Whether or not there is anybody listening, these little poems sprout

like trees in the forest, without any meaning other than that they do.

 

 

ROBERT (quoting A): "The aim of spiritual practice is to discover in

your own present experience That which the movement of thought never

touches. This does not mean to suppress the thinking mind, nor does

it mean to attempt to understand by using thought. What I am pointing

toward is the Unknown: the already, ever-present, silent-still-source

that not only proceeds thought but surrounds it. You must become more

interested in the unknown than in that which is known."

 

 

LINDA ^i^: Tolle talks about a clever device he has used in his

workshops when trying to show people the difference between the voice

of the ego and the 'ever-present, silent-still-source". He tells them

to be very quiet and to watch intently to see what their next thought

is. Often people say that when they are "watching" for the thought,

they see/hear NOTHING, and yet they are extremely present and aware.

When we have truely reached that place of ONENESS or non-dualism,

there will be no words, no prayers, no poetry, no requests, no

seekers, no teachers.

 

 

))) True, or more belief?

 

Some imagine that things will be this way or that, once liberation

happens to them, and so they persist in the belief that they are a

bound something that is in need of liberation.

 

 

> I'm not going to suggest that I am consciously there most of the

time. I write. I pray. Gleefully.

 

 

))) "And for this the Prophet (upon whom be peace) said: "Whoso

knoweth himself knoweth his Lord." And he said (upon him be

peace): "I know my Lord by my Lord." The Prophet (upon whom be peace)

points out by that, that thou art not thou: thou art He, without

thou; not He entering into thee, nor thou entering into Him, nor He

proceeding forth from thee, nor thou proceeding forth from Him. And

it is not meant by that, that thou art aught that exists or thine

attributes aught that exists, but it is meant by it that thou never

wast nor wilt be, whether by thyself or through Him or in Him or

along with Him. Thou art neither ceasing to be nor still existing.

Thou art He, without one of these limitations. Then if thou know

thine existence thus, then thou knowest God; and if not, then not."

 

Ibn El'Arabi

 

 

LoveAlways,

 

Mazie & b