Tim/Victor/no fear, no dabblers

[Guest guest]

At 10:20 AM 2/15/00 -0800, you wrote:

>Tim Gerchmez <core

>

>

>Dear Victor,

>

>At 12:10 PM 2/15/2000 -0500, you wrote:

>>Victor Torrico <vtorrico

>>Dan,

>>

>>Most would feel in the dualistic condition that they are

>>either dabbling or not-dabbling. Now these are the folks

>>who cannot understand that no effort is needed or that

>>nothing must be done but rest in awareness. So even though

>>what you say below is true how does one reach these folks or

>>does one just ignore them? Sort of I'll rest in my

>>awareness and put my blinders on regarding other folks. Or

>>oh well, eventually they might " get it " . Nothing to be

>>done.

>

>Gotta say that I love and respect Dan, but...

 

Thanks, Tim - it's those " buts " that always

signal the " real message is about to come " ...

 

>

>The fact is, the majority of people can't/won't/whatever simply " open their

>eyes and see. " Nondual understanding eludes a large majority of people.

 

D: That's because people don't ever get to have the " nondual understanding " .

It's simply not to be had by a person. People project their

desire to have nondual understanding onto all sorts of gurus and teachings,

but finally, it can only be had by not having, by already being...

 

>So, that leaves it to some people to " point " in the right direction for

>others.

 

D: Sure, point all you want. Who are these " others " if not

" onself " . So the pointing is only to Oneself, for the sake

of Oneself. And what am I doing?

Pointing in the way that makes sense to me :-)

And who I am pointing toward? The same One that I'm pointing

for. Only One - and *everything* is pointing in the same

direction! So, it's not like I'm " against " the way that

you point. You point in the way that makes sense to you.

Everything is ultimately pointing to the same place.

One person says there's a prescription, another says no.

Is affirmation against negation, or do they arise together?

This is not against that - there is only the One Direction...

 

>T:

>One thing is certain... a person can only help themselves. That

>remains a fact. I may point to the moon, but if you look at my finger, it

>won't do anything. If you grab my finger, it won't have any effect. You

>have to turn your head up and see the moon. And for many, probably most,

>some sort of spiritual practice is necessary.

 

D: There is no person who gets to have it, thus spiritual practice

done by a person is inherently limited. Only the " Original

Condition " which is conditionless is " practice " . " It "

blossoms as you, you can't practice to become it. However,

being It, your moment to moment awareness then *is* practice.

 

Practice

can't bring you to it - you can be it and then practice.

" People don't get enlightened - enlightenment 'peoples' " ...

Our life *is* " practice " -- as is! " Use " this life as

makes the most sense - coming from " Original Awareness " -

although as Original Awareness, there is nothing to " use " ,

hence nothing to " practice " :-)

 

>T: However, no seeking need be inherent in spiritual practice, as I've amply

>demonstrated on my website (and as hundreds of others have also amply

>demonstrated).

>

> " Spiritual practices " (Ken Wilber refers to these as " certain special

>conditions " ) can be utilized. And seeking is not an inherent condition or

>a necessity in such spiritual practices, nor is the presence of someone

> " doing " such practices. Zen Buddhism is exemplary of this. Anyone who

>claims to know Zazen and would call it " seeking " or says there is " somebody

>doing it " does not know Zazen. Zazen occurs, as an expression of

>Awareness. Zazen is not even meditation, it is Zazen.

>

>My opinion on what you need Victor (and this is just an opinion) is a

>regular spiritual practice, one that does not promote seeking or

> " efforting, " but offers a chance at an authentic transformative

>breakthrough. And something regular. *You* have to decide to stop

>dabbling, and do something regular (such as meditation), and with

>sincerity, at least a couple hours per day. Maybe more. Maybe four hours

>per day. Maybe more.

>

>Have you considered looking for a Soto Zen Center somewhere? Something

>that can get you going on something regular, offer some " external "

>discipline, until the " inner Guru " is discovered. Just a suggestion. If

>there's anything that will end " dabbling, " it's Zen Buddhism. Zen is

> " anti-dabble. " Either you do it with all of your body, heart and mind, or

>you will be invited to leave.

>

>Anyway, my suggestion is to find the " inner Guru " somehow. If you can't,

>find an " outer Guru. " But if there's a hidden desire to " dabble, " any

>hidden agendas whatsoever, nothing is going to help. KNOW THYSELF.

>

>With Love,

>

>Tim

 

D: An apparent dichotomy - those who dabble and those who don't dabble.

I " practice " harder than you. My path is more demanding than

yours. My teacher is aware of the truth more than yours.

My path is the true way, your path isn't as direct, as

honest, as real, etc. Still, no " real " dichotomy :-)

 

Does a tree practice? Does the sun practice? A tree is

a tree, a sun is a sun, a person is a person. A person may

sit still for three hours, and thus you have a person sitting

still for three hours. The sun remains the sun, the tree remains

the tree. The universe is unsplit. The sun is not other than

who I am.

 

Love,

Dan