Guest guest Posted October 9, 1999 Report Share Posted October 9, 1999 Greg: <snip> ...about what is being what is - it doesn't really depend upon the psychological event of the container being abandoned. What is, is, NOW, regardless of thoughts or feelings or whatever. It's already the case everywhere, all the time NOW. ... Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it more and more. As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will "improve" onself in some way. There often seems to be an assumption that if it already is the case, this is too easy, simple, and not enough work or insight involved. I suspect that we want the meaning that being able to follow, improve, practice, and "get ahead" give us. I don't say this to criticize anyone, but to express my intention not to get "caught" in ideas that the loss of these "meanings" is to be avoided, that certain practices are imperative, that "improving" myself is essential, that seeing things a certain way is necessary, and that knowing who is the right teacher with the right path is a key thing for me. The paradox here, as I see it, is that the awareness toward which I see you pointing involves much more depth than might at first be apparent. At least, that has been my experience. It involves real clarity, not getting "caught," not being fooled (by words, practices, all the ways that people insinuate, persuade, or insist that "this alone" isn't enough, that "who I am" isn't enough). It's not at all a matter of the words, "this is it" -- this being it is a transformative reality, not a static fact or position -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 1999 Report Share Posted October 9, 1999 >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >Greg: ><snip> ...about what is being what is - it doesn't really depend upon the >psychological event of the container being abandoned. What is, is, NOW, >regardless of thoughts or feelings or whatever. It's already the case >everywhere, all the time NOW. ... > >Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be >much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we >get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such >assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it >more and more. >As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will >"improve" onself in some way. Glo: This is quite a point you mention here, Dan. Is this not the very reason people attend satsangs? Hoping to have some moment of realization? When many people go around speaking of having such an awakening experience, others want this for themselves or feel they are missing something. Learning the "jargon" of this satsang language then becomes a special way to be in on some secret. Now I'm not saying there are no genuine awakenings happening as well..just noting that this contributes to what you are speaking about here. There often seems to be an assumption that >if it already is the case, this is too easy, simple, and not enough work or >insight involved. I suspect that we want the meaning that being able to >follow, improve, practice, and "get ahead" give us. G: Here you are at the heart of the matter. There is as well a desire to have some "recognizable by others" criteria. It also has the "advantage" of postponing responsibility. Not to be so hard on people, this need for validation from others runs pretty deep in our psyche and the issue of trusting oneself "to know" has to overcome the assumption one does not already know. I call it The Alfred E. Newman reaction of "who me?" Then that striptease of peeling off layers of ignorance one at a time is very seductive. :) When so many spiritual paths are already spelled out as taking such years of effort, there is yet another assumption. So it really does not seem so easy to get to easy street, with all these distracting sideshows along the way. The simplicity of "just paying attention" as Becky so wonderfully described this does mean giving up all the other ways we so habitually distract and avoid. Back to Greg's original statement.. it may not "require" any special thoughts or feelings, yet that is what people want and seek out... a better entertainment. Deep down, I was hoping for the new car and I really wanted to be someone else more special. For me there is a quieter ecstasy with ordinary beingness. I don't say this to >criticize anyone, but to express my intention not to get "caught" in ideas >that the loss of these "meanings" is to be avoided, that certain practices >are imperative, that "improving" myself is essential, that seeing things a >certain way is necessary, and that knowing who is the right teacher with >the right path is a key thing for me. > >The paradox here, as I see it, is that the awareness toward which I see you >pointing involves much more depth than might at first be apparent. At >least, that has been my experience. It involves real clarity, not getting >"caught," not being fooled (by words, practices, all the ways that people >insinuate, persuade, or insist that "this alone" isn't enough, that "who I >am" isn't enough). It's not at all a matter of the words, "this is it" -- >this being it is a transformative reality, not a static fact or position -- Not a state, either? Your clarity is much appreciated here on the list. You have a real gift for describing that transformative reality. I count myself extremely fortunate to be among those reading your words here, even knowing "it's not at all a matter of the words." Thanks for all you say here. Glo > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 1999 Report Share Posted October 9, 1999 Hi Glo, >>Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be >>much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we >>get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such >>assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it >>more and more. >>As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will >>"improve" onself in some way. > >Glo: This is quite a point you mention here, Dan. Is this not the very >reason people attend satsangs? Hoping to have some moment of realization? Not me, honey. I'm just here for the good company. When I heard that Harsha was going to form a satsangh, I knew there would be wonderful people here! Love, Dharma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 9, 1999 Report Share Posted October 9, 1999 >Dharma <fisher1 > >Hi Glo, > >>>Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be >>>much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we >>>get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such >>>assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it >>>more and more. >>>As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will >>>"improve" onself in some way. >> >>Glo: This is quite a point you mention here, Dan. Is this not the very >>reason people attend satsangs? Hoping to have some moment of realization? > >Not me, honey. I'm just here for the good company. When I heard that >Harsha was going to form a satsangh, I knew there would be wonderful people >here! > >Love, >Dharma > Oh well, present company excepted, of course. I meant all those other people..."they" do that. LOL, Glo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 At 10:56 AM 10/9/99 , Dan Berkow, PhD wrote: >"Dan Berkow, PhD" <berkowd > >Greg: ><snip> ...about what is being what is - it doesn't really depend upon the >psychological event of the container being abandoned. What is, is, NOW, >regardless of thoughts or feelings or whatever. It's already the case >everywhere, all the time NOW. ... >Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be >much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we >get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such >assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it >more and more. >As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will >"improve" onself in some way. There often seems to be an assumption that >if it already is the case, this is too easy, simple, and not enough work or >insight involved. Dan-ji, What you are describing so beautifully is what is sometimes called the "gradual" or "progressive path," as opposed to the "direct path" (what I was alluding to above). Even in non-dualism there are progressive paths, where aspirants are told to do what amounts to polishing a brick till it becomes a mirror: be vigilant, dis-identify, watch the mind, drop the ego, make the thoughts disappear, be quiet, rest in vastness, transcend the layers of body/mind, etc. All of these things are based on the NOW coming up to snuff. There are two features of progressive paths: One, you never get to the end of them (like Zeno's paradoxes or cutting a piece of paper in half, and in half again, you never get to zero paper, etc.) Two, even if you do succeed in clearing all the progressive dust, the metaphysics of progressive paths leave you with (1) the one who was vigilant, and (2) all the stuff that fell away. This is a witness state, and not non-dualism. But of course, it always is non-dualism. For progressive paths to really come to the end, sooner or later they have to go through the (non)gate of the direct path. So why wait?? >The paradox here, as I see it, is that the awareness toward which I see you >pointing involves much more depth than might at first be apparent. At >least, that has been my experience. It involves real clarity, not getting >"caught," not being fooled (by words, practices, all the ways that people >insinuate, persuade, or insist that "this alone" isn't enough, that "who I >am" isn't enough). Your experience, mine too. As for the gradual paths and practices, their purpose is so we will see that they were never necessary. With love, --Greg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 10, 1999 Report Share Posted October 10, 1999 >Greg: ><snip> ...about what is being what is - it doesn't really depend upon the >psychological event of the container being abandoned. What is, is, NOW, >regardless of thoughts or feelings or whatever. It's already the case >everywhere, all the time NOW. ... >Dan: To me, what you state here is clear and useful. There seems to be >much discussion that occurs of "being what is" as if that were something we >get to at some point, by some practice or some realization. Such >assumptions seem to imply that one can practice more and more to realize it >more and more. >As if there were a "something" that one "has" to realize, and which will >"improve" onself in some way. > Glo: This is quite a point you mention here, Dan. Is this not the very > reason people attend satsangs? Hoping to have some moment of realization? > When many people go around speaking of having such an awakening experience, > others want this for themselves or feel they are missing something. Learning > the "jargon" of this satsang language then becomes a special way to be in on > some secret. Now I'm not saying there are no genuine awakenings happening as > well..just noting that this contributes to what you are speaking about here. *Mira: In my humble opinion, as long as one considers him/herself to be a seeker, it is nice to be around someone who can reassure you that it is indeed possible to 'find'. I mean that God was not so cruel to create thirst but forgot to create water. >Dan: There often seems to be an assumption that >if it already is the case, this is too easy, simple, and not enough work or >insight involved. I suspect that we want the meaning that being able to >follow, improve, practice, and "get ahead" give us. > Glo: Here you are at the heart of the matter. There is as well a desire to > have some "recognizable by others" criteria. It also has the "advantage" of > postponing responsibility. Not to be so hard on people, this need for > validation from others runs pretty deep in our psyche and the issue of > trusting oneself "to know" has to overcome the assumption one does not > already know. I call it The Alfred E. Newman reaction of "who me?" Then > that striptease of peeling off layers of ignorance one at a time is very > seductive. :) When so many spiritual paths are already spelled out as > taking such years of effort, there is yet another assumption. So it really > does not seem so easy to get to easy street, with all these distracting > sideshows along the way. The simplicity of "just paying attention" as Becky > so wonderfully described this does mean giving up all the other ways we so > habitually distract and avoid. Back to Greg's original statement.. it may > not "require" any special thoughts or feelings, yet that is what people want > and seek out... a better entertainment. Deep down, I was hoping for the new > car and I really wanted to be someone else more special. For me there is > a quieter ecstasy with ordinary beingness. >Dan: I don't say this to >criticize anyone, but to express my intention not to get "caught" in ideas >that the loss of these "meanings" is to be avoided, that certain practices >are imperative, that "improving" myself is essential, that seeing things a >certain way is necessary, and that knowing who is the right teacher with >the right path is a key thing for me. >The paradox here, as I see it, is that the awareness toward which I see you >pointing involves much more depth than might at first be apparent. At >least, that has been my experience. It involves real clarity, not getting >"caught," not being fooled (by words, practices, all the ways that people >insinuate, persuade, or insist that "this alone" isn't enough, that "who I >am" isn't enough). It's not at all a matter of the words, "this is it" -- >this being it is a transformative reality, not a static fact or position -- *It has been my pleasure to get caught in practice/words/insinuations. Looking back at it, not the practice or the words have made any difference or were the cause of any awakening. It was the ability to trust, and surrender the belief that 'I knew what is best for me'. It was the simple openness to say "Okay, I dont know. I don't understand what's going on here, but I sense a lack of something undefinable, and I don't know how to deal with it. You seem to know. I trust you. So now tell me". When I surrendered to "I dont know", everything could be taught. And to my surprise I found there was never any 'other' teaching me. The teachers may have been frauds/bummers/whatevers, it was my trust that made all the difference. It is probably not up to the teacher to be effective. Much of it may depend entirely on the students willingness to understand, and what he/she is willing to give up for this understanding, even if it includes giving up all the teachers' prescriptions. > Glo: Not a state, either? Your clarity is much appreciated here on the list. > You have a real gift for describing that transformative reality. I count > myself extremely fortunate to be among those reading your words here, even > knowing "it's not at all a matter of the words." > Thanks for all you say here. I agree wholeheartedly Glo. Extremely fortunate. Love always, Mira 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.