Mike/insights

[Guest guest]

>>Dan:

>>Since you've shared your eclectic studies of mystical literature, I wonder

>>if you'd be willing to also share what you've distilled from your

>>far-ranging studies.

> Mike:

>I think for me the single most important point I have managed to gain at

>least some intellectual understanding of is the fact that, from the very

>first, not a single thing has ever come into existence in any way

>whatsoever - that the essence of all and everything from the very ground up

>is, always has been, and always will be complete and utter emptiness -

>openness, if you prefer,... and that it is the lucid radiance of this that

>arises as the all-encompassing compassion of apparent reality...

>Maybe that's how you say it, anyway...

 

Dan: Yes. I like very much the way you said it. With that one point being

made, there's no need of any other...

>>D: What has been most helpful to you - has any learning

>>proved particularly important or far-reaching?

>M: *I've worked with Complete Reality Taoism, Ch'an, and Mahamudra and

>Dzogchen almost consistently over the past nearly 40-odd years. They have

>always served me as a sounding rod for anything else I ever looked into.

>Dzogchen and Ch'an, and - to a lesser extent - Mahamudra, inasmuch as they

>establish absolutely nothing whatsoever, have always seemed to me the most

>far-reaching and most profound.

 

D: I appreciate your sharing of this, Mike. Many times teachings give the

impression that something "true" has been said in a finally-defined way,

and thus established. The willingness of a teaching not to establish

"facts" invites the looking into openness that you mentioned earlier. I

suppose the "far-reaching and profound" implications of this might not be

readily apparent from surface inspection. So I hope you stick around, we

get a chance to go into this, and that you continue to feel free to

contribute your insights to our list.

>>D: Has being able to read

>>texts in the original language added something that might be missed by we

>>who have read texts primarily in English?

>M: *Definitely. Unfortunately many of the established translations of the

>technical terms of the yogas of the most profound nature are really only

>wishful thinking on the part of the translator... This is unfortunately

>especially true of much that was translated prior to the 70s and 80s where

>many of one's translators were in fact trying to seel their own brands of

>'spirituality', and much of the terminology we are left with today, far

>from being diamond sharp is just pure 'theosophy'... I cannot begin to tell

>you what a pity this is.

 

Dan: Very useful feedback. I appreciate your responses to these questions.

You seem very aware of ways that a teaching can be distorted, how

terminology can serve an agenda.

>Thanks, Glo, for the Fire and Ice Poem, and Dan (was it?) for the

>compulsive Roshi Interview.

 

D: Yes - the blame for that is all mine. But now, after reading your

responses, I've *really really* got it :-) ... ---Appreciations--