Spiritual practice, thought and freedom

@longknowledge,

salima;101478 wrote:

craving is another issue entirely. my meaning is that our destination is the same and we will all meet there whether we crave it or not. and i agree that at the opportune time eventually any practice will drop away and be forgotten.

Please, explain this claim. I see that many people are living very ignorantly, and dying in that very ignorance. Shall we all meet some day?

salima;101478 wrote:

living in the now and accepting what is and just 'being' instead of 'doing' or 'desiring' is fine, but there is a practical side to life that must be followed, otherwise we would all not even open our mouths to eat if we were being spoon fed. there are those who want (and do they not also crave this?) nothing more than ultimate knowledge and perhaps they sit in caves for a hundred years while their clothes rot away and they are able to live on light without food and water, but that is not what most people would choose.

My point was that there is difference between "simply desire" and "desire the fulfillment of which is deemed to be very important", clinging to result. Naturally we all need to it and there is nothing wrong with this urge as well as with another urges. But we start thinking that "if that what I want does not happen, it shall be a catastrophe", when we put our happiness in dependence of the result, there arises big problem, there always arises suffering. The same thing is with so-called spiritual practices: I am who I am, but I want to be another man, virtuous, saint etc., but I am not that one nevertheless. So long as I see this, there is conflict, which is the usual result of clinging to things. This is what I am speaking about.

Jackofalltrades;101544 wrote:

Hi Eud,
In fact it appears that you do not want to discuss it at all, ........But want to impose your Will. ........
And yes, listen , here's a side to the above statement to perhaps help you understand. According to you , you would phrase it as 'You want to impose your 'desire'.
Because , according to you 'Will' means 'Desire'. Can you see, the incoherence and absurdity of the statement. This is not correct English usage. Your taking refuge in some local/regional language will not help your cause, without being prejudice to those language or not withstanding the merits of your substantiation.

Well, I capitulate, what is the true meaning of this terms? (but please don't refer me to some dictionaries, just explain). thanks.
Why do people always think that I don't want to have a discussion?

longknowledge;101921 wrote:

Swamiji: There is an old saying in Zen that before you reach Zen (and by the word 'Zen' they mean the Ultimate Experience) a mountain is a mountain, a tree is a tree, and a river is a river. But in the process of reaching Zen, when you are trying to gain Zen, you do not see a tree as a tree, a mountain as a mountain. This is the answer to your question. The Cosmic Experience is not a stunning resolution of the existing law. This is only the middle stage, where a tree is not a tree, a mountain is not a mountain, a friend is not a friend, an enemy is not an enemy. Everything changes when you are in the middle stage. In the third stage, a tree is a tree, and so on. You don't have to abolish the existence of things in God-realisation, or Zen. And, this is the experience when you transcend the middle stage to the final - the ultimate realisation of God when a tree is a tree and a mountain is a mountain - because it is no more a renunciation. First you get attached. Then you withdraw. Then you go back to it with a new vision. These are the three stages. The first stage is attachment. Afterwards there is no attachment, but there are efforts towards detachment. In the first experience you only want the world; you don't want God. That is usual in the first experience. A normal man's experience is, "I am concerned with the world, and not concerned with God." The second experience is, "I am concerned with God, and not with the world. I don't want the world." That is renunciation - vairagya, and tyaga - giving up. Then comes the third stage when everything is okay. There is no withdrawal, because there is no attachment. There is no attachment and, therefore, no renunciation is called for, because everything is perfectly okay.

The question is: why should we go through that second stage? I am recollecting a discourse between Krishnamurti and Swami Venkatesananda:

Quote:

"After examining all these things and finding that they are of no use to you, then you must step out of it." Krishnaji: Then why must I acquire it? If Vedanta means the end of knowledge, which the word itself means, the ending of Vedas, which is knowledge - then why should I go through all the laborious process of acquiring knowledge, and then discarding it?
Swamiji: Otherwise you wouldn't be in Vedanta. The end of knowledge is, having acquired this knowledge, coming to the end of it.
Krishnaji: Why should I acquire it?
Swamiji: Well, so that it can be ended.
Krishnaji: No, no. Why should I acquire it? Why should not I, from the very beginning, see what knowledge is and discard it?
Swamiji: See what knowledge is?
Krishnaji: And discard, discard all that: never accumulate. Vedanta means the end of accumulating knowledge.
THE AWAKENING OF INTELLIGENCE PART IV CHAPTER 2 2ND CONVERSATION WITH SWAMI VENKATESANANDA SAANEN 26TH JULY 1969 FOUR"MAHAVAKYAS"FROM THE UPANISHADS DISCUSSED. COMMUNICATION AND THE BODHISATTVA IDEAL. VEDANTA AND THE ENDING OF KNOWLEDGE

1 Reply

@Eudaimon,

at the end of the day, only you can tell that. I find myself in need of 'a way' regardless of what Krishnamurti says about 'pathless land'. It may be true there is no path, but only when you have reached the end of it; that there is no self, but only when the self is dissolved. And to kid yourself that you have reached the goal, or dissolved the illusion of otherness, when you haven't, is to waste the precious opportunity provided by this human birth. But - as I say - this is true for me. I can't tell anyone else if it is true for them.

0 Replies

@Eudaimon,

Eudaimon;102763 wrote:

Well, I capitulate, what is the true meaning of this terms? (but please don't refer me to some dictionaries, just explain). thanks.
Why do people always think that I don't want to have a discussion?

In fact i should.......... you can't discuss anything worthwhile, if one is german, and another a tahitian, and they only speak and understand their own respective mother tongues.

But if both knows little bit of English or may be French, they would go and learn and better that language where they seem to have a common ground. Once determined the next obvious step is to learn and better the language skills for better communication. Know meanings, their comnnotations and usage. pronunciation can be tackled latter to.

Suppose the the german says "hey, you tahitian, you are wise as an owl",
The tahitian, gets up and knocks of the german. One would wonder why.... For all you know, in Tahiti the owl stands for bad spirit and bad omen!.

Thats an example. Just knowing words only does not help. You also need to have a basic understanding of words, concepts, terms and their applications. And English has a limitation of its own, so be prepared for some surprises, as well.

This is the only help i would concede to you, as like you, english is not a every day, every chore language for me. i learn't English the hard way.
So would you.

Moreover, i appreciate, your interest, and also can understand what you want to suggest......... but unfortunately, you are unable to formulate the questions in your mind in a manner that which is satisfactory or justifies your actual doubts. One reason being.......if you care to study to posts...... you pose a question, and than lo..... you answer it too?..... That happens because of too much of enthusiasm, or too much of confidence. In philosophy, you can play only one role at a time.

The Bible says 'seek, and you shall find'....... according to you, the act of seeking.......means (somehow) 'an act of desire',........ therfore, you are confused.

And hence, please invest and buy a good advanced learners dictionary for a start, refrain from quoting gurus/masters/and conversations. The reason being that the words takes its own meaning, as it depends on the perceiver. Well, this is another advice to you,...... i give it to you, because i sympathise.

0 Replies

@Eudaimon,

It seems to me Eudaimon from many months of dialogs on this very topic, that you have an interest in the subject, but something keeps stopping you from actually embarking on the course of study. There is always a further question to ask, some doubt, some reason why really nothing ought to be done or why any approach suggested is not the right one.

My analysis is: one part of you wants to proceed, but ego is resisting. This is a very common hindrance at this point, manaifesting as 'skeptical doubt'. Unfortunately it will stop you from getting anywhere and I sense there is a real interest on your part in starting out.

Practically speaking, the requirement is to commit to meditation practise. There are things that become clear through practising meditation, through actually sitting and being still, that you can never, ever see through discursive reasoning or logical analysis, even though they are actually quite simple in some ways. But if the mind keeps saying 'well it seems like a lot of work. How long do I have to do this for? What happens if nothing happens?' and so on, then nothing will ever happen. Understanding this dynamic is a big part of the first step.

As for which tradition, or none, that is a secondary matter. There are secular, non-religious frameworks for practising meditation, or more spiritual-devotional frameworks. I situate myself within the Mahayana path which is spiritual in some respects, and quite secular in others. Nevertheless I have complete confidence in it: 'works as advertised, if applied as directed'. I can testify to it.

There are also the various Yoga approaches, again some more spiritual and some less so.

There is also the Eastern Orthodox path, which is Christian, but they have (in my mind) a better understanding of the path of 'meditative praxis' that almost any of the Western churches (with the possible exception of Catholic monastics).

In any case as Jack says, seek and find, knock and the door will be opened. You will be surprised how it works out if you actually do that. But my advice is you can't find out anything from the position of sitting on the sidelines asking for guarantees or trying to second-guess what will happen or what might come out of it. This is why at the end of the day, religious or secular, you still need faith to start - faith that it will work out, that the universe is working for the good and that you (as much as anyone) are an intrinsic part of it.

1 Reply

@Eudaimon,

In other words, as a recent book on meditation is titled: "Sit Down and Shut Up!"

0 Replies

@Eudaimon,

Yes that is Brad Warner's book. His teacher wrote my favourite Buddhist text, To Meet the Real Dragon, by Gudo Nishijima

0 Replies

@jeeprs,

jeeprs;103192 wrote:

It seems to me Eudaimon from many months of dialogs on this very topic, that you have an interest in the subject, but something keeps stopping you from actually embarking on the course of study. There is always a further question to ask, some doubt, some reason why really nothing ought to be done or why any approach suggested is not the right one.
My analysis is: one part of you wants to proceed, but ego is resisting.

Yes, I really do have an interest in the subject. Yet thou hast a wrong observation, there is no part of me that wants to proceed (I have never been serious about any "meditative" practice), and this is not "ego" that prevents me thereof. On the contrary, ego is compound of past memories, fears, an outcome of conditioning in a word. Ego (conditioning) gives criteria according to which we choose gurus, leaders, politicians, and, more generally, a path to go. The reason why one comes to any path is that he is conditioned to think people who look in a certain way, speak in a certain way, regarded by others -- that this people really have something worthwhile. It seems very easy to me. We choose car according to prejudices embedded in us to the extent that we cannot even separate them from what may be called the true self. We choose how our house should be decorated according to our prejudices and we choose guru according to them as well.

jeeprs;103192 wrote:

This is a very common hindrance at this point, manaifesting as 'skeptical doubt'. Unfortunately it will stop you from getting anywhere and I sense there is a real interest on your part in starting out.

Practically speaking, the requirement is to commit to meditation practise. There are things that become clear through practising meditation, through actually sitting and being still, that you can never, ever see through discursive reasoning or logical analysis, even though they are actually quite simple in some ways. But if the mind keeps saying 'well it seems like a lot of work. How long do I have to do this for? What happens if nothing happens?' and so on, then nothing will ever happen. Understanding this dynamic is a big part of the first step.

It seems to me that thou hast not still understood what I am saying. I don't need to go anywhere, because I don't have a problem. If thou hast one go to meditation classes, to church or to Buddhist monastery, whether it will help is another story. To meditate? What for? I can observe reality (and everyone can) and this all what is necessary. This observation comes only when the meaninglessness of all mental constructs is understood. There comes wonderful state, wonderful peace, when this is understood: no desire, no desire to be rich, or monk, or to achieve Nirvana, or the Life Eternal. This is what to be with the now, with reality without craving to arrange everything according to my conditioning.

jeeprs;103192 wrote:

There is also the Eastern Orthodox path, which is Christian, but they have (in my mind) a better understanding of the path of 'meditative praxis' that almost any of the Western churches (with the possible exception of Catholic monastics).

In any case as Jack says, seek and find, knock and the door will be opened. You will be surprised how it works out if you actually do that. But my advice is you can't find out anything from the position of sitting on the sidelines asking for guarantees or trying to second-guess what will happen or what might come out of it. This is why at the end of the day, religious or secular, you still need faith to start - faith that it will work out, that the universe is working for the good and that you (as much as anyone) are an intrinsic part of it.

Perhaps I am too familiar with "Eastern Orthodox path"...
So have faith. To me as I've understood the lies mixed with ALL traditions, I can't do that. Perhaps it is not the place to discuss but when I hear on Dhamma Media Channel how Thai theravadins want to persuade us to collect merit, so as to get good rebirth, my only desire is to turn the TV off, and when I hear how Mahayanists praise "bodhisatvas" my desire is similar to the first. And should these fools teach me???

0 Replies

Spiritual practice, thought and freedom

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know