Studio8 - Uniting the Arts

Cecil, I fully understood from your earlier explanations what your metaphysical preferences were. No one was claiming they were inferior, or superior, to anyone else's. Grand as they may well be, they do not grant you the magic ability to comprehend all other systems of metaphysics. So, when I say that you were not interpreting the statements of mystics in a contextually accurate manner, it has Nothing whatever to do with what you believe, nor its fine value.

Arcadia, I believe we all can agree that there is an egregiously unequal distribution of goods and services in this world today, and yesterday. People are shortsightedly selfish, forcing themselves and others to live in an unnecessarily inferior world of hurt and deprivation. This has much more to do with the ignorance of have's and have-nots, than it does with econo-political systems.

'Capitalism' is, thus far, the unrivaled engine of production. Which is 1/2 of the human well-being equation. What needs a lot of work is improved systems of equitable distribution, and that calls for 'enlightened self-interest.' The 'self-interested' part is already, and always, there. What lacks is the broadening of minds to a perspective that sees life-boat earth, and its inhabitants,' well-being as contiguous with their own.

Humanity does not require a radical evolution into another species; it needs an education in (economic, political, environmental, humanitarian, etc.) ecology.

NS: So, when I say that you were not interpreting the statements of mystics in a contextually accurate manner, it has Nothing whatever to do with what you believe, nor its fine value.

Thank you, amigo. I just felt we reached a level where our ideas and opinions were being rehashed over and over with neither fully comprehending what the other had to say. Perhaps it was only me who was unable to understand, but if so I did my damnedest to explain my position the best I could.

But I would like to reiterate, for all it's worth, I see all things, including sciences, religions and philosophies, as subjects... none more important nor less important for our development and understanding of the world we live in. IMESHO, they, all subjects, are intertwined weaving the fabric of our knowledge of this amazing world we live into a social blanket that keeps us reasonably comfortable during our evolutionary advancement to a more enlightened hu'manity. Whether there is a word for that belief system or not, I have no idea. But that's not important. What is important to me is that is my reality and that reality was stretched to the Absolute upon the awakening I mentioned. For that I will be forever grateful and from that experience I draw upon some thoughts and ideas that I share with anyone who cares to read them.

[enough]

Hi
MT: I did my damnedest to explain my position the best I could.

NS: Your “damnedest” explained it damned clearly in my opinion. What is wanting is my ability to explain myself better than I apparently have.

For starters, the Zen quote regarding, “If you have one Satori,” resulting in, “flying into hell like an arrow,” was not intended to disparage your experience; nor would I wish to disparage anyone’s spiritual insights. What the quote is doing is similar to the famous one about, “If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him.” Obviously, this Buddhist quote is not intended to disparage The Buddha, nor to incite homicide.

The key words in both quotes are: “you have,” and “you meet.” Note the subject-object similarity. “Buddha,” properly understood, is not any sort of object one can “meet,” not anymore than is a satori a thing that an individual can “have,” like having a toothache. If I maintain my distinction from ‘Buddha,’ or from ‘spiritual insight,’ then all I’ve done is negated them by distancing self from them. Spirit is not something one can properly perceive as disassociated. As the Christian mystics say: “Hell is the distance we perceive between God and ourselves.”

”When you smash the citadel of doubt, then the Buddha is simply yourself.” (Zen Master, Daikaku)

Now, if I understand you correctly, you enjoy holding yourself as distinct from Spirit, and/or the experience of Spirit (i.e. satori). Fine. I have no wish for you to apologize for this common pov, nor do I wish you to change it. I merely counter it with my non-dual mystic’s pov, so that we may discuss, and explain, our divergence to the extent that it is mutually pleasing.

Whenever, or if ever, you wish to engage in spiritual discussion again, please let me know, as I’d be happy to oblige. Otherwise, there’s plenty of alternative topics for us to annoy each other with.

(I’m currently annoying some Christians by siding with the pedophiliac priests, over against the kiddies. You can just ‘feel the love’ in that idea’s reception. )

”Our very nature is Buddha, and apart from this nature there is no other Buddha.” (Hui-neng, 6th Patriarch)

[never "enough"]

NS: Now, if I understand you correctly, you enjoy holding yourself as distinct from Spirit, and/or the experience of Spirit (i.e. satori).

Where have I gone wrong in my discussion?

'I' enjoy being my Self. 'I' do not see my Self as distinct from Spirit. Mind, Body, Spirit... as One. One Light thru the Prism of Being separated into multi-colors (all from One). My ego-life, i.e. 'Cecil' is not separate from 'I' but in this body, within this Mynd, Spirit doth dwell, and quite comfortably, 'I' may add along with 'me' confirming this. Is this too obtuse for you?

Is it any wonder 'mysticism' is also defined as "vague, groundless speculation" ...? You and I are unable to communicate our feelings adequately between us. Try explaining 'satori' or any other word of equal value, and it's easy to see how baffled people truly are by any religious discussion using Buddha, Krishna, Jesus or even Mohammad as examples of enlightened individuals.

I know, I know... you know exactly what goes on in your own head. We all pretty much know what goes on in our own heads. But the trick is translating what you know, what was gained, what is awakening and make that a cogent conversation that people can comprehend.

For that matter, NS, tell me about your own enlightenment? What happened to you that you knew this was what you perceived it to be.

MT: Where have I gone wrong in my discussion?

NS: You’re right, you’re right, I’ve again got it wrong. Don’t hit me; though I do deserve it.

MT: Is this too obtuse for you?

NS: You likely intend, “too ‘abstruse’ for you,” since it is I who is being too ‘obtuse’ in this matter. Apologies.

MT: One Light thru the Prism of Being separated into multi-colors (all from One).

NS: It sounds almost Trinitarian, when you put it that way.

MT: We all pretty much know what goes on in our own heads.

NS: I can rarely make neither heads nor tails out of my head’s noise. But, I do enjoy the constant Oldies Channel playing songs in the background.

MT: For that matter, NS, tell me about your own enlightenment? What happened to you that you knew this was what you perceived it to be.

NS: No ‘satoris’ for moi; “unworthy” I guess.
Just a couple major insights along the way. The first, when about 36, was that it is impossible for a person to become “enlightened.” Now, you may think that would be a positive bummer for a sanyassi to discover, but actually it was quite clarifying. You see, up till then, I took myself to be a particular person, containing a spirit self yet to be fully revealed. The insight showed me that what is material and mental can never become spiritual, and visa versa. Therefore, one must cease to consider themselves (i.e. ‘identify’ with) anything material or mental that presents itself ‘to’ the mind. In sum: ‘it is all about identity,’ who I consider my self to be, and not be.

Not a new notion to philosophy, but the nature of an insight is that it has a personal revelation of clarity about it that makes one able to see right into it like never before. So, I took on a nine year long yoga of constant identification refusal. The Hindus call it, “neti, neti” (‘not this, not that’). I had No idea as to what I actually was, but I was clear and sure as to what I would no longer consider to be ‘me’.

This “yoga” ended during a meditational insight into who I actually am. One glimpse of the pure Self eliminates all necessity for mental effort. The Self replaces one’s former internal sense of being a person living within a world, and bestowing a new positioning as a detached intimate ‘I’ that is its own world. The person (NS) is felt as entirely ‘other.’ For the mind of NS, NS is still taken as itself, just as your mind does with MT. But, his mind follows its individual nature like some scripted character in a play, and is clearly cognizant of the inevitability of every act. What NS does affects me none at all.

24/7, for nearly 20 years since, it has been this bifurcated existence of a false self appearing and self-functioning, and a true Self simply Being Itself. As you know, I’ve found literally thousands of quotes explaining an identical ‘state of experience’ (for want of a better word) from all sorts of disciplines, places, and times. I know it makes me appear as doctrinaire to quote them so often, but I love the way these sages say it. Be sure, though, that it is a living experience for me. Call it madness or delusion, fine (I would have in your place); but, I am speaking from It, not from my mind's, or any other’s, concepts.

There is nothing "special" about Self-realization. It is the same one Self of everyone, including insects. Most of us just get caught up into the mind's movies, and identify with every thought, act, sensation, emotion, that shows up. The mind can pleasure in that, but sometimes it can also suffer in it. Anyone in an actual movie theater can come back to themselves when the movie over, or under, stresses them. Maybe, go get some popcorn, or leave the show entirely. No big deal as an accomplishment, but the effect can be life altering if you had been thoroughly convinced that you were a real character in the movie's story.
Be well, NS (Nature's Story)

MT: Where have I gone wrong in my discussion?

NS: You’re right, you’re right, I’ve again got it wrong. Don’t hit me; though I do deserve it.

MT: Is this too obtuse for you?

NS: You likely intend, “too ‘abstruse’ for you,” since it is I who is being too ‘obtuse’ in this matter. Apologies.

MT: One Light thru the Prism of Being separated into multi-colors (all from One).

NS: It sounds almost Trinitarian, when you put it that way.

MT: We all pretty much know what goes on in our own heads.

NS: I can rarely make neither heads nor tails out of my head’s noise. But, I do enjoy the constant Oldies Channel playing songs in the background.

MT: For that matter, NS, tell me about your own enlightenment? What happened to you that you knew this was what you perceived it to be.

NS: No ‘satoris’ for moi; “unworthy” I guess.
Just a couple major insights along the way. The first, when about 36, was that it is impossible for a person to become “enlightened.” Now, you may think that would be a positive bummer for a sanyassi to discover, but actually it was quite clarifying. You see, up till then, I took myself to be a particular person, containing a spirit self yet to be fully revealed. The insight showed me that what is material and mental can never become spiritual, and visa versa. Therefore, one must cease to consider themselves (i.e. ‘identify’ with) anything material or mental that presents itself ‘to’ the mind. In sum: ‘it is all about identity,’ who I consider my self to be, and not be.

Not a new notion to philosophy, but the nature of an insight is that it has a personal revelation of clarity about it that makes one able to see right into it like never before. So, I took on a nine year long yoga of constant identification refusal. The Hindus call it, “neti, neti” (‘not this, not that’). I had No idea as to what I actually was, but I was clear and sure as to what I would no longer consider to be ‘me’.

This “yoga” ended during a meditational insight into who I actually am. One glimpse of the pure Self eliminates all necessity for mental effort. The Self replaces one’s former internal sense of being a person living within a world, and bestowing a new positioning as a detached intimate ‘I’ that is its own world. The person (NS) is felt as entirely ‘other.’ For the mind of NS, NS is still taken as itself, just as your mind does with MT. But, his mind follows its individual nature like some scripted character in a play, and is clearly cognizant of the inevitability of every act. What NS does affects me none at all.

24/7, for nearly 20 years since, it has been this bifurcated existence of a false self appearing and self-functioning, and a true Self simply Being Itself. As you know, I’ve found literally thousands of quotes explaining an identical ‘state of experience’ (for want of a better word) from all sorts of disciplines, places, and times. I know it makes me appear as doctrinaire to quote them so often, but I love the way these sages say it. Be sure, though, that it is a living experience for me. Call it madness or delusion, fine (I would have in your place); but, I am speaking from It, not from my mind's, or any other’s, concepts.

There is nothing "special" about Self-realization. It is the same one Self of everyone, including insects. Most of us just get caught up into the mind's movies, and identify with every thought, act, sensation, emotion, that shows up. The mind can pleasure in that, but sometimes it can also suffer in it. Anyone in an actual movie theater can come back to themselves when the movie over, or under, stresses them. Maybe, go get some popcorn, or leave the show entirely. No big deal as an accomplishment, but the effect can be life altering if you had been thoroughly convinced that you were a real character in the movie's story.
Be well, NS (Nature's Story)

MT: Where have I gone wrong in my discussion?

NS: You’re right, you’re right, I’ve again got it wrong. Don’t hit me; though I do deserve it.

MT: Is this too obtuse for you?

NS: You likely intend, “too ‘abstruse’ for you,” since it is I who is being too ‘obtuse’ in this matter. Apologies.

MT: One Light thru the Prism of Being separated into multi-colors (all from One).

NS: It sounds almost Trinitarian, when you put it that way.

MT: We all pretty much know what goes on in our own heads.

NS: I can rarely make either heads or tails out of my head’s noise. But, I do enjoy the constant Oldies Channel playing songs in the background.

MT: For that matter, NS, tell me about your own enlightenment? What happened to you that you knew this was what you perceived it to be.

NS: No ‘satoris’ for moi; “unworthy” I guess.
Just a couple major insights along the way. The first, when about 36, was that it is impossible for a person to become “enlightened.” Now, you may think that would be a positive bummer for a sanyassi to discover, but actually it was quite clarifying. You see, up till then, I took myself to be a particular person, containing a spirit self yet to be fully revealed. The insight showed me that what is material and mental can never become spiritual, and visa versa. Therefore, one must cease to consider themselves (i.e. ‘identify’ with) anything material or mental that presents itself ‘to’ the mind. In sum: ‘it is all about identity,’ who I consider my self to be, and not be.

Not a new notion to philosophy, but the nature of an insight is that it has a personal revelation of clarity about it that makes one able to see right into it like never before. So, I took on a nine year long yoga of constant identification refusal. The Hindus call it, “neti, neti” (‘not this, not that’). I had No idea as to what I actually was, but I was clear and sure as to what I would no longer consider to be ‘me’.

This “yoga” ended during a meditational insight into who I actually am. One glimpse of the pure Self eliminates all necessity for mental effort. The Self replaces one’s former internal sense of being a person living within a world, and bestowing a new positioning as a detached intimate ‘I’ that is its own world. The person (NS) is felt as entirely ‘other.’ For the mind of NS, NS is still taken as itself, just as your mind does with MT. But, his mind follows its individual nature like some scripted character in a play, and is clearly cognizant of the inevitability of every act. What NS does affects me none at all.

24/7, for nearly 20 years since, it has been this bifurcated existence of a false self appearing and self-functioning, and a true Self simply Being Itself. As you know, I’ve found literally thousands of quotes explaining an identical ‘state of experience’ (for want of a better word) from all sorts of disciplines, places, and times. I know it makes me appear as doctrinaire to quote them so often, but I love the way these sages say it. Be sure, though, that it is a living experience for me. Call it madness or delusion, fine (I would have in your place); but, I am speaking from It, not from my mind's, or any other’s, concepts.

Be well, NS (Nature's Story)

"....bifurcated existence of a false self appearing and self-functioning, and a true Self simply Being Itself...."

Alot of your discourse here (again) does require three reads, however, the above sentence I instantly understood and related to wholeheartedly.
The false self appearing and self-functioning is what affords us time to simply be.
Imagine just being, 24 hours a day.
I can't imagine it.
What would it be like?
HP