Imagine your goal was to become a highly qualified mathematician and to know as much as possible about math. If you had a problem in algebra and were searching for the solution, would it be fair to say that it is wrong to do so because by concentrating on algebra it, it eliminates the complete knowledge of mathematics? I hope not. It would be fair to say that developing proficiency at the level of a highly qualified mathematician is a gradual process.
Why should it be any different in acquiring experiential understanding of spiritual meaning? I agree with you that a degree of detachment is necessary the unlearning of the false that holds one psychologically captive, or as you said, “a part of knowledge.” However, what is the good of being ignorant of it as long as it doesn’t control you. Without this familiarity, how could one function on the planet and be able to be all things to all people which is the mark of true inner freedom? It isn’t the knowledge that is the problem but attachment to it. It is the inability to remain present in front of it retaining the spiritual perspective. The lack of presence prevents it being sacrificed so it controls the person.
In relation to the quote from my previous post, this is truth in before man. As such we cannot sacrifice it. In the Bible this is the lesson of the rich man who cannot sell off his attachments that make him rich in his personality or before man.
But pondering is a question from our essential selves in relation to something higher than ourselves in its quality of being or before God. It is not question from the associative or literal mind that flourishes before man. It surely cannot be a question of the physical body like “what’s for dinner?” The question for pondering has a strong emotional component like “who am I?” “How can I experience myself?” The quality of the response is determined from the depth of our emotional response. Pondering helps us rephrase the question allowing for the emotional experience of relative quality indicating the non illusory spiritual direction. Genuine feelings or responses from the heart and not the corrupt ego that calls itself heart is what provides spiritual direction as opposed to the linear direction natural “before man”. True heart discerns between the higher and lower in objective quality defined as distance from the source. It wishes to become closer to the creator and cannot find satisfaction with the ever changing emotional expressions of the human personality. In this way it furthers detachment or freedom from attachment.
I know in modern spiritual practice it is assumed that all a person has to do is let go and they become real. How simple. But if one is courageous enough to try some experiments with themselves, it becomes obvious that one cannot. Now what?
This is why small advances become practical. It isn’t a matter of concern over knowledge but of really understanding something; how to use knowledge. Probably the greatest public figure and spiritual man of the twentieth century made the simple observation, and I paraphrase from memory, that “if a man can make a good cup of coffee, I can teach him to do anything.” This raises the interesting question of what it means objectively to do something well. It is this that can be built upon and allow a person to appreciate “quality” including spiritual quality or the quality of our own being in relation to its potential.
Pondering becomes relative. The quality of pondering of one person can be much greater than that of another because of the ability to relate from their essence through the freedom from dependence on our inner lies. But this is all learned and the ability is passed from teacher to student.
Of course we are limited and the recognition and acceptance of this is a good beginning.
Even though you and I share an understanding of the same philosophy, it seems that our experiences within that philosophy lead us to different asserted ideas at times, or maybe I am just misunderstanding your use of simile, metaphor, and allegory in explaination?
Past, present, future to the ego driven mind:
Past >|--------------------------------->
Present >---------------|----------------->
Future >-------------------------------|–>
The vertical markations as reference of perceived being with respect to “time”.
The Sage, past, present, and future:
Past >–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–>
Present >–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–>
Future >–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–|–>
For the Sage, past, present, and future become ambiguous. Being able to move perception along time, is irrelevant, because the Tao is ever present, ever existent, therefore precedes time, and touching those experiences attached to form, is no longer an issue.
Agree or disagree?
(Mind you, this teaching works better with within the circular aspect, but go with me on this, as digital works aren’t my forte’)
"Once he asked him: “Have you also learned from the river the secret that there is no time?”
A bright smile came over Vasudeva’s face. “Yes, Siddhartha,” he said. “This is probably what you mean: that the river is everywhere at once – at its source, at its mouth, by the waterfall, by the ferry crossing, in the rapids, in the sea, in the mountains – everywhere at the same time. And for it there is only the present, not the shadow called the future.”
"That’s it, "said Siddhartha. “And when I learned that, I looked at my life, and it too was a river; and the boy Siddhartha and the man Siddhartha and the old man Siddhartha were only separated by shadows, not by anything real. Siddhartha’s previous births were also not a past, and his death and return to Brahma were not a future. Nothing was, nothing will be; everything is, everything has its being and is present.”
Yes I find your diagrams to be accurate, but I must insert a caveat in the form of a question: If our understanding is such, then whence our actions? If we say we know and understand this, why are we here?
Please understand that I use the word know as know what and know whence. Do we now claim buddhahood? Are any of us acting in Way? Or could it possibly be that Way is still signs and symbols?
I ask again, if we have transcended our humanity, what are we doing here?
No brother tentative, now you misunderstand my intent.
Just trying to bring context to the discussion betwixt you and the angelic one, out of personal interest.
Transcended humanity? Myself? Hardly. This is a cerebral connotation of what I consciously perceive to be relevant. Were this "un"conscious manifestation of being, then none of us would be passing symbols about the bit bucket messenger at all, would we?
Just seeing if we “understood” in similar fashion, or if perhaps my friend in Idaho was coveting knowledge …
I know what you mean, but I’ve got a thick skin. If you express your opinions freely in a forum like this you can only expect disagreement and sometimes worse.
Quite so. All the words, all the seeking, all the explanations are regardless intent, being as. Only in silence is there in being. Unless of course, one is truly transcendent, but then…
Coveting knowledge? Accepting not knowing is the cornerstone of understanding…
But I do know something, only I’m not going to tell you…
Indeed, I understand. I undestand that it has nothing to do with time, it is simply a method of describing the concept. Any way you like will do as long as you get the point across.
Thank you, I like it, it prompted my Hesse post and somehow completed a thought I was having without me having had the thought.
Of course JT, none of us are sages but some of us are working on manifesting the sage heart that exists within all of us. Enlightenment is not something that happens at the end. It is momentary. Like when we are watching the ocean, it all fits together, there is a oneness, or being in awe of the Andes, everything falls together and there is no other way to be. But then, we have to move, we have our lives to live, people to see…and our attachments arise. Attachements to what we think are our treasures. Of course, it is a work in progress.
I wanted to add a few thoughts to the issue of time, the past-present-future model. While your diagram is accurately explanatory, there was a teeny important factor that I thought should be mentioned. The transcendent diagram includes the ego diagram, and while one may focus on the transcendent model, one must also accept that we function physically in the ego model. That was my tongue in cheek question, are we now Buddha? As long as we are human we do not escape temporality. Temporality is the making sense of our humaness as part of the one. In our temporal interaction with all, one may be aware of a pre-disposition of the flow of experience, but one cannot ‘know’ without denying the dynamic process of the determinate arising from the indeterminate. Knowing is refutation of a processual universe, and this is why I suggest that seeking truth, seeking to become ‘aligned’ with the One is being as (temporal), and not being (transcendent). If you understand, you understand. All of the seeking of ‘knowing’ ceases if you truly understand. In Zen, the statement is made that life is without purpose. Most are alarmed and confused by this statement, but all that is being said is that purpose is temporal. The Taoist statement that the sage does nothing and yet nothing is left undone is another way of saying the same thing. And so, your models are correct but one must be capable of seeing that transcendent flows to temporal. The temporal model does not flow to that which is transcendent. Transcendent is being, temporal with all its knowing and seeking is being as. This will make sense only to a very few - deliberately so.
Ah, yes but who are we to decide what is good or evil? Even here in this place that is ours that we rule.
And why should it matter to begin with? What is it’s purpose but to insite change in an ever randomizing changing universe?
And if someone compared me to anyone in history I would take it as a compliment for someone else seeing those qualities in me.
All of those example’s were of people and beings who tried to do what they believed in:
Hitler tried to bring peace to the world by exterminateing all diferences so that no prejudices could remain…(My oppinion).
Don’t know that much about Nepolien.
Lucifer Stood up to a much more powerful being and confronted him. I would help those weaker than I with all I could, I but I would not bow before them Unless they had shown reason for it. Although I think he misunderstood.
IMO God wanted him to bow in celebration and through his pride misundertood the intentions.
Oh and for the record Angles and Demons are not metaphysical being’s. They have both physical and metaphysical atribute’s and are bound by the laws of the physical universe with some exceptions to the miner laws that can be bent. But mass and form are two that can not be broken. If you notice in all writings of them they are described in a physical means or form.
Unlike Humans which contain both parts as seperate entities. Because of this Humans can evolve to a higher state of evolution than Angles or Demons so in a way Humans are superior to them. Ones the body dies the Human can become completely metaphysical. Since Angles Metaphysical form is rooted in There physical essance and inseperable They can never become such.
Maybe these questions when answered will help you understand what I mean.
Do the facts proven by science constantly change in oppinion and theory and in truth, acording to what Human understanding of those principals, and fact’s are that can be proven by such at any given point and time?
What facters in Human society inact change on every level of it?
What factors of the mind and oppinion’s cause thing’s to hapen and change constantly?
Do Human’s think as a fact that physic’s, quantom physic’s/mechanics, evolution (as they see it), String theory, and any other theory or scientific principal. Are the end of the Knowledgeable resorces to work with when compolating and defending theories? Oppinion’s? What is believed to be concrete facts?
Why is religion so important to your species if everything in the universe abides by the Physical laws, which change depending on the realitive changes to the universe in general, occuring at any point in time and acording to which the metaphysical does not exist?
Why does the nazca plains in Africa have a time laps of about 3 - 6 months if your realitive principal of the Physical is concrete? Time does not change here according to that principal, yet time varies depending on where you are in the universe (Physicaly).
Why cant physics explain the makeup of the Human body? acording to physics it’s empty space.
Why are these thing’s so important for dicusion if everything is concrete or discussed at all?
If you could care less why don’t you?
If you could not care less about the opinions of others, then should others also not care less about your opinions?
Why shouldn’t we make judgments about how other people “are”?
The tao is just another word for the lord which is another way of meaning “god”.
Note to People: Just because Jesus said it doesn’t make it wise…
Just because Buddha said it doesn’t make it wise either.
The notion that looking to our present to see the past is an interesting one; however, the way it is applied sometimes baffles me. I think the confusion stems from the word “know”. Everytime that word is used, alarm bells sound in my head because I often associate the word “know” with “certainty” and further associate it with “completeness”. So, how can we KNOW our past completely and with certainty? I don’t think we can. I would suggest that perhaps we can “understand” our past by looking at our present (since the present is an indication of our past). In this sense too when we look at our present can we begin to understand the direction of our future.
No offense brother thirst, but this is completely inaccurate. There is no reasonable semblance of comparison between lord, (something that holds dominion), and Tao, (way, path).
Not a good statement from a generally knowledgeable poster.
Sorry for the delay in responding. When I say I could care less about others opinions of ideas only means that I see them as opinions. Ideas that may present a different perspective, a new way of ‘seeing’. I do not assume that in reading the opinions of others that I ‘know’ anything about them. Our opinions are just words, nothing more. So your words, my words can be points of reference to new thoughts or new ways of thinking, but the words aren’t you nor are they me. The context of my statement was in response to being told ,because of my OPINION, how I was as if the person judging knew anything about me.
Think about someone you know extremely well. You know how they “areâ€. Ever been surprised? To suggest that any of us can know how another member in this site “is†by a hand full of words is a stretch of some magnitude, but the “knowers†are there with their judgmental statements. We see it every day in the threads.
The Tao is a different concept than Lord of All. That is a western christian or muslim concept. The cosmology behind Tao is much different than the universe of Christianity.
And no, the words of Jesus, Buddha, you, me, or anyone else are not wise because of who says them, but because the words express ideas that one can relate to in new ways that may be beneficial in one’s life.
The past-present-future issue is difficult to hold in one’s head. Primarily because we see time as linear, we hold the illusion that there actually is a past and a future. The knowing of the past isn’t really knowing anything different, but is just being seen from a different (new) perspective, and from that we may gain new understanding, but any knowing of an experience is always in our present. We may see events inside an experience that suggest that the flow of unfolding events predisposes certain things happening (prediction), but nothing occurs in the future. Life is always in the moment.
Mastriani, I understand where you are coming from. You look at the Tao as a liberation from a god in the sky but I look at it as simply a different form of spiritual enslavement to a particular “way”? It doesn’t matter which road you choose because the path leads to a specific desired place: heaven/enlightenment. I don’t look at mankind as having a path or a divinde destination. We must reject the spiritual and reject the godly for then we can begin to accept our very being… but perhaps I am enslaved to a different god/path–I am not sure.
Tentative, “the words aren’t you nor are the me” is perhaps correct; but it is the only hint of you or me that we can possibly have. Everyone judged people by their words because words carry a threat, carry violence, carry peace, carry love, carry hate, carry our very souls. We must be careful when we speak for when we do we are judged each and every single time…
When you say Tao and when you say god, to me it sounds like: tomato, tomahto. I understand we can make ketchup and catsup out of either… Much like from god or tao we can instill slavery to a particular (divine) destination or a particular (enlightened) path.
Lastly, you suggest that the future and the past are an illusion… what does that leave us with but an illusion of the present. Is this what you mean to suggest? If so, then I must admit that I am a bit more skeptical about past|present|future and their oneness (by the way, that is a pretty religious idea, isn’t it? )
Sure. We make judgements on a constant basis and we are judged on a constant basis as well, but given the venue and nothing BUT words, we also need to be very careful in our judgements as well. There is all too much judging of the individual and not enough looking at the ideas they present.
Yes, and many chain themselves to an endpoint. Reification is the first and sometimes last pitfall for many. The Tao (to me) is perhaps the most honest in saying and promoting the understanding of this. “The Tao that can be spoken is not the Tao.” It is in the very first chapter of Tao Te Ching. Most think of Tao as a ‘spiritual’ guide, but most of what is written is about making our way in our own lives. That which is ineffable remains within the unknowable.
Well, not exactly. As long as we inhabit our bodies and have the capacity of heart/mind, there is a continuous flow of experience being taken in from a unique perspective - which is us. To understand that time isn’t linear is important, but it does not free us from the immediacy of the moment.
Of course you realize, I could be wrong about all of this.
)