"...Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment"

[mikiel]

..."Discussion of the nature" thereof...

Trevor: "People who come to GF with the dream of spreading their own gospel often leave."
Nat: But never before informing opponents that they "just don't get it" and the like."

"Their own gospel??" How 'bout their own direct, immediate experience of the subtitle of this forum?
It is universal among awakened (enlightened) mystics, and those who are not realy don't get it.

These are your parting shots? How totally lame!

Sheesh!!
mikiel

[Unidian]

And this is your parting shot, I suppose. It's better?

[mikiel]

Nat: "And this is your parting shot, I suppose. It's better?"

This sounds like juvenile playground taunting to me. Obviously egocentric. Who's parting shot is "better?"... certainly worthy of some competitive miliue other than one with the subtitle heading this thread.
I made a couple of points in my opener... closure... whatever....
My options are always open... depending on how much egocentric flack I have to get through to dialogue honestly with those interested in what this forum was , by title, intended to be about.

The points were not addressed at all in your little smart-ass reply.
Care to try again, or, better yet, just go away and leave "enlightenment" dialogue to those with some familiarity with the subject... preferably firsthand but at least versed in the long history of classical enlightenment.
mikiel

[Unidian]

You make a whole new thread intended to defend yourself against what you perceive as "parting shots" and then accuse me of egotism? LOL. Um, dude...

I don't have any particular problem with your ideas. I don't really care what you think about "enlightenment," or what anyone thinks about it, for that matter. Hui-neng, Bodhidharma, Nagarjuna, and Chuang Tsu would not have cared, either. To them, all talk of "imperience" and "transcendental consciousness" and whatever else would have been as the barking of a dog. So would claims of "first-hand enlightenment knowledge," etc.

That seems to be a problem for you. Why? Do you have a guru complex?

[David Quinn]

He who understands the Way is certain to have command of basic principles. He who has command of basic principles is certain to know how to deal with circumstances. And, he who knows how to deal with circumstances will not allow things to do him harm. When a man has perfect virtue, fire cannot burn him, water cannot drown him, cold and heat cannot afflict him, birds and beasts cannot injure him.

Hence it is said: the Heavenly is on the inside, the human is on the outside. Virtue resides in the Heavenly. Base yourself in Heaven, take your stand in virtue, and then, although you hasten or hold back, bend or stretch, you may return to the essential and speak of the ultimate.

- Chuang Tzu

[Trevor Salyzyn]

mikiel, you wrote "casting seeds on hard ground is pointless". Is it wrong to assume from that that you were trying to spread a gospel, and your poor reception was causing you to leave?

If I said something inaccurate, then in the interest of truth, I will gladly take back my words.

[Unidian]

Someone asked, "What is the Buddha devil?" The Master said, "If you have doubts in your mind for an instant, that's the Buddha devil. But if you can understand that the ten thousand phenomena were never born, that the mind is like a conjurers trick, then not one speck of dust, not one phenomenon will exist. Everywhere will be clean and pure, and this will be Buddha. Buddha and devil just refer to two states, one stained, one pure. "As I see it, there's no Buddha, no living beings, no long ago, no now. If you want to get it, you've already got it--it's not something that requires time. There's no religious practice, no enlightenment, no getting anything, no missing out on anything. At no time is there any other Dharma than this. If anyone claims there is a Dharma superior to this, I say it must be a dream, a phantom...

...Followers of the Way, the really first-rate person knows right now that from the first there's never been anything that needed doing. Its because you don't have enough faith that you rush around moment by moment looking for something. You throw away your head and hunt for your head, and you cant seem to stop yourselves. You are like the bodhisattva of perfect and immediate enlightenment, who manifests his body in the dharma realm but who, in the midst of the pure land, still hates the state of common mortal and prays to become a sage. People like that have yet to forget about choices; their minds are still occupied with thoughts about purity and impurity. But the Chan school doesn't see things that way. What counts is this present moment; there's nothing that requires a lot of time. Everything I say to you is for the moment only, medicine to cure the disease. Ultimately it has no true reality. If you can see things in this way you will be true people who have left the household, free to spend ten thousand pieces of gold every day.

-Zen Master Lin-Chi

[David Quinn]

And yet you still have to leave the room when Judge Judy is on ......

-

[nitty-gritty]

David Quinn,

Is that not egotistical thinking? Forgive me, but I think I may have lost your meaning with this...

When a man has perfect virtue, fire cannot burn him, water cannot drown him, cold and heat cannot afflict him, birds and beasts cannot injure him.

They cannot do him harm, only because he does not put himself in those situations, yes? However, what if those situations are part of reality? For instance, a person may embark upon wishful-thinking only to find that he cannot fly when he jumps off the cliff and if this happens, he's history, lost. Better to pretend the cliff doesn't exist(?)

The examples you gave to explain your meaning aren't working for me, so I'd like some clarification.

.....................................................................................................................................................................
One more thing...

(It's infinite right? ~Yet I must assume you've been through it all?)~(Or is it personal. Meaning, each person has their own interpretation, understanding. The way is personal?

Also, tell me: What are the basic principals?

[It seems that I must question in this way, in order to understand The Way.]

So please.

[mikiel]

m: "My options are always open... depending on how much egocentric flack I have to get through to dialogue honestly with those interested in what this forum was , by title, intended to be about."

N: "You make a whole new thread intended to defend yourself against what you perceive as "parting shots"...
"I don't really care what you think about "enlightenment," or what anyone thinks about it, for that matter."

I make a whole new thread to remind folks like you what the presented focus of this forum is.
If you "don't really care... what anyone thinks about it," ask yourself what you are doing here, specifically in a "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment."

(Others use their language to share it and I use mine. Truth in discussion about enlightenment is not based on style of presentation or how much one sounds like...or can quote... the classical "enlightened ones.")

mikiel

[Unidian]

David,

So what? I don't like Judge Judy.

[mikiel]

mikiel, you wrote "casting seeds on hard ground is pointless". Is it wrong to assume from that that you were trying to spread a gospel, and your poor reception was causing you to leave?

If I said something inaccurate, then in the interest of truth, I will gladly take back my words.

Loose ends cleanup detail...
Your phrasing, "trying to spread a gospel" is obviously loaded with judgement against my presentation here. This thread was an attempt to remind critics that "Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment" is what this forum is about, and I was sharing my "take" on it, my "experience" of it.
My use of the metaphore about spreading seeds on hard ground was a reasonable reference to the lack of respectful dialogue on "The Subject" vis-a-vis the clearly hard headed and harsh "reception", or lack thereof.
OK?
mikiel

[divine focus]

David Quinn,

Is that not egotistical thinking? Forgive me, but I think I may have lost your meaning with this...

When a man has perfect virtue, fire cannot burn him, water cannot drown him, cold and heat cannot afflict him, birds and beasts cannot injure him.

They cannot do him harm, only because he does not put himself in those situations, yes? However, what if those situations are part of reality? For instance, a person may embark upon wishful-thinking only to find that he cannot fly when he jumps off the cliff and if this happens, he's history, lost. Better to pretend the cliff doesn't exist(?)

The examples you gave to explain your meaning aren't working for me, so I'd like some clarification.

I think those were Chuang Tzu's words. He's saying there is no wishful thinking with "perfect virtue." He sees things as they are and trusts his judgment. When it comes to birds and beasts, they can sense the love and respect and act accordingly. Humans do "rule" the animal world, but it need not be heartlessly.

One more thing...

(It's infinite right? ~Yet I must assume you've been through it all?)~(Or is it personal. Meaning, each person has their own interpretation, understanding. The way is personal?

Of course. Everyone's experience is personal, and experience is the only true teacher. You teach yourself. Everything heard from others are just hints to pay attention and notice. It seems complicated only because it's unfamiliar. It's uncomfortable at first for the same reason.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

mikiel,
Now I'm confused. Were you expecting a nice and friendly "Show and Tell"? I'm having a hard time reconciling that attitude with a correct understanding of ultimate reality. You should expect resistance in the best of cases, let alone on a forum where delusions are regularly challenged.

I'm not buying that an enlightened man would jerk away at the least criticism. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were pulling my leg and you are still trying to preach your enlightenment -- since you never in fact left after being criticized -- but in that case you would be deceitful. It's a Catch-22.

It's more likely that you were trying to proselytize with an incorrect doctrine, and then had too much pride to slink away.

[mikiel]

mikiel,
Now I'm confused. Were you expecting a nice and friendly "Show and Tell"? I'm having a hard time reconciling that attitude with a correct understanding of ultimate reality. You should expect resistance in the best of cases, let alone on a forum where delusions are regularly challenged.

I'm not buying that an enlightened man would jerk away at the least criticism. I'd give you the benefit of the doubt and say you were pulling my leg and you are still trying to preach your enlightenment -- since you never in fact left after being criticized -- but in that case you would be deceitful. It's a Catch-22.

It's more likely that you were trying to proselytize with an incorrect doctrine, and then had too much pride to slink away.

Your first sentence is "correct."
I was expecting civil dialogue on the subject of this forum.

I'm not selling what you are not buying, and "jerking away at the least criticism" is a cool spin to rationalize your judgemnent based on ignorance. And my having too much pride to "slink away" gave me a chuckle. Thanks. But don't flatter yourself at having such a cogent argument that I just could't handle it. Pure ignorance of what enlightenment is is all I've heard from you.
And your "catch 22" is just a little trap you set for me in your own mind. Get over it.

As for: "It's more likely that you were trying to proselytize with an incorrect doctrine, and then had too much pride to slink away."...

If you have any points to make about by opener, "Liberation" as an "incorrect doctrine", state your case.
So far all you've done is blow it out your ass.
And if you think "enlightenment" looks a certain way to be "correct", you have no clue how the unique individual expresses enlightenment in his/her own unique way.
mikiel

[Trevor Salyzyn]

mikiel,
With all this shit flying through the air, I must have already found the sewer line. I don't want to give you some false hope, but I might say that the source of your bullshit is your false notion of enlightenment. I'm not sure how big the leak is, but you look like you have enough experience fixing this sort of thing that you should be able to fix the hole in your ego on your own, now that I've shown you the source.

My usual rate for pointing out people's stupid beliefs is nothing, but you've got an interesting name so I'll cut you a deal. 50% off.

[mikiel]

mikiel,
With all this shit flying through the air, I must have already found the sewer line. I don't want to give you some false hope, but I might say that the source of your bullshit is your false notion of enlightenment. I'm not sure how big the leak is, but you look like you have enough experience fixing this sort of thing that you should be able to fix the hole in your ego on your own, now that I've shown you the source.

My usual rate for pointing out people's stupid beliefs is nothing, but you've got an interesting name so I'll cut you a deal. 50% off.

Your typical smartass reply. Obviously not up to the challenge of substative debate on how my Liberation piece is "incorrect."
You are clueless about ego-transcendence in particular and enlightenment in general.
For my part this is a waste of time i.e., "discussion of enlightenment" with you.
ps: re the name...
'mikIel'
(The "I" in the midst of all individuals is the same "I", beyond ego's little "i", the "separate self" illusion.... just FYI, not that you are capable of "getting It.")

For others who might be interested, this name came to me after my long journey (25 years of sitting an hour a day, then two months for 8-12 hours, then several hours kicking to stay afloat in the Pacific off the north shore of Kauai, then brought back in by a looping current. As I lay exhausted on the beach, almost dead and definitely beyond the illusory egocentric "self", I heard the surf against the shore in slow rhythm "whispering"...
mik...I... el
(Just a whim here to share the source of the name for other readers here.)
mikiel

[Trevor Salyzyn]

miki, your taunts aren't going to work on me. I've already got your number.

[mikiel]

Back from several days "off grid"... my "real life."
Anyone interested in a respectful dialogue on this forum's stated purpose.
What I've shared here (and in my "Liberation" thread is true.
Open to others with similar experience... or different but still firsthand testimony on "Ultimate Reality" and "Enlightenment."
mikiel

[maestro]

The "I" in the midst of all individuals is the same "I", beyond ego's little "i", the "separate self" illusion.... just FYI, not that you are capable of "getting It.

Dear mikiel, I have few questions:
Is the I also the same in non living things such as rocks, or water?
If not then when a living thing dies where does its "I" go?
If I is the same then why do I not perceive your sensations, we should all be connected to each other right.

[mikiel]

The "I" in the midst of all individuals is the same "I", beyond ego's little "i", the "separate self" illusion.... just FYI, not that you are capable of "getting It.

Dear mikiel, I have few questions:
Is the I also the same in non living things such as rocks, or water?
If not then when a living thing dies where does its "I" go?
If I is the same then why do I not perceive your sensations, we should all be connected to each other right.

maestro,
"Non living" is a phrase reflecting an anthropomorphic perspective defining "life as we (humans) know it. Of course, in common (white man's... Western) ... worldview, rocks and water are not "living things." But I've spent a lifetime in communion with nature... not a Native American, but I "see and know" Nature in the same Way through decades of shamanic experience. In the sense that consciousness is omnipresent... just reach for the meaning... One Consciousness in *all forms.* All matter is energy in vibrational patterns... rocks... water... everything. Energy is all manifest consciousness. Do you get my drift?
The "I" is the same in all things. It doesn't "go" anywhere. Consciousnes never changes. Only the forms It expresses through change. They die and are reborn in new forms... always the Same One Identity... Cosmic Consciousness in all forms. See?

"If I is the same then why do I not perceive your sensations, we should all be connected to each other right"

Sensations are "objects *in* consciousness. Different for each individual form. I do not directly experience rock or water consciousness but indirecly as appreciation of their individual forms as vbrating energy, same as "me'. Nor do I experience your specific sensatrions, etc. Different forms with different experiences. One Consciousness. Knowing this directly, absolutely, is "enlightenment."
mikiel

[maestro]

But I've spent a lifetime in communion with nature... not a Native American, but I "see and know" Nature in the same Way through decades of shamanic experience. In the sense that consciousness is omnipresent... just reach for the meaning... One Consciousness in *all forms.* All matter is energy in vibrational patterns... rocks... water... everything. Energy is all manifest consciousness. Do you get my drift?

Sorry, I am unable to comprehend, by consciousness I mean an awareness of the surroundings. Are you saying energy is consciousness. You mean energy has an awareness of the surroundings. It seems to me that consciousness requires the brain, or an equivalent.

Sensations are "objects *in* consciousness. Different for each individual form. I do not directly experience rock or water consciousness but indirecly as appreciation of their individual forms as vbrating energy, same as "me'. Nor do I experience your specific sensatrions, etc

Are you suggesting that consciousness is an observer of of the external world. And there is only one observer. Then why is it that the observer cannot unify all that it observes.

[mikiel]

maestro wrote:
"Sorry, I am unable to comprehend, by consciousness I mean an awareness of the surroundings. Are you saying energy is consciousness. You mean energy has an awareness of the surroundings. It seems to me that consciousness requires the brain, or an equivalent."

Cosmic consciousness manifests as all forms, which are vibrating energy patterns. I don't believe that the colonies of bacteria in humans are aware of us as their hosts. They are only aware of their life as bacteria on microscopic scale.
Likewise few humans are aware of "Kosmos" as one Intelligent Being, of which we humans are "microscopic" parts. It is only through resonance as One Identity that we know Kosmos as One Living Being... as the minutia of a hologram reflect and resonate with the whole.

maestro: "Are you suggesting that consciousness is an observer of of the external world. And there is only one observer. Then why is it that the observer cannot unify all that it observes."

Cosmic consciousness manifests as the whole cosmos, It's body, so to speak. This is Awareness Itself, One in all. This Awareness and Its "body", cosmos are already One Being, the overall unity of which all individual forms are parts.

[maestro]

Cosmic consciousness manifests as the whole cosmos, It's body, so to speak. This is Awareness Itself, One in all.

I think you have redefined the concepts consciousness and awareness to mean the whole universe.
If that is so then the statement the universe is the whole universe one in all, is a tautology, isn't it.

Anyhow if you arbitrarily redefine words then there is a lot of potential for confusion. Since you have redefined consciousness to be the whole. What would you call :the phenomenon wherein an animal perceives its surroundings through a mental picture. I was referring to this as consciousness, this is also the conventional usage, when we say a man is unconscious simply implies that the mental perception of surroundings is gone.

[divine focus]

Cosmic consciousness manifests as the whole cosmos, It's body, so to speak. This is Awareness Itself, One in all.

I think you have redefined the concepts consciousness and awareness to mean the whole universe.
If that is so then the statement the universe is the whole universe one in all, is a tautology, isn't it.

Anyhow if you arbitrarily redefine words then there is a lot of potential for confusion.

It's not arbitrary. It's more accurate.

If I is the same then why do I not perceive your sensations, we should all be connected to each other right.

This is actually possible. The person being "sat in" would have to allow it, of course. Animals are a lot more allowing in that respect. People have things to hide, and the person sitting into someone else's experience would have to be very pure of heart to be allowed.

You may be allowing someone right now. It's very common. But don't fear; there's no judgement or control.