Message Boards Message Boards

Miscellaneous

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?

Toggle
RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 7:03 PM
Ian And:
Zendo Calrissian:
And Ian, I appreciate your response. Without going into details as to the motivation for asking the question, what you said was exactly what I needed to hear in this circumstance. Strangely relevant, like you know more about my situation than I provided in my query. Weird.

If my explanation connected with you (despite the distraction provided by sawfoot) then it is because I, too, have had to deal with these same questions in my own practice. Unlike you, though (since you are new to the practice), I have been practicing meditation for nearly 34 years now (the last 14 of which have been primarily influenced by the teachings of Gotama's Dhamma), so I have had the time and the space to contemplate these matters from many different perspectives in order to figure out what is happening.

In other words, I've been in your shoes, I know the terrain that you are traveling over, and therefore, based on my extensive experience, I am able to provide you with the benefit of my experience.

If my explanation resonates with you, then you and I must be on the same page in that regard. There's really nothing weird about that. And certainly nothing "psychic" or "prophetic" about it in terms of the popular understanding of the word "clairvoyance." If you look the word up in the dictionary, it simply means "clear seeing." Nothing in that about being able to predict the future or know things about people that they are surprised that you know about because they've never expressed them to you.

It is simply a matter of having paid one's dues in the practice. I've been there, done that! It's really quite that simple. That is why I am able to describe these matters with such certainty and matter-of-factness. I know what I'm talking about.


Ian,

Wow, you write an excellent cover letter. If it were me, I would definitely hire you.

(Please don't dignify that with a direct response. It would not be befitting a man of your extensive experience, wisdom and knowledge. Instead, I would expect a response demonstrating your superiority in a super clever and super subtle way)

Zendo,

So coy! Can you give us more of hint of the motivation behind the question? Lacking the extensive experience of Ian, it is just a hodgepodge of guesswork on my behalf. You say it was what you "needed to hear"? Would you also say this is what you "wanted to hear"?

William,

"End of the road", right? I mean, how awesome is that! I wasn't sure that it existed, but reading that kind of talk from a man of Ian's stature, then that shit must be real! How freakin' excellent! I want some of those apples! Show me the money! Where do I sign?

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 8:19 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
Ian And:
Zendo Calrissian:
And Ian, I appreciate your response. Without going into details as to the motivation for asking the question, what you said was exactly what I needed to hear in this circumstance. Strangely relevant, like you know more about my situation than I provided in my query. Weird.

If my explanation connected with you (despite the distraction provided by sawfoot) then it is because I, too, have had to deal with these same questions in my own practice. Unlike you, though (since you are new to the practice), I have been practicing meditation for nearly 34 years now (the last 14 of which have been primarily influenced by the teachings of Gotama's Dhamma), so I have had the time and the space to contemplate these matters from many different perspectives in order to figure out what is happening.

In other words, I've been in your shoes, I know the terrain that you are traveling over, and therefore, based on my extensive experience, I am able to provide you with the benefit of my experience.

If my explanation resonates with you, then you and I must be on the same page in that regard. There's really nothing weird about that. And certainly nothing "psychic" or "prophetic" about it in terms of the popular understanding of the word "clairvoyance." If you look the word up in the dictionary, it simply means "clear seeing." Nothing in that about being able to predict the future or know things about people that they are surprised that you know about because they've never expressed them to you.

It is simply a matter of having paid one's dues in the practice. I've been there, done that! It's really quite that simple. That is why I am able to describe these matters with such certainty and matter-of-factness. I know whaJimIt I'm talking about.


Ian,

Wow, you write an excellent cover letter. If it were me, I would definitely hire you.

(Please don't dignify that with a direct response. It would not be befitting a man of your extensive experience, wisdom and knowledge. Instead, I would expect a response demonstrating your superiority in a super clever and super subtle way)

Zendo,

So coy! Can you give us more of hint of the motivation behind the question? Lacking the extensive experience of Ian, it is just a hodgepodge of guesswork on my behalf. You say it was what you "needed to hear"? Would you also say this is what you "wanted to hear"?

William,

"End of the road", right? I mean, how awesome is that! I wasn't sure that it existed, but reading that kind of talk from a man of Ian's stature, then that shit must be real! How freakin' excellent! I want some of those apples! Show me the money! Where do I sign?


You know what Sawfoot, I have been restraining myself since you have started posting again, but I can't hold it in anymore. Frankly, I am so glad there is an intelligent, science-minded man* posting here whose critical thinking and well-informedness can save me (and I daresay many others here!) from being bamboozled by head spinning (and truth told) culty mumbo jumbo. °
* do I presume too much? If so sincere apologies!
° For those new here, my entire post should be read with a tone of slightly exasperated sarcasm.

Seriously though dude, could you just *try* to winnow out your positive contributions from passive agressive attacks etc.? The fact you sometimes (maybe often!) have something interesting to talk about which is relevant to things here does not make it less tiresome to put up with the interpersonal patterns you habitually inhabit this place with :/

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/9/14 8:44 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
You walk a fine line Sawfoot. An occasional astute observation is the only thing that keeps you from full-on trolldom.

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/10/14 4:49 AM as a reply to . Jake ..
Jake:

You know what Sawfoot, I have been restraining myself since you have started posting again, but I can't hold it in anymore. Frankly, I am so glad there is an intelligent, science-minded man* posting here whose critical thinking and well-informedness can save me (and I daresay many others here!) from being bamboozled by head spinning (and truth told) culty mumbo jumbo. °
* do I presume too much? If so sincere apologies!
° For those new here, my entire post should be read with a tone of slightly exasperated sarcasm.

Seriously though dude, could you just *try* to winnow out your positive contributions from passive agressive attacks etc.? The fact you sometimes (maybe often!) have something interesting to talk about which is relevant to things here does not make it less tiresome to put up with the interpersonal patterns you habitually inhabit this place with :/



Zendo, you are right, it is a fine line. I tread it carefully. I think I have the careful mix of trolling and positive contributions down to an art form. I think though that last post might have crossed it, as I got the recipe wrong as there wasn't enough (very!) occasional astute observations in the mix. I think I might have been high or something. Still, in my defence, at least I am attempting to be humorous with my passive aggressive attacks, unlike some people (ahem, Ian, cough, Ian).

Oh, Jake, I see you are fixating on me and the skeptical scientist thing again. Is that really relevant here? Is that what you really think I am making fun of? The culty woo woo mumbo jumbo?

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/10/14 3:02 PM as a reply to sawfoot _.
I guess the flip side of being a True Believer is taking everything as fake and cheap until proven otherwise. Hang out in either of those extremes and you're going to trample over something valuable. Hang out somewhere in between, and you still might... but there's less chance of it.

By temperament, I guess I'm more inclined toward your end of the spectrum. As well as being skeptical of the magic and metaphysics, I've come across a lot of spiritually inclined people who, despite being highly attained in some sense, seem to have brittle personalities or get a bit bristly when they're challenged or ribbed, and I don't see spiritual attainment as a solution to all human problems. I figure many people were not drawn to spirituality because their hearts were overflowing with health, strength, vitality and good will; perhaps they sought refuge from some peculiar vulnerability, and found some relief from it, and learned some valuable stuff in the process... but they're still vulnerable people in some ways. (And, if so, good luck to them; what kind of sport is it to take potshots at them?)

On the other hand, some of the most spiritually, morally and psychologically impressive people I've ever met have been hardened criminals; people whose character, toughness, will, resilience, courage, humour, sila and insight into life and character would put your average priest or monk to shame... and the closest they've ever come to spiritual teachings is Sunday school and maybe AA/ NA meetings. (Different notions of sila, of course, but extraordinary capacity to live up to them).

Not sure what my bottom line is here. Maybe something like: what do you really want or expect from spiritual practice and the people who undertake it?

RE: Enlightenment without phenomena?
Answer
3/10/14 11:48 AM as a reply to sawfoot _.
sawfoot _:
Jake:

You know what Sawfoot, I have been restraining myself since you have started posting again, but I can't hold it in anymore. Frankly, I am so glad there is an intelligent, science-minded man* posting here whose critical thinking and well-informedness can save me (and I daresay many others here!) from being bamboozled by head spinning (and truth told) culty mumbo jumbo. °
* do I presume too much? If so sincere apologies!
° For those new here, my entire post should be read with a tone of slightly exasperated sarcasm.

Seriously though dude, could you just *try* to winnow out your positive contributions from passive agressive attacks etc.? The fact you sometimes (maybe often!) have something interesting to talk about which is relevant to things here does not make it less tiresome to put up with the interpersonal patterns you habitually inhabit this place with :/



Zendo, you are right, it is a fine line. I tread it carefully. I think I have the careful mix of trolling and positive contributions down to an art form. I think though that last post might have crossed it, as I got the recipe wrong as there wasn't enough (very!) occasional astute observations in the mix. I think I might have been high or something. Still, in my defence, at least I am attempting to be humorous with my passive aggressive attacks, unlike some people (ahem, Ian, cough, Ian).

Oh, Jake, I see you are fixating on me and the skeptical scientist thing again. Is that really relevant here? Is that what you really think I am making fun of? The culty woo woo mumbo jumbo?


I think you're playing ego games with the board, and it's not my job to figure out what you are all about here ultimately. But it's annoying, distracting, condescending and generally detracts from any valid questions or points you have.

For example, the question of how much of nanas and jhannas are an artifact of a particular view and/or particular methods is relevant. But as a few practitioners have pointed out to you, awakening is less about experiences (which could very well be artifacts of a particular belief being reified habitually or a particular technique being deployed which affects how experience functions) and more about something beyond experience, or a shift in the way experiences are understood and related to. Which is also relevant to this thread. I am suggesting you try and seperate your valid questions and points from your ego games and see if you can reflect more before posting so as to come off less trollish. Or, don't, and thereby demonstrate that you are really more on the trollish side of things?