No more internet

Red Star said:
riclapaz said:
I can tell you, after reading serious wave, The Secret History, the attacks on Laura,be reading for a while, here in the forum, without participating, until then understood what the phrase that Laura has mentioned on many occasions means, "In this universe, there is no free breakfast, if you think that if there are, you are the next breakfast, "I can see my life some years back, and the difference compared to what it is today, and believe me the difference is great, and I checked, the pain is necessary, especially for the development of being, if you are in the idea of having in mind, "I control my mind", the chances of deception, to yourself, are quite high.

If you believe it is necessary, it will be necessary because you are limiting yourself to these options only, you close the doors to other options. This means that you will not search other paths/ways/methods, because you think they don't exist, so never you will find an alternative. There are many people and everyone has their own lessons.

May the Force be with you my friend.

Yes Red Star, at this point, I agree with you, no need to seek other paths, knows why? because I found it, this project, I have "faith" in this process. I write in quotes, because it is an objective faith, not belief, is real in me, work on this forum has proven results, and if you understand what the Cs have said, this is like a school, we all have lessons to be learned, including you.
 
riclapaz said:
Yes Red Star, at this point, I agree with you, no need to seek other paths, knows why? because I found it, this project, I have "faith" in this process. I write in quotes, because it is an objective faith, not belief, is real in me, work on this forum has proven results, and if you understand what the Cs have said, this is like a school, we all have lessons to be learned, including you.

And I think you are doing well, because all who seek the light will find it sooner or later.
 
I would like to say, in order to avoid future misunderstandings, which I think are being frequent, that I am not against the Work done here, nor against the work of Laura, nor against FOTCM, etc.

I think this site contains much valuable data and it is important.

Of course there are many kinds of people and temperaments. Sometimes people create quickly an erroneous perception of other people for many reasons.

Being sincere, I can not say I agree with the 100% of what is being done here, because, first of all, I don't know the 100% of what is being done here and I am a newbie in this forum. So in this regard my opinion, even being positive to this site, is not important.

But, it is easy to see we have common goals.

Everyone participates under its circumstances, but the important thing, IMHO, is to share knowledge, and sincerely give what you can.



I was not sure about posting this message, because, I think I have not anything useful more to add to this topic of the forum. Also please, excuse me, because I think I have driven the conversation to an off-topic area.

But I think someone needs to read this and, since I don't know where to post it, I leave it here.
 
sitting said:
Psalehesost said:
Combine an animal evolutionary heritage with mental "tricks" for achieving a sense of peace and bliss, and you get Zen, a focus on oneness, etc. In short, it's the lowest in us imagining that it has reached the highest. Or so I think.

Hi there,

I would say if you had done serious study of the subject, then your conclusion is most unusual.
And if you had not done such a study, then your remarks are somewhat careless. FWIW.

I don't think the conclusion is very unusual. First, though, a note about my use of the word "Zen". As obyvatel pointed out:
obyvatel said:
[quote author=Psalehesost]
In short, the "Zen" approach - or escaping into peaceful bliss - is just another way to be asleep, and not just a little asleep, but very deeply asleep.

The traditional Zen way of life was to experience reality just as it is - without adding or subtracting from it. In practice, most Zen monks organized themselves into groups, living and working together on community projects that benefited the village they were part of. They worked on same things as common people did - farming, crafts etc - but they aspired to a different attitude. From what I have read, Zen monks were also politically active at times, protesting against authorities, participating in popular uprisings etc.

Today Zen has become a buzz word. Also any long standing tradition has its inevitable share of distortions and perversions. But overall, the traditional Zen path demanded a lot from its adherents and promoted growth of consciousness rather than an escape from reality. At least that has been my understanding.
[/quote]
I was not well-enough informed about the real/traditional meaning, and used the word in the "modern buzzword" sense, which also seemed to match what Red Star expressed.

As for my conclusion, it's similar to what I understand from much of The Wave and various recommended reading. For example, Laura writes extensively about the problem of the New Age approach which seeks comfort at the cost of ignoring reality, about "sensation junkies" and about people who seek the mystical "experience" as an end in itself.

Ignoring reality can take place in several ways. One way is to simply look away, to bury the head in the sand. Another way is to ignore implications, to avoid uncomfortable feelings and uncomfortable understanding. A person who diligently studies what happens in the world, but who then avoids emotional pain by focusing on "all is one" (or by meditating it all away, etc.), is the second kind of reality ignorer.

Such ways of "dealing" with reality are different dysfunctional habits for avoiding awareness of pain, i.e. addictive behaviors. And the subject of addictive behaviors, how people become "addicts inside their own skins", is also something Laura extensively wrote about in The Wave. And this can be even better understood in light of other books, such as those on the adaptive unconscious, and those which cover our instinctive and basic emotional nature based on neuroscience. And of course, Gabor Mate's books, which go more deeply into addiction and related topics.

There are also deeper aspects of this. Theodore Illion's Darkness Over Tibet covers them, in its allegorical story, in a very simple and level-headed way. Basically, trying to avoid struggle - and struggle is part of the "school" of life - is an attempt to "put oneself on the level of the Creator", an attempt to bend reality to one's will. Such "spiritual arrogance" is "sinning against one's soul" - it is to reject a creative interaction with life in favor of dominance and/or hedonism and/or nihilism.

Here's one particular quote from Darkness Over Tiber that came to mind. (For Laura's series of three articles on the book and related matters, see here.)
Man must discard his separate spiritual existence, observed the Gentle Friend with great vigour. And this result is reached by instrospection, that is to say, by giving up what I consider the most Divine thing in man, his WILL.

The idea struck me that to try to be “like God” by entirely destroying one’s I- consciousness amount to committing spiritual suicide. Annihilation could not be the supreme goal of life. Just as in material things, as much egotism is justified as is absolutely necessary to maintain our separate existence, it is the duty of the creature to maintain its individuality also in the realm of spirituality, otherwise life would have no meaning.

I profoundly disagreed with the Gentle Friend in this respect, although most of the things he had said in the earlier part of his lecture had been perfectly acceptable.

He then went on discussing 1. I-consciousness, 2. group consciousness, 3. Divine consciousness.

He said that in prehistoric times man was not yet individualized. Man then identified himself with the clan to which he happened to belong. Today man had reached the stage of individual I-consciousness and the next step for him was to go from individual I-consciousness to Divine consciousness.

I again could not help disagreeing. How could critically minded people swallow such an idea? Prehistoric man was group conscious. Modern man is not yet fully I-conscious. Again and again he is drawn back into the clan and family spirit, that is to say, he is alternately group conscious and I-conscious. So the trend of evolution in modern man is from group-consciousness towards FULL I-consciousness.

And now the Gentle Friend proposed that man, whose I-consciousness is just emerging from group consciousness – [not even fully grown spiritually ] – should jump back to a state of “total” consciousness which existed prior to group- consciousness!

I again thought of the fact that he recommended people to put themselves on a level with the Creator. Once more I realized a short moment of acute spiritual anguish when I realized that this man, too, served the purpose of the fallen angels, and wondered whether he was a mere tool or whether he himself was conscious of his decidedly destructive mission.

How beautiful had been most of these two lectures! There had been so much truth in them, and yet they were only nearly true. The word “almost” in spiritual matters is an ominous one. The Evil One is Almost God, and in this little word “almost” lies all the dreadful difference.

Perhaps the Gentle Friend did not realize himself what he was doing. This prospect was slight, but it existed. There are cases of this kind in spiritual life. It occasionally happens that sincere people are struck with spiritual blindness and serve the cause of darkness while they honestly believe they serve the cause of light. […]

That day he lectured on nothingness, on becoming like “nothing,” and the “happiness” one derived from becoming like nothing.

So there we were!

What motive did he recommend for seeking a non-egocentrical conception of life?

Happiness! The search for happiness!

Not a word about the intense suffering of a man who feels one with all the joys and sorrows of the world. All he recommended was an escape from life, “nothingness,” and subsequent happiness, viz. the very height of selfishness.
 
Psalehesost said:
I don't think the conclusion is very unusual. First, though, a note about my use of the word "Zen". As obyvatel pointed out:
obyvatel said:
[quote author=Psalehesost]
In short, the "Zen" approach - or escaping into peaceful bliss - is just another way to be asleep, and not just a little asleep, but very deeply asleep.

The traditional Zen way of life was to experience reality just as it is - without adding or subtracting from it. In practice, most Zen monks organized themselves into groups, living and working together on community projects that benefited the village they were part of. They worked on same things as common people did - farming, crafts etc - but they aspired to a different attitude. From what I have read, Zen monks were also politically active at times, protesting against authorities, participating in popular uprisings etc.

Today Zen has become a buzz word. Also any long standing tradition has its inevitable share of distortions and perversions. But overall, the traditional Zen path demanded a lot from its adherents and promoted growth of consciousness rather than an escape from reality. At least that has been my understanding.
I was not well-enough informed about the real/traditional meaning, and used the word in the "modern buzzword" sense, which also seemed to match what Red Star expressed.

As for my conclusion, it's similar to what I understand from much of The Wave and various recommended reading. For example, Laura writes extensively about the problem of the New Age approach which seeks comfort at the cost of ignoring reality, about "sensation junkies" and about people who seek the mystical "experience" as an end in itself.

Ignoring reality can take place in several ways. One way is to simply look away, to bury the head in the sand. Another way is to ignore implications, to avoid uncomfortable feelings and uncomfortable understanding. A person who diligently studies what happens in the world, but who then avoids emotional pain by focusing on "all is one" (or by meditating it all away, etc.), is the second kind of reality ignorer.

Such ways of "dealing" with reality are different dysfunctional habits for avoiding awareness of pain, i.e. addictive behaviors. And the subject of addictive behaviors, how people become "addicts inside their own skins", is also something Laura extensively wrote about in The Wave. And this can be even better understood in light of other books, such as those on the adaptive unconscious, and those which cover our instinctive and basic emotional nature based on neuroscience. And of course, Gabor Mate's books, which go more deeply into addiction and related topics.

There are also deeper aspects of this. Theodore Illion's Darkness Over Tibet covers them, in its allegorical story, in a very simple and level-headed way. Basically, trying to avoid struggle - and struggle is part of the "school" of life - is an attempt to "put oneself on the level of the Creator", an attempt to bend reality to one's will. Such "spiritual arrogance" is "sinning against one's soul" - it is to reject a creative interaction with life in favor of dominance and/or hedonism and/or nihilism.

Here's one particular quote from Darkness Over Tiber that came to mind. (For Laura's series of three articles on the book and related matters, see here.)
Man must discard his separate spiritual existence, observed the Gentle Friend with great vigour. And this result is reached by instrospection, that is to say, by giving up what I consider the most Divine thing in man, his WILL.

The idea struck me that to try to be “like God” by entirely destroying one’s I- consciousness amount to committing spiritual suicide. Annihilation could not be the supreme goal of life. Just as in material things, as much egotism is justified as is absolutely necessary to maintain our separate existence, it is the duty of the creature to maintain its individuality also in the realm of spirituality, otherwise life would have no meaning.

I profoundly disagreed with the Gentle Friend in this respect, although most of the things he had said in the earlier part of his lecture had been perfectly acceptable.

He then went on discussing 1. I-consciousness, 2. group consciousness, 3. Divine consciousness.

He said that in prehistoric times man was not yet individualized. Man then identified himself with the clan to which he happened to belong. Today man had reached the stage of individual I-consciousness and the next step for him was to go from individual I-consciousness to Divine consciousness.

I again could not help disagreeing. How could critically minded people swallow such an idea? Prehistoric man was group conscious. Modern man is not yet fully I-conscious. Again and again he is drawn back into the clan and family spirit, that is to say, he is alternately group conscious and I-conscious. So the trend of evolution in modern man is from group-consciousness towards FULL I-consciousness.

And now the Gentle Friend proposed that man, whose I-consciousness is just emerging from group consciousness – [not even fully grown spiritually ] – should jump back to a state of “total” consciousness which existed prior to group- consciousness!

I again thought of the fact that he recommended people to put themselves on a level with the Creator. Once more I realized a short moment of acute spiritual anguish when I realized that this man, too, served the purpose of the fallen angels, and wondered whether he was a mere tool or whether he himself was conscious of his decidedly destructive mission.

How beautiful had been most of these two lectures! There had been so much truth in them, and yet they were only nearly true. The word “almost” in spiritual matters is an ominous one. The Evil One is Almost God, and in this little word “almost” lies all the dreadful difference.

Perhaps the Gentle Friend did not realize himself what he was doing. This prospect was slight, but it existed. There are cases of this kind in spiritual life. It occasionally happens that sincere people are struck with spiritual blindness and serve the cause of darkness while they honestly believe they serve the cause of light. […]

That day he lectured on nothingness, on becoming like “nothing,” and the “happiness” one derived from becoming like nothing.

So there we were!

What motive did he recommend for seeking a non-egocentrical conception of life?

Happiness! The search for happiness!

Not a word about the intense suffering of a man who feels one with all the joys and sorrows of the world. All he recommended was an escape from life, “nothingness,” and subsequent happiness, viz. the very height of selfishness.
[/quote]

Great summary Psalehesost. There is also another buzz word one hears often: "compassion". I often hear this word used by some new-age people, of what I like to call navel-gazing spirituality. What is striking over all is the bizarre inability to consider the paradox of being at the same time compassionate and shutting oneself from the world, others and suffering in and out. Compassion, which can be viewed as a part of empathy although it can be more complex than that, is supposed to mean suffering with others (com-: together, pati: to suffer). So the question is, how can they consider experiencing compassion without experiencing suffering? One possibility is the usual use of words without understanding them, especially if compassion is viewed as a distant sympathy for those who suffer, at a superficial level.

The esoteric work is a work of self transformation, and in any transformation there is a breaking down of what is in order to allow for what to become to emerge. Tranformation therefore hurts, and if if doesn't hurt, then one is not transforming, only dreaming of transformation. OSIT
 
Great summary Psalehesost. There is also another buzz word one hears often: "compassion". I often hear this word used by some new-age people, of what I like to call navel-gazing spirituality. What is striking over all is the bizarre inability to consider the paradox of being at the same time compassionate and shutting oneself from the world, others and suffering in and out. Compassion, which can be viewed as a part of empathy although it can be more complex than that, is supposed to mean suffering with others (com-: together, pati: to suffer). So the question is, how can they consider experiencing compassion without experiencing suffering? One possibility is the usual use of words without understanding them, especially if compassion is viewed as a distant sympathy for those who suffer, at a superficial level.

The esoteric work is a work of self transformation, and in any transformation there is a breaking down of what is in order to allow for what to become to emerge. Tranformation therefore hurts, and if if doesn't hurt, then one is not transforming, only dreaming of transformation. OSIT

What is navel gazing exactly?I've seen this term used on the forum,but i struggle to find a definition.Is it something like living in a bubble?

edit:quotes
 
Hindsight Man said:
What is navel gazing exactly?I've seen this term used on the forum,but i struggle to find a definition.Is it something like living in a bubble?

As used in this context

noun: navel-gazing

self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view.
 
Psalehesost, I would like to clarify some things of my point of view...

I think new age is, mainly, a disinformation and manipulation campaign. If we analyze it carefully, we see the ideas that have prevailed and have been extensively disseminated since late '60 - early '70, are "love is the way" and that the "world is in danger but some good and loving aliens will save us". This serve to the purpose of driving the minds of the minimally spiritual inclined people such a way they can not be a menace, making them passive and hesitant of knowing anything disturbing which could face them with the knowing of evil.


I want to explain too why I think what I said in the previous posts:

When I was very very young, around 6 years old, something happened to me. I am not going to explain that story here because it is very complex and I think I can not write it accurately in English. That really impressed me because something I thought was impossible happened. So I started to believe that what I see is not the only thing that exist and that the reality was more complex than the world I knew.

Basically, for some years, my reasoning was something like this:

This world is dangerous, because this reality is "physical". If we don't have knowledge then we don't understand the reality, so we don't know why and how the things happen, and if painful or "bad" things happen to us, we start to seek guilt in others. But the situation is very complex, so before making quick judgements, best stop, try to think carefully and remember what we know "today" is less than what what we will know "tomorrow". Maybe in the future our interpretation of why and how the things happen will be much more accurate than today, so it is better to stay always ready to question everything we think we know, because we, basically, have no idea about anything.

This was mainly because the experience and because my mother did not believe in what I told her had happened to me. I did not put the blame on my mother because I understood that I would not have believed that story either if I was her.

Time after, when I was 15, one night of summer I was sleeping when I wake up. Suddenly my view displaced in a way I can not explain but it was like if it moved forwards. I found myself surrounded by complete darkness, all black, without body and without any kind of mind. I could only contemplate or realize of what it was happening, but I couldn't think in anything. I was like a spot in the most terrible emptiness you could imagine. But "in front" of me, or, it could be better said, in the direction my view had displaced I saw like a window or screen and I was able to feel my senses (vision, hearing and touch) and to listen my mind through this "window". In some moment, I felt through the window an itch on my left leg and I contemplated my mind reasoning that, in order to soothe the itch, the left arm should be moved and the leg had to be scraped with the hand. Then I felt my body doing that. In this moment I realized I was not in control nor my body nor my mind. I realized my mind was like an "automatic pilot" or "software", driven by some complex logic, but purely mechanical. I realized too I had no real power over it because this "software" was in control. But don't know how nor why, I realized (and I had no doubt in that state) that maybe, someday I could influence in some manner this "software" to the point it ended obeying me. And I say "me" because in that state the only "me" I realized was that little spot with no body and no mind into that terrifying emptiness. Then I realized I could not stay much more time in that state because I could die. In that moment, this window approached to me and I merged with it. After that, I stand up, then I sit in the border of the bed and then I went to sleep again.

That terrible but important experience left me very impressed and I felt it was very very important. This moment was a turning point in my life.

After that I had no doubt that the other experience it happened to me when I was 6 years old was true and it was not product of my imagination and I decided I had to find a way to understand what I was and what is the reality.

I started to see this physical reality like a maze or an illusion (as much people have called it before me).

Then, one year after, when I was 16, some day I was thinking about the reason of this kind of material experience and if it could be found a way to get out of the maze. Suddenly I felt a thought: "Of course there is an exit door, you would not have came here without a way out.".

So, I started to think about that. What could be the exit? How to find it? I noticed first I should understand what I am and what is the universe. One night of autumn, I was thinking about all that, when I decided to refocus the problem under analytic view of the programmer, because my father taught me to program when I was 8 years old. My impression was that the design of the universe could be reduced to the design of a computer program. You know, you have information: waves, particles, dimensions, interactions, etc, so it can be emulated in a computer. I tried to take the role of God creating the universe at the very beginning assuming God was alone, without anything but its own thinking ability.

Then I found the first problem: Where to create the universe if there is nothing but me? There is no space, no canvas, no playfield (that would be the universe itself). How can the creator create anything outside its own being?

A very strong feeling started to make me think: "EUREKA! God created the universe in its own mind!";

Oh dude! that was for me like ecstasy... And I quickly tried to create a logical diagram to explore and comprehend this moment of "illumination". What I got is the following philosophical reasoning:

1) Axiom: I exist.

In order to derive conclusions, we need an axiom, a non-questionable starting point. Let this axiom be my own existence, since is the only thing, the only fact I can be 100% sure is true and real. This is unquestionable, it can not be proved mathematically, but it is self-evident.

2) Axiom: I exist and I can observe.

I am a spectator, I observe the phenomena. I feel input: thoughts, vision, audio, etc. So, I am something which can feel other "somethings". This is self-evident too.

3) Deduction: "To be observable" implies "To exist".

I'm sure my existence is real but, what about the existence of what I observe? Are my thoughts real? Are real the EM waves that my brain interpret as colors and forms? Are real the objects which emanate or reflect these waves? It is real the matter I can touch?
Well, I don't know if all that is real because, first: what means "real"? But I'm sure these things exist because they are being perceived and "to be perceived" implies first "to exist". It can be imagination, a dream, an illusion, "solid matter" or whatever, but it IS something.

4) Deduction: There is only 1 Existence, because the Non-Being doesn't exist.

Ok, so I exist and what I observe exist but, do we exist in different existences?
If there are multiple existences this implies that the existences must be separated by something. If existence is "to exist" what thing could exist different to "to exist"?: The non existence, the Non-Being.

But there is no such thing like that, because if the Non-Being exists it never can be Non-Being, non-existence, the simple fact of being would disable its role of non-being. If the Non-Being exists is something, it exists, so it is also Existence.

So the existente is common to everything because everything "is" in the existence. Also everything is existence, because there is nothing different to "The Existence", nothing can separate it in different parts, so there is only 1 existence.

5) Deduction: The Being knows no limits.

The non existence of the Non-Being has enormous implications. First, everything exists, and nothing ceases to exist. Something can not become nothing. So the past has not gone forever, it will exist forever and the future is now, it exists already. There are infinite pasts, infinite nows, infinite futures, infinite universes, realities, etc.

The Existence, not being limited in any way by the Non-Existence, knows no limits, and any imaginable possibility, form, system, combination, experience, etc, exists already. It has no beginning, because it never started to be. There was not anything different to it, and it did not emerge from the Non-Being.

Increated, without origin or beginning, without end.

6) Deduction: You and me are the same.

So, if there is only 1 Existence, if there is only 1 Being, you are me and I am you. Our lives are parallel lives of the same being. Our bodies are "different eyes" of the same "brain". I am not into an universe, all the universes are in me and I am all the universes.



I'm not going to claim I am an illuminated, only another more human being who has made itself, in my opinion, the most important questions.

Before me, as many of you surely know, Parmenides thought essentially the same. This reasoning can be found in the Bhagavad Gītā (a book of the Mahābhārata), in Laṅkāvatāra Sūtra, and in many other ancient texts. Also Pre-Socratic philosophers reasoned about the problem of change related to the Being. And, of course, everybody remembers René Descartes and his axiom "cogito ergo sum".

I have told you this story because maybe you think I am buddhist or I am a new age hippy pasting bullshit.

What I have said in my previous post is not, in my opinion, a foolishness. When I have talked about the Prime Creator is because I have this present everyday, in everything I do. When I talk with others I see myself in them. When I eat my food I see I'm eating myself. When I hurt others I see I'm hurting myself and when I give to others I think I'm giving to myself.

I think the STO is a consequence of the knowledge about we all are the Prime Creator, or the Spirit, as I call it. This knowledge has helped me to understand that, in the end, good and evil are two faces of the same thing and if I am here and now it is because I have decided, at some point of my existence, experience this and I have had the "balls" of doing it. So, it doesn't matter how bad the thing goes, there will be always an exit door.

When I read many years ago the Cassiopaean Transcripts I found in them a lot of "confirmations" of my reasoning. Someone could say I "misinterpret them and tend to project their own ideas, beliefs, and biases onto them". Well, I don't think so. Maybe I have not understood a lot of cryptic messages they have given, but I think the most important things IMHO they have said have been correctly understood, this is: We are all the Prime Creator, knowledge protects, STO is balance and learning is fun.

What I have said in my previous posts has been an attempt of encourage others because, no matter how much pain you feel, no matter how much lost you are, you will have always the power to find the way out.

That is the reason I have said "concentrate in the spirit". This doesn't mean forget about your life, the world, your physical pain, your illness, your trauma, your family, the psychopaths, the PTB, etc. This means, learn to look everything different.

And, believe or not, when you do this, the reality gives you less painful lessons, because you can learn by using your "mind". So you can understand mentally and don't need hit the car a wall in order to understand there is a wall.
 
Psalehesost said:
I was not well-enough informed about the real/traditional meaning, and used the word in the "modern buzzword" sense,

As for my conclusion, it's similar to what I understand from much of The Wave and various recommended reading. For example, Laura writes extensively about the problem of the New Age approach which seeks comfort at the cost of ignoring reality, about "sensation junkies" and about people who seek the mystical "experience" as an end in itself.

Hi Psalehesost,

Thank you for your thoughtful reply.

You answered my question. And that was really what I was trying to find out. And I was careful not to say you were wrong. And certainly not from the standpoint of "I know this a lot better than you." I had done that once before (a while back). I am not doing it now.

Laura is right about the risk of being sensation junkies. You find those everywhere--perhaps even here. It's not a problem unique to any one school of thought. I think the New Age types are more visible, hence more easily targeted.

The key question regarding zen is:

Are they fundamentally wrong in their view of the world? And what of their innermost practices within that understanding?

Truthfully, I don't know the answer. I've studied it on and off, and I can tell you I can't dismiss it out of hand. I find it worthy of my time and effort, with relevance to my other fields of pursuit.

In terms of value, I put it on par with say Castaneda's material. But below Seth, and most certainly below that of Laura and the C's. That's my opinion. Others may disagree.

Zen is basically sourced from the Indian Buddhist tradition. Brought first into China (zen version) by Bodhidharma, around 500 CE. Known then as the "Chan" school of Buddhism. Monks than took it to Japan, but only much later. And it is the Japanese version that western culture is most familiar with. Most notably the Rinzai and Soto (Dogen) schools. (My own preference is for the Soto school).

Interestingly, zen is the philosophical foundation for much of the martial arts, a tradition began with Bodidharma's teaching at Shaolin Temple. So for those who have ever practiced kung-fu, karate, judo, akido, etc, your ties to zen is palpable and substantial. A dismissal of zen is a similar disregard for all the martial arts endeavors presently in the world. Think about it.

It's the mental foundation of your sport. Good to know a bit more I think.

PS
FWIW, I've never come across the term "navel-gazing" in any of the zen texts I've read.
 
PS
FWIW, I've never come across the term "navel-gazing" in any of the zen texts I've read.

I don't know how old the term naval-gazing is,but it seems pretty new.As in 20th century new.Also it's somewhat a negative term (as explained above) signifying excessive introspection,so I doubt it'd be mentioned much in any school that doesn't aim to ''struggle with the machine'' .fwiw :)

mod: quote box fixed
 
Hindsight Man said:
I don't know how old the term naval-gazing is,but it seems pretty new.As in 20th century new.Also it's somewhat a negative term (as explained above) signifying excessive introspection,so I doubt it'd be mentioned much in any school that doesn't aim to ''struggle with the machine'' .fwiw :)

Indeed, and obyvatel gave the most accurate definition in the context:

obyvatel said:
noun: navel-gazing

self-indulgent or excessive contemplation of oneself or a single issue, at the expense of a wider view.

Words do not matter as much as what they are supposed to mean :)
 
Hindsight Man said:
PS
FWIW, I've never come across the term "navel-gazing" in any of the zen texts I've read.

I don't know how old the term naval-gazing is,but it seems pretty new.As in 20th century new.Also it's somewhat a negative term (as explained above) signifying excessive introspection,so I doubt it'd be mentioned much in any school that doesn't aim to ''struggle with the machine'' .fwiw :)

Hi Hindsight Man,

Yes. I agree it's a new age term (used by anti-new agers) and it is derogatory. I have never used it myself.

I'm unsure of your last remark. Are you saying zen "struggles with the machine"-- or are you saying it does not? It would be helpful to me if you can clarify. Thanks in advance.
 
sitting said:
Hindsight Man said:
PS
FWIW, I've never come across the term "navel-gazing" in any of the zen texts I've read.

I don't know how old the term naval-gazing is,but it seems pretty new.As in 20th century new.Also it's somewhat a negative term (as explained above) signifying excessive introspection,so I doubt it'd be mentioned much in any school that doesn't aim to ''struggle with the machine'' .fwiw :)

Hi Hindsight Man,

Yes. I agree it's a new age term (used by anti-new agers) and it is derogatory. I have never used it myself.

I'm unsure of your last remark. Are you saying zen "struggles with the machine"-- or are you saying it does not? It would be helpful to me if you can clarify. Thanks in advance.

From what I've seen and the people I've met that claimed to practice zen,there is very little struggle within them.They tend to either escape into the ''love and light'' mindset or simply shut themselves off from the world and become rather arrogant.
 
Hindsight Man said:
From what I've seen and the people I've met that claimed to practice zen,there is very little struggle within them.They tend to either escape into the ''love and light'' mindset or simply shut themselves off from the world and become rather arrogant.

Hi Hindsight Man,

Thank you for your reply.

I've met a few of those as well. But I wouldn't take them as truly representative of zen.

In actuality, it's a difficult practice. Easily misunderstood. Often made fun of. That's unfortunate, as those mocking are sometimes as uninformed as those being mocked. I was a serious karate student for 8 years (Shotokan and later Goju-ryu) so I have some idea of what zen requires. Stillness of mind--in combat--is not easily attained.

Additionally, the proper term should be zen Buddhism, not just zen. That's what it really is. The Japanese version came from the Chinese Chan school, which itself was derived from the Indian buddhist tradition. With that in mind, the first of the Noble Truths (out of 4) is the truth that all is suffering. There's very little arrogance or "love and light" in that fundamental starting point. I think the people you've referenced have at best a peripheral understanding--if that.

Also, what I've found is a measure of convergence in buddhism with other material I'm fond of. But I must say this carefully because I have not gone deeply enough into it. (Plus I could just be wrong.) There are tantalizing hints however. Seth once said of all the religious teachings, buddhism comes closest to reality. (Close but still lacking.) And I suspect some of Gurdjieff's teachings had at least a semblance of linkage with knowledge from Tibet.

http://www.bardic-press.com/fourthway/GurdjieffInTibet.htm

Lastly it's important to note here that Tibetan buddhism is not precisely the same as Japanese zen buddhism.

FWIW.
 
Back
Top Bottom