Post Canonical Guidance

[tariki]

Thanks again for the various responses. It really is good to hear some positive views regarding "verification" beyond the Buddhist "cushion". (The thread I began on this theme on another Forum remains unanswered to this day!)

 

Often on Buddhist forums I have gently chastised (!) the "Non-dual thought police", those who jump from a great height on any expression of Buddhist thought made in "dual" language...............so in beginning as I do, please forgive me!

 

JM, you said "It is the world of the unmanifest that yes includes the manifest but is not limited by it and is rather the very source of it." In Buddhism it would be said "Emptiness is form, form is emptiness", and even "Samsara (this world of birth and death) IS Nirvana". All this can turn the head to jelly (especially mine!) yet the implications in respect of "guidance" and how it is understood is affected by such things.

 

Yet how far do such "formulations" go, when "union" with "God" is being spoken of, even experienced? "One ness with God". As JM said, what need does reality have for "belief"? Possibly the trouble starts when "verification" goes beyond such experience - which is beyond the formulation of words - and seeks to point at "doctrines", "cosmologies" and other such formulations. A Buddhist has "verification" in personal experience of a degree of (or perhaps total) selflessness, and proceeds to take as "proven" that there is a mindstream of consciousness constantly becoming within - and as - samsara that needs to be "liberated", that "rebirth" and "karma" rule OK! A Christian, experiencing a total forgetfulness of self, then takes as given that "God created the heavens and the earth", and such things as the "Incarnation", the "resurrection" etc. Or, perhaps, do those who truly reach such realization go beyond such formulations? Is it just those of us who still flounder about who set such store on "belief" and the various expressions of it?

 

The Catholic monk Thomas Merton spoke of the true unity that lay beyond doctrinal formulation, and of the communication between us that takes place at the level of personal experience.......

 

"True communication on the deepest level is more than a simple sharing of ideas, conceptual knowledge, or formulated truth. The kind of communication that is necessary at this level must also be 'communion' : beyond the level of words, a communion in authentic experience which is shared not only on a 'preverbal' level but also on a 'postverbal level'..................(and)...... the deepest level of communication is not communication, but communion. It is wordless, it is beyond words, and it is beyond speech, and it is beyond concept. Not that we discover a new unity. We discover an older unity. My dear borthers and sisters, we are already one. But we imagine that we are not. And what we have to recover is our original unity. What we have to be is what we are."

 

Anyway, perhaps I ramble too much! Rivanna, I did see your post and your questions. I will try to get back!

 

Thanks

[tariki]

rivanna,

 

Just to clarify, the expression of Buddhism I have been referring to - in the sense of providing proscibed paths and meditational techniques that can be verified by personal experience - is Theravada (or the Tradition of the Elders, the Southern School, it is known by various names) It is the from of Buddhism practiced in Sri Lanka, Myanmar (Burma) and Thailand, and is known in the West mainly through various centres associated with vipassana meditation. It has been described as an "arduous yet meticulously methodical course of training" and has always been monastic based within its own heartlands. In Theravada the Buddha is seen as a human teacher, not a "saviour" or cosmic principle. As teacher - and as a human being who himself gained final liberation from samsara - he left behind a corpus of teachings now retained in the Pali Canon. The "catchphrase" that could be used to sum up its approach is a verse actually taken from its own scriptures......"Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves".

 

I have heard the name Eckhart Tolle before, but that is all.

 

Your question regarding guidance by the spirit I find difficult to answer. Given most of what I have said here, its not difficult to see why. The "way of unknowing" etc etc (In Pure Land terms, the way of "no-calculation") where as Thomas Merton has said, the spirit says most when he says nothing. I can only offer my own personal experience from a few years ago when I broke away from my allegiance to Theravada and my own practice of meditation........(nothing profound, but I had maintained a practice for ten years or more) I began to understand in many ways - that to me were unmistakeable - that such a path was not for me (maybe I was lazy!!). The contrast between "self-power" techniques and what was then a vague understanding of Pure Land Buddhist paths that spoke of "Other-Power" began to offer a chance of a change of direction. Though I felt I had gained a great deal from meditation , I began to "hear" the idea that it was "grasping" at such techniques that closed my heart and ears to the call of grace/gift.........the Pure Land teaching that "we are already enlightened". I took a chance and stopped meditating, and sought the "deep hearing" of the call of true compassion that seeks to "grasp us, never to abandon us". Perhaps this all sounds a bit vague....my apologies. Anyway, for once I followed my heart. (There was more to it than this, but as I said before, I have no time to write an autobiography!)

 

Hopefully what I have said before will explain why I have no desire to seek for "justifications" or even "signs of redemption"!!. For me the path lies in "self forgetfulness", not in introspective searches for "change" - for better or worse! It lies in seeking gratitude for all that has been given, rather than seeking for what has been "achieved", which could only ever be a lie.

 

Though as the Pure Land "saint" Saichi has said....

 

"To say, 'How grateful!' is a lie;

The truth is: there is nothing the matter with one;

And there is nothing more that makes one feel at home -

Namu-amida-butsu! Namu-amida-butsu!"

 

Thanks

Derek

[JosephM]

JM, you said "It is the world of the unmanifest that yes includes the manifest but is not limited by it and is rather the very source of it." In Buddhism it would be said "Emptiness is form, form is emptiness", and even "Samsara (this world of birth and death) IS Nirvana". All this can turn the head to jelly (especially mine!) yet the implications in respect of "guidance" and how it is understood is affected by such things.

 

Yes Tariki, All this can turn the head to jelly. But to the progressive christian, just because the Bible said these things in Romans 1:20 and Col 1:15 doesn't make it true. The christian who rather than folowing the blind guidance of words, puts his trust in the mercy and grace of God's spirit which you in Pure Land might call the "other power" but I do not wish to put words in your mouth so forgive me if I have spoken in error. In my view the progressive christian accepts as little as possible on text alone. Rather he/she waits for revelation knowledge that comes as a gift.

 

Yet how far do such "formulations" go, when "union" with "God" is being spoken of, even experienced? "One ness with God". As JM said, what need does reality have for "belief"? Possibly the trouble starts when "verification" goes beyond such experience - which is beyond the formulation of words - and seeks to point at "doctrines", "cosmologies" and other such formulations. A Buddhist has "verification" in personal experience of a degree of (or perhaps total) selflessness, and proceeds to take as "proven" that there is a mindstream of consciousness constantly becoming within - and as - samsara that needs to be "liberated", that "rebirth" and "karma" rule OK! A Christian, experiencing a total forgetfulness of self, then takes as given that "God created the heavens and the earth", and such things as the "Incarnation", the "resurrection" etc. Or, perhaps, do those who truly reach such realization go beyond such formulations? Is it just those of us who still flounder about who set such store on "belief" and the various expressions of it?

 

I would agree Tarika that as you say "the trouble starts when 'verification' goes beyond such experiences and seeks to point to 'doctrines'." And not only that but often the context of an experience in any words, as you say, is not available at the time of the experience. This, at least in me, has caused a temperary misappropriation of meaning for some of my experiences because of the teachings of others. But realizing the limitations of mind and remaining with an abiding trust in "God" for truth, all things are revealed in time. And when the 'ground' is fertile, a greater context appears.

 

Similiarly, A Christian takes that there is a mindstream of creature consciousness that is within us that comes from a 'carnal nature'. And furthermore, he sees this nature in a sense as 'warring' for his mind. He also see a concept called 'sowing and reaping' though he normally doesn't study it any furher since pursuing it is fruitless and it is enough to be aware of the concept. Perhaps it is similiar to the word 'karma' but largely left undefined by the Christian.

 

Yes, I believe you are correct that a Christian when experiencing union takes it that God created the heavens and earth, but in context when the Christian is in union, all things are 'One' and there is only Source. Even Subject and Object are not separate so how else can he speak in duality except to say that "God is ultimately the source of All".

 

One would be surprised how many progressive and mystic Christians seem to be surfacing and church terms and conceptual teachings like 'atonement', 'resurrection' and the like take on a whole new meaning than that which is heard by the mainstream. The fact that the writings have been corrupted to some degree is becoming more obvious. In fact, much of what I have said in this post might, in the minds of most ministers and traditional christians border on heresy, regardless that I can provide some New Testament writings to concilliate or reconcile.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[JosephM]

deleted duplicate post

JM

[JosephM]

Just a thought I had that seemed 'good' to share...

 

It seems to me, we think we are searching for answers to our questions but what we are really seeking is completeness. That completeness is only found in the undefineable "God" which has no name and is no different than All that Is. The nature and mystery of all things speaks that inevitably this completeness cannot help but come to pass, perhaps, because it always was, is and always shall be.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[tariki]

Just a thought I had that seemed 'good' to share...

 

It seems to me, we think we are searching for answers to our questions but what we are really seeking is completeness. That completeness is only found in the undefineable "God" which has no name and is no different than All that Is. The nature and mystery of all things speaks that inevitably this completeness cannot help but come to pass, perhaps, because it always was, is and always shall be.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

 

It does seem to me that here on this Forum people are seeking to share. And not to shout! (I suppose I've done my own share of shouting at one time or another) I think what you say is true, perhaps contained also in the words I quoted before of Thomas Merton...................."What we have to be is what we are"

 

Just as a little bit of extra background to my initial questions re "guidance" - post-canonical or otherwise! I think one of the most difficult things involved with comparing Faiths is the sheer diversity contained within each. Just what do you compare with what? Probably all are familiar here with the diversity within the Christian Faith, yet Buddhism is the same - often it is said that there are 84000 "dharma gates". The dharma rain (the Buddha's teachings) falls and each responds according to his/her unique "suchness". Perhaps the Buddhist equivalent of the saying that God can find a way into every heart.

 

In the end, when you zero in, you are not confronted with "Methodism" or "Catholocism"...............or "Theravada" or "Mahayana". All that is reached is an individual human being, who each appropriates truth - or seeks to - existentially within their own lives. Why some end up like Gandhi, or St Francis of Assisi, or the Dalai Lama...........and others like.................When "all is by grace" then to look directly into the eyes of "choice" or "karma" is to avoid the mystery, to be left with an "explanation" rather than true understanding or "realization". Anyway, I think I'm beginning to waffle again......

 

Its just that in my reading as a Pure Land Buddhist I delved into an essay by a well known Pure Land writer, Taitetsu Unno. His essay compared the "Jesus Prayer" - and the Christian way of unceasing prayer - to the saying of the Nembutsu, the Pure Land way of awareness of the infinite compassion that surrounds us "foolish beings" at all times. Unno drew out similarities, then spoke of some fundamental differences. This made it clear in my own mind, then. Yet just a day latter, reading some of the letters of Thomas Merton, the Catholic Trappist monk, there was a passage in which he spoke of the Jesus Prayer himself. His understanding of it, and its implications and meaning, was "spot on" with Unno's understanding of the Nembutsu. And I wondered.................what IS Christianity? Who represents it? How far can it travel from first century Palestine, from the understanding and expressions of those first Christians? Is there any point, any "understanding" that would in fact become UN-Christian? How far can it evolve?

 

The Spirit blows where it will.....

 

Anyway, getting back to the quote of JosephM, it also made me think of the words - is it in Ephesians? - where St Paul speaks to his fellow believers of "being choosen before the foundation of the world". Desmond Tutu once said of these words............."Therefore nothing we can do can make God love us more, nothing we can do can make God love us less". And such thoughts as these can lead onward to the intuition and understanding of Meister Eckhart.............."They can truly enjoy the feast who would just as willingly fast".

 

Just to "share"...

 

[JosephM]

Just as a little bit of extra background to my initial questions re "guidance" - post-canonical or otherwise! I think one of the most difficult things involved with comparing Faiths is the sheer diversity contained within each. Just what do you compare with what? Probably all are familiar here with the diversity within the Christian Faith, yet Buddhism is the same - often it is said that there are 84000 "dharma gates". The dharma rain (the Buddha's teachings) falls and each responds according to his/her unique "suchness". Perhaps the Buddhist equivalent of the saying that God can find a way into every heart.

 

I agree with you Tariki. It difficult to compare Faiths based on the sheer diversity within them. Perhaps, there is no real need to compare them. Perhaps understanding is all that is required. Perhaps, the religion itself does not exist except in the mind of the individual believer. After all, even in Christianity ones understanding changes as one learns to take ones focus off of content and look more at context which is much greater than oneself.

 

 

Its just that in my reading as a Pure Land Buddhist I delved into an essay by a well known Pure Land writer, Taitetsu Unno. His essay compared the "Jesus Prayer" - and the Christian way of unceasing prayer - to the saying of the Nembutsu, the Pure Land way of awareness of the infinite compassion that surrounds us "foolish beings" at all times. Unno drew out similarities, then spoke of some fundamental differences. This made it clear in my own mind, then. Yet just a day latter, reading some of the letters of Thomas Merton, the Catholic Trappist monk, there was a passage in which he spoke of the Jesus Prayer himself. His understanding of it, and its implications and meaning, was "spot on" with Unno's understanding of the Nembutsu. And I wondered.................what IS Christianity? Who represents it? How far can it travel from first century Palestine, from the understanding and expressions of those first Christians? Is there any point, any "understanding" that would in fact become UN-Christian? How far can it evolve?

 

You bring up interesting points Tarika. Differences in great writing are usually due to the perspective of the reader. One who looks for understanding more than differences will find astonding similiarities. Christianity has tried to be defined by many people and in my observation, they have all failed. There are now in excess of 1000 denominations and more within themselves. Religion is merely a defined system. It is a creation of men and their 'carnal nature'. A true Christian in my view is not one that is defined by a defined system by men. A Christian is Christ like. That means in the greek to be annointed from the idea of contact or smearing. That contact is with divinity which is found in all things that exist both seen and unseen. Why does Christianity even need a representative? It doesn't. It is the teachings that are most important and not the teacher since all true teachings are a gift and to be found within each individual. ( John 1:9- the true light that lights every man/woman that comes into the world)

 

You ask how far can it travel in time (1st century) and space (Palestine). Omnipresence knows no limit of time or space. A Christian grows in understanding and knowledge. For an understanding to become UN-Christian the question is one that is for the defined systems which apply only to the Christian who subjects himself to such limitations. With no limitations a Christian who is focused on God evolves to the full measure of Christ which is the manifestation of the nature of God (in as much as is possible) in the flesh whereby separation and division ceases.

 

Just one perspective to consider from my personal experiences.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[JosephM]

(snip)

Its just that in my reading as a Pure Land Buddhist I delved into an essay by a well known Pure Land writer, Taitetsu Unno. His essay compared the "Jesus Prayer" - and the Christian way of unceasing prayer -

(snip)

 

Just a comment of interest I would make on the point of the Christian way of 'unceasing prayer'. Some people may regard it as the repetition of the Jesus prayer. ("Lord Jesus , Have mercy on us a sinner" or similiar words.) However, it seems to me that that is not the meaning that Paul had in 1 Thes. 5:17 where it is recorded he said " Pray without ceasing." I say this because Jesus himself is recorded saying in Matthew 6:7-8 " But when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the heathen do: for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. [8] Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." Then of course he gave them a model "Lords prayer" and said after this manner make your prayer. Obviously it was not meant just to be repeated over and over but was rather giving us a 'manner' in which to pray effectively otherwise it would contradict his first statement.

 

Prayer can be but is not necessarily 'words'. One definition in the dictionary says it most accurately in my view as "communion with God". Praying without ceasing to me is more of a state of communion than repeating words. It is more of a 'quiet mindfulness' of God's presence and more effectively expressed in the listening state than that of speaking. This might appear obvious when considering that Jesus tells us that the Father knows what we have need of before we even ask. This is all of course my personal opinion on the matter and not to be representative of opinions that others here may have.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[AslansTraveller]

A Christian is Christ like.

 

And for me that may be the simplest, and the most challenging point to this whole conversation. A Christian who doesn't follow Christ, who doesn't live out Christ . . . well, it doesn't matter how knowledgeable s/he may be about Bible, theology or any of the rest.

 

For me, the key is the relationship to Jesus (putting aside for the moment questions about His nature and the like). Am I following the rabbi? Am I using His life as the referent for how I live mine? What is the plumbline in my life: Love or Law? Am I taking seriously the big 2 (love God, love neighbor). Those are the keys, all else is commentary.

 

The Spirit blows where He will . . . but He won't urge me to anything that isn't loving or healing or generous or compassionate or selfless. It is that simple and that difficult.

 

I like the fact that you are referencing Merton, he's an excellent source of wisdom in this area (Huston Smith is another I'm learning from recently). One thing to notice about him, as about so many other wise mystics: he came to his more Spirit guided attitudes and ideas after many years of basic, orthodox, traditional training and education. It seems to me that the place of what might be called "exoteric" practices is in the beginning as a foundation for all that follows. Like a musician who has to learn simple scales and tunes before s/he can improvise jazz.

[JosephM]

For me, the key is the relationship to Jesus (putting aside for the moment questions about His nature and the like). Am I following the rabbi? Am I using His life as the referent for how I live mine? What is the plumbline in my life: Love or Law? Am I taking seriously the big 2 (love God, love neighbor). Those are the keys, all else is commentary.

 

The Spirit blows where He will . . . but He won't urge me to anything that isn't loving or healing or generous or compassionate or selfless. It is that simple and that difficult.

 

Hi AslansTraveller,

 

From your comments, I think you might agree that that truth you speak of is universal. It is not limited to the rabbi but is universally true and without variation over time or place. The spirit of Christ always brings peace, harmony, accord, love, compassion and mercy. All else is of the 'carnal nature'. By the fruits one can recognize by which nature one is blown.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[AslansTraveller]

Agreed and Amen!

 

I may disagree with someone on theological grounds, but those matters are really secondary.

 

It is the fruit that is shown, the faith that is lived out that matters. (Something, by the way, it has taken me an excessively long time to come to realize )

[tariki]

I like the fact that you are referencing Merton, he's an excellent source of wisdom in this area (Huston Smith is another I'm learning from recently). One thing to notice about him, as about so many other wise mystics: he came to his more Spirit guided attitudes and ideas after many years of basic, orthodox, traditional training and education. It seems to me that the place of what might be called "exoteric" practices is in the beginning as a foundation for all that follows. Like a musician who has to learn simple scales and tunes before s/he can improvise jazz.

 

Aslans,

 

This is a very good point to make.

 

Within Buddhism, traditionally many years of harsh discipline preceeds the "freedom of the spirit". This certainly needs to be said in respect of Zen! I have a great love of Merton, especially of his letters. Many contain some astounding comments in respect of his own Catholic Church! Yet what is also gathered is the "obedience to superiors" and conformity to orthodoxy that was the basis of his early life in the monastic community. And his ultimate fidelity to God and to Christ should never be questioned.

 

"By premeditated iintentional effort spontaneity can be won"

 

[tariki]

JM,

 

I take your point re "unceasing prayer". Certainly in my understanding the intent of the "Jesus Prayer" is not an unending mindless repetition! Initially it would be used to dissolve scattered thoughts, to centre the mind, yet this leads on to its true intent. The words of Merton - again - are illuminating. From a letter of his written in 1968 he speaks of "continual prayer", and says that it is indeed a monastic ideal. But rather than continual "prayer" the intent is in actual fact continuous awareness of God. .......of which Metton then says..."Yes, but. The problem about it comes when people don't know what it really means to try to concentrate all the time on some concept or object of feeling, etc. St John of the Cross makes quite clear that this is an error, and can have very bad results. But if you teach people to seek continual conscious awareness of God this is what most of them will try to do. What is really meant of course is continual openess to God, attentiveness, listening, disposability, etc. In the terms of Zen, it is not awareness of but simple awareness. So that if one deliberately cultivates a distinct consciousness of anything, any object, one tends to frustrate one's objectives - or God's objectives."

 

 

[rivanna]

tariki,

 

Thanks for your reply earlier and that peaceful quote from Saichi.

Seems like if you followed your heart, what better verification could you have.

 

I find it helpful to read Eckhart Tolle's method of detachment, and the Tao; they have a calming effect. Still, for me, meditating on an abstract concept of "pure compassion" would not be spiritually fulfilling-- guess I seek not so much self-forgetfulness, as awareness of self in relation to the divine, a sense of connection and dialogue with a personal presence.

 

Your phrasing reminded me of Paul Tillich's language--

 

"To enter the New Being we do not need to show anything. We must only be open to it, accept it, be grasped by it...One has then the love of one's destiny, the courage to take upon ourselves our own anxiety. One has the astonishing experience of feeling reunited with one's self, not in pride, but in deep self acceptance. One accepts one's self as something which is eternally loved; there is a center, a direction, a meaning for life."

[JosephM]

In Theravada the Buddha is seen as a human teacher, not a "saviour" or cosmic principle. As teacher - and as a human being who himself gained final liberation from samsara - he left behind a corpus of teachings now retained in the Pali Canon. The "catchphrase" that could be used to sum up its approach is a verse actually taken from its own scriptures......"Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves".

Tariki,

Just an interesting similiarity...

In some Christian schools of thought Jesus is also seen as a human teacher in whom the spirit of God was manifested, not a "saviour" per se. Isaiah quotes God as saying "there is no saviour besides me." and Jesus himself says in Matthew 19:17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. This indicating along with many other similiar phrases that Jesus was not God himself and hence not the saviour but rather a teacher in whom the spirit of God dwelleth (lived or manifested) and that the words he spoke are those which he heard God speak. John 14:10 Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Jesus the Christ was one who in everyway was tempted as us but overcame those temptations and the nature of the world. He also left teachings now retained in the Bible on how we could do the same. A like "catchphrase" that could be taken from it to sum up that approach is : Philip. 2:12 Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. In essence Jesus points the way which is by the annointing or indwelling of God called Christ (annointed of God) which is a title rather than person similiar to the title of Buddha (an awakened one) but each man works out his own salvation.

 

In saying all this I merely am pointing out a similiarity to one school of thought. IN NO WAY am I looking for christian debate on what I have said nor am I declaring my personal view. Text was merely used to show where such a perspective could be interpreted as such which is of course to the opposition of other schools of thought.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[tariki]

tariki,

 

Thanks for your reply earlier and that peaceful quote from Saichi.

Seems like if you followed your heart, what better verification could you have.

 

I find it helpful to read Eckhart Tolle's method of detachment, and the Tao; they have a calming effect. Still, for me, meditating on an abstract concept of "pure compassion" would not be spiritually fulfilling-- guess I seek not so much self-forgetfulness, as awareness of self in relation to the divine, a sense of connection and dialogue with a personal presence.

 

Your phrasing reminded me of Paul Tillich's language--

 

"To enter the New Being we do not need to show anything. We must only be open to it, accept it, be grasped by it...One has then the love of one's destiny, the courage to take upon ourselves our own anxiety. One has the astonishing experience of feeling reunited with one's self, not in pride, but in deep self acceptance. One accepts one's self as something which is eternally loved; there is a center, a direction, a meaning for life."

 

rivanna,

 

I speak from no sense of "realization", so to a certain extent I merely speculate! Aspiration, not accomplishment! Yet I see the "nembutsu" - or whatever - as a means, not an end. (This is difficult, in a very real sense it IS an end, but it I have limited time!) The end and intention is not "self-forgetfulness" in the sense of withdrawel to some oceanic depth of Being, unrelated to reality. The "end" is to find oneself as the plain old Tom, Dick or Harry ( or Harriet!) one has always been, to "come back to the place we started from and to know it for the first time". And in relationship with others.

 

"Master Shaku Soen liked to take an evening stroll through a nearby village. One day he heard loud lamentations from a house and, on entering quietly, realized that the householder had died and the family and neighbours were crying. He sat down and cried with them. An old man noticed him and remarked, rather shaken on seeing the famous master crying with them: "I would have thought that you at least were beyond such things." "But it is this which puts me beyond it," replied the master with a sob.

 

(From "The Wisdom of the Zen Masters")

 

 

And to JM,

 

These are difficult points! The "self" that has to "walk the path the path itself" has, in the Theravada context, to be related to "anatta" (No-self).......and to the intent for "effort to fall away, having reached the end of its scope" (words that have been used within Theravada to describe the moment of liberation). And within my own Pure Land Tradition, the way of Unknowing - even Grace - (or "No-calculation") will always involve the paradox that to seek not to "calculate" is itself calculation! In a sense, one has at least to attempt to walk oneself!

 

Two ways? Or just One.....yet appropriated by those of different temperaments? 84000 "dharma gates"!

[JosephM]

And to JM,

 

These are difficult points! The "self" that has to "walk the path the path itself" has, in the Theravada context, to be related to "anatta" (No-self).......and to the intent for "effort to fall away, having reached the end of its scope" (words that have been used within Theravada to describe the moment of liberation). And within my own Pure Land Tradition, the way of Unknowing - even Grace - (or "No-calculation") will always involve the paradox that to seek not to "calculate" is itself calculation! In a sense, one has at least to attempt to walk oneself!

 

Two ways? Or just One.....yet appropriated by those of different temperaments? 84000 "dharma gates"!

Tariki,

I enjoy your posts.

 

I think just One... Yes, 84000 "dharma gates" is as good a number as any!

 

Difficult points but perhaps only for the "mind" ("self") and its play with words. It is much too deep for me! Perhaps we make that which is simple complicated. Is 'liberation' any more than the realization that there is really no gate at all but rather a web of self-inflicted misappropriated perceptions and ignorance that cloud that which is already known and was always known? Perhaps, "self" itself does not exist without the illumination of the unlimited potential of the infinite. Where then is the walk? We are already free. Perhaps, the teachings are just a part of the cosmic 'game' and 'entertainment' that unfolds as evolution. In which case surrender is all that is required.

 

Time for a cup of coffee. I have gone beyond the limits of my mind!

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[AslansTraveller]

Good thread.

 

Since we've touched on the Jesus Prayer (one of the few practices which I've really been able to work with. Too lazy for most others ) I can recommend an excellent basic book: Prayer of the Heart by George A. Maloney, SJ Easy, clearly written and well adapted for those of us who aren't monastics! Best part is, you can find it used on Amazon for pennies!

 

I like the fact that I am finding so much conversation on spiritual practices on this forum. I wouldn't want to see Progressive Christianity become secularized and solely concerned with political and social action. If we can't keep a balance between outer and inner work, we won't last.

[JosephM]

Good thread.

 

I like the fact that I am finding so much conversation on spiritual practices on this forum. I wouldn't want to see Progressive Christianity become secularized and solely concerned with political and social action.

 

Amen!

JM

[October's Autumn]

I like the fact that I am finding so much conversation on spiritual practices on this forum. I wouldn't want to see Progressive Christianity become secularized and solely concerned with political and social action. If we can't keep a balance between outer and inner work, we won't last.

 

 

I've been asking this question for a while and haven't gotten an answer I can understand. What is spiritual? People talk about spiritual needs but when they've started to explain to me what they are they really just psychological needs. I haven't gotten a grasp on what spiritual is or what spiritual needs are.

[JosephM]

I've been asking this question for a while and haven't gotten an answer I can understand. What is spiritual? People talk about spiritual needs but when they've started to explain to me what they are they really just psychological needs. I haven't gotten a grasp on what spiritual is or what spiritual needs are.

 

Greetings October Autumn,

 

Here is one attempt at an explanation without any insight from where you are coming from.

 

spir·i·tu·al (spr-ch-l)

adj.

1. Of, relating to, consisting of, or having the nature of spirit; not tangible or material.

 

It is obviously very difficult to relate to spirit with the flesh. It is not a tangible thing. It is not visible to the physical eye. Nicodemous in the NT was a master teacher of the Jews and did not understand spiritual things. Spirit is experienced as a subjective experience. That which is spiritual is not of the seen or manifest yet it is the very source of that which is seen. It is mystical in nature in that it has a spiritual reality or import not apparent to the intelligence or senses. Explaining it is in a way like trying to describe sweetness to one who has never tasted sweetness or describing the smell of a rose to one who has never smelled a rose. To one who has experienced these things, no explanation is adequate or necessary.

 

Psychological on the other hand is of or relating to or arising from the mind (brain) or emotions. The study of Psychology in my view is used to or intended to influence the mind or emotions. Though spritual practice can and does have a manifestation in emotions, it does not arise from mind but rather from the spirit or source beyond it. Its intention (Spirituality) for most but not all is to transcend mind and emotions which are the cause of most of the deemed 'ills' and 'sufferings' of the world. (hate, anger, greed, malace, selfishness, etc. etc.

 

Actually Psycological needs and spiritual needs are often confused. The first relates to the physical body and the second to the etheric body.

 

Perhaps, I have been of no help but nevertheless I am limited in words and mind.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[Kay]

For various reasons I have become interested in what could be called "post canonical guidance" - by the Holy Spirit.

 

 

Hi Tariki. Interesting questions.

 

I can only speak from personal experience, but I feel like the Holy Spirit does offer guidance, but that we often have to dig for it.

 

What I mean is - not just asking once or twice and waiting for divine revelation, but asking and then searching. I often find answers in the most suprising places.

 

As one who has heard "that still small voice" (audibly, in my brain, twice ), that's my $1.00. (I'm trying to work on my generosity.)

[tariki]

I often find answers in the most suprising places.

 

I'll second that one!

 

[JosephM]

Hi Tariki. Interesting questions.

 

I can only speak from personal experience, but I feel like the Holy Spirit does offer guidance, but that we often have to dig for it.

 

What I mean is - not just asking once or twice and waiting for divine revelation, but asking and then searching. I often find answers in the most suprising places.

 

As one who has heard "that still small voice" (audibly, in my brain, twice ), that's my $1.00. (I'm trying to work on my generosity.)

 

Hi Kay,

 

I find your answer very interesting yet possibly also very different from my perception. The concept of searching and digging does to me somehow seem to relate to a looking outside oneself to find an answer. Yet I find that the answers that come from that searching are only the answers that make sense with my mind which to me has proven in the past so limited and unreliable that I might be swayed by every reasonably sounding answer. Therefor I have found true guidance from the spirit to rather come from an inherent knowing within rather than from a surprising place without. The searching and digging I find to be nothing more than a clearing away of obstacles in my mind so that truth can shine through of itself when conditions are right.

 

Perhaps, I have misinterpreted the meaning of your post and we are saying the same thing. But if not, mine is just another view to consider or discard.

 

Love in Christ,

JM

[Kay]

Hi Kay,

 

Therefor I have found true guidance from the spirit to rather come from an inherent knowing within rather than from a surprising place without. The searching and digging I find to be nothing more than a clearing away of obstacles in my mind so that truth can shine through of itself when conditions are right.

 

Perhaps, I have misinterpreted the meaning of your post and we are saying the same thing. But if not, mine is just another view to consider or discard.

 

Hi Joseph.

 

I think we might be saying something similar, but I'm not sure.

 

What I've experienced is an inner knowing or realization of something, and then, over time that idea will pop up in books, on websites - out of nowhere. I won't be looking for confirmation of my experience or insight, and then - "wham" - there it is.

 

Perhaps I'm just looking for synchronicities subconciously. I'm willing to consider that. But even my husband, relatively agnostic, will go "Wow" at the synchronicities from time to time.