Talking together

[Gem]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

You do believe one person can help another along the spiritual path?

Do you believe it is only through discourse that this can be achieved?

The first question I just answered in my previous post.

The second question isn't as simple to answer as it is to ask, and I'm glad to talk through it, but it requires we start out with a empty cup.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Self

Great thread. Great comments. My addition to it in the spirit of meditation is that the thing I notice most about being still, body and mind, is when the impulse to move follows it. To me that's as much relevant and part of it as the stillness it comes from.

I have a comment on this, and first, it is necessary to make the spiritual inquiry in stillness - and we should probably talk about what that means in a most practical sense, as the mystical way that word is usually used in spiritual lexicon is impressive, sure, but too obscure and ambiguous.

Not now though, because my comment is about movement. First of all, there has to be something fundamentally truthful. I need to digress a little here, but I'll come back around to this point via this small detour. In simple terms, what people are doing are trying to avoid discomfort, unpleasantry and the like, so they seek distraction in pleasure. In short, they live in a dynamic of aversions and desires. This means, in still moment, that dynamic has to cease... there can be not an iota of avoidance or a shred of desire because this spiritual project is about the truth. Not avoiding the truth because you don't like it and chasing some truth one prefers, but approaching the whole of it. This requires complete truthfulness within oneself.

So, movement. When a person is impelled to move, their truthfulness is critical to knowing within themselves if they are moving to avoid something, which means thay are compelled by their reactivity, which is the aversion/desire dynamic. People will say something like 'I feel like it' or "I'm just going with the flow', but is that really true? Is it possible they are actually operating unconsciously and habitually in the distract-to-avoid way. It is possible people don't know anything but that. It requires honest self awareness to actually find out what is going on with you fer reals.

[RyanWind]

Originally Posted by Gem

... it requires we start out with a empty cup.

To me, that would mean starting out without an answer already defined or concluded in your mind. So that you can explore and observe in the actual and not the conceptual, which is just an intellectual image substituting for reality.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by RyanWind

To me, that would mean starting out without an answer already defined or concluded in your mind.

Precisely.

So that you can explore and observe in the actual and not the conceptual,

That is the idea, exactly.

which is just an intellectual image substituting for reality.

We don't want that, or if that is the case, we want to be aware of it. The last thing I want to see is knowledge imposed and also defended. It saddens me to see people positioned.

[RyanWind]

Do you believe one person can help another along the spiritual path?
Do you believe it is only through discourse that this can be achieved?

The latter question makes me think of the answer someone like Krishnamurti would give which is, "Find out yourself." The problem with that is the intent of the questioner. If the questioner already has an answer, then of course their intent is not to find an answer but to state to others if their answers are right or wrong when compared to whatever answer the questioner has already decided is truth.

Another issue is the vagueness of the "this" in the second question. What exactly is being achieved and by what? If the "this" is defined in the first question as "movement along the spiritual path" or some kind of achievement on an imagined path, then the question would be too general and ill-defined to answer imho because there is no agreed upon definition of what spiritual progress is, or what it is that progresses or changes, or what the spiritual path is. A path implies a goal and the goal is not defined as well. Different goals would result in different ways these different goals could be achieved.

So to me, these questions just lead to more questions. Like, do you already have an answer to them? That shows the intent of the questioner and shows if they are even interested in finding the answers. If their intent is to merely tell the answerer if they are right or wrong according to some fixed ill-defined concept in their mind, I would not be interested in participating. If all parties were actually interested in finding out for themselves what the answers are, then I would discuss what exactly is the spiritual path and the nature of the "person" on it and what is the goal of this path. By exploring those questions, one would naturally come to the subject of how such things are achieved.

I would also point out the question asks if discourse is the only way "this can be achieved." The definition of discourse is written or spoken communication. So the question is can you only get "it,'" which as not been defined yet, by listening to someone or reading something.

At the most basic level, ignoring the inclusion of the word "only" for a moment, the question seems to be, Can listening to someone or reading something make you more spiritual? My answer to such a general question would be of course. We can learn by listening or reading and relating what we are hearing or seeing to ourselves, learning then leads to action and change. But then, this whole thing is so general and vague, not much was really asked or answered. We still have no idea what was meant by spiritual. It could be anything from learning to be a kinder person or not to yell at others to self-realization. The question also ignores the qualities of the listener. Depending on the complexity of what is being spoken of and what is needed within the listener or reader to realize whatever is spoken of, such transmission may or may not be possible. It's possible the listener would lack the qualities, such as insights into the self, experience, knowledge of the subjects, context knowledge, intelligence, or self awareness, needed to realize or understand whatever the speaker was trying to get across.

So the question of, Can it be achieved through discourse? may only be true as a possibility since factors in the listener also are important factors affecting if achievement is possible. . But then question asks "can be achieved" not "will be achieved" so the question is only asking if something may occur, not that it will occur.

Then when you add in the word "only" to the question it because even more narrowly defined. Really you are asking if "something" (not defined clearly yet) can only be learned through listening or reading. Learning is such a complex thing in animals and human beings that I would question trying to limit it's conceptualization to reading and listening. Not only because it seems pointless to me to limit learning in this way but also because it ignores the learning functions taking place in the brain and mind of the thinker such as heuristics. Learning is much more complex than these simple questions present it as. One does not simply "listen" or read. Factors such as attention, intelligence, prior conditioning and experience and knowledge and heuristic capacities all come into play. Heuristics involve how the brain is continuously drawing information from related and unrelated internal and external sources simultaneously to form conclusions and meaning, For example, when one is listening, one is simultaneously drawing information at millions of times a second from internal and external sources at the same time. The sounds coming in the ears is just a small fraction of what is transpiring.

[wstein]

Originally Posted by jonesboy

Simple question. Do you think it is possible for one person to help another along the meditative path?

I know this was not asked of me but I am providing my take on this: One can provide help but as to whether or not the help can be received or benefited from depends entirely on the one to be helped. In the old parable, seeds can be spread far and wide but can only grow in the right soil.

Its possible to put someone into a meditative state, however that does not constitute help as they not return there themselves (unless they already can on their own and then you have not helped them at all). Perhaps they can take advantage and 'learn' a bit before that happens, that might constitute help.

My approach to 'help' (and 'teaching') is to maneuver the person to the place they have the greatest chance to get/learn what they need to. This seems to cut down on chasing results in the wrong places. Still its not so clear that it actually 'shortens' the overall journey. Learning to avoid pointless chases seems to be required too??

[BlueSky]

Originally Posted by Gem

I have a comment on this, and first, it is necessary to make the spiritual inquiry in stillness - and we should probably talk about what that means in a most practical sense, as the mystical way that word is usually used in spiritual lexicon is impressive, sure, but too obscure and ambiguous.

Not now though, because my comment is about movement. First of all, there has to be something fundamentally truthful. I need to digress a little here, but I'll come back around to this point via this small detour. In simple terms, what people are doing are trying to avoid discomfort, unpleasantry and the like, so they seek distraction in pleasure. In short, they live in a dynamic of aversions and desires. This means, in still moment, that dynamic has to cease... there can be not an iota of avoidance or a shred of desire because this spiritual project is about the truth. Not avoiding the truth because you don't like it and chasing some truth one prefers, but approaching the whole of it. This requires complete truthfulness within oneself.

So, movement. When a person is impelled to move, their truthfulness is critical to knowing within themselves if they are moving to avoid something, which means thay are compelled by their reactivity, which is the aversion/desire dynamic. People will say something like 'I feel like it' or "I'm just going with the flow', but is that really true? Is it possible they are actually operating unconsciously and habitually in the distract-to-avoid way. It is possible people don't know anything but that. It requires honest self awareness to actually find out what is going on with you fer reals.

Hi Gem,

What I see that is fundamentally truthful is simply that movement comes from stillness/ nothingness and at every point it is relative to it. When I do my standing meditation where I keep the body and mind still, I notice the stillnesss, the emptiness and the potential of it all. Then over time I notice the impulse to move and that impulse is directly related to me and is directly relative to where it is coming from, the stillness. it is like a sneeze waiting to come out.

I am that movement. I am existence relative to non existence. I am not that stillness or nothingness and I am not moving in that movement. I am that movement. I come from it and my return back to it is the movement called life. That movement back can be anything or take any path, including avoiding discomfort or seeking distraction or even not honestly seeking but the way I see it, those things are just some of the infinite ways the individual expressions from emptiness are drawn back to their source. They are roundabout ways but the reason behind them is the same, we are attracted back to what we are relative to and the pull back is a fundamental truth and represents the purpose behind all movement.

I don’t see there being a goal of reaching stillness or relative nothingness and staying there, just being. In fact I don’t see that as possible because I am there when I am there, relative to it. I am not it. I exist, or better yet, existence is me relative to non existence.

The goal, the prize, is life as I see it. Awake and knowing who I am changes what that life is like.

James

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by Gem

The first question I just answered in my previous post.

The second question isn't as simple to answer as it is to ask, and I'm glad to talk through it, but it requires we start out with a empty cup.

Thank you Gem.

So we agree that one person can help another

My second question is that talking and listening to someone is what everyone knows. Within Buddhism and other traditions they each have there own forms of Empowerments and Transmissions.

Do you believe in empowerments and transmissions?

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by wstein

I know this was not asked of me but I am providing my take on this: One can provide help but as to whether or not the help can be received or benefited from depends entirely on the one to be helped. In the old parable, seeds can be spread far and wide but can only grow in the right soil.

Its possible to put someone into a meditative state, however that does not constitute help as they not return there themselves (unless they already can on their own and then you have not helped them at all). Perhaps they can take advantage and 'learn' a bit before that happens, that might constitute help.

My approach to 'help' (and 'teaching') is to maneuver the person to the place they have the greatest chance to get/learn what they need to. This seems to cut down on chasing results in the wrong places. Still its not so clear that it actually 'shortens' the overall journey. Learning to avoid pointless chases seems to be required too??

Hi Wstein and welcome

The parable I think you are referring to is this one from the Gospel of Thomas.

9. Jesus said, "Look, the sower went out, took a handful (of seeds), and scattered (them). Some fell on the road, and the birds came and gathered them. Others fell on rock, and they didn't take root in the soil and didn't produce heads of grain. Others fell on thorns, and they choked the seeds and worms ate them. And others fell on good soil, and it produced a good crop: it yielded sixty per measure and one hundred twenty per measure."

It is about throwing out the seeds not judging which are good or bad or worth the effort or not. You don't know which will fall in good soil. The throwing or the offer is what is important.

Its possible to put someone into a meditative state, however that does not constitute help as they not return there themselves (unless they already can on their own and then you have not helped them at all). Perhaps they can take advantage and 'learn' a bit before that happens, that might constitute help.

I would agree it is possible to introduce people to deeper levels of silence. When you are able to do so it is an introduction, a showing of the way. Like many things once someone has been introduced to a thing it is easier to go back to it. Some can even stay there at the new level.

You are aware of what we do and how I work with people. I have seen many peoples lives improved and the journey quickened. With that said it is always possible for someone to hit on an issue that they are not able to let go of and get stuck or fall back down.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Self

Hi Gem,

What I see that is fundamentally truthful is simply that movement comes from stillness/ nothingness and at every point it is relative to it. When I do my standing meditation where I keep the body and mind still, I notice the stillnesss, the emptiness and the potential of it all. Then over time I notice the impulse to move and that impulse is directly related to me and is directly relative to where it is coming from, the stillness. it is like a sneeze waiting to come out.

I am that movement. I am existence relative to non existence. I am not that stillness or nothingness and I am not moving in that movement. I am that movement. I come from it and my return back to it is the movement called life. That movement back can be anything or take any path, including avoiding discomfort or seeking distraction or even not honestly seeking but the way I see it, those things are just some of the infinite ways the individual expressions from emptiness are drawn back to their source. They are roundabout ways but the reason behind them is the same, we are attracted back to what we are relative to and the pull back is a fundamental truth and represents the purpose behind all movement.

I don’t see there being a goal of reaching stillness or relative nothingness and staying there, just being. In fact I don’t see that as possible because I am there when I am there, relative to it. I am not it. I exist, or better yet, existence is me relative to non existence.

The goal, the prize, is life as I see it. Awake and knowing who I am changes what that life is like.

James

Do you practise Wuji ? The first part of your post is Wuji-Taiji - yin - yang.... and back to Wuji.