The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Eelco

I know what I say, my voice isn't rearly as eloquent and tuned as yours.
I am giving my imperpretation of your and possibly others harmony.

I agree it's not a pleasant song at all, but as you found out..
It's mine.

WIth Love
Eelco

That's interpretation as well though isn't it?

The Haka is quite beautiful to some as it represents a raw untapped nature, it's been misrepresented as only a war cry/dance but it's far more important.

Eric Clapton, David Bowie & the phenomenal Jimmy Hendrix all cemented their places in legend without formal training.

Let's not forget that often singers don't even write their own songs.

on the flipside I can't stand Bob Dylan but his words interpreted by another artist gets me every time.

~

We are teetering on the edge of hierarchy again if we promote formal training as "the right way".

Not saying thats the point of Gems comment but some will really need to dismiss anyone not using the buzz words again.
.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes.


From my perspective I already know my opinions are not particulatly important, and can be uninformed. The strange thing is, when I am well informed on something I can't form a solid opinion on it. I seem to have stronger opinions on things I know little about. To me, this relates to belief, because I only have beliefs because I don't know everything. In that I know I don't know - the known unknowns - I also realise my beliefs are not true, which really undermines them as beliefs. I seem to have lost all my dogma because of this. I still have to believe something in lieu of not knowing, so what I believe is just the best I have to go on for now. Life will continue to show where they don't make sense.

New evidence will undermine them as they currently are. me being as irrational as human being are, I see that some of my beliefs are ludicrous and completely untrue, but still hold them none-the-less... but in those cases I also know those beliefs are doomed, and the truth is I face a great deal of uncertainty.

I subscribe to no specific ideology or belief system for this exact reason.

Where I'd differ is that I try not to form an opinion on something without lots of information on it. I'm always open to being pleasantly surprised however.

A simple example is that if something works better I'd be stupid to stick to old logic for the sake of comfort.

Often once someone is convinced they pull up the drawbridge.

.

Originally Posted by Raziel

I can't stand Bob Dylan but his words interpreted by another artist gets me every time.
.

Masters of war by Eddy vedder par example.

With Love
Eelco

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Raziel

Two friends decide that starting a fire, stealing a car or placing a huge bet on a horse is a good idea.

The third friend doesn't have an opinion & thus a negative is the result.

~

The two want adventure & excitement, riches but they do not see the risks because they only comprehend the possible benefits of their actions.

The third doesn't wish to cause conflict but has the ability to thwart some seriously damaging consequences ...

The actions of all three can have negative consequences - for others outside of the group as well.

People make their own choices but sometimes they don't actually see them until someone points them out.

.

It's amazing how many truths you touch on with this post. There's probably 100 possible subjects here. Nobody likes a wall of words though. I'll briefly mention 2 things.

The idea or concept of "being opinion-less" or not having an opinion is much deeper than imagined or conceptualized. Because our mental model of what we are is so simplistic and false, any extrapolation of how one opinions-less is or acts, is false and simplistic. Remember "something" is opinion-less and the absence of opinions about something doesn't necessary mean that the "something," that has opinions or does not. is ignorant or unaware or not seeing or understanding the truth in some way that leads to immediate action.

Truth is real and exists. It is the underlying reality under opinion and belief. A different kind of knowing. Morallity has a base of truth that is not subject to opinion. So one "opinion-less" still acts from the core of existence and being. Being has inherent traits or a knower that doesn't go away when opinions do. As Buddha. who was said to be "self-less," was also said to have a high degree of compassion or empathy and this compassion or empathy led to right-action. These were underlying traits of consciousness itself.

Then your last sentence there. I could write a 1000 page book on that subject.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Rain95

It's amazing how many truths you touch on with this post. There's probably 100 possible subjects here. Nobody likes a wall of words though. I'll briefly mention 2 things.

The idea or concept of "being opinion-less" or not having an opinion is much deeper than imagined or conceptualized. Because our mental model of what we are is so simplistic and false, any extrapolation of how one opinions-less is or acts, is false and simplistic. Remember "something" is opinion-less and the absence of opinions about something doesn't necessary mean that the "something," that has opinions or does not. is ignorant or unaware or not seeing or understanding the truth in some way that leads to immediate action.

Truth is real and exists. It is the underlying reality under opinion and belief. A different kind of knowing. Morallity has a base of truth that is not subject to opinion. So one "opinion-less" still acts from the core of existence and being. Being has inherent traits or a knower that doesn't go away when opinions do. As Buddha. who was said to be "self-less," was also said to have a high degree of compassion or empathy and this compassion or empathy led to right-action. These were underlying traits of consciousness itself.

Then your last sentence there. I could write a 1000 page book on that subject.

Thank you & yes totally.

I think mental imagery works a treat in getting a point across - hence the bridge scenario.

As much as I find Church essentially going through the motions I always enjoy a parable if I find myself in one.

Grimm fairytales always seem to structure themselves well in this regard.

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

I didn't say that.

That I did say.

Didn't say

I think we all have experienced that. Ever post something and have somebody basically read it back all wrong lol. Every sentence written can be taken in at least two completely different ways. Don't forget we exist in a dualistic state, contextual self referring can be about our "true" awareness or consciousness or our thought based habitual conditioned robotic like one.

Like other posters said, what you mean or understand when you write something can be completely different from what someone else "understands" when they read it. The speaker and the listener both see things through a filter which is themselves. Which is the conditioned "roof brain chatter" of reactionary thought. There was a line in the first post of this thread....

Originally Posted by Gem

the nature of the subject requires us to be aware of our inner arisings, and it requires skills to move through these....

This sounds like a spiritual no-brainer, but it's really not. It can mean two completely different things depending on the understanding of the listener. I think the basic meaning is self-evident so I'll just point out the opposite. The "secondary" message is to pay attention to one's thoughts which is not a good idea. Why put the attention in the thought stream when the spiritual goal is to not have the attention in thought? Thought is a mess, why be aware of it? Better to never put ones attention in it or on it. See?

Every sentence can be taken multiple ways. This sentence just points out the obvious spiritual truth that we need to be more aware of everything that exists in the current moment. If we are unconsciously focused on the "roof brain chatter" and that's where our attention is, we don't have the option to place our attention off of it unless we see it is on it. Thus the line, "requires us to be aware..."

But then this seemingly simple sentence and meaning can also be read and understood as a command to basically think about thinking, to keep one's attention on or in thought. It is all about what a person is, as far as self awareness or understanding in any given moment as to what one "reads into" any given sentence. How it is interpreted and contextualized.

It's like talking about being empty. If you are talking about it, are you truly empty? Maybe or maybe not. Then the whole of religion. At what point in any moment does being un-conditioned embrace all of that dogma and conditioning? Like imagine a "zen master" who lives in the moment free of conditioning.... how can they still consider themselves a zen monk? Are they Buddhist anymore if they are wholly unconditioned? Thus the saying, if you meet Buddha in the road kill him. Yet it is still there, they still wear the robes. Can one be inwardly free while outwardly constrained? I'd say yes myself. People got to get food and shelter everyday and a monk that takes off his robes losses both!

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Rain95

It's like talking about being empty. If you are talking about it, are you truly empty? Maybe or maybe not.

Then the whole of religion. At what point in any moment does being un-conditioned embrace all of that dogma and conditioning?

Like imagine a "zen master" who lives in the moment free of conditioning.... how can they still consider themselves a zen monk?

Are they Buddhist anymore if they are wholly unconditioned?
Thus the saying, if you meet Buddha in the road kill him. Yet it is still there, they still wear the robes.
Can one be inwardly free while outwardly constrained? I'd say yes myself.
People got to get food and shelter everyday and a monk that takes off his robes losses both!

Exactly!!

When I talk of paradox - this is it.

Those that don't appreciate the paradox don't really get the joke.

They don't believe that you can get "there" without all the other specific steps, some are natural athletes or artists - why not Spirituality - if it's what we are anyway?

.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Rain95

I think we all have experienced that. Ever post something and have somebody basically read it back all wrong lol. Every sentence written can be taken in at least two completely different ways. Don't forget we exist in a dualistic state, contextual self referring can be about our "true" awareness or consciousness or our thought based habitual conditioned robotic like one.

I can only say there can be misunderstandings which I'm more than happy to clarify.

Like other posters said, what you mean or understand when you write something can be completely different from what someone else "understands" when they read it.

People get the gist of it more often than not.

The speaker and the listener both see things through a filter which is themselves. Which is the conditioned "roof brain chatter" of reactionary thought. There was a line in the first post of this thread....

It really only depends if we are compelled by reactivity or not. It's most common that people are habitualised into it and it's 'just normal', so it continues to play out in a repetitive way without really being noticed. I advocate self awareness so they don't play out unconsciously.

This sounds like a spiritual no-brainer, but it's really not. It can mean two completely different things depending on the understanding of the listener. I think the basic meaning is self-evident so I'll just point out the opposite. The "secondary" message is to pay attention to one's thoughts which is not a good idea. Why put the attention in the thought stream when the spiritual goal is to not have the attention in thought? Thought is a mess, why be aware of it? Better to never put ones attention in it or on it. Self?

I'll explain by analogy. Lets say a person is very angry and is more of less constantly frustrated, agitated and bitter. They have been this way for some years and continue to play out the same reactions that constitute that state of mind. Then one day they become curious about it, and they investigate it as it plays out. They withdraw their personal investment it and watch it as if it's a foreign object. In this sense they practice self awareness. Now the person is not the angry one, but rather, the one aware of anger, and if the person isn't angry, then nothing generates that state of mind.

Every sentence can be taken multiple ways. This sentence just points out the obvious spiritual truth that we need to be more aware of everything that exists in the current moment.

zakly

If we are unconsciously focused on the "roof brain chatter" and that's where our attention is, we don't have the option to place our attention off of it unless we see it is on it. Thus the line, "requires us to be aware..."

If you are fullyy attentive to the words as you write them, you will probably find the roof brain subsides significantly. Same while listening: if you listen carefully, you have to quieten down to do it.

If while I speak the listener's mind is leaping about, then the likelihood of misunderstanding is greatly increased.

But then this seemingly simple sentence and meaning can also be read and understood as a command to basically think about thinking, to keep one's attention on or in thought. It is all about what a person is, as far as self awareness or understanding in any given moment as to what one "reads into" any given sentence. How it is interpreted and contextualized.

That's right. It's a very subtle subject and it requires a lot of attention.

It's like talking about being empty. If you are talking about it, are you truly empty? Maybe or maybe not. Then the whole of religion. At what point in any moment does being un-conditioned embrace all of that dogma and conditioning? Like imagine a "zen master" who lives in the moment free of conditioning.... how can they still consider themselves a zen monk? Are they Buddhist anymore if they are wholly unconditioned? Thus the saying, if you meet Buddha in the road kill him. Yet it is still there, they still wear the robes. Can one be inwardly free while outwardly constrained? I'd say yes myself. People got to get food and shelter everyday and a monk that takes off his robes losses both!

I was saying to 7L early in the thread how I lost my religion, so I can't name myself as Christian. If I wanted to I could still go to Church and perform the rituals, but that would be a cultural preference, a social system, and not an identity structure. Some of my teachers during my Buddhist meditation training did not regard themselves as Buddhist, and my school didn't require people to be Buddhists, shave heads, wear robes and so forth, but Buddhist monks often came to meditate with us as well as Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and we did not differentiate, ask what religion anyone was. It simply wasn't important.

[Raziel]

Originally Posted by Gem

If I wanted to I could still go to Church and perform the rituals, but that would be a cultural preference, a social system, and not an identity structure.


Some of my teachers during my Buddhist meditation training did not regard themselves as Buddhist, and my school didn't require people to be Buddhists, shave heads, wear robes and so forth, but Buddhist monks often came to meditate with us as well as Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and we did not differentiate, ask what religion anyone was. It simply wasn't important.

I wonder if it were measurable, how many came to such a place to "improve themselves" , merely to try something recommended by another etc ..

It depends what a person takes away from the experience.

A holy book, belief or philosophy or not in themselves the conduit of bias or hierarchy - it's the person interpreting the message.

Often times the baggage individuals take into reading writings or following principles still seaps out. There seems to be a disconnect between life lessons & spiritual lessons for some.

Perhaps it's those who have been through the higher education system - great at retaining information en masse yet conditioned to prep for that final exam on the subject.
There is a difference between being interested in something & feeling it.

There will obviously be those who fit into both camps but I do find myself, that the ones I might class as acting hypocritically are the information retainers & not the learners of lessons.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

I was saying to 7L early in the thread how I lost my religion, so I can't name myself as Christian. If I wanted to I could still go to Church and perform the rituals, but that would be a cultural preference, a social system, and not an identity structure. Some of my teachers during my Buddhist meditation training did not regard themselves as Buddhist, and my school didn't require people to be Buddhists, shave heads, wear robes and so forth, but Buddhist monks often came to meditate with us as well as Christians, Muslims, Atheists, and we did not differentiate, ask what religion anyone was. It simply wasn't important.

I can relate to this. I never meshed well with religious institutions, although the universal teachings and the mysticism still resonate. However, there were times when I was more observant as a means of experiencing those aspects of mysticism in those ways. TBH I think much of my own journey and observations has been highly individual and yet, I think it is a common enough experience, that of inwardly perceiving something of an ill fit. This typically has very little to do with the good intentions of most folk who participate, but is mostly to do with my own awareness of some of the biases in our society that have got cooked into a religious mould (and vice-versa).

At the same time, there are times and places on the journey where community and fellowship are key, and at least for myself, this is the primary reason I partake in any ritual observance of any kind. Everyone has their own experience of Self and yet we can support one another variously in all different manner of communal settings. These are a common enough one, and ideally they can (despite caveats) provide many with a source of kindness, good will, and fellowship.

Peace & blessings
7L