The spiritual conversation is difficult, and therefore, skillful

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Exactly. Only contention makes it difficult.

It's because the conversation impels us to see ourselves, as we may consider that contention arises from some sort of personal reactivity. So the difficulty makes it contentious (should contention arise), and not the other way around.

The other thing is, people might consider the conversation to be a separate thing from the actual inquiry, so we can talk about all sorts of fantastic things and imaginary ideals, perfected beings and so forth all the while remaining unconscious of ourselves, but a spiritual conversation requires present self-awareness, that is, present awareness of ones own mind behind things, the motivations behind what's said.

Then we consider, the distraction levels of the average human being, and how unaware we can be, but this conversation necessitates knowing on a continual basis what you are doing in mind, motives, what emotional contents are arising, what reactivity occurs, what conditions of repetition are recurring... everything.

In addition to that, one has to actually listen to another person and actually understand what they say, let alone also being consciously aware of what affect that elicits in you.

It takes a full interest and ardent attention, otherwise it's just a spiritual parade. It's easy to think the conversation is apart from and about spirituality, because then the mind can just imagine things without being fully attentive to what is going on. Even now, hypothetically, perhaps your mind pipes up with argument against what I say, but this conversation necessitates your awareness of that, or whatever the case actually is (of course I have no idea what is the actual case).

Here is a spiritual conversation I found in the stories forum:
http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=24049

Where is the difficulty? The skill? The contention?

Such complicated stories we weave.

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Of course people can say this, 7L, if this is their experience.

Just so you know, 7L it is not hard for me to hear - at all - it's just that the statement suggests that their way is not direct guidance or insight. Speaking from my knowledge of Buddhism, that is simply untrue. Apart from the superstitious/cultural aspects of Buddhism in East Asia, Buddhism is all direct guidance and insight - it's the very premise of the religion/practice, therefore I made the comment FWIW.

You and others are free to lament the sorry state of religion and imperfections of the Masters etc. of course.

Blossom hello there - I do respect and acknowledge that this is your perspective. I grant that ideally the way of direct guidance and the resulting direct apprehension is the way of the master (many of them) and ideally the way of the seeker...at a certain place on his or her journey, where IMO this transition will more naturally unfold for each of us with rising levels of awareness.

But I also think what I said earlier about most historically and even large numbers today enshrining them and following institutional paradigms and perspectives. The gap between receiving institutional knowledge, direction, &/or tools and actually apprehending directly is bridged by each of us as we walk our path -- but we cannot say most have reached this place, IMO.

If the manifest world of interbeing looked different at the human microscopic (human personal interaction, interpersonal relationships, etc) and macroscopic (societal, global, environmental) levels, then we might (might) more reasonably make this assumption.

OK. Just so you know the teachings are not just about loving kindness and equanimity, although these obviously form the core base of this and is not contrary - it also points to direct knowledge of the formation of worlds, consciousness, Truth and spiritual Gnosis.

Thanks.

BT

Yes, I understand and would again further qualify per my above. Showing and telling at the institutional level (including pointing to lords and even highly evolved masters who moved the human evolution of the heart-led consciousness forward in meaningful ways) is not necessarily (at all) the same thing at all as apprehending. With apprehension comes ownership and when we assume responsibility, we understand at a certain point that we cannot continue to put others above us when doing so will obstruct our further ownership and manifest work on our journey, even whilst continuing to be receptive to the wisdom teachings.

And likewise, instructing or seeking to apprehend within a very narrow, primarily self-reflective context which does not consider interbeing nor the the deeper veils or obstructions that exist is not the same as addressing apprehension within the fuller spectrum of interbeing. Some of this again has to do with the passing of the ages and a gradual, cumulative, rising awareness of the interbeing of all things...hence, the impossibility of addressing many root aspects one's own consciousness in a void IMO...it is purely an abstract exercise without integral, manifest interbeing IMO and thus I se it as of qualified to little use for a great many.

IMO direct apprehension has to do with each individual's state of consciousness and its inherent, manifest integrity and interbeing with others and with the world around us, and occurs as the individual penetrates not only his or her personal iniquities and residual personal karma but also the deepest of veils -- the veils of culture, class, and gender which obtain from infancy onward and shape each of our personal and collective iniquities in pervasive, foundational, ways, and the residual karma that attends these aspects of being.

If the historic masters didn't specifically address these things but in at least a few cases laid the groundwork by generally doing so and/or by generally recognising the criticality of doing so, then the next round of humanity's spiritual work awaits as I see it. As I've been saying, I believe this is our challenge, and this is our work. To become the masters/fellow travelers (fluidly both and not firmly either/or) we seek by rising to the work before us, which belongs solely to us, as it's for our own mutual and respective journey(s).

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

That sounds most reasonable.

I am a more radically views person and I say it all lacks integrity, but I would have to qualify that in a particular way.

I see your point...there is something there as well, in that regardless of how well we integrate teachings as we walk our path, until we have apprehended and integrated the universal truths to which the teachings point, there is some disparity in integrity. Moreover, even when apprehended and integrated, there is likely to be some disparity in outcome and that is not a bad thing necessarily, IMO.

In some cases, I think this may (may) also be an opportunity to transform oneself and also to contribute meaningfully to humanity's collective spiritual project. At least in part, this gets to addressing the manifest outcomes of our journey in these three broad areas I mentioned and no doubt there is much more.

Yes, everyone discerns for themselves.

Indeed, that sums up the difficulty.

Yes, you describe a different thing to what I was describing - the efforts to be alike an imagined ideal is like the truth that one is not alike the imagined ideal. 'Supermen' are illustrative of such ideals. Hence religions have icons, deities and so forth, so we have something to emulate, imitate, pretend to be - humble, holy, spiritual and so forth... it is this imitation role that I claim reflects on integrity.

I think the value (IMO...others such as BlossomingTree etc may or may not disagree) of the masters is to present an integral, manifest, lived example for reference, within which key foundational themes can be discerned. E.g., manifest lovingkindness and manifest equanimity in their lived word and deed underscore the centrality of lovingkindness and equanimity in their being and doing and we may assume in their beliefs and perspectives.

These folks may (may) serve as meaningful references for "what does integrity look like regarding manifest lovingkindness and manifest equanimity?" and similar internal and collective reflections and assessments. As far as living from our centre individually, societally, and as a human collective on earth, etc.

I mean no disrespect to anyone's belief system, but I personally find nearly all of our spiritual teachings to be not devoid of any truth, but rather simply critically lacking or partial in truth, and I think this points to what we ourselves need to bring to our own and our mutual collective journey(s).

This to me is liberating because it speaks to ownership, engagement, co-creation, and both shaping and choosing from the possibilities.

Indeed, as it comes back to ourselves, we don't have anything external to rely on. Yes we basically have a process of seeing through our delusions, so we might realise something like, I believe the Jesus story because people told it to me. But I have no idea if it's true myself.

I was raised in a Christian household among a Christian social setting, and was convinced of the saviour and all that because it was just 'taken-to-be-true', but one night when I was 19, it just vanished in a second and could never persuade me again. The larger affect was nothing could persuade me, so I can't take anything Buddhist as true or anything else. I can't believe any teachers because the 'truth-structure' of belief itself collapsed all those years ago. Of course I still have beliefs, but I already know they have no truth in them - and they are completely subject to change or complete abandonment. I don't care about them or give them the slightest importance.

I don't have beliefs in dogma or human designations of rank, like "lord". But I do apprehend that some aspects of consciousness are more advanced than my own in various ways (particularly higher non-human consciousness whom I also refer to as guides). Though this doesn't make them better, holier, or more worthy...even if they have great "superpowers" by our assessment. And they would and do concur with that assessment, in my apprehension. Nor are titles required. Nor are they omniscient and thus the final experts in dealing with the specifics of human iniquity and our three areas of lack...though they are pretty damn good nonetheless. But it is their integrity and general lack of obstructions that I look to, like 'elder brother' fellow travellers.

This gets back to my earlier point again. We are all responsible for who and where we are, and we all have meaningful knowledge to share. I personally think we may be better served by a more fluid construct of gathering and sharing spiritual wisdom as we evolve in consciousness, but that will go hand in hand with acknowledging the relevance of voices and contributions previously not generally recognised. For example, a lowly woman like me, a single working mum, sole support, LOL...though with my own thoughts and journey to date. What about those far worse off and far more thoroughly ignored, judged and/or denigrated for their humble plight or their sufferings? Who has historically ever listened to them? Who listens now, in any fashion? Not so many. Perhaps they will be our among greatest teachers yet (and fellow travellers).

Last go-round I hardly spoke and lived on sufferance at the margins of the community...with 1 or 2 exceptions, barely a soul noticed if I lived or died, save if they thought they could exploit or use me in some way. And yet, I feel I possessed a great deal of wisdom about life and consciousness in that lifetime. Likewise, if I had spoken of my physical suffering (starving to feed my child) and isolation, and of all those in great suffering or in particularly vulnerable and marginalised physical situations, who would have listened? Prior to that, as both men and women, I was murdered in all other lifetimes which I can recall...what would many of the masters make of that, LOL? But TBH I feel I have learnt a great deal of subtle wisdom on the core nature of our being (love) and of our natural inclination to these things -- authentic love, forgiveness, repentance, and reconciliation -- from these experiences. We don't have to strive to be these things. We are these things; only obstructions may hide this fact.

This story could be anyone's. And it's everyone's own story which contributes to the seamless tapestry. It doesn't mean we lack wisdom or the ability to share...it typically just means we weren't sufficiently powerful, strategically placed and also powerful enough to challenge the injustices OR to get our core message out in any wider sense. But we have manifest knowledge to add to our shared spiritual soup pot which has not yet been added by the designated teachers who came before. And that knowledge sharing is key, IMO.

Peace & blessings
7L

[blossomingtree]

7L

You are welcome to your certainties and perspectives. Much success to you in you path. I will keep my joy.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Let Them Sleep

Those who don't feel this Love pulling them like a river, those who don't drink dawn like a cup of spring water or take in sunset like supper, those who don't want to change, let them sleep. This Love is beyond the study of theology, that old trickery and hypocrisy. If you want to improve your mind that way, sleep on. I've given up on my brain. I've torn the cloth to shreds and thrown it away. If you're not completely naked, wrap your beautiful robe of words around you, and sleep.

Rumi

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

7L

You are welcome to your certainties and perspectives. I will keep my joy.

BT

Hello Blossom, I don't have certainties. I cannot and will not decide for either myself or for you if either of us have certainties (of whatever duration), because we all experience growth as I understand the human experience and so I will not assume certainties (of whatever duration) are the reality for anyone. Over time, however, this view of mine may change and I reserve the right to continually refine my perspective

Like you, I do have perspectives and I do possess my own experience of joy
I hope (and will even presume) I am welcome to those things I claim for both of us, along with those things you claim only for me

Peace & blessings
7L

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Kioma

Such complicated stories we weave.

Time for some Rumi methinks

Soul receives from soul that knowledge, therefore not by book

nor from tongue.

If knowledge of mysteries come after emptiness of mind, that is

illumination of heart.

Rumi

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hello Blossom, I don't have certainties. I cannot and will not decide for you if you have certainties, simply because we all experience growth as I understand the human experience.

Like you, I do have perspectives and I do possess my own experience of joy

I hope (and will even presume) I am welcome to those things I claim for both of us, along with those things you claim only for me

Peace & blessings
7L

7L

You are much loved, but I do agree now that spiritual conversations are difficult mainly because some people have different ideas and ideals about it all.

Please, continue in the vein that you wish and I feel you have belabored your points enough [to me].

As to certainties, lol, yes you are certain. As is your right. Please go ahead and do not convince me anymore. I am content. You go ahead, but I'm afraid I cannot keep up anymore.

Peace and blessings.

BT

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

It's because the conversation impels us to see ourselves, as we may consider that contention arises from some sort of personal reactivity. So the difficulty makes it contentious (should contention arise), and not the other way around.

The other thing is, people might consider the conversation to be a separate thing from the actual inquiry, so we can talk about all sorts of fantastic things and imaginary ideals, perfected beings and so forth all the while remaining unconscious of ourselves, but a spiritual conversation requires present self-awareness, that is, present awareness of ones own mind behind things, the motivations behind what's said.

Then we consider, the distraction levels of the average human being, and how unaware we can be, but this conversation necessitates knowing on a continual basis what you are doing in mind, motives, what emotional contents are arising, what reactivity occurs, what conditions of repetition are recurring... everything.

In addition to that, one has to actually listen to another person and actually understand what they say, let alone also being consciously aware of what affect that elicits in you.

It takes a full interest and ardent attention, otherwise it's just a spiritual parade. It's easy to think the conversation is apart from and about spirituality, because then the mind can just imagine things without being fully attentive to what is going on. Even now, hypothetically, perhaps your mind pipes up with argument against what I say, but this conversation necessitates your awareness of that, or whatever the case actually is (of course I have no idea what is the actual case).

In other words, pay attention, take responsibility. Everything is spiritual, not just conversations, it behooves us to be a bit more natural and less rigid, but in my opinion, when thought leads, it's all a game anyway. Some are more open than others

Spiritual conversations are not difficult, and anyone who thinks that talking is "so difficult" because they have to be "so mindful" is probably still fighting the tides.

I love spiritual discussions myself, nothing better than when lovers meet - nothing better than true friendship in this world of form and consciousness. This is my experience.

BT