Gautama Siddhartha

Originally Posted by sky123

Which is a belief

an unnecessary added layer to the divine now

[sky]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

an unnecessary added layer to the divine now

To believe in nothing is a belief

Originally Posted by sky123

To believe in nothing is a belief

it's an experience to some. a way to perceive the now.

to believe in nothing or no-thing, to experience now as it is before mental interpretation.

Originally Posted by sentient

the jigsaw puzzle comes together & their “assemblage-point-of-awareness” *shifts* to a new level of expanded reality orientation and off they go.

what would you say is keeping everyone from that? what is preventing it?

[sentient]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

what would you say is keeping everyone from that? what is preventing it?

Well, in regards to what has just been discussed above … ^^^

The both/and approach, the “Middle Way”, the two wings to enlightenment: Knowledge aaaaand Intuition.

Non-thought and not-knowing were never meant to be taken up literally by the intellect, but instead by intuition - to make intuitive, ‘questionative’ openness dynamic and functional.
Otherwise, non-thought & not-knowing just become a way of dumbing down - dulling the sword of intellect and falling onto that sword constantly by being contradictory.

Subconscious contradictions perhaps are what keep us grounded.

*

[sentient]

Hope this, a bit long quote from "The Heart of the Buddha" book can be accepted in this thread:

Intellect & Intuition

THERE SEEM TO BE two distinct approaches to the spiritual path: the intellectual and the intuitive.
In the intellectual tradition, spiritual development is viewed as a sharpening of intellectual precision, primarily through the study of theology. Whereas in the intuitive or mystical tradition, spiritual development is viewed as a deepening of awareness or devotion through practices such as meditation.
However, neither the intellectual nor the intuitive approach is complete without the other.
These two approaches are not in opposition to one another. Rather they are two channels which combine to form the spiritual path.

Let us examine the intellectual and intuitive traditions in more detail.
In the West, the intellectual tradition has for a long time been predominant. And in some Buddhist countries the emphasis on scholasticism has grown so strong that Buddhist scholars have completely lost touch with the meditative tradition.
Buddhists who emphasize the scholarly side of the teaching frequently feel that it is dangerous to begin meditating until they have mastered the theory. So they begin the spiritual path by studying very intensely and becoming extremely learned. But then, when they have discovered everything intellectually and completely mastered the theories of Buddhism, they feel they no longer need to meditate because they have all the answers already. Adherents of this approach view the Buddha as a superscholar and enlightenment as being totally informed.

Adherents of the intuitive tradition, on the other hand, regard study and analysis as obstacles to spiritual development. Seeing the irrelevance of acquiring knowledge disconnected from personal experience, they tend to react by rejecting the intellectual approach altogether. Instead they stress the practice of meditation as the only way to develop insight. From their viewpoint, in order to attain enlightenment, one does not need to know anything at all. The Buddha is regarded as the perfect meditator; and the more beautifully one can sit and meditate, the closer one is to enlightenment.

*

Originally Posted by sentient

the two wings to enlightenment: Knowledge aaaaand Intuition.

very much so to me. i might use the word understanding there instead of knowledge or "seeing" but it doesn't matter much. words only get us so far. they are just pointers and are meaningless in and of themselves. a lot of buddhist writing doesn't even bother naming the affirmative, it just states it is the presence or aspect of ignorance that prevents it. that's clever because it avoids having to name what "is" in it and it is a no word or no concept state, so no naming takes place "as it" but then of course one can use symbols or words to try to communicate what one is experiencing or perceiving though.

Originally Posted by sentient

Non-thought and not-knowing were never meant to be taken up literally by the intellect,

yes true. those things as concepts or ideas are terrible! it's a way to try to describe an experience, and a description is never what is described.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

i might use the word understanding there instead of knowledge or "seeing" but it doesn't matter much. words only get us so far.

The non-thought, not-knowing intuitive “seeing” might be called ‘direct cognizance’ – and it comes first.
But now having “seen” – one “looks” by engaging the intellect.

Usually, we “look” first with our ‘maps’, our filters of preconceived ideas and then wonder what we have “seen”.

But to “see” in order to “look” …..
Well, that "looking" brings details, understanding of the “seen” into a conscious verbal level.

Then having “seen” and “looked” one should know how to act or respond to the situation.

IF that makes sense.

*

[sky]

Originally Posted by sentient

Hope this, a bit long quote from "The Heart of the Buddha" book can be accepted in this thread:


*

And yet The Buddha taught the ' Middle Path '
A little bit of each is the perfect way imo, Intellect and Intuition.