May all your plans be thwarted...

Originally posted by SwissGambit
By 'radically' different, I didn't mean someone who does obviously wrong [and biblically forbidden*] things like murdering children. In fact, I was not thinking in terms of actions at all.

So what of verses like "God so loved the world" and "Seek and ye shall find" and "If you believe with your heart and confess with your mouth, you shall be saved"? W ...[text shortened]... clause, like being an Israelite eradicating a foreign nation from the land of Canaan.

I think you are imagining that I might be saying that if one does not have certain experiences one is not saved or something. I'm not seeking to cast doubt on anyone or judge anyone. I'm just curious. If you had met the Jesus I have met you could not walk away so easily.

Originally posted by knightmeister
I think the main difference here is that for me the experience points to something outside of and separate from me . Buddhism etc seems to me to be about states of mind and an interior world. Christianity is about what the living God does in the world.
The real issue is whether the experience is telling us something substantial and phenomenological a ...[text shortened]... exists he won't care if we think that -- he will just keep existing whether we like it or not.

Buddhism etc seems to me to be about states of mind and an interior world.

This is an error, though a fairly common one I think. That is why, when I talk about mental representations and the “I-thought-complex” and such, and observing how all your thoughts arise in the mind, I also talk about just-aware mind and tathata.

Questioning the “I” can be a good starting point, because we carry that around with us wherever we go—like our head. One can work from the inside-out or the outside-in. I worked from the inside-out, so that’s the direction I tend to talk about it.

Without thinking, who are you? Without thinking, what is the world?

We could say God is a conceptualisation based on our experiences but if he actual exists he won't care if we think that -- he will just keep existing whether we like it or not.

Yes; and if he doesn’t, he won’t. Dualism or non-dualism: that is the philosophical/religious divide, no doubt.

_______________________________________

If God is substantial, as you say, then what is the difference between that substance and your conceptualizations about it? If you don’t think “God,” does God disappear? If you don’t name it, does it disappear?

Suppose I grow up thinking that certain flower is a gundfig. That is the name that my family gave it. When anyone in my family talks about a gundfig, I form a mental notion or image of that flower in my head from memory. If someone points to one and asks what it is, I say “That’s a gundfig.” Later, I find out that everyone else (except my immediate family) calls that flower “rose.” Is the thing any different? Does it smell any different?

Maybe people have a wide variety of notions about gundfig/roses: what they are useful for, how they should be planted, which ones smell the best, what they ought to be called. Maybe if I say “rose” now, your mental representation is of a red rose, whilst I am actually thinking of a white one. Is the rose any different for all that?

Okay, that’s a very limited analogy, and I’m stretching it quite a bit.

“God” is a word, like gundfig. Associated with that word are all sorts of images, ideas, feelings in your mind. When you say “God,” you don’t point with your finger to some visible external referent, like a tree. You likely do not even make a broad sweeping gesture to include everything in the world, including yourself which is not separate from all of it. “God” is a conceptual complex in your head—whether or not God actually exists. Can you know God without any of that—images, notions, concepts, theology—without even the word “God”?

So: Without thinking at all, what is God?

(Or are you only attached to everything that you think about God? That’s not an accusation, it’s a tease.)

The day you can answer that question—without throwing out another “thought about”—you will have Zen. It’s simple really (which is not to say easy); don’t complicate it. I’ve already given you a ton of background “hints”.

_________________________________

BTW, based on something you once said to me, I have quit “Buddhasizing” Jesus; so that’s not what this is about. 🙂

Originally posted by knightmeister
May all your expectations be frustrated,
May all your plans be thwarted,
May all your desires be withered into nothingness ,
That you you may experience the powerlessness and poverty
Of a child,
And sing and dance,
In the compassion of God,
Who is Father , Son and Spirit ,

Amen

(Prayer by Brennan Manning )

My expectations are that people will treat other people with compassion.
My plans are to strive to live a life of compassion, forgiveness, charity,
and mercy towards others. My desires are to inspire others to live a similar
life.

If these expectations, plans, and desires are frustrated, thwarted, and
withered, I will pray that I have strength to continue to expect, plan and
desire them and not grow discouraged. If these expectations, plans, and
desires are met, fulfilled, and come to fruition, then I will pray that I have
strength to continue to expect, plan and desire them, and not become
complacent.

One need not suffer in order to empathize with suffering. The idea that
anyone would desire this for any other human being is cruel. We shouldn't
be motivated to feed the hungry simply because we've been hungry ourselves,
but because we can intuit what it means to be hungry.

Nemesio

Originally posted by Nemesio
My expectations are that people will treat other people with compassion.
My plans are to strive to live a life of compassion, forgiveness, charity,
and mercy towards others. My desires are to inspire others to live a similar
life.

If these expectations, plans, and desires are frustrated, thwarted, and
withered, I will pray that I have strength to co ...[text shortened]... we've been hungry ourselves,
but because we can intuit what it means to be hungry.

Nemesio

Beautifully, beautifully written. And rec’d.

Reminds me of the Bodhisattva vows:

_______________________________

Bodhisattva Vows—


I. Sentient beings are numberless; I vow to awaken with them all.

II. Delusions/sufferings are endless; I vow to heal them all.

III. Dharma gates are boundless; I vow to go through them all.

IV. The Buddha Way is inexhaustible; I vow to embody it all.

—There are various translations; this is a conflation of several.

___________________________________

“Vow,” in the sense used here, represents a dedication toward something. For example, a basketball player who dedicates herself to making every shot she takes, whether she is actually able to do that or not. If she misses a shot, she doesn’t simply walk off the boards in dejection; she re-dedicates herself and goes again.

Over and over again
turning the Dharma wheel,
falling off, getting on—

Over and over again...

(A Sisyphean freedom...)

Originally posted by Nemesio
My expectations are that people will treat other people with compassion.
My plans are to strive to live a life of compassion, forgiveness, charity,
and mercy towards others. My desires are to inspire others to live a similar
life.

If these expectations, plans, and desires are frustrated, thwarted, and
withered, I will pray that I have strength to co ...[text shortened]... we've been hungry ourselves,
but because we can intuit what it means to be hungry.

Nemesio

I agree , but I think what Brennan Manning is hinting at here is not the desires you are talking about. If your plan is to spread compassion and love in your life then good luck to you. You are living in the spirit of Christ even though you may not recognise it as such. May God bless your efforts , as I'm sure he will.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]Buddhism etc seems to me to be about states of mind and an interior world.

This is an error, though a fairly common one I think. That is why, when I talk about mental representations and the “I-thought-complex” and such, and observing how all your thoughts arise in the mind, I also talk about just-aware mind and tathata.

Questioning th ...[text shortened]... ng you once said to me, I have quit “Buddhasizing” Jesus; so that’s not what this is about. 🙂[/b]

This is interesting as I have a keen interest in phenomenology and have argued that time is just a concept and doesn't exist in reality. Scottishnz had great fun with me trying to prove that length existed.
I understand entirely the difference between conceptualising a thing and it being real , but the experience of something called God being real and exterior is common and you have experienced this too.

I experience this keyboard as being a real entity exterior to me and I have a conceptualisation of it (and a word too) but none of this means that the keyboard does not exist. We may have images of God and metaphors for him but on occasions we have experiences that go beyond this and it really feels as if the Spirit is present.

The sensation is not a conceptualisation of something exterior it's a sensation of an exterior reality. The experience may or may not be telling us the truth but if it isn't we could never know. It's like the free will debate , the experience that we have free will is real , we then have to decide if we are being duped along the way.

My problem with experiences of the Holy Spirit is that I was cynical about my reasons for wanting to think it wasn't real. I wanted it to be real but also I didn't. It seems to me that ex- christians often talk about how much they would have liked God to be real but forget that there are also many reasons to not want him to be real as well. This extra layer of self questioning seems to go begging.My interpretation of your arguments is that on some unowned unconscious level you find the idea of the christian God actually existing too disturbing to contemplate. I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant though.

Originally posted by knightmeister
This is interesting as I have a keen interest in phenomenology and have argued that time is just a concept and doesn't exist in reality. Scottishnz had great fun with me trying to prove that length existed.
I understand entirely the difference between conceptualising a thing and it being real , but the experience of something called God being real an ...[text shortened]... ctually existing too disturbing to contemplate. I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant though.

I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant though.

Well, that’s a problem on here. How do we state our positions flatly and clearly without sounding that way? As I noted before, we don’t have the facial expressions, the body language, the slap on the back, etc. I don’t think either of us is taking any umbrage with the other.

I don’t think you sound any more arrogant than I do when I say that I think you’re stuck in maya, and are somewhat cavalier about diminishing the role of the mind in experiences; you assume that the experience is not a mirage based on its content and force. Mind you, I’m not saying that you should assume that it is a mirage.

I don’t know if, on some unconscious level, you find the idea of the real ground (or the ground of reality) being ultimately ineffable as being too disturbing to contemplate. (We can ponder each other’s unconscious motivations to hell freezes over. Let’s just accept each other’s word that we strive to be studiously honest and ever-searching with regard to such stuff. As I said before, what I might surmise about your motivations, conscious or unconscious, doesn’t amount to two-fifths of five-eighths of foo-foraw.)

I have no real opinion on the time question. I found the wikipedia article on it to be fascinating: it gives both views. Maybe there’s something about epistemology versus metaphysics . . . lucifershammer used to charge me with mixing up the two. (I wish he were still around to hammer me!)

_________________________________________

Without thinking, what is God? Without thinking, what is “I”?

Don’t think; don’t theorize. Find the answer.

You can hate me for repeating and repeating (though I know you won’t), but I’ll keep on anyway.

_________________________________________

Be well. 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I'm sorry if this sounds arrogant though.

Well, that’s a problem on here. How do we state our positions flatly and clearly without sounding that way? As I noted before, we don’t have the facial expressions, the body language, the slap on the back, etc. I don’t think either of us is taking any umbrage with the other.

I don’t think you sound an ...[text shortened]... u won’t), but I’ll keep on anyway.

_________________________________________

Be well. 🙂[/b]

I don't think you are dishonest , you are one of the most likeable fellows around this place. Our unconscious can be powerful in many ways and if we were fooling ourselves then we would certainly not inform ourselves of it because the game would then be off of course.

What was it though that swung you away from thinking that your experience was not a real thing based in exterior reality ? What was it that in effect made you think it a mere mirage and not a living God?

One other thing I'm curious about. And I'm not being critical here. Do you notice that for one who talks much about avoiding conceptualisations your posts are often full of them. Sometimes I feel as if I'm the one keeping it simple and you are actually "over thinking" about it. Is this fair comment?

Originally posted by knightmeister
I don't think you are dishonest , you are one of the most likeable fellows around this place. Our unconscious can be powerful in many ways and if we were fooling ourselves then we would certainly not inform ourselves of it because the game would then be off of course.

What was it though that swung you away from thinking that your experience was not ...[text shortened]... one keeping it simple and you are actually "over thinking" about it. Is this fair comment?

I don't think you are dishonest , you are one of the most likeable fellows around this place.

Thank you. The sentiment is mutual.

What was it though that swung you away from thinking that your experience was not a real thing based in exterior reality ?

Really, it was a whole host of factors. Only one of which was the fact that that requires the addition of a supernatural category to the whole thing. Nothing in my experience requires or points to that. That does not mean that it isn’t possible of course.

One other thing I'm curious about. And I'm not being critical here. Do you notice that for one who talks much about avoiding conceptualisations your posts are often full of them. Sometimes I feel as if I'm the one keeping it simple and you are actually "over thinking" about it. Is this fair comment?

LOL! Too true, too true.

On the other hand though, I have been trying to translate Zen Buddhism into Western terminology. That has been, so to speak, an experiment of mine. That has led to lengthy explanatory posts, in an effort to translate. You and I can talk about Christianity (despite our disagreements) without that, since we both have some understanding of what the terminology is and means (even if there might be a variety of possible interpretations).

For example, simply taking reality as it appears, without the addition of a supernatural category, seems to me to be much simpler. I think, however, that we often take what is familiar as being simple, compared to what is unfamiliar. The unfamiliar seems complicated sometimes, because it requires more explanation. I found that, for example, with some Christians on here who had no idea what Judaism entails, thinking that it was only somehow the “religion of the Old Testament.” Very few people on here have any understanding at all of Jewish hermeneutics. I didn’t either, until I spent some years immersing myself in it.

Just on here, the other day, some asked me what a Zen Buddhist is. I was tired, and responded as follows:

______________________________________

One who has found the way of cessation of anguish/suffering in discovering his true nature by following the teachings of the Buddha and the Zen masters. Emphasis on “discovering”, not on “following”.

That’s a short answer. You might look it up on wikipedia (though I have no idea what they have to say on the matter, since I have not read it).

______________________________________

Non-thinking mind is very simple; thinking mind is complicated. I live in both worlds.

I just now read this, thought of our discussion, and thought I would close with it—

_________________________________

What is important is one moment of clear mind. Clear mind is before thinking. If you experience this mind, you have already attained enlightenment. If you experience this for a short time—even for one moment—this is enlightenment. All the rest of the time you may be thinking, but your shouldn’t worry about this thinking. It is just your karma. You must not be attached to this thinking. You must not force it to stop or force clear mind to grow. It will grow by itself, as your karma gradually disappears.

Clear mind is like the full moon in the sky. Sometimes clouds come and cover it, but the moon is always behind them. Clouds go away, then the moon shines brightly. So don’t worry about clear mind: it is always there. When thinking comes, behind it is clear mind. When thinking goes, there is only clear mind. Thinking comes and goes, comes and goes. You must not be attached to the coming or the going.

—Seung Sahn Soen-sa (a Korean Zen master)

_________________________________

Two notes:

(1) Do not be overly concerned with the word “karma.” It is just here your habitual mind-patterns.

(2) This is precisely what I meant by “I live in both worlds”—only here it is much better, more correctly said.

Be well.

Originally posted by vistesd
[b]I don't think you are dishonest , you are one of the most likeable fellows around this place.

Thank you. The sentiment is mutual.

What was it though that swung you away from thinking that your experience was not a real thing based in exterior reality ?

Really, it was a whole host of factors. Only one of which was the fact that that r
Non-thinking mind is very simple; thinking mind is complicated. I live in both worlds.[/b]

Now I'm somewhat confused . You seemd to be saying in the bottom quote that your primary experience WAS of an external presence and then you thought about it an awful lot afterwards. The way it reads is that your primary , first feeling was that it was an external spiritual entity of some kind ("external presence" ) and then you somehow shook you head and thought "no , it can't be" (sorry for oversimplifying) .

Now you are saying that "nothing in your experience" points to the supernatural and yet you have already said that you have experienced an external presence (and then talked yourself out of it?) so to me this is a slight contradiction is it not?

An external presence is suggestive of a whole realm of the supernatural . I undertsand that you have later rationalised this experience and re-conceptualised it as something else but it sounded as if your first thought was that the experience was of an external spiritual reality (which in my book corresponds exactly to the theology of Jesus and the Holy Spirit).

I'm confused. What exactly was your experience and why did you think it was external? Was it because your theology at the time taught you to think it was external or was the experience more sublime and real than that?

You say........ " simply taking reality as it appears, without the addition of a supernatural category, seems to me to be much simpler".......and I agree , but the way you describe your experiences it sounds like if you had just "simply taken reality as it appears" you would have accepted your experience as real and not a mirage. Reality "as it appeared" to you was an external presence was it not? Did you not then just over complicate things?


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Really, it was a whole host of factors. Only one of which was the fact that that requires the addition of a supernatural category to the whole thing. Nothing in my experience requires or points to that. That does not mean that it isn’t possible of course."
------visted---------------


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Our history here is one of almost polar opposites. I won’t go into detail, but I had experiences of an external personal presence that were so powerful that I literally could not remain standing. I spent years investigating them, and how my mind worked. I came to different conclusions than you, but frankly (opening myself up to all the mind-readers who are willing to deny this for me!) I would have liked them real—well, the experience is real, it is what I have called the translation that I concluded, reluctantly, was a sort of mirage."
---visted----------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by knightmeister
Now I'm somewhat confused . You seemd to be saying in the bottom quote that your primary experience WAS of an external presence and then you thought about it an awful lot afterwards. The way it reads is that your primary , first feeling was that it was an external spiritual entity of some kind ("external presence" ) and then you somehow shook you head -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Your approach seems to be something like—

“If something seems supernatural, it must be supernatural, so why question it.”

“If something seems external, it must be external, so why question it.”

You have also gotten confused by that word “experience” being used for a variety of experiences. If you reread the posts, you'll see that I started by talking about a specific kind of experience, then talked about other (Zen) experiences that help explain the nature of the first one.

Therefore, it turns out that nothing in my (whole) experience requires a the addition of a supernatural category for explanation.

A parable:

A man is walking quickly along a path in the forest. Suddenly he sees a snake coiled right by the path where he’s about to step— He quickly jumps off the path, and cuts through the woods for a short space, before coming back on the path. His heart is pounding for some time from the adrenaline rush.

Many hours later, the man is returning along the path. This time he is being very watchful for snakes. As he approaches, from the other direction, the place where he saw the snake the first time: there it is, still coiled in the same spot. That seems strange. This time, he approaches warily, and—

He now sees that it is a thick piece of rope, perhaps left there by some woodcutter. He laughs.

__________________________________

Now, instead of picking apart words:

Without any thinking at all, what is God? 🙂

Don’t worry, behind the passing clouds of thought, your full moon shines brightly.

Originally posted by vistesd
Your approach seems to be something like—

“If something seems supernatural, it must be supernatural, so why question it.”

“If something seems external, it must be external, so why question it.”

You have also gotten confused by that word “experience” being used for a variety of experiences. If you reread the posts, you'll see that I started by ta ...[text shortened]... God? 🙂

Don’t worry, behind the passing clouds of thought, your full moon shines brightly.

Your approach seems to be something like—

“If something seems supernatural, it must be supernatural, so why question it.”

“If something seems external, it must be external, so why question it.”
-----------VISTED---------------

My approach is far from this , but I see what you mean. I think it's important to question our experiences but it's also important to then examine the motivation behind our questions. We also need to question the questions and doubt our doubts.

One thing that occurs to me is that if the Holy Spirit was actually real and one had an experience of this as an external reality how would one go about questioning the experience in a way that would lead to knowing the difference between a mirage and a reality.

Would we know the difference? Is it not like that thought that the world is just a realsitic hologram (like in the matrix film) . How would we know we were in a hologram if it was very realistic? It seems to me a bit of a coincidence that Jesus taught that he would be present with us and many find that he is. One could say that this is wish fulfillment , but I could also say that dismissing the experience might also be wish fulfillment.

What I'm trying to figure out is whether your experience was telling you that you were in the presence of something external , or whether you had a powerful experience and conceptualised it as external. The two are very different. It may mean that you might need to reveal more about what you experienced though. I sense you are reluctant to do so but if your analysis of your experience is correct then you have nothing to fear.

I won't lie and pretend that I don't believe something that I do. My cards are on the table. I believe that you may well have had a powerful experience of the Holy Spirit and if I'm right then he could be gently prompting you right now to re-think your experience.


I'm also genuinely interested because I can't say that these experiences are incredibly regular for me and I have also known what it is to drift away from faith in God although I was brought up an atheist.

Was it a positive experience? Did it feel intimate , loving , assuring , compassionate? Was there a conviction of sin attached to it? Did the experience seem to have a purpose or rationale or was it disconnected from other parts of your life?

Originally posted by knightmeister
Your approach seems to be something like—

“If something seems supernatural, it must be supernatural, so why question it.”

“If something seems external, it must be external, so why question it.”
-----------VISTED---------------

My approach is far from this , but I see what you mean. I think it's important to question our experiences but it' eem to have a purpose or rationale or was it disconnected from other parts of your life?

LOL! You’re like a dog worrying a bone: the bone being my experiences. (Well, I asked for it.) I take it in the most friendly fashion, of course.

In answer to the two of your questions that I have not already answered: No conviction of sin; nothing in my life is disconnected from the rest of it.



I’m just going to leave it here, since what time I now intend to spend on the forum, I am going to spend on the Zen Curioso II thread. You are cordially invited.

Without any thinking at all, what is God? 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
LOL! You’re like a dog worrying a bone: the bone being my experiences. I take it in the most friendly fashion, of course.

In answer to the two of your questions that I have not already answered: No conviction of sin; nothing in my life is disconnected from the rest of it.



I’m just going to leave it here, since what time I now intend to ...[text shortened]... Zen Curioso II thread. You are cordially invited.

Without any thinking at all, what is God?

I take it from your response that there is little I could do to encourage you to re-think your conceptualisation that the experience was not external ?

I'm afraid I will pass on the other thread. I have little interest in exploring a god who is internal only. Such a god could only ever be an emotional mirage to me . I'm much more interested in a God who is real and living. That to me seems a much grander and more liberating (and threatening) God.

Bear in mind one thing , if it was the real Holy Spirit you felt you will find he can be a persistent little ****** . He will not give up until he leads you to the truth , I hope that explains a bit why I am a bit like a dog with a bone about this.

My overall feeling is that you may have hidden a real experience from yourself behind a highly complex web of rationalisations , but then I would say that wouldn't I?

If you ever think you may have been mistaken to dismiss your experience as a mere mirage then look me up . I may not have all the answers (if any) but I would be interested.