February 19, 2006 at 9:00 am #10677
Hey dude, hope you had good saturday. I dust my hands and I make cracking motions of my neck.
The story so far:
Student pesters master – where is enlightenment? Master tells him, many different ways. Finally master says, you are listening to my description of ‘enlightenment’ so much, thinking about it so much, that you will not be able to reach it. My description is like a finger pointing at the moon – you must not look at the finger, only at the moon.
But you say: that you are not *quite* saying to me what the master said to the student.
You are saying to me that as long as one is in a body, there is no moon since the very fact of being in a body makes it impossible to ‘get there’.
So *I* say:
1. Is above a fair interpretation of what you said?
2. You say – ‘when you are in a body’ – please define the word ‘body’?
thanks – best NNFebruary 19, 2006 at 10:25 am #10678
>>Hey dude, hope you had good Saturday.< < Pretty good thanks - decided to have an adventurous walk from Waterloo down to Old Street... London's pretty fun when you let it be! >> I dust my hands and I make cracking motions of my neck.< < did some shadow boxing myself (to Rocky theme tune of course!) So... firstly I didn't realise the Zen quote is about enlightenment... I was talking literally about seeing the moon. >>You are saying to me that as long as one is in a body, there is no moon since the very fact of being in a body makes it impossible to ‘get there’.<< Ok - as long as you're in a *human* body, you'll experience a human-moon. A snake looking at the moon would experience a snake-moon. I'm not saying that there isn't a moon; I'm saying that you can’t possibly experience it "purely" i.e. without the interference of your human sensory capabilities. Being a human means that you transform the [" "]/Tao/supreme unknown into a human shaped universe! Not only that but since we're all individuals - you would see a Nnonnth-moon, I would see a freeform-moon, Michael would see a Michael-moon, Swedish Dragon would see a Swedish Dragon-moon... etc... Between all these different experiences of the moon we would have some correlation(similarity) and some error(difference)... I don’t know whether there *really is* a moon because I have my own unique 'reality tunnel', and I can’t experience the universe independent from my own reality tunnel, and “there *is a moon*" is an Aristotelian statement, that makes it *seem* as if we experience the universe objectively. I hope you've noticed that this belief reflects 'where I am' in terms of my spiritual journey... Perhaps when I reach Michael's level, I'd think that I can experience the universe objectively... I hope not though lol - being a stubborn donkey, I still maintain that Michael sees a Michael-shaped universe - even if the Michael-shape is so broad and vast as to cover a huge swathe of 'reality'. Oh and the 'physical body' is not necessarily the only thing I'm talking about - I'm talking about the full collection of everything that makes me/you human. ...we still have a few loose ends to tie off on the other thread (yes, I know, I'm the pun-master!), I'll get typing when I have more time. PS - I'm glad you enjoyed the smile I sent you this morning :0) If there is any Taoist practice that I'd say *anyone* should do; it's gotta be the Inner Smile.February 19, 2006 at 10:38 am #10680
– not what you said before! I agree with all that.
My point simply is this – as long as you are in a body you see the moon appropriate for you, therefore it is when you are in a body that there IS a moon. To be in a body is to be incomplete. Therefore to be chasing something else. In that something else is the moon. Even if the body is infinite it is still bounded. That is what body means to me – an area of consciousness. Yang could be said to be an area of consciousness that sees the moon in yin. Etc.
Unlike you I do strongly feel that certain things ‘can be said’ usefully about moonness… of course there are many scales, levels, languages, etc… like me you seem to enjoy and find fruitful the comparing of them…. but the reason that mere blankness is only a first step (and a very joyful one) is that we are all human beings here, now, and we all have certain needs/goals/interests (moons) here/now. So we can usefully say a little more than merely the [” “] that defines ‘ultimate realisation’. I’m sure you follow me – your point has always been that whilst in time there IS no ‘ultimate realisation’ – that very fact means that the conditions we share, such as being in human bodies at a certain period in history, can be talked about as moons in a shared manner.
Naturally we are all unique and thus we can’t always agree on the ultimate nature of moon itself – moon is Tao and everything perfect. But I find very satisfying the tos and fros of communicating on the subject. I enjoy combining languages with other people and making language-children as we are doing here, just the same as I enjoy sex – by combining differences opposites can collapse and the ‘THE MOON’ becomes a little closer…
Now I know you understood all that anyhow! Which is a nice feeling and that is what Gregory is about.
best NNFebruary 19, 2006 at 11:51 am #10682
>>I hope you’ve noticed that this belief reflects ‘where I am’ in terms of my spiritual journey… Perhaps when I reach Michael’s level, I’d think that I can experience the universe objectively…<< I guess I've noticed that. Despite our similarities we come at things very differently! My bet would be: you will never lose your view that there is ultimately no moon at all - but I suspect you will one day discard it as completely unimportant. It is equivalent to keeping awareness of the void. Closer to the void you are able to distinguish much else not physical. You took this view to stop yourself being held back by trying to keep a 'frozen truth' in mind all the time - which is a good idea. Eventually you are not going to need reminding of this. (At this point you will also stop thinking *I* need reminding of this, which will be a vast relief to me!) You do not I think quite see the incredible effect on the universe that is had by the fact that humans see it at all, in any form. Our current human form is not going to be the last! - that is what evolution means. We are - always - in time - in a potential state and the things ahead will make this period look foolish indeed. Even if every human dies in ecological catcaclysm, humanity will I think survive. We are able to assimilate all and bring it to physical perfection - I know I know, look at us now! Still, we ARE able to do it. It is all US. This is why I'm enjoying speaking to Michael so much... he believes this and understands it. Before, I've met only magicians who understood it, and not many of those. The point is that what we have here on earth is a kind of ultimate. Sometimes we think of it and pity ourselves! But that is foolish of us. I could talk at length about the falsehood of books like 'A Course In Miracles', containing so much truth about non-duality but *channelled* - so not human-centred and not a product of human will and imagination. Many spiritual systems - that one included - want you to believe that human life is meaningless, but it is the MOST MEANINGFUL, CLOSEST to Tao - provided we only see that fact. At the moment people refuse to do it. Human destiny encompasses all possibility. We should not be living our lives to please anyone but ourselves, because there is no-one above or beyond us. As Michael says, they are watching carefully! What I think they are watching for most is, the extent to which we lose our nerve. Lon Milo Duquette says - "The angels envy us because they are stuck in divine middle management". Something like that is not said in most spiritual systems, let alone in most religions - I have come to (roughly/sometimes) the same view and I certainly think it needs saying. Taoism apparently is able to say it also. Some spirits exist purely to make humankind depressed at its own nature and thus unable to fulfill it. They are not animal spirits. The reason I said you didn't understand evocation/invocation is precisely this - you think it is symbolic in a way it isn't. It IS real, just like orbit/qigong is real. It draws things from the universe and makes them part of your world. In real spirit work you don't CHOOSE A SYMBOL in a conscious manner, you ENCOUNTER A SIGIL that expands who you are! It IS possible to see more 'what is really there' as a human being - by this method or by any spiritual one - Michael says they ALL work - that is why I raised the subject of the Zen gentleman who posted here 2 months back on my last visit, who shook a man's hand and in doing so saw the man's entire life and future death. There are a million ways to see what is really there, more and more as you progress, and ALL of them are HUMAN. If you see the light that is not physical light, that appears with your eyes shut - do you think that nevertheless this is not seeing and this is not light? The processes by which we experiemce light in the physical world are analagous exactly to the great light that is not physical. Again it is microcosm. We have higher senses and use them all the time, realise it or no. They are not 'non-human' senses. All senses are human. Our seeings and hearings correspond to great seeings and hearings that occur throughout everything. If you can assimilate the senses of a bear you are doing very well. But of a bacterium? - then the world has very little to teach you! I know that you want to sublimate your animal self or whatever - just be careful ok? Animals are a glory and so is your animal self. The people who say, 'Go to the light, ignore the beast' make peopl ashamed, and shame at being human is the cause of much misery. I'm sure you never saw a beast that didn't amaze you, not only the obvious ones, and the only beasts ashamed of themselves are 'domesticated' - just as religion domesticates and shames us. It is not to sublimate but to evolve the animal self that we come here. Sublimation comes perilously close to disrespect. Who'd sublimate a sparrow?? Or do you think that when 'the ultimate' has come, 'the animal' is gone? No, no. In the physical world one is always going to be an animal of some kind. The ultimate includes the animal. One has to do what one wills in full, and gloriously, just as they do. What is wished for in the heart is Tao, is wisdom. I'm sure you knew it but I like to say it! Just look at the animals - here is a living Tao, here is wisdom. How far we are from it now, as a culture! There are those who say - human desire is faulty. Look at what a state we are in, this is because of the faultiness of human desire. These are the people I detest! If human desire is faulty, achieving no satisfaction and no love, and only destructive and hateful progress, it is because we choose so! Did you know that Freud once said, he had never seen a human being who he really felt had any value? This from a HEALER. Human desire is faulty due to fear, lack of nerve, not believing that we are fundamentally worth what we really are worth. Being oneself, I'm sure you agree, means being everything. This is so whether we choose to realise it and take responsiblity for the everything we are, or not. We do make ourselves. We do make our worlds. We came here destined and delighting to come and we are all, realising it or not, in the perfect time and in the perfect position to be who we really WISH. We did choose it and to do this, to be human was our choice. It was a brave one. It was a good one. etc., could go on... need not, NNFebruary 21, 2006 at 8:29 pm #10684
>>My point simply is this – as long as you are in a body you see the moon appropriate for you, therefore it is when you are in a body that there IS a moon. *To be in a body is to be incomplete*. Therefore to be chasing something else.< < (emphasis added) very nice... I like >>Unlike you I do strongly feel that certain things ‘can be said’ usefully about moonness…<< you can say anything about anything and still make it usefull... including the moon. All I say is that we cant give the moon objective properties or essenses - again this is an Aristotelian idea that has stuck around through the ages. Even if you say "the moon measures x kilometers in diameter" you would still be opening up a huge falacy... the moon doesn't have objective properties - even size, weight etc. I'm sure you're familiar with Relativity, that's the reason objects cant have objective properties. who is the ultimate master that makes the grass green? you couldn't say "grass is green" because grass doesnt have the property of "greenness" - what makes the grass green is the interaction between our body with the universe out there. In fact as you know, you could explain it as the interaction of specific wavelengths of light with our retina and then our nervous system which processes this data and comes out with the word "green". I'm interested in General Semantics which is the study of how language affects us and our 'programing'. "a is b" turns out to be an Aristotelian notion which just doesn't hold water any longer. I'm enjoying playing with little Gregory also!
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.