|
|
Couple of small notes on thatFrom: Nnonnth
Subject: General
Date/Time 2007-10-25 08:37:51
Remote IP: 195.93.21.72
Message>>The above discussion of choosing to dissolve into the One vs. choosing to reincarnate, etc. must be viewed more realistically in terms of level of Will achieved by an individual at the moment of physical death.<<
I was indeed viewing it exactly that way.
>>And please note that MERGING into the One and DISSOLVING into the One are not the same process; merging I belives preserves the individual will, albeit with total integration and harmony with the collective.<<
I agree but do not believe that as long as individual will is present harmony can be total, it is precisely the reason one continues to exercise free will, to continue to harmonize! But perhaps this is also what you are saying.
I also should say: as far as merging is concerned you are right, it is something that can be done without in any way losing the personal "I" consciousness. This is a big part of what I was trying and failing to say actually.
>>Dissolving into the One: I doubt this is an act of will by the individual<<
I know what you are saying here Michael but do strongly disagree! :)
At that stage the 'individual' is of course very hard to define by earthly standards anyway, but it is in my opinion a purely personal decision rather than something which 'just happens' in the greater self. By the time one is able to see this, one would already be able to identify oneself entirely with the whole greater self root... the entire being is still 'oneself' and still has conscious will, therefore it is still 'oneself deciding'. Again as with the greater self so with the Unity - to be merged with it means one has not lost one's own personal will, right down the chain of frequencies you are still you! That's how I see it at my paltry stage anyway! :)
>>4. My concern about Nan Huai Chin type of Buddhists (Nothingness is All you Need) is that they are a kind of Fundamentalist Buddhist who seem to be expressing their desire to obliterate the process of both the post-natal Self and the pre-natal self (soul). That this anti-self desire, if expressed deeply enough in the life, might limit the options available to them at death.<<
As I've pointed out before, I believe that argument to be one of bad marketing and language more than anything else. On the other hand, so far as the language goes I abhor it as much as you do and could not live for a second with the idea that obliteration of self is the way to understanding the truth of existence. It's just that in practice, I find it hard to believe that the various lamas really would say that, or whoever. I think it is much more likely to be just rather negative putting-into-words of essentially the same views that are expressed worldwide on the subject of existence.
This does *not* mean I believe that Nan's methods and your own are 'the same' or 'lead to the same thing'!
>>My other concern was that certain types of meditation practice might not address the binary nature of the soul, but simply choose to split it further through beliefs and practices that the "formless" or empty aspect of self was more real thanits form aspect. That by bypassing this tension in the binary soul, you don't resolve it, and may exacerate the tension.<<
To my mind Nan's book 'Tao and Longevity', for all its many many faults and despite all the areas in which I disagree with it very strongly, does answer you there to some extent. I believe you may well *initially* exacerbate the tension by his method, which quite simply (bizarre to say) complete ignores any personal or emotional aspect to the exercise of spirituality WHATEVER, a very Buddhist approach! But *ultimately* I do indeed think the tension is resolved. The thing is that there are so many more elegant ways to resolve it in my opinion, and strange to say, more humane ones.
I would agree with the person I quoted from the back of Cleary's book - it works slower and is harder, but there is no doubt it can result in attainment of the way. On the other hand, the idea that other methods therefore do *not* result in attainment of the way is very absurd.
>>This is why I find Bagua's position on the One as being pre-existent and thus "already achieved" to be confusing the issue of post-natal practice/potential achievement.<<
Well I don't want to get into that, I mean everything I'm posting is a way to say why I think that discussion is useless! Of COURSE 'the one thing' is everything! The thing is that the difference in time perception between it and ourselves makes it impossible to say it is already achieved, and impossible also to say it isn't! It's just a silly conversation to have. But I'm probably only opening more cans of merry little worms here. j
[Top of List] [Previous Thread] [Next Thread]
|
|
|
|
This Forum is for posting on topics of interest to the Taoist (Daoist) community. Tao is exceptionally broad. Will your post add to the collective balance, harmony, & wisdom? Posts/links deemed obscene, prejudicial, irrelevant, inflammatory, or falsely impersonating others may be removed at Healing Tao USA's discretion. The Forum community thanks you for respecting the registration privilege!
|
|
|
|