ever present sacredness

Normal 0 false false false MicrosoftInternetExplorer4

Hello Adam.

Thank you for your comment. It has brought about some thinking for me and has been some nice stimuli. Forgive me if I write to some points which I may have mis-understood. Please! Let me know your thoughts and explanations etc. :) I offer this in hopes of a dialogue??

I feel like I could respond to your message in a few different ways but we’ll see how it goes!

Though I can somewhat relate to your questions of the particular frame or context in which he places things to be "biased" towards certain buddhist teachings, I also beleive that it is rare to find a better frame in which to place to question of Awakening. I do not know of any other traditions that have so actively maintained the intention to understand what is beyond our relative world, in such a systematic way. "actual science" is what I am assuming was your reference to this process? I do beleive that the "scientific process" of buddhims continues... and as new perspectives arrive and encompass more and more ground, I beleive there are/ will be new,slightly evolved versions of the teachings. (Of course, there will continue to be less evolved versions of the bhuddist teachings, and hopefully we can discern such  teachings and take them only for what they’re worth and nothing more) All of this, still, is within reference to the relitive world... And though I have not had an “Eastern enlightenment” in the traditional sence, Most of my inights, even before I knew of the concept of Non-dual, brought me to a place where there needed be 2 co-existing truths... Yes- i beleive there is from 1 perspecitve, a single ultimate truth beyond that... but generally, so long as we exist within flesh and bone and within the context of others, we are constantly incontact with the duality of things... This- i admit is not my area of expertise, and I dont necisarily have the proper language either...SoI hope you can see what I am pointing to. If you have insights! please share :)

Even if there is limitiation to these particular buddhist frames, (which i beleive- depending on the person's goal or aspiration, there are definite limitations... hence my inclination towards the AQAL models and particularily psychology...) that Ken knows it. And I think, on one level,  it is from that perspective that he may be saying to not Hold things so "Sacredly" and be able to have Humour. He even says… (vague quote) ‘To take these very very serious spiritual endevours, and try to hold them with some leveity’.  Serious, but not. And though it may be a limitation of a semi-private talk gone public, we also do not know the context in which the question or topic arised, and he very well may have been trying to illustrate a certain point towards a particular perspective. Of course! Maybe not?! Maybe there’s some clinging to non-clingning… but if so… is that really so bad compared to other quirks? (The circlecontinues!)

 Depending on what point is trying to be demonstrated, one must take a perspective which most suits its display. ...(A goal, of course! is to maintain the intention of  NOT ADDING to the suffereing of beings, and hopefully to alleviate it.) I think, though the perspective of not holding something sacred can appear to be lacking... And often is taken too seriously  by people (Clinging) and it is used as a way to dismiss their resistances towards a plethera of things such as: commitment to a practise, their emotional triggers, feelings of hoplessness, etc, it can also a sign of great understanding in this world. (I’m not sure I agree with his statement about HOOOW great a person is if they have humour…. But I think it still can be a good sign)  (we got some Pre and Post somethinghappening here) Either way, disassociative or not, humour forces a bit of objective experience...So long as we are mindful, there is less damage done than if we are in denial of it.

I think it would be intersting to question how Humour is interpreted from the different memes...I think it's all a matter of aiding one's survival... it's just a question of what one understands the word "survival"...

Anyways- In reference to the"ever-present states of consciousness—awakening to our own fundamental nature, to the infinite Ground of Being from which all phenomena arise, and to which they inevitably return"    I strait up agree with this notion!!!! I would like to know what truth claim is easier to defend!!!! :D

I am trying to understand the first part of your last statement as It seems somewhat contradictory to your earlier complaints (and not in a dual-truth sort of way). Please, I would love to know what it is you have to offer interms of more encompassing and less confusing ways of understanding our worldly phenomena. I am wondering if perhaps you don’t understand the concepts Wilber is trying to demonstrate as fully as you think?

Perhaps I don’t understand the concepts you are trying to demonstrate as fully as I think? Perhaps you’d like to flesh out some of your points?

I would like to end this the with the comment that I believe Ken is a human, and just as human as us. I believe he has learned things within a context and has broken out of the majority of structures in which he has been aware of. He may not be Shadow-free (with tendancies towards certain structures) (but wait… is it possible to exist without tendancy??? I don’t know!) ... Sometimes I feel sorry for the guy, as he is sitting here trying to demonstrate patterns… and teach the value of patterns… a beautiful, wonderful, Yellow insight… but he is also trying to show truth’s beyond patterns and structures… all within a structure. Languages within languages. I definitely don’t mistake Ken for an all-knowing God, but boy-oh-boy…as soon as he “found” an “all-encommpassing” map, people wanted him to be the all encompassing territory… I think his maps have a bias towards his experience. But his experiences also seem to coincide with over a thousand years of Other people’s experiences, who were attempting the same thing…

Thanks for your comment! Way be critical and into voicing it.

:D

Ali