25 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterBefore a person comes to this place of surrender which BM is talking about here (otherwise called the "infilling" of the Holy Spirit) that person is still capable of stumbling and falling away from the faith -- even of renouncing Christ altogether. This is why Christ stresses the necessity of keeping one's "hand on the plow" (Luke 9:62), i.e. continuing to seek God and present oneself to God daily as a "living sacrifice" (Rom 12:1). When a person finally surrenders completely to God, he or she is then "infilled" with the Holy Spirit and thereafter controlled by the Holy Spirit. But until that happens, there is always a danger of a believer losing their faith.
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 )
The issue involved is one of Lordship. A believer may acknowledge Christ as Savior, yet never allow the Holy Spirit to be Lord. I may claim to be Christian, jump through the prescribed hoops, witness to others, have a fish-sticker on my bumper, go to church faithfully, yet... persistently deny the Holy Spirit's Lordship in my life. As a carnal Christian I am following my own path, not God's. I am converted, but not out of danger. Only those who finally and permanently surrender to the Lordship of the Holy Spirit in their lives are truly "safe," i.e. sozo, whole.
Many will taste the goodness of the Holy Spirit but never surrender to Him.
25 Nov 07
2 edits
Originally posted by vistesdHa, you're right (I do talk too much). I've been working on it, sort of. This is another one I like:
but “I” am too much of a talker... 😉 Then again, some of them are, too...
The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.
On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun auspiciously, but when night came and the oil lamps were growing dim one of the pupils could not help exclaiming to a servant: "Fix those lamps."
The second pupil was surprised to hear the first one talk. "We are not supposed to say a word," he remarked.
"You two are stupid. Why did you talk?" asked the third.
"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by LemonJelloI didn’t name any names! 🙂
Ha, you're right (I do talk too much). I've been working on it, sort of. This is another one I like:
The pupils of the Tendai school used to study meditation before Zen entered Japan. Four of them who were intimate friends promised one another to observe seven days of silence.
On the first day all were silent. Their meditation had begun aus ...[text shortened]... the third.
"I am the only one who has not talked," concluded the fourth pupil.
That’s a great Zen tale! I don’t know if it works out in Japanese, but the 4th one actually says the most words—if, in fact, he speaks out loud: there may be a hint of “talk in the head” there.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitYes , at times I have felt this but I have also had barren spells as well. There have been times where I have rowed with him and believed that he only loved the parts of me that were "nice" and times when I have not felt his touch. Overall , he's there in the background waiting to give me this intimacy and compassion when I surrender to it. Like any relationship , it has ups and downs though.
This sounds awfully specific. Are you describing your own experiences?
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdQUOTE-----------------
This is interesting: I was going to post something similar—although the mirror-image—last night, but didn’t. The only comments I have are non-argumentative:
[b]There are many reasons why we might not want an actual living Jesus hanging around us in our lives. We might prefer to go our own way and stay in charge of our affairs. So we pay our money and ta ...[text shortened]... that I found a different aesthetic, one that I think is also more reasonable.
Be well.
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.
In the end, one could say that I found a different aesthetic, one that I think is also more reasonable. ----------VISTED----------
---RESPONSE--------------------
Naturally I am fascinated by this experience of yours as you would expect. It sounds like you experienced a "keeling over" in the Holy Spirit and then came to a different conclusion about what the experience actually was. You obviously put a lot of thought into figuring out the experience.
I understand that you don't want to go into detail but I do have three questions for you.
1) Was the experience accompanied by a personal element in that you were loved and intimately known by God?
2) When you tried to figure it out did you factor in the idea that although part of you wanted it to be real another part of you might have not wanted it to be real at all?
3) Did you also factor in the idea that if the experience was actually the real Holy Spirit then the enemy of your soul (devil) would do anything to convince you otherwise and try and deceive you into rationalising it away?
I personally found that there were many deep motives for not wanting to think the experience is really an exterior God himself. The main one being that an exterior God who is really present with me means I must commit my life to living his way not mine , I found myself highly reluctant to give ultimate control of my life away (and still do)
I suppose one of 2 things must be true . Either I have talked myself into believing a mirage to be a real thing or you have talked yourself out of something real , believing it to be a mirage.
26 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeister[/b]The point about the details is that the content doesn’t matter in terms of validating any such experience. The details of the oasis do not make it more or less a mirage. (Unless, of course, when one takes the time to examine them, one discovers that those are elm trees that seem to be growing in the middle of the desert, rather than, say, date palms.)
QUOTE-----------------
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 t real thing or you have talked yourself out of something real , believing it to be a mirage.
The answer to all three of your questions is yes.
It was not just thinking about it that led to the understanding that the content was makyo—or mirage. It was also spending years watching how such things arise from the mind. Various forms of mindfulness meditation, in which one becomes just aware. Since there is no added mental activity in just-aware mind, or clear-mind, it is impossible to describe it accurately with words—which are back in the domain of thinking-mind.
_______________________________________
There is just-aware mind, and making-mind. When various Buddhists talk about mushin, “no-mind,” they are really talking about no-making-mind.
You are thinking: there is thinking-mind.
You are angry: there is anger-making-mind.
You are visualizing a daydream scene: there is image-making-mind.
You are praying: there is praying-mind.
Etc., etc.
What I call making-mind encompasses all such activity.
Underneath all that is just-aware mind.
There is no such thing as empty-mind (and Zen is not about any blanked-out-mind): there is only present-mind, just-aware, clear-mind.
___________________________________________
Since we are stuck with words here, imagine the following—
You are sitting at a favorite place outside. The sun is shining, it is pleasantly warm, there is a soft breeze. Birds are singing, various kinds of birds with various songs. Imagine the whole scene.
Now imagine the scene in two different ways:
I. In the first, when you hear a particular birdsong, you think to yourself, “Ah, that is a cardinal; and that is a mockingbird...” You think how pleasant the sunshine and the breeze are. You think, I like being here. You think, I feel really happy. You think... (Some of these thoughts are so swift and subtle and quiet, like fire-fly flashes, you may barely notice them.)
Then you remember the symphony you attended last night, and your mind wanders there. You recall with some disappointment how, during the music, you were distracted by trying to remember when you first heard this piece of music—and so you blanked out from the music and missed part of your favorite movement.
Then you think, I wonder how long I can stay here? Then you think, Did I remember to turn the stove off after I heated the water for tea? You try really hard to remember; you’re fairly certain that you did, but there is a nagging doubt. You become a bit anxious. You have to decide whether or not you need to leave and go check.
All the making, making, making of the making-mind.
II. Now imagine it this way, if you can. You hear the birdsongs, but do not name any of them, or think about naming any of them. You feel the sunshine and the breeze, without making any thoughts about pleasant or unpleasant. You are just there, aware, without your mind making anything else at all.
A hawk glides across the sky and disappears behind that ridge over there. You see it, your body may even feel a kind of gliding-sensation itself. But you don’t think anything at all about it. You are just aware, watching, listening, feeling...
A thought arises in your mind. You notice it, but you do not follow it, you do not try to push it away, you do not address it; you do not add more thoughts thinking about that thought. It glides across your consciousness like the hawk and disappears... You are not distracted.
This is clear-mind. You are just aware of all of it, tathata (suchness; the just-so-ness of it all), in which you are included, of which you also are, non-separable..
_____________________________________
Now, the point is not that one should not think, that the making-mind is somehow “bad.” It is a wonderful aspect of our nature. The point is that one begins to notice that thoughts arise in the mind in just the same way as sense-images do. And just as you can choose to entertain yourself by naming the various birdsongs you hear, you can entertain yourself by thinking various thoughts—or trouble yourself with them.
If you think that you ought to check to see if you turned off the stove, go check—no need to add worrying. If you want to think, think—just be aware what your mind is making.
Clear-mind is not limited to still meditation. All the martial arts, for example, commend it—because it is non-distracted mind. Tai Chi is also a moving meditation. Chopping wood, cooking food, eating... When you are driving, clear-mind means you are aware and responsive to whatever traffic situation presents itself; you do not run a red-light because you were thinking about something else—and you do not have to think about it first, before avoiding that distracted pedestrian (thinking takes time).
One Zen master put it something like this:
When you walk, just walk;
when you cook, just cook;
when you eat, just eat;
when you think, just think—
above all, don’t wobble.
_______________________________________
Now, as you read this, part of you might be thinking about how you might respond to various parts of it. Some of this thinking may be subtle, some may actually cause you to interrupt your reading. That is wobbly-mind. It often happens when we are in conversation with someone, and we end up not hearing all they have to say, or we pre-judge their intent before they are finished speaking, or we don’t notice the cues of their body-language, their facial expressions (which kind of thing is sorely absent from this kind of communication in writing).
Read it again, without making anything about it till your through. Not that it is sooo important! Just another practice. Perhaps you will notice how thoughts spring up as you go.
_____________________________________
I suppose one of 2 things must be true . Either I have talked myself into believing a mirage to be a real thing or you have talked yourself out of something real , believing it to be a mirage.
Yes. You are a very honest fellow—like Unamuno. That oasis is either an oasis or a mirage: how to decide?
All Buddhist metaphysics—karma, Nirvana, transmigration of souls, whatever—is also in the realm of making-mind. What I might call “bare Zen” is just about clear-mind and tathata; whatever one may think after, is whatever one thinks after.
_______________________________________
This is already an overlong post, and I want to change gears, so I’ll start a new one.
26 Nov 07
1 edit
There are Zen Christians.
On my wall as I write this is a large wood-panel painting of Rublev’s Trinity. What is it doing there? Is it just a leftover pleasantry from my Christian days?
No. It is an icon of the ineffable.
Below it, on a table, is a wood-carved statue of the Buddha. What is it doing there? Do I think the Buddha was divine?
No. It is another icon of the ineffable, the ineffable that the Buddha experienced, the tathata. Because he taught, using words as icons to point toward that tathata, and the manner of his presence as an icon of the tathata, he is called the tathagata: the “thus-come-one.”
But there is a saying of Zen master Lin Chi (Rinzai): “If you meet the Buddha, kill the Buddha!” What does this mean? If you think the Buddha is outside yourself—or is only the historical figure—you have created a mental idol, not an icon. You are tathagata; you are Buddha.
Any saying, painting, or mental construct can either be an icon or an idol. Any thought, image, vision, feeling, sensation in meditation or prayer can either be an icon or an idol.
The reason that Jews today do not pronounce the name of God, YHVH, is because they have a great sense of turning such things into idols, rather than an icon of the ineffable. Sometimes, they refer to it as the ineffable name. The Christian writer known as Pseudo-Dionysius warned about taking all of the name-attributes of God in the scriptures as anything but icons, pointing to the ineffable divine.
The incarnation in Christian theology is iconic—this, without regard to any other theological beliefs about Jesus as the Christ. Otherwise, God actually is a body: a big toe, genitalia, ears... It is the danger of idolatry here that leads many Christians to forbid images of Jesus, and why Eastern Orthodox icons are always highly stylized rather than having any realism.
These are just various examples. Some you may agree with, some you may not. I find it difficult to draw a hard line about when an icon becomes an idol.
Now, no matter if one takes the incarnation to be a real event, if it is not also iconic, it runs the risk of leading to idolatry. No Christian that I know worships the human-nature of Jesus, though some seem to come dangerously close. That is why orthodox (with either a capital or a lower-case “o” ) Christianity is so picky about the doctrine of the two natures; it is why some non-trinitarian Christians insist that Jesus was fully human, but, in a sense, carried the mantle of divinity by iconically pointing to the Father.
So, by iconic here, I am not challenging any theological position, or any other purposes of the incarnation. If you think that any of your theology has to change to accept this, then either I am not writing clearly, or you are not reading me clearly.
If the actual, historical living Jesus was an icon—either one, incarnated, person of the Trinity pointing through and by means of himself to the divine whole; or a thoroughly human being pointing to the divine—just so is any experience of the risen Christ.
You may take it as real, I may take it as a mirage—but either way, it can be icon. That is why I said that I am not so severe as some of the Zen masters when it comes to makyo. It also goes to how I understand maya (illusion), the one and the many, etc.
Idolatry means something a bit different in dualist-theist systems of thought than in non-dualist systems such as Buddhism. Undoubtedly, so does iconography. The concept of icon is one that I learned as a Christian, though it is also rich in Hinduism.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdThis is interesting stuff and highly engaging . However , for me the interesting thing was that Jesus said he would be with us and amongst us and it's plain to see that the experience you and I have had confirms that he may have been telling the truth. There are many complex theories that could potentially explain the Holy Spirit away but to me they are just theories that may of may not be true. The alternative theory is that Jesus actually is present with us . It may be a simple theory but that doesn't mean it's false.
There are Zen Christians.
On my wall as I write this is a large wood-panel painting of Rublev’s Trinity. What is it doing there? Is it just a leftover pleasantry from my Christian days?
No. It is an icon of the ineffable.
Below it, on a table, is a wood-carved statue of the Buddha. What is it doing there? Do I think the Buddha was divi ...[text shortened]... . The concept of icon is one that I learned as a Christian, though it is also rich in Hinduism.
26 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterThat is (aside from length) why I made two posts. The second is about theory; the first is not—it is about before theories. We talk on two levels. When we talk about philosophy, theology, dualism and non-dualism, we are theorizing: sorting, examining, making, adopting what we think are the most reasonable ones. No problem—we can even test them against one another in argument.
This is interesting stuff and highly engaging . However , for me the interesting thing was that Jesus said he would be with us and amongst us and it's plain to see that the experience you and I have had confirms that he may have been telling the truth. There are many complex theories that could potentially explain the Holy Spirit away but to me they ar ...[text shortened]... sus actually is present with us . It may be a simple theory but that doesn't mean it's false.
Tathata is before thinking, before mental representations of the making-mind. It is before all our talk about God, Christ, the Buddha. . .
______________________________________
The simplest Zen koan that I know is this—
Without thinking, what are you?
Or—
Before the makings of the mind,
before all concepts, images, thoughts or words,
can you find an “I”
that is not just another making of the mind?
Or—
Before all thoughts and notions,
how do you identify the Christ as Christ?
the Buddha as Buddha?*
you as “you”?
___________________________________
Don’t theorize! Find... (if you can).
That is Zen.
Again, the simple version: Without thinking, what are you?
____________________________________
I leave you with the koan. And this: that I find your stuff interesting and engaging as well.
Thank you for the opportunity for me to practice “expository Zen”. 😉
* I'm just being non-sectarian here. 🙂
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdI still have a problem with this because my experience of the Spirit is not really conceptual , it's more like a physical sensation or something. It goes beyond the conceptual. When I feel the wind against myself this is not conceptual but a primary physical sensation. Even if I had no concept of christ I would still feel that something or someone was there.
That is (aside from length) why I made two posts. The second is about theory; the first is not—it is about before theories. We talk on two levels. When we talk about philosophy, theology, dualism and non-dualism, we are theorizing: sorting, examining, making, adopting what we think are the most reasonable ones. No problem—we can even test them against ...[text shortened]... portunity for me to practice “expository Zen”. 😉
* I'm just being non-sectarian here. 🙂
Apparently you had exterior experiences yourself of Christ. If my hunch is right then the Holy Spirit will not give up trying to bring you simply to Christ. I hope this doesn't sound evangelical but I would say that your experience was valid and probably freaked you out or something. I'm very wary of over intellectualising things . To me truth is simple (not simplistic) .
One thought I would leave you with would be this. If christ was actually present via the Holy Spirit and he was the truth then there would be those who would experience him but would talk themselves (or be deceived) out of it. I know this is hard to take and you will probably not want to converse with me after saying this but I think the enemy of your soul has done a sophisticated number on you. know.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterI think you're falling into the trap of assuming that everyone else must experience Christ in the same manner that you do. If you talked to fellow Christians and found that their experiences of him were radically different, what would you make of that? Would you dismiss their faith as fraudulent?
Yes , at times I have felt this but I have also had barren spells as well. There have been times where I have rowed with him and believed that he only loved the parts of me that were "nice" and times when I have not felt his touch. Overall , he's there in the background waiting to give me this intimacy and compassion when I surrender to it. Like any relationship , it has ups and downs though.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by SwissGambitI think there are many different experiences , like everyone experiences cheese in a different way. If someone expereinced christ as telling them to blow up a building with children in it I would say that was not christ but fraudulent.
I think you're falling into the trap of assuming that everyone else must experience Christ in the same manner that you do. If you talked to fellow Christians and found that their experiences of him were radically different, what would you make of that? Would you dismiss their faith as fraudulent?
It's not for me to say what your experience is , that's up to you . If you felt his intimate touch on your soul in the places where you hurt most then great , if not then I would have to say your expereince is incomplete. Mind you I still have lots to learn myself so I can only speak from where I am now. If you spoke in tongues it means little to God if you did not feel his love. That's what he wants to give you (and me) .
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by knightmeisterThe experience is not conceptual. As soon as you say “Spirit,” that’s conceptual. You have added that concept, that interpretation, that understanding. Whether it is a correct one or not.
I still have a problem with this because my experience of the Spirit is not really conceptual , it's more like a physical sensation or something. It goes beyond the conceptual. When I feel the wind against myself this is not conceptual but a primary physical sensation. Even if I had no concept of christ I would still feel that something or someone wa ...[text shortened]... saying this but I think the enemy of your soul has done a sophisticated number on you. know.
Or, that word “Spirit” does not have any conceptual content, and is just being used as a pointing-word, a handy label for the ineffable experience. That is exactly how I use the word tathata, for example. Somehow, however, I think that for you that word “Spirit” has a great deal of conceptual content. Just as, for example, when I talk about non-dualism.
The koan is not to point you to any conceptual content. That is why it cannot be “solved” by thinking/theorizing. It points to direct experience of/as tathata in clear-mind.
After that, you can conceptualize about as you see fit. As I say, there are Zen Christians, whose theology is not necessarily any different from your own, who speak of experiencing Christ and the Holy Spirit.
Don’t worry, I take no umbrage at your comments, though I appreciate your sensitivity. I might say that I think maya has done a sophisticated number on you. 🙂
26 Nov 07
1 edit
Originally posted by knightmeisterBy '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.
I think there are many different experiences , like everyone experiences cheese in a different way. If someone expereinced christ as telling them to blow up a building with children in it I would say that was not christ but fraudulent.
It's not for me to say what your experience is , that's up to you . If you felt his intimate touch on your soul in ...[text shortened]... eans little to God if you did not feel his love. That's what he wants to give you (and me) .
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"? What happens if someone believes and does all these things, yet lacks the 'true experience'? Perhaps you will tell me this is impossible. In that case, there are a lot of ex-Christians lying to you.
* - assuming you do not have an exception clause, like being an Israelite eradicating a foreign nation from the land of Canaan.
26 Nov 07
Originally posted by vistesdI 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 experience is not conceptual. As soon as you say “Spirit,” that’s conceptual. You have added that concept, that interpretation, that understanding. Whether it is a correct one or not.
Or, that word “Spirit” does not have any conceptual content, and is just being used as a pointing-word, a handy label for the ineffable experience. That is exactly h ...[text shortened]... r sensitivity. I might say that I think maya has done a sophisticated number on you. 🙂
The real issue is whether the experience is telling us something substantial and phenomenological about the actual exterior universe. This is the separation, are we experiencing a living God who is real or not? 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.