Frank's Summary

This week I was (re-)discovering my personal favorites in connecting with perfection. For me this is connecting with my true nature, and sometimes I call this rigpa or consciousness or Self. In this perfection is seen most easily. And then after resting in this for a while, it often branches and embraces and hugs the world from the inside. Because everything is experienced to be made out of consciousness, to be a play of rigpa, it's an expression and play of perfection. Because nothing in the world as experienced by me is separate from consciousness the whole world is felt to be perfect. I become more and more and certain through experimenting that this is one facet of the diamond of the great perfection, but there may be others.

Devotion to Self comes quite naturally, in form of adoring its flawlessness, timelessness and perfection.

Surrender to Self and to truth comes as to surrendering to the Self itself in meditation by letting go into it completely. There is almost a felt sense of relief and "aaahh" when the meditator dissolves into beingness in meditation. Inspired by Piet's reports from last week I also occasionally felt the urge to surrender to the flow of life itself and also give up many of questions, future planning, in form of a "Thy will be done."

When I say to myself the instruction doing my meditation undertakings: "Let God meditate you." or "Let rigpa meditate you." I always have to giggle bit after a few seconds, because I realize, it has never been any different…God (or rigpa) has ALWAYS been meditating me. What else could there be?

Miles, Piet thanks for the suggestion to move from "we are" to "are". Loved it. Just movement. Suddenly no more need to label people as people or things as things. Surprising. Who would have thought?

I have both Buddhist and Hindu elements in my path and like both of them.

Responses:

Miles wrote: "…It strikes me now that this may be just another subtle mind trick to think of the world as a context of self and other. As Piet pointed out to me a week or so ago, what if "we are" simply turned into "are?" There were no subjects, no objects, just appearances and actions. That distinction of relationship versus self-exploration breaks down and there just is. …"

As I mentioned in my report I experimented with your suggestion and found it very helpful. Surely this points deeper towards ultimate reality. I deeply appreciate it. It's a beautiful place to be.

Here is one side comment though. What, if the way we are might not just be an illusion, but also a manifestation of absolute perfection. How many perfections can we find in this dance of life from its formless being (e.g. dharmakaya) to the form bodies? One? Finitely many, if yes, how many? Infinitely many? If we can only find perfection on the formless level, and can't find satisfying perfection somehow on the level of manifestation I would argue that we have actually disproved wh, (and the tenet of non-duality probably at the same time.)

Piet wrote: "…Another question is the difference between 1) devotion to a deeply held idea/belief, namely that all is perfect, on the one hand; and 2) devotion to an intense struggle with the incredible paradox that the wh presents, by holding up the possibility (not the certainty!) of ultimate perfection in the face of blatant imperfection all around us, on the other hand….Do you agree that there is a difference, and if so, how do you see your approach with respect to 1) and 2) above? Or would you characterize your approach as yet different from the two I sketched?"

Piet, your fine distinctions are useful and clarifying. Yes, after reading this I think I am mostly a 1) guy. However I also have my 2) struggles. A general comment is that by making these distinctions you are creating reality, not finding reality. This can useful for some of the reasons you mention (e.g. clearer communication etc…) But then you say: "…If I understand you correctly, you work with 1). This is certainly a wonderful path of religious practice. Whether 1) or 2) is the best approach will depend on the person, and even for the same person, may be different at different times in his or her life. However, whichever we choose, I think it is important to be clear about our choice…." This I can't follow. Why does there have to be choice? Why can't things unfold as they naturally unfold? Having to make a choice is a potential avenue to create suffering. The additional creation of this "either/or" reality with its implied choice I do not find helpful. Although I mostly work with 1) I certainly sometimes work with 2). Because sometimes imperfections flow drastically in my face, seemingly irreconcilable with wh and then 2) is a more natural way to work with the situation than 1).

An example for working with 2) I had a number of months ago, was that I struggled intensely with the wh variant "I am already enlightened and perfect, right here, right now, just as I am." Here REALLY evidence to the contrary flies blatantly in my face, for my whole life more or less. Now what? Finally the struggle resolved itself in what I would call a kensho-like aha. I saw clearly and beyond any doubt, that the only reason why I thought I was incomplete in any way, was because I believed the thoughts that were telling me so. But it was also seen that these were just thoughts, just mental chatter that has nothing to do with what's really going on in life. There was deep peace, and although that didn't last, something very meaningful stayed with me from that experience.

In conclusion I believe I owe a lot to 1) and 2), so it's a mix. Why do we need to choose between anything? And who is choosing?

This leads me to few meta-comments. Spiritual progress isn't logical, and why should it be so? One often works with totally conflicting assumptions in the mind. But that's OK, they don't represent truths, only models. Buddhist philosophy on emptiness makes that quite clear. I found quite some relief in giving up the demand that spiritual ideas should be particularly consistent etc. When inventing spiritual theories and concepts less is often more. Because in the end you have to put most of it down again. There is something to be said for simplicity in spiritual discourse. Which conceptual tools do we really need to communicate meaningfully about wh?

 
To Rod:

In that spirit here my Zen masterly comment to Rod: "Why are you making "designed universe" vs. "complete universe" etc? Put it down. You have to put it all down.