Read Only Threads

Read Only Threads

A few forum members have posted the question 'AugustLeo, why do you post here if you don't want to have a discussion?'

The answer to that is simple. I'm just following the advice that Kenneth gave me.

During one of our frequent telephone conversations in early 2010, I confessed to Kenneth that I was reticent about posting my views on his forum, because I felt obligated to respond to each and everyone who posted a reply '“ it seemed the polite thing to do, but was quite a conceptual burden. Rather than feeling I HAD to respond, I just didn't post much.

Kenneth advised me to do what he does: only reply to those posts you really want to, and ignore the rest. That way, you share your understanding without it becoming a huge conceptual burden, and everybody wins.

Since that approach still seemed a little rude to me, I decided to announce ahead of time that I would most likely not reply to responding posts, so that respondents would not be disappointed when I did not reply.

So, in general, continuing to follow Kenneth's advice, I usually won't reply to responding posts. However, as always, I am available one-on-one via email or otherwise.

Thanks for explaining this, AugustLeo. Very helpful. I don't think anyone will object if you only respond to posts or questions from other yogis if you feel there is some benefit to it. And the fact that you make yourself available to the members by email (or PM?) shows that your intention is not to be rude or to leave anyone behind.

Read Only Threads (continued)

In a recent phone conversation Kenneth and I both agreed that discussion had little use for those seeking to leave behind the conceptual anchors that bind them to illusion.

Kenneth's tack is one of patience - let the the students discuss to their heart's content, and eventually they'll understand that discussion serves no real purpose and give it up for practice. I admire Kenneth for this patient point of view. Of course, I'm paraphrasing Kenneth's viewpoint and he can speak for himself on this topic.

But for me, I'd prefer that a teacher would take the opposite tack and be direct about the uselessness of discussion so I could surrender to Reality that much quicker. Just my different temperament. I suppose there's room for both approaches. Neither is correct.

So again, in general, I won't engage in discussion. There are plenty of members here willing to do that. However, as has always been the case, I am available one-on-one via email or otherwise.

I find it interesting that those who castigate AugustLeo for not entering into discussion, never once have sent a PM or email asking for clarification. Perhaps that means they're more interested in words than understanding. Perhaps not.

Best wishes.

AugustLeo

August, I understand your point of view and thank you for sharing it.
Another question - If you find discussion to be useless and rather give it up for practice - why post at all?
I say if you post something, replying to some people you wish to reply to is the same as replying via E-mail, but others also benefit from reading the interaction.

The dichotomy between discussion and practice seems to show a complete lack of understanding for the interpersonal dimension to awakening. A few well chosen words from one practitioner to another can really open things up, illuminating views we didn't realize we held, and app/roaches to practice/life we didn't know we were using.

The deeper point is that my own realization is ******** as far as others go, unless and until that realization is expressed in words and deeds. There are many more others than there are of me; no matter how free and clear I am what is the point when others suffer?

At a certain point, when one's own practice has alleviated "enough" of one's own illusory suffering (you choose how much is enough), one naturally seems to turn to benefitting others as the real challenge in life. Then one's practice and attainments are merely the precondition for this benefit. This is a much more challenging orientation to practice, it seems to me. For it immediately shows where one's realization is really at.

@ Yadid: Thanks for your question. I post to share a point of view that comes from my Understanding. It has nothing to do with discussion. I prefer email or telephone rather than posting, because once a relationship is developed my responses are targeted especially for the the one I'm corresponding with. There is neither discussion nor "not discussion"; it's all empty.

@ jhsaintonge: There is no interpersonal dimension to awakening; there are no persons, there is no me there is no you. What will happen, happens; it's all empty.

@ jhsaintonge: "At a certain point, when one's own practice has alleviated "enough" of one's own illusory suffering (you choose how much is enough), one naturally seems to turn to benefitting others as the real challenge in life ... ". This point of view is a common fantasy, conditioned by cultural beliefs.

I tend to stay out of these threads. I just wanted to say the few times I've corresponded with Augusleo have been greatly beneficial, and as he says, quite specific.

Also, I've gotten a lot out of Augustleos pointers and posts. Thanks Augustleo, I'm glad to see you around.

"

"

Hello:
@ jhsaintonge: There is no interpersonal dimension to awakening; there are no persons, there is no me there is no you. What will happen, happens; it's all empty.

nonsense. If I thought for one second that you understood that what you just said was a concept also I might take you seriously. "Those who don't understand emptiness are stupid. Those who believe in emptiness are stupider than cows." --Nagarjuna. Stop pretending not to exist.

@ jhsaintonge: "At a certain point, when one's own practice has alleviated "enough" of one's own illusory suffering (you choose how much is enough), one naturally seems to turn to benefitting others as the real challenge in life ... ". This point of view is a common fantasy, conditioned by cultural beliefs.

And obviously you haven't alleviated "enough" of your suffering yet to be of much use. When you are ready, the world will still be here in all its richness and complexity. The unfathomable narcissism of your comments is truly tragicomic, given the actual day to day experiences of most people on this planet. But I know, Michael, they don't exist. Mass rapes, wars, starvation, none of it exists.

I really hope you other fellows take a long hard look at this BS and speak out.

---People who read and lurk on these forums see this s h i t and run away from practice, not towards it.---

I don't know whether Michael lacks realization or common sense, but if you ask me, the former without the latter is a bad joke anyway.

@ Jake and anyone else: Please feel free to ignore what I post. Spend your vocabulary elsewhere, there's no interest here. You wear your beliefs like a badge of honor. Believe what you want. Disagree to your heart's content with anything I post. Quote anyone's quotes that you believe are worth making your point for you. Form any opinions you seem comfortable with. It's all good. Your belief in words doesn't make it true, and I clearly cannot reach anyone through words. Have at it. It just doesn't matter. Your words are empty, as are mine. There is no difference between us. I wish you the best.

AugustLeo, can you allow yourself to be vulnerable? Can you let us see Michael? This will allow whatever is next to unfold.

[Here is an excerpt from an exchange between Charles Tart and one of his students:]

Student: So you have to be somebody before you can be nobody?
Student: Yeah. I remember you were talking about that.
CTT: Yeah. You have to be somebody before you can be nobody. Jack Engler, a Buddhist meditation teacher and psychotherapist, is famous for being the first one to say that, I think. Disidentification is a tricky process because it can be used in a very pathological way. You can use disidentification to basically distance yourself from your human feelings and attain a kind of peacefulness that way, but at the cost of impoverishing your life. Didn't I talk about John Lilly a couple of classes ago?
Student: Yeah.
CTT: He was a famous psychiatrist whose brother or something died when he was a kid, and he was so upset for several days, and then he vowed he'd never feel an emotion again. And he managed to pull it off for the next 30 or 40 years of his life, without realizing how much he'd lost. The whole spiritual path can be used that way. The spiritual path can be a very effective psychological defensive mechanism. It's an attitude of 'I'm not going to quarrel with you. I'm at a higher spiritual level. I don't concern myself with mere Earthly disagreements like that.'

[Read the whole exchange here:]

blog.paradigm-sys.com/archives/490

If you are interested in contacting me personally, Kenneth has my email address. Best wishes.

"[Here is an excerpt from an exchange between Charles Tart and one of his students:]

Student: So you have to be somebody before you can be nobody?
Student: Yeah. I remember you were talking about that.
CTT: Yeah. You have to be somebody before you can be nobody. Jack Engler, a Buddhist meditation teacher and psychotherapist, is famous for being the first one to say that, I think. Disidentification is a tricky process because it can be used in a very pathological way. You can use disidentification to basically distance yourself from your human feelings and attain a kind of peacefulness that way, but at the cost of impoverishing your life. Didn't I talk about John Lilly a couple of classes ago?
Student: Yeah.
CTT: He was a famous psychiatrist whose brother or something died when he was a kid, and he was so upset for several days, and then he vowed he'd never feel an emotion again. And he managed to pull it off for the next 30 or 40 years of his life, without realizing how much he'd lost. The whole spiritual path can be used that way. The spiritual path can be a very effective psychological defensive mechanism. It's an attitude of 'I'm not going to quarrel with you. I'm at a higher spiritual level. I don't concern myself with mere Earthly disagreements like that.'

[Read the whole exchange here:]

blog.paradigm-sys.com/archives/490 "

Lovely exchange and very important topic. Thank you for posting this! I admit that I find it difficult to relate to personas such as AugustLeo as if they are suffering. My instinct is to take their claims at face value, and my critique is in response to what I percieve as their missing a huge chunk of reality-- like everything outside of their immediate experience. Perhaps I could be more vulnerable myself in such cases... but I honestly don't know how to get through to someone in such a state.

I learn alot about myself through your posts August, thank you for being a a nice mirror

Emptiness, at least as I experience it and know it, is not non-existence. It's not negation. It's not the complete disappearance of things. It's more like non-independence. Maybe it could be called complete and utter dependence. But to deny anything and everything and call that "emptiness" is, I think, to get it wrong. Likewise incorrect is the insistence that "we are the same" as if there was a total identity between me and you. Well.... no. That's just too literal. We are in some way part of a totality but the literal interpretation "we are the same" seems to me to erect another artificial barrier around everything. I don't think there are ANY barriers, around individual things or the whole.

JMHO

Hello Michael (if you're still reading this thread. I hope that you are.),

In response to Jake's comment that:

"At a certain point, when one's own practice has alleviated 'enough' of one's own illusory suffering (you choose how much is enough), one naturally seems to turn to benefitting others as the real challenge in life ... "

You responded with...

"This point of view is a common fantasy, conditioned by cultural beliefs."

Your previous statement to Jake was:

"There is no interpersonal dimension to awakening; there are no persons, there is no me there is no you. What will happen, happens; it's all empty."

I encourage you to look deeply into your assumptions in this statement and see if it, too, is conditioned by beliefs. "It's all empty," is an interpretation of experience, is it not? I bring this up not to discredit you, but to point toward a common denominator between your practice and that of the others in this forum. There are many people here who experience genuine realization through practice. The interpretation and articulation of both the experience and what it means to the practitioner tend to vary. I don't see this as a bad thing at all, so I see no reason to discourage it.

I, too, would love for you to open up to the rest of the group. For most people, it's not enough to respond with, "You're deluded. Those are just beliefs. Practice and wake up already." It actually comes off as a defensive reaction to having your beliefs questioned. That may or may not be the case, but we can't know unless we know you better.

I'm not sending this via private message because this conversation started out in the open, and I think it's only fair that it stay here. I wish you the best, regardless of whether you choose to respond.

-Jackson