Re: Andy: change and growth/Jody
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jodyrrr"
> --- In email@example.com, "Andy"<endofthedream@y...>
> wrote:*****Yes, I understand this perspective. And I am suggesting that
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "jodyrrr"
> > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > > --- In email@example.com, Andy
> > <endofthedream@y...>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > [snip]
> > >
> > > > There is no growth.
> > > >
> > > > There is only apparent change.
> > >
> > > Some patterns and directions that can be observed in change are
> > > what we call growth.
> > >
> > > From the regard of the individual, there is a trajectory of
> > > development which seems to occur in the context of a spiritual
> > > practice.
> > *****This "trajectory of development" may occur in contexts other
> > than spiritual practice as well. Spiritual practice is nothing
> > special.
> I'd offer that spiritual practice *is* special when it is approached
> as a discipline of transformation. The engagement which practice
> engenders seems to allow for an accelleration of this
the understanding you offer is simply another story we tell
ourselves. It continues the sense of separation: this is special;
this is not special. I am involved in the "special" activity ----> I
am therefore special.
IS there actually transformation? Can one transform from what one is
into what one is?
Consider: if you believe you can't see, and therefore conclude that
you are blind, and then someone turns the lightswitch on and you now
can see...was there any transformation (other than the light coming
on)? You thought you were blind (because you couldn't see). That
was the "state" of things for you. However, in actuality, you were
not blind (that was a misunderstanding arising from thought). You
could see, but there was no light to allow that seeing to happen.
So, in turning on the light, was there transformation? That is what
awakening is all about: a realization that there was nothing to
transform into. That what was being sought was always, already Right
Here Now! Perhaps something was lifted, but that which "thinks" it
was transformed is exactly what was already, always There.
> The connection between transformation and understanding is*****Is this an assumption? I know it is common (popular) knowledge:
> only apparent, but you cannot deny that those who have come
> to understanding have *usually* done so from within the context
> of a spiritual practice.
those who have come to understanding have *usually* done so from
within the context of a spiritual practice. But is it so?
Perhaps there are many who have come to this understanding who have
not done any spiritual practice, about which we know nothing?
Maybe they embody this understanding "naturally," without effort?
Maybe, to some, the understanding is so...natural, commonplace, that
they do not speak of it (and thus we would miss them in any
statistical collection about who used spiritual practice
Maybe awakening happens ... spontaneoulsy (as in "spontaneous
remission") in some, with no preparation, no forethought, and, being
so, they don't even know it is "spiritual" and do not talk of it to
> True spiritual understanding is almost always preceded by*****Again: this is how such things are consensually perceived and
> massive personal transformation (growth through change.)
agreed upon. I wonder if that is not simply part of the "story."
See: change implies time and I wonder if time is really "real"
(Hahaha!!!). If there is only Now! then over the course of
what "time" does change happen? If there is only Now! and Now! and
Now! (despite the mind's - and society's - assertion that time is
linear: past, present, future) ... if all there is an immediate
Now! ... then over the course of what "time" does change happen?
Does not change require the positing of a past (I was this way
before)...and if so, what is this "past" other than memory?
> We may come to know ourselves as the eternally changeless, but we*****Yes, I would agree: we "seem to endure" ... but "seems" is
> seem to endure quite a bit of change before coming to that point.
not "is." ;-) One is fantasy; the other, actuality.
> If you like the study of the mind, Eglaelin, You might try GeorgPatanjali.
> Feuerstein's translation and commentary on "Yoga Sutra" by
> It is the basis of Raja Yoga. It is very systematic and wellformed.
>devi: i have it on order from the library, i've already read about
> Bobby G.
four or five commentaries, most from indian scholors, i'm actually
thinking about offering study groups in my area..