Re: Andy: change and growth/Jody
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Andy" <endofthedream@y...>
> --- In email@example.com, "jodyrrr"I'm not suggesting that engaging in a practice makes us special
> <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Andy"
> > wrote:
> > > --- In email@example.com, "jodyrrr"
> > > <jodyrrr@y...> wrote:
> > > > --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, 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
> > transformation.
> *****Yes, I understand this perspective. And I am suggesting that
> 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.
with regards to other people, but I do agree that thinking oneself
to be special as a result of one's spiritual life does indeed contribute
greatly to the occlusion and can prevent understanding from being
> IS there actually transformation? Can one transform from what one isNo, but one can transform and be aided in life by the transformation.
> into what one is?
Also, look at the lives of various saints and you will see they generally
endured quite intensive periods of transformation (as individuals)
in their lives.
> Consider: if you believe you can't see, and therefore conclude thatVery good. I agree that no transformation is actually necessary.
> 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.
However, transformation is what happens in a spiritual practice,
and those who come to understanding usually do so in the
context of a transformational practice. The connection is only
apparent, but it is also very consistent.
> > The connection between transformation and understanding isYes. In most of those I believe to live in understanding, there was a
> > 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.
> *****Is this an assumption? I know it is common (popular) knowledge:
> those who have come to understanding have *usually* done so from
> within the context of a spiritual practice. But is it so?
period of spiritual practice and the accompaning psychological
transformation before their experiential understanding dawned.
> Perhaps there are many who have come to this understanding who haveThat may well be true.
> not done any spiritual practice, about which we know nothing?
> Maybe they embody this understanding "naturally," without effort?Perhaps. However, in those I've come across myself, there was usually
a period of sadhana that occurred beforehand, and that sadhana resulted
in various degrees of personal transformation.
> Maybe, to some, the understanding is so...natural, commonplace, thatThat could be true.
> 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 "spontaneousWho knows? If they aren't "spiritual" folk telling us about it, we'll
> 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
never know, will we?
> > True spiritual understanding is almost always preceded byThis is how things have been observed directly by myself. But
> > massive personal transformation (growth through change.)
> *****Again: this is how such things are consensually perceived and
> agreed upon. I wonder if that is not simply part of the "story."
I must agree that there could be many examples of understanding
that have occurred completely outside of anything we might
call a "spiritual" practice.
> See: change implies time and I wonder if time is really "real"Observation of transformation is called change. Now A. appears
> (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?
different than now B. That is change.
> > We may come to know ourselves as the eternally changeless, but weNot fantasy, memory. We can revoke memory's reality by saying it's
> > seem to endure quite a bit of change before coming to that point.
> *****Yes, I would agree: we "seem to endure" ... but "seems" is
> not "is." ;-) One is fantasy; the other, actuality.
not what "is", but that doesn't make it fantasy any more than telling
a story is fiction just because it's a story.
> 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..