|
Post by Thomas on Aug 30, 2010 15:09:33 GMT -5
I meant to ask a question in relation to your comments about enneagram being an oracle, so is Tarot and Kabbalah the same, or how about the I ching. Do you see any great value in exploring these as a contemplative?
Also, re psychotherapy, what approaches do you think are good? CBT? NLP?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Aug 30, 2010 17:27:46 GMT -5
Hello Thomas, Tarot and Kabbalah are not the same thing; however, they have common influences having come from common European and Middle Eastern sources. I Ching, of course is Chinese, but most of the occult and oracle traditions have common roots in Alchemy. However, all questions regarding oracles really belongs in this forum astro-jhana.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=tarotI did find oracles useful to my development of self-awareness until I developed more insight. So, a contemplative should seek to develop intuitive, revelatory, insight first, but use oracles when deemed necessary. On psychotherapy as an extraction vehicle: Any psychotherapy that leads to self-awareness is useful, and its usefulness is often a function of how self aware and contemplative the therapist is. So, yes, seek therapy, but seek it from a contemplative whenever possible. When I approached Plum village for refuge I was told they would not be interested in me, and I was advised to avoid the ecstatic states I was experiencing. I did not speak to Thich Nhat Hanh directly, but his administrator made Thai’s policies clear to me. I did not approach the Dalai Lama directly; however, I did have access to people who are major funders of the Dalai Lama, and they made every effort to insulate the Dalai Lama and his funding sources from me. There are other ways to find out if the Dalai Lama, Thich Nhat Hanh, or any other teacher, such as Bhante Gunaratana, have any interest in supporting mystics. One need simply review the teacher’s writing. Since I had found that Bhante Gunaratana had written a book on jhana, I thought he might be the right priest to gain refuge and ordination from. I corresponded with his organization, requested ordination, filled out their form, helped organize a retreat that was led by Bhante Gunaratana in Orange County, CA, which Michael Hawkins and Karen attended. When I got to the retreat center the nuns asked me to be their resident monk, and a local lay follower gave me a robe. However, when Bhante Gunaratana arrived he set to work assassinating my character. After the nuns withdrew their offer for me to be their resident monk, then Bhante Gunaratana installed his own man there. I am not familiar with Rodney Smith’s work. One need only see where jhana fits into any Buddhist teacher’s teaching. If they do not get that jhana was the Buddha’s vehicle to enlightenment, and it was not at all optional in his doctrine, then that teacher does not understand the Buddha dhamma. However, I am not aware of a single Buddhist priest or meditation teacher who understands these central points. Regarding Eckhart Tolle and other contemporary non-dualists: Most non-dualists express non-dualism as a point of view only. If that is the case, then their teaching is superficial. Non-dualism is an aspect of jhana and Samadhi. The deeper one goes into Samadhi, the more non-dual the experience. A non-dual teacher who does not understand that is superficial. Love to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on Aug 31, 2010 13:28:55 GMT -5
Thanks for your reply Jeffrey,
And I'd like to pass on a thanks to Linda for the enneagram thing, I read that and was pretty blown away, I'm also a type 5 and that just nailed me on the head. One thing it mentions about type 5's is how withdrawn they are, in a secretive kind of world, investigators is the name they use. They mention the relation to the parents, as was my own case, of an over-bearlingly loving mother, and a totally absent father, as often being the case with type 5's. This really shook me up. My mother always smothered me, always pried into my world, never gave me breathing room, and thus I am one of these people who have just cut every one off, I do my meditation, yoga, and work (as little as possible), and even live in a foreign country, far from people who speak my language, and I always have had difficulties communicating with people and making friends. Even while hitting 2nd Jhana on a daily basis, I feel that sense of isolation, that feeling of wanting to be connected with other people, I guess to be seen and respected? This relation to the parents seems to be what hit me though, I don't want to even see my mother, it seems all she knows how to do is love you to death! Its like ok ok mom, thx, I know, just back off, I do have other needs in my life than you! Relationships is a problem, I dont think I will get married, I dont want to have kids, I really just want to write music and be a contemplative...
Thomas
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on Aug 31, 2010 14:02:03 GMT -5
Well I can't believe it. After I posted the last message, I go to my email and there is a note from my mother. I had talked about plans for visiting, and there she was telling me about the flight scedules and that she could come to meet me and if I was going to be on skype later for chat...christ. Well my deep intuition was angry, and for the first time I just shot an email back and told her off, nothing bad, just said what I felt. I was almost shaking with fear. I feel some sort of repressed emotions dissipating, feels like it was the right thing to do, it needed to be said.
love to all, Thomas
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Aug 31, 2010 18:42:02 GMT -5
Friends, Thomas, while seeking the solitude that we often need to plumb the depths of the self through the ecstatic states, we nontheless should not be offensive to others to get that solitude. Parents love us, and we often think they may love us to death, so we take our space respectfully, but determinably.
Love to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 1, 2010 13:04:56 GMT -5
I agree with Jeffrey, Thomas, it is a bit difficult to assess your situation, and to be fair to your mother we would need to know all about her perspective/history etc, you know, like a family counselor, they need to see everything, to be able to be fair and restore some sense of balance and understanding. So in this case, its is best to advise as Jeffrey did, that leading a contemplative path means we must be considerate of everyone. Otherwise we become (useless) family counselors and not contemplatives.
Having said that, I sympathize with your situation because I know how hurtful families can be to one another by a simple lack of awareness. Your angry response may have been a wake-up call to your mother to just ease off, and realize that you aren't a baby anymore. In her eyes though, you will always be her baby...
Love to all, Linda
|
|
|
Post by Thomas on Sept 1, 2010 13:12:41 GMT -5
Your comments are much appreciated, thankyou Jeffrey and Linda. My normal response to my mother 'babying' me is to internalize the anger, where I will just wait for it to dissipate, it can bother me for days, and sometimes really physically upset me. I usually dont reply, and when I do, I usually have tried to make it seem like I was appreciative etc. Enneagram type 5's do like this, so I read, they are afraid of showing emotions, which is true for me, especially anger. And so yes when I do get angry it is usually explosive, and I always regret it. This was direct and to the point and I just didn't think about it, I replied immediately and got it off my chest and it felt good. Like I said it was nothing bad, but I did ask her to please be more considerate towards me.
I realize as a contemplative, our aim is to extract our true being/awareness from this 'body' of suffering. So I guess this just means that I'm still in that 'body'.
Love to all, Thomas
|
|
|
Post by Bill Vollman on Sept 11, 2010 14:40:48 GMT -5
Jeffrey, is the connection between the im/material a continuum? I mean like in the way a continuum is described in mathematical topology? Would 'awareness' be that continuum?
best regards, Bill
|
|
|
Post by Linda on Sept 12, 2010 13:19:37 GMT -5
Hi Jeffrey, I understand your point about Eckhart Tolle, and had never really taken notice of his work anyways. I tend to skip over things that say "2 million copies sold!". Anyways today i happened to pick up one of his book and browse through it and I must say I was surprised what an excellent, and very simple, writer he was. I really had that feeling that he was talking specifically to me, and the logic of his thinking is very simple and elegant. Actually one of his points was very similar to what we were talking about here, he also makes a very bold distinction between the 'insanity' (his word) of the world, and that of the contemplative.
Personally, and I think this is true for most people, when you start saying that the world is 'insane', you sort of wonder if this guy isn't a lunatic or something. We grow up thinking insanity is 'sanity', and that sanity, or the way of the contemplative, is just weird. All of our habits were modeled/based upon a society that is totally out of control and insane. And Tolle doesn't seem afraid to say that either. While it may be superficial, I found alot in there that was useful to me, and perhaps out of that 2-5 million that has supposedly bought his work, and the 34 million that watched him on Oprah, a few might take it further.
Jeffrey, I seem to feel that your work is really for those who have already touched on Jhana, for more advanced students, what do you think?
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Sept 13, 2010 14:45:27 GMT -5
Hello Bill and Linda, and thank-you for posting your most interesting questions.
Bill: In my experience the material and immaterial domains are completely separate universes laid upon each other with mirror-like reflection of each other.
While the only aspect of "us" that can enter both domains is awareness, nonetheless, I do not find that it is awareness that saturates both universes. However, I would agree that the immaterial domain is most probably made up entirely of awareness.
Linda: Yes, I agree Eckhart Tolle, and others are most certainly onto good things; however, what they are into is really just introductory. So, yes Linda, my work is for those who wish to go beyond the first and second jhanas.
Love to all, Jhananda
|
|
|
Post by firehorse on Oct 24, 2010 5:06:17 GMT -5
Hi Jhanada, I was wondering what you meant by 'receiving refuge'. I quote...''Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama, on the other hand, were an inspiration for me for many years. However, I was not welcome to receive refuge from either of them when it was found I had jhana. We can conclude, while they might be reasonably honorable and respectable priests, they certainly are not mystics''. ... and was wondering how you can conclude that they are not mystics because of this? I look forward to some clarity on this matter. Love.
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Oct 24, 2010 18:05:38 GMT -5
Hello firehorse, it is a pleasure to receive your enquiry. When one examines my work one is immediately presented with a conflict. One has to either accept Jeffrey S. Brooks (AKA Jhananda), as a major mystic in the tradition of Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Rumi, Kabir, Patanjali and Siddhartha Gautama; or reject him as a lunatic, narcissist, or just plane raving schizophrenic. Now, if you reject me as one or more from lunatic through schizophrenic, then you will have to reject the major mystics: Teresa of Avila, John of the Cross, Rumi, Kabir, Patanjali and Siddhartha Gautama, as well, because my discourse is consistent with theirs. Which means in your mind it is a good thing that the Catholic Church burned mystics at the stake for being witches. And, every religion, including Buddhism, has engaged in martyring their mystics. Another way of looking at this issue is, when I sought refuge and ordination within a Buddhist context I was rejected from every source, which included sources close to Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama. So, those who find it easy to dismiss my work need only site Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama as support for their premise that I am a lunatic, narcissist, or just plane raving schizophrenic. Another point of view on this subject is, as a rigorous contemplative who is also a linguistic anthropologist and scholar of early Buddhist literature, I have shown how key concepts in the Discourses of the Buddha have been traditionally mistranslated for about 21 centuries. If that is true, and Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama have not revealed that they are aware of these mistranslations, then it either shows that Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama are bogus spiritual leaders, or I am. Another point of view on this subject is, if anyone were to examine any translation of the Discourses of the Buddha one will find ecstatic language throughout that document. Anyone who examines the work of the major mystics will find ecstatic language throughout their work. Anyone who examines my work will also find ecstatic language throughout my work. However, if we examine the work of Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama we do not find ecstatic language. Since a mystic is characterized by ecstatic language, then we can conclude that Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama are not mystics. Further the fact that my discourse reflects ecstatic language, and the Buddha’s Discourses also revealed ecstatic language, then it should bolster any argument that Jeffrey S. Brooks (AKA Jhananda) actually understands the dhamma better than Thich Nhat Hanh and the Dalai Lama. If any of my premises are correct, then we should ask, “Why was Jeffrey’s request for refuge and ordination rejected by every Buddhist priest he enquired with?” Definition: when I refer to ‘refuge’ in the above statement I do not speak in terms of the lay ceremony in which a layperson requests refuge. I have received lay refuge from many Buddhist priests and meditation teachers. When I use the term ‘refuge’ above I speak of refuge in the monastic sense of providing me with a place to rest, food, a peaceful place to meditate, study, and teach, etc. Love to all, Jhananda Source: The Witch-hunt, The Oppression of the Ecstatic Contemplatives, paper read at the 2006 CESNUR conference. www.greatwesternvehicle.org/criticism/witch-hunt.htmwww.cesnur.org/2006/sd_brooks.htm
|
|
|
Post by firehorse on Oct 26, 2010 7:06:02 GMT -5
Hi Jhananda, Thanks for the response. Having spent much time in Asia and studying Tibetan Buddhism for some years, I don't think The Dalai Lama would have rejected your request for ordination on the grounds that you were experiencing jhana. It is the same thing that they practise - they (Tibetans) just call it by another name - completion stage of tantra. Knowing Tibetan /Asian culture as I do, I would have thought that their decision had more to do with cultural and practical reasons. People I have met who have been ordained by the Dalai Lama simply went to live in Dharam Sala to be near Him and took it from there. Loyalty is very important to Tibetans, as is the guru / student relationship. Also, considering His popularity over the years, it is now very difficult to get near Him. I do, however have some issues myself with the Dalai Lama, Tibetan culture and Mahayana Buddhism, which is why I now do samatha practise. The place I attend in the UK has it's roots in Thai Buddhism and is pro jhana. I am finding my meditation practise going in leap and bounds since I have been doing their method - it really seems to suit me. I am not going to reject either you or the others. I am just going to continue doing what the Buddha suggested... so I shall keep on investigating, testing, experiencing and learning with an open, logical mind with as much equanimity as I can generate. After all, it is about our own personal experience, is it not? I can only work on my own liberation by choosing what is right for me. Much love.
|
|
|
Post by jhananda on Oct 26, 2010 14:42:54 GMT -5
Your response, Firehorse seems reasonable and supported by the suttas. Kalama Sutta, AN 1 9. "Come, Kalamas. Do not go by revelation; do not go by tradition; do not go by hearsay; do not go on the authority of sacred texts; do not go on the grounds of pure logic; do not go by a view that seems rational; do not go by reflecting on mere appearances; do not go along with a considered view because you agree with it; do not go along on the grounds that the person is competent; do not go along (thinking) 'because the mendicant is our teacher.' Kalamas, when you know for yourselves: These are wholesome; these things are not blameworthy; these things are praised by the wise; undertaken and observed, these things lead to benefit and happiness, having undertaken them, abide in them." Edited by Jhananda www.greatwesternvehicle.org/pali/tipitaka/2Sutta-Pitaka/4Anguttara-Nikaya/Anguttara1/3-tikanipata/007-mahavaggo-e.htmLove to all, Jhananda
|
|