the practice/don't practice paradox

[david_obsidian]

Inspired by Jim's post,  I'm taking a look at this question:

But what I dont' understand is the end game. I can't reconcile great sages telling us to merely drop illusion with other great sages telling us to practice, practice, practice.


I've observed the same paradox and have thought about it for some time.

My own approach is to take on both instructions:  the first, 'you do not need to practice',  and the second 'practice'!

It may seem contradictory to take on both,  but the two instructions can be reconciled by understanding that the first instruction is approximate.

The first

 'you do not need to practice -- you are always already there'

is an instruction to let go.  It is an informing that you are always already there.  It is an instruction to drop all tension,  all striving,  all struggle to make and become.

You do that and you practice.

 a.  let go,  you are already there
  b.  practice

Consistent now?  As instruction for practice,  definitely.

The consistency between the two can be probed even further.  When we are told to practice,  we bring tension and striving with us.  We weren't instructed to bring striving,  we just bring it.  Striving is something we add.  'Let go,  you are already there' is an antidote for the striving and tension we bring to the practice,  not the practice itself.  So a. becomes a clarification and improvement of b., rather than a contradiction of it!


'Let go,  you are already there' is in a way,  when it is all properly understood,  just another instruction for practice.

By the way,  when I say 'when it's all properly understood',  I don't believe Krishnamurti and others necessarily understood this when they taught.  I think there are many subtleties to spiritual instruction that Krishnamurti did not comprehend.  It is unfortunate because to teach as Krishnamurti did can be to add to people's confusion.  But we must understand that people who attain enlightenment are not necessarily very strong or flawless teachers by any means.

Best regards,

-David

[ebby]

Thank you David, after reading your message and your responce to this theme, I seem to have a clearer picture.  I agree with you totally.  And I would just like to add that some disciples are not good listeners.  There are always two sides to a coin.

Ebony-Khadija Davis

[quickstudy]

Check out lesson 84 - "The Art of Doing Nothing," where this one is danced with some more. http://www.aypsite.com/plus/84.html

[david_obsidian]

Hello Khadija,

that is certainly true.  Honestly though,  in Krishnamurti's case,  I think he was just short in some of the skills that make one a strong spiritual teacher.  There are certainly other opinions on that question.  And I have no doubt that some people found him very helpful.

Being very strongly skilled in something and being very strong at teaching it are not necessarily the same.  This is true for anything, and I think spirituality is no exception.   When we see that John McEnroe,  for example,  was one of the truly great,  world-class tennis-players,  we do not assume that he is a wonderful,  world-class tennis coach.

Certainly,  if you are a tennis-player,  you can gain something from watching him play,  and I am sure a lot of tennis-players did.  But to be a really good tennis-player yourself,  you may need very good coaching and you have to be very wise about how you get it.  And it may be good to understand that there is a big difference between being a strong player and a strong coach.  So John McEnroe might not be your best choice of tennis-coach.

Certainly,  sometimes people were both,  and could become very great world-class teachers of spirituality.  They are just people who happen to have both sets of skills -- very strong spiritual realization,  and very strong teaching and leadership skills.  The 'very strong teaching and leadership skills' needed to become a world-class teacher of spirituality require,  among other things, a lot of cognitive empathy;  strong intelligence (according to the specific needs of the age);  an awareness and openness to existing traditions and an ability to build on their strengths while helping them to adjust and change where they are weak; deep insight into where people are at; an ability to triage well (choose battles) in dealing with people's illusions;  an ability to construct as well as dissolve;  an ability to work deftly with paradox;  and an ability to inspire and motivate. I think that Gautama Buddha was such a teacher-realizer.  I think that,  whereas Krishnamurti is seen by many as being such a teacher,  I don't think he was,  and the reason is simple --- he did not have the skills needed.

So my point is simple --- even if a person is a strong realizer,  that is no proof that they are teaching well.  It's not a proof that they are not making big mistakes in their teaching.  In such a case,  a student would be wise to leap over the mistakes and limitations of the teacher -- and at the same time,  to use what is good and strong about that teacher at the same time.  So if people find Krishnamurti deeply inspiring, very good.  But I think they should watch out for his improperly nuanced,  and improperly informed,  instruction to stay away from spiritual paths and methods.

Blessings,

-David

quote:Originally posted by ebby

Thank you David, after reading your message and your responce to this theme, I seem to have a clearer picture.  I agree with you totally.  And I would just like to add that some disciples are not good listeners.  There are always two sides to a coin.

Ebony-Khadija Davis

[Ute]

David,
Good points. Yogani, and another teacher from my past, mention also that people who become enlightened, seemingly without much effort (at least in this lifetime), often cant teach us well because they dont really appreciate how they got there. They more often tell us what its like which can be very inspiring, but not so useful in guiding the way.  Oriah Mountain Dreamer in her book The Call, also talks about how very talented people often cant teach the skill they are great at, because they seem to have been born with it, rather than having acquired it, step by step. In my own experience, I think of Eckhart Tolle, another (supposed) spontaneously enlightened person. I love to listen to him expounding on the Power of Now. There is wisdom in trying to live as much as possible in the present moment, but I suspect that my concentrating on improving my capacity to live in the now will not bring me enlightenment. Yet  when I am in Unity Consciousness, Im firmly anchored in the Now. Its the yogic practices that get me there, though.
Blessings,
Ute

[david_obsidian]

Thanks Ute.

>> In my own experience, I think of Eckhart Tolle, another (supposed) spontaneously enlightened person. I love to listen to him expounding on the Power of Now.

I have found Tolle useful and helpful too.  I'm wondering though if he overplays the extent to which his own enlightenment was spontaneous.  After his initial 'enlightenment' experience,  he did make use of many teachers and his books seem to imply that his enlightenment level grew during these times.  But there is very little credit given to these teachers and methods.  So I think he may even be forgetting (or downplaying) what got him there in this life!!

-D

[Ute]

Jim and David,
I want to chime in on the practice/dont have to debate, also. I think we need the practice to drop the illusions. I dont see it as dualistic. One of my teachers named the two aspects will and surrender and said they were the two wings of the bird, which allowed it to fly.
Blessings,
Ute

[david_obsidian]

Thanks Ute,  a very nice analogy.

quote:Originally posted by Ute

Jim and David,
I want to chime in on the practice/dont have to debate, also. I think we need the practice to drop the illusions. I dont see it as dualistic. One of my teachers named the two aspects will and surrender and said they were the two wings of the bird, which allowed it to fly.
Blessings,
Ute

[nearoanoke]

In "my view", YOU HAVE TO PRACTICE

Before you decide you need not practice ask yourself if you can do all of the following

1. Can you stimulate yourself sexually for hours and hours without losing it?
2. Can you feel the pain of the other person exactly as much as you feel your pain? Literally speaking, (if we all are one and we are already there) why do we still feel pain if somebody pricks us with a needle and dont feel the pain if the other person is pricked?
3. Are you perfectly free from all the six evils - kama (sexual desire), krodha (anger), lobha (miserliness), moha (material attractions), mada (pride), mathsarya

and more questions like these.

i agree we are all divine beings. but we are like windows that needed to be cleaned of the dirt for the divinity behind to be seen. There's nothing wrong with thinking we are already there but we need to practice. At the same time there is nothing wrong if we practice and think we are NOT yet there. people like krishnamurthi are misleading, atleast for starters in yoga like me.






God might not always give you what you WANT, but he will always give you what you NEED

[david_obsidian]

quote:Originally posted by nearoanoke

 people like krishnamurthi are misleading, atleast for starters in yoga like me.

Yes Near.  Krish is not just misleading for what you call starters.  An underlying irony of the whole thing,  I think,  is that he might well have been a far stronger teacher if he practiced himself.

[sauravu]

On this topic I agree with UTE . They are talking about 2 diff ways of accomplishing thing. One of which is strive through strenuous physical and mental stated paths. and the other one is surrender to the higher powers to remove the illusion . Mind you the 2nd path is no easier than the first one. You have to let go off whatever you desires you may have with utmost care.This will remove the illusion. Something similar happens in Bhakti path  . Surrender is only required to god or truth and  the illusions are removed one by one to be able to see the truth or sanatan.
2 Different ways -- You can choose which one do you want . Both equally hard or easy it just depends on your iniitial mental make up.

[Etherfish]

Interesting discussion. In Yogani's history of Yoga in the west by books, he talks of an earlier time when it was in vogue to philosophize rather than practice. I think those people thought they couldn't 'do it' themselves. No wonder; the secrets we have in AYP had been hidden or encrypted for a long time. How many people could read books like the bible and get the 'amen' mantra and spinal breathing out of it? maybe devotion, but how many people awakened inner energy or removed bad karma? I remember looking at Indian books in the library when I was young, and they seemed mind bogglingly complex, and impossible.

So it's possible that the 'don't practice; you're already there' instruction originated in an earlier time when people did asanas and stared at candles until they were blue in the face, then received some sort of relaxing non-attachment from quitting practice. in a way they're right though; if time is one of the illusions of Maya, there is a part of us that *is* already there. But until I am aware of that part of myself 24/7, i'm going to practice.

Another thought: I don't believe 'enlightenment' is some sort of static achievment, where you've hit the top and it's done.
I believe if we're not growing we're dying. So in that light, being 'already there' wouldn't mean you would stop practicing.
Just different practices. How many world class athletes don't practice anymore? Supposedly Babaji has advanced students. i bet
i'd think I was 'already there' if I could achieve what any of them have, yet they are still learning. . .

Etherfish