Posted in AtR group:

Someone posted something before I could approve, I was at work (yes I have a 9 to 6 job, and I cannot be answering AtR all day) and the post disappeared before I could read it properly and approve it. None of my admins removed it as far as I know, which means the initial poster removed it himself. But I will try to respond based on what I can recall (I only took a glance at my workplace).

But basically that person feels confused and discouraged as awakening or stream entry seems elusive, all kinds of people and teachers presenting unique information that appears overwhelming and he didn't know who to trust.

Well first of all I have to say, be a little patient as it will all be figured out at the end if you have the heart to figure it out, if you truly wish to awaken, to discover Truth, I think everything will turn out well. There are plenty of people who awakened, through AtR as I've said, more than 60 have awakened to anatman. There are also teachers available -- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2024/01/finding-awakened-spiritual-teacher-and.html . And just to be clear, stream entry requires the realization of anatman, or at least Thusness Stage 5 and is not just the preliminary awakening (such as the I AM awakening), but still, the I AM awakening is crucial for a start.

It is true that awakening is not as simple and straightforward a journey as many would prefer and there are several stages of deepening and unfolding of insights even after the initial awakening. But in the end, all efforts will prove worthwhile. Before I even had any personal realizations (my awakening in 2010), I was acquinted with John Tan, who shared many things with me, including but not limited to the Thusness 7 Stages of Enlightenment https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

If you can truly understand (as I did, even before 2010) at least intellectually what these stages or phases of realization meant, then you will be able to understand why different teachers and spiritual aspirants say different things. There are actual, different stages of realization and insights, and different people express differently based on what they understand and realized. Of course many have not even realized the I AM -- Stage 1, but still, they might (or might not) be able to offer some good advise.

In any case, I can only suggest that you read the 7 stages carefully, then everything will start to make clearer sense. In my own experience, and those of many others, even if one has not awakened yet, those who read the AtR articles very quickly becomes less confused by the vast variety of views and sayings of different teachers and speakers in the spiritual marketplace and be able to discern what the insights meant, or even which phase of insight, and so on. Soon after reading the 7 stages and conversing with John Tan, even before I awakened, I was able to discern the correct view and even tell 'what stage the other teachers are at', although the point isn't to be able to discern which teacher or person is at which stage, it is more for one's own inner development and discernment so that when these stages unfold in oneself, it can serve as a guide.

But one must be patient and not expect to get it all at once. It often takes years of reading, contemplating, meditating, conversing with teachers and others etc to begin to see some fruition and one's understanding, then insights (experiential insights, not just intellectual understanding) begin to manifest and mature. There is no need to rush to the end point but it is important to have an earnest desire to discover the Truth.

It's like if you are at high school, there is no need to feel overwhelmed when you peek into a university or degree material. When you get there, eventually it will all make sense, although it may take a couple of years. But if you put your heart to it, there is no doubt you will get there eventually so to speak. (I'm just using this as an example -- of course, awakening does not mean academic achievement, even an uneducated person can be awakened)

In short: Do not feel exhausted at seeing the numberless discussions and differing views stemming from people at different stages of insights or varying experiences, but just have a good overall understanding and take steps on your path. Once you start to understand the 7 Stages, it all makes sense. But don't expect to get it all in one day, just take steps to read the AtR articles, like the 7 stages. And start to practice, meditate, self-enquire, etc so that whatever you read does not remain as merely intellectual information but can be directly realized and tasted.

And if you are feeling overwhelmed, I suggest that you just read the 7 stages to have a general picture but focus on the I AM. Just take steps to contemplate, self enquire, meditate, realize the I AM first. You can read the AtR practice guide focusing on the initial chapter on self enquiry and I AM: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/06/the-awakening-to-reality-practice-guide.html , or you can read another book related to I AM awakening like The Power of Now by Eckhart Tolle (a good one, I always buy and give it to friends), etc.

As Krodha/Kyle Dixon said before,

“I don’t see why not. Stream entry involves recognition of the true nature of the clear, bright, knowing, cognizance of your mind.

As your practice progresses you should begin to familiarize with that knowing capacity. Even with bipolar, in the height of happiness, the depths of depression, in the intensity of anger, that knowing capacity is always the same, stable, bright, clear. Like the surface of a mirror.

Anger, sadness, happiness and everything else are like reflections that appear in the surface of the mirror but don’t affect it.

Be the mirror and don’t get caught up in the reflections.

This is not yet stream entry. But it can be a basis for practice that will help you get there.

…

In initial practice, if you treat your knowing conscious clarity of mind as something like the surface of a mirror, and the sensory stimuli as reflections that appear on the mirror, anchor your view as being the mirror and the view will always be stable no matter what appears.”

Aditya Prasad:

 I don't understand this quote. "Stream entry is X. This is not yet stream entry." I think I am misunderstanding which parts describe stream entry and which do not. Is the distinction here the same as initial rigpa vs mature rigpa ( = stream entry)? Kyle Dixon · 49m

Soh Wei Yu:

Admin

Kyle Dixon is saying that recognising the clarity aspect of rigpa is not stream entry but is an important preliminary realisation. Realising the empty nature (i.e. anatman) of that clarity of mind is stream entry.

 (On the subject of the definition of stream entry: see [https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20](https://www.reddit.com/r/streamentry/comments/igored/insight_buddhism_a_reconsideration_of_the_meaning/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=ios_app&utm_name=iossmf%20) and https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2020/08/insight-buddhism-reconsideration-of.html )

I will leave you with something John Tan/Thusness wrote in 2005 to Sim Pern Chong:

"Hi LongChen,
 
It is difficult to comprehend the mystery of life. Just like there is no half-infinity, the Movement is really the Source. The nature of Consciousness is without self, it is the very otherness that we experience, not to distant itself from itself. The hidden unmanifest is ever manifesting, in the movement everything IS.
 
There are more workers and warriors then we imagine. Some plant the seed of luminosity, some plant Emptiness. Not all are aware of their designated roles but knowingly or unknowingly they carry out their tasks. The tasks carried out might appear conflicting as if enlightened beings battling among themselves. Thus battling is not only dark against light.                     
 
From the perspective of the source, there is no conflict, not even in the minuteness moment of arising – a lost balance does not exist in reality but only in forms. ‘Birth’ is the beginning of life and yet it is also the beginning of Death. The wise therefore look beyond the appearance of forms and works on cause, condition and effect and understands the emptiness nature of reality."

——

Update:

Someone asked:

“What is right view? Should I learn it? I do not know Buddhism, it is so wide and deep in material. I think I gravitated towards advaita because of simplicity to not get lost in too much reading that is hard for me to comprehend. Please advise I am open to whatever is best for me”

Soh replied:

“Meaning anatta, dependent origination and emptiness. Like the 7 stages, on anatta emptiness articles on atr blog might help.

But when you do self enquiry, do not downplay the Existence or I AM

However, you can read articles like these to have an overall picture of the path (and the correct view) and later insights first

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2007/03/thusnesss-six-stages-of-experience.html

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/03/on-anatta-emptiness-and-spontaneous.html

….

Anatta, dependent origination and emptiness is the right view.

The reason why i said it is important to read and understand these articles even early on is that it plants the seed so that when the Luminosity dawns, one is able to progress smoothly to further phases of insights rather than endlessly enforcing the wrong views that reifies Awareness wrongly. 

This is why i was able to progress from I AM to nondual and anatta in less than one year after the initial I AM awakening whereas most people took decades if ever

But when you do self enquiry, do not worry about nondual or anatta etc. just focus solely on inquiring into the Source and discovering what Existence is.

….

On self enquiry vs vipassana, John Tan wrote in Dharma Overground back in 2009,

“Hi Gary,

It appears that there are two groups of practitioners in this forum, one adopting the gradual approach and the other, the direct path. I am quite new here so I may be wrong.

My take is that you are adopting a gradual approach yet you are experiencing something very significant in the direct path, that is, the ‘Watcher’. As what Kenneth said, “You're onto something very big here, Gary. This practice will set you free.” But what Kenneth said would require you to be awaken to this ‘I’. It requires you to have the ‘eureka!’ sort of realization. Awaken to this ‘I’, the path of spirituality becomes clear; it is simply the unfolding of this ‘I’.

On the other hand, what that is described by Yabaxoule is a gradual approach and therefore there is downplaying of the ‘I AM’. You have to gauge your own conditions, if you choose the direct path, you cannot downplay this ‘I’; contrary, you must fully and completely experience the whole of ‘YOU’ as ‘Existence’. Emptiness nature of our pristine nature will step in for the direct path practitioners when they come face to face to the ‘traceless’, ‘centerless’ and ‘effortless’ nature of non-dual awareness.

Perhaps a little on where the two approaches meet will be of help to you.

Awakening to the ‘Watcher’ will at the same time ‘open’ the ‘eye of immediacy’; that is, it is the capacity to immediately penetrate discursive thoughts and sense, feel, perceive without intermediary the perceived. It is a kind of direct knowing. You must be deeply aware of this “direct without intermediary” sort of perception -- too direct to have subject-object gap, too short to have time, too simple to have thoughts. It is the ‘eye’ that can see the whole of ‘sound’ by being ‘sound’. It is the same ‘eye’ that is required when doing vipassana, that is, being ‘bare’. Be it non-dual or vipassana, both require the opening of this 'eye of immediacy'.”

——-

In 2009, John Tan wrote:

"Hi Teck Cheong,

What you described is fine and it can be considered vipassana meditation too but you must be clear what is the main objective of practicing that way. Ironically, the real purpose only becomes obvious after the arising insight of anatta. What I gathered so far from your descriptions are not so much about anatta or empty nature of phenomena but are rather drawn towards Awareness practice. So it will be good to start from understanding what Awareness truly is. All the method of practices that you mentioned will lead to a quality of experience that is non-conceptual. You can have non-conceptual experience of sound, taste...etc...but more importantly in my opinion, you should start from having a direct, non-conceptual experience of Awareness (first glimpse of our luminous essence). Once you have a ‘taste’ of what Awareness is, you can then think of ‘expanding’ this bare awareness and gradually understand what does ‘heightening and expanding’ mean from the perspective of Awareness.

Next, although you hear and see ‘non-dual, anatta and dependent origination’ all over the place in An Eternal Now’s forum (the recent Toni Packer’s books you bought are about non-dual and anatta), there is nothing wrong being ‘dualistic’ for a start. Even after direct non-conceptual experience of Awareness, our view will still continue to be dualistic; so do not have the idea that being dualistic is bad although it prevents thorough experience of liberation.

The comment given by Dharma Dan is very insightful but of late, I realized that it is important to have a first glimpse of our luminous essence directly before proceeding into such understanding. Sometimes understanding something too early will deny oneself from actual realization as it becomes conceptual. Once the conceptual understanding is formed, even qualified masters will find it difficult to lead the practitioner to the actual ‘realization’ as a practitioner mistakes conceptual understanding for realization.

Rgds,

John"

“The anatta I realized is quite unique. It is not just a realization of no-self. But it must first have an intuitive insight of Presence. Otherwise will have to reverse the phases of insights.” - John Tan, 2018

…

Question: “Source and Existence are different?”

Soh: “Same. You trace back all perceptions to its Source. Then you have direct realization of the Source/the I-I/I AM

" Question: What is the mind of void and calm, numinous awareness?

Chinul: What has just asked me this question is precisely your mind of void and calm, numinous awareness. Why not trace back its radiance rather than search for it outside? For your benefit I will now point straight to your original mind so that you can awaken to it. Clear your minds and listen to my words.

From morning until evening, all during the 12 periods of the day, during all your actions and activities - whether seeing, hearing, laughing, talking, whether angry of happy, whether doing evil or good - ultimately who is it that is able to perform all these actions? Speak! If you say that it is the physical body which is acting, then at the moment when a man's life comes to an end, even though the body has not yet decayed, how is it that the eyes cannot see, the ears cannot hear, the nose cannot smell, the tongue cannot talk, the hands cannot grasp, the feet cannot run?

You should know that what is capable of seeing, hearing, moving and acting has to be your original mind; it is not your physical body. Furthermore, the four elements which make up the physical body are by nature void; they are like images in a mirror of the moon's reflection in water. How can they be clear and constantly aware, always bright and never obscured - and, upon activation, be able to put into operation sublime functions as numerous as the sands of the Ganges? For this reason it is said: "Drawing water and carrying firewood are spiritual powers and sublime functions."

There are many points at which to enter the noumenon. I will indicate one approach which will allow you to return to the source.

Chinul: Do you hear the sound of that crow cawing and that magpie calling?

Student: Yes.

Chinul: Trace them back and listen to your hearing-nature. Do you hear any sounds?

Student: At that place, sound and discrimination do not obtain.

Chinul: Marvelous! Marvelous! This is Avalokitesvara's method for entering the noumenon. Let me ask you again. You said that sounds and discrimination do not obtain at that place. But since they do not obtain, isn't the hearing-nature just empty space at such a time?

Student: Originally it is not empty. It is always bright and never obscured.

Chinul: What is this essence which is not empty?

Student: Words cannot describe it. "”

Mr Z said: "He has quoted Rob Burbea several times "We’re not trying to destroy the sense of self, where trying to understand something about it”. He claims Angelo and others have taken it a step too far."

Soh replied:

Rob Burbea is not correct here. Buddhism does destroy the sense of self, but only at an advanced phase of one's practice.

Destroying the sense of self is part and parcel of overcoming the third and ninth fetter of Buddha’s teachings (I am not speaking here of Kevin Shanilec’s version which I consider to be not exactly the same as Buddha's definitions but that's another story).

However the way the fetters are destroyed is not through forcing it out. That cannot be done.

As John Tan said:

"...it seems that lots of effort need to be put in -- which is really not the case. The entire practice turns out to an undoing process. It is a process of gradually understanding the workings of our nature that is from beginning liberated but clouded by this sense of ‘self’ that is always trying to preserve, protect and ever attached. The entire sense of self is a ‘doing’. Whatever we do, positive or negative, is still doing. Ultimately there is not-even a letting go or let be, as there is already continuous dissolving and arising and this ever dissolving and arising turns out to be self-liberating. Without this ‘self’ or ‘Self’, there is no ‘doing’, there is only spontaneous arising. "

~ Thusness (source: Non-dual and karmic patterns)

"...When one is unable to see the truth of our nature, all letting go is nothing more than another form of holding in disguise. Therefore without the 'insight', there is no releasing.... it is a gradual process of deeper seeing. when it is seen, the letting go is natural. You cannot force yourself into giving up the self... purification to me is always these insights... non-dual and emptiness nature...."

~ Thusness

- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2009/09/realization-and-experience-and-non-dual.html

So if that is what Rob Burbea meant, then he is correct. However, if he meant that the sense of self will forever be around, then it is clearly wrong, and he is clearly at odds with the Buddhist scriptures from Theravada to Mahayana and Vajrayana. Sense of self will indeed vanish without a trace in true liberation. Also see: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/buddhahood-end-of-all-emotionalmental.html

Buddha or arahants will still be able to respond to someone calling his name, but it does not mean he/she has a sense of self.

"Would an arahant say "I" or "mine"?

Other devas had more sophisticated queries. One deva, for example, asked the Buddha if an arahant could use words that refer to a self:

"Consummate with taints destroyed,
One who bears his final body,
Would he still say 'I speak'?
And would he say 'They speak to me'?"

This deva realized that arahantship means the end of rebirth and suffering by uprooting mental defilements; he knew that arahants have no belief in any self or soul. But he was puzzled to hear monks reputed to be arahants continuing to use such self-referential expressions.

The Buddha replied that an arahant might say "I" always aware of the merely pragmatic value of common terms:

"Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions."

The deva, trying to grasp the Buddha's meaning, asked whether an arahant would use such expressions because he is still prone to conceit. The Buddha made it clear that the arahant has no delusions about his true nature. He has uprooted all notions of self and removed all traces of pride and conceit:

"No knots exist for one with conceit cast off;
For him all knots of conceit are consumed.
When the wise one has transcended the conceived
He might still say 'I speak,'
And he might say 'They speak to me.'
Skillful, knowing the world's parlance,
He uses such terms as mere expressions." (KS I, 21-22; SN 1:25)"

- https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/jootla/wheel414.html?fbclid=IwY2xjawFNGVgBHTq9uH1IuxwgiDtblDUbra_E7HnGM2DmoHhF_XIBOtuwE2EnrfDEXjkmhQ

And here's another better translation:

SN 1.25

Question: When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: would they say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: they would say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Question: “When a mendicant is perfected, proficient, with defilements ended, bearing the final body: is such a mendicant drawing close to conceit if they’d say, ‘I speak’, or even ‘they speak to me’?”

The Buddha replied: “Someone who has given up conceit has no ties, the ties of conceit are all dissipated. Though that intelligent person has transcended substantial reality, they’d still say, ‘I speak’, and also ‘they speak to me’. Skillful, understanding the world’s conventions, they’d use these terms as no more than expressions.”

Lastly, another sharing of an excerpt of Buddha's discourse in MN 140:

29. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘One should not neglect wisdom, should preserve truth, should cultivate relinquishment, and should train for peace.’

30. “‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ So it was said. And with reference to what was this said?

31. “Bhikkhu, ‘I am’ is a conceiving; ‘I am this’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall not be’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be possessed of form’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be formless’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be non-percipient’ is a conceiving; ‘I shall be neither-percipient-nor-non-percipient’ is a conceiving. Conceiving is a disease, conceiving is a tumour, conceiving is a dart. By overcoming all conceivings, bhikkhu, one is called a sage at peace. And the sage at peace is not born, does not age, does not die; he is not shaken and is not agitated. For there is nothing present in him by which he might be born. Not being born, how could he age? Not ageing, how could he die? Not dying, how could he be shaken? Not being shaken, why should he be agitated?

32. “So it was with reference to this that it was said: ‘The tides of conceiving do not sweep over one who stands upon these [foundations], and when the tides of conceiving no longer sweep over him he is called a sage at peace.’ Bhikkhu, bear in mind this brief exposition of the six elements.”

----

The Buddha said: Blissful is passionlessness in the world, The overcoming of sensual desires (i.e. anagami); But the abolition of the conceit "I am" (i.e. arahantship) — That is truly the supreme bliss.

Also, the Buddha said:

“The noble ones have seen as happiness

The ceasing of identity.

This [view] of those who clearly see

Runs counter to the entire world.



“What others speak of as happiness,

That the noble ones say is suffering;

What others speak of as suffering,

That the noble one know as bliss.”

-- https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2014/05/early-buddhism-model-of-awakening.html 

Wrote to someone:

First step is to realize Mind/Consciousness. Have the absolute certainty of what Mind/Consciousness is first. Self enquiry is meant to directly realize and authenticate the Radiance Clarity or Mind

it is a total doubtless certainty of what Mind, what Existence, what Presence or Beingness is

when it dawned on feb 2010 i wrote a writing about the 'certainty of Being'

Beingness becomes the only sole certain thing beyond all doubts, unshakeable certainty

yes and this 'Beingness' is not the problem, anatta does not deny it but reveals its empty nature. before that the Clarity is known but not its empty nature

Later you have to realize the relationship between this Mind/Radiance and phenomena

And that is through realizing No Mind or anatta

But anatta is not like a dry no self or impersonality

It is rather to realize the very nature of this Radiance, its empty nature, and because of its empty nature is none other than the self luminous vivid display or ongoing appearances

If one does first have that certainty and realization and taste of what Mind is or what the radiance of Mind is, one is not yet ready. And even if one experiences certain aspect of no self it is skewed towards impersonality or non doership (related: Pellucid No-Self, Non-Doership ). It is not the pellucid nondual luminosity or radiance as all arisings, all manifestations, all appearances

If one has that complete certainty of what luminosity, what Mind, what knowingness, what radiance is, then one is ready to proceed to contemplate on what zen master thich nhat hanh said here. So that they can realise the empty nature of knowingness and how knowingness is none other than vivid manifestation in anatta as a seal.

If one does not have that direct taste and realisation of knowingness to begin with, then such contemplation may not be very meaningful

zen master thich nhat hanh's anatta contemplations:

https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2022/07/no-nouns-are-necessary-to-initiate-verbs.html

No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

Translations: (Vietnamese) Không cần danh từ để bắt đầu động từ - No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

 (French) Les noms ne sont pas nécessaires pour initier les verbes - No nouns are necessary to initiate verbs

Update: A year after this conversation, Fishskull3 broke through One Mind into Anatta! See No single unified awareness, just the luminosity of appearances

Xabir = Soh

User avatar

level 1

Fishskull3

· 9 hr. ago

Everything isn’t made of awareness, it quite literally is awareness itself. In your direct experience there isn’t anything inside looking out at something. the very thing that you presently think is the “seen” is the ongoing activity of the “seer” or awareness.

3level 2

xabir

· just now

I like your answer. Also, I would like to add, awareness is none other than the ongoing activity. It is not the case that awareness is an unchanging substance modulating as everything. 'Awareness' is just like a word like 'weather', a mere name denoting the ongoing dynamic activities of raining wetting sun shining wind blowing lightning strike and so on and on. 'Awareness' has no intrinsic existence of its own than moment to moment manifestation, even if at that moment it is just a mere sense of formless Existence, that too is another 'foreground' non-dual manifestation and not an unchanging background.

Just like there is no lightning besides flash (lightning is flashing -- lightning is just another name for flash and is not the agent behind flash), no wind besides blowing, no water besides flowing, no nouns or agents are needed to initiate verbs. There never was an agent, a seer, or even a seeing, besides colors, never an agent, a hearer, or even a hearing, besides sound. Everything is just radiant and pellucid without a knower, sound hears and scenery sees. Anatta.

Some excerpts from the 2nd most famous Buddhist masters (right after the Dalai Lama) of our time, the Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh :

Excerpts from http://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2008/10/sun-of-awareness-and-river-of.html

some other quotations which Thusness/PasserBy liked from the book --"When we say I know the wind is blowing, we don't think that there is something blowing something else. "Wind' goes with 'blowing'. If there is no blowing, there is no wind. It is the same with knowing. Mind is the knower; the knower is mind. We are talking about knowing in relation to the wind. 'To know' is to know something. Knowing is inseparable from the wind. Wind and knowing are one. We can say, 'Wind,' and that is enough. The presence of wind indicates the presence of knowing, and the presence of the action of blowing'.""..The most universal verb is the verb 'to be'': I am, you are, the mountain is, a river is. The verb 'to be' does not express the dynamic living state of the universe. To express that we must say 'become.' These two verbs can also be used as nouns: 'being", "becoming". But being what? Becoming what? 'Becoming' means 'evolving ceaselessly', and is as universal as the verb "to be." It is not possible to express the "being" of a phenomenon and its "becoming" as if the two were independent. In the case of wind, blowing is the being and the becoming....""In any phenomena, whether psychological, physiological, or physical, there is dynamic movement, life. We can say that this movement, this life, is the universal manifestation, the most commonly recognized action of knowing. We must not regard 'knowing' as something from the outside which comes to breathe life into the universe. It is the life of the universe itself. The dance and the dancer are one."

----------------

Comments by Thusness/PasserBy: "...as a verb, as action, there can be no concept, only experience. Non-dual anatta (no-self) is the experience of subject/Object as verb, as action. There is no mind, only mental activities... ...Source as the passing phenomena... and how non-dual appearance is understood from Dependent Origination perspective."

.............

Zen Master Thich Nhat Hanh:"When we say it's raining, we mean that raining is taking place. You don't need someone up above to perform the raining. It's not that there is the rain, and there is the one who causes the rain to fall. In fact, when you say the rain is falling, it's very funny, because if it weren't falling, it wouldn't be rain. In our way of speaking, we're used to having a subject and a verb. That's why we need the word "it" when we say, "it rains." "It" is the subject, the one who makes the rain possible. But, looking deeply, we don't need a "rainer," we just need the rain. Raining and the rain are the same. The formations of birds and the birds are the same -- there's no "self," no boss involved. There's a mental formation called vitarka, "initial thought."

When we use the verb "to think" in English, we need a subject of the verb: I think, you think, he thinks. But, really, you don't need a subject for a thought to be produced. Thinking without a thinker -- it's absolutely possible. To think is to think about something. To perceive is to perceive something. The perceiver and the perceived object that is perceived are one.When Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am," his point was that if I think, there must be an "I" for thinking to be possible. When he made the declaration "I think," he believed that he could demonstrate that the "I" exists. We have the strong habit or believing in a self. But, observing very deeply, we can see that a thought does not need a thinker to be possible. There is no thinker behind the thinking -- there is just the thinking; that's enough. Now, if Mr. Descartes were here, we might ask him, "Monsieur Descartes, you say, 'You think, therefore you are.' But what are you? You are your thinking. Thinking -- that's enough. Thinking manifests without the need of a self behind it."Thinking without a thinker. Feeling without a feeler. What is our anger without our 'self'? This is the object of our meditation. All the fifty-one mental formations take place and manifest without a self behind them arranging for this to appear, and then for that to appear. Our mind consciousness is in the habit of basing itself on the idea of self, on manas.

But we can meditate to be more aware of our store consciousness, where we keep the seeds of all those mental formations that are not currently manifesting in our mind. When we meditate, we practice looking deeply in order to bring light and clarity into our way of seeing things. When the vision of no-self is obtained, our delusion is removed. This is what we call transformation. In the Buddhist tradition, transformation is possible with deep understanding. The moment the vision of no-self is there, manas, the elusive notion of 'I am,' disintegrates, and we find ourselves enjoying, in this very moment, freedom and happiness."

1

Labels: Anatta, Fishskull3 | 

also related: https://www.awakeningtoreality.com/2018/12/just-manifestation-or-just-mind.html

Wrote to someone:

Namo Buddhaya :namaste:

The old texts, especially those of the Old Testament, often comes from early stages of consciousness, like the magic and mythic literal states of consciousness, the ethnocentric level of interpreting subtle realm visions. In this context, what you said is true (The God of Jehovah being a jealous and wrathful God and so on). The texts of the New Testament especially the words of Jesus however represents a shift in consciousness, are more mystical in nature and do not focus on the lower levels of consciousness (mythic literal) as much. Jesus's path is one of faith and submission and mysticism (mystical union with God), based on the four gospels I've read + mystical gospels such as the Gospel of Thomas. (Yes, I have read the Gospels)

On the different levels of consciousness, see: http://web.archive.org/web/20230606092815/https://www.kosmosjournal.org/article/integral-spirituality-2/  

Nowadays, religious leaders often (but not always) rise to higher levels of consciousness. Yes, followers on average are often, in fact probably more than half of them are still at the lower ethnocentric levels even today. Although they are gradually improving and evolving.

Excerpt from a conversation with John Tan in early 2006:

"<^john^> God in the old testament is different from the new testament.

<Presence> god in old testament is more like a creator isnt it

<^john^> u know u can meet God and ask him how is he :P

<^john^> has he taken his lunch

<Presence> hahahah

<^john^> it is mythical. The ancient man personify everything

<^john^> during their time, the capacity to abstract is still not there.

<Presence> oic...

<Presence> ya

<Presence> true

<^john^> therefore they are closer to nature and they experience through their feelings and emotions

<Presence> icic..

<^john^> stones and all inanimate objects to them are all alive.

<Presence> ya more like..

<Presence> ya

<^john^> their lifes are full of colors

<^john^> but then they are closer to nature and are more in touch with Presence. :)

<Presence> oic..

<^john^> their senses are sharper and clearer.

<Presence> icic...

<Presence> how u know

<^john^> kok ur head...telling u the diff...

<Presence> o kk

<^john^> those ppl that led by Moses were slaves

<Presence> oic..

<^john^> they needed a God to fight with other gods to lead them free

<^john^> their God is the God of freedom and has to be all powerful.

<Presence> oic..

<Presence> ya briefly remembered that part

<Presence> then they cross the ocean rite

<^john^> yes led by Moses.

<Presence> ya

<^john^> This is the God of old testament but when it comes to Jesus...it is very different

<Presence> oic how is it so

<^john^> we witness a the capacity to abstract God as omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient

<^john^> the kingdom of heaven is no more on top and God is no more high above.

<Presence> oic..

<^john^> it is deep in us

<Presence> icic

<^john^> height has been changed to depth.

<^john^> there is a clear transformation of consciousness

<Presence> oic..

<^john^> myth then slowly becomes a religion

<Presence> transformation of consciousness does it mean jesus became enlightened of some sort?

<Presence> icic

<^john^> the teaching of Jesus is often in the form of parables.

<^john^> his path is the way of faith.

<Presence> oic..

<Presence> hmm but according to some, his way is also of knowledge (gnosis)

<^john^> gnosis is hidden knowledge.

<Presence> oic

<Presence> ya

<^john^> and mysticism"

This week Pope just visited my country Singapore.

He said this, breaking away from old dogmatic traditions: https://cruxnow.com/2024-pope-in-timor-leste/2024/09/pope-in-multi-faith-singapore-says-all-religions-are-a-path-to-god

"SINGAPORE – In a line that may once again stir reaction in more traditional Catholic quarters, Pope Francis on Friday wrapped up a three-day visit to Singapore, a country with large pockets of at least five different faiths, that “all religions are a path to God.”

“They are like different languages in order to arrive at God, but God is God for all,” the pope said, who had set aside his prepared text and spoke largely off the cuff. “Since God is God for all, then we are all children of God.”" -- continue reading at https://cruxnow.com/2024-pope-in-timor-leste/2024/09/pope-in-multi-faith-singapore-says-all-religions-are-a-path-to-god

Also, I did spiral dynamics analysis of the current and previous popes through the latest gpt model just released today, o1-preview:

**Spiral Dynamics** is a model that describes the evolution of human consciousness and value systems through different stages, each represented by a specific color. These stages illustrate how individuals and societies perceive the world and address life's challenges. The levels are:

1. **Beige (SurvivalSense)**: Basic survival instincts; focus on physiological needs and immediate survival.

2. **Purple (KinSpirits)**: Tribal and family bonds; belief in magic, rituals, and traditions to ensure safety and continuity.

3. **Red (PowerGods)**: Egocentric and power-driven; emphasis on dominance, action, and personal freedom without much regard for others.

4. **Blue (TruthForce)**: Order, stability, and adherence to absolute principles; focus on rules, structure, and higher authority.

5. **Orange (StriveDrive)**: Achievement-oriented and rational; pursuit of success, innovation, and material progress.

6. **Green (HumanBond)**: Community-focused and egalitarian; emphasis on relationships, harmony, and consensus.

7. **Yellow (FlexFlow)**: Integrative and systemic thinking; acceptance of complexity, flexibility, and interconnections.

8. **Turquoise (GlobalView)**: Holistic and global consciousness; focus on the wellbeing of all life and the planet as an interconnected whole.

Below is an analysis of the current and last four popes through the lens of Spiral Dynamics, incorporating all colors:

---

### **Pope Paul VI (1963–1978)**

**Spiral Dynamics Levels**: Transition from **Blue** to **Orange** with emerging **Green**

- **Beige**: Not a significant aspect; basic survival needs were met.

- **Purple**: Maintained respect for traditional rituals and the communal aspects of faith.

- **Red**: Did not exhibit impulsive or power-centric behavior; led with a sense of duty.

- **Blue**: Upheld the authority and doctrines of the Catholic Church, emphasizing order, tradition, and moral codes.

- **Orange**: Initiated modernization through the Second Vatican Council (Vatican II), embracing rationality and progress to make the Church more relevant.

- **Green**: Promoted ecumenism and dialogue with other faiths, emphasizing community, empathy, and shared values.

- **Yellow**: Began to recognize the complexity of a changing world but did not fully integrate systemic thinking.

- **Turquoise**: Limited influence at this level; global consciousness was emerging but not central.

**Explanation**: Pope Paul VI steered the Church from a strict traditionalist stance (**Blue**) toward modernization (**Orange**) and inclusivity (**Green**). By concluding Vatican II, he addressed contemporary issues and fostered a more open and compassionate Church.

---

### **Pope John Paul I (1978)**

**Spiral Dynamics Levels**: Predominantly **Green**

- **Beige**: Not applicable; basic needs were secure.

- **Purple**: Valued communal traditions and a sense of belonging within the Church.

- **Red**: Known for humility rather than self-assertion or dominance.

- **Blue**: Respected Church doctrines but approached them with a pastoral sensitivity.

- **Orange**: Did not focus on modernization or institutional achievements.

- **Green**: Emphasized love, simplicity, and a personal connection with people, advocating for a more empathetic and less hierarchical Church.

- **Yellow**: Tenure too brief to exhibit systemic or integrative thinking.

- **Turquoise**: Not evident due to the short duration of his papacy.

**Explanation**: Pope John Paul I's brief leadership was marked by a warm, pastoral approach that aligned with **Green** values of compassion, equality, and community. His focus on humility and personal connection endeared him to many.

---

### **Pope John Paul II (1978–2005)**

**Spiral Dynamics Levels**: **Blue**, **Orange**, and **Green**

- **Beige**: Not significant.

- **Purple**: Respected cultural traditions and encouraged unity within the global Catholic community.

- **Red**: Displayed charismatic leadership but remained service-oriented rather than self-serving.

- **Blue**: Firmly upheld traditional doctrines and moral teachings, emphasizing discipline and adherence to Church authority.

- **Orange**: Utilized modern media and traveled extensively to spread the Church's message, showcasing innovation and strategic planning.

- **Green**: Advocated for human rights, social justice, and interfaith dialogue, reflecting a concern for global community and equality.

- **Yellow**: Began to address complex geopolitical issues with a broader perspective, hinting at systemic thinking.

- **Turquoise**: Limited engagement at this holistic level.

**Explanation**: Pope John Paul II balanced a strong commitment to tradition (**Blue**) with modern methods and outreach (**Orange**). His efforts in global diplomacy and emphasis on human dignity illustrate **Green** values, with glimpses of **Yellow** thinking in addressing worldwide issues.

---

### **Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013)**

**Spiral Dynamics Levels**: Predominantly **Blue**, some aspects of **Purple** and **Yellow**

- **Beige**: Not applicable.

- **Purple**: Placed importance on traditional liturgy and sacred rituals, aiming to preserve the Church's heritage.

- **Red**: Led with authority but remained focused on doctrinal integrity rather than personal power.

- **Blue**: Emphasized the necessity of upholding traditional teachings, moral absolutes, and the authority of the Church.

- **Orange**: Less inclined toward modernization; cautious about embracing contemporary societal changes.

- **Green**: Limited engagement with progressive movements; prioritized doctrinal purity over societal consensus.

- **Yellow**: Demonstrated intellectual depth and a willingness to engage in complex theological discussions, showing signs of systemic thinking.

- **Turquoise**: Minimal influence at this level.

**Explanation**: Pope Benedict XVI focused on reinforcing the foundational beliefs of the Church (**Blue**) and preserving its traditions (**Purple**). His resignation, an uncommon act, reflected a self-aware decision possibly indicative of **Yellow** thinking, recognizing the need for new leadership in a changing world.

---

### **Pope Francis (2013–Present)**

**Spiral Dynamics Levels**: **Green**, emerging **Yellow**, and aspects of **Turquoise**

- **Beige**: Not relevant.

- **Purple**: Respects traditions but interprets them through a contemporary lens.

- **Red**: Known for humility and service, contrasting with power-driven leadership.

- **Blue**: Upholds core doctrines but emphasizes mercy and compassion over strict enforcement.

- **Orange**: Critiques consumerism and excessive focus on material wealth, advocating for ethical considerations in progress.

- **Green**: Prioritizes social justice, environmental stewardship, inclusivity, and dialogue with diverse groups.

- **Yellow**: Addresses complex global issues with integrative solutions, reflecting systemic and flexible thinking.

- **Turquoise**: Emphasizes global interconnectedness, care for the planet, and unity of all people, aligning with holistic consciousness.

**Explanation**: Pope Francis embodies **Green** values through his advocacy for the poor, marginalized, and the environment. His encyclical *Laudato Si'* and efforts to reform the Vatican reflect **Yellow** and **Turquoise** thinking, addressing systemic issues with an awareness of global interconnectedness.

---

**Summary of All Colors**

- **Beige**: While not prominent due to the secure positions of the papacy, this level underscores the foundational needs that allow higher levels to emerge.

- **Purple**: Each pope maintained and valued the Church's rich traditions and rituals, fostering a sense of belonging and continuity.

- **Red**: Leadership styles varied, but none were dominated by impulsiveness or personal power agendas; however, decisive actions taken by Popes like John Paul II could reflect controlled **Red** energy directed toward higher purposes.

- **Blue**: A consistent thread across all papacies is the emphasis on order, doctrine, and moral absolutes, maintaining the Church's authority and structure.

- **Orange**: Modernization efforts, strategic communication, and global outreach, particularly by Popes Paul VI and John Paul II, showcase **Orange** attributes of innovation and achievement.

- **Green**: A growing focus on community, social justice, and inclusivity is evident, especially with Popes John Paul I and Francis, who prioritize empathy and egalitarianism.

- **Yellow**: Pope Francis exhibits **Yellow** thinking through his systemic approach to complex issues like climate change, economic inequality, and Church reforms, embracing flexibility and integrative solutions.

- **Turquoise**: Pope Francis's emphasis on global consciousness, environmental care, and the interconnectedness of all life points toward **Turquoise** values, advocating for a holistic vision of humanity's role on Earth.

---

**Comprehensive Analysis**

The evolution of the papacy through these leaders demonstrates a dynamic interplay among all levels of Spiral Dynamics:

- **Pope Paul VI** initiated a move from strict adherence to tradition (**Blue**) toward modernization (**Orange**) and inclusivity (**Green**), recognizing the need for the Church to adapt to a changing world.

- **Pope John Paul I** personified **Green** values with his focus on humility, compassion, and a pastoral approach, though his impact was limited by his brief tenure.

- **Pope John Paul II** combined steadfast tradition (**Blue**) with strategic global engagement (**Orange**) and advocacy for human rights (**Green**), occasionally hinting at systemic thinking (**Yellow**).

- **Pope Benedict XVI** reinforced foundational doctrines (**Blue**) and valued tradition (**Purple**), showing intellectual depth and perhaps self-aware leadership (**Yellow**) through his resignation.

- **Pope Francis** advances **Green** values of social justice and inclusivity, employs **Yellow** systemic thinking in addressing global challenges, and touches upon **Turquoise** holistic consciousness by emphasizing the interconnectedness of all creation.

**Conclusion**

This analysis illustrates how each pope's leadership reflects a spectrum of values corresponding to the different levels of Spiral Dynamics. Their actions and priorities demonstrate a progression in the collective consciousness of the Catholic Church, integrating traditional foundations with emerging global perspectives. By considering all colors of the Spiral Dynamics model, we gain a deeper understanding of the complex interplay between enduring doctrines and the evolving needs of humanity.

-------------

Mr/Ms ER
Interesting approach!

8h

Reply

Soh Wei Yu
Mr/Ms ER if this interests you, you may like to check out one or two ken wilber’s books
Such as a recent one https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CLR9BB9V
Finding Radical Wholeness: The Integral Path to Unity, Growth, and Delight
AMAZON.COM
Finding Radical Wholeness: The Integral Path to Unity, Growth, and Delight
Finding Radical Wholeness: The Integral Path to Unity, Growth, and Delight

7h

Reply
Remove Preview
Edited

Soh Wei Yu
Mr/Ms ER


7h

Reply

Mr/Ms LK
Soh Wei Yu he has interesting books from what ive glanced now !

6h

Reply

Soh Wei Yu
Mr/Ms LK yes. Although i dont agree with his interpretation of buddhism as being merely restricted to causal I AM and substantialist nondual one mind. Thats the one thing i can fault but it has to do with limitation of his insight (he failed to realise anatta and emptiness, but clearly realised I AM to substantialist nondual of thusness stages 1 to 4)
But perhaps there will be authors in future that write something interesting on integral but with insights into anatta, d.o and emptiness

6h

Reply
Edited

Mr/Ms LK
Soh Wei Yu good to know!
It’s a higher and higher chance that it will happen. In the meantime I enjoy ATR and the pointers provided

6h

Reply

Mr/Ms ER
Soh Wei Yu yes, thanks, I'm aware of those developmental levels

5h

Reply

 

--------------

This interview with the Christian/Catholic Mystic Bernadette Roberts may be of interest: Bernadette Roberts Interview 

This might be of interest too:

"Yes, throughout history, several popes have been mystics themselves or have shown openness and receptivity to mysticism. Mysticism in the Catholic tradition involves the pursuit of a direct, personal experience of the divine through prayer, contemplation, and ascetic practices. Here are some notable examples:

### **Pope Gregory I (Gregory the Great) (590–604)**

- **Mystical Inclinations**: Pope Gregory I is known for his deep spirituality and mystical writings. His work *"Moralia in Job"* delves into the allegorical and moral interpretation of the Book of Job, reflecting profound contemplative insights.

- **Contribution**: He emphasized the importance of interior life and contemplation, encouraging the faithful to seek a personal relationship with God.

### **Pope Celestine V (1294)**

- **Mystical Life**: Before his papacy, Pietro del Murrone (later Celestine V) was a hermit and founder of the Celestine Order, living an austere and contemplative life dedicated to prayer and asceticism.

- **Papacy**: His reign was short, and he resigned after five months, longing to return to his solitary, mystical pursuits.

### **Pope John XXII (1316–1334)**

- **Engagement with Mysticism**: While not a mystic himself, Pope John XXII interacted significantly with mystical movements. He condemned certain mystical teachings he deemed heretical, such as those of the *Brethren of the Free Spirit*.

- **Impact**: His papacy highlights the Church's careful navigation between authentic mysticism and heterodox practices.

### **Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484)**

- **Support for Mystics**: Sixtus IV showed support for mystical theologians like Johannes Reuchlin and was interested in the works of Pseudo-Dionysius, which delve into mystical theology.

- **Actions**: He promoted the study of Platonic philosophy and Christian mysticism, fostering a climate of spiritual exploration.

### **Pope Paul III (1534–1549)**

- **Association with Mystics**: Pope Paul III approved new religious orders with mystical orientations, such as the Jesuits founded by St. Ignatius of Loyola, who emphasized discernment of spirits and contemplative practices.

- **Council of Trent**: Under his leadership, the Council of Trent addressed issues of spirituality and reformation, impacting the direction of Catholic mysticism.

### **Pope Gregory XV (1621–1623)**

- **Canonization of Mystics**: He canonized St. Teresa of Ávila and St. Francis Xavier, both prominent figures in Catholic mysticism.

- **Support**: His actions acknowledged the importance of mystical experiences within the faith.

### **Pope Pius IX (1846–1878)**

- **Marian Mysticism**: Pius IX proclaimed the dogma of the Immaculate Conception, reflecting deep engagement with mystical theology concerning the Virgin Mary.

- **Spiritual Emphasis**: His papacy reinforced mystical devotion to Mary, encouraging the faithful to seek her intercession.

### **Pope John Paul II (1978–2005)**

- **Mystical Theology**: While not a mystic in the traditional sense, John Paul II had a profound spiritual life influenced by mystics like St. John of the Cross and St. Teresa of Ávila.

- **Teachings**: He wrote extensively on the contemplative life and the importance of inner prayer, emphasizing a personal encounter with God.

- **Mystical Experiences**: Some accounts suggest he had personal mystical experiences, particularly in his deep prayer life.

### **Pope Benedict XVI (2005–2013)**

- **Theological Depth**: Known for his theological scholarship, Benedict XVI often integrated mystical theology into his teachings, emphasizing the mystery of God and the importance of contemplative prayer.

- **Promotion of Mystics**: He highlighted the works of mystics like Hildegard of Bingen, declaring her a Doctor of the Church.

### **Pope Francis (2013–Present)**

- **Openness to Mysticism**: Pope Francis emphasizes the importance of discernment, a key aspect of Jesuit spirituality rooted in mysticism.

- **Encouragement of Contemplative Prayer**: He encourages practices like Eucharistic Adoration and Lectio Divina, which foster a mystical communion with God.

- **Environmental Mysticism**: In his encyclical *"Laudato Si',"* he reflects on the mystical connection between humanity and creation.

---

**Summary**

- **Mystical Popes**: Popes like Gregory I and Celestine V are notable for their personal mystical experiences and writings.

- **Promotion of Mysticism**: Several popes have recognized and promoted mystics within the Church, acknowledging the value of mystical experiences in deepening faith.

- **Balancing Act**: The papacy has often balanced embracing genuine mysticism while cautioning against heretical interpretations or practices.

- **Influence on Doctrine**: Mystical insights have influenced key doctrines and devotional practices, enriching the spiritual life of the Church.

**Conclusion**

Mysticism has been an integral part of the Catholic tradition, and various popes have either been mystics themselves or have shown openness to mystical theology and practices. Their contributions have helped shape the spiritual contours of the Church, encouraging the faithful to seek a deeper, more personal connection with the divine through contemplative prayer and reflection."

Gassho :namaste:

-----

earlier:


Hi

Let's break down the various points of the statement one by one and fact-check each:

1. “It is a ‘wrong/incorrect’ view to call the ‘Ground of Being’ as ‘God’ (with all caps)...”

Fact-check: The "Ground of Being" is a term that can be associated with different philosophical and theological traditions, including mysticism and non-dual perspectives in mysticism of various religions, such as Christian Mysticism, Islamic Sufism and Advaita Vedanta. While the term "God" in Abrahamic religions refers to a personal deity (Yahweh, Allah, etc.), in Christian mysticism, God is sometimes described in less personal, more metaphysical terms, as in the writings of mystics like Meister Eckhart. The statement’s assertion that it is categorically "wrong" to call the Ground of Being "God" depends on religious tradition and interpretation.

Meister Eckhart: "Sermon 60 wrote:I have sometimes spoken of a light that is in the soul, which is uncreated and uncreatable. I continually touch on this light in my sermons: it is the light which lays straight hold of God, unveiled and bare, as He is in Himself, that is, it catches Him in the act of begetting. So I can truly say that this light is far more at one with God than it is with any of the powers with which it has unity of being. For you should know, this light is no nobler in my soul's essence than the humblest, or the grossest of my powers, such as hearing or sight or any other power which is subject to hunger or thirst, cold or heat, and that is because being is indivisible. And so, if we consider the powers of the soul in their being, they are all one and equally noble: but if we take them in their functions, one is much higher and nobler than the other.

Therefore I say, if a man turns away from self and from all created things, then—to the extent that you do this—you will attain to oneness and blessedness in your soul's spark, which time and place never touched. This spark is opposed to all creatures: it wants nothing but God, naked, just as He is. It is not satisfied with the Father or the Son or the Holy Ghost, or all three Persons so far as they preserve their several properties. I declare in truth, this light would not be satisfied with the unity of the whole fertility of the divine nature. In fact I will say still more, which sounds even stranger: I declare in all truth, by the eternal and everlasting truth, that this light is not content with the simple changeless divine being which neither gives nor takes:

rather it seeks to know whence this being comes, it wants to get into its simple ground, into the silent desert into which no distinction ever peeped, of Father, Son or Holy Ghost. In the inmost part, where none is at home, there that light finds satisfaction, and there it is more one than it is in itself: for this ground is an impartible stillness, motionless in itself, and by this immobility all things are moved, and all those receive life that live of themselves, being endowed with reason. That we may thus live rationally, may the eternal truth of which I have spoken help us. Amen."

2. “...since we all know that this ‘God’ who claimed to be superior (with all caps assigned to His Name) is the God of Abraham, Jesus, and Muhammad”

Fact-check: This is broadly accurate. The monotheistic God worshiped in Judaism, Christianity, and Islam is indeed the same deity, referred to as Yahweh (Judaism), God (Christianity), and Allah (Islam), believed to be superior and all-powerful. These religions emphasize the singularity and supremacy of this God.

3. “No other so-called god has had this high esteem of Himself to be the ‘Greatest’ other than this God called Yahweh, Abba Father, and Allah”

Fact-check: Many religions have supreme deities. In Hinduism, Brahman is considered the ultimate, unchanging reality. In various polytheistic traditions, there are gods regarded as supreme, such as Zeus in Greek mythology or Odin in Norse mythology. The claim about Yahweh/Allah being unique in "esteem" is true only within the context of the Abrahamic faiths, but it doesn't hold universally.

4. “Buddhists have no problem talking to a ‘Christian mystic’”

Fact-check: Buddhists generally have an open attitude towards dialogue with other religious traditions, including Christian mystics. The Buddhist emphasis on wisdom and compassion, as well as its non-theistic framework, often allows for engagement without conflict, although the differences in metaphysical views may remain significant.

5. “Christianity itself ... cannot and will not accept a Christian who holds a mystic view of God”

Fact-check: This is incorrect. While institutional Christianity (Roman Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant) has historically been wary of unorthodox mystical movements, mysticism has had a recognized place in all three branches. In Catholicism, for instance, figures like Teresa of Ávila and John of the Cross are revered as saints and doctors of the church, and their mystical writings are foundational. Thomas Merton, a 20th-century Catholic mystic, was not rejected by Catholicism; in fact, his works are celebrated. Protestantism, especially in its evangelical forms, may be more cautious, but mystics like George Fox (founder of the Quakers) or the Pietists are recognized in history.

6. “Catholicism rejected Thomas Merton”

Fact-check: Incorrect. Thomas Merton was not rejected by Catholicism. He was a Trappist monk and is considered one of the most important Catholic spiritual writers of the 20th century. Merton's exploration of Eastern religions (including Buddhism) was controversial, but he was not excommunicated or condemned by the Catholic Church.

7. “Islam itself rejects Sufist mystics”

Fact-check: Partially correct. Sufism, a mystical tradition within Islam, has been both accepted and rejected at various times. Some Islamic authorities, particularly in more conservative strands like Salafism or Wahhabism, oppose Sufism, considering it heterodox. However, Sufism has been deeply integrated into mainstream Islamic practice in many parts of the world, and many Sufi mystics are revered within Islamic traditions.

8. “A Christian (Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant/Evangelical) or even a real Muslim cannot and will not tolerate a Christian mystic at all”

Fact-check: This is exaggerated and inaccurate. While mysticism has faced challenges within institutional Christianity and Islam, it is not universally condemned or rejected. Mystics have been significant in both Christian and Muslim traditions. In Christianity, mystics like Meister Eckhart, Julian of Norwich, and John of the Cross are respected figures. In Islam, many mainstream Muslims respect Sufi figures like Rumi and Al-Ghazali.

9. “The Roman Catholic Church have committed atrocities toward mystics”

Fact-check: While the Catholic Church has historically condemned some heretical movements with mystical tendencies (like the Cathars), it has also produced many mystics who were later canonized. The relationship between mysticism and the Church has been complex, with both acceptance and persecution, but labeling all treatment as "atrocities" would be an overstatement.

10. “Thomas Aquinas debated and even called the French Cathars as ‘heretics’”

Fact-check: Partially correct. The Cathars, a dualistic religious movement in medieval Europe, were condemned as heretics by the Roman Catholic Church, but there is no direct evidence that Thomas Aquinas was deeply involved in their persecution. He did argue against heresies of the time, but the Albigensian Crusade against the Cathars predated Aquinas.

11. “Islam have beheaded a number of Sufi mystics since it goes against the teachings of the Qur’an”

Fact-check: Partially correct. Some Sufi mystics, such as Mansur Al-Hallaj, were executed for their beliefs, often accused of heresy. However, this does not mean Islam universally rejects Sufism; Sufism has thrived in many parts of the Islamic world and remains an integral part of Islamic spirituality.

Conclusion:

The statement mixes accurate historical points with significant oversimplifications and inaccuracies, particularly in its blanket claims about Christian and Muslim mystics being universally rejected by their faiths. Both Christianity and Islam have had complex relationships with mysticism, involving both acceptance and persecution at different times and places.

Gassho :namaste: