“Looking under the bed”
Phil, I checked out the Fred Kofman link you posted earlier. Two aphorisms popped into my brain, both from the “Cowboy Zen” file:
“You can lead a horse to water but you can’t make him drink.”
“Why go the extra mile for the man walking in the other direction?”
So Fred is talking to a crowd ready to drink and walking in the same direction. I remember Wilber saying, “knowledge advances one funeral at a time.”
Now I’m done (maybe)
I haven’t heard of the Cowboy Zen file. What’s that one?
Haha, yes I’ll tend to go less than the extra mile. Hence the need for low cost tools 
There’s definitely a part of everyone that’s heading in the same direction though!
“Cowboy Zen” is just something I invented. I like the term, in fact, maybe that could be a prototype candidate for your “low cost tool” box, as it kind of mashes together two disparate tribes in a benign sort of way, yes?
As to, " …a part of everyone that’s heading in the same direction …"
I have to think it’s on each of us individually, according to our individual capacities, to decide how to address directly that “part” in others, while remaining cognizant of how traumatized, or somnambulistic, or vindictive, etc. people can be.
I’ve lately wondered if Jesus (or what we’ve heard about him) would have walked back his martyrdom in retrospect, knowing how weirdly the event would be spun over time by those “not knowing what they do.”
Ah right, I searched Cowboy Zen and found a cowboy doing yoga classes 
Yeah, that reminds me of another chap going by the “Blue Collar Buddha”.
That’s an interesting thought about Jesus. I guess there isn’t really a choice when you’re authentically following your “Dharma”, but if he had prior knowledge of the outcomes I’m sure that would have affected his path somehow. Perhaps less keen to spread his message. Here’s a quote from Rumi: “Out beyond ideas of wrongdoing and rightdoing, there is a field. I’ll meet you there.” I think we just live our Dharma and how other people respond is their business.
Hi Phil.
I think there’s lots of room for speculation over what went on back then. For example, I have to wonder if Jesus would have said “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” … since he presumably knew the score from the get-go. Just calling into question the veracity of that single supposed quote, can kind of bring the whole biblical house down …
But tying your Rumi quote to your original post leads me to think you want to be optimistic about pushing interpersonal boundaries, and I think it’s a good and timely point of discussion.
In a recent dialogue between pundits Ezra Klein and Ta-Nehisi Coates, Coates says, “love can get you shot.”, and Klein asks, “how then shall we live?”
So, here’s to living our individual “Dharmas,” however tightly woven into “how other people respond.” A salient question for me is something like “do I want to be the cause of other peoples’ hate, or fear, regret or remorse?” This, along the lines of their “not knowing what they do.”
Thanks Phil, for this exchange and original post, personally catalytic.
Hi Sidra,
A lot of room indeed! That quote does suggest he had some expectation of being looked after a separate God. I’m not very knowledgeable about biblical stuff. Is that a sort of contradiction you’re noting there? Not quite sure what you mean by bringing the biblical house down.
Yeah, I probably am optimistic!
Picking your battles (specific time in the link):
Thanks, Sidra. Same here.
Phil,
Thanks for the Sam Harris Link. I’m not a fan, but occasionally lean into his stuff (a little too two-dimensional for me) as a reality check. The last time I listened to him, I came away with the sense that he was arguing for his own limitations and then imposing them on the Universe … but that was then and this is now, and people do grow (sometimes). And again, as my mentor used to say, “something for everyone.”
Biblical stuff: Not a fan of that either, as it seems so sadly representative of what Roger Walsh calls, “collective arrested development” in humanity’s spiritual growth. And yes, to your question on the contradiction. Further, if biblical authors (John, in this case) appear to be quoting Jesus directly, and it comes off as a contradiction, it then opens the door (for me) to question everything of the red-letter content (everything attributed to Jesus), which to me, is the meat of the whole grueling text.
The Sam Harris link: Is there a particular point other than the relevance of developing skillful means when one picks one’s battles? I enjoyed listening to the entirety of the podcast, and am reminded why I’m not particularly a fan. For me, Sam carries the ball a good distance, and then seems to forget to remind himself, “… to be skeptical about his own opinions …” (1:27:00)
Hey Sidra,
I definitely disagree with Sam on a few things. He especially comes across a bit strong on the “no free will” debate. But I listen to his podcast regularly and get a lot of interesting info out of those discussions. With the video link, it was only that little bit about “choosing your battles” that I picked up on and thought back to our conversation. I haven’t actually watched any more past that point. The two chaps interviewing him have been popping up in my YouTube feed a bit. Are there any particular opinions of Sam’s that you’re not a fan of?
I’m really removed from the whole Christian thing, but I’m a big fan of Father Thomas Keating!
Ditto on Sam’s “no free will” take. In the link (1:29:14) Sam says, **“all of our own problems are of our own making …” and as such, can only be addressed by either, “passivity, persuasion, or force.” self-contradictory, if Sam leads with a “no free will” premise.
Elsewhere, my “opinion” of Sam’s opinions is that he conflates pre-rational with trans-rational, still hammering on the strawman of traditional Christian mythology (makes for good press, though). My “opinion” is that Sam has decided the chapter on atheism is the end of the book …
Christianity: Too unwieldy, cumbersome, and (ironically) vitriolic for this simple brain.
Yeah it’s a surprising performative contradiction. I think it comes back to him holding a fundamentally materialist world view, that atoms are only behaving in accordance with the physical laws of the universe. That things only progress in a linear, cause and effect way. I’d argue against that by suggesting the physical universe can be influenced by non-physical, pure subject. The atoms of our brains are dancing to the tune of both their physical context and the recognition of pure, empty suchness, or I am-ness. Utterly free, utterly creative at that deepest level. Often going against the flow of physical cause and effect. Before, during and after his cause and effect, that I am-ness already is, and we have the capacity, with true intellectual humility, moral courage, and integrity, to recognise it operating within us, as us. Getting a bit poetic there! More of my inner pep talk than anything.
He’s deeply into meditation though. It just seems like he leans to that 3rd person perspective in his interpretations heavily.
Hi Phil, Works for me. And I have to say I’ve taken some good stuff from Sam over the years. I love the freedom to cobble together “high-water” thoughts from … everywhere.
As to, “…deeply into meditation …” Whilst “sitting” this morning, there was this sense of amusement about the word, “meditation,” and how it seems to carry some elevated heft to it (inscrutable, exotic, bells and whistles go here). I don’t like the word, preferring instead something like, “just sitting,” as in “let’s see what’s up.”
When I hear people drop how many hours they’ve spent on their cushion, as something worthy of a merit badge, I think of a Volkswagen on the Indianapolis Speedway- it may have done 10,000 laps but, top-in, it’s still a Volkswagen … but hey, that’s just me.
This thread has lead us some distance away from how different levels see God. Has the topic run its course? I still feel it’s a case-by-case matter and a biggie here for me has to do with power-as-God, which you mentioned in your "Red Warrior " context.
I’m thinking maybe power is subject to becoming “God” at all levels. In the realm of interpersonal exchange, power and what one does with it seems to always be on the table, unconsciously, tacitly, insidiously , etc.
How to not pick up the power when it sits there on the table, freely offered (Lord of the Rings stuff)
seems investigation-worthy … maybe before heading off for the market place …