Hi there,

Following Neelesh's comment - if there's still an interest in collating contributions, would it be possible to find out a little more detail about how we can contribute perspectives?

Many thanks for being in touch,

Trish

Can you share some details please on the initiative and the work involved? Thanks

LOL, hmm, I like the sound of that. I don't think so. Just was checking out what they're up to. Seems like it's pretty basic, not really touching much of what we explore here (that I can tell from the discussion).

There's an interfaith ministry program in New York called One Spirit that has recently opened a program to train people to be "integral spiritual mentors and ministers," led by Lynne Feldman and Joanne Ruben. There was a webinar today on this, which is just winding up.

Would be happy to discuss Gebser, thank you for the link! I'll post something up shortly.

no more so than anyone having an attachment to 'the end of enlightenment', or to the theory of hierarchical complexity ; ) ...no, i guess i'm trying to see if the state of dzogchen can be regarded differently, as something other than a metaphysical, transcendental 'given' -- i can't see any 'absolute giveness' inherent in the idea of infinite potentiality manifesting out of openess.

thanks for the link to the transpersonal psychology thread, and it's good to be talking about this with you now, because i wasn't able to raise this at the time. your posts then quoting Capriles were in reference to the pre-trans fallacy, and on having a look at the time at Beyond Mind 2, i came across the part i quoted in my previous message, which at the time made me think of your premise that the so called primordial or non-dual state (rigpa) was nothing more than, as you concisely put it, the state of pre-reflexive awareness integrated with the later ego. attempting to put jargon aside as much as possible, the dzogchen teaching distinguishes between the 'base-of-all' consciousness (kun.zhi nam.shes, a la yogachara, which doesn't automatically imply being present to/in rigpa -- i.e. one can rest in a half-asleep state of a base level of awareness without being in "instant presence") and the 'state of dzogchen', which is the inseparability of kun.zhi (here a different kind/meaning of 'kun.zhi') and rigpa. i'm hoping we don't end up again simply agreeing to differ...i'm wondering rather if you might consider that the kind of half-asleep awareness we can have when meditating, which can be running on automatic, is itself not apart from the ego - in fact the self/ego might be distractedly musing on something within this drowsy state - but from the point of view of the dzogchen teaching it is not the "instant presence" of (or being "instantly present in") the so called non-dual state. kind regards, best wishes.

hi theurj...can't find the relevant threads/posts now, but vis a vis your proposition that the so called natural/non-dual state is nothing more than the baseline, zero level of hierarchical complexity (my words not yours, as i can't quote you directly, but i'm hoping you'll accept them as adequately capturing your intended meaning), what do you think of the notion that this baseline/zero level might be better represented by "...the state known as base-of-all or kunzhi (kun gzhi) … as manifest when one cozily remains in the experience of the inner luminosity of dang (gdangs) energy known as tingsel (gting gsal)24 without reGnizing this luminosity (a reGnition that would turn it into an instance of the dharmakaya)" (Capriles: Beyond Mind 2 p.5), rather than the so called non-dual state of "instant presence" itself?

Hi Edward

I just went back into an email you sent me from 2 years ago and requested to join the KW meetup group. So I haven't been yet but hope to check it out soon.

joseph