|
Post by question on Jan 18, 2011 12:16:33 GMT -5
Why do we doubt our nature after death, but not question it prior to birth? Were you prior to conception? Did you survive that? "Before birth, I've been dead for 14b years". I thinks that this is a play on words. If it's not a wordplay, the doubt still applies. I can't be sure of birth, that there is a universe, that it is 14b y/o etc etc. We can use common sense (aka Occam's Razor), but it will not undo the fundamental cartesian kind of doubt. And since there is doubt, I suspect that the question is irrelevant to the inquiry "what is?".
|
|
|
Post by karen on Jan 18, 2011 12:23:11 GMT -5
Yes, it's irrelevant in my book.
But in my case the concern over the question of the afterlife was literally fueled by my ignoring the question of my being prior to conception. I found no answer pondering this - it just took care of anxiety of the after life plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2011 13:50:39 GMT -5
So, your saying that when the body dies, I am still here? Nisargadatta What Nisargadatta is talking about in this quote cannot be imagined, but it can be realized. One glimpse of THAT and words like "consciousness, ""unconsciousness," "nothing," "something" and "debatability" become sheer nonsense. "Just the absolute?" Just? Any response to this would be obscenely insufficient.
|
|
mits
Junior Member
Posts: 92
|
Post by mits on Jan 18, 2011 15:37:25 GMT -5
To be honest it seems nonsense when Sri Nisgardatta says you never were born and you shall never die? I just don't get it? What does it mean? Well I have a birthdate which would prove him wrong. I think even Osho say something about this but I don't get it at all. But after this realization what does one do with his life? Go and tell others surely they will just lock him up in an mental institute and give him drugs lol
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Jan 18, 2011 16:07:43 GMT -5
Waddup mits?
Maharaj is pointing to what you are beyond form, the ever present witness. You can never find the witness with thought, because the witness is that which witnesses thought. So recognize the limitations of these words we are sharing right now.
Whatever the hell you want!
I guess I could say, that its not really your life, that its only a stream of thinking guiding a body around through this thing called the human experience. But I find that to be a somewhat bushleague answer. I find Self realization frees the mind up to do what it loves, without what you are not (a separate self) getting in the way. Put another way, you can pursue desires of the heart without fears of the mind grounded in separation holding you back.
Although in terms of desires "of the heart", I don't find this is something a mind would have any conscious choice of, its kinda just what you're left with. By eliminating the tendency to "self seek" (seek oneself through thought created image of future), the now becomes a wonderful place to manifest. And in reality, its the only place we can manifest desire anyway...
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 18, 2011 16:11:35 GMT -5
Hi Mts you are quickly becoming my fave member here. Nice to have a fresh new honest inquiry without all the wording intellect poop.
What Nis says is nonsense or better yet insane to most any listener. The listeners fall into a few categories. You have some that will put him with the rest of the crazies like religious zealots, end of the world doomslayers basically lunatics. Then you have intellectuals that will work hard to finally grasp what he is saying and think they were given a powerful secret that only very good wits could decode his words. You have others that feel they have awaken but do not quite know how it happen but everyday they play his words back through their mind to make sure they still have it.
Then we are told there are a few who got exactly what he means because they had a event of direct seeing. This group appeals to my nature the most but even in this group you very well can have some with illusions of grandeur. I have always felt that the ones that get this direct seeing in a easy way probably never got it really. The ones that went to hell and back and finally gave up on the whole crazy seeking stuff may be the genuine ones.
I consider myself a good judge of people that fake. Nis does not seem like a faker to me. He probably had better things to do then to spend days a week talking crazy nonsense to folks for over 50 years if something true was not there. I also like it that Nis was not this kind of purest phony that you see in so many "spiritual" circles. He liked to lite up when giving a satsang and never sugar coated anything. He would also call people out that thought they were awaken but were phonies trying to teach others when they themselves never got it! One guy he would throw out numerous with very angry words . Niz hated people that thought they had something when Nis clearly felt different.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by mamza on Jan 18, 2011 19:28:36 GMT -5
In the end it might be 'intellect poop', but for this particular mind it's helpful to get to the bottom of all the jargon. Some minds can just drop the intellectualism and say, 'Okay, let's just do it." Some minds are so bent so far backwards that see what's seen through the crack of the ass.
Even if a person is very intellect oriented, they will eventually (assuming they stick with it) get to a point where there's a sort of cut-off line that they can't understand their way past.
For people like 'me', it's helpful to show the mind that it can try to understand things all it wants, but it won't ever open that door. Sometimes you just have to let it see that for itself.
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 18, 2011 19:49:45 GMT -5
Yes true a strong intellect is not a help here. People with strong minds will have the most difficult time letting go.
To have a child mind is a great boon in self inquiry
Michael
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2011 20:36:03 GMT -5
Waddup mits? Maharaj is pointing to what you are beyond form, the ever present witness. You can never find the witness with thought, because the witness is that which witnesses thought. So recognize the limitations of these words we are sharing right now. Whatever the hell you want! I guess I could say, that its not really your life, that its only a stream of thinking guiding a body around through this thing called the human experience. But I find that to be a somewhat bushleague answer. I find Self realization frees the mind up to do what it loves, without what you are not (a separate self) getting in the way. Put another way, you can pursue desires of the heart without fears of the mind grounded in separation holding you back. Although in terms of desires "of the heart", I don't find this is something a mind would have any conscious choice of, its kinda just what you're left with. By eliminating the tendency to "self seek" (seek oneself through thought created image of future), the now becomes a wonderful place to manifest. And in reality, its the only place we can manifest desire anyway... Jason: This is very good. I would only change a few lines. You already caught the flaw in "Do whatever the hell you want." It's not your life. Second, a stream of thinking does not guide a body around. Any stream of thinking is a superfluous overlay upon what is happening. This can be verified by suspending thought, remaining silent, and observing what happens. Third, self-realization does not free the mind up to do what it loves; it removes the mind as an apparent arbiter of anything, allowing THAT to be seen as always doing what IT loves, an infinite reveling in the isness of ITSELF.
|
|
|
Post by frankshank on Jan 18, 2011 21:07:20 GMT -5
Is it not possible that thoughts do indeed lead to action but you are going to a place where the thoughts are not heard?
|
|
|
Post by michaelsees on Jan 18, 2011 21:11:45 GMT -5
I would think you are correct that this would happen always for the one that is only a witness to the thoughts but does not become involved.
Michael
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Jan 18, 2011 21:37:39 GMT -5
Hi Zendancer.
Um really? What does then? Are you saying that thought didn't perpetuate "your" body to type the words above? I wonder if this is what you're saying...
I would question whether what you are has anything to do with a mind suspending thought.
Ok on this one i'll say fair enough, a mind can never "do what it loves", because a mind can never be said to exist as something which is distinct and separate from what timelessly IS. It probably points closer to say that Self realization turns the human form and the thought which guide it into an expression of that which alone is real.
I'm with you here, but I will only add that it removes the delusion that the mind is "something" which actually exists.
To me, it seems like you are excluding thought from THAT??? That seems to miss the mark.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Jan 18, 2011 21:59:47 GMT -5
Why do we doubt our nature after death, but not question it prior to birth? Were you prior to conception? Did you survive that? I'd say the answers come together, but there's understandably far less interest in what happened than what will happen. If there is a belief in an afterlife, that likely implies a 'pre-life'. If it's believed that nothing identifiable existed prior to birth, it's likely believed nothing exists after death. Same arguments apply to some impersonal Self.
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 18, 2011 23:39:20 GMT -5
Hi Jason: Yep, I'm saying that thought is always late to the party. That which guides the body is what Suzanne Segal so appropriately called "the non-locatable doer." No thoughts are required in order to circulate blood, move nerve impulses, see, hear, activate muscles, digest food, or even think thoughts. In silence the head turns, but no thoughts precede the turning, and no thoughts follow afterwards. If the mind is thinking, and thoughts precede the turning, such as, "I think I'll turn my head," the intention is already there, and the words are an unnecessary habit pattern that create an illusion of separation and control. If we spend a few hours in deep silence, the body will move and act intelligently to feed itself, dress itself, drive itself around town in a car, talk to people, read signage, understand what's going on, etc. but there will be no one behind those actions or directing those actions and no thoughts whatsoever will be extant. There will be pure awareness, without separation, watching what is. If any thoughts happen to appear, awareness will be aware of the thoughts, but will remain untouched. This has sometimes been called "non-abidance in the mind," but that is sort of a misnomer because it implies that there is someone who is not abiding in the mind, and there is no such non-abider.
Who we are can either think or not think, but most people do not know that the second option is an option. Consequently, I am not in any way excluding thought from THAT. Thought has its place, but its place is much less significant than is usually thought. LOL
I'd love to continue typing, but unfortunately the body has a stuffy head cold, and it must now go catch some shut-eye. I'll talk at ya later alligator, but please keep this thread hot; its a good one.
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Jan 19, 2011 0:21:46 GMT -5
Hi ZD, you seem like someone who has had considerable insight into reality.
Take another look at that one.
What we are already is deep silence.
Are you saying that thought is not necessary to understand what's going on? I find that's one of the best uses of thought.
Moreover, are you saying that simply because thought aids the human form in accomplishing certain tasks, like communicating, that this necessitates some notion of doership by a "separate thinker"?
It seems like you are equating who we are with a mind which is not who we are.
I have a wicked cold myself, the worst I've felt physically in years. Although sadly for me this just means being on the computer even more LOL.
jason
|
|