|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 20, 2013 11:57:12 GMT -5
How can sadness, a thought/feeling form with no ultimate reality, make Joy, the Eternal Formless without opposite, possible? The joy to which I refereth is the dualistic counterpart to joy/sorrow. The struggle with dualistic feeling has to be reconciled. It only becomes a problem when one end of that stick is grasped and the other end is rejected. Until the grasping and rejecting occurs, there is no problem with feeling. Bad feelings are labels given to our struggle with feeling, not to feelings themselves. There's a lot of talk about embracing life on this forum, but mostly it means embracing the good stuff and somehow bypassing the bad stuff using some kind of strategies or conceptual understanding, but this is still rejection and rejection is suffering. It doesn't mean that one must simply accept suffering as part of life. Suffering doesn't happen in the world, it happens in the rejecting mind. Relief from suffering cannot be found in the mental world where suffering is created. This mental world insists that the answer to suffering must be a permanent version of the joy it has always sought and found to be temporary, and so it goes off looking for eternal joy in the formless. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. I see, and agree. Thank you for explaining.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 11:58:31 GMT -5
What are you doing? Did you think I was talking to you? Uh, sorry! No problemo.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 20, 2013 12:15:40 GMT -5
The joy to which I refereth is the dualistic counterpart to joy/sorrow. The struggle with dualistic feeling has to be reconciled. It only becomes a problem when one end of that stick is grasped and the other end is rejected. Until the grasping and rejecting occurs, there is no problem with feeling. Bad feelings are labels given to our struggle with feeling, not to feelings themselves. There's a lot of talk about embracing life on this forum, but mostly it means embracing the good stuff and somehow bypassing the bad stuff using some kind of strategies or conceptual understanding, but this is still rejection and rejection is suffering. It doesn't mean that one must simply accept suffering as part of life. Suffering doesn't happen in the world, it happens in the rejecting mind. Relief from suffering cannot be found in the mental world where suffering is created. This mental world insists that the answer to suffering must be a permanent version of the joy it has always sought and found to be temporary, and so it goes off looking for eternal joy in the formless. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. I see, and agree. Thank you for explaining. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. Some call it Freedom as well.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Mar 20, 2013 13:14:15 GMT -5
I see, and agree. Thank you for explaining. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. Some call it Freedom as well. You, yup. Freedom from the illusion of exclusive identification with the separate, volitional self that lies at the core of all struggle.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 20, 2013 14:47:24 GMT -5
How can sadness, a thought/feeling form with no ultimate reality, make Joy, the Eternal Formless without opposite, possible? The joy to which I refereth is the dualistic counterpart to joy/sorrow. The struggle with dualistic feeling has to be reconciled. It only becomes a problem when one end of that stick is grasped and the other end is rejected. Until the grasping and rejecting occurs, there is no problem with feeling. Bad feelings are labels given to our struggle with feeling, not to feelings themselves. There's a lot of talk about embracing life on this forum, but mostly it means embracing the good stuff and somehow bypassing the bad stuff using some kind of strategies or conceptual understanding, but this is still rejection and rejection is suffering. It doesn't mean that one must simply accept suffering as part of life. Suffering doesn't happen in the world, it happens in the rejecting mind. Relief from suffering cannot be found in the mental world where suffering is created. This mental world insists that the answer to suffering must be a permanent version of the joy it has always sought and found to be temporary, and so it goes off looking for eternal joy in the formless. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. I recall Adya saying some obscure abbot somewhere or something told him something like, 'very few need to be told to not get attached to hell. Most, if not everyone needs to be reminded to not get attached to heaven.'
|
|
|
Post by silence on Mar 20, 2013 14:53:20 GMT -5
I think a major obstacle for clarity is our language. We are always referring to our selves as an 'I'. I did this, I feel this , I like this, I hate this, I, I, I,. This constant self reference as an 'I' conditions you to think you are a thing/object. If you are a thing/object where in the heck are you. Are you in the body ? If so what part,the hand,the finger,the arm, the head. The head if so what part the mouth, the tongue,the eyes, the brain. The brain if so what part, the front, the left side, the right side, the top, the bottom, the middle? The fact is you cannot be located any where, this is not esoteric or metaphysical, its simply looking. The all knowing Google does not even know where you are. Do a google search [ what part of the brain are you ] it can not tell you..... So its pretty clear your not an object/thing, then what are you? Well maybe the best way to think of your self is as a 'verb', instead of and 'I' you are Iing, you have always been Iing if you think about it. The since of self was never a thing/object and can not be located any where. Well where does that leave the little girl that died, she's not an 'I' object/thing and can not be located any where............. Yes, it's all verbs. Can't pause life to take a sample and analyze it.
|
|
|
Post by jasonl on Mar 20, 2013 15:03:16 GMT -5
How can sadness, a thought/feeling form with no ultimate reality, make Joy, the Eternal Formless without opposite, possible? The joy to which I refereth is the dualistic counterpart to joy/sorrow. The struggle with dualistic feeling has to be reconciled. It only becomes a problem when one end of that stick is grasped and the other end is rejected. Until the grasping and rejecting occurs, there is no problem with feeling. Bad feelings are labels given to our struggle with feeling, not to feelings themselves. There's a lot of talk about embracing life on this forum, but mostly it means embracing the good stuff and somehow bypassing the bad stuff using some kind of strategies or conceptual understanding, but this is still rejection and rejection is suffering. It doesn't mean that one must simply accept suffering as part of life. Suffering doesn't happen in the world, it happens in the rejecting mind. Relief from suffering cannot be found in the mental world where suffering is created. This mental world insists that the answer to suffering must be a permanent version of the joy it has always sought and found to be temporary, and so it goes off looking for eternal joy in the formless. There is nothing in the formless but you. What is sought is Peace, and Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. Yea you don't find relief from believing something that isn't true by proving that its true.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 20, 2013 15:13:13 GMT -5
Peace is the absence of the struggle with feeling. Seems to me to be related somehow to the end of "why ___?" ... to bring this back to WS's realization on the nature of meaning. .... notice we can cast questions about motivation as "why ___?"'s
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 20, 2013 15:26:13 GMT -5
I recall Adya saying some obscure abbot somewhere or something told him something like, 'very few need to be told to not get attached to hell. Most, if not everyone needs to be reminded to not get attached to heaven.' In movies there is sometimes a scene where a man has to make a decision. On one shoulder a little devil whispers certain suggestions while on the other shoulder a little angel whispers opposing, contradictory suggestions. Usually the man will see through the "temptations" and ultimately listen to the voice of the "good" angel. This points to the suggestion that it is easier to see through the negative voice in the head than it is to see the "good" voice in the head as being the same as the negative voice only in different garb.
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 20, 2013 15:26:50 GMT -5
deleted duplicate post
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Mar 20, 2013 15:27:04 GMT -5
another duplicate post...hmmmmm. Gremlins perhaps
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Mar 20, 2013 20:43:31 GMT -5
Why not look, without trying to reach any conclusions, and see what happens? Why not look so intensely that the looker disappears until only looking continues? The mind can never make sense of the truth, but that does not mean that the truth cannot be realized. Realization does not occur through the mind, nor through a person. Realization occurs when truth discovers what it IS. When the Buddha said, "In all the universe I am the only one," he was referring to something unimaginable. Jesus, Al Hallaj, and innumerable other sages have said, "I am the truth." What were they pointing to? In the Gospel of Thomas Jesus said, "The kingdom of the Father is spread out upon the earth and men do not see it." People do not see it because they imagine that they are subjects looking at objects. When the subject disappears, objects also disappear. When the illusion of the subject is seen through, what remains? Why not take a look? Honestly, what makes you think i have not sincerely looked without trying to reach conclusions? What happens is nothing. No truth to be realized. All I've ever realized is my own ignorance in certain beliefs and thoughts. Even now, I'm done looking....how more intensely can one look than that.............open to whatever is............but nothing becomes of it except seeing more and more that there is no truth, no purpose, no realization. You have replaced seeing thru a looker to seeing without a looker. You have replaced seeing whatever to seeing the unimaginable, the kingdom of the father, etc. Of course you would suggest how to get there but respectfully I say all you ever find is what you want to find.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Mar 20, 2013 20:47:13 GMT -5
Respectfully, you just told me the way you make sense of it. What if you let go of the thought............life is just what IS..........etc? Not a matter of making sense of anything. That's the whole point, silly. What is the 'I' that wants to 'create life'? I'm no old man, but I've been around long enough to understand that THIS is as good as it gets. Then you have found your truth, "this is as good as it gets". I simply don't know that nor feel that it is possible to know that unless you want to know that. Why not say "I seems like this is as good as it gets, but i don't know."
|
|
|
Post by Beingist on Mar 20, 2013 20:50:39 GMT -5
Not a matter of making sense of anything. That's the whole point, silly. What is the 'I' that wants to 'create life'? I'm no old man, but I've been around long enough to understand that THIS is as good as it gets. Then you have found your truth, "this is as good as it gets". I simply don't know that nor feel that it is possible to know that unless you want to know that. Why not say "I seems like this is as good as it gets, but i don't know." Why not say, "I love petite peas?" I don't know.
|
|
|
Post by whiteshaman on Mar 20, 2013 20:51:18 GMT -5
See you, to me, are making sense of life not making sense. it is still grasping onto something and for me, it has been something I'd rather not grasp. WS, here you make the one salient point possible about the realization of the lack of meaning. I didn't see B doing this, but once "there is no meaning" is grasped, there's absolutely no point in going any further than that. No point in making meaning out of "there is no meaning". It's a show-stopper for that which makes meaning. ... yeah that might sound like meaning but it's not, it's just an example of recursion. Observering that "there is no meaning" is a recursive statement is an observation on the nature of it rather than an assignment of meaning to it. Zd has found the unimaginable.....................that sounds pretty meaningful in itself. Just because i see no meaning doesn't mean that there is nothing more and just because Zd has found the unimaginable doesn't mean that there is such a thing to find. So what I am saying is that it isn't grasped. It is noticed but equally it is noticed otherwise. So I don't know.
|
|