|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 12, 2015 17:51:14 GMT -5
What cowardice? What does it matter that I bumped a thread?...why I bumped a thread? I also bumped about ten threads on the Spiritual teachers section. Why don't you ask me why I did that? man ur just too easy ... I was referring to this: I'm not going to share the reason, presently anyway). ooooooh! .. not presently anyway ... wow! what suspense! Oh....I get it, it's shameful that I bumped the Shaming thread....... To ask me why I bumped a certain thread seems like a very peculiar question.......to me........
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Mar 12, 2015 20:35:56 GMT -5
That's how it looks from 1st mountain, yes. In reality, there is no knife and no fork. Only the intellect sees a knife and a fork. Separation only exists for the intellect only. Correct, and that's why I often talk about "seeing like the lens of a camera." A camera has no intellect, so it only "sees" a field rather than separate things. Most people do not grasp what this means because their minds are not sufficiently silent to understand how the intellect imagines what we see. If the mind is silent, we see "what is" rather than what we imagine. If I ask someone to take ONLY a photograph of a chair, they point a camera at a chair, take a photo, and show it to me. I reply, "No no. I asked for a photo of ONLY a chair. The photo you've taken shows walls, floor, a chair, and other stuff included in a field of view extending from one side of a room to the other." I actually did this one time with a group of students, and they all looked totally befuddled. I explained to them that what adults call "seeing" probably ought to be called "think-seeing" to distinguish that kind of seeing from what a still mind sees. The students were young enough and open-minded enough that they eventually understood what I was saying. As we grow from childhood to adulthood, we make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of distinctions. We label those distinctions with words, and we then unconsciously construct a meta-reality with the intellect where the word and the distinction become synonymous. Everyone understands that the words we use to represent distinctions are totally arbitrary, and that Germans, for example, use different words for similar distinctions. We say "house" and they say "haus." This is elementary, but very few adults realize that the distinctions which the words represent are ALSO arbitrary because imaginary boundaries can be drawn anywhere. If we look at the world around us non-conceptually (with a silent mind), we do not see things; we see "what is." This is why sages often advise seekers to go stare at something like a tree or a rock until they can discern the difference between what those things ARE and how they can be distinguished. If I hold up a Bible and ask several people, "What is this?" I will usually get these kinds of answers: 1. It's a book. 2. It's a product composed of cellulose and organic chemicals. 3. It's an object. 4. It's matter (as opposed to energy) 5. It's a Bible 6. It's a holy book Their answers are all different ways that what I'm holding in my hand can be distinguished. However, I didn't ask, "How may this be distinguished?" I asked what IS thist? IS is a verb rather than a noun. Most people name what they see, and think ABOUT what they see rather than simply see. Seeing without knowing is seeing with a still mind. The sage sees and understands the world in two radically different ways--through non-conceptual awareness as well as conceptual awareness--, so the sage has access to both sides of the same coin. Jacob Boehm, a Christian mystic, had a disciple who once asked him, "Master, how can I enter the world of the divine?" Boehm replied, "When thou canst throw thyself into THAT where no creature dwelleth, then thou wilt hear unspeakable words of God and see the world before it was. Simply cease thy willing and knowing of self, and the door will open." Boehm was pointing directly to what is always here and now, but remains unseen. Existence is 'both/and', as you point-out in the bolded portion of your post.. the experiencer has access to BOTH oneness AND separation in the same experience, and.. the sage knows even those distinctions are a cut too deep, understanding the liberation of a cage not built, a sermon not preached, and an idea not attached to..
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 13, 2015 1:28:32 GMT -5
Correct, and that's why I often talk about "seeing like the lens of a camera." A camera has no intellect, so it only "sees" a field rather than separate things. Most people do not grasp what this means because their minds are not sufficiently silent to understand how the intellect imagines what we see. If the mind is silent, we see "what is" rather than what we imagine. If I ask someone to take ONLY a photograph of a chair, they point a camera at a chair, take a photo, and show it to me. I reply, "No no. I asked for a photo of ONLY a chair. The photo you've taken shows walls, floor, a chair, and other stuff included in a field of view extending from one side of a room to the other." I actually did this one time with a group of students, and they all looked totally befuddled. I explained to them that what adults call "seeing" probably ought to be called "think-seeing" to distinguish that kind of seeing from what a still mind sees. The students were young enough and open-minded enough that they eventually understood what I was saying. As we grow from childhood to adulthood, we make hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of distinctions. We label those distinctions with words, and we then unconsciously construct a meta-reality with the intellect where the word and the distinction become synonymous. Everyone understands that the words we use to represent distinctions are totally arbitrary, and that Germans, for example, use different words for similar distinctions. We say "house" and they say "haus." This is elementary, but very few adults realize that the distinctions which the words represent are ALSO arbitrary because imaginary boundaries can be drawn anywhere. If we look at the world around us non-conceptually (with a silent mind), we do not see things; we see "what is." This is why sages often advise seekers to go stare at something like a tree or a rock until they can discern the difference between what those things ARE and how they can be distinguished. If I hold up a Bible and ask several people, "What is this?" I will usually get these kinds of answers: 1. It's a book. 2. It's a product composed of cellulose and organic chemicals. 3. It's an object. 4. It's matter (as opposed to energy) 5. It's a Bible 6. It's a holy book Their answers are all different ways that what I'm holding in my hand can be distinguished. However, I didn't ask, "How may this be distinguished?" I asked what IS thist? IS is a verb rather than a noun. Most people name what they see, and think ABOUT what they see rather than simply see. Seeing without knowing is seeing with a still mind. The sage sees and understands the world in two radically different ways--through non-conceptual awareness as well as conceptual awareness--, so the sage has access to both sides of the same coin. Jacob Boehm, a Christian mystic, had a disciple who once asked him, "Master, how can I enter the world of the divine?" Boehm replied, "When thou canst throw thyself into THAT where no creature dwelleth, then thou wilt hear unspeakable words of God and see the world before it was. Simply cease thy willing and knowing of self, and the door will open." Boehm was pointing directly to what is always here and now, but remains unseen. Existence is 'both/and', as you point-out in the bolded portion of your post.. the experiencer has access to BOTH oneness AND separation in the same experience, and.. the sage knows even those distinctions are a cut too deep, understanding the liberation of a cage not built, a sermon not preached, and an idea not attached to.. Sounds good to me.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 13, 2015 11:55:25 GMT -5
man ur just too easy ... I was referring to this: ooooooh! .. not presently anyway ... wow! what suspense! Oh....I get it, it's shameful that I bumped the Shaming thread....... To ask me why I bumped a certain thread seems like a very peculiar question.......to me........ Nah, not as peculiar as bumping an old thread for no reason or for a reason that you're coy about.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 23, 2015 11:50:48 GMT -5
Oneness just means no separation. According to non duality doctrine it seems. Or to be more precise, adherents will only use\specify the definition that supports their doctrine. Oneness: 1. The state or quality of being one; singleness 2. A state or condition of perfect harmony or accord. #1 is the non duality oneness. #2 denotes two separate entities interacting. Ignoring definition 2, to me, denotes a blind spot, being blinded by one's beliefs, to dismiss all relevant data of a subject, not seeing the whole picture. "The truth you believe and cling to makes you unavailable to hear anything new." - Pema Chodron
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 24, 2015 17:51:40 GMT -5
Genuinely curious... Leave this place and never come back. Why? Use all of your spare time to watch your mind. Why? Delve deep into the space between thoughts. Is this space more beneficial than the other areas of existence, can something important only be found there? Follow the teaching of Ramana Maharshi; don't listen to anyone else. "Beware the man of one book." - Thomas Aquinas Leave this place and never come back. You've stated this twice. Is this very important to you, and if yes, why? The best thing you can do. "Example isn't another way to teach, it is the only way to teach." - Albert Einstein You're still here Roy, do you not think your own advice worthy to follow?
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 25, 2015 15:15:01 GMT -5
It appears Roy has left. A sincere "Well done", mate. I interpret that a sign of maturity and self mastery.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 15:35:56 GMT -5
It appears Roy has left. A sincere "Well done", mate. I interpret that a sign of maturity and self mastery.Well it was either that or everyone else leave!
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 25, 2015 16:13:36 GMT -5
It appears Roy has left. A sincere "Well done", mate. I interpret that a sign of maturity and self mastery. Well it was either that or everyone else leave! Why only those two options? Surely the opportunity exists that some could leave and some could stay. Or are you referring to what i interpret as Roy's advisement that everyone(implied) leave? The only thing missing is Roy, for i was genuinely interested in why he was urging everyone to leave, and do all those other things he mentioned.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 25, 2015 16:29:41 GMT -5
Well it was either that or everyone else leave! Why only those two options? Surely the opportunity exists that some could leave and some could stay. Or are you referring to what i interpret as Roy's advisement that everyone(implied) leave? The only thing missing is Roy, for i was genuinely interested in why he was urging everyone to leave, and do all those other things he mentioned. He wasn't ready to listen to anyone else, because he was full of resonance with Ramana. (Blessings be with the white robed one. ) And that's fine. If he returns, a little emptier than he was this time round, there may be some room to hear others words.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Mar 25, 2015 17:22:21 GMT -5
Why only those two options? Surely the opportunity exists that some could leave and some could stay. Or are you referring to what i interpret as Roy's advisement that everyone(implied) leave? The only thing missing is Roy, for i was genuinely interested in why he was urging everyone to leave, and do all those other things he mentioned. He wasn't ready to listen to anyone else, because he was full of resonance with Ramana. (Blessings be with the white robed one. ) And that's fine. If he returns, a little emptier than he was this time round, there may be some room to hear others words. Well he shoulda fit right in considering some here share the same dysfunctions.(only difference is what philosophy one encases themself in) I will have to stand by my previous judgement of him that he showed some element of wisdom to leave, even though it seems to me he left in an agitated state. Pretty impressive though, to find an element of self mastery whilst in such a state, if that is what actually happened with him. I do not see the logic in returning emptier to a place that has people as perhaps as full as he and will not listen to others. I think that's why he left, and whether he sees he suffers from the same ailment, i do not know, because he is not around to share this info.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 25, 2015 23:12:07 GMT -5
He wasn't ready to listen to anyone else, because he was full of resonance with Ramana. (Blessings be with the white robed one. ) And that's fine. If he returns, a little emptier than he was this time round, there may be some room to hear others words. Well he shoulda fit right in considering some here share the same dysfunctions.(only difference is what philosophy one encases themself in) I will have to stand by my previous judgement of him that he showed some element of wisdom to leave, even though it seems to me he left in an agitated state. Pretty impressive though, to find an element of self mastery whilst in such a state, if that is what actually happened with him. I do not see the logic in returning emptier to a place that has people as perhaps as full as he and will not listen to others. I think that's why he left, and whether he sees he suffers from the same ailment, i do not know, because he is not around to share this info.
|
|
|
Post by steven on Mar 26, 2015 3:03:48 GMT -5
Leave this place and never come back. Use all of your spare time to watch your mind. Delve deep into the space between thoughts. Follow the teaching of Ramana Maharshi; don't listen to anyone else. Leave this place and never come back. Dooh!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 3:48:19 GMT -5
He wasn't ready to listen to anyone else, because he was full of resonance with Ramana. (Blessings be with the white robed one. ) And that's fine. If he returns, a little emptier than he was this time round, there may be some room to hear others words. Well he shoulda fit right in considering some here share the same dysfunctions.(only difference is what philosophy one encases themself in) I will have to stand by my previous judgement of him that he showed some element of wisdom to leave, even though it seems to me he left in an agitated state. Pretty impressive though, to find an element of self mastery whilst in such a state, if that is what actually happened with him. I do not see the logic in returning emptier to a place that has people as perhaps as full as he and will not listen to others. I think that's why he left, and whether he sees he suffers from the same ailment, i do not know, because he is not around to share this info. Please share with me the impressiveness involved with pressing the deactivate account link.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 26, 2015 4:36:23 GMT -5
Well he shoulda fit right in considering some here share the same dysfunctions.(only difference is what philosophy one encases themself in) I will have to stand by my previous judgement of him that he showed some element of wisdom to leave, even though it seems to me he left in an agitated state. Pretty impressive though, to find an element of self mastery whilst in such a state, if that is what actually happened with him. I do not see the logic in returning emptier to a place that has people as perhaps as full as he and will not listen to others. I think that's why he left, and whether he sees he suffers from the same ailment, i do not know, because he is not around to share this info. Please share with me the impressiveness involved with pressing the deactivate account link. may I? a manic state of hyperminding precedes the event and pressing that particular link is like the cutting of an umbilical cord, some momentary solace, and then a fresh batch of more hyperminding rinse and repeat
|
|