|
Post by Reefs on Apr 20, 2015 11:54:22 GMT -5
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 20, 2015 12:02:01 GMT -5
I like Wei Wu Wei, but I've still not finished Open Secret
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 20, 2015 12:06:59 GMT -5
It's very difficult to take something from that book for everyday practice. Intellect must be very sharp to get thing he's written.
|
|
veter
Junior Member
Posts: 83
|
Post by veter on Apr 20, 2015 12:35:38 GMT -5
Many keys and good pointers can be found in Adyashanti's book "The End of Your World". I like him, he speaks good things! His books more usefull for everyday practice
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 21, 2015 0:33:40 GMT -5
If that's what Terence Gray thought the definition of freedom is. i hope those beliefs served him well.
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Apr 21, 2015 10:11:19 GMT -5
...but, it sorta sounds like it must mean something....
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2015 12:15:49 GMT -5
It's very difficult to take something from that book for everyday practice. Intellect must be very sharp to get thing he's written. That would be missing the point of the book.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 23, 2015 12:18:39 GMT -5
If that's what Terence Gray thought the definition of freedom is. i hope those beliefs served him well. If you would have read the book, you'd see that this is also Buddha's definition of freedom.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 12:42:22 GMT -5
It's the fatal flaw at the core of non-dual teachings; that what we are is not free. And what we are, can do a non-action to free itself. That which we are can neither be aggrandized nor diminished by any phenomenal experience. I see it the other way round, that what we are is free, but for some reason it wants to know and experience itself phenomenally.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2015 13:00:52 GMT -5
It's the fatal flaw at the core of non-dual teachings; that what we are is not free. And what we are, can do a non-action to free itself. That which we are can neither be aggrandized nor diminished by any phenomenal experience. I see it the other way round, that what we are is free, That is what I take most of the direct "non-dual teachings" to point to, as the identified subject is what most peeps think they are, but they aren't that. but for some reason it wants to know and experience itself phenomenally. This is a profoundly beautiful expression of mind that works as an after-the-fact description as well as being what the secular humanists have blindly bumbled our way into by way of an answer to the meaning of life ... ... but intellect can hook on it and turn it into a round of identity poker.
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Apr 23, 2015 17:30:49 GMT -5
If that's what Terence Gray thought the definition of freedom is. i hope those beliefs served him well. If you would have read the book, you'd see that this is also Buddha's definition of freedom. If that's what Buddha thought the definition of freedom is. i hope those beliefs served him well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 25, 2015 13:13:10 GMT -5
It's the fatal flaw at the core of non-dual teachings; that what we are is not free. And what we are, can do a non-action to free itself. That which we are can neither be aggrandized nor diminished by any phenomenal experience. I see it the other way round, that what we are is free, That is what I take most of the direct "non-dual teachings" to point to, as the identified subject is what most peeps think they are, but they aren't that. but for some reason it wants to know and experience itself phenomenally. This is a profoundly beautiful expression of mind that works as an after-the-fact description as well as being what the secular humanists have blindly bumbled our way into by way of an answer to the meaning of life ... ... but intellect can hook on it and turn it into a round of identity poker. Yeah, good points. In my opinion though, perhaps the discovery of Consciousness as the core fundamental reality at the source of all life, is just as much secular as it is religious or philosophical.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 26, 2015 2:02:39 GMT -5
That is what I take most of the direct "non-dual teachings" to point to, as the identified subject is what most peeps think they are, but they aren't that. This is a profoundly beautiful expression of mind that works as an after-the-fact description as well as being what the secular humanists have blindly bumbled our way into by way of an answer to the meaning of life ... ... but intellect can hook on it and turn it into a round of identity poker. Yeah, good points. In my opinion though, perhaps the discovery of Consciousness as the core fundamental reality at the source of all life, is just as much secular as it is religious or philosophical. In my opinion secular/philosophical is somewhat of a dwad, and as far as discovery goes, what it seems happened to me is that scientists in the 20th century arrived at certain conclusions that mirrored various past religious myth, and much of that of course has to do with the common core of conditioning between the scientists and the authors of the ancient scriptures. In short, the idea of the Universe is really nothing more than an apirori assumption, and the concept of consciousness is a glue that knits together those myriad of conceptual complexes, some spiritual, some scientific, some metaphysical based in science and philosophy. Consciousness is also a very useful idea in terms of nondual pointing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 26, 2015 11:42:03 GMT -5
Yeah, good points. In my opinion though, perhaps the discovery of Consciousness as the core fundamental reality at the source of all life, is just as much secular as it is religious or philosophical. In my opinion secular/philosophical is somewhat of a dwad, and as far as discovery goes, what it seems happened to me is that scientists in the 20th century arrived at certain conclusions that mirrored various past religious myth, and much of that of course has to do with the common core of conditioning between the scientists and the authors of the ancient scriptures. In short, the idea of the Universe is really nothing more than an apirori assumption, and the concept of consciousness is a glue that knits together those myriad of conceptual complexes, some spiritual, some scientific, some metaphysical based in science and philosophy. Consciousness is also a very useful idea in terms of nondual pointing. Yeah, I agree, I'm just saying that within the limits of knowledge, whether it's a scientist, zen master, philosopher or non-dualist, they are all pointing at Source using different nomenclatures. The irony is that the Source everyone is pointing to, is the same Source of the ones pointing.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 26, 2015 12:33:42 GMT -5
In my opinion secular/philosophical is somewhat of a dwad, and as far as discovery goes, what it seems happened to me is that scientists in the 20th century arrived at certain conclusions that mirrored various past religious myth, and much of that of course has to do with the common core of conditioning between the scientists and the authors of the ancient scriptures. In short, the idea of the Universe is really nothing more than an apirori assumption, and the concept of consciousness is a glue that knits together those myriad of conceptual complexes, some spiritual, some scientific, some metaphysical based in science and philosophy. Consciousness is also a very useful idea in terms of nondual pointing. Yeah, I agree, I'm just saying that within the limits of knowledge, whether it's a scientist, zen master, philosopher or non-dualist, they are all pointing at Source using different nomenclatures. The irony is that the Source everyone is pointing to, is the same Source of the ones pointing. Perhaps ironic yes, but also seems to me to be a foregone conclusion.
|
|