|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 12:14:21 GMT -5
Not retaliating is a result, not a cause. Last paragraph, after last comma, correct. Then what does this mean?: "Basically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma." I didn't explain the how. I've explained the how before, nobody was interested or just said, that's wrong. The samskaras, etc. consists of a certain quality of energy. This one dude came up with what he called a theory of correspondences. This means there is a spiritual counterpart for physical laws. So, spiritually and psychologically for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is karma, what you sow you reap. So there is a chain of cause and effect where the energy is perpetuated. To stop the chain you have stop the energy from being perpetuated. Now to your answer. You have to take the energy out of the samskaras. First you have to recognize the energy, see it. How? Via attention and awareness. And this impartial seeing, attention, takes the energy out of the samskaras, and saves it. Awareness actually transforms the energy, this is called transmutation (as well as various other names). It's separating the fine from the coarse. That's it briefly. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 12:24:13 GMT -5
Then what does this mean?: "Basically, karma ends when you cease to perpetuate it. That means basically, when sh!t comes into your life, you ~suck-it-up~ and don't preform actions which puts the energy back out there (into the universe). The link (just found it, haven't been there before) calls that burning karma." I didn't explain the how. I've explained the how before, nobody was interested or just said, that's wrong. The samskaras, etc. consists of a certain quality of energy. This one dude came up with what he called a theory of correspondences. This means there is a spiritual counterpart for physical laws. So, spiritually and psychologically for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. This is karma, what you sow you reap. So there is a chain of cause and effect where the energy is perpetuated. To stop the chain you have stop the energy from being perpetuated. Now to your answer. You have to take the energy out of the samskaras. First you have to recognize the energy, see it. How? Via attention and awareness. And this impartial seeing, attention, takes the energy out of the samskaras, and saves it. Awareness actually transforms the energy, this is called transmutation (as well as various other names). It's separating the fine from the coarse. That's it briefly. All I was trying to do was get you to reconcile what you quoted with your own stated opinion, which seemed to differ, but nevermind. We seem to be light years apart on the concept of karma. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 12:35:14 GMT -5
Yea that's not what I would call a 'good faith' reading. Do you think she could read that and say 'oh yea that's pretty much what I was thinking'? Oh well. Okay, take the word 'mistakenly' out of it. Be my guest, Mr. Openhearted. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Aug 26, 2016 12:55:54 GMT -5
I know it's evil frogish of me but I just see it as more angry villager activity. Put simply, I didn't have to try to make him look ugly as his words accomplished that quite well by themselves.  well I'll do you a nasty-clown one better and opine that the absurd idea that his ugliness was in the eye of the beholder is a product of all that torch-smoke.  Please elaborate. VA causes perceptual collateral damage among peaceful bystanders transforming them via mob psychology into additional marauding morons?? |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 13:46:25 GMT -5
Okay, take the word 'mistakenly' out of it. Be my guest, Mr. Openhearted. You're not able to give a 'good faith' reading of what I meant when I told Lolly is was effortless to make him appear ugly. Until you can, get down off your 'good faith' horse. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 13:50:37 GMT -5
Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? But it was your logic. It wasn't my logic. Preciocho doesn't understand my post. He didn't reply to any specific points in my post but stated something he thinks is my logic, but isn't and then he says it's faulty. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 13:57:10 GMT -5
Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? I'm basically a bum satch, so maybe none of the above. Anyway, the point was just because something seems to be doesn't mean it 'is'. It defeats the whole purpose of using the word 'seems'. If the vacuum salesman at your door is in a clown suit but seems like a nice guy, maybe inviting him in for Sanka and crimpets isn't the best idea. I cannot reply to that because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you just skim through my words without thinking about what you actually experience? It's a waste of time really. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 26, 2016 13:59:32 GMT -5
It wasn't my logic. Preciocho doesn't understand my post. He didn't reply to any specific points in my post but stated something he thinks is my logic, but isn't and then he says it's faulty. This: "If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it." seems to be conclusion that I can only assume you believe to be logical. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 14:00:08 GMT -5
Logic is for mathematicians and philosophers, not spiritual seekers. Which are you? You're going to lose with that line. Logic is something we all use to communicate. It's logical to go to the store to buy groceries. It's not logical to kill your ego and then discover that no such thing as an ego existed. I win. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 14:06:37 GMT -5
It wasn't my logic. Preciocho doesn't understand my post. He didn't reply to any specific points in my post but stated something he thinks is my logic, but isn't and then he says it's faulty. This: "If something seems to be a certain way that's because it is, otherwise why have the thought that it "seems" to be this way or that way at all. If something didn't seem to be a certain way then you wouldn't think it." seems to be conclusion that I can only assume you believe to be logical. That quote has nothing to do with logic. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 14:18:50 GMT -5
If it seems like consciousness is a person in waking life, that doesn't mean consciousness is actually a person. It just seems that way. The logic is faulty.
I say Samadhi is a personal experience because you can reflect upon its occurrence in the framework within which all experiences take place (time and space). One day I went into samadhi and didn't have a thought for 6 hours. I was still apparently perceiving things through the same body and instrument I perceive with now. I wasn't using the mind to differentiate and life had a very groovy oneness feel to it, an aliveness that wasn't mind generated. Nevertheless, if there is still human perception, there is room for personal experience. Memories still register in Samadhi. Otherwise it would just be a dumbed up state like a trance of hypnotic spell, or of course, a delusion.
Awareness transcends the experiential framework entirely (including a oneness experience or no mind or deep sleep). None of this implies you are actually a separate person.
I can't speak from 'personal' Samahdi experience (which I guess is the point) but all that registers as true. I don't want the villagers to pitchfork me but along a certain line of logic Samadhi is just seeking out the present moment and enjoying the find for a really long time. |
|
|
|
Post by preciocho on Aug 26, 2016 14:22:17 GMT -5
I'm basically a bum satch, so maybe none of the above. Anyway, the point was just because something seems to be doesn't mean it 'is'. It defeats the whole purpose of using the word 'seems'. If the vacuum salesman at your door is in a clown suit but seems like a nice guy, maybe inviting him in for Sanka and crimpets isn't the best idea. I cannot reply to that because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you just skim through my words without thinking about what you actually experience? It's a waste of time really. I read your entire post satch. You started with something that didn't register as true. So I started there. Some time after that you said 'because you take yourself to be a person', and I also responded to that by saying at no point have I implied that either. I wonder if you're the one who's skipping over my points or just ignoring what doesn't fit your conceptual view of the sacred texts. Ironically, you seem to need faulty logic to accomplish that, which is why the conversation ended up with how useless logic is. Which is, btw, a bit of a silly statement, no? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 14:33:07 GMT -5
I cannot reply to that because you have no idea what I'm talking about. Did you just skim through my words without thinking about what you actually experience? It's a waste of time really. I read your entire post satch. You started with something that didn't register as true. So I started there. Some time after that you said 'because you take yourself to be a person', and I also responded to that by saying at no point have I implied that either. I wonder if you're the one who's skipping over my points or just ignoring what doesn't fit your conceptual view of the sacred texts. Ironically, you seem to need faulty logic to accomplish that, which is why the conversation ended up with how useless logic is. Which is, btw, a bit of a silly statement, no? What is the matter with you? What conceptual view of sacred texts? Where did that come from. I'm talking about what is experienced. That's all I talk about. How can you say you don't take yourself as a person when you say it seems like the person is not there in samadhi. Who is saying that if not the person? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 26, 2016 15:02:33 GMT -5
There is no correct quote of it, that's what a misquote is. For example, when I grab any book here that lays around and quote like this: "The wish and the necessity to communicate, to exchange ideas and to interact across language communities in daily life is becomming increasingly urgent in today's world." - (Johann Vielberth - An idea for an international system of communication) That would be a correct quote. If I would quote: "You gotta listen to some peeps because they need to be heard." (Johann Vielberth - An idea of an international system of communication) That would be a misquote. A wrong quote. A false quote. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 26, 2016 15:27:01 GMT -5
There is no way "to break the chain" by any kind of action or knowledge or energy-work or whatever, because what needs to be played out will play out.
IOW, the concept of "being aware" of karma is being free of karma is not true.Here is how it goes: You can only play along with what you picked as karmic dutys, and if you are a saint, who becomes aware of the fact and then becomes a jnani, you enjoy and relax. But to remove karmic dutys from the karmic-account is not possible. You just play your dieces and that's all you ever get...down here in la-la-land. Karma doesn't have to play out. There is ~something~ which ~carries~ the karma. What has to be done is ~take the energy out-of~ the karma, (out of the karma-carrying-thingy), that's what ends it. The underlined, that's not the whole of what I said or meant. To E, does this (post of a couple of days ago) help any? (The last post explained [somewhat] how to take the energy out of the karma). Basically, karma is as karma does (this is the hamster wheel). Somewhere along the line one has to cease perpetuating the energy. The only question is how is that accomplished. |
|
well I'll do you a nasty-clown one better and opine that the absurd idea that his ugliness was in the eye of the beholder is a product of all that torch-smoke. 
