Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:03:26 GMT -5
Funny you say that. I was reading a NM quote online yesterday and wondered if what I read was actually a mistranslation. Hmmm. Yeah, the problem with those Niz quotes about appearances is that we need to know what he means by 'appearance'. Here on the forum, there are basically two definitions and two camps: 1) appearance = perception 2) appearance = thingness, objectified perception. And usually, the Niz quotes posted are out of context quotes so both camps are going to use them and say: "See, Niz is on my side!" Both. All 'things' perceived are appearance.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2019 22:14:11 GMT -5
Yes, and those are actually the words A-H originally used to describe what true alignment means: quiet peacefulness - TPTPAU. When it comes to AH though, you most certainly cannot leave OUT the desire/manifestation component. The whole reason for the interest in 'true alignment,' is for the purpose of manifesting desire. The problem is, that very focus upon "I gotta manifest my desires" indicates the presence of an SVP. That in a nutshell is the cog in the wheel that would otherwise turn flowingly and unimpeded. Generally, that's true. That's what A-H are famous for. But even A-H call all of this a dog and pony show. So there's also this lesser known component of the A-H teachings that dovetails with what we are all about on this forum, and that's what I keep mentioning. Some discernment is required here. At the core, the A-H message is nothing other than teaching wuwei, non-doing or flow. But they do it via a dog and pony show. So don't mistake the dog and pony show for the actual message. Also, the SVP is nothing other than Self. The personal is an aspect of the impersonal. A-H are very clear about this. They just use different language, they talk about 'us' as being extensions of Source. Don't get too hung up on the words. Oneness is at the core of the A-H teachings. But it is mostly just the CC/kensho perspective. The satori perspective is somewhat missing. That's the only issue I have with A-H.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 19, 2019 22:17:51 GMT -5
For me, if alignment is anything, it is what automatically flows from that quiet, peaceful mind which is not disturbed by questions of "what to do" and "how to live," including "how to be aligned." Yes, and those are actually the words A-H originally used to describe what true alignment means: quiet peacefulness - TPTPAU. Now that I can accept.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2019 22:19:47 GMT -5
Yeah, the problem with those Niz quotes about appearances is that we need to know what he means by 'appearance'. Here on the forum, there are basically two definitions and two camps: 1) appearance = perception 2) appearance = thingness, objectified perception. And usually, the Niz quotes posted are out of context quotes so both camps are going to use them and say: "See, Niz is on my side!" Both. All 'things' perceived are appearance. You ignored the most important part! You don't understand what that means. It's the reason why you don't see a difference between 1) and 2) and why we keep talking past each other.
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 19, 2019 22:20:11 GMT -5
It's different from Niz, who tightly customized his dialog to the individual: like Adya, Niz was comfortable speaking from either existential context (which is why peeps can have dueling-Niz-quote wars in contradicting each other ), but unlike Adya, Niz always tried to get his listener to turn to the absolute. I was wondering, since Niz is often mistaken for a solipsist, if that is maybe a translation issue. If I remember correctly, Ramesh Balsekar was his chief translator. And Ramesh always struck me as more of a solipsist. Hmmm. Ramesh was uncompromising in his view that there was nothing you could do, that there was no doer and that your life was completely in God's hands.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2019 22:28:36 GMT -5
Yes, and those are actually the words A-H originally used to describe what true alignment means: quiet peacefulness - TPTPAU. Now that I can accept. Yes, the other common descriptions of alignment, like excitement, joy or fun or even contentment are more indicative of a (perceived) 'movement' towards true alignment, which by definition puts it all into the realm of the relative realm and makes it a perceptual thing.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2019 22:29:30 GMT -5
Ramesh was uncompromising in his view that there was nothing you could do, that there was no doer and that your life was completely in God's hands. Yes, like Papaji.
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Apr 19, 2019 22:32:07 GMT -5
Ramesh was uncompromising in his view that there was nothing you could do, that there was no doer and that your life was completely in God's hands. Yes, like Papaji. Ugh, really? Such terrible advice for seekers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:32:47 GMT -5
Both. All 'things' perceived are appearance. You ignored the most important part! You don't understand what that means. It's the reason why you don't see a difference between 1) and 2) and why we keep talking past each other. The appearance of thingness does not equal "objectified perception." You're right. I don't know what that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:37:29 GMT -5
When it comes to AH though, you most certainly cannot leave OUT the desire/manifestation component. The whole reason for the interest in 'true alignment,' is for the purpose of manifesting desire. The problem is, that very focus upon "I gotta manifest my desires" indicates the presence of an SVP. That in a nutshell is the cog in the wheel that would otherwise turn flowingly and unimpeded. Generally, that's true. That's what A-H are famous for. But even A-H call all of this a dog and pony show. So there's also this lesser known component of the A-H teachings that dovetails with what we are all about on this forum, and that's what I keep mentioning. Some discernment is required here. At the core, the A-H message is nothing other than teaching wuwei, non-doing or flow. But they do it via a dog and pony show. So don't mistake the dog and pony show for the actual message. Also, the SVP is nothing other than Self. The personal is an aspect of the impersonal. A-H are very clear about this. They just use different language, they talk about 'us' as being extensions of Source. Don't get too hung up on the words. Oneness is at the core of the A-H teachings. But it is mostly just the CC/kensho perspective. The satori perspective is somewhat missing. That's the only issue I have with A-H. AH do not call the interest in manifesting desire itself 'a dog and pony show,' they call the various practices one might employ to achieve manifestation of desire a dog and pony show.
You can sugar coat things however thick you want, but fact is, at the core of AH teachings is LOA....the intent to manifest desired stuff into experience. Indeed, while explaining HOW to do that, they do at times touch upon non-doership, non-voliton, absence of separation, but then almost in the same breath, they wheel it back again to the separate person and his judgement based desires.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2019 22:39:36 GMT -5
You ignored the most important part! You don't understand what that means. It's the reason why you don't see a difference between 1) and 2) and why we keep talking past each other. The appearance of thingness does not equal "objectified perception." You're right. I don't know what that means. Right. Which means, not knowing what that means, your self-inquiry must end in solipsism. The only way out of this is CC/kensho which will show you what that means.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:39:41 GMT -5
I was wondering, since Niz is often mistaken for a solipsist, if that is maybe a translation issue. If I remember correctly, Ramesh Balsekar was his chief translator. And Ramesh always struck me as more of a solipsist. Hmmm. Ramesh was uncompromising in his view that there was nothing you could do, that there was no doer and that your life was completely in God's hands.I agree with that. What many fail to see is that arising interest, intent, the pull to do this, do that, go here, refrain from going there, etc, etc, is all part and parcel of 'in god's hands.'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:41:38 GMT -5
Ugh, really? Such terrible advice for seekers. Yes. It's important to let the seeker know that an arising interest to meditate or not, to inquire or not, to do nothing at all, to run around naked, whatever, is not apart from "God's hands."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 19, 2019 22:42:56 GMT -5
The appearance of thingness does not equal "objectified perception." You're right. I don't know what that means. Right. Which means, not knowing what that means, your self-inquiry must end in solipsism. The only way out of this is CC/kensho which will show you what that means. Can you explain what you mean by: "Objectified perception"?
|
|
|
Post by satchitananda on Apr 19, 2019 22:44:38 GMT -5
Ramesh was uncompromising in his view that there was nothing you could do, that there was no doer and that your life was completely in God's hands.I agree with that. What many fail to see is that arising interest, intent, the pull to do this, do that, go here, refrain from going there, etc, etc, is all part and parcel of 'in god's hands.' I didn't say I agreed with him.
|
|