|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 24, 2011 20:51:38 GMT -5
Yes, when vibrations show up, they must be honored.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 1:53:17 GMT -5
Fair enough if you are defining 'existence' as the source of appearances but I dont resonate with the idea that source 'does' stuff. It doesnt make much sense to me to say that 'source reads' because the reading is happening within the dream itself. And the dream is happening within the source. It makes no sense to me to assign doership to an appearance. And the dream character isn't doing anything at all. Control isn't an indicator of what is or isn't actually reading because control is an illusion regardless. It's like saying it sounds strange to say it's God who hikes out to the mirage to fill his canteen because there's no water there, so it must be the person doing it. The fact that a mirage is involved is irrelevant. In this case it was really about who the guru is talking to. Some here seem to think it's LOLable that he would be talking to the only thing that he knows exists; the only thing in the room that is actually aware, while I find it LOLable that he would be talking to something that doesn't exist. No-one is assigning 'doership' or 'control' to someone or something in the dream, and Ive already acknowledged that there is a dreamer of the dream, What Im saying is that if there is a process happening in the dream, then there are processors i.e if talking is happening in the dream, then there are talkers in the dream. I havent heard anyone assign an actual 'cause', but it just doesnt really makes sense to say that formlessness 'causes' stuff to happen, unless you are making a point about volition. If you were in a library with Marie and you saw a friend there reading and you waved, and Marie asked you who was reading...I doubt you would say 'formlessness is reading'. Here on the forum you would say 'formlessness reads' because you are wanting to make a point about volition and control that Im really not sure needs to be made. It was never the point when this originally came up. If you go back and check, the point I was making (for example) is that if throwing a ball is happening then there are throwers of the ball. And I very clearly stated that this was not a statement about cause. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 1:56:31 GMT -5
Well, I think the usefulness of the teaching can be called into question if those that come to the end of the teaching...... Who are these peeps who come to the end of the teaching? Are they the same ones who read the same teachings over and over in order to continually reinforce their delusion? If so, they haven't really come to the end of the teaching. Isn't that what TP is doing? How many practices do you see him prescribing? When I was talking about the ones who come to the end of the teaching, I just meant the seminar or the book. The same ones who put one neo-advaita book down and pick the next one up and then the next one and then the next one... T.P's approach is an approachless approach. Which is still an approach. From what I have seen this approach entrenches the ego, it gets to hide behind rhetoric. The need for understanding and knowledge is not released. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 2:01:35 GMT -5
What Im saying is the relationship between absolute and relative is non-dual The relationship between two concepts is a conceptual relationship. Love on the rocks Ain't no surprise Pour me a drink And I'll tell you some lies. The relationship between two concepts is conceptual, but what is being talked about is a relationship between that which prior (and yet not separate) and that which is not. We are talking about the non-dual (and dichotomous) relationship between Creator and Created. I like Neil Diamond, he is a kind of unfashionably fashionable here in the UK hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 2:11:52 GMT -5
The conscious (and unconscious) co-creators are actually in the dream. And the dream.....is within you. So here is where I think you are confused. The dream is within the dreamer (source). We are in the dream itself. We are 'fundamentally' source (because we are appearing in the dreaming mind of source) but thats where it ends. If the dream came to an end, experiencing would come to an end. But for now, experiencing is happening which means that we are in the dream. When we talk of realizing our fundamental nature, all that means is that we are now in joy within the dream. It means that we get to consciously co-create. We dont leave the dream itself. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 2:16:50 GMT -5
With regard to posts no 231-235, all I can say is that it appears we've got a right pair of comedy kings here! You both remind me of the Chuckle Brothers.... thechucklebrothersontour.co.uk/ |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 2:17:42 GMT -5
-It's all about what you've been opened to, been made aware of. In high school I always felt there was a lot more than what everyone was striving for...financial security, comfort, hunkering down with someone to keep away the wolves...then I read Walden, and suddenly I knew I was on the right track. I shouted out those words from Economy, What I Lived For, practically danced down the street from my school. And although I went on to live a more vital, free life from there, I made constant compromises. I just couldn't "let go...just let go." But little by little, from books and movies, a fire would be ignited in me, and I would compromise less and less. I think so much of it is the utter realization that there are other ways to live, to know it undeniably, and then have the Courage to live it. I believe people have an intuitive insight into the value of life, some more than others, but we need to see others realizing that higher life, and see it over and over until, hopefully Courage takes you by the hand and drags you there screaming...until you come out smiling. I love this place! Just want to say that I liked this. |
|
|
|
Post by Portto on Sept 25, 2011 8:30:37 GMT -5
When we talk of realizing our fundamental nature, all that means is that we are now in joy within the dream. It means that we get to consciously co-create. We dont leave the dream itself. If we like it so much, we are not going to leave it any time soon. However, the overall direction of the dream is not towards more and more joy within the dream. The overall direction is towards the end of the dream. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 10:34:31 GMT -5
When we talk of realizing our fundamental nature, all that means is that we are now in joy within the dream. It means that we get to consciously co-create. We dont leave the dream itself. If we like it so much, we are not going to leave it any time soon. However, the overall direction of the dream is not towards more and more joy within the dream. The overall direction is towards the end of the dream. You may be right on both counts, though I do think there are many that are all but ready to begin conscious co-creation. The end of the dream would be the end of experiencing altogether. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 11:07:36 GMT -5
No-one is assigning 'doership' or 'control' to someone or something in the dream, and Ive already acknowledged that there is a dreamer of the dream Good, then we agree that it's not the dream character who is listening to the teacher, just like it's not the dream character who is experiencing the nightly dream. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 11:16:53 GMT -5
The relationship between two concepts is conceptual, but what is being talked about is a relationship between that which prior (and yet not separate) and that which is not. We are talking about the non-dual (and dichotomous) relationship between Creator and Created. "Nondual relationship" is an oxymoron. Even Neil Diamond is a paradox?? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Sept 25, 2011 11:21:58 GMT -5
And the dream.....is within you. So here is where I think you are confused. The dream is within the dreamer (source). That's what I meant. So who's co-creating with whom? |
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 11:34:24 GMT -5
The relationship between two concepts is conceptual, but what is being talked about is a relationship between that which prior (and yet not separate) and that which is not. We are talking about the non-dual (and dichotomous) relationship between Creator and Created. "Nondual relationship" is an oxymoron. Even Neil Diamond is a paradox?? ;D Hehe yes. Yes, the idea of a nondual relationship is an oxymoron but given language restrictions its the best way I can come up with to express the truelessly true nature of absoluteness and relativity. |
|
jazz
Full Member
Posts: 197
|
Post by jazz on Sept 25, 2011 12:25:06 GMT -5
Always been a seeker, but always had different ideas what it was I was looking for. A good portion of my life I've searched for the idea of my self - as I'm "supposed" to be. Dismayed I've found that there's no such thing as a real me, but perhaps something akin' to an authentic me/self. This would be when I'm in the flow, when I've let go of all the beliefs, ideas, fears and aversions.
12 steps of AA led to a spiritual awakening of some sort which has led me here about 2 years later. Still sorta kinda confuused, figuring it all out (yea right).
I don't know what I'm doing here really, I get urges to leave and forget all about this as it feels like an addiction just like alcohol and drugs, but there's the voice whisperin' "but this addiction is going to give you freedom in the end!"
I don't think I'm really up to the standard here, but that's just a story, and I enjoy reading mostly.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 25, 2011 12:27:56 GMT -5
So here is where I think you are confused. The dream is within the dreamer (source). That's what I meant. So who's co-creating with whom? Sometimes the way you write makes it sound to me as if you think you are source/formlessness itself, when I would say that we are both formlessness and form. Your question is interesting and I might be wrong, but perhaps slightly disingenuous. I can come up with many different answers to give and yet no answer I give is going to work for you because I think you are starting from the position that its not true that we create. Whereas I would say its true that we create and equally true that we dont create (because there is no-one to create). I see it as a dichotomy that reflects the dichotomy of absoluteness and relativity. This is why I think non-dualist teachers and manifestation teachers (such as Abraham-Hicks) are pointing to the same thing. They are just speaking from different sides of the coin. |
|
