Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2012 19:56:46 GMT -5
Life doesn't force anybody to do anything, and it doesn't ask you to do anything. Life is using your consciousness to flow through, and experience itself. The block to that flow is when your consciousness entertained a silly little thought that it was real, and separate from that flow. It thought that it was the experiencer of Life. And that is where the trouble starts, but also where it ends. Ramana Maharshi used to ask, "Who Am I"? See if you can find this 'Who' that wants to help people? I'll save you a couple of years of searching for the answer to that question Sharon. You won't find a "Who Am I". TRF: This struck me as an exceedingly strange post. Are you saying that you don't think Ramana knew who he really was? Do you think his advice to do self inquiry was bad advice? Do you think that pursuing his question is a useless endeavor? Are you saying that you pursued this question and were either (1) unable to resolve it, or (2) concluded that it can't be resolved? If so, why would that have anything to do with Sharon? I would say that anyone who seriously pursues the "who am I?" inquiry will eventually have a realization that will clearly reveal who the questioner is, and who/what it is that wants to help people. No, No, No, and No...hehe Well the one that asks "Who am I", is not who/what you are, and that's what Ramana was pointing at. Who/What you are is the the one that is 'aware' of the questioner, aware of the consciousness. There is no questioner ZD, never has been, never will be. And that's why you'll never find the questioner, because he doesn't exist, except as the imaginary 'I AM'. If you want to spend the rest of your life searching for that questioner, than I don't have a problem with that. That imaginary questioner is the same imaginary helper of folks that I was pointing out to Sharon. Actually ZD, I think Ramana was a pretty smart guy.  |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2012 20:07:27 GMT -5
*Tip of the hat* You're welcome, my lady.  --- TRF, if your intent is to help people then you'll need to meet them where they are at and speak to their specific situation. If your intent is to alienate people by telling them what your version of the truth is, carry on. Well since this post was directed at me I have to wonder if your post was helpful. Top, if your intent is to help me then you'll need to meet me where I am at and speak to my specific situation. If your intent is to alienate me by questioning my version of the truth then carry on. So no, your post is not very helpful. PS: Maybe you should be keeping your Safari group private and not public... That had nothing to do with the safari group. I was speaking to the situation I was perceiving. It comes off as arrogant to tell someone that you can save them years of searching with a trite answer. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2012 20:10:45 GMT -5
Maybe there's a misunderstanding how the word 'love' is used here. Enigma uses the word love in the sense of accepting, of not having to change it, being okay with it's existence. So looking at ugly stuff and loving it isn't a problem then. It's variety. That's all. You seem to use it in the sense of liking it, preferring it. So looking at ugly stuff and loving it is indeed a problem. No one can do that. No I pretty much understand it as that too. I'm counterposing the Loving-What-Is with Arguing-With-What-Is and I'm saying that sometimes it's hard to discern the difference between the two of them. The thing is, all there is is what is. So the best approach is to just 'enjoy the ride,' which is just another way of saying 'accept' or love what is. 'What is' is a set that includes the argument. Maybe that's why I don't have much use for the idea 'what is'. If one's ultimate goal is to accept that life can be unacceptable, the bar is way too low. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2012 20:16:45 GMT -5
Hehe. Neil Walsch (Conversations with God) put forward the idea that raising kids must be a community effort, and no parents can actually fulfill that responsibility alone. Makes a lot of sense to me but probly not in this society. Yes, makes a lot of sense to me too. He also says that the 'elders' have a much more significant role to play in the raising of children in 'enlightened societies'. Fancy doing some baby sitting E hehe? Well....um.....you see what a negative influence I am on the forum members. In the best interests of your children, I think I should stay away from them. **Did I get myself out of that one?** |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2012 20:27:00 GMT -5
Hehe. Neil Walsch (Conversations with God) put forward the idea that raising kids must be a community effort, and no parents can actually fulfill that responsibility alone. Makes a lot of sense to me but probly not in this society. I would love to live in a communal environment. I was raised in one, albeit it was very dysfunctional. My mom was from Lebanon and she eventually brought her whole family over to live in So-Cal. While my parents worked, all the cousins were watched by Tata (Grandma) and a few Aunts. That template of Tribe is there in me. But its not the tribe you're born into so much as the tribe you create for yourself. I've got bits and pieces, good friends that I don't see as often as I would like. My wife is not as communal as I am, so I pull towards community and she pulls in a different direction. Ah well. Peeps don't realize that community living takes a LOT of burden off of individuals. There's more free time and more people to spend that free time with. However, there also needs to be lots of communication and the willingness to look at what is going on with others and ourselves. We tend to form the best sort of community we're capable of without destroying each other, which is why we've become so good at building fences. Hehe. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2012 20:45:11 GMT -5
Well since this post was directed at me I have to wonder if your post was helpful. Top, if your intent is to help me then you'll need to meet me where I am at and speak to my specific situation. If your intent is to alienate me by questioning my version of the truth then carry on. So no, your post is not very helpful. PS: Maybe you should be keeping your Safari group private and not public... That had nothing to do with the safari group. I was speaking to the situation I was perceiving. It comes off as arrogant to tell someone that you can save them years of searching with a trite answer. To you it seemed arrogant, but there was no arrogance in pointing somebody to a short cut. To someone who is ready they could have awakened simply by hearing those words. Others may need years of searching before it dawns on them. Should I not speak about something fearing somebody might find it to be arrogant or trite? |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Aug 7, 2012 21:35:42 GMT -5
TRF: This struck me as an exceedingly strange post. Are you saying that you don't think Ramana knew who he really was? Do you think his advice to do self inquiry was bad advice? Do you think that pursuing his question is a useless endeavor? Are you saying that you pursued this question and were either (1) unable to resolve it, or (2) concluded that it can't be resolved? If so, why would that have anything to do with Sharon? I would say that anyone who seriously pursues the "who am I?" inquiry will eventually have a realization that will clearly reveal who the questioner is, and who/what it is that wants to help people. No, No, No, and No...hehe Well the one that asks "Who am I", is not who/what you are, and that's what Ramana was pointing at. Who/What you are is the the one that is 'aware' of the questioner, aware of the consciousness. There is no questioner ZD, never has been, never will be. And that's why you'll never find the questioner, because he doesn't exist, except as the imaginary 'I AM'. If you want to spend the rest of your life searching for that questioner, than I don't have a problem with that. That imaginary questioner is the same imaginary helper of folks that I was pointing out to Sharon. Actually ZD, I think Ramana was a pretty smart guy. Au contraire, I would say that there is a questioner, but it is not a person, and that contemplating the question can lead to a major realization. It may be imagined that the questioner is a person, but that which is asking the question is neither a person nor imaginary. The realization of who/what the questioner IS is earth-shatteringly powerful. This is why Ramana recommended that koan to people. If the resolution of the question were trivial, then Ramana would have been a fool to recommend it, but he was not a fool. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2012 21:55:31 GMT -5
TRF: This struck me as an exceedingly strange post. Are you saying that you don't think Ramana knew who he really was? Do you think his advice to do self inquiry was bad advice? Do you think that pursuing his question is a useless endeavor? Are you saying that you pursued this question and were either (1) unable to resolve it, or (2) concluded that it can't be resolved? If so, why would that have anything to do with Sharon? I would say that anyone who seriously pursues the "who am I?" inquiry will eventually have a realization that will clearly reveal who the questioner is, and who/what it is that wants to help people. No, No, No, and No...hehe Well the one that asks "Who am I", is not who/what you are, and that's what Ramana was pointing at. Who/What you are is the the one that is 'aware' of the questioner, aware of the consciousness. There is no questioner ZD, never has been, never will be. And that's why you'll never find the questioner, because he doesn't exist, except as the imaginary 'I AM'. If you want to spend the rest of your life searching for that questioner, than I don't have a problem with that. That imaginary questioner is the same imaginary helper of folks that I was pointing out to Sharon. Actually ZD, I think Ramana was a pretty smart guy. The one who is aware of the questioner, is the questioner, aware of itself. The one helping is helping itself. |
|
|
|
Post by topology on Aug 7, 2012 22:40:38 GMT -5
That had nothing to do with the safari group. I was speaking to the situation I was perceiving. It comes off as arrogant to tell someone that you can save them years of searching with a trite answer. To you it seemed arrogant, but there was no arrogance in pointing somebody to a short cut. To someone who is ready they could have awakened simply by hearing those words. Others may need years of searching before it dawns on them. Should I not speak about something fearing somebody might find it to be arrogant or trite? I'm suggesting that you take the time to tune into them and get a feel for how their mind moves. If a person feels like they are being seen and understood, they will be more receptive. You don't need to lay a new hook for the mind to get caught on, the mind is already hooked several times over. Use a hook they already have stuck in them. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2012 22:57:18 GMT -5
To you it seemed arrogant, but there was no arrogance in pointing somebody to a short cut. To someone who is ready they could have awakened simply by hearing those words. Others may need years of searching before it dawns on them. Should I not speak about something fearing somebody might find it to be arrogant or trite? I'm suggesting that you take the time to tune into them and get a feel for how their mind moves. If a person feels like they are being seen and understood, they will be more receptive. You don't need to lay a new hook for the mind to get caught on, the mind is already hooked several times over. Use a hook they already have stuck in them. I'm rezzing with where you're going with this, Top. Sorry, TRF, but I've noticed lately in your response to 4 or 5 others, myself included, that there doesn't seem to be a recognition of where others 'are at'. The assumption seems to be that they don't 'get it'. Your response to ZD indicating that he'll never find the questioner sounded pretty odd. Hehe. It seems like a fairly recent phenomena since I don't think I've picked up that attitude from you in the past. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 7, 2012 22:58:20 GMT -5
So much of conflict has to do with blood sugar and sleep deficits. Part of being a successful parent is just getting good food accessible and a consistent bed routine. You're kiddin', right? Ever thought about what state of mind or state of being causes blood sugar and sleep deficits? ;D Sometimes 'no' brings such a storm of emotion, a real tirade. How odd?! They really should love having their natural flow of life force suppressed.  It's starting day 0 that parenting starts. Children can't make it with out us. ... Even when the kids could make it on their own, parents have a role. Well, of course you care about their basic physical needs. But that's about it. In the A-H LOA teachings there's no room for a concept like 'parenting'. I suggest dropping it. You seem totally overwhelmed. Get your act together first, then there might be a chance of teaching others. You don't teach with your words, you teach by example. What Daddy wants to say .... Nope, I don't have being a Dad mastered at all. You are quite a character, Topo. You can't get things straight with your own kids but you give others advice all day long...  And what daddy says doesn't matter anyway. Only what daddy lives, the daily example he gives matters. Time to drop that attachment to this 'good parent' concept. Hehe. Neil Walsch (Conversations with God) put forward the idea that raising kids must be a community effort, and no parents can actually fulfill that responsibility alone. Makes a lot of sense to me but probly not in this society. Makes no sense to me. That 'responsibility to others' concept is totally flawed. Enlightened ideals of being perfectly blissful, allowing, accepting, unconditionally loving, non-judgemental, peaceful. Usual stuff. The basic premise of the LOA teachings is that everyone is the creator of their own reality, that on one else but you can create in your reality. That's why parenting is nonsense. Parenting means creating in your child's reality. But you have no control over their focus or over the thoughts they think which means you have no control over your children's experience. As long as you are the object of their attention, you might have the chance of directing their focus into a certain direction, but to what conclusions they will come is beyond your power of influence. Give it up. Ditch that parenting concept. And there's also another premise in the LOA teachings, the concept of supreme inner guidance (intuition) that you don't seem to acknowledge at all. I would love to live in a communal environment. I was raised in one, albeit it was very dysfunctional. Dysfunctional environments are the best, really. What if part of 'what is' is a feeling/thought of wanting to change appearances? Instead of acceptance and love of the current body image, an acceptance of the surgery to change it and a realisation that you are not the body and it's going to die sooner or later. Your body is a reflection of the balance of your thoughts. If you want to know what thoughts you are thinking, just look at what's manifesting around you. I would say that anyone who seriously pursues the "who am I?" inquiry will eventually have a realization that will clearly reveal who the questioner is, and who/what it is that wants to help people. Guaranteed? Maybe that's why I don't have much use for the idea 'what is'. If one's ultimate goal is to accept that life can be unacceptable, the bar is way too low. Right. That's resignation, still resistance. If the resolution of the question were trivial, then Ramana would have been a fool to recommend it, but he was not a fool. Well, the foolish part about it would be to expect what worked for you will work in exactly the same way for others.  |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Aug 7, 2012 23:54:20 GMT -5
Today at 6:07pm, esponja wrote: What if part of 'what is' is a feeling/thought of wanting to change appearances? Instead of acceptance and love of the current body image, an acceptance of the surgery to change it and a realisation that you are not the body and it's going to die sooner or later. Your body is a reflection of the balance of your thoughts. If you want to know what thoughts you are thinking, just look at what's manifesting around you. Read more: spiritualteachers.proboards.com/index.cgi?board=misc&action=display&thread=2324&page=4#ixzz22vYO1zD2Hey Reefs, I can see that clearly, but what to do about it when nothing works? Wheeeeeeee....this merry-go-round is starting to make me feel sick! (sorry had to cut and paste that). |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2012 0:05:32 GMT -5
Hey Reefs, I can see that clearly, but what to do about it when nothing works? Wheeeeeeee....this merry-go-round is starting to make me feel sick! What does not work? |
|
|
|
Post by esponja on Aug 8, 2012 0:22:18 GMT -5
Hey Reefs, I can see that clearly, but what to do about it when nothing works? Wheeeeeeee....this merry-go-round is starting to make me feel sick! What does not work? The enquiry & ata. I don't want to feel so rubbish anymore, but the thoughts keep coming. Ah forget it, just ignore me...I'm sure I'll figure it out someday! |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Aug 8, 2012 1:00:03 GMT -5
The enquiry & ata. I don't want to feel so rubbish anymore, but the thoughts keep coming. If you are emotionally not stable, I wouldn't recommend that ATA stuff. Akktchuly I wouldn't recommend ATA or any inquiry stuff at all. Do some of the processes Abe suggest in "Ask & It's Given" instead. That will give you immediate results and take you out of the negative loop. |
|
