|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 14, 2017 23:47:09 GMT -5
Scientific thinking and magical thinking are two sides to the same coin. Let's say we accept some cases of past life recollections as fact. Of course it's tempting, and perhaps even logical, to infer that the peep with the current memory is the same as the dead peep who had the experience that is remembered. But if one insists on an explanation, there is an alternate, and it's found in U.G.'s metaphor of the brain as an antenna. Our physical experience creates the convincing impression that our thoughts originate from our brains, but the brain isn't really separate from the rest of our body, which isn't really separate from the the rest of all of physicality, past, present and future. The source of thoughts and memories is ultimately non-local, and only appears otherwise. Most thoughts and memories aren't of past lives, and to infer a theory of reincarnation based on a few that are is not only unnecessary, but it obscures the true nature of death, which in turn, obscures the true nature of the person, which that it is a cognitive illusion. Firstly, the way I explained the mind as 'fleeting states' where this moment's state transmuted into the next moment's state is to say that the mind is regenerated is each moment. This is to say, your mind in this moment is not the 'same mind' as was a second ago. There is no substance which continuous but this moment's mind still bears some characteristcs of the mind that has since desisted, so you experience the continuity of thought (which includes all perceptions), but you can not experience any mind apart from that which exists momentartily. However, you can recall events that have already passed because this mind bears the hallmarks of the minds which preceded it. It's not the 'same peep', but it is the same stream of thought. I like the antennae theory! Personally I can't claim there is reincarnation or there isn't, and it just doesn't concern me, so I merely recant a probably less than accurate version of the Buddhist premise. The sense of continuity you describe is precisely what underlies the false sense of limited, personalized identity that Tolle called ego, and Niz called the peep. This sounds pompous, I know, but the fact is that curiously, some peeps actually understand this intellectually but still are, to some degree, entranced by that continuity. And even if you're not entranced in this way, you're still the same old you .. more or less.  There's trance peeps that are heroes and talented artists and scientists and creative folk and great leaders of all stripe, I have much reason to bow low to many a people peep.  So stepping outside of this continuity deal in one sense is no big deal, but it's quite fascinating, can be fun at times in terms of particular states of body and mind, and it really is just the d@mndest thing. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 14, 2017 23:53:57 GMT -5
Firstly, the way I explained the mind as 'fleeting states' where this moment's state transmuted into the next moment's state is to say that the mind is regenerated is each moment. This is to say, your mind in this moment is not the 'same mind' as was a second ago. There is no substance which continuous but this moment's mind still bears some characteristcs of the mind that has since desisted, so you experience the continuity of thought (which includes all perceptions), but you can not experience any mind apart from that which exists momentartily. However, you can recall events that have already passed because this mind bears the hallmarks of the minds which preceded it. It's not the 'same peep', but it is the same stream of thought. I like the antennae theory! Personally I can't claim there is reincarnation or there isn't, and it just doesn't concern me, so I merely recant a probably less than accurate version of the Buddhist premise. The sense of continuity you describe is precisely what underlies the false sense of limited, personalized identity that Tolle called ego, and Niz called the peep. This sound pompous, I know, but the fact is that curiously, some peeps actually understand this intellectually but still are, to some degree, entranced by that continuity. And even if you're not entranced in this way, you're still the same old you .. more or less. There's trance peeps that are heroes and talented artists and scientists and creative folk and great leaders of all stripe, I have much reason to bow low to many a people peep. So stepping outside of this continuity deal in one sense is no big deal, but it's quite fascinating, can be fun at times in terms of particular states of body and mind, and it really is just the d@mndest thing. Correct but only really correct if you have had that realization of what you speak. I may be wrong but this seems to be the very point of most debates on this forum. One knows(realization) One think knows(intellect mostly) Some ppl are so sharp with the wits they can understand whatever you say to them(I'm not one of them) but have them give a real life practical example of what they think know and they are stumped. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 15, 2017 0:32:11 GMT -5
Firstly, the way I explained the mind as 'fleeting states' where this moment's state transmuted into the next moment's state is to say that the mind is regenerated is each moment. This is to say, your mind in this moment is not the 'same mind' as was a second ago. There is no substance which continuous but this moment's mind still bears some characteristcs of the mind that has since desisted, so you experience the continuity of thought (which includes all perceptions), but you can not experience any mind apart from that which exists momentartily. However, you can recall events that have already passed because this mind bears the hallmarks of the minds which preceded it. It's not the 'same peep', but it is the same stream of thought. I like the antennae theory! Personally I can't claim there is reincarnation or there isn't, and it just doesn't concern me, so I merely recant a probably less than accurate version of the Buddhist premise. 1) The sense of continuity you describe is precisely what underlies the false sense of limited, personalized identity that Tolle called ego, and Niz called the peep. 2) This sounds pompous, I know, but the fact is that curiously, some peeps actually understand this intellectually but still are, to some degree, entranced by that continuity. 3) And even if you're not entranced in this way, 4)you're still the same old you .. more or less. :) There's trance peeps that are heroes and talented artists and scientists and creative folk and great leaders of all stripe. I have much reason to bow low to many a people peep. :D So stepping outside of this continuity deal in one sense is no big deal, but it's quite fascinating, can be fun at times in terms of particular states of body and mind, and 5) it really is just the d@mndest thing. 1) Precisely. What you refer to as ego-peep is an assumption ad that person doesn't exist apart from thought. This does not, however, preclude what is called 'santana', for obviously, there is a personality. 2) Pompous perhaps, though I didn't get that inkling, but an intellectual notion of it would impel one to investigate the veracity of such a bizarre statement. Most would write it off immediately, because it's bizzare, but the Buddhist explanation accounts for the personality without the implied existence of a peep. This helps because people will quite rightly say, 'of course there is a person - how do you explain a personality if there is no person to have one? How do you explain there is thought if there is no person to think them?" Etc. Yep, pull out your Buddhist guns and fire away. 3) Personally, I don't care. People are as they are and not someother way, and I rarely have a second thought about anyone that quantifies them. When I do, I see the imagination rendering figures, and I'm like, heh, just an imaginary thought. This helps me to not kill so many as I used to - that was getting way out of hand. 4)The greatest of artisans were highly disillusioned, so it's beautiful thing, this human dilemma. 5) Bizarre. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 15, 2017 0:40:26 GMT -5
The sense of continuity you describe is precisely what underlies the false sense of limited, personalized identity that Tolle called ego, and Niz called the peep. This sound pompous, I know, but the fact is that curiously, some peeps actually understand this intellectually but still are, to some degree, entranced by that continuity. And even if you're not entranced in this way, you're still the same old you .. more or less. There's trance peeps that are heroes and talented artists and scientists and creative folk and great leaders of all stripe, I have much reason to bow low to many a people peep. So stepping outside of this continuity deal in one sense is no big deal, but it's quite fascinating, can be fun at times in terms of particular states of body and mind, and it really is just the d@mndest thing. Correct but only really correct if you have had that realization of what you speak. I may be wrong but this seems to be the very point of most debates on this forum. One knows(realization) One think knows(intellect mostly) Some ppl are so sharp with the wits they can understand whatever you say to them(I'm not one of them) but have them give a real life practical example of what they think know and they are stumped. Ultimately, the focus on the individual who may or may not have realized is misplaced. It's useful to distinguish between experience and realization, in that experiences have a beginning, middle and end, with no two ever being exactly alike, while realizations are instantaneous, and alter perspective on all experience past, present and future. The culture -- especially from the East -- suggests all sorts of qualities to expect from a self-realized individual, but the fact is that the exact same conditioning operative in a body/mind a split second prior to realization is the exact same conditioning operative the split second following, What is realized, is pointed to by the idea of the unconditioned -- so while clarity can't help but alter conditioning, one of the points that mind becomes informed on is that this story that led to the moment and that follows realization stars a fictional character moving through a dreamscape. So while some generalizations about the effect of ongoing experience after that reveal tend to be the case, God is a very prolific author and her tastes are such that she never writes the same script twice. Now it's easy to describe succinctly in idealized terms what is realized: the absence of separation, the illusion of the divide between person and world, the absence of any and all mind-made limitation. But how, exactly does this manifest? Only generalities apply. Mind and body will change over time, and a few of the saner voices here on this forum introduced the idea years ago (prior to my arrival) of a process of mind becoming informed after the realization of the absence, potentially leading to either new realizations/insights or a deepening of the initial realization. There are many different models of how all this might happen. Important factors and milestones include whether there's any doubt or openness to what's been realized, whether clarity seems to sometimes phase in-and-out in a sort of half-asleep state, whether any questions remain and the form and substance of those questions, and in the extreme, there is an important distinction that can be made between the expectation of a "self-realized peep", and a "saint". Some prefer to reserve the idea of self-realization for those who are completely free of all negative past conditioning and that have perfected the purity of their state of body and mind so that they can only ever feel love for all humanity and the world, and move through it in a perpetual and flowing material grace. Personally, I think it's all a matter of degree, and that it plays out in such a complicated way from peep-to-peep that it's worth having an open mind to someone who writes a story about an experience or a realization. That said, there are certain patterns of resistance in the explorations with others that at least suggest a pattern of self-deceptive thought and emotion, especially among those who have declared the end of seeking. What I look for is the ability to discern where the intellect (or dualistic emotional heart) ends, and the pointing begins, and this completely neutral to quirks of personality, which, unless manifesting as extreme forms of psychological projection, tend to be valueless in and of themselves as indicators of that self-deception. The focus shouldn't be on the individual. The cliche that there are no enlightened peeps is undeniable. But curiosity after a funny experience is as natural as rain. Generally speaking, if someone is wondering whether or not they're enlightened, the answer is in the question. But what might be going on instead, is that there's this impersonal pattern of thought and emotion with some momentum behind it curious about what the hell happened, looking for points of reference that are nowhere to be found in the knowledge on hand. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 0:47:39 GMT -5
Correct but only really correct if you have had that realization of what you speak. I may be wrong but this seems to be the very point of most debates on this forum. One knows(realization) One think knows(intellect mostly) Some ppl are so sharp with the wits they can understand whatever you say to them(I'm not one of them) but have them give a real life practical example of what they think know and they are stumped. Ultimately, the focus on the individual who may or may not have realized is misplaced. It's useful to distinguish between experience and realization, in that experiences have a beginning, middle and end, with no two ever being exactly alike, while realizations are instantaneous, and alter perspective on all experience past, present and future. The culture -- especially from the East -- suggests all sorts of qualities to expect from a self-realized individual, but the fact is that the exact same conditioning operative in a body/mind a split second prior to realization is the exact same conditioning operative the split second following, What is realized, is pointed to by the idea of the unconditioned -- so while clarity can't help but alter conditioning, one of the points that mind becomes informed on is that this story that led to the moment and that follows realization stars a fictional character moving through a dreamscape. So while some generalizations about the effect of ongoing experience after that reveal tend to be the case, God is a very prolific author and her tastes are such that she never writes the same script twice. Now it's easy to describe succinctly in idealized terms what is realized: the absence of separation, the illusion of the divide between person and world, the absence of any and all mind-made limitation. But how, exactly does this manifest? Only generalities apply. Mind and body will change over time, and a few of the saner voices here on this forum introduced the idea years ago (prior to my arrival) of a process of mind becoming informed after the realization of the absence, potentially leading to either new realizations/insights or a deepening of the initial realization. There are many different models of how all this might happen. Important factors and milestones include whether there's any doubt or openness to what's been realized, whether clarity seems to sometimes phase in-and-out in a sort of half-asleep state, whether any questions remain and the form and substance of those questions, and in the extreme, there is an important distinction that can be made between the expectation of a "self-realized peep", and a "saint". Some prefer to reserve the idea of self-realization for those who are completely free of all negative past conditioning and that have perfected the purity of their state of body and mind so that they can only ever feel love for all humanity and the world, and move through it in a perpetual and flowing material grace. Personally, I think it's all a matter of degree, and that it plays out in such a complicated way from peep-to-peep that it's worth having an open mind to someone who writes a story about an experience or a realization. That said, there are certain patterns of resistance in the explorations with others that at least suggest a pattern of self-deceptive thought and emotion, especially among those who have declared the end of seeking. What I look for is the ability to discern where the intellect ends, and the pointing begins, and this completely neutral to quirks of personality, which, unless manifesting as extreme forms of psychological projection, tend to be valueless in and of themselves as indicators of that self-deception. The focus shouldn't be on the individual. The cliche that there are no enlightened peeps is undeniable. But curiosity after a funny experience is as natural as rain. Generally speaking, if someone is wondering whether or not they're enlightened, the answer is in the question. But what might be going on instead, is that there's this impersonal pattern of thought and emotion with some momentum behind it curious about what the hell happened, looking for points of reference that are nowhere to be found in the knowledge on hand. Wow, yes Laffy your clarity here is beyond reproach. You nailed each corner and sealed the circle. Thank you for this Seriously it's rare to read what you have written here. So much that I will print it out and place it on my bathroom mirror. So now Laffy you have the unique privilege of being enshrined in my bathroom, hope you don't mind sir. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 1:21:55 GMT -5
Correct but only really correct if you have had that realization of what you speak. I may be wrong but this seems to be the very point of most debates on this forum. One knows(realization) One think knows(intellect mostly) Some ppl are so sharp with the wits they can understand whatever you say to them(I'm not one of them) but have them give a real life practical example of what they think know and they are stumped. Ultimately, the focus on the individual who may or may not have realized is misplaced. It's useful to distinguish between experience and realization, in that experiences have a beginning, middle and end, with no two ever being exactly alike, while realizations are instantaneous, and alter perspective on all experience past, present and future. The culture -- especially from the East -- suggests all sorts of qualities to expect from a self-realized individual, but the fact is that the exact same conditioning operative in a body/mind a split second prior to realization is the exact same conditioning operative the split second following, What is realized, is pointed to by the idea of the unconditioned -- so while clarity can't help but alter conditioning, one of the points that mind becomes informed on is that this story that led to the moment and that follows realization stars a fictional character moving through a dreamscape. So while some generalizations about the effect of ongoing experience after that reveal tend to be the case, God is a very prolific author and her tastes are such that she never writes the same script twice. Now it's easy to describe succinctly in idealized terms what is realized: the absence of separation, the illusion of the divide between person and world, the absence of any and all mind-made limitation. But how, exactly does this manifest? Only generalities apply. Mind and body will change over time, and a few of the saner voices here on this forum introduced the idea years ago (prior to my arrival) of a process of mind becoming informed after the realization of the absence, potentially leading to either new realizations/insights or a deepening of the initial realization. There are many different models of how all this might happen. Important factors and milestones include whether there's any doubt or openness to what's been realized, whether clarity seems to sometimes phase in-and-out in a sort of half-asleep state, whether any questions remain and the form and substance of those questions, and in the extreme, there is an important distinction that can be made between the expectation of a "self-realized peep", and a "saint". Some prefer to reserve the idea of self-realization for those who are completely free of all negative past conditioning and that have perfected the purity of their state of body and mind so that they can only ever feel love for all humanity and the world, and move through it in a perpetual and flowing material grace. Personally, I think it's all a matter of degree, and that it plays out in such a complicated way from peep-to-peep that it's worth having an open mind to someone who writes a story about an experience or a realization. That said, there are certain patterns of resistance in the explorations with others that at least suggest a pattern of self-deceptive thought and emotion, especially among those who have declared the end of seeking. What I look for is the ability to discern where the intellect (or dualistic emotional heart) ends, and the pointing begins, and this completely neutral to quirks of personality, which, unless manifesting as extreme forms of psychological projection, tend to be valueless in and of themselves as indicators of that self-deception. The focus shouldn't be on the individual. The cliche that there are no enlightened peeps is undeniable. But curiosity after a funny experience is as natural as rain. Generally speaking, if someone is wondering whether or not they're enlightened, the answer is in the question. But what might be going on instead, is that there's this impersonal pattern of thought and emotion with some momentum behind it curious about what the hell happened, looking for points of reference that are nowhere to be found in the knowledge on hand. For myself I look at what is doing the understanding..I will give you some words from my teacher Unexplainable When someone says, "I'd know an enlightened person, if I see one," that's what called "dry bones in the desert." When someone says, "I've chanted the Heart Sutra for sixteen years," That's known as "moss growing on the north side of the tree." When someone asks, "Why does the Gita says there's is no such thing as time?" that's what we call "a leaf falling into the creek" When someone says, '"nothing for me to surrender, since there is no me" That's what most say is "the breeze bending the grass" When someone says," I no longer argue with what is, and "I'm forever grateful for that!" this is what is meant by "rain on a parched field" When I read the above words the truth of who I am, simply says yes As I read the above words the truth of who I am, simply says yes |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Jan 15, 2017 4:53:14 GMT -5
Correct but only really correct if you have had that realization of what you speak. I may be wrong but this seems to be the very point of most debates on this forum. One knows(realization) One think knows(intellect mostly) Some ppl are so sharp with the wits they can understand whatever you say to them(I'm not one of them) but have them give a real life practical example of what they think know and they are stumped. Ultimately, the focus on the individual who may or may not have realized is misplaced. It's useful to distinguish between experience and realization, in that experiences have a beginning, middle and end, with no two ever being exactly alike, while realizations are instantaneous, and alter perspective on all experience past, present and future. The culture -- especially from the East -- suggests all sorts of qualities to expect from a self-realized individual, but the fact is that the exact same conditioning operative in a body/mind a split second prior to realization is the exact same conditioning operative the split second following, What is realized, is pointed to by the idea of the unconditioned -- so while clarity can't help but alter conditioning, one of the points that mind becomes informed on is that this story that led to the moment and that follows realization stars a fictional character moving through a dreamscape. So while some generalizations about the effect of ongoing experience after that reveal tend to be the case, God is a very prolific author and her tastes are such that she never writes the same script twice. Now it's easy to describe succinctly in idealized terms what is realized: the absence of separation, the illusion of the divide between person and world, the absence of any and all mind-made limitation. But how, exactly does this manifest? Only generalities apply. Mind and body will change over time, and a few of the saner voices here on this forum introduced the idea years ago (prior to my arrival) of a process of mind becoming informed after the realization of the absence, potentially leading to either new realizations/insights or a deepening of the initial realization. There are many different models of how all this might happen. Important factors and milestones include whether there's any doubt or openness to what's been realized, whether clarity seems to sometimes phase in-and-out in a sort of half-asleep state, whether any questions remain and the form and substance of those questions, and in the extreme, there is an important distinction that can be made between the expectation of a "self-realized peep", and a "saint". Some prefer to reserve the idea of self-realization for those who are completely free of all negative past conditioning and that have perfected the purity of their state of body and mind so that they can only ever feel love for all humanity and the world, and move through it in a perpetual and flowing material grace.
Personally, I think it's all a matter of degree, and that it plays out in such a complicated way from peep-to-peep that it's worth having an open mind to someone who writes a story about an experience or a realization. That said, there are certain patterns of resistance in the explorations with others that at least suggest a pattern of self-deceptive thought and emotion, especially among those who have declared the end of seeking. What I look for is the ability to discern where the intellect (or dualistic emotional heart) ends, and the pointing begins, and this completely neutral to quirks of personality, which, unless manifesting as extreme forms of psychological projection, tend to be valueless in and of themselves as indicators of that self-deception. The focus shouldn't be on the individual. The cliche that there are no enlightened peeps is undeniable. But curiosity after a funny experience is as natural as rain. Generally speaking, if someone is wondering whether or not they're enlightened, the answer is in the question. But what might be going on instead, is that there's this impersonal pattern of thought and emotion with some momentum behind it curious about what the hell happened, looking for points of reference that are nowhere to be found in the knowledge on hand. Very well spoken. I just made reference to the bolded on another thread, and amazed to see mentioned here. I guess the idea is already in the air and we have the 'antenna brains' which received it. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 15, 2017 5:33:18 GMT -5
If the spirit of ramana or niz reincarnate and retain their sense of self as illusory and all notions connected to the illusory self should be left on the side of the road, then they will be leaving by the side of the road their past realisations by their own admission .
On the other hand if there is Truth in regards to the realised peep that incarnates then at some point one will relate to that past life as meaningful and True .
Whether it be Adam reincarnated as Jesus or Francis Bacon as St germain it doesn't matter for what is learnt or what so called Truths are revealed and expressed will have a bearing on the whole or the Self when in experience of the world .
Each step along the way is as meaningful as the next .
If one looks back at all the past steps then one is poo pooing everything that brought them to the point of poo pooing .
The point where a peep says they are illusory has been because one has lived many life's relating to what they are as not being illusory up until the point of realisation .
When self enquiry is experienced, it is this supposed illusory self that enquires and yet it can bring about Self realisation .
Past life enquiries / practices can bring about Realization in this lifetime . Niz or ramana or another sage type spoke of past life efforts of another who/m had realised meaning that they were ripe enough to realise now due to such past efforts . There really is no need to dismiss such past life experiences of self as said as it has made way for there present incarnation . Niz self enquired prior to S.R. what does it matter which life incarnation that happened in? It was still a sense of self had that enquired . The supposed illusory self . You gotta start somewhere so to speak .
Millions upon millions relate to the teachings of masters be it Jesus or ramana .. What they or others take from their teachings will be each to their own, whether they relate ramana to ego or Jesus to being an illusion, butt either way there is what they have taught us that is still taken to heart in some shape or form regardless and it really doesn't matter how many lifetimes either of them have had or will perhaps continue to have .
In that respect putting down past lives is bananas cos at some point one will have to point at the past lives that were experienced or known as ramana and jesus and hold their lives and their teachings in the same regard ..
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 15, 2017 13:24:38 GMT -5
Ultimately, the focus on the individual who may or may not have realized is misplaced. It's useful to distinguish between experience and realization, in that experiences have a beginning, middle and end, with no two ever being exactly alike, while realizations are instantaneous, and alter perspective on all experience past, present and future. The culture -- especially from the East -- suggests all sorts of qualities to expect from a self-realized individual, but the fact is that the exact same conditioning operative in a body/mind a split second prior to realization is the exact same conditioning operative the split second following, What is realized, is pointed to by the idea of the unconditioned -- so while clarity can't help but alter conditioning, one of the points that mind becomes informed on is that this story that led to the moment and that follows realization stars a fictional character moving through a dreamscape. So while some generalizations about the effect of ongoing experience after that reveal tend to be the case, God is a very prolific author and her tastes are such that she never writes the same script twice. Now it's easy to describe succinctly in idealized terms what is realized: the absence of separation, the illusion of the divide between person and world, the absence of any and all mind-made limitation. But how, exactly does this manifest? Only generalities apply. Mind and body will change over time, and a few of the saner voices here on this forum introduced the idea years ago (prior to my arrival) of a process of mind becoming informed after the realization of the absence, potentially leading to either new realizations/insights or a deepening of the initial realization. There are many different models of how all this might happen. Important factors and milestones include whether there's any doubt or openness to what's been realized, whether clarity seems to sometimes phase in-and-out in a sort of half-asleep state, whether any questions remain and the form and substance of those questions, and in the extreme, there is an important distinction that can be made between the expectation of a "self-realized peep", and a "saint". Some prefer to reserve the idea of self-realization for those who are completely free of all negative past conditioning and that have perfected the purity of their state of body and mind so that they can only ever feel love for all humanity and the world, and move through it in a perpetual and flowing material grace.
Personally, I think it's all a matter of degree, and that it plays out in such a complicated way from peep-to-peep that it's worth having an open mind to someone who writes a story about an experience or a realization. That said, there are certain patterns of resistance in the explorations with others that at least suggest a pattern of self-deceptive thought and emotion, especially among those who have declared the end of seeking. What I look for is the ability to discern where the intellect (or dualistic emotional heart) ends, and the pointing begins, and this completely neutral to quirks of personality, which, unless manifesting as extreme forms of psychological projection, tend to be valueless in and of themselves as indicators of that self-deception. The focus shouldn't be on the individual. The cliche that there are no enlightened peeps is undeniable. But curiosity after a funny experience is as natural as rain. Generally speaking, if someone is wondering whether or not they're enlightened, the answer is in the question. But what might be going on instead, is that there's this impersonal pattern of thought and emotion with some momentum behind it curious about what the hell happened, looking for points of reference that are nowhere to be found in the knowledge on hand. Very well spoken. I just made reference to the bolded on another thread, and amazed to see mentioned here. I guess the idea is already in the air and we have the 'antenna brains' which received it. Yes but that is only a very small part of what Laffy has written so well here. I completely agree with him it's a matter of degrees. What I enjoy so much with this post is it allows and doesn't exclude which is the way it works. nuff said |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 19, 2017 2:37:54 GMT -5
If the spirit of ramana or niz reincarnate and retain their sense of self as illusory and all notions connected to the illusory self should be left on the side of the road, then they will be leaving by the side of the road their past realisations by their own admission . On the other hand if there is Truth in regards to the realised peep that incarnates then at some point one will relate to that past life as meaningful and True . Whether it be Adam reincarnated as Jesus or Francis Bacon as St germain it doesn't matter for what is learnt or what so called Truths are revealed and expressed will have a bearing on the whole or the Self when in experience of the world . Each step along the way is as meaningful as the next . If one looks back at all the past steps then one is poo pooing everything that brought them to the point of poo pooing . The point where a peep says they are illusory has been because one has lived many life's relating to what they are as not being illusory up until the point of realisation . When self enquiry is experienced, it is this supposed illusory self that enquires and yet it can bring about Self realisation . Past life enquiries / practices can bring about Realization in this lifetime . Niz or ramana or another sage type spoke of past life efforts of another who/m had realised meaning that they were ripe enough to realise now due to such past efforts . There really is no need to dismiss such past life experiences of self as said as it has made way for there present incarnation . Niz self enquired prior to S.R. what does it matter which life incarnation that happened in? It was still a sense of self had that enquired . The supposed illusory self . You gotta start somewhere so to speak . Millions upon millions relate to the teachings of masters be it Jesus or ramana .. What they or others take from their teachings will be each to their own, whether they relate ramana to ego or Jesus to being an illusion, butt either way there is what they have taught us that is still taken to heart in some shape or form regardless and it really doesn't matter how many lifetimes either of them have had or will perhaps continue to have . In that respect putting down past lives is bananas cos at some point one will have to point at the past lives that were experienced or known as ramana and jesus and hold their lives and their teachings in the same regard .. The person does engage in self-inquiry as a process, yes, but the best the person can ever do at any given time is recognize what they are not. It's not the illusion that sees clearly, but rather, seeing clearly happens absent the illusion. What is inquiring isn't actually the person. What is seeking is what is sought. It takes only a single instant of inquiry free of the illusion of the person for the process to end. Clarity then -- eventually, and sometimes slowly, sometimes in a very roundabout way -- informs the individuated mind of any number of details about the search, including the fact of its end. I haven't "poo-poo'd" reincarnation in this thread, just tried to make clear what Niz and RM meant in their references to it. There's no denying your observation that what you are of the flesh recurs. Anyone can go out to any field in spring and try to count the blades of grass to see this. Or they can read some popular fiction writer from centuries ago and find the same characters populating those pages as they've met in their lives. Or just read some history. The same human dramas keep on recurring generation after generation, just with different clothes, modes of transportation, forms of monetary currency, hairstyles, soundtracks and weapons. I've even tipped my hat to the idea of past life memories. The consensus trance has every human being as an individual locked inside their skulls that dies almost as soon as they start living. There have always been those among us sensitive to the unconventional and attuned to thoughts and emotions not sourced from their immediate physical experience. The consensus demand for social order and an affinity for reason have marginalized them, and that's sad, unfortunate and has been the result of much needless suffering and also lost opportunity. But RM is crystal clear in his invitation for inquiry. Are you those blades of grass? Are you those memories of all the drama's from lifetimes ago? Zen peeps advise getting quiet, setting aside any answers of mind, and instead, listen to find the answer in the breeze as it moves through the field. Niz advises an intense inner vigilance as to the comings and goings of body and mind, and echoes the Zen peeps in his advice to set aside interpretations about those comings and goings. Personal reincarnation is one of those interpretations. I'm not saying it's an interpretation that's right or wrong, and as far as this dialog goes, I have no concern with regard to it's accuracy. But it is a creative interpretation of mind, and as far as a process of self-inquiry with an interest in existential truth is concerned, that's the bottom line of it, that it's an interpretation of an appearance. The particulars of this interpretation involve reinforcing a time-bound and individuated sense of identity, and have the potential to obscure a very valuable and powerful aspect of the inquiry in death-awareness: time ultimately erases every thought, and any trace of physicality. Hence my interest in distinguishing what Niz meant in his references to reincarnation from your interpretations of it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 20, 2017 17:16:13 GMT -5
What I want to tell you is astonishingly simple if only it would be apperceived. And the amusing part of it is that it can be apperceived only if the 'listener' is totally absent! Then, only apperceiving remains and you are that apperceiving. What happens is that the unmanifest Absolute expresses itself in manifestation: Manifestation takes place through millions of forms; consciousness functions through each form, the conduct and working of each form being, generally, according to the basic nature of the category to which the form belongs (whether it is a plant, or an insect, or a lion, or a man), and particularly, according to the nature of the particular combination of the basic elements in each form. No two human beings are alike (the fingerprints of no two persons are exactly alike) because the permutations and combinations of the millions of shades of the eight aspects (the five basic elements and the three Gunas) result in billions and trillions of forms, the nature of no two forms being exactly alike. Millions of such forms are constantly being created and destroyed in the process of manifestation. A clear perception of this process of manifestation comports the understanding: (a) that there is really no question of any identification with any individual form because the very basis of this manifestation-show is duration (of each form) and duration is a concept of time; and (b) that our true nature is the witnessing of this show. It goes without saying that the witnessing can take place only so long as the show goes on, and the show can go on only so long as there is consciousness. And who is to understand all this? Consciousness, of course, trying to seek its source and not finding it, because the seeker is the sought. Apperceiving this truth is the final and the only liberation and 'the joker in the pack' is the fact that even 'liberation' is a concept! Now, go and ponder this. (After speaking these few words Maharaj felt totally exhausted. He lay back in bed. In a feeble voice he added: "What I have said this morning is all the Truth anyone need know.") ~ Nisargadatta
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Apr 23, 2017 21:20:50 GMT -5
Do you mean as in, unclear to seekers who might infer contradiction into what he said? No, just unclear. Noone's ever pointed out a contradiction or a point of confusion to me that wasn't the product of seeker-mind. In every specific instance anyone's ever argued to me about it there's always some identifiable point in the thought process where intellect was obviously applied where it didn't belong. Mostly it involves taking metaphor literally or picking apart a sentence and parsing fragments of it so as to infer all sorts of meaning that wasn't in what was actually said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Dec 12, 2021 13:29:52 GMT -5
Q: Can we talk of witnessing the real? Niz: How can we? We can talk only of the unreal, the illusory, the transient, the conditioned. To go beyond, we must pass through total negation of everything as having independent existence. All things depend. Q: On what do they depend? Niz: On consciousness. And consciousness depends on the witness. Q: And the witness depends on the real? Niz: The witness is the reflection of the real in all its purity. It depends on the condition of the mind. Where clarity and detachment predominate, the witness-consciousness comes into being. It is just like saying that where the water is clear and quiet, the image of the moon appears. Or like daylight that appears as sparkle in the diamond. (para's 25-30, #39 from I AM THAT, "By Itself, Nothing has Existence")
Posted this for a friend. Who is constantly asking what I mean by " reflections" or " shadows" of the " the existential truth".  |
|
|
|
Post by averagejoenobody on Jan 22, 2022 16:08:02 GMT -5
If the spirit of ramana or niz reincarnate and retain their sense of self as illusory and all notions connected to the illusory self should be left on the side of the road, then they will be leaving by the side of the road their past realisations by their own admission . On the other hand if there is Truth in regards to the realised peep that incarnates then at some point one will relate to that past life as meaningful and True . Whether it be Adam reincarnated as Jesus or Francis Bacon as St germain it doesn't matter for what is learnt or what so called Truths are revealed and expressed will have a bearing on the whole or the Self when in experience of the world . Each step along the way is as meaningful as the next . If one looks back at all the past steps then one is poo pooing everything that brought them to the point of poo pooing . The point where a peep says they are illusory has been because one has lived many life's relating to what they are as not being illusory up until the point of realisation . When self enquiry is experienced, it is this supposed illusory self that enquires and yet it can bring about Self realisation . Past life enquiries / practices can bring about Realization in this lifetime . Niz or ramana or another sage type spoke of past life efforts of another who/m had realised meaning that they were ripe enough to realise now due to such past efforts . There really is no need to dismiss such past life experiences of self as said as it has made way for there present incarnation . Niz self enquired prior to S.R. what does it matter which life incarnation that happened in? It was still a sense of self had that enquired . The supposed illusory self . You gotta start somewhere so to speak . Millions upon millions relate to the teachings of masters be it Jesus or ramana .. What they or others take from their teachings will be each to their own, whether they relate ramana to ego or Jesus to being an illusion, butt either way there is what they have taught us that is still taken to heart in some shape or form regardless and it really doesn't matter how many lifetimes either of them have had or will perhaps continue to have . In that respect putting down past lives is bananas cos at some point one will have to point at the past lives that were experienced or known as ramana and jesus and hold their lives and their teachings in the same regard .. past lives?  That's a funny idea.... "putting down past lives is bananas cos at some point one will have to point at the past lives that were experienced or known as ramana and jesus and hold their lives and their l teachings in the same regard" Huh?? What does this mean? |
|
There's trance peeps that are heroes and talented artists and scientists and creative folk and great leaders of all stripe, I have much reason to bow low to many a people peep. 
That's a funny idea....