|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 15:28:51 GMT -5
It does not. This knowledge is non-transferable. Everybody has to find out for themselves and I believe that you know it, so this is probably only a rhetorical question. Few people are so naive (or so haughty) to believe that their samskaras are going to be exhausted in this life. I believe, the Buddha said it clearly: "The cause of all unsatisfactoriness (dukka) is clinging". And as to me, clinging dissolves in unconditional Love only. Until we learn to Love unconditionally we can never be free, no matter how much we try to affirm that duality does not exist. It's not an irrelevant nonsense, but everyone has to answer those questions for themselves, through direct insight. Otherwise it's just a philosophy, intelectual stuff, which can never comprehend the Truth but can go on and on, for ever. Merrick Thanks merrick. ..........However, one point, it has to be possible to become fully liberated in a single life, or else nobody has ever been liberated. Why not this life? sdp Liberation can happen, of course, but it's important to realize nobody gets liberated. Liberation is liberation FROM the person, which makes the whole non-process a bit wacky. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 15:34:58 GMT -5
However, one point, it has to be possible to become fully liberated in a single life, or else nobody has ever been liberated. Why not this life? As to me, liberation usually comes after many life-times of learning. If someone gets liberated in this life-time, it is because they have completed their work which had started in previous incarnations but we only see the end result. Merrick That's actually the meaning of samskaras and karma, though the idea of previous lifetimes can be very deceiving. Folks follow their interests, and seldom do they have anything to do with truth or liberation. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 28, 2013 15:48:15 GMT -5
However, one point, it has to be possible to become fully liberated in a single life, or else nobody has ever been liberated. Why not this life? As to me, liberation usually comes after many life-times of learning. If someone gets liberated in this life-time, it is because they have completed their work which had started in previous incarnations but we only see the end result. Merrick That implies that time is a primary factor in liberation. I think that's a concept that requires a lot of looking at. An early inspiration, discovered Socrates in 1970, "If I am wise, it's because I know that I know nothing". sdp |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 28, 2013 16:02:04 GMT -5
Thanks merrick. ..........However, one point, it has to be possible to become fully liberated in a single life, or else nobody has ever been liberated. Why not this life? sdp Liberation can happen, of course, but it's important to realize nobody gets liberated. Liberation is liberation FROM the person, which makes the whole non-process a bit wacky. It's not wacky at all. I so-wanted to be liberated from (my)self that in 1976 suicide was a very real possibility. One particular three-hour drive from the beach had me looking at every tractor-trailer rig I passes. The only thing, then, that kept me from crossing the white dotted line was a belief that reincarnation was a fact. At that point (from study and understanding) I knew that cultural self/sdp was not going to survive (nobody's cultural self survives ultimately) or not very long anyway, but I also knew (believed) that the accumulated karma would get passed along to some poor dude (new cultural self) down the line. I knew the better way was to......get liberated/enlightened. The whole non-process is not in the least wacky. If it's not real it's nothing. sdp |
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Apr 28, 2013 16:04:13 GMT -5
Folks follow their interests, and seldom do they have anything to do with truth or liberation. As people learn, they naturally live more and more in tune with Universal principles. And living also becomes more and more conscious. So, I wouldn't agree with that. Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by merrick on Apr 28, 2013 16:21:11 GMT -5
That implies that time is a primary factor in liberation. I think that's a concept that requires a lot of looking at. An early inspiration, discovered Socrates in 1970, "If I am wise, it's because I know that I know nothing". As a past life regression therapist I often hear from people: "It unbelievably corresponds to what I have been living now." Or: "... what I have been through in this life. It is as if written through a carbon paper..." Just a different backdrop - time in history, clothing, customs... We get new and new opportunities to repeat lessons and pass the tests we didn't pass before. It's very much like going to school. Merrick |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 16:44:05 GMT -5
As to me, liberation usually comes after many life-times of learning. If someone gets liberated in this life-time, it is because they have completed their work which had started in previous incarnations but we only see the end result. Merrick That implies that time is a primary factor in liberation. I think that's a concept that requires a lot of looking at. An early inspiration, discovered Socrates in 1970, "If I am wise, it's because I know that I know nothing". sdp When we say time is not required for liberation, we're pointing to the fact that truth is already the case and is not found at the end of some process that has to happen. We're pointing to the fact that time is not a requirement in order for you to be what you already are. If what we were saying is that time is not a factor, there would be no practices, no talk of karma and samskaras or conditioning, and no self inquiry. One must exhaust his interest in other things. This is the direction in which everyone's life goes. "When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things." |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 17:01:34 GMT -5
Liberation can happen, of course, but it's important to realize nobody gets liberated. Liberation is liberation FROM the person, which makes the whole non-process a bit wacky. It's not wacky at all. I so-wanted to be liberated from (my)self that in 1976 suicide was a very real possibility. One particular three-hour drive from the beach had me looking at every tractor-trailer rig I passes. The only thing, then, that kept me from crossing the white dotted line was a belief that reincarnation was a fact. At that point (from study and understanding) I knew that cultural self/sdp was not going to survive (nobody's cultural self survives ultimately) or not very long anyway, but I also knew (believed) that the accumulated karma would get passed along to some poor dude (new cultural self) down the line. I knew the better way was to......get liberated/enlightened. The whole non-process is not in the least wacky. If it's not real it's nothing. sdp I didn't mean to say anything about real or unreal. The idea of wanting to be liberated from yourself is about as wacky as it gets. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 17:06:36 GMT -5
Folks follow their interests, and seldom do they have anything to do with truth or liberation. As people learn, they naturally live more and more in tune with Universal principles. And living also becomes more and more conscious. So, I wouldn't agree with that. Merrick Sure. I'm just saying relatively few are interested in liberation, or even understand what that means. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Apr 28, 2013 17:38:28 GMT -5
Greetings.. That implies that time is a primary factor in liberation. I think that's a concept that requires a lot of looking at. An early inspiration, discovered Socrates in 1970, "If I am wise, it's because I know that I know nothing". sdp When we say time is not required for liberation, we're pointing to the fact that truth is already the case and is not found at the end of some process that has to happen. We're pointing to the fact that time is not a requirement in order for you to be what you already are. If what we were saying is that time is not a factor, there would be no practices, no talk of karma and samskaras or conditioning, and no self inquiry. One must exhaust his interest in other things. This is the direction in which everyone's life goes. "When I was a child, I spoke and thought and reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things." My understanding of the statement, "time is not a factor", is that in the instant of the choosing, actually choosing through the deeds that evidence the choice, in the instant of the choosing to 'let go', to let it ALL go.. it is done, there is no 'time' or schooling/learning/karmic leverage involved.. I feel a deep resonance with the understanding expressed here.. what i understand about what is posted, is that sometimes people see 'practice' as evidence of unawareness or attachment, but.. arriving at the realization expressed above, it is not inappropriate to 'feel/choose' the usefulness of a practice for enhancing the 'totality' of the experiencer's existence..a 'practice' that builds cooperative awareness among individualities has a practical relationship with existence.. not as an attached necessity for evolving into a promised result, but as a process whose results are self-evident, whose results create the space for clarity to reveal the understandings posted above.. Be well.. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Apr 28, 2013 17:50:54 GMT -5
Are you sure Karma isn't just another god/slavedriver?
|
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Apr 28, 2013 18:49:42 GMT -5
Are you sure Karma isn't just another god/slavedriver? Karma seems to have some pejorative connotations, presumably because the idea originated in a Hindu religious context. And yet I see it pointing to a legitimate process of resolving troublesome or distracting ideas and behaviors through actual experience, which can be painful. |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 28, 2013 21:43:11 GMT -5
Life is suffering. Nothing to see here, keep it moving.  So, you're saying that it's not true that Buddha ended his suffering? sdp I don't know. Do you? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Apr 29, 2013 21:13:16 GMT -5
So, you're saying that it's not true that Buddha ended his suffering? sdp I don't know. Do you? From the record, it seems pretty evident his suffering ended. And it seems pretty evident that for some following what he taught, suffering ended. However, I don't consider that the end........(and that's why I'm not a Buddhist). sdp |
|
|
|
Post by silence on Apr 30, 2013 1:20:48 GMT -5
From the record, it seems pretty evident his suffering ended. And it seems pretty evident that for some following what he taught, suffering ended. However, I don't consider that the end........(and that's why I'm not a Buddhist). sdp The end of what? |
|
