|
|
Post by jay17 on Sept 11, 2015 15:03:50 GMT -5
This is the crux of the matter, abandonment of responsibility.. those that can, do, and those that can't, make excuses.. it's the same reaction Buddha had when he realized his parents duped him, to claim that Life is suffering and that by pretending there's no 'you' to suffer it magically goes away.. it is the imbalance of pretending the other side of the coin doesn't exist, the side where what happens is directly brought about precisely by the effort of the experiencer.. denial is not the same as revealing what 'is'.. UG's beliefs are just more bright lights at the Spiritual Circus, stay at the Circus as long as you choose, but.. walk away from the circus and those illusions fade away.. Do you have references to back up your claims about what Buddha believed\taught about the Self? I have no interest in joining in with your crusade\life mission to fight against\destroy beliefs\philosophies you do not agree with, nor challenging you or increasing my understanding of your desire or need to...nor condemning you for your current way of rolling...i just would like to know how your reached your conclusion that Buddha believed\taught Advaita, specifically that he believed\taught that the self does not exist as a means to remove personal suffering. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 11, 2015 16:56:10 GMT -5
This is the crux of the matter, abandonment of responsibility.. those that can, do, and those that can't, make excuses.. it's the same reaction Buddha had when he realized his parents duped him, to claim that Life is suffering and that by pretending there's no 'you' to suffer it magically goes away.. it is the imbalance of pretending the other side of the coin doesn't exist, the side where what happens is directly brought about precisely by the effort of the experiencer.. denial is not the same as revealing what 'is'.. UG's beliefs are just more bright lights at the Spiritual Circus, stay at the Circus as long as you choose, but.. walk away from the circus and those illusions fade away.. Do you have references to back up your claims about what Buddha believed\taught about the Self? I have no interest in joining in with your crusade\life mission to fight against\destroy beliefs\philosophies you do not agree with, nor challenging you or increasing my understanding of your desire or need to...nor condemning you for your current way of rolling...i just would like to know how your reached your conclusion that Buddha believed\taught Advaita, specifically that he believed\taught that the self does not exist as a means to remove personal suffering. Yes, i do have references.. no, i'm not interested in compiling them to suit anyone's interests.. i've spent much time and effort in the past studying Buddhism and the variants thereof, what i've posted represents 'my' understanding of those references, and may not represent someone else's understanding.. trying to present a set of references suitable for someone else's agenda does not interest me.. i found/integrated much wisdom in the teachings of Buddha, and discarded that which is inconsistent with the actuality of existing.. While you say you have no interest in my 'way' of dealing with illusions, you act as though you do by characterizing 'my' understanding in a way that suits 'your' beliefs/agenda.. i never said Buddha taught Advaita, that's your interpretation of my understanding, but.. at least you realize that Advaita is the pretense of the absence of self as way of pretending that the pretense removes suffering.. (if you read what you posted, you'll see that's what your message actually came out like).. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Sept 13, 2015 13:46:49 GMT -5
Do you have references to back up your claims about what Buddha believed\taught about the Self? I have no interest in joining in with your crusade\life mission to fight against\destroy beliefs\philosophies you do not agree with, nor challenging you or increasing my understanding of your desire or need to...nor condemning you for your current way of rolling...i just would like to know how your reached your conclusion that Buddha believed\taught Advaita, specifically that he believed\taught that the self does not exist as a means to remove personal suffering. Yes, i do have references.. no, i'm not interested in compiling them to suit anyone's interests.. i've spent much time and effort in the past studying Buddhism and the variants thereof, what i've posted represents 'my' understanding of those references, and may not represent someone else's understanding.. trying to present a set of references suitable for someone else's agenda does not interest me.. i found/integrated much wisdom in the teachings of Buddha, and discarded that which is inconsistent with the actuality of existing.. While you say you have no interest in my 'way' of dealing with illusions, you act as though you do by characterizing 'my' understanding in a way that suits 'your' beliefs/agenda.. i never said Buddha taught Advaita, that's your interpretation of my understanding, but.. at least you realize that Advaita is the pretense of the absence of self as way of pretending that the pretense removes suffering.. (if you read what you posted, you'll see that's what your message actually came out like).. I have always expressed in this forum my disagreement of the precepts of Advaita. From the first time i come across the Advaita philosophy\religion, upon examining it's precepts, i remain convinced it's a highly structured 'disassociation complex', a mental construct\belief system that enables one to avoid dealing with self created adverse responses to harsh experiences...and the behavior, arguments and explanations of it's adherents have not convinced me otherwise....and that Advaita is quite the opposite of what Buddha taught about the self and how to resolve internal self created suffering. Yet if that's what they choose to believe, then i will let them be(for the most part). If that's what they use to feel ok as they travel, then i wish them well. I have no rational reason to interfere in another's journey\chosen paths if they are satisfied with how they roll and their behavior does not adversely affect me. I have no use for it, i am not adversely affected by it's existence, and rarely discuss it with the believers. Regarding underlined...then it seems i have misinterpreted, because this... ...it's the same reaction Buddha had when he realized his parents duped him, to claim that Life is suffering and that by pretending there's no 'you' to suffer it magically goes away... ...looks to me that you are saying Buddha concluded\believed that all of life is suffering and if you convince yourself you do not exist, then suffering will cease. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 13, 2015 14:19:35 GMT -5
Yes, i do have references.. no, i'm not interested in compiling them to suit anyone's interests.. i've spent much time and effort in the past studying Buddhism and the variants thereof, what i've posted represents 'my' understanding of those references, and may not represent someone else's understanding.. trying to present a set of references suitable for someone else's agenda does not interest me.. i found/integrated much wisdom in the teachings of Buddha, and discarded that which is inconsistent with the actuality of existing.. While you say you have no interest in my 'way' of dealing with illusions, you act as though you do by characterizing 'my' understanding in a way that suits 'your' beliefs/agenda.. i never said Buddha taught Advaita, that's your interpretation of my understanding, but.. at least you realize that Advaita is the pretense of the absence of self as way of pretending that the pretense removes suffering.. (if you read what you posted, you'll see that's what your message actually came out like).. I have always expressed in this forum my disagreement of the precepts of Advaita. From the first time i come across the Advaita philosophy\religion, upon examining it's precepts, i remain convinced it's a highly structured 'disassociation complex', a mental construct\belief system that enables one to avoid dealing with self created adverse responses to harsh experiences...and the behavior, arguments and explanations of it's adherents have not convinced me otherwise....and that Advaita is quite the opposite of what Buddha taught about the self and how to resolve internal self created suffering. Yet if that's what they choose to believe, then i will let them be(for the most part). If that's what they use to feel ok as they travel, then i wish them well. I have no rational reason to interfere in another's journey\chosen paths if they are satisfied with how they roll and their behavior does not adversely affect me. I have no use for it, i am not adversely affected by it's existence, and rarely discuss it with the believers. Regarding underlined...then it seems i have misinterpreted, because this... ...it's the same reaction Buddha had when he realized his parents duped him, to claim that Life is suffering and that by pretending there's no 'you' to suffer it magically goes away... ...looks to me that you are saying Buddha concluded\believed that all of life is suffering and if you convince yourself you do not exist, then suffering will cease. I've never said that Buddha taught Advaita, if what i've said leads you to believe otherwise it seems you've misinterpreted.. i'm expressing 'my' understanding.. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 16, 2015 22:38:33 GMT -5
A state in which the questioning has stopped
UG: If you are totally 'tuned in' to the sensory activity, there is no room for fears about who will feed you tomorrow, or for speculation about God, Truth and Reality. This is not a state of omniscience, wherein all of man's eternal questions are answered; rather it is a state in which the questioning has stopped. It has stopped because those questions have no relation to the way the organism is functioning, and the way the organism is functioning leaves no room for those questions.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2015 11:52:39 GMT -5
The Power of Futility
UG: What makes one person come into his natural state, and not another person, I don't know. Perhaps it's written in the cells. It is acausal. It is not an act of volition on your part; you can't bring it about. There is absolutely nothing you can do. You can distrust any man who tells you how he got into this state. One thing you can be sure of is that he cannot possibly know himself, and cannot possibly communicate it to you. There is a built-in triggering mechanism in the body. If the experiencing structure of thought happens to let go, the other thing will take over in its own way. The functioning of the body will be a totally different functioning, without the interference of thought except when it is necessary to communicate with somebody. To put it in the boxing-ring phrase, you have to "throw in the towel," be totally helpless. No one can help you, and you cannot help yourself.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 26, 2015 22:31:09 GMT -5
What you are looking at is not different from the one who is looking
UG: Have you ever looked at that parallel movement of thought? The books on English grammar will tell you that 'I' is a first person singular pronoun, subjective case; but that is not what you want to know. Can you look at that thing you call 'I'? It is very elusive. Look at it now, feel it, touch it, and tell me. How do you look at it? And what is the thing that is looking at what you call 'I'? This is the crux of the whole problem: the one that is looking at what you call 'I' is the 'I'. It is creating an illusory division of itself into subject and object, and through this division it is continuing. This is the divisive nature that is operating in you, in your consciousness. Continuity of its existence is all that interests it. As long as you want to understand that 'you' or to change that 'you' into something spiritual, into something holy, beautiful or marvelous, that 'you' will continue. If you do not want to do anything about it, it is not there, it's gone.
How do you understand this? I have for all practical purposes made a statement: "What you are looking at is not different from the one who is looking." What do you do with a statement like this? What instrument do you have at your disposal for understanding a meaningless, illogical, irrational statement? You begin to think. Through thinking, you cannot understand a thing. You are translating what I am saying, in terms of the knowledge you already have, just as you translate everything else, because you want to get something out of it. When you stop doing that, what is there is what I am describing. The absence of what you are doing - trying to understand, or trying to change yourself - is the state of being that I am describing.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 27, 2015 12:53:05 GMT -5
What you are looking at is not different from the one who is looking
UG: Have you ever looked at that parallel movement of thought? The books on English grammar will tell you that 'I' is a first person singular pronoun, subjective case; but that is not what you want to know. Can you look at that thing you call 'I'? It is very elusive. Look at it now, feel it, touch it, and tell me. How do you look at it? And what is the thing that is looking at what you call 'I'? This is the crux of the whole problem: the one that is looking at what you call 'I' is the 'I'. It is creating an illusory division of itself into subject and object, and through this division it is continuing. This is the divisive nature that is operating in you, in your consciousness. Continuity of its existence is all that interests it. As long as you want to understand that 'you' or to change that 'you' into something spiritual, into something holy, beautiful or marvelous, that 'you' will continue. If you do not want to do anything about it, it is not there, it's gone. How do you understand this? I have for all practical purposes made a statement: "What you are looking at is not different from the one who is looking." What do you do with a statement like this? What instrument do you have at your disposal for understanding a meaningless, illogical, irrational statement? You begin to think. Through thinking, you cannot understand a thing. You are translating what I am saying, in terms of the knowledge you already have, just as you translate everything else, because you want to get something out of it. When you stop doing that, what is there is what I am describing. The absence of what you are doing - trying to understand, or trying to change yourself - is the state of being that I am describing. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Sept 27, 2015 14:22:28 GMT -5
Regarding underlined...then it seems i have misinterpreted, because this... This is the crux of the matter, abandonment of responsibility.. those that can, do, and those that can't, make excuses.. it's the same reaction Buddha had when he realized his parents duped him, to claim that Life is suffering and that by pretending there's no 'you' to suffer it magically goes away.. it is the imbalance of pretending the other side of the coin doesn't exist, the side where what happens is directly brought about precisely by the effort of the experiencer.. denial is not the same as revealing what 'is'.. ...looks to me that you are saying Buddha concluded\believed that all of life is suffering and if you convince yourself you do not exist, then suffering will cease. I've never said that Buddha taught Advaita, if what i've said leads you to believe otherwise it seems you've misinterpreted.. i'm expressing 'my' understanding.. Tzu, i am well aware you are expressing your understanding...and i have already stated it seems i have misinterpreted. If you are willing, and i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you meant. |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Sept 27, 2015 14:40:50 GMT -5
I've never said that Buddha taught Advaita, if what i've said leads you to believe otherwise it seems you've misinterpreted.. i'm expressing 'my' understanding.. Tzu, i am well aware you are expressing your understanding...and i have already stated it seems i have misinterpreted. If you are willing, and i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you meant. I said what i said, you seem to think it's related to Advaita, and.. i'm saying there's no mention of Advaita, and no intention that Advaita be related to what i said.. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Sept 28, 2015 15:17:31 GMT -5
Tzu, i am well aware you are expressing your understanding...and i have already stated it seems i have misinterpreted. If you are willing, and i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you meant. I said what i said, you seem to think it's related to Advaita, and.. i'm saying there's no mention of Advaita, and no intention that Advaita be related to what i said.. Tzu, i am aware you said what you said...and if it was not clear, i expressed it seems i have misinterpreted and that i understand you are not saying your statements about Buddha has anything to do with Advaita. If you are willing, and i remain interested, i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you mean. If you have no intention of explaining, please just clearly say so and i will ask no more. |
|
|
|
Post by jay17 on Oct 12, 2015 15:10:01 GMT -5
Tzu, i am well aware you are expressing your understanding...and i have already stated it seems i have misinterpreted. If you are willing, and i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you meant. I said what i said, you seem to think it's related to Advaita, and.. i'm saying there's no mention of Advaita, and no intention that Advaita be related to what i said.. Tzu, i am aware you said what you said...and if it was not clear, i expressed it seems i have misinterpreted and that i understand you are not saying your statements about Buddha has anything to do with Advaita. If you are willing, and i remain interested, i would like to hear it, please explain what you mean about Buddha, because if it is not the same as my interpretation, i would like to understand what you mean. If you have no intention of explaining, please just clearly say so and i will ask no more. One of the indicators of diminished 'honesty and openness' is the inclination some people have for not answering questions that, if answered openly and honestly', might reveal an inconsistency or fundamental contradiction in the position they advocate.. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 30, 2015 8:29:07 GMT -5
Twenty-one year old UG meeting Ramana Maharashi at Tiruvannamalai in 1939.
"Is there," asked U.G., "anything like enlightenment?"
"Yes, there is," replied the master.
"Are there any levels to it?"
The Bhagavan replied "No, no levels are possible. It is all one thing. Either you are there or you are not there at all."
Finally U.G asked, "This thing called enlightenment, can you give it to me?"
Looking the serious young man in the eyes he replied, "Yes, I can give it, but can you take it?"
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 3, 2015 13:41:48 GMT -5
Q: So we must become aware of death, making it an object of our meditations, and
treating it in such a romantic, mystical way. Is that it?
U.G.: To describe that state as a meditative state full of awareness is romantic
hogwash. Awareness! What a fantastic gimmick used to fool themselves and others.
You can't be aware of every step, you only become self-conscious and awkward if
you do. I once knew a man who was a harbor pilot. He had been reading about
"passive awareness" and attempted to put it into practice. He, for the first time,
nearly wrecked the ship he was guiding. Walking is automatic, and if you try to be
aware of every step, you will go crazy. So don't invent meditative steps. Things are
bad enough. The meditative state is worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Dec 3, 2015 13:45:36 GMT -5
Q: Meditation seems less repetitive, deeper than ordinary thought. Yet it is
unsatisfying.
U.G.: If your meditations, sadhanas, methods and techniques meant anything, you
wouldn't be here asking these questions. They are all means for you to bring about
change. I maintain that there is nothing to change or transform. You accept that there
is something to change as an article of faith. You never question the existence of the
one who is to be changed. The whole mystique of enlightenment is based upon the
idea of transforming yourself. I cannot convey or transmit my certainty that you and
all the authorities down through the centuries are false. They and the spiritual goods
they peddle are utterly false. Because I cannot communicate this certainty to you it
would be useless and artificial for me to get up on a platform and hold forth. I prefer
to talk informally; I just talk, "Nice meeting you."
|
|
