|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:12:13 GMT -5
Papaji
''We are lost in a search without knowing who it is that is enjoying all this. We are attached, so we attribute the source of this joy to the object without knowing the enjoyer. It is the Self - the Atman - who is enjoying; not the object. No object has any capacity to give you happiness. It is ‘I’ who enjoys the object, whatever object it may be; anything, any relation, any idea, any concept, the source of their joy comes from ‘I’, not from the object or idea or notion.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:12:37 GMT -5
Papaji
''In the waking state, pleasure is mistaken for bliss. Pleasure is temporary. We may call it bliss, but bliss is eternal. It is your nature. It is your Atman, your own Self.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:13:29 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
''Life is love and love is life. What keeps the body together but love? What is desire, but love of the self? What is fear but the urge to protect? And what is knowledge but the love of truth? The means and forms may be wrong, but the motive behind is always love — love of the me and the mine. The me and the mine may be small, or may explode and embrace the universe, but love remains.''
Yeah, right on Niz you dude you.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:13:58 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
''Compassion and love are my very core .Void of all predilections, I am free to love.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:14:24 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
''All knowledge flows from you, as all being and all joy. Realize that you are the eternal source and accept all as your own. Such acceptance is true love.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:15:24 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
''It is not the body that you love, it is Life— perceiving, feeling, thinking, doing, loving, striving, creating. It is that Life you love, which is you, which is all. Realize it in its totality, beyond all divisions and limitations, and all your desires will merge in it, for the greater contains the smaller. Therefore find yourself, for in finding that you find all. Everybody is glad to be. But few know the fullness of it. You come to know by dwelling in your mind on ‘I am’, ‘I know’, ‘I love’ — with the will of reaching the deepest meaning of these words.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:15:51 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
''Love is will, the will to share your happiness with all. Being happy — making happy — this is the rhythm of love.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:16:45 GMT -5
Nisargadatta
Niz: The mind, by its very nature, divides and opposes. Can there be some other mind, which unites and harmonizes, which sees the whole in the part and the part as totally related to the whole?
Questioner: The other mind—where to look for it?
Niz: In the going beyond the limiting, dividing and opposing mind. In ending the mental process as we know it. When this comes to an end, that mind is born.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:17:04 GMT -5
Osho
"The existence is made out of joy. That is its very stuff. Joy is the stuff existence is made of. So whenever you are moving towards becoming more existential you will be becoming more and more full of joy, delight, for no reason at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:17:30 GMT -5
Thich Nhat Hanh
''Many people think of excitement as happiness. They are thinking of something, or expecting something that they consider to be happiness, and for them, that is already happiness. But when you are excited you are not peaceful. True happiness is based on peace.''
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Oct 14, 2014 7:17:50 GMT -5
Buddha
''When the mind is pure, joy follows like a shadow that never leaves.''
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 7:37:26 GMT -5
A string with no length would either not be, or would fill all of creation, and a hole with no bottom isn't a hole, so this question has no voice. Rather than consider how many then, let's simplify: is there only one point of perception, or many? But this question: ... had nothing to do with time. But each 'point' within awareness can be measured within 'each moment' as and when one has a change in perception . This was part meaning behind my explanation of how many points of perception there are in regards to perceiving something, be it the same thing or not . The realization of what you are, is 'what you are' is all there is . If we relate what we are to such points of awareness or points of perception had then there is only what you are perceiving . The question as to whether there is 'one point' or many is likened to phroggy's conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong . Differential, need not implicate right or wrong. That it can, is obviously a function of perspective, which implicitly answers the question that was, in my perception, avoided. Everything that one relates to what self is, is a spin off concocted within mind from the point of one's awareness . Is disagreement such a concoction? How about what precedes the disagreement? That disagreement is always opinion, is of course, a fact ..  .. and that fact alone puts falsity to the underlined. The rest, by my characterization (so yes, my perception), is simply an invitation to change the subject which I will politely decline, but the fact of the invitation is in the words themselves. From what you've written on the monism of "self", I'd wager that a consensus on that idea (the manifestation of the invitation) still wouldn't convert it to fact in your perception, and that might put you on notice of something if you don't look away. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 7:41:43 GMT -5
How 'bout you get on board with refraining from imagining a frog writing words that he never wrote? ' based' on what he said, he is on board with 'appearances not actually being separate but are also not the same'. Giraffe dung, by any other name, still smells the same. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Oct 14, 2014 7:48:30 GMT -5
bunnijii
"All is Snicker"
|
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Oct 14, 2014 8:17:36 GMT -5
But each 'point' within awareness can be measured within 'each moment' as and when one has a change in perception . This was part meaning behind my explanation of how many points of perception there are in regards to perceiving something, be it the same thing or not . The realization of what you are, is 'what you are' is all there is . If we relate what we are to such points of awareness or points of perception had then there is only what you are perceiving . The question as to whether there is 'one point' or many is likened to phroggy's conclusion as to whether or not one's perception is right or wrong . Differential, need not implicate right or wrong. That it can, is obviously a function of perspective, which implicitly answers the question that was, in my perception, avoided. Everything that one relates to what self is, is a spin off concocted within mind from the point of one's awareness . Is disagreement such a concoction? How about what precedes the disagreement? That disagreement is always opinion, is of course, a fact .. .. and that fact alone puts falsity to the underlined. The rest, by my characterization (so yes, my perception), is simply an invitation to change the subject which I will politely decline, but the fact of the invitation is in the words themselves. From what you've written on the monism of "self", I'd wager that a consensus on that idea (the manifestation of the invitation) still wouldn't convert it to fact in your perception, and that might put you on notice of something if you don't look away. I agree differential, need not implicate right or wrong . What happens is that from a point of perception had differences can arise just as judgements can . I would say one can't help what they notice or what can arise from that which is perceived . If one notices the wind blow a leaf across the meadows then one can simply watch it without thinking too much as to whether it has come from one tree or another tree or whether the tree was a tree if ever at all . Disagreement as to whether the tree is a tree or whether the leaf is separate from the tree or not, derives through the concoction that there is a leaf or a tree in the first instance . One ripple after another, a dream within a dream, whatever floats one's boat . The mind is the medium, so whatever manifests, arises or comes before or after an event is still mindful . My understandings of what 'one is' is not stipulating a 'one' self or many self's . What one concocts from what I say will come about from there own understandings in relation to how they perceive themselves . That's why I say, perception is in the eyes of the beholder . How things are and will ever be, within mind will be how it is through such a point . |
|
.. and that fact alone puts falsity to the underlined.