|
|
Post by silver on Mar 4, 2015 11:07:31 GMT -5
No, the complication here, very clearly, is the refusal to directly answer a simple question.  This pointer is a good one and reminds me of another that I'm fond of, but I'm attached to no idea, and no, the fact that I don't have a world isn't a denial of the happening, but it is related and a pointer to that absence of attachment, and was in response to your assumption. What would you say to someone who rejects that pointer? What would you say to someone who analyzes it, criticizes it and contradicts it with some alternative idea? I would say what I say to everyone: "Simply find the thought-free state as often as you are able, and abide in/as it for as long as you are able." How's that for a pointer? Obvious? Only if actualized. How about if we stop blah blah blahing? I'm game if you are. Oh...you'll never get him to shut up...I dare say even after rigor mortis sets in one body part will still be operational.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Mar 4, 2015 11:10:11 GMT -5
SDP: Why do you assume "no hope?" I'm constantly telling peeps to shift attention away from thoughts to what can be seen, heard, felt, etc. From my POV that is the most efficacious thing I can do, and I do it with a vengeance. Of course, also from my POV, this body/mind has no choice in the matter, and it doesn't care! ha ha! I love telling peeps to shift attention away from thoughts because internal silence appears to foster realizations. I won't say that the effects of shifting attention are causal; I would rather say that the shifting and subsequent realizations are correlated. Things play out exactly as they do, but I certainly wouldn't say that there is no hope. People discover what Jesus called their "True Self" (and what Ramana called "The Self") right on schedule, just like fruit ripening on a tree. If you weren't interested in non-duality and realization, you wouldn't be on this forum. As I've pointed out before, I consider intense attentiveness, deep sincerity, and overwhelming curiosity to be highly predictive of realizations, and that's why I recommend attentiveness and inquiry. Those are the two things that appear to involve volition, but they don't. They are just an imaginary means to an imaginary end. After Self-realization, it is realized that the One who was attending and inquiring wasn't a person. Ha ha. What a joke! This is why I often say that SOI has a fantastic sense of humor. Anyone who really gets this will understand why Tolle giggles all the time. It is almost too funny for words. Then it's a new creation to the mind, it wouldn't allow people to realize anything. It's a game, mind would soon would repeat your act of shifting attention. Have you ever read Bible, Jesus has never talked about any true self or some sort of things, If you would like to find your own meaning out of what he said you could do that, but true investigation would reveal that Jesus is not speaking any such thing, he is expressing God as his own Father, he is telling that God has given his own begotten son to this world, whoever believes in him would go to the heaven, Aren't you clear that Jesus is expressing God as person? If you read the entire bible, it would be very clear that Jesus is expressing God as person, God is love,God is kind and so on. Stop find your meaning from the Bible. Second thing, stop reading the text which has been written after first century because that's too deviated from original teaching. Book of Thomos,Book of Mary,Book of Judith,Book of Judas were all written after first century. These are not the first century writing, First century writing follows here, Pauls epistles were written in 50 AD, Mark was written in 70AD immediately after Jewish war, Matthew,Luke,Acts were written in 80AD by using the reference of Mark. Read these books, don't go for the books which has been written after second century. If you really into it, you could say whatever was written is false or unbelievable, but you could not find your own meaning of out it. Just like pulling out some lines and finding your meaning doesn't work here. Hey gopal ...... I've been through the following with you before (when you first came to ST's), and you didn't reply, so I won't go into it again. ZD is more correct than you are. What is the most famous scripture in the Bible? The conversation of Jesus and Nicodemus which results in John 3:16. Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born again, maybe better translated as you must be born from above. Nicodemus misunderstood this as some kind of physical birth. Most Christians today don't have a clue what Jesus meant here, have developed their own version of what "born again" means. It means precisely what ZD means by the True Self, so what Jesus meant and what ZD means are the same. As ZD pointed out by the discussion of translation, meaning is what has to be translated, and True Self isn't in the Bible because the Bible wasn't written in English. That's not hard to understand. .........Now, as an example, when Jesus met Peter, his name was Simon, but Jesus said... said.....hummm, I'm going to call you Peter. Why? Because Jesus saw the True Self of Simon, who Simon really was, who he was going to become, and the name Peter fit better than Simon. Read again where it says, the word kills but the Spirit gives life. This means that you have to understand what the words mean, what the word represents. I will give you again the two scriptures I gave before directly related to the comments above. I'll not go into them, but if you take the time you can see that what Paul meant by New Man is what ZD means by True Self, and also what Jesus meant. Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9,10 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 11:41:15 GMT -5
Then it's a new creation to the mind, it wouldn't allow people to realize anything. It's a game, mind would soon would repeat your act of shifting attention. Have you ever read Bible, Jesus has never talked about any true self or some sort of things, If you would like to find your own meaning out of what he said you could do that, but true investigation would reveal that Jesus is not speaking any such thing, he is expressing God as his own Father, he is telling that God has given his own begotten son to this world, whoever believes in him would go to the heaven, Aren't you clear that Jesus is expressing God as person? If you read the entire bible, it would be very clear that Jesus is expressing God as person, God is love,God is kind and so on. Stop find your meaning from the Bible. Second thing, stop reading the text which has been written after first century because that's too deviated from original teaching. Book of Thomos,Book of Mary,Book of Judith,Book of Judas were all written after first century. These are not the first century writing, First century writing follows here, Pauls epistles were written in 50 AD, Mark was written in 70AD immediately after Jewish war, Matthew,Luke,Acts were written in 80AD by using the reference of Mark. Read these books, don't go for the books which has been written after second century. If you really into it, you could say whatever was written is false or unbelievable, but you could not find your own meaning of out it. Just like pulling out some lines and finding your meaning doesn't work here. Hey gopal ...... I've been through the following with you before (when you first came to ST's), and you didn't reply, so I won't go into it again. ZD is more correct than you are. What is the most famous scripture in the Bible? The conversation of Jesus and Nicodemus which results in John 3:16. Jesus told Nicodemus, you must be born again, maybe better translated as you must be born from above. Nicodemus misunderstood this as some kind of physical birth. Most Christians today don't have a clue what Jesus meant here, have developed their own version of what "born again" means. It means precisely what ZD means by the True Self, so what Jesus meant and what ZD means are the same. As ZD pointed out by the discussion of translation, meaning is what has to be translated, and True Self isn't in the Bible because the Bible wasn't written in English. That's not hard to understand. .........Now, as an example, when Jesus met Peter, his name was Simon, but Jesus said... said.....hummm, I'm going to call you Peter. Why? Because Jesus saw the True Self of Simon, who Simon really was, who he was going to become, and the name Peter fit better than Simon. Read again where it says, the word kills but the Spirit gives life. This means that you have to understand what the words mean, what the word represents. I will give you again the two scriptures I gave before directly related to the comments above. I'll not go into them, but if you take the time you can see that what Paul meant by New Man is what ZD means by True Self, and also what Jesus meant. Ephesians 4:22-24; Colossians 3:9,10 Worst explanation that I ever heard, you are more funnier than ZD  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2015 12:07:01 GMT -5
The problem arises when the non dualists think they can understand it on an intellectual level. Well maybe they can but it is not Realization. That would be the hyper-minder approach. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 12:08:23 GMT -5
No, the complication here, very clearly, is the refusal to directly answer a simple question. This pointer is a good one and reminds me of another that I'm fond of, but I'm attached to no idea, and no, the fact that I don't have a world isn't a denial of the happening, but it is related and a pointer to that absence of attachment, and was in response to your assumption. What would you say to someone who rejects that pointer? What would you say to someone who analyzes it, criticizes it and contradicts it with some alternative idea? I would say what I say to everyone: "Simply find the thought-free state as often as you are able, and abide in/as it for as long as you are able." How's that for a pointer? Obvious? Only if actualized. How about if we stop blah blah blahing? I'm game if you are. Is that what you'd say to someone at one of your Satsangs? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Mar 4, 2015 12:09:13 GMT -5
I'm not conflicted by any idea because I know what I am. There is nothing that needs to be practiced because I already am what I am. Practice cannot get people any closer to THAT than they already are. This body practiced for many years until the illusion of selfhood collapsed. Afterwards, there was only freedom. The search ended when the imagined searcher was seen to have been an illusion. It is of vital importance to make a distinction here. This thread is referring to the practice (the 'thing to do') that assists in pulling consciousness out from the delusion of maya thus revealing Reality. It is not referring to the Reality itself. You are mixing the two. Special effort is required each and every time one recognises that they have fallen back into the delusion. I have found the practice I have put forth in the originating post to be the most direct and immediate 'Path' out of the delusion. No spiritual hokey-pokey routines are necessary. When consciousness finally no longer falls back into delusion but remains in/as Self/Reality practice/effort is no longer required. I see this problem with so many of these discussions. There needs to be recognition that there can be talk of practice and 'Path', but there cannot be talk of what the Path leads to. So often one person will say something valid about practice and then someone jumps in with some grand statement about the Absolute. Both are perspectives are usually valid, but when they are put together they clash, like QM and General Relativity. There needs to be a distinction. That's the thing, efforting is a distinct mind game feature. Only mind games require repeated effort. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 12:10:13 GMT -5
I would say what I say to everyone: "Simply find the thought-free state as often as you are able, and abide in/as it for as long as you are able." How's that for a pointer? Obvious? Only if actualized. How about if we stop blah blah blahing? I'm game if you are. Oh...you'll never get him to shut up...I dare say even after rigor mortis sets in one body part will still be operational. Sue and I refer to the "Walking Dead" as "Braaaaaaaarrr! Braaaaaarrrrr!", or "brar-brar" for short.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 12:13:10 GMT -5
It is of vital importance to make a distinction here. This thread is referring to the practice (the 'thing to do') that assists in pulling consciousness out from the delusion of maya thus revealing Reality. It is not referring to the Reality itself. You are mixing the two. Special effort is required each and every time one recognises that they have fallen back into the delusion. I have found the practice I have put forth in the originating post to be the most direct and immediate 'Path' out of the delusion. No spiritual hokey-pokey routines are necessary. When consciousness finally no longer falls back into delusion but remains in/as Self/Reality practice/effort is no longer required. I see this problem with so many of these discussions. There needs to be recognition that there can be talk of practice and 'Path', but there cannot be talk of what the Path leads to. So often one person will say something valid about practice and then someone jumps in with some grand statement about the Absolute. Both are perspectives are usually valid, but when they are put together they clash, like QM and General Relativity. There needs to be a distinction. That's the thing, efforting is a distinct mind game feature. Only mind games require repeated effort.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 12:17:10 GMT -5
I would say what I say to everyone: "Simply find the thought-free state as often as you are able, and abide in/as it for as long as you are able." Please forgive me this double bind, I do know what I do. What if simply restating the pointer in another form like that results in a strengthening of a negative attachment? A strengthening of the criticism and negative emotions regarding the idea? |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 4, 2015 12:23:51 GMT -5
Oh...you'll never get him to shut up...I dare say even after rigor mortis sets in one body part will still be operational. Sue and I refer to the "Walking Dead" as "Braaaaaaaarrr! Braaaaaarrrrr!", or "brar-brar" for short.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 4, 2015 12:26:11 GMT -5
Sue and I refer to the "Walking Dead" as "Braaaaaaaarrr! Braaaaaarrrrr!", or "brar-brar" for short.  |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Mar 4, 2015 13:03:52 GMT -5
It is of vital importance to make a distinction here. This thread is referring to the practice (the 'thing to do') that assists in pulling consciousness out from the delusion of maya thus revealing Reality. It is not referring to the Reality itself. You are mixing the two. Special effort is required each and every time one recognises that they have fallen back into the delusion. I have found the practice I have put forth in the originating post to be the most direct and immediate 'Path' out of the delusion. No spiritual hokey-pokey routines are necessary. When consciousness finally no longer falls back into delusion but remains in/as Self/Reality practice/effort is no longer required. I see this problem with so many of these discussions. There needs to be recognition that there can be talk of practice and 'Path', but there cannot be talk of what the Path leads to. So often one person will say something valid about practice and then someone jumps in with some grand statement about the Absolute. Both are perspectives are usually valid, but when they are put together they clash, like QM and General Relativity. There needs to be a distinction. That's the thing, efforting is a distinct mind game feature. Only mind games require repeated effort. Yes, and I wonder who it is that needs to make a special effort each time he realizes that he's fallen back into delusion? I think the one who imagines falling into and out of delusion might be a worthy subject for some serious contemplation. |
|
|
|
Post by silver on Mar 4, 2015 15:11:57 GMT -5
That's the thing, efforting is a distinct mind game feature. Only mind games require repeated effort. Yes, and I wonder who it is that needs to make a special effort each time he realizes that he's fallen back into delusion? I think the one who imagines falling into and out of delusion might be a worthy subject for some serious contemplation. If its effortless then how do you know if/when you're in or out of a delusion state? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 15:50:45 GMT -5
That's the thing, efforting is a distinct mind game feature. Only mind games require repeated effort. Yes, and I wonder who it is that needs to make a special effort each time he realizes that he's fallen back into delusion? I think the one who imagines falling into and out of delusion might be a worthy subject for some serious contemplation. I think y'all are being nitpicky with RoyDop. He has one point: put awareness on that which is aware. The bits about effort and choice are all distractions. Chumps like me appreciate the simplicity. That's why ATA-T is nice too. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 4, 2015 16:26:43 GMT -5
Yes, and I wonder who it is that needs to make a special effort each time he realizes that he's fallen back into delusion? I think the one who imagines falling into and out of delusion might be a worthy subject for some serious contemplation. I think y'all are being nitpicky with RoyDop. He has one point: put awareness on that which is aware. The bits about effort and choice are all distractions. Chumps like me appreciate the simplicity. That's why ATA-T is nice too. Hi again, I'd say for me, putting my awareness on awareness is just one level of Reality, the Absolute. Nothing wrong with that. It seems like a good place to start, I guess that's why it's called the direct path. To me though, it just doesn't seem to reconcile the lower levels of Reality, like the physical level for example, to which I am also one with. Or the energetic level of Reality, where I am one with the energy in the Universe. Or the mental level of Reality, where I am one with the Universal Mind. Or the intellectual level of Reality, where I am one with the intelligence of the cosmos. I mean, shouldn't the lower levels of Reality get at least some recognition along the path to the Absolute? |
|
