Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 20:57:50 GMT -5
Hey L, In retrospect I've decided I'm doing a purdy lousy job of not getting too far into stuff I'm still working to make sense of, ideally with a view to being able to relate simply. So if you don't mind, I'm thinking it's better to leave it until I've had a bit of a sort out and am able to better express some of those ideas. Really it was just that what Ramana said peaked my interest as it seemed to delve into an area I don't often see come up in the nd discussions here, and wondered if there was any more reading material along those lines. It has been useful to get some of my thoughts down though, and I do appreciate the opportunity. In the meantime I might dive in from time to time. Hey 'ros, no pressure man ... I won't make anything of it either way if you go silent for awhile. Yeah, I do know how intense these dialogs can be.  As far as the link to Bodhi's article is concerned, I'm reminded of something a guy I met in Ithaca said during our conversation: In Advaita-Vendata, "all is Self", while to the Bhuddist, there is no self. What we both agreed on is the fact that these conceptual structures are both pointing in exactly the same direction, which is to say, everywhere and nowhere. I don't see a conflict between Buddhism and Vedanta. What Buddha referred to as anatta (not self) is the personal self. In the Mahapurinirvana Sutra, Buddha refers to atma, the Self as being the only reality in the same way as in the Vedas. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2015 21:07:48 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 7, 2015 21:10:51 GMT -5
Hey 'ros, no pressure man ... I won't make anything of it either way if you go silent for awhile. Yeah, I do know how intense these dialogs can be. As far as the link to Bodhi's article is concerned, I'm reminded of something a guy I met in Ithaca said during our conversation: In Advaita-Vendata, "all is Self", while to the Bhuddist, there is no self. What we both agreed on is the fact that these conceptual structures are both pointing in exactly the same direction, which is to say, everywhere and nowhere. I don't see a conflict between Buddhism and Vedanta. What Buddha referred to as anatta (not self) is the personal self. In the Mahapurinirvana Sutra, Buddha refers to atma, the Self as being the only reality in the same way as in the Vedas. Yes, exactly. It is amusing though, how the intellect/feeling-bout mind can turn them into opposites of one another.  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2015 21:22:53 GMT -5
Changelessness has nothing to offer anyone. Why would anyone have any interest in it? If it was a myth, it would have died long, long ago, never to be heard of again. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jul 15, 2015 22:58:22 GMT -5
No, the belief in separate self is just that, a belief, and is delusional. What you are, I am. Mind/bodies are like glasses, and change the perception. Same same, but seemingly different. Now, notice how mind and memory will step in and conspire to mangle the simplicity. oh wow, SN, remember when one was allowed to post as a guest? Someone was posting riddles half troll half sweet, under various names as any member's shadow, including vacant's shadow. I think I got you busted, bud. Took a while didn't it? I was always looking forward to those sneaky but wise comments. I think it was Thoreau, but I forgot her alias at the time. Hehe |
|
|
|
Post by deepakgod on Jul 16, 2015 2:09:57 GMT -5
The trick is to make it a playful, non-serious process so it does not fell monotonous and boring.
One way to just be doing it without any expectations or goals. Whatever is supposed to happen will happen and if nothing happens do it again the next day as if it's your first day of practice.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 16, 2015 5:21:47 GMT -5
The trick is to make it a playful, non-serious process so it does not fell monotonous and boring. One way to just be doing it without any expectations or goals. Whatever is supposed to happen will happen and if nothing happens do it again the next day as if it's your first day of practice. So Do A to get B, Isn't it? |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2019 7:34:52 GMT -5
......bump....... That's not what the nature of the kind of identification we're talking about necessarily looks like, and you know it. If Self realization is actually ALL about losing, then what falls away is any affirmative assignation to 'I am'....(I am this, I am that....). The "whatness" of being could be said to be 'Consciousness', but even that may be a cut too deep. Going with that, It may be that it can be seen that Consciousness gives rise to being...to everything that appears. Thus, it could be said that Everything IS consciousness, but does it necessarily follow then that "Consciousness IS Everything" ? I say no. The difference appears to be subtle, but in actuality is not. Can we ever really know/understand/realize the 'whatness' of Consciousness/God/Source, beyond saying that it's that which give rise to "This"? Good post figgles. The underlined is almost the view called panentheism (everything is in God but everything is not the limit of God. God is more-than we can ever possibly know or experience or touch). I would say I am a panentheist. I would say this view you expressed is even closer to my view. ...Maybe what you say is panentheism, I will ponder....it... Oh, and, most importantly, this expresses why I am not a non-dualist without qualification. This is actually the one and only necessary reason. "We" cannot " ~touch~" the Whole of SOCI. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Feb 22, 2019 9:57:24 GMT -5
......bump....... Good post figgles. The underlined is almost the view called panentheism (everything is in God but everything is not the limit of God. God is more-than we can ever possibly know or experience or touch). I would say I am a panentheist. I would say this view you expressed is even closer to my view. ...Maybe what you say is panentheism, I will ponder....it... Oh, and, most importantly, this expresses why I am not a non-dualist without qualification. This is actually the one and only necessary reason. "We" cannot " ~touch~" the Whole of SOCI. When Niz writes, "I am THAT," he's simply using words to point to the ineffable inseparability of what is. He's using different words that mean the same thing as what Jesus was pointing to when he said, "My Father and I are one." It's not complicated. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Feb 22, 2019 13:02:30 GMT -5
......bump....... Good post figgles. The underlined is almost the view called panentheism (everything is in God but everything is not the limit of God. God is more-than we can ever possibly know or experience or touch). I would say I am a panentheist. I would say this view you expressed is even closer to my view. ...Maybe what you say is panentheism, I will ponder....it... Oh, and, most importantly, this expresses why I am not a non-dualist without qualification. This is actually the one and only necessary reason. "We" cannot " ~touch~" the Whole of SOCI. What does nonduality say about being able to 'touch' the whole? (whatever that means) |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Feb 22, 2019 16:52:09 GMT -5
What does nonduality say about being able to 'touch' the whole? (whatever that means) I'll answer once, on the other thread, the one became two thread. |
|
