|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 19, 2017 20:41:47 GMT -5
Well, yeah. It goes something like this. ...and then the universe ended. You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term. What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do? I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is. I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as. I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion. |
|
|
|
Post by xander17 on Nov 19, 2017 20:50:55 GMT -5
Okay, lets explore that relationship a bit. I've never read a book about Advaita or by a teacher of Advaita, nor have I studied it in depth anywhere. I've read some articles online, watched some youtubes, and enjoyed the comments and quotes from peeps on this forum and others. You'll notice I rarely talk about the teachers or quote from them here. Now you know why. So, what is my relationship to Advaita? It's basically a no-thing to me, though the teachings do seem to align quite well with what I see for myself, and I enjoy talking about it and listening to what others have to say. Apparently, this whole notion of being an attached believer is merely a focus for your animosity, the true source of which is unclear because I don't remember much about you and almost nothing of our previous conversations. Your relationship with me, whatever you perceive that to be, is the relationship that should really be explored, though I don't particularly want to be involved in that exploration. In any event, the best of luck to you. This still hasn't addressed the issue where you tried to redefine the universal selular definiton of Freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 19, 2017 23:29:06 GMT -5
Yes, it remains because it does not come or go. When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? |
|
|
|
Post by steven on Nov 20, 2017 0:49:23 GMT -5
Out of curiosity I sent some emails to various people who have reportedly awakened, and asked them about their search for truth. I asked them to describe the various events that they think led to freedom. What I discovered is that some people find freedom as a result of giving up the search; some people find freedom as a result of SR; and some people find freedom as a result of both SR and CC experiences. One person claimed that freedom did not occur until after SR, after a CC experience, and after several years of burning off what he termed "residual egoic vasanas." The first category of people (those who lose interest in the search for truth or have some sort of insight that ends their search) do not seem to be what most of us would term SR. They seem to have concluded that the search, itself, is an intellectual phenomena that at some point does not deserve any further interest. When asked, "Who are you, really?" they will shrug their shoulders and say that the question is meaningless or holds no interest for them. They are no longer troubled by existential questions because they see all such questioning as pointless mental phenomena--thinking run amok. If people in the other categories are asked, "Who are you, really?", they will give definitive answers, such as "I am THAT," or "I am the cosmos." Or, they will say something like, "What I am cannot be imagined or spoken." Or, they will say, "There is only the Self, the Absolute, the Infinite. They seem to have a clear understanding that reality is a unified whole and that personal selfhood is a fiction--a set of ideas constituting a cartoon-like story. What's interesting is that all of the people I contacted felt free, and they were no longer searching for anything, but one group of people who wrote to me claimed to have found what they were looking for whereas the other group wrote that the search, itself, was pointless or useless--essentially a waste of time. Both groups seem content with everyday life just as it is, and I suspect that one would have to spend a fair amount of time with people in each group to see if there is any significant difference in the way they react to various life events. On the first category, whuddabout just SR "doesn't seem to be in the cards"? Come what may. There is sooo much law of Attraction tied up in the seeker’s search Max ”For those that seek knowledge, Knowledge is granted.” While its true that at the end it can be useful to just kind of give up, I suspect that EVERY person who sought and eventually experienced a CC event or SR of some type believed deep down that some day they would succeeed, and that giving up until one realized was simply not an option. And sure enough it eventually happens. This is not an accident or random luck, it’s straight forward Law of Attraction...and ultimately it was only as difficult as they believed it would be. How difficult and or ‘not possible’ are you believing this to be for yourself, if at all? However much that belief may be engrained it is in the end just another belief, an accepted pattern of thought accepted by you to be real....but all beliefs are just thoughts...and you can become conscious of any thought or thought pattern and simply move in a different direction. For me, there was a natural predilection for turning inward so to speak, and that determined my interest and goals. I developed a steadfast goal to gnosis what the Buddha’s gnosised, but to do it while living everyday life instead of going to a monastery. I recieved that goal in my early 20’s. I also thought of it as something that would required a supreme effort, a supreme discipline...and thought of it as something of a monumental achievement like climbing the Mount Everest of the mind. Many realizations occurred along the way that repeatedly changed my whole thought paradigm about all of that...but two beliefs remained constant: 1. It will be diffcult 2. But if other men have done it then I can and WILL to. It would have been a lot easier and faster if I had simply chosen not to believe the first one 😂😂😂 |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2017 8:04:40 GMT -5
Yes, it remains because it does not come or go. When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? K: If you want to start a thread about love, feel free to do so, but this thread is about Self-realization and freedom. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 20, 2017 8:31:21 GMT -5
When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? K: If you want to start a thread about love, feel free to do so, but this thread is about Self-realization and freedom. I will entitle that thread, Self ( Love) realization. 😁 |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2017 8:34:46 GMT -5
You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term. What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do? I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is. I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as. I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion. Most of us on the forum would not consider Advaita, Zen, or any of the non-dual traditions to be belief systems. For us they are more like fingers that point to direct perception that transcends thought, and they all encourage direct experience. The basic admonition is, "Don;t believe anything anyone says; go find the truth for yourself." If people want to believe that Advaita is a belief system, they're free to do so, but all of the major figures associated with Advaita advise people to "look within," "do self-inquiry," "look for what is looking," "be still and know," etc. If the mind becomes quiescent, seeing and understanding continues, but not in the form of thoughts or beliefs. The world is then interacted with directly rather than indirectly through ideas and distinctions. To understand what this means one must be willing to suspend thoughts for a while and acquire some direct experience. Those who are unwilling to do that will never understand how understanding can continue in the absence of thought. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 20, 2017 8:57:50 GMT -5
I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term. What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do? I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is. I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as. I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion. Most of us on the forum would not consider Advaita, Zen, or any of the non-dual traditions to be belief systems. For us they are more like fingers that point to direct perception that transcends thought, and they all encourage direct experience. The basic admonition is, "Don;t believe anything anyone says; go find the truth for yourself." If people want to believe that Advaita is a belief system, they're free to do so, but all of the major figures associated with Advaita advise people to "look within," "do self-inquiry," "look for what is looking," "be still and know," etc. If the mind becomes quiescent, seeing and understanding continues, but not in the form of thoughts or beliefs. The world is then interacted with directly rather than indirectly through ideas and distinctions. To understand what this means one must be willing to suspend thoughts for a while and acquire some direct experience. Those who are unwilling to do that will never understand how understanding can continue in the absence of thought. Funny, though, but this understanding without thinking occurs to me whenever I am in the bathroom taking a shower or simply removing my bowels. I always wonder why it happens when I am inside this part of the house. Experiences maybe believable or unbelievable for people wanting to know if these bring them enlightenment. So, we read books about self-realized master who have experienced and captured what Stardust Pilgrim described as the Essence. There just got to be a common denominator to understand non-duality perceptions, ideas. Otherwise the study ends in failure. Quit or be quite. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 20, 2017 9:16:35 GMT -5
Yes, it remains because it does not come or go. When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? I might, or I might not say those words. Who knows what would happen in the moment? I'm pretty sure though, that I would react differently to someone parroting the words of others superficially, than I would to someone speaking their own words, from their own depths. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Nov 20, 2017 9:21:13 GMT -5
When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? K: If you want to start a thread about love, feel free to do so, but this thread is about Self-realization and freedom. Sorry ZD, saw your post only after I made my last post to K. If I have anything else to say to K - seems unlikely at this point - I'll do so on any new thread he makes. |
|
|
|
Post by krsnaraja on Nov 20, 2017 9:30:42 GMT -5
When I say, " Justlikeyou, I love you, " sincerely. Would you also say to me you love me, too? I might, or I might not say those words. Who knows what would happen in the moment? I'm pretty sure though, that I would react differently to someone parroting the words of others superficially, than I would to someone speaking their own words, from their own depths. My experience with love transcends places and time. There was this rare moment when I chanced upon having a discussion in one of the threads in this forum with Bakk. It was to me an unholy hour because I got to answer her replies between 1-3 am. Even though I was too sleepy yet I managed to stay with her. We discussed just anything from the weird to the bizaare. We did not fight. Then came this wonderful feeling I have for her. The same feeling I have for you. I am even suspecting you and Bakk are one & yet different. But what I feel for both of you is real. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Nov 20, 2017 9:31:39 GMT -5
Understanding without thinking can occur anywhere and at any time. Yesterday I talked to a woman who claims that she never has a verbal thought, and has never had an internal dialogue. She claims that her mind has always been totally silent. She speaks several languages and has held high-level positions in state government. At one time she worked in the office of economic development. I know the man who was the director of that office, and he told me that she was the best employee he ever had (among other duties, she accompanied him on trade missions to China and Japan as a translator). I asked her how she interacts with the world on a daily basis, and her answer was interesting. She said that she "just throws it all out there" and "deals with whatever happens as a result." It took a while for me to grasp what she meant by that, but I think she meant that life is transactional and direct rather than governed by directional thought. She told me that in high pressure situations when everyone is panicking about some issue, everything slows down for her as if life goes into super slow motion. She said that she never feels stress and has no self image. I have many more questions to ask her, but I told her that I first wanted her to read some books about SR and related issues, so that she'd have some background. Amazingly, she doesn't realize how unusual it is not to have any verbal thought.
|
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 20, 2017 9:34:38 GMT -5
I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion. That's because ZD doesn't do pointer-licking, hehe. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 20, 2017 10:13:08 GMT -5
I do think that Reef's appointment as moderator has resulted in a big improvement in the quality of discussion - thanks Reefs, good job! Yeah, worked out just fine after all. |
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Nov 20, 2017 13:13:10 GMT -5
You can only assume/believe what another's belief may be, unless they admit it. I totally agree. Though I perceive "admit" has a negative connotation to it; 'state' is a far more neutral term. What is this path of discussion leading to, if you are actually leading to something, or are you simply exploring like I do? I ask 'cus, recapping, I've stated that those thoroughly convinced a set of ideas, a belief system, is the absolute truth, will not call it a belief system, they will not perceive it as adhering to a set of thoughts they classify as fact. They will simply state in a similar manner as, they are experiencing the truth about reality, or they are perceiving reality as it actually is. I'm the one who classifies Advaita as a belief system, just like any other unverifiable religion, so I refer to it as one. In this manner I am stating the possibility that Devotees of Advaita are simply perceiving existence through a belief system and not the true nature of reality they they classify it as. I posed this dilemma to ZD, in that how can one determine if self is actually experiencing\perceiving reality as it actually is or they simply believe they are? Seems to me he chose to avoid that discussion. I suppose I'm exploring the depth of hostility I perceive in your posts. But it's not important. |
|
