|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 13, 2024 13:30:58 GMT -5
When non dualists start the neti neti talk of renouncing the mind and the body then there is no understanding of anything just said. There is no renouncing of the body/mind. There is the recognition of what is eternal and what is temporary. The body/mind is like a space suit. It's worn to have experience in space and time. But when the space suit is removed who you really are remains. Non-duality would have anyone interested in such things to know experientially the difference between their true, eternal nature and all that is temporary. That is all really. Well there is a lot of non dual folks that would say they are not the mind or body, it depends on who you talk too. The body can for some like yourself refer to nothing more than a space suit, but the space suit is what you are, no more or less than that. What you are beyond the space suit is just what you are without the space suit. Peeps only discern aspects of the mind-body from a point of self awareness had. They are comparisons made from a point of awareness. What is temporary doesn't mean that what is temporary is any more or less what you are either. The individual point of self awareness allows one to make such statements. We can speak about shedding the physical body, then the etheric body, then the light body until there is no self point of perceptional awareness had. Most non duality folk talk about the comparison of experiencing a physical body and then not, so then conclude I am not the body. That's not correct from an understanding of there is only what you are. Peeps have to forget about the point of self awareness as the ultimate self measure for what you are when relating to other things as this or that. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 14, 2024 21:24:07 GMT -5
What is temporary doesn't mean that what is temporary is any more or less what you are either. Yes, there is no thing that is not Source. But only Source is forever. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 15, 2024 6:33:18 GMT -5
When non dualists start the neti neti talk of renouncing the mind and the body then there is no understanding of anything just said. Non-duality would have anyone interested in such things to know experientially the difference between their true, eternal nature and all that is temporary. This seems to be the crux of most non dual conversations where one refers to the differences in a way where it divides instead of unites. This is why some do renounce the mind-body-spirit package deal and pass it all off as illusory or just appearances. What you refer to the differences between their true eternal nature and all that is temporary could be so easily flipped on its head where one can see the sameness instead. It was a good read of Abe's quotes that reefs posted the other day, it mirrored something I watched yesterday about talking to your cells from Dolores Cannon who has been in the background of my self work for a while now since she passed over. The differences I notice between hardcore non dualists who would be an advocate of not healing the illusory body to this approach that allures to loving all aspects. There is such a wide gap between non dualists and their beliefs that are based upon so called realisations. Jeff Foster who did a 180 u-turn based his original beliefs about no one is here on what? You see this is why I question what was realised. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jun 15, 2024 6:42:10 GMT -5
What is temporary doesn't mean that what is temporary is any more or less what you are either. Yes, there is no thing that is not Source. But only Source is forever. As said above, it could easily be flipped in a way where only sameness relates to what is and what isn't temporary. I understand why peeps make a comparison between something and nothing or what is temporary and not but its what one believes those comparisons to reflect something real or not, true or not which either creates a divide or not. |
|
|
|
Post by justlikeyou on Jun 15, 2024 20:26:51 GMT -5
I understand why peeps make a comparison between something and nothing or what is temporary and not but its what one believes those comparisons to reflect something real or not, true or not which either creates a divide or not. Have the mind of a baby, or return to it, and you won't see division anywhere. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 17, 2024 5:05:05 GMT -5
I understand why peeps make a comparison between something and nothing or what is temporary and not but its what one believes those comparisons to reflect something real or not, true or not which either creates a divide or not. Have the mind of a baby, or return to it, and you won't see division anywhere. Beginner's mind. Literally. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 17, 2024 13:44:11 GMT -5
Have the mind of a baby, or return to it, and you won't see division anywhere. Beginner's mind. Literally. It's far deeper water than it's given credit for, just like the finger/moon. And, ironically, it supports a case for "further", but not in the same sense that a permanent seeker understands it. Sekida ( Zen Training) covered the topic of "retracing your steps". He used the example of counting breaths. The same process unfolds in terms of any body-mind because of the cycles that are going on around and appearing and disappearing to that body-mind, regardless of what they may or may not have realized. It's a conceptual overlay, for sure, but one that can be interesting and informative. We can recognize the retracing of our steps as they happen, as we live. "Beginner's mind", on the other hand. Well, that just sort of comes naturally, now, doesn't it?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 5, 2024 9:26:14 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 5, 2024 12:50:01 GMT -5
Also: This is an interesting article about the accuracy of the Bible's translations to English, relating to various translation approaches, with pros and cons (I mean as arguments, not as translation-pros, and translation-cons ... ). The 5 Most Accurate Bible Translations: faithfoundedonfact.com/the-5-most-accurate-bible-translations/(surely the site name made me chuckle: faith-founded-on-fact ; disclaimer: never read the Bible) The author's classification of various English translations:  |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 9, 2024 11:44:46 GMT -5
The ZD_FJ_RR version!  |
|
