|
|
Post by laughter on May 31, 2019 20:56:15 GMT -5
A third sample that can allow you to triangulate is Spira. He describes a sort of quiet awe that he conveys quite viscerally with his demeanor. He doesn't have the same light, playful, humorous sense about him as Tolle. The truth is expressed in different ways as filtered/modulated by the different people who've discovered it. So "Jed's" "personality" doesn't necessarily disqualify him from realization, and I get the impression the author sort of amplified that aspect of things to challenge the spiritual cliche's of 20 years ago. My own experience the sages I've been with the eyes, humour especially the belly laugh ( a good way of experiencing That btw) the stillness where our eyes meet and faces change in Darshan have been important I do feel many non duality teachers no matter how clear their pointing is There's a covering over the eyes. I once pointed it out to Donna when I first met her as she presented a book on Swami Muktananda. The words arose he's not good to children I see it with Spira a little clouding over his eyes and not what I Am used to. And having met non duality teachers in the past where they have pointed at seekers to see it's all an illusion but when their own health or a parent passes they collapse against the advice and pointing they've given to others So it's important to be honest to say that's not been my experience yet. I don't know. A young girl I've been working with made me laugh recently She wrote a poem and at times I've had the rejection from publishers especially on poems. Even placing Ian out there wasn't easy but the right people came along As it's difficult in the marketplace to have your poems published very difficult I can work with Coach, Barbour, TK maxx, QVC and it's very easy Why for Eckhart as I've met people who he has served I know the silence no money can match what's shared over If Eckhart becomes a billionaire so be it. Good for him Here's the poem from this young girl who made it into a book of poems which I said you're so lucky it's so difficult to get a poem published. She's only 5 years old. In The Garden I am green at the bottom of me I am yellow in the middle of me I sometimes am in people's garden on the grass What am I Answer: A flower 🌺 Ian Wolstenholme once wrote in his book he gave me Bach, Keep all meaning simple I've never met anyone in person who explicitly claimed any sort of state relative to nonduality. But, eye contact. Yeah.  |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 8, 2019 17:08:31 GMT -5
My own experience the sages I've been with the eyes, humour especially the belly laugh ( a good way of experiencing That btw) the stillness where our eyes meet and faces change in Darshan have been important I do feel many non duality teachers no matter how clear their pointing is There's a covering over the eyes. I once pointed it out to Donna when I first met her as she presented a book on Swami Muktananda. The words arose he's not good to children I see it with Spira a little clouding over his eyes and not what I Am used to. And having met non duality teachers in the past where they have pointed at seekers to see it's all an illusion but when their own health or a parent passes they collapse against the advice and pointing they've given to others So it's important to be honest to say that's not been my experience yet. I don't know. A young girl I've been working with made me laugh recently She wrote a poem and at times I've had the rejection from publishers especially on poems. Even placing Ian out there wasn't easy but the right people came along As it's difficult in the marketplace to have your poems published very difficult I can work with Coach, Barbour, TK maxx, QVC and it's very easy Why for Eckhart as I've met people who he has served I know the silence no money can match what's shared over If Eckhart becomes a billionaire so be it. Good for him Here's the poem from this young girl who made it into a book of poems which I said you're so lucky it's so difficult to get a poem published. She's only 5 years old. In The Garden I am green at the bottom of me I am yellow in the middle of me I sometimes am in people's garden on the grass What am I Answer: A flower 🌺 Ian Wolstenholme once wrote in his book he gave me Bach, Keep all meaning simple I've never met anyone in person who explicitly claimed any sort of state relative to nonduality. But, eye contact. Yeah. With the teachings of non duality it died at some point as the Bhakti tradition and Tantric traditions arose Ramana appeared recently, no doubt he's a great sage and it's become popular with western students and sages. I do feel there's more to Ramana that involves meeting illiterate seekers where he would meet them in pure silence for where they were at. No clever words on non duality It is what it is But like Osho and yes I've seen the Netflix documentary The apparent cult leader Ive always related to the eyes of a sage as a pointer and not their teachings Just like Osho he was a showman just like my teacher Barry Long. They cooked the words as they knew in the marketplace not many will understand the silence stillness they were pointing at and would rush to it. It's always been a pointer for me as I became more Nothing to look in a sages eyes as on the marketplace I always read the eyes of a punter as they came in. Meeting my first teacher David I said your eyes are different plus your face changes as I'm used to looking at the eyes first when a buyer comes in. How to sell to them. I've met too many sages of a non duality tradition, this tradition or that tradition that don't have the depth in their eyes The eyes and smile are important for me. Just like a new born with innocent eyes, wonder. Ever new to what appears. We are in the middle of moving to a new premises at work On top of it I've just had a real download of people I've met from the extreme wealthy driving Bughatti cars, taking trips and taking pure cocaine to the young girl I mentioned earlier who wrote a poem on the flower on what Am I Meeting a young girl a few months back her mother was saying she's too open, writes with her left hand which is against our tradition, loves making slime That's all she does But looking at her without a thought I had to smile as I could see for one she was bringing something to me as I need to clear a space as of late as it's been just movement even though for me it's always the silence before meaning knowledge applied to anything that appears but it's been a real rush of late. Need to buy some slime. Become child like as Jesus points out lol. But one worker as I normally drop him home after work he's done his back in from the move. Struggles now to get in my car So I set up a game of black jack with the sharks at work who do gamble play with serious money, with this young girl. At the end of it she said I need to get some shades as I noticed they were watching my eyes. I love this game And I said me too These players bring so much in Next time let's outplay them. Let's wear shades Let's see if it makes a difference in this game. That's the beauty of meeting the teachers I've met their pointing as ian said to me once I Am That but I can really f up too Earlier driving home as I turned a corner on to my road the Suns reflection on the river was , beautiful. It's there if you look. No need for meditation or playing cards It's there if you look. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Jun 9, 2019 11:22:58 GMT -5
I feel Eckhart is an important sage of these times. Away from the sages of the past. Absolutely! As for the pain body I feel for most people it is relevant Even for sages waking up. I 'awakened' but the body definitely had to go through a process over many years as I had never sat in meditation or placed attention on the body Sages who teach meditation or teach placing attention on the body where there maybe the past emotions or mind trappings held in the body can be a very important practice My issue is not with the notion that even sages have to deal with pain. My issue is with ET turning pain into an entity. To me the pain body is just the alignment topic again. Life happens. Things happen. Both the seeker and the sage have to deal with such events. It's what A-H call contrast. When I went to Vancouver a few years back I met people who knew Eckhart before he was well known One girl who had been in a gang and knew only this type of lifestyle. Her partner was killed through gang violence but she met Eckhart And she could feel the stillness tearing through her past even when he was saying hello This reminds me of what Hesse wrote in 'Siddharta', when Siddharta met Gotama for the first time: |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 9, 2019 17:49:33 GMT -5
I feel Eckhart is an important sage of these times. Away from the sages of the past. Absolutely! As for the pain body I feel for most people it is relevant Even for sages waking up. I 'awakened' but the body definitely had to go through a process over many years as I had never sat in meditation or placed attention on the body Sages who teach meditation or teach placing attention on the body where there maybe the past emotions or mind trappings held in the body can be a very important practice My issue is not with the notion that even sages have to deal with pain. My issue is with ET turning pain into an entity. To me the pain body is just the alignment topic again. Life happens. Things happen. Both the seeker and the sage have to deal with such events. It's what A-H call contrast. When I went to Vancouver a few years back I met people who knew Eckhart before he was well known One girl who had been in a gang and knew only this type of lifestyle. Her partner was killed through gang violence but she met Eckhart And she could feel the stillness tearing through her past even when he was saying hello This reminds me of what Hesse wrote in 'Siddharta', when Siddharta met Gotama for the first time: Well the pain body will vary in each person. Some are thinkers and feelers in this play out world. How the pain body develops is the covering over of the innocence of a babe through life's experience and the conditioning, download they are exposed to. Which covers over the sweet innocence where they wear a mask to cope with life. A false mask which becomes attached to the exchange and experiences they go through. The persona personality as we are not born with one. Why self knowledge is about unmasking to reveal the face before you were born. No matter if you are a thinker or feeler the pain body will have to be seen through And as much as people say they are without a pain body I've seen the wealthiest who have never had to deal with much in life collapse as they've been diagnosed with an illness or loss of a loved one. So the thinkers aren't in a class of their own on this one. And for some it will be as if they are taken over depending on what script they are in. I see it all the time. A fellow worker steals an idea from another, a child where the parents force a mask over what they are experiencing or uttering in the present moment, to a sage who will abuse his students I don't doubt AH teachings has its place but they need to be in their own body where everyone else lives. I can easily say now I'm less located in those parts but who knows as life is the teacher on what appears and what arises within and without I remember on first awakening I wanted everyone to know this but it was still the inner parts that had to be seen through which took many years. I don't have children but I've been around my bosses kids From their birth the beauty of seeing your own reflection in a new born to when the parents take over.And the change as the personality/ ies the masks 🎭 appear the pain body That will become problematic if you don't return to the sweet innocence within And through life's experience you see you are never met by another in a story the wrong word will arise in a conversation with a loved one which creates distance. Separation from what is. It happens on here on this message board if people are honest. We've all been there. And that's what Eckhart or Barry or Tantric sages point at the pain body As part of some traditions is to return the body to That the innocent smell of a new born. I don't know if you've buried your nose in a new born but they have the smell of innocence. But in Tantra part of the teaching is in lovemaking the body knows what to do as the stillness is more present in the living of this experience. The pain body doesn't have to be present as it is for most people feelers and thinkers alike Many sages have taught a celibate lifestyle I can only see Ramana where it wasn't problematic for him But for many sages I can see where they've taught one thing, it brought in the crowd but they couldn't keep their hands off their students. Also Laughter as you we were talking of Non Duality teachings, it's worth looking at the teachings before Shankhara on Advaita too. To get a better overview on the different schools of thought on Vedanta From dvaita,visishtavaita, and advaita Each have had sages awaken in each school of thought. Scholars argue on their context and timeline But each has its politics disputes like any school of thought. Sages appeared in the different schools of thought in the Christian and Islamic traditions. No different for the Indian tradition too. They have their politics and sages that have appeared in them too. It's a marketplace you have to shop till you drop |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jun 9, 2019 21:34:30 GMT -5
yes. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jun 19, 2019 17:22:25 GMT -5
Most people are other people. Their thoughts are someone else's opinions, their lives a mimicry, their passions a quotation.
I came across this quote when I came across Ian, a few experiences and I ended up at my local library. And my library is the size of a shoe box
But on this day they were getting rid of books no one was interested in.
One had the quote by Oscar Wilde
Yet I was more drawn to and I managed to pick up a beautiful book on William Blake for just 50 pence.
I can see where Reefs is pointing at with the A-H teachings. Where most sages don't point the importance of living and being awake too
I came across a video on Ramana how he was pointing at That yet in the Satsang environment many incidents occurred around people stealing either from fellow Satsangis or the ashram being broken into at some point
It may not be shown in the marketplace against the teachings as Ramana is a great sage no doubt
But when you set up shop these experiences may occur
So the rating list does have its place on this site but there is much outside of the ratings on just giving stars to a teaching
The living of This, the experiential side
I will post the video of the typical politics in ashrams or monasteries that can occur. Probably Sunday as I've just come in from work
But here's a video on managing money and awakening a talk with Eckhart Tolle and Geneen Roth
|
|
bryan
Full Member
Posts: 170
|
Post by bryan on Aug 9, 2019 7:25:54 GMT -5
i think Tolle's story of being homeless was a fraud
i have been homeless 'off and on' for 4 years and know all the 'ins and outs' of being homeless and when i read his story i thought it was nothing but lies
see...when you are homeless you know who is an actor and who is really homeless. Tolle is an actor.
|
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 25, 2021 0:19:50 GMT -5
It is interesting to see how people try to force their perceptions to fit their beliefs ... "I know that I know nothing"It seems to me that Socrates meant neither to be, or appear to be modest, nor did he speak from stillness (a.k.a. "not knowing") as Tolle "discovered". From the context from which that phrase was extracted, it seems that on one hand Socrates was critical to those who believed they knew the truth (which he deemed to be worse than his being aware that he knows nothing), on the other hand he was aware that his knowledge as anybody else's is negligible compared to the infinite knowledge. There is a passage in Plato's Apology, where Socrates says that after discussing with someone he started thinking that:
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. Tolle's "stillness" interpretation proves Socrate's point. ("he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing") |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 25, 2021 3:23:15 GMT -5
It is interesting to see how people try to force their perceptions to fit their beliefs ... "I know that I know nothing"It seems to me that Socrates meant neither to be, or appear to be modest, nor did he speak from stillness (a.k.a. "not knowing") as Tolle "discovered". From the context from which that phrase was extracted, it seems that on one hand Socrates was critical to those who believed they knew the truth (which he deemed to be worse than his being aware that he knows nothing), on the other hand he was aware that his knowledge as anybody else's is negligible compared to the infinite knowledge. There is a passage in Plato's Apology, where Socrates says that after discussing with someone he started thinking that:
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. Tolle's "stillness" interpretation proves Socrate's point. ("he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing") Soc's statement follows the same form as the liar's paradox - it defines a recursive structure that isn't static, but rather, embodies an infinite loop. And there is an inherent irony in your conclusion.  Stillness, silence, are the way out of the loop. Just like with your Zealand pendulum, not-knowing is a withdrawal of energy from the system of the mind, the system that generates ideas, opinions, and conclusions. It's like swimming near the bottom of a muddy lake. You have to stop paddling to let the murk settle, in order to see. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 25, 2021 14:12:42 GMT -5
It is interesting to see how people try to force their perceptions to fit their beliefs ... "I know that I know nothing"It seems to me that Socrates meant neither to be, or appear to be modest, nor did he speak from stillness (a.k.a. "not knowing") as Tolle "discovered". From the context from which that phrase was extracted, it seems that on one hand Socrates was critical to those who believed they knew the truth (which he deemed to be worse than his being aware that he knows nothing), on the other hand he was aware that his knowledge as anybody else's is negligible compared to the infinite knowledge. There is a passage in Plato's Apology, where Socrates says that after discussing with someone he started thinking that:
τούτου μὲν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου ἐγὼ σοφώτερός εἰμι· κινδυνεύει μὲν γὰρ ἡμῶν οὐδέτερος οὐδὲν καλὸν κἀγαθὸν εἰδέναι, ἀλλ᾽ οὗτος μὲν οἴεταί τι εἰδέναι οὐκ εἰδώς, ἐγὼ δέ, ὥσπερ οὖν οὐκ οἶδα, οὐδὲ οἴομαι· ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι εἰδέναι.
I am wiser than this man, for neither of us appears to know anything great and good; but he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing; whereas I, as I do not know anything, so I do not fancy I do. In this trifling particular, then, I appear to be wiser than he, because I do not fancy I know what I do not know. Tolle's "stillness" interpretation proves Socrate's point. ("he fancies he knows something, although he knows nothing") Soc's statement follows the same form as the liar's paradox - it defines a recursive structure that isn't static, but rather, embodies an infinite loop. And there is an inherent irony in your conclusion. Stillness, silence, are the way out of the loop. Just like with your Zealand pendulum, not-knowing is a withdrawal of energy from the system of the mind, the system that generates ideas, opinions, and conclusions. It's like swimming near the bottom of a muddy lake. You have to stop paddling to let the murk settle, in order to see. No. You looked at it superficially, and biased by your beliefs. None of your observations is valid, including the recursive structure, which is the general poor interpretation of that quote in its context. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 25, 2021 16:22:53 GMT -5
Soc's statement follows the same form as the liar's paradox - it defines a recursive structure that isn't static, but rather, embodies an infinite loop. And there is an inherent irony in your conclusion. Stillness, silence, are the way out of the loop. Just like with your Zealand pendulum, not-knowing is a withdrawal of energy from the system of the mind, the system that generates ideas, opinions, and conclusions. It's like swimming near the bottom of a muddy lake. You have to stop paddling to let the murk settle, in order to see. No. You looked at it superficially, and biased by your beliefs. None of your observations is valid, including the recursive structure, which is the general poor interpretation of that quote in its context. Aw c'mon, you don't discern even a little irony in debating the Socs' quote? Not even a little? As far as the recursive structure, it's just as far as the intellect can go. Adyashanti put it best: Most people find the rational thought process takes them to an edge, and instead of stopping, they take a 90-degree right turn or left turn and start moving along the edge, thinking horizontally, pulling in more facts and experiences and memories. This is called a waste of time. The only use of thought that has power is a rational process that goes right to the edge of thought, and then stops. It lets something else deliver whatever needs to be delivered chap 3 para 18This is either recognized, or it isn't. So, if it is recognized, then, what capacity of mind is left? Is Soccs talking about learning something new? Is he talking about gaining something? Or was he pointing to an absence of knowledge? Your notion of "knowing something", is reading into what Tolle is saying, and is a straw man. My guess is Soccs would have had a really really good laugh at the notion of "infinite knowledge" as applied to his denial of knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Nov 25, 2021 16:38:59 GMT -5
No. You looked at it superficially, and biased by your beliefs. None of your observations is valid, including the recursive structure, which is the general poor interpretation of that quote in its context. Aw c'mon, you don't discern even a little irony in debating the Socs' quote? Not even a little? As far as the recursive structure, it's just as far as the intellect can go. Adyashanti put it best: Most people find the rational thought process takes them to an edge, and instead of stopping, they take a 90-degree right turn or left turn and start moving along the edge, thinking horizontally, pulling in more facts and experiences and memories. This is called a waste of time. The only use of thought that has power is a rational process that goes right to the edge of thought, and then stops. It lets something else deliver whatever needs to be delivered chap 3 para 18This is either recognized, or it isn't. So, if it is recognized, then, what capacity of mind is left? Is Soccs talking about learning something new? Is he talking about gaining something? Or was he pointing to an absence of knowledge? Your notion of "knowing something", is reading into what Tolle is saying, and is a straw man. My guess is Soccs would have had a really really good laugh at the notion of "infinite knowledge" as applied to his denial of knowledge. No. You're mistaken, again, on all the points you made. For you silencing your mind is a first necessary step. Why don't you try it ... instead of just talking about it? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 25, 2021 21:39:19 GMT -5
It is interesting to see how people try to force their perceptions to fit their beliefs ... "I know that I know nothing"It seems to me that Socrates meant neither to be, or appear to be modest, nor did he speak from stillness (a.k.a. "not knowing") as Tolle "discovered". It's been a while since I've last read Plato, but based on what I remember, I agree. Tolle is reading too much into Plato's Socrates. Tolle takes Socrates' 'not knowing' to mean 'a still mind', when in reality Plato's dialogs are probably just promoting a healthy skepticism. So, IMO, Tolle is attributing more depth to these dialogs than there actually is. We also have to keep the context of these dialogs in mind, they are talks with sophists, i.e. people with specialized, abstract knowledge, similar to our teachers today that teach a specific subject at school or college or university. So there isn't really much wisdom in terms of how to live a fulfilled life or knowing about the secrets of the universe or the ultimate truth to expect from these people in the first place. Nevertheless, what Tolle says about the value of a still mind is accurate, it's just not what Plato's Socrates taught. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 26, 2021 3:28:32 GMT -5
Aw c'mon, you don't discern even a little irony in debating the Socs' quote? Not even a little? As far as the recursive structure, it's just as far as the intellect can go. Adyashanti put it best: This is either recognized, or it isn't. So, if it is recognized, then, what capacity of mind is left? Is Soccs talking about learning something new? Is he talking about gaining something? Or was he pointing to an absence of knowledge? Your notion of "knowing something", is reading into what Tolle is saying, and is a straw man. My guess is Soccs would have had a really really good laugh at the notion of "infinite knowledge" as applied to his denial of knowledge. No. You're mistaken, again, on all the points you made. For you silencing your mind is a first necessary step. Why don't you try it ... instead of just talking about it? Because it's a means to an end that eventually becomes unnecessary. I'm simply meeting you on the ground that you've laid. .. and, wow, "you're wrong." Aces ..  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Apr 19, 2024 9:50:52 GMT -5
Bingo cherry! Spoken like a true Abrahamster. |
|
