|
Trust
Aug 31, 2020 11:56:43 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Aug 31, 2020 11:56:43 GMT -5
That's the difference, I "believe" I'm already what I seek. There's a claim of a difference between " believing" and "seeing/knowing." Exactly. I was going to write "exactly" but you beat me to it! haha.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 2:59:05 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 2:59:05 GMT -5
That's the difference, I "believe" I'm already what I seek. There's a claim of a difference between " believing" and "seeing/knowing." Exactly. In terms of total connection to Brahman, It matters not if there is no seeing/knowing, because it is already Brahman not seeing/knowing.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 3:18:00 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 3:18:00 GMT -5
If there is only Brahman, that includes 'you', so 'you' are already what you seek, and cannot become what you already are, so the search ends. That does not have to be realized, because it is already Brahman not realizing, so you will not become more Brahman by realizing:) Yes, you are already what you seek. But as a seeker you have no clue what that is. And so the search continues. If there is only Brahman, that includes 'you', so 'you' are already what you seek, and cannot become what you already are, so the search ends. That does not have to be realized, because it is already Brahman not realizing, so you will not become more Brahman by realizing:) Yes, you are already what you seek. But as a seeker you have no clue what that is. And so the search continues. The problem is always the same, it is not seeing that exclusions are not exclusions at all, but also Brahman manifest! In this case it is already Brahman having no clue, so moving from the state of having no clue to discovering does not increase connection to Brahman at all, because Brahman is already both and all states.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 6:28:32 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 1, 2020 6:28:32 GMT -5
In terms of total connection to Brahman, It matters not if there is no seeing/knowing, because it is already Brahman not seeing/knowing. Of course, but it makes a huge difference in the life of someone who realizes this versus one who only intellectually understands it.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 8:29:54 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 8:29:54 GMT -5
In terms of total connection to Brahman, It matters not if there is no seeing/knowing, because it is already Brahman not seeing/knowing. Of course, but it makes a huge difference in the life of someone who realizes this versus one who only intellectually understands it. Hi ZD, we already know that we see this differently as have been here before. For me the quality of anothers experience cannot be known. You feel conversation about experience is enough to know. For me that is no basis for deciding about differences in quality.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 8:55:00 GMT -5
Post by zendancer on Sept 1, 2020 8:55:00 GMT -5
Of course, but it makes a huge difference in the life of someone who realizes this versus one who only intellectually understands it. Hi ZD, we already know that we see this differently as have been here before. For me the quality of anothers experience cannot be known. You feel conversation about experience is enough to know. For me that is no basis for deciding about differences in quality. No, I don't think conversation about experience is enough to know, but I've met a lot of sages, talked to a lot of sages at length, and personally know a lot of sages, and it's obvious to me that they all share a similar way of life than is quite different from most adults. One thing is indisputable; after realization there is no more seeking. Prior to realization, even if there is total intellectual understanding, seeking continues because people either intuit that a state of psychological unity is possible, or they've met someone who has exhibited that unity. As Tolle writes in TPON on page 7, "People would occasionally come up to me and say, 'I want what you have. Can you give it to me or show me how to get it?' And I would say: 'You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." "Feeling it" makes all the difference. It's the difference between head knowledge and body knowledge. Embodiment is what people are seeking whether they know it or not.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 10:02:58 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 1, 2020 10:02:58 GMT -5
Sure, I can understand the irony in it. But it's a recurring theme in the cultures that present nonduality: "this is what I'm telling you, but you don't have to trust me. Verify it for yourself". Actually it was amusing that you quoted a guru (in support of not trusting gurus), not the guru's quote. uh-huh .. glad to be the source of your amusement then. This led me to reflect on how I used to orient to this term, "guru". It was part comical, part contemptuous. Already told you once I've never met one in person or think of nor ever thought of anyone that way. But I've come to a point where I can understand that there are a myriad of walks of life on this as any other issue. It's true that there are no shortage of guru horror stories - and, to further the irony that amuses you, I quoted Niz on that same sentiment just last month. Be that as it may, these days, I don't begrudge nor feel any sense of superiority over someone who may have found what they were looking for from a helping hand. I'm actually quite happy for them.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 10:19:30 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 10:19:30 GMT -5
Hi ZD, we already know that we see this differently as have been here before. For me the quality of anothers experience cannot be known. You feel conversation about experience is enough to know. For me that is no basis for deciding about differences in quality. No, I don't think conversation about experience is enough to know, but I've met a lot of sages, talked to a lot of sages at length, and personally know a lot of sages, and it's obvious to me that they all share a similar way of life than is quite different from most adults. One thing is indisputable; after realization there is no more seeking. Prior to realization, even if there is total intellectual understanding, seeking continues because people either intuit that a state of psychological unity is possible, or they've met someone who has exhibited that unity. As Tolle writes in TPON on page 7, "People would occasionally come up to me and say, 'I want what you have. Can you give it to me or show me how to get it?' And I would say: 'You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." "Feeling it" makes all the difference. It's the difference between head knowledge and body knowledge. Embodiment is what people are seeking whether they know it or not. Understood. That would still not be enough for me to decide on differences regarding quality of experience. Fortunately that does not affect the ability to trust that one is already what is sought.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 10:53:32 GMT -5
Post by zazeniac on Sept 1, 2020 10:53:32 GMT -5
No, I don't think conversation about experience is enough to know, but I've met a lot of sages, talked to a lot of sages at length, and personally know a lot of sages, and it's obvious to me that they all share a similar way of life than is quite different from most adults. One thing is indisputable; after realization there is no more seeking. Prior to realization, even if there is total intellectual understanding, seeking continues because people either intuit that a state of psychological unity is possible, or they've met someone who has exhibited that unity. As Tolle writes in TPON on page 7, "People would occasionally come up to me and say, 'I want what you have. Can you give it to me or show me how to get it?' And I would say: 'You have it already. You just can't feel it because your mind is making too much noise." "Feeling it" makes all the difference. It's the difference between head knowledge and body knowledge. Embodiment is what people are seeking whether they know it or not. Understood. That would still not be enough for me to decide on differences regarding quality of experience. Fortunately that does not affect the ability to trust that one is already what is sought. Ramana admonishes the seeker to reject all thoughts depicting a separate self by seeking their source. Would you say these thoughts are brahman and therefore Ramana advice unwarranted? He further postulates that it is this thinking pattern that mars our happiness, what we are. Do you disagree? I kind of understand what you are saying and it has it's appeal. If we accept/embrace everything, even the thoughts that engender separation as brahman then fundamentally we are at peace. Interesting perspective. Accept everything even your unhappiness. I like that.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 11:59:02 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 11:59:02 GMT -5
Understood. That would still not be enough for me to decide on differences regarding quality of experience. Fortunately that does not affect the ability to trust that one is already what is sought. Ramana admonishes the seeker to reject all thoughts depicting a separate self by seeking their source. Would you say these thoughts are brahman and therefore Ramana advice unwarranted? He further postulates that it is this thinking pattern that mars our happiness, what we are. Do you disagree? I kind of understand what you are saying and it has it's appeal. If we accept/embrace everything, even the thoughts that engender separation as brahman then fundamentally we are at peace. Interesting perspective. Accept everything even your unhappiness. I like that. The basis of the statement that all is Brahman, is that in the nonduality story Brahman (Or Oneness) is the only reality, so therfore of course, Brahman is both sides of all conflict and arguments, so Brahman is both Ramana and his view and the view of Neo Advaita, each the other and both Brahman manifest, dreaming difference where there is no difference whatsoever. So of course all is Brahman, including what is disliked, both abuser and abused.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 12:26:35 GMT -5
Post by zazeniac on Sept 1, 2020 12:26:35 GMT -5
Ramana admonishes the seeker to reject all thoughts depicting a separate self by seeking their source. Would you say these thoughts are brahman and therefore Ramana advice unwarranted? He further postulates that it is this thinking pattern that mars our happiness, what we are. Do you disagree? I kind of understand what you are saying and it has it's appeal. If we accept/embrace everything, even the thoughts that engender separation as brahman then fundamentally we are at peace. Interesting perspective. Accept everything even your unhappiness. I like that. The basis of the statement that all is Brahman, is that in the nonduality story Brahman (Or Oneness) is the only reality, so therfore of course, Brahman is both sides of all conflict and arguments, so Brahman is both Ramana and his view and the view of Neo Advaita, each the other and both Brahman manifest, dreaming difference where there is no difference whatsoever. So of course all is Brahman, including what is disliked, both abuser and abused. This is essentially what Ramana is saying, but in an interesting way, because when you accept the separating thought as Brahman you are rejecting the subject/object dichotomy and returning to source. But would you agree that living without this realization ever present is not preferable?
|
|
|
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 14:29:53 GMT -5
The basis of the statement that all is Brahman, is that in the nonduality story Brahman (Or Oneness) is the only reality, so therfore of course, Brahman is both sides of all conflict and arguments, so Brahman is both Ramana and his view and the view of Neo Advaita, each the other and both Brahman manifest, dreaming difference where there is no difference whatsoever. So of course all is Brahman, including what is disliked, both abuser and abused. This is essentially what Ramana is saying, but in an interesting way, because when you accept the separating thought as Brahman you are rejecting the subject/object dichotomy and returning to source. But would you agree that living without this realization ever present is not preferable? Once all without exception is included as Brahman manifest, then there is peace no matter what state the seeker may be in, for Brahman is all states, including not realizing. It is the inclusion of all states as Brahman manifest that brings that peace, the end of the search, and the end of feeling disconnected, for disconection is impossible, it is unconditional, whether embodied or conceptual, total connection cannot be avoided:)
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 17:31:16 GMT -5
Post by inavalan on Sept 1, 2020 17:31:16 GMT -5
Actually it was amusing that you quoted a guru (in support of not trusting gurus), not the guru's quote. uh-huh .. glad to be the source of your amusement then. This led me to reflect on how I used to orient to this term, "guru". It was part comical, part contemptuous. Already told you once I've never met one in person or think of nor ever thought of anyone that way. But I've come to a point where I can understand that there are a myriad of walks of life on this as any other issue. It's true that there are no shortage of guru horror stories - and, to further the irony that amuses you, I quoted Niz on that same sentiment just last month. Be that as it may, these days, I don't begrudge nor feel any sense of superiority over someone who may have found what they were looking for from a helping hand. I'm actually quite happy for them. I also, sometimes, quote others in support of my a-s-s-e-r-t-i-o-n-s (for whatever reason this editor didn't accept that word normally spelled ??), either because I feel that they said it better, or because I feel that the intended audience values more the quoted author's opinion than mine (e.g. quoting Seth on ideas I agree with). But, I think that on this forum quoting is used (actually: overused) more like a definitive yardstick, and to show the quoter's erudition (admiratively: there are very well read posters here). We all have our beliefs and people we're looking up to, but most concepts discussed here are arbitrated based on gurus and dogmas the poster put his faith in, sometimes as much that he really believes to have found the ultimate truth.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 1, 2020 23:33:09 GMT -5
Post by amit on Sept 1, 2020 23:33:09 GMT -5
This is essentially what Ramana is saying, but in an interesting way, because when you accept the separating thought as Brahman you are rejecting the subject/object dichotomy and returning to source. But would you agree that living without this realization ever present is not preferable? Once all without exception is included as Brahman manifest, then there is peace no matter what state the seeker may be in, for Brahman is all states, including not realizing. It is the inclusion of all states as Brahman manifest that brings that peace, the end of the search, and the end of feeling disconnected, for disconection is impossible, it is unconditional, whether embodied or conceptual, total connection cannot be avoided:){/quote] PS. Living without this realization IS Brahman living without this realization.
|
|
|
Trust
Sept 2, 2020 1:51:00 GMT -5
Post by laughter on Sept 2, 2020 1:51:00 GMT -5
uh-huh .. glad to be the source of your amusement then. This led me to reflect on how I used to orient to this term, "guru". It was part comical, part contemptuous. Already told you once I've never met one in person or think of nor ever thought of anyone that way. But I've come to a point where I can understand that there are a myriad of walks of life on this as any other issue. It's true that there are no shortage of guru horror stories - and, to further the irony that amuses you, I quoted Niz on that same sentiment just last month. Be that as it may, these days, I don't begrudge nor feel any sense of superiority over someone who may have found what they were looking for from a helping hand. I'm actually quite happy for them. I also, sometimes, quote others in support of my a-s-s-e-r-t-i-o-n-s (for whatever reason this editor didn't accept that word normally spelled ??), either because I feel that they said it better, or because I feel that the intended audience values more the quoted author's opinion than mine (e.g. quoting Seth on ideas I agree with). But, I think that on this forum quoting is used (actually: overused) more like a definitive yardstick, and to show the quoter's erudition (admiratively: there are very well read posters here). We all have our beliefs and people we're looking up to, but most concepts discussed here are arbitrated based on gurus and dogmas the poster put his faith in, sometimes as much that he really believes to have found the ultimate truth. It's really quite fascinating that you'd come to this conclusion given what myself and other's have written to you on the issue. I mean, the quote at the heart of this dialog now is advice to do the exact opposite, after all. And my perception of the quoting isn't so much that it's ego's preening, but rather, for the most part, a genuine shared interest. Yes, I wouldn't deny "looking up" to some, but rather than some sort of fawning or hero worship, it's more that I'm grateful for what they had to offer, and there's really noone here who advocates for abdicating inner authority. Some of what's written sounds like belief, but if anyone ever asked my advice for existential clues, the first thing I'd tell them is to put any and all beliefs at arms length.
|
|