|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 7, 2022 12:29:44 GMT -5
I've had one view for 45 years. But yes I've been a sorry student. I wouldn't post here in disagreement with that > view<. Attention and/or awareness is the way. No thinking, feelings/emotions, bodily actions or sensations, that is, no doing (which actually aren't doing, these merely happen) by the "boatman" leads anywhere. Thanks for your revealing reply.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 8, 2022 7:18:09 GMT -5
I've had one view for 45 years. But yes I've been a sorry student. I wouldn't post here in disagreement with that > view<. Attention and/or awareness is the way. No thinking, feelings/emotions, bodily actions or sensations, that is, no doing (which actually aren't doing, these merely happen) by the "boatman" leads anywhere. You think you are free of suffering? You think you are free of self? You're following me around ST's trying to make me wrong. ~" Who"~ is following me around continually trying to make me wrong? I am obviously out of step with most here, I've pointed that out myself numerous times. A compulsion to reply to me is not freedom. And here you are breaking Reefs rules he set up 5 years ago. What are you feeling right now reading this? That's you, that's laughter. I don't care that you try to make me wrong in other people's eyes here, it comes with the territory. But trust me, you can't make me wrong in my own eyes, which it seems you are attempting.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 8, 2022 7:25:11 GMT -5
You think you are free of suffering? You think you are free of self? You're following me around ST's trying to make me wrong. ~" Who"~ is following me around continually trying to make me wrong? I am obviously out of step with most here, I've pointed that out myself numerous times. A compulsion to reply to me is not freedom. And here you are breaking Reefs rules he set up 5 years ago. What are you feeling right now reading this? That's you, that's laughter. I don't care that you try to make me wrong in other people's eyes here, it comes with the territory. But trust me, you can't make me wrong in my own eyes, which it seems you are attempting. Gopal likes the post twice.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 8, 2022 9:19:16 GMT -5
You think you are free of suffering? You think you are free of self? You're following me around ST's trying to make me wrong. ~" Who"~ is following me around continually trying to make me wrong? I am obviously out of step with most here, I've pointed that out myself numerous times. A compulsion to reply to me is not freedom. And here you are breaking Reefs rules he set up 5 years ago. What are you feeling right now reading this? That's you, that's laughter. I don't care that you try to make me wrong in other people's eyes here, it comes with the territory. But trust me, you can't make me wrong in my own eyes, which it seems you are attempting. Well, the only thing that interested me in what you wrote was this. Did you know that you can follow the links in any dialog backward in a line, by clicking on the post quoted? I was curious about your perception here, so I did that. This particular sub-thread of dialog between us starts here. Are you present enough to discern who initiated this particular dialog between us? Was it you, or me?
|
|
|
Post by maxdprophet on Sept 8, 2022 15:08:32 GMT -5
PBS included it in a documentary a few years back so it has to be true. That story is also included in at least two books about the life of the Buddha, but it's been more than 30 years since I read them, and I no longer keep those books in my library. Someone interested in the details can probably find them with a bit of searching. I just went down that rabbit hole and found out that when Venus (the Morning Star) rose that day, Siddhartha Guatama (49 y.o.) was no longer and Buddha was there. Also, both Jesus and Lucifer are referred to as the Morning Star in the Bible. Get to it, seekers! Train thine eyes on the one true star; erm... planet.
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 9, 2022 5:47:16 GMT -5
You think you are free of suffering? You think you are free of self? You're following me around ST's trying to make me wrong. ~" Who"~ is following me around continually trying to make me wrong? I am obviously out of step with most here, I've pointed that out myself numerous times. A compulsion to reply to me is not freedom. And here you are breaking Reefs rules he set up 5 years ago. What are you feeling right now reading this? That's you, that's laughter. I don't care that you try to make me wrong in other people's eyes here, it comes with the territory. But trust me, you can't make me wrong in my own eyes, which it seems you are attempting. Well, the only thing that interested me in what you wrote was this. Did you know that you can follow the links in any dialog backward in a line, by clicking on the post quoted? I was curious about your perception here, so I did that. This particular sub-thread of dialog between us starts here. Are you present enough to discern who initiated this particular dialog between us? Was it you, or me? Who cares where it started? Where did it go to and where did it end? (No reply necessary). I don't need to follow a thread back to see where it started. It's usually pretty clear.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2022 5:55:49 GMT -5
Well, the only thing that interested me in what you wrote was this. Did you know that you can follow the links in any dialog backward in a line, by clicking on the post quoted? I was curious about your perception here, so I did that. This particular sub-thread of dialog between us starts here. Are you present enough to discern who initiated this particular dialog between us? Was it you, or me? Who cares where it started? Where did it go to and where did it end? (No reply necessary). I don't need to follow a thread back to see where it started. It's usually pretty clear. For Laughter, It is all important, who started, at what point in time fight or confusion started, who is wrong and who is right, you said, I did not say. All these are important for him. He backs up with links for everything.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2022 11:58:16 GMT -5
Well, the only thing that interested me in what you wrote was this. Did you know that you can follow the links in any dialog backward in a line, by clicking on the post quoted? I was curious about your perception here, so I did that. This particular sub-thread of dialog between us starts here. Are you present enough to discern who initiated this particular dialog between us? Was it you, or me? Who cares where it started? Where did it go to and where did it end? (No reply necessary). I don't need to follow a thread back to see where it started. It's usually pretty clear. Your words that I was "following you around" and about a "compulsion to reply to you" imply that I was the one that initiated the dialog with you. It was the exact opposite. In addition, you wrote this after I didn't reply to this. You are unconsciously projecting.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 9, 2022 11:59:07 GMT -5
Who cares where it started? Where did it go to and where did it end? (No reply necessary). I don't need to follow a thread back to see where it started. It's usually pretty clear. For Laughter, It is all important, who started, at what point in time fight or confusion started, who is wrong and who is right, you said, I did not say. All these are important for him. He backs up with links for everything. If someone paints a picture then yes, I become a rather harsh art critic, no doubt.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 9, 2022 23:41:04 GMT -5
That's not even close to Ramana's Who am I? Carl's answer is to "why am I here? : so that the Universe may know itself". Of course it's an answer to "Who am I?". To Carl, the answer was that who he is, is to be here so that the Universe may know itself. The existential question comes in a myriad of forms, but it's always the same question at core. Carl Sagan's question has nothing to do with Atma Vichara (self-inquiry). The question "who am I" is not a question that is seeking an intellectual answer. Ramana used the question as a way of turning attention back to its source which is awareness. Sagan is looking for an answer to that question which contains some kind of meaning or purpose and therefore satisfies the mind. The purpose of Ramana's self-inquiry is the complete opposite which is to destroy/transcend the mind.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 10, 2022 2:18:10 GMT -5
Carl's answer is to "why am I here? : so that the Universe may know itself". Of course it's an answer to "Who am I?". To Carl, the answer was that who he is, is to be here so that the Universe may know itself. The existential question comes in a myriad of forms, but it's always the same question at core. Carl Sagan's question has nothing to do with Atma Vichara (self-inquiry). The question "who am I" is not a question that is seeking an intellectual answer. Ramana used the question as a way of turning attention back to its source which is awareness. Sagan is looking for an answer to that question which contains some kind of meaning or purpose and therefore satisfies the mind. The purpose of Ramana's self-inquiry is the complete opposite which is to destroy/transcend the mind. Yes, his answer is intellectual, although I wouldn't dismiss it as superficially abstract. Depending on the individual there can be a very deep pathos underneath it. And I don't disagree that turning attention inward rather than outward is a different way of inquiry, no doubt. Also, of course you are right when you say that Carl's answer is a satisfaction to mind, where Ramana is pointing away from mind. I didn't say that Carl's answer was where anyone should land, just that it was his answer.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 19, 2022 12:49:12 GMT -5
If the idea that we are 'human beings living on planet earth' is a rational thought (and I agree it is), what are you in the absence of that rational thought? Are you a 'window of perception'? Are you 'formless energy'? I very much like the wording I bolded. I'll afford myself the luxury of one more question on that though....when you speak of 'bodily needs', are you saying that you believe there is a 'physicality' of sorts? We do perceive ourselves as human beings living on planet earth. This is a fact and neither an idea nor a rational thought. Our perception is informed by science. I understand how perception works and am able to dissemble the science and live in freedom of that fact. This is real liberation from being an entity (i.e. human being). The truth sets one free. One has to figure it out rationally. Not meditation. And that figuring out can be explained logically to anyone willing to examine the reasoning.
Formless energy is an idea of freedom from being a human being. I am not formless energy. I am just not a discrete human form. There is no need to become a human being or a person even if there is a need to get into role and identify as such in conventional circumstances.
Attending to bodily needs is an imperative. They are what they are. Knowledge about them has been acquired and we must attend to those needs accordingly. They are central to the mystery of life. Physicality is a concept of science. How can you be certain that going deeply into the stillness of your own being isn't necessary?
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Sept 19, 2022 19:20:48 GMT -5
In Buddhist ontology rationality is important, but they have 3 aspects to 'knowing'.
1) You hear the 'teaching' and simply know what is said 2) You analyse to see if it's reasonable, rational, logical, makes sense, rings true and has no glaring contradictions etc. 3) If it seems rational, you follow through and investigate meditatively to find out for yourself the way in which it is true.
The reason is, instead of being the kinda fool that can be led down the garden path, your rational mind gives you the self-determination to discern, and thereby find motivatation led by your own intellectual understanding rather than following along with hope in blind faith.
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 19, 2022 21:48:42 GMT -5
In Buddhist ontology rationality is important, but they have 3 aspects to 'knowing'. 1) You hear the 'teaching' and simply know what is said 2) You analyse to see if it's reasonable, rational, logical, makes sense, rings true and has no glaring contradictions etc. 3) If it seems rational, you follow through and investigate meditatively to find out for yourself the way in which it is true. The reason is, instead of being the kinda fool that can be led down the garden path, your rational mind gives you the self-determination to discern, and thereby find motivatation led by your own intellectual understanding rather than following along with hope in blind faith. But that assumes doership on the level of the individual and that the individual can practice his/her way to enlightenment or liberation. Which means that would be the unenlightened view on enlightenment, i.e. the 'garden path'.
|
|
|
Post by sree on Sept 19, 2022 21:52:19 GMT -5
We do perceive ourselves as human beings living on planet earth. This is a fact and neither an idea nor a rational thought. Our perception is informed by science. I understand how perception works and am able to dissemble the science and live in freedom of that fact. This is real liberation from being an entity (i.e. human being). The truth sets one free. One has to figure it out rationally. Not meditation. And that figuring out can be explained logically to anyone willing to examine the reasoning.
Formless energy is an idea of freedom from being a human being. I am not formless energy. I am just not a discrete human form. There is no need to become a human being or a person even if there is a need to get into role and identify as such in conventional circumstances.
Attending to bodily needs is an imperative. They are what they are. Knowledge about them has been acquired and we must attend to those needs accordingly. They are central to the mystery of life. Physicality is a concept of science. How can you be certain that going deeply into the stillness of your own being isn't necessary? You impress me, abscissa. I thought this post had sailed over the lot of you folks here. I am not sure if you had gotten the message even though I had spelled it out directly in plain English.
Life is a mystery. I don't think I can ever figure it out. But bs spirituality and science can be taken apart and seen for what they are.
Reason is the only tool at our disposal to cut through the illusion of fuzzy perception. And you can do it bit by bit as you would diligently untangle a tangled up string of knots.
|
|