|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 5:55:43 GMT -5
There are good flavors and bad flavors of thought, but all thoughts are like eating the menu, that's all thoughts are. But good and bad thoughts don't matter if you're on the Titanic. If thoughts create feeling, then thoughts aren't just menu. A loving thought creates a loving feeling, an appreciative thought that creates an appreciative feeling (and then a feeling can trigger another thought too). In this sense, thoughts would be the cooking process. Whether the plate of food tastes good or not, depends on how well it's cooked. Also nothing that has ever be created, has been created without imagination. I think there's a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater...thoughts are creative, and express energy. With that said, logically it's true that if one wants to know 'only Being', then in that moment, mind has to be 'destroyed'. But why is that the goal? I woke up early, knew I wasn't going back to sleep, was poking around. Earlier, I didn't answer you completely here. I'll answer partially, again, but come back to it. First, a clarification. Your 'being' is like all aspects, combined, the whole of you, kind of like an average. ~You~ are a continuum, so your being would be kind-of an overall average from end to end. But here you probably meant the question of the deepest aspect of one's being. I'm answering in two parts as I'm going to finish in a reply to laughter (his reply to your reply) so you won't get a notification. But this is why everyone has a different level of being. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 6:04:47 GMT -5
Dec 29, 2023 at 9:20am stardustpilgrim said: There are good flavors and bad flavors of thought, but all thoughts are like eating the menu, that's all thoughts are. But good and bad thoughts don't matter if you're on the Titanic. To which andrew replied: If thoughts create feeling, then thoughts aren't just menu. A loving thought creates a loving feeling, an appreciative thought that creates an appreciative feeling (and then a feeling can trigger another thought too). In this sense, thoughts would be the cooking process. Whether the plate of food tastes good or not, depends on how well it's cooked. Also nothing that has ever be created, has been created without imagination. I think there's a danger of throwing out the baby with the bathwater...thoughts are creative, and express energy. With that said, logically it's true that if one wants to know 'only Being', then in that moment, mind has to be 'destroyed'. But why is that the goal? You make a good point. But a counterpoint based on what I've read of 'dusty's interests is this : the process of one thought leading to another is a machine, it's all conditioning playing itself out. As Figs will tell you, "it's all, ultimately, empty". Pursuing the question "what is the source of thoughts and emotions?" is the crux of this. Satch', 'dusty, Tzu', and the maniac (as examples, but not only them), each write about ways and approaches of quieting the mind, which is the most auspicious state for such inquiry. From my experience, the most insight came from a pursuit of this question from a position of neutrality .. "there is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so". One the other side of that there can be a cognizance of what Christians refer to as "God's love", which is neither good, nor bad, but transcendent, ever present, unconditional, and the source of all inspiration, creativity, compassion and courage. And there's plenty of ways of expressing that without the Christian baggage. I've seen ZD write about it as "intelligence", and reefs sometimes touches on it when writing about LOA and vibration. This is in reply to both laughter and andrew (and ZD too, and sN, maybe particularly). I woke up early, knew I wasn't going back to sleep, was poking around. Earlier, I didn't answer you, andrew, completely here. I'll answer partially, again, but come back to it. First, a clarification. Your 'being' is like all aspects, combined, the whole of you, kind of like an average. ~You~ are a continuum, so your being would be kind-of an overall average from end to end. But here you probably meant the question of the deepest aspect of one's being. I'm answering in two parts as I'm going to finish in a reply to laughter (his reply to your reply) so you won't get a notification. But this is why everyone has a different level of being. Part 2 There's a lot to unfold here, but I'll try to stick to one point. But first, why does the conditioning matter? I will try to skip around the elephant in the room, and stick to my point. laughter has stated at least about 20 times in the last year, and probably going back, to sdp: " You are not a machine". Your level of being is ~you~, overall, so it's you not-the-machine + you as the machine, as stated above. This is why ~practice~ is important, alignment, purification. This is why to what extent conditioning plays a part in the happenings of one's life is important. A primary principle is: Your being attracts your life. This is why I needed to clarify, didn't give andrew the best answer previously. But your life is an expression of your being, your life is a mirror. Most people (not saying people here) don't know this, haven't a clue. Most people consider their exterior life as separate and independently 'objective', they just happen to find themselves in the midst of circumstances, haphazardly. But their level of being is like a magnet attracting life as- they-are. Life is almost like a game of chess, against a Grandmaster. For some people, life always defeats them. Why? It isn't just bad luck or even bad decisions, "your being attracts your life". So, how do you ~pull up your average~? (Change your level of being, how do you change your level of being?) I'm actually getting sidetracked, somewhat. How to answer laughter's " You are not a machine" (I have never replied to one of such statements). It's not enough to know the answer, it's not enough to know that you are not a machine, it's not a true or false question. It's like a complex math problem. You know, when the teacher doesn't care that you got the right answer. The teacher wants to *see your work*. The math teacher wants to see every step as to how you arrived at the even correct answer. So the real question is how do you know you are not a machine? And the real answer is not so easy to come by. But, yes, our level of being can change. Your level of being is basically your true self + your false self, your essence + your conditioning (conditioning-as-the-self-circuits, not conditioning as I know how to drive a straight-drive). So, to andrew, you don't want to destroy your mind, you want to eliminate the conditioning-as-the-false self, the self-[neural]-circuits. Then the mind can function betterer. Then the mind can express your essence, your true individuality (and not your illusory self). The self-circuits-as-conditioning, are an obstruction, a distraction. I don't want to just know the existential truth, sdp wants to manifest the existential truth, live-it. That's the razor's edge. That's to be impeccable, in all moments. The goal is whatever the goal is. Each individual has to pick their own aim. That's very important to know, it's really everything. Everything as in "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". You can't take a second step without taking the first step. The question is, does your aim emerge from your true self, or your false self? See how that matters? Of course, this is ~my~ view. But truth is truth. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 6:34:44 GMT -5
Scientifically-minded literalist folks are all the same, and can't appreciate the poetic expression of the 'godbuddha dreaming' simile/metaphor!  Yes, it's much easier, as a Zen master, to have authority, run a monastery maintaining a code of silence, tell people to go to the mat and don't come back until you're dead (metaphorically, in case you didn't get that! ), and smack them with a Zen stick when they can't prove it.  Living in Kyoto amongst all the beautiful, silent temples which I frequented, I get it. Indeed, there was something dreamy about them and the expression found in their poetry. I also understand why some people don't like, get or appreciate metaphors. Just mind stuff.  ******************************************************* "The place where the dream is expressed within a dream is the land and the assembly of buddha ancestors." "This is the dream expressed within a dream, prior to all dreams." "Every dewdrop manifested in every realm is a dream. This dream is the glowing clarity of the hundred grasses." "The expressing of the dream within a dream is all buddhas." "There are inner dreams, dream expressions, expressions of dreams, and dreams inside. Without being within a dream, there is no expression of dreams. Without expressing dreams, there is no being within a dream. .... Furthermore, going beyond the dharma body is itself expressing the dream within a dream." "The expression of the dream within a dream can be aroused by both ordinary people and sages. Moreover, the expression of the dream within a dream by both ordinary people and sages arose yesterday and develops today. Know that yesterday’s expression of the dream within a dream was the recognition of this expression as expressing the dream within a dream. The present expression of the dream within a dream is to experience right now this expression as expressing the dream within a dream. Indeed, this is the marvelous joy of meeting a buddha." ~ DogenExcerpts from Dogen Zenji’s Shobogenzo Muchu Setsumu (Within a Dream Expressing the Dream / 夢中説夢) ******************************************************* In this world of dreams, dozing off still more; and again speaking and dreaming of dreams. Just let it be. ~Ryokan ******************************************************* A star at dawn A bubble in a stream A flash of lightening in a summer’s cloud A flickering lamp A phantom and a dream So is this fleeting world ~from The Diamond Sutra******************************************************* Waking from a crazy dream, a dream that feels rich with meaning, one might be inclined to analyze. Thus books are sold, experts paid. Years later, the old dream returns, but now, penniless, one just washes his face, sips her tea, stretches and gets on with the day. ~ Kuei-shan (771–853) : Co-founder of the first of the Five Houses of Ch’an. According to one story, he was handpicked by master Pai-chang to start a monastery on Mt. Kuei, while according to another, he lived there for eight years with only wild monkeys for company before people got wind of his whereabouts and built a monastery for him. At the age of 83, after washing his face and rinsing his mouth, he took a seat and—so it is said—passed away with a smile. ****************************************************** I have no problem with the dream metaphor, and from my POV the past is quite dreamlike; the present, not so much. Right in the beginning there is dreaming this mountain Then there is no dreaming. no This No Mountain Here Just Dreaming. Just This Mountain + + + ‘‘Mind itself is Buddha’’—difficult to practice, but easy to explain ‘‘No mind, no Buddha’’—difficult to explain, but easy to practice. ~ Dogen |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 8:03:20 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. At the level of soul, English is not spoken, nor any conceptual language. We take physical birth because the only way to learn, really, is the school of hard knocks. And the organism is a [an al]chemical laboratory. People I am this Soul I Am something NOTHING THAT Realization I AM THAT Peep THIS someNOTHING |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 8:25:26 GMT -5
OK. I think it's fair to say you think it's all a farce, and everyone is just repeating nonsense ad nauseum. All Good, mate. It's easy enough to understand why. Following through tends to turn things inside out and back a bit, and it's not always fun. If you are interested and/or prefer to depersonalize the look a bit more, there's a history to the realization (at least as far as what has been written down), and many have said that it is actually the core of many of the great traditions. Some that realized what's pointed to have been revered, deified, crucified, or ex-communicated, depending on the prevailing culture of the time. Others have just gone on and lived quiet, peaceful lives with a sense of simply Knowing. I loves ya, mate. Well I am only going by what peeps say. I am sure there are peeps out there that make sense and their foundations support their premises. Even teachers can change their minds from book to book, some like Jeff Foster made a complete 180° turnaround. When I hear peeps realise the person is illusory or the world is a dream there isn't a realisation had to back that up. This kinda illustrates such teachings and knowings that are supposed to be True and not based upon beliefs for example and from this perspective are not 100% knowings or realisations. As Inavalan said, these should all reflect sameness if this is the case. It seems that where there can be common ground at times is if peeps recite from the same scriptures. What's pointed to has no foundation, so all premises fail. They must. Such teachings and knowings are not Truth, not 100% knowings or realizations in themselves. What's lived in/as the light of what's pointed to, welp, come SEE for your self, and speak your Peace. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jan 8, 2024 8:26:20 GMT -5
At the level of soul, English is not spoken, nor any conceptual language. We take physical birth because the only way to learn, really, is the school of hard knocks. And the organism is a [an al]chemical laboratory. People I am this Soul I Am something NOTHING THAT Realization I AM THAT Peep THIS someNOTHING Exactly, and I've always loved the SN moniker. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 8:33:02 GMT -5
Lemme guess, the mind is still enamored by the flow of time and becoming more. The hunger... I've posted this before (waaay back when), but here's a nice sampling of fictional prose for looking at Plotinus' play of Soul and Nous..... and SEEING 'those things'... objectively, and noticing what's absent them. ************************************************************************************************************ In the beginning, there was a river. The river became a road and the road branched out to the whole world. And because the road was once a river it was always hungry. In that land of beginnings, spirits mingled with the unborn. We could assume numerous forms. Many of us were birds. We knew no boundaries. There was much feasting, playing, and sorrowing. We feasted much because of the beautiful terrors of eternity. We played much because we were free. And we sorrowed much because there were always those amongst us who had just returned from the world of the Living. They had returned inconsolable for all the love they had left behind, all the suffering they hadn’t redeemed, all that they hadn’t understood, and for all that they had barely begun to learn before they were drawn back to the land of origins. There was not one amongst us who looked forward to being born. We disliked the rigours of existence, the unfulfilled longings, the enshrined injustices of the world, the labyrinths of love, the ignorance of parents, the fact of dying, and the amazing indifference of the Living in the midst of the simple beauties of the universe. We feared the heartlessness of human beings, all of whom are born blind, few of whom ever learn to SEE. ~ Ben Okri, THE FAMISHED ROAD Consciousness - river thought - road Step into the river consciously, be conscious of when it becomes a road, and notice the hunger born of it. Beautiful. Meditation and self-inquiry can be good tools for consciously exploring where the boundaries lie. None of what you write about denies the works in progress, after all. There are varying opinions about evolution among the "nondualists" here, but none of anyone who 'dusty or inavalan might consider a "nondualist" denies constant change .. they just .. put it into perspective. There is consensus, though, it seems to me, on the nature of objects. Bodidharma called this, his bones, and, after all, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Every someNOTHING is doing the best they can, fail as we might. 🤘  🤞 |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 9:06:01 GMT -5
The first few paragraphs (and maybe the conclusion) reads to me like a rendition of Plato’s forms theory: “We thus know about such things prior to any sense experience we have or could have about them. This knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori. ” Plato is an example of a rationalist. As such, it sounds to me like Gestalt Theory, as you’re alluding to often, can fall in the same dualism that a lot of Platonism devolved into, either while still alive or afterwards as folks studied him. Hell, even Plato himself had to make up chora/space to bring it all together (see Timaeus), but there’s a lot that I still do not know, I’m sure. It is said that even he was not clear on it, but was making a logical jump to open up a participatory space for exploring truth, which he was keen on. I'm cool with the participatory intention, to be fair, but to me, it is also indicative of mentation, and not so much as realization. I could be wrong and have only a limited reading/study on his philosophy in translations (good/bad) and via others’ interpretations. Plotinus, on the other hand, though he just saw his own philosophy as an extension of Platonism, seems to be more resolute in his The One and/or uses of flow via transcendence and emanation, ultimately in/as The One. To me, that’s a big difference (i.e., seems to point to a realization of sorts), and it was reported by his student that he has ‘gone into it’ (or something like that) at least 4 times that he (the student) could recall. I do not know wtf that is supposed to mean being that it was reported by another person, but that’s why I’d be interested in talking to Plotinus himself. In my own experience, discussions about distinguishing Nous and The One can be either overly direct and/or lost on those trying to understand. In discussing it with someone who can sense what's being pointed to, it wouldn't matter, because where there are agreements or disagreements on finer points would just be known to be mind stuff (like preferences or hashing out linguistic devices). I sense Baba Plotinus would recognize that with a decent poke session, based on what I presently understand him to mean in the synopsis of his expressions of/model for/pointing to The One (i.e., Truth). So, that brings us to your approach via gestalts. Your interpretations of Truth is that it must be many; whereas, I’d say one’s approach to (search for) Truth and ITS emanations may appear as many, but not Truth ITSELF. You are more involved with the gestalt stuff, so maybe you can help explore its potential value. I read through Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change to get a bit of a grasp of your preferred approach to these discussions. When I read it, I noticed certain spots that gave opportunities or openings for potential insights/realization, while at the same time, they could be clouded by the resistances mentioned. I'm curious about what aspects of the model can be useful, misunderstood, limited, etc and/or where you think it negates the potential for an ND perspective. You could even start a new thread where the discussion would be more consolidated. I’d be interested to hear your take on it, as well as others’ perspectives as a healthy discussion. Again, I'll try to get back on occasion, but may be sporadic. . I haven't read the books or the authors you mentioned, so I can't express any opinion on them. If you're interested, I could probably answer some specific questions about my take on those concepts. In my view, nondualistic models are not only distorted views of the wider reality, but they actually look in the opposite direction that we should do. On the other hand, recently reefs recommended a Wei Wu Wei booklet (45 pages). I started with the intention to read / browse it, knowing that my views are different, and having no expectation for the book to change them, as my current method of exploring reality doesn't include the understanding or adopting of others' views. The first chapter, that I quoted from earlier today to sdp, was about how to approach such an exploration, and it was in general in agreement with mine: leave aside all your beliefs and expectations. Unfortunately, WWW didn't apply his own recommendation in regard to nondualism, and to the masters he valued (Buddha, Maharishi, ...). Everybody has his limitations ... My understanding is that WWW formed his views from interpreting old dogmas, and with no intentional direct tapping of his own knowledge guidance while in altered states of consciousness. From the second chapter, I faced the dilemma of how to deal with the overwhelming discrepancy between his and my views. After the first few pages I made an attempt to focus more on what seemed to be in agreement, as the rest was getting tiring, and obviously distorted (even from an indulgent perspective). Pretty soon I dropped the book. After a few days, during one of my sessions with my inner guidance, I explored what to do about WWW's book. I got that either way I proceed (continue to read it, or drop it) isn't important. It doesn't matter what WWW wrote, or intended to say, but only what I intuitively interpret from what I read. This was like an aha!, but it was just a reminder of what I already knew about how to approach any text or event, after having forgotten it for a moment. I continued this way. Interestingly, the book started with a point I was in good agreement, went through the rest of it with considerations that I disagreed with, and ended with a consideration I got some good agreement (as I interpreted it) about the physical being the expression of the inner reality, and only that, even as WWW expressed it in other (distorted) terms, following a contorted reasoning. In summary, the book started from a correct basis (the approach), went through an erroneous biased reasoning process, and reached a correct conclusion (although incorrectly formalized). I'd say that, without being aware of that, WWW was actually guided by his inner guidance, in spite of his conscious efforts (erroneous reasoning and bias). I've only recently been re-exploring the Greeks with a deeper look. The idea of using the Plotinus model is not so much about it being the Truth per se, but more as a way to explore how we/some are coming to these discussions with respect to search-find-live in hopes that it might alleviate numerous pitfalls. Anyway, it also aligns with the Zen mountain-No mountain-Mountain, if given a few intuitive tweaks. I had assumed you were well-steeped in the gestalt theory (based on what you've shared), which is very interesting as a potential tool in discovery. So, I had hoped there would be the avenue for discussion with your deeper insights. I've only read bits and pieces of WWW. I'll see if I can find it sometime and give it a poke. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Jan 8, 2024 9:31:15 GMT -5
The first few paragraphs (and maybe the conclusion) reads to me like a rendition of Plato’s forms theory: “We thus know about such things prior to any sense experience we have or could have about them. This knowledge is called a priori. Any knowledge that relies on (that is, comes after or is posterior to) sense experience is called a posteriori. ” Plato is an example of a rationalist. As such, it sounds to me like Gestalt Theory, as you’re alluding to often, can fall in the same dualism that a lot of Platonism devolved into, either while still alive or afterwards as folks studied him. Hell, even Plato himself had to make up chora/space to bring it all together (see Timaeus), but there’s a lot that I still do not know, I’m sure. It is said that even he was not clear on it, but was making a logical jump to open up a participatory space for exploring truth, which he was keen on. I'm cool with the participatory intention, to be fair, but to me, it is also indicative of mentation, and not so much as realization. I could be wrong and have only a limited reading/study on his philosophy in translations (good/bad) and via others’ interpretations. Plotinus, on the other hand, though he just saw his own philosophy as an extension of Platonism, seems to be more resolute in his The One and/or uses of flow via transcendence and emanation, ultimately in/as The One. To me, that’s a big difference (i.e., seems to point to a realization of sorts), and it was reported by his student that he has ‘gone into it’ (or something like that) at least 4 times that he (the student) could recall. I do not know wtf that is supposed to mean being that it was reported by another person, but that’s why I’d be interested in talking to Plotinus himself. In my own experience, discussions about distinguishing Nous and The One can be either overly direct and/or lost on those trying to understand. In discussing it with someone who can sense what's being pointed to, it wouldn't matter, because where there are agreements or disagreements on finer points would just be known to be mind stuff (like preferences or hashing out linguistic devices). I sense Baba Plotinus would recognize that with a decent poke session, based on what I presently understand him to mean in the synopsis of his expressions of/model for/pointing to The One (i.e., Truth). So, that brings us to your approach via gestalts. Your interpretations of Truth is that it must be many; whereas, I’d say one’s approach to (search for) Truth and ITS emanations may appear as many, but not Truth ITSELF. You are more involved with the gestalt stuff, so maybe you can help explore its potential value. I read through Paradox: A Gestalt Theory of Change to get a bit of a grasp of your preferred approach to these discussions. When I read it, I noticed certain spots that gave opportunities or openings for potential insights/realization, while at the same time, they could be clouded by the resistances mentioned. I'm curious about what aspects of the model can be useful, misunderstood, limited, etc and/or where you think it negates the potential for an ND perspective. You could even start a new thread where the discussion would be more consolidated. I’d be interested to hear your take on it, as well as others’ perspectives as a healthy discussion. Again, I'll try to get back on occasion, but may be sporadic. The extreme brown bears roaming the trails around the peak of Mt. Second are not wrong after all. For as long as what is perceived is filtered through object-oriented mind, the existential truth of perception is obscured. Enter sasquatch and his nervy samadhi .. or consider the Ashtavakra Gita, for instance. Because there is no inner, and no outer, the same insights are available via a tantric approach such as ATA, or via what would seem to thinking mind to be the opposite: the falling away of the world. So, questioning the "truth" of perception is a fine starting point, but like any other approach can lead to an existential dead end, despite any relative, material insight that might be had along the way. I think some of the confusion at the crux is what are considered as 'objects' pre-post realization. After all, even post-re-cognition of NOTHING, there can be an attachment to the surge and memory of NOTHING, which can spur a lot of footloose ideas born of attachment to 'freedom'. I sometimes get the sense that, logically, Tenka could be pointing to such a potential phenomenon as part of 'doubting' and disdain for metaphors and/or lack of premises. S/He'll have to clarify such a stance, though. Interestingly, there is sometimes the phenomenon of 'the surge' prior to physical death of the body. It's a beautiful thing, in a way, if one considers it as 'clue-like' in a fractal dynamic. Even in discovering a relative freedom from the mind brings on a surge of sorts. What a drama. Gratitude for getting a ticket. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2024 10:38:11 GMT -5
None of what you write about denies the works in progress, after all. There are varying opinions about evolution among the "nondualists" here, but none of anyone who 'dusty or inavalan might consider a "nondualist" denies constant change .. they just .. put it into perspective. There is consensus, though, it seems to me, on the nature of objects. Bodidharma called this, his bones, and, after all, "form is emptiness, emptiness is form". Every someNOTHING is doing the best they can, fail as we might. 🤘 🤞 .. yes, no doubt! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jan 8, 2024 11:37:01 GMT -5
Dec 29, 2023 at 9:20am stardustpilgrim said: There are good flavors and bad flavors of thought, but all thoughts are like eating the menu, that's all thoughts are. But good and bad thoughts don't matter if you're on the Titanic. To which andrew replied: You make a good point. But a counterpoint based on what I've read of 'dusty's interests is this : the process of one thought leading to another is a machine, it's all conditioning playing itself out. As Figs will tell you, "it's all, ultimately, empty". Pursuing the question "what is the source of thoughts and emotions?" is the crux of this. Satch', 'dusty, Tzu', and the maniac (as examples, but not only them), each write about ways and approaches of quieting the mind, which is the most auspicious state for such inquiry. From my experience, the most insight came from a pursuit of this question from a position of neutrality .. "there is no good nor bad but that thinking makes it so". One the other side of that there can be a cognizance of what Christians refer to as "God's love", which is neither good, nor bad, but transcendent, ever present, unconditional, and the source of all inspiration, creativity, compassion and courage. And there's plenty of ways of expressing that without the Christian baggage. I've seen ZD write about it as "intelligence", and reefs sometimes touches on it when writing about LOA and vibration. This is in reply to both laughter and andrew (and ZD too, and sN, maybe particularly). I woke up early, knew I wasn't going back to sleep, was poking around. Earlier, I didn't answer you, andrew, completely here. I'll answer partially, again, but come back to it. First, a clarification. Your 'being' is like all aspects, combined, the whole of you, kind of like an average. ~You~ are a continuum, so your being would be kind-of an overall average from end to end. But here you probably meant the question of the deepest aspect of one's being. I'm answering in two parts as I'm going to finish in a reply to laughter (his reply to your reply) so you won't get a notification. But this is why everyone has a different level of being. Part 2 There's a lot to unfold here, but I'll try to stick to one point. But first, why does the conditioning matter? I will try to skip around the elephant in the room, and stick to my point. laughter has stated at least about 20 times in the last year, and probably going back, to sdp: " You are not a machine". Your level of being is ~you~, overall, so it's you not-the-machine + you as the machine, as stated above. This is why ~practice~ is important, alignment, purification. This is why to what extent conditioning plays a part in the happenings of one's life is important. A primary principle is: Your being attracts your life. This is why I needed to clarify, didn't give andrew the best answer previously. But your life is an expression of your being, your life is a mirror. Most people (not saying people here) don't know this, haven't a clue. Most people consider their exterior life as separate and independently 'objective', they just happen to find themselves in the midst of circumstances, haphazardly. But their level of being is like a magnet attracting life as- they-are. Life is almost like a game of chess, against a Grandmaster. For some people, life always defeats them. Why? It isn't just bad luck or even bad decisions, "your being attracts your life". So, how do you ~pull up your average~? (Change your level of being, how do you change your level of being?) I'm actually getting sidetracked, somewhat. How to answer laughter's " You are not a machine" (I have never replied to one of such statements). It's not enough to know the answer, it's not enough to know that you are not a machine, it's not a true or false question. It's like a complex math problem. You know, when the teacher doesn't care that you got the right answer. The teacher wants to *see your work*. The math teacher wants to see every step as to how you arrived at the even correct answer. So the real question is how do you know you are not a machine? And the real answer is not so easy to come by. But, yes, our level of being can change. Your level of being is basically your true self + your false self, your essence + your conditioning (conditioning-as-the-self-circuits, not conditioning as I know how to drive a straight-drive). So, to andrew, you don't want to destroy your mind, you want to eliminate the conditioning-as-the-false self, the self-[neural]-circuits. Then the mind can function betterer. Then the mind can express your essence, your true individuality (and not your illusory self). The self-circuits-as-conditioning, are an obstruction, a distraction. I don't want to just know the existential truth, sdp wants to manifest the existential truth, live-it. That's the razor's edge. That's to be impeccable, in all moments. The goal is whatever the goal is. Each individual has to pick their own aim. That's very important to know, it's really everything. Everything as in "A journey of a thousand miles begins with one step". You can't take a second step without taking the first step. The question is, does your aim emerge from your true self, or your false self? See how that matters? Of course, this is ~my~ view. But truth is truth. Purification is a thing, people do it, that's cool, I understand why. If you want to think of seeking in terms of a math problem, then style it along the lines of those that start with "simply the following equation:" ... |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 8, 2024 11:57:44 GMT -5
Cheers Pilgrim. I did hear that he was taught from his teacher and his teacher was taught also I dare say. Lots of teachers were taught and many read the same scriptures. Is there any original thought or are we simply reciting what someone else said and where did this someone else get their understandings from. Is it just a copy cat scenario or what? Not blowing my own trumpet butt I haven't studied anyone. I have listened to my mum but she she was an advocate of finding it all for myself. Which I did. . It looks like Niz streamlined it even further. Okay Dokey .. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Jan 8, 2024 11:58:35 GMT -5
I will say it again ... This is why I said it doesn't really matter what it is you say because whatever it is will reflect upon what you believe of yourself to be that is existing.I am not mistaking any statement. The fact that you believe anything that relates to what you are, reflects an existential belief. The fact that you make a statement referring to other's that write about their beliefs reflects in your existential belief that what you are can read in reflection of other's that can write. You can respectfully believe all day long that you don't have any specific existential beliefs butt you do. It doesn't matter to me if you say you don't have any, for what you say in my book reflects that you do. You believe that what you are that exists can read. Correct? That is an existential belief.Soz mate, butt I ain't budging on this  . Yeah, well, neither am I.  A statement that something is absent is not a statement of a presence of something that is absent.  The source of that convoluted statement is your mistaking my statement of an absence for a statement of belief. At that point, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or perpetuate silliness. You're playing with the word " exists". The existential truth is ineffable. We can point to it with the idea that all there is is what we are. In the existential context no thing has an independent existence in and of it's own. By metaphor: just like the light of the Moon is dependent upon the Sun, the "existence" of the "me" that can read is only a borrowed reflection of the ineffable infinite that is not two. You might not agree with that, but it is a pointing to the existential truth. To you it sounds like a belief, but what I'm pointing to is an absence of a thing that you seem to believe is very much present. That's fine, I've got no interest in changing your mind.
Now, you can go so far as to say that my expression of the metaphor involves the belief that I find the metaphor apt, and that's an argument not really worth having, and I've already conceded that point. But this is my mind, and I tell you what you think is in here, is not.
A statement that refers to an absence of something refers that something to be absent. How can one refer to something that is absent without first relating to it? To suggest that existential beliefs are ineffable reflects a belief in one’s self existence as being that. Mentioning that what you are that exists believes in other’s that can write isn’t a play of words. What you are exists yer? What you conclude that is or entails to any degree will be a belief based upon that which is said to be true. If you have a completely different notion of what an existential belief is then let me know. Another factor to take into consideration that existential beliefs are conceptual through understanding what the meanings mean to you. Another existential belief reflecting that what you are can associate and assimulate meaning to what that is. So we have an existential belief in what you are that can attribute meaning to concepts to then either refute them or describe them as ineffable. If something is ineffable then it is that, but one has to understand what that means in reflection of a belief in oneself. That is an existential belief. If everything that points to THAT and is not hitting the mark and everything should be burnt I don't understand how you can hold a stance like you do. Burn the meaning of what existential beliefs mean to you. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jan 8, 2024 13:08:58 GMT -5
Yeah, well, neither am I. A statement that something is absent is not a statement of a presence of something that is absent. The source of that convoluted statement is your mistaking my statement of an absence for a statement of belief. At that point, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or perpetuate silliness. You're playing with the word " exists". The existential truth is ineffable. We can point to it with the idea that all there is is what we are. In the existential context no thing has an independent existence in and of it's own. By metaphor: just like the light of the Moon is dependent upon the Sun, the "existence" of the "me" that can read is only a borrowed reflection of the ineffable infinite that is not two. You might not agree with that, but it is a pointing to the existential truth. To you it sounds like a belief, but what I'm pointing to is an absence of a thing that you seem to believe is very much present. That's fine, I've got no interest in changing your mind. Now, you can go so far as to say that my expression of the metaphor involves the belief that I find the metaphor apt, and that's an argument not really worth having, and I've already conceded that point. But this is my mind, and I tell you what you think is in here, is not.
A statement that refers to an absence of something refers that something to be absent. How can one refer to something that is absent without first relating to it? To suggest that existential beliefs are ineffable reflects a belief in one’s self existence as being that. Mentioning that what you are that exists believes in other’s that can write isn’t a play of words. What you are exists yer? What you conclude that is or entails to any degree will be a belief based upon that which is said to be true. If you have a completely different notion of what an existential belief is then let me know. Another factor to take into consideration that existential beliefs are conceptual through understanding what the meanings mean to you. Another existential belief reflecting that what you are can associate and assimulate meaning to what that is. So we have an existential belief in what you are that can attribute meaning to concepts to then either refute them or describe them as ineffable. If something is ineffable then it is that, but one has to understand what that means in reflection of a belief in oneself. That is an existential belief. If everything that points to THAT and is not hitting the mark and everything should be burnt I don't understand how you can hold a stance like you do. Burn the meaning of what existential beliefs mean to you. and belief are two words that just don't go together. Do you believe that 2 + 2 = 4? |
|
|
|
Post by sharon on Jan 8, 2024 14:47:52 GMT -5
.. What you are that is not being confined to the mind-body doesn't make what you are that comprises of the mind-body any less 'what you are'. You are correct in that what you are will still be present after the physical experience ends, but one will have an etheric body, living in an etheric environment so although there is change, there is a constant. You will still have an individual experience. You will still have a personality that reflects your previous life and that can change when awareness comes to the fore that will bring further understanding of what you are. There is still a self reference. You see this is why it helps to have a different perspective other than comparing the physical experience with beyond mind. How many worlds and planes of existence are there? I don't know, How many mind-bodies can one experience? A causal body, an etheric body - How many more? I don't know. I don't hear any Non dualist speak along such lines because it isn't in their vocabulary. I haven't a clue from what I have read on forums such as these if such peeps vanish into a puff of non dual smoke and merge with the ocean. Just for the record, Niz was taught all this from his teacher, he wrote a book from his teacher's teaching that covers all this territory, your posts today. I haven't read it, I don't have it, but it's 'on my list'. Here. (The price never comes down, which is unusual on Amazon. I was wrong, the new 2023 edition is $19.99, five dollars cheaper, must be a print-on-demand version). Master of Self-Realization - International Edition: An Ultimate Understanding Paperback – July 25, 2023 by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj (Author) In this book is a collection of 130 talks that were given by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, guru of Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj and Shri Ranjit Maharaj. The talks in this book were recorded and edited by Nisargadatta Maharaj and were originally published by him in two volumes in the Marathi language under the name of "Adhyatma Jnanacha Yogeshwar" in the years 1960 and 1961. The text was reprinted in the year 2000 at the insistence of Shri Ranjit Maharaj. Afterwards it was translated into English for this book, truly a modern day spiritual classic in its own right. Also included within the covers of this book is the text "Master Key to Self-Realization" which was authored by Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj in the form of a methodical explanation of many fundamental principles of Advaita Vedanta and Self-Realization. The teaching found here helps the aspirant to form a solid foundation for understanding the fundamental principles of non-duality and in realizing one's True Nature. Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj was the disciple of Shri Bhauseheb Maharaj who mainly taught the path of Meditation as a means to realization. During his spiritual practice, Siddharameshwar Maharaj spent much of his time practicing meditation and reflecting on the teachings of great Saints such as Shri Samartha Ramdas, a renowned Maharashtran Saint of the 17th century (author of Dasbodh and Manache Shlok), as well as the teachings of Adi Shankaracharya, Valmiki and Vasisthta, and other great Saints such as Kabir, Tukaram, Eknath, (author of Eknathi Bhagwat), and others. After the passing away of his master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj in the year 1914, Siddharameshwar Maharaj continued meditating on the teachings of his Master. In 1918, he renounced the world and joined four of his brother disciples to popularize his Master's teachings. In the year 1920 when he was on the tour of popularizing his Master's teachings, he got the idea that one could go beyond the path of many years of long meditation as a means for realization and that meditation is an initial stage to attain Final Reality. His brother disciples disagreed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj, saying that their master, Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj has not told them this. He agreed with them, but stated, "Okay! Can one not go beyond that?" He left his co-disciples and returned to his home in Bijapur. While in Bijapur he meditated for nine months continuously without a break. Since his Master had taught him only meditation, he had no other means to find out the way to attain the Final Reality without long arduous meditation. He said, "I will attain the Final Reality even at the cost of my life." By the grace of his Master Shri Bhausaheb Maharaj he attained the realization of Final Reality. From that time on he taught "The Bird's Way" instead of the path of meditation. Now we are blessed with Shri Siddharameshwar Maharaj's precious teaching on the Bird's Way. |
|
Living in Kyoto amongst all the beautiful, silent temples which I frequented, I get it. Indeed, there was something dreamy about them and the expression found in their poetry.
🤞
.
The source of that convoluted statement is your mistaking my statement of an absence for a statement of belief. At that point, we'll just have to either agree to disagree or perpetuate silliness.