|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 5, 2023 2:21:05 GMT -5
Weakening attachments is most of the ball game in the spiritual search. Attachments prop up the illusion of mind; seeking peace through concentration weakens them. But while the peace of concentration can be attained in different ways, there are special advantages to the progressive discernment methods of surrender and self-inquiry.
|
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2023 9:58:08 GMT -5
Weakening attachments is most of the ball game in the spiritual search. Attachments prop up the illusion of mind; seeking peace through concentration weakens them. But while the peace of concentration can be attained in different ways, there are special advantages to the progressive discernment methods of surrender and self-inquiry. Thanks for the video and being brave enough to share it. Could you explain what you mean by 'illusion of mind', 'peace of concentration', and 'method of surrender'? Curious. |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 6, 2023 11:12:31 GMT -5
Weakening attachments is most of the ball game in the spiritual search. Attachments prop up the illusion of mind; seeking peace through concentration weakens them. But while the peace of concentration can be attained in different ways, there are special advantages to the progressive discernment methods of surrender and self-inquiry. Thanks for the video and being brave enough to share it. Could you explain what you mean by 'illusion of mind', 'peace of concentration', and 'method of surrender'? Curious. Sure. In this context, illusion of mind is the illusion that one is the thinking, doing, experiencing, choice-making individual entity. The peace of concentration is the peace that attends the mind when it is concentrating on anything. The method of surrender is to continuously, vigilantly reflect on and recognize the thought-based, transient nature of all experiences and to refuse to take them as truth -- that is, to refuse to allow the attention to be hypnotized by them and to linger on them, and to refuse as well to use one's "willpower" on anything but this very practice. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 6, 2023 13:34:26 GMT -5
Thanks for the video and being brave enough to share it. Could you explain what you mean by 'illusion of mind', 'peace of concentration', and 'method of surrender'? Curious. Sure. In this context, illusion of mind is the illusion that one is the thinking, doing, experiencing, choice-making individual entity. The peace of concentration is the peace that attends the mind when it is concentrating on anything. The method of surrender is to continuously, vigilantly reflect on and recognize the thought-based, transient nature of all experiences and to refuse to take them as truth -- that is, to refuse to allow the attention to be hypnotized by them and to linger on them, and to refuse as well to use one's "willpower" on anything but this very practice. Thank you. So, would you say that the 'ultimate' surrender arises on its own (i.e., acausal)? |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 6, 2023 14:03:45 GMT -5
Sure. In this context, illusion of mind is the illusion that one is the thinking, doing, experiencing, choice-making individual entity. The peace of concentration is the peace that attends the mind when it is concentrating on anything. The method of surrender is to continuously, vigilantly reflect on and recognize the thought-based, transient nature of all experiences and to refuse to take them as truth -- that is, to refuse to allow the attention to be hypnotized by them and to linger on them, and to refuse as well to use one's "willpower" on anything but this very practice. Thank you. So, would you say that the 'ultimate' surrender arises on its own (i.e., acausal)? Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2023 20:02:15 GMT -5
Thank you. So, would you say that the 'ultimate' surrender arises on its own (i.e., acausal)? Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? |
|
|
|
Post by siftingtothetruth on Dec 6, 2023 21:59:07 GMT -5
Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Well, I’m not sure where you’ve found these Advaita dudes. Perhaps you’ve been scammed by fake ones, or by some ChatGPT pretender? First, none of us actual Advaita dudes say there’s no self. In fact, it’s a rather core premise that in fact there very much is self. Second, Advaita dudes in the know might tell you that there are multiple viewpoints used in the discourse, and in one of those viewpoints, the relative one, there is a soul which transmigrates. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 6, 2023 22:49:34 GMT -5
Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? These are basically modern neo-Advaita dudes, who are basically detached from the tradition, who don't-can't go deep enough to experience the subtle bodies (they even discount the existence of the higher dimensions). Niz was actually taught in that tradition, he kept notes and translated works into English from his own teacher. So some things are theoretical, until they aren't. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 7, 2023 6:54:40 GMT -5
Yes, ultimate surrender is acausal, an act of divine grace as it were. At the same time, I feel that it generally has necessary-but-not-sufficient conditions, mainly the quest of the person towards Truth -- a quest which may have taken place over not just this lifetime but previous ones as well. I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? Glad to see you posting here, and welcome. Have you realized this sense of 'no self, no person' spoken of, or are you mostly trying to connect the dots in an endeavor of logic chopping? All are welcome here, and it can be a wild ride. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 7, 2023 7:04:52 GMT -5
I thought you Advaita dudes said there was no self, no person. What is this thing that has "previous lifetimes"? These are basically modern neo-Advaita dudes, who are basically detached from the tradition, who don't-can't go deep enough to experience the subtle bodies (they even discount the existence of the higher dimensions). Niz was actually taught in that tradition, he kept notes and translated works into English from his own teacher. So some things are theoretical, until they aren't. Ah, this explains a little more about your rationality on depth. Noted. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2023 8:15:16 GMT -5
These are basically modern neo-Advaita dudes, who are basically detached from the tradition, who don't-can't go deep enough to experience the subtle bodies (they even discount the existence of the higher dimensions). Niz was actually taught in that tradition, he kept notes and translated works into English from his own teacher. So some things are theoretical, until they aren't. Ah, this explains a little more about your rationality on depth. Noted. I will always come back to this distinction, there are two ways to live your life, you can either live through the conditioning of which ego/cultural self consists, or you can live through a deeper order, from essence. Most people live from attachments, through the cultural self, and so we have the mess we see on earth, Gaza, Ukraine, the 3 killings yesterday UNLV. When you say no, there is only One Whole flow from All That Is, and everyone is in line with that flow, it can't be otherwise, you don't see deeply enough. Now, it's always available every moment, yes. But that's the individuation, it comes down to one individual at a time, can they break with the dominating cultural self? Jesus is still my dude. He had to speak within the language of his day and time. He said, I always and only do what my Father shows me to do. He did moment by moment what the uniting flow showed him to do. His adversary, the Pharisees were tied to the cultural flow, to be seen of men, to have power, influence, $$$'s (you can be sure they were getting a kick-back from the money changers attached to the Temple, if not running the racket outright). The Pharisees operated from the selfish dividing flow, the disrupting flow. Jesus preached and taught and lived the Uniting flow, encountering every day, individuals, day by day, moment by moment, inviting them to join the Natural flow, and showing them how. The teaching gets jumbled up over time, the wordiness. From reading some of the Philokalia, all of Volume One, which comes from the 4th century, you can surmise this comes from an oral teaching going back to Jesus. So you can combine that with the Gospels and surmise Jesus taught a practice he called watching. It's basically this very thread. In Gethsemani the disciples went to sleep. Jesus asked them, could you not watch with me (at least) one hour? This is the link. A lot of the time where watching is mentioned, it's about watching for the second coming. I think the real meaning got lost his, what Jesus taught. He taught this inner vigilance to watch the reactive cultural self/ego, the self he said we have to lose. This is specifically written about in the Philokalia Volume One. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 7, 2023 8:55:46 GMT -5
Ah, this explains a little more about your rationality on depth. Noted. I will always come back to this distinction, there are two ways to live your life, you can either live through the conditioning of which ego/cultural self consists, or you can live through a deeper order, from essence. Most people live from attachments, through the cultural self, and so we have the mess we see on earth, Gaza, Ukraine, the 3 killings yesterday UNLV. When you say no, there is only One Whole flow from All That Is, and everyone is in line with that flow, it can't be otherwise, you don't see deeply enough. Now, it's always available every moment, yes. But that's the individuation, it comes down to one individual at a time, can they break with the dominating cultural self? Jesus is still my dude. He had to speak within the language of his day and time. He said, I always and only do what my Father shows me to do. He did moment by moment what the uniting flow showed him to do. His adversary, the Pharisees were tied to the cultural flow, to be seen of men, to have power, influence, $$$'s (you can be sure they were getting a kick-back from the money changers attached to the Temple, if not running the racket outright). The Pharisees operated from the selfish dividing flow, the disrupting flow. Jesus preached and taught and lived the Uniting flow, encountering every day, individuals, day by day, moment by moment, inviting them to join the Natural flow, and showing them how. The teaching gets jumbled up over time, the wordiness. From reading some of the Philokalia, all of Volume One, which comes from the 4th century, you can surmise this comes from an oral teaching going back to Jesus. So you can combine that with the Gospels and surmise Jesus taught a practice he called watching. It's basically this very thread. In Gethsemani the disciples went to sleep. Jesus asked them, could you not watch with me (at least) one hour? This is the link. A lot of the time where watching is mentioned, it's about watching for the second coming. I think the real meaning got lost his, what Jesus taught. He taught this inner vigilance to watch the reactive cultural self/ego, the self he said we have to lose. This is specifically written about in the Philokalia Volume One. A search and skim found this. "‘Philokalia’ itself means love of the beautiful, the exalted, the excellent, understood as the transcendent source of life and the revelation of Truth. It is through such love that, as the subtitle of the original edition puts it, 'the intellect is purified, illumined and made perfect'. The texts were collected with a view to this purification, illumination and perfection. They show the way to awaken and develop attention and consciousness, to attain that state of watchfulness which is the hallmark of sanctity. They describe the conditions most effective for learning what their authors call the art of arts and the science of sciences, a learning which is not a matter of information or agility of mind but of a radical change of will and heart leading man towards the highest possibilities open to him, shaping and nourishing the unseen part of his being, and helping him to spiritual fulfillment and union with God. The Philokalia is an itinerary through the labyrinth of time, a silent way of love and gnosis through the deserts and emptinesses of life, especially of modern life, a vivifying and fadeless presence. It is an active force revealing a spiritual path and inducing man to follow it. It is a summons to him to overcome his ignorance, to uncover the knowledge that lies within, to rid himself of illusion, and to be receptive to the grace of the Holy Spirit who teaches all things and brings all things to remembrance." |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Dec 7, 2023 9:37:45 GMT -5
I will always come back to this distinction, there are two ways to live your life, you can either live through the conditioning of which ego/cultural self consists, or you can live through a deeper order, from essence. Most people live from attachments, through the cultural self, and so we have the mess we see on earth, Gaza, Ukraine, the 3 killings yesterday UNLV. When you say no, there is only One Whole flow from All That Is, and everyone is in line with that flow, it can't be otherwise, you don't see deeply enough. Now, it's always available every moment, yes. But that's the individuation, it comes down to one individual at a time, can they break with the dominating cultural self? Jesus is still my dude. He had to speak within the language of his day and time. He said, I always and only do what my Father shows me to do. He did moment by moment what the uniting flow showed him to do. His adversary, the Pharisees were tied to the cultural flow, to be seen of men, to have power, influence, $$$'s (you can be sure they were getting a kick-back from the money changers attached to the Temple, if not running the racket outright). The Pharisees operated from the selfish dividing flow, the disrupting flow. Jesus preached and taught and lived the Uniting flow, encountering every day, individuals, day by day, moment by moment, inviting them to join the Natural flow, and showing them how. The teaching gets jumbled up over time, the wordiness. From reading some of the Philokalia, all of Volume One, which comes from the 4th century, you can surmise this comes from an oral teaching going back to Jesus. So you can combine that with the Gospels and surmise Jesus taught a practice he called watching. It's basically this very thread. In Gethsemani the disciples went to sleep. Jesus asked them, could you not watch with me (at least) one hour? This is the link. A lot of the time where watching is mentioned, it's about watching for the second coming. I think the real meaning got lost his, what Jesus taught. He taught this inner vigilance to watch the reactive cultural self/ego, the self he said we have to lose. This is specifically written about in the Philokalia Volume One. A search and skim found this. "‘Philokalia’ itself means love of the beautiful, the exalted, the excellent, understood as the transcendent source of life and the revelation of Truth. It is through such love that, as the subtitle of the original edition puts it, 'the intellect is purified, illumined and made perfect'. The texts were collected with a view to this purification, illumination and perfection. They show the way to awaken and develop attention and consciousness, to attain that state of watchfulness which is the hallmark of sanctity. They describe the conditions most effective for learning what their authors call the art of arts and the science of sciences, a learning which is not a matter of information or agility of mind but of a radical change of will and heart leading man towards the highest possibilities open to him, shaping and nourishing the unseen part of his being, and helping him to spiritual fulfillment and union with God. The Philokalia is an itinerary through the labyrinth of time, a silent way of love and gnosis through the deserts and emptinesses of life, especially of modern life, a vivifying and fadeless presence. It is an active force revealing a spiritual path and inducing man to follow it. It is a summons to him to overcome his ignorance, to uncover the knowledge that lies within, to rid himself of illusion, and to be receptive to the grace of the Holy Spirit who teaches all things and brings all things to remembrance." Yes, that's quite beautiful. The words of the Philokalia get very close, it's like mining for gold. You have to sort through a lot of words to get to the gold. But it's still really only outer teaching. But I know it comes from a true source because the emphasis is always attention, (IOW) attending. That's why I surmised it was sourced from an oral teaching, all the way back to Jesus, of course he had the gold. The Philokalia was preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church, monasticism. Later in the five volumes we get to hesychasm, the basic spiritual practice of monasticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But they understood Nous, the deeper levels of the mind. This could also be an advertisement, virtually unchanged, for the Gurdjieff teaching. |
|
|
|
Post by someNOTHING! on Dec 7, 2023 10:10:15 GMT -5
A search and skim found this. "‘Philokalia’ itself means love of the beautiful, the exalted, the excellent, understood as the transcendent source of life and the revelation of Truth. It is through such love that, as the subtitle of the original edition puts it, 'the intellect is purified, illumined and made perfect'. The texts were collected with a view to this purification, illumination and perfection. They show the way to awaken and develop attention and consciousness, to attain that state of watchfulness which is the hallmark of sanctity. They describe the conditions most effective for learning what their authors call the art of arts and the science of sciences, a learning which is not a matter of information or agility of mind but of a radical change of will and heart leading man towards the highest possibilities open to him, shaping and nourishing the unseen part of his being, and helping him to spiritual fulfillment and union with God. The Philokalia is an itinerary through the labyrinth of time, a silent way of love and gnosis through the deserts and emptinesses of life, especially of modern life, a vivifying and fadeless presence. It is an active force revealing a spiritual path and inducing man to follow it. It is a summons to him to overcome his ignorance, to uncover the knowledge that lies within, to rid himself of illusion, and to be receptive to the grace of the Holy Spirit who teaches all things and brings all things to remembrance." Yes, that's quite beautiful. The words of the Philokalia get very close, it's like mining for gold. You have to sort through a lot of words to get to the gold. But it's still really only outer teaching. But I know it comes from a true source because the emphasis is always attention, (IOW) attending. That's why I surmised it was sourced from an oral teaching, all the way back to Jesus, of course he had the gold. The Philokalia was preserved by the Eastern Orthodox Church, monasticism. Later in the five volumes we get to hesychasm, the basic spiritual practice of monasticism of the Eastern Orthodox Church. But they understood Nous, the deeper levels of the mind. This could also be an advertisement, virtually unchanged, for the Gurdjieff teaching. The interesting thing is that you express and act like what is being discussed here (for the most part) or sometimes pointed to on the message is different. |
|
|
|
Post by zazeniac on Dec 7, 2023 10:45:08 GMT -5
Weakening attachments is most of the ball game in the spiritual search. Attachments prop up the illusion of mind; seeking peace through concentration weakens them. But while the peace of concentration can be attained in different ways, there are special advantages to the progressive discernment methods of surrender and self-inquiry. Exquisite. |
|
