|
|
Post by laughter on Mar 12, 2024 11:29:08 GMT -5
Yes, the limits of Advaita / Christ are evident in the need for grace and the current state of the common mind. All the fun I had with andy years ago arguing both sides from the positionless position notwithstanding, that is.  Another pointer that demonstrates the limits of context is "kill the Buddha". Intellect gets a bad wrap, but mind can recognize the limits of intellect, using intellect. Interesting connection.  |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:38:17 GMT -5
.. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic. This is, I think, what SDP always insisted on, that there is a further after SR, that SR is not the end of the road. And that is correct in the sense that there is an integration period into normal everyday life post-SR. But it is not correct in the sense of having realized one's true nature, or the ultimate truth. Once you've realized Self, you've realized Self, you've passed thru the gateless gate. .. If one has an understanding of SR is the beingness of what you are beyond mind and self then integration is inevitable once returned within awareness of it. I don't think there would be much resitence regarding Once you've realized Self, you've realized Self for that is a given, it's more to the fact that because there is always a change in perception and feeling when experiencing the self and the mindful world, alignment is still part of the parcel regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:42:16 GMT -5
.. It's all about returning within awareness of the self and the mind which then can muddy the waters. For some as discussed by many the state of oneself for use of a better word can change like the weather in regards to mental and emotional irritation or whatever but it doesn't change a thing about what you fundamentally are. It can be argued that realising that or just being that is S.R. but where there is a change in oneself in regards to how one feels or perceives the world day by day peeps can still transform and align. It doesn't matter if one has realised what they are for at times even the masters become subjected to life as we know it which can still push their buttons. For myself I meditate daily to realign, I don't know about other's butt I don't live in a monastery, my daily life is kinda hectic. So, if the topic is realization, we can talk about SR as the end point. If the topic is living in the world, we have to talk about a further, the other half of the circle. .. I agree, butt from what I witness in regards to S.R. convo's it more to do with how one relates to the world post-realisation and what that entails when speaking about what is perceived, or whom or what is the perceiver, or the non doer or what the reality reflects etc. |
|
|
|
Post by tenka on Mar 16, 2024 14:46:15 GMT -5
I suppose it boils down to what one believes a person constitutes. If you look at the bog standard dictionary definition a person is a human being regarded as an individual. If one identifies a person as a SVP this leads one to believe there is no doer because the person is illusory. Many I dare say will say the same about the individual. There are no individuals because that reflects separation too. Therefore there is no individual doer either. There is no individual soul, no individualised spirit etc etc. Well, for starters, the P in SVP does not refer to a person in the dictionary sense. You should have noticed that by now. Individual perspective implies distinction, but not separation. Personal perspective, however, does always imply distinction and separation. This perhaps is part of the problemo. Peeps have different ideas of what certain key references mean and refer too. This again reflects individuality more than anything realised. These key points of understandings had it seems shape what one has supposedly realised. As said often, if you think the person relates to a separate entity of sorts that is illusory, then one can associate a realisation to that identification. Another peep whom has a different definition of what a person constitutes will say the opposite that reflects their definition. What's that say about what is realised lol. It's a crock. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 10:47:12 GMT -5
I looked into it because the suggestion that kamma theory was derived from LOA sounds ludicrous on the face of it, and I was not at all surprised to find that historical accounts date LOA to occult practices of the late Victorian era. Occultists of that time derived LOA from ancient Eastern traditions including Hinduism and Buddhism. I only did a google search so it's just petty articles from Wiki and pretentious spiritual websites, but that's all I have to go on for now,butit's certainly plausible and I would be amazed if 'LOA' was vernacular pre 1850. Reefs doesn't mean in a historical context, but in a functional applicable context. Fundamentally, for ~us~ it's the principle: Your being attracts your life. Everyone's being is not 'on the same level'. This is how the dual world works. Look at it like the weather, you have high pressure systems, low pressure systems, hot in the northern hemisphere and cold in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa concerning the seasons, there's a thousand different factors. And your local weather is related to all that. Drop the weather analogy. In any particular city of any size you're going to have the very rich and the very poor, you're going to have more-crime areas and very little crime areas. ~You~, as a person, find your place in the world and in a city and in a neighborhood, because of how the universe is structured, LOA, Your being attracts your life. We have two different kind of trimtabs, a control on a rudder. The self-avatar has a kind of LOA trimtab, for superficial operating in a linear world. True Self IS a kind of trimtab, for operating in a nonlinear manner, a deep connection with the cosmos. Both concern attention. The former is relatively meaningless. The latter is everything. For us, to change your being is to change your life, from the inside out as it were. And for us, change of being is about "purification", it's about the dismantling of the self-avatar. It's about the second kind of trimtab, not the first. It's all interior and unseen. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 10:55:38 GMT -5
I suppose it boils down to what you and I and everyone else identifies with karma as being. For myself, feeling bad about shouting at someone through one's own irritation or unhappiness results in a feeling of remorse and guilt. This IS KARMA. This is how and why one's actions do have consequences, because it results in how you actually feel. Some don't give a shit about how they make others feel but one won't escape that because at a point one will become aware of it and how it effects others. These reflections and contemplations come about in many different ways. Everything comes back to self. yep totally agree, and it's also why I said a while back that karma is the means by which humans can transcend. At some point, karma ensures that we have to look within and take responsibility. With that said, again I've never been motivated specifically to 'resolve karma'. I just don't like feeling bad. Yes. The fulcrum is always and only, now, the present moment. But usually we get swamped by events and feelings and thoughts, we lose the moment and karma just gets perpetuated. Karma is always connected to the self-avatar (who most people think they are). The answer is to always operate apart-from the self-avatar, to disengage the gears. This is the way to eliminate karma. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on May 1, 2024 11:18:43 GMT -5
I wouldn't presume to know. That's just a part of the meaning of karma. I would have thought you would have been thoroughly versed in karma. All people are intimately tied to their thoughts, but mostly their actions, karma means doing. It's like an immense spiderweb in space and time, connecting everything. So consequences, from the seeds of actions, is the meaning of karma. That's why the present moment is so significant, one can only-act-now. I don't know why inavalan doesn't get that (either). Reefs isn't well versed in Karma and has given no reason to think he is. Quite the contrary, but his LoA presentation is good enough and I'm down with it.
The word karma has different connotations in different contexts, 'action' being one. Someone earlier listed several other meanings, but as technical term in Buddhist philosophy karma is volition, and the reason for that is, that's how Buddha emphatically defined it. Karma theory is essentially the theory of volition, its origins, int consequences, its implications for self, the cessation thereof, liberation and anatta. However it is more nuanced because there is also goodwill vs. ill will, implying the entirety of ethics, and metta with origins in the genesis of existence itself, still affects outcomes for individuals and humanity at large, though exterior to the cycle of cause and effect.
Since I'm formally trained in mindfulness, which is primarily about purification, my bias is the masters contracted cancer at an unusually high frequency because they did not undertake the body/mind work. They seemed solely fixated on self-inquiry and almost deliberately neglectful of mind/body phenomena. But even if you really dedicated yourself mindfulness, there are some life issues that don't get resolved, and things that don't come unstuck can have health repercussions. Unfortunately, we don't get to control the purification process (apart from ceasing to), so we roll with the punches so to speak.
To say cancer was Nis's karma doesn't really make sense in Buddhist philosophy because events are not your karma. By all accounts, the masters are at peace with their cancer and don't generate karma because of it. Then again, to pretend a completely ambiguous answer like 'allignment' explains anything is preposterous, where cancer could be explained by sankaras that accumulated through past volitions.
In all likelihood, if there is an explanation at all to any question that begins with 'why', it's complex and multifactorial. I have my own little theory on it, but it's highly speculative an I'm not betting the house on it.
Karma is the operation of the self-avatar, the conditioning. Yogacara Buddhism describes the storehouse consciousness, alayavijnana. This is what-is-behind the self-avatar. The self-avatar lasts one life, the body wears out, nobody lives forever in a body. But the ~being~ of the self-avatar remains in the storehouse consciousness, it becomes the 'seed' of the next life, the next incarnation. BTW, it doesn't matter how the body dies, everybody eventually dies. The how is probably connected to karma. We eliminate karma by not-perpetuating karma. When events, thoughts, feelings/emotions and bodily actions, take our attention, we have no choice but for karma to be perpetuated (this is all unconscious processing). This is living from the self-avatar. But if awareness is present-to the self-avatar acting, if attention is present-to the self-avatar acting, this is the elimination of karma, this is how it works. This is what stops the self-perpetuating feed-back loop of which the self-avatar consists. Being attentive-to or being aware-of, is what puts a stick in the wheel of karma. This is the reversal all the religions mention. You don't actually do anything different, you can't really do anything differently (this is the meaning of non-volition). But eventually your life begins to unfold differently. |
|
