The problem with desire

[lolly]

Interesting because people either say it is the problem, the cause of suffering, or they say say it isn't a problem, everyone desires, so what?

From the Buddhist perspective where craving causes suffering it's the former view, but to have a 'right view' is to have no view, so it isn't a nugget of knowledge that goes in the 'known' basket with the rest of your jewels. The view is a facet of wisdom rather than an article of knowledge and the reader is forced into self-reflection to understand 'this' is how I generate my own suffering.

The type to be wary of is the reactionary type where on the aversion side there's resistance, avoidance, ignoring and denial which relates to cravings as one needs the distraction from 'what's true' to succeed in avoidance, and it goes without saying that this dynamic comes from the belief that all this is happening to me. 

I just think there's different levels and that pathway from suffering to liberation may or may not be be ended in this lifetime, but when I do a lawn I start at the beginning by cutting in edges as a first step, where this step is this moment, and made abstract in the sense that the step is to stop taking steps. Let everything be as it is and you are just as you are.

That is not to say the state of suffering is to be accepted and things can continue the way it's been up until now. The avoidance, resistance etc isn't acceptable. It has to stop because the natural conclusion of that is babies risen on spikes, and to say 'it's not happening to anyone so it doesn't matter' is true, but that doesn't make it less evil. It's just that you understand the evil better because you understand yourself, and who can say they are not part of the problem when you're part of that reactive cycle?

We arrive at the question of good and bad intent, the moral foundation of spirituality, and the step is to be good according to the basic tenets of truthfulness, consideration, generosity, compassion etc. The ten commandments or five precepts are a typical rule of thumb, but all the misdoings like deceit, theft and all nature of misconduct stem back to the volition that impels it, so further to obeying ethical tenets, one needs be aware of their underlying motives.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 28, 2024 6:35:25 GMT -5 lolly said:

Interesting because people either say it is the problem, the cause of suffering, or they say say it isn't a problem, everyone desires, so what?

From the Buddhist perspective where craving causes suffering it's the former view, but to have a 'right view' is to have no view, so it isn't a nugget of knowledge that goes in the 'known' basket with the rest of your jewels. The view is a facet of wisdom rather than an article of knowledge and the reader is forced into self-reflection to understand 'this' is how I generate my own suffering.

The type to be wary of is the reactionary type where on the aversion side there's resistance, avoidance, ignoring and denial which relates to cravings as one needs the distraction from 'what's true' to succeed in avoidance, and it goes without saying that this dynamic comes from the belief that all this is happening to me. 

I just think there's different levels and that pathway from suffering to liberation may or may not be be ended in this lifetime, but when I do a lawn I start at the beginning by cutting in edges as a first step, where this step is this moment, and made abstract in the sense that the step is to stop taking steps. Let everything be as it is and you are just as you are.

That is not to say the state of suffering is to be accepted and things can continue the way it's been up until now. The avoidance, resistance etc isn't acceptable. It has to stop because the natural conclusion of that is babies risen on spikes, and to say 'it's not happening to anyone so it doesn't matter' is true, but that doesn't make it less evil. It's just that you understand the evil better because you understand yourself, and who can say they are not part of the problem when you're part of that reactive cycle?

We arrive at the question of good and bad intent, the moral foundation of spirituality, and the step is to be good according to the basic tenets of truthfulness, consideration, generosity, compassion etc. The ten commandments or five precepts are a typical rule of thumb, but all the misdoings like deceit, theft and all nature of misconduct stem back to the volition that impels it, so further to obeying ethical tenets, one needs be aware of their underlying motives.

For me it's all a question as to who the actor is. The self-avatar is not an actor, is only a reactor. Calling the self an avatar presupposes a deeper level which constitutes the True Self. I think satch understands this, maybe he will show up. Buddhism is pretty correct in describing the self-avatar, as no-self. The Dalai Lama has been pretty correct as to how there is a self acting in the world. It's complicated. The self-avatar is what suffers and is the source of suffering. The self-avatar is conditioning, subjective. So the self-avatar has to be gotten past. We all disagree on how that occurs. The self-avatar can obey all the tenets, but that gets no one anywhere. The self-avatar is formed out-of the reactive cycle, so can't be part of the solution.

The journey ends in any-some-one lifetime. Yes? Isn't it obvious? So why not this lifetime?

If the desire comes-from the self-avatar, it's never-ending. The basic job and purpose of the self-avatar, is to have one more desire, it is constituted-from desire. A good and proper desire comes from True Self.

Basically, any particular incarnation ends in ~Game Over~, unless one becomes a Buddha. And each re-incarnation is the beginning of a new game. Rinse and repeat.

[lolly]

Can't fully agree with following moral tenets goes nowhere and my claim is it's the basis of everything else, even if we were to say it undermines the next desire and temptation of an avatar self.

I also think the 'answer' of the false vs true self is fabricated in avoidance of understanding the process, as one could say to themselves, it's ego what generates desire, not the real me, but apparently, craving is the 'cause' and ego is the product.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 28, 2024 16:02:11 GMT -5 lolly said:

Can't fully agree with following moral tenets goes nowhere and my claim is it's the basis of everything else, even if we were to say it undermines the next desire and temptation of an avatar self.

I also think the 'answer' of the false vs true self is fabricated in avoidance of understanding the process, as one could say to themselves, it's ego what generates desire, not the real me, but apparently, craving is the 'cause' and ego is the product.

Agree on this.

[zendancer]

May 28, 2024 11:11:25 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

May 28, 2024 6:35:25 GMT -5 lolly said:

Interesting because people either say it is the problem, the cause of suffering, or they say say it isn't a problem, everyone desires, so what?

From the Buddhist perspective where craving causes suffering it's the former view, but to have a 'right view' is to have no view, so it isn't a nugget of knowledge that goes in the 'known' basket with the rest of your jewels. The view is a facet of wisdom rather than an article of knowledge and the reader is forced into self-reflection to understand 'this' is how I generate my own suffering.

The type to be wary of is the reactionary type where on the aversion side there's resistance, avoidance, ignoring and denial which relates to cravings as one needs the distraction from 'what's true' to succeed in avoidance, and it goes without saying that this dynamic comes from the belief that all this is happening to me. 

I just think there's different levels and that pathway from suffering to liberation may or may not be be ended in this lifetime, but when I do a lawn I start at the beginning by cutting in edges as a first step, where this step is this moment, and made abstract in the sense that the step is to stop taking steps. Let everything be as it is and you are just as you are.

That is not to say the state of suffering is to be accepted and things can continue the way it's been up until now. The avoidance, resistance etc isn't acceptable. It has to stop because the natural conclusion of that is babies risen on spikes, and to say 'it's not happening to anyone so it doesn't matter' is true, but that doesn't make it less evil. It's just that you understand the evil better because you understand yourself, and who can say they are not part of the problem when you're part of that reactive cycle?

We arrive at the question of good and bad intent, the moral foundation of spirituality, and the step is to be good according to the basic tenets of truthfulness, consideration, generosity, compassion etc. The ten commandments or five precepts are a typical rule of thumb, but all the misdoings like deceit, theft and all nature of misconduct stem back to the volition that impels it, so further to obeying ethical tenets, one needs be aware of their underlying motives.

For me it's all a question as to who the actor is. The self-avatar is not an actor, is only a reactor. Calling the self an avatar presupposes a deeper level which constitutes the True Self. I think satch understands this, maybe he will show up. Buddhism is pretty correct in describing the self-avatar, as no-self. The Dalai Lama has been pretty correct as to how there is a self acting in the world. It's complicated. The self-avatar is what suffers and is the source of suffering. The self-avatar is conditioning, subjective. So the self-avatar has to be gotten past. We all disagree on how that occurs. The self-avatar can obey all the tenets, but that gets no one anywhere. The self-avatar is formed out-of the reactive cycle, so can't be part of the solution.

The journey ends in any-some-one lifetime. Yes? Isn't it obvious? So why not this lifetime?

If the desire comes-from the self-avatar, it's never-ending. The basic job and purpose of the self-avatar, is to have one more desire, it is constituted-from desire. A good and proper desire comes from True Self.

Basically, any particular incarnation ends in ~Game Over~, unless one becomes a Buddha. And each re-incarnation is the beginning of a new game. Rinse and repeat.

Imagine a universe that is alive and intelligent and grows itself into human beings (as well as all other living things). In the form of humans It is still one with Itself until sometime between the age of 1 and 2. As the intellect develops, the universe begins to think and make distinctions, and other aspects of Itself (adults) condition the child to imagine that it is a separate thing interacting with lots of other separate things. None of that is true, but imagination and conditioning are powerful, and the child begins to think that it is a separate self with a name. The whole thing is an illusion created by attachment to erroneous thoughts. Buddhas are simply humans who penetrate this cognitive illusion and realize that what they are is the cosmos itself momentarily manifesting as a human. It is that simple. Who people think they are is not who they are. This is why Niz's teacher told him, "You are the Ultimate." Anyone who penetrates the illusion of separateness suddenly understands. Such a human remains a human but with a totally different understanding. IOW, the cosmos falls into the dream of being a separate entity, and occasionally (more and more often these days) wakes up from that dream. The path to understanding is basically one of getting out of one's head and detaching from erroneous thoughts.

[lolly]

People have to pay attention to notice the way they cause their own suffering, and we can't say 'this thing' is the cause as if that is an answer. We might say 'craving' is the cause, but then we need a whole volume to discuss what craving really refers to. Others will say it's not craving; it's attachment, but all that is semantic and mostly projecting 'I'm right you're wrong'. The simple statements are both right, but simplicity comes with great nuance, and the wisdom angle to it is a direct insight into 'this is suffering, and this is what causes it'.

[zendancer]

Apparently Buddha's primary existential question was, "Why is there suffering, old age, and death?" If the oral and later written tradition is accurate, on the morning of Dec 8, the Buddha, who had been meditating all night, looked up into the morning sky and saw the planet Venus (the morning star), and suddenly had a huge kensho that resolved/answered his question. His teaching was that suffering is caused by desire, and a cessation of desire eliminates suffering. I don;t remember his telling students why there is old age and death, but anyone who sees deeply into THIS, sees that personal death is an illusion, and that what one IS is never born and never dies.

If one sees deeply enough into THIS, desire becomes a non-existent issue because one has the same attitude as Krishnamurti who said, "Do you want to know what my secret is? I don't mind what happens." IOW, for a sage there is no resistance to however THIS unfolds. When there is no seeking and no resistance to whatever happens, a human stands alone, confident, and impervious to "life's slings and arrows." S/he has left the roller coaster behind and is standing on the still point of the pendulum simply watching and responding to however life unfolds. This doesn't mean that a sage doesn't act to help others or point to the Way, but his/her acting is beyond the ken of an SVP.

[stardustpilgrim]

May 31, 2024 3:51:02 GMT -5 lolly said:

People have to pay attention to notice the way they cause their own suffering, and we can't say 'this thing' is the cause as if that is an answer. We might say 'craving' is the cause, but then we need a whole volume to discuss what craving really refers to. Others will say it's not craving; it's attachment, but all that is semantic and mostly projecting 'I'm right you're wrong'. The simple statements are both right, but simplicity comes with great nuance, and the wisdom angle to it is a direct insight into 'this is suffering, and this is what causes it'.

You don't need a whole volume on what craving is. Nothing exists for ~you~ unless your attention rests on 'it', whatever it is. Try it if you don't think that's true, experiment. But in life, 'stuff' just grabs your attention, things, people, places, events, thoughts, feelings, these TAKE your attention. So, just cease to give your attention away. In the present moment, now, there is no person, there's just attending. The person only exists in time. But this is different from ATA-T. You keep attention, close. You can do it for a second, or a few seconds, then you lose it. Just come back. Keep coming back. It's not boring, it's extraordinary. Live as attention.
When ~you~ let stuff take your attention, that's the source of suffering. No examination is necessary, no thought process is necessary. Just keep ~your~ attention. (In ATA-T, it's not the actual that matters, it's the attending, itself. And the distinction, is everything).

[lolly]

I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas?

I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause.

I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.

I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest.

I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place.

I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jun 1, 2024 2:00:15 GMT -5 lolly said:

I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas?

I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause.

I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.

I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest.

I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place.

I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires.

That's beautiful and honest 'nuts and bolts'. I don't remember if you have spoken to the following, or want to. someNOTHING and me are continuing a discussion, I have some answers on another thread, for later this afternoon. But when Buddha was Enlightened, it is said he remembered all his past lives. Yet the Self-Realized here deny there is such a thing as reincarnation exists. So something seems amiss. Saying that to say I think you are closer to the truth than the SR here. There is an admission by you that there is a self, in some sense, and this self is responsible for craving, it is craving. Yes, Buddha went into, and he laid out a path to extinguish suffering. I'd rather read this, honest description, than the horse hockey that sometimes smells here. I find there is a disconnect to say there is no self, self is imaginary, and then it's obvious self is still functioning. And my view is that unless craving is completely extinguished, it will continue into another life. It's obvious the realizations around here do not extinguish desires. I don't think you have insane proclivity, I find you very sane.

[zendancer]

Jun 1, 2024 6:39:44 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

Jun 1, 2024 2:00:15 GMT -5 lolly said:

I'm pretty much with Buddha (as ZD describes) on this one, but even if we don't need it, there are volumes written on the subject, and I'd argue it does takes volumes to unpack the nuance of craving, but what philosophical mind could grasp it all, and how much of it can be misread or used to further cult-like agendas?

I'm not into those things, so I claim you need to watch yourself to understand what it is tacitly, and how you cause it, and it seems to me to be a very subtle thing to comprehend. The typical person takes suffering to be what's normal in life, so they don't discern and identify it specifically, let alone consider their own activity to be its cause.

I have noticed two types of people. One class goes through life thinking 'this is happening', and the other class think 'this is happening to me'. The latter class seem not selfish as such, but completely unaware of consideration altogether. I speak to them from the standpoint of a big world where everything happens, and quickly discover they have absolutely no comprehension of that standpoint.

I spend my days finding the flow, so I'm not actually trying to get everything done, but aspiring to perfection, and I sound insane with delusions of grandeur, but there is a way in which everything falls into place just as you want without anyone trying to make it all happen that way. The desire 'it should be other than this' is actually a hindrance, and even Buddha defined 'hindrances' as he must have cottoned onto something. He lists sensuous desire, ill-will, sloth, restlessness and doubt, but you can see how the first of these gives rise to the rest.

I have to start it, concentrate, be aware and do things at my very best, but then it happens in its own way, just as I want it, as if it couldn't be any other way, and even when I determine that everything is going wrong, it's just that something I wasn't considering is going right - which I realise a bit later on - and then think I should never have doubted it in the first place.

I did a job for a guy. Hard work taking down his palm fronds and dragging them up to the verge. All sweet, but then he called me and said the dumping guys wouldn't take the load, and who blames them, the fronds are horrid spiny things, and I was like, 'Oh no, it's all gone wrong', and I'll have to run up there with my trailer and take them myself - big hassle - but actually, it wasn't going wrong. It ended up my brother pitched in to help out and we made a great morning out of it, and as soon as we were done, my other brother dropped in, his missus made toasted sangas, coffee in the rain, and everything was great... all because 'everything went wrong'. I did all the hindrances, stressed, doubted, worried, since I wanted things to be not as they were, but actually, something else was moving perfectly and I just I didn't realise it til later on, and wasted a good deal of time making myself miserable all because of desire. I can turn it around, as it may seems like the apple cart is upturned, but just trust instead, and see what transpires.

That's beautiful and honest 'nuts and bolts'. I don't remember if you have spoken to the following, or want to. someNOTHING and me are continuing a discussion, I have some answers on another thread, for later this afternoon. But when Buddha was Enlightened, it is said he remembered all his past lives. Yet the Self-Realized here deny there is such a thing as reincarnation exists. So something seems amiss. Saying that to say I think you are closer to the truth than the SR here. There is an admission by you that there is a self, in some sense, and this self is responsible for craving, it is craving. Yes, Buddha went into, and he laid out a path to extinguish suffering. I'd rather read this, honest description, than the horse hockey that sometimes smells here. I find there is a disconnect to say there is no self, self is imaginary, and then it's obvious self is still functioning. And my view is that unless craving is completely extinguished, it will continue into another life. It's obvious the realizations around here do not extinguish desires. I don't think you have insane proclivity, I find you very sane.

Just one comment. THIS includes everything, including what we call the past and the future, so it's entirely possible that various sages have had CC's during which various past lives were remembered, but would such past lives be personal? No, because what we are includes every life that's ever been lived. I've often joked about the fact that people who remember past lives don't remember their lives as a fly, fish, bird, or dinosaur.

The Buddha, Papaji, and many other sages have claimed to have remembered past human lives, but those lives couldn't have been personal in the sense of a "me," because there is no "me" that's a separate volitional entity.

Various people foresee things that will happen in the "future," and if the NT record is correct, Jesus foresaw what was going to happen to him. Whether he was SR or not seems questionable, but he was clearly one with THIS in a rather unique way, and this has been true for many human beings.

During a CC in 1984 that happened to this character it was seen that humans are an aspect of something incomprehensibly vast that is beyond birth or death. What we are is a living presence that the universe IS, and it's possible to see that even if this "physical" universe totally disappeared, what we are would remain untouched. There's no way to communicate this kind of seeing to someone else, but for any human through whom this seeing occurs, reality is never thought about in the same way again. SR just puts the final nail in the coffin of "me."

[justlikeyou]

Jun 1, 2024 7:36:32 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jun 1, 2024 6:39:44 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

That's beautiful and honest 'nuts and bolts'. I don't remember if you have spoken to the following, or want to. someNOTHING and me are continuing a discussion, I have some answers on another thread, for later this afternoon. But when Buddha was Enlightened, it is said he remembered all his past lives. Yet the Self-Realized here deny there is such a thing as reincarnation exists. So something seems amiss. Saying that to say I think you are closer to the truth than the SR here. There is an admission by you that there is a self, in some sense, and this self is responsible for craving, it is craving. Yes, Buddha went into, and he laid out a path to extinguish suffering. I'd rather read this, honest description, than the horse hockey that sometimes smells here. I find there is a disconnect to say there is no self, self is imaginary, and then it's obvious self is still functioning. And my view is that unless craving is completely extinguished, it will continue into another life. It's obvious the realizations around here do not extinguish desires. I don't think you have insane proclivity, I find you very sane.

Just one comment. THIS includes everything, including what we call the past and the future, so it's entirely possible that various sages have had CC's during which various past lives were remembered, but would such past lives be personal? No, because what we are includes every life that's ever been lived. I've often joked about the fact that people who remember past lives don't remember their lives as a fly, fish, bird, or dinosaur.

The Buddha, Papaji, and many other sages have claimed to have remembered past human lives, but those lives couldn't have been personal in the sense of a "me," because there is no "me" that's a separate volitional entity.

Various people foresee things that will happen in the "future," and if the NT record is correct, Jesus foresaw what was going to happen to him. Whether he was SR or not seems questionable, but he was clearly one with THIS in a rather unique way, and this has been true for many human beings.

During a CC in 1984 that happened to this character it was seen that humans are an aspect of something incomprehensibly vast that is beyond birth or death. What we are is a living presence that the universe IS, and it's possible to see that even if this "physical" universe totally disappeared, what we are would remain untouched. There's no way to communicate this kind of seeing to someone else, but for any human through whom this seeing occurs, reality is never thought about in the same way again. SR just puts the final nail in the coffin of "me."

Q: Still you must know the state of the man who died. At least from your own past lives.

M: Until I met my Guru* I knew so many things. Now I know nothing, for all knowledge is in dream only and not valid. I know myself and I find no life nor death in me, only pure being -- not being this or that, but just being. But the moment the mind, drawing on its stock of memories, begins to imagine, it fills the space with objects and time with events. As I do not know even this birth, how can I know past births? It is the mind that, itself in movement, sees everything moving, and having created time, worries about the past and future. All the universe is cradled in consciousness (mahatattva), which arises where there is perfect order and harmony (maha sattva). As all waves are in the ocean, so are all things physical and mental in awareness. Hence awareness itself is all important, not the content of it. Deepen and broaden your awareness of yourself and all the blessings will flow. You need not seek anything, all will come to you most naturally and effortlessly. The five senses and the four functions of the mind -- memory, thought, understanding and selfhood; the five elements -- earth, water, fire, air and ether; the two aspects of creation -- matter and spirit, all are contained in awareness.

* "Your own self is your ultimate teacher (sadguru). The outer teacher (Guru) is merely a milestone. It is only your inner teacher, that will walk with you to the goal, for he is the goal." -Niz

[zendancer]

Jun 1, 2024 8:51:24 GMT -5 justlikeyou said:

Jun 1, 2024 7:36:32 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Just one comment. THIS includes everything, including what we call the past and the future, so it's entirely possible that various sages have had CC's during which various past lives were remembered, but would such past lives be personal? No, because what we are includes every life that's ever been lived. I've often joked about the fact that people who remember past lives don't remember their lives as a fly, fish, bird, or dinosaur.

The Buddha, Papaji, and many other sages have claimed to have remembered past human lives, but those lives couldn't have been personal in the sense of a "me," because there is no "me" that's a separate volitional entity.

Various people foresee things that will happen in the "future," and if the NT record is correct, Jesus foresaw what was going to happen to him. Whether he was SR or not seems questionable, but he was clearly one with THIS in a rather unique way, and this has been true for many human beings.

During a CC in 1984 that happened to this character it was seen that humans are an aspect of something incomprehensibly vast that is beyond birth or death. What we are is a living presence that the universe IS, and it's possible to see that even if this "physical" universe totally disappeared, what we are would remain untouched. There's no way to communicate this kind of seeing to someone else, but for any human through whom this seeing occurs, reality is never thought about in the same way again. SR just puts the final nail in the coffin of "me."

Q: Still you must know the state of the man who died. At least from your own past lives.

M: Until I met my Guru* I knew so many things. Now I know nothing, for all knowledge is in dream only and not valid. I know myself and I find no life nor death in me, only pure being -- not being this or that, but just being. But the moment the mind, drawing on its stock of memories, begins to imagine, it fills the space with objects and time with events. As I do not know even this birth, how can I know past births? It is the mind that, itself in movement, sees everything moving, and having created time, worries about the past and future. All the universe is cradled in consciousness (mahatattva), which arises where there is perfect order and harmony (maha sattva). As all waves are in the ocean, so are all things physical and mental in awareness. Hence awareness itself is all important, not the content of it. Deepen and broaden your awareness of yourself and all the blessings will flow. You need not seek anything, all will come to you most naturally and effortlessly. The five senses and the four functions of the mind -- memory, thought, understanding and selfhood; the five elements -- earth, water, fire, air and ether; the two aspects of creation -- matter and spirit, all are contained in awareness.

* "Your own self is your ultimate teacher (sadguru). The outer teacher (Guru) is merely a milestone. It is only your inner teacher, that will walk with you to the goal, for he is the goal." -Niz

Great quote! I had never read that one before. Yes, when a human becomes detached from thoughts, life becomes extremely simple and matter-of-fact. I often think of Krishnamurti's famous line, "Do you want to know my secret? I don't mind what happens." One lives in a state of not-knowing what will happen, but without resistance to whatever does happen.

[stardustpilgrim]

Jun 1, 2024 7:36:32 GMT -5 zendancer said:

Jun 1, 2024 6:39:44 GMT -5 stardustpilgrim said:

That's beautiful and honest 'nuts and bolts'. I don't remember if you have spoken to the following, or want to. someNOTHING and me are continuing a discussion, I have some answers on another thread, for later this afternoon. But when Buddha was Enlightened, it is said he remembered all his past lives. Yet the Self-Realized here deny there is such a thing as reincarnation exists. So something seems amiss. Saying that to say I think you are closer to the truth than the SR here. There is an admission by you that there is a self, in some sense, and this self is responsible for craving, it is craving. Yes, Buddha went into, and he laid out a path to extinguish suffering. I'd rather read this, honest description, than the horse hockey that sometimes smells here. I find there is a disconnect to say there is no self, self is imaginary, and then it's obvious self is still functioning. And my view is that unless craving is completely extinguished, it will continue into another life. It's obvious the realizations around here do not extinguish desires. I don't think you have insane proclivity, I find you very sane.

Just one comment. THIS includes everything, including what we call the past and the future, so it's entirely possible that various sages have had CC's during which various past lives were remembered, but would such past lives be personal? No, because what we are includes every life that's ever been lived. I've often joked about the fact that people who remember past lives don't remember their lives as a fly, fish, bird, or dinosaur.

The Buddha, Papaji, and many other sages have claimed to have remembered past human lives, but those lives couldn't have been personal in the sense of a "me," because there is no "me" that's a separate volitional entity.

Various people foresee things that will happen in the "future," and if the NT record is correct, Jesus foresaw what was going to happen to him. Whether he was SR or not seems questionable, but he was clearly one with THIS in a rather unique way, and this has been true for many human beings.

During a CC in 1984 that happened to this character it was seen that humans are an aspect of something incomprehensibly vast that is beyond birth or death. What we are is a living presence that the universe IS, and it's possible to see that even if this "physical" universe totally disappeared, what we are would remain untouched. There's no way to communicate this kind of seeing to someone else, but for any human through whom this seeing occurs, reality is never thought about in the same way again. SR just puts the final nail in the coffin of "me."

So you think you could be beyond Jesus in Realization. That explains everything.

[zazeniac]

Too complicated for this one, me. Not the person, but the individual. Haha.

I desire some honey with my tea.