Do I follow my nature?

[rsingh]

God follows his nature. Everything in existence follows its nature and interacts with its surroundings in accordance to pre-set laws. Cosmos and galaxies moves in a certain order. Sun follows its nature and so the planets revolving around it. Plants and animals on earth follow their nature. They cannot go beyond their nature.

Do I follow my nature? Yes I think I do. Do I have any other option except to follow my nature? I don’t think so. But many of us will not agree with me. Many think that we have our nature under our control. We are conscious of ourselves to some extent and our surroundings to some extent but this does not mean that we have our nature under our control.

What is my nature? I was born with certain nature having some unique characteristics or a programme in addition to fundamental human characteristics. I do not have any memories of my first 2-3 years of my life. So I do not even know whether I was conscious of myself or not during this period. But I did learn few things and even some language during this period which I do not remember how. So by the time I gained consciousness, I was already conditioned or programmed in addition to my programme that I was born with. That was my nature at that time. I could interact with my surroundings only in accordance to my nature at that time.

This conditioning got modified further due to style of parenting, education, social environment and other personal experiences due to my interaction with other humans or other species or other things. This also includes my spiritual knowledge and experiences. So I have acquired certain nature today due to all my past conditioning or programming. I can interact with surroundings only according to my nature today and have not any other option except to follow my nature. So was the case with me at any time during my life.

Can I choose my conditioning? I can choose my conditioning only among options available to me. The option that I am going to choose at any time will depend upon my conditioning at that time. So am I really choosing an option or my conditioning is choosing an option. I think it is my conditioning that is choosing an option. So really I do not have any option except to obey my conditioning.

Can I un-condition myself? No I do not think so. I do not have any delete button for my memories. Rather it becomes even stronger if I try to erase anything in my memory. Something can disappear from my conscious memory only If I do not care if it is there or not. Strength of memory depends upon impact of an event on my identities or repetition of memory in my mind.

So do I have any choice to free myself from my conditioning? Yes I do. How can I free myself from my conditioning? Only way for me to free myself from my conditioning is to know the nature of my conditioning. How I can know the nature of my conditioning? I can know nature of my conditioning by observing my nature. Observing my actions and reactions. Observing my thoughts and feelings. Observing my identities. Observing myself. There are many other methods of knowing my nature such as self-enquiry, yoga, devotion and energy works etc..

My freedom from my conditioned nature is by following my nature and knowing my nature. If I know my nature then I know nature of every body and everything. Then I also know my unconditioned nature which is underlying reality of everything.

[Xan]

So... you seem to trying to figure out what is your personal nature that can be conditioned, and what is your true universal nature that is inherent. Is that so?


Xan

[rsingh]

Hi Xan

You are right. I am trying to figure out my conditioned nature and my true nature. Thank you, I have edited my thread to clarify it bit more.

[Xan]

I'll give you a hint: Your true nature is quiet and feels whole. Your conditioned nature is everything else about you.


Xan

[rsingh]

Hi Xan

You are right. My true nature is stillness or silent awareness or consciousness or presence or unconditioned or formless or life etc... Many names but same thing which cannot be explained in words. We can only explain what we are not? If we realise what we are not, then what we are appears.

[Xan]

Yes... usually gradually.


Xan

[Gem]

Hi Xan

You are right. My true nature is stillness or silent awareness or consciousness or presence or unconditioned or formless etc... Many names but same thing which cannot be explained in words. We can only explain what we are not? If we realise what we are not, then what we are appears.

I know they like to say this silence is 'true nature' but there are things about you. I't like there is the central 'I' and then there's all the toughts which surround that. There's the thinking aspect the feeling aspect the physical sensory aspect.

The main problem is ones try to discard their thinking feeling and sensory physical, but this is 'who you are' ... and you have to embrace what appears in the mirror.

[Xan]

Right... It's not about discarding or rejecting anything in ourselves - although our over involvement with the personal self keeps us stuck there - but it's about increasing awareness in our true nature, our inner being.


Xan

[rsingh]

I know they like to say this silence is 'true nature' but there are things about you. I't like there is the central 'I' and then there's all the toughts which surround that. There's the thinking aspect the feeling aspect the physical sensory aspect.

The main problem is ones try to discard their thinking feeling and sensory physical, but this is 'who you are' ... and you have to embrace what appears in the mirror.
__________________

Hi Gem

You are right. We perceive ourselves as body, mind and sense perceptions but we do not perceive the perceiver - our consciousness. This creates unbalance in our perception of reality. If we realise that we are consciousness imagining itself to be mind, body and sense perceptions then there is no problem. Then we have balanced view of reality. Then we do not have any problem with our imagination and we truly enjoy this imagination.

[Xan]

So... right now... notice that you are aware.


Xan

[Gem]

Hi Gem

You are right. We perceive ourselves as body, mind and sense perceptions but we do not perceive the perceiver - our consciousness. This creates unbalance in our perception of reality. If we realise that we are consciousness imagining itself to be mind, body and sense perceptions then there is no problem. Then we have balanced view of reality. Then we do not have any problem with our imagination and we truly enjoy this imagination.

Yeah yeah... it's the same story again.

That's what this spiritualizm is about? Stories which sound wise?

[rsingh]

That's what this spiritualizm is about? Stories which sound wise?

Hi Gem

You are right. Stories that sound wise. These stories cannot be proven. All anyone can help, is to tell how we can perceive reality but cannot show us the reality.

[psychoslice]

Yeah yeah... it's the same story again.

That's what this spiritualizm is about? Stories which sound wise?
Yes I agree, but doesn't it work also the other way around ?.

[sound]

Do you mean wisdom which sounds like a story Robert?

[silent whisper]

Hi Gem

You are right. Stories that sound wise. These stories cannot be proven. All anyone can help, is to tell how we can perceive reality but cannot show us the reality.


Is it about proving? Or is it about simply having open awarness that in a story we might find a resonation and so our perceptions may change in that space. And of course it depends how one perceives....as well.

[psychoslice]

Do you mean wisdom which sounds like a story Robert?
Well yes, how do we really know what is wrong or right ?.

[sound]

Well yes, how do we really know what is wrong or right ?.

True ... I think what SW says up there is helpful too ... if it resonates then there is wisdom in it for the one listening ...

[Gem]

Yes I agree, but doesn't it work also the other way around ?.

I remember a time when you said robert was nothing to do with you, but now I think that's changed and there's all of you.

To embrace what is robert is most important. The change is upon us.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

Your 'true nature' is curiosity, and yes, you do follow it.. if it were silence, the Universe would be silent.. when the Universe is silent, Life emerges just so it can hear itself again.. silence is the background against which your 'nature' reveals itself..

Silence is the state of being that reveals Life's natural curiosity, to see, to experience, to hear the Universe happening.. cycle after cycle, Universe after Universe, there is the acquisition of 'Silence', and.. inevitably, Life and existence re-emerges to experience its own raucous existence, why? curiosity, 'What AM I'? if silence were our 'true nature', we would be 'silent', we would achieve silence and maintain it.. it's not because we can't, it's because it's not our 'nature'.. Silence, like stillness, is a powerful and beautiful state of being, it is confirmation of clarity..

Be well..

[silent whisper]

Greetings..

Your 'true nature' is curiosity, and yes, you do follow it.. if it were silence, the Universe would be silent.. when the Universe is silent, Life emerges just so it can hear itself again.. silence is the background against which your 'nature' reveals itself..

Silence is the state of being that reveals Life's natural curiosity, to see, to experience, to hear the Universe happening.. cycle after cycle, Universe after Universe, there is the acquisition of 'Silence', and.. inevitably, Life and existence re-emerges to experience its own raucous existence, why? curiosity, 'What AM I'? if silence were our 'true nature', we would be 'silent', we would achieve silence and maintain it.. it's not because we can't, it's because it's not our 'nature'.. Silence, like stillness, is a powerful and beautiful state of being, it is confirmation of clarity..

Be well..


Omy goodness, today the resonation you are bringing to the table for me at least is making me smile...:smile: :D

[psychoslice]

I remember a time when you said robert was nothing to do with you, but now I think that's changed and there's all of you.

To embrace what is robert is most important. The change is upon us.
Yes this is the good thing of not believing in anything, I can change what I think anytime and never be embarrassed lol.:smile:

[Gem]

Yes this is the good thing of not believing in anything, I can change what I think anytime and never be embarrassed lol.:smile:

Dang. Sometimes I get embarressed, and despite saying there is no belief this world continues to be. It's just that belief is changing really.

I think it best to grow more open to possibilities which gives belief a very large scope.

[psychoslice]

Dang. Sometimes I get embarressed, and despite saying there is no belief this world continues to be. It's just that belief is changing really.

I think it best to grow more open to possibilities which gives belief a very large scope.
Yea I agree, but most, especially with spiritual matters cling onto their treasured beliefs, never really growing from there.

[rsingh]

Originally posted by silent whisper
Is it about proving? Or is it about simply having open awarness that in a story we might find a resonation and so our perceptions may change in that space. And of course it depends how one perceives....as well.

Hi silent whisper

Your perspective is correct too. Yes it resonates with our consciousness and gives rise to an intuition which off course is creative, new and true message from reality.

[Gem]

Yea I agree, but most, especially with spiritual matters cling onto their treasured beliefs, never really growing from there.

Yeah... trying to make it stay the same, as though it's 'true', doesn't work well.

[silent whisper]

Hi silent whisper

Your perspective is correct too. Yes it resonates with our consciousness and gives rise to an intuition which off course is creative, new and true message from reality.


Oh yes...thankyou..

[Xan]

...if silence were our 'true nature', we would be 'silent', we would achieve silence and maintain it.. it's not because we can't, it's because it's not our 'nature'..

This depends on whether you are looking at the surface forms or at the essence of being.
On the surface the universe and our minds are certainly quite active and noisy.
In essence all is pure silent being.

We can't maintain it because it is self-maintaining, self-existing.
All we can do is become aware of it where it has always been
and gradually grow more consistent in silent awareness if we choose.

I consider the everlasting essence our true nature
and the surface self a temporary complexity for interacting in the noisy world.


Xan

[rsingh]

Originally posted by Xan This depends on whether you are looking at the surface forms or at the essence of being.
On the surface the universe and our minds are certainly quite active and noisy.
In essence all is pure silent being.

We can't maintain it because it is self-maintaining, self-existing.
All we can do is become aware of it where it has always been
and gradually grow more consistent in silent awareness if we choose.

I consider the everlasting essence our true nature
and the surface self a temporary complexity for interacting in the noisy world.



Hi Xan

You are right. It depends whether we looking through our mind or consciousness. Consciousness is our essence. Mind is an imagination of consciousness. Consciousness creates activity through mind. Mind cannot exist without consciousness or more appropriately the absolute Truth. But absolute Truth can exist without mind or without activity.

[Gem]

Hi Xan

You are right. It depends whether we looking through our mind or consciousness. Consciousness is our essence. Mind is an imagination of consciousness. Consciousness creates activity through mind. Mind cannot exist without consciousness or more appropriately the absolute Truth. But absolute Truth can exist without mind or without activity.

What I find is, there is a disproportionate preference for some 'absolute truth', and people form a great desire which leads to chasing something named 'enlightenment', so they treat their physicality, emotional and mental portions as less relevent, however, awareness of the changing self is the process.

A person can touch the very outpouring, just as love feels like an outpouring of the heart, but there is no way there. It's more important to have acceptance of how the changing self is right now.

It doesn't cure the emotional blocks and issues and hangups so one suddenly walks around like a stone statue of buddah. The awareness of the changing self just continues, the purification process keeps going, you still go to the toilet...

Self observation is quite the fundamental of nature, as awareness is the experience of being.

[silent whisper]

What I find is, there is a disproportionate preference for some 'absolute truth', and people form a great desire which leads to chasing something named 'enlightenment', so they treat their physicality, emotional and mental portions as less relevent, however, awareness of the changing self is the process.

A person can touch the very outpouring, just as love feels like an outpouring of the heart, but there is no way there. It's more important to have acceptance of how the changing self is right now.

It doesn't cure the emotional blocks and issues and hangups so one suddenly walks around like a stone statue of buddah. The awareness of the changing self just continues, the purification process keeps going, you still go to the toilet...

Self observation is quite the fundamental of nature, as awareness is the experience of being.


That made me giggle..My visuals went into overdrive imagining lots of cloned tubby stoned buddhas with big hookahs hanging off their shoulders...:D

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

(Originally posted by Tzu)...if silence were our 'true nature', we would be 'silent', we would achieve silence and maintain it.. it's not because we can't, it's because it's not our 'nature'..
This depends on whether you are looking at the surface forms or at the essence of being. I don't see or experience a difference, i see and experience both.. i see and experience what you term as "surface forms", as the 'nature' of silence.. if it were not so, there would not be "surface forms", as you describe that aspect of reality.. the nature of “Being” is to experience its own existence, what you call “surface forms”..


]On the surface the universe and our minds are certainly quite active and noisy."On the surface” of what?


]In essence all is pure silent being.I experience all aspects of existence as essential, 'essence', even the "active and noisy".. as such, all is simply ‘all’, and.. “pure silent being”, seems to be one experiencer’s preferred description of her ‘all’ experiences, but.. other descriptions might be used by other experiencers to describe the same experience, and be equally valid descriptions from that experiencer’s frames of references.. such that, if neither experiencer insists that their descriptions of ‘all’ are the only valid description of ‘all’, then.. if there is the intention to look for a mutually agreeable description, there is an increased likelihood that different, even conflicting, perspectives of the same experience may move toward coherence, resonance, and harmony.. yes?


]We can't maintain it because it is self-maintaining, self-existing. Is ‘it’ apart from who/what ‘we’ are? Regarding the original question, “Do we follow our nature”, you replied to rsing’s interest in the difference between ‘conditioned nature’ and ‘true nature’ as follows: “I'll give you a hint: Your true nature is quiet and feels whole. Your conditioned nature is everything else about you. ”.. do you feel that by ‘giving rsing a hint’, that you are ‘conditioning’ an expectation? Do you feel that by categorizing one experience as ‘true’, then the ‘conditioned’ category is false? Aren’t both conditions ‘true’?

Without a ‘you, me, us, we’, ‘silence’ doesn’t exist, and there is no ‘nature’ to follow.. silence is maintained by ‘you, me, us, we’, creating that value of comparative relationship..


]All we can do is become aware of it where it has always been and gradually grow more consistent in silent awareness if we choose.I don’t know, Xan.. with the complexity of metaphors and redefined meanings, it seems like we could do more to simplify the communications.. where has silence “always been”, and please help me understand what you mean by “grow more consistent in silent awareness”..


]I consider the everlasting essence our true nature
and the surface self a temporary complexity for interacting in the noisy world.


Xan
What do you suppose is the function of the "surface self"? Isn’t the “surface self” and the “noisy world” made of the same ‘essence’? will you describe what you mean when you say, “everlasting essence”?

It is my experience, that the nature of silence and stillness is curiosity about its own existence.. why are there descriptions like ‘silence and stillness’, unless there are comparisons like ‘noisy and active’, so.. for either to be ‘true’ all must be true.. what is ‘essential’, is a relationship where these descriptions are valid, where these descriptions are functional descriptions of what ‘is’ happening.. it is my experience that silence and stillness are the perspectives from which what ‘is happening’ is revealed..

Be well..

[Xan]

I consider the everlasting essence our true nature
and the surface self a temporary complexity for interacting in the noisy world.


I have nothing more to say.

As you see it differently... no problem.


Xan

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

I consider the everlasting essence our true nature
and the surface self a temporary complexity for interacting in the noisy world.


I have nothing more to say.

As you see it differently... no problem.


Xan

Cool..

Be well..

[Royalite]

When I read your title question, rsingh, I thought of instincts: natural gifts and abilities i was given since before birth by God for navigation here. I've gotten quieter with age but many of my traits have remained with me throughout life and have been reemerging throughout the process.

So if you want to know about your true nature, look to your heart. As you said, get aware of yourself. It's who you are as an individual.

[rsingh]

Some of us are emphasizing on our surface reality which is form but form is not a problem. With few exceptions, whole humanity is lost in form. It is the formless or unconditioned which we are not aware of. So to have balance in our life we have to be aware of both the conditioned and unconditioned at the same time. Creation of ego is as important as erosion of ego. First we learn with building up our ego and then we learn with erosion of our ego. We can only get up to certain limit with our evolution with building of ego. Further evolution requires erosion of our ego.

[Royalite]

*shrugs* Congratulations...and now if you allow it, growth continues...

[Mountain-Goat]

Yes this is the good thing of not believing in anything, I can change what I think anytime and never be embarrassed lol.:smile:
~thumbsup~ I found this system is most beneficial too.
I stop holding onto beliefs after i deconverted from christianity.
In that my beliefs are temporary, adaptable, not bolted down, easily thrown out, etc.

Can't progress, heal, expand, if one holds onto beliefs.
But belifs are required as stepping stones to reach new places.
They are paths to journey on to reach a new perception.
One the transformation has taken place, there is no need for the old belief.

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

~thumbsup~ I found this system is most beneficial too.
I stop holding onto beliefs after i deconverted from christianity.
In that my beliefs are temporary, adaptable, not bolted down, easily thrown out, etc.

Can't progress, heal, expand, if one holds onto beliefs.
But belifs are required as stepping stones to reach new places.
They are paths to journey on to reach a new perception.
One the transformation has taken place, there is no need for the old belief.
Like the wake behind a ship, the beliefs dissipate and the sea is always there..

Be well..

[Jyotir]

Hi rsingh,


There is 'Nature' - capital "N", and there is a 'nature'.

'Nature' ("N") usually refers to the entirety of the created Universe, Cosmos, the totality of the physical realm. The Cosmic Totality may also be seen as that which symbolizes the Transcendent, which contains and originates all manifestation - and yet, is within each individuated identity as well.

Nature is a manifestation of Consciousness in infinite forms, but those individual forms within that multiplicity are expressing their limited finite 'nature' which is by 'nature' not fully conscious of what Nature in its totality represents.

In Nature there are various manifestations, individual identities within the physical existence which are organized differently, each having a typal 'nature' - from sub-atomic particles to cosmic structures like galaxies; from mineral, to plant, animal, and human. There is a self-similar progressive order in which 'greater' forms and structures subsume 'lesser' forms and structures (eg, observe the growth stages of the human fetus).

Everything has "a nature", a limited range of characteristic attributes and potentialities as an outer expression of a Force which distorts or focuses Consciousness into particular forms of being in the physical world. It is that expression which accounts for any particular 'nature', whether animal, mineral, vegetable, planetary, galactic, etc. But this is on the surface as an appearance, because since all is Consciousness, these distortions of form are the concealment of that Transcendent Totality and Unity which is latent within each and every form, and is in essence that Consciousness which is All, within all, and is 'made from', becoming and Being All. Human beings are unique in that their 'nature' includes the aspect of self-consciousness which allows for the possibility of realizing the Transcendent as their true 'Nature' beyond and within individuated life which is both the concealment of, and the vehicle for that Consciousness.

So "nature" refers to both the Highest Transcendent Nature, but also the limited finite fractional form of that total Unity, depending on relative context and orientation.

The question: "Do I follow my nature?" is either open-ended or ambiguous in the sense that it needs to be known what nature or part of 'nature' is in question - the divine, the human, the animal, plant, mineral - general or specific? Does it refer to the lowest forms which are the most ignorant of the highest most inclusive and 'truest' Consciousness, and are the 'natures' which are usually unconsciously assented to, blindly followed, moved by - which are part of that dance or 'noise' of surface forms and appearance which we follow, but gradually learn transcend? We 'are' those 'natures' when we identify with the consciousness of the lower instrumental being, the surface consciousness of form, conditional awareness, while not aware of the Transcendent within those forms which is being concealed.

In that sense, the 'true nature' is latent, not realized, not expressing - but it is becoming and evolving through the process of life which is a general evolution of consciousness in Nature. When human beings deliberately focus on and accelerate those general tendencies of Nature within a specific individual life through what is available in human nature - that is also a utilization of Nature, but it is that nature which is conscious of the full range of Consciousness, which becomes fully accessible, mastered, surrendered to vs being controlled by and subservient to.

~ J

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..



Hi rsingh,


There is 'Nature' - capital "N", and there is a 'nature'.

'Nature' ("N") usually refers to the entirety of the created Universe, Cosmos, the totality of the physical realm. The Cosmic Totality may also be seen as that which symbolizes the Transcendent, which contains and originates all manifestation - and yet, is within each individuated identity as well.

Nature is a manifestation of Consciousness in infinite forms, but those individual forms within that multiplicity are expressing their limited finite 'nature' which is by 'nature' not fully conscious of what Nature in its totality represents.

In Nature there are various manifestations, individual identities within the physical existence which are organized differently, each having a typal 'nature' - from sub-atomic particles to cosmic structures like galaxies; from mineral, to plant, animal, and human. There is a self-similar progressive order in which 'greater' forms and structures subsume 'lesser' forms and structures (eg, observe the growth stages of the human fetus).

Everything has "a nature", a limited range of characteristic attributes and potentialities as an outer expression of a Force which distorts or focuses Consciousness into particular forms of being in the physical world. It is that expression which accounts for any particular 'nature', whether animal, mineral, vegetable, planetary, galactic, etc. But this is on the surface as an appearance, because since all is Consciousness, these distortions of form are the concealment of that Transcendent Totality and Unity which is latent within each and every form, and is in essence that Consciousness which is All, within all, and is 'made from', becoming and Being All. Human beings are unique in that their 'nature' includes the aspect of self-consciousness which allows for the possibility of realizing the Transcendent as their true 'Nature' beyond and within individuated life which is both the concealment of, and the vehicle for that Consciousness.

So "nature" refers to both the Highest Transcendent Nature, but also the limited finite fractional form of that total Unity, depending on relative context and orientation.

The question: "Do I follow my nature?" is either open-ended or ambiguous in the sense that it needs to be known what nature or part of 'nature' is in question - the divine, the human, the animal, plant, mineral - general or specific? Does it refer to the lowest forms which are the most ignorant of the highest most inclusive and 'truest' Consciousness, and are the 'natures' which are usually unconsciously assented to, blindly followed, moved by - which are part of that dance or 'noise' of surface forms and appearance which we follow, but gradually learn transcend? We 'are' those 'natures' when we identify with the consciousness of the lower instrumental being, the surface consciousness of form, conditional awareness, while not aware of the Transcendent within those forms which is being concealed.

In that sense, the 'true nature' is latent, not realized, not expressing - but it is becoming and evolving through the process of life which is a general evolution of consciousness in Nature. When human beings deliberately focus on and accelerate those general tendencies of Nature within a specific individual life through what is available in human nature - that is also a utilization of Nature, but it is that nature which is conscious of the full range of Consciousness, which becomes fully accessible, mastered, surrendered to vs being controlled by and subservient to.

~ J
Hi ~J: And yet.. 'nature and Nature' are not different in any way, it's a wonderful dichotomy..

Be well..

[Jyotir]

And yet.. 'nature and Nature' are not different in any way, it's a wonderful dichotomy

Yes Tzu,

Also true...'Nature and nature' are infinitely different in every way - it's a marvelous Unity.

~ J

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Yes Tzu,

Also true...'Nature and nature' are infinitely different in every way - it's a marvelous Unity.

~ J

:D Nothing is more paradoxical than .... everything:D

No -thing is more paradoxical than anything :icon_eek:

(and I loves me some good paradox )

:D

[rsingh]

Originally postee by Jyotir
The question: "Do I follow my nature?" is either open-ended or ambiguous in the sense that it needs to be known what nature or part of 'nature' is in question - the divine, the human, the animal, plant, mineral - general or specific? Does it refer to the lowest forms which are the most ignorant of the highest most inclusive and 'truest' Consciousness, and are the 'natures' which are usually unconsciously assented to, blindly followed, moved by - which are part of that dance or 'noise' of surface forms and appearance which we follow, but gradually learn transcend? We 'are' those 'natures' when we identify with the consciousness of the lower instrumental being, the surface consciousness of form, conditional awareness, while not aware of the Transcendent within those forms which is being concealed.



Hi Jyotir

Very good explaination of nature and consciousness.

Thanks. You have elaborated further on my thread in the right direction.

My question is abut human nature. It is about our condtioning and how we are always in the grip of conditioning. What is the nature of our conditioning? Is there a possiblity to free ourselves from our conditioning? If so how? We can free ourselves from our condtioning if we know the nature of our condtioning. For spiritual development, other characteristics of our nature are secondary to our conditioning.

[Mr Interesting]

Sigh............

Lean forward, put hands on top of head, pull hands back over head to neck while lifting downcast head and yawn.

But I suppose I gotta say something....

This idea that there is something to be left behind in favour of something better feels rather empty these days and I don't know why... but I think I might be getting an idea.

Do I follow my nature? or does my nature follow me? I don't know.

Without ambition to achieve do we still achieve regardless?

[TzuJanLi]

Greetings..

Yes Tzu,

Also true...'Nature and nature' are infinitely different in every way - it's a marvelous Unity.

~ J
:smile:

Be well...

[rsingh]

Do I follow my nature? or does my nature follow me? I don't know.



Hi Mr Interesting

It is the same thing. Depends how do define your "I". Who is "I"?

Without ambition to achieve do we still achieve regardless?


Who is having the ambition? Who is achieving? Who is the doer?

[Gem]

Yes, wonderful that distinction has been made...

I'm my mind, as usual, it's a trait I have, to say 'I follow my nature' it a topical statement which needs to be disected, so that the process of 'following' is elaborated on, from the point of view of different individual insights.

The trend on SF is lose sight of practical measures and leap into capital letters in order to demonstrate how enlightened we are, but although 'Nature (there's the capital letter) and nature' are completely distinct, they aren't seperate or the same or anything like that... so the only meaningful discussions are to do with the process of what it actually is to 'follow my nature'.

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Yes, wonderful that distinction has been made...

I'm my mind, as usual, it's a trait I have, to say 'I follow my nature' it a topical statement which needs to be disected, so that the process of 'following' is elaborated on, from the point of view of different individual insights.

The trend on SF is lose sight of practical measures and leap into capital letters in order to demonstrate how enlightened we are, but although 'Nature (there's the capital letter) and nature' are completely distinct, they aren't seperate or the same or anything like that... so the only meaningful discussions are to do with the process of what it actually is to 'follow my nature'.

I dunno....some very meaningful discussions have been ones that split hairs ad infinitum, manipulate semantics back and forth like a 5 hour, 56 minute tennis match, stretch my tolerance for tedium to it's end , until I realize (yet again) the innate inability of words to adequately or accurately describe these sorts of things :happy6:

But whaddayagonna do ? ; that's what this place is for :wink: (among other things, of course)

[Gem]

I dunno....some very meaningful discussions have been ones that split hairs ad infinitum, manipulate semantics back and forth like a 5 hour, 56 minute tennis match, stretch my tolerance for tedium to it's end , until I realize (yet again) the innate inability of words to adequately or accurately describe these sorts of things :happy6:

But whaddayagonna do ? ; that's what this place is for :wink: (among other things, of course)

Arguement is Ok in little bursts, but it's tedious semantics.

Behind a discussion is a meaning, but when answers come in to play, it becomes semantics... like the difference between duality and oneness, or the fundamental light or darkness.

In a universe where things just happen to be, there is no fundamental property. What they call the sourse isn't where the universe came from or didn't come from or anything else, it's just a matter of contentment and inner peace innit?

This natter about 'the true self' and such things would be better discussed as your own nature, for each of us has our particular way of being.

What I find repulsive is dictatorials like 'This is What You ARE'... these things are are a matter honesty trust and discovery.

So... by so saying that... the only prudence I find reasonable is for any one person tooffer insight as to what it means to them, through their particular insight, to follow their nature.

For me, we have intimacy with truthfulness, and that is the nature of us, so to follow your nature is to remain truthful.

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Arguement is Ok in little bursts, but it's tedious semantics.

Behind a discussion is a meaning, but when answers come in to play, it becomes semantics... like the difference between duality and oneness, or the fundamental light or darkness.

In a universe where things just happen to be, there is no fundamental property. What they call the sourse isn't where the universe came from or didn't come from or anything else, it's just a matter of contentment and inner peace innit?

This natter about 'the true self' and such things would be better discussed as your own nature, for each of us has our particular way of being.

What I find repulsive is dictatorials like 'This is What You ARE'... these things are are a matter honesty trust and discovery.

So... by so saying that... the only prudence I find reasonable is for any one person tooffer insight as to what it means to them, through their particular insight, to follow their nature.

For me, we have intimacy with truthfulness, and that is the nature of us, so to follow your nature is to remain truthful.

If I were going to say something like that , that's how I'd like to say it .
Dictating as unequivocal fact matters that are subjective, individualized , and loosely corraled by words at best, is not an approach I admire or respect. One I do admire and respect is one that allows for each to blaze their own trail , to discover and embrace their nature as they experience it unfolding . There are many aspects to our nature [edit]

I don't necessarily see it as following or not following my nature ... but maybe more about being my nature . how could I not be as I am ?

:D

[Gem]

If I were going to say something like that , that's how I'd like to say it .
Dictating as unequivocal fact matters that are subjective, individualized , and loosely corraled by words at best, is not an approach I admire or respect. One I do admire and respect is one that allows for each to blaze their own trail , to discover and embrace their nature as they experience it unfolding . There are many aspects to our nature [edit]

I don't necessarily see it as following or not following my nature ... but maybe more about being my nature . how could I not be as I am ?

:D

Yea... that's what I'm talkin' about!

[Swami Chihuahuananda]

Yea... that's what I'm talkin' about!

The fact that I've been totally wrong about some things in the past makes it hard to see how I'm not still wrong about some things , so I have to allow everyone space to come to their own realizations in their own time .
I have to allow myself to do the same .

There's a song I play in my head sometimes, when people (even myself :icon_eek: ) go into know-it-all mode. Jesus Jones :

"I'm so pleased for you; you know all the answers " :wink:
D

[Xan]

I have to allow everyone space to come to their own realizations in their own time .
I have to allow myself to do the same .

This is the only way it works anyway and could not be otherwise.

Even if we make suggestions, each person evolves in their own way in their own time.

Everything we encounter is part of all that, without exception, including our resistances.

As I see it, discovering allowing benefits the allower the most.


Xan

[silent whisper]

The fact that I've been totally wrong about some things in the past makes it hard to see how I'm not still wrong about some things , so I have to allow everyone space to come to their own realizations in their own time .
I have to allow myself to do the same .

There's a song I play in my head sometimes, when people (even myself :icon_eek: ) go into know-it-all mode. Jesus Jones :

"I'm so pleased for you; you know all the answers " :wink:
D


Im so pleased for you, you know all the answers...:wink: