Anattā (no self)

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Rain95

Welcome back to the Hindu, Chakra, Internet Cult of Jeff, Energy, Divine Mother, thread of Enlightened Internet Guru's looking for followers who like Buddhism. Hope you had a nice retreat

Don't trust anyone with tofu in their hair.

I had a great retreat, thanks ..

What was interesting was a lady teacher who had a buddhist master from spirit appear to her one day.

The master said I am willing to teach you if you can pay mindful attention to your breath and only your breath for one single hour and then vanished ..

My teacher was at this time already meditating for a number of years and had opened up as a clear channel for mediumship and trance work.

So she continued with the mindfulness meditation and it took her 2 years of daily practice to achieve her result and true to the masters word he reappeared and nodded to her. This was the last times she saw him lol ..

What she learn't was in her practice, the master didn't have to teach her anything so to speak..

Had some interesting chats about 'I am not the body' and such likes..

Not that what she says will carry any weight around here but she also said from a Self perspective this is incorrect.



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by janielee

Well we have two people here who believe they know better than anyone else. Maybe they can start their own threads.

God-Like can start a thread challenging everyone on a concept he doesn't understand and can't find the self/other-respect to even try to understand,



JL

If you simply pay attention to what I have said that relates to what you are being all there is then it applies to any aspect of any teaching.

If you understand Self then you understand that there cannot be anything that is not what you are ..

You never answered me once, my question of what else is there other than that and carried on with your crusade instead ..

I don't need to understand the meanings of dozens of scriptures from all walks of religions to understand that from a Self perspective it is incorrect to divide and separate.



x daz x

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Rain95

The simple answer is just take your attention off thought. But it can take a long time to get an insight into how that is done.

What is thought based?

I have had this discussion before and what is thought based seems to vary quite a bit in peoples eyes.

The teacher at my retreat that I spoke about paid attention to her breath for an hour but was still aware of the bird chirping or the itch on her nose.

There has to be a thought of what your nose is, what a birds chirp sounds like etc etc, but one doesn't have to pay those thoughts any attention other than the awareness of them.

One therefore in my eyes cannot take your attention off thought itself because awareness of self on any level requires initially a thought of oneself.

This is why no self, is no thought of oneself, no self is no awareness of I AM .



x daz x

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by janielee

I respect Hindu traditions, Buddhist traditions, mystic Christian traditions, many others actually - I love learning from many people and ways. I love that about this forum - how different people are.

I have not attacked any of the spiritual traditions - and do not. I respect nearly all of them and those that yield students and practitioners of genuine insight and calibre have my utmost respect and gratitude.

I do remain very skeptical of you and your understandings, but please do not be insulted, these are my opinions only.

In the hands of a master swordsman, a sword can be useful and wield power. In the hands of others, it means nothing to me, let alone the one wielding it when s/he clearly doesn't know what the art really means.

Hence my issue has not been with anything posted, but the fact that posting words or sutras here and there takes things out of context.

Hinduism/Buddhism/others - these have context within them. Copying words and sutras is not useful, in my opinion, when one does not understand its full context or interpretation. Representing them in certain ways - to back up one's "arguments" is also silly IMO. Disrespectful, to my way of seeing.

Do you understand? I don't insult any of the teachings, traditions, or teachers.

Be at peace, and walk well, jonesboy. Apologies if I have insulted you overly, in your mind and reception. Thank you for the conversation - take care.

JL

To be honest you haven’t been respectful of other traditions and beliefs just based on your condescending comments.

One can have an opinion but if one can show that what one is saying is based on Sutra it should help back it up. It’s not just some made up view. I am not someone who will take a sentence from some teachings and twist the meaning.

If you disagree with the teachings or my view on the teachings that is fine.

You haven’t done that. You just attack me.

If you look back at the thread you haven’t added any insight to Buddhism discussions, you have just been demeaning to others.

Maybe in the future provide counter arguments, maybe provide some of that knowledge you have received from the real teachers you talk about.

[jonesboy]

Originally Posted by sentient

Be it Buddhism, Shamanism or Hinduism – the above quote describes an *awareness shift* (and it has got to do with the 'vibration of your energy field').

Because of the Buddhist wish to help all sentient beings and because of the generosity of their spirit – Buddhism has so many teachings and meditative practices, which I trust are designed to prepare the (local?) mind for a (letting go) ‘leap’ i.e. for a *shift*.

At the very first ‘level’ or call it expansion of awareness – you ‘experience Oneness’ with the Elder or the Guru.
From my experience ....... there is a difference being psychic and ‘being spiritual’ (so to speak).

In telepathy – there is a time & space (dual) gap involved, but directly knowing is immediate and more intimate than intimate, because you experience the other person within yourself ‘as you’(so to speak).
When both people are open like this – silent communion happens and because the situation is thus 200% transparent – there is trust.

In Shamanism – from this ‘first non-dual level i.e. ‘Oneness experienced with the Elder’ – there are 6 more to go, some say 8.

A Shaman can *shift* your awareness into an alignment with the “World Pole” and this I trust is similar when a Buddhist Guru can show you the Mandala set up:


Perhaps this is the ‘2nd level’ awareness shift when time and timelessness, unborn and creation are also realized as One.

On the ‘3rd level’ “Power” is introduced and it follows the same principle: “It stands for nothing, the emptiness energy that pervades the Mandala”.

It is a paradox. Because we do not exist – therefore we do, because the Elder has no power – therefore he/she 'does'.

It is only the dual (local?) mind that boggles and thinks trickery is involved when synchronistic circumstances/events come together with a precision of a “Swiss clock”.

*

Hi Sentient,

Very cool stuff.

I have had a few friends that were shamans and the were always powerful 3rd eye type people. They could see deep.

I will admit I am trying to relate to your view on poles and shields but I am just not there yet.

Maybe after I have some coffee as it’s 3:30am and my brain isn’t working yet.

Would love to continue on the discussion.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by God-Like

So when you speak about nutrition to others are you speaking from a teacher position or not?

I talk with people within their context. I listen to people, so understand all their circumstances. I also have an ethical foundation and people are clear that our discussion is confidential. I fully inform them of what I'm about and how I operate so they are informed before they consent to the relationship.


I understand the power balance. I know how it works and they don't, and that knowledge makes me influential over them. I never wiels the power and tell anyone what to eat when, because not only is that unethical, it also doesn't work. I consult people as their assistant and make sure all the decisions are theirs; NOT mine. I explain everything in full so that their decisions are well informed, and this how they are empowered, self determined, and move forward willingly on their own volition.

Does your position of knowledge on the subject put you on a high horse or not?

It puts me in position of power over them and I take a great deal of care to ensure they remain 'the boss' of their lives.

I have seen you rigorously debate with others about vegan stuff, so are you automatically teaching these others that disagree with you?

No, we are having a conversation, and I probably changed my eating more than they did as a result of those discussions. I have my listening ears on, so I started eating much more raw food, and taking much better care of my micronutrient intake. I am also thinking it would be a good idea to get more plant proteins and less from meat. I learned from those talks, implemented some things, and benefited.

Did you ask for consent with these others when carrying on with speaking your knowings of such matters?

There was no issue of consent involved because everyone was equal.

It's ridiculous to hold a position that others are not consenting to be taught because I am asking these dudes questions..

I know, you just don't understand it, and I don't care.

The teaching is in the questioning, but questioning is part of the proceedings when there is disagreements in regards to how you see things.

Hiding behind this pompous attitude speaks volumes.

If you or anyone else wants to say I am incorrect about there 'is only what you are' then be open to questioning or don't bother to exercise your will by saying I am incorrect in the first place..

This again, just shows me where another is at ..

It's like, saying their peace and then sticking your fingers in your ears because one hasn't the decency to hear what another has to say ..

This is why you have to be attentive to how others behave and react, when questioned about their beliefs ..

x daz x

I'd just ask what they believe, they can tell me if they want, as much as they want, but they don't have to. I don't insist they do. If they do I try understand, maybe chat about it a bit if there's a mutual interest. I might learn something - who knows? I'm not a messenger, I don't have a mission, I'm not trying to help, and when I ask a question it's because I don't know something and I want to find out (and you'll notice I rarely ask questions, which implies I know just about everything teehee).

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by Gem

I talk with people within their context. I listen to people, so understand all their circumstances. I also have an ethical foundation and people are clear that our discussion is confidential. I fully inform them of what I'm about and how I operate so they are informed before they consent to the relationship.


I understand the power balance. I know how it works and they don't, and that knowledge makes me influential over them. I never wiels the power and tell anyone what to eat when, because not only is that unethical, it also doesn't work. I consult people as their assistant and make sure all the decisions are theirs; NOT mine. I explain everything in full so that their decisions are well informed, and this how they are empowered, self determined, and move forward willingly on their own volition.





It puts me in position of power over them and I take a great deal of care to ensure they remain 'the boss' of their lives.





No, we are having a conversation, and I probably changed my eating more than they did as a result of those discussions. I have my listening ears on, so I started eating much more raw food, and taking much better care of my micronutrient intake. I am also thinking it would be a good idea to get more plant proteins and less from meat. I learned from those talks, implemented some things, and benefited.






There was no issue of consent involved because everyone was equal.





I know, you just don't understand it, and I don't care.






I'd just ask what they believe, they can tell me if they want, as much as they want, but they don't have to. I don't insist they do. If they do I try understand, maybe chat about it a bit if there's a mutual interest. I might learn something - who knows? I'm not a messenger, I don't have a mission, I'm not trying to help, and when I ask a question it's because I don't know something and I want to find out (and you'll notice I rarely ask questions, which implies I know just about everything teehee).

All you are doing is explaining your situation and how you see it in reflection of yourself.

This is my point in making. It's all one can do and only you know of your intent.

So anything that is said to the contrary is pure speculation even if you or anyone else proclaims that you can see things a mile off regarding others expressions.

Such things as said where you started off with an 'If' as your foundation when I asked you what you can see a mile off regarding my expression ..

The high horse mentality, the 'know it all' stigma that has come across is pure speculation and it is this reflection I am more interested in ..

The whole stigma attached to being a teacher and whatnot and consent not given in order to be asked questions again is based upon one's speculation regarding the other's intention putting themselves on a pedestal or a position of power and so forth.

I am not sure what you think I don't understand about this consent business because I have explained that you don't need consent to ask another a question when they have proclaimed that what I have said is incorrect. I can't help it if there is teachings built in within the enquiry and I can't help the questions that I ask because they are relevant.

If someone say's I AM not the body, and I ask them what I AM is, then I am not responsible for what comes out of their mouths from that moment onwards.

Forget about the teacher role, forget about high horse speculations and just focus on the question .. What happens is that the answer to the question will say something about their beliefs so the defence mechanism can kick in and there is a deflection that occurs in ways to discredit the questioner.

So perhaps generally speaking it would be more prudent to focus on the question asked and not focus on what you think is going on with the questioner when it's pure speculation in my case..

If I didn't ask questions and simply told others the answers then I am sure the speculations would be far more discrediting than it already is.


x daz x

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by running

its an open forum right? if you don't wish anyone else to respond. i suggest use a pm. otherwise not just me, but everybody is game when it comes to responding. you know this already.

i said your response was out of context and explained why. if you dont agree then ok.

LOL...yep. I completely disagree Running and hello there.
Glad that's OK with you It's ok with me as well, so we do in fact agree it's ok to disagree.

Otherwise, we'd all have to agree that you're special indeed and not because your experience or insight is privileged over any other, but more coz you get to say what's on topic and not the mods. Hahahaha!

Peace & blessings
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by Gem

You've said it well.

Gem hello there,
I appreciate that, and I'm glad that my intentions got across more or less as intended, which was largely neutral and respectful, but with an emphasis on how we interact and make a space for one another.

Because I really do feel it's so often equally about how we say and how we listen and receive the saying of others... as much as it is about what we or they specifically say.

It's creating that (very wide, broad, and deep) circle of belonging.

Peace & blessings
7L

[Rain95]

Originally Posted by Gem

Please elaborate, but I can only swallow one bite at as time, so don't give me too much at once, ...

Yea how to put a lot of experience and observation, contemplation, into a few paragraphs or sentences. I was just observing dialog between posters and noticed the inability of some to recognize self inflicted unnecessary conflict. Life is like a empty page and thought/mind writes on it. The writing is real enough and fully experienced, but the whole point of some teacher like Buddha was to share his discovery that one can be free of that.

Then there is the phenomena of exaggerated reality. Well actually it is all exaggerated by thought but won't get into that too much. Basically, now is empty, thoughts come and go, thought brings back what is past using memory in the now and speaks as if it is objective reality. But then it is objective reality if that's where the attention is conditioned to be, on thought. But it is optional created reality.


Another exaggerated reality is the way we use words and language in posts. An example like, "I'm starving! Lets get lunch." Obviously the person is not starving. Then here on the forums examples would be "You always,..." "You think,..." etc. "This exists...." is another one. Also the mind stating habitual thoughts, like slogans, that are repeated week after week. Exaggerating, asserting "truths" that are only made true by thought. If it is in my mind, I can assert it as true and real in a post, but it is a wholly optional reality, it's existence depends on a consciousness fully identified with thought. The writing on the blank page does not have to be experienced as real. But yea seeing that is not easy.

That's not one bite though. That short post, "The simple answer is just take your attention off thought. But it can take a long time to get an insight into how that is done." was a longer post that I edited down because I used some examples that called out others and I don't think we are allowed to do that. Also, a heck of a lot of thinking and reflection was done and involved in that. Reading a post, I remembered going through a similar time when I was stuck in a thought based loop, a conflict reality based on philosophy and could not find the way out. Ironically, the philosophy was about finding a way out.

I don't think you can say something or help someone out of that, they have to find the way out.