Agreement

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

Not if you attempt to suppress those who think differently. You should be resisted and will be I hope. We have had enough of that stuff historically.

Maybe, but that is 'historical' and 'traditional' and doesn't apply to the current concepts you speak of, does it?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

Maybe, but that is 'historical' and 'traditional' and doesn't apply to the current concepts you speak of, does it?

It applies to the smears against those who have found NA suitable.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

It applies to the smears against those who have found NA suitable.

...or does it just apply to you that has found NA suitable?

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

...or does it just apply to you that has found NA suitable?

It applies to me if I am smeared for the audacity of prefering NA to TA.

[Shivani Devi]

Originally Posted by Iamit

It applies to me if I am smeared for the audacity of prefering NA to TA.

However, there also may be those in NA who will say 'let them have their way for it is not ours'...let Iamit say what he does because it doesn't reflect our teachings...what makes you, personally believe it applies to all:

those who have found NA suitable.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

The issue was not length of posting, but was just the accuracy in representation.

BT

I have a reasonably well rounded understanding of Buddhist philosophy, but the way of it is, if you don't gel with what I say, it doesn't make sense to you, then don't accept it. Your discerning ability requires truth in yourself, which is far more important than my 'twitter sized' quip.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by Mr Interesting

Blossomingtree, I don't think it matters - people wandering off towards the Neo Advaita - except possibly, if it isn't madness, and it is as things usually go the unburdening of traumas not dealt with compassionately... can be rough.

I watched recently a small video on the Aboriginal, Australian, importance of the gut as another brain, or intelligence being more apt possibly, and it's importance instinctually as regards being part of the whole communicative responding processes, gut, heart and brain (in the head) and that each has important role... and it is all, of course, an illusion, how could it be otherwise? But such must be mastered, understood and got beyond, another layer of the construct revealed and disappeared, it's vibratory reality nulled as it were.

Simply because those higher vibratory planes need getting used to, their realities acclimatised to... otherwise, and this is only my reckoning (subject to change) that higher 'love' is hot, or encountered as hot simply as it burns away that which is of a vibration too dense.

Hello Mr I.

Just popped up to say g'day.

[Iamit]

Originally Posted by Shivani Devi

However, there also may be those in NA who will say 'let them have their way for it is not ours'...let Iamit say what he does because it doesn't reflect our teachings...what makes you, personally believe it applies to all:

Yes let seekers select TA if they feel it suits them and may TA not smear those that select NA if it suits them.

[blossomingtree]

Originally Posted by Gem

I have a reasonably well rounded understanding of Buddhist philosophy, but the way of it is, if you don't gel with what I say, it doesn't make sense to you, then don't accept it. Your discerning ability requires truth in yourself, which is far more important than my 'twitter sized' quip.

Originally Posted by Gem

Anatta is the general rule, but yes, Gotama typically avoided existential questions.

Anatta is one of the three Dhamma seals in Buddhism which characterize all Buddhist teachings, it's not a "general rule."

Ajahn Sumedho:

"(Ajahn Sumedho) maintains anatta to be the Buddha’s way of pointing to the experience of Ultimate Reality that is the goal of many religions."

Further, and more to the point, which you have continued to side step post after post:

Originally Posted by Gem

There is no you.

Buddha taught that to hold that there is a self or there is no self are both wrong views. Buddha did not teach anyone that they and other people did not exist. You mistake mindfulness for robotism and keep promulgating this view as Buddhist, when it is not. I understand it is a subtle error and an easy one to make.

Thanissaro Bhikkhu:

So, instead of answering "no" to the question of whether or not there is a self — interconnected or separate, eternal or not — the Buddha felt that the question was misguided to begin with. Why? No matter how you define the line between "self" and "other," the notion of self involves an element of self-identification and clinging, and thus suffering and stress. This holds as much for an interconnected self, which recognizes no "other," as it does for a separate self. If one identifies with all of nature, one is pained by every felled tree. It also holds for an entirely "other" universe, in which the sense of alienation and futility would become so debilitating as to make the quest for happiness — one's own or that of others — impossible. For these reasons, the Buddha advised paying no attention to such questions as "Do I exist?" or "Don't I exist?" for however you answer them, they lead to suffering and stress.

Originally Posted by God-Like

Where there is intent, there is someone intending

Originally Posted by Gem

Bolded bit makes sense in the Buddhist philosophical context, but not that there is someone intending per-se, but in the sense that intent is the 'urge to move the mind' - the 'cause' if you will. The Buddhist interpretation is, intent and kamma are the same thing, so myself being schooled a little in Buddhist philosophy, the bolded 'rings a bell'.

Originally Posted by God-Like

This intent / urge to move the mind must be acknowledged by an individual .

Originally Posted by Gem

Yes, so the individual is post rather than prior.

Originally Posted by Gem

'There is no you' is the basic tenet of non-duality. I think it means to say that there isn't a personal/individual awareness, only an individualised experience - no one is here to experience it

Originally Posted by Gem

As there is no 'me' in the past or the future, there is no time in which I exist. That is an illusion created by reactions to avoid the pain and pursue the pleasure. That brings about the illusion of a 'me' who comes from the past and goes into the future.

Originally Posted by Gem

I see the ridiculous character, 'Gem', who does all these things flailing about in desperation at having been 'caught out'. That's the imminent end of the thing called 'Gem'.

This is why I said it's not the length of your quips that was responded to, it's the accuracy, and it has nothing to do with accepting it. It's a very easy mistake for a self practicing Buddhist to make, especially when you've read some.

BT

[Mr Interesting]

Originally Posted by blossomingtree

Mr Interesting,

Can you elaborate a bit more on these two parts please?


1 But the layers of illusion are many, and very thin, and need careful unfurling... otherwise they spring back more resilient, so a deft hand is needed and such a touch doesn't come easily or by will alone.

For me it is that ego, having attained some going forward, is very proficient at having a sense of pride and superiority 'subtly' come in to 'own', 'attach' to this shift. The point, as it were, of unfurling the layers of conceptualisms is to sit with them unfurled and feel, observe, be quiet with what then is possibly the next layer, the next shift which is less pronounced, more ephemeral, and let these ideas, formulations reach deeper into us whilst also widening, as it were, the not us without having ego play too big a part in owning, clarifying and making concrete these shifts... except even that has a part as translation within ego and formlessness being of a tension helps to manifest the sense more readily for those coming on to be with.

Q: Have you - or can you relate to e.g. anger gone completely - wisp seen gone wisp gone even before arising - not even that. And then re-created? Or am I off-track?

Yes, somewhat. Anger was a biggie for me as a youth and suppressing it became, now I look back, part of the trauma swirling within me that held me to learning of myself. Anger I see as a type of vent to frustration, which could be complexities not given time and patience, and all these practices of sitting, observing etc go well with being able to just let complexity be and have the time it needs to resolve. Then if this set of complex is given long enough to settle then possibly aspects of it might contain roots of what we might need to deal with and so maybe mini 'vents' appear as energies that we can then isolate for working with. I am making this up as I go along... just letting what I hope is intuition have its sense with what you are asking...

2. And we can know when our hard word is being watched and encouraged.

Q: How?
A Freudian slip on my part, it was supposed to be hard work... but hard 'word' kinda works well anyway. Basically, spirit guides, higher self, source whatever you want to call it, that and us is essentially part of a continuum, we, the part we see as not us, is still us and the communication is always there. But, and I am too, as separation, an idea, hold less sway on us we start to sense, acclimatise to and regard deeper as a sort of trueism, this not only going to but already arriving at alike waves bouncing off the island we are going to... Therein whatever perceptual framework suits us, we are comfortable with, is a message to us that the work we do has merit.

Thanks,

BT

And herein, because I filled in just within the quotes, I have to put letters so the algorithm knows I have existed.