Find the cause of suffering

Originally Posted by JustBe

Wouldn't mindfulness be an inclusiveness of self and others? Within myself, mindful understanding is a interconnectedness of all life as that understanding.

I don't cut people off, more trying to understand your reactions as they come across in your posts. I am not bothered by them, but it appears your not happy with the way of others.

Mindfulness for me is seeing and understanding what one is doing right now.
Seeing the processes that make up ones experience as it is.


I am perfectly fine with the way of "others". There's only a few I am less than ok with and I will say so if need be.


I notice you didn't ask for my reasons. So I''l keep those for myself for now, although I have explained and posted them in various ways in different threads.


With Love
Eelco

Originally Posted by JustBe

I am not against spontaneous intervention under certain circumstances of life, often those times are where you "don't think" more act in the moment because it is needed that way for the other for protection or support. Often those ways are without thought and more instinct to reach out and just do it. That is part of life too.

Clarity of being, opens up ways to support and be more understanding and get great results in your actions. Reactions are not action. They are reactions.

Often, but definitely not always.
My (re)actions are continuations of actions I willingly and thoughtfully engaged with.


With Love
Eelco

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Rain95

But yea that does not come about in a vacuum. Something knows these subtle things and thus chooses them. Awareness/knowledge/intelligence? Sumthin somewhere.

Woohoo, Rain!

I once wrote:

"The potentially liberating and amendatory truth is that everybody in existence is spiritually motivated by a mindfully discriminating intrinsic potency. This was termed ‘atman’ or ‘soul’ by sages of old, who recognized everyone and everything as an immediate expression of the universally present, intelligently creative essence which they understood to be the real meaning of ‘Brahman’ and ‘God’. But, because such words have been misappropriated by custom and their significance sometimes grossly distorted by misusage, I generally refer to it, alternatively , as Intelligence , Creativity, Life Itself or the Life-Force. However labeled, it is the source ‘element’ from which all Being springs, the core I-Am-That-I-Am [a/k/a The Presence], That Which Is at root within each and everyone."

And, from The Bhagavad Gita:

"I will speak to thee now of that great Truth which man ought to know, since by its means he will win immortal bliss – that which is without beginning, the Eternal Spirit which dwells in Me, neither with form, nor yet without it.
Everywhere are Its hands and Its feet; everywhere It has eyes that see, heads that think and mouths that speak; everywhere It listens; It dwells in all the worlds; It envelops them all.
Beyond the senses, It yet shines through every sense perception. Bound to nothing, It yet sustains everything. Unaffected by the Qualities, It still enjoys them all.
It is within all beings, yet outside; motionless yet moving; too subtle to be perceived; far away yet always near.
In all beings undivided, yet living in division, It is the upholder of all, Creator and Destroyer alike;
It is the Light of lights, beyond the reach of darkness; the Wisdom, the only thing that is worth knowing or that wisdom can teach; the Presence in the hearts of all."

-------------------

[davidsun]

Originally Posted by Eelco

-------------------

I 'see' that Eelco has deleted what he said in the above post. I am quoting (below) what he originally said in it which came through in the email which notified me of its posting, however, because it is pertinent (IMO) to what is being discussed and I wish to respond to respond to it relevantly, which opportunity I am thankful for.

Buddhism really teaches something else than the Bhagavad gita does.

Apparently so.

From the book, Seth Speaks (channeled by Jane Roberts):

"In any of these worlds, the Christ drama could never appear as it appeared within your own. Now the same thing applies to each of your great religions, though as I have said in the past, the Buddhists come closer, generally speaking, to a description of the nature of reality. They have not understood the eternal validity of the soul, however, in terms of its exquisite invulnerability, nor been able to hold a feeling for its unique character. But Buddha, like Christ, interpreted what he almost knew in terms of your own reality. Not only of your own physical reality, but your own probable physical reality."

That (channeled) Entity, who/which used the name 'Seth', may not have known what he was talking about either, I suppose.

[sky]

Originally Posted by davidsun

I 'see' that Eelco has deleted what he said in the above post. I am quoting (below) what he originally said in it which came through in the email which notified me of its posting, however, because it is pertinent (IMO) to what is being discussed and I wish to respond to respond to it relevantly, which opportunity I am thankful for.


Apparently so.

From the book, Seth Speaks (channeled by Jane Roberts):

"In any of these worlds, the Christ drama could never appear as it appeared within your own. Now the same thing applies to each of your great religions, though as I have said in the past, the Buddhists come closer, generally speaking, to a description of the nature of reality. They have not understood the eternal validity of the soul, however, in terms of its exquisite invulnerability, nor been able to hold a feeling for its unique character. But Buddha, like Christ, interpreted what he almost knew in terms of your own reality. Not only of your own physical reality, but your own probable physical reality."

That (channeled) Entity, who/which used the name 'Seth', may not have known what he was talking about either, I suppose.

' Buddhism really teaches something else than the Bhagavad gita does'

Yes 👍

Originally Posted by davidsun

I 'see' that Eelco has deleted what he said in the above post. I am quoting (below) what he originally said in it which came through in the email which notified me of its posting, however, because it is pertinent (IMO) to what is being discussed and I wish to respond to respond to it relevantly, which opportunity I am thankful for.

Would you mind posting the excerpt and the link to the article as well? It was a rather thorough thesis about the idea of the root You are so fond of.

If not that's good as well. I deleted it because I didn't want to discuss that in the end.

But quoting the Gita and a wise entity called Seth.
Yeah I can see how that belongs in a Buddhist subforum.

https://www.meditationexpert.com/zen..._hinduism.html
Here it is..

For those interested.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Eelco

Would you mind posting the excerpt and the link to the article as well? It was a rather thorough thesis about the idea of the root You are so fond of.

If not that's good as well. I deleted it because I didn't want to discuss that in the end.

But quoting the Gita and a wise entity called Seth.
Yeah I can see how that belongs in a Buddhist subforum.

Wasn't Seth Adams Son, did he study/practise Buddhism

Lol.

I actually learned a lot from Jane Roberts or Seth's nature of reality.

The quote above is from Seth speaks and is 1 of a few out of context mentions of Buddhism and the Buddha in the whole thing.

Wasn't Adams son called Cain?

With Love
Eelco