Mer-Ka-Ba

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by starfox777

Don't trust anything this guy Drunvalo says. He isn't an ethical person.

Every action / deed has it's place in this world, the deceiver, the deceived, the peacemaker, the truth bearer .

x daz x

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey :)

The lesser the ego the lesser the needs for whom would be needy .. The lesser the person the lesser the need for an abundance of food and wealth and material gains, it really is just a reflection of self awareness .. It doesn't mean you can't live in a nice house or drive a nice car but the attachment to these things are not there in the same way where one might believe that they actually do need these things for whatever reason .

Hello there :) I agree in part. I also realise that we have needs on many levels, and we have imbalance on many levels. Not just material imbalance and greed -- that is simply more common and obvious. But emotional, intellectual, and spiritual imbalance is no less an obstruction to growth and being and wholeness. A vast portion of this imbalance is failing to own and address our human needs, whilst failing to share and give from our boundless gifts and abundances.

Buddha's mortification of the flesh in pursuit of enlightenment was utilitarian, using or punishing his body as a means to his desired ends. And he was ultimately missing the point, until he found a more balanced, loving way with himself and his outlook. And learned to receive as well as to give.

I have mentioned before about not having a choice in matters, when I was drawn into meditation each day I was likened to a drug addict with a bad habit where I needed my meditative fix . My mum in a particular state of self awareness hardly ate and fasted often, because her mind body relationship reflected in the need for little food .. She didn't need creature comforts, those things were not in her mind .. If they are not in mind, then they do not exist . The lure of the sports car in mind reflects what's in mind in relation to the self . Is it love in mind is it fear, is it sex, is it pizza .. :)

That is very liberating :) However, taken to extreme, reality intrudes upon what we say or demand or expect our needs and desires are or will be, if in fact we are too far out of balance with ourselves and/or our larger reality to sustain that way of being.

The physical body we may seek to mortify or control in some way will simply break down or cease to be, if we do not love and care for it and allow the self to receive on all levels as needed. Here our perceived emotional and spiritual needs must be expanded to allow for all our needs to be addressed, including our physical needs. We must give and receive, to and from self. Self. And other selves.

I think many recognise a pattern for those that are selfless in that they are the givers .. You can't be a selfless taker, it doesn't work like that, the more aware one is of themselves the more they let go of until there is nothing left other than themselves, that's why even the attachment to food falls away and one only eats to survive ..

I like the saying as said before, one eats to live and not lives to eat ..

True saying!

But you speak again only of selfless givers and selfish takers. That is still the old paradigm in the land of the blind. And neither blind giving nor blind taking are healthy, ultimately. One is enabling and one is exploitative. The martyr and the thief. I agree they exist, but this broken, utilitarian "exchange" is not the only form of exchange that exists. True exchange in love and gratitude also exists. Just not in the land of the blind.

The land of the awakened is one with mutual giving and receiving, in love and gratitude, at the level of the persons. I.e., person to person and soul to soul. It is personalistic in spirit and in practise, never utilitarian. For every giver also receives and every receiver also gives, within the flow of love and connection between souls.

The more one is aware of self the more love reflects within their expression ... There is an 'abundance' of love already present what more do they need other than that and a survival kit lols, the universe provides one with all their needs in some shape or form, what their needs are and what one thinks their needs are can be miles apart .

In an ideal world everyone would have x amount of money, x amount of kids, 3/4 bedroom house, car, 1 holiday a year, 3 meals a day etc etc ..

It don't work like that .

Everyone's experience reflects their needs or requirements in the moment, from the selfish to the selfless . As every thread goes it will boil down to the awareness of self, because the self is everything in mind ..

x daz x

Again you are back to what a person don't need, which IMO is the same as focusing only on what one does needs. It's not about being above humanity and the flow of love and of life, dear Dazzer, just as it's not about groveling in the mud either. It's not a game one wins by needing "less" (whether things or connections/people), just as one doesn't win by having or getting "more" (whether things or people) . Granted many still need to learn the latter lesson, but the former then becomes equally important. Equally important.

Those who only give and do not seek to receive will ultimately fail to give and must hoard when spent (i.e., when they feel a lack), because they fear vulnerability and do not recognise their own needs. One cannot expand in growth whilst the gates of one's gardens are firmly closed to light and love and full immersion in the human experience with others and with the world.

And likewise all who do not give but only seek to receive will ultimately take instead. They too seek to hoard by thievery from the gardens of others, but ultimately it matters not. They too fear vulnerability and do not recognise others' needs. They too cannot grow whilst they seek only to steal from the gardens of others rather than nurturing those gardens in a sustainable fashion.

Hoarding on either side is about fear and stagnation. All hoarding, whether from fear of receiving or fear of giving, breaks the circuit and disrupts the flow. The flow of the way of all things, which is of truth, and of love, and of Spirit.

Whilst exchange in mutual reciprocity, both giving and receiving, is all about love and connection in Spirit.
It's about flowing from the shore to the ocean and back again, receiving in love and gratitude, and giving from love and gracious abundance.

Peace & blessings Teddy
Panda

[muffin]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Those who only give and do not seek to receive will ultimately fail to give and must hoard when spent (i.e., when they feel a lack), because they fear vulnerability and do not recognise their own needs. One cannot expand in growth whilst the gates of one's gardens are firmly closed to light and love and full immersion in the human experience with others and with the world.

Peace & blessings Teddy
Panda

Think again, for there is more than one way to give.

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

A vast portion of this imbalance is failing to own and address our human needs, whilst failing to share and give from our boundless gifts and abundances.

Hey :)

I suppose it would help if you share with us what our human needs are on a basic level ... how many bathrooms do you need panda :)

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Again you are back to what a person don't need, which IMO is the same as focusing only on what one does needs. It's not about being above humanity and the flow of love and of life, dear Dazzer, just as it's not about groveling in the mud either .

You seem to put humanity it to a box of sorts, its not like that . If one goes with the flow of their own reflection then that's all that one is doing .. For some they get absorbed within the selfless aspect, it's not about trying to be above humanity, because humanity as a conditioned condition just reflects conditions lol, is it humane to poo in the toilet or poo in the woods ... is it humane to pick one's nose ..

Behaviour is for most conditioned ..

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Buddha's mortification of the flesh in pursuit of enlightenment was utilitarian, using or punishing his body as a means to his desired ends. And he was ultimately missing the point, until he found a more balanced, loving way with himself and his outlook. And learned to receive as well as to give.

Certain extremities in behaviour bring one to a point of understanding or a point of realization . Perhaps Buddha's point was to miss the point in order to know ..

x daz x

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by muffin

Think again, for there is more than one way to give.

Hey there Miss Muffin...I'm not here to convince anyone We are all free to think as we like.
There are many ways to do anything, but IMO, following the example of Buddha, ultimately there is always balance, harmony and reciprocity in all things.

It is up to us to figure out how and when, etc., we find our balance, harmony, and reciprocity.

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Originally Posted by God-Like

Hey :)

I suppose it would help if you share with us what our human needs are on a basic level ... how many bathrooms do you need panda :)

Hey there Teddy :)
The one very old loo I have is functional, and therefore it meets code So that'll do. However I am talking not only about material needs, but about emotional, intellectual, and spiritual needs as well. Our human needs lie in all of those areas. And therefore in finding the balance in all of those areas or realms, as well.

You seem to put humanity it to a box of sorts, its not like that . If one goes with the flow of their own reflection then that's all that one is doing .. For some they get absorbed within the selfless aspect, it's not about trying to be above humanity, because humanity as a conditioned condition just reflects conditions lol, is it humane to poo in the toilet or poo in the woods ... is it humane to pick one's nose ..

No, Teddy I absolutely do not put humanity in a box -- so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

What I said is there is no prize for trying to be the least connected to the material aspects of one's life, nor for being the most indulgent or greedy regarding those aspects. Those two things are not opposites in any way -- they are simply often viewed that way because they are two common extremes in our current way of thinking -- which often is all too centred around either worshipping or castigating the material realm. Represented at core by the innocent glory of the temple that houses our soul.

Both extremes of material disengagement or material indulgence are readily and frequently used for escapism from one's full immersion in one's individual life...and to that extent, both are forms of misdirection. Neither necessarily get one any closer to one's centre, to one's harmony.

One can certainly be selfless (by whatever definition one chooses) whilst caring for the self with love (not indulgence), or one can be selfless at the expense of the basic needs of the self. One way is balanced, and the other is not. Imbalance is ultimately unsustainable...it's only the timeline that varies.
The middle way offers balance, harmony, and full immersion in the here and now -- which paradoxically is always ultimately necessary for true spiritual growth, and for wisdom.

This was Buddha's example and his message. And noooo (lol), he did not "have to" spend all those years mortifying the flesh to learn his lesson. At first he chose to mortify the flesh consciously, because he had the fixed idea that doing so would lead to enlightenment. As we know, that seems fairly simplistic...and it is. So initially, he actively resisted the critical lessons of balance, harmony, compassion and reciprocity presented to him by his own temple (his body) -- until he finally admitted the wisdom of the teaching...hence the middle way and balance in all things.

Buddha tried to control his material world (his body and his surroundings), to bend his body and the world around him to his way, until he finally realised the superior wisdom of doing otherwise. And, once again paradoxically, only then was he able to bend the spiritual learning of the entire globe his way. Because he went with the flow and thus was able to partake of the wisdom of All and simply reveal truths that were always at hand.

I personally do not see Buddha as the greatest spiritual teacher.
But I see him as perhaps one of the greatest examples of the spiritual student. And in this way, he is still a great teacher.

Behaviour is for most conditioned ..

Certain extremities in behaviour bring one to a point of understanding or a point of realization . Perhaps Buddha's point was to miss the point in order to know ..

x daz x

That's true. Though he certainly didn't have to live there for many years. That required complicity and choice on many levels.

I'd say that the length of time required for him to accept the wisdom of love, compassion, balance, and harmony in all things had more to do with his initial preconceived notions and wrong thinking. His initial belief that mortifying the flesh and "getting away from it all" would lead to enlightenment. Because all he'd known had been a charmed life in the palace, Buddha was convinced that the opposite lifestyle would be the ticket. Well, it was sort of the "opposite" of palace life, except that it was aceticism by his choice and without the disease, dirt, illiteracy, forced hunger, and hopelessness of most living outside the palace.

Buddha was so sheltered and narrow-minded in his naivete, initially. Like many of us in the modern age living such sheltered and precious lives, with the modern conveniences, the 3 to 5 baths, etc. His early years (pre-enlightenment) lacked authentic connection with nature, with others, with other cultures, with self, and with God/Spirit. He was the quintessential broken modern man, ahead of his time, who has tonnes o' stuff and learning, and yet nothing of enduring value within. What raises Buddha up as a model is that 1) he came to see his lack, and 2) he overcame his arrogance and hard-headedness, and yielded to the love and wisdom of Spirit. And THEN he began to make real progress.

Buddha had no particular perspective for forming his initial ideas of how to seek enlightenment, and yet he was convinced of their rightness. So very modern...the witless, unfounded arrogance, even in his garb of simplicity and humility So only after years of pounding his head against his own barriers did he realise that the key to enlightenment had been in his own hand all along. He had simply chosen not to see it, until he first chose to admit that his earlier ways were misguided.

It's like the philosophy of 12-step programmes..first, one admits the problems in one's behaviour and the biases in one's thinking.
And only then, can recovery begin. Only then can we see.

Peace & blessings,
Panda

[muffin]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Hey there Miss Muffin...I'm not here to convince anyone We are all free to think as we like.

HA HA, I'm sorry but that's priceless, I've been called many thing's that would be up with the top few and thanks for making my day

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

There are many ways to do anything, but IMO, following the example of Buddha, ultimately there is always balance, harmony and reciprocity in all things.

To each there own.

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

It is up to us to figure out how and when, etc., we find our balance, harmony, and reciprocity.

Peace & blessings,
7L

To a point and others it walks into their life's.

And 7luminaries have a fun and enjoyable day

Miss Muffin

[God-Like]

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

No, Teddy I absolutely do not put humanity in a box -- so thanks for giving me the opportunity to clarify.

What I said is there is no prize for trying to be the least connected to the material aspects of one's life, nor for being the most indulgent or greedy regarding those aspects.

Hey Monkey :)

You are correct perhaps in that there are no prizes, nor are there winners or losers but what there is, is direct experience of such extremes, the rich, the poor, the vanity, the humility, the self, the no self .. In that respect 'anything and everything goes' so one cannot really suggest that another's way likened to the Buddha was out of sorts or out of balance or in some way suffering unnecessarily .

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

Both extremes of material disengagement or material indulgence are readily and frequently used for escapism from one's full immersion in one's individual life...and to that extent, both are forms of misdirection. Neither necessarily get one any closer to one's centre, to one's harmony.

I agree escapism can be the catalyst for such behaviours but then again escapism is an experience in its own right, just as much as facing up to life is and taking it on the chin .. if we go with the flow as we have talked about before one simply does what comes to the fore, some try and go within, some run a mile, some turn to the bottle, some starve themselves ... it's the element of trying to take control or renouncing it because one cannot take responsibility for themselves .

Originally Posted by 7luminaries

This was Buddha's example and his message. And noooo (lol), he did not "have to" spend all those years mortifying the flesh to learn his lesson. At first he chose to mortify the flesh consciously, because he had the fixed idea that doing so would lead to enlightenment. As we know, that seems fairly simplistic...and it is. So initially, he actively resisted the critical lessons of balance, harmony, compassion and reciprocity presented to him by his own temple (his body) -- until he finally admitted the wisdom of the teaching...hence the middle way and balance in all things.

How I see it is that Buddha or anyone else come to that can only realize something when they realize that something, therefore anything inbetween is necessary in order to come to such a point . So when we talk about being out of balance or being extreme then that is part of the path to realization of self . It's the jacobs ladder analogy to a tee, where one ascends to the very peak in order to descend to the bottom integrating the awareness from above . This is god-man in effect . Without going to the extreme and taking their attention off or away from the physical then they would never reach the uppermost rung .

From one perspective one might say Buddha was an extremist and way out of balance and put his body through unnecessary sufferings but sufferings are necessary . No pain no gain remember :)

x daz x