Spiritual Forums

Home


Donate!


Articles


CHAT!


Shop


 
Welcome to Spiritual Forums!.

We created this community for people from all backgrounds to discuss Spiritual, Paranormal, Metaphysical, Philosophical, Supernatural, and Esoteric subjects. From Astral Projection to Zen, all topics are welcome. We hope you enjoy your visits.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to most discussions and articles. By joining our free community you will be able to post messages, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload your own photos, and gain access to our Chat Rooms, Registration is fast, simple, and free, so please, join our community today! !

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, check our FAQs before contacting support. Please read our forum rules, since they are enforced by our volunteer staff. This will help you avoid any infractions and issues.

Go Back   Spiritual Forums > Religions & Faiths > Buddhism

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #41  
Old 23-06-2017, 05:55 PM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
Do you mean this in the way that everyone has that special something they need liberation from?
Why 'need'? Everyone can have something they want liberation from.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
Isn't liberation really just setting the mind free?
What's that? 'setting the mind free'? Why should one want such an indeterminate liberation which can mean everything and nothing?
As I said here liberation can have many meanings and only liberation aims that are worthwhile should be followed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
"Of course you are uncertain, Kalamas. Of course you are in doubt. When there are reasons for doubt, uncertainty is born.
...
"So, as I said, Kalamas: 'Only go by direct perception and rational reasoning based on direct perception. When you know for yourselves after having rationally analysed that, "These aims are not worthwhile to pursue - then you should abandon them.

"Now, Kalamas, 'Only go by direct perception and rational reasoning based on direct perception. When you know for yourselves after having rationally analysed that, "These aims are worthwhile to pursue - then you should rationally analyse by what rational means they can be attained and pursue them accordingly.


http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...9&postcount=28
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 23-06-2017, 06:21 PM
BlueSky BlueSky is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 7,993
  BlueSky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
Why 'need'? Everyone can have something they want liberation from.


What's that? 'setting the mind free'? Why should one want such an indeterminate liberation which can mean everything and nothing?
As I said here liberation can have many meanings and only liberation aims that are worthwhile should be followed.
You cause me to think outside the box Ground and I like that. It doesn't necessarily show me what is right or wrong, it shows me where my thinking is based on conditioning.
I appreciate your input.....
__________________
CHITTA VRITTI NIRODHA

The cessation of identifying with the fluctuations arising within consciousness
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 24-06-2017, 02:24 AM
Bohdiyana Bohdiyana is offline
Suspended
Guide
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 406
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueSky
think outside the box

But if you are outside of the box, you are not thinking
I'm not sure thinking outside the box is possible.
If you think outside the box...you are just in a bigger box.

Seems to me there is a state of being, where one is fully themselves, it's just one is not thinking.
To be in this state takes awake awareness. One "knows" or is aware they are in this state
but this knowing does not include thinking.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 24-06-2017, 03:41 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
...
Seems to me there is a state of being, where one is fully themselves, it's just one is not thinking.
To be in this state takes awake awareness. One "knows" or is aware they are in this state
but this knowing does not include thinking.

Beware not to cultivating this old anti-thinking ressentment that is so prominent in some modern forms of buddhism in the west. This is so silly because this resentment is supported by nothing other than wrong thinking.

How can you be fully yourself if you reject thinking? Do you want to pretend that thinking is not part of yourself? 'Awake awareness' is a nice idea but to arrive even at that idea thinking is required. And if you can't integrate thinking with an experience of 'awake awareness' then 'awake awareness' remains just an idea arrived at by thinking.
So there in terms of right thinking there is a link between this thinking and experience. That then may be called 'right thinking' and the knowledge arising from that 'valid' or 'right knowledge' what the buddha has expressed 'when you know for yourself'.
Without thinking you can never 'know for yourself'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
But if you are outside of the box, you are not thinking
I'm not sure thinking outside the box is possible.
If you think outside the box...you are just in a bigger box.
you can't leave your body and you can't leave the sphere of your experience. but you can leave 'the box' of habitual thinking cultivated so far which has shaped the quality of your experience so far and thus caused the sentiment of being enclosed in a limitting 'box' in the first place.

That might be a secondary aim worthwhile to pursue: to enable oneself to think outside the box.
What is the sign? the correct sign would be that one has not attained a primary aim through the thinking practised so far.

Syllogism:
Thinking outside of the box is necessary because of not having realized the primary aim so far.

What would be a wrong conclusion from the sign? A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking. Why? Because the primary aim would not be realized at all. Of course if the primary aim is just to stop thinking - for what reason ever, most likely wrong thinking - one could try to work against human nature.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 24-06-2017, 04:06 AM
Jeremy Bong Jeremy Bong is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 2,817
  Jeremy Bong's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
Beware not to cultivating this old anti-thinking ressentment that is so prominent in some modern forms of buddhism in the west. This is so silly because this resentment is supported by nothing other than wrong thinking.

How can you be fully yourself if you reject thinking? Do you want to pretend that thinking is not part of yourself? 'Awake awareness' is a nice idea but to arrive even at that idea thinking is required. And if you can't integrate thinking with an experience of 'awake awareness' then 'awake awareness' remains just an idea arrived at by thinking.
So there in terms of right thinking there is a link between this thinking and experience. That then may be called 'right thinking' and the knowledge arising from that 'valid' or 'right knowledge' what the buddha has expressed 'when you know for yourself'.
Without thinking you can never 'know for yourself'.


you can't leave your body and you can't leave the sphere of your experience. but you can leave 'the box' of habitual thinking cultivated so far which has shaped the quality of your experience so far and thus caused the sentiment of being enclosed in a limitting 'box' in the first place.

I can show you an update version. They're two types of people:

1) ordinary people those thinking are unable to go outside the box . Before and after Buddha Sakyamuni time, It's assumed in that way.

2) ascended person his thinking can go outside the box that's off convention reality. My Spirit-Gods can stay outside and my thinking or thought can be outside of me . But inside me I still need a sense or consciousness to see what's going on outside of me.

So I can make a conclusion that both are right provided that person has that abilities.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 24-06-2017, 06:37 AM
Ground Ground is offline
Suspended
Ascender
Join Date: Dec 2016
Posts: 993
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong
...My Spirit-Gods can stay outside and my thinking or thought can be outside of me ....
These 'Spirit-Gods' of yours. Are those the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? If sense perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' should be the perceptible conventional reality of all individuals with healthy senses but they are not. If direct introspective perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' are mere mental constructs and do not exist even conventionally.

And your 'thought outside of you' is this the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? It must be the object of your direct sense perception because you assert it to be outside of you. Is your thought visible, audible, has it aroma, is it tangible, does it have taste?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Bong
So I can make a conclusion ...
Whatever your conclusions are based on they are not based on direct perceptions and thus they are not valid.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 24-06-2017, 07:51 AM
Jeremy Bong Jeremy Bong is offline
Suspended
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Malaysia
Posts: 2,817
  Jeremy Bong's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
These 'Spirit-Gods' of yours. Are those the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? If sense perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' should be the perceptible conventional reality of all individuals with healthy senses but they are not. If direct introspective perception then your 'Spirit-Gods' are mere mental constructs and do not exist even conventionally.

And your 'thought outside of you' is this the object of your direct sense perception or the object of your direct introspective perception? It must be the object of your direct sense perception because you assert it to be outside of you. Is your thought visible, audible, has it aroma, is it tangible, does it have taste?



Whatever your conclusions are based on they are not based on direct perceptions and thus they are not valid.

Your imagination of perception and guessing of analyze logic isn't good enough for you to understand about Gods. Or you never thought of the existence of Gods. My Cupidsons call my Spirit-Gods, Papa-Gods 爸爸神. They're the same as my Cupidsons and my Goddesses wife and the same as other Gods. Whoever Gods you can refer to they're the same as my Spirit-Gods. That means I can also touch them by my hand, see, feel........ They're in spiritual solid or physical state.

So you asked me, are they introspective form? Am I want to tell others when I'm not sure of myself? With your understanding, is it called, direct perception? If you can see God then I can let you to see my Cupidson. So that you can trust yourself for what you see.

Don't forget I'm the creator, I can even make a "your-spirit" outside of you. Then you will understand what I mean. There's no harm a you outside of you while your own spirit still with you. Then you can know exactly what I mean.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 24-06-2017, 08:09 AM
Bohdiyana Bohdiyana is offline
Suspended
Guide
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 406
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ground
A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking.

Well I have no idea if anybody reading what I posted knows by experience, by a recognition, of what I am writing about. Maybe you know, maybe you don't, I have no idea.

In my state where I am not thinking, I am not thinking. Now when you say, "A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking," you are implying I know I am not thinking by thinking. But this is not what I am talking about. When I say I am not thinking, there is no thinking present. It is suspended. There has been a break in the stream. Well the heck if I know if there was a break in the stream or not. What the fact is, is that I am not in it anymore. Maybe it is still there streaming along. I don't know. I am not associated with it. I am awake in this present moment, so aware and awake no thought can penetrate this state. But don't think this awake and awareness is anything special at all. It's not, it is just me. Now I almost said emptiness or space but yea, this is none of that. That is all thought based. It is nothing at all. How could it be a something (or a nothing) with no thought present? If something arises, some idea, some image, some concept, some word, some thought, my awakeness burns it up like a flame of pure light. But then there is nothing burning or anything like a light. It's a nothing that's a something but the something is indescribable by words because words are not present.

anti-thinking resentment

Yes I am anti thought, or better said, anti person because it is the person who thinks, the person has the content to fill with up now with thoughts. Without the content, or the person that is constructed with that, what will you fill now with? Now that word you used, "resentment" does not resonate. Anti-thought is just another way to say pro being. But yea the person is like a snake that if one sees what is there where it is not present, one seeks that. I'd say it is not really anti anything. It is a preference for inner and outer freedom. Anti-something is a thought that requires not only content but a person as well. It's a lightness that comes from not carrying anything. If I am not thinking, does thought exist to me then? How can I be anti anything if I am not thinking of it? If it is not a part of my awareness or attention? One can pay attention to the awake state and hold it before ones perception.

the primary aim would not be realized at all

Yes that is right because only the person has an aim. No thought, no aims, nothing to realize. I am either paying attention to my thoughts or I am not. But don't trivialize thought down to some little thing. The content, all of it, is known though thought. No thought, no connection to the content. Aims, realizations, goals, that is all content. Yes this is a big nothing that is a big something. But one has to want nothing to get everything and to see a value in nothing and nobody at all. A something certainly does not want to be a nothing. But then only a nothing is a something.

A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking. Why?

Because there is no person there to stop anything. A person is based on content. Content can only be known through thought. No thought, no content, nobody stopping. But yea thought still is not a part of the perception!

I can't say in words what it is because anything I say is content. It has no content in it. This entire post is not it, will never be it, can't be it. I'm just pointing across a field to the other side that is right here.
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 24-06-2017, 08:23 AM
sky sky is offline
Master
Join Date: Sep 2015
Posts: 15,530
  sky's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bohdiyana
Well I have no idea if anybody reading what I posted knows by experience, by a recognition, of what I am writing about. Maybe you know, maybe you don't, I have no idea.

In my state where I am not thinking, I am not thinking. Now when you say, "A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking," you are implying I know I am not thinking by thinking. But this is not what I am talking about. When I say I am not thinking, there is no thiunking present. It is suspended. There has been a break in the stream. Well the heck if I know if there was a break in the stream or not. What the fact is, is that I am not in it anymore. Maybe it is still there streaming along. I don't know. I am not associated with it. I am awake in this present moment, so aware and awake no thought can penetrate this state. But don't think this awake and awareness is anything special at all. It's not, it is just me. Now I almost said emptiness or space but yea, this is none of that. That is all thought based. It is nothing at all. How could it be with no thought present? If something arises, some idea, some image, some concept, some word, some thought, my awakeness burns it up like a flame of pure light. But then there is nothing burning or anything like a light. It's a nothing that's a something but the something is indescribable by words because words are not present.

anti-thinking resentment

Yes I am anti thought, or better said, anti person because it is the person who thinks, the person has the content to fill with up now with thoughts. Without the content, what will you fill now with? Now that word you used, "resentment[" does not resonate. Anti-thought is just another way to say pro being. But yea the person is like a snake that if one sees what is there where it is not present, one seeks that. I'd say it is not really anti anything. It is a preference for inner and outer freedom. I lightness that comes from not carrying anything. If I am not thinking, does thought exist to me then? How can I be anti anything if I am not thinking of it? If it is not a part of my awareness or attention? One can pay attention to the awake state and hold it before ones perception.

the primary aim would not be realized at all

Yes that is right because only the person has an aim. No thought, no aims, nothing to realize. I am either paying attention to my thoughts or I am not. But don't trivialize thought down to some little thing. The content, all of it, is known though thought. No thought, no connection to the content. Aims, realizations, goals, that is all content. Yes this is a big nothing that is a big something. But one has to want nothing to get everything and to see a value in nothing and nobody at all.

A wrong conclusion would be to stop thinking. Why?

Because there is no person there to stop. A person is based on content. Content can only be known through thought. No thought, no content, nobody stopping. But yea thought still is still not a part of the perception!


Pure Awareness.... awareness without consciouness, no thoughts just pure bliss, been there many times, just wish I could stay there
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 24-06-2017, 08:42 AM
Bohdiyana Bohdiyana is offline
Suspended
Guide
Join Date: Mar 2017
Posts: 406
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sky123
Pure Awareness.... awareness without consciousness, no thoughts just pure bliss, been there many times, just wish I could stay there

No there is no I there! Only a perception without content can live there. But yea it seems to be rare to be without content. But then the content is so flashy how can I keep from paying attention to it?
That's a question we all have to figure out. It seems a bit odd but it seems to have something to do with love. Presence is about more than just us.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums