Only One - not two

[jimrich]

There is only one – not two. There is only one you – not two = an ego and a you. There is not two - a real you plus a false you. There is only one you, even if most of you live as two (or more) you’s - the ego and you. You are just you – not an ego plus something else. You were encouraged to split your self into two (or more) me’s in early childhood and have unwittingly lived as two (or more) me’s for many years.

Non-duality means that there are not two – not two: selves, me’s, I’s, within you. You may have unwittingly lived most of your life as two people – a real me and a false ‘me’ or ego. This split or division within your self may have seemed normal or acceptable UNTIL the unhappy tension of being divided against your self has finally overwhelmed you and brought you here to find some peace so look around and you may find a way to become one me again – no longer two (or more).
Good luck

[mihael_11]

What if there are three?

What is then the path you are taking? Will you, 1,2 or 3 deny it?

[mihael_11]

And than there is question of meaning of everything?

[sky]

There is only one – not two. There is only one you – not two = an ego and a you. There is not two - a real you plus a false you. There is only one you, even if most of you live as two (or more) you’s - the ego and you. You are just you – not an ego plus something else. You were encouraged to split your self into two (or more) me’s in early childhood and have unwittingly lived as two (or more) me’s for many years.

Non-duality means that there are not two – not two: selves, me’s, I’s, within you. You may have unwittingly lived most of your life as two people – a real me and a false ‘me’ or ego. This split or division within your self may have seemed normal or acceptable UNTIL the unhappy tension of being divided against your self has finally overwhelmed you and brought you here to find some peace so look around and you may find a way to become one me again – no longer two (or more).
Good luck



What is the real you Jim ?

[jimrich]

What is the real you Jim ?
It's whatever you believe it is. :smile:

[Ground]

Only One - not two
...
Non-duality means that there are not two
This shows that the view of nonduality is based on the premise of duality and that therefore the view of nonduality is an imperfect and inferior view.

[sky]

It's whatever you believe it is. :smile:


:D Jim, isn't that the ego ??
If your post is about ego/real self then you must have an explaination for what you think is the real self :confused:

[jimrich]

:D Jim, isn't that the ego ??
If your post is about ego/real self then you must have an explaination for what you think is the real self :confused:
"You are just you – not an ego plus something else." ~ jim :smile:

[sky]

"You are just you – not an ego plus something else." ~ jim :smile:

Yes thanks Jim, I understand this, but what is this ' you ' thats what I am asking, what/who is this ' you/self ' ? that you posted about ?

[God-Like]

There is not even one .

'One' is a mind evaluation made by me and you ..

Beyond me and you is not 'One' .

Non duality is a concept that is dual in nature .


x daz x

[jimrich]

but what is this ' you '
I don't know.
That to which the word 'you' points is indescribable.
Some call it: Nothing, the Absolute, the Void, god, Boundlessness, All, It, That, This, Me, You, I, Life, Source, infinite Consciousness, Divinity, Cosmic Mind and on and on.
Let those in this forum, who are wiser than jim, say what this "you" is.
What are you?

[mihael_11]

Well, we should stick to what we can describe, that with time, realisation and knowledge, we will be able to describe more. Wouldn't it would be beautiful, that once we could describe it all? It would seemd so easy.

You is one of many multilayered I's inside source energy. Could sorce and god be 2 seperate energies? So i know what im doing, when you try to close and merge everything into one, more i want to seperate it into more. Why is this?

What is then the other side?

[django]

We are all our True Selves but having that intellectual knowledge doesn't negate the reality of ego self identification or karma or attachments and aversions or lower mind consciousness. Unfortunately neo advaita is a mind game that goes nowhere.

You could read this to start unknotting the neo advaita brainwashing: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html

[jimrich]

Could sorce and god be 2 seperate energies?
There is only one "energy/source" or whatever it's called, appearing as all the forms and conditions that there are.
What is then the other side?
Nothing appearing as the "other side". Nothing is all that there is and is not.

[jimrich]

We are all our True Selves but having that intellectual knowledge doesn't negate the reality of ego self identification or karma or attachments and aversions or lower mind consciousness. Unfortunately neo advaita is a mind game that goes nowhere.

You could read this to start unknotting the neo advaita brainwashing: http://www.enlightened-spirituality.org/neo-advaita.html
That is an interesting and very deep article. I'll try to read it. The first thing I notice about the article is how quickly it takes me into an ocean of words, phrases and apparently true opinions that I cannot prove.
It's somewhat like the arguments Christians have with non-Christians where almost everything is based on opinions and beliefs rather than facts of truth.
I'd guess that a Seeker or Researcher will have to take what they want and leave the rest.
[A few minutes later....]
I read some of that very intense and long article and I can see a pattern that seems to be common to all such commentaries - You're on your own! It's up to me to take what I need or want from any "ism" or "teaching".

[sky]

I don't know.
That to which the word 'you' points is indescribable.
Some call it: Nothing, the Absolute, the Void, god, Boundlessness, All, It, That, This, Me, You, I, Life, Source, infinite Consciousness, Divinity, Cosmic Mind and on and on.
Let those in this forum, who are wiser than jim, say what this "you" is.
What are you?


I thought because you had wrote the Thread that you knew, not to worry :smile:

You ask ' what are you '......
Pure Awareness..

[Baile]

There is only one – not two. There is only one you – not two = an ego and a you. So it sounds like there is only one jimrich – not two = an ego and a jimrich.

Others' reality may/will differ. For example:

There is one eternal soul me. And there is a lower-self "ego" me. And there is a higher-self "I" me.

What you or jimrich believes is always of interest, but changes nothing for me.

[Baile]

You may have unwittingly lived most of your life as two people – a real me and a false ‘me’ or ego.It sounds like you are speaking of me, and not you. But that can't be because that's neither what I think, nor what esoteric wisdom has taught me. And yes, this is what you did to us for 100 posts or more. So let's call it 2 down, 98 to go.

Esoteric wisdom identifies a real and actual shadow self that exists on the astral plane. This shadow self is a kind of depository wherein the negative aspects of one's thought life in particular, collect and congeal. Initiation into knowledge of the higher worlds in part has to do with facing and overcoming one's shadow self. This is what the Bible is outlining when it talks about being in the wilderness for 40 days; describing that spiritual initiation process and very real battle with the shadow self.

[jimrich]

You ask ' what are you '......
Pure Awareness..
cool! :biggrin:
Looks like you have pretty much covered the Self or Me subject over here; http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104086
Very interesting post so I will read all of it and get back to you with what I find there. :)
[later on.....]
I read your post and offered a few comments. It's too bad that I did not know about your writings before we "clashed" here ("That is a question not an answer.... You seem to have a trait of doing this on most of your posts, it's impossible to have a discussion with you Jim,..... never mind.") ...but I'm glad to see your Buddhist things. I believe that we can now have a "reasonable" discussion from now on. :)

[jimrich]

Baile, please say more.........

[sky]

cool! :biggrin:
Please say more about your self.

I don't have a self Jim :smile:
I have tried to find it many time but it's not there.

[Baile]

Baile, please say more.........I can only relate my own experience. And also share what some esoteric teachings say, which isn't my experience, but often makes some degree of sense to me.

I have had two metaphysical experiences of a voice speaking to me, and directing me, and instructing me. Some would call it a guide. Some would call it an angel. I call it my higher self, based on my understanding, and what I've read over the years. As I understand it, this higher self exists in the plane of spirit, which I imagine as a non-material parallel plane to our physical plane.

And supposedly there is also a shadow self that exists on the astral plane, another parallel plane to ours. You know that cartoon depiction of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, whispering in our ear? Like that, only real.

The difference between the two though is the higher self is quite real. It is as real and substantial in the spirit plane, as the physical self is real in the material plane. Whereas the shadow self is more a phantom than a reality. It is a creation of the Self, and therefore can be overcome by the Self. But it is real in that it wields power and influence over the individual, in the same way one can be addicted and unable to break free.

[jimrich]

I don't have a self Jim :smile:
I have tried to find it many time but it's not there.
I assume that you mean a "mundane self" or a non-existent 'self entity' or whatever this 'me' is called. It seems that semantics is always the problem but, with a little fine tuning, it may be possible to have a clearer communication.
I have or am a "self" or "me" but am not currently clear on what to call it/this. Most of the new Leaders/Teachers say it's indescribable and I agree - so far.
I have to say that your True Self post [http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104086] is quite interesting and informative. :smile:

[jimrich]

I can only relate my own experience. And also share what some esoteric teachings say, which isn't my experience, but often makes some degree of sense to me.

I have had two metaphysical experiences of a voice speaking to me, and directing me, and instructing me. Some would call it a guide. Some would call it an angel. I call it my higher self, based on my understanding, and what I've read over the years. As I understand it, this higher self exists in the plane of spirit, which I imagine as a non-material parallel plane to our physical plane.

And supposedly there is also a shadow self that exists on the astral plane, another parallel plane to ours. You know that cartoon depiction of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, whispering in our ear? Like that, only real.

The difference between the two though is the higher self is quite real. It is as real and substantial in the spirit plane, as the physical self is real in the material plane. Whereas the shadow self is more a phantom than a reality. It is a creation of the Self, and therefore can be overcome by the Self. But it is real in that it wields power and influence over the individual, in the same way one can be addicted and unable to break free.

Baile, please check out this woman's concepts about how things work (for her). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zyR5CQNbqUI
I experience what she is saying: ...That there is only ONE= energy, self, me, it, reality, being, thing, etc. or the Absolute and the Absolute, in the various uncountable forms and states that it projects or manifests, is doing and being all that there is, including: Higher self's, spirits, shadow beings, planes of existence, I, you, we, them, that, this, those, it, angels, guides and on and on in the Absolute's amazing, mysterious and unexplainable Life Play or Creation. I also call the Absolute: 'Source' or 'Nothing'.... and on and on............
:smile:

[sky]

I assume that you mean a "mundane self" or a non-existent 'self entity' or whatever this 'me' is called. It seems that semantics is always the problem but, with a little fine tuning, it may be possible to have a clearer communication.
I have or am a "self" or "me" but am not currently clear on what to call it/this. Most of the new Leaders/Teachers say it's indescribable and I agree - so far.
I have to say that your True Self post [http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=104086] is quite interesting and informative. :smile:


Glad you enjoyed the post in the Buddhist thread. If you read the Buddha's teachings on 'Anatta ' you might understand why I said I can't find a self :smile:

[jimrich]

Glad you enjoyed the post in the Buddhist thread. If you read the Buddha's teachings on 'Anatta ' you might understand why I said I can't find a self :smile:
OK,I've searched google and all over this forum for the term: anatta and have seen a lot of heady, intellectual and DEEP commentaries about it such as:
Anatta, ( Pali: “non-self” or “substanceless”) Sanskrit anatman , in Buddhism, the doctrine that there is in humans no permanent, underlying substance that can be called the soul. Instead, the individual is compounded of five factors (Pali khandha; Sanskrit skandha) that are constantly changing.

Anatta
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
In Buddhism, the term anattā (Pali) or anātman (Sanskrit) refers to the doctrine of "non-self", that there is no unchanging, permanent soul in living beings.[1][2] It is one of the seven beneficial perceptions in Buddhism,[3] and along with Dukkha (suffering) and Anicca (impermanence), it is one of three Right Understandings about the three marks of existence.[1][4]
The Buddhist concept of Anattā or Anātman is one of the fundamental differences between Buddhism and Hinduism, with the latter asserting that Atman (self, soul) exists.[5][6]

kingfisher: http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?p=1507071&highlight=anatta#post1507071 .... Which seems to suggest a difference between "selflessness" ( a moral concept? ) and the Buddhist "anatta" ( not-self ) As I understand "anatta", it means that there is no self and never has been ( and NOT that a "self" must be eliminated or diminished in any way ) Yet, here we are, suffering.
sky My understanding of Anatta is Not-self. What we think of as a self is not our true self which Buddha taught.

Ramana often warned his followers about getting lost in intellectual traps and swamps regarding Advaita and non-duality and most modern spokespersons say the same thing about getting lost in the quicksands of intellectual mud wrestling over scriptures and teachings so my take on anatta is that it is saying what non-duality says: that there is no SEPARATE or INDIVIDUAL self or 'me' and that there's only ONE me/self/I, etc. (not two) and that all there is is infinite, ineffable _________ (fill in the blank). John Wheeler constantly says, "Keep it simple - you are Present Awareness where there is no individual 'me'/ego." Jim Newman says, "You cannot be described but there simply is NO individual anywhere."
This is not to argue with or dismiss Anatta. Just my current take on the topic which I will continue to study as it apples to this (my) life. :smile:

[Jeremy Bong]

I just have some information of the secret of human true self. When we say, our bodies is only one, that means non-duality or no soul or spirit.

Now the problem is coming from human that can't see|feel them. Even Buddha can't see them when he's a human. What he can see is his inner playground, the astral playground. If someone can use his third eyesight viewing from outside then the story will be different. That's a different story from everyone in this world outlook of human being.

I saw my soul coming out while I was sitting and my soul was standing up naked so I pinched the skin, I felt pain at the same place of my body with my soul. That's I did for him but I was also felt pain as well.

My spirit-god has seen by one of our SF member and I've written in my own thread. And my Cupidsons have seen by more than five human .......

I've my two spirits becoming Gods and they all staying outside of me. One is in Christian heaven and the other one is in the small paradise in the sky. My second spirit is staying outside of my body for more than a month now and I'm still alive.

Actually, with my current dharma techniques I can create as many spirit as I wanted that may up to hundreds of me. So the former understand may not so good as the world spiritual reality is about. I like to tell the truth or new or real ideas to others. But it may also disturb you people's discussion here. I apologize for it.

[jimrich]

What I love the most about non-duality is how it attempts to solve the basic conflict of me vs. you.
At the beginning of this life, I didn't really know that there was a different or threatening you out there but I was very quickly taught or trained to feel myself as separate from and in many was HURT BY these "others" (impatient mom, resentful brother, harsh dad) so I quickly realized that there were at least two (even if I did not know about math) significant "things" here - me and a DANGEROUS other me or you. Oh, there were times when the other me/you was actually pleasant, fun, funny, loving, warm, kind, enjoyable, acceptable and GOOD but there were a lot of not so good times throughout my "formative" years when I slowly learned the difference between this me and all the other me's or you's out there.
I was taught to call one of them "mommy", another I called "daddy" and another one (my resentful, abusive brother) was called "Dave" or a MONSTER (in my young mind). At the beginning, I loved them all very much and had no reason to resent, fear or hate them as my older brother hated and punished me for RUINING his life by invading their home.
Well, the story of how I acquired a very damaged ego is quite long and complicated but it can be summed up as I was systematically conditioned to take myself as a bad and unwanted "thing" or pest from day one and slowly or quickly infected with the Toxic Shame that my parents and older brother were already carrying when I arrived.
Since I was the 2nd child, I just went along with whatever my "Superiors" were saying about me and doing to me so I did not stand up to their Shaming nor defend myself from their meanness and Shame-based abuses. I innocently took it all in and became just as Shame-based as the BIG THREE.
After a while, I developed into a Split self - a false, Shame-based, egoic me, who took center stage in our sick family and a Real me, who retired into the background of our family life and only appeared on rare occasions whenever it was safe to come out. I never noticed that there were two me's in my life from about age 3 and up. I now wonder if the "not-two" concept in Advaita, was meant to describe how humans are conditioned to become Split or Divided, in early childhood, so that we live as two selves - a false, dominant ego plus a Real non dominant self with the false ego doing most of what people do.
I don't see this Spit or duality in animals unless they live with humans who condition their animals to have distorted egos along with their Real and natural selves. I once had some pets that were like that - Spit into egoic vs. Real selves. It's bad enough for humans to live as egoic selves along with hidden Real selves but sickening when it happens to innocent animals.
So, for me, the blessing of Advaita or non-duality is simply to see how I was split into two basic me's - a false ego out front and a Real me hiding in the background and then be given an opportunity to heal that Split or Division to become a whole and complete person/being again.
I am currently not sure how this "healing" of the Split or Division into two me's can or will occur but there have been times when a Real me came forward while the false me stepped aside or ran away in terror, only to return shortly afterward and take over again. I've often wondered why the Real me is not able or willing to STAY up front and hold the false me down or totally eliminate it so maybe that's the next step to becoming truly whole and complete again. Not two. Just one. The few times that "no-egoity" happened, I felt such joy, relief, happiness, ecstasy, wonder, fulfillment, etc. Maybe there is a way to just live in Peace and Oneness from now on! God I hope so! I'm sick of being two me's - a fake one and a real one - it's such a struggle!

[onetime.onemind]

The Christ Mind or One Mind Eternal sees beyond the illusions of the ego, and hears only the Voice of the Holy Spirit. The ego is deceptive because it is man made so each individual's ego knows everything about that individual.The ego seeks to drag us all through hell in the name of God. While God loves us all unconditionally and sees us all as innocent children. The Christ Mind governed by the Holy Spirit is our Friend that helps us see beyond illusions through the power of forgiveness, and leads us back to Heaven.

Love, Bob

[jimrich]

There is not even one .

'One' is a mind evaluation made by me and you ..

Beyond me and you is not 'One' .

Non duality is a concept that is dual in nature .


x daz x
Actually, there is NOTHING but that's difficult to articulate so sages did the best they could to speak of the ineffable. Hmmmmm.........
They knew folks would argue about the ineffable forever :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

[Ground]

Although there is the appearance of multiplicity, to say that there is
no wavering from oneness
is to say that naturally occurring timeless awareness is
the single source.


So 'to say' reveals that it is all about empty words. Empty words however may entail effects although there is no cause inherent in the words themselves because they are empty.

[Ground]

So 'oneness' without further context may evoke a sentiment of rigidness or determination that is not appropriate. Actually 'neither one nor many' is more appropriate because of multiplicity arsising from one source. But since there is no beyond this 'neither one nor many' one may again call it 'oneness' knowing that it is an empty oneness not existing from its own side, i.e. without inherent truth, but arising only due to conceptual imputation.

[God-Like]

Actually, there is NOTHING but that's difficult to articulate so sages did the best they could to speak of the ineffable. Hmmmmm.........
They knew folks would argue about the ineffable forever :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

Well for sure the moment one speaks of a so called truth be it a sage or a politician it will always be questioned by another that doesn't see eye to eye with what is said or what is pointed too .

There is only what you are . To say that is nothing would be correct in that context . To say that what you are is everything would be equally correct .

The everything aspect cannot be nothing while saying they are nothing .

The nothing aspect is beyond the mind .. it doesn't refer to the mind .

This is the common flaw when the nothingness overlaps into the manifest Self .


This is why we have many non dualists running around saying I am not here lol . It's incorrect .

It is correct to say beyond the manifest Self there is no-one there or here .. There are no actual means to refer to one being here or there lol . There is no here or there .


x daz x

[7luminaries]

Well for sure the moment one speaks of a so called truth be it a sage or a politician it will always be questioned by another that doesn't see eye to eye with what is said or what is pointed too .

There is only what you are . To say that is nothing would be correct in that context . To say that what you are is everything would be equally correct .

The everything aspect cannot be nothing while saying they are nothing .

The nothing aspect is beyond the mind .. it doesn't refer to the mind .

This is the common flaw when the nothingness overlaps into the manifest Self .


This is why we have many non dualists running around saying I am not here lol . It's incorrect .

It is correct to say beyond the manifest Self there is no-one there or here .. There are no actual means to refer to one being here or there lol . There is no here or there .


x daz x
Hey there Daz, nicely said. Agreed full stop.

You've clarified a core truth...everything is nothing and nothing is everything.
BUT simultaneously, from our manifest existence, this core truth has real, manifest implications and outcomes. There are real, manifest challenges to both our denser (physical) and less dense (spiritual) manifest existence. And foundational to any apprehension or illumination is clarity of vision, of scope and of being or purpose, however limited it may be. However limited or challenged, who, where, and when we are in this moment defines our momentary truth. And that's forever where we start (so to speak).

Following on what you said, now I feel alright about posting now you've made that clear and we can get more into the cogent aspects on oneness for those of us manifestly existing at the mo....and that hopefully there won't be too many rounds of dialogue on here/not here :biggrin:.

I feel a bit bolder now filled with less dread, hahaha. I've been speaking recently of how prominent fear & loathing is at the individual and societal levels of humanity at the mo, and I can see now I've just got over some of my own "fear & loathing" about this subforum, LOL.... :tongue:).

A very good thing as there's always more. So thanks very much for that :hug3:

Peace & blessings,
7L

[urbanzennist]

The distinction between one and two is itself a duality. In the one, there are many, and from the many, there is one. To be able to simultaneously understand both and use them to aid in understanding, without taking either as absolute truth is nonduality.

[7luminaries]

I can only relate my own experience. And also share what some esoteric teachings say, which isn't my experience, but often makes some degree of sense to me.

I have had two metaphysical experiences of a voice speaking to me, and directing me, and instructing me. Some would call it a guide. Some would call it an angel. I call it my higher self, based on my understanding, and what I've read over the years. As I understand it, this higher self exists in the plane of spirit, which I imagine as a non-material parallel plane to our physical plane.

And supposedly there is also a shadow self that exists on the astral plane, another parallel plane to ours. You know that cartoon depiction of the angel on one shoulder, the devil on the other, whispering in our ear? Like that, only real.

The difference between the two though is the higher self is quite real. It is as real and substantial in the spirit plane, as the physical self is real in the material plane.

Whereas the shadow self is more a phantom than a reality. It is a creation of the Self, and therefore can be overcome by the Self. But it is real in that it wields power and influence over the individual, in the same way one can be addicted and unable to break free.
Baile...agreed and well said.

What you said speaks to is the core truth or challenge of manifest existence. That is, the challenge of living from your centre, manifesting unity, wholeness, and integrity of self -- where the truth of your higher self is simply manifest and present in who you are day-to-day. In intent, thought, word, and deed. In your physical reality day-to-day. It's behind the Ram Dass mantra "Be love now". Or, Be. Love. Now.

This challenge speaks to what I might call the universal aspect of manifest existence and of individuated consciousness. The shadow you mention is fully present in our physical reality, even often or partly suppressed or unconscious.

The shadow is no more and no less than the turning away from our full awakening and full emergence as realised spiritual beings, regardless of the form it variously takes across multiple lifetimes along our spiritual journeys as souls.

The higher self is also fully present in our physical reality, as it is the truth of who we are and sustains our entire manifest existence at every moment.

In the past...even the very recent path...many who had awakened or begun to awaken spiritually had nonetheless compartmentalised their lives. Believing in the spiritual truth of love and awe, of compassion and strength, of lovingkindness and justice -- whilst often living their day-to-day lives in a utilitarian and exploitative way that dehumanised, debased, or dishonoured others and therefore themselves as well. I.e., that did not seek the highest good for the other equally to heir own (and vice-versa). Another way of saying this is that many have refused to (or did not care to) rise to being who they are, who they truly are at centre.

Now -- as the energy of the Aquarian Age is becoming more evident and the core challenges of manifest existence (integrity of being, for one) are becoming more transparent -- we are seeing a backlash of fear and loathing as many turn away from the reality of who we are. Away from the reality, the core truth of our manifest existence. Which is...that we have a choice in each moment to manifest who we are, who we truly are at core. Or not to do so, and to co-create for ourselves and the world all that is less realised, less aligned and less true. Thus IMO less beautiful and less filled with the powerful energies of lovingkindness, grace, joy, right alignment, and resonance.

It's a downer in the mo for those of us living in in many societies where progress appears either uncertain or to have slowed and where so many desire to beat the rest of us into submission, in attempts to assuage their fear and loathing (LOL)...but in the long run, everything still awaits them as soon as they turn back to face forward, hahaha :D

And frankly, no matter how much they seek to control us or to beat on us, nor how hard they try do so -- their own fear and loathing remains until they locate the true source of their fears and hatreds...themselves. After they release all their resentments and angers toward others (and that's way on down the road for many so don't hold your breath for this lifetime, eh? would certainly be nice though...), they'll eventually have to own all their own stuff, and then begin the process of transmuting and healing and accepting the fullness of their own being.

That core truth of manifest existence...very sticky, that...and it's not going anywhere, hahaha :wink:


Peace & blessings,
7L

[jimrich]

Well for sure the moment one speaks of a so called truth be it a sage or a politician it will always be questioned by another that doesn't see eye to eye with what is said or what is pointed too .
Because it is a Paradox. :D [At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time.]

There is only what you are . To say that is nothing would be correct in that context . To say that what you are is everything would be equally correct . There is only what is and what is not. There is no "you" to be or not be anything. Nothing and Everything just simultaneously are. It's a Paradox.

The nothing aspect is beyond the mind .. it doesn't refer to the mind .
It's a Paradox.:D

This is why we have many non dualists running around saying I am not here lol . It's incorrect .
It's both true and not true, Real and unreal. It's a Paradox.

It is correct to say beyond the manifest Self there is no-one there or here .. There are no actual means to refer to one being here or there lol . There is no here or there .
x daz x
It's a Paradox and also a mind game that the ego loves to play......so....on with the games....... :D .

[jimrich]

...and that hopefully there won't be too many rounds of dialogue on here/not here :biggrin:.
You mean arguing and mind games. :wink:

[jimrich]

Just as baile said:
Originally Posted by Baile I can only relate my own experience.
I have never seen a "shadow" or "high self" but I've been the shadow or ego and I've been higher. I have not experienced a "higher self" nor a "shadow self" - just me, mysteriously appearing as those and many other states of "self".
In my experience, much of what non-duality points to is simply 'this' as it is here and now - fingers typing, eyes looking, mind whirling, body shaking in the cold, cars passing by, hearing happening, breathing happening, thoughts coming and going, feelings appearing and leaving, etc. There is only 'this'. Call it Oneness, Unity, wholeness, aliveness, the Absolute, Source, god, me, this ..... it's just what is happening right here and now. Imagining that there's wars going on, street shootings happening, bad weather out side, etc. is also just happening even if don't know for certain that anything beyond my current perception is or is not. I am happening, this is happening, it is happening and all WITHOUT any personal control or management of it.
There is just one Reality, Life, Me, This, You, It, beingness, aliveness, etc., happening here and now so I guess those can be labeled Non-duality or not two. It looks like a lot of separate stuff, but is it? Even science is now beginning to acknowledge that just one "substance" apparently exists.
Oddly, a part of me just doesn't care what it's called or even given a label at all. It just is and this just is. Many say there are no words that can describe "this" living presence or being or Nothing, etc.
Re: Ram Dass mantra: "Be love now"
That's good enough for me. Love is all there is. Love is you, me, us. My late wife had a phrase: "I love us." ...... I love you AND ME.
the other thing about non-duality is that it tells me that I am already free. I am whole and complete JUST AS I AM - here and now and that I do not need exotic practices, meditations, praying, sitting before teachers and sages, visiting India, rushing over to the local ashram or guru, collecting more and more books and videos and on and on to just be what I already am right here and now. I don't need to anxiously WAIT for the "shift", a sudden "awakening", an "ah-ha" moment, the light to come on, exotic bliss, collapsing onto the floor, etc. THIS IS IT! I AM THERE! I just am! What a shock! Why have I been so convince that this is NOT IT? LOL, well all of that started just after I was born and has now ended with the help of Tony Parsons, Jim Newman and Natalie Gray. I am now willing to relax and JUST BE!
Sailor Bob: "What's wrong with right now?"
As Originally Posted by Baile "I can only relate my own experience."

[Ground]

Even science is now beginning to acknowledge that just one "substance" apparently exists.
Sorry but that seems to be wishful thinking based on irrational monism.
Obviously philosophies in the sphere of Advaita just lack the analytical tools to access reality (or - if they don't lack - you never bothered to get familiar with them and their use). That may be the failure of Advaita philosophies or the failure of yours and that is where some buddhist philosophies succeed.

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by jimrich
Even science is now beginning to acknowledge that just one "substance" apparently exists.
Sorry but that seems to be wishful thinking based on irrational monism.
Obviously philosophies in the sphere of Advaita just lack the analytical tools to access reality (or - if they don't lack - you never bothered to get familiar with them and their use). That may be the failure of Advaita philosophies or the failure of yours and that is where some buddhist philosophies succeed.
LOL. so now it's a contest to see who is right - Avaita vs Buddhism, Ground vs. Jim.......cant wait to see who wins here. :icon_eek:
"Events happen (this mind game), deeds are done (Ground accuses jim), but there is no INDIVIDUAL doer there of.' ~ Buddha :wink:
...your move......

[Ground]

Originally Posted by jimrich
Even science is now beginning to acknowledge that just one "substance" apparently exists.

LOL. so now it's a contest to see who is right - Avaita vs Buddhism, Ground vs. Jim.......cant wait to see who wins here. :icon_eek:
That is not the point. Either one has the capacity to contact authentic information or not.


"Events happen (this contest) Deeds are done (Ground accuses jim), but there is no INDIVIDUAL doer there of.' ~ Buddha :wink:
Well we already covered this in a thread you chosed to have deleted.
From a buddhist perspective it is inappropriate to treat the doer different from the deeds or events. So either both exist or both do not exist in the context of the existence vs nonexistence dualism. Even from a wordly non-buddhist but rational perspective doer and deeds have to be treated equally since the doer depends on the deed and the deed depends on the doer. So it is impossible that one does not exist whereas the other does exist.
However the Buddha taught the middle way:


Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html

[jimrich]

Originally Posted by jimrich
"Events happen (this contest) Deeds are done (Ground accuses jim), but there is no INDIVIDUAL doer there of.' ~ Buddha
Well we already covered this in a thread you chosed to have deleted.
I had it deleted because I could not find the actual, original writings for that so-called quote but that doesn't mean it is not authentic and I am amazed that none of the Buddhists could either verify that quote or discredit it. IMO, it's still a valid quote and is represented in similar Buddhist text here and there. Look it up for your self. "Either one has the capacity to contact authentic information or not." ~ Ground

From a buddhist perspective it is inappropriate to treat the doer different from the deeds or events.
You consistently misunderstand that "quote".
The "doer" is not treated "differently" than anything. The quote is stating the the INDIVIDUAL doer does not even exist, hence the comment "there is NO individual doer" - meaning no such separate (individual) entity is even present to do anything, but the separate, individual self or ego is INCAPABLE of seeing that it, the ego, does not exist. Only the Absolute exists. The quote could have said: "Events happen (as god or the Absolute wishes), deeds are done (by god, or whatever), but there is no Individual (separate from the Absolute) doer thereof." Any reference to god, the Absolute or whatever is "doing" and "happening" was to avoid the notion that there are two entities here = an individual plus the infinite so, in reference to the real doer = the infinite, god or the Absolute, etc., the Buddha just says that such and such happens or is done. It's another way to explain ONENESS or non-duality. The ego HAS TO HAVE someone or something doing things so this quote makes no sense to the ego or individual. Get it? There is NO INDIVIDUAL ANYWHERE - there is only "that" which does deeds and lets events happen. It is almost the purest statement of non-duality there is. There is no individual doer - only happenings and doings. Not two. My hand just reached up to scratch my head but no one did it - it simply happened!

So either both exist or both do not exist in the context of the existence vs nonexistence dualism.
The event exists and the deed exists BUT the imagined, INDIVIDUAL doer does not EXIST. All that actually exists is the doing and happening or the action but NOT the imagined actor/doer. It's a Paradox! A hand reached up to spontaneously scratch an itch and right after that an ego (individual Doer) popped up to claim, "Hey, I just scratched and itch!" It simply happened! The automatic scratch and the automatic claim of scratching by a non-existent individual who actually did nothing except BOAST simply happened - NOW!

Even from a wordly non-buddhist but rational perspective doer and deeds have to be treated equally since the doer depends on the deed and the deed depends on the doer.
I'd start by defining exactly what this "individual doer" is. Is this "individual doer" a separate, ego with omnipotent powers? Or is this individual doer just another event/deed being manifested from and by you, the Creator? Is this individual doer even real? It believes it's real and that it does things but does it? Does your ego (individual doer) beat your heart, grow your hair and finger nails, digest your food, breath when you are under sedation? What does all of that? I say it just happens but can't PROVE it only to and for myself.

So it is impossible that one does not exist whereas the other does exist.
However the Buddha taught the middle way:
I can go with any teaching that makes sense to or works for me and this is not a contest to say who's teachings are best or right. I might study up on Buddhism some day.
For now, the very simple and observable Pointers in Advaita work for me so in many ways there is no point to arguing over the fine details of an "ism" or "faith" other than to find something of value there.
I made a joke about "mind games" and "a contest" but I believe that an HONEST and FRIENDLY exchange of concepts and personal EXPERIENCES is more valuable than winning a contest.
If something works for you, go there with my personal blessings,
jim :smile:

[Ground]

I I am amazed that none of the Buddhists could either verify that quote or discredit it.
'Not being findable' means it is discredited.


IMO, it's still a valid quote
No it is not. If you claim validity then you have to provide evidence.


You consistently misunderstand that "quote".
The "doer" is not treated "differently" than anything. The quote is stating the the INDIVIDUAL doer does not even exist, hence the comment "there is NO individual doer" - meaning no such separate (individual) entity is even present to do anything, but the separate, individual self or ego is INCAPABLE of seeing that it, the ego, does not exist. Only the Absolute exists.
That is just the outflow of your irrational monism. you are believing in an absolute. That is fine but it is just belief. you cannot accept an individual doer because this disturbs your belief in an absolute beyond inividuals which controls everthing.


The quote could have said: "Events happen (as god or the Absolute wishes), deeds are done (by god, or whatever), but there is no Individual (separate from the Absolute) doer thereof."

...the Buddha just says ..
The buddha certainly not says what you merely believe. your view is just a religious view, a view for believers, an inferior view.

[jimrich]

'Not being findable' means it is discredited.

No it is not. If you claim validity then you have to provide evidence.

That is just the outflow of your irrational monism. you are believing in an absolute. That is fine but it is just belief. you cannot accept an individual doer because this disturbs your belief in an absolute beyond inividuals which controls everthing.

The buddha certainly not says what you merely believe. your view is just a religious view, a view for believers, an inferior view.
Sir: You seem to have a relentless need to attack, bully and bash so I'll just let you stomp and growl all by your self or take on some other member here. :icon_eek: :redface:

[shiningstars]

Originally Posted by jimrich
Even science is now beginning to acknowledge that just one "substance" apparently exists.

LOL. so now it's a contest to see who is right - Avaita vs Buddhism, Ground vs. Jim.......cant wait to see who wins here. :icon_eek:
"Events happen (this mind game), deeds are done (Ground accuses jim), but there is no INDIVIDUAL doer there of.' ~ Buddha :wink:
...your move......

Buddhism is not a make it up as you go along religion, as much as people might like to talk about it.

Practitioners devote to practice for years and there is no similarity from the only quote you select for your "argument".

shiningstars

[sky]

He who has not penetrated the ego-illusion and is still attached to self-vanity will believe that it is he himself that suffers, that it is he himself that performs the good and evil deeds leading to his rebirth, that it is he himself that will enter* Nibbaana, that it is he himself that will bring the eightfold path to perfection.

One who, however, has fully penetrated the selflessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nibbaana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection. In theVisuddhimagga*it is therefore said:

Mere suffering exists, no sufferer is found.

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.*

Nibbaana is, but not the man that enters it.

The path is, but no traveller on it is seen.

Further:

No doer of the deeds is found,

No being that may reap their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on!

This is the only right view.

Therefore, wherever the doctrine of the selflessness of all existence is rejected, the Buddha's word is rejected, But wherever, through penetration of the selflessness of all existence, the ego-vanity has reached ultimate extinction, there the goal of the Buddha's teaching has been realized: freedom from all vanity of I and Mine, and the highest peace of Nibbaana.

Extracts from the Sa.myutta-Nikaaya on selflessness



I did post this on Jim's Thread but it was deleted by him.



http://www.vipassanadhura.com/Selflessness.html

[God-Like]

Because it is a Paradox. :D [At the most basic level, a paradox is a statement that is self contradictory because it often contains two statements that are both true, but in general, cannot both be true at the same time.]

There is only what is and what is not. There is no "you" to be or not be anything. Nothing and Everything just simultaneously are. It's a Paradox.


It's a Paradox.:D

It's both true and not true, Real and unreal. It's a Paradox.


It's a Paradox and also a mind game that the ego loves to play......so....on with the games....... :D .

Well your answer for everything is 'It's a Paradox' and that's only more intellectual reasoning that supposedly happens that pertains to no-one .

How have you ascertained that conclusion?

How have you concluded 'There is only what is and what is not' was it Self realisation or is it just more intellectual reasoning / assumptions based upon the general consensus of the non duality crowd?

Do you know the difference between Self manifest and Self unmanifest in relation to experience?

Do you know the difference between awareness of I am .. and not?


x daz x

[Ground]

Sir: You seem to have a relentless need to attack, bully and bash so I'll just let you stomp and growl all by your self or take on some other member here. :icon_eek: :redface:
Actually I am merely interested whether you or the philosophy or religion you are following has reasons for postulating what you are postulating or whether is is just a mere postulate like the postulate of 'God' in other religions.

[shiningstars]

Actually I am merely interested whether you or the philosophy or religion you are following has reasons for postulating what you are postulating or whether is is just a mere postulate like the postulate of 'God' in other religions.

Regardless of the answer you receive, words can never adequately encapsulate what is true or not for another.

The only reason we comment is to prevent or caution others from falling into the dualistic trap that understanding or the 'map' is the journey or the destination. Truth realized is entirely distinct from meanderings of the word, no matter how clever, elusive or 'quotable'.

The Spirit knows what is truth yet those not yet immersed in the wisdom of Spirit can only choose to replicate or imitate. There is nothing wrong with this imitation for all young imitate and play 'costume' before true growth. It's part of the journey. Likewise, all have a right to play for a long time if it is their wish.

But, no-one should mistake the outcome for the path, or the description of finality as the foregone conclusion for people who have no true guide or genuine knowledge of the inner path (gnosis, not "understanding"). No-one should imagine another's understanding, or even their own, substitutes for the Path and Wisdom and Outcome of Ancients like the Buddhas, Jesus, Sri Ramana, Rumi and Many others.

Shiningstars

[shiningstars]

One who, however, has fully penetrated the selflessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nibbaana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection.

It is a beautiful quote sky123 and reflected as truth in the highest sense as it says.

It is an outcome of the full penetration of the Eightfold Path and one of many manifold ways in which Ultimate Truth might be relayed to a seeker, depending on their own spiritual status. In truth, one who does not understand kamma will suffer kamma, and the Buddha was always very careful in what he relayed to whom. In the Ultimate sense there is this, in the true sense there is that, but in actuality, it is beyond description and verse, although the Buddha Gautama did choose to teach.

The Buddha, Gautama, was highly skilled in ways of enunciation and teaching for the manifold seekers that came his way.

This is not to say any one way is the right way, although of course we are always pleased to read of the highest sense for it beauty cannot be adequately enunciated.

It still stands that the Right View in Buddhism is the right penetration of the Eightfold Path - a practical and proven method for seekers to discern the Ultimate. http://www.accesstoinsight.org/ptf/dhamma/sacca/sacca4/samma-ditthi/

Not a foregone conclusion, by any means, regardless of one's quotation skills.

When one's knowledge is truly one's own

[Kaccayana:] "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

[The Buddha:] "By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that, when there is arising, only stress is arising; and that when there is passing away, only stress is passing away. In this, one's knowledge is independent of others. It is to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view."

— SN 12.15

Thanks again, sky123, for offering this quote.

shiningstars

[shiningstars]

This is a very accurate manuscript and the most preliminary of basic, inner realizations for the practicing Buddhist -

MAKA HANNYA HARAMITA SHIN GYŌ
The Great Prajñā Pāramitā Heart Sutra

Avalokiteshvara Bodhisattva, practicing deep Prajñā Pāramitā clearly saw that all five skandhas are empty, transforming anguish and distress
Shariputra, form is no other than emptiness,
emptiness no other than form;
form is exactly emptiness, emptiness exactly form;
sensation, perception, formulation, consciousness are also like this.
Shariputra, all things are essentially empty not born, not destroyed;
not stained, not pure; without loss, without gain.

Therefore in emptiness there is no form, no sensation, perception, formulation, consciousness;
no eye, ear, nose, tongue, body, mind, no color, sound, scent, taste, touch, thought;
no seeing and so on to no thinking;
no ignorance and also no ending of ignorance,
and so on to no old age and death, and so no ending of old age and death;
no anguish, cause of anguish, cessation path;
no wisdom and no attainment. Since there is nothing to attain,the Bodhisattva lives by Prajñā Pāramitā,
with no hindrance in the mind; no hindrance and therefore no fear;
far beyond delusive thinking, right here is Nirvana.

All Buddhas of past, present, and future live by Prajñā Pāramitā
attaining Anuttara-samyak-sambodhi.

Therefore know that Prajñā Pāramitā is the great sacred mantra, the great vivid mantra, the unsurpassed mantra, the supreme mantra,
which completely removes all anguish. This is truth not mere formality.

Therefore set forth the Prajñā Pāramitā mantra,
set forth this mantra and proclaim:
Gaté gaté paragaté parasamgaté
Bodhi svaha!

[sky]

The Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore


Avalokiteshvara
while practicing deeply with
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore,
suddenly discovered that
all of the five Skandhas are equally empty,
and with this realisation
he overcame all Ill-being.

“Listen Sariputra,
this Body itself is Emptiness
and Emptiness itself is this Body.
This Body is not other than Emptiness
and Emptiness is not other than this Body.
The same is true of Feelings,
Perceptions, Mental Formations,
and Consciousness.

“Listen Sariputra,
all phenomena bear the mark of Emptiness;
their true nature is the nature of
no Birth no Death,
no Being no Non-being,
no Defilement no Purity,
no Increasing no Decreasing.

“That is why in Emptiness,
Body, Feelings, Perceptions,
Mental Formations and Consciousness
are not separate self entities.

The Eighteen Realms of Phenomena
which are the six Sense Organs,
the six Sense Objects,
and the six Consciousnesses
are also not separate self entities.

The Twelve Links of Interdependent Arising
and their Extinction
are also not separate self entities.
Ill-being, the Causes of Ill-being,
the End of Ill-being, the Path,
insight and attainment,
are also not separate self entities.

Whoever can see this
no longer needs anything to attain.

Bodhisattvas who practice
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
see no more obstacles in their mind,
and because there
are no more obstacles in their mind,
they can overcome all fear,
destroy all wrong perceptions
and realize Perfect Nirvana.

“All Buddhas in the past, present and future
by practicing
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
are all capable of attaining
Authentic and Perfect Enlightenment.

“Therefore Sariputra,
it should be known that
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore
is a Great Mantra,
the most illuminating mantra,
the highest mantra,
a mantra beyond compare,
the True Wisdom that has the power
to put an end to all kinds of suffering.
Therefore let us proclaim
a mantra to praise
the Insight that Brings Us to the Other Shore.

Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!
Gate, Gate, Paragate, Parasamgate, Bodhi Svaha!”


A new translation of the Heart Sutra.
Thich Nhat Hanh.

[Moonglow]

Hello,

Going to let thoughts roll here.

Everything manifested through creation is of the whole of creation.

Creation itself does discern whether this is or this is not.

Ones thinking how, why, what, and where something should be or seems to be affects that individual perspective, IMO.

But, the thinking does not eliminate what has been and is being manifested.
Individual forms, contrasts in forms, and blending of forms indicate to me that there are forms being manifested.

If not, then all that is lived and noticed would simply not be. Me, I, you, we, us and them would not be. Because whether in physical forms or in mental forms these have been created, they are with in the whole of creation.

Even those aspects that may manifest as another element or ethereal is with in the Whole of what is, has been, and can be created.

If not would any of this be noticed, realized, or even lived?

[jimrich]

OK, let's see how any of this aligns with:
"Events happen, deeds are done, but there is no individual doer thereof" ~ Ramesh Balsekar .......

sky123
He [an appearance] who has not penetrated [deeds are done] the ego-illusion and is still attached to [deeds are done] self-vanity [individuality] will believe [events happen] that it is he himself [an individual doer] that suffers [events happen], that it is he himself [an individual doer]that performs [deeds are done] the good and evil deeds leading to[events happen] his rebirth, [events happen] that it is he himself [the individual doer] that will enter[events happen]* Nibbaana, [i.e., the ultimate spiritual goal in Buddhism and marks the soteriological release from(i.e. salvation) [events happen] rebirths in saṃsāra.] that it is he himself [the individual doer] that will bring [events happen] the eightfold path to perfection.

jim: Well all of that pretty much fits with Balsekar's alleged Buddha quote!

sky123
One who, however, has fully penetrated the selflessness of existence, knows that, in the highest sense, there is no individual that suffers, that commits the kammic deeds, that enters Nibbaana, and that brings the Eightfold Path to perfection. In theVisuddhimagga*it is therefore said:
Mere suffering exists, [events happen] no sufferer [individual doer] is found. [does NOT EXIST!]

jim: Looks like Buddha was adamant that no individual EXISTS!!! You, the ego, DO NOT EXIST!

The deeds are, but no doer of the deeds is there.*
jim: This is Balsekar's quote just REWORDED!

sky:
Nibbaana is, (exists) [events happen] but not (does NOT EXIST) the man [the individual EGO] that enters it. (jim: Strange use of words here. How can a "non-existing" man enter anything? I'd question that translation!)

The path is, (exists) [events happen] but no traveller [individual/ego] on it is seen. (does NOT EXIST!) [Jim: well Buddha is very clear here. You, an ego, DO NOT EXIST! - except inside of your own imagination.]

Further:

No doer of the deeds is found,
Jim: Because this "doer" does NOT EXIST!

No (individual) being [individual doer] that may reap [deeds are done] their fruits.

Empty phenomena roll on! [No-thing just HAPPENS!]
Jim: The term: Empty phenomena may come as close to describing or labeling that which happens and appears as anyone can come to it. Not bad! God is Empty Phenomena rolling on or just happening. Cool phrase!
This is the only right view.[events happen]

Therefore, wherever the doctrine of the selflessness [no individual/ego] of all existence is rejected, [deeds are done] the Buddha's word is rejected, [deeds are done] But wherever, through penetration of the selflessness [no ego/individual]of all existence, the ego-vanity [individual doer] has reached [events happen] ultimate extinction, there the goal of the Buddha's teaching has been realized: [events happen] freedom from all vanity of I and Mine, [the individual] and the highest peace of Nibbaana.[events happen]

Extracts from the Sa.myutta-Nikaaya on selflessness [NO INDIVIDUAL]

sky: I did post this on Jim's Thread but it was deleted by him.
Thanks for bringing it here so those who are not OFFENDED by Balsekar's quote may enjoy it for them selves. LOL, if Buddha never said it, he might have wanted to, since the Balsekar quote says exactly what Buddha APPARENTLY said in those extracts.... assuming any of those 'extracts" are authentic.
http://www.vipassanadhura.com/Selflessness.html[/QUOTE]
IMO, Balsekar's quote is good enough and close enough to Buddha's words to help anyone, Buddhist or not, to see that there is NO INDIVIDUAL DOER anywhere and that all there is, is [I]Empty phenomena happening and doing or manifesting as: you, me, us, we, them, etc. and appearing to DO things as individuals. It's a Paradox that the egoic mind CANNOT grasp. Buddha simply said that: Events happen, deeds are done and only said that empty phenomena roll on (AS these apparent happenings and deeds)! The moment you put a label on Divinity or god, it becomes just another (fallible) Something or individual! The infinite source cannot be labeled or named and Buddha knew that yet he tried with: empty phenomena! But the INDIVIDUAL egoic doer can be labeled and named - its called: you, me, I, we, us, they, them, etc.
Thanks, sky.......... :hug3:

[jimrich]

Well your answer for everything is 'It's a Paradox' and that's only more intellectual reasoning that supposedly happens that pertains to no-one . How have you ascertained that conclusion?
How have you ascertained that I ever said that "everything" is a Paradox? You need to go back and read my words more carefully and mindfully and without unfriendly judgement of them. Oh and BTW, I got that "paradox' thing form empty phenomena or the Nothingness.

How have you concluded 'There is only what is and what is not' was it Self realisation or is it just more intellectual reasoning / assumptions based upon the general consensus of the non duality crowd?
That's a judgement disguised as a question! You really are a tricky one! There is only what is, is seen with HONEST and direct observation. Try it.

Do you know the difference between Self manifest and Self unmanifest in relation to experience?
I don't need to "know". Do you?
Do you know the difference between awareness of I am .. and not?
Who cares? Do you know?
cheers,
empty phenomena :hug3:

[shiningstars]

jim: Looks like Buddha was adamant that no individual EXISTS!!! You, the ego, DO NOT EXIST!


Quote: "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers."

To repeat: "the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html

[shiningstars]

IMO, Balsekar's quote is good enough and close enough to Buddha's words to help anyone, Buddhist or not, to see that there is NO INDIVIDUAL DOER anywhere and that all there is

This would be quite amusing if it weren't for the sadness behind your fervor.

In Buddhism, it is called mistaking the fruit for the path, and if you don't believe you are doing anything or existing, it is a wrong view, as stated categorically by the Buddhist teachings in its entirety. As I said before, Buddhism is a system of teaching - not one in which those down in the foothills should "pick and choose" from.

The complexity, depth and perspectives of the teachings means those ill intentions behind "quote wars" can always find something to say and argue, but it belies the integrity of your process, and others, in trying to make a sophisticated and very deep, intensive practice/religion into "word games".

As others have done so, I will leave your thread and hope you find the peace you seek, although dragging others into the muddy depths of confusion is never a place of good foundation. Misery likes company, and believers are sometimes best left to their own devices in my opinion, and their own karma.

shiningstars

[jimrich]

This would be quite amusing if it weren't for ...... the "quote wars"....

LOL. FIGHT ON........LOL!

[jimrich]

Regardless of the answer you receive, words can never adequately encapsulate what is true or not for another.

lOL, Hey, you and Ground need to team up as a Martin and Lewis act or Abbot and Costello act. LOL :D :rolleyes: :cool:

P.S. Are you both on the computer ALL DAY LONG??????

[sky]

Quote: "One of the first stumbling blocks that Westerners often encounter when they learn about Buddhism is the teaching on anatta, often translated as no-self. This teaching is a stumbling block for two reasons. First, the idea of there being no self doesn't fit well with other Buddhist teachings, such as the doctrine of kamma and rebirth: If there's no self, what experiences the results of kamma and takes rebirth? Second, it doesn't fit well with our own Judeo-Christian background, which assumes the existence of an eternal soul or self as a basic presupposition: If there's no self, what's the purpose of a spiritual life? Many books try to answer these questions, but if you look at the Pali canon — the earliest extant record of the Buddha's teachings — you won't find them addressed at all. In fact, the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible.

Thus the question should be put aside. To understand what his silence on this question says about the meaning of anatta, we first have to look at his teachings on how questions should be asked and answered, and how to interpret his answers."

To repeat: "the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer. When later asked why, he said that to hold either that there is a self or that there is no self is to fall into extreme forms of wrong view that make the path of Buddhist practice impossible."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html




Buddha does teach of a ' True self ' in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, if he taught ' No self ' previously his last teaching would make no sense...
I understand 'Anatta ' to mean ' Not self '

[jimrich]

[directed to nobody in particular......]
LOL, is this now the new Buddha sub forum?
Carry on...........

[sky]

LOL, is this now the new Buddha sub forum?
Carry on...........


Well I will leave you to it then, have fun :biggrin:

[Ground]

jim: Looks like Buddha was adamant that no individual EXISTS!!!
No. He taught the middle way:



Dwelling at Savatthi... Then Ven. Kaccayana Gotta approached the Blessed One and, on arrival, having bowed down, sat to one side. As he was sitting there he said to the Blessed One: "Lord, 'Right view, right view,' it is said. To what extent is there right view?"

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is supported by (takes as its object) a polarity, that of existence & non-existence. But when one sees the origination of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'non-existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one. When one sees the cessation of the world as it actually is with right discernment, 'existence' with reference to the world does not occur to one.

"By & large, Kaccayana, this world is in bondage to attachments, clingings (sustenances), & biases. But one such as this does not get involved with or cling to these attachments, clingings, fixations of awareness, biases, or obsessions; nor is he resolved on 'my self.' He has no uncertainty or doubt that just stress, when arising, is arising; stress, when passing away, is passing away. In this, his knowledge is independent of others. It's to this extent, Kaccayana, that there is right view.

"'Everything exists': That is one extreme. 'Everything doesn't exist': That is a second extreme. Avoiding these two extremes, the Tathagata teaches the Dhamma via the middle: From ignorance as a requisite condition come fabrications. From fabrications as a requisite condition comes consciousness. From consciousness as a requisite condition comes name-&-form. From name-&-form as a requisite condition come the six sense media. From the six sense media as a requisite condition comes contact. From contact as a requisite condition comes feeling. From feeling as a requisite condition comes craving. From craving as a requisite condition comes clinging/sustenance. From clinging/sustenance as a requisite condition comes becoming. From becoming as a requisite condition comes birth. From birth as a requisite condition, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair come into play. Such is the origination of this entire mass of stress & suffering.

"Now from the remainderless fading & cessation of that very ignorance comes the cessation of fabrications. From the cessation of fabrications comes the cessation of consciousness. From the cessation of consciousness comes the cessation of name-&-form. From the cessation of name-&-form comes the cessation of the six sense media. From the cessation of the six sense media comes the cessation of contact. From the cessation of contact comes the cessation of feeling. From the cessation of feeling comes the cessation of craving. From the cessation of craving comes the cessation of clinging/sustenance. From the cessation of clinging/sustenance comes the cessation of becoming. From the cessation of becoming comes the cessation of birth. From the cessation of birth, then aging & death, sorrow, lamentation, pain, distress, & despair all cease. Such is the cessation of this entire mass of stress & suffering."

http://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn12/sn12.015.than.html


LOL, is this now the new Buddha sub forum?
Well it was you who started to assert 'words of fhe Buddha' that actually cannot be found in authentic buddhist texts.

[sky]

No. He taught the middle way:




Well it was you who started to assert 'words of fhe Buddha' that actually cannot be found in authentic buddhist texts.



Why do you think that the Samyutta Nikaya is not authentic ?

[Ground]

Why do you think that the Samyutta Nikaya is not authentic ?
you want to imply that you found the source of his quote that the doer does not exist whereas deeds an events do exist? This was what he assigned to 'the budha' without being able to provide the source text.
If now you found the source text in the Samyutta Nikaya then please provide the specific sutta.

[no1wakesup]

There is not even one .

'One' is a mind evaluation made by me and you ..

Beyond me and you is not 'One' .

Non duality is a concept that is dual in nature .


x daz x

Yes and there it is.
Very well said

[7luminaries]

You mean arguing and mind games. :wink:

:icon_eek:......LOL.

For myself, I try to practice non-engagement as a form of non-violence for both of those, wherever possible :D Can't always be employed, but it's a lifelong habit I've used around many toxic people, groups, and situations.

Where non-engagement is unavoidable or not ideal, then I find direct engagement and confrontation -- with true courtesy and all due respect -- is the best approach.

Otherwise most toxic groups and folks will seek a power-over approach that is demeaning and dehumanising to others. And if they proceed to act that way regardless, it is at least plain for all to see. :rolleyes:

Peace & blessings,
7L

[7luminaries]

Regardless of the answer you receive, words can never adequately encapsulate what is true or not for another.

The only reason we comment is to prevent or caution others from falling into the dualistic trap that understanding or the 'map' is the journey or the destination. Truth realized is entirely distinct from meanderings of the word, no matter how clever, elusive or 'quotable'.

The Spirit knows what is truth yet those not yet immersed in the wisdom of Spirit can only choose to replicate or imitate. There is nothing wrong with this imitation for all young imitate and play 'costume' before true growth. It's part of the journey. Likewise, all have a right to play for a long time if it is their wish.

But, no-one should mistake the outcome for the path, or the description of finality as the foregone conclusion for people who have no true guide or genuine knowledge of the inner path (gnosis, not "understanding"). No-one should imagine another's understanding, or even their own, substitutes for the Path and Wisdom and Outcome of Ancients like the Buddhas, Jesus, Sri Ramana, Rumi and Many others.

Shiningstars

First, Shining...I generally agree very much with most of your post, particularly the blue and purple bits.

But the red bit is much more complicated today than it appears at first blush. Even though it's certainly true that great depths of knowledge and understanding were transmitted through various gurus as well as through the spiritual apprenticeships of various faith/philosophical traditions spanning the last few astrological ages (mostly spanning the prior Ages of Taurus, Aries and then Pisces).

We have much to learn from the masters who spoke concretely and clearly regarding right-aligned living and being, as well as the path of equanimity (such as Buddha) on our journey to awakening to the heart-led consciousness. To the masters who clearly spoke the truth of the law (such as Jesus)...who called out repeatedly that under the law, lovingkindness and justice are One and cannot be separated (which his own Judaic law clearly stated but which was often ignored). He spoke not new words but cutting, clarifying words which called out the hypocrisy of the day, and of our day. He spoke the truth of the law, of the inherent equality of worth and humanity for all.

The latter in particular called for a true application of the law of his tradition...to authentically and truly practice the letter of the law under the equality and the universal, radical love that the spirit of the law demanded. To live authentically, with an awakened mind in service to a heart-led consciousness. The call to live in integrity and authenticity were purely insurrectionist and counterculture for his day and remain so in our day.

Clearly, in many ways we have yet to collectively accomplish what many of the masters attained vis-a-vis consciousness. And yet, in other ways, we have individually begun to move past some of the limitations of prior ages due to the collective progression of the human spirit. Certainly, this is true of most men and nearly all women who today participate in serious spiritual study and inner work. Because...most of humanity was illiterate, oppressed, and class- and caste-ridden. And because...half of humanity was not engaged at all, except perhaps on the fringes. Women were often barred outright in spiritual work due to deeply held beliefs in their "ingrained"
spiritual inferiority. And yet even the simplest and least educated women are quite often well or even vastly advanced in the ways of the awakened heart-consciousness.

This is the next tipping point...not just awakening the mind and raising awareness, but transforming the consciousness by consciously submitting the awakened mind in service to the heart-led consciousness. We are truly, and at every level, a different form of humanity at that point. And collectively, we will "shift" everything about our reality as we reach a critical mass...even if just a small one at first. The 100th monkey phenomenon is a crude parable for the reality of our interbeing, but perhaps it's fitting and humourous. But make no mistake, we will move forward and we will not be limited to the traditions of ages past where political and economic oppression, exploitation, slavery, caste, misogyny, racism, and so many other misalignments were givens and were tolerated or even condoned.

Out of all the past masters, the heart-led consciousness, the radical love and compassion, and the radical intellectual, moral, and ethical clarity of Jesus continues to outpace the lived reality of most of our individual and all of our societal expressions. To date. Ever. Anywhere. This is the illuminated way forward, IMO. And it's also true we have even regressed in the recent modern era (last 50 yrs) regarding the spiritual perception and lived practice of honouring women's full humanity, due to the near-universal prevalence of and addictions to casual sex and/or porn. Men today often regularly dishonour women in intent, thought, word, and deed with a depth and breadth that their fathers and grandfathers could barely even fathom.

Rumi and Buddha in particular are helpful references for both inspiration and for clear direction regarding right-aligned, balanced living whenever we lose sight of the illumined truth or way. But the vast majority of the masters will not define us or limit us as we progress upon our paths...we will meet and surpass many of them here and there, each in our various ways. And one day, perhaps even the way of Jesus and the heights of integrity and truth of being and doing will be the truth we live and the truth we are.

At that point, we will say en masse what more and more individuals have begun to say here and now..."and so now we are approaching...and so now we are here. And so now...we continue on...together" :hug3:

[jimrich]

We might as well post the entire context of the quote that you posted:
Originally Posted by 7luminaries
...and that hopefully there won't be too many rounds of dialogue on here/not here .:biggrin:
Originally Posted by jimrich
You mean arguing and mind games.
[QUOTE=7luminaries]:icon_eek:......LOL.
Me too...:icon_eek: .....LOL

-- with true courtesy and all due respect -- is the best approach.
This forum could sure use more courtesy and respect, IMO.

Otherwise most toxic groups and folks will seek a power-over approach that is demeaning and dehumanising to others. And if they proceed to act that way regardless, it is at least plain for all to see. :rolleyes:
OK, but do you honestly think that disrespectful, contemptuous and power hungry, toxic Bullies give "rip" about what others think or feel so long as these toxic Bullies are getting their KICKS?
OMG, there's a verbal fight going on across the hall from here!!!!!:icon_frown: Gees I hope they don't break down my door! Oh well, I have a weapon if they do!

[sky]

you want to imply that you found the source of his quote that the doer does not exist whereas deeds an events do exist? This was what he assigned to 'the budha' without being able to provide the source text.
If now you found the source text in the Samyutta Nikaya then please provide the specific sutta.


I have posted it twice Ground, on this Thread and also on Jims Buddhist Thread which he chose to delete, ok...

[jimrich]

Buddha does teach of a ' True self ' in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra, if he taught ' No self ' previously his last teaching would make no sense...
I understand 'Anatta ' to mean ' Not self '
http://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/thanissaro/notself2.html
sky, that is a very powerful and informative link so thanks for putting it here for all to use :hug3:
jim

[God-Like]

Yes and there it is.
Very well said

The funny thing is that when a hardcore non dualist is adamant that no-one is here and they will debate their point till the cows come home is that they don't see how attached they are to the concept .

I see a similar pattern of expression in the flat earther's brigade . :D

Would no-one that is here go to such lengths to defend their point of view? The point of view that pertains to no-one in particular .


x daz x

[Ground]

I have posted it twice Ground, on this Thread and also on Jims Buddhist Thread which he chose to delete, ok...
Then please post it once more. Otherwise it is a mere assertion without evidence.

[Ground]

The funny thing is that when a hardcore non dualist is adamant that no-one is here and they will debate their point till the cows come home is that they don't see how attached they are to the concept .

I see a similar pattern of expression in the flat earther's brigade . :D

The point is that they confuse their idea based on another's inappropriate narrative about his/her individual subjective experience with objective truth. This is the case with all religions. The narrative may be expressed with the term 'god' or with the term 'non-duality', there is no difference in that in both cases the narrative is an inappropriate expression of an individual's subjective experience.

jimrich's intention is clear by now and has been revealed by his assertion that there is no doer but deeds and events exist: he wants to establish an absolute doer beyond the individual. That is his personal 'non-duality' or 'Only One - not two' reality which is the negation of the personal subjective individual and the affirmation of one objective reality. He can stick to this view only through setting himself als absolute because he denies the personal subjective individual and thus his belief as the expression of a personal subjective individual's belief. So 'no-duality' or 'Only One - not two' are just other expressions of the cage of beliefs that holds captive most people.

[Jyotir]

Hi Ground,


Not that yours is 'wrong', and hope you don't mind...




The point is that they confuse their idea based on another's inappropriate narrative about his/her individual subjective experience with objective truth. This is the case with all religions. The narrative may be expressed with the term 'god' or with the term 'non-duality', there is no difference in that in both cases the narrative is an inappropriate expression of an individual's subjective experience.



The point is that they identify with another's appropriately consistent as similar narratives about their individual objective experience with subjective truth. This is the case with all religions. The narrative may be expressed with the term 'god' or with the term 'non-duality', there is no difference in that in both cases the narrative is the necessary expression of an individual's objective experience.


...just felt compelled to do that for myself.



~ J

[Ground]

Hi Ground,


Not that yours is 'wrong', and hope you don't mind...







...just felt compelled to do that for myself.



~ J
Never mind.

Maybe my words could be read as if I would affirm objective truth which actually is not the case.

So I think the most appropriate version of my expression is:

The point is that they confuse their idea based on another's inappropriate narrative about his/her individual experience with objective truth. This is the case with all religions. The narrative may be expressed with the term 'god' or with the term 'non-duality', there is no difference in that in both cases the narrative is an inappropriate expression of an individual's experience.

[God-Like]

The point is that they confuse their idea based on another's inappropriate narrative about his/her individual subjective experience with objective truth. This is the case with all religions. The narrative may be expressed with the term 'god' or with the term 'non-duality', there is no difference in that in both cases the narrative is an inappropriate expression of an individual's subjective experience.

jimrich's intention is clear by now and has been revealed by his assertion that there is no doer but deeds and events exist: he wants to establish an absolute doer beyond the individual. That is his personal 'non-duality' or 'Only One - not two' reality which is the negation of the personal subjective individual and the affirmation of one objective reality. He can stick to this view only through setting himself als absolute because he denies the personal subjective individual and thus his belief as the expression of a personal subjective individual's belief. So 'no-duality' or 'Only One - not two' are just other expressions of the cage of beliefs that holds captive most people.

Apparently niz said put down my book and go find it out for yourself . lol . and yet he still continued to write :D .

I agree, what can happen is that individuals fill there heads with many authors thoughts and associate what they are to their teachings / subjective truths .

In a way they are living someone else's life / truth .

I can take a few snippets of what others say and resonate with it or not .

It won't make a difference in regards to my own realizations / understandings .
What is apparent is that if such individuals never read anything then where would they actually stand in themselves .

Would they feel as if there is no doer, no self, the world is but a dream? I think not and one really needs to perceive everything in their own unique way in relations to their own vantage point . If there is similarity between some then so be it, all is good, if not so what :D .

If one doesn't live by their own vantage point it is likened to living another's life and one is not being true to themselves .

That's why the individual who reckons the physical experience is likened to a dream character doesn't live by that example . They don't walk in front of a bus believing they are dreaming .


x daz x

[God-Like]

How have you ascertained that I ever said that "everything" is a Paradox? You need to go back and read my words more carefully and mindfully and without unfriendly judgement of them. Oh and BTW, I got that "paradox' thing form empty phenomena or the Nothingness.


That's a judgement disguised as a question! You really are a tricky one! There is only what is, is seen with HONEST and direct observation. Try it.


I don't need to "know". Do you?

Who cares? Do you know?
cheers,
empty phenomena :hug3:

You seemed to answer most of my posts with it's a paradox . In that respect, my answer related to that and I wasn't implying that you believe everything is a paradox .

I am making a judgement based upon your answers given, what is wrong with that? You are doing the same, that is how we evaluate what's being said .

I then ask you a question based upon what I have concluded .

In regards to Self manifest and Self unmanifest, you do need to know / realize the difference if you are going to relate to a belief about self, no self .

If you don't know the difference between the thought of I am and no thought / awareness of I am, then one's belief about what is present comes about from where?

You say you don't care what the differences are and yet you stand firm without solid foundation .


x daz x

[7luminaries]

Apparently niz said put down my book and go find it out for yourself . lol . and yet he still continued to write :D .

I agree, what can happen is that individuals fill there heads with many authors thoughts and associate what they are to their teachings / subjective truths .

In a way they are living someone else's life / truth .

I can take a few snippets of what others say and resonate with it or not .

It won't make a difference in regards to my own realizations / understandings .
What is apparent is that if such individuals never read anything then where would they actually stand in themselves .

Would they feel as if there is no doer, no self, the world is but a dream? I think not and one really needs to perceive everything in their own unique way in relations to their own vantage point . If there is similarity between some then so be it, all is good, if not so what :D .

If one doesn't live by their own vantage point it is likened to living another's life and one is not being true to themselves .

That's why the individual who reckons the physical experience is likened to a dream character doesn't live by that example . They don't walk in front of a bus believing they are dreaming .


x daz x

Agreed. Realising the authentic self is the point of existence.
There are paths that lead to one's centre more truly and authentically...and then there are paths that may take one away from one's centre.
To me, the concept of non-being taken to any logical end is avoidant and dehumanising and thus it misdirects most folks.

And it's nice to see you again, Daz! We've missed your voice and your presence :hug:

Peace & blessings :hug3:


7L

[jimrich]

daz,
"I'll allow you to have last word". ~ awareness :icon_eek:

[God-Like]

Agreed. Realising the authentic self is the point of existence.
There are paths that lead to one's centre more truly and authentically...and then there are paths that may take one away from one's centre.
To me, the concept of non-being taken to any logical end is avoidant and dehumanising and thus it misdirects most folks.

And it's nice to see you again, Daz! We've missed your voice and your presence :hug:

Peace & blessings :hug3:


7L

It could be said that everyone's life's purpose it to know themselves or God or whatever word suits .

Eventually one will come to their senses and truly walk their talk and live by their realizations and experiences .

If they don't walk their talk then they are having a worthy experience of that .



x daz x

[7luminaries]

It could be said that everyone's life's purpose it to know themselves or God or whatever word suits .

Eventually one will come to their senses and truly walk their talk and live by their realizations and experiences .

If they don't walk their talk then they are having a worthy experience of that .



x daz x

Yes, definitely agreed with those first two.

With the last, I agree generally with what you're saying. It's just I feel it's really so hard to say...because if a person is living apart from their centre, they don't or can't yet know themselves well enough or truly enough to deem it worthy misdirection or ??? whatever, LOL...just the plain old destructive and traumatic "regular" misdirection. So hard to say. What do you think?

I reckon they themselves likely can't really say whether it's worthy or whether it pointed them to do a U-turn...or whether it was just, in retrospect, a misdirection which took many years and/or many lifetimes, even, from them.

Of course, sometimes meaning can be found in suffering, particularly if one has reached a certain level of conscious awareness and is not pointedly choosing misdirection. Meaning, the situation was imposed without choice, like in childhood (if unjust or cruel or violent) or other bondage or oppression. Living under an unjust or violent regime, and so forth.

And sometimes, the misdirection was just our own hands over our eyes as we walked away from our centre. Sometimes, it was just our own fear and loathing. IMO anything that directs us away from our authentic centre is usually harmful misdirection...and I would put any extreme i.e., impersonal, cold, detached, and utilitarian interpretation of unity or oneness here too (just to be sure I am still on topic :wink:).

When folks discuss oneness as if individuated consciousness and being is illusory, it's fine to banter but when they dehumanize others day-to-day, it becomes pretty destructive in the doing and the being. I suppose I just can't stress that point strongly enough...but anyway agreed on all points. :smile:

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L

[Miss Hepburn]

5 days ago by jimrich, page 3....I am currently not sure how this "healing" of the Split or Division into two me's can
or will occur but there have been times when a Real me came forward while the false me stepped aside or
ran away in terror, only to return shortly afterward and take over again.
I've often wondered why the Real me is not able or willing to STAY up front and hold the false me down or
totally eliminate it so maybe that's the next step to becoming truly whole and complete again.
Not two. Just one. The few times that "no-egoity" happened, I felt such joy, relief, happiness, ecstasy, wonder, fulfillment, etc.
Maybe there is a way to just live in Peace and Oneness from now on! God I hope so! I'm sick of being two me's -
a fake one and a real one - it's such a struggle! I am just now trying to read all these pages for the 1st x.
But, I see I am drawn to read only what you say, jim.
I have huge respect for your posts...and obviously, relate to them so much.
It is, indeed, so odd to know there is Only One...yet, the One has chosen to individuate 'Itself'
for even more experience and expansion.
:hug3: Ha, 'To be all that He can be!", is how I say it.

It becomes even more exciting to stop...
(this mind-made illusory struggle) to become simply aware.
Simply aware.
Just Awareness.
It is a practice I have begun because of a Guided Meditation I ran across online. First x, it really started a change in me.
Nothing was outside of me...just as I remember being aware of in my
play pen on the kitchen floor before I could walk, attempting to pull myself up unsuccessfully.

Please, as my brother, rid your mind that this is a struggle. (First, since it actually is quite easy.)
Practice makes perfect... :wink: Keep placing the needle back on the record...when it goes off the groove, you don't slam it back on, right?
Gently bring your attention to simple awareness...no jim, no table,
no ceiling, no chair...all 'things appearing as separate 'objects' are not ...but in reality ...
Are all you, all parts of you, shape shifting in this 'space' to appear as separate.
Go to the window and drink a glass of oj... feel the tree, the roots reaching down for nutrition, feel the rays
of the Sun giving strength
to the branches stretching for more life, drink and see that you are
drinking the actual energy of the Sun...and that all of this is one and the same ...you, the Sun, the glass ...all
one and the same ...appearing as separate.


The surly cashier is you experiencing what it is to be surly...you the shopper,
experiencing peace of mind as someone aims vibes at you and you experiencing that. :glasses9:

All one thing experiencing it all as separate to be able to experience more and more and
more stretching out infinitely into other dimensions...as a man, as a horse, as a tree, as a snail, as spirit...consciousness.

See how easy that is? Hahahaha...now, 'Be still'.
:glasses10: Feel the excitement of one that is feeling the excitement of such an adventure!

The key being the Witness, the Observer...practice makes perfect.
And you must make this your primary desire! That's all! Lol! :smile:
PS (And I know! It's all a Paradox!...Not many get this....it is experiencial.)

[jimrich]

I am just now trying to read all these pages for the 1st x.
But, I see I am drawn to read only what you say, jim.
I have huge respect for your posts...and obviously, relate to them so much.
It is, indeed, so odd to know there is Only One...yet, the One has chosen to individuate 'Itself'
for even more experience and expansion.
:hug3: Ha, 'To be all that He can be!", is how I say it.
I'd say, "To be all that I already am." Thanks for reading my posts WITHOUT negative judgements as many others express regarding my unwelcome posts. I just try to be as honest as I can and that often irritates others.

It becomes even more exciting to stop...
(this mind-made illusory struggle) to become simply aware.
Simply aware.
Just Awareness.
Yes, that's what one should do.

It is a practice I have begun because of a Guided Meditation I ran across online.
The current "guides" and witnesses I've found do not bother with meditations and practices but go directly to the core of Being to help us see and know that we are FREE even now. I love being shown that "this is it" - and it's OK just as it is.

First x, it really started a change in me.
Nothing was outside of me..
That's because there really is no "inside" or "outside" - there's just this.

Please, as my brother, rid your mind that this is a struggle. (First, since it actually is quite easy.)
No problem. The item you highlighted in the quote above is ancient history. There is no "struggle" and no one struggling - just this - happening as it will. Empty phenomena roll on. It just happens.

Practice makes perfect... :wink: Keep placing the needle back on the record...when it goes off the groove, you don't slam it back on, right?
Nope. you just "pick yourself up and get back in the race" (from a song, LOL).
[QUOTE]Gently bring your attention to simple awareness...no jim, no table,
no ceiling, no chair...all 'things appearing as separate 'objects' are not ...but in reality ...
Are all you, all parts of you, shape shifting in this 'space' to [I]appear as separate.
Well, of course all of this is me - not parts of me. It may seem as if there are "parts" but there is only one thing, life, substance, being, energy, essence, etc. here and I am That (emptiness).

Go to the window and drink a glass of oj... feel the tree, the roots reaching down for nutrition, feel the rays
of the Sun giving strength
to the branches stretching for more life, drink and see that you are
drinking the actual energy of the Sun...and that all of this is [I]one and the same ...you, the Sun, the glass ...all
one and the same ...appearing as separate.

LOL, that very experience happened yesterday while out driving and it was seen that, while the trees, road, buildings, cars, etc are all separate, objects with unique purposes in life, everything there was IDENTICAL as the One or Oneness appearing as many forms. It was electrifying to KNOW Oneness or Unity in that way. All there is, is Oneness even though the trees, cars, roadway, etc. seem separate and different from each other. It felt and still feels good to actually experience Unity and, even now, sitting here at a desk, Oneness is still a fact and not a distant dream or mental concept.

See how easy that is?
Yes, it really is "easy" once you open up and actually experience Wholeness or Aliveness.

Not many get this
What will be, will be.
Thanks for your kind and inspiring post. I imagine many others will benefit from what you wrote here. :hug3:

[Miss Hepburn]

Jim, because my sister, 68, had a stroke 3 weeks ago (and is ok)...
I am listening again to an interview with Oprah of Jill Bolte Taylor...
Harvard, neuro- brain-something, MD, who had a severe stroke, wow ...she speaks of the left and right brain,
(many youtubes of her)...her left was fried...so she was
dwelling in her right brain! Yay!
Her many talks on Nirvana, no separation, being in the center of the
Universe...being God...are fascinating and inspiring ...and to this day 20
yrs latter she speaks of how Nirvana is a 'thought away'!
(Like right there in the right brain!) Lol!
:smile:
Thought you'd like that...:wink:

Be all that you already are...love it.
Those are BIG words!!!!

[God-Like]

Yes, definitely agreed with those first two.

With the last, I agree generally with what you're saying. It's just I feel it's really so hard to say...because if a person is living apart from their centre, they don't or can't yet know themselves well enough or truly enough to deem it worthy misdirection or ??? whatever, LOL...just the plain old destructive and traumatic "regular" misdirection. So hard to say. What do you think?

I reckon they themselves likely can't really say whether it's worthy or whether it pointed them to do a U-turn...or whether it was just, in retrospect, a misdirection which took many years and/or many lifetimes, even, from them.

Of course, sometimes meaning can be found in suffering, particularly if one has reached a certain level of conscious awareness and is not pointedly choosing misdirection. Meaning, the situation was imposed without choice, like in childhood (if unjust or cruel or violent) or other bondage or oppression. Living under an unjust or violent regime, and so forth.

And sometimes, the misdirection was just our own hands over our eyes as we walked away from our centre. Sometimes, it was just our own fear and loathing. IMO anything that directs us away from our authentic centre is usually harmful misdirection...and I would put any extreme i.e., impersonal, cold, detached, and utilitarian interpretation of unity or oneness here too (just to be sure I am still on topic :wink:).

When folks discuss oneness as if individuated consciousness and being is illusory, it's fine to banter but when they dehumanize others day-to-day, it becomes pretty destructive in the doing and the being. I suppose I just can't stress that point strongly enough...but anyway agreed on all points. :smile:

Peace & blessings :hug3:
7L




What I was suggesting was that it is an equally worthy experience talking their talk as it is walking their walk .

One eventually finds that just the talking gets them nowhere other than projecting something different from what one truly feels / perceives in reflection of themselves and everyone / thing else .

If someone believes that all is one and there is no individual 'you' but carries on living their life as if there is an individual 'you' then something is seriously amiss .

I am not saying getting to the point of walking the walk is easy, it will take as long as it takes, but when it comes to the point of walking the walk it is no effort at all .

The effort can be getting to the point . For myself, it seems that there is an effort to hold a delusional self reflection . Holding a pretence takes an effort to hold whereas being true to yourself is expressed quite naturally without effort . .


x daz x

[Ground]

If someone believes that all is one and there is no individual 'you' ...
... then he/she can't even go shopping :laughing6:

[God-Like]

... then he/she can't even go shopping :laughing6:


.. Well I for sure have had the conversation of how one (excuse the pun) can function in this world without a sense of I am this .

I am this which is in contrast to that . Which is in reflection of what is perceived .

If there was no distinction between what I am and the oncoming bus, then there would be no need / urge to side step it .

Being at one with the entirety / all there is would not facilitate distinctions to be made for all would be seen as the same one .

It really is a red-herring / fantasy for an point of perception had to perceive everything as one and the same .

There would be no consumption of food had for instance because one would be seen to be consuming themselves .

The distinctions made can only come in reflection of how they perceive themselves from a unique / individual perspective .

I doubt very much that a non dualist lives by their philosophy .. The renouncing self aspects as said before is not an expression of oneness, it is quite the opposite, which well, erm .. you know, goes against the grain of what they actually preach / declare .

Only an individual in reflection of oneness can say there is only oneness .


x daz x

[sky]

... then he/she can't even go shopping :laughing6:


Why can't he/she go shopping :confused:

[7luminaries]

What I was suggesting was that it is an equally worthy experience talking their talk as it is walking their walk .

One eventually finds that just the talking gets them nowhere other than projecting something different from what one truly feels / perceives in reflection of themselves and everyone / thing else .

If someone believes that all is one and there is no individual 'you' but carries on living their life as if there is an individual 'you' then something is seriously amiss .

I am not saying getting to the point of walking the walk is easy, it will take as long as it takes, but when it comes to the point of walking the walk it is no effort at all .

The effort can be getting to the point . For myself, it seems that there is an effort to hold a delusional self reflection . Holding a pretence takes an effort to hold whereas being true to yourself is expressed quite naturally without effort . .


x daz x

Hey there Daz and thanks for your thoughts.
I agree about walking and talking. And I agree that holding onto something that lacks authenticity on all levels would be more exhausting for ME. Or for YOU. But I'm not sure that's true of everyone. It seems to me that it's more the inertia principle. Making a change requires a lot of effort for most folks, even when it's to drop what is not true to your core self. Even when it's been staring you in the face and you know it's right for you.

Also, what we are at the mo is certainly not always true to centre. At the mo, we may be angry or bitter or predatory or addicted, etc. And thus it'll be quite easy to reflect that without effort. But is that who we are at core, or is that who and what we are resting in to avoid the mirror?

For example...Look at the cultural male addictions to casual sex and porn, reinforced at every turn and then promoted as "good". Do you think that is or will be easy for most blokes to overcome, even when they know it's not who they are at core?

Or do you think that's who most blokes really are at core, cads who enjoy predatory behaviour, exploiting others for sex, or being addicted beyond all clarity and reason to ways that dehumanise others? Of course not...these are misaligned behaviours but whilst a man is deep in them, they are very easily maintained whilst changing them is hard. Because of the authenticity and presence that is required to live in one's centre. And to view others from that same place.

Do you think it will require a lot of ongoing effort for maybe quite a long time to live there with more or less ease and stability...and to get beyond the predatory desperation and behavior of the addict? Perhaps for you, junk food, exploitation and addiction doesn't cut it and never did -- but for others, they live on these in the main and always have done. This is what they were shown and this is what society still tells them is normal, even "good"...as twisted and tragic as that may be. When everything you "know" is false and harmful, how difficult is it to cut ties completely and chart an entirely new course that's not yet been even mapped, even when that IS the ONLY way forward in love and truth? Same is true of the individual soul.

Change is hard...and it matters not if it's "good" or right-aligned...because change, just like authenticity, requires courage and fearlessness and an almost ruthless level of honesty and vulnerability, or it doesn't take. That's why we say true sight, navigational sight, is dependent on the heart...and on the faith and grace and love that the heart holds in the face of the unknown (change) over the known (inertia).

Over the span of eternity, folks all generally figure out that walking or talking in circles goes nowhere new. Including saying there is only One = Me and you are illusory (narcissism). Or saying there is only One = me and you but we are illusory and only the One is real. So...that equation is completely negated, as even the One would not exist by that reckoning (nihilism). Both of those are false, IMO and thus they are dead ends by any deeper reckoning, agreed.

But I'm also saying that that's a hell of a lot of detritus, static, trauma, mud, pain and misdirection that we're spewing out over the span of eternity, and that there are direct and indirect effects for the rest of existence. None of which we can judge or deem "ok" or "acceptable" for the rest of existence. Nor can we go further and say our stuff is "good" even, and it's "meant to be". Hahahaha :tongue:

Yet somehow I see an implicit justification of what is in so much of the general spiritual discussion, instead of a simple ownership of our co-creation that makes no judgments about how good it is for anyone else but US. And even that judgment is dubious if it labels misdirection as good and right...LOL. Perhaps it was necessary in hindsight...and again, maybe or maybe not. How can we say that with any certainty? All we CAN say, with honesty, is that we were blind then but now we see. Or that then we saw only through a glass darkly, but now we see more truly. And that yes, we likely did great harm to self AND others whilst blind or ignorant. And that yes, we forgive and seek forgiveness...we love and accept, whilst respectfully also offering these gifts to others. We acknowledge the interbeing and worth of all, equally to ourselves. Who may in turn choose and do as they will.

Ownership acknowledges that our choices may very well be not in the highest good of the rest of existence (nor even ourselves) is a lot more honest...as who are we to say, you know? Ownership that we may have spent a lot of time in misdirection, even including consciously chosen misdirection, is also a lot more honest, IMO.

Because...inertia and addiction. And because change is hard when we're not already in alignment. Maintaining is easy, whether good or bad. Whether it's who you really are, or not. But as I see it, change, like honesty and vulnerability, is very, very hard. For all of us, each in our own way :hug:

Peace & blessings Dazzer :hug3:
And thanks for listening to my thoughts, in advance.
7L