Gautama Siddhartha

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I hope that you enjoy your "Hissy Fits".

actually i think there is a type of "enjoyment" there. like in the creation of a optional conflict. it reinforces me as ego, as a separate "thought identified" self, which does involve pleasure in terms of things like feeling or asserting "i am right and they are wrong, or i am better or wiser or more spiritual and such, superiority. the assertion of me as this better cluster of ideas verses their cluster of ideas. there is a pleasure there of sorts. in getting the last word lol.

one can choose in the now moment to be no one and no thing, to live free of "mental interpretations" or "speculations" using buddha's word, to perceive us all as just the same, no one higher or lower, no one as right or wrong, just individual points of perception and awareness focusing on and projecting different internal or external things.

but then if we focus on and project "speculations" "name and form" "consciousness" or ego, we create conflict, mental suffering, and set ourselves up for another incarnation and karma. we hurt or get hurt, as this ego or thought defined self, and to harm others or ourselves in anyway, sets up karmic ripples that have to be worked out in future lives.

living in an enlightened way stops the creation of karma and gets us off the wheel of rebirth and eliminates all forms of conflict within or without. no thought based mentally derived conflict can be perceived if one has abandoned in this now moment, name and form.

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

Yep. 'God', for want of a better word, is unconscious.

Had to pause there for a moment & here my understanding differs a bit from Adyashanti’s.

I would rather say, that “God” speaks through our subconscious …. resulting in making our unconscious conscious.

*

[sentient]

Some thoughts on "I AM".

Still on Adyashanti’s bandwagon:
We imagine that “I” awaken …. or that “I” become liberated … when it is rather that the WHOLE awakens through the individual.
Adya on Buddha: “I in all beings, all things everywhere has suddenly realized great liberation”.
Or ..."Seeing the face of God in everything".
& This I assume is behind the meaning of “I AM” and that “There is only the SELF”.

Liberated from the separate-self-identity, the ‘psychological self’, ego assemblage-point-of-awareness of the “I am” *shifts* into “I AM”.
That is shocking and a dramatic shift of assemblage-points.

The Jhana-way to *shift* is much more gradual me thinks, but as such has many seductive pitfalls in it, left, right and centre … so one needs to remember the “red thread of Ariadne’s” (or the “Golden thread of the Spider Mother” as 'we' call the thread back to the Source, remembering that in 'cobwebby situations' the Spider is both the liberator and the trickster).

*

The “I am” seems to think that the way to the “Source” is through polarization.
Taking the side of the ‘formless’ … Formlessness vs. Form. Non-thought vs. Thought etc. etc. etc.
When it is rather polarities paradoxically finding a functional union.

*

[Gem]

Originally Posted by sentient

Had to pause there for a moment & here my understanding differs a bit from Adyashanti’s.

I would rather say, that “God” speaks through our subconscious …. resulting in making our unconscious conscious.

*

I would say God never spoke or created or did anything at all, which is why calling it 'God' doesn't work. People think God is personal being that created the universe and wants things, but what if it is just a presence that never experienced anything and doesn't even know it exists. That we can know it exists is very strange. I don't pretend to know the how and why of all that, and I doubt there is any explanation at all. Maybe the mystery is 'just is', and there is no reason behind it.

Originally Posted by Gem

Buddha was a vast intellectual

I think of him as very aware, knowledgeable, intelligent and introspective based on the suttas, but not an intellectual. Seems to me he liked having a clear and empty consciousness. An intellectual to me means someone always in their ideas, and someone in love with their ideas. Someone who thinks a lot.

[sky]

Originally Posted by AbodhiSky

An intellectual to me means someone always in their ideas, and someone in love with their ideas. Someone who thinks a lot.

Didn't The Buddha ' Think a lot ' ?.

[sky]

Originally Posted by Still_Waters

I hope that you enjoy your "Hissy Fits".

Oh gosh yes, they are the ' Highlight of my life ', even more enjoyable than choosing what colour Hand Sanitiser to buy

[sentient]

Originally Posted by Gem

I would say God never spoke or created or did anything at all, which is why calling it 'God' doesn't work. People think God is personal being that created the universe and wants things, but what if it is just a presence that never experienced anything and doesn't even know it exists. That we can know it exists is very strange. I don't pretend to know the how and why of all that, and I doubt there is any explanation at all. Maybe the mystery is 'just is', and there is no reason behind it.

Thinking … thinking … thinking …

I’ll go along with you Gem with the ‘just is’ part.
Although I have no problem with the word “God” or ..."Seeing the face of God in everything" ooor the old animist “Everything has Spirit” ….
And “God” is a Trinity.

“Emptiness” may be full of unconscious potential and “Form” may be empty of inherent existence, but "Luminosity, Clear Light" or "Radiance" seems to be the Essence of Awareness itself.

I wonder if this says the same thing?

The mind is devoid of mind,
For the nature of mind is clear light.

*

[BigJohn]

Originally Posted by sentient

EXCERT:

Although I have no problem with the word “God” or ..."Seeing the face of God in everything" ooor the old animist “Everything has Spirit” ….
And “God” is a Trinity.

I prefer, Spirit is in everything or something like that..

[Still_Waters]

QUOTE 428 EXCERPT:

Originally Posted by sky123

Buddha taught different people differently because each person will hear, understand and act differently as the Dhamma is presented hence the ' myriad of varied teachings '.

That is precisely the sign of a masterful teacher ... one who realizes that one shoe does not fit all.