Unconditioned

I would agree that if someone had that attitude they're reinforcing their ego. However, to judge everyone that doesn't follow the path of having a teacher from someone that advocates a teacher, that may be a little biased. To assume that those who decide to go it alone are somehow 'less' or have a bad attitude is ignorant. Just as it is ignorant in the opposite respect (i.e., if someone finds it weak of a person to seek help). I'm not sure what a prideful attitude has to do with ability, we're all able we just have a few things in the way.

And then we could be conditioned by the teacher's outlook. Can we see objectively at all? Is that even possible? Thoughts are formed from what we perceive and what we perceive is looked at through the lens of our thoughts. I'm not so sure it's possible to have any objective thoughts. Like any forms, a teacher can become an attachment. Relying on them to 'tell you the answer', or provide the right direction, or to blindly accept based on our perception of their attainment, etc. is a common pitfall of spiritual people (in my limited experience including myself). Why do we need a teacher at all? If a teacher advises you to be self-reliant is that the best course of action? I find that generally those who say "you shouldn't have a teacher" tend to have a more optimistic look at other people's abilities and usually don't have a lot of time invested with a teacher whereas those who say "a teacher is required" tend to doubt the natural abilities of others and have invested a lot of time (and/or money) into a teacher. But each side is the same and arguments can be made for both, the point is we're all biased, conditioned by thoughts. So, to the previous posts on this topic, I do not believe a teacher is required however I do see where having one as a aid can provide a benefit but at some point the student must not be dependent or fully accepting of the teacher otherwise it's just a refined version of the telephone game... conditions affecting conditions. Spiritual knowledge is knowledge none the less, the content of the mind. Constant searching could be another form of adding content to the mind and therefor strengthening it which inturn strengthens the sense of self/identity/ego and it's grip.

As usual, well said I've had a few 'ah hah' moments from the discussions in this thread and the conversations were without argument - constructive disagreements but non-judgmental. All good stuff.

And judge other's according to our own limits, no?

Or how about office-legends, like "Good work is rewarded with more work"

I thought I understood this one but as I've tried to write it out I've come up with nothing. And I think after I exhausted my internal dictionary I realized that maybe that's exactly what Ramana is trying to do here... lead us to surrender, acceptance, of what is including limitations of language and thought. Hmm. My conclusion is that I really don't know what all this stuff is - form and formless.

Why so much importance on being right/accurate? On correcting? On following only your path? Josh, very refreshing posts.

What can be cultivated or added to what is? Acceptance of what is at this very moment without imprinting the past onto it with a sharp awareness of any resistance (not a need to change/judge the resisting or push it away, that will happen anyway). For now that's the simple practice this accumulation of thoughts is performing.

... removing my comments until I actually read the article

Exactly my point - other people may claim differently.

I don't believe we can go beyond the physical. However, we can become aware of the non-physical. Once we become aware of the formlessness that underlies (but is not separate from) form we may have a different 'view' (wrong word) of the physical but it is still there. About 'Self'... If we exclude an aspect of reality (e.g., physical) we are creating division, conflict, separation which are only thought forms. The nature of our minds are to make sense of our sense perceptions in order to survive, interact, communicate, etc. In doing that we generally divide, label, categorize, etc. Over time we create an identification with these labels when we're children and divide our 'selves' from 'not-self'. From that point on we generally live in a world of opposites and the labels are used as the content of our thoughts. Over more time we become conditioned by the labels we've accumulated and identify with them as part of us, i.e. attachment. When a 'part of ourselves' is destroyed, threatened, etc. we suffer. So the self is the assumption that we are the accumulation of our thoughts, as Krishnamurti would say "We are the content of our consciousness". Anyhow I've rambled enough, I hope that helps to some degree. Tolle is on my top list of authors, very easy to understand and has several approaches to fit different types of people, good stuff. All the best, Nate

That depends on your personal interpretation of rebirth. Some consider it litteral as in when my body dies, is eaten by the worms, my spirit/soul/etc will inhabit a new form. Even in that definition there is a lot left up to interpretation. Others take it on a moment to moment basis. As in the sense of "I" is reborn in each moment and the stopping of that birth is liberation here and now. Also, if someone doesn't believe in rebirth we can't safely assume they think there is nothing after death. And especially since "nothing" is left open to interpretation - does that mean no memories? No possessions? No physical form? No spiritual form? etc. So, it's not always so cut and dry and we should take care to dig a little deeper sometimes when it comes to believing anything. I think the Buddha may agree to that approach as well? Edit: Back on topic, e-sangha was one of my favorite forums before it was 'locked-down'. As others have said, there are many helpful people on the forum but the censorship became too much for me when I couldn't talk openly about Truth unless it was in the context of buddhism and I found TTB. I prefer an open dialogue not bounded by a specific tradition. To each their own conditioning

I was in the middle of a conflict yesterday between myself and my fiance while at work and when driving home I decided to just feel the physical-emotional sensations that were taking place without labeling or judging them. Then the thought came into my mind: "Am I suppressing this? Am I running away from the situation to avoid conflict? How can I tell the difference?" And that leads me here: I've been under the impression that this is the 'right' thing to do in the sense that it won't fuel more thoughts, which would fuel more emotional reaction.... and that was the case with my scenario yesterday, I moved on and things seemed ok. But now I'm starting to wonder if I"m just suppressing emotions that way. I don't get angry often and am generally stoic but now and thing something will set me off... could that something be the result of not 'dealing' with emotions? My concern is that I'm treating the symptoms but maybe creating a bigger problem that exposes itself in future events. Hmm... any ideas on this one?

Yes, I think there are different degrees of causation for negative emotional reactions/states and different approaches. I've used analysis to get to a question that doesn't have an answer per se but it leads to an insight. It has helped me to be aware of conditioning deep within myself that otherwise I would not have seen. So without the analysis I may have never had realized something about my condition, or in general the human condition. That said, the deeper level is to feel the emotion, to be aware of the feeling itself and not to judge or label it. I like the "blah" thing, that can help to keep the thoughts at bay while letting the energy of the emotion exist. This creates space to allow for wisdom/intelligence to remove the clouded emotional thoughts and see what is really happening during the dramatic interaction. So on one level we have a pragmatic approach to understand the conditioning and on the other level we have a way to allow what is to be and create 'space' to see more clearly. Both of these combined I think can be powerful tools towards understanding. Thank you both again.

Excellent points, thank you for the sanity check! I've added you on twitter too (musicluvah1981). Good stuff, thanks again.

I think it completely depends on your personality. Some people 'enjoy the drama' of life, the tension, something to make them feel alive (usually more extroverted people that get their 'energy' from external interactions, activity vs. passivity). Other's enjoy the calm aspects of life, a good book, a walk through the woods, etc. ... the more introvert personality type. And compatibility probably comes into play based on these personality traits. But at the end of the day it's human conditioning - procreation. There are many ways to attract a mate and the ones that have worked seem to have stuck with us. Some of us 'do our dance' of the PUA others show their sense of masculinity by being different from that group, the non-conformist type of self-confidence. But there's much more to women than trying to have sex with them or to provide for them as a man. For me they embody the softer side, the deeper emotional states, the nurture of nature. And there's a masculine strength that is found there as well. In my life, I was raised by a single mother who had to play the caring role and the 'make shit happen' role too. I see both sides of the coin there and I see the same in my fiance the fierceness and the calm. But at the end of the day, we're all people, we're all human, we're all an aspect of life uniquely manifested and conditioned, including the natural conditioning of our gender and the psychological conditioning of our gender. And whatever keeps life going (reproduction and the sustaining of a relationship to be able to raise children) will survive and life will continue to continue.

No no no no no. They're all in atlantis under the ocean and they just got sprayed with ink from a giant squid that just had some alphabet soup which has conveiently settled in the ink to form a few words like "Welcome" and "Forum". The mountains are just a nice mural on the wall to remind them of what they'll never see again since they're all trapped in the underwater city and that's not a tree, it's a giant sea sponge.

"Better" always carries a metric. Red is better than Blue (if you're using a light over long distances). Blue is better than Red (if it happens to be your favorite color). What astounds me is how long this thread has gotten and even more so how much closed minded it is (all over the place). I've seen it all here saying there are no absolutes.. well.. except 'my' view, that's surely absolutely the best truth. Would there be an argument if there wasn't a strong sense of self? Why the need to be right? Why the need to continue making the same points and finding holes in the other side's arguments? Sounds far from right speech and also far from an unconditioned Atman/Brahman.

Everything includes all and excludes nothing. For a while I was caught in the idea of pushing away 'the world' in favor of 'what is real'. Well, the world is real too, it's all part of it. It reminds me of the formula you find in the Diamond sutra that's basically: everything is, everything is not, everything is again. Hugely paraphrasing and I expect to get slapped for it But practice does not always mean results and strong conviction can be just as dangerous as it is useful (think of any kind of violence, that's mostly fueled by convictions). So to say this is THE way I believe can be better stated, this is A way. Some people stumble on Truth while other search and never find it. It's also easy to say "this is real" when we want to believe it to be so, it's slippery ground for sure!

The more I'm on TTB I constantly notice the limitations of words getting in the way of communication. The idea of enlightenement is just an idea. So in that sense it's not real (except as a mental construct). However, as soon as we try to give BEING, Truth, God, 'Self', Emptiness, a name... we've already miscommunicated. So to say there's no such thing as enlightenment is both true and false and neither true or false. It's a label. To the original question: everyone's experiences are in context of their conditioning. Psychedelic drugs expose you to the idea that what you took to be real may not be the case. So in that sense I think they're a useful tool, it's even been suggested that these have aided human evolution in the sense of being able to be imaginative/creative and a few other areas. Jury is still out on that one but it's an interesting idea...

There is only now. This can be shown easily by looking at the past and the future. The past is a memory, a thought form, it only exists as a though recollected right now. The future is a projection, an 'imagining', a thought form, it only exists as such right now. So there is only an idea of the past or the future that we think about in the now 'moment'. Edit: So is each moment new? No. The now moment is not time-bound however, the forms change in this present moment continueously. So each form is 'born' and 'dies' continueously. Sort of like going to the movies, the screen doesn't change but the images projected onto it are continueously being 'born' and 'die'.

Or maybe this has something to do with it: CNN - Internet Fatigue

I have no clue what your post is about but generally most people seem to spend time in Taoist Discussion so you'll probably find more responses here. All the best

When we're bored nothing appeals to us, nothing attracts us, nothing grabs our attention like it used to do. Personally I've gotten this way when I've overdone something, and usually that something is a form of escape (TV, video games, going out, sleeping, sex, etc.) I find myself searching for the next thing to entertain me, to make me feel good, but when I can't find anything I become bored. And if I can't find the same enjoyment that I had before it leads to depression. For me boredom was a result of my clinging to pleasure and not being able to relive the past experiences. Each moment FEELS like the last, it appears like the last but with less of a rush than the time before, like an endless cycle. It's like a drug, you need a bigger thrill the next time otherwise it's just the same ole shit, hence boredom. Mostly it's a mind game, we draw a conclusion that this should be the same as it was before, and we expect it to feel as good as before. But we could be creating bigger expectations, a mental image of how amazing something was, we add our conditioning to the memory and reality is distorted by our conditioning. But I'm not sure if any of this will get you out of boredom, you have to look at things yourself and figure out why you're bored. My experience is not the same as yours but serves as a possibility for a cause of boredom.. that's my disclaimer so that you don't superimpose my previous situation onto your own. Good luck!