3bob

Agreed Brian, we often repeat or get into repeating a circle of suffering...

lets get back to shrinking the title of, "suffering tends towards enlightenment" instead of shrinking each other...

you have a strange way of proving my point Karl...

yes and no

then again Karl a mind must be flexible if meanings are to be found (or not found) in seemingly strange teachings - which may or may not be written-off as mumbo-jumbo based depending on the teacher, thus we come back to the simple analogy that a 2d format and view can not nail down a 3d format and view

a relatable, multi-dimensional parable or pointing to is understandable on multiple levels...and the one that composes such does not insist on only one level or the deepest interpretation that they may have of same for others

Good fortune Vrihlea btw, some blue pills are painted red...

actually the "law of seven" and the "law of three" and the enneagram are profound

Spotless is probably touching on a type of "geometry" (so to speak) in terms of the 4th way teachings, which btw is where Mr. O first used the term "lost fragments" in a title related to one of his ground-breaking books that he began before the Russian Revolution. (although not published until much later)

quasi-zen mixed with 4th way fragments make a strange porridge

Aren't we all up early in the morning...

Spotless, Your reply sounds like a two part contradiction, via affirming and then shifting to nihilistic rubbish? Btw, water enjoys rocks I'd add that the saying is more along the lines of "Love thine enemy" thus see your enemy in a new way which turns a conflict upside down and inside out.

the saying is a radical and tough but true... with insight into hindsight

parents and their kids leaving home

just an aspect of being a parent or a kid that comes into play to different degrees...

after a mountain of work has been done, there is a moment of rest and awe at its peak... those who misinterpret non-ado as "do nothing" are not bodily carried up that mountain for we must make the effort ourselves, although a helpful hand may be lent here and there on the way

It should be understood that the Chandogya Upanishad makes said description. (while I only made a short pre-comment related to same while also suggesting one follow a lineage operated by Sat Guru for guidance along these lines - being that a public internet forum is not imo the place for certain critical details, thus I'd say in general that internet exchanges here should used to point towards various well recognized texts and teachers that are qualified to give help per their lineage and system or school regarding said material.

Bindi, I'm not qualified on that material and I hope you are working with a lineage operated by a Sat Guru for guidance along those lines...? But I do like to relate to and discuss spiritual principles and some inspirational details that various realized Beings have shared with us. Anyway, what I meant by the eye of the mind is that it is like a very powerful telescope and or micro-scope, thus an integral and wonderful tool but it is not the Self within "the small lotus of the heart" * which {is} deeper than the mind can see. *per the Chandogya Upanishad, Part Eight, Chapter I, Brahman in the Heart: "1. Om. There is in this city of Brahman an abode, the small lotus of the heart; within it is a small akasa. Now what exists within that small akasa, that is to be sought after, that is what one should desire to understand. 3. If they should say to him: "Now, with regard to the abode, the small lotus, in this city of Brahman and the small akasa within it—what is there in it that is to be sought after and what is there that one should desire to understand?" Then he (the teacher) should say: "As far as, verily, this great akasa extends, so far extends the akasa within the heart. Both heaven and earth are contained within it, both fire and air, both sun and moon, both lightning and stars; and whatever belongs to him (i.e. the embodied creature) in this world and whatever does not, all that is contained within it (i.e. the akasa in the heart)."

Spirit sees ego plain as day, ego will never see or know Spirit, take an analogy if you will of ego being 2d and Spirit being 3d - thus and for instance ego will never become 3d - it may become the best of 2d in this little example but that's it.

the eye of the heart sees deeper than the eye of the mind,

Where is Spock when you need him?

that last post does not seem to recognize the need for the many types of and also purpose of great temptations and "rewards", for without going through those the tests are not taken, passed or even appreciated... btw the Self is eternal and permanent but it is not what we may "think" about it including being an eternal and permanent variation of our ego or even the human being we know ourselves as... also this idea of destroying the ego keeps popping up - the ego dies but is not destroyed per one saying to themselves, "I'm going to destroy my ego" - for when energy and identification is withdrawn from it in a dharmic way (after it has served its purpose) then it no can longer hold sway or stay in force and dissolves before the light of Spirit and Truth, or before the real Master and Being-ness. Another analogy that might be of some use along these lines (?) is that a star does not belittle or deny the rays of light it emits, nor a fire the sparks and warmth it radiates - for a ray of light is part of the nature of a star and a spark is part of the nature of fire. Om

I find Bud's variation more subtle but "rope a dope" along with all the the jabs about delusion this and delusion that which don't allow us to understand his lofty wisdom...

Bud, your pretentious variation of reasoning could be adapted and plugged into or used as a tool to dismiss everything the historic Buddha taught or said...

Bud, were all of the "you"s you used generic in nature? If not please be more "mindful" the next time, since all the convoluted and condescending projections are obviously dubious. Thus I suggest getting off that holier than thou variation and just spit it out, is mind dualistic or not by your definition?