Am I on the right track here?

[DreamBliss]

Here is a link to my latest blog post:

http://adifferentpath.blog.com/2014/03/21/thoughts-on-thoughts/

 

I have just started absorbing this idea, but I am curious to know if you think I am on the right track or not.

 

I appreciate your feedback!

[The Prisoner]

I guess you are guessing, right on the God part

God is inn all - when you feel this its like infinite feedback - sense of time dissolves - love energy space out - like you are in Eden every were you go..in this plane there are spirits and dissonances too...

.. the world isn't ready for the energized human he/see needs to isolate -

the frequencies don't resonate in wester modern society (heaven/ hell, angel/demon, Sane/insane).

 

We get every thing we want from our father (source) We have the power of will. visualization, prayer, magick even have our own messiah, but still we wont get turn on to see, our self ...in this call and response system...

 

bla.. bla.. bla...

[Marblehead]

I did type a response to this but apparently I didn't post it. I won't try repeating it as it was a spontaneous response.

 

Best wishes to you along your journey.

[TheExaltedRonin]

Here is a link to my latest blog post:

http://adifferentpath.blog.com/2014/03/21/thoughts-on-thoughts/

 

I have just started absorbing this idea, but I am curious to know if you think I am on the right track or not.

 

I appreciate your feedback!

I would offer some insight but I'm getting a bad gateway error. Either way, I view it as a stepping stone, right or wrong. Whenever you examine yourself youre on the right path.

[deci belle]

Your Thoughts Create Your Reality

 

Hi❤

 

I will say that your thoughts have already created your reality.

 

When you stop following the thoughts that subsequently create subjective reality, reality ceases to be causally subjective.

 

There is no creator.

 

Awareness is your own selfless identity. It is unattributable. The unattributable is uncreated. It has no origination.

 

This is your essential nature.

 

When you can begin to see that since your natural presence is the Causelessness of nonorigination by actually employing your innate capacity of nonpsychological awareness, and that your own essential awareness is the immovability inseparable from Reality as is, you will see that adapting impersonally to ordinary situations is the sublime expression of nonbeing within being.

 

No longer creating yourself by habitual thought (which is another way of saying not going along with creation unawares), is entering into the inconceivable immortality and mystery of enlightening being, no different than your own mind right now.

 

The inconceivability of this selfless function is what Bodhidharma referred to as "don't know", when the emperor asked him who was speaking. (This is a verrrry famous event in Chinese buddhist origins.) When you are secure in nonbeing within being, you don't have any idea who isn't knowing. When you don't know, "who" is the immovable inconceivability not creating itself in terms of karmic evolution.

 

When Bodhidharma said "don't know", he means don't think yourself into existence. Why? Because it isn't true.

 

That you exist is due to ideas. Banish the thought.❤ heehee!!

[GrandmasterP]

Here is a link to my latest blog post:

http://adifferentpath.blog.com/2014/03/21/thoughts-on-thoughts/

 

I have just started absorbing this idea, but I am curious to know if you think I am on the right track or not.

 

I appreciate your feedback!

 

Nice blog, thank you for posting the link.

That last sentence there...

" All I can say with some certainty that Allowing, Openness and Receptivity are the first steps towards the Truth."

 

Not so sure about that 'from - to" journey idea but maybe I read it wrong.

There's only an eternal 'now' , hence no real journey to be taken.

All good though and whatever works for you please accept these Warmest best wishes to you for all success.

[Spotless]

Excerpt:

" Now, at this moment, I have to let go of this belief, as I let go of those former Christian beliefs. Its time to adopt another, to test it and see if it proves True."

Pretty near the start you make the above statement.
It is not necessary to adopt a position or a belief - in fact this is the problem/ play - it creates the whole set design.

Belief is also not necessary - you can know - but in that knowing it is not necessary to grasp and wrap that knowing and limit it's expansion. Believe in nothing.

When looking into the sky you will not "see god" - you will see the sky part of yourself while you are breathing in the air part of yourself while you are standing in the earth part of yourself and you will see the hands of the body you are in and the tree you are in and the bird you are in and the sky you are in and the stars. At night the sun will drench you with moonlight and in the day everything is thick with life and lightness. You pad along with the bottom of your feet no different than your palms but they are not you they are these fleshy pads you inhabit - nothing is yours - everything is - and all the creatures peer out and peer in - there is no need for anything.

And then of course we come to language and the need to say something and be intelligible and so it goes we do our best.

Edited April 18, 2014 by Spotless

[Seeker of Wisdom]

Your post is certainly leading in a good direction. Here are some things to consider.

 

*What Spotless said.

 

*Even an enlightened being has to use mundane thought and mental function, or they would be unable to get dressed or communicate. Perhaps think in terms of relative truth and absolute truth, remembering that one is not superior or separate to the other. We need the former to get stuff done and the latter to be enlightened.

 

*You believe that everything is an expression of a fundamental basis (ontological absolute) of some kind, which you call God, as per your analogy of the ocean and waves. Here's a little armchair philosophy.

 

i) If an absolute has multiple properties in itself, then it is not one thing, as it has parts. But - like a house which doesn't exist apart from the bricks - it would then itself be an expression of other things, not an absolute. Also, things produced from different aspects of it would be at least partially separate. Hence, your ocean analogy is false.

 

ii) If an absolute has only one property in itself, then it can only produce things identical to itself, as there is no other material to work with. Therefore, it couldn't produce a universe filled with cool stuff. Hence, again, your ocean analogy is false and there is no absolute.

 

My reasoning may easily be wrong, though still, it's something to think about. People tend to think in black-and-white terms of either atheism is true or there is an absolute, and that things are either separate or nondual. However, the Truth may be in the shades of grey of spirituality without an absolute and things being separate but interconnected and 'of one taste'.

[DreamBliss]

Thank you all for your posts, I appreciate your advice and criticism!

 

However my present-moment experience, right now, as I type this, is confused.

 

I will have to read everything said here a few more times.

 

The ocean and wave analogy is not mine. This comes from Jeff Foster's, "The Deepest Acceptance."

 

I admit I am troubled... If the teachings of this author are wrong, then that is problematic for me, as I have been reading this, applying what I have read, and it has helped me, at least I think it has helped me. I am learning to simply be OK with whatever is presenting itself to me. I am learning to stop seeking. I think this text has seriously contributed to my spiritual growth.

 

Does that make it good even if its bad? Can a writing that is wrong somehow be right for me? How does this work? Is there any sort of test you can give a book to determine if the teachings are right or wrong? But who decides, and who is there to say their opinion is right or wrong? Is all of this subjective? What is poison to you in your spiritual journey is an antidote to me on mine?

 

Yes, at this moment, I am very confused. I am saying, "I don't know" more than I care to. I would like to have a handle on something. Otherwise I feel adrift, like nothing matters, and what the hell is the point?

 

The Bible is cherished by Christians and considered Truth. I used to be a Christian, and I had this same belief towards this text. Now I am not a Christian. If I am to be labeled, I am "spiritual, not religious." Now the Bible to me is part possible account, part metaphysical truth beyond or outside Christian interpretation, and certainly not the whole Truth, not the only book one should read on a spiritual path. I think the same could safely be said for all religious texts. At best these are fragments of a larger picture.

 

But is that True? How are we to know if all religious texts are fragments of the whole, or if perhaps all but one of them are True? If we determine that one is True, and the rest are not, how do we find the one that is True? How can we know it is True?

 

In another thread someone said that they didn't want a "false faith." It implied to me that perhaps having faith is wrong? Maybe I misunderstood them. But if faith is wrong, don't you have to have it to believe that all religious texts are part of a bigger picture of Truth, or one only is True? Because you can't really know for certain, can you? So in not-knowing, you have to demonstrate faith, don't you?

 

I am not finding my way through this puzzle. I hope someone can guide me. I am very, very confused,

[GrandmasterP]

"Let us visualize the waves on the ocean, several waves appearing on the surface of the ocean. Some waves are big, there are those that are small, and each wave seems to have its own life. A wave may have ideas like, "I am a wave. I am only a wave among many waves. I am smaller than the other wave. I am less beautiful. I last less than the other wave." Ideas like that. A wave can be caught in jealousy, in fear, in discrimination.

 

But if the wave is able to bend down and touch the water within herself, it will realize that while it is a wave, it is at the same time water. Water is the foundation of the wave. While waves can be high and low, more and less beautiful, the water is free from all these notions. That is why if we are able to touch the foundation of our being, we can release our fear and our suffering.

 

Touching the foundation of our being means touching nirvana. Our foundation is not subjected to birth and death, being and non-being. A wave can live the life of a wave, but a wave can do much better than that. While living the life of a wave, a wave can live a life of the water. The more our solidity and our freedom grows, the deeper we touch the ground of our own being. That is the door for emancipation, for the greatest relief."

 

( Thich Nhat Hanh)

 

Full text here...

http://www.dhammatalks.net/Books2/Thich_Nhat_Hanh_Resting_in_the_River.htm

Edited April 17, 2014 by GrandmasterP

[Seeker of Wisdom]

If the teachings of this author are wrong, then that is problematic for me, as I have been reading this, applying what I have read, and it has helped me, at least I think it has helped me. I am learning to simply be OK with whatever is presenting itself to me. I am learning to stop seeking. I think this text has seriously contributed to my spiritual growth.

 

A good practice is a good practice. Just keep going, and let views grow out of your experience. Truth can never be captured in conceptual, dualistic boundaries anyway. ANY teaching can only ever be a pointer to the actual reality, which cannot be taught.