The Moment of Choice

[matt007]

You can just stop; the choice is yours.

 

The Moment of Choice

[Squatting Monkey]

No offence but why do these neo-advaitans call themselves by pseudo-indian names ?

[awake]

No offence but why do these neo-advaitans call themselves by pseudo-indian names ?

Its NLP. This one wants to attract potheads.

[Sloppy Zhang]

Why is the MOMENT of choice an HOUR long?

 

Don't have the time to watch it right now, maybe later.

[forestofsouls]

Here's the Cliff's Notes version:

 

Fourth Dimensional Satsang

[awake]

I don't like how she keeps interrupting the question asker so abruptly and forcefully.

 

To me she seems still identified with her thoughts. Its very easy to "learn" a lot of religious philosophy and rehash it without having the underlying experience.

[Unconditioned]

I don't like how she keeps interrupting the question asker so abruptly and forcefully.

 

To me she seems still identified with her thoughts. Its very easy to "learn" a lot of religious philosophy and rehash it without having the underlying experience.

 

If it comes across as rude then maybe we're judging a bit to harshly. After watching the video I think she's stopping them from going down the wrong path and taking the conversation away from the original question. I work in business and this happens in just about EVERY meeting. She's playing the moderator role in the conversation to keep it on task.

 

All in all I found her to be very clear in what she was trying to say and the message seemed authentic. Out of curiosity why do you think it's 'NLP for potheads'?

[goldisheavy]

Here's the Cliff's Notes version:

 

Fourth Dimensional Satsang

 

It's not a bad video, although I do think that Gangaji takers herself a little too seriously. She has a phony affect in her speech, but the message is good one. The fakeness comes from her thinking of herself as a Guru. Pretty much all Gurus have this problem to some extent. Call it Guruitis, if you will. The only exception might be those who don't take their title seriously. People, consciously or unconsciously act in accordance with their perceived social role/identity. For example, Obama has a phony affect when he gives a speech too. He goes into this, "I am the Prez" mode. In other words, by "Guru" I mean something very general, and not necessarily anything related to Hinduism.

 

Your link is not the cliff notes version though. That's why I'm replying to you. Someone who wants a real cliff-notes version needs to keep looking.

 

I don't like how she keeps interrupting the question asker so abruptly and forcefully.

 

To me she seems still identified with her thoughts. Its very easy to "learn" a lot of religious philosophy and rehash it without having the underlying experience.

 

This is a really dumb argument. You need to wake up and recognize that all people have equally empty experience. Thinking in and of itself is an experience as well. When you're dealing with the ultimate concerns, such as what we do in spirituality, all experience is the same. There is no "better" experience or "more" experience. It's the same. The only differentiation is brought in by YOU as the consumer. YOU are making some of it better and some worse. You need to own up to that. Experience in and of itself, prior to you making a judgment, is not inherently better or worse or in the middle.

Edited May 5, 2009 by goldisheavy

[Afromojo]

Gold...

 

The purpose of this post is to try to convey my thoughts on this subject very clearly and in a manner that is non abrasive and in a way that you can understand. I want you to understand why thoughts and thinking are not everything. I want you to understand this not because I am trying to prove you wrong, but because I want you to go beyond thought.

 

There is no higher level experience without extrasensory awarness. Being able to develop contact or touch sensations outside ones body and being able to develop to some extent extra senses depend largely on the ability to turn conscious thought off and concentrate upon sensory awareness.

 

According to TCM and Five Element Theory... Too much Thought or Worry Congests/Congeals the Bodys energy bubble. By contrast Love and Joy make it ripple outward.

 

Thus although there is much to be said for thinkers, many of them like us. Some have turned and become more than that through focusing on sensory traning that has resulted in an extrasensory experience.

 

It is my hope that you take my words with a grain of salt my friend and someday realize the truth of awakes words, not because it is an attack on conscious thought, but so that you understand what higher energy experience one is comming from when one does that.

[matt007]

She just happenes to be one of many with the same essential message. I have found her writing/talks very accessable. The name is given from her teacher, HWL Poonja, who was himself a well known student of Ramana Maharishi. The story goes that her teacher had a dream of her as the Goddess Ganga prior to their first meeting in India. Her given name is Toni Roberson.

 

The essential message is that there is nothing to get, nothing to attain, nothing more than your current state of awareness and the truth of who you are, emptiness.

 

The message is so simple that it is easy to miss; "Wake up, you are already free, already the all pervading self/awareness."

 

It's a choice essentially and one that is ofcourse hard to accept because it means the end of 'you' and your story. Stopping our story or letting it go because it is an illusion and misidentification. Within the message is revealed the idea that spiritual searching, trying to attain something, be something or get something is just part of the illusion or the story we tell ourselves, and that, in reality, nothing needs to be attained; all we have to do is let go of teh story and the conditioning that comes with it. The hard part is Stopping, but really it's just a choice.

 

I know this topic has had gone through several incarnations here, so I'm not adding anything new to the mix, but felt that partcular video might resonate here. Seems like there is a lot of discussion around reaching some state or raising the kundalini or getting more qi or just getting somewhere other than right here.

 

Interesting? Check out the writings of Ramana Maharishi and others like him. Of course the realization of emptiness is found in many religious and spiritual traditions. For me it was a great relief to let go of striving to 'cultivate' something through a method or a system and trying to attain something and get somewhere. I see a lot of spiritual hunger here when I read through much of the discussion, so I think it's something that can benifit a lot of seekers and their current practice in the sense that it will fulfill that hunger.

 

The Diamond in Your Pocket is a really great book that clearly explains this teaching, also by Gangaji.

[goldisheavy]

Gold...

 

The purpose of this post is to try to convey my thoughts on this subject very clearly and in a manner that is non abrasive and in a way that you can understand. I want you to understand why thoughts and thinking are not everything. I want you to understand this not because I am trying to prove you wrong, but because I want you to go beyond thought.

 

There is no higher level experience without extrasensory awarness. Being able to develop contact or touch sensations outside ones body and being able to develop to some extent extra senses depend largely on the ability to turn conscious thought off and concentrate upon sensory awareness.

 

According to TCM and Five Element Theory... Too much Thought or Worry Congests/Congeals the Bodys energy bubble. By contrast Love and Joy make it ripple outward.

 

Thus although there is much to be said for thinkers, many of them like us. Some have turned and become more than that through focusing on sensory traning that has resulted in an extrasensory experience.

 

It is my hope that you take my words with a grain of salt my friend and someday realize the truth of awakes words, not because it is an attack on conscious thought, but so that you understand what higher energy experience one is comming from when one does that.

 

I've enjoyed this post. I think you probably get a wrong image of me up there. And for that matter, the wrong image of all sentient life. We are all very mysterious even as it is. Even the most hard-core of physicalists is a magical being.

 

Let me try to explain my approach to you, since I like you. Most people pick one aspect of themselves they don't like and try to improve it. In spiritual circles this almost always, unfortunately, falls on thinking. So the person gets real busy. They think, "My thinking is bad because I think too much, or wrong thoughts, or blah blah". And they have all kinds of problems they are happily busy with. But it's false busy! False.... false... and pussy-footed to boot!

 

So I come and say, "no, your thoughts are perfect!" BAM! Now what??? Now you have nothing to do! You have nothing to fight with. Nothing to adjust, to slow down, to eliminate... you're left JOBLESS! You have a spiritual path without a path now. A job without any work. What now? Suddenly you're out there in here.... in the void. See what I mean? The satisfaction of the gradual daily struggle, of identifying with others based on that struggle, of having predictable days and predictable techniques applied... all that shit is GONE. You are perfect now... WHAT NOW? That's huge.

 

The biggest break through I've had was when I realized I was enlightened. I realize I don't need to perform any more tasks. No more struggling. No more learning. No more adjusting this and that. WHAT NOW?? What now? What now? That was the biggest question. I was like, "HOLY CRAP!! I have nothing to do and I feel lost without a job... I want to get busy with something, but what?" This wanting to be busy -- that was a real problem, see? As long as I was "not yet enlightened" I could always blame something or someone except myself. For example, if I feel stumped, "Well, it's OK for me to feel stumped, because I am not yet enlightened after all." Or if I feel sick and I don't know how to heal myself, "Well, it's OK that I don't know this, because I am not enlightened." And the good thing was that I didn't foresee any enlightenment any time soon, so this excuse would be good pretty much indefinitely. Neat. And then BAM, and it fell away. I realized I AM BUDDHA. This is it. No more excuses. Suddenly the game is no longer chasing a perpetually receding goal that's perpetually in the future to "WHAT NOW?" That's a different game.

 

Also, if you believe that there is such a thing as "extra-sensory perception" that's just an indication that your contemplation is weak. Just think it over. Even abiding body-lessly in the void is not extra-sensory. Just drop your prejudice with regard to senses.

 

The message is so simple that it is easy to miss; "Wake up, you are already free, already the all pervading self/awareness."

 

Exactly. People just can't believe it. It's too "good" to be true. It's actually not that good, because it also means you're completely responsible for everything. You're even responsible for how much responsibility you may want to take. Taking too little responsibility or taking too much responsibility may be irresponsible on your part.

[Afromojo]

My intention behind this post is actually complete speechlessness and confusion based upon what I have learned.

 

To expound upon that here is something to clarify the thought "state":

 

http://www.itmonline.org/5organs/spleen.htm

 

 

Besides that I can only say that that is why people were taught to focus on their breathing and body during meditation. You might have successfully taken a big axe to just about everything I have knowingly seen taught to people to gain wisdom and understanding in the eastern mystical arts. I say that from a feeling of being given no where else to try to explain this to you.

 

This may help you understand why some argue with you about these subjects and you might not understand why. It is my hope someday that you realize what is said, and that is with the intention of hoping it helps you understand the situations more.

 

Here is an excerpt from The above link regarding TCM the Spleen and Thinking:

 

 

The mental processes of thinking and remembering are considered to be part of the physiological activity of the spleen. A person with a poor digestive system usually cannot think clearly. This is because clear yang energy fails to rise up to the heart and brain, or because of accumulating dampness clouding the orifices. As always, this relationship also works the other way around: if a person thinks or worries too much, this can easily lead to digestive symptoms such as poor appetite, diarrhea, or constipation.

[goldisheavy]

You might have successfully taken a big axe to just about everything I have knowingly seen taught to people to gain wisdom and understanding in the eastern mystical arts. I say that from a feeling of being given no where else to try to explain this to you.

 

Well, you can PM me for an email or my IM id, if you like. You can talk directly to me, if that's what you want.

 

But, I am aware of what the conventional approach is, why, and why it's also doomed to fail. Besides, what I am doing is not exactly unconventional either. Convention has records of similar approach as "mine" in many places, such as Zen's Lin Chi, or many crazy sages in Dzogchen. Like one time someone came to debate something with one of the guys, and he just literally showed the delegation his dick. And they all left. Etc. Not everyone was a smooth little pebble even in the traditions. And there is a good reason why. If you don't like it, try to axe it. See what happens. Learn from the subsequent experience.

 

This may help you understand why some argue with you about these subjects and you might not understand why. It is my hope someday that you realize what is said, and that is with the intention of hoping it helps you understand the situations more.

 

I will never understand the situations more than I already do. I may have an understanding that's different, but not MORE. Do you understand why? Did you read my first reply to you up above? In full?

 

Anyway, I sense kindness from you, but it seems you are misguided. Like a mouse trying to save an elephant from a barking dog. Still, misguided as you seem to be, kindness is a good thing. I like it. May all your truest wishes come true.

[Afromojo]

It seems to me you have excluded things that are in your environment, in this case the dog as you call it in your analogy by calling it a dog, when you dont know exactly what the dog is, but it is like a dog, therefore you say it must be a dog. You claim you are an elephant, maybe because that is how you think and percieve yourself to be, but do you have all perspective and perceptions to say that you are actually an elephant?

See how the mind can distort and create criticalism like "the dog" (philosopher) in Greece?

How can you clearly percieve things when anything can be torn apart, and I have done it myself with rational thought?

[goldisheavy]

It seems to me you have excluded things that are in your environment, in this case the dog as you call it in your analogy by calling it a dog, when you dont know exactly what the dog is, but it is like a dog, therefore you say it must be a dog. You claim you are an elephant, maybe because that is how you think and percieve yourself to be, but do you have all perspective and perceptions to say that you are actually an elephant?

See how the mind can distort and create criticalism like "the dog" (philosopher) in Greece?

How can you clearly percieve things when anything can be torn apart, and I have done it myself with rational thought?

 

Ahh... we have a contemplator here. My god, you are a rarity in these parts. An endangered species.

 

You are right. I don't know it clearly. Nor can it be said I know it unclearly. When you are no longer certain of the difference between knowing and not knowing, you'll be like me. Then thinking and not thinking are different only ornamentally, while being the same in essence -- in that they both have no essence of any kind.

 

Ordinarily health is very important. A person doesn't want to hurt. But someone who doesn't know men is not aware that pain is bad. How is pain different from color red? How is discomfort different from comfort? Is it the same? Or is the world alive? If the world is alive, what was the same becomes different and quickly becomes the same again. In that case, does wisdom in terms of worldly advice have any use? If someone wants to achieve a certain concrete position within some certain and concrete framework, such as for example, convention, then you can advise such person. But if that's not the goal, then what will your advise be based off?

 

Let me give you this example.

 

Imagine a healthy sight. In this case, the person can see all the colors. But this person says, "My favorite color is green and I don't like yellow". Would your advice be, "Paint everything you have green and realize green-ness within all things and banish the yellow from your mind?" Wouldn't that just be imposing a limitation on a healthy sight? In fact, if the person could only ever see green and nothing else, wouldn't such vision become monochromatic and thus disabled?

 

And so are we. Green to us is good health and other "obviously good" things. Yellow to us is all the obviously wrong things we want to eliminate.

 

Maybe you're like an elephant trying to save the mouse from the dog. Still misguided, don't you think? But then again... I do belong to you. If you want to think you understand me, please do.

[awake]

All in all I found her to be very clear in what she was trying to say and the message seemed authentic. Out of curiosity why do you think it's 'NLP for potheads'?

That was a joke. Gangaji sound like anything familiar?

 

 

This is a really dumb argument. You need to wake up and recognize that all people have equally empty experience. Thinking in and of itself is an experience as well. When you're dealing with the ultimate concerns, such as what we do in spirituality, all experience is the same. There is no "better" experience or "more" experience. It's the same. The only differentiation is brought in by YOU as the consumer. YOU are making some of it better and some worse. You need to own up to that. Experience in and of itself, prior to you making a judgment, is not inherently better or worse or in the middle.

Thank you. Though many people who argue religious philosophy always make everything out to be dualistic, and similar at the core, they are often blinded by their vision (if it is just a theory, as the constant anger and frustration you express in this forum seems to indicate it is for you, goldisheavy), or by their actual experience, and end up discounting the fact that not everyone is enlightened (or thinks they're enlightened) and so yes, their personal experience is undoubtedly different from yours. I have also heard almost all of the great teachers, spiritual, or alternate routes, such as NLP, quantum mechanics, say that reality is only shared perceptually, it does not exist, and so each person makes their own experience of it. I have heard many of the "enlightened" teachers also admit that their experience is not the same as another's. We are all of the same essence, this is perhaps true, but we are all unique, we all look unique, we all have our own perception, and denying that in lou of the first one is the reason Zen masters are disgusted by the purely enlightened state as being the primary one of operation for some: it blinds them into thinking thats all there is. That is not all there is. We still live in a world of duality. Or you would not know to eat, to drink. Eating only exists in relationship to not eating, food is only food because you cannot eat plastic and metal for sustinance. By the plain and simple fact that these teachers are still alive, posits there is a dualistic world, and they operate in it, using its concepts.

 

It is a shame some teacher's messages are misconstrued; they are there to describe the experience of enlightenment, or what have you, to you, not to give you an end all be all answer to life. Life is ever changing, ever existing, so there is no end all be all, that would assume there is an end to life. Again judging by the fact that these teachers are alive still, I posit that enlightenment is not the end of life.

 

It is important to look at things with perspective, not just through the eyes of religious dualistic or non-dualistic philosophy and claiming everything is one thing as an excuse to explain all things. Do you think we would even be on the internet at all today if people just took it as "ok well thats it." No. Do you think the wisest people in our times, the truly enlightened thinkers, Einstein, Hawking, who, by their quotes, and peoples experience, did posess the same quality, were wise because they sat there meditating? No, they recognized the middle path, walking with one foot in both worlds.

 

Thank you.

[goldisheavy]

Do you think we would even be on the internet at all today if people just took it as "ok well thats it." No.

 

Do you think men would have all this great medicine if none of us ever got sick? No. Medicine seems amazing to a sick person. But medicine is anywhere between boring and poisonous to a healthy person. If the only food you eat is medicine, you are doomed. Part of getting better is eating something that's not a medicine. If non-medicine is not eaten, then the person dies and the medicine that is eaten is wasted.

 

Understanding can be different, experience can be different. But different is not the same as "more". "More" experience attempts to insinuate something about quantity. Saying that experience is "different" attempts to insinuate something about quality. From the point of view of pure awareness, experience of time is qualitative and not quantitative. Time becomes quantitative for the thoroughly unenlightened people and for physicalists who need to measure time to make their theories of physics.

[awake]

Ok, but I said nothing about "more quantity" If you are referring to my point about knoweldge, yes, there is more knowledge. This is evident by the fact that we know more about thngs today than we did a long time ago, and so presumably, this is not the end of the world. We have faith, much like in that there is a next moment in religion, that there is a next thing in knowledge. Again in reference to th emiddle path.

Edited May 5, 2009 by awake

[goldisheavy]

If you are referring to my point about knoweldge, yes, there is more knowledge. This is evident by the fact that we know more about thngs today than we did a long time ago

 

It's OK that you think this. Just please understand that this is exactly what I disagree with. We don't know more about anything than we knew 200 years ago. We know differently. That's all. Just differently. That's all I am saying.

 

In other words: I don't think knowledge, at the ultimate level, accumulates. Knowledge transforms. At certain specific relative levels knowledge can be said to accumulate; this is true about the realms where relativity forms a convention. Without convention one cannot be cognizant of accumulation. Perhaps not even then. I bet you need a specific kind of convention too. The kind with certain types of time concepts.

 

Think about it this way. In the past, physics books could be written in 1000 pages. And today they also occupy 1000 pages. Just that the content of those pages is different. What changes is the character of the information and not the amount. Information doesn't have amounts. An amount is in and of itself information about something. Information itself is nothing at all. Information has no self. For example, if I say the apple is red, I am talking about the apple. It's information about the apple. What's information about information? If information amount increased, that would be information about information. Where is information about information stored and is that store a part of or the reason for increase?

 

One more example which will only work if you're a materialist/physicalist. If you're a physicalist, then the universe contains a finite amount of particles. What changes is how these particles are arranged, and not the amount. So the raw amount of information is constant. Only its character/flavor changes.

 

One more example is the brain, again for the physicalists. The number of brain cells is relatively constant, but how they are connected changes. A person 2000 years ago, whom we would consider to be a raving moron, had roughly the same amount of neurons and neural connections as people do today. Same amount of information but with different flavor.

 

If you're a non-physicalist, like me, some of those examples won't work, and then we'd have to delve into what it means to inform. When we investigate what it means to be informed about anything, we will understand that this property cannot be measured quantitatively.

[awake]

It's OK that you think this. Just please understand that this is exactly what I disagree with. We don't know more about anything than we knew 200 years ago. We know differently. That's all. Just differently. That's all I am saying.

 

In other words: I don't think knowledge, at the ultimate level, accumulates. Knowledge transforms. At certain specific relative levels knowledge can be said to accumulate; this is true about the realms where relativity forms a convention. Without convention one cannot be cognizant of accumulation. Perhaps not even then. I bet you need a specific kind of convention too. The kind with certain types of time concepts.

 

Think about it this way. In the past, physics books could be written in 1000 pages. And today they also occupy 1000 pages. Just that the content of those pages is different. What changes is the character of the information and not the amount. Information doesn't have amounts. An amount is in and of itself information about something. Information itself is nothing at all. Information has no self. For example, if I say the apple is red, I am talking about the apple. It's information about the apple. What's information about information? If information amount increased, that would be information about information. Where is information about information stored and is that store a part of or the reason for increase?

 

One more example which will only work if you're a materialist/physicalist. If you're a physicalist, then the universe contains a finite amount of particles. What changes is how these particles are arranged, and not the amount. So the raw amount of information is constant. Only its character/flavor changes.

 

One more example is the brain, again for the physicalists. The number of brain cells is relatively constant, but how they are connected changes. A person 2000 years ago, whom we would consider to be a raving moron, had roughly the same amount of neurons and neural connections as people do today. Same amount of information but with different flavor.

 

If you're a non-physicalist, like me, some of those examples won't work, and then we'd have to delve into what it means to inform. When we investigate what it means to be informed about anything, we will understand that this property cannot be measured quantitatively.

 

You seem to again be getting into the "non-dualism to explain dualistic phenomena" mindzone. I can't argue with that mindset, because it is true, but at the same time, it also allows for dualistic explanation of dualistic phenomena.

 

To point out the logical conundrums of your answer, if information did not accumulate, you would not need to have posted more than one word. Theories of physics rely and depend on one another for proof of eachother. "The apple" is less information than "the apple is red" it is different information, yes, but also less information.

 

Indeed the trouble comes when one begins to discount all phenomena because they are all the same thing essentially, that does not deny the fact that they have an identity - they are unique manifestations of the same one thing, otherwise, there would literally be no thing in perceived reality. Even when experiencing 'oneness' you are still aware of the things, just your attention has shifted. Especially so, non-duality does not deny anything, which you seem to be doing. Quotes about non-duality that deny, except with the intention of paradox, point to a misunderstanding of it.

[goldisheavy]

To point out the logical conundrums of your answer, if information did not accumulate, you would not need to have posted more than one word.

 

Who says I am driven by need? Don't I keep saying that what we think and do is ornamental?

 

"The apple" is less information than "the apple is red" it is different information, yes, but also less information.

 

Within some conventions, what you say is true. But what I am saying is a lot more valuable and beautiful. What you are saying is just common knowledge that every moron knows. Every moron thinks that knowledge is measured in megabytes and gigabytes and thinks that 10 gigs of info is more than 1 gig. To propound and to defend such thinking is to chase mediocrity, boredom and spiritual uselessness. It's good if you're a software engineer, but utterly useless for the maturation of reasoning faculties, because it doesn't lead toward the tolerance of the inconceivable reality.

 

Indeed the trouble comes when one begins to discount all phenomena because they are all the same thing essentially

 

Having no essence is not the same thing as being essentially the same. I believe I've been saying that phenomena have no essence of any kind. I've been saying that phenomena are baseless. This means that neither sameness nor difference can be established, except ornamentally. This means that knowledge with regard to phenomena cannot enter the extreme of knowing and nor can it enter the extreme of not knowing.

 

What I am saying is vastly more profound and nuanced than what you make it out to be. You're arguing against straw men.

 

, that does not deny the fact that they have an identity - they are unique manifestations of the same one thing, otherwise, there would literally be no thing in perceived reality.

 

This isn't the issue. The issue is this: are identities fixed, or are they in flux? If phenomena are baseless, identities must be in flux. If phenomena are backed by some essence, identities are fixed. If identities are fixed, certain knowledge is possible. It's then possible that there is certain absolute truth and that we can approach this certain absolute truth through the study of science. If identities are influx, that means we can never attain such certain absolute knowledge no matter how hard we try. It also means that unknowing is a fundamental and ineliminable part of cognition and is as night to day, part of nature. It also means that science then is of limited utility and is not the highest wisdom by far. It then means that science is mostly useful in the study of inanimate things, and is relatively useless for understanding life, intention and spiritual mysteries which are as real as day and night.

 

Even when experiencing 'oneness' you are still aware of the things, just your attention has shifted. Especially so, non-duality does not deny anything, which you seem to be doing.

 

So non-duality doesn't deny the process of denial then, right? Or does non-duality deny denying? Tsk Tsk Tsk! Bad boy. No treat for you.

Edited May 5, 2009 by goldisheavy

[forestofsouls]

I cannot possibly think of a more clever ego trap than this very line of thinking. A very McEnlightenment attitude: you don't need to do anything, you're just fine as you are. Which is pretty much what a tyrant would say to a slave. If you drive around an airplane, it doesn't do any good if you "know" it can fly. You have to actually fly.

 

It reminds me of a Mullah Nasrudin story:

 

One night, a neighbor strolling by Nasrudin's house found him outside under the street lamp brushing through the dust. "Have you lost something, my friend?" he asked. Nasrudin explained that he had lost his key and asked the neighbor to help him find it. After some minutes of searching and turning up nothing, the neighbor asked him, "Are you sure you lost the key here?" "No, I did not lose it here. I lost it inside the house," Nasrudin answered. "If you lost the key in the house, Nasrudin, why are you looking for it out here?" "Well, there's more light out here, of course," Nasrudin replied.

 

Let me try to explain my approach to you, since I like you. Most people pick one aspect of themselves they don't like and try to improve it. In spiritual circles this almost always, unfortunately, falls on thinking. So the person gets real busy. They think, "My thinking is bad because I think too much, or wrong thoughts, or blah blah". And they have all kinds of problems they are happily busy with. But it's false busy! False.... false... and pussy-footed to boot!

 

So I come and say, "no, your thoughts are perfect!" BAM! Now what??? Now you have nothing to do! You have nothing to fight with. Nothing to adjust, to slow down, to eliminate... you're left JOBLESS! You have a spiritual path without a path now. A job without any work. What now? Suddenly you're out there in here.... in the void. See what I mean? The satisfaction of the gradual daily struggle, of identifying with others based on that struggle, of having predictable days and predictable techniques applied... all that shit is GONE. You are perfect now... WHAT NOW? That's huge.

 

The biggest break through I've had was when I realized I was enlightened. I realize I don't need to perform any more tasks. No more struggling. No more learning. No more adjusting this and that. WHAT NOW??

[forestofsouls]

Classic, gih, classic. Presenting a false dichotomy as the only solution. The world doesn't fit so easily into an either/or thinking. To humans, mountains may appear to be very stable. To the earth, they may be a ripple on the surface of the earth.

 

This isn't the issue. The issue is this: are identities fixed, or are they in flux? If phenomena are baseless, identities must be in flux. If phenomena are backed by some essence, identities are fixed. If identities are fixed, certain knowledge is possible. It's then possible that there is certain absolute truth and that we can approach this certain absolute truth through the study of science. If identities are influx, that means we can never attain such certain absolute knowledge no matter how hard we try. It also means that unknowing is a fundamental and ineliminable part of cognition and is as night to day, part of nature. It also means that science then is of limited utility and is not the highest wisdom by far. It then means that science is mostly useful in the study of inanimate things, and is relatively useless for understanding life, intention and spiritual mysteries which are as real as day and night.

[matt007]

Look into the eyes of peace.

[goldisheavy]

Classic, gih, classic. Presenting a false dichotomy as the only solution. The world doesn't fit so easily into an either/or thinking. To humans, mountains may appear to be very stable. To the earth, they may be a ripple on the surface of the earth.

 

The dichotomy is not false. It's baseless. There is a difference between something being false and something being without basis.

 

I cannot possibly think of a more clever ego trap than this very line of thinking.

 

Sounds good. Why would we want to let the ego escape the trap? If something can get caught in a trap, it's not reliable, and we want it caught ASAP so that we may move beyond it.

 

Don't be scared of getting caught in my traps. I will cut your head clean off. Don't worry.