Discussion in 'Eastern Philosophy' started by Grantywanty, Nov 1, 2007.
nice post swarm Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
Swarm, you sound like the kind of person who sedates himself with lots of meditation and acts how you think that someone who is enlightened is supposed to act. But from the totally unhelpful comments you make about what it is to 'journey' to this state of being, it sounds like you think enlightenment is some kind of state that people achieve only through practice and over a period of time. All that is utter rubbish.
There is no time in reality, there is no individual and 'everyone' is already 'enlightened' - there just needs to be a re-congnition of that.
Calmness is not an indication of enlightenment - look at Nisargardatta - he got pretty irate with seekers sometimes. He said that seeking was the problem because it presupposed a separate individual that needed to do something.
Enlightenment is probably more efficiently and frequently found through practice and effort. Not doing anything or considering anything would be the worst things you could do.
Saying there is no time, no individual and everyone is enlightened already.. what is that!!? that sounds like nonsense to me. By what means did you arrive at those conclusions.
Calmness is often an indication of some amount of success with working with the mind and ones thoughts.
I suspect Nisargardatta wasnt able to say that until after a lot of time spent " seeking", himself. Telling people things like that is so unproductive. Telling someone who perceives their self as an individual that there is no individual and therefor there is nothing to do?? How could that possibly be helpful to hear? Did he actually want to try to prevent people from making any progress realizing and understanding themselves and the world around them through personal experience?
I think that persons intentions were dubious. heh
You would not say that if you had read any of his books. He was as clear as could be.
If you have a look to see if you can find a location for this 'me' you believe yourself to be, without thought, you will finding nothing there but awareness of being. What more do you need to do? What else do you need to seek? Who is this 'you' who needs to do something to realize what is already there?
Practices are a trap to the mind - they are a buy-in into the story of the 'me'. They are not necessary. How many people do you know who have meditated for twenty years or more and are still meditating. They may be calm, but are they clear that there is no separation?
I arrived at that conclusion from logic, firstly, because all ideas are human creations and can never describe reality - you may want to check out some of my posts on the thread 'Is non-duality a philosophy' for a substantiation of this point.
Secondly, I looked to see what was there when there were no thoughts of a 'me' and what I discovered was that awareness is always and ever present, but my thoughts changed as did my body. I also realized that my day to day living did not require the amount of thought that I thought it did. I realized that the right thing to do arose in and of itself - there was no one doing that.
To me the idea that you have to practice to be achieve what you already are is nonsense. Don't you think it is ironic that people practice to achieve something at some later time when they are already that and there is no time according to descriptions of what it is to be 'enlightened'. Enlightenment is nothing more than ordinary awareness - it is already there - it is just the mind that clouds or seems to mask it. You are already that. Thou art that. All the scriptures point to this.
I don't know if you are able to see this but time is a concept, it doesn't actually exist. Even quantum physicists will tell us that.
I act how I am and I am how I act.
But is this sort of personal attack really needed?
I don't think you have understood what I've been saying. For example, I didn't say that it was a 'journey,' a state of being or that you find it only through practice and over a period of time. I said:
You seem to be wanting me to say what you think I ought to be saying instead of what I am saying.
Some people definitely approach it that way.
I don't recall saying it is or it isn't. Are you perhaps confusing calmness with equanimity?
But since the topic is at hand, I would class appropriate calmness is always a good sign of right understanding and equanimity.
Funny how he presupposes there are seekers to be irate at.
It seems to me you have practiced seriously and diligently for quite some to time to arrive at the conclusions that you have stated. You practiced by thinking, by questioning, by searching for answers. You had to be able sort your way through appearances and habits in order to be able to think clearly in first place. Are you saying that it wouldve been all the same had you not decided to pursue these examinations?
My real issue I guess is with people who have already arrived at realizations through all the effort they have made to do so, telling people those who havent or dont even know how to begin, that its not necessary to do anything. Thats a lie. It may be true that we are already enlightened but it is covered up with obscurities that have to be removed with some effort one way or the other. If a person doesnt make the effort to find truth it will tremendously slow in coming when it does come. This is something that I have witnessed for myself countless times.
Well, when people come to him seeking answers then obviously they are seeking.
You are still suggesting that calmness or equanimity are signs of enlightenment and I guess they are, but it does not mean that your external behavior would be this way, just that there is equanimity 'inside' so to speak.
You just said again that practice is the way you achieved enlightenment. And I say, you are not enlightened if you say that is what got you there. You are buying into cause and effect - and while we unenlightened people may still buy into the notion of time, a person who re-cognizes his/her true essence would never say such a thing. Practice implies time for it is only by doing it over time that you claim it happened for you and that is utter nonsense.
I am not attacking you personally, I am going by what you say -that is all I know about you. I don't think that what you offer is authentic or helpful - how is that an attack on you. I just assumed you are still practicing your meditation because somewhere in a post you said that you were coming to an understanding - if you are coming to it, then you are still buying into the idea of separation and time.
I also could see that you were trying all the while to maintain this 'together' persona by being ever so diplomatic in your replies like nothing could phase you. It's okay to be pissed off - those who recognize their true essence display the same variety of behavior as do those who do not - it is not an external thing, it is a knowing equanimity that may or may not change the way one behaves - 'Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.'
So practice something else.
So why get so excited and competitive about it?
So why worry about it?
Really you have some good words, but you don't seem to know them in your bones.
Practice is a nice place to start because even if you must turn else where, or were done before you started and just didn't know it, you still have been engaged in a virtuous activity and that is a good basis for living.
And it doesn't have to be meditation. Pick what works best for your needs.
But just because I like it doesn't mean you have to. Go with what works. This isn't a competition
Presupposing a separate individual that needs to do something. Presupposing a separate individual that needs to not do something. Either way you might as well be practicing as opposed to getting irate.
Appropriate calmness is a symptom of equanimity and right understanding, but yes there are other means to calmness, not all of them healthy.
The inside is not separate from the outside.
No I did not.
I said I came to my conclusion that humans could reach enlightenment through my practice.
I have not said I was enlightened. I said answering such a question yes or no is pointless. Either the other person can tell or they can't. If they can there is nothing to say. If they can't it doesn't matter what you say.
How do you know this?
Practice is just practice. If you are being flooded with implications you are thinking instead of practicing. Just refocus on what you are doing and don't worry about the time.
No, I am just coming to it. Your implicator seems a bit hyperactive. Also, remember we disagree on non dualism. Apparent separation is no more an issue for me than apparent oneness. Not one, not two.
No. I'm just being who I am.
You are misunderstanding something. Enlightenment doesn't make you other than you are. You just stop pretending you can pretend you aren't who you are. It doesn't mean you stop maturing or growing. It just means you don't make those processes harder or easier than they actually are. But I'm not ever going to meet your standard of behavior. That is for you to do.
But don't worry, I'm fully functional.
Yes Swarm, we can only be who we are but rather than saying 'Stop pretending you can pretend you aren't who you are' is not very accurate and potentially confusing for people, though I do like it. It would be more accurate to say 'Stop pretending to be what you aren't - an individual with choice'.
You ask how I know that 'enlightened' beings do not buy into time - I know many, that is how. Also, it is my experience that time is illusionary.
I can see now why we disagree on so many things. From my reckoning there is no Karma. Karma is just us buying into the story of mind according to non-duality (advaita vedanta) and you say you aren't into non-duality. Also, you logic is not clear to me at all - perhaps others might be able to comprehend it, unfortunately or fortunately I can't.
One of our difficulties in communicating is when I observe: You just stop pretending you can pretend you aren't who you are.
You turn it into a directive: 'Stop pretending you can pretend you aren't who you are'
That is not what I said. I’m not prescribing an action. It isn’t “the way.” I’m just commenting on what I’ve noticed.
My experience is directives don’t usually work so well. It either comes naturally or its not yet time.
When did that happen?
That must make life very surprising. When you drop a rock is it still a shock when it falls down instead of up?
You realize as long as you are talking about non duality, you are separate from it?
So are you saying that all those gurus out there talking about non-duality are separate from something, that they are not in fact enlightened?
There you go again assuming that 'enlightenment' is about external actions. 'Before enlightenment, chop wood, carry water. After enlightenment, chop wood, carry water.'
I guess that you are implying that it happened in time, in the past etc. That is because you are still identifying with the appearance - when it happened it happened 'now' and it is always and ever now. This debate is happening now. It is only in the telling that time appears. You need a reference point of a me at a particualar time to compare it with another time for time to actually exist. Time relies on memory, thoughts to actually exist. In physics they point to the fact that time is dependant on a reference point. How can there be a reference point if it is all the one?
A guru is just another person. Some of them are good. Some are not so good. Some talk a good talk but are rotten to the core.
Bottom line, it doesn’t matter who is talking. Talk is talk and all talk is talk about, even guru talk. One word and you miss the whole point of non duality. Merely thinking you have to convey the idea to others is as far from it as you can get. Who are you talking to? Who doesn’t get it? How can it be non dual then? Merely posing non dual defeats the premise to its core.
Yes. So get chopping! Start carrying! What are you waiting for? Practice is the chopping and the carrying. And where did all the "before" and "after" come from? Chop wood. Carry water.
My now is bigger than just now.
It is only in the telling that the debate actually happens.
Yes What need then for meditation? Posting for example. What else do we do then if not talk and walk. And of course talk of it is not the thing being pointed to.
How can your now be bigger than just now? I can bring meaning to these words but I am not sure what you mean by them exactly - if you are saying it is timeless then perhaps I get what you mean.
Does anything actual happen in reality? OR do you mean that it is our labeling it a debate that makes it a debate happening? Nah, you've got me stumped with knowing what you mean exactly - nice and open - to be overlaid with many interpretations or none.
why does it not happen?
Well, look and see without mind if anything is actually happening.
Answer your own question, only you can.
Where did I say there was a need for meditation? What makes you think everything requires a need?
How can yours not be?
Separate names with a comma.