It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Who are you with no ego and ambition, with no desire?

page: 5
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 09:32 AM
link   
This new bang wagon of females are speaking to the world asking the same question. They think they are so ambitious, and for them it is the ticket to heaven - it is the answer which tells them that they are smarter than other people. They are selfish, egotistical, hateful, spiteful, conceited, and uncaring, and they think they are better than everyone else like a nazi. But being ambitious makes them think they are smarter - you don't have to do any of the things I have said - you just have to be ambitious.

Blind pathetic people.




posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   
reply to post by greyer
 


Haha not all women are like that, but yes, I agree, this new feminism or whatever thing is like... the most discriminatory, most sectarian, most sexist "movement" ever.. what.. because you're a woman and because you feel entitled and "believe in yourself" that makes you better than everyone else? and gives you the right to do whatever you want and treat people however you like? I agree buddy... absurd, truly truly absurd. I mean.. isnt that what the men they are "rebelling" against (as if 'embracing your sexuality' and twerking on stage or grabbing you crotch in music videos like jessie j is soooo rebellious to men... yeah, that soo not what men want to be seeing) were doing in the first place?

But then, the oppressed will always be twice as hard oppressors once the tables are turned, this is evident throughout human history, in most cases. When those who have been oppressed for a long time gain some power, they turn out to be twice as bad as those who preceded them. And we must follow the example of Christ "Forgive them, for they know not what they do" After all, these people are only falling prey to the same force of acute ignorance that is blackening the rest of the world. They only think they are doing whats right, and that is respectable, but without the Light of Wisdom they are like the blind led by the blind.

But there are still wonderful, kind, compassionate, humble and fair women in the world, just as there are also men with these qualities remaining.


But I must agree, this modern woman's rights/new feminism/look at how great I am for being born female movement (if you can call it that) is utterly utterly ridiculous.. and in the long run will prove detrimental to the position of women in the world... IMHO



posted on Mar, 8 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


I just wanted to say I found your post extremely compelling, painfully true and accurate in a way I've never seen put into words, elucidating in a very special way, and that it touched me deeply. I don't think I've ever read anything on this site, to date, that has touched me the way your words have, so clearly I understood and feltexactly what you were saying and describing.

As to the OP, I think it's also a great question, and really cuts to the heart of the philosophy of "we are one," stuff, and brings up the inherent risks with such a philosophy.

To those who say "I AM," or that they are the universe experiencing itself, is to say that you are everyone and everyone is you…..so all their faults and actions are theirs and vice versa. No boundaries, but no protection, either. That "we-are-one-thing" totally breaks down when one person is intentionally hurting another. For, at that point, if you enjoy giving someone pain, and are hurting them for this reason, then it isn't yourself you are hurting, obviously. Sorry, that's a very graphic and harsh assessment of this at work, of some possible consequences of this, rather than just the theory of we are all connected, etc. But sense of self is imperative.

We are very much the character or integrity we display in a conglomerate balance, if you will,, of the product of all our actions….this gives our lives meaning, does it not, and defines us greatly, does it not? And you must have a sense of self to act in these ways, understand how lives may overlap, rather than identities being absorbed by others stronger, understand how we each fit into the whole, how we are parts of that, and be able to recognize others as separate entities experiencing life in different ways and finding our own paths……
Tetra50



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:32 AM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


It warms my heart if anything I do or say becomes meaningful or inspirational for another!!!

Your words here were much more beautifully written than mine, and I agree with them as well.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by onequestion
 


Who I am is being held hostage by my ego. All that I can relate about myself is filtered and edited by the ego.

Many wise answers by others to your question. My ego would like to contribute, but it has found itself stumped for clever words.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:09 AM
link   
reply to post by mysticnoon
 


As far as what I responded with, it wasn't my ego speaking, but my capacity to understand and care for all our individualities, and be aware aforehand of anyone operating without one, and how ultimately selfish that would make everything, even more than it is now.
Regards,
Tetra



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:43 AM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


Thank you for your response.

When I hear someone proclaim, "I am All", I get the impression that it is more an expression of love than a loss of boundaries of self .

A person who is deeply in love loses themselves in the awareness of the beloved, the lover consumes their awareness day and night. Perhaps when the ego is discarded, the individual realizes the connection of love to all of creation, and "loses" themselves in that awareness.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 08:58 AM
link   

Lotuschild


Well, something i realized was that if your heart is not full of selfless love and infinite bliss, then you have not acheived the goal. If you have achieved true egolessness then the ability to say "Wait a minute >I< have killed >MY< ego, and >I< now feel empty and dead" would be completely gone, for that is still considering your own identity, fate and position as being separate from the rest of existence, if you're thinking of I me and mine then your ego is not dead.


I do not agree with this... I get the concept, yet do not as a universal measure to rely upon.
Because there is the "problem" that arises in the case of having a child.
There is no I, there is no, me,
there is all that is, here, now,
There is forms, living and not, objects, movement,
There is this form, this body, and it cries, it has pain, discomfort, needs,
What is this? Why does it not embrace those experiences? What is happening?

There, the separation begins to happen- something embraces all that is now,
Something else is rejecting it, and desiring "what is" to change.
There is two beings, there is an "I" and a "not I"- and other.
If you have little self awareness (a lack of ego) then that changes when faced with your child.

Apparently, there is physical forms, which make boundries, and have different automatic and conditioned responses, characteristics, and experiences. There is an I and you, there is needs, desires, intents, pasts and futures.
They are on the physical plane, of time and space.

You call it a "goal" to achieve, to lose contact with that reality, or illusion, or whatever you wish to call it.
If you have a goal, than you still have an ego, you are still an individual, a self. If you weren't, you'd no longer have a goal.

Just another one of those paradoxes of existence, which is a rather common mechanic- in order to achieve something, it must no longer be sought or desired!
Thus is the problem of teaching spiritual enlightenment.
edit on 9-3-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 10:26 AM
link   

mysticnoon
reply to post by tetra50
 


Thank you for your response.

When I hear someone proclaim, "I am All", I get the impression that it is more an expression of love than a loss of boundaries of self .

A person who is deeply in love loses themselves in the awareness of the beloved, the lover consumes their awareness day and night. Perhaps when the ego is discarded, the individual realizes the connection of love to all of creation, and "loses" themselves in that awareness.


Well, most of the focal issues of being alive are paradoxical by nature, double edged swords, put another way…..This is a positive interpretation of these matters, and I respect you for seeing that side. But my point is the other end of the spectrum of that extreme of "losing themselves in the awareness of the beloved," and therefore, realizing like connections with the entire environment and what it constitutes for them, awareness-wise. But this "absorption" if you will, by others and all of creation can be quite destructive, as well, to self, to lose the boundaries of what is "I" and what is everyone and everything else.

I don't disagree with you, but rather see another side to the same situation.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:16 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


I was going to reply to you, but I think this quote from Swami Krishnananda explains it entirely:

"Spirituality is a state of being. But a doubt will arise in the mind: Is it not also doing something? Is it only being? We have heard from many people that spirituality also implies intense unselfish activity; and the more we become spiritual, the more is our capacity to work, the more we become capable of doing unselfish service, so that spirituality is also doing instead of merely being. Such doubt can come in the minds of people. Hence, how do we say that spirituality is a state of being, rather than doing?

This doubt arises because one is not clear as to the real meaning of ‘being’ or ‘doing’. We are brought up from our very childhood in an atmosphere of social relationships, and we cannot get out of this prejudice. ‘Prejudice’ means a state of attitude which has entered into our very blood, and which influences every thought of ours – every feeling, and everything that we do in life. It is at the background of everything that we think and feel and act; that is called prejudice. It has no logical basis. A prejudiced person cannot be logically converted into a new line of thinking because already there is a predisposition to a particular way of thinking, on account of the atmosphere in which one has been brought up.

Now, when I say prejudice, I do not mean merely the conditions in which we have been brought up in this particular life, because we had many lives in previous incarnations. We must have taken thousands of births, and all the impressions of our thoughts, feelings and actions of millions and millions of births that we have taken add to the prejudice of our thinking, so that what we are thinking today is a cumulative effect of all that we have thought and felt and done in many, many births through which we have passed. But, this prejudice has become a part of our nature. It is not merely a psychological function in the ordinary sense of the term. It is something that cannot be separated from our own skin. Our very existence is a prejudice.

This peculiar trait of ours has a meaning which is deeper than ordinary human conduct. The basis of this externalised, socialised attitude is the primary prejudice of the mind which is called the concept of space, time and cause; this is our main prejudice. “I am an Indian,” “I am a German,” “I am a man,” “I am a woman” – this is a minor prejudice. But the major prejudice is: “I am in space and in time, and I am in a system of causal relation”. This is a higher prejudice, and nobody can get out of it.

Whatever be the extent of our knowledge, whatever be the depth of our genius, we cannot get out of the idea that we are in space, and we are in time, and things are connected in some sort of a causal relation. Not only that – that things are outside us.

Now, I am again coming to the point of the difference between being and doing. Why has this peculiar notion of the distinction between being and doing arisen? It is because you have a distinction between yourself and other people in the world. There is a distinction drawn between yourself and others. You are not I, and I am not you. This is something very simple to understand. Inasmuch as my existence – which is called ‘my being’ – is different from the being of other people, I have a necessity to develop a relationship with other people. This is called ‘doing’. So, the necessity of doing arises on account of my not being one with others, and others not being one with me. If I am they, and they are I, the question of doing does not arise because there is nothing to be done.

But, this is not true. I am not they, and they are not I. You are different people, and I am a different person. You have a being of your own; you exist. And I have a being of my own; I exist. But my being is different from your being, isn’t it? So, what is the connection between my being and your being? That connection is called action. That is why you do something, and I do something. So, we have the original doubt in the mind of there being a fundamental difference between being and doing. As long as we are different from one another, there shall be a difference between being and doing. We cannot get out of this emotion.

This is also the reason for the philosophical distinction that people make between knowledge and activity – or in Indian Sanskrit parlance, jnana and karma. There is a tremendous philosophical fight about whether knowledge is superior, or action is superior. All these difficulties have arisen on account of a fundamental error in understanding the human situation itself. The question of whether knowledge is superior or action is superior arises from another question: whether I am one with you, or I am different from you. If I am different from you, really speaking, then action cannot be avoided; it is superior in its own way. But if there is some sort of a connection between you and me, what is that connection?

Now, you are sitting there, so many yards away from me. Do you see any connection between you and me? I can see no connection. There is no wire connecting you to me – no thread. Nothing is there. Absolutely, we are different from one another. Absolutely – even a little connection is not there between you and me.

If that is the case, it would be very difficult to live in this world because, on one side, we have a compulsive feeling that there is some connection between ourselves and others. On the other side, we cannot see any connection visibly. That is why we are fighting with people. Every day you can fight with me, and I can fight with you. I disagree with you, and you disagree with me. I do not like you, and you do not like me. Why does this situation arise? It is because you cannot see any connection with me, and I cannot see any connection with you. It cannot be seen. Well, it is a very practical truth. What is the connection? He is sitting there. What link is there between you and me? Absolutely nothing! So, I can do anything to you, and you can do anything to me. This is called war, battle, social tension. And this cannot stop as long as we have a feeling that we are not connected among ourselves.

But there is another peculiar trait in us which makes us feel that it cannot be like that. Why do I feel sympathy for him? Why do I feel pity for him? Why do I feel like speaking to him? Why do I feel like helping him? Why do I feel like having some kind of social relationship with him if absolutely there is no connection between him and me? Do you understand me? Anything that is not really connected with another thing cannot have sympathy for that thing. Sympathy means connection. It is not merely a psychological word; it is also a philosophical word. Sympathy means relationship, en rapport, some kind of invisible connection. Even if you are far, far away – one thousand miles away from me – you can have a relationship with me. You can think of me; and sometimes thoughts establish a greater relation than even physical relations.

So, on one side we have got a feeling that without some sort of relationship with others, we cannot exist. On another side we have a feeling: “What connections do you have with me? I am an independent person. I will go anywhere I like.” Sometimes people speak like that. “What have I to do with you? What do you think I am?” This is the quarrelsome attitude of people. When you are angry, you speak like that, isn’t it? “What do you think I am? I will do this and that. I’ll go from this place!” You say anything that you like. This is the outcome of the other side of your nature, which makes you wrongly think that you have no connection with people. If you have real connection with people, you will not speak like that. “What do you think I am?” You will never say that if there is a real connection; but sometimes you have a feeling that there is no connection.

On the other side, you feel miserable when you are absolutely alone. If I lock you up in a room for three years where you cannot see any human face, you will feel very unhappy. “I have no friends. I cannot see anybody. It is as if I am in a jail.” Why do you feel like that? If you have absolutely no connection with people, you must be happy when you are absolutely alone. But that is not true; you will feel miserable. You go to the shop; you go to the market; you go to the cinema; you go to all sorts of people to establish relationships, making it appear that you cannot exist without relationships.

So, human life is a tension between two aspects which pull us from two different directions. On one side we feel that we are an independent people, and that is the reason why we sometimes become selfish. Selfishness is due to the occasional feeling that we are independent, with no connection to other people, so we can exploit others. We can even destroy them. “I am independent. Why should I not destroy other people? I have no connection.” But sometimes we feel that is very wrong. “I should not do that.” We have a humanitarian feeling, a feeling of brotherhood and unity with people. This double attitude of our nature is the cause of our sorrow.

Why is it that we have a double attitude? Sometimes we feel that we are different, and therefore we can get angry. Sometimes we feel we are one, and therefore we feel a sense of affection. The reason is simple. Again I am coming to the original point of the distinction between being and doing, which has arisen out of the central natural prejudice of our being in space, time, and a causal relationship of things. Are we in space? Are we in time? If we are in space, it means that we are disconnected from others, because space is nothing but a way of disconnecting one thing from another thing. It is because of space that you appear to be different from me. Otherwise, what is the distinction? If there is no space between us, we will merge into one, isn’t it? But that space prevents us from merging. So space is the primary devil, we can say, which has created this distinction of thought, feeling, action, etc.

The attempt at being spiritual is the effort of the deepest reality of our nature to come to manifestation, and to overcome this prejudice of our being in space, time, and causal relationship. That we are in space, time and cause is an error of thought. If that had been the ultimate truth of things, all the problems of life would have been finished in a minute – each one would have thought that anything can be done by anyone. There is no need for rule, law, regulation, government, or anything of the kind. Any kind of system, any kind of methodology or organisation is an indication that things are not really disconnected in space and time. Why do we want a government? Why do we want a system of working at all? Why should there be any kind of organisation if everything is disconnected? Organisation is the bringing together of factors which are apparently different; but if they are really different, we cannot bring them together, so all our effort will be a failure. Everything would be meaningless in this life. But that is not what our heart speaks. It says there is some unity among things; always we speak of organisation and methodology of working, of system, law and order, rule, and so on. Why are we speaking about these things if everything is disconnected?

Thus, the whole of human life is a drama of two scenes – being and doing. Being is what we are. Doing is what we try to manifest in order that this being may become more and more complete. Why do we do anything? Why do we act? Why do we work? Why do we perform any function? Why do we establish a relationship with anything in the world – people or other things? It is because our being is limited. There is a Prof. Jack 'being', and an Elizabeth 'being', and so on – small beings – and they feel so finite and miserable. We want to expand our being, which we are trying to do by connecting ourself with other beings – this being, that being, and hundreds of beings. If many beings join together, it looks as if the being has become very large. That is why we feel happy when we are in the midst of many friends and many well-wishers, so that if we have a world government without any army of nationals, we will be very happy, perhaps. We have a feeling like that. Why should there be many nations and many armies? Let there be only one government for the whole world. Then we feel more secure. Why do we feel like that? Because at that time we have a sensation of having united many beings into a larger unity, whereas now we feel we are limited beings.

Thus, even our doing or our action is only a need felt for expanding our being. Thus, ultimately, being is the truth, not doing, because our doing is only for the sake of being. Our present being is insufficient. It is limited. It is physical. It is only in one place, cut off from other people, other beings by space, time, etc. We want to expand that being, but we are doing it in an inadequate manner. Merely because we shake hands with people, simply because we take tea with people at the same table, merely because we speak to people in a conference, it does not mean that our being has become large. However much we may try to sit together with thousands of people and have a friendly attitude towards them, still they are they, and we are we. One day or other, we will fight. Why? This is an artificial method of bringing about the largeness of being, or the unity of people. How can we become one with that person? We can sit on his lap, we can sit on his head – even then, we are different from that person, isn't it?

That is why mere sociological, political, economic and external methods of unity have failed, right from historical times. All the great empires have fallen, including the Roman empire, the Grecian empire, Assyrian, Babylonian – everything has gone to dust because these were all erroneous methods attempted by people, with a pious motive no doubt, for bringing about a unity which cannot be brought about by merely piling up particulars.

The joining of people into a social unity is only a grouping of particulars into a heap, and that is not real unity. What we are trying is to have a single being, ultimately. All our beings should join together into a single being, like a single ocean having all the drops within it. We cannot see many drops in the ocean. Though there are many drops, they are all one only. The whole ocean is one drop only, ultimately – isn't it? It is a big drop, but it contains small drops. We cannot separate them. But, if we join many stones or sand particles together, we cannot call it a single unity. Each sand particle is different from other sand particles. So, our joining together socially, politically, economically, and externally is something like trying to join millions of sand particles together. They will never join. Sand particles are different from one another in spite of their being in one basket.

Therefore, spirituality – now I am coming to the original point – spirituality is not mere social relationship, though many people think it is also a part of spirituality. It can manifest itself as social relationship later on, but itself is not identical with it. Spirituality is the consciousness of being. In Sanskrit we call it sat; sat means Pure Being. It is not limited being, because anything that is limited is unhappy. That is why we want to become more rich and more powerful. How much richness do we want? We want the whole of Brazil; we want the whole of South America; we want the whole of both Americas. We want the whole world, sky, sun, moon, stars – and even then we are not happy. Why is it that we have such desires? We want to expand our power to unlimitedness; we want to expand out being to unlimitedness. Until that is achieved, we will not be happy. So, man is unhappy. Man is unhappy because of his limited being.

Spirituality, to again come to the point, is the expansion of being. And whatever we do as an action is also a part of being. It is meant for expanding being. That is why they say karma yoga is a yoga by itself for attaining God-realisation. You will be wondering what the connection between karma and God is. The connection is simple. Every kind of relationship with others is an attempt of the soul to come to a unity of being, in a largeness which expands to entire infinitude. This Supreme Being is called God. We call God Supreme Being because there is only one Being. And all beings put together, many people sitting together, is not one being – just as, in the analogy mentioned earlier, many sand particles put together do not make one sand particle. We merge in the Being of God, as all drops merge in the ocean.

Therefore, in our attempt at being a spiritual Being, we are not trying to establish an externalised relationship with things, because externality is abolished in the Infinite. In the Infinite, there is no externality. It is universality, so we must make a distinction between universality and externality. All our activities are externalised; therefore, whatever be the apparent success of our externalised actions, ultimately they are a failure unless they are charged with a spiritual consciousness which is the consciousness of a real unity of Being. It is a single Being that is working, ultimately. That is what our religions tell us. It is God working.

When we say God works, it does not mean that somebody else is working. We also have a wrong notion of God, that God means somebody else. We make a distinction between God, world, and man. That is again due to the prejudice of space, time, and cause. Why do we think that God is in the heavens and outside us? It is because of space. We bring a spatial distinction even between us and God. The concept of God transcends the idea of space, time, and cause. That is the real Being, inseparable from our being, and inseparable from the beings of other people also, so that there can be only one Being. This consciousness of the totality of Being – not merely an aggregate of particulars, but the real merger of Being – is the aim of spirituality. This consciousness has to be manifest in our action, even when there is activity.

Somebody asked me, "Are you not disturbed and distracted when you are working?" Two days back, some visitors came to me. "Swamiji, you are working so much. Are you not distracted in your meditations?"

I said, "I am not working. If I am working, I will be distracted." I asked him one question: "What do you see? This is a table. Is this a desk or is it wood? What is it?" I said.

He said, "It is a desk."

I said, "I say it is wood, because 'desk' is only a name that you give to a particular position of wood. The position of wood is not a thing by itself, so you cannot say that there is such a thing as a desk. Only wood is there; the wood placed in a particular context is called a desk. Can you call a context or a position as a thing by itself? No. I can place the same wood in another position and it becomes a cot. In a third position, it becomes a chair, doesn’t it? So there is no such thing as chair, no such thing as table, no such thing as desk, except the wood. I am also, in my own humble way, trying to see no such thing as work. It is only consciousness that exists, just as only wood exists behind the table."

He said, "It is very difficult to understand these things."

I said, "It is very difficult. What can I do? But once you become habituated to this way of thinking, all your activity becomes a manifestation of your being. You yourself are moving in your actions, like the ocean moving through the waves. So you are not doing something external to you and, therefore, karma cannot bind you. That karma which will not bind you is called karma yoga. When you yourself are the action, how can it bind you? You don't bind your own self. If you have so many confusions in the head – it is something outside you, proceeding from you through space and time, in respect of somebody else – then it will react upon you. That is called the nemesis of karma. That is binding karma."

It is very difficult, therefore, to even conceive what real spirituality is. I have only given an idea of it. It is impossible to maintain even a consciousness of what spirituality is. Even the idea of it is impossible to entertain in the mind, let alone practice it. It will not enter the heads of people. But once it becomes a part of our natural way of thinking, we become supermen from that very moment. This is the aim of our life."



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:27 PM
link   
You're nothing, which is what the powers that be want. Each person chooses their position in life. Most don't get that. And I might add, I would like my posts to be acknowledged on my threads.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:52 PM
link   

edit on 9-3-2014 by Lotuschild because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 04:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


So there you have it, the wonderful Krishnananda, I think that pretty much addresses everything you said doesn't it Bluesma? And he has expressed the problem and the solution more lucidly than any of us ever could. This was all I have been trying to say for my last few posts, but I have only gone so far into the path, which would appear to be the reason why I have not been able to get my point across. I only urge you to try and understand this wisdom.. everyone, for it truly lifts a weight from the heart.

I feel that ATS is largely bereft of this kind of Wisdom.. while the philosophy and metaphysics section, and ATS as a whole is so overrun with wild speculation and searching, and yet Swamiji explained himself with perfectly sound and reasonable logic did he not? Such as the analogy of the desk.. that is something which is easily ascertainable by the mind is it not? And yet all these puzzles continue to baffle people going round and round searching for something magical and extraordinary, something extra, something external.. is the universe a hologram created by aliens? what if the NWO are controlling our minds with chemicals in the food? So on so forth.. ad infinitum.. when the truth can be found right there in front of you when you simply have a clear vision, drop all imaginations, all peripheries, all self delusion, and simply see things as they are.

But I am only writing this to ask to be excused, for I have not reached the final stage in meditation, the final stage of eternal consciousness of the unity of being, the merging in the ocean of consciousness. I have reached a certain level, and had profound experiences of unity.. but I know in my heart that it wasn't the final stage, and that there is alot of work that remains to be done before I experience God and unity with that Supreme Being.. and so while I tried to explain what I meant in my previous posts, since it was not from personal experience it obviously didnt get the point across, while Krishnananda has achieved full Liberation, and has explained these things in such a wonderful, beautiful way.. Therefore I am asking for pardon from all you lovely seperate beings

edit on 9-3-2014 by Lotuschild because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-3-2014 by Lotuschild because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:07 PM
link   
reply to post by Lotuschild
 


Too much words. Too much books to make a cult in motion and to lubrikate it with money and new servants. Better stop placard this place with words of people with 5+ names to not be banned or something.
Dont worry Ive read your very long answer (although it is not my native language) and I think I can find a few words for you if you will care in a week. Untill next weekend I would prefer to let this thread be also for others. Lets make it rant later.



posted on Mar, 9 2014 @ 05:19 PM
link   
reply to post by PapagiorgioCZ
 


No rant friend
Plain old discussion. And sorry I didnt know english isn't your native language, if i had known that I wouldn't have made my post so long.


It seems you are still referring to a cult which I do not belong to and have absolutely no affiliation with.. and still being disrespectful about my beliefs.. which is saddening since I have offered plenty reasoning and logic in respect to that.

Yes I am more than happy to hear what you have to say in reply to me
But why not PM me when you get the chance? I agree.. I am taking a step back from this thread, and besides.. I feel that my above reply to Bluesma covers the question of individual identity profusely and entirely, per the OP.

P.S All my own words.. all my own, not belonging to anyone with 5+ names, my own words, my own explanation, based on my own undertanding and experiences. Only my quote from Krishnananda is not my own, and that was a reply to somebody else..
edit on 9-3-2014 by Lotuschild because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 02:26 AM
link   

Lotuschild
reply to post by Bluesma
 


So there you have it, the wonderful Krishnananda, I think that pretty much addresses everything you said doesn't it Bluesma? And he has expressed the problem and the solution more lucidly than any of us ever could.


I do not agree, because it was directed towards a specific audience, it seems- so certain assertions are made about the listener and placed as the base of the discourse…. Assertions that I do not identify with.

This seems to address people who are evolving in a direction from self awareness - rather than towards self awareness. This is my point in this thread!

One persons spiritual path may be towards breaking down the walls of ego and perception of separation- I can respect that. They may have had a childhood in which the existence of self/other separation was nurtured and developed, and it is a challenge to let go of it, and spiritual practice can aid in that.

But there are persons who path goes the other direction- from no boundries, no sense of self or separation, towards the perception of self/other distinction, and construction of ego. For those people this is the challenge. That includes forming sense of time and space as real (this discourse you posted assumes the listener has that already conditioned as a belief about reality)

Being and doing can be questioned from many angles, and one can attack it from a habit of doing, to recognizing that being is underneath…..OR one can “climb out” from that , from being to doing.

I mean, to use an example- someone trying to head towards introspection, they can analyse their habit of seeing love as something they do, and get to recognizing it as something they are. That helps their intended path of spiritual evolution.

Or one can analyse that love is not just what they are, but can also be considered something one does- for the ones heading the other direction that is conducive to their direction of spiritual evolution.

My whole point in this discussion is that just because your path goes in one direction, it is not THE path for all. All is relative.

edit on 10-3-2014 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 10 2014 @ 05:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Some very interesting points you make, I completely respect your right to have different views to mine, but I am finding it difficult to fully comprehend what you're saying, if its okay with you I was going to PM you and perhaps seek some clarification?

I also think I may have over stayed my welcome on this thread hahaha :p

That would really be great if you could put some of my curiosities to rest though Bluesma?



posted on Mar, 11 2014 @ 03:27 AM
link   

Lotuschild
reply to post by Bluesma
 


Some very interesting points you make, I completely respect your right to have different views to mine, but I am finding it difficult to fully comprehend what you're saying, if its okay with you I was going to PM you and perhaps seek some clarification?

I also think I may have over stayed my welcome on this thread hahaha :p

That would really be great if you could put some of my curiosities to rest though Bluesma?


I don't see any reason you would be judged an undesireable part of this discussion. Though that doesn't eliminate the possibility that some might disagree or debate with you. That is life.

I do not know how I can make my point more clear. As I tried to point out from the start, there are some people who have their ego either not develop normally, or get broken down early in life, due to environmental factors. (my example was violent physical, emotional and sexual abuse in early childhood... but there may be many other factors which could cause this).

In their case, they are already where some others are trying to get to- no sense of individual self, no "selfish" desires or intents, no concern for self. Being selfless, they do not have that "prejudice" of percieving self/other separation, nor of time and space (though all these are experienced, the mind does not recognize them as such).
To them all is, quite simply, love. Therefore, no action is necessary, for there is nothing to change, there is no "I" to have an effect on a "you". There is happening, arising, constantly.

For an observer, that person may look passive, ineffectual, indifferent, apathetic. They can be kicked and they don't react, they can be offered sugar, they do not react.
Those "unenlightened" physical drives no longer work.

For them, the path to spiritual growth involves the exact opposite of those who search to exit the demands and boundries of ego- it is to BUILD some sort of walls and separation, to create a sense of self, some concern for self, some goals, intents, motivations and repulsions.

So the same teachings do not apply. The one you put up says thigns like "You do not like to be alone". That is only going to make sense to those of a strong ego who enjoy the reverberation of others upon their "walls"- the interaction, and reflection, of self and other.

To the person who is selfless, there is no difference in being alone or with others. It is all just what is happening. There is no "others".

The idea of doing is something that must be developed with these people I speak of. Love as something you DO was a total revelation to me- like that there are gestures, actions, that happen between people that are considered love. For me all just was love, so there was nothing to do.

This is what I meant about the lecture you included- it is targetting a certain audience, (and may be very helpful to them). But the assumption that it is the ideal path for all might be mistaken.

But as I came to realize after I wrote that yesterday, for those trying to travel from ego to "oneness" I guess it is expected they are simply going to start out NOT respecting differences between individuals, and just perceiving all others as themself. That is their goal, to merge, and so will they, in mind.

Up to those with the goal to form a self to object and assert their boundries. Tis a beneficial action for them. In the end, the exercise serves everyone.
Carry on, sometimes disagreements are fertile for all involved.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:20 PM
link   

mysticnoon
reply to post by tetra50
 


Thank you for your response.

When I hear someone proclaim, "I am All", I get the impression that it is more an expression of love than a loss of boundaries of self .

A person who is deeply in love loses themselves in the awareness of the beloved, the lover consumes their awareness day and night. Perhaps when the ego is discarded, the individual realizes the connection of love to all of creation, and "loses" themselves in that awareness.


Yes, and I agree this is the lovely side of it, absolutely. But consciousness and motivation aren't all loveliness and roses, are they? So when exploring these ideas of "losing oneself," whatever or whomever it is to we lose ourselves, though we might then have an epiphany of the kind you go on to describe, but surely we can have a connection of love to all of creation and an awareness of it--your words, and quite lovely--without completely losing the sense of self that also keeps all of us, safe, really.



posted on Mar, 13 2014 @ 12:23 PM
link   
I am conflicted.

Me not giving a # has runneth over into all aspects.



new topics

top topics



 
10
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join