New age common beliefs and myths: let´s talk about them (maybe demystify some of them)

reply to post by Manula


I appreciate your effort here, Manula. s/f...
So far only two decent replies (thanks Sahabi and nithaiah), typical....
but not to despair!
There are those of us who want to discuss these things....and have some depth of understanding of them. I'll be paying attention if not posting immediately, but I do want to address (reinforce) the fact that these are NOT "new ideas", and that those who call it "new-age-hippy-love-bs" and such have a lot to learn.

I wish (yeah, yeah....I know, wishing causes suffering , but hey, I'm human, too...) that the "labels" of New-Age and New-Agers could be changed to something more representative of its (the movement's) origin in the mists of time far, far back....way way way before the time of the big BC/AD swap....(BCE/CE is preferable, but probably offensive to some).

Part of the reason that the ideas are so "mysterious" is that they are Oriental in nature...not Occidental. It is difficult for Western thinkers to wrap their heads around the concepts that are part and parcel of Oriental worldview.

Theosophy sprang from the principles there, yes, but from the get-go in the West have been pooh-poohed and dismissed and mocked and ridiculed as everything from hippy-crap to delusional wishful thinking for those lacking the gumption to accept Westerner's fatalism, linear thinking, and materialism.

Today there are Essene movements that embrace both. Just two examples: The Nazarenes, and the Ecclesia Gnostica; and they, imho, have beautifully merged the two different schools: mysticism and Christ's message.

My favorite of your topics is reincarnation, but all of them as listed make lucid and profound sense to me.

Thanks for this thread, I hope we get some of the worthwhile thinkers on here to discuss with us.

I will leave this first reply with a visual aid, which may possibly open at least one eye of someone who prefers to keep them closed to Eastern thought on principle alone:

I wanted to comment, although compared to the beauty already written, will sound a bit rough

You take a group, you look for the weakest/smallest/most dependant of that group, and they are FIRST, they are THE number ONE. From most dependant to least dependant is the order of importance in all things, every other want or need, is secondary to that.

Show them the beauty in sunshine and moonlight, and they will give it back to you

The only thing you can never be too extravagant with, is love

and I always liked........ALL for ONE, and ONE for ALL, sounds like an ant chant to me


XXX

Oh and remember to thank who's responsible...

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


"Indeed, poor OP"
Why the attacks on my person?
Can´t you respect my opinion?
I don't buy that "Wanting is suffering" idea, but I respect your different view.
Do I think it is coward to eliminate wanting? Yes, and i have done that in the past. Didn't work for me.
So do you WANT to be here talking here on ATS? Or you were zombie-like led to register and then Metaphysics forum?
We all have wanting, some are corageuous enough to live it, others hide from the ever lasting creation. How can you create, if you dont WANT to create?
Will is the most basic force of existence.

reply to post by nithaiah


About KARMA

Here is my opinion.
I agree with what you wrote.
Karma for me is just the divine justice in action and it is consequence of the "we are one" reality.
What you do to others, you do to yourself, because we are all one and KARMA shows that it is true.
Karma ensures that the energy we send, comes back to us. Why?
It is not a punishment, it has learning purposes.
The self is learning through experience and it goes from incarnation to incarnation, learning.
Some lessons are karmic, they come from actions made in the past, some are not karmic, they are just lessons to be learned.

reply to post by Manula


'We' implies more than 'one'. 'We are one' cannot be a true statement.
It is one.
Duality appears in oneness. In one 'things' are seen. The seer and seen are one. It looks like two but the seen cannot appear separate from the seer. The seen has no existance without the seer.
No thing sees the no thing. It is known.

reply to post by Manula


I think it's because you missed the core point of the practice of not wanting, and then condemned the idea from your misunderstanding of it.

That's one of those things that bothers people who are actually familiar with concepts and their correct execution and result. My original unedited post condemned you for the same thing, but I removed that part in my edit, because it is not my place to chide you for something that you are psychologically or spiritually unready to understand.

The point you missed in the concept of "wanting causes suffering" is not that being bereft of achieved desires causes suffering, but that actual yearning for physical, material things distances us from spiritual things, and it leads us down a constant hole of more wanting which cannot ever be fulfilled. It is a common question many people have about the second noble truth, so much so that it is addressed on this page, and that is the first result I got for the search query "buddhism wanting".

But what the Buddha says is that when our desires, our craving, our constant discontent with what we have, and our continual longing for more and more does cause us suffering, then we should stop doing it. He asks us to make a difference between what we need and what we want and to strive for our needs and modify our wants. He tells us that our needs can be fulfilled but that our wants are endless - a bottomless pit. There are needs that are essential, fundamental and that can be obtained and this we should work towards. Desires beyond this should be gradually lessened.

To simplify it even further, it is not about having what you want, but wanting what you have. It is not about needing what you want, but wanting what you need. It is not about just losing all motivation, it is about reprioritizing your life and adjusting your mind. All happiness is in the mind. It is not in a new car or a snazzy job or fancy clothes.

Originally posted by Manula
reply to post by DerepentLEstranger

 

"Indeed, poor OP"
Why the attacks on my person?
Can´t you respect my opinion?
I don't buy that "Wanting is suffering" idea, but I respect your different view.
Do I think it is coward to eliminate wanting? Yes, and i have done that in the past. Didn't work for me.
So do you WANT to be here talking here on ATS? Or you were zombie-like led to register and then Metaphysics forum?
We all have wanting, some are corageuous enough to live it, others hide from the ever lasting creation. How can you create, if you dont WANT to create?
Will is the most basic force of existence.

you want to reason away or seek a rationale for that which instead
has an Irationale and which must be experienced

opinion?
lol you sound like Ellsworth M. Toohey from The Fountainhead

opinionated more like, judging by your uncalled counter attack
as for my posting in metaphysics after zombie-like registering
what can i say?

apparently checking my profile was too much effort

wanting isn't the problem, it's Obsessive Lust of Result on the one hand
and the excessive literal interpretation of what is meant to be metaphor.

Will is NOT the basic force of the universe

there are only 5 fundamental forces
which are themselves the result of the iterations and interactions of LIGHT and DARKNESS.

but hey, keep trying to force a square peg through an elliptical hole
good day sir

The Pointing Finger Is Not The Moon
Nor is the 'concept' the 'thing'.

When we discuss concepts, we are not discussing the true essence or nature of anything; We are discussing the actual concept itself.

'That which is' can not be named, defined, or contained within words or explanations. 'It' can only be self-evidently observed, experienced, and kgnown. Anything beyond self-evident gnosis is a conceptualized corruption of what is.

All of our meanderings and conceptualizations should only serve as reference points instead of as rules, guidelines, or any absolutes.

Attach too strongly to a concept and we are blinded by the concept. We can not see the truth in front of us because we are focused on the finger pointing instead of seeing beyond to what is being pointed to.

reply to post by wildtimes

There are those of us who want to discuss these things....and have some depth of understanding of them.

less talk and more practice will obtain that deeper understanding
satori can only be experienced not explained, unlike Baraka or Koryoku which can only be transmitted when the student is ready.


empty your cup 1st .

Originally posted by Sahabi
The Pointing Finger Is Not The Moon
Nor is the 'concept' the 'thing'.

indeed but many insist on seeing things from a Digital viewpoint
that which is Analog and meant to be perceived thus.

like the monkey trying to grasp the moon
it's only a reflection upon the waters
thus the monkey drowns

Originally posted by Sahabi
The Pointing Finger Is Not The Moon
Nor is the 'concept' the 'thing'.

When we discuss concepts, we are not discussing the true essence or nature of anything; We are discussing the actual concept itself.

'That which is' can not be named, defined, or contained within words or explanations. 'It' can only be self-evidently observed, experienced, and kgnown. Anything beyond self-evident gnosis is a conceptualized corruption of what is.

All of our meanderings and conceptualizations should only serve as reference points instead of as rules, guidelines, or any absolutes.

Attach too strongly to a concept and we are blinded by the concept. We can not see the truth in front of us because we are focused on the finger pointing instead of seeing beyond to what is being pointed to.

There is something that is not a concept and that is what the finger is pointing to....
You say It can be observed but It cannot because It is what is observing.
Can the seer be seen?

We are all one

I cannot see how "we are all one" (which also seems to me the most contradictory statement I've ever heard).

It is apparent and observable that we are not all one. Try walking down the street, bump into someone and become one. It doesn't happen, because two different objects cannot be in the same place at the same time. Sure, we may all be made of the same stuff, but so are skyscrapers, and they are many, not one.

Who is this "we" anyways? Is it humans? because wouldn't everything else also have to be a part of this one?

If we were one, why doesn't everyone act like it? Because of the ego? But if the ego is a part of us, wouldn't it be part of the one as well? wouldn't hate and every other negative trait of humanity also be part of the one?

Look, we are NOT all one; and this is refuted by simply counting past that number.

The belief that the mind and rational thoughts are the root of all the suffering

This is very big in Buddhism. Maybe I didn't understand it well but here is my opinion on this.
We have two sides of the brain. The emotions side and the rational thinking side. One is masculine the other is feminine.
We all want good feelings: everything we do is to feel good, we want money to feel secure and safe, we want girls to feel pleasure, we want a twin flame to feel love, we want cars to feel admired (for those in that want it for this) etc etc.
Everything we do is ultimately to feel a good emotion and avoid feeling bad. Of course we do a lot of things out of fear, to avoid bad emotions.
But its not the things of life we really want, its not the things of life we don't want.
We want good feelings and we want to avoid bad feeling.
So the emotional side of the brain is the end result.
So rational side of the brain is the tool.
We have to be intelligent to learn how to feel good and avoid feeling bad.
First we start by being intelligent getting those experiences that trigger good emotions, and we avoid those experiences that trigger bad emotions.
Then, eventually, we get wiser and we learn that we don't really need to be emotionally dependent from outside forces we cant control, and we start to control our feelings, claiming our emotional power, the power to feel what we want, no matter what happens.
We eventually understand that we can be calm before the storm.
But our rational thinking is important because without it, we never claim control over our emotions.

reply to post by Manula


You 'want' to feel good, you don't 'want' to feel bad. This is the problem of wanting, the problem is you will only get what there is. What is, is what is. Then you (the believed in separate entity) does not want this, you want that. Then you are trapped with wanting.
Free yourself from 'wanting' to feel good or bad.
youtu.be...

reply to post by nithaiah


Attachment (Buddhism)

You are talking about attachment.
Being emotionally dependent of the outside impermanent things of this world to feel good is attachment.
It is different than denying wanting or wishes.
I try to practice non-attachment, because i completely agree with that concept.
Attachment is like an addiction, an attached person feels good because of the presence of impermanent things he cant control (cars, girls, health, money, almost everything) so when those things go away,and they always go, he is left in addiction suffering the hangover. His feelings are bound to a reality he cant control, so bad feelings are inevitable, he is an emotional slave.
That has nothing to do with denying wishes or wanting.
A non-attached person can feel good no matter what is present, he lives and enjoys what is present (unconditional love for life and existence) but he may still want to create, he may steel want to do stuff, he may steel want to act upon reality, he may steel want to co-create.

reply to post by DerepentLEstranger


Wanting and attachment
You are talking about attachment.
To want to do something is quite different then being attached to things, like an addict.
An attached person is emotionally bound to things of this world that are impermanent, that he cant control, so he is an emotional slave, his emotions are controlled by others and by the world outside.
I try to practice non-attachment.
But eliminating wanting and wishes has nothing to do with it.
Creation and co-creation needs to be wanted before it happens.
Existence depends on the will to create.
So, for me, they are very different.
The problem isn't wanting, the problem is attachment.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

There is something that is not a concept and that is what the finger is pointing to....

Exactly! But when this "something" is explained and described instead of being observed, experienced, or kgnown we begin to lose sight of the 'thing' and once again are blinded by the concept or pointing finger.

You say It can be observed but It cannot because It is what is observing. Can the seer be seen?

All of this 'physical reality' is One through the interconnectedness of energy-matter and particles-waves. So when we literally look into a physical mirror, we see Self as the mirror, we see Self as the reflection, we see Self standing in front of the mirror, we see Self as the room, objects, energy, and information in the room, we are Self that is conscious, and we are Self that is purely aware. Is this not an example of the Seer seeing the seen and seer, for All is Self?

Peace.

One must first find one Self alone, before knowing oneself in and as all things.
Alone is all one.

reply to post by Itisnowagain


"Can the seer be seen?"

So we are awareness, each soul is awareness, every soul is part of the same being, but can you understand my point?
There is a being that is evolving, he is changing, our souls evolve, the one soul evolves, and he acts on his creation, the manifested reality is his creation, which is also evolving.
Its the wish to experience life, create, and evolve that makes the world go round.
The wish, the will to live, to create, to act, to evolve must exist.
So wishes and wanting are important, attachment is another story.

reply to post by Manula


*headdeskfacepalmaneurysm* I am leaving this thread before I violate ToS so severely that I am banned.

Have fun with your whatever.

reply to post by nithaiah


What happened? Why this last post?