Spirituality & Becoming What We Aren’t.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

No it was realized.

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Well...there is that school of thought that places impetus on the observer. And they may be right. If they are, then it could stand to reason that we create the reality we live within collectively.

There is indeed that school of thought. It's interesting to note how these schools often place the human mind on such a pedestal (going along with the whole "striving to become what we aren't" motif). But the human faculties of thought, sense, emotion etc. require a reality to translate, to react to, to compute, not the other way around. The idea that we provide the input and the computation seems absurd, to me at least.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

I have made this point many times, however I will make it once more. Thoughts must be used to transfer knowing into language. And I am not speaking ill of thoughts, I am stating facts about them. There is a difference.

reply to post by Itisnowagain

No it was realized.

This is what I'm talking about. The promotion of some "divine inspiration", "realization", understanding, as if your own thinking wasn't the source of your words. Way to take responsibility for what you say. No matter what dress you hide it under, the lace still peers out from beneath.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

No it was realized.

Dude, that requires thought.

re·al·ize [ree-uh-lahyz]
verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by HarryTZ

 

What is contradictory about it at all? The experience is joy. There is nothing 'deeper' in life (and existence) than joy. When you die, what will have mattered about your life? You will eventually forget it, and it will be as if it never happened at all. You say it is 'self-seeking'. What else do you have, but yourself? All experience is experience that you have, utterly alone. You cannot not be 'self-seeking', because all you have is is yourself. The only reason you ever do anything is because it means something to you. This is unavoidable, no matter how you look at it. Spirituality is true selfishness.

It was contradictory because you said, using your thoughts, that thinking was "useless", "self-seeking", "nostalgia" thereby making your thought, in your own mind, worthless and not worth a damn. How should I perceive your words if you call them useless? The very act of using thoughts to get your point across, despite your speaking ill of it, is contradictory.

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

No it was realized.

Dude, that requires thought.

re·al·ize [ree-uh-lahyz]
verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.

Realization happens prior to words to convey the realization. It is impossible to put into words but one tries. How can nothing be put into words - it is not a thing, not a concept, prior to any description and beyond any description.
It is brought to the mind and then the mind has to find words to communicate it to another system (mind)- the system works with symbols and symbols are always limited and can be misinterpreted. A symbol like the word water can never convey that which it tries to convey.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

I have no idea what they perceived. And made no claim of such (reread). I only claim that what they have experienced is the same s the rest of us: what their senses allowed them to perceive.

I know this to be true because you cannot perceive anything you cannot sense, or you would not be perceiving it.

You said that their experience is the same as ours. And you know this how? Sense perception is a very limited perception, and their is perception that is beyond mind/body senses. I would gamble that these Monks have at least discovered that.

reply to post by LesMisanthrope


Well....like a dream....you are pretty much just playing the reality out in your head.

Of course, this requires a context as an input.....which is an interesting question in and of itself.

The human "mind"....that is an interesting topic as well. Can you be certain that your mind is created inside of you? I guess the perspective on what mind actually is would dictate the likelyhood of any kind of simulated reality.

ETA: Please note the caveat in my prior post that stated "collectively". There is no self without other.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

No it was realized.

Dude, that requires thought.

re·al·ize [ree-uh-lahyz]
verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.

Realization happens prior to words to convey the realization. It is impossible to put into words but one tries. How can nothing be put into words - it is not a thing, not a concept, prior to any description and beyond any description.

Realization requires the processing of information - period. That's what thinking is. You think, and then you think about how you want to convey what it is that you just thought. I'm sorry, but you're no different than any other human being with a brain. If I had access to an fMRI machine, we could prove it. You may not like the idea that you think and that your brain processes information, but that's what's happening. Even those Yogi characters on your video links think and process information with their brains. If they didn't, they'd be vegetables and hooked up to machines. Those guys just either lie or they're ignorant of how it is that their own brains function.

Originally posted by Visitor2012

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by Visitor2012

 

I have no idea what they perceived. And made no claim of such (reread). I only claim that what they have experienced is the same s the rest of us: what their senses allowed them to perceive.

I know this to be true because you cannot perceive anything you cannot sense, or you would not be perceiving it.

You said that their experience is the same as ours. And you know this how? Sense perception is a very limited perception, and their is perception that is beyond mind/body senses. I would gamble that these Monks have at least discovered that.

edit on 26-5-2013 by Visitor2012 because: (no reason given)

You are giving a supernatural spin and attempting to create an argument based on that fiction.

Until proven otherwise, all humans have the same perceptive capabilities, only in varying degrees from human to human. Some may see well, some may see not so well, some not at all. In general, however, eyes are part of the human. While i suppose it may be possible that some folks contain capabilities that no other has, that is a bit too messianic for my tastes, until it can be shown.

BTW, your paraphrasing of what I am saying just shows that you still don't understand. I would ask you to read it again, but it seems as though you just may not get it. If that is the case, just forget you read anything I wrote. Seriously.

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

No it was realized.

Dude, that requires thought.

re·al·ize [ree-uh-lahyz]
verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.

Realization happens prior to words to convey the realization.

Realization requires the processing of information - period. That's what thinking is. You think, and then you think about how you want to convey what it is that you just thought. I'm sorry, but you're no different than any other human being with a brain. If I had access to an fMRI machine, we could prove it.

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

It would be interesting to see if our brains look different on a MRI scan.

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Originally posted by NorEaster

Originally posted by Itisnowagain

Thoughts and words will not comfort you - they divide that which is whole - division is conflict.

Did you think this up on your own?

No it was realized.

Dude, that requires thought.

re·al·ize [ree-uh-lahyz]
verb, re·al·ized, re·al·iz·ing.
verb (used with object)
1. to grasp or understand clearly.
2. to make real; give reality to (a hope, fear, plan, etc.).
3. to bring vividly to the mind.

Realization happens prior to words to convey the realization.

Realization requires the processing of information - period. That's what thinking is. You think, and then you think about how you want to convey what it is that you just thought. I'm sorry, but you're no different than any other human being with a brain. If I had access to an fMRI machine, we could prove it.

edit on 5/26/2013 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)

It would be interesting to see if our brains look different on a MRI scan.

It would be. All brains look somewhat unique on an fMRI scan. I would imagine that mine either looks awesome or absolutely disturbing.

reply to post by NorEaster


I saw a programme on tv where Richard Dawkins had a helmet put on to stimulate certain parts of his brain so he could experience the nothingness, the presence or whatever - he experienced something...
They have also done MRI scans on people meditating and their brains do something different to what is considered normal state.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by Itisnowagain

 

No it was realized.

This is what I'm talking about. The promotion of some "divine inspiration", "realization", understanding, as if your own thinking wasn't the source of your words. Way to take responsibility for what you say. No matter what dress you hide it under, the lace still peers out from beneath.

edit on 26-5-2013 by LesMisanthrope because: (no reason given)

All arises out of the nothingness - I am not responsible for what appears.

reply to post by dominicus


Hi,

I am new here ( created a Id so my first post) however I have been visiting ats for some time. I have been reading Ramana Maharshi's teachings and practicing his recommended method of self enquiry namely that of 'who am I'. I have also followed the link on your sig and have been using the awareness watching awareness method. I would like some clarification around this to make sure what I am doing is right. When I hold on to the thought 'who am I' to the exclusion of all thoughts a feeling of I amness arises near the physical heart. A subtle feeling which grows stronger when I observe it and seems to fade away when there are gaps in my practice. Is this feeling of I amness what you are talking about? I am sometimes confused but something continues to pull me towards this. You also talk later in your posts about knowing the energy/force and life/emotion. Could you explain this as well?

Cheers

reply to post by HarryTZ


Damn Harry I was about to crack my fingers, get my dictionary and dive into a heated debate, when I stumbled upon your wondrous and sensational reply to a seemingly misinterpreted yet well written opinion regarding the aspects of spirituality. Not only can one not label such a principle to a fixed identity but words are merely a subjective loss in translation when spirituality is summoned to appear as a physical attribute when it is the complete opposite. I like to think of the mind as the bridge between the physical and spiritual aspects of existence and to record such a concept would be a futile attempt as its roots are as unique as the people that it emanates from. I am fortunate to have met some remarkably wise individuals in my life and one surety that I have gathered from the plethora of deep conversations with these folk is that religion was formed to divide humanity whilst spirituality has always been around to keep us together.

Good things

reply to post by bigfatfurrytexan

Not that i disagree with you....but it is all conjecture. At the age of 40, i have spent a decent amount of time on this subject. I would suspect that when I am 60, i will be in largely the same boat that I am in today, only with 20 more years of thinking behind it.

Ha!!!!!!

I held a "Philosophy of Enlightenment" meeting one time with about a dozen people. There was a guy there, retired, 65, who has been meditating according to the TM (transcendental Meditation) techniques, since he was 20 years old. I ask him, "Sir, since you've meditating just about daily, religiously for the last 40+ years, what is your current state? Surely you have much to tell us."

He said, "No, not much. Most of the time I fall asleep or try and ignore the thoughts, buts it's hard.:"

Then I began to break down the Observer/Awareness, how the Mind operates, the various techniques of Noting and observation, the part of you that is prior to thought, etc.

So he finally says, "Well why haven't you guys had these meetings 40 years ago? I've been meditating the wrong way for the last 40+ years!!!!"

And on that day, I pointed out to him his true nature, and he glimpsed it, was in shock, was never the same again, and since then has been mediating the right way and breaking ground within.

We just don't know. Even a monk who has been locked in a cave for 40 years....all they know are what they have perceived. And given the shoddy state of our ability to percieve, that is just as questionable as anything to me.

"Shoddy" is relative. The "perceiver" is Universal and with everyone. The question the remains, who really knows the nature and subtstance that makes up the Perceiver? I'll stake my money on the monk in the Cave(master of one) over some folks who know some things about a lot of things (jack of all trades)

Luckily we have that in our world. We have the writings of monks who spent 40 years in caves or deserts, going within themselves and uncovering the root causes of ego, and lust, and desire, and cravings, and ignorance, and the Soul, and so forth.

ANd they've left behind blue-prints for us to see also if it's true. In Fact, Buddha even said not to take his word for it, and to go within yourself and see if what he says is true. Which is brilliant because even if you try to prove it is not so, you end up finding Buddha nature and becoming like him.

Those who say it is not so, who haven't looked themselves, are window shopping speculators.

reply to post by NorEaster

We're mimicking the way that reality is structured.

Logic then dictates, that who-ever is responsible for the simulation we are/live in, also programmed all of this to replicate/mimic the way their reality is structured.

Oh, and consciousness is the active and aware sense of self. Your statement concerning consciousness makes no sense. If that's also God, then I feel sorry for Him.

We are, in a sense, units of consciousness, like drops of water. God is the Source of Consciousness, like an Ocean, infinite, knowing and directly experiencing every single thought, blade of grass, strand of hair, molecule of existence, fragment of space, of all there is.

Originally posted by dominicus


Those who say it is not so, who haven't looked themselves, are window shopping speculators.

This I cannot argue with.

There have been times in my life that I have considered this type of pursuit. Buddhism, in all its variations, has always intrigued me. At one time I would have called myself such, were it not for Buddhism not really being a religion, or thought process evolved entirely by that one person. In any event, I am a poor student. And readily acknowledge that.

The sticking point for me is my wife and son. You can chalk it all up to me needing to put to rest business from my younger years....but I am highly driven towards the two of them. There are many roads to salvation, I guess. If one of them does not pass through them, then I will be happily damned.

I have greatly enjoyed reading your posts in this thread. And look forward to continuing to do so.