|
|
Post by tathagata on Nov 22, 2011 6:40:20 GMT
So Tat, are you saying to simply surrender to life, accept you , the world and everything in it for the way it is? Live all your days the best you can and have no fear of anything for fear is only a thought within the mind anyway. that depends on what you're looking for, and whether you are looking at all lol if you are looking for happiness or contentment...surrender to life and accept everything without attachment...the moment blossems this way...this is also the result of not looking for anything at all hehehe but if you're looking for ultimate truth...enlightenment...full and intimate awareness ofcompleteness of being/nonbeing.... then not only surrender to to life, but surrender the doer, the one doing the living...surrender it all...surrender even your life... I've often said that I was never so dead as when I was alive, and never so alive as when I surrendered myself away into nonbeing. and as a side affect, i'm much more active even though I never make choices anymore lol. |
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 22, 2011 15:32:36 GMT
Ok, got the happiness, contentment thing down, surrender to the now, reality got it no prob. I understand the surrender the doer part and at times operate without it but I still get a little hung up if that makes sense. Thanks for your insights. On a side note you and Gurth say you don't make choices but is not- not making a choice a choice not to make it? hehe For you had to have used you volition to not act or react to the thoughts to do whatever your choosing not to do! Just like one who say's; "I don't believe" really is just the same as it saying; "I believe it doesn't" for who is doing the believing, or is doing the thinking who is choosing not to choose? Example: the statment; "I don't believe in God" is incorrect as in truth it is; "I believe God doesn't exist." for who is making the choice, who IS doing the "not believing?" for in order Not to believe in something there must be something Not to believe in.....
|
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Nov 23, 2011 3:11:33 GMT
We are kinda getting into semantics at this point, but that's okay, good semantics develop "Skilful means" lol
In some ways you can say I make choices, because if there are 10 things in the fridge to eat and I eat one, you can say I chose that one...so maybe better semantics are to say I never way options.... I never make decisions.
I don't go to the fridge and between the ten options.
When I find myself at the fridge I look inside at the food, scan the shelves with no thoughts occurring, see the food I am am going to eat with knowing which one it will be before I reach for it, I prepare it, then I eat it.
There is no decision and no saying of options...no thought processes driving a choice based on preference or ideas of what I should or should be eating etc.
There is only action. I don't plan anything ahead of time, I don't decide it's time to go to sleep or get out of bed.
Doing just happens or doesn't happen, but choices are not made.
There was never a choice to not make choices either...choicelessness is just another thing I find happening.
|
|
|
|
Post by tathagata on Nov 23, 2011 3:13:40 GMT
But as far as I know, in the next moment I might make a choice lol...that's a part of being surrendered and choiceless hehehe
|
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 5:16:06 GMT
"Everyone is a slave of God, but not everyone knows it."
Those who know it know that they are not making choices, as might appear, but that God is making the choices through them.
Those who do not know it think that they themselves are making the choices, but actually it is still God that is making the choices through them.
All this means is that some people are more in the dark concerning their choices than others.
|
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 11:56:18 GMT
We are kinda getting into semantics at this point, but that's okay, good semantics develop "Skilful means" lol In some ways you can say I make choices, because if there are 10 things in the fridge to eat and I eat one, you can say I chose that one...so maybe better semantics are to say I never way options.... I never make decisions. I don't go to the fridge and between the ten options. When I find myself at the fridge I look inside at the food, scan the shelves with no thoughts occurring, see the food I am am going to eat with knowing which one it will be before I reach for it, I prepare it, then I eat it. There is no decision and no saying of options...no thought processes driving a choice based on preference or ideas of what I should or should be eating etc. There is only action. I don't plan anything ahead of time, I don't decide it's time to go to sleep or get out of bed. Doing just happens or doesn't happen, but choices are not made. There was never a choice to not make choices either...choicelessness is just another thing I find happening. Choice-less awareness is what you're describing. Its like desire. All the enlightened masters say to remove all desire. But to remove it is to "try" and stop it but "who" is doing the trying? What they're teaching is " to be" (present-tense)desire-less is " to be" choice-less which really is " to be" thought-less which creates allowing and acceptance which originates from understanding "who" was (past-tense) doing the desiring hence "ego" or false identity. ;D |
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 12:08:11 GMT
"Everyone is a slave of God, but not everyone knows it." Those who know it know that they are not making choices, as might appear, but that God is making the choices through them. Those who do not know it think that they themselves are making the choices, but actually it is still God that is making the choices through them. All this means is that some people are more in the dark concerning their choices than others. So we have no free will then? So who is responsible for the atrocities the world has suffered through? The question is which "God" are they a slave to? The God of thought (deceiver) or the God of thought-less-ness (truth-know-er)? And if there is no "you" then who exactly is this slave; the body? A salve is made to fear the very freedom it so desires and is determined not by the color of its skin but by the submission of its volition to the will of some"thing" else. |
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 13:21:50 GMT
"Everyone is a slave of God, but not everyone knows it." Those who know it know that they are not making choices, as might appear, but that God is making the choices through them. Those who do not know it think that they themselves are making the choices, but actually it is still God that is making the choices through them. All this means is that some people are more in the dark concerning their choices than others. So we have no free will then? So who is responsible for the atrocities the world has suffered through? The question is which "God" are they a slave to? The God of thought (deceiver) or the God of thought-less-ness (truth-know-er)? And if there is no "you" then who exactly is this slave; the body? A salve is made to fear the very freedom it so desires and is determined not by the color of its skin but by the submission of its volition to the will of some"thing" else. It seems to me that your argument is coming from a state of non-acceptance. Not being accepting of what appear to you to be atrocities. Events which you seek to explain in terms of a human morality. Objectively speaking, there is no good and evil, as everything that happens is the will of God. In terms of pantheism, God is the All, the totality of the universe. There can be only one God, only one universe, for if there were two universes the totality of the two would constitute the true universe. One cannot meaningfully then ask "which God" (which universe). This universe possesses the one spirit, the one will. Where is your and my place in this universe? Being parts of it, we are parts of God. We possess parts of the one spirit, but not the whole of it. It's a question of the whole versus the part. We have parts of the free will of God, but these parts are slaves to the whole. The parts may rebel against the whole, in theory, but in practice such parts are like a cancer which might go so far, but apparently not further, before the whole strikes back and destroys them. Like a wise, all-powerful surgeon. I call these parts slaves because their free-will is severely limited. So limited that any rebellion against the whole is futile. Our feelings are partly designed to warn us when we are setting ourselves in opposition to the will of God. It makes us feel bad. It is wiser to accept the will of God, not to feel critical of what seem to be atrocities, but nevertheless to follow God-given impulses to remove what appear to be atrocities. The fact that they appear to you to be atrocities is an indication that it is God's will that you fight them. This is the paradox: by fighting them it appears that you are not accepting them. But you are accepting them by recognising them as facts, and recognising that they were put there by God, possibly with the very intention that we should remove them. Why would God do this? We can only guess. One answer is that is evil is necessary, simply because good cannot exist without it. So then God created evil so that good could exist. (I am speaking of good and evil here in the subjective sense). I am not pretending that the way I see it is the "correct" way (if that would mean anything). It is simply the way I see it. |
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 13:37:29 GMT
I only threw those questions out there to generate a conversation as they are not answerable as absolute truth. hehe I agree with you on the point that it seem that one can use its volition to simply accept and do the will of "God" and thus be a creator for the "good" or it can use its volition to not accept and go against the will of "God" thus causing internal and external suffering which will eventually lead the being to transform its un wise use of its volition and turn and accept the will of "God" thus becoming a co-creator for the good with its creator hence, by accepting the will of "reality" you suffer not and by not accepting the will of reality you are brought to acceptance thus the intelligent plan is created in perfection. This is IMVHO
|
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 23, 2011 13:46:01 GMT
Yes, I agree with that.
Your questions were good ones as they are the ones that most people are asking all the time, and they need to be answered. So I was writing for that "most people", suspecting that you were not being entirely yourself (I must know something about you by now!)
Added as edit:
I will confess I felt quite pleased with my reply just after I posted it. So your questions also served the purpose of making me put my ideas in order and try to express them effectively...
|
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 23, 2011 14:29:14 GMT
hehe this is how we learn from each other and yes they (these questions) really make us look deep within and learn how to use our "skillful means" to express our ideas as tat would say. And yes we are getting to know each other. It amazes me how we all or at least I have not met any of you face to face yet we know a depth of each other that most "best friends" don't share. Its a shame the world is not open minded and affraid to reveal their depth of inner self. but I accept that and I look forward to the day it will thus its not a shame but the truth-reality. hehe
|
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Nov 24, 2011 14:04:02 GMT
Our feelings are partly designed to warn us when we are setting ourselves in opposition to the will of God. It makes us feel bad.
Our feelings are a direct result of what we're thinking. They act as a built in biofeedback mechanism to tell us where our thinking is based. This is a principle of the psychology of mind and those who understand this become the owner or master of their life thus, they are the thinker of their thoughts and use this knowledge to create positive or negative or neutral feelings solely based on what they choose to think about. The human natural neutral psychological state is one of contentment, peace, joy or bliss and achieved when one is not attached to any thoughts i.e. not thinking as in meditation.
|
|
|
|
Post by gurthbruins on Nov 24, 2011 15:12:44 GMT
Our feelings are partly designed to warn us when we are setting ourselves in opposition to the will of God. It makes us feel bad. Our feelings are a direct result of what we're thinking. They act as a built in biofeedback mechanism to tell us where our thinking is based. This is a principle of the psychology of mind and those who understand this become the owner or master of their life thus, they are the thinker of their thoughts and use this knowledge to create positive or negative or neutral feelings solely based on what they choose to think about. The human natural neutral psychological state is one of contentment, peace, joy or bliss and achieved when one is not attached to any thoughts i.e. not thinking as in meditation. - A radical idea which deserves to be put to the test, imo. - I like to call this state endogenous euphoria, implying that it is automatically generated within oneself without need for a specific cause. It can survive the act of thinking, imo, if the thoughts are not negative. |
|
|
|
Post by popee on Jan 10, 2013 14:22:31 GMT
What are you willing to give up to find the truth? Are you willing to give up the seeker of truth knowing that doing so will mean there may be no one there to appreciate the truth?That's the problem, in order to get to the truth, you have to give up the seeker, you have to surrender him away and give up utterly, at which time you will also be giving up any benefit you hoped to achieve from the truth, because there may be no one there to enjoy the benefit... So it is actually all a a fruitless endeavor that can only be satisfied by giving up on it, and everything else hehehe... Seeking is a fool's errand ... a hamster on the wheel. " but I want to know goddammit " Sorry charlie, you can't. Truth, if Realized, will destroy you. Still wanna play? |
|
|
|
Post by withinsilence on Jan 10, 2013 15:32:57 GMT
What are you willing to give up to find the truth? Are you willing to give up the seeker of truth knowing that doing so will mean there may be no one there to appreciate the truth?That's the problem, in order to get to the truth, you have to give up the seeker, you have to surrender him away and give up utterly, at which time you will also be giving up any benefit you hoped to achieve from the truth, because there may be no one there to enjoy the benefit... So it is actually all a a fruitless endeavor that can only be satisfied by giving up on it, and everything else hehehe... Seeking is a fool's errand ... a hamster on the wheel. " but I want to know goddammit " Sorry charlie, you can't. Truth, if Realized, will destroy you. Still wanna play? Now, ask yourself, how exactly did all of us arrive at this conclusion? was it not originated in seeking? hehe It is not the inquirer which ends the inquiry, but the inquiry which ends the inquirer or it is not the seeker who ends the inquiry, but the inquiry which ends the seeker. Mooji |
|
