Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 5:07:41 GMT
Here's a little thought for the thought police: Thinking that one's thinking results in suffering leads to a sense of separation. Wrong, it's the root of the sense of separation. You are thinking that you are in charge of your thoughts, and that they are the cause, therefore, making you the cause, and the world the effect. That's a ridge people! A ridge of deep seated duality which leaves one vulnerable to all kinds of regrets (when he is having a thought he wants to avoid, for example). As we all know, regrets are a suffering (no?), two gigantic no-no-noes in spiritual gab of any kind. If everything is onesies, and there are not separate selvsies, then what you think, what you feel and how you act is as unavoidable as rain and shine. If you being the cause of your thought, and the "All Is One, bruh" mantra are both in effect, then it means that you create your thought, and you create the other's thought, and you create all the suffering as well, so you can't really complain about anything, not even of others' being a pain in the ass to comply with your dissonant fantasy. Ain't that simple? You know what's even simpler? The root of all suffering is self-importance.  |
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647 
|
Post by Tenka on Jul 7, 2017 7:04:09 GMT
As soon as one entertains a thought there is recognition that I am entertaining a thought that I am .
There is a vast difference between entertaining a thought and not being able to do so .
I have no problem associating suffering in the thought that I am .
|
|
Enigma
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 13,969
|
Post by Enigma on Jul 7, 2017 15:23:42 GMT
Here's a little thought for the thought police: Thinking that one's thinking results in suffering leads to a sense of separation. Wrong, it's the root of the sense of separation. You are thinking that you are in charge of your thoughts, and that they are the cause, therefore, making you the cause, and the world the effect. That's a ridge people! A ridge of deep seated duality which leaves one vulnerable to all kinds of regrets (when he is having a thought he wants to avoid, for example). As we all know, regrets are a suffering (no?), two gigantic no-no-noes in spiritual gab of any kind. If everything is onesies, and there are not separate selvsies, then what you think, what you feel and how you act is as unavoidable as rain and shine. If you being the cause of your thought, and the "All Is One, bruh" mantra are both in effect, then it means that you create your thought, and you create the other's thought, and you create all the suffering as well, so you can't really complain about anything, not even of others' being a pain in the ass to comply with your dissonant fantasy. Ain't that simple? Know that all is one, and know that thought is the means by which Consciousness creates psychological suffering. There's no conflict between those ideas and you, the person, have never been the cause of anything and aren't responsible. Consciousness is impersonal, and so also is not responsible. You might also want to explore the idea of context. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2017 17:58:57 GMT
You know what's even simpler? The root of all suffering is self-importance. I don't think so. If there is less self-importance, there is more of everything else and therefore less suffering, isn't it? When the speck in the vastness of the cosmos loses it's self-importance, that is the end of suffering. |
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jul 7, 2017 18:49:22 GMT
As soon as one entertains a thought there is recognition that I am entertaining a thought that I am . There is a vast difference between entertaining a thought and not being able to do so . I have no problem associating suffering in the thought that I am . I don't understand you. Could you elaborate? You said Thinking that one's thinking results in suffering leads to a sense of separation.I am agreeing that the thought of I am is suffering compared to no thought of I am. The location of where thought derives, arises, manifests in not in totality oneness . It is of individual origin . As soon as you entertain a thought your already fcuked  |
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jul 14, 2017 12:15:21 GMT
You said Thinking that one's thinking results in suffering leads to a sense of separation.I am agreeing that the thought of I am is suffering compared to no thought of I am. The location of where thought derives, arises, manifests in not in totality oneness . It is of individual origin . As soon as you entertain a thought your already fcuked You didn't agree with me then. I just said that the notion of 'thinking directly results in suffering' means there is a direct cause of suffering, the thinker. That's as clear as separation can get. If there is no real separation, then there is no real source of thought apart from the totality. It's not on you to entertain a thought, or not. Thinking directly results in suffering means the thinker is the cause of suffering . The thought of I am results in suffering . You can't entertain a thought and not entertain individuality within the totality . Whether or not there is real separation or not doesn't nullify the thought that is only individualised . You can't entertain a thought of totality . There never will be a thought of totality . |
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jul 14, 2017 12:59:39 GMT
Thinking directly results in suffering means the thinker is the cause of suffering . The thought of I am results in suffering . You can't entertain a thought and not entertain individuality within the totality . Whether or not there is real separation or not doesn't nullify the thought that is only individualised . You can't entertain a thought of totality . There never will be a thought of totality . If the thinker is the direct cause of suffering, then there is not non-duality. There are many thinkers who are the causes of their suffering. Therefore, the person who is the thinker that causes suffering, is real, therefore reality is that there are multiple persons that think their way into suffering, which makes suffering an unavoidable function of a universe of multiple entities. The thinker's function is to think, which leads me to thinking that I'm a thinker as well, which presumably is the thing that makes me suffer. So, the reality of separation (of thinkers) makes me suffer. It's all natural then. That's how your logic unfolds. I don't buy into non duality . The moment there is a thinker there is duality . Non duality only applies in the realization itself . There is only what you are . There is no thought of it, awareness of it, reflection of it, comparison of it . Individualisation does happen . Suffering happens because of it . Persons, individuals, all pertain to the thought of I am . The only comparison I know that prompts peeps to say they are illusory is based upon the realization itself where no-one is present . That realization is beyond the mind . The thought of what is illusory pertains to the individualised thought that I am . So in this respect it is the illusory self saying the self is illusory . The only thing real is something that is nothing if one's gauges upon realness of the realization . It's like a reflection of Self saying I am a reflection lol . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 14, 2017 18:30:24 GMT
If there is less self-importance, there is more of everything else and therefore less suffering, isn't it? When the speck in the vastness of the cosmos loses it's self-importance, that is the end of suffering. I'm not sure about that. If I don't think that I am important, I will lose many things in terms of... importance, drive and resources. I'm not getting the thought that leads to the conclusion that self-importance means more of everything else. And that more of everything else means less suffering. Self-Importance, drive and resources may be signs of success in the outer world, but have little to do with the success as a joyous being on the inside. |
|
Tenka
Super Duper Senior Member
Posts: 3,647
|
Post by Tenka on Jul 14, 2017 18:57:21 GMT
I don't buy into non duality . The moment there is a thinker there is duality . Non duality only applies in the realization itself . There is only what you are . There is no thought of it, awareness of it, reflection of it, comparison of it . Individualisation does happen . Suffering happens because of it . Persons, individuals, all pertain to the thought of I am . The only comparison I know that prompts peeps to say they are illusory is based upon the realization itself where no-one is present . That realization is beyond the mind . The thought of what is illusory pertains to the individualised thought that I am . So in this respect it is the illusory self saying the self is illusory . The only thing real is something that is nothing if one's gauges upon realness of the realization . It's like a reflection of Self saying I am a reflection lol . Suffering happens because of individualization. Individualization happens because of what?... Individualisation happens because there is the happening of it . There is the journey back to totality so it seems as if the journey and all that entails is key . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 15, 2017 2:04:52 GMT
Suffering happens because of individualization. Individualization happens because of what?... Individualisation happens because there is the happening of it . There is the journey back to totality so it seems as if the journey and all that entails is key . It happens because of a prejudice that was fed to you as a child, by your parents, society and your Christian religion. |
|
