|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 14, 2024 18:42:19 GMT
Get rid of the separate someone who 'wants' in that self-identified manner, and where is even the idea of "application" of "my" potential? It's strange you invoked the pointer "infinite" there, as you reference that which is "limited appearance only." A context mix?  |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 14, 2024 18:44:38 GMT
Such an unnecessary complication of what is simply a personally enjoyed experiential process.
|
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 18, 2024 4:27:26 GMT
If it starts to happen inside, then I am aware of that it's going to take place in the outer world. I can even predict the people who appears in my world, and it never fails either. So you are saying that if it 'starts to happen inside' you reliably and without fail, experience knowledge of what is to appear in the future, including specific circumstance and specific people involved? If so, that is something indeed! When did that start happening...I assume it wasn't always that way for you? However, even if that is so, and even if since that particular experience first started happening, it has happened that way, without fail, it does not mean it exists as an "inviolable/dictating" LAW...that you can call an Absolute, fundamental Truth that can be depended upon without fail. Experience cannot be relief upon to tell you Absolute, inviolable Truths....to look to experience for Truth is looking in the wrong direction. All you can know for certain is experience/experiential content as it imminently arises. All else is a memory or imagined future. Thus, even your recalled experience that is now a present memory/idea, cannot be said to represent an actual, "existent" happening... You are free to believe whatever you want. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 18, 2024 17:53:40 GMT
So you are saying that if it 'starts to happen inside' you reliably and without fail, experience knowledge of what is to appear in the future, including specific circumstance and specific people involved? If so, that is something indeed! When did that start happening...I assume it wasn't always that way for you? However, even if that is so, and even if since that particular experience first started happening, it has happened that way, without fail, it does not mean it exists as an "inviolable/dictating" LAW...that you can call an Absolute, fundamental Truth that can be depended upon without fail. Experience cannot be relief upon to tell you Absolute, inviolable Truths....to look to experience for Truth is looking in the wrong direction. All you can know for certain is experience/experiential content as it imminently arises. All else is a memory or imagined future. Thus, even your recalled experience that is now a present memory/idea, cannot be said to represent an actual, "existent" happening... You are free to believe whatever you want. If we're talkin' Truth, that is not actually so.  We don't choose our beliefs. But really, what I'm saying there has realization underlying it and while the words that point to the inherent absence behind them, might sound like nothing more than a conclusion or a belief, they don't really fit the bill. Nothing within experience can be relied upon to tell you the fundamental, Absolute Truth. That's not a belief if there really has been realization/seeing through. Bottom line, regardless of how many times you experience things unfolding in a particular sequence, a particular manner, you cannot declare that manner of unfolding to be an Absolute, inviolable 'Law/Truth.' If there were inviolable, fundamental, existential Laws/Truths that governed and dictated what can/will appear, that would equal actual limitation....actual separation.... and there is none. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 20, 2024 6:57:29 GMT
You are free to believe whatever you want. If we're talkin' Truth, that is not actually so. We don't choose our beliefs. But really, what I'm saying there has realization underlying it and while the words that point to the inherent absence behind them, might sound like nothing more than a conclusion or a belief, they don't really fit the bill. Nothing within experience can be relied upon to tell you the fundamental, Absolute Truth. That's not a belief if there really has been realization/seeing through. Bottom line, regardless of how many times you experience things unfolding in a particular sequence, a particular manner, you cannot declare that manner of unfolding to be an Absolute, inviolable 'Law/Truth.' If there were inviolable, fundamental, existential Laws/Truths that governed and dictated what can/will appear, that would equal actual limitation....actual separation.... and there is none. I believe nothing causes suffering in our life except when we chase the particular experience. This is the fundamental problem to all. As long as long we remain not chasing anything, we are in bliss, the day we start chasing, we are not only in the problematic situation but also in a situation where we can't stop chasing too. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 20, 2024 18:47:01 GMT
If we're talkin' Truth, that is not actually so. We don't choose our beliefs. But really, what I'm saying there has realization underlying it and while the words that point to the inherent absence behind them, might sound like nothing more than a conclusion or a belief, they don't really fit the bill. Nothing within experience can be relied upon to tell you the fundamental, Absolute Truth. That's not a belief if there really has been realization/seeing through. Bottom line, regardless of how many times you experience things unfolding in a particular sequence, a particular manner, you cannot declare that manner of unfolding to be an Absolute, inviolable 'Law/Truth.' If there were inviolable, fundamental, existential Laws/Truths that governed and dictated what can/will appear, that would equal actual limitation....actual separation.... and there is none. I believe nothing causes suffering in our life except when we chase the particular experience. This is the fundamental problem to all. As long as long we remain not chasing anything, we are in bliss, the day we start chasing, we are not only in the problematic situation but also in a situation where we can't stop chasing too. But there is no you/entity/someone/something that has control over whether or not you chase after a particular experience. The "chasing after/grasping" is simply part and parcel of the delusion of mistaking yourself to be a separate, volitional entity. And it's not really accurate to say that chasing/grasping "causes" suffering.....it's more apt to say that grasping for something other than this, is "a facet" of suffering. The impetus to grasp for something "other than this," indicates the presence of a deep, fundamental judgment towards life and it's naturally occurring ups/downs....a fundamental intolerance towards the fact that in life, ya win some/ya lose some. But sure, "where/when" there IS grasping/chasing for something other than what is, it's fair to say that the mechanism towards deep miscontent/sense of life being intolerable (suffering) even if not readily present in that moment, is well in play. Grasping/chasing after circumstance is not causal in the way you seem to be indicating...rather, it's a facet of having erroneously imagined SVP/separation in play. The deep discontent with life that is the crux of an impetus to grasp/chase after something different does not go away simply because the person decides he would be better without it. That deep discontent dissolves when the SVP gets seen through. |
|
|
|
Post by Gopal on Mar 21, 2024 4:51:38 GMT
I believe nothing causes suffering in our life except when we chase the particular experience. This is the fundamental problem to all. As long as long we remain not chasing anything, we are in bliss, the day we start chasing, we are not only in the problematic situation but also in a situation where we can't stop chasing too. But there is no you/entity/someone/something that has control over whether or not you chase after a particular experience. The "chasing after/grasping" is simply part and parcel of the delusion of mistaking yourself to be a separate, volitional entity. And it's not really accurate to say that chasing/grasping "causes" suffering.....it's more apt to say that grasping for something other than this, is "a facet" of suffering. The impetus to grasp for something "other than this," indicates the presence of a deep, fundamental judgment towards life and it's naturally occurring ups/downs....a fundamental intolerance towards the fact that in life, ya win some/ya lose some. But sure, "where/when" there IS grasping/chasing for something other than what is, it's fair to say that the mechanism towards deep miscontent/sense of life being intolerable (suffering) even if not readily present in that moment, is well in play. Grasping/chasing after circumstance is not causal in the way you seem to be indicating...rather, it's a facet of having erroneously imagined SVP/separation in play. The deep discontent with life that is the crux of an impetus to grasp/chase after something different does not go away simply because the person decides he would be better without it. That deep discontent dissolves when the SVP gets seen through. That's what I meant in my last paragraph, but as usual, you are always willing to refute whatever I say, therefore you started your argument. But that's okay. Chasing happens because of the discontent in this moment. And the problem is, this triggers lots of other chasing in our life, for an example, it creates the problem, and we are triggered to solve the problem(chasing) but it would never be solved. In fact, this is the created problem for us to solve, there is no real problem indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Mar 21, 2024 5:00:29 GMT
But there is no you/entity/someone/something that has control over whether or not you chase after a particular experience. The "chasing after/grasping" is simply part and parcel of the delusion of mistaking yourself to be a separate, volitional entity. And it's not really accurate to say that chasing/grasping "causes" suffering.....it's more apt to say that grasping for something other than this, is "a facet" of suffering. The impetus to grasp for something "other than this," indicates the presence of a deep, fundamental judgment towards life and it's naturally occurring ups/downs....a fundamental intolerance towards the fact that in life, ya win some/ya lose some. But sure, "where/when" there IS grasping/chasing for something other than what is, it's fair to say that the mechanism towards deep miscontent/sense of life being intolerable (suffering) even if not readily present in that moment, is well in play. Grasping/chasing after circumstance is not causal in the way you seem to be indicating...rather, it's a facet of having erroneously imagined SVP/separation in play. The deep discontent with life that is the crux of an impetus to grasp/chase after something different does not go away simply because the person decides he would be better without it. That deep discontent dissolves when the SVP gets seen through. , Okay. The way you phrased your post, it sounded as though you were very much invoking causation, but if you say no, I'll accept that. I do recognize that while you've become very adept at written English, there is still at times perhaps a bit of language barrier in play. really? I guess the times I've commended you for your clarity or outright agree with what you've said in the past few months just flew by unnoticed? I'd say I'm always up for you explaining what you mean and if I've misconstrued you position, and again, that is because I do recognize something might be getting lost in the language difference....did ya wake up on the wrong of the side this morn or something..? Exactly. The rest of the paragraph is a little convoluted and I'm not sure I grasp what you're saying, but on the bolded, a heart-felt "agreed"! |
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 2, 2024 19:12:42 GMT
I think this particular quote most aptly displays the most glaring of nonsensical premises put forth by LOA/deliberate creation teachings.
The belief is, that so long as there is focus/attention upon the lack of that which is desired/wanted, you will be unable to create/manifest the desired thing/condition. But, IF you can direct attention/focus away from that lackful condition, your desire WILL manifest.
What they're missing is that if/when there is no longer an immediate, arising/appearing sense of lack, ongoing ideation about what is wrong/what I do not have, that I need to have in order to be okay, there is also then, an absence of formulated, imminent "need-based want/desire" for experience to be anything other than what "it imminently is."
There is simply no way you get to keep the "want/desire" but get rid of the idea that there is something of great/fundamental importance, that is missing from experience.
If you get rid of the focus upon fundamental lack/limitation, you also necessarily get rid of want/desire that is to degree that you would "try" to control experiential content via control of thought/feeling.
The attempt to control mind content....thoughts and feeling content is a fool's errand. It might seem as though as a person, you are adept at doing that, but that sense of doership...of taking and enacting control over arising thought/direction of focus and feeling, is an illusion/delusion.
The Truth is, it's all part and parcel of One, singular expression....the person, his thoughts/feelings, manifest conditions, present and those imagined as 'future happenings,' all of it, indivisible...none of it is actually lying causal/creative to anything else.
The idea that somehow that seeing/realization can continue to co-abide with a belief in a deliberate creator is pure nonsense. It's akin to suggesting that Oneness can realized while simultaneously experiencing a separate, volitional self. Of course, the realization of Oneness "sees through" the SVP, which means that even though experientially there continues to be an apparent personal "me character," there is no mistaking that for a 'separate/volition creator.'
|
|
|
|
Post by Figgles on Apr 2, 2024 19:22:31 GMT
But there is no you/entity/someone/something that has control over whether or not you chase after a particular experience. The "chasing after/grasping" is simply part and parcel of the delusion of mistaking yourself to be a separate, volitional entity. And it's not really accurate to say that chasing/grasping "causes" suffering.....it's more apt to say that grasping for something other than this, is "a facet" of suffering. The impetus to grasp for something "other than this," indicates the presence of a deep, fundamental judgment towards life and it's naturally occurring ups/downs....a fundamental intolerance towards the fact that in life, ya win some/ya lose some. But sure, "where/when" there IS grasping/chasing for something other than what is, it's fair to say that the mechanism towards deep miscontent/sense of life being intolerable (suffering) even if not readily present in that moment, is well in play. Grasping/chasing after circumstance is not causal in the way you seem to be indicating...rather, it's a facet of having erroneously imagined SVP/separation in play. The deep discontent with life that is the crux of an impetus to grasp/chase after something different does not go away simply because the person decides he would be better without it. That deep discontent dissolves when the SVP gets seen through. That's what I meant in my last paragraph, but as usual, you are always willing to refute whatever I say, therefore you started your argument. But that's okay. Chasing happens because of the discontent in this moment. And the problem is, this triggers lots of other chasing in our life, for an example, it creates the problem, and we are triggered to solve the problem(chasing) but it would never be solved. In fact, this is the created problem for us to solve, there is no real problem indeed. Applied to what I've said in last post, the bolded quite perfectly applies. A formulated desire/want, also happens because of the fundamental discontent with this moment. The AH quote posits a situation whereby there can be both a deep enough discontent with this moment that one would embark upon a practice to try to control thought/feeling in order to manifest what is desired, AND an absence of discontent with this moment. There's a failure to see that if there is an absence of discontent with this moment, then there is ALSO an absence of that depth of desire/want. Very simply, When the impetus to chase after something "different than what is," is no longer in play, need-based desires/wants are no longer in play. That means that an interest in pursuing a practice whereby you can supposedly create/control outcomes, would no longer be in play. (...and just in case you think otherwise, I am fully agreeing with you here. ) |
|
We don't choose our beliefs.