PDA

View Full Version : Where science meets spirituality.



Tony
12th November 2013, 09:23
.








Where science meets spirituality.

Science is what is seen.
Spirituality is what sees it.







Tony

Tony
12th November 2013, 09:28
.




Anything we see has no reality.
The reality is in the seeing,
and not in what is seen.





Tony

markpierre
12th November 2013, 09:42
Meets it in the middle don't it?

Heya Tony. Good to see you. Make more videos.

Eram
12th November 2013, 09:45
Hi Tony,

Do you have any prove that anything we see has no reality?
The evidence that that which we see (matter and movement) is in fact reality is overwhelming, although philosophers, religions and science have trough the ages done their best to convince humanity that they do no exist.

"the reality is in the seeing" What you say here, is that our subjective interpretation of reality (that what we see as an observer) is reality itself.
In fact, this is all but reality.
When four people watch a car crash, all four people see something different happening, while in reality it is one and the same car crash that happened in only one way.

Tony
12th November 2013, 10:23
Re: car crash.

Five observers see a car crash. It will be seen from five physical points of view, each different.
However the car crash is actually seen in the mind. Again however, our mind is set up to judge
what it sees through past experiences, so there will be five different mental reactions.
This is what happens in 'ordinary' life...we just re-act, again and again. This fixes us to a limited view point.

What notes the actual scene in the very first instant is our pure awareness (essence).
We all have pure awareness, but it will manifest differently because we are individuals.


Synchronistically and amazingly I just wrote and read an article which describes this nicely!


Our Path, Our Manifestation.

In Tibetan Buddhism there are three aspects to understanding the path. The Ground, the Path and the Fruition.
The Ground is our Buddha nature, the path is our confusion about that Buddha nature, and the Fruition is
recognising that the Path (our confusion) never existed in the first place and that we are the Ground (Buddha nature)
all the time (timelessness)!


This is a passage from 'Re-enlightenment' by Tulku Urgyen Rinpoche.

The qualities of an enlightened buddha are not his qualities; they are the qualities of the buddha nature fully manifest.
We also posses that same quality, but it is hidden, lying dormant.

If our buddha nature is beyond delusion and liberation, can't we also say that we are in essence primordial enlightened?
We could succeed in convincing ourselves with such a philosophical trick, but it's not really true,
because we have already strayed onto the path.

If we had never fallen into confusion, we could rightly claim to be primordially enlightened.
But unfortunately it is too late to claim that. Our precious wish-fulfilling jewel has already fallen into the mud.

Primordial enlightenment means that Ground and Fruition are identical and there is no Path of delusion to be cleared away.
This is definitely different from the situation of us who have already strayed onto the Path and therefore need
to clear away delusion in order to reach Fruition.

Take the example of a myriad of jewels: some are covered in mud, some are clean. All of them are jewels,
but each is distinctly individual. Sentient beings' minds cognise individually, so we have to say that they are separate.

This is quite a good example, to view all beings and buddhas as countless jewels, some covered with dirt, some clean.
They are not identical even though they have the same qualities. Iff the minds of all sentient beings were one,
then when one individual attains enlightenment, everybody else would be liberated at the same moment.

But if you attain enlightenment it doesn't mean I will be enlightened. Understand it this way: although beings have
similar qualities, we are not one. We have the same essence, which is empty and cognisant,
but our form of manifestation is separate, distinct from that of another sentient being.





Tony

Eram
12th November 2013, 10:45
ehm,

I see that you agree with me about individuality and the separateness of observing events or objects through the different individuals in your reply.
But in your second post in this thread you seem to contradict this.
Did I read it wrong?


.




Anything we see has no reality.
The reality is in the seeing,
and not in what is seen.



To me, you seem to be saying here that that which we see has no reality (matter and movement of matter do no exist).
The reality is in the seeing and not in what is seen........ (that which we see is the reality)

So my question still stands:
Do you have any prove for your statement that that which we see has no reality?

markpierre
12th November 2013, 10:52
The problem is you think you can see what's real and what isn't. You're not seeing either if you can tell the difference.

Tony
12th November 2013, 11:02
ehm,

I see that you agree with me about individuality and the separateness of observing events or objects through the different individuals in your reply.
But in your second post in this thread you seem to contradict this.
Did I read it wrong?


.




Anything we see has no reality.
The reality is in the seeing,
and not in what is seen.



To me, you seem to be saying here that that which we see has no reality (matter and movement of matter do no exist).
The reality is in the seeing and not in what is seen........ (that which we see is the reality)

So my question still stands:
Do you have any prove for your statement that that which we see has no reality?

Everything in the universe is created by causes and conditions: it has no inherent reality of its own. Nothing "just appears".
Everything has a beginning, a middle and an end and therefore cannot be said to be truly real. It only has a seeming reality for a period of time. It is our minds that endow these things with solidity and reality, because of our misperception. This aspect needs analytical meditation.

Take a car. It needs all the components to call it a car. Engine, doors, seats, wheels etc. If you remove these, at what point does it cease being a car and become just a pile of metal?

And so it comes back to, what is reality?

If we maintain an ordinary human mindset, we just go around in circles. Through the practice of meditation, and resting in natural awareness, we recognise that the only reality is that pure awareness itself - without this, nothing would be known.

Like space, this pure awareness cannot be said to exist or not exist. It just is. Beyond time and matter. The conceptual mind may find this difficult to understand: only in meditation can it be clearly seen.

The most important point here is that it does require personal work to identify these truths. It is a realisation of the impermanence and unreality of everything that is spiritual practice. Philosophy is something different: this is theoretical, and can never be experienced, but can point out a direction. Experience is beyond words.

Please come back if this is not clear!

Tony

Tony
12th November 2013, 11:10
The problem is you think you can see what's real and what isn't. You're not seeing either if you can tell the difference.

Hello Mark! Hope you're well. It's good to take time out now and again...;)

The reality it in the awareness.
While there is awareness, that is a relative truth - a "me" being "aware".
In pure awareness, which is uncontaminated, "me" dissolves into merely pure awareness.
It's there all the time, but we have corrupted consciousness.

Tony

PS unfortunately, when using words, they have a different meaning for different people When we are trying to describe something that is indescribable...but with goodwill, we can get a flavour (when receiving the pointing out instruction of the nature of mind, this is sometimes done done to the right person at the right time, using only a gesture)

markpierre
12th November 2013, 11:20
I'm good Tony. Strangely cranky and strangely happy. Really enjoying it.
Make videos anyway.

Eram
12th November 2013, 11:49
Thanks for you attempt to explain why matter and movement of matter have no reality of their own Tony.

I see a lot of holes in your explanation however:

Everything has a beginning, a middle and an end and therefore cannot be said to be truly real.
What you describe here is the change to which everything that exist is subject. In esoterics, this is described as matter in motion.
To use this phenomenon as proof for the assumption that this cannot be truly real is like saying that water isn't real because one moment it is part of a cloud, the second moment it s droplet falling to the ground and later on it has become part of the sea.
It is still water, in all forms.


If we maintain an ordinary human mindset, we just go around in circles.
I would use this statement to say that we go around in circles if we keep trying to preach that reality in itself does not exist and that it is only our awareness that is real.
Awareness can only exist if there is matter and the movement of matter to be aware of.
One of the three components of reality can not exist without the other two, can't you see?

To say that only one of three of these components of reality is real and the other two are illusions is highly arbitrary and lacks any solid reasoning in my opinion.
I have never seen anybody provide any evidence for this assumption and would challenge all who believe in this assumption to try.


Like space, this pure awareness cannot be said to exist or not exist. It just is. Beyond time and matter. The conceptual mind may find this difficult to understand: only in meditation can it be clearly seen.

Here you seem to be saying that it can not be proven that awareness exists, but it is just there (because we experience it after all), am I correct?
Why would you deduct that awareness does exist and matter and motion of matter do not exist if we experience all three parts in our daily lives?

If matter and motion of matter do not exist, then awareness can also not exist because what can it be aware of if there is nothing to be aware of?
This would lead us to the question of "what was or is there before creation" doesn't it?
Everything that we do with this question is speculating without any facts (because we don't have any do we?) and therefore prone to wild fiction and fantasies.


The most important point here is that it does require personal work to identify these truths. It is a realisation of the impermanence and unreality of everything that is spiritual practice. Philosophy is something different: this is theoretical, and can never be experienced, but can point out a direction. Experience is beyond words.
I beg to differ.
Any seeker of truth that sets out on the path of enlightenment is to take assumptions like these as truths or at least as working hypotheses and use these to find proof for them, which in the end we never do or can. All we can is to silence the mind (which demands answers in order to build a solid picture of reality) and rest in the higher emotional worlds which we reach if we stop resisting to any grasping of pulling (of these emotions). Then we call ourselves enlightened and "at the end of our travels through life" but in reality we got (temporarily, for the duration of this incarnation) stuck, unable to explore and find truth any longer.

Tony
12th November 2013, 13:03
Hello eram,
We follow the path to reality which suits our temperament.
What makes sense to one may not make sense to another,
this is due to our backgrounds and experience.

I can only start with awareness, to repeat, without that
nothing would be known. In the very subtle depths of
awareness there is that which never changes.
The Buddha called that Shunyata-Emptiness.

It is the mind that argues about this and that.
Pure awareness is....just aware.

What one does with that pure awareness is up to
the individual. Some stay in pure awareness, some
express love.

In expressing love we exhaust or uncover
the storehouse of selfish karmic reactions in the mind.
Every thing comes to pass.



Tony

Dorjezigzag
12th November 2013, 13:17
.




Anything we see has no reality.
The reality is in the seeing,
and not in what is seen.





Tony


In quantum mechanics, the uncertainty principle is any of a variety of mathematical inequalities asserting a fundamental limit to the precision with which certain pairs of physical properties of a particle known as complementary variables, such as position x and momentum p, can be known simultaneously. For instance, the more precisely the position of some particle is determined, the less precisely its momentum can be known, and vice versa.[1] The original heuristic argument that such a limit should exist was given by Werner Heisenberg in 1927, after whom it is sometimes named the Heisenberg principle. A more formal inequality relating the standard deviation of position σx and the standard deviation of momentum σp was derived by Earle Hesse Kennard[2] later that year and by Hermann Weyl[3] in 1928,
\sigma_{x}\sigma_{p} \geq \frac{\hbar}{2},
where ħ is the reduced Planck constant.
Historically, the uncertainty principle has been confused[4][5] with a somewhat similar effect in physics, called the observer effect, which notes that measurements of certain systems cannot be made without affecting the systems. Heisenberg offered such an observer effect at the quantum level (see below) as a physical "explanation" of quantum uncertainty.[6] It has since become clear, however, that the uncertainty principle is inherent in the properties of all wave-like systems,[7] and that it arises in quantum mechanics simply due to the matter wave nature of all quantum objects. Thus, the uncertainty principle actually states a fundamental property of quantum systems, and is not a statement about the observational success of current technology.[8] It must be emphasized that measurement does not mean only a process in which a physicist-observer takes part, but rather any interaction between classical and quantum objects regardless of any observer.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle

Calamus
12th November 2013, 18:08
..........

Nasu
12th November 2013, 21:49
Avalon.... N

greybeard
12th November 2013, 22:06
Awareness is One without a second---it does not need anything to confirm its presence--it just is.
Every object comes and goes. Awareness is eternal.
You are That.
The totality all of it. = Non-duality
Chris

turiya
13th November 2013, 03:56
.


Where science meets spirituality.

Science is what is seen.
Spirituality is what sees it.

Science is witnessing objective reality.
Spirituality is witnessing subjective reality.
Purely witnessing is the only reality... of both worlds... and, of neither.


turiya :cool:

Carmody
13th November 2013, 05:28
ehm,

I see that you agree with me about individuality and the separateness of observing events or objects through the different individuals in your reply.
But in your second post in this thread you seem to contradict this.
Did I read it wrong?


.




Anything we see has no reality.
The reality is in the seeing,
and not in what is seen.



To me, you seem to be saying here that that which we see has no reality (matter and movement of matter do no exist).
The reality is in the seeing and not in what is seen........ (that which we see is the reality)

So my question still stands:
Do you have any prove for your statement that that which we see has no reality?

You are a piece of perception, making an empirical decision.

And in that, the first half of the sentence is dependent on the second, and vice versa.

Other than that expressed bit of 'ergo sum' contrast... as recognition, of difference - we know nothing.

Ie, that it, or the so called 'self'... knows nothing except the bare single point of perception of differences. everything evolves from that. (onward and upward)

The problem is that it gets no more base than that. Reality bottoms out at the area of self and detection.

Descartes mistake, was the idea of basing all upon the self component. thus, he assigned all import in the self as observer, never bothering to delve beyond. Or, at least those who followed Descartes never bother to look beyond.

Bacon, the alchemist, he had it more correct. He decided that self and other must be inseparable. Western society has evolved around following Descartes self enabled thing-a-ma-bob. This has led us down the wrong path, one of forced egoistic based destruction...

Bacon's point was the one that should have been followed. His was basically about 'spooky action at a distance', in all things.

As you can see, you may be suffering a Descartes hangover. One that was imbedded in you since birth.

Eram
13th November 2013, 08:30
As you can see, you may be suffering a Descartes hangover.

I really like that one Carmody ;)

I have read that philosophers like Bacon, Plato, Goethe, Schiller and others were also members of secret orders of esoteric knowledge which enabled them to philosophize from the outside in, instead of working their way up from the inside out which send most philosopher hopelessly astray, like Kant, Fichte, Descartes, Hegel and many more.
The world is still suffering for all that they came up with.
Which goes to show that we need information about reality that comes from further ahead the road, or higher places of observing (higher worlds/dimensions) if we are to succeed in building a society of love, wisdom and freedom.

Right after I read your post, I went to a Dutch news website and the first thing that caught my eye was this:

http://img440.imageshack.us/img440/2544/x8v2.png

Apparently, the news item was about the painter and not the scientist/alchemist/philiospher, but it was a nice coincidence none the less. :)

Eram
13th November 2013, 08:44
Awareness is One without a second---it does not need anything to confirm its presence--it just is.
Every object comes and goes. Awareness is eternal.
You are That.
The totality all of it. = Non-duality
Chris

Hi Chris,

Thank you for your explanation.

Imagine yourself in a point of no reference..... no matter, no past, no future, no movement, no sensory perceptions.... what are you going to be aware of?
It's impossible right?
So you need the others, matter and movement to form awareness.
One can not exist without the other two.

Tony
13th November 2013, 09:35
Philosophy are the words.
Spirituality is the experience.

Eram
13th November 2013, 09:39
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).

Tony
13th November 2013, 10:21
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).



Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Eram
13th November 2013, 10:30
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).



Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Yes, but if we were all to enlighten ourselves (if at all possible) and "carry water and chop wood" for the rest of our lifes, not caring to investigate and model our comprehension of reality any longer, what is to become of humanity?
Isn't this the end of evolution?

skippy
13th November 2013, 10:34
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).



Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Yes, but if we were all to enlighten ourselves (if at all possible) and "carry water and chop wood" for the rest of our lifes, not caring to investigate and model our comprehension of reality any longer, what is to become of humanity?
Isn't this the end of evolution?

Hello Eram, my friend. The moment is now. Nu gebeurt het!

giovonni
13th November 2013, 11:00
good stuff everyone ... but after awhile i just have to stop thinking so much and go where my heart takes me ... :)

Tony
13th November 2013, 11:02
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).



Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Yes, but if we were all to enlighten ourselves (if at all possible) and "carry water and chop wood" for the rest of our lifes, not caring to investigate and model our comprehension of reality any longer, what is to become of humanity?
Isn't this the end of evolution?


Some go to the enlightened realms.
Some go to realms to continue their practice.
Some come back to Earth to practice and benefit others.

Humanity isn't the only existence.

The universe is full of confusion so there is plenty to do.;)


Tony

skippy
13th November 2013, 11:08
good stuff everyone ...

Yes some good distractions this morning.. :)


... but after awhile i just have to stop thinking so much and go where my heart takes me ... :)

.. 'The heart has its reasons, of which reason knows nothing.' (Blaise Pascal, Pensées, 1669).

Tony
13th November 2013, 11:30
MIND AND HEART

We have a heart and a mind, all they need to be, is open.

Defining the heart isn't easy, perhaps we can say
the heart is the experience just before the mind experience.

So an open mind is the messenger of an open heart.
We need both to express love.


A closed mind and a closed heart, does the opposite.



TONY

Eram
13th November 2013, 11:36
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).



Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Yes, but if we were all to enlighten ourselves (if at all possible) and "carry water and chop wood" for the rest of our lifes, not caring to investigate and model our comprehension of reality any longer, what is to become of humanity?
Isn't this the end of evolution?


Hello Eram, my friend. The moment is now. Nu gebeurt het!

I haven't ceased to appreciate the NOW a few times a day Skippy :)

http://theleafsnation.com/uploads/Image/now_watch.jpg

I read "the power of Now" and learned the techniques to get there, which have helped me a lot to be more at ease with myself and my life.

On top of that, I spent a year on meditating and self inquiry in order to get beyond the mind and ego and I have taken the so called truth's that are used in order to "get there" as a working hypotheses, hoping to one day be able to prove them right, although some of them didn't sit well with me.

Here are a few of them:


If we strip all falsehood away, all that is left of us is pure awareness
individuality is a trade of the ego
There is no separateness


It was when a friend of me who brought me in contact with the esoteric model of Hylozoics, written By T. Laurency (http://www.laurency.com/) that I could read another way to explain life and reality and much of what is written there collides with so called truth's that we take for granted when we set out on the path of "enlightenment".

At the moment, I am on the position that these esoteric works make more sense to me and I would very much like to see some one offer some proof for above statements before I would consider to get on that path again.

All I heard so far are explanations that I can find holes in.... sorry!

Valle
13th November 2013, 11:46
A good interview
Epigenetic Medicine and the New Biology of Intention - Dawson Church
rtxjfMfjDDA

Tony
13th November 2013, 12:38
Good morning to you pie'n'eal,

Philosophy is the act of reason, trying to form an acute picture about reality.
The problem with this is that you need to have your facts straight and complete.
Also you have to have place them in the right context.

This is not an easy task.
History bares the evidence of that ;).









Morning Eram,

This is why philosophers argue!;)

Tony

Yes, but if we were all to enlighten ourselves (if at all possible) and "carry water and chop wood" for the rest of our lifes, not caring to investigate and model our comprehension of reality any longer, what is to become of humanity?
Isn't this the end of evolution?


Hello Eram, my friend. The moment is now. Nu gebeurt het!

I haven't ceased to appreciate the NOW a few times a day Skippy :)

http://theleafsnation.com/uploads/Image/now_watch.jpg

I read "the power of Now" and learned the techniques to get there, which have helped me a lot to be more at ease with myself and my life.

On top of that, I spent a year on meditating and self inquiry in order to get beyond the mind and ego and I have taken the so called truth's that are used in order to "get there" as a working hypotheses, hoping to one day be able to prove them right, although some of them didn't sit well with me.

Here are a few of them:


If we strip all falsehood away, all that is left of us is pure awareness
individuality is a trade of the ego
There is no separateness


It was when a friend of me who brought me in contact with the esoteric model of Hylozoics, written By T. Laurency (http://www.laurency.com/) that I could read another way to explain life and reality and much of what is written there collides with so called truth's that we take for granted when we set out on the path of "enlightenment".

At the moment, I am on the position that these esoteric works make more sense to me and I would very much like to see some one offer some proof for above statements before I would consider to get on that path again.

All I heard so far are explanations that I can find holes in.... sorry!





.
One of the problems is talking about this on a forum, is that it can only be a partial discussion.
It needs much study and practice, to get a complete picture. And that will depend on what path one follows,
and the effort we put in.

Then there are the many levels of the same topic to go through. Much of this depends on one's capacity to listen,
and skilfully evaluate. Philosophers will argue about NOW. Absolute experience reveals that Time does not exist,
or be found. Time only relates to things that change.


Unfortunately there are many who write books, and give only a watered down version from ancient text.
Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever.


For some the ultimate truth is disappointing, for others a relief.

We human are arrogant beings picking holes in everything, which is fine, if leads to realisation.
Unfortunately to discover the truth one must find the 'holes' in ourself.


As long as we keep relating to a 'me' (a mental assumption) our understanding will be confused.
I should know, I was angry for years!:confused:



Tony

skippy
13th November 2013, 13:10
Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever.

Tony, in the other thread you are speaking about the 4 noble truths of buddhism, like recognising and treading the path. Do you mind to elaborate a bit further on this part?

Calamus
13th November 2013, 13:35
"..........

Tony
13th November 2013, 14:01
Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever.

Tony, in the other thread you are speaking about the 4 noble truths of buddhism, like recognising and treading the path. Do you mind to elaborate a bit further on this part?

Depending on the context the word "path" can be used to describe our personal journey, or to mean a "tradition" of methods. For example, there are traditions that follow a path to God, and break down the self into selflessness and will eventually arrive at their ultimate nature: they recognise that they are that which they seek. This is at the peak of the mountain, but while we are on the journey up to that summit there are bound to be lots of philosophical discussions about the various paths.

In Buddhist terms, our path is our own confusion. There is the ground, path and fruition. The ground is our absolute nature, the path is our confusion regarding that nature and the fruition is recognition that the ground was there all the time, and that the path never existed (although it does exist on a relative level). Our path is clearing away the confused concepts that we hold, about ourselves and the universe.

Mixing paths is not a good idea as it slows down the process, but having said that, we can learn much from one another.

When referring to the 4 noble truths, the term "path" is the method:

The first noble truth is to recognise that we suffer because of sickness, old age and death: there is a dissatisfaction with life. Our search for happiness creates our suffering.
The second noble truth is the cause of that suffering: this is nothing external, but rather a belief in an acquired image of ourself, which we have to protect and maintain (you can see this at work every day!).
The third noble truth is finding a path that clarifies that suffering, and that suits our temperament: in Buddhism there are many traditions and they have been known to talk at cross purposes...it's not a matter of believing everything you're told, as we have free will - more a suck-it-and-see process.
The fourth noble truth is treading that path. Actually doing it. This means learning how to train the mind into stillness and clarity, and cutting through our habitual reactions by resting in the space created by this mind training, or meditation.

To a certain degree, one could be a Christian Buddhist or a Jewish Buddhist or a scientist Buddhist (which there are), but on a finer level, all distinctions are dropped, when we arrive at shunyata (emptiness)

I've been on many paths until I found the path - and teacher - that suits my temperament perfectly ie that can deal with my anger ;) and I try to follow in his shoes.

Hope that helps
Tony

skippy
13th November 2013, 16:32
"Unfortunately there are many who write books, and give only a watered down version from ancient text. Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever."
This is profound and true in the right context of the word "path".
There are teachings founded in TRUE IDEAS, but the True Path is each Individual, as we can lead ourselves to that 'essence' ...
(I think and hope)

I believe that essence is within us, and that we can lead ourselves to it (cf. Novalis, "The mysterious way goes within"). Following a certain "path" might certainly help a lot, while we all have different backgrounds. We just have to pick one and there are many paths to choose from. For example, Gurdjeff speaks about the path of the monk, the yogi, the fakir, and the 'sly man'. Then we have the path of Jesus and the path of the Buddha (in the original version). In another thread, I spoke about the path of the fool, and I am sure that there are many, many more. I guess that all good paths somehow ends up at the same place.



To a certain degree, one could be a Christian Buddhist or a Jewish Buddhist or a scientist Buddhist (which there are), but on a finer level, all distinctions are dropped, when we arrive at shunyata (emptiness)

I've been on many paths until I found the path - and teacher - that suits my temperament perfectly ie that can deal with my anger ;) and I try to follow in his shoes.
Hope that helps
Tony

Makes sense, thanks Tony :)

Eram
13th November 2013, 21:01
One of the problems is talking about this on a forum, is that it can only be a partial discussion.
It needs much study and practice, to get a complete picture. And that will depend on what path one follows,
and the effort we put in.

Then there are the many levels of the same topic to go through. Much of this depends on one's capacity to listen,
and skilfully evaluate. Philosophers will argue about NOW. Absolute experience reveals that Time does not exist,
or be found. Time only relates to things that change.


Unfortunately there are many who write books, and give only a watered down version from ancient text.
Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever.


For some the ultimate truth is disappointing, for others a relief.

We human are arrogant beings picking holes in everything, which is fine, if leads to realisation.
Unfortunately to discover the truth one must find the 'holes' in ourself.


As long as we keep relating to a 'me' (a mental assumption) our understanding will be confused.
I should know, I was angry for years!:confused:



Tony

I do appreciate the time and effort (and patience ;)) that you put into your replies Tony.
and... much of what you write in this post I relate to.

I'm happy for you that you found peace and got over your anger.

Just to be clear:

I do believe in the clearing of emotions (and while we are at it of mental constructs that are out of touch with reality) and that they bring a rise in consciousness.
It is a good thing to learn about the ego and to get to the point that it is no longer the driver of this vehicle, rather the passenger.
Self inquiry is a very useful tool to raise our vibration and consciousness and dissolve obsolete thought programs.


There are elements though of the enlightenment movement that I can not agree with any more.

I do no longer believe that enlightenment is an end goal of existence. (we do need the mind to explore and to construct ideas about reality)
That we are in essence pure awareness.
That the external world is just an illusion.
And much more that I just can't think of right now.


I'll leave my line of inquiry at it here, since I feel that I have taken more then my share of your patience.

And I can feel that Skippy is more then anxious to steer this conversation away from questions that want to debate whether or not enlightenment and statements that can lead us there are true or not.

:yo:

Tony
13th November 2013, 21:39
One of the problems is talking about this on a forum, is that it can only be a partial discussion.
It needs much study and practice, to get a complete picture. And that will depend on what path one follows,
and the effort we put in.

Then there are the many levels of the same topic to go through. Much of this depends on one's capacity to listen,
and skilfully evaluate. Philosophers will argue about NOW. Absolute experience reveals that Time does not exist,
or be found. Time only relates to things that change.


Unfortunately there are many who write books, and give only a watered down version from ancient text.
Any path can be refined to its essence. We just have to choose one, or float around forever.


For some the ultimate truth is disappointing, for others a relief.

We human are arrogant beings picking holes in everything, which is fine, if leads to realisation.
Unfortunately to discover the truth one must find the 'holes' in ourself.


As long as we keep relating to a 'me' (a mental assumption) our understanding will be confused.
I should know, I was angry for years!:confused:



Tony

I do appreciate the time and effort (and patience ;)) that you put into your replies Tony.
and... much of what you write in this post I relate to.

I'm happy for you that you found peace and got over your anger.

Just to be clear:

I do believe in the clearing of emotions (and while we are at it of mental constructs that are out of touch with reality) and that they bring a rise in consciousness.
It is a good thing to learn about the ego and to get to the point that it is no longer the driver of this vehicle, rather the passenger.
Self inquiry is a very useful tool to raise our vibration and consciousness and dissolve obsolete thought programs.


There are elements though of the enlightenment movement that I can not agree with any more.

I do no longer believe that enlightenment is an end goal of existence. (we do need the mind to explore and to construct ideas about reality)
That we are in essence pure awareness.
That the external world is just an illusion.
And much more that I just can't think of right now.


I'll leave my line of inquiry at it here, since I feel that I have taken more then my share of your patience.

And I can feel that Skippy is more then anxious to steer this conversation away from questions that want to debate whether or not enlightenment and statements that can lead us there are true or not.

:yo:



Hello Eram,

I'd be interested in your conclusions, and this might be helpful to others.
There definitely are many points of view. Even Buddhist do not agree on
even aspect. Re-incarnation being one.

If we do reincarnate, we can come from anywhere in the universe, so it
is natural to have a certain leaning or feeling we cannot always explain.

Take gender confusion for instance!

We are all born with certain tendencies. My brother and I are totally
dissimilar. I find it nature to be part of a Tibetan lineage, my brother
hates anything spiritual.

So, we are not all one, but then again we can have empathy with others,
so there must be a common thread.

We can differ but still have a meeting of minds...harmony.
Then again some believe we are all one.
It's what works for us.



Tony


If you can please keep going.

skippy
13th November 2013, 21:47
Hello Eram, I agree, I posted a bit too much today, but I did try to give it my best shot. It's not an easy subject to capture in phrases. Please is it possible to repeat your main questions and I'll try to respond to it the best I can.

Amitiés, Skippy.

Rocky_Shorz
13th November 2013, 22:01
if you could see what I am sharing, there is no reality, because they are words on a page and you paint the thoughts of your vision far beyond the reality in black and white.

when do your thoughts become reality?

if you share what you know, the reality is once again lost in illusion waiting for others to paint their version of vision...