burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jan 16, 2019 5:33:23 GMT -8
This is what I have to say about " further", and "the residue". In relative terms, the Universe, just keeps on keepin' on.  In absolute terms, there was never anywhere to go. The Zen folk say, "if you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him". This is wisdom, and in a sort of complimentary ignorance, many (if not most) Christians misconceive of the 2nd coming as a literal new Jesus-dude, instead of realizing that Christ is always and ever all around, everywhere and within, and that the resurrection is never not simply one good deep breath away. But, for as long as we're drawing those breaths, we are what we are. As Niz once said, in a dialog where he made reference to his "spiritual family", that "existence implies violence" (in #97), and that "the world, by it's very nature, is painful and transient", and yet, also, that he "knew no sin, nor sinner" and "saw no saints nor sinners". So there's no more or less need to feel guilty about any one, particular, given breath than there is, all of them. This doesn't mean that each breath is the same, in relative terms, just that each is equally innocent, no matter the atrocity it might have fueled. All of us are Christ, so redemption is a forgone conclusion, but none of us are Jesus, so there's always more road in front of us, on the way to Rome.
It would be nice if someone finally got around to explaining existential context, once and for all, because "further" means one thing to a people-peep (what Niz called (probably laughing, in echoing the questioner) a "humanoid" in #97), and quite another, to a greasy spot. But in either case, it's certainly, not meaningless.
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Jan 25, 2019 8:50:56 GMT -8
An evil frog wrote this yesterday: When one is wanting what is happening, he is in the flow of creation and can't help but get what he wants. When he is wanting something other than creation is creating, he can't help but fail to get it. The most powerful manifestation technique is not to create what is wanted but to want what is created.  So uhm ..  .. does that mean that tornadoe's, hurrycanes, tzunami's, floods and wild fires only happen to people-peep-humanoids??  |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 13, 2019 17:09:31 GMT -8
smash that chegg!
just let it go ...
it's something that you'll never know
time will string it's beads so fine
along a supple trick of mind
drop a diamond, it will fall
do the math, to work the hall
the only number that won't lie
is half the total of your eyes
the greasy spot it has no cause
but people peeps don't even pause
ok, so nothin' is impossible
but ain't no magic ever true
gave up that ghost that just ain't you?
you'll still lean down to tie yer shoes
|
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 14, 2019 13:24:36 GMT -8
In plain language: greasy spots are made by smashing a chegg on the hard pavement of reality.  |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 16, 2019 11:03:23 GMT -8
Take the chegg, and make a Caesar salad. Then they sent some of the Pharisees and Herodians to Him in order to trap Him in a statement. They came and said to Him, “Teacher, we know that You are truthful and defer to no one; for You are not partial to any, but teach the way of God in truth. Is it lawful to pay a poll-tax to Caesar, or not? “Shall we pay or shall we not pay?” But He, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, “Why are you testing Me? Bring Me a denarius to look at.” They brought one. And He said to them, “Whose likeness and inscription is this?” And they said to Him, “Caesar’s.” And Jesus said to them, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.” And they were amazed at Him. What I mean by this, specifically: causality is, what it is. Appearances appear, and they don't appear chaotically, they appear in time-ordered sequences. To deny causality is, essentially, to deny relative truth, altogether. To "render unto God" translates, in nondual-insight terms, to the bald fact that none of what appears can reveal the existential truth of what you are, which never makes an appearance. But this doesn't mean that appearances aren't, for the most part, causal. In other words: "render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's". It's not necessary to deny relative truth, but rather, it gets placed into perspective. Here's a particular example that has to do with the sort of witnessing that can lead to the mental quiescence transcendent of a happiness by satisfied desire. Sometimes people will say that they can feel happy, sad, joyful or angry, and that there's no explaining it. Often, this is in response to the suggestion that there is always some sort of thought or thought process underlying any and every emotion. But what's really going on, is that they're simply unconscious of that process. What they are unconscious of, is a causal chain. True enough that the recognition of the causal chain is as much a product of the mind as the thought and emotion itself. All boundaries are, after all, arbitrary creations of mind. "Not-two", doesn't have any exceptions. The difference is, that one creation of mind involves internal insight -- what Niz called wisdom --, as it follows from an instance of noticing, after the fact, while the other is just what people do, all the time, mostly without recognizing it as it's happening. To become conscious of the thoughts that underlie emotions, is to potentially, see through illusions. Central to this process is the understanding of the causal relationship between thought and emotion. |
|
burt
Member
Posts: 198
|
Post by burt on Feb 27, 2019 22:16:55 GMT -8
There is power in devotion because it brings a willingness that is auspicious, but the mind never becomes a friend in the pursuit of truth, so if myths are being taken literally there will be devotion accompanied by illusion. There are many examples of such an approach resulting in pablum for the ego and a mind trapped by it's own stories. The mind must somehow remain in a state of not-knowing until it is informed from beyond mind. As for Niz, et al, they are not illusions but rather elevated expressions of THIS, in service of the truth and not the stories that titillate mind. Many are good story writers, few are good pointers to the simple Truth. Well croaked, sir! Notice that devotion doesn't necessarily imply realization. This is why I make the distinction between "awake" and "realized", and why I say that some ideas have the potential to lead people away from falsity. Some folks who pray to God in church every week are genuinely engaged in a mental and emotional quiescence that leads to a natural opening up that can, in turn, lead to a process of becoming conscious of the content and dynamic of their own minds. It might even eventually result in them questioning the notion of "their own mind", to begin with. This isn't to give any reality or substance to these ideas. It's really all about the listener, their internal state, and where the ideas lead them. In fact, it's quite possible for two different sources of this sort of thing to arrive at apparently opposite conclusions. So, we have, for instance, J. Krishnamurti claiming that God is a creation of man, and U.G. espousing a sort of blase indifference to religious voices -- even to the point of contempt. But on the other hand, Tolle writes instead that there is a common kernal of truth buried in the old spiritual cultures, and explains that he doesn't use the word "God" because of the layers of meaning that have accumulated to it over the centuries. And Niz and diaper guy, and if my memory serves correctly, Adyashanti and Mooji as well: all of these dudes are quite comfortable at the G-spot, given the right context of the discussion. Atheist-secular-humanist-philosopher-science-guys, Christians, Muslim's, Hare-Krishna's, Jews, Pagans ... any and all of these folks are on to something that has the potential to lead to the end of their world, and none of them are in exactly the same situation as Joe C. Trance. See now, it seems that not all trances are created equal, after all.  |
|
