My Mundane Life

Post questions or suggestions here.
User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:32 am

The problem is, getting involved with a woman is a far bigger step than simply listening to music or eating nice food. Not only does it connect to things which lie deep within the male ego, but it usually comes with a whole bunch of associated problems.

For example, most women like to live in nice houses and surround themselves with lots of beautiful things, and so they expect their husbands to be well-groomed, work long hours and earn a good living. Then, when he comes home, they expect him to mow the lawn, paint the house, get involved in her family's affairs and do all the other things which a dutiful husband is required to do. After all that, he is usually too exhausted to do anything else and all he can think about is flopping into bed. That's pretty much his standard day. It's his life.

Maybe your girlfriend doesn't, or won't, impose all this on you, but she would be a very rare woman if that was the case. If Sue had tried to impose that sort of thing on me, I wouldn't have had anything to do with her. But being a proper friend, she gives me all the space I need.

You yourself have been with many women and even sired a son, that's what I had read in some page that you wrote. Even if you didn't form a family (I am just assuming), did you take responsability for your son, did you just leave him, or wasn't it needed your presence, both financially and emotionally?

I've taken responsibility for his emotional well-being and character development, but I don't provide financially. Sue takes care of that. I've basically been a part-time father, living by myself for the most part, visiting him on a regular basis. It's a situation that's worked out pretty well for all concerned. Sue bears the brunt of it, of course.

However, I still wouldn't recommend getting involved in a relationship and having children to anyone who is genuinely interested in leading the truthful life. Although I am as free as anyone really can be in a parental situation, the responsibilities of rearing a child, even part-time, can be very demanding and it does eat into your time - and this despite the fact that our son is as good a kid as anyone could hope for. Heaven forbid if he had had emotional or psychiatric problems!

So in all honesty, if I had my time again, I probably wouldn't have gone down that track.

-

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sat Jan 14, 2006 9:52 am

DavidQuinn000 wrote:The problem is, getting involved with a woman is a far bigger step than simply listening to music or eating nice food. Not only does it connect to things which lie deep within the male ego, but it usually comes with a whole bunch of associated problems.

For example, most women like to live in nice houses and surround themselves with lots of beautiful things, and so they expect their husbands to be well-groomed, work long hours and earn a good living. Then, when he comes home, they expect him to mow the lawn, paint the house, get involved in her family's affairs and do all the other things which a dutiful husband is required to do. After all that, he is usually too exhausted to do anything else and all he can think about is flopping into bed. That's pretty much his standard day. It's his life.

Maybe your girlfriend doesn't, or won't, impose all this on you, but she would be a very rare woman if that was the case. If Sue had tried to impose that sort of thing on me, I wouldn't have had anything to do with her. But being a proper friend, she gives me all the space I need.

You yourself have been with many women and even sired a son, that's what I had read in some page that you wrote. Even if you didn't form a family (I am just assuming), did you take responsability for your son, did you just leave him, or wasn't it needed your presence, both financially and emotionally?

I've taken responsibility for his emotional well-being and character development, but I don't provide financially. Sue takes care of that. I've basically been a part-time father, living by myself for the most part, visiting him on a regular basis. It's a situation that's worked out pretty well for all concerned. Sue bears the brunt of it, of course.

However, I still wouldn't recommend getting involved in a relationship and having children to anyone who is genuinely interested in leading the truthful life. Although I am as free as anyone really can be in a parental situation, the responsibilities of rearing a child, even part-time, can be very demanding and it does eat into your time - and this despite the fact that our son is as good a kid as anyone could hope for. Heaven forbid if he had had emotional or psychiatric problems!

So in all honesty, if I had my time again, I probably wouldn't have gone down that track.
-
Now, that is sane. I agree with all of that, really. I share that view, and I don't really want to get to where there is no going back: having a kid or family and having to take care of them. There is also the factor of developing a new a probably the strongest of all attachments: a child. Maybe having a child is something stronger than loving a woman or loving music.

I don't know how long this present relationship will last, I know that I am in no hurry. In my case I see her as if she were a little child, because she is SO childish in her ways and also (not a good thing) in her thinking. Not like any other woman I know.
However I see myself being alone or with her in 10 years, totally dedicated to Silence. For example, I plan on going to India or USA in 2 years for a short time, just a little "visit". But in more ore less 10 years I plan on going there to live permanently for good. If she were not to come with me I would still go, and if she joined me, she'd have to adapt to the lifestyle of an ashram or whatever spiritual residence I end up living in.

Most of the things you say are sane, correct and wise, in my opinion. Maybe 95%.

But I don't agree when it comes to spirituality having to do with thinkers exchanging their thoughts (like a "creativity" thing), or when there is admiration or approval of people like that thinker who comitted suicide at 23 (that german guy).
I think that the Advaita Vedanta and "your" line of thinking: Causality (to put it a name), have great things in common and don't contradict mostly.

I have a question about sensations and emotions: did the feeling of being the doer, the feeling of being the body, of getting affected by eveything: wind, sadness, etc., gradually vanished, or suddenly dissapear in your case? I am assuming that you don't experience those things the same way you did 20 years ago right?
Greetings

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Sat Jan 14, 2006 1:59 pm

.

I find that people often acquire a pet thinking that it is a win-win. They think of the stimulation they will be awarded as a win, as well as the comfort of having control of it. Sure there will be hassles and a cost, but in the overall scheme of things they see a win-win. But the reality of it rarely turns out that way.

To control it they have to observe and gain insight into it's ways and means, to understand it's motives and preferences, it's failings, and they have to prop it up where it may otherwise fall. Doing this they make it ever weaker, creating a cycle of ever-increasing dependancy. The cost of managing it is not only the time and training required, but the potentiality and likelihood that one's personal visions, values and methodologies will be corrupted and downplayed by close exposure to a compromised and limited entity.

The receiver becomes the giver, and the giver becomes the receiver, and they both become complacent in their roles.

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sat Jan 14, 2006 2:29 pm

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

I find that people often acquire a pet thinking that it is a win-win. They think of the stimulation they will be awarded as a win, as well as the comfort of having control of it. Sure there will be hassles and a cost, but in the overall scheme of things they see a win-win. But the reality of it rarely turns out that way.

To control it they have to observe and gain insight into it's ways and means, to understand it's motives and preferences, it's failings, and they have to prop it up where it may otherwise fall. Doing this they make it ever weaker, creating a cycle of ever-increasing dependancy. The cost of managing it is not only the time and training required, but the potentiality and likelihood that one's personal visions, values and methodologies will be corrupted and downplayed by close exposure to a compromised and limited entity.

The receiver becomes the giver, and the giver becomes the receiver, and they both become complacent in their roles.

.
I think I undertand you. It is a game, that's about it? "A game which requires dedication, effort, and stimulates a more flawed thinking"? If that's what you mean, I agree. However I'm inside that game and I think that it has to be possible to not be in such a game but still be in a relationship. For example if it were a child or a friend, someone not looking for mutual complacency? You know, a "sane" relationship where there are no expectations, no roles playing, just sharing without expecting and no "manipulatiing", "controlling"?

Nevertheless I think that one CAN accept the other as he/she is, and still be in the game. Accepting in the sense of understanding her/him. Not the same as accepting and not wanting to build certain type of bond, just acceptation without anything else.
Maybe the only thing in life that's not a game, is the very being conscious itself, the very being aware. That already IS and doesn't need anything to be or not be. In the other hand, achieving goals (be it wise goals or ignorant deluded goals) are always "games".
To become seems to imply effort and "struggle", but to remain, to be, seems to be "natural". One has to make a great deal of effort to become something one is not, or to attain something. But to remain as one is, to see what is, to be, requires no effort. This still has to be caused, like everything in life. If it is not caused by circumstances, it doesn't happen. Funny how unimportant are the words "effort and difficult and rare". Something be may be easy, but rare, or unlikely, such as being without effort.

Greetings.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Sun Jan 15, 2006 11:20 am

.
However I'm inside that game and I think that it has to be possible to not be in such a game but still be in a relationship. For example if it were a child or a friend, someone not looking for mutual complacency?
I suggest it's more your hope that you can be in a relationship without being burdened than your thinking on the matter. To become enlightened is no small feat. It requires all that one has, to be given. Not to someone else of course.


You know, a "sane" relationship where there are no expectations, no roles playing, just sharing without expecting and no "manipulatiing", "controlling"?
What kind of relationship are you talking about? One based on the mere act of relating over time with someone? Or an emotional relationship?


Nevertheless I think that one CAN accept the other as he/she is, and still be in the game. Accepting in the sense of understanding her/him. Not the same as accepting and not wanting to build certain type of bond, just acceptation without anything else.
But i thought you didn't want to be in the game?


Maybe the only thing in life that's not a game, is the very being conscious itself, the very being aware. That already IS and doesn't need anything to be or not be. In the other hand, achieving goals (be it wise goals or ignorant deluded goals) are always "games".
I'd just like to stress your use of the word "or" in the last sentence.


To become seems to imply effort and "struggle", but to remain, to be, seems to be "natural". One has to make a great deal of effort to become something one is not, or to attain something. But to remain as one is, to see what is, to be, requires no effort. This still has to be caused, like everything in life. If it is not caused by circumstances, it doesn't happen. Funny how unimportant are the words "effort and difficult and rare". Something be may be easy, but rare, or unlikely, such as being without effort.
Rather than comment on this i refer you to my post on the 14th Jan to the thread titled "Military Service".

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:31 pm

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.

I suggest it's more your hope that you can be in a relationship without being burdened than your thinking on the matter. To become enlightened is no small feat. It requires all that one has, to be given. Not to someone else of course.
Well, it is actually the opposite. I am not burdened, actually I don't feel the relationship to be that much of a problem. I agree about enlightenment. I takes all of what you have (and you must have what it takes). Still, this doesn't mean it is not possible for someone in a relationship to become enlightened. What seems to be the confusion here, is that I DON'T recommend on getting on a relationship. I am in one. I know it is an attachment. But I just don't leave people I love. I am in no hurry about being alone (by this I mean single, not in a relationship, since I don't plan on keep trying after this one). One thing is to be alone or solitaire and another thing is to be lonely. If one feels lonely one will want to find refugee in another person, or in something like music, a passion, work, etc. As I said before, if the relationship is to end, it will end, but not because of me. I see her more like if she were a child, someone who I love and am attached to, but I know that doesn't belong to me, she is not mine, and she is not permanent. She is an "external object" -this means, everything that comes, goes- so she ain't gonna last forever. What is Real doesn't cease to be, what is apparent comes and goes.
I mean, a bigger deal than having this attachment, is having an attachment to music (I am a piano student). Music has always been with me, and never left me. So why not try to ask me to leave music?... I am not gonna. I plan on dettaching myself from things, but I can't do it all at once, not even one thing for good. It has to happen by itself, not forced. It isn't either like I am waiting for that to happen, it's just that I accept and know that it will take its time.
What kind of relationship are you talking about? One based on the mere act of relating over time with someone? Or an emotional relationship?
Probably the first one you mention. Even though, I "think" that enlightened beings can develop emotional feelings without being attached to them, like feeling joy, or love for all things (about that I don't know exactly in what way, as it would not be the common egotistical love)
But i thought you didn't want to be in the game?
The fact that I have attachments already doesn't mean that I plan on having them forever. But I can't just free myself from them now. It would be dishonest from me to claim I can... If you could or can, then good for you. I am still very young, but I am in the right path (which is the path of Enlightenment or Truth or Reality or whatever name you wanna call it). How do I know it? Because I know my path is not really about the rest of things.
I am to free myself from sorrow, suffering, and to drop ignorance. That's my path. The path of destruction (destroying what isn't true, not getting it like if it were a thing).
You see, anything that has been created can be destroyed, but not all the things that were destroyed can be created or built again. The path of Enlightenment is not the "creation" of wisdom, but rather the destrucion of ignorance.
I'd just like to stress your use of the word "or" in the last sentence.
Yes, that's right. Even life is a "game". Thinking, observing, dropping ignorance, is also a "game". It is not about winning or losing though. I don't think a game necessarily means winning or losing. It has to do with "rules" or "norms". It has to do with adopting a position (or whatever word fits best) in order to something.
Rather than comment on this i refer you to my post on the 14th Jan to the thread titled "Military Service".
.
I think I basically agree with your post on that thread. That's why I need to make time for "myself", otherwise I get distracted with things, and waste the day. I will eventually dedicate much time to "myself" that it will be enough so I will be able to observe and meditate WHILE doing the rest of things and in that way there won't be any more waste.
For example, I'd like to meditate or give myself 2 hours a day for observation, thinking, or whatever, and I just can't do it becuase I am too lazy or don't have the sufficient discipline, so I start with 15 minutes a day. Eventually I will get to 2 hours a day, and eventually I will probably not need to be 2 hours without doind anything, and become able to be with "myself" while doing things.
If you don't understand my meaning on some terms or words with "" just ask me.
I hope it's clear enough that I am not deffending a status or state I don't have. I just know where I am, and plan on go dropping my habits, dependencies, attachments, without isolating myself from all things and going to the jungle (which would only change the scenario, but probably would complicate things more).
Greetings.

User avatar
Blair
Posts: 1527
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2005 2:47 pm

Post by Blair » Sun Jan 15, 2006 1:47 pm

You just sound very conflicted. Nothing you express has any merit or validity until you decide which path you are going to choose.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sun Jan 15, 2006 2:02 pm

prince wrote:You just sound very conflicted. Nothing you express has any merit or validity until you decide which path you are going to choose.
Then you should read again, but with more attention. I am not very conflicted, and have already chosen my path. Things usually change gradually, and many times when things seem to change suddenly, is because there has been some gradual process going on. I mean about changes in people, not some wind blowing a leaf.
It may look like I don't do anything in order to change myself, but that cannot really be transmitted through words. Maybe later I will post on this, the process of learning. And the process of changing, adopting new "habits".
The right kind of practise makes (or achieves) perfection. Now, without practise, or with the wrong kind of practise, the progress is fake or it only develops vices. This is very revealing in the piano for example, and it also applies to the spiritual path. For example those dedicated to the bible, no matter how dedicated, will achieve nothing but a mere result from what they believe to be true. 2 things are required for exellence: knowing the right way, and wanting it. If you have one but lack the other, you don't achieve it. (This of course doesn't occur in 1 minute...).
Greetings

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:03 pm

I find the letters that David and Kevin exchanged, to be very good. Haven't read much, but I think it is a very good thing to have them in the web.
http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... ters01.htm
Prince, if you are not sure about what I wrote about before, the gradual process of gaining concentration, etc. etc., I suggest you read the first letters and also this:
From here I'd like to quote:

"Intellect and Enlightenment"

Kevin Solway

http://members.optushome.com.au/davidqu ... lity03.htm
You can only properly recognize a delusion through intellectual knowledge, the discriminating force. That intellectual knowledge in itself moves you closer to Truth, but not by any means all the way there. Then, the more you think about Truth, and the more you fill you mind with thoughts of Truth, and the more you love the Truth, you automatically move even closer to Truth, and the direct consciousness of Truth gradually becomes your normal state of being. It is like a process of osmosis. For example, if you spend a lot of time in the fog, then eventually your clothes become soaked, through no extra effort on your part.

Some people try to force their mind into altered states of consciousness, thinking they a getting direct intuitive experiences of Truth, and that they are taking a shortcut to enlightenment. But they are mistaken. They are short-circuiting, and ending in a cul-de-sac.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:11 pm

Ary wrote:
Most of the things you say are sane, correct and wise, in my opinion. Maybe 95%.

But I don't agree when it comes to spirituality having to do with thinkers exchanging their thoughts (like a "creativity" thing),
Are you saying there is no value in running this forum?

or when there is admiration or approval of people like that thinker who comitted suicide at 23 (that german guy).
Are you expressing disapproval of Weininger because of his ideas and method of philosophizing, or because he committed suicide?

I have a question about sensations and emotions: did the feeling of being the doer, the feeling of being the body, of getting affected by eveything: wind, sadness, etc., gradually vanished, or suddenly dissapear in your case? I am assuming that you don't experience those things the same way you did 20 years ago right?
I experience them differently, you're right. While I still experience myself as a "doer" in a superficial, practical sense, nowadays I can never shake off the perception that God is the doer of all things and that I really have no existence at all - even when I am running around doing things.

As for emotions, I still experience them on occasion, which is evidence of my imperfection.

A perfect Buddha no longer experiences any emotion at all, of any kind, but he still experiences the world through the senses in the way ordinary people do, and he still conceives of himself as a "doer" for practical convenience.

-

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Sun Jan 15, 2006 4:25 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote: Are you saying there is no value in running this forum?
No. I meant I felt really dissapointed when I read something about that (that an enlightened being would exchange thoughts, and so on, with others -I can't imagine Maharshi "exchanging" thoughts with Nisargadatta, or with J.Krishnamurti for example) in your work "Wisdom to the Infinite". It was like something that had NOTHING to do with the rest of the writing, in my view of course. I'll see if I find it later and post it. No offense intended of course.
Are you expressing disapproval of Weininger because of his ideas and method of philosophizing, or because he committed suicide?
I express disapproval of his suicide, haven't read much of his ideas. Very little I have read, but I don't remember if I share his views or not. Anyway, I find it contraditcting to be wise and to expect things... I mean, according to what I remember I read about his suicide, it was because he was expecting people to read his works or to react to them in some way, maybe I recall wrong. To me, there can't be such kind of expectations coming from a wise person, and the act of comitting suicide is far from being wise... Killing oneself or another person isn't wise at all in my view (this doesn't mean I haven't thought of suicide and wished it in the past, but not anymore since some time).
A perfect Buddha no longer experiences any emotion at all, of any kind, but he still experiences the world through the senses in the way ordinary people do, and he still conceives of himself as a "doer" for practical convenience.

-
What about Compassion? What is compassion in your view? What is love for all things? I mean, not the love of all manifestations of Reality, but some love for all beings, like if it were a greater love or more sensitive love, different from the love of a rock or something inert. As you see, I don't know what this is, so I ask out of curiosity.
Greetings

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sun Jan 15, 2006 6:57 pm

Ary,
I meant I felt really dissapointed when I read something about that (that an enlightened being would exchange thoughts, and so on, with others -I can't imagine Maharshi "exchanging" thoughts with Nisargadatta, or with J.Krishnamurti for example) in your work "Wisdom to the Infinite". It was like something that had NOTHING to do with the rest of the writing, in my view of course. I'll see if I find it later and post it.

Please do. I confess I have no idea what you are talking about.

DQ: Are you expressing disapproval of Weininger because of his ideas and method of philosophizing, or because he committed suicide?

A: I express disapproval of his suicide, haven't read much of his ideas. Very little I have read, but I don't remember if I share his views or not. Anyway, I find it contraditcting to be wise and to expect things... I mean, according to what I remember I read about his suicide, it was because he was expecting people to read his works or to react to them in some way, maybe I recall wrong. To me, there can't be such kind of expectations coming from a wise person, and the act of comitting suicide is far from being wise... Killing oneself or another person isn't wise at all in my view (this doesn't mean I haven't thought of suicide and wished it in the past, but not anymore since some time).

Generally speaking, I agree with you. A sage would have to have an exceedingly good reason to kill himself, and I'm not convinced that Weininger had that reason.

Of course, we are somewhat in the dark here, and we can only speculate why he killed himself. Kevin reckons that he might have killed himself in a selfless act in order to promote his written work, but I have my doubts about that. There are signs that he was afflicted with mental illness in the last twelve months of his life, which was evidenced by (a) the way his mind became increasingly haunted and unbalanced towards the end, and (b) the way his suicide was performed in a highly romantic manner - i.e. shooting himself in Beethoven's old room. This leads me to believe there was a lot of egotism involved.

My impression is that he was a very energetic thinker who burned himself out. I only wish that he had scaled his efforts back a few pecentage points, looked after his health a bit more, and lived for another twenty or thirty years. Given his quality as a thinker, he could have gone on and produced some tremendous works.

Still, there may be valid instances in which suicide is the best course of action as far as promoting wisdom is concerned. Take Socrates, for example. His suicide had a powerful impact upon people and went a long way towards immortalizing his teachings.

DQ: A perfect Buddha no longer experiences any emotion at all, of any kind, but he still experiences the world through the senses in the way ordinary people do, and he still conceives of himself as a "doer" for practical convenience.

A: What about Compassion? What is compassion in your view?

Traditionally, wise people have considered compassion to be the active component of wisdom. I have no reason to disagree with this. A compassionate act is any act which is performed when conscious of the nature of Reality. It usually takes the form of teaching others how to become enlightened themselves.

What is love for all things?
Understanding their true nature.

I mean, not the love of all manifestations of Reality, but some love for all beings, like if it were a greater love or more sensitive love, different from the love of a rock or something inert. As you see, I don't know what this is, so I ask out of curiosity.
I like you. You're honest. These issues are important and I am glad you are giving them some serious thought

-

Lennyrizzo
Posts: 121
Joined: Sun Jul 10, 2005 11:35 am

Post by Lennyrizzo » Sun Jan 15, 2006 7:13 pm

. A compassionate act is any act which is performed when conscious of the nature of Reality.
That must be where the phrase "holy shit!" comes from.

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Sun Jan 15, 2006 9:19 pm

Indeed! The shit to end all shit.

-

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Mon Jan 16, 2006 10:28 am

.
Rhett: I suggest it's more your hope that you can be in a relationship without being burdened than your thinking on the matter. To become enlightened is no small feat. It requires all that one has, to be given. Not to someone else of course.

Ary: Well, it is actually the opposite. I am not burdened, actually I don't feel the relationship to be that much of a problem.
That's because you're not really trying for enlightenment yet.


I agree about enlightenment. I takes all of what you have (and you must have what it takes). Still, this doesn't mean it is not possible for someone in a relationship to become enlightened.
It's not possible for someone in a loving relationship to become enlightened without the love dropping-off or fading away. Enlightenment is so thoroughly difficult, to do it whilst relating closely with a woman would in my opinion be a feat far beyond that of even the greatest genius' we've seen thus far.


What seems to be the confusion here, is that I DON'T recommend on getting on a relationship. I am in one. I know it is an attachment. But I just don't leave people I love.
Even if it's the most loving thing to do for them? Loving of their mind that is. Keep in mind that if she is comfortable with you you're as good as married.


I mean, a bigger deal than having this attachment, is having an attachment to music (I am a piano student). Music has always been with me, and never left me. So why not try to ask me to leave music?... I am not gonna.
You will likely have to, maybe forever. But you can decide that in time.


I plan on dettaching myself from things, but I can't do it all at once, not even one thing for good. It has to happen by itself, not forced. It isn't either like I am waiting for that to happen, it's just that I accept and know that it will take its time.
I find your approach feminine, washy, insincere. I suggest making serious inroads into enlightened when young, it's easier then, before any solid attachments form. Do you mind me asking your age?


Rhett: What kind of relationship are you talking about? One based on the mere act of relating over time with someone? Or an emotional relationship?

Ary: Probably the first one you mention. Even though, I "think" that enlightened beings can develop emotional feelings without being attached to them, like feeling joy, or love for all things (about that I don't know exactly in what way, as it would not be the common egotistical love)
Feelings only arise from attachments, so it is true that a sage is free of emotions.


Rhett: Rather than comment on this i refer you to my post on the 14th Jan to the thread titled "Military Service".

Ary: I think I basically agree with your post on that thread. That's why I need to make time for "myself", otherwise I get distracted with things, and waste the day. I will eventually dedicate much time to "myself" that it will be enough so I will be able to observe and meditate WHILE doing the rest of things and in that way there won't be any more waste.
For example, I'd like to meditate or give myself 2 hours a day for observation, thinking, or whatever, and I just can't do it becuase I am too lazy or don't have the sufficient discipline, so I start with 15 minutes a day. Eventually I will get to 2 hours a day, and eventually I will probably not need to be 2 hours without doind anything, and become able to be with "myself" while doing things.
If you don't understand my meaning on some terms or words with "" just ask me.
I hope it's clear enough that I am not deffending a status or state I don't have. I just know where I am, and plan on go dropping my habits, dependencies, attachments, without isolating myself from all things and going to the jungle (which would only change the scenario, but probably would complicate things more).
Greetings.
I estimate that i was meditating (contemplative) on average about 2 hours per day in my early teens. During my school years i spent a lot of time travelling to and from, time that i put to good use. Other times i would stay in bed after waking because my body was so relaxed i didn't notice it, leaving my mind free to roam.

I have found that those who have close relationships, especially sexual relationships, when young are more inclined to be needy of them. I didn't have a girlfriend or sex until i was 21, by which time i had sown the seeds of freedom.

Given what i have read of you so far, i do not see passion. I do not see a passion for genius, and that is most definitely what is required.

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Mon Jan 16, 2006 2:15 pm

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.
That's because you're not really trying for enlightenment yet.
Not with great intensity and constantly (which is the requirement).
It's not possible for someone in a loving relationship to become enlightened without the love dropping-off or fading away. Enlightenment is so thoroughly difficult, to do it whilst relating closely with a woman would in my opinion be a feat far beyond that of even the greatest genius' we've seen thus far.
Nisargadatta Maharaj enlightened AFTER he got married and had kids (I think). Even after that, he left them and went to the mountain, but then he realised it wasn't his place so he went back. I think that probably as you say, there must be love dropping when dettaching while being in a relationship. The object isn't the problem my friend, it's the attachment to the object...

Suppose I left her, and after a while I got back with her or begun a new relationship, what would that mean? That I wasn't really in conditions to be alone alone (I don't leave who I love, or what I love, so that's not gonna happen anytime soon). Still I don't think the solution is eliminating the object to which one is attached to, but rather to eliminate attachment itself (which logically would mean dropping the object to which one was attached to, but not necessarily),

Even if it's the most loving thing to do for them? Loving of their mind that is. Keep in mind that if she is comfortable with you you're as good as married.
I disagree. Loving their mind?
Regarding marriage, it would make no difference if I were legally married to her, because I already love her and am always there for her, meaning the commitment is already from my part.

You will likely have to, maybe forever. But you can decide that in time.
What I said above: about eliminating attachment, not the object... Anyway I agree, I will probably stop being engaged with music in 10 years once I dedicate myself completely on meditation and so on.

I find your approach feminine, washy, insincere. I suggest making serious inroads into enlightened when young, it's easier then, before any solid attachments form. Do you mind me asking your age?
I disagree. Where is the insincerity? It would be insincere to claim otherwise... One has to be conscious of one's actual conditions: desires, passions, amount of energy to change, willing to change, etc. etc. I am 18 and a half, and this is my second relationship with a woman, probably the last one in my life.


Feelings only arise from attachments, so it is true that a sage is free of emotions.
So an enlightened being doesn't experience joy, happines, calm at all?

I have found that those who have close relationships, especially sexual relationships, when young are more inclined to be needy of them. I didn't have a girlfriend or sex until i was 21, by which time i had sown the seeds of freedom.
I was very needy in my first (former) relationship. Her leaving me was something that made me suffer as I had never suffered, which ended up being a "good" thing.
At the beginnings of my actual relationship I was pretty needy, not as much as before. Now I am not, I have changed since we started dating (we are together since 1 year and a half).
Given what i have read of you so far, i do not see passion. I do not see a passion for genius, and that is most definitely what is required.
.
There is no actual passion NOW. That doesn't mean there never was or that there never will. Let me put this example (which is real): nowadays I play the piano 4 hours a day. 6 months ago I was playing only 1 hour a day. Probably in 6 months or 1 year, I will be playing 6-8 hours a day. Don't I have what it takes because I'm not passionately and disciplined playing 8 hours a day? No, I do have what it takes, it's just that I lack enough discipline and don't feel the desperate need of playing 8 hours a day. I will achieve that though. Anyone saying I won't make it, will have to see and find himself wrong. (Just for the record, I had played several years before, this is not my first time studying the piano).

The same goes to my spiritual path. Here however, it would be like: should I feel great amounts of suffering, or a great discontent with life being experienced from an egotistal point, I would certainly passionately seek Truth, Freedom, Reality. But what if I found some relief, or calm, or came back to feeling some contentment? Then I would stop seeking so desperatesly. THAT doesn't mean I have no chances mate... Not according to my view, which is: with the right practise perfection is achievable. By the constant and disciplined practise of meditation, observation, inquiry, one can go un-identifying oneself from thought (it's different levels) and stablish more and more in Awareness and be conscious of Causality for example, more often. It is a gradual process which of course INCLUDES and REQUIRES bodhicitta. One is to gradually grow (or raise? what's the right word here?) the desire for Truth, Reality, Freedom. Please re-read what I posted on:
Sun Jan 15, 2006 3:03 am

I think you are expressing what you think I should be and do, instead of just seeing without judgement and interpretation. Also, don't compare yourself to the rest of people, because we are not the same. Each one has and is in different conditions-circumstances.
I think I would be womanly thinking if I depended on what others said about me, be it approval or dissaproval for instance.
For many years I was in the position of knowing where I was, and knowing that as long as I continued like that I wouldn't change or start changing. My knowing my condition wasn't enough for me wanting to change (if I didn't really want to change). Now it's different, I accept my tendencies, my amount of willing to change, and I deal with it from where I am (which is enough to start changing).
Greetings

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Tue Jan 17, 2006 1:12 pm

.
Rhett: It's not possible for someone in a loving relationship to become enlightened without the love dropping-off or fading away. Enlightenment is so thoroughly difficult, to do it whilst relating closely with a woman would in my opinion be a feat far beyond that of even the greatest genius' we've seen thus far.

Ary: The object isn't the problem my friend, it's the attachment to the object...

Suppose I left her, and after a while I got back with her or begun a new relationship, what would that mean? That I wasn't really in conditions to be alone alone (I don't leave who I love, or what I love, so that's not gonna happen anytime soon). Still I don't think the solution is eliminating the object to which one is attached to, but rather to eliminate attachment itself (which logically would mean dropping the object to which one was attached to, but not necessarily),
I see you making predictions and planning a life as if you are already enlightened and know what it's all about. It pays to keep in mind that until enlightened all interpretations of scripture are lacking.


Rhett: Even if it's the most loving thing to do for them? Loving of their mind that is. Keep in mind that if she is comfortable with you you're as good as married.

Ary: I disagree. Loving their mind?
Regarding marriage, it would make no difference if I were legally married to her, because I already love her and am always there for her, meaning the commitment is already from my part.
Females do have some consciousness, which, if they are ever to progress towards enlightenment, needs to grow and be nurtured, - not by having a loving relationship with them, but by loving the development of their mind. This comes with a lot of problems though, so it's not for someone that isn't enlightened. I tried this with my first real girlfriend and she started having breakdowns and doing strange things to her body. The latter definitely wasn't a development.


Rhett: I find your approach feminine, washy, insincere. I suggest making serious inroads into enlightened when young, it's easier then, before any solid attachments form. Do you mind me asking your age?

Ary: I disagree. Where is the insincerity? It would be insincere to claim otherwise... One has to be conscious of one's actual conditions: desires, passions, amount of energy to change, willing to change, etc. etc. I am 18 and a half, and this is my second relationship with a woman, probably the last one in my life.
To me people value something when they're actively engaging in or pursuing it. To me, to say that you value something to occur in the future but not now is to say that you don't really value it.

If you were expressing to me that you think your relationship will help you achieve your stated goal, then i may consider your saying you value enlightenment to be sincere.


Rhett: Feelings only arise from attachments, so it is true that a sage is free of emotions.

Ary: So an enlightened being doesn't experience joy, happines, calm at all?
Not whilst they are enlightened. We might for practicalities sake call someone enlightened that still slips now and then, but really, when they slip they're not enlightened.


Rhett: I have found that those who have close relationships, especially sexual relationships, when young are more inclined to be needy of them. I didn't have a girlfriend or sex until i was 21, by which time i had sown the seeds of freedom.

Ary: I was very needy in my first (former) relationship. Her leaving me was something that made me suffer as I had never suffered, which ended up being a "good" thing.
At the beginnings of my actual relationship I was pretty needy, not as much as before. Now I am not, I have changed since we started dating (we are together since 1 year and a half).
I imagine you can see there's only so much impetus gained from the suffering caused by a relationship break-up. People soon want the security again, and it's this wanting that cripples them.


Rhett: Given what i have read of you so far, i do not see passion. I do not see a passion for genius, and that is most definitely what is required.

Ary: There is no actual passion NOW. . . should I feel great amounts of suffering, or a great discontent with life being experienced from an egotistal point, I would certainly passionately seek Truth, Freedom, Reality. But what if I found some relief, or calm, or came back to feeling some contentment? Then I would stop seeking so desperatesly. THAT doesn't mean I have no chances mate...
Does this mean if you remain content in the animal realms then you won't seek enlightenment, and if at some point in the future you feel enough pain, then you will pursue enlightenment? The problem with this is that enlightenment is far far superior to being an animal, and even if you were to pursue enlightenment now you may not attain it. If that chance does exist for you the longer you wait the lesser it will probably be.

I find comparisons quite worthwhile, especially for those that think they can leave it all to later. I had my first great satori at age 16, and i think it was very beneficial. Perhaps others couldn't handle it, but i still think they should give it a go. I see no reason to hang-about deluded.

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Tue Jan 17, 2006 2:54 pm

Rhett Hamilton,

I see you are still misunderstanding me. You continue to interpret in the wrong way what I have expressed. Nevertheless I understand you and accept what you express, I have no conflict with that. To accept is not the same as to agree.

The fact that you think:
I see no reason to hang-about deluded.
shows that you don't understand people who are deluded without being interested in destroying their delusion, or conscious about ther delusions.
The fact that you think many people, or maybe all people are comparable, or can be compared, shows that you don't understand why and how, each being is different and responds to different conditions. This is on my view of course.


I think Enlightenment could even be attainable if one worked 12 hours a day, had kids and 2 wives... It could be attained if one was a medic, or a musician, or black, or white. THAT doesn't matter. What matters is the conditions of the person: what he identifies himself with, what he wants, how much willing or desire (amount of wanting) he has to achieve it, how constantly he persues it. The body is not the Self, the person is not the I, the real I. If you, like many members of this forum, equate thinker with enlightened one, then we couldn't disagree more.

However I am Always, Always aware, that whatever each one thinks, is real and true to himself and himself only. Meaning, if you think and see me being wrong, etc etc. that's your view only on the matter, it belongs to your realm, no matter how convinced you are. The same applies to me. In that sense, one could make an statement like: "as long as you continue to do what you do, you won't change, or as long as you think what you think, you don't stand a chance". And perhaps, that statement is not really true forever or better said, what one thinks and condemns about other, is relative, not real (in the sense of making it happen).
Suppose you say I won't enlighten within 2 years, not as long as I am still in a relationship. That's merely an statement... It is not anything more powerful that mere words, which by the way are correct and true only for those who believe them and live them that way.

Anyway, in my view, if one were really passionate about enlightenment and freedom, one wouldn't even be checking this forum. One would be too busy. That in my opinion shows how it is that no one here is persuing enlightenment with that much passion.
So far, it seems that in your view, progressive, gradual change, isn't really change at all. Or did I interpret it wrong?
In a book I read, it says something like: "when a man does something 10 times, it becomes an habit, when he does it 100 times, it becomes an addiction, when he does it 1000 times, it becomes his nature."

It is not blind faith what I have, not even faith. It is knowledge. I mean about the knowing for sure, that when something is practised in the RIGHT way, more and more, it goes becoming part of one, each time more and more naturally. This is a fact that I have seen not only in the piano, but in many other areas of life INCLUDING the spiritual area (or area of consciousness).
This is all valid to me, but I'm aware that it may not be valid to you.
Greetings,
Ary

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:12 pm

Ary wrote:
Anyway, in my view, if one were really passionate about enlightenment and freedom, one wouldn't even be checking this forum. One would be too busy. That in my opinion shows how it is that no one here is persuing enlightenment with that much passion.
That's an awfully harsh statement to make. So you don't think there is much value to this forum, after all?

What about a lurker who practices philosophy hard throughout the day and only reads the material on this forum every now and then, for some inspiration and stimulation?

What about the great sutras and vendantic texts which have been authored by the wise sages of the past. What do you think of them?

-

User avatar
David Quinn
Posts: 5708
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 6:56 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by David Quinn » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:25 pm

It also makes me wonder what you conceive of spiritual practice to be. It's not a matter of sitting down and blocking the whole world out of your mind. God cannot be found down that little hole. You have to learn how to focus on God in all times, places and situations. No matter what you are doing - walking, eating, writing, reading, talking - your mind should constantly be drinking from the well of Ultimate Reality. Your spiritual awareness shouldn't have to depend on the body being in a certain position.

-

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:32 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote: That's an awfully harsh statement to make. So you don't think there is much value to this forum, after all?
No offense intended, but I think you interpreted it wrong. My saying that didn't imply that I think there is not much value to this forum. In fact, I think there is Great value to this forum.
What I meant was, that if one were really REALLY passionately seeking truth, freedom, one would be with oneself only, not looking for others' opinions, comments, etc. One would be a lamp to oneself (the Buddha said something like that which I agree)

What you say here is something that I agree:
What about a lurker who practices philosophy hard throughout the day and only reads the material on this forum every now and then, for some inspiration and stimulation?
What about the great sutras and vendantic texts which have been authored by the wise sages of the past. What do you think of them?
-
Again, what I meant was, that once one feels that great passion, one no longer looks for what others say or have said, instead, one experiences it for oneself, with great honesty and great energy.
However, one may gain inspiration, ideas to think about, techniques to try, impulse, etc. by reading what others have said, and/or by exchanging information with people via mails, chat, forum, etc. I don't under-estimate the power of thought, the influence of incorporating "new" thoughts, letting them resonate (or is it resound?), etc.
It gets to the point, where, one may become so influenced with some kind or line of thinking that one becomes conditioned to that line of thinking. And what's interesting about that, is that it can happen one time, and again again: for example in my personal case: I passed from J.Krishnamurti, to U.Krishnamurti, to Causality, to Advaita Vedanta (Maharshi, Nisargadatta, etc.).
Greetings,
Ary

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Tue Jan 17, 2006 3:42 pm

DavidQuinn000 wrote:It also makes me wonder what you conceive of spiritual practice to be. It's not a matter of sitting down and blocking the whole world out of your mind. God cannot be found down that little hole. You have to learn how to focus on God in all times, places and situations. No matter what you are doing - walking, eating, writing, reading, talking - your mind should constantly be drinking from the well of Ultimate Reality. Your spiritual awareness shouldn't have to depend on the body being in a certain position.

-
I agree, but I haven't said otherwise (or is it the opposite?).
The idea of sitting still has to do with concentration more than with awareness. I not only sit in different positions (I even move), but I also open my eyes, or do things. The idea of giving certain amount of time to oneself (for now 15 minutes everyday, later it will be more and more), is to do it disciplined, by that I mean doing it everyday, and during that time, really giving oneself to whatever one seeks: be it relaxation, observation, awareness, see the relations of things, trying to grasp it, trying to let it go (or actually letting it go), whatever approach one attempts.

I am not really with my mind free of thoughts during these 15 minutes, I happen to think also, to remember, etc. But as soon as I notice it, I get back to what I was to do.

During the rest of the day, I may remember about this (by remember I mean to "implement" it), but that's not same as merely thinking about this (that I do more often).

avidaloca
Posts: 231
Joined: Wed Dec 26, 2001 6:24 pm
Contact:

Post by avidaloca » Wed Jan 18, 2006 12:10 pm

I mean, according to what I remember I read about Weininger's suicide, it was because he was expecting people to read his works or to react to them in some way
The people who dump all over Weininger either don't read his works or get sucked in by the lies about him, everything from that he was homosexual to being addicted to rough sex. Their goal is to diffuse you from comprehending him, because it's a powerful idea system.

User avatar
Rhett
Posts: 604
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2003 6:31 am
Location: Australia

Post by Rhett » Wed Jan 18, 2006 2:21 pm

.
AryReisin wrote: I see you are still misunderstanding me. You continue to interpret in the wrong way what I have expressed. Nevertheless I understand you and accept what you express, I have no conflict with that. To accept is not the same as to agree.
To 'accept' what i have expressed is simply to affirm A=A, to affirm that what i am expressing to you is what i am expressing to you.


The fact that you think:

Rhett: I see no reason to hang-about deluded.

. . . shows that you don't understand people who are deluded without being interested in destroying their delusion, or conscious about ther delusions.
I understand that their reasons for hanging-about deluded are a product of their delusion.

Could you give me a reason why you choose delusion over genius?


The fact that you think many people, or maybe all people are comparable, or can be compared, shows that you don't understand why and how, each being is different and responds to different conditions. This is on my view of course.
I see the very act of comparing as highlighting differences, and that i am showing that i realise that people are always changing, moving either closer to God, or further away, and that i can influence their direction and how fast they move in it, taking into account their current limitations of course.


I think Enlightenment could even be attainable if one worked 12 hours a day, had kids and 2 wives... It could be attained if one was a medic, or a musician, or black, or white. THAT doesn't matter. What matters is the conditions of the person: what he identifies himself with, what he wants, how much willing or desire (amount of wanting) he has to achieve it, how constantly he persues it.
The possibility that an utterly utterly exceptional person could become enlightened whilst severely practically encumbered by no means makes those encumbances an irrelevant matter. They are still severe encumbances.

The attachments of a person are a part of their conditions, though essentially, they are their conditions.


The body is not the Self, the person is not the I, the real I.
What, do you think, is the real I?


If you, like many members of this forum, equate thinker with enlightened one, then we couldn't disagree more.
Then we couldn't disgree more.


However I am Always, Always aware, that whatever each one thinks, is real and true to himself and himself only. Meaning, if you think and see me being wrong, etc etc. that's your view only on the matter, it belongs to your realm, no matter how convinced you are. The same applies to me.
If we follow on from what you say, then it is true only for you that each person has their own truth. Thank heavens, because for me truth is transcendant.

To me 1+1=2. What is it for you?


Suppose you say I won't enlighten within 2 years, not as long as I am still in a relationship. That's merely an statement... It is not anything more powerful that mere words, which by the way are correct and true only for those who believe them and live them that way.
It is what i reason to be the likely unfolding of events. Certainly, if you disagree with me and remain married for the next 10 or so years your chances will basically be non-existent. Woman in life, woman in mind, it's that simple.


Anyway, in my view, if one were really passionate about enlightenment and freedom, one wouldn't even be checking this forum. One would be too busy. That in my opinion shows how it is that no one here is persuing enlightenment with that much passion.
Busy with what?


So far, it seems that in your view, progressive, gradual change, isn't really change at all. Or did I interpret it wrong?
In a book I read, it says something like: "when a man does something 10 times, it becomes an habit, when he does it 100 times, it becomes an addiction, when he does it 1000 times, it becomes his nature."
No, i agree with you, it's a fair lesson, but only if what he is doing is actually good and he does it with full conviction. Something like discussing these kind of issues to a point of resolution with someone on a forum.

.

AryReisin
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 10, 2006 2:06 pm
Location: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Post by AryReisin » Wed Jan 18, 2006 10:21 pm

Rhett Hamilton wrote:.
To 'accept' what i have expressed is simply to affirm A=A, to affirm that what i am expressing to you is what i am expressing to you.
What I meant was, when one doesn't accept something, one denies it or wants to make of it something different than what already is.
I understand that their reasons for hanging-about deluded are a product of their delusion.

Could you give me a reason why you choose delusion over genius?
Their delusion as well as mine are caused... Your delusion is also caused. You may be less deluded than me, maybe not. But as long as there is delusion, one is still conditioned. Enlightened ones aren't conditioned, only their bodies (liking tomates vs onions for example, having certain accent, etc.) and minds (remembering blue in some way, having preference of some approach in their teaching or communcation -by preference I mean that they do it in their own way-). No enlightened will claim to be better than other person, or think that other person should be what he is not. He doesn't feel superior either. He is conscious of his state, and the state of the rest of the people.
I see the very act of comparing as highlighting differences, and that i am showing that i realise that people are always changing, moving either closer to God, or further away, and that i can influence their direction and how fast they move in it, taking into account their current limitations of course.
You may influence, but your approach is still a delusional one. You still don't show understanding of each person's particular conditions, causations, etc.
The possibility that an utterly utterly exceptional person could become enlightened whilst severely practically encumbered by no means makes those encumbances an irrelevant matter. They are still severe encumbances.

The attachments of a person are a part of their conditions, though essentially, they are their conditions.
If you mean by that, the attachment to thought, to identify himself with the body, the mind, the doer, with anything he perceives, then yes. But if you mean the superficial attachments: wife, job, kids, etc. Then I don't agree.

What, do you think, is the real I?
What remains after all ignorance has been dropped, when there is no longer any identification with thought in its different forms and levels. Which is of course physically different, not something "outside" the physical world.
Then we couldn't disgree more.
As I said above. In my view, what needs to be done is not thinking, but quite the opposite. To stop identifying oneself with thinking. What do you understand by thinking? What in your view is to think other than to experience? (I differentiate between experience and being)
So when I say: dettaching from thought, dropping the identification with thought, I mean dropping the identification with experience (be it sensations, memmory, etc, which in my opinion all enter the category of stimuli)

If we follow on from what you say, then it is true only for you that each person has their own truth. Thank heavens, because for me truth is transcendant.

To me 1+1=2. What is it for you?
Truth isn't a thought... This: "1+1=2" is merely a thought, it isn't an independent truth (by truth I mean something that is real and exists by itself) which lives by its own regardless of someone experiencing it.
What I meant was: the ignorant one can only see and experience ignorance. The enlightened one can only see and "experience" enlightenment. He can understand and see ignorance in people, but his "experience" is enlightenment, he cannot help it.

It is what i reason to be the likely unfolding of events. Certainly, if you disagree with me and remain married for the next 10 or so years your chances will basically be non-existent. Woman in life, woman in mind, it's that simple.
Nope, it's not that simple. Or maybe, it's that simple but you're wrong. Not necessarily woman in mind, mate. You seem to focus on the surface, not in what matters. One may be making love for example, while being aware. One may be paying a bill or taxes, while being aware. One may be working or eating, or watching tv, and while doing that, inquiring, observing, seeking, etc.

Let me ask you if you work, or as some members of this forum, you receive payment by the government (becuase of "incapacity" or something alike) or someone supporting you?


Busy with what?
Well, let's see... What about busy with seeking?...
No, i agree with you, it's a fair lesson, but only if what he is doing is actually good and he does it with full conviction. Something like discussing these kind of issues to a point of resolution with someone on a forum.
You mean that discussing these kind of issues here, is as good as practise as observation of oneself from example? I wouldn't say so. When I wrote that quotation I was certainly thinking more of the mind and body being filled with one kind of thinking or attitude regarding experience and life.

Post Reply