> > > I think it depends on how it is heard because of course the seeker will > > struggle to give up seeking in order to get something. > > Why? I think this is a gross over-generalization. Spiritual growth or > understanding does not have an equal sign to struggle unless one > conceives it to be so. Seek and you shall find. Find and then give up > seeking. Give up seeking before finding and one doesn't find, they > only remain deluded.
Like I said it depends on how it is heard. I can't put it into words. If someone thinks giving up seeking is the answer then they will struggle. > > It doesn't exist except in concept and imagination. > > > Is it still here when concept and imagination cease? > > No. Where is this without concept. What is this without concept. > Please tell me, what can you say about "this" or any other "thing" > without the use of concepts? No concept, no THIS. Perhaps it's a > matter of definition about what "This" is, but ultimately, where or > what is this except a concept? There is physicality energy and matter or whatever you want to CALL it... > This is dependent upon knowledge. > Knowledge is "I Am" but what is "This" without the knowledge of "I > Am"? No knowledge, no this. > Bollocks Go and take drugs! > Parrots are so cool aren't they :) Sure parrots are cool, but teachers parroting what they have heard without any real understanding of what they are talking about aren't really helping aspirants to awaken to their true nature. Well maybe, but perhaps Eckhart Tolle was useful, because at a point it was noticed "this is just bollocks" and looking elsewhere for answers became the effect of that channel of causality. > > The neo-advaita teaching you are giving is a good example of the mind > > imagining many things and believing them to be true. > > It may be neo-advaitic, probably more neo-zen or zen avant garde except I am > not saying what you just said. I am saying there is no mind imagining, at > best it is zoning in and out of boggling over its lack of substance. > >Does that really make sense to you? No mind imagining? What does that even mean? Yes it makes sense. The mind likes to create a story about itself. This dialog mind, or story mind is not the real driver of experience. It is a falsehood. The conceptualist in us is illusory. Self centred. Even as I write this there is an "I am" which has it's story weaved around it - you - me - that over there - this here etc What I am saying is, none of this PLAY is real - it occurs as a function of being HUMAN and you try stopping it. Get that it is a mind-movie playing itself out and YOU are the central player and you might see something about yourself AND your spirituality that you have not yet seen. Give up that "I am" is real. Beyond that there is that which cannot be understood, voiced or otherwise. The mind cannot conceive of it because it would have to conceptualise it to convey it, even to itself. >Mind is imagination, concepts. I really don't know what zoning in and out over boggling over its lack of substance means. If there is any zoning or boggling, that is mind, that is imagination. What else is doing the boggling or zoning? Of course it is mind :-) Boggling only happens to a mind until it is gone. > Thanks for the dialog Likewise. Thanks for not sending to my email. :O) Grandma...
