On 1 March 2011 09:01, YouWho? <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 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. > > - au contraire, isn't that what you are doing? Putting your opinion or > concepts into words? >
The opinion is merely a pointer to what cannot be explained. OK, think about this before responding, if someone thinks that giving > up seeking is the answer (still wonder about the spelling and origin of > that word), and gives it up, where is the struggle? Is this not in > direct opposition to what you said previously about giving up seeking? > Okay, give up breathing and see how that becomes a struggle - to seek is an instinct to resolve separation, as long as one is a separate "I" one seeks to resolve it. > I tend to be direct in my communication.So I have to ask, isn't what > you are saying the opposite of what you said before? The struggle is > in the concept/s of struggle. I thought the premise of what I heard > you saying before is that if one gives up seeking, then the struggle > ceases. No, I said give up that you are not enlightened. Give up seeking and you will find what you look for was and has always been the state of affairs you were seeking. It was not there, it is here all along. > Fair enough, but I say again. there need not be an equal sign > to seeking and struggle. Seek until you find, then when finding, there > is no struggle or any longer any need for seeking. Is that not clear? > Okay > I have not seen a single aspirant who has given up seeking who has > found what was sought. People dying, who give up life, give up seeking and find out spontaneously. > However, I have seen many who have given up > seeking and have not found what was sought. This seems very > straightforward here. but maybe your experience is different. > Let's define seeking. If you mean they gave up following a "spiritual" path and went back to chasing a promotion a wife, family, anything in fact to fill the void, then seeking did not cease. > > > where or what is this except a concept? > > > > There is physicality energy and matter or whatever you want to CALL it... > > Ok, Let's explore that concept. Tell me, after considering it, what is > physicality energy or matter if it is not registered in concepts. This > hits at the core of the dialogue and honest introspection. If you have > no concept of energy or matter, what is it, or where does it exist? That's the whole point. The very concept of the matter and the matter itself exist in the same space. The bowl of water exists for the dog without concept. The concept is by definition nothing and is the nothing we seek. > I don't want to CALL it anything. That's the point. Without calling it > anything, what is "IT"? It is only when you call it something > (conceive it to be something),that it takes on the characteristics of > whatever it is being called or conceived to be. > It doesn't take on ANY characteristics. YOU create them. If there has to be a YOU to create them, then like the concepts the YOU in the matter has to exist in the same domain as the concept of the object perceived. If YOU are perceiving an OBJECT or a YOU in any form of contemplation it ISN'T REAL. You exists in the realm of NOTHING. > > > > Knowledge is "I Am" but what is "This" without the knowledge of "I > > > Am"? No knowledge, no this. > > > > Bollocks > > > > Go and take drugs! > > - These comments only show a lack of deep introspection. "Go take > drugs!" Been there, done that. Look into the knowledge of "I Am," > before you disregard what is being presented in this discourse. > What is it that knows "I Am"? Can you actually convey that as anything other than a concept? What is there prior to that concept? > When this is seen and understood, then > you will know and recognize what is being said. Until then, yes, all > you hear is Bollocks! That is the limitation of the mind. > This is SO boring! > 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. > > Ecky is Bollocks! He wants to sell books and be on Oprah. I dare say > that you have a better understanding than that git! > Thank you :) > "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. > ___________ > > I really don't understand what you are saying in this entire section. > From what is seen here, this is all conceptual mind b.s. Try to > express this without using concept and tell me what you mean. All I > can make of it is a bunch of circular conceptualisation. Not trying to > be offensive, but it just doesn't make sense to 'me.' > Okay trying again: I AM is not the real you, it is a self centred notion which can serve as a pointer, or can be a place where the mind gets lost in the belief that the central character of the story YOU have become enlightened. > Boggling only happens to a mind until it is gone. > > - Agreed. but what's the point of bringing up boggling? Only mind > asserting its assertions. Equivalent of a cloud saying that "I'm > seperate from sky." BOLLOCKS! Mind asserts itself only as long as > Self lends it a sense of reality. Otherwise, just still peaceful > silence. > Ah, but the Cloud is separate from the sky - the point is it doesn't care about its separation it is only human beings that make these kind of distinctions. > > Thanks for the dialog> > > > Grandma... > > - Uncle Earnie... > Very good, Great Uncle Ernie was Grandma's cousin! :-)
