Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, popi said: @Matthew Lamot I wanted to ask you sth but I couldnt find the thread we posted in. This guy on the videos you shared,to whom he interacts with?? Rupert? He is conducting retreats I imagine Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @Matthew Lamot oh.i see. So there is a place with people who got there to relax and meditate? Why there are so many pauses inthe conversation? Ive seen few of the videos. No Experience Can Bring Us Happiness Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 8 minutes ago, popi said: @Matthew Lamot oh.i see. So there is a place with people who got there to relax and meditate? Why there are so many pauses inthe conversation? Ive seen few of the videos. I imagine the pauses are to mine his next words from consciousness rather than his automatic waffle. Just my guess. In fear of sounding rude, I ' m in fear of this going off - topic Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 1 hour ago, popi said: True love is something that you give most of the times. And you accept the object/subject in front of you. Its matter of choice. If you choose to give it to someone or something who will not appreciate it. Waste of effort. Yes, it's a matter of choice whether you love every being or allow your ego to lie to you that you can not accept reality until things go like you want. “To those who are good (to me), I am good; and to those who are not good (to me), I am also good;— and thus (all) get to be good. To those who are sincere (with me), I am sincere; and to those who are not sincere (with me), I am also sincere;— and thus (all) get to be sincere.” - Lao Tzu When true love comes from pure heart, it's completely effortless, so there can be no waste of effort. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 i guess im accepting that opinion but dont want to apply it. No Experience Can Bring Us Happiness Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 (edited) 7 hours ago, ArabiaNytes said: Nnmy opiNions None of my opinions are true. None of my models of reality are true. Wheter None of my opinions are true, and niether This post I This post I Severly Severely glitched Edited August 11, 2016 by username Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @ArabiaNytes I had no intention of saying anything true on my post. Nothing I believe is truth. Whether I share the bits of my concious development in relativistic or absolute terms doesn't matter. They are only a reflection of that which cannot be expressed and meaningless in of them selves. I am not here to philosophize or to be strictly rational. Don't mistake anything I say for having any meaning. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 1 hour ago, Matthew Lamot said: I don' t agree. Reality iss non-dual. This means is you are limitless, untouched, pure, unconcerned, ordinary, non-dual awareness. You ARE love! The reason you don 't believe that already is because conditioned ignorance of this is hard wired. Don't make the hard wiring even stronger by believing the illusion of separation ! Move in the other direction and believe the counter intuitive reality and live that inside the illusion until it becomes real for you and real for others in your presence We don't necessarily disagree. If you look closely at my post, I admit that what I said IS not true. The view on relationships is an extension of the narrative of self, which Is a fiction. I claim that relationships are rooted IN selfishness, but that Is not true. Relationships doN't even exist and all the good and bad I say about thenM IS just a fiction, just an expression of my changing awareness, a poor reflection of the truth. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 2 hours ago, electroBeam said: @popi why is being selfish a bad thing? I know we have been socially conditioned to put shame upon people who are selfish, but why? Why do you hate selfish people? They are apart, and accepted by this universe as much as you are. God created them This is the perfect example of believing the wrong teachings. This is why hardly anybody becomes enlightened or free from the illusion. And the problem is getting worse, because we have so many people now, whole models telling us the same thing, that being human is special, loveable, and is the divinity of all things because it is what is. The real truth is that these traits come from a feeling of duality. Incompleteness - there is something inherently wrong with "me". And the New Age encourages that we "love" this about ourselves, because it is as it is. This is bullshit, and it does not take a genius, only a small amount of thought to see that this new paradigm of self love actually does nothing more than reinforce the illusion of incompleteness. Enlightened or whole people are not selfish, are not unkind, and do not need self love or self esteem. Enlightenment is knowing (knowledge and understanding integrated and lived beyond mere non-dual experience) that what I am is without doubt pure, whole, limitless, untouched, non dual reality. There is no room for wondering if im special in this paradigm. Non duality is a statement that is true for everyone, despite the fact that hardly anybody is ready to hear it and live it. People would rather live their misery and negativity and try to "love" it because ignorance is hard wired and not easy to undo Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, username said: We don't necessarily disagree. If you look closely at my post, I admit that what I said IS not true. The view on relationships is an extension of the narrative of self, which Is a fiction. I claim that relationships are rooted IN selfishness, but that Is not true. Relationships doN't even exist and all the good and bad I say about thenM IS just a fiction, just an expression of my changing awareness, a poor reflection of the truth. Relationships don't exist? More neo advaita. Relationships do exist, you can verify it in your own experience. Absolutely they don't, but as long as there is a somebody writing this then the writer and the relationship exists. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 Freedom is not drawn from relationship. Therefore true happiness isn't either. Freedom is drawn from the Realization that I am not this body and mind. But to say that nothing exists is a lie, because it does exist. The only thing one need be concerned with is the Realization of Self, and that will translate into better relationships in the relative realm Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 10 minutes ago, Matthew Lamot said: Relationships don't exist? More neo advaita. Relationships do exist, you can verify it in your own experience. Absolutely they don't, but as long as there is a somebody writing this then the writer and the relationship exists. Do you think I have fallen INto A trap? I don'T know what this neo advaitsA (phpne Is reallhY glitchy), but appaRently I am practicing IT. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 1 minute ago, Wormon Blatburm said: There are no enlightened people. You're speaking as if enlightenment adds something to a person, which is a misunderstanding. People, on the physical level still need to be selfish and need self esteem after enlightenment, just that on the level of being they are complete. 1 minute ago, Wormon Blatburm said: There are no enlightened people. You're speaking as if enlightenment adds something to a person, which is a misunderstanding. People, on the physical level still need to be selfish and need self esteem after enlightenment, just that on the level of being they are complete. This idea wrong. A) Because you have not experienced nirvikalpa Samadhi directly and know that relative world is illusion. Instead you make a relative belief out of a non dual truth. This is neo adviata beliefs. B) Adviata means non duality. But it also includes the illusion, but after Self Realization one can live happily in the illusion as a person, in a world but only free of it, not bound. This is true Vedic teaching. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 5 minutes ago, Wormon Blatburm said: There are no enlightened people. You're speaking as if enlightenment adds something to a person, which is a misunderstanding. People, on the physical level still need to be selfish and need self esteem after enlightenment, just that on the level of being they are complete. There is a person, as long as there is experience. But this is about being free FROM the person. Consciousness liberated. Don't confuse relative and absolute. Especially when you have not realized nirvikalpa sahadhi at the very least Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @Wormon Blatburm If you want to ignore the real teaching that is fine. But you are not going to ever Self Realize. I don't believe the teachings, the teachings are knowledge, and experience will verify it. But its smart not to mis represent relative and absolute, especially when you yourself have not experienced nirvikalpa samahdi. If you did you would respect the illusion and not be parroting Tony Parsons. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 In essence, the deficit-motivated man is far more dependent upon other people than is the man who is predominantly growth-motivated. He is more "interested," more needful, more attached, more desirous. This dependency colors and limits interpersonal relation. To see people primarily as need-gratifiers or as sources of supple is an abstractive act. They are seen not as wholes, as complicated, unique individuals, but rather from the point of view of usefulness. What in them is not related to the perceiver's needs is either overlooked altogether, or else bores, irritates, or threatens. This parallels our relations with cow, horses, and sheep, as well as waiters, taxicab drivers, porter, policemen or others whom we use. Fully disinterested, desireless, objective and holistic perception of another human being becomes possible only when nothing is needed from him, only when he is not needed. Idiographic, aesthetic perception of the whole person is far more possible for self-actualising people (or in moments of self-actualisation), and furthermore approval, admiration, and love are based less upon gratitude for usefulness and more upon the objective, intrinsic qualities of the perceived person. He is admired for objectively admirable qualities rather than because he flatters or praises. He is loved because he is love-worthy rather than because he gives out love. - A.H Maslow Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 There seems to be confusion sometimes when this subject appears. Because no matter how much information we receive, we cannot "love" someone who "hurts" us. Try it! What makes the difference really, is the understanding and the actual experience of the fact that pain is our best friend where it comes to "Allowing what is" to happen. Pain, un-love, has the gift of directly pointing to where the constriction arises, and for that, it is the greatest teacher. (What I mean by pain, is anything that feels like non-love. ) Ayla, www.aylabyingrid.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @Ayla omg what you just said is puré gold!!! Ive been feeling this way alot, like my "worse" emotional days is when i grow the most and learn to integrate parts of me that feel seperate Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @Nexeternity , what we all say is pure gold. What needs a bit of cleaning sometimes is the one hearing it Ayla, www.aylabyingrid.com Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Posted August 11, 2016 @Ayla yes! Uncondional love and happiness for all Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
