Which Game Do You Play?

[Aware]

@WaveInTheOcean I can only show the way waveintheocean. And I can understand that what I write down shakes a lot of belief systems.

And it just seems you are so restless, maybe even angry on me. And figuring out the best way to answer peoples questions is a very hard one. I put much effort in it everyday to sharpen it.

In all truth, you will not understand me, I show just the way, make you think differently. And it seems, that you also gets moved by it. 

Create a poll, with the question, should Motus leave yes or no. And by 3 days, we will close the voting, and if its so that I should leave, I do so.

But I am afraid its you that are angry with me, I cannot help that, I hope by all this writing, it might calm somehow.

Take care.

 

[WaveInTheOcean]

8 minutes ago, Motus said:

The belief that you are separated from anything else, and as a result act upon that belief, is being ignorant proven by a behavior that is not in accordance with the fact that all things are temporary in nature. 

Finally something useful. This quoted here is a clear message that is arguably true and useful. Thanks.


 

[WaveInTheOcean]

I am not angry at all.

Frustrated a tad maybe:D

Why should I be angry upon you?

You take care too. I appreciate you took the time to answer my questions.

[Aware]

@WaveInTheOcean I will work harder, to be more clear, but its difficult. I hope you can understand that. 

 

[WaveInTheOcean]

15 minutes ago, Motus said:

I can only show the way

"If a man would move the world, he must first move himself." -- Socrates.

I won't judge whether you have found the way or not. I don't know. All I'm saying is, be open to the idea, that you are not seeing the full picture of reality. When you put out wordings like "I can only show the way" it sure as hell does sound like you feel like you have figured it all out.

Maybe you have. Maybe not.

Again. Take care, as will I. I should get some sleep and spend less time on this forum. Cheers.

EDIT: I understand. Communication of one's perspective on things to other people is a fascinating diffcult task indeed.

Edited December 23, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[key]

On 23/12/2016 at 11:40 AM, WaveInTheOcean said:

Could it be that is All is perfect. Reality is perfect as it is. No need to change it... 

@WaveInTheOcean You, with all due respect, are an idiot. 

Of course you're perfect as you are and there's no need to change anything, but you're not just an idiot, you're a deluded contradicting idiot (it might sound like I'm "attacking" you right now but honestly I have little distinction between you and me, my words are a projection, my belief in what I say lacking, so take what I write with a grain of salt, but it's more for the benifit of translating my understanding to words then examining what exactly I think I'm saying to garner insight ) 

Now I don't have the energy to quote all your words or share my perspective on your stupidity, but you ask Motus to question his ideas of how reality works, insisting open minded inquiry and realising ones own delusions, because frankly you don't understand a single word of what he's saying, or maybe you understand so much you're refusing to acknowledge it as a kind of self defence against your own views, who knows, but all you've done is project your own deluded way of looking at things onto him, which of course is fine, it's one way to reflect, but my advice to you is to take your own advice

On 23/12/2016 at 9:29 AM, WaveInTheOcean said:

- Sit down and ask yourself if you really understand who you are

Better yet ask yourself who you are without intellectualising an answer, for you seem to talk a lot about that which you don't understand, we all do it, I'm no exception, but atleast I can recognise (to some extent) what I'm doing while doing it. 

@Motus Your presence here on this forum is welcomed with open arms from my perspective, as your words share many insight 

On 23/12/2016 at 9:18 AM, Motus said:

@Dodoster I am afraid 99.99% grasps not what I am saying.

Though I have to disagree with that statement, not because I believe there are many who will grasp what you say but because the belief that most cannot grasp what you say, seems foolishly naive. 

[kurt]

8 minutes ago, key said:

@WaveInTheOcean You, with all due respect, are an idiot.  

Truth being spoken here.

[Aware]

22 minutes ago, key said:

Though I have to disagree with that statement, not because I believe there are many who will grasp what you say but because the belief that most cannot grasp what you say, seems foolishly naive. 

Youre right, I saw it later and realized it, but couldn't change the past no more.

[WaveInTheOcean]

I agree largely with Motus' perspective on things presented in this thread.
I chose to participate in this thread anyway, because I see a somewhat dogmatic presentation around the perspective presented.
I just wanted to point out the following:

Ultimately no perspective presented in the universe -- by anyone -- is better/more right/truer than any other perspective.

Litterally any.

The only True perspective is the just-above perspective.

That is to say, the only True perspective is that no perspective is more right than any other perspective.
I guess it takes a lot of open-mindeness to fully realize this. I could argue for hours over why it is so, but I won't even bother. Figure it out for yourselves.

I may contradict myself several times... There's a simply explanation for that: The ability to see things from different perspectives and not hold any perspective to be ultimately true :-) 

Edited December 24, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

@key"Better yet ask yourself who you are without intellectualising an answer"

I ask myself that question quite often. And even after hours of thinking,  I can never come up with an answer that I confidently can label as true.

Still, whoever I am, I surely seem to enjoy discussing my perspective on it anyway. :-)

My best answer, which I don't cling to as a truth, is that I am a no-thing that experience all experience.

Edited December 24, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

2 hours ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

Ultimately no perspective presented in the universe -- by anyone -- is better/more right/truer than any other perspective.

Dear WaveInTheOcean,

I disagree on this one, with good reasons that I will present.

I would like to use your example of the raper and the victim. Would you not say that any of them could have their own view, but would you not say, that due to ignorance their views are not right, leading them to remain suffering? The raper does have wrong views, and if the victim was drinking partying in the name of fun, surely has also a wrong view. I am sure Waveintheocean, you will not say that the raper can also live up to his "Right" view, or that it was not about his view that led him to such situations, has nothing to do with it, and is no better then any other view others might have that are free from attachment to their desires. 

I say: There is a right view, and a wrong view, based on the fact that All views, no matter which view one has, ultimately can be said about them: They still suffer. Some views are in accordance with this, and others are not. (The view is therefor in itself not wrong, its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence, that proof the view being right or wrong).

I say, that all wrong views, are based on the fact that ones self is different from others. 

To clarify this:

Awareness+Body = Enlightenment. There for: Those not enlightened, are Craving. This craving = Attachment to desire, being thirsty.

You don't differ by the fact that you are Awareness. You don't differ in having no body. You don't differ in the way being attached to desire. The only difference is, are you attached or not.

I say there for that the right view is: Previous situations has led to this one, and this one leads to others. We are there for the result of our thinking, heirs of our deeds, the outcome of our deeds.

There for, There are just 2 basis for views. A view based on that one differs from one another (thinking that ones attachment differs from others), and a view based on that this is an illusion due to temporary nature of everything.

Right and wrong views, are true wrong view, due to the misunderstanding that they differ based on a sense of self, that ultimately is the illusion. And this illusion does not differ in any person.

The view that we are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking, is therefor a true right view, in accordance with the true nature of everything, seeing that there are people attached, and people free from attachment, but non of them are therefor separated from one another.

Surely living up to this view one stops raping ones self, and becoming the victim of it as a result. Surely you didn't mean that.

Edited December 24, 2016 by Motus

[WaveInTheOcean]

On 24/12/2016 at 4:36 PM, Aware said:

Dear WaveInTheOcean,

I disagree on this one, with good reasons that I will present.

I would like to use your example of the raper and the victim. Would you not say that any of them could have their own view, but would you not say, that due to ignorance their views are not right, leading them to remain suffering? The raper does have wrong views, and if the victim was drinking partying in the name of fun, surely has also a wrong view. I am sure Waveintheocean, you will not say that the raper can also live up to his "Right" view, or that it was not about his view that led him to such situations, has nothing to do with it, and is no better then any other view others might have that are free from attachment to their desires. 

I say: There is a right view, and a wrong view, based on the fact that All views, no matter which view one has, ultimately can be said about them: They still suffer. Some views are in accordance with this, and others are not. (The view is therefor in itself not wrong, its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence, that proof the view being right or wrong).

I say, that all wrong views, are based on the fact that ones self is different from others. 

To clarify this:

Awareness+Body = Enlightenment. There for: Those not enlightened, are Craving. This craving = Attachment to desire, being thirsty.

You don't differ by the fact that you are Awareness. You don't differ in having no body. You don't differ in the way being attached to desire. The only difference is, are you attached or not.

I say there for that the right view is: Previous situations has led to this one, and this one leads to others. We are there for the result of our thinking, heirs of our deeds, the outcome of our deeds.

There for, There are just 2 basis for views. A view based on that one differs from one another (thinking that ones attachment differs from others), and a view based on that this is an illusion due to temporary nature of everything.

Right and wrong views, are true wrong view, due to the misunderstanding that they differ based on a sense of self, that ultimately is the illusion. And this illusion does not differ in any person.

The view that we are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking, is therefor a true right view, in accordance with the true nature of everything, seeing that there are people attached, and people free from attachment, but non of them are therefor separated from one another.

Surely living up to this view one stops raping ones self, and becoming the victim of it as a result. Surely you didn't mean that.

"The view is therefor in itself not wrong, its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence, that proof the view being right or wrong)"

You say that raping is not in accordance with the law of impermanence. 
You say partying and drinking is not in accordance with the law of impermanence.

This is your own egoic intrepetation. It's not a universal intrepetation.

"I say: There is a right view, and a wrong view, based on the fact that All views, no matter which view one has, ultimately can be said about them: They still suffer"

I agree from my own egoic perspective that suffering = bad, and thus all views that lead to suffering = wrong.
However, from God's perspective suffering is natural -- nothing wrong bout that. 

I have nothing against your way of teaching enlightenment. It seems full of wisdom and I agree with lots of it.
Yet, your way of teaching enlightenment is not _the only way_. There are many ways. And I can assure you that detachment from things will happen in any case.

For example, you are against psychedelics for self-development/enlightenment.
I'm not.

Yet, I don't claim you can't become enlightened without psychedelics.
Just in the same way, I hope you don't claim that psychedelics cannot be of any benefit at all for someone. But something tells me you might claim that.

Edited December 27, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

59 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

You say that raping is not in accordance with the law of impermanence. 
You say partying and drinking is not in accordance with the law of impermanence.

This is your own egoic intrepetation. It's not a universal intrepetation.

I am afraid that this is you that is saying this right now. I cannot see that I said that raping is not in accordance with the law of impermanence, or that I say that partying and drinking is not in accordance with the law of impermanence. (however, I state it is due to their view that is right or not right).

59 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

I say: There is a right view, and a wrong view, based on the fact that All views, no matter which view one has, ultimately can be said about them: They still suffer. Some views are in accordance with this, and others are not. (The view is therefor in itself not wrong, its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence, that proof the view being right or wrong).

Its wrong by its results that are either in or not in accordance with the law of impermanence. So if its  based on an I, that is separated, and this is certainly the case with raper and victim, then by this result, it is not in accordance, because there is in itself no separated I.
However what you might have missed, is the deep meaning of it:  I state therefor also, that even if someone is raped, he isn't always the victim of it, while the raper must be, and will be factual as a result becomes his own victim by the same law of action leading to its according result. Let me explain this:

We state it for language sake that there is a raper and a victim, but its not factual. A monk can be raped, as a result of previous deeds long ago, while he is no longer bound, but will therefor not be the victim of raping even though being raped. We call it so, but isn't in fact true, due to that the action one is in, doesn't lead to the same result as he goes through which proves he isn't victim, the other certainly is. Therefor, the raper is situated in ignorance, while the monk is not, proven by the result that will follow out of the action that is presented right now, being not attached to his desires, while the other must be. (His action must lead to himself being victim of his own action, being in a false belief raping another). If the raper sees his mistake later, and becomes a monk, and is unattached to desire, he too can maybe be attacked by someone, who broke some bones (result of his previous action). But he as well, is no longer bound, and proves there for not being a victim, but the one breaking bones, certainly is. So the action of becoming a monk, have had its results as well.

And this is exactly the difference I spoke about:  in, or not in accordance with the law of temporary proven by the action and its result that must follow, where one is either acting upon the belief of separation or not. (This is very very deep though, and almost impossible for me to write down properly due to language barriers). 

That I speak in words about an I, or him, doesn't mean that there is one. Same with speaking about a raper and victim, doesn't mean there is one. Its by their views, their behavior as a result of it, and by the action one is right now, one discerns right view from wrong view and rather there is a victim or no victim. (however, the raper is already victim by thinking he rapes another, while there isn't one to be found).

Therefor (if you can still follow) I stated that the right view is: This situation is a result of previous situations, and this situation will lead to the next. We are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

Okay. You are right.

If someone, let's say a raper, has the view that he is a seperated self, a seperated do'er that (for example) can decide to rape another self, then yes, that view is logically wrong. Simply because:

1. there is no seperated self
2. which leads to the realization that he as a person has no free will (and 2. also leads to 1. following logic).

However the fact that the raper has this view is not wrong nor right. It just is. What I'm saying is: The view in itself is wrong, yes. The fact that he has the view is neither wrong or right, it just is. He has the view, therefore he has it. The raper did not decide to have this wrong view ... because there is no raper, ultimately.

"Why does the raper has this wrong view"? ... "Because of ignorance" ... Yes sure, I agree... "Why is he ignorant?" ... Can't answer that question fully. He didn't chose to be at least. Just like you and I didn't chose to see clearly.
Can he become not-ignorant and see clearly? Yes, he can. Will he? Only time will tell.

 

"Therefore I stated that the right view is: This situation is a result of previous situations, and this situation will lead to the next. We are the result of our thinking, heirs of our thinking, the accumulation of our thinking."

True.

Edited December 27, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

@WaveInTheOcean Yes, I can't put my finger on what was before the state of ignorance and how this came to be... Because then you do get what you say, that is putting infinity in a box pretending something has changed about its own infinity. This is just ones imagination and false belief, which can't solve the problem of ignorance when it comes about how it came to be, because one just happened to be still been situated in it, and did just perfectly demonstrate that.

Because we can't answer this, I therefor state: Question must be asked differently.

How can we destroy ignorance first? And then you get the whole sequence again about seclusion from unwholesome deeds and the law of action and result that must be turned to our advantage by understanding and living up to it, and not to a clear disadvantage. Living up to it, rooted in understanding the law of everything leads to wisdom as a result, which ends ignorance.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Aware

[WaveInTheOcean]

"How can we destroy ignorance first? "

That is the right and first question - indeed - one must ask to get rid of suffering and live in peace with oneself (or achieve that for another human being).

I postulate that there are many ways to destroy ignorance. Following your teachings is surely one way -- not the only though :-)

Edited December 27, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[Aware]

24 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

"How can we destroy ignorance first? "

That is the right and first question - indeed - one must ask to get rid of suffering and live in peace with oneself.

I postulate there are many ways to destroy ignorance. Your way of teaching is surely one way -- not the only though :-)

 

This always a difficult one to explain in words, because... I will try to explain this, but its hard due to the language...

Because I am attaining Awareness... I can only see one. And the only difference is: Is one attached to ones desires or not. 

So take all people here on this website... They all seem to have different profile pictures etc... But to me, its one. Either one is attached or not. In either case, if the attachment is gone, they ARE Me, just without the attachment to desire (which doesn't different from you due to its all pervasiveness).

This attachment to desire, may it be from a killer or someone who just is abusing verbally, doesn't differ either... Every time if one is done with the attachment to desire, they are Me (which they already are, but pretend that they are not, but don't realize they do so).

So I only see one way. And that is themselves. So... if you state, there are other ways, and I would firmly state, in which way do they differ? Then it ends always in the end in, well, the attachment to their desires was no longer supported and dissolved, like a wind over a flame and gone was the flame. But Aware, the way to it did differ.

Oh, how so? No wait, that is wrong, let me state it different: But the experiences differ... 

Oh, how so? Its always from polarity to no longer attached to it? The experience is always from painful, sorrowful to no longer suffering from attachment to desires?

So in the end, I see no difference between Awareness (thats silly)... Or between the illusion of separation (which is to all still the same One+Illusion of separation).
And I do not see any difference in seclusion from unwholesomeness (always difficult).
And I do not see any difference in the end of suffering, (always blissful)

 

I hope you can see, that I in fact, am aware that I speak to myself right now, sending you this. Rooted in self, concentrated on Awareness, I do not see any difference but one: Is one attached, or not.

Edited December 27, 2016 by Aware

[Aware]

33 minutes ago, WaveInTheOcean said:

I postulate there are many ways to destroy ignorance. Your way of teaching is surely one way -- not the only though :-)

I can only see my own way. I can't escape myself. However, if you say so, show me, please!

[WaveInTheOcean]

@Aware

I'm not your parent, I won't show you. It's quite easy to see. Look around! Figure it out for yourselves. Try mushrooms for example; that's just one example of a different way of gaining a deeper understanding of reality. Note: doesn't work 100% of the time for everyone..., Many people take psychedelics only for casual use and don't gain anything valuable from their experiences besides the "fun"... Actually it is the "bad trips" that you gain the most insight from in regards to psychedelics.

Quote

"Because I am attaining Awareness... I can only see one. And the only difference is: Is one attached to ones desires or not. "

First of all, do you really believe that you -- yourself -- are not the slightest attached to anything/any desire in your life? :>

I'm not gonna be the judge, I don't know you. Yet, I assume - from my own egoic limited perspective -- that one who has attained enlightenment, i.e is not attached to any desire, won't bother posting on a random internet forum. But I might be wrong!

Second of all, I don't agree that that is the only difference. I think there are various degrees to how attached one is. I actually think that is quite obvious. It partly depends on how much inner happiness/peace you have. Actually all it depends on is if you have fully realized who you are or not.

What I'm trying to say I guess is that if a person knows rationally/conceptually that he is not a seperated self and also knows that he shouldn't be attached to anything, and for the most of the time isn't... such a person isn't free from attachment. Yet he is arguably more free than the average dude on the street. And yet again, he is far from a true enlightened master, who has achived absolute True Self-Realization.

Are you a true enlightened master that has achived True Self-Realization? Or do you just pretend to be one?

Just teaching concepts like you do here is not enough. Direct experience is needed.

Edited December 27, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean

[WaveInTheOcean]

And basically. Yes all teachings towards enlightement are geared towards realizing your true nature and also therefore getting you free from attachments. 

But there are many methods/ways to get to that state.

Meditation, psychedelics, contemplation, different kinds of yoga, different teaching techniques: Focus on nothingness, love, attachments, projections, emotions etc etc etc.

For example if a teaching tell you to fully rest in yourself in the present moment and accept all of reality as it is and see that you are everything you experience ... if such a teaching clicks with a student and he has never heard the words "get free from attachment", don't you think he still has gained a lower attachment to desires? 

There are many ways. It's obvious.

Yes all the paths lead to the same destination (as you describe that destination), but the paths may very well differ.

Edited December 27, 2016 by WaveInTheOcean