Guest guest Posted January 10, 2003 Report Share Posted January 10, 2003 Hi Ralf, As a co-Johnny come lately, :-).......... interesting views... Some two cents....... - Ralf Thursday, January 16, 2003 04:29 PM Introduction: Ralf <SNIP> My background is both practical and theoretical, ------ Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less "theoritical", than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? -------- and both Eastern and Western. Those are grand generalisations of course. In some paths the study of theory is the practice, and to group traditions into East and West is laughable :-) ------- Indeed. That the popular chased thingy called "Truth", can be "Eastern" or "Western" is the real hilarity. Almost a hilarity, as much as, that there can be a path (lined by Eastern milestones or Western) to discover which was never lost to begin with. ------- Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from Japan and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. ------ You seemed to have done the rounds, Ralf.:-) Whic particular flavour occupies you these days? -------- My professional background is in the integration of differing but related representations of information. I have a PhD on the topic and am currently teaching information management at University in Australia. ----- Is this good old IT/software or do you mean some thing else? -------- I'll leave you with a poem I wrote recently. Blessings in Love and Light, Ralf Searching for Shakti Open. Sitting silently, until change. Energy from calm. Self-discovery triggers exploration: Truth is duality! Yang and Yin, balanced, becomes Yang. Shiva awakens, needs Shakti. Souls touch. Lovers touch souls. Shakti needs, awakens Shiva. Yang becomes balanced: Yin and Yang. Duality is Truth! Exploration triggers self-discovery. Calm from energy. Change, until silently sitting. Open. ---------- For your consideration Ralf....... Sitting silently, not knowing whether any change is sought, The eye of swirling energy, sees the drama of exploration, the drama of being seeking the adventure of becoming And of becoming seeking the peace of beingness. Truth is no longer an object, whether dual or non-dual Yang and Yin, balanced, cancel each other Awakened Shiva is Shakti Shakti in repose is Shiva The play of being and becoming is inevitable The play of Shiva and Shakti is inevitable. I AM both and I AM neither. Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phaaat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 11, 2003 Report Share Posted January 11, 2003 Hiya Ralf, - Ralf Tuesday, January 21, 2003 08:50 AM Re: Introduction: Ralf Hi Sandeep > My background is both practical and theoretical, > ------ > Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less "theoritical", > than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? That's a great question. Is there a difference in showing respect to the incarnation of the feminine, and showing respect to our mental image of the feminine? ------ Both being constructed images, indeed there is none. --------- It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that we gather more speed... ------- Yes, to reach the point, where the need for speed is seen for the hilarity it represents. Aka, the smile you have walking on a sea-shore, watching the frenzy of the "wave" speeding to try and meet the Ocean. > Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since > I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. > Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from Japan > and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, > Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also > ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious > and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. > > ------ > You seemed to have done the rounds, Ralf.:-) > > Whic particular flavour occupies you these days? The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. Awareness of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality through my beliefs, consciously. ------- Which pre-supposes -an existence of a "Ralf" which has a reality, -an ability of this entity to shape through some beliefs, that reality, - ergo an entity which believes (what it believes is of no import) -and ergo an entity which can consciously, think, choose, decide, act and achieve/fail to achieve. Right? Invite you to consider the possibility that none of the above apriori assumptions have any existential reality to them. What happens then? > My professional background is in the integration of differing but > related representations of information. I have a PhD on the topic > and am currently teaching information management at University in > Australia. > > ----- > Is this good old IT/software or do you mean some thing else? Basically, but at an abstract/design level rather than purely coding. ---------- Hmmm, can you expand on that, if appropriate off-List. For a particular reason. <SNIP> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 16, 2003 Report Share Posted January 16, 2003 Hi All I've started participating in the discussions, but haven't introduced myself yet. My apologies for that oversight. Having only joined in the last few days, I'm not fully aware of the structure of this list's membership, nor even the nature of it's interactions. I assume that it is an open list ranging in membership from the few life long devotees to the path of Shakti, through the newer followers, those who are interested but undecided, and those who are eclectic and have come to the realisation that any one path or tradition will never suit them, so they make their own path and learn from the many teachers of many traditions. I fall into this last category. My views and understanding (or lack of) of the way things are will become clear in my posts, I expect. I'm on quite a few very active lists, so may fade in and out over time. My apologies in advance, although I will always keep an eye out for posts directed at me specifically :-) My background is both practical and theoretical, and both Eastern and Western. Those are grand generalisations of course. In some paths the study of theory is the practice, and to group traditions into East and West is laughable :-) Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from Japan and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. My professional background is in the integration of differing but related representations of information. I have a PhD on the topic and am currently teaching information management at University in Australia. I'll leave you with a poem I wrote recently. Blessings in Love and Light, Ralf Searching for Shakti Open. Sitting silently, until change. Energy from calm. Self-discovery triggers exploration: Truth is duality! Yang and Yin, balanced, becomes Yang. Shiva awakens, needs Shakti. Souls touch. Lovers touch souls. Shakti needs, awakens Shiva. Yang becomes balanced: Yin and Yang. Duality is Truth! Exploration triggers self-discovery. Calm from energy. Change, until silently sitting. Open. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 20, 2003 Report Share Posted January 20, 2003 Hi Sandeep > My background is both practical and theoretical, > ------ > Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less "theoritical", > than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? That's a great question. Is there a difference in showing respect to the incarnation of the feminine, and showing respect to our mental image of the feminine? It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that we gather more speed... > Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since > I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. > Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from Japan > and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, > Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also > ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious > and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. > > ------ > You seemed to have done the rounds, Ralf.:-) > > Whic particular flavour occupies you these days? The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. Awareness of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality through my beliefs, consciously. > My professional background is in the integration of differing but > related representations of information. I have a PhD on the topic > and am currently teaching information management at University in > Australia. > > ----- > Is this good old IT/software or do you mean some thing else? Basically, but at an abstract/design level rather than purely coding. > For your consideration Ralf....... > > Sitting silently, not knowing whether any change is sought, > > The eye of swirling energy, sees the drama of exploration, > the drama of being seeking the adventure of becoming > And of becoming seeking the peace of beingness. > > Truth is no longer an object, whether dual or non-dual > Yang and Yin, balanced, cancel each other > > Awakened Shiva is Shakti > Shakti in repose is Shiva > > The play of being and becoming is inevitable > The play of Shiva and Shakti is inevitable. > I AM both and I AM neither. Nice. There is a wonderful tradition of poetry interplay in the Japanese forms, one poem reflecting another with only a word changed; or a whole new set of words. All the best, Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 >>>> My background is both practical and theoretical, >>> Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less "theoritical", >>> than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? >> That's a great question. Is there a difference in showing respect >> to the incarnation of the feminine, and showing respect to our >> mental image of the feminine? > Both being constructed images, indeed there is none. Do you mean because the incarnation is perceived, and you feel that there is no difference between perception and imagination? Or do you mean because the imagination is constructed from a construct itself, and therefore is (at least indirectly) also divine/natural/insert whatever word you wish ;-) I have seen a similar argument used about whether the things we usually think of as man-made, such as plastics, chemicals, etc, are actually natural. After all, they were made by us and we are natural... Language is a collection of shortcuts. >> It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that >> we gather more speed... > Yes, to reach the point, where the need for speed is seen for > the hilarity it represents. > Aka, the smile you have walking on a sea-shore, watching the > frenzy of the "wave" speeding to try and meet the Ocean. Yes, absolutely. In fact, this is my major issue with Buddhism, that it appears to presuppose a goal that we reach so that we can move on. On the other hand, why does the wave move? Speed was probably the wrong metaphor for someone who does not enjoy speed but sees it as a means to the reaching the goal faster. Let's replace it with 'joy'. It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that we gather more joy. The world is a playground in which we can play different games, or play along with different games. We are constantly creating our reality, whether we do it consciously or not. To see the world as having 'meaning', as there being an 'objective' to life, tends to impede our enjoyment of experiences. But that doesn't mean we can express goals and objectives, and meet them as part of our living richly. >>>> Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since >>>> I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. >>>> Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from >>>> Japan >>>> and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, >>>> Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also >>>> ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious >>>> and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. >>> You seemed to have done the rounds, Ralf.:-) >>> Which particular flavour occupies you these days? >> The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. Awareness >> of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality >> through >> my beliefs, consciously. > Which pre-supposes > -an existence of a "Ralf" which has a reality, > -an ability of this entity to shape through some beliefs, that > reality, > -ergo an entity which believes (what it believes is of no import) > -and ergo an entity which can consciously, think, choose, decide, act > and achieve/fail to achieve. > Right? No, it only pre-supposes a 'Ralf' who experiences the world as if those assumptions hold, who can accept that there is no distinction between him and the world, other than those distinctions made to experience ... distinction. By choosing to be born, I choose to participate. By choosing to participate, I become a part. > Invite you to consider the possibility that none of the above apriori > assumptions have any existential reality to them. > What happens then? Then you are talking to yourself. Again. Still? Always ... ! And that is the unfolding of the Universe. :-) Love, Ralf ==================================================================== "You do not HAVE a soul; you ARE a soul." - Seth/Jane Roberts Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 21, 2003 Report Share Posted January 21, 2003 - Ralf Tuesday, January 21, 2003 05:50 PM Re: Introduction: Ralf >>>> My background is both practical and theoretical, >>> Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less "theoritical", >>> than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? >> That's a great question. Is there a difference in showing respect >> to the incarnation of the feminine, and showing respect to our >> mental image of the feminine? > Both being constructed images, indeed there is none. Do you mean because the incarnation is perceived, and you feel that there is no difference between perception and imagination? -- S: No difference. All that is perceived, imagined, experienced,(whether profound or porfane) is a construction. A construction, emanating from the existing conditioning-in-the-moment. --- Or do you mean because the imagination is constructed from a construct itself, and therefore is (at least indirectly) also divine/natural/insert whatever word you wish ;-) ----- S: LOL The perceiving subject, aka "Ralf", which believes it is the subject of it's cognized world of objects, which thus constructs "Ralf's world" (which includes all the profound experiences, realizations, belief structures, etc etc),..........suggest for your consideration, that "Ralf" is also a cognized object. The "subject" and the "object" are BOTH cognized objects. A fairly simple exercise, if you are moved to explore, establishes this. ------ I have seen a similar argument used about whether the things we usually think of as man-made, such as plastics, chemicals, etc, are actually natural. After all, they were made by us and we are natural... Language is a collection of shortcuts. ----- S: I am suggesting that man and the creationing through him or her,in the moment, moment to moment to moment is itself a creationing. Is a process. That there is no personal self which thinks, chooses, decides, and then acts out of independent volition is a notion. Something which neuro-science and behaviorial experts are coming to conclude, what the mystics have hinted for thousand of years. ----- >> It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that >> we gather more speed... > Yes, to reach the point, where the need for speed is seen for > the hilarity it represents. > Aka, the smile you have walking on a sea-shore, watching the > frenzy of the "wave" speeding to try and meet the Ocean. Yes, absolutely. In fact, this is my major issue with Buddhism, that it appears to presuppose a goal that we reach so that we can move on. ------- S: Buddhism, what is spouted today and what Buddha prattled, are quite different.:-) The essence of the dude under the Bodhi tree was in this prattling... There is suffering, but no sufferer thereof; There is action, but no doer thereof; There is a path, but none to traverse; There is Nirvan, but none to attain it. Now contrast this, to what appears as the 40 odd sects of Buddhism, being bandied about. ---------- On the other hand, why does the wave move? --- S: The crucial issue is to apperceive that the wave does not move, but is "moved". The sheer delight of the Ocean in it's apparent movements, as the rise to the crests and apparent crash to the troughs -------- Speed was probably the wrong metaphor for someone who does not enjoy speed but sees it as a means to the reaching the goal faster. Let's replace it with 'joy'. ------- S: The need to reach, through whichever means, whatever methodlogies, whichever paths, whether speedily or slowly, preassumes the apriori assumption that one is separate from the goal to be reached, isn't it? And thus, in the very attempt to reach is the perpetuation of the assumption of the in-between distance. An oxy-moron. It's like to trying to haul yourself up by your boot straps. Is it ever possible? You are the very weight, you are trying to lift. Does not mean such "round and round the mulberry bush"..... games do not occur in phenomenality. After all, phenomenality, to be interesting ,has to have all possible hues and shades, isn't it?<LOL> ------- It is when we walk down a single path in both mind and body that we gather more joy. The world is a playground in which we can play different games, or play along with different games. We are constantly creating our reality, whether we do it consciously or not. To see the world as having 'meaning', as there being an 'objective' to life, tends to impede our enjoyment of experiences. But that doesn't mean we can express goals and objectives, and meet them as part of our living richly. -------- S: Sure. All I am suggesting for your consideration, that in the very expressing of the goals and objectives, in the very rich living (however you define that living), in the very living, as it is, moment to moment to moment..... ... "Ralf" does not live. that........."Ralf" is "lived". Moment to moment to moment. As an instrument through which divinity functions. Or in scientific terminology, a psycho-somatic responsive biological computer, capable of responding to an incoming input, ..........the specific response in the moment, being a "fashioned" functioning, ........fashioned THROUGH the existing conditioning-in-the-moment or the innate "wiring". Whether that response is an experience of profound Samadhi or the holy glee in espying a bottle of the finest Chablis. ----- >>>> Specifically, I have practiced various forms of meditation since >>>> I was 13, starting with basic exercises out of a book on yoga. >>>> Since then I have practiced inner and outer martial arts from >>>> Japan >>>> and China, meditation based on Zen and other Buddhist traditions, >>>> Paganism in a group, as well as an eclectic individual, and also >>>> ceremonial magical workings. I have read philosophical, religious >>>> and magical texts from around the world and across the millennia. >>> You seemed to have done the rounds, Ralf.:-) >>> Which particular flavour occupies you these days? >> The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. Awareness >> of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality >> through >> my beliefs, consciously. > Which pre-supposes > -an existence of a "Ralf" which has a reality, > -an ability of this entity to shape through some beliefs, that > reality, > -ergo an entity which believes (what it believes is of no import) > -and ergo an entity which can consciously, think, choose, decide, act > and achieve/fail to achieve. > Right? No, it only pre-supposes a 'Ralf' who experiences the world as if those assumptions hold, who can accept that there is no distinction between him and the world, other than those distinctions made to experience ... distinction. --- Excellent. The operative term which you used was "as if". I am suggesting that there is no "Ralf" to make these distinctions and thus to experience. ..............and that "experiencing" happens through an instrument, appropriately conditioned, and labled "Ralf", such that a sense of specific distinction exists, which allows specific experiences to "happen" THROUGH such an instrument. The presence of a distinction, any distinction ...................and lo behold the world appears. Apparently. --------- By choosing to be born, I choose to participate. By choosing to participate, I become a part. ------- S: Were you born, or what was born was duration, in which "Ralf" as an object became cognizable? Let's forget all this participation thingy. If you care to, can you share, from your past, one single choice that you Ralf believe, are totally convinced you have chosen, out of your independent volition? One incidence, specially the one which has deeply impacted your life, as you will remember the circumstances and the details. And lets unravel that apparent choice made, to explore what element of independent volition was exercised, in that event. That is, if you care to.:-) --------- > Invite you to consider the possibility that none of the above apriori > assumptions have any existential reality to them. > What happens then? Then you are talking to yourself. -- S: What else do you suppose is happening?:-) Is it not the "pursued" playing all the roles of all the "pursuers"? -------- Again. Still? Always ... ! And that is the unfolding of the Universe. :-) -------- If that is truly apperceived, will there be any issue left, any goal to be achieved, any destination to be reached, any experience to be distinguished as profound or profane? Rub-a-bub-dub Thank you for the grub Oh Yeah!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 23, 2003 Report Share Posted January 23, 2003 >>>>>> My background is both practical and theoretical, >>>>> Is practice (whatever be the particular form) any less >>>>> "theoritical", >>>>> than any theory held in the mind or heart or wherever? >>>> That's a great question. Is there a difference in showing respect >>>> to the incarnation of the feminine, and showing respect to our >>>> mental image of the feminine? >>> Both being constructed images, indeed there is none. >> Do you mean because the incarnation is perceived, and you feel >> that there is no difference between perception and imagination? > No difference. > All that is perceived, imagined, experienced,(whether profound or > porfane) is a construction. > A construction, emanating from the existing > conditioning-in-the-moment. You are multiplying all of reality by the same constant, and not changing anything. It is like discussing the plot, cinematography, relationships between characters, historical relevance, etc of a film and then saying: "Ah, but you must realise most importantly that it is ALL a film!" If it was not a film, we would not be talking about the plot, cinematography, etc in the first place. That statement only becomes relevant if we were mixing the reality within the film with the reality of our lives outside the film. There is no such distinction in life and spirituality. >> Or do you mean because the imagination is constructed from >> a construct itself, and therefore is (at least indirectly) >> also divine/natural/insert whatever word you wish ;-) > LOL > > The perceiving subject, aka "Ralf", which believes it is the > subject of it's cognized world of objects, which thus constructs > "Ralf's world" (which includes all the profound experiences, > realizations, belief structures, etc etc),..........suggest for > your consideration, that "Ralf" is also a cognized object. > The "subject" and the "object" are BOTH cognized objects. > A fairly simple exercise, if you are moved to explore, > establishes this. I never denied this. It is completely obvious to anyone who has contemplated on spiritual teachings. A cute insight to gain, but in itself pointless: Chop wood. Carry water. >> I have seen a similar argument used about whether the things >> we usually think of as man-made, such as plastics, chemicals, >> etc, are actually natural. After all, they were made by us >> and we are natural... Language is a collection of shortcuts. > I am suggesting that man and the creationing through him or her, > in the moment, moment to moment to moment is itself a creationing. > Is a process. > That there is no personal self which thinks, chooses, decides, > and then acts out of independent volition is a notion. > Something which neuro-science and behaviorial experts are coming > to conclude, what the mystics have hinted for thousand of years. .... and the reason they have hinted at it is because it explains why & how the creation of personal reality can be done consciously. Is there another purpose for this insight? > The crucial issue is to apperceive that the wave does not move, but > is "moved". > The sheer delight of the Ocean in it's apparent movements, as the > rise to the crests and apparent crash to the troughs and still the wave goes on moving... :-) I invite you to go beyond the beauty of understanding the deeper nature of reality, and to begin using that understanding to live a richer, more fulfilling life. > All I am suggesting for your consideration, that in the very > expressing of the goals and objectives, in the very rich living > (however you define that living), in the very living, as it is, moment > to moment to moment..... > > ... "Ralf" does not live. > > that........."Ralf" is "lived". > > Moment to moment to moment. > > As an instrument through which divinity functions. Is a man a puppeteer while the puppets are in the trunk? Is the puppet the cloth and materials, or the characters in the puppeteers mind? Is there a difference for the puppet? >>>> The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. >>>> Awareness >>>> of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality >>>> through >>>> my beliefs, consciously. >>> Which pre-supposes >>> -an existence of a "Ralf" which has a reality, >>> -an ability of this entity to shape through some beliefs, that >>> reality, >>> -ergo an entity which believes (what it believes is of no import) >>> -and ergo an entity which can consciously, think, choose, decide, >>> act >>> and achieve/fail to achieve. >>> Right? >> No, it only pre-supposes a 'Ralf' who experiences the world as if >> those assumptions hold, who can accept that there is no distinction >> between him and the world, other than those distinctions made to >> experience ... distinction. > Excellent. > The operative term which you used was "as if". > > I am suggesting that there is no "Ralf" to make these distinctions > and thus to experience. > ..............and that "experiencing" happens through an instrument, > appropriately conditioned, and labled "Ralf", such that a sense of > specific distinction exists, which allows specific experiences to > "happen" THROUGH such an instrument. You contradict yourself. Is there a 'Ralf' or not? Are there experiences or not? What does it matter to the instrument 'Ralf' that it is an aspect of divine creation? What would it matter if it had independent existence? > Were you born, or what was born was duration, in which > "Ralf" as an object became cognizable? There is no difference. > Let's forget all this participation thingy. > > If you care to, can you share, from your past, one single choice > that you Ralf believe, are totally convinced you have chosen, out of > your independent volition? > > One incidence, specially the one which has deeply impacted your > life, as you will remember the circumstances and the details. > > And lets unravel that apparent choice made, to explore what element > of independent volition was exercised, in that event. > > That is, if you care to.:-) I don't see the value in that exercise. You should understand, with your background, that it will only be a game of hypothesis building with no way to prove or disprove any of the myriad of possibilities. We clearly hold a similar understanding of the nature of reality. My question to you, whether our understanding of our role within that reality is shared, follows... >>> Invite you to consider the possibility that none of the above apriori >>> assumptions have any existential reality to them. >>> What happens then? >> Then you are talking to yourself. > What else do you suppose is happening?:-) I don't suppose anything else is happening. Do you suppose that I am not talking if I am talking to myself? There is still talking... I am talking to myself, and I am so involved in the joy of the conversation that I forget the self-referential nature of the conversation. There is still talking... > Is it not the "pursued" playing all the roles of all the "pursuers"? Of course. I get the feeling from your posts that you think the pursued and pursuer should stop playing when they realise they are one. They knew they are one before they started playing. They still decided to play. > If that is truly apperceived, will there be any issue left, any goal > to be achieved, any destination to be reached, any experience to be > distinguished as profound or profane? Yes, of course. Absolutely. The joy of the game is in playing it. Are you playing? Or are you on hold while you contemplate the realisation that you are a puppet? Paralysis through analysis? Ralf =================================================================== You need only practice with all of your heart and all of your mind. -- Shaolin Monk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 26, 2003 Report Share Posted January 26, 2003 Hi Ralf, Assuming you are back on a PC.:-) Snipping where no arising response is noted. Okey dokey? - Ralf Thursday, January 23, 2003 11:35 AM Re: Introduction: Ralf <SNIP> > All that is perceived, imagined, experienced,(whether profound or > porfane) is a construction. > A construction, emanating from the existing > conditioning-in-the-moment. You are multiplying all of reality by the same constant, and not changing anything. It is like discussing the plot, cinematography, relationships between characters, historical relevance, etc of a film and then saying: "Ah, but you must realise most importantly that it is ALL a film!" If it was not a film, we would not be talking about the plot, cinematography, etc in the first place. That statement only becomes relevant if we were mixing the reality within the film with the reality of our lives outside the film. ----- S: I am suggesting for your consideration Ralf, that the reality within the film and the reality of "our lives" are not two. The reality of our lives is the very film, being speculated upon. There is no "Ralf" watching, dissecting, coming to profound conclusions about the film. The watching, dissecting, coming to profound conclusions about the film, is THE very film itself. And that is why, any watching, any dissecting, any profane or profound conclusion about the film or the film make, is........ aka ........the affirmations of one of your dreamed-up character in your last night sleep dream, .........who confirms to another dreamed-up character, ..............that in his meditative space, ........he saw the shape of the nose of the Ralf the dreamer of the dream,...... and it is THUS.:-) -------------- There is no such distinction in life and spirituality. ------- S: Indeed. Did you detect any distinction being made? Whether you call it Life, or what-IS, there is nothing spiritual about it. Or eveything (both the profanity and profoundity of it) is spiritual. ---------- <SNIP> > That there is no personal self which thinks, chooses, decides, > and then acts out of independent volition is a notion. > Something which neuro-science and behaviorial experts are coming > to conclude, what the mystics have hinted for thousand of years. ... and the reason they have hinted at it is because it explains why & how the creation of personal reality can be done consciously. ----- S: The hint, Ralf was a pointing that all personal realities are an inference. ----- Is there another purpose for this insight? -------- S: There is no purpose, to Life itself, let alone a prattling within the gestalt of Life. Why do I say this? A purpose exists in the realm of incompletion. Only a thing, an aspect, an activity,........ has a purpose, when in itself, it is not in completion. When "it" is a means to something else, to achieve something else. There being nothing beyond Life, for Life to achieve, Life can have no purpose. A term used to point to this no-purpose nature of Life, was that it is a Leela, a Grand Play. What can be the purpose of a play,........ when the director, the actors, the characters depicted in the play, ...........the camera man, the curtain raiser, the usher....AND the audience, .........are all one and the same,...... on a simulataneous basis. --------- > The crucial issue is to apperceive that the wave does not move, but > is "moved". > The sheer delight of the Ocean in it's apparent movements, as the > rise to the crests and apparent crash to the troughs and still the wave goes on moving... :-) I invite you to go beyond the beauty of understanding the deeper nature of reality, and to begin using that understanding to live a richer, more fulfilling life. ------- S: Thank you for the invitation.:-) If the understanding is an apperception, which basically means the understanding is neither of the mind/intellect nor of the heart, ..........there is no "one" left, ......who then has to live the beauty of the understanding. As living happens, through that instrument, moment to moment to moment, .........in that very manner, form, shape, quality,of the living .....it is the beauty of apperception, living moment to moment. --------- > All I am suggesting for your consideration, that in the very > expressing of the goals and objectives, in the very rich living > (however you define that living), in the very living, as it is, moment > to moment to moment..... > > ... "Ralf" does not live. > > that........."Ralf" is "lived". > > Moment to moment to moment. > > As an instrument through which divinity functions. Is a man a puppeteer while the puppets are in the trunk? Is the puppet the cloth and materials, or the characters in the puppeteers mind? Is there a difference for the puppet? ----- S: Come again, on that Ralf. Not being native English born, the language often fazes moi.:-) --------- >>>> The essence from the paths of others, applied to my life. >>>> Awareness >>>> of the present moment. Awareness of energy. Shaping my reality >>>> through >>>> my beliefs, consciously. >>> Which pre-supposes >>> -an existence of a "Ralf" which has a reality, >>> -an ability of this entity to shape through some beliefs, that >>> reality, >>> -ergo an entity which believes (what it believes is of no import) >>> -and ergo an entity which can consciously, think, choose, decide, >>> act >>> and achieve/fail to achieve. >>> Right? >> No, it only pre-supposes a 'Ralf' who experiences the world as if >> those assumptions hold, who can accept that there is no distinction >> between him and the world, other than those distinctions made to >> experience ... distinction. > Excellent. > The operative term which you used was "as if". > > I am suggesting that there is no "Ralf" to make these distinctions > and thus to experience. > ..............and that "experiencing" happens through an instrument, > appropriately conditioned, and labled "Ralf", such that a sense of > specific distinction exists, which allows specific experiences to > "happen" THROUGH such an instrument. You contradict yourself. Is there a 'Ralf' or not? ----------- S: Nope. There is an apparent sense of entitification, labeled by society as "Ralf", existing in a manifest object, in a responsive biological computer, capable of responding only as per the intrinsic conditioning-in-the-moment. Whether that response in the moment is the highest devotion to Shakti or singing lustily sitting in a wheel barrow. --------- Are there experiences or not? ----- S: Within the gestalt of duality, there is "experiencing", with no one to experience the experiencing. And ...................the gestalt of duality, ..........is itself an inference. ROFLMAO ----------- What does it matter to the instrument 'Ralf' that it is an aspect of divine creation? -------- S: If that is truly appercieved, which means that the understanding is not "within time", can there be any issue, left? Can there be any "what does it matter?" What does it matter,......... to whom will this question be relevant? Only to the sense of entitification going around under the label "Ralf". -------- What would it matter if it had independent existence? ----- S: A sense of independent existence, is the immediate birth of your world. What is this sense of independent existence? The "me-Ralf" With the birth of the "me",(notionally), the "you" is born. With the "me", mine is born, which in turn births "your's. Now the "me" has an issue, how to deal with the "you" through the mine/your ....distinctions. The "me" has issues, issues around to seek,(whatever, the latest BMW or Moksha), to find, to achieve, plan for success, fear failure, deal with insecurities of Life, etc etc etc. The whole jing-bang. ------------- > Were you born, or what was born was duration, in which > "Ralf" as an object became cognizable? There is no difference. ---- :-) Ralf has issues to be resolved, tackled, addressed. Duration, just flows it's alotted time and role in that time. ---------- > Let's forget all this participation thingy. > > If you care to, can you share, from your past, one single choice > that you Ralf believe, are totally convinced you have chosen, out of > your independent volition? > > One incidence, specially the one which has deeply impacted your > life, as you will remember the circumstances and the details. > > And lets unravel that apparent choice made, to explore what element > of independent volition was exercised, in that event. > > That is, if you care to.:-) I don't see the value in that exercise. You should understand, with your background, that it will only be a game of hypothesis building with no way to prove or disprove any of the myriad of possibilities. ------- S: Fine, whatever you say. Incidentally what back ground are you alluding to? ----------- We clearly hold a similar understanding of the nature of reality. My question to you, whether our understanding of our role within that reality is shared, follows... ----- Come again on that, Ralf --------- >>> Invite you to consider the possibility that none of the above apriori >>> assumptions have any existential reality to them. >>> What happens then? >> Then you are talking to yourself. > What else do you suppose is happening?:-) I don't suppose anything else is happening. Do you suppose that I am not talking if I am talking to myself? --------- S: When you cognize yourself talking to yourself, you are still in duality. A cognizing "me-Ralf" noting the talking taking place. That, when there is no awareness of being aware, what can be said about that? Or whatever said or not said, both would be conceptual conjectures. -------- There is still talking... ----- S: Who notices that? ------- I am talking to myself, and I am so involved in the joy of the conversation that I forget the self-referential nature of the conversation. There is still talking... ---- S: Sure as impersonal functioning. Moment to moment to moment, through the billions and billions of appropriately conditioned manifested instruments, making up what is referred to as phenomenality. And yet impersonal functioning is also an inference. Noumenon, or Consciousness-in-repose, where functioning has ceased, who or what can affirm even this cessation? Or it's initiation. ------- > Is it not the "pursued" playing all the roles of all the "pursuers"? Of course. I get the feeling from your posts that you think the pursued and pursuer should stop playing when they realise they are one. ----- S: Nope. For there can be no realization of oneness. It is not a realization by someone of something and thus a question of a further "should" or "should not",..... arising. ---------- They knew they are one before they started playing. They still decided to play. ---- S: Apparently. ---- > If that is truly apperceived, will there be any issue left, any goal > to be achieved, any destination to be reached, any experience to be > distinguished as profound or profane? Yes, of course. Absolutely. The joy of the game is in playing it. Are you playing? Or are you on hold while you contemplate the realisation that you are a puppet? Paralysis through analysis? ------ S: What do you suppose?:-) Analysis needs an entity to analyse and thus can very easily be paralysed. What is being prattled, is not an analysis. However, Ralf whatever your take about the prattlings, is the truth. For "Ralf".:-) Zip-A-Dee-Dah-Doo-Phat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 - "Ralf" <ralf <> Monday, February 03, 2003 03:46 PM Re: Introduction: Ralf > > Hi Sandeep > > I've snipped your earlier reply, because I think we > need to simplify this multi level discussion... :-) > > How do you integrate spirituality into your life? By knowing that anything which is to be integrated, is perforce separated, in the first place. And that which is separated, will always remain separated, no matter what song and dance you get into. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 2, 2003 Report Share Posted February 2, 2003 - "Ralf" <ralf <> Monday, February 03, 2003 05:15 PM Re: Introduction: Ralf > Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: > > >> How do you integrate spirituality into your life? > > > > > > By knowing that anything which is to be integrated, is > > perforce separated, in the first place. > > > > And that which is separated, will always remain separated, > > no matter what song and dance you get into. > > > So your only spiritual practise is 'knowing', is intellectual? Intellectual knowing is not knowing. Neither is knowing, the knowing through the heart. Knowing is when there is no "knower" to know any knowing. And then in that gestalt of existing, beingness and all the functioning of that beingness, .......in the moment, moment to moment to moment, is neither spiritual nor material. Neither profound, neither profane. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Hi Sandeep I've snipped your earlier reply, because I think we need to simplify this multi level discussion... :-) How do you integrate spirituality into your life? Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 Sandeep Chatterjee wrote: >> How do you integrate spirituality into your life? > > > By knowing that anything which is to be integrated, is > perforce separated, in the first place. > > And that which is separated, will always remain separated, > no matter what song and dance you get into. So your only spiritual practise is 'knowing', is intellectual? Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 >>>> How do you integrate spirituality into your life? >>> By knowing that anything which is to be integrated, is >>> perforce separated, in the first place. >>> >>> And that which is separated, will always remain separated, >>> no matter what song and dance you get into. >> So your only spiritual practise is 'knowing', is intellectual? > Intellectual knowing is not knowing. > > Neither is knowing, the knowing through the heart. > > Knowing is when there is no "knower" to know any knowing. > > And then in that gestalt of existing, beingness and all the > functioning of > that beingness, .......in the moment, moment to moment to moment, is > neither spiritual nor material. > Neither profound, neither profane. That will never sell. Try again in a way that a normal person can understand. Ralf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 3, 2003 Report Share Posted February 3, 2003 - "Ralf" <ralf <> Monday, February 03, 2003 06:19 PM Re: Introduction: Ralf > >>>> How do you integrate spirituality into your life? > > >>> By knowing that anything which is to be integrated, is > >>> perforce separated, in the first place. > >>> > >>> And that which is separated, will always remain separated, > >>> no matter what song and dance you get into. > > > >> So your only spiritual practise is 'knowing', is intellectual? > > > Intellectual knowing is not knowing. > > > > Neither is knowing, the knowing through the heart. > > > > Knowing is when there is no "knower" to know any knowing. > > > > And then in that gestalt of existing, beingness and all the > > functioning of > > that beingness, .......in the moment, moment to moment to moment, is > > neither spiritual nor material. > > Neither profound, neither profane. > > > That will never sell. There wasn't anything on offer. > Try again in a way that a normal person > can understand. Why?:-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.