Guest guest Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Thanks again. Interesting, a bit scary though. Some more questions. You said the whole misery is that I *think* that I am " somebody " . To get out of this, I see 2 options. Either I *think* that I am " not a somebody " which is as absurd as the former, or do not *think* at all which makes some sense. By the way, is not the thought process itself based on this " somebody " ? Can there be any kind of thinking without the thinker? Does the one who is answering these questions on this discussion group (or doing any action with an interest in it) *think* anything at all? Please scare me again Murali Realization, judirhodes@e... wrote: > Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...> wrote: > > Thanks. More queries. > > > > What hope then is there for " somebody " like me who dwells in duality > > but see non-duality as a wonderful possibility? > > > ***** None you see, that's the whole point. See that you are always > suffering. When you're at your best or when you're at your worst, it > doesn't make any difference, the whole premise itself is suffering. > Buddha's first noble truth, " life " is nothing but suffering. > > > > How then can you identify " somebody else " and complain about them > > being dumb witted if you yourself don't have this sense of > > being " somebody " ? > > > ******* You aren't any more an entity than I am. But you think you > are. You *think* you're a somebody you see? That is what your > suffering is. And this particular body/mind here referred to as Judi, > doesn't suffer that mis-understanding. > > > > Accidents may happen. Does that mean only accidents happen? More > > over even accident has to happen to " somebody " to make him a nobody. > > Is it not? > > > ******* It's an occurance of understanding that happens in some > particular body/minds. But that understanding doesn't " make " him > anything. He was never " anything " in the first place. It erradicates > that entire notion. You see there is only consciousness speaking thru > these forms. Just because you think you are somebody, doesn't make you > a somebody. Try as you will! :-) But it's suffering you see? That's > all it is. > > Judi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 19, 2001 Report Share Posted November 19, 2001 Realization, " Murali " <murali@g...> wrote: > Thanks again. Interesting, a bit scary though. > Some more questions. > > You said the whole misery is that I *think* that I am " somebody " . To > get out of this, I see 2 options. Either I *think* that I am " not a > somebody " which is as absurd as the former, or do not *think* at all > which makes some sense. > ******* Thinking or not thinking is just more of the same nonsense. A strategy to no avail. That's who *you* are. A seeking/suffering activity only, going nowhere, all the time, donkey chasing a carrot, " misery " only. And there is the understanding of that. Does " egg on face " hve any relevance here? Surrender Dorothy! :-) > By the way, is not the thought process itself based on > this " somebody " ? Can there be any kind of thinking without the > thinker? > ****** Your mis-understanding is thinking that there are *entities* *in* these bodies. There is nobody! Only consciousness speaking thru benefit of these forms. It's an activity, NOT an entity. It's a " play " . A play of forms. The whole entire universe, existence itself is but a play of forms, without anybody *in* them. Only consciousness. > Does the one who is answering these questions on this discussion group > (or doing any action with an interest in it) *think* anything at all? > ****** Like I said, thoughts occur, without benefit or need of a separate thinker. > Please scare me again > ***** Boo! :-) Judi 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.