No-mind & Awareness- odysseus

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 "

<ilikezen2004> wrote:

>

>Odysseus:

>Spiritual Masters would never approve Existentialism. Even if you

call God the Self or the One etc. That doesn't mean that He doesn't

exist. Your life it self is the prof of his existence. Krishna says

that after physical death we go elsewhere. I say so too. The

consiousness cannot die. Because it never been born! Ramana Maharshi

says words like thoses. I say them too! Your investigation about the

human nature has not reached his peak yet and you, yourself, stopped

your own progress. But I know you don't care you already taken

position. Even if master Nis says that we shouldn't take a position

because we can be stuck with that particular position or belief.

>Where are you friend? You hide form others and from yourself.

 

----------------------------

 

There was a spiritual master who did approve. His name was Buddha

Guatama Siddhartha. His texts state very simply that he was

agnostic. Why was he agnostic? He said, " because he didn't know. "

He was simply honest that he didn't know. Even though he recieved

an understanding of past lives when he made his transformation (for

lack of a better word) he still posited that this was determined

by choice and therefore not a hard and fast rule. He still held

fast in the idea that he did not " know " based on changing variables.

 

Much later buddhist sects turned it into a religion that went the

way that is natural for humans which is to form their own ideas, but

Buddhas Guatamas ideas were very different than most present day

practising buddhist sects.

 

When I came to understand the nature of it all the ideas and

bantering over identifying what is or is not separate became useless.

 

I understood my purpose and began about it. The intellect want to

reason and figure it all out. If it leads to understanding then

fine.

~*~ G

[Guest guest]

>

> There was a spiritual master who did approve. His name was

Buddha

> Guatama Siddhartha. His texts state very simply that he was

> agnostic. Why was he agnostic? He said, " because he didn't know. "

> He was simply honest that he didn't know. Even though he recieved

> an understanding of past lives when he made his transformation

(for

> lack of a better word) he still posited that this was

determined

> by choice and therefore not a hard and fast rule. He still held

> fast in the idea that he did not " know " based on changing

variables.

>

> Much later buddhist sects turned it into a religion that went the

> way that is natural for humans which is to form their own ideas,

but

> Buddhas Guatamas ideas were very different than most present day

> practising buddhist sects.

>

> When I came to understand the nature of it all the ideas and

> bantering over identifying what is or is not separate became

useless.

>

> I understood my purpose and began about it. The intellect want to

> reason and figure it all out. If it leads to understanding then

> fine.

> ~*~ G

****************************

 

Dear G,

 

I think the buddha didn't approve, neither denied the existence of

God. He teached the evidence of his knowledge and understanding, his

experience concerning reality and life etc.

 

Seeing more clear has never meant to see all.

If you take the strongest man in the world who can lift 1000 pounds

lets say. It never been achieved before! That doesn't mean that

never ever a person will be able to lift more than 1000 pounds or

see better or more clear than the buddha. Bodhidharma is such a one.

He understands the buddha yet he teaches the Way in a new way. More

accurate, well for me it is more clear. I'm not saying that

bodhidharma is more enlighten. I like the colors of his teachings.

 

agnostic: doubter a person who doubts truth of religion.

 

In my opinion not believing in religion does not take away the fact

of the possibility that God can exist. The buddha never declared

officialy in his writtings that he does not believe in God. He would

more say that God is more like what we know as the self. No-mind

pure awarness etc. It is easy to say that God does not exist but

when the buddha himself enter the Self which is one of the best

description of God! How can he say that God does not exist? When he

enters in a world where existance in trancended in Absolute Nirvana.

If he enters Nirvana why is he still alive? I mean physically? Is it

because Nirvana is not death but Life itself, the Self, Reaching

this point how can one say that God or the Self does not exist? If

we say God does not exist but the Self exist. We are changing the

description not the content. The content can never change God cannot

change. We change.

 

Truth cannot be found in religion. And this here is one of the major

teachings of Jesus. You cannot buy the kingdom of heaven. Buy it

with good deeds etc. Jesus teaches spiritual freedom. Not spiritual

anarchy. You cannot get rid of Jesus and believe in Jesus. etc.

 

God never wanted religion he wants a relationship with us. He wants

an union ( yoga) with us. And we want the same! Be one with him.

If you like Jesus. You may agree. If not you disagree. That will not

change God or the Self. God is. The Self is. The world by mistake

has been taken for the external world as separate from our nature.

It doesn't stop running.

We must know and understand " who we are " Life is stronger than any

of us yet we claim to be stronger that life itself?? We must

understand. We must awaken. We must unite. We must be free. In God,

in the Self. Why? Because we have no choice. It will take us several

lives to achieve this, but we have no other choice but to one day

enter were we came from.

 

and the consequence of the denial of that union with the Self is

Suffering.

 

Love

Odysseus,

[Guest guest]

Nisargadatta , " goldenrainbowrider "

<laughterx8@h...> wrote:

>

> Nisargadatta , " ilikezen2004 "

> <ilikezen2004> wrote:

>>

>>Odysseus:

>>Spiritual Masters would never approve Existentialism.

>

> ----------------------------

>

>There was a spiritual master who did approve. His name was Buddha

>Guatama Siddhartha. His texts state very simply that he was

>agnostic. Why was he agnostic? He said, " because he didn't know. "

>He was simply honest that he didn't know. Even though he recieved

>an understanding of past lives when he made his transformation (for

>lack of a better word) he still posited that this was determined

>by choice and therefore not a hard and fast rule. He still held

>fast in the idea that he did not " know " based on changing variables.

>

>Much later buddhist sects turned it into a religion that went the

>way that is natural for humans which is to form their own ideas, but

>Buddhas Guatamas ideas were very different than most present day

>practising buddhist sects.

>

>When I came to understand the nature of it all the ideas and

>bantering over identifying what is or is not separate became useless.

>

>I understood my purpose and began about it. The intellect want to

>reason and figure it all out. If it leads to understanding then

>fine.

> ~*~ G

 

Hi :-)

 

although I agree in most what you say I still think, there is some

misunderstanding regarding the terms " agnostic " and " existentialism " .

 

The agnostic would say " I cannot know if there is a God, at least not

now " , as opposed to the atheist who says " I state there is no God " .

 

And existencialism... is a large field. I think the best known form is

the one represented by Sartre. He was defenitely an atheist most time

of his life, except his last years.

 

Gautama Buddha, I would say, was neither an agnostic nor an

existentialist. Buddha has realized the truth, Nirvana. He would not

say " I cannot know now " , he would simply say " I know truth " . Like

Sokrates, who has said " I know, that I know nothing " (and not " I know

nothing " ).

 

Here is how Buddha has expressed this:

 

" Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle of

No-Beyond. Nirvana do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and

dying. "

 

And here is something he said about belief:

 

" Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe

nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just

because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it

is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone

else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be

true. "

 

Greetings

Stefan

[Guest guest]

O: >It doesn't give you the right to say that your are above God

which is the root of the Self.

>

>But you choose your actions in a world " built " by him.

 

 

G: Sending out lots of warm fuzzies your way but your message isn't

clear. If God is the root of the Self, as you are saying, then how

could one be above it it or below it? The thing that is catching

you up is that your trying to separate yourself from the root while

still claiming that this God is your root. Ponder on Nis common

usage of the term " I Am That " and see what you come up with. But

when you resist what/who you are by insisting that you are " not "

that…god/root you aren't aware of the not-so-subtle contradiction

in your statement and how it creates a confusion within your

intellect. You're influenced by secular religious ideas about

God being a " him " and it is strong in your conversations. If

you came face to face with the root of the Self—Your Self you

wouldn't be so quick to call it a " him " and your conversation about

this " God " would sound very different then they do now. For now

you are echoing words you've heard and you fight defensively to

maintain them. It's common and everyone does it to some degree;

it's pretty hard to avoid for sure.

 

In any case you still didn't explain from a previous question how

you can determine that God is separate from yourself if it is the

root of yourself. Your upset that a person would consider

themselves to be God but you claim that It is also the root of

what/who you are yet it is important to put that part of your Self

on a pedestal and praise it (based on your previous comments about

praising God) but you must not believe that you are God because

that is blasphemous. That takes a great deal of mental gymnastics

to figure out what your getting at. It is actually is a component

of religious mythical thinking which has kept humans " separated " for

aeons. Or rather just unconscious of the understanding that they

aren't separate but this has in fact produced such distorted head

games as some non-dual posters who get stuck in this name-the-

separate-thing game. In effect this appears to be what you are

doing by continuing the separate non-dual name game with your

interpretations of what you perceive God to be or not to be.

respectfully,

~*~ G

 

 

>Stefan: Gautama Buddha, I would say, was neither an agnostic nor an

existentialist. Buddha has realized the truth, Nirvana. He would not

say " I cannot know now " , he would simply say " I know truth " .

>Here is how Buddha has expressed this:

" Where there is nothing; where naught is grasped, there is the Isle

of

No-Beyond. Nirvana do I call it -- the utter extinction of aging and

dying. "

 

G: I was just going to reply to that topic when I read your message

first. Yes, I agree that the term agnostic vs atheist is rarely

understood even among atheist circles. Have you ever had a

conversation with a group of staunch atheists? I have and the

atheists claim they are `without' a belief in god and because it

can't be actually proven everyone is atheist by default and that

there is no such thing as an agnostic, just a soft atheist or a hard

atheist. However, the agnostics end up saying that such a claim

insists that there is some fact in order to make a stand that

claims one is " without God " and since they don't believe that can be

sufficiently done they claim everyone is actually an agnostic with

hopes of grandeur and optimism making them a theist or pessimism

making them an atheist but that indeed no one knows. I claim that

these statements one way or the other are rather difficult for the

average person to make since the word `god' has a different

definition for the deits or the taoist or the hindu or the

christian. It boils down to a anthropology type of cultural idea

about God. Again, when one has reached the origin/source I've never

heard them define it in terms of " god " unless their talking to

religious types and must speak in a language that they might

recognize and feed them milk as they aren't capable of eating meat.

 

I'll have to search for the text where Buddha does actually say

that he " doesn't know " . I have read it and there are groups who

define his comments as being agnostic because he says he doesn't

know. These are generally people who have reached a state of

understanding themselves. However; your quote on Nirvanna doesn't

address Buddha's belief in god but in an experience. There is a

big difference. The comment about nirvana and the agnostic attitude

about God doesn't come under the same category if you factor in

choice. Have you ever watched the movie " What Dreams may Come "

with Robin Williams and Cuba Gooding Jr.? It is an ideal example

of what choice can produce and I strongly believe that it was in

this vein that Buddha was speaking of Nirvana but again this is a

different topic then God.

 

Respectfully,

 

~*~ G