Discussion of the nature of Ultimate Reality and the path to Enlightenment
http://www.theabsolute.net/phpBB/
Diebert van Rhijn wrote:What point of view could "Enlightenment" have? Points and views are human. Even when it's personification of some object.Kunga wrote:The person, from an Enlightened point of view, does not exist.
Yes, good point...but you know what I mean.
It's fine unless secretly there's still someone hiding in all those activities, piggybacking!Enlightened activity is what nobody does.
Show me activity and I''ll show you person showing up.
What I'm referring to is the selfless behavior of an altruistic bodhisattva type person.
Only as far as actions and thoughts are disconnected from beings and origination.When you see yourself as somebody, there is ego activity.
Which looks like what you are doing here:
Spontaneous persons do spontaneous things.When you are a Buddha, you act spontaneously.
A buddha doesn't need to think about anything, like ordinary people do, their actions are perfect for any situation. Sometimes ordinary people can be spontaneous, but Buddhas are always spontaneous and perfect in whatever they do. Unlike an ordinary being.
There's no disconnect. There's no action isolated somewhere, alienated from its origin.
Origination is depending and concentrated around person, livelihood, environment and defies any notion of just being random or uncaused.
It sounds you're just borrowing words.So selfless actions are the activity of the enlightened , and the enlightened, act without a self.
No, those were not borrowed , but my own interpretation/thoughts.
I don't hear your own, no matter how imperfect they might be. But borrowing is no enlightenment, it's a charade. My advice is to reach not for enlightenment (better yet: reject it) but reach for some more authenticity first. Get rid of the ideas of that being an illusion or "nobody is original". It's an excuse not to push further.
Selfless behavior is often still seen in relation to other selves and their selfish behavior. Truly selfless behavior might just as well look horrible to our selves. Defies all we think we are.Kunga wrote:What I'm referring to is the selfless behavior of an altruistic bodhisattva type person.
Human thoughts and actions are not separable. Even a student would know that. And even his thoughts can be "spontaneous" and appropriate, even directed where direction is required. The danger with your statement is that you are creating a magical being with no base in any reality. Does that work for you?]A buddha doesn't need to think about anything, like ordinary people do, their actions are perfect for any situation. Sometimes ordinary people can be spontaneous, but Buddhas are always spontaneous and perfect in whatever they do. Unlike an ordinary being.
That's fine of course. But don't run too far ahead now as the "road" is long and winding. Experiences now seeming incredible can be looked back up as blessed children's play. The first bells. That's my experience. It's up to you to benefit from it or not.It's still a little fuzzy to me....most of my comprehension is from what I have read. But I did have an incredible Kundalini experience.
Snarl! Busting in and all that effort to make this one-liner. We'll draw all the nasty grudge out of you yet, Dennis.Dennis Mahar wrote:Diebert and comprehension is a contradiction in terms.
The key is not to argue that there are independent objects that mean different things 'depending on the context'.Yes. And I am trying my best to be a useful tool at this forum