A spiritual person is...

[Lunitik]

Hence the importance of doing, rather than the pursuit of not doing, and thinking all along the way. The doing? Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.

It is humorous that most thinking is spent in discovering ways to not do, or to make doing easier. Humans devote much of their time to this, for we all wish to rest as much as possible.

Therefore, I reason that thinking is counter productive to doing. If you are distracted by thought, you will not be doing totally.

 

[luecy7]

I have only said that selfishness when it is not aimed at the false self is not selfishness at all, but rather selflessness. I like how you twist my words conveniently to fit your own perceptions.

You used the word selfishness: "Where there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative."

When you see others as separate, you must act as you wish them to act towards you. When you see them as part of the whole as you are, this becomes meaningless. You are doing what is best for the whole at all times. If you wish to call this delusional, be my guest, I have experienced the truth of this however, and if I was a cold hearted person I would say that your view is the one which is delusional. I would say this because you have accepted societal influences which tell you you are individual, you have accepted a dual mentality and built an ego to affirm it.

You say 'we' and 'they', 'I' and 'you', separating yourself from someone.

I am an individual because I don't know what you ate for breakfast today. In fact I only know precisely what I ate for breakfast, because I only chose for this body, and this mind, what to eat for breakfast. So whether you choose to do some things or not, I have no real knowledge, capability, or responsibility with it. I will have to believe that you think I am delusional, and that you are not an individual, as you say. Therein, show me my delusion: tell me what I had for breakfast today, and tell me what I am going to have for breakfast tomorrow. If you are able to do that, then you are certainly more than an individual, and I am apparently not an individual, and must be under a delusion that this is the mind/body that I am responsible with. Even if I could make you eat something for breakfast, it would not be my mind/body to make you do it. So I give you permission: make me eat something for breakfast tomorrow, and tell me what it is going to be. If you can do that, then you will be correct... you and I are not so individual after all. If you can't, well then we are individual, and my admission that we are, was correct.

 

[luecy7]

It is humorous that most thinking is spent in discovering ways to not do, or to make doing easier. Humans devote much of their time to this, for we all wish to rest as much as possible.

Therefore, I reason that thinking is counter productive to doing. If you are distracted by thought, you will not be doing totally.

So now you can speak for what we all wish? Please reveal this delusion then, and speak for what I wish for breakfast tomorrow.

 

[seattlegal]

It is humorous that most thinking is spent in discovering ways to not do, or to make doing easier. Humans devote much of their time to this, for we all wish to rest as much as possible.

Therefore, I reason that thinking is counter productive to doing. If you are distracted by thought, you will not be doing totally.

There is much that can be said about the value of spontaneity, especially in regards to creativity. However, when things go wrong, thinking can be helpful in diagnosing and correcting a problem.

 

[Lunitik]

You used the word selfishness: "Where there is no false self, selfishness is not a negative."

Yes, because when there is no false self, what is left? I thought I already explained this concept, how when you realize your true self - that you are not separate from the whole at all - you still do for yourself, yet it is viewed by others as selflessness.

You say 'we' and 'they', 'I' and 'you', separating yourself from someone.

It becomes difficult to express oneself without such descriptions. One of the first things I said in this thread was related to the deficiencies of language, and yet it is quite necessary to utilize it if I wish to express myself to others.

I am an individual because I don't know what you ate for breakfast today. In fact I only know precisely what I ate for breakfast, because I only chose for this body, and this mind, what to eat for breakfast. So whether you choose to do some things or not, I have no real knowledge, capability, or responsibility with it. I will have to believe that you think I am delusional, and that you are not an individual, as you say. Therein, show me my delusion: tell me what I had for breakfast today, and tell me what I am going to have for breakfast tomorrow. If you are able to do that, then you are certainly more than an individual, and I am apparently not an individual, and must be under a delusion that this is the mind/body that I am responsible with. Even if I could make you eat something for breakfast, it would not be my mind/body to make you do it. So I give you permission: make me eat something for breakfast tomorrow, and tell me what it is going to be. If you can do that, then you will be correct... you and I are not so individual after all. If you can't, well then we are individual, and my admission that we are, was correct.

How can I tell you what you had for breakfast when I do not know what I ate? You discuss the past and future here, neither of which are relevant to what I am talking about. What I discuss is about experiencing now completely, when I am experiencing now completely and others are present, I am able to feel what they are feeling, I am able to know their state of mind. It is not important what they did that day or what they are planning to do today, but if I sense an imbalance in them I will attempt to show center them through empowering them to know they are in control of this.

I am not nostradamus, I am not an oracle, I am a person that is acutely aware of the present in life. I show compassion for selfish reasons, when others are down around me I mirror this. Similarly, when others around me are too excited, I become agitated. I will tend not to interfere in the latter for they are enjoying life, but it is equally imbalanced.

 

[Lunitik]

So now you can speak for what we all wish? Please reveal this delusion then, and speak for what I wish for breakfast tomorrow.

Explain technology other than an attempt to do less.

 

[Lunitik]

There is much that can be said about the value of spontaneity, especially in regards to creativity. However, when things go wrong, thinking can be helpful in diagnosing and correcting a problem.

"wrong" itself is a perception, a view.

What does Buddha have to say about views?

 

[seattlegal]

"wrong" itself is a perception, a view.

What does Buddha have to say about views?

Eightfold Path

Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, is the Noble Eightfold Path? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

"And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.
​

 

[Lunitik]

Eightfold Path

Magga-vibhanga Sutta: An Analysis of the Path

The Blessed One said, "Now what, monks, is the Noble Eightfold Path? Right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration.

"And what, monks, is right view? Knowledge with regard to stress, knowledge with regard to the origination of stress, knowledge with regard to the stopping of stress, knowledge with regard to the way of practice leading to the stopping of stress: This, monks, is called right view.
​

This is more correctly translated as "right understanding", essentially it is saying that all dissatisfaction stems from you. You can only change your perception of the issue, for you are stressed due to the issue not aligning with your desire for the situation. If you drop this desire, you will no longer be stressed.

I can currently not find where in the scripture Buddha has said all views are wrong views, but by this is meant that all opinions are wrong. All opinions stem from our own bias, it is better to state facts than any view we might have.

 

[luecy7]

There is much that can be said about the value of spontaneity, especially in regards to creativity. However, when things go wrong, thinking can be helpful in diagnosing and correcting a problem.

What aspect of a relationship, can a person create?

 

[Lunitik]

What aspect of a relationship, can a person create?

The bond between the individuals is entirely created, for otherwise it would exist in every encounter with other individuals.

 

[luecy7]

Explain technology other than an attempt to do less.

Here I thought technology was a means by which we can do more for each other. How did you get from the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, to a desire to do less?

It becomes difficult to express oneself without such descriptions. One of the first things I said in this thread was related to the deficiencies of language, and yet it is quite necessary to utilize it if I wish to express myself to others.

A person fails with dishonesty and delusion, expressing the wishes of people they don't know. You appear to be projecting yourself upon others.

How can I tell you what you had for breakfast when I do not know what I ate? You discuss the past and future here, neither of which are relevant to what I am talking about. What I discuss is about experiencing now completely, when I am experiencing now completely and others are present, I am able to feel what they are feeling, I am able to know their state of mind. It is not important what they did that day or what they are planning to do today, but if I sense an imbalance in them I will attempt to show center them through empowering them to know they are in control of this.

So you think you are not an individual, because you know the wishes of other people and feel what they feel? Very well, so then reveal what I wish for breakfast tomorrow, and then reveal how I feel while eating it.

 

[Lunitik]

Here I thought technology was a means by which we can do more for each other. How did you get from the golden rule: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, to a desire to do less?

Technology allows us to spend more time caring for others, because we are doing less to keep us apart.

A person fails with dishonesty and delusion, expressing the wishes of people they don't know. You appear to be projecting yourself upon others.

This is your perception, in reality I am relating your words to spiritual experience. I am relating your insistence on duality with the reality of oneness. This is all I have been doing, because I have experienced this reality through a form of enlightenment.

So you think you are not an individual, because you know the wishes of other people and feel what they feel? Very well, so then reveal what I wish for breakfast tomorrow, and then reveal how I feel while eating it.

Again you relate this to something in the future, the future does not exist, how can I know it? The future is a perception, an abstract notion that humans insist on giving meaning to. This becomes our reality because the patterns of existence convince us there is time. Every energy in the whole of existence moves in a circle, we can perceive this cycle on large scales and plan around them. This does not mean that time moves forward at all, we are only witnessing the natural motions of things. The past is simply our noting of previous motions, and history is our documentation of prior motions. It does not mean either actually exist, time itself is a delusion.

I have only said I have experienced utter oneness, in this state there simply was no me. I was a pure witness, witnessing itself. I was not an individual because it felt as though my body utterly dissolved, the normal perceptions of being separate did not exist. I cannot do this experience justice, it is impossible to convey it accurately, but it is impossible to question it. Impossible to accept anything contrary to this experience, and I have a longing for others to experience it too. This is my purpose when engaging other seekers, you seem to be satisfied with your current understandings, however, and thus refuse to accept there is more.

 

[Snoopy]

This is more correctly translated as "right understanding", essentially it is saying that all dissatisfaction stems from you. You can only change your perception of the issue, for you are stressed due to the issue not aligning with your desire for the situation. If you drop this desire, you will no longer be stressed.

I can currently not find where in the scripture Buddha has said all views are wrong views, but by this is meant that all opinions are wrong. All opinions stem from our own bias, it is better to state facts than any view we might have.

As sg has identified, right view is the knowledge of the four Noble Truths. Of course, the fourth contains right view as a component of the eight factors and so the Truths and the Path are yoked together in effect to create an engine of continuous practice. As clinging creates our angst, clinging to views would be included in this, which ultimately includes right view. Clinging to right view is then to be set aside as one leaves the raft at the other side.

 

[Lunitik]

As sg has identified, right view is the knowledge of the four Noble Truths. Of course, the fourth contains right view as a component of the eight factors and so the Truths and the Path are yoked together in effect to create an engine of continuous practice. As clinging creates our angst, clinging to views would be included in this, which ultimately includes right view. Clinging to right view is then to be set aside as one leaves the raft at the other side.

Right understanding

Right view (samyag-dṛṣṭi / sammā-diṭṭhi) can also be translated as "right perspective", "right outlook" or "right understanding ". It is the right way of looking at life, nature, and the world as they really are. It is to understand how reality works. It acts as the reasoning for someone to start practicing the path. It explains the reasons for human existence, suffering, sickness, aging, death, the existence of greed, hatred, and delusion. It gives direction and efficacy to the other seven path factors. Right view begins with concepts and propositional knowledge, but through the practice of right concentration, it gradually becomes transmuted into wisdom, which can eradicate the fetters of the mind. Understanding of right view will inspire the person to lead a virtuous life in line with right view.
____________________________________________________________________

In this light, it is difficult to understand why this was brought up at all when I stated the teaching that all views are wrong. I have attempted to realign the conversation with my original meaning rather than point out how irrelevant her statement was, I understand fully what this first step on the eightfold path means.

Interestingly, the link above not only discusses the original teaching I referred to, but also alludes to why I do not call the compassionate actions of the one free from illusions of self a selfless act, but rather a selfish one. As I have already described, it is not selflessness to care for your own injury, nor is it correct to call this compassion particularly. You are acting for yourself, but when there are no barriers throughout existence as there is no barrier between yourself and your leg, there is little distinction.

 

[Snoopy]

Did you say all views are wrong; sorry I missed that.

I've seen view and understanding used as the translated term but the former is the more usual I believe. sg's link is to the primary resource (the Pali canon) rather than a secondary (Wikipedia).

 

[Lunitik]

You think you are not an individual.

I am quite sure you have not studied much of the Buddha, but do you at least know what the word nirvana means? It is simply the anglicised version of the pali word for "nothing". Thus, in this state, there is no you to think, because there is no you.

This is not to be understood in a negative light, for "nothing" is the converse of "everything", one cannot exist without the other. When the "I" is removed, there is only God - as you would understand it, or the ultimate consciousness as I have described it. For this to occur, you must cease all obstacles to its realization, this is what I call ego-suicide for all symptoms of this block are based in ego.

 

[Lunitik]

Did you say all views are wrong; sorry I missed that.

I've seen view and understanding used as the translated term but the former is the more usual I believe. sg's link is to the primary resource (the Pali canon) rather than a secondary (Wikipedia).

Well, except it is in English, which has its own issues relating to translation. Anyway, I have used this quote because I think it clarifies things better than the raw text of this section of scripture, for it does not exclude what is taught later.

No need to apologize though, I am merely trying to explain a distinction between these two uses of "view". In reality, the whole point of what she quoted in the scripture draws the exact conclusion that I originally referred to, it just seems that there is a communication issue somewhere, perhaps within my reaction to her quote or her lack of awareness of the knowledge which is referred.

 

[seattlegal]

This is more correctly translated as "right understanding", essentially it is saying that all dissatisfaction stems from you. You can only change your perception of the issue, for you are stressed due to the issue not aligning with your desire for the situation. If you drop this desire, you will no longer be stressed.

I can currently not find where in the scripture Buddha has said all views are wrong views, but by this is meant that all opinions are wrong. All opinions stem from our own bias, it is better to state facts than any view we might have.

Kalama Sutta: The Instruction to the Kalamas

 

[seattlegal]

This is more correctly translated as "right understanding", essentially it is saying that all dissatisfaction stems from you. You can only change your perception of the issue, for you are stressed due to the issue not aligning with your desire for the situation. If you drop this desire, you will no longer be stressed.

I can currently not find where in the scripture Buddha has said all views are wrong views, but by this is meant that all opinions are wrong. All opinions stem from our own bias, it is better to state facts than any view we might have.

Yet you wrote:

"wrong" itself is a perception, a view.

What does Buddha have to say about views?

One must have a means by which to discern reality from delusion, no?