being present is shit

[Torkys]

42 minutes ago, Erlend K said:

How do you conceptualize "the Unshakable"?

This is the adjective I define the nature of Truth and God with. Nothing related to the book.

42 minutes ago, Erlend K said:

2. Could you offer a few concrete tips on how one would go about "basing one's psychology on the Unshakable"?

IMHO Spirituality arises naturally when one gets fed up with constantly clinging to the temporary and thus starts to search for something that is not temporary. There are no tips; this is the purpose of Presence and spiritual practice at large.

42 minutes ago, Erlend K said:

3. What would it mean for Truth and Joy to be equivalent?

You can only suffer if you have Resistance; where Truth can flourish, true Joy will naturally arise. I can see why you think it's unpalatable though. A hedonist isn't aligned with Truth, he makes an enemy out of Resistance; an ascetic goes full circle and becomes the greatest hedonist there can ever be. (@Nahm, if you have something to add to this, please do )

[Faceless]

Some questions we can ask oursleves..

 

Are we always compulsively conforming to an idea-abstraction? 

If we do this, are we then adhering to the imitiative structure of thought  mechanically? 

If we are accumulating ideas-images from past knowledge, and conforming to those images, aren’t we then inevitably living in the past? 

If all knowledge, experience, which is  accumulated through memory is old, and never new, which it is, and we imitiate-conform to that knowledge in order to live now, are we living now? 

If we act in accordance to that which is old, (the past), then isn’t all action of the past?

So could we say we are then living in the past? Or could we much more subtly say that the self IS THE PAST?  

If there is this adherence to the structure of thought( experience, knowledge, memory), and we meet every new dynamic moment with that dead content of thought, then all movement of the now remains to be an abiding to every-thing but truth.

Could we say that as long as there is this dependence to bring about psychological security in thought, then we are always moving away from “WHAT IS” (TRUTH), to what should be, (abstraction)??

And If so, isn’t this ‘the root’ of this disharmony with the beauty of the now? 

 

 If we depend psychologically on that which has been constructed from the past, thought, which implies fear, resistance, and evasion of what is, can there be an abiding in this eternal dynamic nature of “the now”??

Can we say that all attempts to approach (the now), which is dynamic, with that which is static, thought-self (experience, knowledge, memory) is to avoid this infinite “quality” of Truth altogether??

 

To me personally, truth is not somthing we conform to, but a movement of is-ness, which is empty psychologically of the past( experience, knowledge, memory as the i )...In this there is no “knowing and living according to that knowing, or not living “in truth”, but we are truth itself, in action,  which is (alive, dynamic, whole, and infinite is it’s immensity. Or unbroken, not fragmented or mechanical. 

To live as truth itself is one and the same movement of joy, beauty, and creativity, which in that very essence implies Freedom. Freedom unbound by the conditioned structure-nature of fear-thought-self, that perpetualy evades the complexity of the living now. 

 

Edited July 15, 2018 by Faceless

[Erlend K]

12 hours ago, Torkys said:

You can only suffer if you have Resistance; where Truth can flourish, true Joy will naturally arise. I can see why you think it's unpalatable though. A hedonist isn't aligned with Truth, he makes an enemy out of Resistance; an ascetic goes full circle and becomes the greatest hedonist there can ever be. (@Nahm, if you have something to add to this, please do )

I wonder how you got the impression that I'm a hedonist. As my previous posts in this tread should make clear, I'm a buddhist, i.e. I practice the middle path between hedonism and ascetisism.

If I interpret this quote correctly, you are not actually asserting an equalization of Truth and joy, but rather that nonresistance of truth inevitable gives way to joy. If so, that sounds easier to swallow for me.

[Torkys]

@Erlend K I did not say you are a hedonist. I was just making a point.

And yes, you interpreted the quote correctly. 

[Violina]

On 11/07/2018 at 7:59 PM, Viking said:

i don't know if it is so. without any desires life would be empty, there will be no fulfillment, there will be nothing...(...)

i also dont see how can one life without desires.

I am also deliberating that. 

Ok, I don't have to have any desires when I'm a single, alone. 

However what happens when we are in love, in relationship? We just hurt our partners.....?