October 11, 2006

•  

  
  

  A bit O` random-ness

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  The only thing life has taught me about

  
  

  Love

  
  

  Is that 

  
  

  The Love I  feel for someone

  
  

    Is my love

  
  

  …how the one I love feels about me …

  
  

  Is free for them to decide

  
  

   

  
  

  When I love someone

  
  

  ‘That’ Love

  
  

  Is real

  
  

  and the only one

  
  

  who can take that love

  
  

  from me

  
  

  Is my own self 

  
  

  
  

  
  

  src=”http://pa.xanga.com/a2/69/t/a269b5263a194df0f6d5a076588305483217808.gif” />

  
  

   

  
  

  
  

  I read this next bit  on some ones site and liked it

  
  

   but  made just  a few changes

  
  

   

  
  

  
  

  Do not give your authority 

  
  

  to a spiritual teaching just because:

  
  

  

  
  

  
  1. it is repeatedly recited by vast numbers of followers 
  2. it is written in a scripture,  
  3. it was handed from guru to disciple,
  4. everyone around you believes it,
  5. it has supernatural qualities similar to ones you have felt  
  6. it fits your belief system,
  7. it sounds rational 
  8. it is taught by a respectable person,
  9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,
  10. One must defend it or fight for it.

  
  

  

  
  

  Don’t believe or disbelieve

  
  

  the teachings

  
  

  but rather put the teachings directly to the test

  
  

  and find out for yourself 

  
  

   

  
  

  Or, as the Buddha taught:

  
  

  
  

  “My teaching is not a philosophy.

  
  

  It is the result of direct experience…
  My teaching is a means of practice,

  
  

  not something to hold onto or worship.
  My teaching is like a raft used to cross the river.
  Only a fool would carry the raft around after he had already reached the other shore of liberation.”

  
  

   

  
  

  When asked about enlightenment

  
  

  the Buddha expressed it simply as:

  
  

  “The End of Suffering”

  
  

   Why is this such a powerful spiritual teaching?  

  
  

   

  
  

  Why did he answer the question about enlightenment

  
  

   with such a vague, incomplete definition?

  
  

  In his definition,  the buddha only tells you what enlightenment is not…

  
  

     ~No suffering~

  
  

  but what’s left

  
  

  when there is no more

  
  

  suffering

  
  

  The buddha is silent on that

  
  

  Implying you must find out for yourself

  
  

  He uses a negative  definition 

  
  

  So that the mind will not make enlightenment

  
  

  into a model to believe in.

  
  

  His definition avoids the pitfall

  
  

  of making enlightenment into a superhuman goal…

  
  

  that you must strive to obtain in the future. 

  
  

   His definition provides the space in which 

  
  

  your being can escape

  
  

  the minds embedded traps of temporal modality

  
  

   and opens a path in that space  

  
  

  for the emergence of your  presence

  
  

  found  when your  total  attention is focused directly

  
  

  in the felt moment of immediate experience

  
  

   

  
  

  In a sense he was saying…

  
  

  What Tolle often points to

  
  

  “Don’t try to mentally understand  presence

  
  

  You can’t understand presence

  
  

  understanding presence

  
  

  is being present” 

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  We, We can have two very different  primary dualistic  perspectives

  
  

  from which to view our reality.

  
  

  We can view ourselves as physical bodies moving through space.

  
  

  Or  we can view ourselves 

  
  

  As that vital   Space

  
  

  our Bodies and Every-thing …

  
  

   must occupy

  
  

   to even  exist…. 

  
  

  in just such a way

  
  

   we are 

  
  

   blurs of non-physical  interference patterns

  
  

  enfolded throughout the cosmic hologram

  
  

  

  
  

  yet we exist paradoxically  

  
  

  in both  of these two models of reality 

  
  

  simultaneously

  
  

   As One 

  
  

  We are both

  
  

  our physical bodies and the space

  
  

  in which our bodies manifest 

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

  as Merlin once said:

  
  

   

  
  

  You can’t have

  
  

  The One

  
  

  Without

  
  

  The Other 

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

   

  
  

   

  • 8:27 pm
  • 14 Comments