yeps, u do that. in the meantime, i'll try to give a brief reply to that to show where we're at... the idea that melt was hung up on strict definitions was more just for a controversial title. the standard definition.. hmm, well, there was the original eastern definition, but subsequent definitions muddying and confusing the situation. "that cat has been outta the bag for a long time and had kittens and some fo the kittens had kittens", thus how i saw attempting to restrict or proclaim a singular definition already mute and an act of futility. stuff like that.
Quote: <TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=6 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=alt2 style="BORDER-RIGHT: 1px inset; BORDER-TOP: 1px inset; BORDER-LEFT: 1px inset; BORDER-BOTTOM: 1px inset">Then too we haven't really talked about the next stage of progress after this understanding is imprinted </TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE> <<<oh phew/hooray/halelujia! i thought all that "supreme knowledge" stuff was gonna be a ceiling! if the mdma experience can be likened to the bliss, then the full on heroic dose of psilocybin is like the........ well, its as close to a ceiling as i can imagine just now. muchness beyond the conveyable.>>> No, sorry, that's not what I mean. The understanding/knowledge/key aspect remains exactly the same, there is no more. It is ultimate knowledge of reality. It's just a change in how you approach applying it to reality as a means of progress. Think of it like this: Would a swan become a swan by keeping thinking 'I am a swan, I am a swan'? No, it already is a swan, so what it really needs to do is recognise swan-ness as its existing state. In the same way, once you fully understand what you are, you change the way you affirm it. You go from thinking say, 'I AM', to being 'I AM'. The reason for this is that thinking requires a movement away from actual being. MelT
nah, the way u say it [The understanding/knowledge/key aspect remains exactly the same, there is no more.] i still think that can easily be misinterpreted as "you cant learn nuffin more"... its the whole "supreme" part, it does kinda hint at that. it aint no ceiling, and more can be learned. or are u saying the enlightened folks know every thought of every being ever? (i know thats not what u sayin, i'm just driving my point home).and yeah, this is likely me just being pernickety about delivery. more shit like that please! heh, in the other thread u make a stab at debunking astrology as myth... yet, i've learned more about myself and found greater peace in myself from my astrological profiles than any religion. and there is a great buddhist astrology site out there which claims the two (astrology and buddhism) were best buddies for ages. knowledge you say... that message been conveyed to me in a couple books i been reading recently, one a "how to create miracles" and another "messages from your angels". ... no stone unturned.
I must be putting badly. I actually DO mean there is nothing more to learn about the ultimate nature of reality. Supreme, yup I'm not sure why this is relevant? Could you put it another way? A poke. I don't care so much about people believing in astrology, whatever gives them comfort. I find it a 'bit' of a joke, I agree, but it's not something I'm going to get involved with as a debate. Good. If it gives you solace then do it, why the hell not? Life is too short, to each his own!! I think not. Whether or not some Buddhists practise astrology has nothing at all to do with the path. It doesn't give astrology any kind of nobility or validity because some Buddhists do it, or once did it. Some Buddhists bow their heads, some spin prayer wheels. I'm not responsible for what they believe or do. They have their own raft. If every Buddhist believed in it I would still regard it as silly. In Tibet there's a shamanistic mixtureof Bon Po ( a kindof animistic pre-Dzogchen group) and indian/s.chinese astrology that was used by local shaman's that got taken up into some forms of Vajrayana. In some places charts are still referenced to find out the best days to hold festivals, etc. But I don't buy it, because it's silly. MelT
I'd just like to dispel anyone's ideas that what I'm saying is that unless you practice in the way of Buddhism/Hinduism then you can't have a valid experience of realisation. You can have the same experience stirring tea or looking out of the window, and people regularly do, no 'isms required. You don't have to be buddhist, a meditator, spiritual or even good. 84,000 ways, one goal. I don't care how anyone gets there that's their business, but the destination is just one particular understanding from a particular POV. If someone doesn't want to head that way and look for that - and lots of people don't, they look for god or their own version of him - then I applaud that. But if you want to call what you find 'realisation' then it's best to check up on what that really means first. MelT
i'm curious how one can more expediently and ashuredly move from intermitant "glimpses" to a more steady, true and constant state. anyone?
toe? ... terms of endearment? technique of enlargement? test of excentricity? total open evolution? a litteral toe? test of enlightenment? from what i've read of Digit's posts, and from what i know of him besides, and from all the romanticizing and idolizing... sounds all the better that he's not here anymore. messenger growing bigger than the message is never a good thing.