Important Announcement

See here for an important message regarding the community which has become a read-only site as of October 31.

Post Reply
Switch to Forum Live View Renunciation - is there a stopping point?
9 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2009 - 5:16PM #1
Posts: 19
I have often sat outside my body and journeyed through and/or with time. There is a limit to what can be allowed to be set in (and not limited to) my brain in that state by being exploring for myself and showing and teaching myself/s(instances) the way. As Buddha said of the sick man asking questions. So how does one (and accurately all)  handle the concepts of worldy (and inclusive) objectification when one has acheived 'the first step' but is still left with the sentence performing the echo.
I have worked with the foundations of human existance, however renunciation was less choice and more a statement of current fact and stratergy. However as is true of the echo I continue to meet the statement of renunciation doing again and again in finer states of existance, the statement eventualy meets it's own statement of the statement to the same statement. Or, the statement is forced to be seen as an object in the world's both physical and mental. One of those 'why' should we detach from writing and letters meeting a realisation. I am aware that eventualy as the population evolves into the realisation of right being we/they will sit more awake of/with/in/being more life. (I realize 'more' is an adjective of irrelevant use as is 'sit').

My question is this. Is renunciation of worldly objects and objectification ment to continue in evolving states of existence continuously.

Do not estimate my level of experience please! Just expend answers to the question.
Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Feb 01, 2009 - 6:48PM #2
Posts: 7,300
That question could be a permanent mystery or natural mystery.   Throughout the day you know your not a dog even though you don't think it.   If you attach to the idea that your existence/identity is exclusively thinking then it is common for someone who has a subtle fear will seek security by obtaining an answer.   You prob already have the answer or you might even BE the answer although your thinking doesn't.   

Our "thinking us" gets security comfort by conceptualizing, forming opinions ect.

I hope im on the right page :D

I GUESS all sentences were prior echos.  Interdependent?   Even the subtle beginning point of the rising of the sentence may just be a relative conceptualization/ catagorization of what it realley is.

The sentence could be a echo, a sentence, both or niether.   

I prefer for my own "safety" estimate me as a student ;)
Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Feb 03, 2009 - 12:40PM #3
Posts: 2,261


My question is this. Is renunciation of worldly objects and objectification ment to continue in evolving states of existence continuously.

When one attains enlightenment, I imagine there is no longer the need to renunciate.  All things are renounced naturally, without effort, in the perfect state.  I suppose there is a need for it until there is no longer a need for it. :)

Quick Reply
9 years ago  ::  Jun 20, 2009 - 4:02PM #4
Posts: 321

I like this quote by Osho, I think he answers your question


And as I see it, half of the world in some way represents half of man. If the old way is followed then the same split will continue, and the same changes. But I am talking about Zorba the Buddha. I am talking about a world, a man, who is meditative but who is not against riches, who is for spiritual growth but who does not think poverty is spirituality. Poverty is simply poverty. And if you can have both worlds together, why not have both worlds together? Why choose?


Quick Reply
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing

    Beliefnet On Facebook