You are hereForums / Non-Duality / Private ownership.
Private ownership.
I'm not sure which Forum category this post best fits in, so I'll place it here for lack of a better alternative.
Recognizing that the term "awakened" means different things to different people, it's been my experience that awakened people, whom I crossed paths with, rarely continue to harbor a desire to own private property.
So the question that I'd like to pose is...
can you be awakened and continue to desire to own private property (i.e. a mortgaged home) at the same instance?
I'm inclined to think/believe/feel, from my own personal experience, that the former dis-creates the latter.
And aren't most private ownership interests an expression of one's effort to control something?
TIA
Interesting topic Peter and although I find quite complicated and difficult to make a comment on it, I`ll try.
1. We must define what we mean with "awakened". As you are rightly pointing out, there are different opinions on that but one has to do define first, before deciding how the behavior of such a person "should" be in conflict with the awakening.
2.We must also define the limits of what we conceive as "a desire to own private property" (you said i.e. a mortaged home", but you probably meant e.g. etc..?).
Stated that I agree with Marcus comment on this topic, I would still add some reflections:
Sometimes private ownerships maybe are an effort to control, but they can also be a necessity.
Where I live e.g. there are hardly any homes to rent (there are some caves, but they are used as tourist attractions - just joking!) so one has to buy an apartment or a house if we don`t inherit it from our parents.
Anyhow I understand what you are trying to express and I mostly agree with you. For instance I think that it`s crazy that a private person should own land, no matter if he is "awakened" or not.
But that`s an other problem.
Anna
Peter: can you be awakened and continue to desire to own private property (i.e. a mortgaged home) at the same instance?
Response: An awakened one is not disturbed by the thought "I want to own a house", because he understands that he will get it, if it is meant to happen, and he will never get it, if it is not meant to happen, and that whatever happens only happens in thought-form and not as a reality in life. Therefore he is relaxed with a mortgaged home and without it, illusory though it is.
Awakened means being free of desire, not free from desire. Desirelessness is the understanding that desires are illusory thoughts and not the cause of getting something.
My question, Marcus, had nothing to do with any disturbance with that thought.
The question was not "can you be awakened and be disturbed with the thought of 'I want to own a house'?".
It was "can you be awakened and continue to desire to own private property?".
They are two totally different questions.
As I alluded to earlier, and from my own personal experience, I have never met an awakened individual who continued to desire to own (and, therefore, control) personal property such as a home.
Your mileage, of course, may vary. And probably does.
Peter: The question was not "can you be awakened and be disturbed with the thought of 'I want to own a house'?".
It was "can you be awakened and continue to desire to own private property?".
They are two totally different questions.
Response: Responses of the awakened do not answer questions but explain their illusoriness.
Dear Marcus ,
are you safe, and "sound "? do take care of your self my boy..,by taking what life brings to you in a "light"er vein.
howde marcus?...
Marcus:>>>An awakened one is not disturbed by the thought "I want to own a house", because he understands that he will get it, if it is meant to happen, and he will never get it, if it is not meant to happen, and that whatever happens only happens in thought-form and not as a reality in life. Therefore he is relaxed with a mortgaged home and without it, illusory though it is.>>>
Response: an awakened “one” is not disturbed by the thought “I” want to own a house” because he realizes that the “I” which wants this and that is itself being seen.
Amati: an awakened “one” is not disturbed by the thought “I” want to own a house” because he realizes that the “I” which wants this and that is itself being seen.
Response: The I could not be seen. "I" is sound.
The awakened one is light which appears as a man with clear understanding that the mind, "I" and desires, is subtle sound and therefore illusory.
Dear Marcus...
sound, light, I , I am not, I cannot be seen, I can be seen ,
.......it reminds me of Albert Camus. I tried to come up with a post but I couldnt. Any way .... my question / request to you is this... Kindly answer it if I am able to correctly frame this question. If not kindly frame the question(albeit hypothitical/illusion) for me and then answer it.
there is a question/phrase ....so what? how can this monster be? that is my question.How can "SO What" be ? Any more words and i will be corrupting it.
regards
Bye fellas
>>>> There is a naughty little knot
the knot of the heart
no one knows how to untie it
alas if only someone mustered an ounce of courage and yelled back ...SO What....>>>>
Amati: alas if only someone mustered an ounce of courage and yelled back ...SO What....
Response: Only the one to whom it appears real yells back "so what!"
Owning something is NOT a function of desire, but of account-ability, i.e.stewardship and care.
Having made this difference, what is the difference between "owning" a house and being 'at home'?
For the one who is 'at home' to begin with, owning a house or anything else can be an expression of this. The key is not desire, but thinking. It is HOW you THINK your being-at-home that creates with sound out of light.
What do you really WANT to own? How can you own it? Thinking is the key in essencing and in presencing.
Who owns a house in this discussion anyway?
Andreas: What do you really WANT to own? How can you own it? Thinking is the key in essencing and in presencing.
Response: Thinking happens to man as an auditary illusion of sound. Wants and desires are illusory thoughts and not real. Life reflects desires and their apparent fulfillment, the mind does not bring it about by will and choice. Therefore ownership is illusory, to own a house is a thought and not real as a matter of (quote Andreas:) "account-ability, i.e.stewardship and care". Life cares and is accountable (so to speak) not the mind.
Marcus: Therefore ownership is illusory, to own a house is a thought and not real as a matter of (quote Andreas:) "account-ability, i.e.stewardship and care". Life cares and is accountable (so to speak) not the mind.
Hello marcus,
Response : Dear marcus thus you see as above : that ownership is illusory , and not real as a matter of fact………
1. The awakened man is thus not worried about the “I” wanting this and that because he is able to realize that the “I” …..WHICH WANTS THIS AND THAT or NOT WANTING THIS AND THAT …is itself seen/cognised/ that it is an objectification….
Life cares and is accountable ..not the mind.. Thank You Marcus ..How beautifully have you summed it up. Thank You Dear Sir.
Amati quoting Marcus: Life cares and is accountable ..not the mind..
Response: Same difference. Life cares and is accountable exactly AS 'I' in non-duality. However, 'I' can not be accountable for life in duality.
Thinking is the key.
Andreas: Same difference. Life cares and is accountable exactly AS 'I' in non-duality. However, 'I' can not be accountable for life in duality.
Thinking is the key.
Response: "Life cares": The tree gets water, the animal food and man a house. All is a natural, spontaneous, uncontrollable and unpredictable process of evolution, albeit illusory. No thinker but as illusory thoughts which are sound. Man is a sophisticated animal whose mind functions, not to conduct life but to reflect the illusion of doership.
Marcus:Man is a sophisticated animal...
Response: Absolutely not, except for dualistic understanding. Man is the engagement of the ONE in time as "I".
Andreas: Marcus:Man is a sophisticated animal...
Response: Absolutely not, except for dualistic understanding. Man is the engagement of the ONE in time as "I".
Response: Man is a sophisticated animal is an absolute understanding of duality. The sense of doership is a deception.
Marcus: Man is a sophisticated animal is an absolute understanding of duality. The sense of doership is a deception.
Response: If man thinks it so. The "sense of doership" is only a deception, if there is someone to be deceived. Who is deceived by the sense of doership? The witness?
Embrace the sense of doership. The witness and the thinker are one. It takes one to know one. This is the essence of reflection.
Now let us consider not reflection. but refraction as ownership. The One engages as time in the 'I'. Grüß Gott! The Dynamic meditation of life.
Andreas: If man thinks it so. The "sense of doership" is only a deception, if there is someone to be deceived. Who is deceived by the sense of doership? The witness?
Response: The ego is deceived and has a sense of doership. The witness understands actions as thoughts which are sound. The enlightened being has no sense of doership at all.
Andreas: Embrace the sense of doership. The witness and the thinker are one. It takes one to know one. This is the essence of reflection.
Response: The witness witnesses thoughts as sound. The ego believes to be the thinker and "embraces the sense of doership" for it is not aware that actions are illusory.
Andreas: Now let us consider not reflection. but refraction as ownership. The One engages as time in the 'I'. Grüß Gott! The Dynamic meditation of life.
Response: What the witness understands to be illusory, the ego takes for real.
Marcus: The ego is deceived and has a sense of doership.
Response: So what?! Why care about that? The ego deceives itself? So be it. What for is this distinction of "light", "sound", and "illusion"? Should the EGO be liberated from its own deception?
I ask the question again, who is "deceived" by the "sense" of doership of the ego? The witness? The thinker? The soul? Brahman?
Andreas: I ask the question again, who is "deceived" by the "sense" of doership of the ego? The witness? The thinker? The soul? Brahman?
Response: The ego is deceived. The ego is illusory. Who am I? The I is sound. Light does not denote who it is.
Marcus: The ego is deceived. The ego is illusory. Who am I? The I is sound. Light does not denote who it is.
Andreas: What does it matter then? Why lose all these words and energy about it? Who cares in the end? The ego? Who gets enlightened ? The ego? Who becomes liberated? The ego?
Is the ego its own difference between reality and illusion then?
Andreas: What does it matter then?
Response: Man suffers in his mind as long as suffering appears real.
Andreas: Why lose all these words and energy about it?
Response: Nothing could be gained or lost in life for life simply transforms.
Andreas: Who cares in the end? The ego?
Response: The ego believes to care as long as the mind is taken for real.
Andreas: Who gets enlightened ? The ego? Who becomes liberated? The ego?
Response: Nobody gets enlightened for life is the enlightened here and now and the ego is sound in life. An enlightened being is light which appears as a man with clear understanding that the mind is illusory and not real.
Andreas: Is the ego its own difference between reality and illusion then?
Response: The ego is illusory.
Dear Marcus,
It is rational trickery to break a whole down into segregated statements in order to rearrange the meaning according to your own bias. That is what people do with the mind to gain power. It is called politics.
Let me patiently pose my question again: The ego is deceived? We nee to save the ego from deceiving itself? Is the ego Maya proper, or is it deceived by Maya? How do you consider that to be the effect of sound as "mind" and "illusion"?
Can you please stop breaking down statements politically in order to redirect them according to your standard of Absolute Understanding? It is a simple matter of decency.
This question remains after all your efforts to "break it down":
How is the ego being deceived? And why would Marcus care about explaining or understanding that? The ego is illusion to begin with according to Marcus? And if the "ego" is not being deceived, then who or what is being deceived?
Who suffers? The ego? Who cares? The ego? Why would anyone care about the ego suffering or caring? What is the point of this "illusion" and "deception"?
Dear Andreas,
words are sound in life.
Illusory words condition to believe that the world of thoughts is real and man is the doer - this is the illusory ego which suffers its own beliefs.
Illusory words also de-condition and spontaneously, unpredictably and uncontrollably an understanding happens that the mind, world and man are illusory and not real. Then the illusory ego transforms itself into the witness.
Life does not ask for permission to condition the mind and to manifest an illusory ego.
Life does not ask for permission to de-condition the mind and to transform the illusory ego into the witness.
The meaning which the ego happens to give to words condition the mind to believe that the world is real and man is the doer.
The meaning which the enlightened happens to rearrange to the words de-condition the mind so that an understanding may happen that the world is illusory and man is not a doer.
In this manner, life takes care for itself, albeit illusory.
Do you understand, Andreas?
Love, Marcus
Marcus:
Life does not ask for permission to condition the mind and to manifest an illusory ego.
Life does not ask for permission to de-condition the mind and to transform the illusory ego into the witness.
Response:
Thank you so much for this absolute understanding of Integration.
Yet, an integral understanding of the Absolute creates out of light with sound by thinking and un-thinking and the thinker is able to account for that. That is not wisdom, but the point of wisdom, anywhere, at any time.
Doing is not only of the ego, it is also of life. Life is "happening" to the ego, but it is action in itself.
Thank you again for revealing the Universal Light and the actual realization of it. My person is blessed in this presence, even though I completely disagree with the idea of "illusory". Marcus knows that.
Andreas: Thank you so much for this absolute understanding of Integration. (...) Doing is not only of the ego, it is also of life. Life is "happening" to the ego, but it is action in itself.
Response: Actions are thoughts in the mind which is sound in life. Life is non-dual and meaningless. The mind is non-dual and meaningless too and only projects illusory meanings through opposite thoughts. A thought on its own is meaningless and there is ever only one sound present in life and not two dual thoughts at a time, relatively speaking.
!LIFE IS A SINGULAR FLOW, NOT ACTION-FILLED, ALL ILLUSORY THOUGH!
A self is rarely problematic. It's simply no one appearing as some one. No problem there.
What is often problematic, however, is our proclivity to identify (underlined here) with our selves.
And nothing greases the wheels of our identification with our selves more than...
the belief/experience that "I own this."
Ownership and identification are siamese twins.
Cojoined at the hip of "me and mine".