|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 20:34:33 GMT -5
Eh, I guess I'm not that curious to google it. You don't have to, Mr. Nowhereman posted the following in the teacher section (above the general section), an 80-some page thingy that will possibly start to educate the curious - I'm on page 2, but page 1 was great, fyi... spiritualteachers.proboards.com/post/147862/threadThanks! I've been off doing family sh!t this weekend... will check it out. Just catching up.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 25, 2013 20:34:55 GMT -5
Well there's that too..since who you really are is non dual awareness and cannot die since never born you don't need to do anything so don't go to work tomorrow and stop eating and drinking just do nothing and see how that works for you lol.. That's the problem with neo-advaita thinking. They go right to the end game which can never serve you in the least except keep you a seeker which the ego loves. Anyhoo enjoy your evening much love Nowhereman I'm not following you. Did you just classify me as a neo-advaita thinker? After I told you I have little idea what that even means? No way I save that labeling for those that earned the right.. Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 25, 2013 20:41:52 GMT -5
Well there is always hope... Thanks Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 20:42:06 GMT -5
It was now 2,000 years ago. (You're mixing contexts.)How so? "Been around for 2,000 years" obviously refers to the context in which we use time. "There is just now" obviously refers to a context which does not include time as part of it's content. To say 'Golly gee, whatever do you mean by 2,000 years ago. I thought there was only now.' is naively mixing the two contexts.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 20:54:12 GMT -5
"Been around for 2,000 years" obviously refers to the context in which we use time. "There is just now" obviously refers to a context which does not include time as part of it's content. To say 'Golly gee, whatever do you mean by 2,000 years ago. I thought there was only now.' is naively mixing the two contexts. It's now to me, because I am only just hearing about it now. Then there are archetypical experiences, which are similar culture to culture, but the labels and names and gurus and actors and dramas are different, yet the lesson and moral-to-the-story are the same.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 21:02:52 GMT -5
I'm not following you. Did you just classify me as a neo-advaita thinker? After I told you I have little idea what that even means? No way I save that labeling for those that earned the right.. Nowhereman I defy all labels There's nothing to earn Nobody to earn it What is right? And why the need to save? Still not following....... I like "no way" though.
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 25, 2013 21:07:23 GMT -5
Liking "no way" is a good begining Need to go soon my show "Breaking Bad" has finished downloading Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 21:08:02 GMT -5
"Been around for 2,000 years" obviously refers to the context in which we use time. "There is just now" obviously refers to a context which does not include time as part of it's content. To say 'Golly gee, whatever do you mean by 2,000 years ago. I thought there was only now.' is naively mixing the two contexts. It's now to me, because I am only just hearing about it now. Then there are archetypical experiences, which are similar culture to culture, but the labels and names and gurus and actors and dramas are different, yet the lesson and moral-to-the-story are the same. Now you're mixing topics. Hehe.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 21:31:13 GMT -5
It's now to me, because I am only just hearing about it now. Then there are archetypical experiences, which are similar culture to culture, but the labels and names and gurus and actors and dramas are different, yet the lesson and moral-to-the-story are the same. Now you're mixing topics. Hehe. It's called artfully steering the conversation, which is not to be confused with trying to win a debate, cuz I have no debate to win. I just want to explore certain subjects without an agenda. Okay maybe I do have an agenda .... archetypes and time. I ponder that a lot. It's an experience beyond mind, and mind is trying to put words to the experience, as mind tends to do. Did "I" create Jesus, Buddha, advaita, neo-advaita, etc etc... this forum!!! .. all of you.. everything that's happened to "me" to explain to "myself" ...all ... of this?
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 21:59:50 GMT -5
Advaita Vedanta is nonduality. It's what we mostly talk about here endlessly. I didn't even know what advaita was until I joined here. I see there is advaita vs neo-advaita. And vedanta too? That seems like a lot of labeling/categorizing/ separating... which seems contradictory to the whole point so I have had zero interest in figuring out what that all meant. ... ......... ......
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2013 22:08:14 GMT -5
Nowhereman wrote : TEXT WALL OF DOOM GITA Just call me a cafeteria A.V.'ist ... ... Yum! Yum!(ha! ha! ... this was post #7000!)
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 22:09:17 GMT -5
Now you're mixing topics. Hehe. It's called artfully steering the conversation, which is not to be confused with trying to win a debate, cuz I have no debate to win. I just want to explore certain subjects without an agenda. Okay maybe I do have an agenda .... archetypes and time. I ponder that a lot. It's an experience beyond mind, and mind is trying to put words to the experience, as mind tends to do. Did "I" create Jesus, Buddha, advaita, neo-advaita, etc etc... this forum!!! .. all of you.. everything that's happened to "me" to explain to "myself" ...all ... of this? I'd say if Mind is defined impersonally, and singularly, yes.
|
|
|
Post by serpentqueen on Aug 25, 2013 22:11:50 GMT -5
It's called artfully steering the conversation, which is not to be confused with trying to win a debate, cuz I have no debate to win. I just want to explore certain subjects without an agenda. Okay maybe I do have an agenda .... archetypes and time. I ponder that a lot. It's an experience beyond mind, and mind is trying to put words to the experience, as mind tends to do. Did "I" create Jesus, Buddha, advaita, neo-advaita, etc etc... this forum!!! .. all of you.. everything that's happened to "me" to explain to "myself" ...all ... of this? I'd say if Mind is defined impersonally, and singularly, yes. Reaction: *chuffed* Problem: dang, ego! Solution.... you tell me?
|
|
|
Post by nowhereman on Aug 25, 2013 22:13:57 GMT -5
Nowhereman wrote : TEXT WALL OF DOOM GITA Just call me a cafeteria A.V.'ist ... ... Yum! Yum!(ha! ha! ... this was post #7000!)Okay you lost me on this. Please speak clearly Thanks Nowhereman
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 25, 2013 22:45:04 GMT -5
I'd say if Mind is defined impersonally, and singularly, yes. Reaction: *chuffed* Problem: dang, ego! Solution.... you tell me? In order to make sense of the functioning of creation, one must take an impersonal perspective. The personal perspective; your opinions, beliefs, feelings and focus of attention, is quite obvious, but this 'personal world' is superimposed upon an impersonal world which transcends the personal. The good news for nobody in particular is that you ARE that impersonal creative force, and not the personal overlay through which experience ultimately occurs. This impersonal Intelligence is not a thinker, and therefore does not impose a dynamic of control over it's own creation. Creation simply unfolds spontaneously. IOW, nobody and nothing is running the show.
|
|