|
Post by enigma on Nov 12, 2013 18:43:48 GMT -5
You're going to find that the person, and all the stuff he knows, does not vanish. That should be obvious to the non-you right now. The person who knows stuff can't vanish because it's never been here... Right, so what is this knower that vanishes? Ironically, this would be a good place to do your neo-advaita thang. Not only is liberation not 'all there is', the term itself quickly becomes irrelevant. It's a little like saying nonvolition is all there is. Nobody gets liberated, and there's nothing to be liberated from. I don't have an issue with using the term until you say liberation is all there is.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 12, 2013 19:42:17 GMT -5
The person who knows stuff can't vanish because it's never been here... Right, so what is this knower that vanishes? Ironically, this would be a good place to do your neo-advaita thang. Not only is liberation not 'all there is', the term itself quickly becomes irrelevant. It's a little like saying nonvolition is all there is. Nobody gets liberated, and there's nothing to be liberated from. I don't have an issue with using the term until you say liberation is all there is. What I'm talking about is the possibility of the contracted energy that forms the illusion of me drops away . When the sudden illusion of me drops away, it is recognized that there never was a me and there never was contracted energy, there is no such thing as a seeker or liberation, it’s only a way of describing it, it actually doesn’t happen.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 12, 2013 22:44:54 GMT -5
Right, so what is this knower that vanishes? Ironically, this would be a good place to do your neo-advaita thang. Not only is liberation not 'all there is', the term itself quickly becomes irrelevant. It's a little like saying nonvolition is all there is. Nobody gets liberated, and there's nothing to be liberated from. I don't have an issue with using the term until you say liberation is all there is. What I'm talking about is the possibility of the contracted energy that forms the illusion of me drops away . When the sudden illusion of me drops away, it is recognized that there never was a me and there never was contracted energy, there is no such thing as a seeker or liberation, it’s only a way of describing it, it actually doesn’t happen. I know what you're talking about. I've preached the same thing here for years. I'm just objecting to the way you sometimes 'point' to that. I see it as a careless use of language. Sometimes misdirecting, confusing, contextual mixing. I'm not saying I know what it means in this case, but what it often seems to denote is a conceptual understanding only.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 10:32:16 GMT -5
What I'm talking about is the possibility of the contracted energy that forms the illusion of me drops away . When the sudden illusion of me drops away, it is recognized that there never was a me and there never was contracted energy, there is no such thing as a seeker or liberation, it’s only a way of describing it, it actually doesn’t happen. I know what you're talking about. I've preached the same thing here for years. I'm just objecting to the way you sometimes 'point' to that. I see it as a careless use of language. Sometimes misdirecting, confusing, contextual mixing. I'm not saying I know what it means in this case, but what it often seems to denote is a conceptual understanding only. Yes, it is a conceptual understanding, but conceptual understanding is not Liberation.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 14:22:14 GMT -5
I know what you're talking about. I've preached the same thing here for years. I'm just objecting to the way you sometimes 'point' to that. I see it as a careless use of language. Sometimes misdirecting, confusing, contextual mixing. I'm not saying I know what it means in this case, but what it often seems to denote is a conceptual understanding only. Yes, it is a conceptual understanding, but conceptual understanding is not Liberation. Right. When anybody attempts to point to something with only a conceptual understanding, he usually ends up pointing away instead.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 14:37:17 GMT -5
Yes, it is a conceptual understanding, but conceptual understanding is not Liberation. Right. When anybody attempts to point to something with only a conceptual understanding, he usually ends up pointing away instead. All concepts, ideas, beliefs or thoughts about separation or awakening are only ever a reflection of their opposite. So they are only ever pointers towards or away from that which cannot be expressed or known. That means any teaching including neo-advaita, that recognizes and encourages the seeker’s belief or idea that it can find something it feels it has lost, is only reinforcing and perpetuating a dualistic illusion. How can a person hear the impersonal? How can there be a knowing of the unknowable? How is it possible for a person to confront their own absence? How can a seeker grasp that which is already everything? It is a nonsense...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 13, 2013 15:11:15 GMT -5
Right. When anybody attempts to point to something with only a conceptual understanding, he usually ends up pointing away instead. All concepts, ideas, beliefs or thoughts about separation or awakening are only ever a reflection of their opposite. So they are only ever pointers towards or away from that which cannot be expressed or known. That means any teaching including neo-advaita, that recognizes and encourages the seeker’s belief or idea that it can find something it feels it has lost, is only reinforcing and perpetuating a dualistic illusion. How can a person hear the impersonal? How can there be a knowing of the unknowable? How is it possible for a person to confront their own absence? How can a seeker grasp that which is already everything? It is a nonsense... Well, that's the dilemma, of course, though most pointing is a pointing away from illusion, and mind can understand it's own illusions. I don't see nonduality encouraging a belief in anything, so I don't think that's a significant issue.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 16:10:56 GMT -5
All concepts, ideas, beliefs or thoughts about separation or awakening are only ever a reflection of their opposite. So they are only ever pointers towards or away from that which cannot be expressed or known. That means any teaching including neo-advaita, that recognizes and encourages the seeker’s belief or idea that it can find something it feels it has lost, is only reinforcing and perpetuating a dualistic illusion. How can a person hear the impersonal? How can there be a knowing of the unknowable? How is it possible for a person to confront their own absence? How can a seeker grasp that which is already everything? It is a nonsense... Well, that's the dilemma, of course, though most pointing is a pointing away from illusion, and mind can understand it's own illusions. I don't see nonduality encouraging a belief in anything, so I don't think that's a significant issue. Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object). That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 16:39:49 GMT -5
Well, that's the dilemma, of course, though most pointing is a pointing away from illusion, and mind can understand it's own illusions. I don't see nonduality encouraging a belief in anything, so I don't think that's a significant issue. Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object).That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense. It seems like the significant issue and fundamental misconception you outline above could be useful to someone under the influence of the same fundamental misconception. In a sense, you are stating a 'teaching,' heaven forbid. It is what it is. These concepts are understood or they are not. One thing I like about Tzu's perspective, notwithstanding his style and treatment -- which I don't like -- is that he holds out the challenge that the fundamental misconception you lay out above may itself be another fundamental misconception. Perhaps by replacing the belief in being a separate person with a belief that there is no separation a certain form of suffering is alleviated. But is this any closer to Truth? And, tbh, I feel like a fool even capitalizing that T. I think the Buddha avoided such problems " ... the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer."
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2013 17:00:54 GMT -5
Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object).That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense. It seems like the significant issue and fundamental misconception you outline above could be useful to someone under the influence of the same fundamental misconception. In a sense, you are stating a 'teaching,' heaven forbid. It is what it is. These concepts are understood or they are not. One thing I like about Tzu's perspective, notwithstanding his style and treatment -- which I don't like -- is that he holds out the challenge that the fundamental misconception you lay out above may itself be another fundamental misconception. Perhaps by replacing the belief in being a separate person with a belief that there is no separation a certain form of suffering is alleviated. But is this any closer to Truth? And, tbh, I feel like a fool even capitalizing that T. I think the Buddha avoided such problems " ... the one place where the Buddha was asked point-blank whether or not there was a self, he refused to answer." Yes, I agree. There is of course a lot of dualistic nonsense under the non-duality banner. Like the idea that there is no-one, or everything is okay because it is only arising as all there is. It's nothing more than replacing one set of beliefs for another. Words can only ever point to the ineffable, so anyone who is concept-bound will dissect their way through every word of a communication seeking nothing more than that which they believe to be right or wrong. It's just what's happening. . . apparently. Beneath it all is the beauty that all of this is already only the unconditional expression of Wholeness appearing as much ado about nothing. And the Buddha nailed it with his silence...
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 15, 2013 4:04:52 GMT -5
Well, that's the dilemma, of course, though most pointing is a pointing away from illusion, and mind can understand it's own illusions. I don't see nonduality encouraging a belief in anything, so I don't think that's a significant issue. Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object). That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense. I don't know what you've been studying, but that's not nonduality.
|
|
|
Post by silence on Nov 16, 2013 11:58:21 GMT -5
Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object). That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense. I don't know what you've been studying, but that's not nonduality. ACIM.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 17:41:45 GMT -5
I don't know what you've been studying, but that's not nonduality. ACIM. The Amazing Kreskin your not...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 16, 2013 17:44:08 GMT -5
Non-duality appears to make use of logic, reason, belief and experience, rational explanation, truth, and traditional wisdom, all directed towards helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment. The significant issue and fundamental misconception is the belief in a seeker (subject) that can find enlightenment (object). That is dualism and not non-duality, so that is why I call it a nonsense. I don't know what you've been studying, but that's not nonduality. Non-Duality isn't into helping the seeker along the path to their enlightenment?!
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 17, 2013 8:41:44 GMT -5
Greetings.. All concepts, ideas, beliefs or thoughts about separation or awakening are only ever a reflection of their opposite. So they are only ever pointers towards or away from that which cannot be expressed or known. That means any teaching including neo-advaita, that recognizes and encourages the seeker’s belief or idea that it can find something it feels it has lost, is only reinforcing and perpetuating a dualistic illusion. How can a person hear the impersonal? How can there be a knowing of the unknowable? How is it possible for a person to confront their own absence? How can a seeker grasp that which is already everything? It is a nonsense... Well, that's the dilemma, of course, though most pointing is a pointing away from illusion, and mind can understand it's own illusions. I don't see nonduality encouraging a belief in anything, so I don't think that's a significant issue. Non-duality is itself a belief.. against all evidence to the contrary, the believer constructs imagery solely within the mind that is believed to be true, imagery that believes its source to be an 'illusion' or 'absence'.. the issue is that it is itself mind-play, non-existent until contrived in minds of the believers.. Be well..
|
|