|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2014 12:49:12 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? If they have discovered something useful, can we blame them for wanting to share it? "Useful"? (** muttley snicker **)As far as "it" is concerned ... There's no point in trying to change an opinion, as the result is just another opinion.
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 6, 2014 12:49:19 GMT -5
One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. Superfluous? Equal? It's reasoning that takes observations on the nature of what appears to us and forms that conclusion. It's TMT. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp If a "non dual teacher" is preaching that there is no meaning and that you "should just give up", then he's offering conclusory ideas about "reality". Instead, what I read from contributors here is that meaning infuses all that appears to us but that there is no intellectual abstraction that captures that meaning. The meaning of life isn't an idea and can't be captured by one. As far as "giving up" goes, what I read from contributors here is that there are efforts that an individual mistakes as possibly leading somewhere, when all those efforts can at best simply be seen as leading that individual right back to where they are, because as far as seeking is concerned, there's nowhere to go. That's a very different idea from "just give up". That idea doesn't mean that all doing and decisions and activity are futile. In fact, it's usually presented alongside the complimentary pointer that ordinary life, everyday mind, is what the seeker finds at the end of the road. There are no ideas about reality that are subject to validation such that they can't be contradicted. This is a recursive statement. Are you tempted to follow it to it's self-negation? Help me out here, if you please....IF I'm not mistaken, there have been times when you and E and several others have used the term 'God' as if......and IF I'd been clearer mentally at the time, and utilized the context (questionable, though) to figure out what you meant when you used 'God', I wouldn't be here asking what you meant at the time. *sigh* I may be mistaken, but I think you have used 'God' as if. I could take a wild guess and say you probably meant it to encompass 'All'..........*shrug*
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2014 13:00:14 GMT -5
Superfluous? Equal? It's reasoning that takes observations on the nature of what appears to us and forms that conclusion. It's TMT. If a "non dual teacher" is preaching that there is no meaning and that you "should just give up", then he's offering conclusory ideas about "reality". Instead, what I read from contributors here is that meaning infuses all that appears to us but that there is no intellectual abstraction that captures that meaning. The meaning of life isn't an idea and can't be captured by one. As far as "giving up" goes, what I read from contributors here is that there are efforts that an individual mistakes as possibly leading somewhere, when all those efforts can at best simply be seen as leading that individual right back to where they are, because as far as seeking is concerned, there's nowhere to go. That's a very different idea from "just give up". That idea doesn't mean that all doing and decisions and activity are futile. In fact, it's usually presented alongside the complimentary pointer that ordinary life, everyday mind, is what the seeker finds at the end of the road. There are no ideas about reality that are subject to validation such that they can't be contradicted. This is a recursive statement. Are you tempted to follow it to it's self-negation? Help me out here, if you please....IF I'm not mistaken, there have been times when you and E and several others have used the term 'God' as if......and IF I'd been clearer mentally at the time, and utilized the context (questionable, though) to figure out what you meant when you used 'God', I wouldn't be here asking what you meant at the time. *sigh* I may be mistaken, but I think you have used 'God' as if. I could take a wild guess and say you probably meant it to encompass 'All'..........*shrug* If you go back and look you'll find it in some of my poems. I used to be at war with the word God. That trailed off over time and finally came to an end between here and here. Other than the poems though, it's not a word I've got any use for either way. Sometimes it gets used in ways that I find to be indicative of a misconception on the part of the user but that's never not an opportunity for me to inquire as to the source of that reaction. Sometimes instead of just STFU'ing and doing that inquiry the reaction can find it's way into my writing here. (** muttley snicker **)... but no, I've never written prose where the word "God" means "all".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 6, 2014 13:11:33 GMT -5
If they have discovered something useful, can we blame them for wanting to share it? "Useful"? (** muttley snicker **)As far as "it" is concerned ... There's no point in trying to change an opinion, as the result is just another opinion. I'm at a loss for correct verbiage at the moment...tmt on my part for the last few days.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 6, 2014 13:25:31 GMT -5
"Useful"? (** muttley snicker **)As far as "it" is concerned ... There's no point in trying to change an opinion, as the result is just another opinion. I'm at a loss for correct verbiage at the moment...tmt on my part for the last few days. Nothing wrong with TMT man. Just the mind doin' it's thang.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 6, 2014 20:40:00 GMT -5
The advaitist story is that there's really no 'you', no self.. only a formless consciousness imagining all of what 'is'.. so, the question remains, why is the advaitist invested in changing anyone's understanding, and.. they ARE deeply invested in converting people to believe as they do, this forum is a good example of that.. so why, if those 'others' aren't real, if "it's all imagined", is there any interest in satisfying their own personal beliefs that 'others' should believe as they do? The fundamental contradiction in the advaitist belief, converting 'others', that are just imagined into an imagined reality, reveals that belief-system's insincerity.. asking 'separate others' to use their volition, that advaitists say they don't have, to change their understanding.. IF it's all imagined, then there's no 'real' consequence, and evangelizing and converting others and is the ultimate head-banging.. BUT, it's not 'all imagined', is it? One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp When the experiencer has experienced stillness, the conceptual structure that appears to validate advaitist beliefs simply collapses under the weight of its own contradictions, and structure itself ceases to be rigid.. Freed from the maintenance of the 'story'(s), the experiencer can attend to the happening..
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2014 7:58:37 GMT -5
One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. Superfluous? Equal? It's reasoning that takes observations on the nature of what appears to us and forms that conclusion. It's TMT. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp If a "non dual teacher" is preaching that there is no meaning and that you "should just give up", then he's offering conclusory ideas about "reality". Instead, what I read from contributors here is that meaning infuses all that appears to us but that there is no intellectual abstraction that captures that meaning. The meaning of life isn't an idea and can't be captured by one. As far as "giving up" goes, what I read from contributors here is that there are efforts that an individual mistakes as possibly leading somewhere, when all those efforts can at best simply be seen as leading that individual right back to where they are, because as far as seeking is concerned, there's nowhere to go. That's a very different idea from "just give up". That idea doesn't mean that all doing and decisions and activity are futile. In fact, it's usually presented alongside the complimentary pointer that ordinary life, everyday mind, is what the seeker finds at the end of the road. There are no ideas about reality that are subject to validation such that they can't be contradicted. This is a recursive statement. Are you tempted to follow it to it's self-negation? The bold, IMO, errors. sdp
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 7, 2014 8:28:38 GMT -5
One problem I have with non-dual teaching is that it makes all things equal. By doing so it makes all of life superfluous. It makes life like playing a video game, when you lose, you just hit reset and play again. It makes time superfluous. It makes decisions superfluous. But what if reality is not set up like that? What if the illusion is non-dual teaching, and life matters, decisions matter, time matters? What if right now is real? What if there is actually a war between the reality of now and the illusion that now is an illusion? What if we make the real choice that non-dual teaching is true (meaning we believe that any choice is an illusion) and down the road come to realize we have made an error, that choice is real, but then it's too late to choose because time is also real? Something in me doesn't give up. sdp Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real. If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? If all is one, all things equal, all subjective meanings equal, all pursuits equal, no separate person, how can any decision not be superfluous? If there is no separate self, how can the present moment have any consequences? In what sense is now real if every choice is subjective and therefore inconsequential? Many years ago I started reading Book 1 Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh. When he got to the part about Hitler, I put it down and didn't read another word. I wanted to puke. I've never read another word by NDW, rubbish. sdp
|
|
|
Post by silver on Aug 7, 2014 9:29:00 GMT -5
Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real. If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? If all is one, all things equal, all subjective meanings equal, all pursuits equal, no separate person, how can any decision not be superfluous? If there is no separate self, how can the present moment have any consequences? In what sense is now real if every choice is subjective and therefore inconsequential? Many years ago I started reading Book 1 Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh. When he got to the part about Hitler, I put it down and didn't read another word. I wanted to puke. I've never read another word by NDW, rubbish. sdp Although I've never read that book, I'm guessing what kind of sentiment was expressed re: Hitler - has been similarly expressed by others in conversations around here, and I tend to consider the whole enchilada to be a mistake in judgment call about how things 'are'. The thing is, there are many 'things' that are very much alike, but what a dull, uneventful world/universe it would be if everything were equal (does that negate Occam razor, btw?) heh.....and we all know it isn't a dull and uneventful world, even though most skeptics would grouse that it is, but that's their personal problem, ha ha. I'm dying to read the part in that book about Hitler that made you wanna puke.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2014 13:07:06 GMT -5
Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real. If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? If all is one, all things equal, all subjective meanings equal, all pursuits equal, no separate person, how can any decision not be superfluous? If there is no separate self, how can the present moment have any consequences? In what sense is now real if every choice is subjective and therefore inconsequential? Many years ago I started reading Book 1 Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh. When he got to the part about Hitler, I put it down and didn't read another word. I wanted to puke. I've never read another word by NDW, rubbish. Equal in what way? Of equal value? Equal merit? Do you mean identical? Same? I'm trying to relate it to oneness so that I can understand your concern. I don't remember what Walsh had to say about Hitler, but CWG has little to do with nonduality or Advaita. To begin with, Neale is chatting it up with a personal God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2014 13:18:21 GMT -5
If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? If all is one, all things equal, all subjective meanings equal, all pursuits equal, no separate person, how can any decision not be superfluous? If there is no separate self, how can the present moment have any consequences? In what sense is now real if every choice is subjective and therefore inconsequential? Many years ago I started reading Book 1 Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh. When he got to the part about Hitler, I put it down and didn't read another word. I wanted to puke. I've never read another word by NDW, rubbish. Equal in what way? Of equal value? Equal merit? Do you mean identical? Same? I'm trying to relate it to oneness so that I can understand your concern. I don't remember what Walsh had to say about Hitler, but CWG has little to do with nonduality or Advaita. To begin with, Neale is chatting it up with a personal God. It was something about Hitler going to heaven as I recall.
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 7, 2014 13:57:58 GMT -5
Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real. If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If you can conceive of this "one" then you're outside of it. Oneness is a pointer away from the conceptual. In conceptualizing it, you undo the pointer. What nonduality points toward doesn't mean that there aren't things or distinctions, just that the things have no actual separate existence in their own right independant of what it is that we are. If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? The meaning that nonduality points toward is neither subjective nor objective. There is no objective reality outside of what you are but you don't create your own private actuality. This commonality between perspectives simply defies any attempt to model it. If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? No, that's a conclusion based on logic applied to multiple pointers. The problem here is what is meant by "person" and "separation". If you take yourself to be your body, your history and the content of your mind including the patterns of reactivity that it embodies and furthermore take these to have an objective reality separate from what they're not then it's natural to look for an abstracted meaning based on what appears to you, but that search is bound to fail.
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Aug 7, 2014 14:07:20 GMT -5
Equal in what way? Of equal value? Equal merit? Do you mean identical? Same? I'm trying to relate it to oneness so that I can understand your concern. I don't remember what Walsh had to say about Hitler, but CWG has little to do with nonduality or Advaita. To begin with, Neale is chatting it up with a personal God. It was something about Hitler going to heaven as I recall. Which implies there is a hell. Did he name some of the residents there? If the comment disturbed Pilgrim, then he must believe in heaven and hell. That may be something we can explore.
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Aug 7, 2014 19:57:42 GMT -5
Nonduality doesn't make all things equal. It says that ultimately everything is one, which is not the same. Life has whatever meaning you can find or create. Nonduality doesn't take that away, it just says there isn't a God who has a purpose for you. Nonduality doesn't give you a reset button so that you can play again. It says there isn't a separate person playing that game. Decisions are not superfluous. What you choose defines the experience you are having. Right now IS real. It's all that is real. If everything is ultimately one, how can all things not be equal? If all meaning is subjective, if everyone finds their own meaning in life, doesn't that make all pursuits equal? If there isn't a separate person, doesn't that make all pursuits equal, and ultimately meaningless? If all is one, all things equal, all subjective meanings equal, all pursuits equal, no separate person, how can any decision not be superfluous? If there is no separate self, how can the present moment have any consequences? In what sense is now real if every choice is subjective and therefore inconsequential? Many years ago I started reading Book 1 Conversations with God by Neal Donald Walsh. When he got to the part about Hitler, I put it down and didn't read another word. I wanted to puke. I've never read another word by NDW, rubbish. sdp Your questions are valid, it's not logic or thinking that asks these questions, it's common sense trying to reconcile the inconsistencies.. the still mind experiences what is happening, and when someone tries to describe what is happening with if/then word-games, the still mind's genuine and spontaneous curiosity simply asks the questions.. it's interesting to notice how the questions affect others, to see what structures are built to add the appearance of validity to an answer where the question threatens someone's beliefs.. In the absence of beliefs and attachments the liberated mind is genuinely curious, unmanipulated by its preferred conditioning.. the still mind has already let go for the interval of its stillness, willing to see what 'is' rather than campaign for what it thinks 'is' is..
|
|